Datasets:

jamescalam

/

lex-transcripts

like 8

_SpptYg_0Rs

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Are We Living in a Simulation? with George Hotz and Lex Fridman | AI Podcast Clips

Do you think we're living in a simulation? Yes, but it may be unfalsifiable. What do you mean by unfalsifiable? So if the simulation is designed in such a way that they did like a formal proof to show that no information can get in and out, and if their hardware is designed for anything in the simulation to always keep the hardware in spec, it may be impossible to prove whether we're in a simulation or not. So they've designed it such that it's a closed system, you can't get outside the system? Well maybe it's one of three worlds. We're either in a simulation which can be exploited, we're in a simulation which not only can't be exploited, but like the same thing is true about VMs. A really well designed VM, you can't even detect if you're in a VM or not. That's brilliant. So we're, yeah, so the simulation is running on a virtual machine. But now in reality, all VMs have ways to detect. That's the point. I mean, is it, you've done quite a bit of hacking yourself, and so you should know that really any complicated system will have ways in and out. So this isn't necessarily true going forward. I spent my time away from Kama, I learned Coq, it's a dependently typed, like, it's a language for writing math proofs. And if you write code that compiles in a language like that, it is correct by definition. The types check its correctness. So it's possible that the simulation is written in a language like this, in which case, you know. Yeah, but that can't be sufficiently expressive a language like that. Oh, it can. It can be? Oh, yeah. Okay. Well, so, all right, so. The simulation doesn't have to be Turing complete if it has a scheduled end date. Looks like it does, actually, with entropy. I mean, I don't think that a simulation that results in something as complicated as the universe would have a form of proof of correctness, right? It's possible, of course. We have no idea how good their tooling is, and we have no idea how complicated the universe computer really is. It may be quite simple. It's just very large, right? It's definitely very large. But the fundamental rules might be super simple. Yeah, Conway's Game of Life kind of stuff. So if you could hack, so imagine a simulation that is hackable, if you could hack it, what would you change about the universe? How would you approach hacking a simulation? The reason I gave that talk... By the way, I'm not familiar with the talk you gave. I just read that you talked about escaping the simulation or something like that. So maybe you can tell me a little bit about the theme and the message there, too. It wasn't a very practical talk about how to actually escape a simulation. It was more about a way of restructuring an us versus them narrative. If we continue on the path we're going with technology, I think we're in big trouble as a species, and not just as a species, but even as me as an individual member of the species. So if we could change rhetoric to be more like to think upwards, like to think about that we're in a simulation and how we could get out, already we'd be on the right path. What you actually do once you do that, well, I assume I would have acquired way more intelligence in the process of doing that. So I'll just ask that. So the thinking upwards, what kind of breakthrough ideas do you think thinking in that way could inspire? And why did you say upwards? Upwards. Into space? Are you thinking sort of exploration in all forms? The space narrative that held for the modernist generation doesn't hold as well for the post-modern generation. What's the space narrative? Are we talking about the same space? The three-dimensional space? No, no, space, like going up to space. Literally space, yeah. Like building, like Elon Musk, like we're going to build rockets, we're going to go to Mars, we're going to colonize the universe. And the narrative you're referring, I was born in the Soviet Union, you're referring to the race to space. The race to space, yes. The space to explore, okay. That was a great modernist narrative. It doesn't seem to hold the same weight in today's culture. I'm hoping for good post-modern narratives that replace it. So let's think, so you work a lot with AI. So AI is one formulation of that narrative. There could be also, I don't know how much you do in VR and AR. That's another, I know less about it, but every time I play with it in our research, it's fascinating, that virtual world. Are you interested in the virtual world? I would like to move to virtual reality. In terms of your work? No, I would like to physically move there. The apartment I can rent in the cloud is way better than the apartment I can rent in the real world. Well, it's all relative, isn't it? Because others will have very nice apartments too, so you'll be inferior in the virtual world as well. But that's not how I view the world, right? I don't view the world, I mean, that's a very like almost zero-sum-ish way to view the world. Say like my great apartment isn't great because my neighbor has one too. No, my great apartment is great because like, look at this dishwasher, man. You just touch the dish and it's washed, right? And that is great in and of itself if I have the only apartment or if everybody had the apartment, I don't care. So you have fundamental gratitude.

https://youtu.be/_SpptYg_0Rs

f8iTPmrh3Yk

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Simple Man (Lynyrd Skynyrd Cover)

♪ ♪ ♪ Mama told me when I was young Sit beside me, my only son Listen closely to what I say If you do this, it will help you some sunny day Be a simple kind of man Be a something you love and understand Be a simple kind of man Won't you do this for yourself if you can? ♪ Take your time, don't live too fast The trouble will come and it will pass Find a woman and you'll find love Don't forget son, there's someone up above Be a simple kind of man Be a something you love and understand Be a simple kind of man Won't you do this for yourself if you can? ♪ Get your luck, the rich man's gold That you need is in your soul You can do it if you try All I want for you my son is to be satisfied Be a simple kind of man Be a something you love and understand Be a simple kind of man Won't you do this for yourself If you can ♪

https://youtu.be/f8iTPmrh3Yk

jHGuXMzaARY

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Joe Rogan recommends Lex Fridman: Neil deGrasse Tyson is having none of it

There it is, there's Lex. Oh, heh. That's pretty good. Lex can shred. Give me some of that. You gotta listen to this. Listen to this. Have you done Lex's podcast? No. I like him. He's an AI researcher from MIT originally, and now he's mostly doing independent work and doing his own podcast. Brilliant, brilliant guy. You would love him. And he's got an amazing podcast too. Okay, so here, it's gonna be in this section here. I don't think you're interested in Lex's podcast. Seems like he's not paying attention. What do you mean? No, hang on. I got this. No, thank you for the tip. I'm trying to get him on, buddy. I'm trying to get him in. Lex actually is one of the most brilliant people I know. I think you would love talking to him. An interesting quote here from Walter Badshot. One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea. Really? That guy's an idiot. That's not the greatest pain. Someone needs to kick him in the nuts.

https://youtu.be/jHGuXMzaARY

wuJa1lnv_TQ

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sleep and Burnout | AMA #2 - Ask Me Anything with Lex Fridman

Alona asks how many hours of sleep do you normally manage to get to your schedule? How do you avoid burning out? Well first Heaven is nine and a half hours On a day, maybe there's a little bit of rain for some reason even though you live in the city It's quiet an occasional car slowly driving by Heaven is getting those nine and a half. No, heaven is the first cup of coffee after the nine and a half hours of sleep Yeah Optimal performance wise I like to get seven or eight hours of sleep I don't often get that amount of sleep though, and I think the rest is just all mental I still often pull Nights where it's one two, three hours of sleep. I frequently pull all-nighters maybe an average of about 10 to 15 all-nighters a year All have to do with deadlines and just focus a few occasional rare beautiful all-nighters are Sort of you're so pat. I'm so passionate about a particular idea. They just can't wait Can't wait to see it work and I stay up all night, you know Through noon in the afternoon and then maybe go to bed early next night, you know Go to bed at like 9 p.m. Or something like that burnout to You know what I don't believe in burnout It's not like a I think I think there's just a voice of laziness that can be defeated that can be defeated with with a sword of focus perseverance determination and Passion I think I love everything I do. I could wash toilets. I could do manual labor anything. I just love it I love every moment of every day the sadness the fear all of that. That's a beautiful part of the journey I love it. So to me burnout doesn't even make sense. Like what are you burning out from? even the concept of burnout is Something that I love so like if you feel like you're burning out That that's beautiful too. That's part of the human experience. I love that whole thing And when you're passionate about everything, what the hell does anything? Burnout kind of says like I'm I think because I've known close close people to me that have suffered from depression. I think depression is Sort of actually like clinical depression is kind of the experience that I see as beyond The kind of thing that I'm talking about which is it's really you're in a place where nothing is meaning but to me I have never experienced a Moment where something is not rich of meaning and I think David first David Foster Wallace said you know the key to life is To be unboreable Meaning it's impossible to make you bored of anything you do and I'm unboreable of anything I do I love it. My face might not express it. I got a Russian sort of Sad suffering face most of the time but I'm actually happy on the inside. I'm like a like a kiwi Ugly on the outside Sweet and glorious on the inside again that that's one question. I'm not even answering it correctly. Okay You

https://youtu.be/wuJa1lnv_TQ

8mixT5_U0hk

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Happiness is a cookie that your brain bakes for itself (Joscha Bach) | AI Podcast Clips

So do you think suffering is fundamental to happiness along these lines? Suffering is the result of caring about things that you cannot change. And if you are able to change what you care about to those things that you can change, you will not suffer. But would you then be able to experience happiness? Yes, but happiness itself is not important. Happiness is like a cookie. When you are a child, you think cookies are very important and you want to have all the cookies in the world and you look forward to being an adult because then you have as many cookies as you want, right? Yes. But as an adult, you realize a cookie is a tool. It's a tool to make you eat vegetables. And once you eat your vegetables anyway, you stop eating cookies for the most part because otherwise you will get diabetes and will not be around for your kids. Yes, but then the cookie, the scarcity of a cookie, if scarcity is enforced, nevertheless, so like the pleasure comes from the scarcity. Yes, but the happiness is a cookie that your brain bakes for itself. It's not made by the environment. The environment cannot make you happy. It's your appraisal of the environment that makes you happy. And if you can change the appraisal of the environment, which you can learn to, then you can create arbitrary states of happiness. And some meditators fall into this trap. So they discover the womb, this basement womb in their brain where the cookies are made, and they indulge in stuff themselves. And after a few months, it gets really old and the big crisis of meaning comes because they thought before that their unhappiness was the result of not being happy enough. So they fixed this, right? They can release the neurotransmitters at will if they train. And then the crisis of meaning pops up in a deeper layer. And the question is, why do I live? How can I make a sustainable civilization that is meaningful to me? How can I insert myself into this? And this was the problem that you couldn't solve in the first place. But at the end of all this, let me then ask that same question. What is the answer to that? What could the possible answer be of the meaning of life? What could an answer be? What is it to you? I think that if you look at the meaning of life, you look at what the cell is. Life is the cell, right? The original cell. Yes, or this principle, the cell. It's this self-organizing thing that can participate in evolution. In order to make it work, it's a molecular machine. It needs a self-replicator, a neck entropy extractor, and a Turing machine. If any of these parts is missing, you don't have a cell and it is not living, right? And life is basically the emergent complexity over that principle. Once you have this intelligent super molecule, the cell, there is very little that you cannot make it do. It's probably the optimal computronium, especially in terms of resilience. It's very hard to sterilize a planet once it's infected with life. So it's active function of these three components of the super cell, a cell is present in a cell, it's present in us, and it's just- We are just an expression of the cell. It's a certain layer of complexity in the organization of cells. So in a way, it's tempting to think of the cell as a von Neumann probe. If you want to build intelligence on other planets, the best way to do this is to infect them with cells. And wait for long enough, and there's a reasonable chance the stuff is going to evolve into an information processing principle that is general enough to become sentient. Well, that idea is very akin to sort of the same dream and beautiful ideas that are expressed in cellular automata in their most simple mathematical form. You just inject the system with some basic mechanisms of replication, so on, basic rules, amazing things would emerge. And the cell is able to do something that James Hardy calls existential design. He points out that in technical design, we go from the outside in. We work in a highly controlled environment in which everything is deterministic, like our computers, our labs, or our engineering workshops. And then we use this determinism to implement a particular kind of function that we dream up and that seamlessly interfaces with all the other deterministic functions that we already have in our world. So it's basically from the outside in. And biological systems designed from the inside out, as seed, will become a seedling by taking some of the relatively unorganized matter around it and turn it into its own structure, and thereby subdue the environment. And cells can cooperate if they can rely on other cells having a similar organization that is already compatible. But unless that's there, the cell needs to divide, to create that structure by itself. So it's a self-organizing principle that works on a somewhat chaotic environment. And the purpose of life, in a sense, is to produce complexity. And the complexity allows you to harvest negentropy gradients that you couldn't harvest without the complexity. And in this sense, intelligence and life are very strongly connected, because the purpose of intelligence is to allow control under conditions of complexity. So basically, you shift the boundary between the ordered systems into the realm of chaos. You build bridge heads into chaos with complexity. And this is what we are doing. This is not necessarily a deeper meaning. I think the meaning that we have priors for, that we are evolved for, outside of the priors, there is no meaning. Meaning only exists if the mind projects it, right? That is probably civilization. I think that what feels most meaningful to me is to try to build and maintain a sustainable civilization. And taking a slight step outside of that, we talked about a man with a beard and God, but something, some mechanism, perhaps must have planted the seed, the initial seed of the cell. Do you think there is a God? What is a God? And what would that look like? So if there was no spontaneous abiogenesis, in the sense that the first cell formed by some happy random accidents where the molecules just happen to be in the right constellation to each other. But there could also be the mechanism that allows for the random. I mean, there's like turtles all the way down. There seems to be, there has to be a head turtle at the bottom. Let's consider something really wild. Imagine, is it possible that a gas giant could become intelligent? What would that involve? So imagine you have vortices that spontaneously emerge on the gas giants, like big storm systems that endure for thousands of years. And some of these storm systems produce electromagnetic fields because some of the clouds are ferromagnetic or something. And as a result, they can change how certain clouds react rather than other clouds and thereby produce some self-stabilizing patterns that eventually to regulation feedback loops, nested feedback loops and control. So imagine you have such a thing that basically has emergent, self-sustaining, self-organizing complexity. And at some point this wakes up and realizes, I'm basically LEM Solaris. I am a thinking planet, but I will not replicate because I cannot recreate the conditions of my own existence somewhere else. I'm just basically an intelligence that has spontaneously formed because it could. And now it builds a von Neumann probe. And the best von Neumann probe for such a thing might be the cell. So maybe it, because it's very, very clever and very enduring, creates cells and sends them out. And one of them has infected our planet. And I'm not suggesting that this is the case, but it would be compatible with the Prince Bermion hypothesis and with my intuition that abiogenesis is very unlikely. It's possible, but you probably need to roll the cosmic dice very often, maybe more often than there are planetary surfaces. I don't know. So God is just a large enough, a system that's large enough that allows randomness. No, I don't think that God has anything to do with creation. I think it's a mistranslation of the Talmud into the Catholic mythology. I think that Genesis is actually the childhood memories of a God. So the, when- Sorry, that Genesis is the- The childhood memories of a God. It's basically a mind that is remembering how it came into being. And we typically interpret Genesis as the creation of a physical universe by a supernatural being. Yes. And I think when you'll read it, there is light and darkness that is being created. And then you discover sky and ground, create them. You construct the plants and the animals, and you give everything their names and so on. That's basically cognitive development. It's a sequence of steps that every mind has to go through when it makes sense of the world. And when you have children, you can see how initially they distinguish light and darkness. And then they make out directions in it, and they discover sky and ground, and they discover the plants and the animals, and they give everything their name. And it's a creative process that happens in every mind, because it's not given, right? Your mind has to invent these structures to make sense of the patterns on your retina. Also, if there was some big nerd who set up a server and runs this world on it, this would not create a special relationship between us and the nerd. This nerd would not have the magical power to give meaning to our existence, right? Right. So this equation of a creator God with the God of meaning is a slate of hand. You shouldn't do it. The other one that is done in Catholicism is the equation of the first mover, the prime mover of Aristotle, which is basically the automaton that runs the universe. Aristotle says, if things are moving and things seem to be moving here, something must move them, right? If something moves them, something must move the thing that is moving it. So there must be a prime mover. This idea to say that this prime mover is a supernatural being is complete nonsense, right? It's an automaton in the simplest case. So we have to explain the enormity that this automaton exists at all. But again, we don't have any possibility to infer anything about its properties except that it's able to produce change in information. Right? So there needs to be some kind of computational principle. This is all there is. But to say this automaton is identical, again, with the creator of first cause or with the thing that gives meaning to our life is confusion. No, I think that what we perceive is the higher being that we are part of. And the higher being that we are part of is the civilization. It's the thing in which we have a similar relationship as the cell has to our body. And we have this prior because we have evolved to organize in these structures. So basically, the Christian God in its natural form, without the mythology, if you undress it, is basically the platonic form of a civilization. Is the ideal. Yes, it's this ideal that you try to approximate when you interact with others, not based on your incentives, but on what you think is right. Wow, we covered a lot of ground. And we're left with one of my favorite lines, and there's many, which is, "'Happiness is a cookie that the brain bakes itself.'" It's been a huge honor and a pleasure to talk to you. I'm sure our paths will cross many times again. Joshua, thank you so much for talking today. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Lex. It was so much fun. I enjoyed it. Awesome.

https://youtu.be/8mixT5_U0hk

hwYzrSF9unk

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Andrew Huberman's first jiu jitsu class with Lex Fridman

This video is of Andrew Huberman taking his first Jiu-Jitsu class with me at 10th Planet in Austin, Texas. Gabe Tuttle, who you see explaining the techniques, is a head instructor there. Jiu-Jitsu is a martial art and a fascinating game of human chess. Sometimes it is practiced with a gi, sometimes without the gi, like in this case. It involves using detailed techniques to attain dominant positions that allow you to control your opponent's body and then to apply submissions, like breaking their arm or choking them unconscious, but stopping right before that as your opponent taps twice to designate that they give up. This double tap, performed thousands of times in a Jiu-Jitsu journey, is the dismantling of the ego that I think is a very powerful tool for the development of the human mind, scientific and otherwise. Here, Andrew learns how to take his opponents back with an arm drag and submit them with a choke. I wanted to capture this moment because hopefully it's inspiring to see a world-class scientist like Andrew take on something new and difficult with a beginner's mind. Maybe this will inspire you to try Jiu-Jitsu as well. I honestly have no idea what I'm doing, Lex. Zero. Fortune favors the bold, so good luck. So we're going to start off in the butterfly position. First of all, we're going to be working is our dominant arm here. Okay, we're going to be working to the back first. Attach your chest to that shoulder. Now we can move. And I can either come to him or pull down into me. So watch this. Let's move real quick. So I can hit my arm drag here. Look at his lap control. And here I want to actually mirror my hand. So I just scoot out here and I'm keeping good tension with my elbow here as I pull Lex down. And then I can set my bottom hook. I come right in to attack my seat belt. Sometimes we can attack the net straight away from here. Is he going to try and stand up or it's always... Because with the arm drag, I still work from standing. Even if Lex pops up and he's like in a standing position, I can still... This is this claw. He swims the other one over. And it's this squeeze, but he also brings out his chest like that, right? So then you tap on me twice. Okay, I forgot the one on the tab. So this is the universal sign. Twice. I'm screwed. I had enough. Okay, one more time. He's swimming this through. And it's choked like this. He's also saying if your chin is all the way down, this is also... Do you feel the crush? I have a lot more crush work that can either break the jaw or still choke you. Off to the side. Yeah. Boom. Perfect. So this is the claw. That's perfect right there. And swim that through. Squeeze and expand your chest. Yeah. Nice. Was that... That's perfect. You're building this joke. Okay. So rather than try and flip him on his back... Yeah, I'm going under the armpit now and reach for the far side of the neck. So now from here, once I get control of the neck, I can let the arm drag out. That arm comes all the way around. And I'm just pinching the back of his head with my elbow. This guy's going to just go straight, turn your elbow up, find your... Now you can kind of ratchet your grip in deeper. Feel that? So just turn that elbow back up. This guy comes around this way. Okay. There it is. Yeah. I see. So there's a logic there. Basically, you're trying to get into a place where you can use your own... Your own muscle maturity. Yeah. Rather than just battle him. This arm and choke will work on a blood choke also. So my forearm is going to be cropped on the far side. I'm pushing your shoulder into the neck joint. You hear me? Yeah. I like it. I can see how this will become addicting. Yeah. Oh yeah. It's just because there's so many... Especially if you're a very cerebral guy. Like you have like... This one's going to shoot underneath. Yeah. You got it. There we go. And then curl your left arm. Yeah. Just... You just boa constrictor him. Yeah. Boa constrictor. I mean, you're right. When you get... Maybe you know about this. Actually, I don't know what the visual... Why is there butterflies? When you start to choke out? Yeah. Because your eyes are part of your brain and they get... They demand so much blood and glucose all the time. You're cutting off blood supply to the eye. But why the visual artifacts? So why do you get the little... Oh, just spontaneous transmission of neurons in the eye. Oh, cool. Yeah. Just... Yeah. It's cool. When you see stars, like if you get hit hard and you see stars, it's because you're spontaneous firing of cells. Yeah. I get that with the choke. Like I just got that now. Oh, really? Yeah. The stars. In there. So it's this shoulder going in there. That's the one blood. My hand on the other side. Yeah. You can feel the blood. It just starts to tunnel up. Is that too fast? Did I cinch in too fast? No, that was perfect. That's just really tight. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I don't know. This is what I was saying. Like, if you're sparring with somebody who knows how to do it because they can... The butterflies are back. Yeah. I mean... He's being kind. Lex Friedman is strong. I was worried I'd be going to sleep. It's like, you're strong. That Russian grip is insane. So yeah, if you stand up, that's exactly the game that we... the other side of the game that we looked at today. So we looked at arm drags, but those only work when you're coming in. If you're going away, I'm going to threaten you by... I'm going to threaten you by coming up and then you're going to want to push him down. That down. And you'll be a little bit more nervous about me coming up, so you're going to pressure yourself into me. I see. And that leads to arm drag. Got it. So like, that's the yin and yang, the push and pull. This is where the choke position is. Here. And we're pressuring this way. Yep. That's called head and arm choke. That's Rogan's favorite choke. So it's this, this. Yeah, that feels very helpless. Yeah. And I could just like sit here, relax for a while and just make it very unpleasant for you. When you talk about relinquishing the ego, it's like, yeah, you have to be willing to let somebody get real close to you, like mount you, flip you. It's not something I'm used to on any basis. It's really a beautiful sport. How do you feel? First class in jiu jitsu. Love it. It's amazing. I think I'm hooked.

https://youtu.be/hwYzrSF9unk

l-NJrvyRo0c

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sean Carroll: The Nature of the Universe, Life, and Intelligence | Lex Fridman Podcast #26

The following is a conversation with Sean Carroll. He's a theoretical physicist at Caltech specializing in quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology. He's the author of several popular books. One on the arrow of time called From Eternity to Here, one on the Higgs boson called Particle at the End of the Universe, and one on science and philosophy called The Big Picture on the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. He has an upcoming book on quantum mechanics that you can pre-order now called Something Deeply Hidden. He writes one of my favorite blogs on his website preposterousuniverse.com. I recommend clicking on the greatest hits link that lists accessible interesting posts on the arrow of time, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang, general relativity, string theory, quantum mechanics, and the big meta questions about the philosophy of science, god, ethics, politics, academia, and much much more. Finally, and perhaps most famously, he's the host of a podcast called Mindscape that you should subscribe to and support on Patreon. Along with the Joe Rogan experience, Sam Harris's Making Sense, and Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, Sean's Mindscape podcast is one of my favorite ways to learn new ideas or explore different perspectives and ideas that I thought I understood. It was truly an honor to meet and spend a couple hours with Sean. It's a bit heartbreaking to say that for the first time ever, the audio recorder for this podcast died in the middle of our conversation. There are technical reasons for this having to do with phantom power that I now understand and will avoid. It took me one hour to notice and fix the problem. So, much like the universe is 68% dark energy, roughly the same amount from this conversation was lost, except in the memories of the two people involved and in my notes. I'm sure we'll talk again and continue this conversation on this podcast or on Sean's, and of course I look forward to it. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, iTunes, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman. And now, here's my conversation with Sean Carroll. SEAN What do you think is more interesting and impactful, understanding how the universe works at a fundamental level or understanding how the human mind works? LEX You know, of course this is a crazy, meaningless, unanswerable question in some sense because they're both very interesting and there's no absolute scale of interestingness that we can rate them on. There's the glib answer that says the human brain is part of the universe, right? And therefore, understanding the universe is more fundamental than understanding the human brain. SEAN But do you really believe that once we understand the fundamental way the universe works at the particle level, the forces, we would be able to understand how the mind works? LEX No, certainly not. We cannot understand how ice cream works just from understanding how particles work, right? So, I'm a big believer in emergence. I'm a big believer that there are different ways of talking about the world beyond just the most fundamental microscopic one. You know, when we talk about tables and chairs and planets and people, we're not talking the language of particle physics and cosmology. So, but understanding the universe, you didn't say just at the most fundamental level, right? So, understanding the universe at all levels is part of that. I do think, you know, to be a little bit more fair to the question, there probably are general principles of complexity, biology, information processing, memory, knowledge, creativity that go beyond just the human brain, right? And maybe one could count understanding those as part of understanding the universe. The human brain, as far as we know, is the most complex thing in the universe. So, it's certainly absurd to think that by understanding the fundamental laws of particle physics, you get any direct insight on how the brain works. But then there's this step from the fundamentals of particle physics to information processing, which a lot of physicists and philosophers maybe a little bit carelessly take when they talk about artificial intelligence. Do you think of the universe as a kind of a computational device? No. To be like, the honest answer there is no. There's a sense in which the universe processes information clearly. There's a sense in which the universe is like a computer clearly. But in some sense, I think I tried to say this once on my blog and no one agreed with me, but the universe is more like a computation than a computer because the universe happens once. A computer is a general purpose machine, right? That you can ask it different questions, even a pocket calculator, right? And it's set up to answer certain kinds of questions. The universe isn't that. So, information processing happens in the universe, but it's not what the universe is. And I know your MIT colleague Seth Lloyd feels very differently about this, right? Well, you're thinking of the universe as a closed system. I am. So, what makes a computer more like a PC, like a computing machine, is that there's a human that everyone's comes up to it and moves the mouse around. So, input- Gives it input. Gives it input. And that's why you're saying it's just a computation, a deterministic thing that's just unrolling. But the immense complexity of it is nevertheless like processing. There's a state and then it changes with rules. And there's a sense for a lot of people that if the brain operates, the human brain operates within that world, then it's simply just a small subset of that. And so, there's no reason we can't build arbitrarily great intelligences. Yeah. Do you think of intelligence in this way? Intelligence is tricky. I don't have a definition of it offhand. So, I remember this panel discussion that I saw on YouTube. I wasn't there, but Seth Lloyd was on the panel. And so, it was Martin Rees, the famous astrophysicist. And Seth gave his shtick for why the universe is a computer and explained this. And Martin Rees said, so, what is not a computer? And Seth was like, oh, that's a good question. I'm not sure. Because if you have a sufficiently broad definition of what a computer is, then everything is, right? And the simile or the analogy gains force when it excludes some things. Is the moon going around the Earth performing a computation? I can come up with definitions in which the answer is yes, but it's not a very useful computation. I think that it's absolutely helpful to think about the universe in certain situations, certain contexts as an information processing device. I'm even guilty of writing a paper called Quantum Circuit Cosmology, where we modeled the whole universe as a quantum circuit. As a circuit. As a circuit, yeah. And- With qubits kind of thing? With qubits basically, right. Yeah. So, and qubits becoming more and more entangled. So, do we want to digress a little bit? Because it's- Let's do it. Kind of fun. So, here's a mystery about the universe that is so deep and profound that nobody talks about it. Space expands, right? And we talk about in a certain region of space, a certain number of degrees of freedom, a certain number of ways that the quantum fields and the particles in that region can arrange themselves. That number of degrees of freedom in a region of space is arguably finite. We actually don't know how many there are, but there's a very good argument that says it's a finite number. So, as the universe expands and space gets bigger, are there more degrees of freedom? If it's an infinite number, it doesn't really matter. Infinity times two is still infinity. But if it's a finite number, then there's more space, so there's more degrees of freedom. So, where did they come from? That would mean the universe is not a closed system. There's more degrees of freedom popping into existence. So, what we suggested was that there are more degrees of freedom, and it's not that they're not there to start, but they're not entangled to start. So, the universe that you and I know of, the three dimensions around us that we see, we said those are the entangled degrees of freedom making up space-time. And as the universe expands, there are a whole bunch of qubits in their zero state that become entangled with the rest of space-time through the action of these quantum circuits. LRW So, what does it mean that there's now more degrees of freedom as they become more entangled? As the universe expands. JF That's right. So, there's more and more degrees of freedom that are entangled, that are playing the role of part of the entangled space-time structure. So, the underlying philosophy is that space-time itself arises from the entanglement of some fundamental quantum degrees of freedom. LRW Wow. Okay. So, at which point is most of the entanglement happening? Are we talking about close to the Big Bang? Are we talking about throughout the time of the life of the universe? JF Throughout history. Yeah. So, the idea is that at the Big Bang, almost all the degrees of freedom that the universe could have were there, but they were unentangled with anything else. And that's a reflection of the fact that the Big Bang had a low entropy. It was a very simple, very small place. And as space expands, more and more degrees of freedom become entangled with the rest of the world. LRW Well, I have to ask John Carroll, what do you think of the thought experiment from Nick Bostrom that we're living in a simulation? So, I think, let me contextualize that a little bit more. I think people don't actually take this thought experiments. I think it's quite interesting. It's not very useful, but it's quite interesting. From the perspective of AI, a lot of the learning that can be done usually happens in simulation, artificial examples. And so, it's a constructive question to ask, how difficult is our real world to simulate? Which is kind of a dual part of, if we're living in a simulation and somebody built that simulation, if you were to try to do it yourself, how hard would it be? CB So, obviously, we could be living in a simulation. If you just want the physical possibility, then I completely agree that it's physically possible. I don't think that we actually are. So, take this one piece of data into consideration. We live in a big universe. There's 2 trillion galaxies in our observable universe with 200 billion stars in each galaxy, etc. It would seem to be a waste of resources to have a universe that big going on just to do a simulation. So, in other words, I want to be a good Bayesian. I want to ask, under this hypothesis, what do I expect to see? So, the first thing I would say is I wouldn't expect to see a universe that was that big. The second thing is I wouldn't expect the resolution of the universe to be as good as it is. So, it's always possible that if our superhuman simulators only have finite resources that they don't render the entire universe, that the part that is out there, the 2 trillion galaxies, isn't actually being simulated fully. But then the obvious extrapolation of that is that only I am being simulated fully. The rest of you are just non-player characters. I'm the only thing that is real. The rest of you are just chatbots. Beyond this wall, I see the wall, but there is literally nothing on the other side of the wall. That is the Bayesian prediction. That's what it would be like to do an efficient simulation of me. So, none of that seems quite realistic. I hear the argument that it's just possible and easy to simulate lots of things. I don't see any evidence from what we know about our universe that we look like a simulated universe. Now, maybe you can say, well, we don't know what it would look like, but that's just abandoning your Bayesian responsibilities. Your job is to say, under this theory, here's what you would expect to see. LRW3 Yeah. So, certainly, if you think about simulation as a thing that's like a video game where only a small subset is being rendered. But say all the laws of physics, the entire closed system of the quote-unquote universe, it had a creator. LRW3 Yeah. It's always possible. LRW3 Right. So, that's not useful to think about when you're thinking about physics. The way Nick Bostrom phrases it, if it's possible to simulate a universe, eventually we'll do it. You can use that, by the way, for a lot of things. LRW3 Well, yeah. LRW3 But I guess the question is, how hard is it to create a universe? LRW3 I wrote a little blog post about this, and maybe I'm missing something. But there's an argument that says not only that it might be possible to simulate a universe, but probably, if you imagine that you actually attribute consciousness and agency to the little things that we're simulating, to our little artificial beings, there's probably a lot more of them than there are ordinary organic beings in the universe, or there will be in the future. So, there's an argument that not only is being a simulation possible, it's probable because in the space of all living consciousnesses, most of them are being simulated. Most of them are not at the top level. I think that argument must be wrong because it follows from that argument that if we're simulated, but we can also simulate other things. But if we can simulate other things, they can simulate other things if we give them enough power and resolution. And ultimately, we'll reach a bottom because the laws of physics in our universe have a bottom, made of atoms and so forth. So, there will be the cheapest possible simulations. And if you believe the original argument, you should conclude that we should be in the cheapest possible simulation because that's where most people are. But we don't look like that. It doesn't look at all like we're at the edge of resolution, that we're 16-bit things. It seems much easier to make much lower level things than we are. And also, I question the whole approach to the anthropic principle that says we are typical observers in the universe. I think that that's not actually... I think that there's a lot of selection that we can do that we're typical within things we already know, but not typical within all the universe. LUIS So, do you think there's intelligent life, however you would like to define intelligent life, out there in the universe? CB My guess is that there is not intelligent life in the observable universe other than us, simply on the basis of the fact that the likely number of other intelligent species in the observable universe, there's two likely numbers, zero or billions. And if there had been billions, you would have noticed already. For there to be literally a small number, like Star Trek, there's a dozen intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, but not a billion. That's weird. That's sort of bizarre to me. It's easy for me to imagine that there are zero others because there's just a big bottleneck to making multicellular life or technological life or whatever. It's very hard for me to imagine that there's a whole bunch out there that have somehow remained hidden from us. LUIS The question I'd like to ask is, what would intelligent life look like? What I mean by that question and where it's going is, what if intelligent life is just in some very big ways different than the one that is on Earth? That there's all kinds of intelligent life that operates at different scales of both size and temporal. CB That's a great possibility because I think we should be humble about what intelligence is, what life is. We don't even agree on what life is, much less what intelligent life is. So that's an argument for humility saying there could be intelligent life of a very different character. You could imagine the dolphins are intelligent but never invent space travel because they live in the ocean and they don't have thumbs. So they never invent technology, they never invent smelting. Maybe the universe is full of intelligent species that just don't make technology. That's compatible with the data, I think. And I think maybe what you're pointing at is even more out there versions of intelligence, intelligence in intermolecular clouds or on the surface of a neutron star or in between the galaxies in giant things where the equivalent of a heartbeat is 100 million years. On the one hand, yes, we should be very open-minded about those things. On the other hand, all of us share the same laws of physics. There might be something about the laws of physics, even though we don't currently know exactly what that thing would be, that makes meters and years the right length and time scales for intelligent life. Maybe not, but we're made of atoms, atoms have a certain size, we orbit stars, stars have a certain lifetime. It's not impossible to me that there's a sweet spot for intelligent life that we find ourselves in. So I'm open-minded either way. I'm open-minded either being humble and there's all sorts of different kinds of life or no, there's a reason we just don't know it yet why life like ours is the kind of life that's out there. Yeah, I'm of two minds too, but I often wonder if our brains is just designed to quite obviously to operate and see the world in these time scales and we're almost blind and the tools we've created for detecting things are blind to the kind of observation needed to see intelligent life at other scales. Well, I'm totally open to that. So here's another argument I would make. We have looked for intelligent life, but we've looked at for it in the dumbest way we can, right? By turning radio telescopes to the sky. And why in the world would a super advanced civilization randomly beam out radio signals wastefully in all directions into the universe? That just doesn't make any sense, especially because in order to think that you would actually contact another civilization, you would have to do it forever. You have to keep doing it for millions of years. That sounds like a waste of resources. If you thought that there were other solar systems with planets around them where maybe intelligent life didn't yet exist, but might someday, you wouldn't try to talk to it with radio waves. You would send a spacecraft out there and you would park it around there. And it would be like from our point of view, be like 2001 where there's a monolith. So there could be an artifact. In fact, the other way works also, right? There could be artifacts in our solar system that have been put there by other technologically advanced civilizations. And that's how we will eventually contact them. We just haven't explored the solar system well enough yet to find them. The reason why we don't think about that is because we're young and impatient, right? It would take more than my lifetime to actually send something to another star system and wait for it and then come back. But if we start thinking on hundreds of thousands of years or million year timescales, that's clearly the right thing to do. Are you excited by the thing that Elon Musk is doing with SpaceX in general, but the idea of space exploration, even though your species is young and impatient? Yeah. No, I do think that space travel is crucially important long-term, even to other star systems. And I think that many people overestimate the difficulty because they say, look, if you travel 1% the speed of light to another star system, we'll be dead before we get there. And I think that it's much easier. And therefore, when they write their science fiction stories, they imagine we could go faster than the speed of light because otherwise they're too impatient. We're not going to go faster than the speed of light, but we could easily imagine that the human lifespan gets extended to thousands of years. And once you do that, then the stars are much closer effectively. What's a hundred year trip? So I think that that's going to be the future, the far future, not my lifetime once again, but baby steps. Unless your lifetime gets extended. Well, it's in a race against time, right? A friend of mine who actually thinks about these things said, you know, you and I are going to die, but I don't know about our grandchildren. I don't know, predicting the future is hard, but that's at least a plausible scenario. And so, yeah, no, I think that as we discussed earlier, there are threats to the Earth, known and unknown, right? Having spread humanity and biology elsewhere is a really important long term goal. What kind of questions can science not currently answer, but might soon? When you think about the problems and the mysteries before us that may be within reach of science? I think an obvious one is the origin of life. We don't know how that happened. There's a difficulty in knowing how it happened historically, actually, literally on Earth, but starting life from non-life is something I kind of think we're close to, right? We're really think so. How difficult is it to start life? I do. Well, I've talked to people, including on the podcast about this. Life requires three things. Life as we know it. So there's a difference with life, who knows what it is, and life as we know it, which we can talk about with some intelligence. So life as we know it requires compartmentalization. You need like a little membrane around your cell. Metabolism, you need to take in food and eat it and let that make you do things. And then replication. Okay, so you need to have some information about who you are that you pass down to future generations. In the lab, compartmentalization seems pretty easy, not hard to make lipid bilayers that come into little cellular walls pretty easily. Metabolism and replication are hard, but replication we're close to. People have made RNA-like molecules in the lab that I think the state of the art is they're not able to make one molecule that reproduces itself, but they're able to make two molecules that reproduce each other. So that's okay. That's pretty close. Metabolism is harder, believe it or not, even though it's sort of the most obvious thing, but you want some sort of chemical metabolism. And the actual cellular machinery in our bodies is quite complicated. It's hard to see it just popping into existence all by itself. It probably took a while, but we're making progress. And in fact, I don't think we're spending nearly enough money on it. If I were the NSF, I would flood this area with money because it would change our view of the world if we could actually make life in the lab and understand how it was made originally here on Earth. And I'm sure you'd have some ripples effects that help cure diseases and so on. I mean, just that understanding. So synthetic biology is a wonderful big frontier where we're making cells. Right now, the best way to do that is to borrow heavily from existing biology, right? Craig Ventner, several years ago, created an artificial cell, but all he did was not all he did. It was a tremendous accomplishment, but all he did was take out the DNA from a cell and put in entirely new DNA and let it boot up and go. And so I think that's a really good point. What about the leap to creating intelligent life on Earth? However, again, we define intelligence, of course, but let's just even say homo sapiens, the modern intelligence in our human brain. Do you have a sense of what's involved in that leap and how big of a leap that is? So AI would count in this or you really want life? You want really an organism in some sense? AI would count, I think. Yeah, of course, AI would count. Well, let's say artificial consciousness, right? So I do not think we are on the threshold of creating artificial consciousness. I think it's possible. I'm not, again, very educated about how close we are, but my impression is not that we're really close because we understand how little we understand of consciousness and what it is. So if we don't have any idea what it is, it's hard to imagine we're on the threshold of making it ourselves. But it's doable, it's possible. I don't see any obstacles in principle. So yeah, I would hold out some interest in that happening eventually. I think in general consciousness, I think we'll be just surprised how easy consciousness is once we create intelligence. I think consciousness is a thing that's just something we all fake. Well, good. No, actually, I like this idea that in fact, consciousness is way less mysterious than we think because we're all at every time, at every moment, less conscious than we think we are, right? We can fool things. And I think that plus the idea that you not only have artificial intelligent systems, but you put them in a body, right? Give them a robot body. That will help the faking a lot. Yeah, I think creating consciousness in artificial consciousness is as simple as asking a Roomba to say, I'm conscious and refusing to be talked out of it. It could be, it could be. And I mean, I'm almost being silly, but that's what we do. That's what we do with each other. This is the kind of, that consciousness is also a social construct. And a lot of our ideas of intelligence is a social construct. And so reaching that bar involves something that's beyond, that's not necessarily, doesn't necessarily involve the fundamental understanding of how you go from electrons to neurons to cognition. No, actually, I think that is a extremely good point. And in fact, what it suggests is, you know, so yeah, you referred to Kate, Kate Darling, who I had on the podcast, and who does these experiments with very simple robots, but they look like animals and they can look like they're experiencing pain. And we human beings react very negatively to these little robots looking like they're experiencing pain. And what you want to say is, yeah, but they're just robots. It's not really pain, right? It's just some electrons going around. But then you realize, you know, you and I are just electrons going around and that's what pain is also. And so what I would have an easy time imagining is that there is a spectrum between the simple little robots that Kate works with and a human being, where there are things that sort of by some strict definition, Turing test level thing are not conscious, but nevertheless, walk and talk like they're conscious. And it could be that the future is, I mean, Siri is close, right? And so it might be the future has a lot more agents like that. And in fact, rather than someday going, aha, we have consciousness, we'll just creep up on it with more and more accurate reflections of what we expect. And in the future, maybe the present, for example, we haven't met before. And you're basically assuming that I'm human. I get a high probability. At this time, because the, yeah, but in the future, there might be question marks around that, right? Yeah, no, absolutely. Certainly videos are almost to the point where you shouldn't trust them already. Photos, you can't trust, right? Videos is easier to trust, but we're getting worse. We're getting better at faking them, right? Getting better at faking. Yeah, so physical embodied people, what's so hard about faking that? So this is very depressing, this conversation we're having right now. So, to me, it's exciting. To me, you're doing it. So it's exciting to you, but it's a sobering thought. We're very bad, right? At imagining what the next 50 years are going to be like when we're in the middle of a phase transition as we are right now. Yeah, and I, in general, I'm not blind to all the threats. I am excited by the power of technology to solve, to protect us against the threats as they evolve. I'm not as much as Steven Pinker, optimistic about the world, but in everything I've seen, all the brilliant people in the world that I've met are good people. So the army of the good in terms of the development of technology is large. Okay, you're way more optimistic than I am. I think that goodness and badness are equally distributed among intelligent and unintelligent people. I don't see much of a correlation there. Interesting. Neither of us have proof. Yeah, exactly. Again, opinions are free, right? Nor definitions of good and evil. We come without definitions or without data opinions. So what kind of questions can science not currently answer may never be able to answer, in your view? Well, the obvious one is what is good and bad? What is right and wrong? I think that there are questions that science tells us what happens, what the world is and what it does. It doesn't say what the world should do or what we should do because we're part of the world. But we are part of the world and we have the ability to feel like something's right, something's wrong. And to make a very long story very short, I think that the idea of moral philosophy is systematizing our intuitions of what is right and what is wrong. And science might be able to predict ahead of time what we will do, but it won't ever be able to judge whether we should have done it or not. So, you know, you're kind of unique in terms of scientists. It doesn't have to do with podcasts, but even just reaching out, I think you referred to as sort of doing interdisciplinary science. So you reach out and talk to people that are outside of your discipline, which I always hope that's what science was for. In fact, I was a little disillusioned when I realized that academia is very siloed. And so the question is, at your own level, how do you prepare for these conversations? How do you think about these conversations? How do you open your mind enough to have these conversations? And maybe a little bit broader, how can you advise other scientists to have these kinds of conversations? Not at the podcast, the fact that you're doing a podcast is awesome, other people get to hear them, but it's also good to have it without mics in general. It's a good question, but a tough one to answer. I think about, you know, a guy I know is a personal trainer and he was asked on a podcast, how do we, you know, psych ourselves up to do a workout? How do we make that discipline to go and work out? And he's like, why are you asking me? Like, I can't stop working out. Like, I don't need to psych myself up. So, and likewise, you know, he asked me, like, how do you get to like have interdisciplinary conversations and all sorts of different things with all sorts of different people? I'm like, that's what makes me go, right? Like, I couldn't stop doing that. I did that long before any of them were recorded. In fact, a lot of the motivation for starting recording it was making sure I would read all these books that I had purchased, right? Like all these books I wanted to read, not enough time to read them. And now if I have the motivation, because I'm going to, you know, interview Pat Churchland, I'm going to finally read her book, you know? And it's absolutely true that academia is extraordinarily siloed, right? We don't talk to people, we rarely do. And in fact, when we do, it's punished, you know, like the people who do it successfully generally first became very successful within their little siloed discipline. And only then did they start expanding out. If you're a young person, you know, I have graduate students, I try to be very, very candid with them about this, that it's, you know, most graduate students do not become faculty members, right? It's a tough road. And so live the life you want to live, but do it with your eyes open about what it does to your job chances. And the more broad you are, and the less time you spend hyper specializing in your field, the lower your job chances are. That's just an academic reality. It's terrible, I don't like it, but it's a reality. And for some people, that's fine. Like there's plenty of people who are wonderful scientists who have zero interest in branching out and talking to things to anyone outside their field. But it is disillusioning to me some of the, you know, romantic notion I had of the intellectual academic life is belied by the reality of it. The idea that we should reach out beyond our discipline, and that is a positive good, is just so rare in universities that it may as well not exist at all. But that said, even though you're saying you're doing it, like the personal trainer, because you just can't help it, you're also an inspiration to others. Like I could speak for myself, you know, I also have a career I'm thinking about, right? And without your podcast, I may not have been doing this at all, right? So it makes me realize that these kinds of conversations is kind of what science is about in many ways. The reason we write papers, this exchange of ideas, it's much harder to do interdisciplinary papers, I would say. Yeah, right. Right. And conversations are easier. So conversations is a beginning. And in the field of AI, it's obvious that we should think outside of pure computer vision competitions and a particular data sets. We should think about the broader impact of how this can be, you know, reaching out to physics, to psychology, to neuroscience, and having these conversations. So you're an inspiration. And so- Well, thank you very much. That's very sweet. Never know how the world changes. I mean, the fact that this stuff is out there, and I've, a huge number of people come up to me, grad students, really loving the podcast, inspired by it, and they will probably have that, there'll be ripple effects when they become faculty and so on. So we can end on a balance between pessimism and optimism. And Sean, thank you so much for talking to me. It was awesome. No, Lex, thank you very much for this conversation. It was great.

https://youtu.be/l-NJrvyRo0c

ao3UoceiL2w

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Lex Fridman: Recipe for Progress in AI (Hard Work)

I mentioned soup in terms of progress. There's been a little bit of tension, a little bit of love online in terms of deep learning. So I just wanted to say that the kind of criticism and skepticism about the limitations of deep learning are really healthy in moderation. Jeff Hinton, one of the three people to receive the Turing Award, as many people know, has said that the future depends on some graduate student who is deeply suspicious of everything I have said. So that suspicion, skepticism is essential, but in moderation, just a little bit. The more important thing is perseverance, which is what Jeffrey Hinton and the others have had through the winters of believing in neural nets and an open-mindedness for returning to the world of symbolic AI, of expert systems, of complexity and cellular automata, of old ideas in AI and bringing them back and see if there's ideas there. And of course, you have to have a little bit of crazy. Nobody ever achieves something brilliant without being a little bit of crazy. And the most important thing is a lot of hard work. It's not the cool thing these days, but hard work is everything. I like what JFK said about us going to the moon, us. I was born in the Soviet Union. See how I conveniently just said us? Going to the moon is, we do these things, not because they're easy, but because they're hard. And I think that artificial intelligence is one of the hardest and most exciting problems that are before us. So with that, I'd like to thank you and see if there's any questions. Thank you.

https://youtu.be/ao3UoceiL2w

UbkB-vhjhHA

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Lex Fridman plays chess with Demis Hassabis

you probably need to have multiple agents running in your head. So one agent is how do I play good chess? Yeah. Second agent, how do I play not too good of chess? And third agent is how do I help Lex move correctly? Correctly, sure. Okay, we have five minutes each. It looks like I've got, you've given me white Lex, which is nice of you. We will start the clock. So my clock's counting down. Okay. Non-standard. Yeah, the English opening, you know, I'm English, so I have to do that. So, you know, you press the clock when you're, when you've done your move. That's a good starting move. Very solid Lex. Oh, that's not good. Yeah, no, this is good. This is very solid. Okay. We're quite far away from the, from the board. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'll press your clock for you. Don't worry. I'm getting used to it. All right. Are we far away from the English opening at this point? No, this is a, this is a good line. You're playing very, very standard. You have to get used to it. They always do the funny thing where. Very nice. Pinning me. You have to take notes of actually what move you've taken. Yes. Yeah, that's a good, always a good plan. Keeping the King safe. I'm going to do the same. Play very well so far. We just, we just say, yeah, you made your mistakes at this point. Nothing so far. This is what I'm not going to, I'm going to play. Oh, here's the Bishop Knight swap that we were talking about earlier, right? The tension you're creating the tension in the created tension in the game. Relieving the tension. Relieving the tension. Exactly. All right. Now it gets harder. Now you have to come up with your middle game plan. Would you say. You did a very good opening. So you're in a, you're in a, you're in a fine position so far. Yeah. Very nice. Very nice. What's your strongest opener opening game or end game? Well, I would say probably the middle game middle game. So this kind of, this kind of point. Very good. Very good. Very aggressive. Very aggressive. Lex. If I could sacrifice pieces, I really would. That's not a good move. Is it? No, that's a good move. That's a very nice move. Are you afraid of using the queen? Uh, yeah, the queen, you know, you've got to be careful when you use the queen. I need to complicate the game a little bit for you. You're doing too well. Like, so am I losing a piece here? No, you're not losing a piece. You're doing okay. Actually. I'm going to take it anyway. It's only a pawn. How's the, how's the, how's the, how's the, how's the, how's the, how's the, how's the, that's how it starts. That's how it starts, but it's only a pawn. Very good. This is not. Still a pawn, only a pawn. Sorry, I have to, uh, I don't feel comfortable with you having a queen on the board. Takes the queens off, less dangerous. Makes you feel much safer. Yeah, so now we're in the end game now. So you're, you're on better territory. What's the definition of an end game? Well, the queen's coming off is usually the beginning of the end game. It's not the only part of the end game, but it's, it's one bit of the end game. See, that's a pretty cool idea what you've done there. I'll take off your knight now. I think the internet's going to disagree with that. Now, I'm going to see this is an interesting dynamic position with your bishop and my knight, but my, my knight's in a good, good, strong spot there. Uh, so you're attacking the bishop, my, my, oh, the bishop is not. So what do I do with this bishop? Yeah. Maybe I should use some other kind of way. All right. Yeah. But then you're going to attack there. I don't know. I think I'm just running scared. You're running scared now. Fear can't run. You can't run it. Um, okay. Yeah. That's not, is that? Oh, that's fine. That's the only move actually. It's the only one. All right. It feels like there's not much to do here. Well, you've got to, you have to have to come at something good here. Oh boy. And the time is running out. And time's running out. Escape. That's a good escape for your king. I'm going to come here now. Yeah. There's nothing else. There's nothing else. Take another, get another one of your pawns. I feel like there's some smart move that I'm totally missing. Yeah. That seems reasonable. I'm not going to take a second pawn. Okay. That's what you mean. Yeah. I'm going to go here. Maybe just eat away at the, Eat away at your stuff. All right. Yeah. Uh, this is not, this is Slowly, slowly constricting you. Yeah. Slowly going to take all your pawns. You've played very well though, Lex. You haven't made any major mistakes. It's just slow, slow, slow death. The internet, honestly, will very much disagree, but, um, let's see this. A slow death is better than, than a fast death. Embarrassing in the beginning. This, I didn't get checkmate in the first few minutes. This feels very constraining. Yeah. You're very uncomfortable. Constrained. I feel like alpha zero. Um, is that, that would be the defining? Yeah. Kind of controlled, uh, controlled end. You know, the interesting thing is the willingness to sacrifice pieces. But yeah, that's so beautiful. It is beautiful. See, so now I'm going to make use of all these pawns I've taken. Um, Would you say your alpha zero is much better than you at sacrificing pieces? Oh yeah. Intentionally. I sometimes, you know, lose them by mistake, but alpha zero is planning to lose them. It feels extremely constraining. Yeah. How close are you to checkmate? Is there any way for me out of this? Not really. No. So these pieces can't. Yeah. I'm getting basically all your pieces are getting constrained. I'm just going to march these pawns down here or bring this rook to help out. Okay. So if I take this knight with the rook. Yeah, you could do that. That would be a final sort of, um, hope. My knights, you see how strong my knight's been in this game compared to your bishop. Yeah. As we were talking earlier, he's already done the damage. Yeah. It's done all the damage. Yeah. You can get rid of him now, but I think he's already, it's already. Oh, and my time ran out. And your time ran out. We're going to finish this anyway. Finish the game anyway. It's time ran out. So you've lost once, but we can, we can lose two times. Um, yeah. Take that. And then I'm going to get a few back rank weakness. Right. And, uh, right. And then this pawn structure, you're going to bring out the other rook. Yeah. I'm going to bring the other rook. Finally going to swing the other rook into the game. Check. And I'm just going to keep writing. How many moves would you estimate here? Uh, it's going to be about 10 from here. I'm going to swap your rook off. Your final defensive piece. I'm going to take. Is that? No, that's, that's fine. Well, you can, I'll check here. Oh, yeah. And he's just marched that. Yeah, I'm going to march this pawn to the end now. Well, I think this is a good, you played well. Honor to have been defeated so gracefully. You played very, very well. I was impressed. I was impressed. You, you did, you did great. I didn't ask you, what do you think is the most beautiful thing you've seen AlphaZero do? Oh, yes. Personally. Yes. So there was actually the most beautiful game that I've seen AlphaZero plays is being dubbed the Immortal Zogzwang game by, uh, uh, Agathamata on the one of YouTube, brilliant YouTube, uh, commentators. Uh, uh, and he, it was, uh, AlphaZero playing Stockfish and, um, sacrificing a load of pieces to, uh, get Stockfish, all of the Stockfish's major pieces, Queen and Two Rooks stuck in the corner, basically sealed them up like in a two. And Zogzwang means, uh, that, uh, any move that the player makes will make their position worse. And, um, it's never been done to Stockfish before and AlphaZero did it super elegantly. Through sacrificing. Sacrificing pieces. Yeah. It's a beautiful video online on it. And thank you for giving me and signing this book, Game Changer. You're welcome. Uh, what's, what is the book? The book was written by, um, the British chess champion and, uh, and, uh, woman international master, Natasha Reagan and Matthew Sadler. Uh, and we get, I known them both for years from my chess days as a kid. And, um, when they heard about AlphaZero, uh, before we released it, they, they, they wanted to come in and try it out. We gave them full behind the scenes access to it. And then, um, Matthew Sadler said to me, it's like discovering the notebooks of a, of a, of a hidden champion that no one knew about. And he then wrote this book about all of the different ideas that AlphaZero had. And the cool thing is in there, in that book. So this is, it's a chess book, but also the first few chapters about, about how we built AlphaZero, our journey towards it. And then Magnus Carlsen was one of the first people we gave the book to. And he, uh, he sort of publicly said it was very useful to him and he's incorporated a lot of the ideas into his own play. The new ideas, you could say created by AlphaZero. To Lex, a fellow explorer of the mysteries of the universe. Demis, that, thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you for everything you do.

https://youtu.be/UbkB-vhjhHA

w8267OmP22E

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

DeepMind cube

I got a nice little present from CheapMind. What if solving one problem could unlock solutions to thousands more? The immortal Zixuang The strange castle Lisa Doll's move 78 and And there we go alpha goes move 37 All moments and games played by AI systems That marked the milestone in the history of artificial intelligence Started with board games went on to protein folding And maybe solves the rest of this puzzle after all with the same kind of ideas with the same kind of methods Life after all folks is just a game Thank you, DeepMind. This was a fun visit fun a couple of conversations Thank you for the work you do.

https://youtu.be/w8267OmP22E

kOfXwml6ce4

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Michio Kaku: Would Aliens Destroy Us? | AI Podcast Clips

So, if aliens do, alien species were to make contact, forgive me for staying on aliens for a bit longer, do you think they're more likely to be friendly, to befriend us, or to destroy us? Well, I think for the most part, they'll pretty much ignore us. If you were a deer in the forest, who do you fear the most? Do you fear the hunter with his gigantic 16-gauge shotgun? Or do you fear the guy with the briefcase and glasses? Well, the guy with the briefcase could be a developer, about to basically flatten the entire forest, destroying your livelihood. So instinctively, you may be afraid of the hunter. But actually, the problem with deers in the forest is that they should fear developers, because developers look at deer as simply getting in the way. I mean, in War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells, the aliens did not hate us. If you read the book, the aliens did not have evil intentions toward homo sapiens. No, we were in the way. So I think we have to realize that alien civilizations may view us quite differently than in science fiction novels. However, I personally believe, and I cannot prove any of this, I personally believe that they're probably going to be peaceful, because there's nothing that they want from our world. I mean, what are they going to take us? What are they going to take us for? Gold? No. Gold is a useless metal for the most part. It's silver, I mean, it's gold in color, but that only affects homo sapiens. Squirrels don't care about gold. And so gold is a rather useless element. Rare earths, maybe. Platinum-based elements, rare earths for their electronics, yeah, maybe. But other than that, we have nothing to offer them. I mean, think about it for a moment. People love Shakespeare, and they love the arts and poetry, but outside of the earth, they mean nothing. Absolutely nothing. I mean, when I write down an equation in string theory, I would hope that on the other side of the galaxy, there's an alien writing down that very same equation in different notation, but that alien on the other side of the galaxy, Shakespeare, poetry, Hemingway, it would mean nothing to him. Or her. Or it.

https://youtu.be/kOfXwml6ce4

9GV4QmQWJGU

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sean Carroll: Hilbert Space and Infinity

What is Hilbert space and Euclidean space? Yeah, you know, I think that people are very welcome to go through their lives not knowing what Hilbert space is, but if you, when I dig in a little bit more into quantum mechanics, it becomes necessary. You know, the English language was invented long before quantum mechanics, or various forms of higher mathematics were invented. So we use the word space to mean different things. Of course, most of us think of space as this three-dimensional world in which we live, right? I mean, some of us just think of it as outer space. But okay, but space around us, it gives us the three-dimensional location of things and objects. But mathematicians use any generic, abstract collection of elements as a space, okay? A space of possibilities, you know, momentum space, et cetera. So Hilbert space is the space of all possible quantum wave functions, either for the universe or for some specific system. And it could be an infinite dimensional space, or it could be just really, really large dimensional, but finite, we don't know, because we don't know the final theory of everything. But this abstract Hilbert space is really, really, really big, and has no immediate connection to the three-dimensional space in which we live. What do dimensions in Hilbert space mean? You know, it's just a way of mathematically representing how much information is contained in the state of the system. How many numbers do you have to give me to specify what the thing is doing? So in classical mechanics, I give you the location of something by giving you three numbers, right? Up, down, left, X, Y, Z coordinates. But then I might wanna give you its entire state, physical state, which means both its position and also its velocity. The velocity also has three components. So its state lives in something called phase space, which is six-dimensional. Three dimensions of position, three dimensions of velocity. And then if it also has an orientation in space, that's another three dimensions and so forth. So as you describe more and more information about the system, you have an abstract mathematical space that has more and more numbers that you need to give, and each one of those numbers corresponds to a dimension in that space. So in terms of the amount of information, what is entropy, this mystical word that's overused in math and physics, but has a very specific meaning in this context? Sadly, it has more than one very specific meaning. This is the reason why it is hard. Entropy means different things even to different physicists. But one way of thinking about it is a measure of how much we don't know about the state of a system. So if I have a bottle of water molecules, and I know that, okay, there's a certain number of water molecules, I could weigh it and figure it out. I know the volume of it, and I know the temperature and pressure and things like that. I certainly don't know the exact position and velocity of every water molecule. So there's a certain amount of information I know, a certain amount that I don't know that is part of the complete state of the system. And that's what the entropy characterizes, how much unknown information there is, the difference between what I do know about the system and its full exact microscopic state. So when we try to describe a quantum mechanical system, is it infinite or finite but very large? Yeah, we don't know. That depends on the system. You know, it's easy to mathematically write down a system that would have a potentially infinite entropy, an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. So let's go back a little bit. We said that the Hilbert space was the space in which quantum wave functions lived. For different systems, there will be different sizes. They could be infinite or finite. So that's the number of numbers, the number of pieces of information you could potentially give me about the system. So the bigger Hilbert space is, the bigger the entropy of that system could be, depending on what I know about it. If I don't know anything about it, then it has a huge entropy, right? But only up to the size of its Hilbert space. So we don't know in the real physical world whether or not this region of space that contains that water bottle has potentially an infinite entropy or just a finite entropy. We have different arguments on different sides. So if it's infinite, how do you think about infinity? Is this something you can, your cognitive abilities are able to process? Or is it just a mathematical tool? It's somewhere in between, right? I mean, we can say things about it. We can use mathematical tools to manipulate infinity very, very accurately. We can define what we mean. For any number n, there's a number bigger than it. So there's no biggest number, right? So there's something called the total number of all numbers, that's infinite. But it is hard to wrap your brain around that. And I think that gives people pause because we talk about infinity as if it's a number, but it has plenty of properties that real numbers don't have. If you multiply infinity by two, you get infinity again. Right? That's a little bit different than what we're used to. Okay, but are you comfortable with the idea that in thinking of what the real world actually is, that infinity could be part of that world? Are you comfortable that a world in some dimension, in some aspect? I'm comfortable with lots of things. I mean, I don't want my level of comfort to affect what I think about the world. I'm pretty open-minded about what the world could be at a fundamental level. Yeah, but infinity is a tricky one. It's not almost a question of comfort. It's a question of, is it an overreach of our intuition? Sort of, it could be a convenient, almost like when you add a constant to an equation, just because it'll help. It just feels like it's useful to at least be able to imagine a concept, not directly, but in some kind of way that this feels like it's a description of the real world. Think of it this way. There's only three numbers that are simple. There's zero, there's one, and there's infinity. A number like 318 is just bizarre. Like, you need a lot of bits to give me what that number is. But zero and one and infinity, like once you have 300 things, you might as well have infinity things, right? Otherwise you have to say when to stop making the things. So there's a sense in which infinity is a very natural number of things to exist. I was never comfortable with infinity because it's just such a, it was too good to be true. Because in math, it just helps make things work out. When things get very, when things get very large, close to infinity, things seem to work out nicely. It's kind of like, because my deepest passion is probably psychology. And I'm uncomfortable how, in the average, the beauty of the very, how much we vary is lost. In that same kind of sense, infinity seems like a convenient way to erase the details. But the thing about infinity is it seems to pop up whether we like it or not, right? Like, you're trying to be a computer scientist, you ask yourself, well, how long will it take this program to run? And you realize, well, for some of them, the answer is infinitely long. It's not because you tried to get there. You wrote a five-line computer program. It doesn't halt.

https://youtu.be/9GV4QmQWJGU

bCA54RIkpTo

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Black Belt Speech | Lex Fridman

So I've learned more in these maths than I have in all my years. I'm a nerd, I got a PhD. I've learned more about life, about the mind, in these maths than I have in all the years of school. And I think two things, two of the biggest things I took away is the humbling reality that I'm not special. And if you want to be good at anything, you have to work really hard. And if you want to be the best in the world at something, like I do, I want to build robots better than anybody else in the world. Or whether that's knitting or yodeling, anything, you have to work harder than anyone else in the world. And the second lesson I learned, I used to compete a lot, I used to lose a lot, and I used to hurt to lose. And I remember, I don't know if Phil remembers this conversation, but I think at Lake Blue Belt, I was going to a big competition and I said, you know, I don't know how I'm going to win, it's like 50 people division. And he said, well give everything you can to win, but whether you win or lose, you're still going to have a home here, still going to love you. So the two things I'd like to say thank you for is the pain and the love.

https://youtu.be/bCA54RIkpTo

1CSeY10zbqo

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Jim Keller: Most People Don't Think Simple Enough | AI Podcast Clips

So what have you learned about the human abstractions from individual functional human units to the broader organization? What does it take to create something special? Well, most people don't think simple enough. All right, so do you know the difference between a recipe and the understanding? There's probably a philosophical description of this. So imagine you're going to make a loaf of bread. The recipe says, get some flour, add some water, add some yeast, mix it up, let it rise, put it in a pan, put it in the oven. It's a recipe. Understanding bread, you can understand biology, supply chains, grain grinders, yeast, physics, thermodynamics, there's so many levels of understanding there. And then when people build and design things, they frequently are executing some stack of recipes. And the problem with that is the recipes all have limited scope. Like if you have a really good recipe book for making bread, it won't tell you anything about how to make an omelet. But if you have a deep understanding of cooking, then bread, omelets, sandwich, there's a different way of viewing everything. And most people, when you get to be an expert at something, you're hoping to achieve deeper understanding, not just a large set of recipes to go execute. And it's interesting to walk groups of people because executing recipes is unbelievably efficient if it's what you want to do. If it's not what you want to do, you're really stuck. And that difference is crucial. And everybody has a balance of, let's say, deeper understanding of recipes. And some people are really good at recognizing when the problem is to understand something deeply. Does that make sense? It totally makes sense. Does every stage of development, deep understanding on the team needed? Oh, this goes back to the art versus science question. If you constantly unpack everything for deeper understanding, you never get anything done. And if you don't unpack understanding when you need to, you'll do the wrong thing. And then at every juncture, like human beings are these really weird things because everything you tell them has a million possible outputs. And then they all interact in a hilarious way. And then having some intuition about what you tell them, what you do, when do you intervene, when do you not, it's complicated. It's essentially computationally unsolvable. Yeah, it's an intractable problem, sure. Humans are a mess. But with deep understanding, do you mean also sort of fundamental questions of things like what is a computer? Or why? Like the why question is why are we even building this? Of purpose? Or do you mean more like going towards the fundamental limits of physics, sort of really getting into the core of the science? Well, in terms of building a computer, think a little simpler. So common practice is you build a computer, and then when somebody says, I want to make it 10% faster, you'll go in and say, all right, I need to make this buffer bigger, and maybe I'll add an add unit. Or I have this thing that's three instructions wide, I'm going to make it four instructions wide. And what you see is each piece gets incrementally more complicated. And then at some point you hit this limit, like adding another feature or buffer doesn't seem to make it any faster. And then people say, well, that's because it's a fundamental limit. And then somebody else will look at it and say, well, actually, the way you divided the problem up and the way that different features are interacting is limiting you, and it has to be rethought, rewritten. And then you refactor it and rewrite it. And what people commonly find is the rewrite is not only faster, but half as complicated. From scratch? Yes. So how often in your career, but just have you seen as needed, maybe more generally, to just throw the whole thing out and start over? This is where I'm on one end of it, every three to five years. Which end are you on? Rewrite more often. Rewrite, and three to five years is? If you want to really make a lot of progress on computer architecture, every five years you should do one from scratch. So where does the x86-64 standard come in? How often do you? I was the co-author of that spec in 98. That's 20 years ago. Yeah. So that's still around. The instruction set itself has been extended quite a few times. And instruction sets are less interesting than the implementation underneath. There's been, on x86 architecture, Intel's designed a few, AMD's designed a few, very different architectures. And I don't want to go into too much of the detail about how often, but there's a tendency to rewrite it every 10 years, and it really should be every five. So you're saying you're an outlier in that sense in the- Rewrite more often. Rewrite more often. Isn't that scary? Yeah, of course. Well, scary to who? To everybody involved, because like you said, repeating the recipe is efficient. Companies want to make money, no, individual engineers want to succeed, so you want to incrementally improve, increase the buffer from three to four. Well, increase performance. Yeah, so this is where you get into diminishing return curves. I think Steve Jobs said this, right? So you have a project, and you start here, and it goes up, and they have diminishing return. And to get to the next level, you have to do a new one, and the initial starting point will be lower than the old optimization point, but it'll get higher. So now you have two kinds of fear, short-term disaster and long-term disaster. And you're- So grown-ups, right? Yes. Like, you know, people with a quarter-by-quarter business objective are terrified about changing everything, and people who are trying to run a business or build a computer for a long-term objective know that the short-term limitations block them from the long-term success. So if you look at leaders of companies that had really good long-term success, every time they saw that they had to redo something, they did. And so somebody has to speak up. Or you do multiple projects in parallel. Like, you optimize the old one while you build a new one, but the marketing guys are always like, promise me that the new computer is faster on every single thing. And the computer architect says, well, the new computer will be faster on the average. But there's a distribution of results and performance, and you'll have some outliers that are slower. And that's very hard because they have one customer who cares about that one.

https://youtu.be/1CSeY10zbqo

8aVB5xgCllY

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Measure passion not progress

Advice number three is to measure passion, not progress. So most of us get an average of about 27,000 days of life. I think a good metric by which you should live is to maximize the number of those days that are filled with a passionate pursuit of something, not by how much you've progressed towards a particular goal. Because goals are grounded in your comparison to other human beings, to something that's already been done before. Passionate pursuit of something is the way you achieve something totally new. And a quick warning about passion. Again, I'm a little bit of Russian, so maybe I romanticize this whole suffering and passion thing. But the people who love you, the people who care for you, like I mentioned, your friends, your family, should not be trusted. Accept their love, but not their advice. Parents and significant others will tell you to find a secure job because passion looks dangerous. It looks insecure. Advisors, colleagues will tell you to be pragmatic because passion looks like a distraction from the main effort that you should be focusing on. And society will tell you to find balance, work-life balance in your life because passion looks unhealthy.

https://youtu.be/8aVB5xgCllY

tyrPMVMb-Uw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

We exist inside the story that the brain tells itself (Joscha Bach) | AI Podcast Clips

What is dualism, what is idealism, what is materialism, what is functionalism, and what connects with you most? In terms of, because you just mentioned, there's a reality we don't have access to. Okay, what does that even mean? And why don't we get access to it? Aren't we part of that reality? Why can't we access it? So the particular trajectory that mostly exists in the West is the result of our indoctrination by a cult for 2,000 years. A cult, which one? Yes, the Catholic cult mostly. And for better or worse, it has created or defined many of the modes of interaction that we have that has created this society, but it has also in some sense scarred our rationality. And the intuition that exists, if you would translate the mythology of the Catholic Church into the modern world is that the world in which you and me interact is something like a multiplayer role-playing adventure. And the money and the objects that we have in this world, this is all not real. Or as Eastern philosophers would say, it's Maya. It's just stuff that appears to be meaningful, and this embedding in this meaning, if you believe in it, is samsara. It's basically the identification with the needs of the mundane, secular, everyday existence. And the Catholics also introduced the notion of higher meaning, the sacred. And this existed before, but eventually, the natural shape of God is the platonic form of the civilization that you're a part of. It's basically the superorganism that is formed by the individuals as an intentional agent. And basically, the Catholics used a relatively crude mythology to implement software on the minds of people and get the software synchronized to make them walk in lockstep. To get this God online and to make it efficient and effective. And I think God, technically, is just a self that spans multiple brains, as opposed to your and my self, which mostly exists just on one brain. Right? And so, in some sense, you can construct a self functionally as a function that is implemented by brains that exists across brains. And this is a God with a small g. That's one of the, if you look, Yuval Harari kind of talking about, this is one of the nice features of our brains, it seems to, that we can all download the same piece of software, like God in this case, and kind of share it. Yeah, so basically, you give everybody a spec, and the mathematical constraints that are intrinsic to information processing make sure that, given the same spec, you come up with a compatible structure. Okay, so that's, there's this space of ideas that we all share, and we think that's kind of the mind. But that's separate from, the idea is, from Christianity, from religion, is that there's a separate thing between the mind. There is a real world, and this real world is the world in which God exists. God is the coder of the multiplayer adventure, so to speak, and we are all players in this game. And that's dualism, you would say. Yes, but the dualist aspect is because the mental realm exists in a different implementation than the physical realm. And the mental realm is real. And a lot of people have this intuition that there is this real room in which you and me talk and speak right now. Then comes a layer of physics and abstract rules and so on, and then comes another real room where our souls are, and our true form isn't a thing that gives us phenomenal experience. And this, of course, is a very confused notion that you would get. And it's basically, it's the result of connecting materialism and idealism in the wrong way. So, okay, I apologize, but I think it's really helpful if we just try to define terms. Like, what is dualism, what is idealism, what is materialism for people that don't know? So the idea of dualism in our cultural tradition is that there are two substances, a mental substance and a physical substance, and they interact by different rules. And the physical world is basically causally closed and is built on a low-level causal structure. So there's basically a bottom level that is causally closed that's entirely mechanical. And mechanical in the widest sense, so it's computational. There's basically a physical world in which information flows around, and physics describes the laws of how information flows around in this world. Would you compare it to like a computer where you have hardware and software? The computer is a generalization of information flowing around. Basically, what Turing discovered, that there is a universal principle, you can define this universal machine, that is able to perform all the computations. So all these machines have the same power. This means that you can always define a translation between them, as long as they have unlimited memory, to be able to perform each other's computations. So would you then say that materialism, this whole world is just the hardware, and idealism is this whole world is just the software? Not quite. I think that most idealists don't have a notion of software yet, because software also comes down to information processing. So what you notice is the only thing that is real to you and me is this experiential world in which things matter, in which things have taste, in which things have color, phenomenal content, and so on. And you realize that- Oh, there you are bringing up consciousness, okay. And this is distinct from the physical world, in which things have values only in an abstract sense. And you only look at cold patterns moving around. So how does anything feel like something? And this connection between the two things is very puzzling to a lot of people, and of course, too many philosophers. So idealism starts out with the notion that mind is primary, materialism, things that matter, is primary. And so for the idealist, the material patterns that we see playing out are part of the dream, that the mind is dreaming. And we exist in a mind on a higher plane of existence, if you want. And for the materialist, there is only this material thing, and that generates some models, and we are the result of these models. And in some sense, I don't think that we should understand, if we understand it properly, materialism and idealism is a dichotomy, but as two different aspects of the same thing. So the weird thing is we don't exist in the physical world. We do exist inside of a story that the brain tells itself. Okay, let me, my information processing, take that in. We don't exist in the physical world, we exist in the narrative. Basically, a brain cannot feel anything. A neuron cannot feel anything. They're physical things. Physical systems are unable to experience anything. But it would be very useful for the brain or for the organism to know what it would be like to be a person and to feel something. So the brain creates a simulacrum of such a person that it uses to model the interactions of the person. It's the best model of what that brain, this organism, thinks it is in relationship to its environment. So it creates that model. It's a story, a multimedia novel that the brain is continuously writing and updating. But you also kind of said that we kind of exist in that story. What is real in any of this? So like, there's a, again, these terms are, you kind of said there's a quantum graph. I mean, what is this whole thing running on then? Is the story, and is it completely, fundamentally impossible to get access to it? Because isn't the story supposed to, isn't the brain in something, in existing in some kind of context? So what we can identify as computer scientists, we can engineer systems and test our theories this way that may have the necessary insufficient properties to produce the phenomena that we are observing, which is there is a self in a virtual world that is generated in somebody's neocortex that is contained in the skull of this primate here. And when I point at this, this indexicality is of course wrong. But I do create something that is likely to give rise to patterns on your retina that allow you to interpret what I'm saying, right? But we both know that the world that you and me are seeing is not the real physical world. What we are seeing is a virtual reality generated in your brain to explain the patterns on your retina. How close is it to the real world? That's kind of the question. Is it, when you have people like Donald Hoffman, say that you're really far away, the thing we're seeing, you and I now, that interface we have is very far away from anything. We don't even have anything close to the sense of what the real world is. Or is it a very surface piece of architecture? Imagine you look at the Mandelbrot Fractal, this famous thing that Bernard Mandelbrot discovered. If you see an overall shape in there, right? But you know, if you truly understand it, you know it's two lines of code. It's basically a series that is being tested for complex numbers in the complex number plane for every point. And for those where the series is diverging, you paint this black. And where it's converging, you don't. And you get the intermediate colors by checking how far it diverges. This gives you this shape of this fractal. But imagine you live inside of this fractal and you don't have access to where you are in the fractal. Or you have not discovered the generator function even. So what you see is, all I can see right now is a spiral. And the spiral moves a little bit to the right. Is this an accurate model of reality? Yes, it is. It is an adequate description. You know that there is actually no spiral in the Mandelbrot Fractal. It only appears like this to an observer that is interpreting things as a two-dimensional space and then defines certain irregularities in there at a certain scale that it currently observes. Because if you zoom in, the spiral might disappear and turn out to be something different at a different resolution, right? Yes. So at this level, you have the spiral. And then you discover the spiral moves to the right and at some point it disappears. So you have a singularity. At this point, your model is no longer valid. You cannot predict what happens beyond the singularity. But you can observe again and you will see it hit another spiral and at this point it disappeared. So we now have a second order law. And if you make 30 layers of these laws, then you have a description of the world that is similar to the one that we come up with when we describe the reality around us. It's reasonably predictive. It does not cut to the core of it. It doesn't explain how it's being generated, how it actually works. But it's relatively good to explain the universe that we are entangled with. But you don't think the tools of computer science or the tools of physics could step outside, see the whole drawing and get at the basic mechanism of how the pattern, the spirals are generated. Imagine you would find yourself embedded into a motherboard fractal and you try to figure out what works and you somehow have a Turing machine with enough memory to think. And as a result, you come to this idea, it must be some kind of automaton. And maybe you just enumerate all the possible automata until you get to the one that produces your reality. So you can identify necessary and sufficient condition. For instance, we discover that mathematics itself is the domain of all languages. And then we see that most of the domains of mathematics that we have discovered are in some sense describing the same fractals. This is what category theory is obsessed about, that you can map these different domains to each other. So there are not that many fractals. And some of these have interesting structure and symmetry breaks. And so you can discover what region of this global fractal you might be embedded in from first principles. But the only way you can get there is from first principles. So basically, your understanding of the universe has to start with automata and then number theory and then spaces and so on. Yeah, I think like Stephen Wolfram still dreams that he'll be able to arrive at the fundamental rules of the cellular automata or the generalization of which is behind our universe. You've said on this topic, you said in a recent conversation that quote, some people think that a simulation can't be conscious and only a physical system can. But they got it completely backward. A physical system cannot be conscious. Only a simulation can be conscious. Consciousness is a simulated property of the simulated self. Just like you said, the mind is kind of, we'll call it story narrative. There's a simulation, so our mind is essentially a simulation. Usually, I try to use the terminology so that the mind is basically the principles that produce the simulation. It's the software that is implemented by your brain. And the mind is creating both the universe that we are in and the self, the idea of a person that is on the other side of attention and is embedded in this world. Why is that important, that idea of a self? Why is that an important feature in the simulation? It's basically a result of the purpose that the mind has. It's a tool for modeling. We are not actually monkeys. We are side effects of the regulation needs of monkeys. And what the monkey has to regulate is the relationship of an organism to an outside world that is in large part also consisting of other organisms. And as a result, it basically has regulation targets that it tries to get to. These regulation targets start with priors. They're basically like unconditional reflexes that we are more or less born with. And then we can reverse engineer them to make them more consistent. And then we get more detailed models about how the world works and how to interact with it. And so these priors that you commit to are largely target values that our needs should approach, set points. And this deviation to the set point creates some urge, some tension. And we find ourselves living inside of feedback loops. Consciousness emerges over dimensions of disagreements with the universe. Things that you care, things are not the way they should be, but you need to regulate. And so in some sense, the sense itself is the result of all the identifications that you're having. And the identification is a regulation target that you're committing to. It's a dimension that you care about, that you think is important. And this is also what locks you in. If you let go of these commitments of these identifications, you get free. There's nothing that you have to do anymore. And if you let go of all of them, you're completely free and you can enter Nirvana because you're done. And actually, this is a good time to pause and say thank you to a friend of mine, Gustav Söderström, who introduced me to your work. I wanted to give him a shout out. He's a brilliant guy. And I think the AI community is actually quite amazing. And Gustav is a good representative of that. You are as well. So I'm glad, first of all, I'm glad the internet exists and YouTube exists where I can watch your talks and then get to your book and study your writing and think about, you know, that's amazing. Okay, but you've kind of described in sort of this emergent phenomenon of consciousness from the simulation. So what about the hard problem of consciousness? Can you just linger on it? Like, why does it still feel, like, I understand you're kind of, the self is an important part of the simulation, but why does the simulation feel like something? So if you look at a book by, say, George R.R. Martin where the characters have plausible psychology and they stand on a hill because they want to conquer the city below the hill and they're done in it and they look at the color of the sky and they are apprehensive and feel empowered and all these things, why do they have these emotions? It's because it's written into the story, right? And it's written to the story because it's an adequate model of the person that predicts what they're going to do next. And the same thing is true for us. So it's basically a story that our brain is writing. It's not written in words. It's written in perceptual content, basically multimedia content. And it's a model of what the person would feel if it existed. So it's a virtual person. And you and me happen to be this virtual person. So this virtual person gets access to the language center and talks about the sky being blue. And this is us. But hold on a second. Do I exist in your simulation? You do exist in an almost similar way as me. So there are internal states that are less accessible for me that you have and so on. And my model might not be completely adequate. There are also things that I might perceive about you that you don't perceive. But in some sense, both you and me are some puppets, two puppets that enact a play in my mind. And I identify with one of them because I can control one of the puppet directly. And with the other one, I can create things in between. So for instance, we can go on an interaction that even leads to a coupling to a feedback loop. So we can think things together in a certain way or feel things together. But this coupling is itself not a physical phenomenon. It's entirely a software phenomenon. It's the result of two different implementations interacting with each other. So that's interesting. So are you suggesting, like the way you think about it, is the entirety of existence a simulation and where kind of each mind is a little sub-simulation that like, why don't you, why doesn't your mind have access to my mind's full state? Like- For the same reason that my mind doesn't have access to its own full state. So what, I mean- There is no trick involved. So basically when I know something about myself, it's because I made a model. So one part of your brain is tasked with modeling what other parts of your brain are doing. Yes, but there seems to be an incredible consistency about this world in the physical sense, that there's repeatable experiments, and so on. How does that fit into our silly descendant of apes simulation of the world? So why is it so repeatable? Why is everything so repeatable? And not everything. There's a lot of fundamental physics experiments that are repeatable for a long time, all over the place, and so on. Laws of physics, how does that fit in? It seems that the parts of the world that are not deterministic are not long lived. So if you build a system, any kind of automaton, so if you build simulations of something, you'll notice that the phenomena that endure are those that give rise to stable dynamics. So basically if you see anything that is complex in the world, it's the result of, usually of some control, of some feedback that keeps it stable around certain attractors. And the things that are not stable, that don't give rise to certain harmonic patterns, and so on, they tend to get weeded out over time. So if we are in a region of the universe that sustains complexity, which is required to implement minds like ours, this is going to be a region of the universe that is very tightly controlled and controllable. So it's going to have lots of interesting symmetries, and also symmetry breaks, that allow the creation of structure. But they exist where? So there's such an interesting idea that our mind is a simulation that's constructing the narrative. My question is, just to try to understand how that fits with the entirety of the universe. You're saying that there's a region of this universe that allows enough complexity to create creatures like us, but what's the connection between the brain, the mind, and the broader universe? Which comes first? Which is more fundamental? Is the mind the starting point, the universe is emergent? Is the universe the starting point, the minds are emergent? I think quite clearly the latter. That's at least a much easier explanation, because it allows us to make causal models. And I don't see any way to construct an inverse causality. So what happens when you die to your mind simulation? My implementation ceases. So basically the thing that implements myself will no longer be present. Which means if I am not implemented on the minds of other people, the thing that I identify with. The weird thing is I don't actually have an identity beyond the identity that I construct. If I was the Dalai Lama, he identifies as a form of government. So basically the Dalai Lama gets reborn, not because he's confused, but because he is not identifying as a human being. He runs on a human being. He's basically a governmental software that is instantiated in every new generation and you. So his advice is to pick someone who does this in the next generation. So if you identify with this, you are no longer a human and you don't die in the sense. What dies is only the body of the human that you run on. To kill the Dalai Lama, you would have to kill his tradition. And if we look at ourselves, we realize that we are to a small part like this, most of us. So for instance, if you have children, you realize something lives on in them. Or if you spark an idea in the world, something lives on. Or if you identify with the society around you, because you are part that. You're not just this human being. Yeah, so in a sense, you are kind of like a Dalai Lama in the sense that you, Joshua Bach, is just a collection of ideas. So you have this operating system on which a bunch of ideas live and interact. And then once you die, they kind of, some of them jump off the ship. You could put it the other way. Identity is a software state. It's a construction. It's not physically real. Identity is not a physical concept. It's basically a representation of different objects on the same world line. But identity lives and dies. Are you attached? What's the fundamental thing? Is it the ideas that come together to form identity? Or is each individual identity actually a fundamental thing? It's a representation that you can get agency over if you care. So basically you can choose what you identify with if you want to. No, but it just seems if the mind is not real, that the birth and death is not a crucial part of it. Well, maybe I'm silly. Maybe I'm attached to this whole biological organism. But it seems that the physical, being a physical object in this world is an important aspect of birth and death. Like it feels like it has to be physical to die. It feels like simulations don't have to die. The physics that we experience is not the real physics. There is no color and sound in the real world. Color and sound are types of representations that you get if you want to model reality with oscillators, right? So colors and sound in some sense have octaves. And it's because they are represented probably with oscillators, right? So that's why colors form a circle of use. And colors have harmonics, sounds have harmonics as a result of synchronizing oscillators in the brain, right? So the world that we subjectively interact with is fundamentally the result of the representation mechanisms in our brain. They are mathematically to some degree universal. There are certain regularities that you can discover in the patterns and not others. But the patterns that we get, this is not the real world. The world that we interact with is always made of too many parts to count, right? So when you look at this table and so on, it's consisting of so many molecules and atoms that you cannot count them. So you only look at the aggregate dynamics, at limit dynamics. If you had almost infinitely many particles, what would be the dynamics of the table? And this is roughly what you get. So geometry that we are interacting with is the result of discovering those operators that work in the limit, that you get by building an infinite series that converges. For those parts where it converges, it's geometry. For those parts where it doesn't converge, it's chaos. All right, and then, so all of that is filtered through the consciousness that's emergent in our narrative. So the consciousness gives it color, gives it feeling, gives it flavor. So I think the feeling, flavor, and so on is given by the relationship that a feature has to all the other features. It's basically a giant relational graph that is our subjective universe. The color is given by those aspects of the representation, or this experiential color where you care about, where you have identifications, where something means something, where you are the inside of a feedback loop, and the dimensions of caring are basically dimensions of this motivational system that we emerge over.

https://youtu.be/tyrPMVMb-Uw

TUFC9V0sA_U

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sean Carroll: What is the Wave Function?

So what's a wave function? You said it's an interesting detail. But in any interpretation, what is the wave function in quantum mechanics? Well, we had this idea from Rutherford that atoms look like little solar systems. But people very quickly realized that can't possibly be right. Because if an electron is orbiting in a circle, it will give off light. All the light that we have in this room comes from electrons zooming up and down and wiggling, and that's what electromagnetic waves are. And you can calculate how long would it take for the electron just to spiral into the nucleus. And the answer is 10 to the minus 11 seconds, okay? 100 billionth of a second. So that's not right. Meanwhile, people had realized that light, which we understood from the 1800s was a wave, had properties that were similar to that of particles, right? This is Einstein and Planck and stuff like that. So if something that we agree was a wave had particle-like properties, then maybe something we think is a particle, the electron, has wave-like properties, right? And so a bunch of people eventually came to the conclusion, don't think about the electron as a little point particle orbiting like a solar system. Think of it as a wave that is spread out. They cleverly gave this the name the wave function, which is the dopiest name in the world for one of the most profound things in the universe. There's literally a number at every point in space, which is the value of the electron's wave function at that point. And there's only one wave function. Yeah, they eventually figured that out. That took longer. But when you have two electrons, you do not have a wave function for electron one and a wave function for electron two. You have one combined wave function for both of them. And indeed, as you say, there's only one wave function for the entire universe at once.

https://youtu.be/TUFC9V0sA_U

FxHvCbGfHvU

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

RZA and Lex Fridman play chess

Bring the queen out. Uh-oh. That's my girl. This girl is crazy. Oh no. Don't do that. Don't bring stuff out. Yeah, let me get some other people in the party. I'm going to sacrifice pieces to make you think you're doing good. Ponder me, right? Well, since you're going to do that, and I figured you was going to do that, I'm going to let you do what you want to do so I can do what I want to do. Thank you. This is good. A few months back, I did a podcast with RZA, and we played an impromptu game of chess afterwards. I wasn't sure if anyone wants to see that, but a few folks asked me about it, so here it is. Let me know if you want to see me play chess, have fun, and of course talk a bit of trash with folks in the future. I should also say that when I was a kid, I deliberately decided to not play chess because given my generally mathematical mind and interests, I would be pulled all in. Moderation would be impossible. I'm the same with fresh oatmeal raisin cookies. I don't know how to eat just one. Instead, I chose to avoid the game, playing maybe on a rare occasion of a few years at a party, probably drunk, and have lots of fun blundering all over the place and talking trash. I do think chess is a beautiful game, and I do want to celebrate it. And perhaps my low level of play and my approach of fun is a good way to do so, because if you're a beginner, we're in this together, my friend. Chess is not just about opening lines, positions, tactics. It's also about two humans using their mind to solve weird little puzzles while chatting it up and having fun. In this life, dear friends, you have two approaches to choose for each activity. Have fun trying to be good or have fun being bad. For me, I try to do a bit of both. For chess, I choose the latter. So let me know if you want to see more videos of me playing chess. Now I give you RZA. I do the same thing. Let's see what you think about that. We replaying the match? It was already a great match. I don't know about this. What's the strongest part of your game? The opening? The middle? I don't know, because I've been weak lately, but I think that if you give me the time. No, we can't take the time. This is going to be fast. And I told you I'm terrible. I said, if you give me the... No, but if I get the time- Oh, to practice, to think. I get pretty good at chess, if you give me the time. But it ain't just time. It's your own fatigue, your own feeling. You could be angry, impatient. Let me just ruin it for you. Hyper. I just got to take pieces. Very aggressive play here. What are we even doing? I'm just attacking. What's the worst that can happen? I could run. And not be shot. That's a big thing. This is not the worst thing in this world. I'm telling you, I'm just going to go on a rampage. Just taking pieces. This is a horrible position for me. Why did you do that then? You just wanted to fuck with me? Because I want to move fast. Oh, okay. I want to fuck with you for sure. Let me try this one then. Bringing the queen out. Uh-oh. That's my girl. Oh, that's a good one. Oh, this girl is crazy. That's a real queen's gambit. There's a couple of counters. Here's one counter that may just start the energy between us. Yeah, this could be a big problem. So I would need to, there's no options, right? Yeah, you got to make a move. I'll stay off the white. And then for me, okay, I see what you're doing there. I have to hit you there for protection. Bring this guy out. That's good. I actually didn't want you to bring that guy out. I didn't like the thing you had going on here. That's not going to end well for me. Yeah, I didn't like that guy either. I didn't like him coming outside at all. I just felt like he should have, I was hoping he didn't come outside, but he's outside now. So now that he's outside, when I told him not to come outside, mind you, I got to now think about my own problems. The queen and the rook are dancing in the middle. I think I'm in way more danger. I'm not sure though. Yes, it's pretty peculiar here. Got to keep them distracted. You take one more punch at you. You can't not do, you got to make sure you do it in time. That's really the big trick. Timing is everything. Yeah, so in that case, since timing is everything, let me kind of get some time away from this motherfucker. What do you think about pawns? You're like, oh no, don't do that. Don't bring stuff out. Yeah, let me get some other people in the party because- I'm going to make it fun. I'm going to sacrifice pieces to make you think you're doing good. Pawn to me, right? Well, since you're going to do that, and I figured you was going to do that, I'm going to let you do what you want to do so I can do what I want to do. Thank you. This is good. He's not taking the quote bait. That's not an actual bait. Okay, so let's get this guy out of here. Yeah, let's get him out of here. See, this is not good. I got to threaten you somehow. I got to make you nervous. There we go. Oh, that's your Kung Fu technique to make me nervous. I don't know if I'm going to get nervous from that one. Watch your King. That's all I got to say. I know. I see you trying to punch me in my face and shit. Yeah, but don't play around. You can have the pawns. I can have the pawn? No, you can have the pawns. I'm just going to knock you out. Oh, it's going to knock me out. You guys hear this guy? I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I'm not going to be even. I think I'm down a pawn, a couple of pawns. You know what? It's actually, yeah, the pawns don't mean shit. You're right. The pawns is not the way for this game to go the way I want it to go. So, that's a fact. You have like so many options, it's overwhelming actually. I'm glad you see it that way because I'm feeling the same, but you know, I still got to be careful. Right. Since I still got to be careful. This is some Grandmaster level. This is not- Chats right here. All right, so since you trying to shoot off my pinky toe. I just feel like you're gonna attack so much here. And I got nothing. I got no pawns to protect me. I got, and this king is just sitting there. Yeah, but you got a couple of tricks up your sleeve though. Let me just continue my party my way. That's the most important thing you gotta do sometimes. You gotta continue your party your way. Keep bringing pieces out. You know what, I'm just gonna keep. That was nice. Everybody who saw that would say the same thing. Yeah. They would say. What's that? That was nice. Yeah. That move was nice, yo. You seen that? Yeah. I'm like, yo, I saw it. I saw, I gotta take him. You know that. It's no, I have no choice. And the matter, you doing that. A Grandmaster would just forfeit here. But I'm not that. I'm not that. I like that. Because I'm a higher level. I like, well I like the pitch of that. Yeah. It's like a Grandmaster would just forfeit here. No, I'm just, I'm gonna have to give you the Bishop of the Night. Well, do what you're gonna do, but don't forget, we talked about Fisher and Spassky, and I started the game in the famous Fisher opening. That, you know, it was good at one time. Yeah. And it's like, I'm trying to bring it back. The opening, or what? Yeah, I'm trying to, like I really, I'm a fan of Bobby Fisher. I know they say he went crazy, and all the stuff like that, but like I said, his analogy that chess is a draw, it's something profound in that. And I'm just like, I'm gonna try to represent Bobby Fisher a little bit. You're the Bobby Fisher in this? All right. See that? Now, would everybody agree? Yeah. But that was beautiful. I think you got a problem with too many choices. I'm trying to paralyze you with too many good choices until you make a mistake. Which is good, I mean, that's the meaning. You should be scared, because you don't want to make a mistake on camera. That'll be embarrassing. Because you're winning, you're dominating, and then you can just. But if he makes a mistake on camera, what would the world think of that? What would they tell him back home? I'd be nervous for you, that's all I'm saying. Yeah, I'm getting a little bit nervous, but not totally. And you know why I'm not totally nervous? Oh, why is that? Oh, you wanna know? I guess I'm just gonna have to wait and find out. Okay, so in that case, since this is one of those matches where. A friendly match? Yeah, a friendly match. I was gonna go for either that or war, but since I'm losing, let's just go for a friendly match. Yeah, well, since this is a friendly match, let's do it, let's give you something to eat. And I'll get something to eat. You eat, I eat. Yeah. Yeah, I think I'm gonna do that. I think I'm gonna let that be the way we eat. You cool with that? Yeah, you give me a rook or what? Yeah, why not? Okay, okay. You're gonna give me, this. This is great. Yeah, I gotta give you something. This is what a generous man does. I'll give you something to eat. You gave me something to eat. I'm gonna give you something to eat. All right. Okay, that was good. Hope it tastes good. Yeah, it did. It feel good. I'm winning. I'm winning. I hope everybody liked it. Hope the rest of the audience is feeling it. Like everybody, like this guy got a chance to eat. On the official chess point system, I'm up by a pawn. Yeah, all right. One move, I was up. Well, I'm gonna get back out of your way because I didn't like, actually didn't like the vibe of that. So I have to get back and protect my other rook because if I would've gave him two rooks, if I would've gave him two rooks, for the price of nothing. You're not that generous. I appreciate that. Yeah, the people would've been talking about me for years to come. Yeah, man. Oh, look at this guy. He's getting nervous. He's like, what you doing? You got it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, a hundred percent. So let me count my money. You count your money. Yeah. Count my money. Oh, you got more money than me. I gotta make you feel nervous about something. Whoa, that was a bad move right there, brother. That one there. What do you want to do with that? You want to zoom in on that? That's a blunder. What's the, what's like when it's a really bad blunder, it's like super blunder or something like that. Yeah, well it makes this move bad, right? It's a couple of things about it. Well, you really don't want to bring the king out like that, right? Yeah, even if you would've left him back there, it would've been a better exchange for you because I gave you this rook, but you took the wrong rook. Yeah. You should've took this rook, right? Yeah. But you took that rook, which I was cool with. I was hoping you'd take that rook. Even if you took this rook, I was cool because I would've got the horse and then I would've still been up two points. Yeah. But you took this rook, which was detrimental. Because I'm going to lose it anyway. I'm going to lose the knight. And then, yeah, so you're saying I should've taken this. That was the mistake. That would've been a better shot for you. Taking that rook, because now this rook just does something very simple, just goes here. Even if it was there, though, I would've lost the rook. Yeah. Which I thought I was going to lose. You would've traded it. Yeah, but this is worse for you. It's not checkmate, is it? No, but it's check, but it's a tough looking check. But you got to now jet up out of there and you only could jet so many places. Maybe I undo the mistake because I can't jet forward. Well. I can't jet forward. No matter where you go. I'm not here to tell you. Yeah, I have to undo the mistake. But the point of this rook check was a discovery of which was set up since the beginning. This discovery has been here for almost four or five moves. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, I like, you know, they say white guys love black women. Yeah. Now I know what that means. Thank you. Yeah. That's a tough looking check. Yeah. I can trick you into a draw somehow. All right. I think that way. Don't you think that way? Yeah. You got all the right philosophies, you know what I mean? It's just not the skills. Well, yeah, you know, the application takes time to apply everything we learn. It just takes time. That's definitely the right philosophy. Everything you've been saying for this conversation has been the right philosophy. Just the time to apply it has been ducking you. Yeah. So, I'll just keep this there. And then, you know, you can take this as far as you want to take it. But I think in the interest of time, we're running out of time. You have to go, man. Yeah, we should say yes. Thank you, brother. Thank you, man. That was beautiful.

https://youtu.be/FxHvCbGfHvU

Khf-N2f8T78

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Comfortably Numb Solo | Pink Floyd Cover by Lex Fridman

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

https://youtu.be/Khf-N2f8T78

mgL4nID44pI

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Lex Fridman at Tesla Giga Texas grand opening

I'm here at the Gigafactory grand opening in Austin, Texas. One of the big surreal things is that before I ever met Elon Musk, before I ever did a podcast or did videos and stuff like that, I actually went out to the grand opening of the first Gigafactory out in Reno, Nevada to give a talk. And that was a surreal experience. First of all, to see American manufacturer at scale. And second, that also was a party. And it was like late into the night. And the thing I remember the most is that like 3 or 4 a.m. whenever the party was wrapping up, there were still people that work for Tesla. And there's just this passion in their eyes for what they're doing out there in the desert. It's like in the middle, it felt like in the middle of nowhere in Reno. And they, there was still this love for what they were doing. And that stayed with me because that's the best of humanity to be a part of something big like that. If you look at the scale of this thing, I mean, is there anything sexier than the factory that builds cars in America? So of course, like the idea itself, I think is beautiful. The idea of automation. When you build the prototype, that first prototype, where you get to capture the magic of the idea, that's beautiful. But the most beautiful thing to me is when you get to manufacture that idea at scale. And even at that time, to imagine that just a few years later, you would get hundreds of thousands of cars manufactured and delivered a year. I think it's closing out on a million Tesla vehicles. To me as an AI person, that's the talk actually that I gave was on semi-autonomous vehicles out in Reno. It's just amazing. It's amazing that there's been so many people that doubt it, and it's possible to build an American car company that does something what Autopilot is doing. It's just incredible. Of course, there's Waymo, what Cruise is doing is also incredible, but to actually put hundreds of thousands of vehicles that are doing what Autopilot is doing in the hands of real people, especially full self-driving FSD Beta, it's just incredible. All of it's surreal to me personally, just as one little ant on this planet. It's just inspiring that people can dream to do the impossible and make that impossible a reality. For that to be here in Austin, Texas, and for me to be here, it's surreal just to look back at that time in Reno, that I would get a chance to meet some of these amazing people and to get to witness some of these amazing things. It's a dream come true. All right, now let's go party.

https://youtu.be/mgL4nID44pI

FKCJWkPehdY

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Joe Rogan: Fear, Love, Chaos, and the Joe Rogan Experience | Lex Fridman Podcast #127

The following is a conversation with Joe Rogan that we recorded after my recent appearance on his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. Joe has been an inspiration to me and I thank to millions of people for just being somebody who puts love out there in the world and being genuinely curious about wild ideas from chimps and psychedelics to quantum mechanics and artificial intelligence. Like many of you, I've been a fan of his podcast for over a decade and now, somehow, miraculously, I'm humbled to be able to call him a friend. If you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube, review it with Five Stars on Apple Podcast, follow on Spotify, support on Patreon, or connect with me on Twitter, Alex Friedman. Today's sponsors are Neuro, Eight Sleep, Dollar Shave Club, and Olive Garden, home of the Unlimited Breadsticks and Brian Redband's favorite restaurant. Check out the first three of the sponsors in the description to get a discount and to support this podcast. I usually do full ad reads here and never ads in the middle, but this time, I'll just go straight to the conversation with a bit of guitar first. ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Do you ponder your mortality? Are you afraid of death? I do think about it sometimes. I mean, it does pop into my head sometimes, just the fact that, I mean, I'm 53, so if everything goes great, I have less than 50 years left. You know, if everything goes great, like no car accidents, no injuries. But it could happen today. This could be your last day. Could be. That's kind of a stoic thing, to meditate on death. There's a bunch of philosophers, Ernest Becker and Sheldon Solomon, they believe that death is at the core of everything. Wrote this book, Warm at the Core. So does that come into play in the way you see the world? I think having a sense of urgency is very beneficial, and understanding that your time is limited can aid you greatly. I think knowing that this is a temporary time, that we have finite life spans, I think there's great power in that, because it motivates you, it gets you going. I think being an immortal, living forever, would be one of the most depressing things, particularly if everybody else was dying around you. And I think one of the things that makes life so interesting and fascinating is that it doesn't last. You know, that you really get a brief amount of time here, and really by the time you're just starting to kind of figure yourself out, who you are, and how not to screw things up so bad, like, time's up. The ride's over. What about from your daughter's perspective? Do you think about the world we're in now, and what kind of world you're going to leave them? I do. Do you worry about it? I do. Yeah, I do. I do when I see these protests and riots and chaos and so much anger in the world today. And then particularly today, I think, because of the pandemic and the fact that so many folks are out of work, and through no fault of their own, and can't make ends meet, and these people feel so helpless and angry, it's a particularly divisive time. It's a particularly turmoil-filled time. And it just doesn't seem like the world of a year ago, even. It feels very chaotic and dangerous. And it's a small thing, like, in terms of the possibilities of things that could happen to the world, like a pandemic, like the one we've experienced, it really just doubles the amount of deaths on a bad flu year. Relatively speaking, it's a small thing in comparison to super volcano eruptions, asteroid impact, a real horrific pandemic, one that really wipes out millions and millions of people. It's stunning how fragile civility is. It's stunning how fragile our society really is, that something like this can come along, some unprecedented thing can come along, and all of a sudden, everybody's out of work for six months. And then everybody's at each other's throats. And then politically, everyone's at each other's throats. And then with the advent of social media and the images that you can see, you know, with the videos of police abuse, and just racial tensions are at an all-time high, to a point where, like, if you asked me just five or six years ago, like, have racial problems in this country largely been alleviated, I'd probably say, yeah, it's way better than it's ever been before. But now you could argue that it's not. Now you could argue, no, it's way worse in just a small amount of time. It's way worse than it's ever been during my lifetime, while I'm aware of it. You know, obviously when I was a young boy in the 60s, they were still going through the civil rights movement. But now it just seems very fever-pitched. And I think a lot of that is because of the pandemic, and is because of all the heightened just tension. What I liken it to is road rage. Because, you know, people have road rage, not just because they're in their car and no one can get to them, but also because you're at a heightened state, because you're driving fast. And you know you're driving fast. You know you have to make split-second movements. So anybody doing something, you're like, what the? People go crazy, because they're already at an eight, because they're in the car and they're moving very quickly. That's what it feels like today with the pandemic. It feels like everybody is already at an eight. So anything that comes along, it's like, light it all on fire. You know, burn it down. Like that's part of what I think is part of the reason for a lot of the looting and the riots and all the chaos. It's not just the people out of work, but it's also that everyone feels so tense already, and everyone feels so helpless. And it's like, you know, doing something like that makes people, it just, it gives people a whole new motivation for chaos, a whole new motivation for doing destructive things that I've never experienced in my life. On your better days, when you see a positive future, what do you think is the way out of this chaos of 2020? Like if you visualize it 2025, that's a better world than today. What does that, how do we get there and what does that look like? It's a good question. I can honestly say I don't know. And I wouldn't have said I don't know a year ago. A year ago, I would have said we're going to be okay. As much as people hate Trump, the economy is doing great. I think we're going to be fine. That's not how I feel today. Today, I don't think there's a clear solution politically, because I think if Trump wins, people are going to be furious. And I think if Biden wins, people are going to be furious. Particularly like if things get more woke. If people continue to enforce compliance and make people behave a certain way and act a certain way, which seems to be a part of what this whole woke thing is. The most disturbing for me is that I see what's going on. I see there's a lot of losers that have hopped on this and they shove it in people's faces and it doesn't have to make sense. There was a Black Lives Matter protest that stopped this woman at a restaurant. They were surrounding her outside a restaurant and they were forcing her to raise her fist in compliance. This is a woman who's marched for Black Lives Matter multiple times, and the people around her doing this were all white. It's all weird. My friend Coach T, he's a wrestling coach, is also on a podcast, my friend Brian Moses. His take on it is that Black – and he's a black guy – he says Black Lives Matter is a white cult. I'm like, when you see that picture, it's hard to argue that he's got a point. It's clearly not all about that, but there's a lot of people that have jumped on board that are very much like cult members. Because the thing about Black Lives Matter or any movement is you can't control who joins. There's no entrance examination. So you don't go, okay, how do you feel about this? What's your perceptions on that? The man who shot the Trump supporter in Portland, that guy who murdered the Trump supporter and the cop shot him, that guy was walking around with his hand on his gun looking for Trump supporters. He's a known violent guy who was walking around looking for Trump supporters, found one, and shot one. That has nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. He's a white guy, he shot another white guy. It's just madness. That kind of madness is disturbing to see it ramp up so quickly. There's been riots in Portland every night – oh, excuse me, demonstrations – for 101 days now. 101 days in a row of them lighting things on fire, breaking into federal buildings. It's like, whoever saw that coming? Nobody saw that coming. So I don't know what the solution is, and I don't know what it looks like in five years. So 2025, to answer your question, it could be anything. We could be looking at Mad Max. We could be looking at the apocalypse. We could also be looking at an invasion from another country. We could be looking at a war, like a real hot war. To put a little bit of responsibility on you, for me, I've listened to you since the Red Band, Isle of Garden days, the very beginning. And there was something in the way you communicated about the world – maybe there was others, but you were the one I was aware of – is your open-minded and loving towards the world, especially as the podcast developed. You just demonstrated and lived this kind of kindness, or maybe even lack of jealousy, in your own little profession of comedy. It was clear that you didn't succumb to the weaker aspects of human nature, and thereby inspire people like me. I was naturally, probably especially in the early 20s, kind of jealous of the success of others. And you're really the primary person that taught me to truly celebrate the success of others. And so, by way of question, you kind of have a role in this, of making a better 2025. You have such a big megaphone. Is there something you think you could do on this podcast with the words, the way you talk, the things you discuss that could create a better 2025? I think if anything, I could help in leading by example, but that's only going to help the people that are listening. I don't know what else I can do in terms of make the world a better place, other than express my hopes and wishes for that, and just try to be as nice as I can to people as often as I can. But I also think that I've fallen into this weird category, particularly with the Spotify deal, where I'm one of them now. I'm not a regular person anymore. Now I'm like some famous rich guy. So you go from being a regular person to a famous rich guy that's out of touch. And that's a real issue whenever you're talking about the economy, about just real life problems. It's interesting. It kind of hurts my heart to hear people say about Elon Musk, he's just a billionaire. Yeah. It's an interesting statement. But I think if you just continue being you and he continue being him, people are just voicing their worry that you become some rich guy. I don't even know if they're doing that. I think they're just finding, the way he describes it, an attack vector. Right. Yeah, and I think he's right. I think they can dismiss you by just saying, oh, you're just a that. You're easily definable. Right. But there's truth to that. If you're not careful, you can become out of touch. But that's an interesting thing. Why haven't you become out of touch? As a human off the podcast, you don't act like a, you talk to somebody like me. You don't talk like a famous person or you don't act rich. You're better than others. There's a certain, listen, I've talked to quite a few, you have too, but I've talked to a special kind of group of people that are like Nobel Prize winners, let's say. They sometimes have an air to them that's of arrogance. And you don't. What's that about? Well, you gotta know what that is, right? That air of arrogance comes from drinking your own Kool-Aid. You start believing that somehow or another, just because you're getting praise from all these people, that you really are something different. Usually it exemplifies, there's something there where there's a lack of struggle. And I think struggle is probably one of the most important balancing tools that a person can have. And for me, I struggle mentally and I struggle physically. I struggle mentally in that, like we were talking about on the podcast we did previously, you and I on my podcast, that I'm not a fan of my work. I'm not a fan of what I do. I'm my harshest critic. So, anytime anybody says something bad about me, I'm like, listen, I said way worse about myself. I don't like anything I do. I'm ruthlessly introspective. And I will continue to be that way. Because that's the only way you can be good as a comedian. There's no other way. You can't just think you're awesome and just go out there. You have to be like picking apart everything you do. But there's a balance to that too, because you have to have enough confidence to go out there and perform. You can't think, oh my God, I suck. I know what I'm doing, but I know what I'm doing because I put in all that work. And one of the reasons why I put in all that work is I don't like the end result most of the time. So, I need to work at it all the time. And then there's physical struggle, which I think balances everything out. Without physical struggle, I always make the analogy that the body is in a lot of ways like a battery, where if you have extra charge, it's like it leaks out of the top and it becomes unmanageable and messy. And that's how my psyche is. If I have too much energy, if I'm not exerting myself in a violent way, like an explosive way, like wearing myself out, I just don't like the way the world is. I don't like the way I interface with the world. I'm too tense. I'm too quick to be upset about things. But when I work out hard and I put in a brutal training session, everything's fine. Well, the first time I talked to you, Jerry, you were doing Sober October. And there's something in your eyes, like I think you've talked about that you exercise the demons out, essentially. You exercise to get whatever the parts of you that you don't like out. There's a darkness in you there. The competitiveness and the focus of that person. That was a scary time in a lot of ways, that Sober October thing. My friends, we were all talking shit, right? Because we're competing against each other in these fitness challenges and you had one point, like you got a certain amount of points for each minute that you went at 80% of your max heart rate. And one day I got 1100 points. So I did seven hours on an elliptical machine watching the bathhouse scene from John Wick where he murders all those people in the bathhouse. I watched it probably 50 times in a row. I went crazy. I went crazy. But I went crazy in a weird way where it brought me back to my fighting days. It was like that person came out again. I didn't even know he was in there. It's like an assassin, like a killer. I felt like a different person. Is it echoes of what Mike Tyson talked about, essentially? Maybe, but no orgasm notions. All the crazy shit that he was saying. Is there a violent person in there? Oh yeah. There's a lot of violence in me, for sure. I don't know if it's genetic or learned. It's because during my formative years from the time I was 15 until I was 22, all I did was fight. That was all I did. All I did was train and compete. That's all I did. That was my whole life. Is it connected to your mom and dad broke up early on? Is it connected to the dad at all? I'm sure it's connected to him also because he was violent and it made me feel very scared to be around him. But I also think it's connected in who he was as a human is transferred into my DNA. I think there's a certain amount of – I mean, to be prejudiced against myself, I look like a violent person. If I didn't know me, even the way I'm built, not even just the working out part, just the size of my hands. There's the width of my shoulders. There's most likely a lot of violence in my history, in my past, in my ancestry. I think we minimize that with people. So much of your behavior – like when I see my daughter, I have one daughter that's obsessive in terms of like she wants to get really good at things. And she'll practice things all day long. And it's 100% my personality. She's me in female form. But without the anger as much and without the fear. She has a loving household and everything like that. But she has this intense obsession with doing things and doing things really well and getting better. What's the point we have to tell her stop? Stop doing hand springs in the house. Stop, stop. Come on, just sit down, have dinner. Like one more, one more. Like she's just like – she's psycho. And I think there's a lot of behavior and personality and a lot of these things are passed down through genetics. We don't really know, right? We don't know how much of who you are genetically is learned behavior, you know, nature or nurture. We don't know if it's learned behavior or whether or not it's something that's intrinsically a part of you because of who your parents were. I think there's certainly some genetic violence in me. And then you channeled it. So you figured out it's basically your life is a productive exploration of how to channel that. Yes. How to figure out how to get that monkey to sit down and calm down. There's another person in there. There's a calm, rational, kind, friendly person who just wants to laugh and have fun. And then there's that dude who comes out when I did Sober October. That guy's scary. I don't like that guy. That guy just wants to get up in the morning and go. You know, it's like – I mean, when I was competing, it was necessary. But it makes me remember. I didn't really remember what I used to be like until that. It's like when I'm working out seven hours a day and just so obsessed. And all I was thinking about was winning. That's all I was thinking about. Like if they were working out five hours a day, I wanted them to know that I was going to work out an extra three hours. And I was going to get up early and I was going to text them all. Hey, pussies, I'm up already. Take pictures, send selfies. I was like, you're going to die. I kept telling them, you're all going to die. Try to keep up with me. You're going to die. You weren't fully joking. No, I wasn't joking at all. That's what was fucked up about it. That's the scary thing when I interacted with Goggins. And what I saw in you during that time is like, this guy – this is why I've been avoiding David Goggins recently. Because he wants to meet. He wants to talk on this podcast. But he also wants to run an ultramarathon with me. And I felt like this is a person, if I spend any time in this realm, if I spend any time with the Joe Rogan of that Sober October, I might have to die to get out. There's this kind of – Yeah, there's a competitive aspect that's super unhealthy. I mean, you saw the video that we watched earlier today of Goggins draining his knee. That would stop me from running ever again. Because I would think in my head, okay, I'm going to ruin my cartilage. I'm going to need a knee replacement. I would start thinking – I would go down that line. But he is perpetually in this push it mindset. What he calls the dog in him. That dog is in him all day long and he feeds that dog. And that's who he is. That's one of the reasons why he's so inspirational. And he's fuel for millions and millions of people. I mean, he really is. He motivates people in a way that is so powerful. But it can be very destructive. I just – I know now, especially after the Sober October thing, that that thing's still in me. I didn't know. So I really haven't done anything physically competitive. Except one time I was supposed to fight Wesley Snipes. He came out then too. That came out too. That got creepy too. But luckily that never happened. But that was many months of training. Training twice a day, every day. Kickboxing in the morning, Jiu-Jitsu at night. I was just going and going and going and going. And I was just thinking. Just all day long. But it fucks with all the other aspects of your life. It fucks with your friendships. It fucks with my comedy. It fucks with everything. Because that mindset is not a mindset of an artist. It's a mindset of a conqueror. A conqueror. A destroyer. That's why it's so interesting to see Mike Tyson make the switch. It's clear that whatever that is, however that fight goes, there's a switch. He stepped into a different dimension. Roy Jones Jr. is coming on my podcast soon. And Roy's going to be on before the fight. I'm so curious to see how it goes down, but genuinely concerned. Because Mike Tyson is a heavyweight. And Roy Jones at his best was 168 pounds. And I don't know if Roy has that room in his house, mental house of where Mike Tyson goes. I don't know. I don't know if he has that room. Mike doesn't have a room. He's got an empire in there. With tigers. He opens up the door. There's a whole empire in his head. And he's in that firmly. When he got out of the weed and started training again, you could see it in him. And by the way, physically, in person, he looks spectacular. He looks like a fucking Adonis. He looks ready to go. It's crazy. I watch videos of him. Have you ever considered competing in Jiu Jitsu? No, for that very reason. I don't want to get obsessed. That's my number one concern. I had to quit video games. When we were playing video games at the studio, I had to quit. Because I was playing five hours a day, out of nowhere. All of a sudden I was playing five hours a day. I was coming home late for dinner. I was ending podcasts early and jumping on the video games and playing. I get obsessed with things. And I have to recognize what that is. And these competitive things, especially really exciting competitive things like video games. They're very dangerous for me. The ultimate competitive video game is Jiu Jitsu. And if I was young, I most certainly would have done it. If I didn't have a very clear career path, it was something that I enjoyed. My concern would be that I would become a professional Jiu Jitsu fighter when I was young. And then I would not have the energy to do stand-up and do all the other things that I wound up doing as a career. When I was 21, I quit my job teaching. I was teaching at Boston University. I was teaching Taekwondo there. And I knew... And I also had my own school in Revere. I knew I couldn't do it right and also be doing stand-up comedy. I knew I couldn't do both of those things. There was no way. You have to be cognizant of that obsessive force within you to make sure... Yes. I'd have to know how to manage my mental illness. That's a very particular mental illness. And I think that mental illness... Again, my formative years from 15 until I was 21-ish, 22, those years were spent constantly obsessed with martial arts. That was my whole day. I mean, I trained almost every day. The only time I would not train is if I was either injured or if I was exhausted, if I needed a day off. But I was obsessed. And so that part of my personality that I haven't nurtured is always going to be there under the surface. And when it gets reignited by something, it's very weird. It's a weird feeling. And it can get reignited with a video game. It can get reignited with anything. That obsessive... Whatever it is, that competitive demon. Yeah. The way you talk about guitar, I know you would fall in love with playing guitar. But I think you're very wise to not touch that thing. That's why I want golf. I have friends who want to golf. I'm like, mm-mm. I ain't fucking with that thing. So a lot of people ask me, what's Joe Rogan's jiu-jitsu game like? Assuming that I somehow spend hours rolling with you before and after we interact. I mean, what's a good... You should at some point show a technique or something. That would be fun. Sure. I mean, I've got... What's your game like? His techniques are fun. Oh, I saw you doing a, I think, head and arm something online. Yeah, I did. I fucked my neck up doing head and arm chokes. I did them so much that I... Because you use your neck so much with head and arm chokes, I developed a real kink in my neck. And it turned out I had a bulging disc. Wow. And, you know... So you do it on that, just one side? Well, it was... No, I could do it on the left side. But I definitely am better on the right side. The right side was my best side. So if you were to compete, let's say, like, what's your A game? Where would you go from standing up? How would you go to submission? Would you pull guard? Would you take down? How would you pass guard? I don't have good takedowns. I was not a good wrestler. So I would most likely either pull guard or I would pull half guard. Do you have a good guard? Yes. Are you comfortable being on your butt and your back? Yes. I'm very flexible. So I have a good... My rubber guard is pretty good. You've got a rubber guard. I have good arm bars and good triangles off my back. But I also have a very good half guard. But my top game is my best. I have a very strong top game. Do you have a half guard? Do you have a preference of, like, what kind of guard and how to pass that guard? And, like, yeah, like, is there a specific game plan? Like, do you... Double underhooks from half guard is the game plan for me. If I can get double underhooks from half guard, I could sweep a lot of people. Underhooks of what? Sorry, the arms or the legs? So half guard, lock down, right? Half guard, go into lock down, double underhooks. Got it. Clinch to the body. Suck the body in tight. Just pressure? Yeah, massive pressure. And then inch my way into a position. We call it a dog fight. And inch my way into a position where I could get the person on their back. Yeah, that's what... Because you did show me... I still disagree with you about the tie thing. The tie thing? That you can choke somebody with a tie. Oh, tie as well. So wrong. So wrong. Well, it's not wrong with you. With you, it's wrong. No, I think there's a system. I have this thing with Don and her. We're going to figure it out. You have a little Velcro in the back. See, you're just not the king. You're cheating. You're not... Yeah, exactly. That's cheating. Yeah, you did... I did feel when you showed me... I think you showed me the rubber guard, because it's still a guard. That's a little bit foreign to me. I just felt that you can immediately feel, not with the rubber guard, but the way you move your body is... You're like a Shanji type of guy who knows how to control another human being. So some people are a little bit more, I would say, agile and technical, playful and kind of... Loose. Loose. They work on transition, transition, transition. You're a control guy. You know how to control position and advance position. Don and her is the same way. He's all about control. My game is smush. That's my game. Smush you. Grab a hold of you. Once I have you, why would I let you go? My thought is like, why would I let you go? I just want to incrementally move to a better position until I can strangle you. But I'm much more into strangling people than anything else. Yeah, which is a great MMA approach for jiu-jitsu. Well, too many people don't tap when you get their arms. And I'm not opposed to arm bars. I love arm bars. But everybody goes to sleep. And quit from pressure, too. I mean, quit mentally. There's nothing like that. I can't breathe. If you've got a guy who's a really good top game guy, and he mounts you. And I'm a big fan of mounting with my legs crossed, like a guard, like a top guard. And so I can squeeze with both legs, smush. And I'm just looking for people to make mistakes and slowly, incrementally bettering my position until I can get something locked up. I love jiu-jitsu, though, man. I just wish it didn't injure you. Jiu-jitsu is like, if your joints were more durable, if they could figure out a way to make joints more durable. God, I could do jiu-jitsu forever. It's so much fun. Actually, I talked to this roboticist, Russ Tedrick. He's one of the world-class people that builds humanoid robots. He was interested in Boston Dynamics. He's one of the key people in that kind of robotics. So I asked him the stupidest question of how far are we from having a robot be a UFC champion? And yeah, it's actually a really, really tough problem. It's the same thing that makes somebody like Daniel Comey on the wrestling side special, because you have to understand the movement of the human body in ways that's so difficult to teach. It's so subtle. The timing, the pressure points, the leverage, all those kinds of things, that's just for the clinch situation. And then the movement for the striking is very difficult. As long as you're not allowed as a robot to use your natural abilities of having a lot more power. Right, a lot more power and more durable. The human body, especially meniscus, like you see the heel hook game, everybody's involved in leg locks and heel hooks. All those guys wind up with torched knees. Everyone's got torched knees. Everyone's knees are torn apart. And you don't grow new meniscus. It's like one of those joints where, man, when it goes, those guys are 28 years old, blown out knees. Let me ask the ridiculous question. We're talking about cops, but what do you think is the best martial arts for self-defense? For sure, jiu-jitsu. Wrestling? I think grappling, I should say. Judo as well, especially in a cold climate. If you get someone who's got a heavy winter jacket on, my God, judo is an incredible martial art. Plus concrete. That's the worst place to be. With a heavy winter jacket, with a judo specialist, and you're standing up with them, oh, my God. But I think grappling, because in most self-defense situations, it usually winds up with grappling. You're definitely better off, though, knowing some striking, because there's nothing more terrifying than when you go to take someone down. They actually have takedown skills, but they can fight. And so they have takedown defense, and they know how to fight, and then you don't know how to stand up. The worst thing in the world is seeing someone reaching, who doesn't know how to do striking, and someone cracks you. What about all that Krav Maga talk, which is like the whole line of argument that says that jiu-jitsu and wrestling and all of these sports, they fundamentally take you away from the nature of violence. So they're just teaching you how to play versus the reality of violence that is involved in a self-defense situation that is a totally different set of skills would be needed. In general, the people that say that jiu-jitsu or other martial arts, it's more of a sport, and they don't really understand violence. In general, the people that say that suck. Yeah. Anybody who thinks, like, someone's like, you know, hey man, I'll just bite you. I'm like, are you going to bite me? Okay. Do you think I'm going to bite you too? What do you think of that? What if I punch you in your fucking face? Do you think you're still going to bite me when you can't even see? When you barely even know you're alive, and I choke you unconscious? If someone's really good at jiu-jitsu, good luck stabbing them with your keys. You know, you don't have a chance. You don't have a chance. If someone's much better than you, and they trip you and get you on your back, and then they fucking elbow you in your face and get a head and arm choke on you, all that Krav Maga shit's out the window, son. You're way better off learning what works on trained killers. Like, this whole idea that you're going to poke someone in the eye, and then you're going to kick them in the nuts. You're going through these drills that, yeah, it's good to know what to do if you run into someone who doesn't know how to fight. It's way better to know what to do to someone who knows how to fight. That's the best thing. Learn how to fight against people who know how to fight. Like, all that practice self-defense, and they're going to come at you with a knife, you're going to grab the wrist and do that. Like, it's good to know self-defense. But it's much more important to understand martial arts comprehensively. When you understand martial arts comprehensively, like, there's no Krav Maga guys, but it would be shocking if a Krav Maga guy was a Krav Maga guy. And a mixed martial arts guy had a fight, and the mixed martial arts guy was a trained killer all around, didn't fuck that guy up. That's what I would expect would happen. I would not think that some guy who has a little bit of this and a little bit of that and prepares for the streets is going to be able to handle a person who trains with killers on a day-to-day basis. Who rolls with jiu-jitsu black belts. Who trains with Muay Thai champions. Like, the best martial arts are the martial arts that work on martial artists. Not the martial arts that work on untrained people. What about, we're in Texas now, what about guns? Well, that's the best martial art. No, but would you, like, in this crazy time, should people carry guns? It's not a bad idea to have a gun. Because if you need a gun, you have a gun. And if you don't need a gun, if you're a person with self-control, you're not going to use it. You're not going to just randomly use it, but you have something to protect you. This is the whole idea of the Second Amendment. The whole idea of the Second Amendment gets distorted by mass shootings or by terrible people who murder people and do terrible things. But all those things are real, but they don't take away from the fundamental efficacy of having a firearm and defending your family or defending your life. And there are real, live situations where people have had firearms and it's protected them or their loved ones or they've stopped shooters. There's many of these stories, but people don't like those stories because then it tends to lead to this gun culture argument, this pro-gun culture argument that people find very uncomfortable. Human beings are messy. And we're messy in so many different ways, right? We're messy emotionally, we're messy physically, but we're also messy in what's good or bad. We want things to be binary. We want things to be right or wrong, one or zero. And they're not. But there is crime in the world. There is violence in the world. And you're better off knowing how to fight and you're better off knowing how to defend yourself and you're better off having a gun. I generally think that guns, I do like the idea that guns, Second Amendment helps protect the First Amendment. There's a kind of sense that puts me at ease knowing that so many people in this country have guns. That, I mean, Alex Jones, I just listened to one episode of Info Wars for the first time. Boy, he reminds me like when I drank some tequila, I felt like I'm going to some dark places today. That's how I feel like listening to him. But he talks about like that, he worries about martial law. So basically government overreach by which happened throughout history. Like there's something to worry about there. But it puts me at ease knowing that so much of the population has guns that people, government would think twice before instituting martial law in cities. But I actually was asking almost like on the individual level, I maybe shouldn't say this, but I don't yet own a gun. And I felt that if I carry a gun, statistically, just for me as a human, knowing my psychology, I feel like I'm more likely to die. Like, I feel like I would put myself in situations that I shouldn't. Like the way I will see the world will change. Because my natural feeling is like when somebody, when I was in Philly, and I knew late at night, in West Philly, when some guy looks at you, you can immediately calculate that this is a dangerous human being. It starts with a monkey look at first, like, I'm a bigger monkey than you. And that's where I found like, for example, I'll do the beta thing of just looking down and turning away and just getting out of trouble like very politely. And basically that kind of approach, because if you have, in terms of getting out of serious violent situations, like serious, something where you could die, versus if I had a gun, I feel like I would want to be, that would be that cowboy monkey thing where I would want to put myself in situations where I'm a little bit of a savior, even of myself. And almost create danger, which can no longer, like the escalation of which I can no longer control. Well, you're talking about taking a gun somewhere versus having a gun in your home. Yes, yes, I mean carry on me. That's a different situation and much harder to get a warrant for, or a license for that. You know, concealed carry licenses, especially in Massachusetts, they don't come easy. Yeah, that's a whole other thing. You're saying gun in the home. Yeah, gun in the home. Having a gun, knowing how to use a gun. I know how to use a gun, I've trained many hours learning how to shoot a gun at tactical places. There's a bunch of videos of me doing it on Instagram. I practice, and I think it's good to understand how to be accurate. So I've been a fan of your podcast for a long time. You don't often talk about it, because you're always kind of looking forward, but if you look at the old studio that you just left, is there some epic memories that stand out to you that, like, you almost look back, I can't believe this happened? Oh yeah, almost too many of them to count. Is there something that pops into mind now? All of them, Elon Musk blowing that flamethrower in the middle of the hallway, I've got a video of that. Have you seen the video of it? Yeah, yeah, I think you posted it on Instagram. I think I did too. Yeah, he's a madman. Having Bernie Sanders in there, you know, just all the fun fight companions we did, and all the crazy podcasts with Joey Diaz and Duncan Trussell, and there were so many, there were so many moments, you know. Podcasts, this is a weird art form, and it almost seems like, it sounds silly, but it almost seems like something that chose me rather than I chose it. I think of that all the time in some strange way. It's like I'm showing up as like an antenna, and I just plug in and twist on, and then I take in the thing and I put it together, and I'm like a passenger of this weird ride. Yeah, you've talked about this before. I really like this idea that human beings are just carriers of these ideas. Ideas are the ones who are breeding. So in a sense, the idea found you as a useful brain to use to spread itself through the podcasting medium. Yeah. I mean, he's over the top offensive, just that's who he is to the core. Is there some sense where you wondered like whether it's right to have the Spotify episode number one with Duncan Trussell for five hours? No. I wanted to do it that way. That's why we wore NASA suits and we got high as fuck. It's like that's the whole idea behind it. I mean, can you introspect that a little bit? Like, what is that? Because that's rare. It's such a rare thing to do because you're not supposed to talk to Duncan Trussell with a huge platform that you have five hours. Why not? Because Donald Trump apparently watches your podcast. So just the idea that there's these, I mean, that's what I think about these CEOs write to me that they listen to the podcast that I do. And I have somebody like a David Fravor, and I was nervous about it. I was nervous to have a conversation. For me, David Fravor is a Duncan Trussell, which is like... Just because of his experiences with UFOs. Yeah. Even just the way he sees the world because he is open. I don't know if he's always like this, but he opened himself to the possibility of unconventional ideas. Most people in the scientific community kind of say, well, I don't really want to believe anything that doesn't have a lot of hard evidence. Right. So that was to me like a step. And as the thing somehow becomes more popular, there becomes this fear of like, well, should I talk to this person or not? And I mean, you're an inspiration in saying like, do whatever the hell you want. You have to. First of all, I have what you call fuck you money. And if you have fuck you money, you don't say fuck you. What's the point of having the fuck you money? You're wasting it. Like you're wasting the position. Like someone said to me, like, why do you like sports cars so much? Like how many cars do you have? A bunch of cars. Because if I was a kid and I said, hey, if I was that crazy, rich, famous guy, like, I don't want to have a bunch of cool fucking cars. Like, so I would do that. Like, because not everybody gets to do that. Like, if you're the person that gets to do that, you're kind of supposed to do it. Like, that's if you want to, if that really does speak to you. And, you know, I've talked to you about this before, muscle cars, specifically ones from the 1960s and the early 70s. They speak to me in some weird way, man. I could just stare at them. Like I have a 65 Corvette. I walk around it sometimes at night when no one's around. I just stare at it. What's your favorite muscle car? Like what's your most badass late 60s, the perfect car? Probably that car. Probably that 65 Corvette. Yeah. I walk around it when no one's around. I think I'm drawing the 69 Corvette. Is there a particular year that just... 65 is generation two. 69 is generation three. 69 is like the, it's even more curvy. They're both awesome, just awesome in different ways. But I just love muscle cars for whatever reason. But the point is, like, I like what I like. And if I can do what I want to do, I should do what I want to do. And it's not hurting anybody. And the thing is, like, I would do the Duncan podcast if no one was listening, right? If we were just starting to do a podcast together and no one cared and it got like 2000 views, which we did for years. For a long time, yeah. I would do it with Duncan and we would get high and we'd talk crazy shit about aliens and spaceships and maybe, dude, maybe ideas are living life forms and they're inside your head and that's how things get made. Man. Yeah, man. It just kind of morphed me and him together in that because the life form idea, life form idea is mine that I've really, I really think about a lot. I think about on a technical side, by the way. When I heard you say that, because I've been thinking, I was like, whoa, that's interesting. They might be alive because they, I don't know what the fuck they are, but when someone has an idea for, you know, whatever, an invention, a toaster, and then they think about this, all it needs is like these heating elements and a spring and then it pops when it's done so you have a timer. And then they build this thing. Now all of a sudden it's alive. It's like you manifested it in a physical form. Toaster is not the best example, but a car, an airplane, you're thinking about a thing, like an idea comes into your head and you can say, oh, well, it's just creativity. It's a part of being a person. It's how we invented tools and how, you know, we became better hunters. All those things are true. I'm not saying that there's some magic to what I'm saying, but there's also a possibility that we're simplifying something by saying that it's just creativity, that it's just a natural human inclination to invent things. But why is it possible that ideas like creativity, like we are the only animal other than there's a few species that create things like bees make beehives and, but it's very, they're very uniform. You know, some animals use tools, you know, like, you know, chimps will use like sticks to get termites and things like that. But there's something about what we do that's, it makes you wonder, because we look at the, just look at this room that we're in, look at all these electronics, look at all this crazy shit that human beings have invented and then built upon others' inventions and improved and innovated. These all came out of ideas, like the idea, it germinates in someone's head, it bounces around, they write it down, they share it with others, the other people who have similar ideas or ideas that are complementary, they work together and they change the world. And the new thing in that is the idea is not the people. It's like, we think we found the ideas, but it's more like the ideas found us. Find you, yeah. They're literally in the air. They come to you. I always felt like that with bits. Like when I come up with a bit, that's why I'm always telling people at the Steven Pressfield book, The War of Art, because he talks about respecting the muse and the idea that your ideas come when you sit down and you do the work. Or you sit down like a professional and you talk to the muse, like, come tell me what to do. Like if the muse was a real thing, as if a muse was like some mystical creature that comes and delivers you ideas. Even if that's not real, that's how it works. It does work like that. If you do treat it like it's a muse and you treat it with the respect and you treat it like a professional, the ideas do come to you. I never thought about what he's doing is just sitting there waiting for the idea that's trying to breed to find him. That's a trippy thing. If you show up and put in the time and focus your energy on that, the ideas, they will arrive. They will arrive. And that's the same with writing comedy. Like this has been many, many times where I'll come home from the comedy store and I just sit down and I start writing and I just, I got nothing. There's nothing there. I'm just writing. It's all bullshit. Nothing's good. It's just like, hmm. And then all of a sudden, bam. There's the idea. And then all of a sudden I can't stop. And then, you know, a couple hours later and I'm like, whoa. And then the next night I'm on stage and I'm like, how about that? Boom! And he gets this big laugh. I'm like, holy shit. And I know that came out of the discipline to sit down and call the muse. I mean, the cool thing is the ideas have found you to like, oh, I'm going to use this dude. Like he seems to have a podcast that's popular. I'm going to breed inside his brain and spread it to others. Or an inventor, you know, I'm going to use this guy who's like desperately seeking some sort of a product to bring to market. Some guy who wants to invent things, is thinking about inventing things all the time. Like these ideas, they weasel their way into your head. And it seems to me also that the frequency that your mind operates under has to be correct. Because one of the things about creativity seems to be if you think about yourself a lot, if you're really into yourself or your image or you're selfish, those ideas are not, they don't find you. Yeah, it's funny. It stifles the creative. It stifles the opportunity that the idea has for defining. Which is one of the reasons why joke thieves, people that steal jokes are terrible writers. There's never like really good writers who are also joke thieves. It's just joke thieves. And then, you know, when they have to write on their own, if they get exposed, they become terrible comedians. They're a shadow of what they were when they were stealing other people's ideas. Because the thing that would make you steal a person's idea is that ego part. The wanting to claim it for yourself, the wanting to be the man or the woman, you know, I'm going to be the person who gets out there and says it and everybody's going to love me for it. You can't think like that and be creative. It requires a humility and it requires a detachment from self in order to create. When I'm writing, I'm blank. I'm just staring. The part of my mind that's active is not like me. It's like this weird core function part where I'm not aware of my personality. I'm not aware of anything. I'm just trying to put it together in a way that I know works. Just being there, being present. I'm a big believer of just sitting there, even staring at a blank page, putting in the time. Yeah, and sometimes it's not that way. Sometimes it's an inspiration. Sometimes I'll be sitting there at dinner and I'll be like, I got an idea. And my wife's really cool about that. I'm like, I have an idea, and I have to just run out of the room real quick and I write it down on my phone and then I can come back. Because those are like little gifts that you get sometimes from the universe out of nowhere. And some people rely only on those gifts. And I've talked to comics about it. They're like, oh, I come up with my best ideas when I don't write. And I'm like, no, I do too. I come up with great ideas when I don't write, but I also write. You can do both of those things. They're not mutually exclusive. You mentioned fuck you money. I feel like I have fuck you money now. A year ago I was at zero. I have fuck you money now because probably my standard is I don't need much in this world. But because also, probably because of you, but it's 300 to 400,000 people listen to every episode I do. That's a lot. And that is weird. That's a successful television show on cable. Yeah, it's crazy. It's all you! Yeah, it's hilarious. That's amazing! But at this point, that also resulted in F you money in a sense that I don't need anything else in this world. But so, by way of asking, I've looked up, you've inspired me for a long time. Do you have advice? You've done this on the podcast side of life. Do you have advice for somebody like, for me and somebody like me going on this journey? Eric Weinstein is going on this journey. Is there advice, both small and big, that you have for somebody like me? The advice is to keep doing what feels right to you and do what you're doing. Obviously, it's resonating with people if you're getting that big of an audience. And I've listened to your podcast. You're very good at it. So, just keep doing it the way you're doing it. Don't let anybody else get involved. What about, you've connected, I think you met Jamie at the Comedy Store. I met him at the Ice House. At the Ice House? Well, I think I met him at the Comedy Store, but then we talked at the Ice House. I mean, what... You'd have to ask him. Yeah, did you think deeply about, because like, you know, you basically have nobody on your team. And so, it almost feels like a marriage. Were you selective about like, somebody to bring into your little circle? Well, Jamie's exceptional. He is. He's a special. I mean, he might have grown, I don't remember how he was in the early days, maybe you could say, but he's grown into a special. He's definitely better at it, but right away, he's exceptional. He's got very little ego. Yes. He's not a guy who needs a lot of attention. He's not a guy who overestimates anything, like in terms of negative or positive, like his interpretation of whether it's good things that happen to the show or bad things that happen to the show, he just takes it all flat. He's chill. He's just cool as fuck. And he's so smart. And he's so good as an audio engineer and as a podcast producer. He's the best. But he's basically one of the only people on this whole team. So, how do you find, I mean, when you let people in? I mean, I'm sure other people want to get involved. Like, why don't you have a co-host? You basically kind of... Well, here's the problem with a co-host. Like when you and I are talking, when we're talking, I'm tuned in to you. And I'm waiting to hear what you're saying, and I'm listening and I'm interpreting it. And then I'm calculating whether or not I have anything to say, whether to let you keep talking, whether I maybe have a question that lets you expand further, or whether I have a disagreement or like there's a dance that's going on. Now, when there's another person there chiming in too, it fucks the dance up. It's like dancing, like if you're doing a dance with someone, you know, like if you're slow dancing with someone, and then a third person's there stepping on everybody's feet. It's gonna be weird. Sometimes it's fun. Sometimes having a third person is fun. Comedy podcast, sometimes it's fun. Debate kind of structure. Debate structures. But even then it gets difficult because people talk over each other. And also, I find that without headphones, it's way easier to talk over each other. You make mistakes. Yeah. You don't hear it the same way. When you have headphones, I hear what you hear. It's all one sound. And the audience hears exactly, or rather, I hear exactly what the audience hears. Whether it's over here, my voice is louder than yours because you're over there. And if I don't have headphones on, it's not all together. On that point, one of the interesting things about your show is you don't, almost never have done, and you generally don't do remote, sorry, not remote calls, but you don't go to another person's location. We've only done a few, a small handful. And just like, well, Sapolsky, he should do this. But I actually, we went back and forth on email. I told him he needs to get his ass back in the studio. He's working on a book. I was a fan of his a long time ago because I became obsessed with toxoplasmosis. And I reached out to him a long time ago before he was willing to do it. But then I caught him in downtown LA. He was there for something else. And I just greedily snatched up an hour of his time. Well, he doesn't get, I think, some of those folks don't get how much magic can happen in this podcast studio, like bigger than anything they've ever done in terms of their work. I'm not talking about reach, but in terms of the discovery of new ideas. There's something magical about conversation. That somebody as brilliant as him, if he gives himself over to the conversation for multiple hours at a time, that's another place where you've been an inspiration. Where I'm getting more and more confidence of telling people, like Elon Musk, that a lot of CEOs are like, well, he has 30 minutes on his schedule. I'm like, no, three hours. And then they're like, so some say no. And then they come back. There's people that started coming back to like, okay, we're starting to get it. They start to get it. And you're a rare beacon of hope in that sense, that there's some value in long form. They think that nobody wants to listen for more than 30 minutes. They think like, I have nothing to say. But the reality is, if you just give yourself over to like the three hours, just let it go. Three hours, four hours, whatever it is. There's so much to discover about what you didn't even know you think. Yeah, you have to be confident that you could do it. And in the beginning, I just did it because that's what I wanted to do. And no one was listening. So I've always been a curious person. So I've always been interested in listening to how people think about things and talking to people about their mindset and just expanding on my own ideas, just talking shit. And so we would have these podcasts and they would go on forever. And my friend Ari, I never let this die down. Never let him forget this. He was always like, you have to edit your podcast. I'm telling you right now, you're fucking up. I go, why? He's like, because people are not going to listen to it. I go, they don't have to. Yeah. I'm like, why don't you listen to part of it? He goes, just do it. I'm telling you, trust me, cut it down to like 45 minutes. It's all you need. And I'm like, no, no, I don't think you're right. I like listening to long form things. No one has that kind of time. I go, okay, I'm just going to keep doing it this way. And it sticks your gut. No, he doesn't. His are like two and a half hours long now. You won. But you wouldn't like say, I mentioned to you this before, and this is going to happen. It's actually made a lot of progress towards it. I'm going to talk to Putin, but you wouldn't travel to Putin if you want to talk to you? Putin is a dangerous character. He's not. He's not. Have you ever seen the thing with Jerry Craft where they stole his Super Bowl ring? Yeah. Yeah. I think that was a little bit of a misunderstanding. Oh, really? I think it's a little bit. He just decided he's going to steal that Super Bowl ring. Kind of. I think it was a... Kind of. Can I see your ring? He shows him his ring and then he puts it on and says, I can murder somebody with this ring. And then he walks off with it. It's possible he did it. He's a big believer in displays of power. Yeah. So it's possible he did that, but I think he sees himself as a tool with which to demonstrate that Russia still belongs on the stage of the big players. And so a lot of actions are selected through that lens. But in terms of a human being, outside of any of the evils that he may or may not have done, he is a really thoughtful, intelligent, fun human being. Like the wit and the depth from the JRE perspective is really interesting. I'm like his manager now selling. He's a judo guy. He's really good at judo. I have seen him practice judo. He's a legit black belt. And not only that, he loves it. Not just skill wise, but to talk about it, to reason about it, to think about it, to MMA as well. So, you know, it'd be a good conversation. But you wouldn't travel to him. Well, that's... hold to your principles. So that's the core of the advice. Just hold to whatever... I would rather... here's the thing. There's not a person that I have to have on the show. And I'm happy to talk to anybody. I'm just as happy to talk to you as I am to talk to Trump. As I am to... probably more happy to talk to you as I am to talk to Mike Tyson, as I am to talk to Joey Diaz. I like talking to people. I enjoy doing podcasts. I enjoy talking to a variety of people. And I schedule them based on... I want to like... I try not to get too many right wing people in a row or too many progressive people in a row. I don't want to get repetitive. I try not to get too many fighters in a row. I try to balance it out. Not too many comedians. Comedians are the one group where I can have three, four in a row, five in a row. Because that's my tribe. You know, those are my people. It's easy. We can talk about anything. It's a weird dance, you know? The conversations that you're doing on a podcast are... they're a strange dance. And you want to, you know, you want to not step on your own feet. You want to make sure that you do it in a way... do the podcast in a way that's entertaining for people. And it's... conversations are learning how to talk to people. It's a weird skill. It's a weird skill that took a long time for me to get good at. And I didn't know it was a skill until I started doing it. And then I just thought you were just talking. Like, I know how to talk. We'll just talk to people. And then along the way I realized, like, oh... and then when you talk to people that are bad at it, you realize that it's a skill. Like, particularly, one of the things about my people, about comedians, is a lot of them tend to want to talk but don't want to listen. Right. So, they're waiting for you to stop talking so they can talk. But they're not necessarily thinking about what you're saying. And they're just waiting for their opportunity. Or they talk over you. And I try real hard not to do that and sometimes I fail. But when I'm at my best, I'm dancing. Yeah, ultimately the skill of conversation is just really listening. Mm-hmm. Like, really... and listening and thinking. Listening and thinking. About what they said. Being genuinely curious and really having a take on what they're saying. And maybe a follow-up question or maybe... it's gotta be real. It's gotta be authentic. And when it is authentic and it's real, it resonates with people. Like, they're listening and they go, oh... like, I'm locked in with the way you're thinking. Like, you two guys are in a conversation and I'm locked in. You know? When she talks and you listen, I'm listening too. You know, when he says something to her or when she says something to him, there's a thing that happens during conversations where you're there. Like, you're listening to a... and it's with me, when I listen to a good podcast, I feel like I'm in the room. I feel like I'm in the room and I'm like the friend that got to sit down and listen. Like, oh, yeah, that's a great conversation. Yeah. You know, I love conversations. I love listening to them and I love putting them together. And the fact that this podcast has gotten so fucking big, it's stunning to me. It blows me away. I never anticipated it. Never thought for a second that that stupid thing that I used to do on my couch, in my office, was the biggest thing I've ever done in my life, by far. Like, people used to make fun of it. Like, there's a Comedy Store documentary that's coming out. And one of the parts of the documentary is my friend Tom Segura, when he first started doing my podcast, he would be leaving and he would talk to Redband. He's like, what the fuck is he doing? Like, why is he doing this? Like, who's listening? He's like, oh, some people like it. And it's like, fucking nonsense, waste of time. And like, in the documentary, it shows like 2,000 views, like one of the early Ustream episodes. And they don't just like it, really, they form a friendship with you. It's like, even me, when people come up to me, like the love in their eyes is kind of beautiful. It's weird, right? You're a part of their life. Yeah. And I don't know, it's also heartbreaking because you realize you'll never really get to know them back. Because they clearly are friends with you. Yes! Yeah. And it's sad to see a person who's clearly brilliant and interesting and is friends with you, but you don't get a chance to return that love. My kids, it took them a while to figure out what's going on. But people would come up to me and they would say something like, hey man, I fucking love you. Thanks, man. Alright, hey brother, nice to meet you. My daughter was like six, she'd be like, do you know him? I'd be like, no, I don't know him. She's like, how does he know you? It's a very weird conversation I used to have with young kids when I'd explain, I'd do this thing called a podcast and millions of people listened. So now, one of my daughters is 12 and one of her friends is 13 and he's a boy and he goes to school with her and he's obsessed with me. And so she's weirded out and she says to him, I don't even think you like me, I think you're just into my dad, you fucking weirdo. She's going to have that conversation a few stages in her life. That hard conversation with a boyfriend. Yeah, probably. Yeah. That's the thing about men too. This podcast is, my podcast is uniquely masculine. I'm a man and I'm not, I'm also a man that doesn't have to go through some sort of a corporate filter. I'm not going through executive producers who tell me, don't have this guest on, don't talk about that. We looked at focus groups and they don't seem to like when you do this. There's none of that. I just do it. So I have a whole podcast where I just talk about cars. And people are like, I don't want to hear you talk about cars. Well, good. Congratulations. You found what you like. Here's good news. There's 1500 other ones. Go listen to the other episodes where I don't talk about cars. You don't have to listen. And it's not like your brand, you just are who you are and that's what you do. But it's like, it's authentically what I'm interested in. All the podcasts, whether I'm talking to David Fravor about his experience with UFOs, whether I'm talking to David Sinclair about life extension, whether I'm talking to you about artificial intelligence or whatever. It's because I want to talk to these people. And that resonates. I like when people are into shit. I've talked about this before. Things that I have no interest in making furniture, but I like this PBS show where this guy makes furniture by hand. I love watching it. Because he's so into it. He's sanding this and polishing that. I'm not going to do that. I don't give a fuck about furniture. Furniture for me is function, like this desk. Function works, but I love when people are into it. I'm happy that someone can make it and they do a great job, but I'm not interested in the task or even the finished product as much as I'm interested in someone's passion for something. The passion that they've put into this, that shines through. Last question. I sometimes ask this just for to, what is it, to challenge, to make people roll their eyes, to make legitimate scientists roll their eyes. What is the meaning of life, according to Joe Rogan? I do not think there is a meaning. I think there's many, many meanings of life. I think there's a way to navigate life that's enjoyable. I think it requires many things. It requires, first of all, it requires love. You have to have loved ones. You have to have family. You have to have friends. You have to have people that care about you, and you have to care about them. I think that is primary. Then it also requires interests. There has to be things that stimulate you. Now, it could be just a subsistence lifestyle. There's many people that believe and practice this lifestyle of just living off the land and hunting and fishing and living in the woods, and they seem incredibly happy. And there's something to be said for that. That is an interest. There's something, and there's a direct connection between their actions and their sustenance. They get their food that way. They're connected to nature, and it's very satisfying for them. If you don't have that, I think you need something that is interesting to you, something that you're passionate about. And there's far too many people that get sucked into living a life where you're just doing a job. You're just showing up and putting in your time and then going home, but you don't have a passion for what you're doing. And I think that is, that's the recipe for a boring and very unfulfilling life. You mentioned love, if we could just backtrack. We talked about the demons and the violence in there somewhere. What's the role of love in your own life? It's very important, man. And that's one of the reasons why I'm so interested in helping people. I'm very interested in people feeling good. I like them to feel good. I want to help them. I like doing things that make them feel like, oh, you care about me. Like, yeah, I care about you. I really do. I want people to feel good. I want my family to feel good. I want my friends to feel good. I want guests to feel good about the podcast experience. I'm a big believer in as much as I can to spread positive energy and joy and happiness and relay all the good advice that I've ever gotten. All the things that I've learned and if they can benefit people, then I find that those things benefit people. And that actually improve the quality of their life or improve their success or improve their relationships. I'm very happy to do that. That means a lot to me. The way we interact with each other is so important. It's one of the reasons why, like, if someone gets cancelled or you get publicly shamed, it's so devastating because there's all these people that – negative. All this negative energy coming your way and you feel it. As much as I like to pretend that you're immune to that kind of stuff, and some people do like to pretend that, you feel it. There's a tangible force when people are upset at you. And that's the same with loved ones or family or anytime someone's upset at you, whether it's a giant group of people or there's a small amount of people. That has an impact on you and your psyche and your physical being. So, the more you can spread love and the more love comes back to you, you also create this butterfly effect, right? Where other people start recognizing like, oh, you know, when he's nice to me, I feel better and I'm going to be nicer to people. And when I'm nicer to people, they feel better and I feel better. And it spreads outward. And that's one thing that I've done through this podcast, I think, is I've imparted my personal philosophy in kindness and generosity to other people. Yeah, I mean, to correct you, you didn't do it. The ideas that are breeding themselves through your brain have figured out. The ideas that are alive in the air that made their way into my head. Love is a more efficient mechanism of spreading ideas they figured out. Yes. Probably, man. Probably. So, as far as like the meaning of life, without that, you have nothing. You know, one of the biggest failures in life is to be extremely successful financially, but everybody hates you. Everybody hates you and you're just miserable and alone and angry and depressed and sad. You know, when you hear about rich, famous people that commit suicide, like, wow, you missed the mark. You got some parts right, but you put too many eggs in one basket. You put too many eggs in the financial basket or the success basket or the accomplishment basket and not enough in the friendship and love basket. And there's a balance to that. And when I talked about the violence and all that stuff, like, that to me is me understanding and recognizing that it's me trying to achieve that balance. It's like, go kill those demons so that this boat is level. You know, because if it's not, then the boat is like this and then everything's all fucked up and every time we hit a wave, things fall apart. Balance that boat out. Figure it out. Like, know who you are. Some people don't have that problem at all. Some people, they could just go for walks and they're cool as a cucumber. I need more, you know. I need kettle bells. I need a heavy bag. I need the echo bike, you know, the air assault bike. I need some hardcore shit. And if I don't get that, I don't feel good. So, I figured that out too and that makes me a nicer person. That makes my interactions nicer. It changes the quality of my friendships and my relationships with people. I think we mentioned Neuralink. I can certainly guarantee that this is one of the memories I'll be replaying 20, 30 years from now once we get the feature ready. Joe, it's a huge honor to talk to you. It's an honor to talk to you too, man. I'm glad you came down here for this. The first week of me doing this here and it's very cool to have you always. I hope you make Texas cool again and do your podcast for another 10, 11, whatever, however many years you're still on this earth. All right. Thank you, brother. Appreciate you, man. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Joe Rogan. And thank you to our sponsors, Neuro, Asleep, and Dollar Shave Club. Check them out in the description to get a discount and to support this podcast. If you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube, review it with Five Stars and Apple Podcast, follow on Spotify, support on Patreon, or connect with me on Twitter, Alex Friedman. And now let me leave you with some words of wisdom from Joe Rogan. The universe rewards calculated risk and passion. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/FKCJWkPehdY

wKw1tpN7NVE

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Do Something Difficult Every Day | AMA #1 - Ask Me Anything with Lex Fridman

Miriam asks, hello Lex, in your interview with Ariana, you have mentioned that suffering is good for the soul. Where did that come from? What is your belief system for maintaining self-discipline and strong character no matter what? I think a lot of that is quite personal in the sense that you have to know yourself. What's the distribution of energy levels that you have? Like how, what makes you lazy? What makes you excited? What makes you motivated? I think that's different from person to person. But there's several things I could say. I think for me, I try to do something difficult every day. Something I don't want to do. Really, if you open your mind, your ear, to the moments where you don't really feel like doing it, do it. Those kinds of things, I think train your mind in the right kind of way to take on the things in your life that you know you should be doing, but are hard and so you try to avoid them. I mean, just training that muscle, not on real things, but every day on things as silly as, like for example, sometimes I'll take a freezing cold shower. I usually kind of ask myself, is this something I really don't feel like doing right now? And I never really feel like doing a cold shower, but there's some days where I really don't want to, and that's when I'll do it. And I'll stand under the water for at least one minute, just freezing cold. Sometimes it could be as silly as you're feeling down, but, and you go to like, I go to a Starbucks and then you don't feel like smiling or being friendly, but you do it. I don't feel like doing it and I do it, so just practicing that muscle. Exercise, heck yeah, every single day. I don't really, especially running. I don't like running, that's why I do it. I don't, especially don't like starting to run. Getting out there, starting to run the first mile, first two miles is something that I don't want to do in the moment and I do it. I think that's those little moments. You know, it sounds dramatic to call that suffering, but it really is this comfort struggle that trains your mind in the way that in other things that you are deeply passionate about that are long-term parts of your life, allows you to pursue them long-term through the dark parts, through the struggle, through the suffering of mental and physical. So mental is the self-doubt. You know, there's so many days I wake up full of doubt and I think those days, those moments are not something you can take on without practice. It's, especially if you do difficult things, especially if you do things that are not traditional or so on, but really everybody hits the wall often enough if you do something big. I think that's something you have to take seriously and you have to practice and practice and practice. And a big part of practice, at least for me, is habits. So most things I have noticed myself getting good at and most things I care about that I want to solve are things I do every day without exception. To me, it's better to do something for one minute a day, every day without exception, than doing it once a month for an entire day. I think there's something about that ritual that multiplies your mind's ability to really take on the full depths of whatever the task is.

https://youtu.be/wKw1tpN7NVE

7XzAsx-aRC4

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Ryan Hall: Principles of Jiu Jitsu | Take It Uneasy Podcast

In class, you emphasized that we're working with basic laws of physics. So, I just read Einstein's biography. He was obsessed with finding a single theory that would unify all the fundamental forces of nature. Wow. Do you think there exists a unified theory of grappling where you can boil everything down to just a few principles? Well, first off, if Einstein wasn't able to come up with a unified theory, I would sincerely question my ability to go that way. But do I believe that something like that could potentially exist? Absolutely. And I think that even if it doesn't, a belief in the possibility of it and the search for it would leave you better off than where you started. Whereas if I was, ah, no, that's bullshit, that would never... and then I don't look. Even if I'm right, because I didn't look, there's certain things I won't learn. So, I think, you know, a lot of times, just, let's say, alchemy, the idea that you're going to turn lead to gold. All right, well, that's a little bit nuts. But who knows, maybe that's that kind of nutty and, you know, highly unlikely probability of success pursuit yielded scientific progress elsewhere in the search for that. Even though, again, someone would look back and say, oh, that's stupid. Who would do that? Well, if you spent years trying to figure it out, I guarantee you're going to learn some other things as well. So, I think that there, at the very least, a principle-based approach to grappling is incredibly important. What's your process like for learning new details and understanding the principles behind techniques? I certainly don't believe that I have, like, a singular or perfect approach by any stretch of the imagination. But, you know, I guess what I try to do is block out extraneous nonsense. Like, for instance, a lot of people want to talk about 55 details and reasons for something that's going on. And the reality is that you're clouding your thought process. For instance, there was a recent, not to get too political, but there was a recent issue where I remember an inmate was executed. And they used a new drug, and it was painful, and oh my god, and he died. And it was horrible. Again, whether you believe that capital punishment is valid or not, I think there's plenty of arguments against it. In fact, I think most of the arguments that make sense are against it. But pain has fuck-all to do with it. You know, I don't care. That's like, hey Lex, I'm going to kill you, but don't worry, it's not going to hurt. I mean, don't get me wrong. No, that's okay, then. Yeah, it's like, that doesn't make it okay. It's like, believe me, I prefer you, again, if you're going to kill me, I prefer that you don't burn me at the stake. But if someone was like, don't worry, it's not even going to sting, I'm still going to try to fight you to the death. I'm absolutely not allowing this to happen. If someone wants to say, oh, okay, hold on, let's cut the bullshit, like, feely feelings out of here, and say, look, forget the pain. Does this person deserve it? Ah, well, let's step that back again. Is there a potential for human error? Is there potential for someone having this guy behind bars for political gain? Like, okay, these are the real reasons that you say, hey, no way on the death penalty. It has nothing to do with does it hurt, or which drug is it, or blah-de-blah, or is it inhumane. It's like, none of the, if, hey, we're focusing on the wrong thing. So it reminds me of Jiu-Jitsu in the same sense. And again, we're fighting, we're, generally speaking, in my opinion, debates that happen in the public, you know, arena, always focus on the wrong dang thing. And always focus on the wrong aspect. Again, there's 25 good reasons or bad reasons to do almost anything, but generally speaking, people will focus on the hundred other ones that are extraneous and retarded. So what I want, I guess what I would say is it reminds me of Jiu-Jitsu or striking. Oh, man, Floyd likes to hold his hand this way or that way or the other way, and this guy likes to jab like this, and it's really important. This person says you land with this knuckle, and that person says you land with that knuckle. And in Jiu-Jitsu, it's very, very important that you grip three inches up on the lapel and two to the right. But Roger Gracie does it like this, but Cabrini says it like this. Clearly, they all work under the right circumstances and don't work under the wrong ones, and it has nothing to do or very little to do with these other things. Like, hey, does it matter? Again, I'm going to kill you. Would you prefer for it to be painless or horrifically painful? Okay, if it's already a foregone conclusion, death, all right, yeah, now we'll start to talk about the extreme, like whether or not it's going to sting. But until we get to that point, hey, let's focus on the, is it even right, or do I have the ability or the capacity to do this justifiably? So that's where you come down to the principles, in my opinion, and say, all right, yeah, does it matter which knuckle you land with? Yeah, I'm sure it does. But it's a hell of a lot less important than 25 other little things that make all of the difference. And in my experience, a lot of coaches and a lot of people, particularly guys that are trying to bullshit you, will focus on 45 little details. And, oh, there's 15 details to this technique. Okay, that's true. But what are the two most important ones? Because, hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these details don't matter, but just like anything else in life, there's a hierarchy. Because would you say that happiness and self-actualization is a valuable thing in life? Yes. I would as well. And you know what? We have the luxury of saying that type of thing, because we're sitting at 50-50 jiu-jitsu in Falls Church, Virginia, and there's no one trying to kill us, rape us, and we are also, I know where food is tonight. If you were to walk down, if you were to talk to someone like 2,000 years ago and be like, how are you feeling? They would stare at you like, what are you, fucking retarded? I'm starving. I'm hungry. That's my issue. Are you satisfied in your life? It's like, I'll be satisfied when you get out of my way so I can find some food. So that's even the deeper question is, are you eating something tonight? Right. And so it's Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When we take care of the base needs first, then we start to work our way up towards self-actualization and this and that. But until you've got your food, water, shelter, don't tell me about where you're placing your grip. It's like you're all leaning out and your posture is poor and you're out of balance and you want to tell me your grip? That's like, I'm starving to death. The barbarians are at the gates, but I'm sitting here giving you a philosophy lesson. It's like, this is retarded. It doesn't make any sense. Build a better wall, a sharper knife, and get some food. And then we'll cover all the other stuff. So I think that when it comes to how I approach martial arts in terms of learning as well as teaching, I really try to boil it down to what I feel to be the most important component parts. And then if I one day reach the level of where these tiny details matter, that's fantastic. Because again, the difference between the ability to try to pass successfully against a Calberini or a Rafael Mendes and against a regular run-of-the-mill black belt, it does come down to little details. But it's also presupposing that you're in proper position that even allow these details to become relevant. And I think that a lot of times we put the car before the horse and that's problematic. Are there still, in your opinion, undiscovered positions, submissions, or techniques in Jiu-Jitsu? I would say that there have to be. There absolutely are. I think that what we see as Jiu-Jitsu now, don't get me wrong, the core never changes. Because physics doesn't change. Physics is the same thing. That's why I get a kick out of people that love self-defense arguments. It's like, bullshit, there's no physical difference in self-defense beyond the fact, yes, you can eye-gaze me. Though I've never seen anything like that in real life. You're crossing a pretty serious psychological line if you're putting your thumb two knuckles deep into somebody's eye. Forget the fact that we're legal, moral, other things like that. It's like, I've never done that before. I wouldn't do it lightly. There'd probably be some hesitation there. So anyway, what makes it different is the psychological component and all these other things going on. But physically, there's no difference. Again, people are like, oh, Jiu-Jitsu is really different than MMA. No, it's not. Not in my opinion. Not in my experience. It is absolutely not. What are you talking about? Physics are different inside of a cage than they are on a mat. And they are out in a field. It's exactly the same. Now, if I try to sport grapple you under a non-sport grappling rule set, then I may run myself into trouble. But that had nothing to do with Jiu-Jitsu. Jiu-Jitsu is physics. It's proper expression of physics. It's the same way boxing is. And the same way wrestling is. It's the same way all of these things are. I would say that as long as something adheres to the principles that allow something to be effective and fundamentally sound, that you can do almost anything. And I think that people will continue, particularly in the Gi, it's going to get nuts. Just the level, the amount of things that you can get away with and do and different grips that you can make. But I'd say what we're looking at right now is going to look only somewhat like what Jiu-Jitsu is going to look like in 30 years. The same way the Jiu-Jitsu we see now is so much fundamentally better, honestly, and more evolved and adaptive than it was 20 years ago. And people will swear up and down, like, oh, back in the day, people didn't know how to fight very well, even 20 years ago. The level of people understanding how to deal with Jiu-Jitsu was very reduced. So you could get away with all sorts of pretty questionable stuff, like sitting in front of someone in close guard and have them not completely kick the shit out of you. I think, you know, particularly with the advent of the baron ball, the 50-50 position, all these different things, which have always existed. They've always existed. And I always hesitate to say invent. I don't like the word invent. Like, certain people use it a lot. I'd say discover, because you could show me, I could come up with something, let's say, Lex, you know, you've got a really good straight foot lock. I was watching you train last night. And I could be doing that in a way that no one ever taught me. That doesn't mean I invented it, because you've been doing it forever. But basically, let's say no one showed me the details you were using, and I managed to stumble across them. I didn't invent those details. I discovered them, and that was neat. But again, none of us have invented a dang thing. People have had two arms and two legs for certainly as long as I can remember, and probably longer than that. That's what I hear. That's not the word necessarily in the history books.

https://youtu.be/7XzAsx-aRC4

fCLI6kxFFTE

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Playing Guitar in a Self-Driving Car

The official name for our car is the MIT Human Centered Autonomous Vehicle. But amongst our team, her name is Betty, as in Black Betty. Today, we'd like to demonstrate activity recognition. Two-stream neural network, optical flow and RGB, coming from the video of the driver's body. The output of the network is a prediction of the driver's activity. Whether that's texting on the phone, drinking water, or playing guitar. Alright, hey Betty, let's go for a drive. Sure, Lex. With music? Yes, play your theme song. Would you like to play along? Yes. Ready? Yes. Whoa, Black Betty, bam-ba-lam. Whoa, Black Betty, bam-ba-lam. Black Betty had a child. Bam-ba-lam, the damn thing gone wild. Bam-ba-lam, said it weren't out of mind. Bam-ba-lam, the damn thing gone blind. Bam-ba-lam, I said oh, Black Betty. Bam-ba-lam, whoa, Black Betty. Bam-ba-lam. Black Betty, bam-ba-lam. Whoa, Black Betty, bam-ba-lam. She really gets me high. Bam-ba-lam, you know that's no lie. Bam-ba-lam, she's so rock steady. Bam-ba-lam, and she's always ready. Bam-ba-lam, whoa, Black Betty. Bam-ba-lam, whoa, Black Betty.

https://youtu.be/fCLI6kxFFTE

8U0XzOco7D0

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Jiu Jitsu Meme Review with Ryan Hall

This is a review of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu memes with Ryan Hall that we did after our podcast conversation. Memes are at once the lowest and the highest form of achievement by the collective intelligence of human civilization. I enjoy forcing brilliant people to be silly, hence this meme review. It's brought to you by Babbel, BetterHelp, and Raycon. Please check out the sponsors in the description to get a discount and to support this channel. And now, here's Jiu-Jitsu Meme Review with Ryan Hall. Anyone with the mustachioed, like, fisticuffs guy is always funny. So any meme that involves... That guy's always... whatever's about to come next is usually pretty entertaining. It's tough to give a rating without understanding the universe of other memes that exist here, but alright, I'll try to do my best. You gotta make decisions. Alright, you're right, you're right. So this is sobbing after adult class. Sobbing after adult class. I think... is that man holding on to a piece... biting a piece of soap? That's actually... I don't know if you've seen... it's... what's that show? It's... Tobias from... Oh, you're talking about Arrested Development? I think it's Arrested Development Tobias. That's what that looks like. I don't know. Maybe it's not. Alright, I'll give it a four. Wow, that's not good. No, maybe four's really high. Who knows? It could be. You're a tough grader. You move so well. Practice. It must be an innate gift... a gift from God. It's practice. I'll never understand how some people are so talented. A mystery. Practice. That one hits relatively close to home. That's one of those deep philosophical ones as opposed to funny. Yeah, it's not funny, it's just accurate. Yeah, it's accurate. Yeah, exactly. Would you give good scores for accuracy? I'm here for the jokes. Okay. Alright, so I'll give it a four also. Do you get this, by the way? This kind of experience? What's that? Of people like, well, Ryan Hall is just talented. Well, I think, I mean, like, maybe. I just don't think that I'm very talented, you know? So, I mean, I just do nothing but martial arts all day, every day, and have done nothing but that. I mean, do you believe anybody can get good? No. Oh, yeah, it depends. I think if there's... the only talent that I think I have is discipline and grit. That's interesting. That could be genetic or whatever. I think that's a real thing. But you can't convince me to quit. But a friend of mine, someone said, like, if I can talk you out of your dream, you don't want your dream. And I think that's true. Or people go, oh, someone so discouraged me. I'm like, I hear what you're saying. But if you really, really want to do any X, Y, or Z, you will decide to do it. And I firmly believe that. And again, whether that's true or not, it falls under the category of facilitative belief. And that will probably make you a little bit more of a go-getter in certain regards. So I guess, yeah. But I don't think I'm particularly talented. I just care a lot. Okay. Ah, yes. He's employing a sumo geisha, landing into a kiss of salami hold. Anybody? Judo guy opening his book of terminology. I think they could actually expand that to modern jiu-jitsu guy who now tries to use Japanese words for all sorts of stuff. What's the arm lock in there? I don't even... I'm a judo person. Juju-katami. Juju-katami. Do you use, like, Japanese terms for techniques? Not when I'm speaking to English speakers. What do you think about, like, Eddie Bravo just renaming every technique? I mean, that's weird to me, too, if I'm honest. That's the full range of... Yeah, exactly. There's the two ends of the spectrum, and you've got to find what's right for you. What do you call an arm lock? An arm lock. Okay. You know the one? Yeah, come on, man. No, not that one. The other one. Yeah. But, yeah, it's... Again, I think that there's a lot of people got to do what's right for you, but there's also... I struggle with the branding going on that I see in jiu-jitsu. That's not something I'm super stoked about, and not... But, again, if it helps you remember, then right on. One to twelve, what does this ridiculous meme get? Oh, again, disturbingly accurate. I'll say six. So you're giving props to the accurate. All right. I mean, these memes are horrible. Reddit needs to do better. Yeah, this one needs to do better. The best defense against a body triangle is to get really fat. That is a strong defense. Let's all agree with that. I'll give that one a two. I think I only picked memes that get several hundred upvotes. So these... At least Redditors thought they're of value. Figured this would be the best way to get rid of coronavirus. Put a blue belt on. I like that one. Oh, okay. I was about to say that. That went over my head. Because everybody quits after they get a blue belt. Yeah, yeah. I'm an idiot. I was like, why is teaching martial arts going to help? So you get... Because you don't get what that's like an undefined score. I'll give it a twelve because it's way smarter than that. What would you give that one? You got a twelve. I'll say a ten. I would give that one a ten, I think. Yeah, I like that one. After two hours of hard sparring, you look good. After ten minutes of cardio, you look... Yeah, you look like that. That's... No, it's... I would have to do cardio in order to understand that. Have you ever done cardio? Again, it goes well over my head. I ran once. For a bus? Running breeds cowardice. I don't want to do it. But yeah, I don't want to get too involved. But yeah. So yeah, maybe you can review this later once you actually try cardio. Exactly. Yeah. All right. When you get submitted 46 times, but none of the submissions are IBJJF legal. I... I gotta say that. I'm gonna give that a two. Okay. All right. I thought you were going to the negatives, but it's good. Yeah, about the same. Was that appropriate? Negative two. I was trying to be charitable. All right. Me who got promoted during COVID waiting to actually roll in my new belt. People thought these were funny. Yeah. I'll take that as a one. Yeah, I'll take that as a one. All right. How 90% of BJJ instructionals. This one also hits close to home. I got to give it a six for the accuracy. Okay, guys. That's... I can't. I do the same thing. By the way, I think you're the next... You're instructional in the next meme. So just so you know. Oh, man. Okay. I don't want to look at it yet. I'm sure they're saying something funny about me that's entirely accurate. So this one 90%. Let's give that a six. So this is like an old school meal where you insert anything overly expensive. Overly expensive during an economic crisis. Food, data, rent, half-car TVs, utility, 150, someone who's good at the economy, please help me budget this. My family is dying. All right. I'm going to give that an 11 out on a scale of 12. The comment is like spend less on half-car DVDs and sponsors. No. I like it. That's solid. All right. What the guy who murders you on the mat looks like outside the... That's absolutely accurate. If you guys have ever met Paul Schreiner, you know exactly what's going on. Dude, I still remember my first day. My first day there was a jiu-jitsu and this is where jiu-jitsu became like the coolest thing in the universe to me. There was a guy named Eric Ryerson. Nice guy. He was at Ronin Athletics in New York. It was 2004. And he was a white belt. He was probably 130 pounds soaking wet. And he was a white belt. And again, I don't hold the... He didn't hold the banner for tough guy. Certainly not at that time. But like, I'll try to fight you. And just getting absolutely mollywopped by this guy and then going, holy crap, this is literally the coolest thing I've ever experienced in my life. This is like magic. And it's not even like, oh, this guy's a black belt something or other and he's been at it for X time. How long have you been training for? I don't know, like eight months. I'm like, get the hell out of my money. Like you're never going to get rid of me. That's a magic moment when you realize that the technique matters. It's fascinating. Well, I'm sure he wrote, if the bird scooter had existed at the time, Eric would have transported himself to the gym. And to and from the gym on that. So I'm going to give that also an 11. The stash too. The stash. He didn't have the stash, but I don't think that was in at the time. That wasn't essential. Yeah. When your teammate is losing the match, but you promised you would record the whole thing. I like the old school digital camera. Yeah, that is true. I remember that. That actually... That was a thing before smartphones. Did you ever kick your ass so bad you drive the speed limit home with no music playing? Yes, absolutely. I mean, how often have you felt that recently? I remember feeling that often. I usually would take a bus home and I would just sit there, no music, no podcast. It was just like this sad feeling, overcoming your body. Life is meaningless. I remember when I first met Murillo Santana, like it was yesterday. It was like the winter because he has family that lives in the DC area. And we had our school in Arlington. And Murillo has like a beard out to here and he's wearing like a Fidel Castro looking hat. And I'd never met him. He was running ADCC. And this is right after ADCC 2009. So this is like December 2009. And it's like snowing and he's standing outside the gym. And I'm like, what the hell is that? And I walk up and I'm like, hey man, can I help you? He's like, hey, got a trade with you? I'm like, are you Murillo Santana? Yeah. I'm like, all right. And he comes upstairs and super flight, super nice guy. And anyway, so I'd done the 66 kilos and he did 77. He says, hey, you want to roll? I'm like, yeah. And Murillo's had like the world's deepest voice since he was like a child. And I probably believe he had a beard when he came out of the womb. But anyway, we're training and I'm like, all right, not that good. But I'd done ADCC that year. I got third, beaten some good guys at a really close match with Leo Vieira that I got screwed in. Thank you, referees at ADCC. That was decent at the time, at least. And you get the feeling where I'm like, I can't fully understand what's going on here. But I feel like I'm being let off the hook. I'm like, I'm not escaping this. I'm like, hey, man, you can beat me up. He's like, oh, I'm trying. I'm like, come on. He's like, all right, we're going to try a little harder. He's not being like, he's just being nice. I remember I had like a thousand yard stare at the wall at home that night forever. Because it wasn't like, oh, people can't beat me up. There are plenty of people that beat me up, particularly that time. But it's like, I think he passed my guard like 35 times. And that was something that wasn't happening for the most part. And I'm like, it's you to wrestle. Oh, he's a little bigger. Yeah, that wasn't the problem. It was a skill thing. And just going like, what was that? And it wasn't like, oh, I get to play. We're going to both train. And he's going to win. I'm like, we're not training. I'm just getting like chucked around like a four-year-old. I don't know any jiu-jitsu. I need to re-evaluate my entire life. And Murillo is a fantastic instructor and trainer in addition to being a great competitor and runs Unity Jiu-Jitsu in New York City. I feel lucky to have trained with many of the very, very best guys in the world. But, man, Murillo is as good as anyone I've ever met, as good as anyone I've ever met. Absolutely fantastic. Just fantastic knowledge of jiu-jitsu. And I watched it. I remember just training periodically over time, over time, over time. I would get better. The gap would stay the same. And it was pretty cool and it was inspiring. It really taught me a lot. It's the only way you get better, right? So, yes, I know exactly about it. I watched other people do the same thing. We would train. I don't want to use the name. People that everybody would know. We would sit in the back of my Beater Honda Civic that I had at that time and watch them stare out the window like this. And just like, yep, been there, buddy. Like a tear slowly. Oh, yeah, exactly. Exactly. Just the one. Yeah. Okay. So this is another one of those memes that's just entirely accurate. Yes, I'll give that an 11. All right. All right. Guy watching UFC. I don't get all this ground stuff. I wish I knew an expert who could explain it to me. Two stripe white belt. Yeah, that's also accurate. A little less funny. But I don't know enough about SpongeBob SquarePants to be able to understand what that expression means. Yeah, but. Because usually it would involve like Roger Gracie standing right there and I'm like, easy, Roger, I got this. Yeah, true. Yeah, there's a. I'll give that a seven. That's a seven. That's a strong place to end. I feel that way. All right. Thanks for putting up with the ridiculous requests. No, thank you so much. The meme review.

https://youtu.be/8U0XzOco7D0

KMgPxVnKLSk

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Cristiano Amon: Qualcomm CEO | Lex Fridman Podcast #280

talking about an exciting thing for an engineer. The same Snapdragon that goes to a phone, and it can go to a Galaxy phone, for example, Samsung, the same, not a special one, went all the way to Mars. You expect to have a full day of battery life, but then you want it to not be sending data into 10 or 100 megabits, you want gigabits. You want it to be able to have eight core processors. You want to have a GPU with ray tracing. You want to have all of those things that you can only get into sometimes a desktop PC. To do all of that in your phone is an incredible thing. Some people raise concerns about there not being enough studies about the effects of 5G on the human body. Is 5G safe? The following is a conversation with Cristiano Amon, the CEO of Qualcomm, the company that's one of the leaders in the world in the space of mobile communication and computation. That's 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G that connects billions of phones, and the Snapdragon processor and system on a chip that is the brain of most of the premium Android phones in the world. This is the Alex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Cristiano Amon. You are originally from Brazil, so let me ask the most important question, the most profound question, the biggest question. Who's the greatest football, soccer player of all time? Look, everybody's gonna say Pelé, and actually I was born during the game of Brazil and Italy that Pelé gave Brazil the championship. Actually, it was, my dad tells me that the doctor had a TV on at the delivery room. But, so everybody will say Pelé, but I really like Ronaldo, the first, not Ronaldinho, the first Ronaldo, I really like him. That's my favorite player. By the way, not everybody would say Pelé. Yes. But we should leave that on the table and agree to disagree. Brazilians will say Pelé. Yes. There's other countries around that region that may disagree a little bit. I'm very aware. Qualcomm is largely responsible for 5G and some of the greatest processors in our smartphones ever built. So we got communication and computation tech that impacts probably billions of people. So if you zoom out, you as a human, we'll look at humans on earth in general, does it blow your mind that we have these billions of smartphones communicating and each of them have the computational power? You know, you talk about 10 billion transistors. That's a million times more than 50 years ago in the best computers in the world. Like if you just zoom out as a human, does that blow your mind? Absolutely. Look, one of the reasons I think I love this company is we know that the technology we develop can change the world. And I'll tell you one more thing, beyond the amount of processing power that you have now in the palm of your hands and being every one of the world is connected with broadband technology, the smartphone is also mankind largest development platform. There's nothing like it. So you respect both the hardware and the software? Both. Both. If aliens were observing earth over the past 50 to 70 years, how do you think they would describe this particular turmoil, fun things going on on the surface of this particular little planet? We live in interesting times. In one time we see incredible development of technology for mankind, just what happened in the last century. From 1900 to 2000, it was incredible development. Just look, 2000 was 22 years ago. How far we're coming and where we going with technology. It's incredible. What do you think they would notice? So there's road networks, there's all kinds of networks. There's lights that keep popping up, cities springing up. From an alien perspective, you're observing. Well, what I'm gonna tell you is, you have this contrast of incredible development of technology, but then you see some of the things that are happening right now, which is probably you would not expect them to happen on the 21st century, just what happened in Ukraine. So I think that that will be a more puzzling question for the aliens, I would imagine. The new technology is kind of impressive. Actually, that might not be so puzzling, because that's just human nature revealing itself as it has throughout human history. That's correct. Let's talk about wireless communication. So Qualcomm was instrumental in developing 5G. Now you were with Qualcomm since the early days, the good old 90s with the 2G. But what is 5G, including sub-6 gigahertz 5G and millimeter wave 5G? How does it work? And maybe the most important question is, how will it change the world in the coming years? When we set ourselves to develop 5G, and we look at this, every generation of technology had a problem to be solved, right? So you mentioned 2G, 2G challenge, the challenge of CDMA was, can we give every person on earth a cell phone? That was, can you get to a technology that you can basically allow everyone to have a mobile phone? 3G was about the ability to connect that to the internet. I think 4G was broadband, and with 4G was about have the ability for you to have a computer in the palm of your hand. We'll just talk about that. 5G, the challenge was a little bit different. It's how do we build a technology for a society that is gonna be 100% connected to the cloud? How do we provide a technology that is going to be the last mile connectivity for everything? So 5G is basically been designed, eliminate all issues with data congestion, whether you are in a stadium, we talk about soccer, you were in a stadium and everyone should be ability to have access to broadband. So deal with congestion, deal with the fact that not only people, but billions of things need to be connected. Create a technology that for the first time in wireless, you could deliver mission critical services. Wireless used to, up to 4G is best effort. In 5G, it can guarantee that you're connected with the cloud. And then the last point of that is provide this fabric that will allow us as a society to look at things that are not connected and say, that's the exception. That's why we made a comparison in the early days of 5G that that's gonna be like electricity. Right now, you don't have a discussion about what's the use cases for electricity. You don't talk about that anymore. You just assume it's there. And that's how we think about have everything connected to the cloud. That's what 5G is and that's the role of 5G. So first of all, everything connected to the cloud is interesting because the space of everything is constantly increasing. That is correct. I don't think the refrigerator over there, it looks kind of smart, but I don't think it's connected yet to the cloud. So this includes internet of things. What is the full space of everything? The full space of everything is it's maybe going back to where you start defining Qualcomm. Qualcomm is about communications and advanced computers for low power devices. And can we make everything smart? You know, it can range from the robot you have right now on the floor to your refrigerator, to a camera, to machines in manufacturing, to retail, et cetera. I can give you some examples. When we think of something as simple as going to the grocery shop, we see technology now with something, the stuff we've been working with companies like Walmart, electronic shelf labels, the ability for you to have smart cameras that can look at shelves and can, the camera's smart enough to say some product needs to be replenished. Ability to see what's there. So it's about really putting everything together and the ability to see what's there. So it's about really providing processor connectivity, artificial intelligence to everything. And I think that's one of the largest addressable markets we have for technology because you can't really define everything. Right, exactly. It's a nice market because it keeps growing potentially exponentially in speed. What about coverage? So how are we doing on the everything part? So there is, like I mentioned, sub six gigahertz 5G and there's millimeter wave 5G. So not all 5G is made the same. So there's a speed, there's a bandwidth thing. And then there's coverage. How many people get to enjoy today and how does the progress in the next five, 10, 20, 30, 50 years you think it looks like in terms of coverage? Great topic of conversation. So let's talk about this. When I meet with regulators across the globe, I tell them resistance is futile. Allocate every spectrum to wireless. Every spectrum needs to be allocated to wireless. The reality is when we start moving from CDMA to OFDMA, we knew that this industry has done a lot to get more bits per Hertz. But the reality is the massive amount of improvements that is required in capacity and in speed, you need more spectrum. You know, there's not so much we can rely on more bits per Hertz. You just need more spectrum. And if you look, for example, what carriers since the 2G era, they participate in different license and auctions and every spectrum they accumulated from 2G or 3G or 4G, all of that, you may be able to get one or two channels max of sub-6, which is a channel is about 100 megahertz or 200 megahertz, and that's it. So we need more spectrum. So 5G has been designed to work across every spectrum from the low frequency bands, that's what we call the sub-6, but you needed more, you needed to go to the millimeter wave. So that's why 5G is a technology that you can deploy from 450 megahertz as an example, or 600 or 700, all the way to in the 42 gigahertz. And that's where millimeter wave comes into the picture. Now, let's now connect this to your question about coverage of 5G. The easiest thing to do is to deploy 5G in the new spectrum you can get, which is in the sub-6 you see bands being auctioned across the globe and the 3.5 gigahertz. There's nothing special about the band, is just the only one that was available because everything else has been used for 4G. And you can deploy on that, go into existing cell towers and just put a new equipment without having to build new towers. But when we go to technologies such as millimeter wave, then you have to build more dense networks. You need to build more stations because a deployment in that case look like a wifi deployment. It's almost like wifi access points. When you need to build more stations, you need permits, you need to build fiber. So it takes more time to densify. So what you see happening is coverage is being built fast with sub-6 across the globe. Now the United States also have the sub-6. So that gets you to coverage very fast. But millimeter wave, it's moving. And if I will say, for example, Verizon, United States has had a leadership in building millimeter wave. It takes time. I'll say cities like Chicago, Manhattan starting to get coverage. It will be a process over a number of years as you build those different access points type networks, but it's inevitable. There's not enough spectrum. So every 5G operators, just a matter of time, will have millimeter wave as well. Resistance is futile. Okay, so for millimeter wave, we need density of access points. And what's the biggest resistance for Qualcomm for human civilization? Is it politicians, regulators, federal regulators? Is it individual humans? Is it not enough money from the consumer perspective? Like who is the biggest pain in the butt? From a Qualcomm standpoint, but answering the question about what it takes to build all this technology. I think regulators across the board understood the importance of 5G. I have not met a regulator that said, it's really important to be late on 5G. I don't think anybody wants to be late on 5G. And as a result, we've seen enormous amount of progress in getting spectrum allocated to 5G. I think the real issue is the time that it takes to build infrastructure. Investment in 5G infrastructure, especially millimeter wave, is like building roads and ports. It's critical infrastructure. And those things take time. Like one of the number one obstacle you're gonna hear from operators is site permit. Sometimes they have to negotiate municipality by municipality about permits to get new cell sites, but the networks will be densified and you're gonna need all of the capacity for the promise of the fully immersive augmented reality that will replace phones and everything being connected 100% of the time. This would not be a conversation with a CEO if I did not ask questions that make you nervous. Some people raise concerns about there not being enough studies about the effects of 5G on the human body. Is 5G safe? Look, I have a very simple answer to this question. As we built new capabilities such as 5G, power is going down, especially when you think about reducing the number of base stations, the networks becoming more dense. So as you do that, the power becomes lower. If your phone- Power radiated from each. Power radiated from the phone and from the tower. As you get closer to the tower, you don't need that much power to reach the tower. So as we move from 4G to 5G, I think we see a reduction in the amount of powers required to close the radio link. Now, I also have a number of organizations, the FCC, for example, has rigorous programs, which they do a lot of tests to validate the safety of those devices. And I think we have, has been a model for other countries to also to adopt the same approach. For other countries to also to adopt the same things. Cellular has been around for a number of decades now. I think smartphone is our most beloved device today. And I would argue how it's difficult to answer those questions because you, but I'll argue that the data to date, I've always seen in 3G and 4G, has shown that a lot of the initial concerns were not valid. We look at 5G, even though it's new, it's just less power. So we look at it from a physics standpoint. So from a physics, from a biology perspective, there's a lot of evidence, there's studies that show that it's not dangerous, that it is in fact safe. However, the concern that people have is when you scale technology exponentially, how will that change human civilization? I mean, that doesn't apply to 5G, that applies to every technology. You said smartphone is the most beloved device, but love sometimes hurts. That's the impact on society we don't know. And there's a little bit of fear, there's both excitement and fear. It's a great topic of conversation actually. So let me give you my perspective on this. And you started to see something exactly happening right now. So let me step back and let's talk about the fact that we are in a fully interconnected society. When you look of the situations, they would talk about smartphones, largest development platform, so much now of our life, we are connected to the smartphone. And we are all connected and we're connected. And then we're building digital twins of everything. Right, so when you look at that picture, when you look at the picture, this connected society, you started to have the following thoughts, which I think are very healthy, which means in the same way that in the physical world, you are entitled to some rights, you have obligations, and there's a lot of things that protect your integrity. I think as a rule, we're gonna see the society evolving so those things extend to your digital being of people and things. And I think it's just natural, it's just natural. It's just a natural path. And you started to see things like that. For example, the Europeans has done a lot in this area. I'll say the Europeans probably ahead in the United States thinking about privacy laws, digital privacy laws. Most recent, the DMA, the Digital Markets Act, which I think is a great thing. I think we believe there's incredible thought into enable ability to regulate the digital markets so that there's innovation and competition. So not a single company can control all the data and then decide how things are gonna be work on the digital realm. And even if we think about the potential things like the metaverse as we're connecting physical and digital spaces. So I think it's a natural evolution. Of course, regulation and laws always follow technology. But the fact that we're moving to our interconnected society, there's no going back. We are a fully interconnected society. But there is opportunity to think about how the digital to win, people and governments should think about it so that we get the best of a technology without any downside. Yeah, so when you say digital twin, that's one of the other things you're excited about, which is the metaverse, are basically building worlds in the digital space. And you have to start to think about all the basic human rights that transfer from our physical meat vehicles out to the digital copies of ourselves, representations of ourselves. It's really important to think about. The thing you mentioned about regulators that has been, this is me speaking, frustrating, is like you said, they follow technology. So sometimes they don't get the technology at all. So they're very clumsy in writing laws that censor that technology in interesting ways. They mean good, but they can do a lot of unintended damage. Now, both, it's a dance. It's a beautiful dance, but I just wish governments were better dance partners. I just see what they're kind of writing now about regulating social media and platforms like YouTube, and it's just really, really clumsy. They don't understand how machine learning works, how recommender systems work, and I just wish they kind of caught up a little more because it's really important to be great at regulation, but also it's important to let companies flourish and embrace this new wave of technology. That weird dance, I'm more and more learning, looking at public policy, how much positive government can do and how much clumsy negative it can do unintentionally just out of sheer incompetence or lack of curiosity about tech. That's my rant about regulators. I think it's a valid point. As I said before, I think the Europeans probably have a very good framework, but the way I'll think about it, we depend on have the ability to innovate. We depend on the free markets. We depend on the ability to create technology that will be disruptive, but at the same time, I think the tech companies probably should spend time helping governments understand, helping understand ahead of time so that they can be better prepared. Let's talk about one of my favorite topics, Snapdragon. So Snapdragon is a system on a chip. This processor has probably powered billions of smartphones over its pretty long history now, a decade and a half maybe. So it's constantly iterating. There's constantly just like a turmoil of beautiful innovations happening. So last year it was Snapdragon 888 was the main one with the five nanometer. And this year it's Snapdragon 8Gen1. It's a new naming scheme. Okay, what's the sexiest, most beautiful idea or concept to you about Snapdragon? Let's start there. The way I would describe it, and I think the reason we have been successful with it is to really understand how to build a platform, a single chip, like a single chip that will have every single capability if you wanna make this smartphone in the palm of your hand, something that has all of your computing needs. And it was the ability to get from an engineering standpoint, ability to get into a single chip of not only all possible connectivity technology from cellular to Wi-Fi to Bluetooth to every single constellation of satellites for position location. But at the same time, a very power efficient, single-threaded, multi-threaded CPU. A GPU for all of your graphic demands, gaming, fastest growing segment for gaming is mobile gaming. An artificial intelligence processor, which we call the neural processor unit. And then a video engine, a multimedia engine for every single application, audio, everything. So it's a single chip that has every single computing technology you need in the phone. And what's exciting about it is what we already knew for example, when you think about camera or computer vision, you see that advancements in the technology now happens in the smartphone first versus additional camera. So the beauty about the Snapdragon is we always have this thing within Qualcomm. The phone, it's small, you have to be able to hold it. You're gonna touch your face, so you cannot be hot. You have to manage thermals. You expect to have a full day of battery life, but then you want it to not be sending data into 10 or a hundred megabits. You want gigabits. You want it to be able to have eight core processors. You want to have a GPU with ray tracing. You want to have all of those things that you can only get into sometimes a desktop PC. And to do all of that in your phone and be able to be in the leadership position generation after generation is an incredible thing. And we're very proud of that at Qualcomm. Yeah, so you have to do the Wi-Fi, 5G, all of the- And you have to be good to everyone of those technologies. And pack it all in. And there's also pressure to make the thing faster and faster and faster. And then there's more and more applications that you're supposed to be effortlessly using. And then you mentioned the NPU, GPU, CPU, they have to also dance together somehow. They have to communicate well, share memory or not, depending on what the application is. And your battery has to last all day. So think about that, from a company like Qualcomm, we have to be good in each and every one of those technologies. We can't just say, oh, we're a CPU company, or a GPU company, or we're AI company. We have to do everything. What does it take to design a great processor? So design this system on a chip that you mentioned. Is there some insight you can provide in this chaos of engineers, designers, leaders, the people that think about how much this is all gonna cause, the whole mess of it? I'm of course very partial about it. I've been in this company for probably more than 26 years. But I will argue that there are a couple of things that are ingredients for the success. So we talk about the fact that you have all those different technologies, they evolve at their own pace, and you have to be good in each one of them, and you need them to make them working together. So you need to have an engineering organization that's with incredible collaboration culture, because everybody has to be working. The train's gonna leave the station, every cart needs to be there, right? When it leaves the station, it needs to leave on time, especially in the phone business. You can't change Christmas, you cannot change Black Friday, you cannot change all of the selling seasons. So the phones are gonna launch on time, and every technology needs to be there, the engineering needs to work as one. And we do have that at Qualcomm. The other thing, you have to have incredible discipline, because those are very complex systems. So in one way, you have to design with quality, because in many cases, we're gonna be ramping production, and even before we have the silicon back, and you have to rely on our simulation models, and you have to rely on the fact that you design for commercial applications. That takes a while to build, and it's probably been the history of a semiconductor business at Qualcomm. So you mean like the framework of how many people can use simulation software and all that kind of stuff to build the thing with a hard deadline that you might not even get back from like manufacture before. You're not allowed to have any mistakes. No wonder our name is quality communications. Oh, I never even thought about the qual part, quality. So quality, and there's a bar that's high, and you're not allowed to mess up. I mean, to me as an engineer, that's exciting. Hard deadlines, no room for mistakes. I love it, super stressful, but I love it. So there's a couple of other small companies called Google and Apple. So Google is now using its own chip for the Pixel 6. Apple using its own. How does Qualcomm outcompete Google and Apple? How does it beat them? We don't have to outcompete Google. Actually, if you look at our mobile strategy today, and then one thing I was very clear when I became CEO, I think there's a lot of confusion in the market. Our mobile strategy is very clear. We are focused of making Snapdragon synonymous with premium Android experience. That's what Snapdragon is. Android, the phone of the people. Yes. I just have a love for Android. Now I'm constantly talking trash to iPhone people. Sorry, go ahead. Premium Android experiences. So we do produce Snapdragon in multiple tier for every price point, but every year, you mentioned the HN1, and every year we provide the flagship product, and then the other series that is trying to get the best of every possible technology at that time. And it's really focused on enabling the Android ecosystem. So I'll give an example. So you asked me the question, how to compete with Google. It's not about competing with Google. We're the number one enabler of the Google Android ecosystem. And the largest, largest, the number one customer there is actually Samsung. And if you look what happened to Samsung, Samsung, I always said, since I began my relationship with them, because they always had their own chip. They always had their own chip. And if you just look at what happened right now with the Galaxy S22 that just launched, they used to balance their business about 50% Qualcomm. They will get the most advanced markets, like the United States and China and Japan and Korea, they will assign to Qualcomm. And then they'll have their own chip for the markets that they would, will be like more emerging markets, open markets, markets that they have a control on the channel, because they sell a lot of appliances and other things. If you look what happened right now, GS22, 75% is Qualcomm. And then the next large OEMs in Android ecosystem are the Chinese ones. Companies like Xiaomi, one of the fastest growing, it was number one in Europe at some point last year, then followed by OPPO and OnePlus and Vivo. So those are some of the largest Qualcomm customers. And they actually drive the Android ecosystem. And that's our mobile strategy. And fully aligned with Google and it's working. And I was, you know, not to get into a lot of the investor conversation, but we're also happy we became a beneficiary of the shifts that we saw in the marketplace. As Huawei became a smaller OEM as a result of the sanctions, we saw the rise of a lot of the other OEMs from China, especially for China domestic market, Xiaomi, OPPO, Vivo, they moved to the premium category and they're all doing that with Qualcomm. So we're actually very fortunate and happy with the position we are in mobile business. We do have an Apple relationship. We provide modem technology to Apple. It's a multi-year relationship. Apple has been very public that they are investing to develop their own modem. But the Qualcomm strategy has been clear. We're really focused on Snapdragon. You know, our mobile strategy is not defined by providing a cellular modem to Apple. Our mobile strategy is this, we just talked about it. It's about the unique thing of Snapdragon that has every single technology integrated into a single SoC. And that's- It provides a premium experience. And that's what we're doing. And focusing on the Android ecosystem. I don't know if I can ask you this kind of question. It's like picking your- Go ahead. Children or something like this. But what smartphone with a Snapdragon? You mentioned Samsung Galaxy S22, OnePlus. Those are phones I personally really enjoy. What phone do you currently use? Or do you have multiple phones and you just- I do have multiple phones, but I do use Galaxy S22. That's your favorite one? All right, well you heard it here first folks. Okay, so excellent. Can Qualcomm also, let's take a brief step away from mobile. And take on Intel and Apple and other such companies in the laptop and desktop space. So the nature of what a computer is seems to be changing. It's like smartphones merging. It's all being a smartphone just with the biggest screen or something like this. So what does the future of that look like? Before I answer that question, let me just step back a little bit. Because, and I'm sure we can talk more about those things. But the reality is Qualcomm is changing a lot. And we use, I know we spend a lot of time talking about 5G and smartphone and Snapdragon. And I think that has been what had defined Qualcomm for many years. But the reality is even consistent with that 5G conversation, which is a technology to connect everything. Qualcomm is also changing. Our technology that was in many cases designed for phones. And we said it at the beginning, connectivity and processing is going to virtually every industry. And as a result, Qualcomm is really changing with it and expanding to a number of different addressable markets. Some of those markets is the PC, as you talk about it. The conversions of mobile and PC. And the reason I'm excited about this, because you see a lot of things happening that bring this right front and center when you think about the future technology. So what we learn with the pandemic is that the number one use case of personal computers is communications. It is interesting when you think about that. That's the number one use case on a PC today is communications. It's actually funny because in the cellular industry, actually I'll say, let me step back. In the telecom industry, we've been chasing this killer application of video telephony for decades. I remember back then in the wireline, even before the internet and IP, ISDN, you remember those AT&T desk phones of a little screen and they said, you can do video telephony. We don't watch that. And back to the future too. Then when we started developing 3G, people said, what's the application for having data on the screen? What's the application for having data to cell phone or video telephony? Then we started doing 4G. And in the beginning, people said, well, why do you need all of this broadband, all video telephony? But it took a pandemic to make video telephony the killer application. And that's now the number one use case on a PC. So now think about that for a second. P personal computers now, they're technologies that people, when they were gonna buy a PC, they didn't care much about it. Now they do. Camera, camera, how good is the camera? The audio, is that connected? How good is the connectivity? Do you have the latest and greatest WiFi and cellular? What's the battery life? Because you're gonna be working from anywhere. Sometimes you're near that, sometimes you're not. So all those things, what's the portability like? So those things started to change how we should think about the PC, but I won't stop there. Let me talk about another trend. So, and all come as a result of what we saw the pandemic. Let's say that you are, you're an engineer, you do computer aided design. You have an advanced desktop computer or workstation in your office, but you wanna work from home someday. So you're not gonna move that to your home. So what do you need to do? You're gonna have to rely on that. You're gonna run that on the cloud and you're gonna run it on the cloud. You need high bandwidth because you almost want the cloud to be the same as your computer for that use case. That's the 5G on-demand computing use case. The use 5G is almost a link between two computers. But then, CIOs are saying, well, my workforce is going home for certain days. I want all the data to be in the cloud. You look at, for example, Microsoft OneDrive or the ability to collaborate, you need the bandwidth. So when you put all of those things together, you start thinking about what is the next generation PC? And that's the opportunity for Qualcomm. I'll just give an example. Back in Mobile World Congress recently, Lenovo, they have a line of enterprise laptops called the ThinkPad. I'm sure you're familiar with it. So they announced the ThinkPad based on Snapdragon. With 5G on, 28 hours of battery life. So that's next generation. It's just a nice screen with extremely high keyboard and extremely high connectivity to maybe a more powerful machine in the cloud. Something more of the data, connecting to the data, connecting to compute, all that kind of stuff. You have the camera capabilities. Let me go one step more. Microsoft talking about some of the features they're doing now on Windows 11 using Snapdragon. Remember, we talk about it. Snapdragon has an AI processor inside there. So one of the cool features Microsoft's talking about it is you can be on a Teams call and you can make sure your eyes are looking at the camera 100% of the time. Well, that's an interesting, so they can be talking about that. And you do that with AI. Yes, that's really tricky to pull off. For example, the reason I'm a huge stickler for doing these conversations in person, it's really tough to get right, but it's a worthy challenge. So that's where the metaverse hopes to... So like, I just, because you said the importance of this telephony. Of humans connecting, teleporting themselves. Getting that right is really difficult. There's a lot of people hate Zoom meetings, but that doesn't mean you can't improve that experience and get rid of the hate. A lot of people hate talking to their car too, because the voice, the natural language processing is terrible. But when it's not, it's a beautiful thing. So getting that right is... This is an opportunity. This is an opportunity. Think about it. It starts with the PC making, the PC giving you a better experience for Teams, but then it goes right back into this trend of connecting physical and digital spaces. And all the work we're doing with the metaverse and virtual reality and meta-reality in the future is why not call somebody or connect with somebody with a hologram? It's possible. And also to mention some increasing amount of intelligence in our cars. So semi-autonomous, autonomous cars and the interactivity between human and car, which for me, things are really exciting. Let me ask you a big question. So when aliens again, now on the other side, and humans destroy themselves through nuclear war centuries from now. Let's hope not. Let's hope not. But in case, let's just hypothetical thought experiment. And they write a history of humanity in the 21st century. What would they remember Qualcomm in the 21st century as a company? Would it be a car company? Think of all the crazy pivots that might happen in the next like 50 years. Because you're thinking, you said Qualcomm enables all of these things with 5G and there'll be probably other Gs. It keeps increasing. So basically connectivity and computation and everything becomes connected and everything is capable of computation. Might you become a robotics and car company? I will argue we already an automotive company today. But let me tell what I would like Qualcomm to be, remember and recognize for. I think everyone that knows Qualcomm immediately, connect us pun intended to connectivity and wireless. But the reality is we're being actually the company providing intelligence and processing to everything on the edge. Everything outside the data center that we're doing. Those billions of devices that are gonna be connected. And that's kind of explained when we talk about the connected intelligent edge, the beyond phones, cars, PCs and all of those. And the broader IOTs, we talk about everything will be connected and intelligent. And that's what we want Qualcomm to be recognized for. So by the way, for people who are not familiar, there's some technical jargon. But people use the word edge, like edge computing. By the way, that's probably changing what that even means. But it's basically everything that's not a giant thing that's make a lot of noise in a building somewhere. So it's mobile devices and the mobile devices of all kinds. Well, a refrigerator is not mobile, but it would be edge. So it's like, what's a sandwich, that kind of discussion. But basically edge computing is the edge of that expanding space that you mentioned that Qualcomm was trying to connect and enable with computation. Huge a simple way to describe what the edge is and edge computing is. I think as we think about the evolution of the data center, you need to bring the computational closer to the devices. Also, when you put the computation together with the connectivity at the same time, you're gonna see a lot of advancement of artificial intelligence happening closer or at the device. Look, it's a very, I have a simple way to describe it. Remember in the beginning of this conversation, we talk about in the 4G era, broadband and mobile computing evolved side by side. If you're gonna have broadband, you might as well have a computer in the palm of your hand. So we needed to invest in those two technologies. In 5G, AI develops side by side. You're connected to the cloud 100% of the time. You have a high bandwidth and you have now a smart and intelligent thing that can make decision in real time, provide context information to the cloud to make the models more accurate and as well compare and contrast with the cloud. So there's gonna be an exponential development AI happening with all the edge devices. The devices that are outside the data center and computation is gonna go alongside that. And a great example of that is the car. The car, we haven't talked much about the car, but Qualcomm is now, you could argue was as much as an automotive company as a wireless company working 26 global brands. And it's easy to see, if you look at our mobile heritage and we talk about form factors, thermal, battery life, you're not gonna put a server in a trunk of a car, but you need as much computational capabilities. And that's we see Qualcomm providing, as the car become a connected computer on wheels, we provide the computational and all the sensors for you to do assistive driving for the new digital cockpit experience, connecting the car to the cloud. And it's all of that's happening at the end. Does Qualcomm want to be the brain of a lot of autonomous vehicles in the future of different, you said brands like Mercedes, BMW, I don't know, whatever, just whatever car, cars have the sexy thing they do and then it defines their brand and so on. And then there's the brain that doesn't need to have branding supposedly. So does Qualcomm see that or will I be able to buy a Qualcomm car? Like literally it'll be Qualcomm. No, you're not gonna be able to buy a Qualcomm car, but we're ready on our way to become the brains of the car. The way you should think about Qualcomm automotive strategy is, the car companies realize they need to become technology companies. You just look, for example, of the market cap of some of the new electrical commerce and compare them with the legacy car companies. Which one is that? I heard of, is it? Well, let's just use an example. One of them lives in Austin. Let's say Rivian, right? Rivian. Oh, that one too, yes. You know, the car companies are not going away. It's actually a mistake not to bet in the car companies. The car companies need a technology partner that will provide the digital chassis for them. And that's what we're doing. So if you look at Qualcomm, we talk about a Snapdragon digital chassis. So we want to be the preferred technology partner of the car companies. And I think it's working. Strategy is working right now. So basically helping the car companies accelerate into becoming technology companies. Connecting the car to the cloud, redesign the interior of the digital cockpit experience, and provide the computation and sensor capabilities for autonomy and assisted driving. On the topic of robots, when millions or billions of robots roam the earth in the future among us humans, and I'm for one concerned in a small percentage, but largely I'm excited about that future, will Qualcomm be the thing that powers their brain? We have in our IoT business, which has been one of the fastest growing business for us, a number of robotics engagement. So I'll give you some example. And if you look of the Amazon Astro, you familiar with that? There's two Snapdragon in there. There is, this is really exciting. They're supposed to ship it to me. Where is it? Okay, but anyway, that's really cool. I didn't know it was Snapdragon. Yeah, we're working with robotics in industrial, of course drones. We're getting more and more traction for robotics. Sorry to interrupt, industrial robotics too, you said? Industrial, especially when you think about what's gonna happen with the factory of the future, the industrial side of the future, the warehouse of the future, when you bring 5G, for example, to it. And you have a number of different use cases, and then you see a lot of robotics application. And of course drones. And the most famous, I will consider that a robot, the most famous robot in the world right now, it's powered by a Snapdragon, which is the Mars Ingenuity Helicopter. The whole helicopter, the cameras and everything is powered by Snapdragon. And talking about exciting thing for an engineer, the same Snapdragon that goes to a phone, and it can go to a Galaxy phone, for example, Samsung, the same, not a special one, went all the way to Mars. Is exploring other planets, looking for alien life, and maybe gets to meet them. Wouldn't that be interesting if a Snapdragon is the thing that first sees an alien? It's like, what the hell? We did not program this in the computer vision. I want to use the example to go back to the conversation we had about quality. As an engineer, you need to make sure it works. Can you imagine if it gets over there on Mars and it doesn't work? Listen, this is very stressful. What NASA, what SpaceX, what all those companies are doing is extremely stressful. The room for mistakes is tiny. But that's super exciting for an engineer, once again. There's been a global semiconductor chip shortage. So from your perspective, just it'd be interesting to get your expert analysis of the situation. What do you think are the main reasons and how is Qualcomm being affected and how can it help? In this, in the future, things like it. Okay, that's a big topic of conversation. And we only have five minutes. So I'll try to be as objective as I can. So first, let's talk about what caused it. And I, you know, you hear a lot of different things. I will try to put it within the right context. The first thing that caused it, really, is the acceleration of digital transformation of pretty much everything in every industry. Every industry has been digitally transformed. And as such, the amount of semiconductors that are required is much larger. Just to give you a practical example, if you think about the automotive as an example, the cars that are, there's cars that are launch, a new model launching today. The new model launching today most likely has 10x the amount of chips of the prior model. And the model is people working on this coming in next, probably 10x that one. So you see the amount of silicon and then billions of things become smart. More and more data goes to the cloud. The data center grows. So the floor for semiconductor consumptions went up by a lot. Then you have things that aggravated this. The pandemic aggravated this. There was a couple of trends from the pandemic. The enterprise transformation of the home. The home became an enterprise, massive amounts of upgrades on broadband and IoT. The office has changed to the way we work now, including the ability to support collaboration tools and video. Then you have the higher demand for products during the pandemic because people wanted to be connected. People bought new phones and new tablets and new computers, new gaming. So all of those things came on top of that as the aggravated issue, but they're not the main issue. The main issue is it's actually a long-term growth of digital. So what I'm hearing you say is the pandemic was not the cause, it was an aggravation. It was an aggravation. So is there a way we can support as a human civilization in terms of manufacture, in terms of supply, the kind of growth that you're talking about in devices and so on? Is there high level ideas you can say of what that's required there? Yes, and I think that's the second part of the answer. So what's happening now? How are we gonna get out of this? So we see a lot of capacity investments put into place by the industry. We had invested a lot of our suppliers. A lot of the suppliers had made plans about increasing the capacity. The industry is planning to double its total semiconductor manufacturing capacity within the next five years, an example. So that's already happening. And then you see things which are actually good. They're good. The initiatives such as the United States CHIPS Act, and now the European CHIPS Act. The United States CHIPS Act's about $52 billion. The Europeans about 43. Their goal combined is to get at least 50% of the consumption with manufacturing installed within the US and European geographies. And that's also very good. That's yet another incentive for more manufacturing capacity to be built and to be built with a geographic distributed way, which that's how you plan supply chain. So those I think are good things. So if anything we learn through the crisis is that semiconductor is important. Semiconductor companies are important and we need to invest in semiconductors. Returning to the grilling of the CEO with the hard questions. This is almost from my own education of the space. You mentioned regulators. Qualcomm paid out and received payment of billions of dollars in settlement and fines. There seems to be a lot of huge lawsuits in this space. How do you explain that? Does this get in the way of innovation or does it promote it? I will rephrase it by saying there used to be a lot of lawsuits in this space. In addition of what we do in semiconductors, our processors and our modems, the Snapdragon platform, we also have a licensing business, which has been a part of the company since the beginning. As the largest inventors of the essential technology in 2G CDMA, 3G, 4G and 5G, and Qualcomm contribute that to the standards. So we always had this model that rather than invent the technology and be the only one producing the products, we license so everyone can produce it. And as such, we receive intellectual property for these standard essential patents. As part of our past dispute with Apple, that's behind us now. You're friends now. They're my customers. And as part of that, I think the licensing model got tested in I think in every geography. And we succeeded in every single geography to validate the pro-competitiveness of this model. I think the fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory aspect of this model. And I would argue that besides being the most successful licensing business to date in the industry, probably the one that's been battle tested and is most stable because there's not a single jurisdiction that we have not had to validate that model. So it's part of our past. And what it creates is probably create a lot of stability in our licensing business. But having said that, the growth of the company is in the semiconductor space. And the semiconductor, so licensing is, you come up with a pretty good idea, you have a bunch of smart people coming up with cool ideas. And then once you come up with that idea, you sell that idea to others that get to use it. That's essentially what a license. The license revenue we have is for the, what we call the SCP, Standard Essential Patents, that are part of the 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G standards. So if you want to build anything with 5G, you need to get a license from Qualcomm because it uses Qualcomm essential technologies as part of the standard. And a slightly different model, or a lot different model with the semiconductor is you design, you inject a bunch of fascinating ideas, how to build the Snapdragon. And then there's, because it's a fabulous company, you have somebody build the chip and then goes into a phone with the branding and all that kind of stuff. And that has less kind of players involved. It's not a license. We sell the product in the, we don't license semiconductor technology. We build products and we sell products. This is your first year as a CEO. Not one year yet. Not one year yet. Let's hope, it'll be in June, it'll be one year. Okay. This is a company that's involved with a lot of fascinating technologies and it's touching the lives of billions of people. A lot of complicated stuff. Like I said, licensing technologies, you have to collaborate with manufacturers. You have to then work with however many, you said car companies and all these clients and so on. And you have to, with tech companies, Apple and so on. What's that like? What lessons have you learned about leadership and maybe about yourself as a human being from this first, almost a year, soon to be a year as a CEO of this incredible, this complex, this large company? No, that's a loaded question. Let me answer in reverse order. First thing that I learned, and I think it's probably common across CEOs, especially in our industry is, it will be great if I had more time. I think there's, especially because we grow in so many areas and there's so many things to learn, so many relationships to build, time to spend with a number of different technologies. But it kind of reflects really the size of the opportunity that exists for Qualcomm. Qualcomm, it is really growing in a number of different directions all at the same time. And so it did got busier. And part of this is because I'm spending a lot of time understanding the new industries we're going in and building relationships. Second thing, which is a lot to do with how I think about things, and a little bit of my personality. At the end of the day, business partnership is really done by people. And I think the importance of having trusted relationships for the long-term is extremely important. And I've been dedicated to do that as CEO. We're not a company that plays for the short-term. We don't. And when we build new partnerships, we expect that to be for decades. And so I spend time doing that and think that's important for Qualcomm. The other part of your question is, we do have a lot of opportunities in all different areas. What we like, and I've been fortunate enough to become CEO at a time that a lot of the trends are pointing to our technology. We talk about some of them. We talk about merger of physical and digital spaces. We talk about the transformation of the automobile. We talk about the merge of computing and mobile, the enterprise transformation of the home. There are many of those trends. And those trends create opportunities for Qualcomm to be providing technology first. And as such, we're in a hurry. So I'm in a little bit of a hurry because I think the opportunity is incredible for technology, but having fun and enjoying the job. Is there a burden because of so much what you said is partnerships and almost like friendships, connections with other human beings. Me as an introvert that has a lot of social anxiety, that seems extremely stressful. So is there that burden on your shoulders? You have to wake up every day and talk to friends you've had for many years. It can be, and then convince them and make partnerships with them, talk with them, describe to them the future, sell them an idea, and then yourself grow because you don't know what the heck the future is gonna be like. And you have to project both confidence and humility, all those kinds of things. Is that exhausting? It is exhausting, but it's something I do like to do. And it's not only with partners, really it's also internally to your employees. So I think to get alignment on the vision and faith in the vision and execute. And at the end of the day, we're very fortunate we have a lot of smart people. So people, if they're aligned with the vision, they know what to do. And then of course, as CEO, you have to convince your investors that that's the right idea as well. If you can put on your wise sage hat, do you have advice for young people in high school and college? You yourself started from the humble beginnings in Brazil, maybe a bit of a wild, risky decision to go to Japan, and now are at the head of one of the biggest, most successful, most impactful companies in the world. Given that story, can you give advice to young people today that they can have a career or just the life they can be proud of? I think the first thing, and of course all of those answers are gonna relate to my own experience, right? The first thing is, it always worked for me to have a plan, even if the plan, it's just what I'm gonna do in the next two years, but what do I want to do? Where do I wanna go? And I think it's important for people, especially young people, is to really have a dream and go pursue it. I mean, have dreams, not go back to bed to sleep. It's really what do you want to accomplish and then what it's gonna take to do that. And then believe in yourself. Like I said, I joined Qualcomm as an engineer, and I didn't have any plans when I joined to be CEO, but I do want, as an engineer, what do I want to do? Where do I wanna contribute what I wanted to work on, and then keep evolving from that point in time. The other thing is, this is an advice, it's more of like career advice that I got early in my career, was extremely helpful for me. And I will give that advice to everyone that is interested. Spend time understanding what are the things you're good at and what are the things you're not? Like what is the real border between your area of competence and your area of incompetence? And once you see that, once you see that, you know exactly what you have to work on, and you can say, if that's what I wanna go next, this is the gap I need to do it. And it's faster when you can identify yourself before other people can tell you. Then it leads to automatically the next step. Surround yourself, the people that are very good at the things that you're not. So you have to be radically honest about the things that you're not good at, but given what you're passionate about, you need to get good at, or you would like to get good at. And surround yourself by those people. How often did the plans you make actually work out? You said it's important to make plans. You didn't say anything about it's important to execute on those plans. Eh, more than 50% success rate. Try to keep it above 50. Try to keep it above 50. What was the whole, why did you end up in Japan? You know, I've been fortunate enough to work in cellular and wireless my entire career. So I always liked communications. When I went to engineering school, my dad was an electrical engineer, but he worked with a utility company. He wanted me to graduate in traditional electrical engineering like energy generation, distribution. But I like electronics communications, so I ended up doing both. And I always liked communication. I was fascinated by wireless communication. So my first job out of college, I started working for a Japanese company down in Brazil. Was NEC, and within about a year in, they transferred me to Tokyo, asked me to go to their headquarters, and it was the first time I left Brazil. And a little bit different from Brazil, culturally. Very different. It's in the other side of the planet. And that's how it started. You said your father's an electrical engineer. Do you think what you're doing now makes your father proud? I think he's very proud. I think especially, he tells me that I'm still the same person, never change. Does he give you advice? Does he criticize what you're doing? Tell you how to improve? My mom and dad still give me advice today. I'm very fortunate for that. But he's proud. Also proud because there are very few Brazilians that have achieved a position as CEO of a company the size of Qualcomm. And I do know that also I carry a burden, especially for the Latino community, to be an inspiration for them and make sure I set a good example. So not just your mom and dad, but the culture, the people that were originally your home. Life is finite. Do you think about your own mortality? Look, I'm a devout Christian, and so I'm a big believer that this is just a transition. But don't spend a lot of time thinking about that. I am somebody good, better, and different that try as much as possible to leave the present, and that's what I do. And try to make the present better on this place here. Absolutely, absolutely. And that some of these technologies, some of these ideas are kind of a different kind of immortality as well, because they propagate through time and have impact on people in the best possible way. So technology can be scary, technology can be destructive, but it seems like in the end it can do a lot of good. More good, there's more good than bad. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? I asked you about aliens observing us. What's the meaning of life? Cristiano, what's the meaning of life? Easy questions. That's not an easy question at all. I think that's a question, at least for me, you have to answer individually. But I do believe we're all here for a purpose. In my prayers I always ask that I stay on track to whatever my purpose is, but I do believe we're here for a purpose and we need to do the best we can during the time we have on this earth. So that means create beautiful things for you? As an engineer? That's the right thing, yes, and create beautiful things, yes. What about love? What's the role of love in the human condition? Love's very important, and it's an essential part of being human. It comes in the package. And I think if you look at the situation, what's happening right now, I think you look at the situation with some of the underprivileged communities, you look at the homeless situation, I think we all need more love. Yeah, and I think people that build incredible technology sometimes forget the love part. Like, those are all, it's all integrated. There's no, thinking about humanity is really important when you build tools that empower that humanity. Because there's, I think, at least I personally believe we're all capable of both evil and good. And we have to build technology, build societies, build governments, build communities that inspire us to connect with the good part within all of us. I'm a big believer that technology is at the end the force for good. And if you just look, you know, not trying to move away from a deep discussion to a more specific technical one, but if we start a conversation talking about smartphones, and smartphones really the first time that you could say that everybody in the world was able to connect to the internet and connect to each other. And I think what, that empowerment that that provided, it's an incredible force for good. Well, the company you lead, the technology you've created, one of them that I'm especially excited about, which is Snapdragon, the whole line of processors there, currently I would say at about 10 billion transistors. If you think about the human brain, it's about 100 billion neurons. So I think 11 Samsung Galaxy S22s are already smarter than me. And that's being nice to me. I'm really honored that you spent your extremely valuable time with me. Even though you said Pele is the favorite player, beyond all of that, I think you're an incredible person, an incredible leader, and you lead an incredible engineering company, so thank you for doing that. Oh, thank you so much. Thank you for the kind words. Really a pleasure having this conversation. I really had a lot of fun doing it, and thank you for having me on the podcast. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Cristiano Amon. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Stephen Hawking. For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened, which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk, and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/KMgPxVnKLSk

NffaKHVk-yE

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman at UFC 279

Is that a camera? Yeah. That's incredible. DJI, look at it. Is that better than your phone? Yeah. Maybe because you have a nice one. It's incredible quality. Yeah. Here with Joe Rogan at the weigh-ins. Oh, hi. You get nervous before these things? No, I get excited, though. How do you prepare for all the names you have to read off? I have to get them written out phonetically. When you look at these guys, you see excitement, you see fear. What do you usually see? The fighters? Yeah, when they stay up. You never see fear. You saw fear when Anderson Silva was in his prime. You saw some fear. When guys reach this unstoppable level, you see some fear. But you don't generally just see anxiety and tension. You see guys getting fired up for a fight. Intensity? Intensity, for sure. Who is the most intense guy you've seen at the weigh-ins? Ever? Conor gets pretty fucking intense, but so does Khabib. It all depends on whether or not they have real animosity towards each other. Nate Diaz is probably somebody that gets pretty intense. Yeah, he's going to get intense. That's going to be a good one. I don't know how they're going to separate him from Hamza and him from everyone else. You think it's going to get crazy today? It could get crazy. What are you going to do? Are you going to be all right? I'm going to get the fuck out of there. If shit gets wild, I'm not getting in this crap. You're going to watch me look like a coward. Also here with Shane Gillis, are you going to step up if shit goes down? I'll get in there. I might have to get in and get knocked out by a 120-pounder. Do you ever lose your voice with these things? No. No, I yell all the time. Because of doing comedy, my voice is pretty strong. This is such a surreal moment in human history for combat. More innovation has happened in combat in the past 20 years than ever in human history. You're at the center of it. Does that hit you? At which point does that hit you? Before big fights, it's always goosebumps. It starts building up? Yeah. Before Leon Edwards and Kamaru Usmano, it's like, whoo, here we go. Your whole body just tingles. All your skin tingles. Then the shock might happen like it did in that fight. Oh, yeah. When something crazy happens, your whole body just jolts. It's so wild. You see people standing up and screaming, oh, my God, behind you. Then you become a meme. I'm a meme often. The last one, when Leon Edwards knocked out Kamaru, you see me and DC freaking out behind us. Tony Hinchcliffe goes, oh, my God. That's amazing. It was amazing. All right, brother. Thank you for giving us a behind-the-scenes. My pleasure. Edmund Holland! And his opponent, Hamza Jumayyed! Official weight, 178.5. In the welterweight division, Nate Diaz versus Tony Ferguson! And his opponent, Nate Diaz! Thank you all for coming out. We'll see you all tomorrow night. How do you feel after that? It was exciting. It was very intense. It was going to be one of those cards where it's like no one prepared for that opponent. So you have three fights that have been completely reworked. And so these guys have to adjust. And there's very different opponents. Well, what happened was Hamza Jumayyed didn't make weight. And he missed weight by 8.5 pounds, which is so crazy that they wouldn't let them fight each other. So they had to move that. So now you have Li Jinglian versus Daniel Rodriguez. Rodriguez was supposed to be fighting Kevin Holland. And then Hamza was supposed to be fighting Nate Diaz, missed weight by a ton. But honestly, Tony Ferguson versus Nate Diaz is a much better fight, much more competitive fight. And Hamza versus Kevin Holland is a real test for Hamza. Kevin Holland is a big guy. He fought at 185 pounds before. He was very successful, knocked people out, including Joaquin Buckley at 185. That's a real test. Do you think Holland is ready for the fight? It's chaos. It's a surprise. It's a totally different kind of fight. He's a chaos kind of guy, though. I mean, I think it's an exciting fight. I'm excited about it. Do you think Hamza is ready? Well, I don't like the fact that he missed weight. That's a lot to miss weight by. So there's like two things could happen. He missed weight because he didn't prepare properly, which usually indicates either that he was sick or injured. Or he didn't want to make the weight. You know, maybe he was like so worked up by all this Nate Diaz stuff that he didn't want to get in the sauna. He didn't want to cut the weight. That's what's going on. We don't know. We really don't know. You'd have to get friends with him where he could confide in you and he'd tell you the truth. It was amazing to see you do this in person and amazing to see the fighters in person. Thank you for letting me in. It's intense. Tomorrow's going to be even crazier. So you have to know what the angles are. So like this shot right here, this is a perfect example. This seems like an easy shot. No, it's not an easy shot. It's getting to that ball down there. Yeah. So that ball, when the ball's down there like that, like kind of in the middle, but not in front of that hole or that hole. There's only two places to be on that hole. You have to be on the right side of the ball or the left side of the ball. Now when you have something like this that's right in front of the hole, it seems like, well, that's an easy shot. But you have to make sure that you have the right speed to hit this here. You got to go like this and then all the way down to here. Oh, so two walls. It's got to bounce on this one, that one. All right. Basically three rails, maybe. Three rails. One, two, and I might hit the bottom. And then a little like a tap on the other one. But it's all like a gentle touch. Yeah. Got it. See? Bam. Wow, that's strong. That's strong. See the difference? Yeah. It seems like that's easy, but that's not easy at all. That's like one of the harder shots is to get yourself where you're in a perfect position to make the next ball. How'd you get into Opie and Anthony? I was in bands with my brother, and I would write song parodies about everything that was happening in the news. And the OJ thing, you might have heard of that. It happened, and I wrote a song parody about it. Opie played it on his show on WBAB on Long Island, and people loved it. So he goes, hey, can you come in and do it live? And me and my brother are like, yeah, came in, did it live. And I thought this was my shot. I just poured everything out. I started doing impressions. I was commenting on the news. And Opie goes, dude, that was really good. Why don't you come in next week again? And it just snowballed from there. We got an offer to go to Boston, and I never looked back. I threw my sheet metal worker tools out on 95 on my way up to Boston. It's all about knowing the cue ball speed and knowing how a ball is going to come off the ball when it contacts it at an angle. And you get completely obsessive because it's so hard to predict. And then the more you do it, the more you get muscle memory, and the more you kind of understand where the ball is going. So you're not even thinking too much. You're using intuition. There's a lot of thinking and a lot of intuition. It's like both things are happening at the same time. It's super complicated. It's fascinating.

https://youtu.be/NffaKHVk-yE

AB60_uUetJs

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Will Javascript Take Over the World? | Brian Kernighan and Lex Fridman

So what do you think about another language of JavaScript that's this... Well, let me just sort of comment on what I said. What I was brought up, sort of JavaScript was seen as the probably like the ugliest language possible. And yet it's quite arguably, quite possibly taking over not just the front end and the back end of the Internet, but possibly in the future taking over everything. Because they've now learned to make it very efficient. And so what do you think about this? Yeah, well, I think you've captured it in a lot of ways. When it first came out, JavaScript was deemed to be fairly irregular and an ugly language. And certainly in the academy, if you said you were working on JavaScript, people would ridicule you. It was just not fit for academics to work on. I think a lot of that has evolved. The language itself has evolved. And certainly the technology of compiling it is fantastically better than it was. And so in that sense, it's absolutely a viable solution on back ends as well as the front ends. Used well, I think it's a pretty good language. I've written a modest amount of it. And I've played with JavaScript translators and things like that. I'm not a real expert. And it's hard to keep up even there with the new things that come along with it. So I don't know whether it will ever take over the world. I think not. But it's certainly an important language and worth knowing more about. There's maybe to get your comment on something, which JavaScript and actually most languages, Python, such a big part of the experience of programming with those languages includes libraries. So using, building on top of the code that other people have built. I think that's probably different from the experience that we just talked about from Unix and CDays when you're building stuff from scratch. What do you think about this world of essentially leveraging, building up libraries on top of each other and leveraging them? Yeah, that's a very perceptive kind of question. One of the reasons programming was fun in the old days was that you were really building it all yourself. The number of libraries you had to deal with was quite small. It was print F or the standard library or something like that. And that is not the case today. And if you want to do something in, you mentioned Python and JavaScript, and those are the two fine examples, you have to typically download a boatload of other stuff and you have no idea what you're getting. Absolutely nothing. I've been doing some playing with machine learning over the last couple of days. And gee, something doesn't work. Well, you pip install this. And down comes another gazillion megabytes of something and you have no idea what it was. And if you're lucky, it works. And if it doesn't work, you have no recourse. There's absolutely no way you could figure out which of these thousand different packages. And I think it's worse in the NPM environment for JavaScript. I think there's less discipline, less control there. And there's aspects of not just not understanding how it works, but there's security issues, there's robustness issues. So you don't want to run a nuclear power plant using JavaScript, essentially. Probably not.

https://youtu.be/AB60_uUetJs

DbXjoXnIxQo

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Chris Blattman: War and Violence | Lex Fridman Podcast #273

What are your thoughts on the ongoing war in Ukraine? How do you analyze it within your framework about war? How far would they go to hang on to power when push came to shove is I think the thing that worries me the most and is plainly what worries most people about the risk of nuclear war. Like at what point does that unchecked leadership decide that this is worth it? Especially if they can emerge from the rubble still on top. The following is a conversation with Chris Blattman, professor at the University of Chicago, studying the causes and consequences of violence and war. This he explores in his new book called, Why We Fight, The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace. The book comes out on April 19th, so you should pre-order it to support Chris and his work. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Chris Blattman. In your new book titled, Why We Fight, The Roots of War and the Paths for Peace, you write, quote, let me be clear what I mean when I say war. I don't just mean countries duking it out. I mean any kind of prolonged violence struggle between groups. That includes villages, clans, gangs, ethnic groups, religious sects, political factions and nations. Wildly different as these may be, their origins have much in common. We'll see that the Northern Irish zealots, Colombian cartels, European tyrants, Liberian rebels, Greek oligarchs, Chicago gangs, Indian mobs, Rwandan genocide dares, a new word I learned, thank you to you. Those are people who administer genocide. English soccer hooligans and American invaders. So, first, let me ask, what is war? In saying that war is a prolonged violence struggle between groups, what do the words prolonged, groups and violent mean? I sit at the sort of intersection of economics and political science and I also dwell a little bit in psychology but that's partly because I'm married to a psychologist, sometimes do research with her. All these things are really different. So if you're a political scientist, you spend a lot of time just classifying a really narrow kind of conflict and studying that. And that's an important way to make progress as a social scientist. But I'm not trying to make progress, I'm trying to sort of help everybody step back and say, you know what, there's like some common things that we know from these disciplines that relate to a really wide range of phenomena. Basically, we can talk about them in a very similar way and we can get really similar insights. So I wanted to actually bring them together but I still had to like say, let's hold out individual violence, which has a lot in common but individuals choose to engage in violence for more and sometimes different reasons. So let's just put that aside so that we can focus a bit and let's really put aside short incidents of violence because those might have the same kind of things explaining them. But actually there's a lot of other things that can explain short violence. Short violence can be really demonstrative. Like you can just, I can use it to communicate information. The thing that all of it has in common is that it doesn't generally make sense. It's not your best option most of the time. And so I wanted to say, let's take this thing that should be puzzling. We kind of think it's normal, we kind of think that this is what all humans do. But let's point out that it's not normal and then figure out why and let's talk about why. And so that's, so I was trying to throw out the short violence, I was trying to throw out the individual violence. I was also trying to throw out all the competition that happens that's not violent. That's the normal, normal competition. I was trying to say, let's talk about violent competition because that's kind of the puzzle. So that's really interesting. So you said, usually people try to find a narrow definition and you said progress. So you make progress by finding a narrow definition, for example, of military conflict in a particular context. And progress means, all right, well, how do we prevent this particular kind of military conflict or maybe if it's already happening, how do we deescalate it and how do we solve it? So from a geopolitics perspective, from an economics perspective, and you're looking for a definition of war that is as broad as possible, but not so broad that you cannot achieve a deep level of understanding of why it happens and how it can be avoided. Right, and a common, basically like recognize that common principles govern some kinds of behavior that look pretty different. Like an Indian ethnic riot is obviously pretty different than invading a neighboring country, right? But, and that's pretty different than two villages or two gangs. A lot of what I work on is studying organized criminals and gangs, two gangs going to where you'd think is really different and of course it is, but there are some like common principles. You can just think about conflict and the use of violence and not learn everything, but just get a lot, just get really, really far by sort of seeing the commonalities rather than just focusing on the differences. So again, those words are prolonged, groups, and violent. Can you maybe linger on each of those words? What does prolonged mean? Where's the line between short and long? What does groups mean and what does violent mean? So let me, you know, I have a friend who, someone who's become a friend through the process of my work and writing this book also, who was 20, 30 years ago was a gang leader in Chicago. So this guy named Napoleon English or Nap. And I remember one time he was saying, well, you know, when I was young, I used to, I was 15, 16 and he'd go to the neighboring gangs territory. He says, I'd go gang banging. And I said, well, I didn't know what that meant. I said, what does that mean? And he said, oh, that just meant I'd shoot him up. Like I'd shoot at buildings. I might shoot at people. I wasn't trying to kill, he wasn't trying to kill them. He was just trying to sort of send a signal that he was a tough guy and he was fearless and he was someone who they should be careful with. And so I didn't want to call that war, right? That was, that was, that's something different. That was, it was short, it was kind of sporadic. And he wasn't, and he was basically trying to send them information. And this is what countries do all the time, right? We have military parades and we might have border skirmishes and I wanted to sort of, so is it, what's short? Is it three month border skirmish, a war? I mean, I don't try to get into those things. I don't want to, but I want to point out that like these long grueling months and years of violence are like the problem and the puzzle. And I just, I didn't want to spend a lot of time talking about the international version of gangbanging. It's a different phenomenon. So what is it about Napoleon that doesn't nap, let's call him, not to add confusion, that doesn't qualify for war? Is it the individual aspect? Is it that violence is not the thing that is sought but the communication of information is what is sought or is it the shortness of it? Is it all of those combined? It's a little bit, I mean, he was the head of a group or he was becoming the head of a group at that point. And that group eventually did go to war with those neighboring gangs, which is to say it was just long drawn out conflict over months and months and months. But I think one of the big insights from my fields is that you're constantly negotiating over something, right, whether you're officially negotiating or you're all posturing, like you're bargaining over something and you should be able to figure out a way to split that pie and you could use violence. But violence is, everybody's miserable. Like if you're nap, like if you start a war, one, there's lots of risks. You could get killed, that's not good. You could kill somebody else and go to jail, which is what happened to him, that's not good. Your soldiers get killed, no one's buying your drugs in the middle of a gunfight, so it interrupts your business. And so on and on and on, it's like it's really miserable. This is what we're seeing right now. You know, as we're recording, you know, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is now in the fourth or fifth week. Everybody's, if it didn't dawn on them before, it's dawned on them now just how brutal and costly this is. As you describe for everybody. So everybody is losing in this war. Yeah, I mean, that's maybe the insight. Everybody loses something from war and there was usually, not always, but the point is there was usually a way to get what you wanted or be better off without having to fight over it. So there's this, it's just, fighting is just politics by other means and it's just inefficient, costly, brutal, devastating means. And so that's like the deep insight. And so I kind of wanted to say, so I guess like what's not war? I mean, I don't try to belabor the definitions because some, you know, there's reams and reams of political science papers written on like, what's a war, what's not a war? People disagree. I just wanted to say, war is the thing that we shouldn't be doing or war is the violence that doesn't make sense. There's a whole bunch of other violence, including gangbanging and skirmishes and things that might make sense precisely because they're cheap ways of communicating or they're not particularly costly. War is the thing that's just so costly we should be trying to avoid is maybe like the meta way I think about it. All right. Nevertheless, definitions are interesting. So outside of the academic bickering, every time you try to define something, I'm a big fan of it, the process illuminates. So the destination doesn't matter because the moment you arrive at the definition, you lose the power. Yeah, one of the interesting thing, I mean, so people, if you wanna do, some of what I do is just quantitative analysis of conflict and if you wanna do that, if you wanna sort of run statistics on war, then you have to code it all up. And then lots of people have done that. There's four or five major datasets where people or teams of people have over time said, we're gonna code years of war between these groups or within a country. And what's interesting is how difficult, these datasets don't often agree. You have to make all of these, the decision gets really complicated. Like when does the war begin? Does it begin when a certain number of people have been killed? Did it begin? What if there's like lots of skirmishing and sort of little terror attacks or a couple bombs lobbed and then eventually turns into war? Do we call that, do we backdate it to like when the first act of violence started? And then what do we do with all the times when there was like that low scale, low intensity violence or bombs lobbed? And do we call those wars? But, or maybe only if they eventually get worse. Like, so you get, it actually is really tricky. And the defensive and the offensive aspect. So everybody, Hitler in World War II, it seems like he never attacked anybody. He's always defending against the unjust attack of everybody else as he's taken over the world. So that's like information propaganda that every side is trying to communicate to the world. So you can't listen to necessarily information like self-report data. You have to kind of look past that somehow. Maybe look, especially in the modern world, as much as possible at the data. How many bombs dropped? How many people killed? How the number of, the estimates of the number of troops moved from one location to another and that kind of thing. And the other interesting thing is there's quantitative analysis of war. So for example, I was looking at just war index or people trying to measure, trying to put a number on what wars are seen as just and not. Oh really, I've never seen that. It's, there's numbers behind it. It's great. So it's great because again, as you do an extensive quantification of justice, you start to think what actually contributes to our thought that, for example, World War II is a just war and other wars are not. A lot of it is about intent and some of the other factors like that you look at, which is prolonged, the degree of violence that is necessary versus not necessary, given the greater good, some measure of the greater good of people, all those kinds of things. Then there's reasons for war, looking to free people or to stop a genocide versus conquering land, all those kinds of things. And people try to put a number behind it. And a lot of- It's based on, I mean, what I'm trying to imagine is, I mean, suppose I wake up and, or whatever, suppose I think my God tells me to do something or my God thinks that, or my moral sense thinks that something that another group is doing is repugnant. I'm curious, are they evaluating the validity of that claim or just the idea that, well, you said it was repugnant, you deeply believe that, therefore it's just? I think, and I could be corrected on a lot of this, but I think this is always looking at wars after they happened and trying to take a global perspective from all, sort of a general survey of how people perceive. So you're not weighing disproportionately the opinions of the people who waged the war. Yeah, I mean, I kind of ended up dodging that because, I mean, one is to just point out that wars, actually most wars aren't necessary. And so in the sense that there's another way to get what you wanted. And so on one level, there's no just war. Now that's not true because, take an example like the US invasion of Afghanistan. The United States has been attacked. There's a culpable agent, reliable evidence that this is Al-Qaeda. They're being sheltered in Afghanistan by the Taliban. And then the Taliban, this is a bit murky. It seems that there was an attempt to, say, hand him over or else, and they said, no way. Now you can make an argument that invading and attacking is strategically the right thing to do in terms of sending signals to your future enemies, or you just, if you think it's important to bring someone to justice, in this case, Al-Qaeda, then maybe that's just war or that's a just invasion, but it hinges on the fact that the other side just didn't do the seemingly sensible thing, which is say, okay, we'll give him up. And so it was completely avoidable in one sense, but if you believe, and I think it's probably true, if you believe that for their own ideological and other reasons, you know, Mullah Omar in particular and Taliban in general decided we're not going to do this, then now you're not left with very many good choices. And now, you know, I didn't wanna talk about is that a just war or is that, what's justice or not? I just wanted to point out that like, one side's intransigence, if that's indeed what happened, one side's intransigence sort of maybe compels you to basically eliminates all of the reasonable bargains that you could be satisfied with, and now you're left with really no other strategic option but to invade. I think that's a slight oversimplification, but I think that's like one way to describe what happened. So your book is fascinating, your perspective on this is fascinating. I'll try to sort of play devil's advocate at times to try to get a clarity, but the thesis is that war is costly, usually costly for everybody. So that's what you mean when you say nobody wants war, because you're going to, from a game theoretical perspective, nobody wins. And so war is essentially a breakdown of reason, a breakdown of negotiation, of healthy communication, or healthy operation of the world, some kind of breakdown. You list all kinds of ways in which it breaks down. There's also human beings in this mix. And there is ideas of justice. So for example, I don't want to, my memory doesn't serve me well on which wars were seen as justice, very, very few in the 20th century of the many that have been there. The wars that were seen as just, first of all, the most just war is seen as World War II by far. It's actually the only one that goes above a threshold is seen as just, everything is seen as unjust. It's like degrees of unjustness. And I think the ones that are seen as more just are the ones that are fast, that you have a very specific purpose, you communicate that purpose honestly with the global community, and you strike hard, fast, and you pull out. To do sort of, it's like rescue missions. It's almost like policing work. If there's somebody suffering, you go in and stop that suffering directly, and that's it. I think World War II is seen in that way, that there's an obvious aggressor that is causing a lot of suffering in the world and looking to expand the scale of that suffering. And so you strike, I mean, given the scale, you strike as hard and as fast as possible to stop the expansion of the suffering. So that's kind of how they see. I don't know if you can kind of look with this framework that you presented and look at Hitler and think, well, it's not in his interest to attack Czechoslovakia, Poland, Britain, France, Russia, the Soviet Union, America, the United States of America, same with Japan. Is it in their long-term interest? I don't know. So for me, who cares about alleviating human suffering in the world, yes. It's not, it seems like almost no war is just, but it also seems somehow deeply human to fight. And I think your book makes the case, no, it's not. Can you try to get at that? Because it seems that war, there is some, that drum of war seems to beat in all human hearts, like it's in there somewhere. Maybe it's, maybe there's like a relic of the past and we need to get rid of it. It's deeply irrational. Okay, so obviously we go to war and obviously there's a lot of violence. And so we have to explain something. And some of that's going to be aspects of our humanness. So I guess what I wanted us to sort of start with, I think it was just useful to sort of start and point out, actually, there's really, really, really, really strong incentives not to go to war because it's gonna be really costly. And so all of these other human or strategic things, all these things, the circumstantial things that will eventually lead us to go to war have to be pretty powerful before we go there. And most of the time- Sorry to interrupt. And that's why you also describe, very importantly, that war throughout human history is actually rare. We usually avoid it. You know, most people don't know about the US invasion of Haiti in 1994. I mean, a lot of people know about it, but people just don't pay attention to it. We don't, we're gonna, you know, the history books and school kids are gonna learn about the invasion of Afghanistan for decades and decades. And nobody's going to put this one in the history books. And it's because it didn't actually happen because before the troops could land, the person who'd taken power in a coup basically said, fine. There's this famous story where Colin Powell goes to Haiti, to this new dictator who's refused to let a democratic president take power and tries to convince him to step down or else. And he says, no, no, no. And then he shows him a video and it's basically troop planes and all these things taking off. And he's like, this is not live, this is two hours ago. So it's a, and basically, he basically gives up right there. So that was- That's a powerful move. Yeah. I think Powell might've been one of his teachers in like a US military college, because a lot of these military dictators were trained at some point. So they had some, there was some personal relationships, at least between people in the US government and this guy that they were trying to use. The point is, and that's like what should have happened. Like that makes sense, right? Like, yeah, maybe I can mount an insurgency and yeah, I'm not gonna bear a lot of the costs of war because I'm the dictator and maybe he's human and he just wants to fight or gets angry or it's just in his mind, whatever he's doing. But at the end of the day, it's like, this does not make sense. And that's what happens most of the time, but we don't write so many books about it. And now some political scientists go and they count up all of the nations that could fight because they have some dispute and they're right next to one another or they look at the ethnic groups that could fight with one another because there's some tension and they're right next to one another. And then whatever, some number like 999 out of 1000 don't fight because they just find some other way. They don't like each other, but they just loathe in peace because that's the sensible thing to do. And that's what we all do. We loathe in peace and we loathe the Soviet Union in relative peace for decades and India loathes Pakistan in peace. I mean, two weeks into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, again, it was in the newspapers, but most people didn't, I think, take note. India accidentally launched a cruise missile at Pakistan and calm ensued. So they were like, yeah, this is, we do not wanna go to war. This will be bad. We'll be angry, but we'll accept your explanation that this was an accident. And so these things fly under the radar. And so we overestimate, I think, how likely it is sides are gonna fight. But then of course things do happen. Like Russia did invade the Ukraine and didn't find some negotiated deal. And so then the book is sort of about, half the book is just sort of laying out, actually like there's just different ways this breaks down. And some of them are human. Some of them are this, I actually don't think war beats in our heart. It does a little bit, but we're actually very cooperative. We're as a species, we're deeply, deeply cooperative. We're really, really good. So the thing we're not, we're okay at violence and we're okay getting angry and vengeant. And we have principles that will sometimes lead us, but we're actually really, really, really good at cooperation. And so that's, again, I'm not trying to write some big optimistic book where everything's gonna be great and we're all happy and we don't really fight. It's more just to say, let's start, let's be like a doctor. As a doctor, we're gonna focus on the sick, right? I'm gonna try, I know there's sick people, but I'm gonna recognize that the normal state is health and that most people are healthy. And that's gonna make me a better doctor. And that's, I'm kind of saying the same thing. Let's be better doctors of politics in the world by recognizing that like the normal state is health. And then we're gonna identify like what are the diseases that are causing this warfare? So yeah, the natural state of the human body with the immune system and all the different parts wants to be healthy and is really damn good at being healthy, but sometimes it breaks down. Let's understand how it breaks down. So what are the five ways that you list that are the roots of war? Yeah, so I mean, they're kind of like buckets. They're sort of things that rhyme, right? Because it's not all the same. There's like lots of reasons to go to war. There's this great line, there's a reason for every war and a war for every reason. And that's true. And it's kind of overwhelming, right? And it's overwhelming for a lot of people. It was overwhelming for me for a lot of time. And I think one of the gifts of social science is actually people have started to organize this for us. And I just tried to organize it like a tiny bit better. Buckets that rhyme. Buckets, yeah, the terrible metaphor, right? I got it metaphors. So the idea was that like that basic incentive, like something overrides these incentives. And I guess I was saying there's five ways that they get overrided. And three are I'd call strategic. Like they're kind of logical. There's circumstances that, and this is, they're sort of where strategic is, strategy is like the game theory. You could use those two things interchangeably. But game theory is sort of making it sound more complicated, I think, than it is. It's basically saying that there's times when this is like the optimal choice because of circumstances. And one of them is when the people who are deciding don't bear those costs. So that's, or maybe even have a private incentive that's gonna, that's, if they don't, if they're ignoring the cost, then maybe the costs of war are not so material. That's a contributing factor. Another is just there's uncertainty, and we could talk about that. But there's just the absence of information means that it actually, there's circumstances where it's your best choice to attack. There's this thing that political economists call commitment problems, which are basically saying there's some big power shift that you can avoid by attacking now. So it's like a dynamic incentive. It's sort of saying, well, in order to keep something from happening in the future, I can attack now. And because of the structure of incentives, it actually makes sense for me, even though war is, in theory, really costly. Or it is really costly, nonetheless. And then there's these sort of human things. One's a little bit like just war. One sort of thing, there's like ideologies or principles or things we value that weigh against those costs. Like exterminating the heretical idea or standing up for a principle might be so valuable to me that I'm willing to use violence, even if it's costly. And there's nothing irrational about that. And then the fifth bucket is all of the irrationalities, all the passions, and all of the, most importantly, I think, like misperceptions, the way we get, like we basically make wrong calculations about whether or not war is the right decision. We get, we misunderstand or misjudge our enemy or misjudge ourselves. So if you put all those things into buckets, so how much can it be modeled in a simple game theoretic way, and how much of it is a giant human mess? So four of those five are really, on some level, easy to think strategically and model in a simple way, in the sense that any of us can do it. We do this all the time. Think of like bargaining in a market for a carpet or something, or whatever you bargained for. You're thinking a few steps ahead about what your opponent's going to do. And you stake out a high, like a low price, and the seller stakes out a high price. And you might both say, oh, I refuse to, I could never accept that. And there's all this sort of cheap talk. But you kind of understand where you're going, and it's efficient to like find a deal and buy the market, buy the carpet eventually. So we all understand this, like game theory and the strategy, I think, intuitively. Or maybe even a closer example is like, suppose, I don't know, you have a tenant you need to evict, or any normal kind of legal, it's not yet a legal dispute, right? Like we just have a dispute with a neighbor or somebody else. Most of us don't end up going to court. Going to court is like the war option. That's the costly thing that we just ought to be able to, we ought to be able to find something between ourselves that doesn't require this hiring law and hiring lawyers and a long drawn out trial. And most of the time we do, right? And so we all understand that incentive. And then for those five buckets, so everything except all the irrational and the misperceptions are really easy to model. Then from a technical standpoint, it's actually pretty tricky to model the misperceptions. And I'm not a game theorist. And so I'm more channeling my colleagues who do this and what I know. But it's not rocket science. I mean, I think that's what I try to lay out in the book is like there's all these ideas out there that can actually help us just make sense of all these wars and just bring some order to the morass of reasons. Well, to push back a lot of things in one sentence. So first of all, rocket science is actually pretty simple. People like. I'll defer to you actually. Well, I think it's because unfortunately it's very like engineering, it's very well-defined. The problem is well-defined. The problem with humanity is it's actually complicated. So it is true it's not rocket science, but it is not true it's easy because it's not rocket science. But the problem, the downside of game theory is not that it helps us make sense of the world. It projects a simple model of the world that brings us comfort in thinking we understand. And sometimes that simplification is actually getting at the core first principles on understanding of something. And sometimes it fools us into thinking we understand. So for example, I mean, mutually assured destruction is a very simple model and people argue all the time whether that's actually a good model or not. But there's empirical fact that we're still alive as a human civilization. And also in the game theoretic sense, do we model individual leaders and their relationships? Do we, the staff, the generals, or do we also have to model the culture, the people, the suffering of the people, the economic frustration or the anger, the distrust? Do you have to model all those things? Do they come into play? And sometimes, I mean, again, we could be romanticizing those things from a historical perspective. But when you look at history and you look at the way wars start, it sometimes feels like a little bit of a misunderstanding escalates, escalates, escalates, and just builds on top of itself. And all of a sudden it's an all out war. It's the escalation with nobody hitting the brakes. So, I mean, you're absolutely right like in the sense that it's totally possible to oversimplify these things and take the game theory too seriously. And some, and people who study those things and write those models and people like me who use them can sometimes make that mistake. I think that's not the mistake that most people make most often. And what's actually true is I think most people, we're actually really quick, whether it's the US invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, we're really quick to blame that on the humanness and the culture. So we're really quick to say, oh, this was George W. Bush's either desire for revenge and vengeance or some private agenda or blood for oil. So we're really quick to blame it on these things. And then we're really, we tend to overlook the strategic incentives to attack, which I think we're probably dominant. I think those things might've been true to a degree, but I don't think they were enough to ever, bring those wars about. Just like I think people are very quick to sort of, in this current invasion to sort of talk about Putin's grand visions of being the next Catherine the Great or nationalist ideals or, and the mistakes and the miscalculations are really quick to sort of say, oh, that must be, and then kind of pause or not pause, but maybe even stop there and not see some of the strategic incentives. And so I guess we have to do both, but the strategic, I guess I would say like the, war is just such a big problem. It's just so costly that the strategic incentives and the things that game theory has given us are like really important in understanding why there was so little room for negotiation in a bargain that things like a leader's mistakes start to matter or a leader's nationalist ideals or delusions or vengeance actually matters, because those do matter, but they only matter when the capacity to find a deal is so narrow because of the circumstances. And so let's not, it's sort of like saying, like an elderly person who dies of pneumonia, right? Pneumonia killed them, obviously, but that's not the reason pneumonia was able to kill them. All of the fundamentals and the circumstances were like made them very fragile. And that's how I think all the strategic forces make that situation fragile. And then the miscalculations and all of these things you just said, which are so important are kind of like the pneumonia. And let's sort of, let's pay attention to both. And you're saying that people don't disproportionately pay attention to the- It's hard. I mean, it wasn't- To the leaders. It took me a long time to learn to recognize them. And it takes many people, you know, it took, and it took generations of social scientists, years and years to figure some of this out and to sort of help people understand it and clarify concepts. So it's not, it's just not that easy. No, it's not hard. I think it's possible to, just as I was taught a lot of the stuff I write in the book in graduate school or from reading, and it's possible to communicate and learn this stuff, but it's still really hard. And so that's kind of what I was trying to do is like close that gap and just make it, help people recognize these things in the wild. Before we zoom back out, let me at a high level first ask, what are your thoughts on the ongoing war in Ukraine? How do you analyze it within your framework about war? A Russian colleague of mine, Konstantin Sonin, tells this story about a visiting Ukrainian professor who's at the university. And one night he's walking down the street and he's talking on two cell phones at once for some reason. And a mugger stops him. And demands the phones. And in sort of like deadpan way, Konstantin says, and because he was Ukrainian, he decided to fight. And I think that's a little bit like what happened. Most of us in that situation would hand over our cell phones. And so in this situation, Putin's like the mugger and the Ukrainian people are being asked to hand over this thing. And they're saying, no, we're not gonna hand this over. And the fact is, most people do. Most people faced with a superpower or a tyrant or an autocrat or a murderous warlord who says, hand this over, they hand it over. And that's why there are so many unequal imperial relationships in the world. That's what empire is. Empire is successive people saying, fine, we'll give up some degree of freedom or sovereignty because you're too powerful. And the Ukrainian said, no way. This is just too precious. And so I said, one of those buckets where that there's a set of values. There's sometimes there's something that we value that is so valuable to us and important. Sometimes it's terrible. Sometimes it's the extermination of another people, but sometimes it's something noble like liberty or refusal to part with sovereignty. And in those circumstances, people will decide I will endure the costs. They probably, I mean, I think they knew what they were probably risking. And so to me, that's not to blame the Ukrainians any more than I would blame Americans for the American revolution. It's actually a very similar story. You had a tyrannical, militarily superior, pretty non-democratic entity come and say, you're gonna have partial sovereignty. And Americans for ideological reasons said, no way. And that, people like Bernard Balin and other historians, that's like the dominant story of the American revolution. It was an ideological origins, this attachment, this idea of liberty. And so I start, now there's lots of other reasons, I think, why this happened. But I think for me, it starts with Ukrainians failing to make that sensible, quote unquote, rational deal that says we should relinquish some of our sovereignty because Russia is more powerful than we are. So there's a very clinical look at the war. Meaning there is a man and a country, Vladimir Putin, that makes a claim on a land, builds up troops, and invades. The way to avoid suffering there and the way to avoid death and the way to avoid war is to back down and basically let, you know, there's a list of interests he provides and you go along with that. That's when the goal is to avoid war. Let's do some other calculus. Let's think about Britain. So France fought Hitler but did not fight very hard. Portugal, there's a lot of stories of countries like this. And there is Winston motherfucking Churchill. He's one of the rare humans in history who had that we shall fight on the beaches. It made no sense. Hitler did not say he's going to destroy Britain. He seemed to show respect for Britain. He wanted to keep the British Empire. It made total sense. It was obvious that Britain was going to lose if Hitler goes all in on Britain as he seemed like he was going to. And yet Winston Churchill said a big F you. Similar thing, Zelensky and the Ukrainian people said F you in that same kind of way. So I think we're saying the same things. I'm being more clinical about it. Well I'm trying to understand, and we won't know this, but which path minimizes human suffering in the long term? Well on the eve of the war, Ukraine was poor in the per person terms than it was in 1990. The economy's just completely stagnated. In Russia meanwhile, like many other parts of the region, it sort of has boomed to a degree. I mean certainly because of oil and gas but also for a variety of other reasons and Putin's consolidated political control. And from a very cold-blooded and calculated point of view, I think one way Putin and Russia could look at this is look, we were temporarily weak after the fall of the Iron Curtain. And the West basically took advantage of that. Like bravo, you pulled it off. You basically crept democracy and capitalism, all these things right up to our border. And now we have regained some of our strength. We've consolidated political control. We've killed our people. We have a stronger economy. And we somehow got Germany and other European nations to give up energy independence and actually just, we've got an enormous amount of leverage over you. And now we wanna roll back some of your success because we're powerful enough to demand it. And you've been taking advantage of the situation, which is maybe a fair impartial analysis. And in the West, but more specifically Ukraine said, but that's a price too high, which I totally respect. I would, maybe I'd like to think I'd make that same decision. But that is, that's the answer. If the answer is why would they fight if it's so costly? Why not find a deal? It's because they weren't willing to give Russia the thing that their power said they quote-unquote deserve. Just like Americans said to the Britain, yeah, of course we ought to accept semi-sovereignty. But we are just, we refuse. And we'd rather endure a bloody fight that we might lose than take this. And so you need some of these other five buckets, you need them to understand the situation. You need to sort of, there are other things going on, but I do think it's fundamental that there's just, that this noble intransigence is a big part of it. Well, let me just say a few things if it's okay. So your analysis is clear and objective. My analysis is neither clear nor objective. First, I've been going through a lot. I'm a different man over the past four or five weeks than I was before. I, in general, have come to, there's anger. I've come to despise leaders in general because leaders wage war and the people pay the price for that war. Let me just say on this point of standing up to an invader that I am half Ukrainian, half Russian, that I'm proud of the Ukrainian people. Whatever the sacrifices, whatever the scale of pain, standing up, there's something in me that's proud. Maybe that's, maybe that's, whatever the fuck that is, maybe that blood runs in me. I love the Ukrainian people, I love the Russian people. And whatever that fight is, whatever that suffering is, the millions of refugees, whatever this war is, the dictators come to power and their power falls. I just love that that spirit burns bright still. And I do, maybe I'm wrong in this, do see Ukrainian and Russian people as one people in a way that's not just cultural, geopolitical, but just given the history. I think about the same kind of fighting when Hitler, with all of his forces, chose to invade the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa. When he went in that Russian winter, and a lot of people, and that pisses me off, because if you know your history, it's not the winter that stopped Hitler, it's the Red Army, it's the people that refused to back down, they fought proudly. That pride, that's something, that's the human spirit. That's in war, you know, war is hell, but it really pushes people to stand for the things they believe in. It's the William Wallace speech from Braveheart, I think about this a lot. That does not fit into your framework. No, no, no, I'm gonna disagree. I think it totally fits in, and it's this, there's nothing irrational about what we believe, especially those principles which we hold the most dear. I'm merely trying to say that there's a calculus, there's one calculus over here that says Russia's more powerful than it was 20 years ago, and even 10 years ago, and Ukraine is not, and it's asking for something, and there's an incentive to give that up. That's obvious, like there's an incentive to comply. But my understanding is many of these post-Soviet republics have appeased, right, which is what we call compromise when we disagree with it. They've, all of these other peoples in the Russian sphere of influence have not stood up. And Russians, many Russians have tried to stand up, and they've been beaten down. And now people have, we'll see, but people have not been standing up very much. And so lots of people are cowed, and lots of people have appeased, and lots of people hear that speech and think I would like to do that but don't. And so, and my point is that sadly, we live in a world where a lot of people get stepped on by tyrants and empire and whatnot and don't rise up. And so I think we could admire, especially when they stand up for these reasons, and I think we can admire Churchill for that reason. I think we could, that's why we admire the leaders of the American Revolution and so on. But it doesn't always happen, and I don't actually know why. But I don't think it's irrational. I think it's just, it's something, it's about a set of values, and it's hard to predict. And it was hard for, Putin might not have been out of line in thinking just like everybody else in my sphere of influence, they're gonna roll over too. And I should mention, because we haven't, that a lot of this calculation, from an objective point of view, you have to include United States and NATO into the pressure they apply into the region. Yeah. That said, I care little about leaders that do cruel things onto the world. They lead to a lot of suffering, but I still believe that the Russian people and the Ukrainian people are great people that stand up, and I admire people that stand up and are willing to give their life. And I think Russian people are very much that too, especially when the enemy is coming for your home over the hill. Yeah. Sometimes standing up to an authoritarian regime is difficult because you don't know. It's not a monster that's attacking your home directly. It's kind of like the boiling of a lobster or something like that. It's a slow control of your mind and the population. And our minds get controlled even in the West by the media, by the narratives. It's very difficult to wake up one day and to realize sort of what people call red-pilled, is to see that they're, maybe the thing I've been told all my life is not true, at every level. That's the thing very difficult to do in North Korea. The more authoritarian the regime, the more difficult it is to see. Maybe this idea that I believe that I was willing to die for is actually evil. It's very difficult to do for Americans, for Russians, for Ukrainians, for Chinese, for Indians, for Pakistanis, for everybody. I think thinking about this Ukrainian, whether you want to call it nobility or intransigence or whatever is key. I think the authoritarianness of Russia and Putin's control or the control of his cabal is the other thing I would really point to is what's going on here. And if you asked me like big picture, what do I think is the fundamental cause of most violence in the world? I think it's unaccountable power. I think, in fact, for me, an unaccountable power is the source of underdevelopment. It's the source of pain and suffering. It's the source of warfare. It's basically the root source of most of our problems. And in this particular case, it's also one of our buckets in the sense that like, why, what is it that why did Russia ask these things? Like, well, was democracy in Ukraine a threat to an average Russian? No. Was capitalism, is NATO, is whatever, is this a threat to average Russians? No, it's a threat to the apparatus of political control and economic control that Putin and cronies and this sort of group of people that rule, this elite in Russia, it was a threat to them. And so they had to ask the Ukraine to be neutral or to give up NATO or to have a puppet government or whatever they were seeking to achieve and have been trying to achieve through other means for decades, right? They've been trying to undermine these things without invasion. And they've been doing that because it threatens their interests. And that's like one of these other logics of war. It's not just that there's something that I value so much and I'm willing to endure the cost. It's that there are people, not only does this oligarchy or whatever elite group that you wanna talk about in Russia, first of all, they're bearing some costs of war, right, and they're certainly bearing costs of sanctions, but they don't bear all the costs of war, obviously. And so they're quick to use it. But more importantly, in some sense, I think there's a strong argument that they had a political incentive to invade or at least to ask Ukraine this sort of impossible to give up thing and then invade despite Ukrainian nobility and transigence because they were threatened. And so that's extremely important, I think. And so those two things in concert make this a very fragile situation. That's I think why we ended up, is go not all the way, but a long way to understanding. Now you could layer onto that these intangible incentives, these other things that are valued on Putin's side. Maybe there's a nationalist ideal. Maybe he seeks status and glory. Maybe those things are all true, and I'm sure they're true to an extent. And that'll weigh against his costs of war as well. But fundamentally, I think he just saw his regime as threatened, that's what he cares about. And so he asked, he made this cruel list of demands. I mean, I would say I'm just one human, who the hell am I? But I just have a lot of anger towards the elites in general, towards leaders in general that fail the people. I would love to hear and to celebrate the beautiful Russian people, the Ukrainian people, and anyone who silences that beautiful voice of the people, anywhere in the world, is destroying the thing that I value most about humanity. Leaders don't matter, they're supposed to serve the people. This nationalist idea of a people, of a country, only makes any sense when you celebrate, when you give people the freedom to show themselves, to celebrate themselves. The thing I care most about is science. And the silencing of voices in the scientific community, the silencing of voices, period. Fuck any leader that silences that human spirit. There's something about this, like whenever I look at World War II, whenever I look at wars, it does seem very irrational to fight. But man, does it seem somehow deeply human when the people stand up and fight. There's something, we talked about progress. That feels like how progress is made, the people that stand and fight. So let me read the Churchill speech. It's such, I'm so proud that we humans can stand up to evil when the time is right. I guess here's the thing though. Think of what's happening in Xinjiang and China. We have appeased China. We've basically said, you can just do really, really, really horrible things in this region. And you're too powerful for us to do anything about it, and it's not worth it. And there's nobody standing up and making a Churchill speech or the Braveheart speech about standing up for people of Xinjiang when what's happening is, in that realm of what was happening in Europe. And that's happening in a lot of places. And then when there is a willingness to stand up, people, there's a lot of opposition to those. So there were a lot of reasons for the invasion of Iraq. For some, it was humanitarian. Saddam Hussein was one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century. He was just doing some really horrible things. He'd invaded Kuwait. He'd committed domestic, attempted domestic genocide and all sorts of repression. And it was probably a mistake to invade in spite. So it's important not just to select on the cases where we stood up and to select on the cases where that ended up working out in the sense of victory. It's important to sort of try to judge, not judge, but just try to understand these things in the context of all the times we didn't give that speech or when we did and then it just went sideways. Well, that's why it's powerful when you're willing to give your life for your principles because most of the time, you get neither the principles nor the life. You get, you die. That's what, but that's why it's powerful. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France. We shall fight on the seas and the oceans. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender. This is before Hitler had any major loss to anybody. That was a terrifying armada coming your way. We shall never surrender. I just wanna give props. I wanna give my respect as a human being to Churchill, to the British people for standing up, to the Ukrainian people for standing up, and to the Russian people. These are great people that throughout history have stood up to evil. Let me ask you this because you quote Sun Tzu in The Art of War. There's no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. This is the main thesis. Can we just linger on this? Since leaders wage war and people pay the price, when we say that there's no reason to do prolonged war, is it possible to have a reason for the leaders if they disregard the price? Sort of like if they have a different objective function or utility function that measures the price that's paid for war. Is that one explanation of why war happens? Is the leaders just have a different calculus than other humans? I mean, I think this links us back to what we were talking about earlier about just war. Is in some sense just war is saying that in spite of the costs, that our enemy has done something, our opponent has refused to compromise on something that we find essential, and is demanding that we compromise in a way that's completely repugnant. And therefore, we're going to go to war despite these material costs and these human costs. And then that principle that you go to war on is in the eye of the beholder. And I mean, I think liberty and sovereignty, I think we can understand and sympathize with. And maybe that's just a universal, maybe that's the greatest cause of just war. But other people make that, could go to war for something considerably less, a principle that's considerably less noble, right? Which is what Hitler was doing. That's an explanation. So that's a whole class of explanations that helps us understand that the compromise that was on the table, given the relative balance of power was just repugnant at least to one side, if not the other. There's something they're unwilling to part with. And then you get to the leaders. Well, what happens when what the leaders want, what happens when the leaders are detached from the interests of their groups? Which has been true for basically most of human history. There's a narrow slice of societies in the big scheme of things that have been accountable to their people. A lot of them exist today. Where to some degree, they're channeling the interests of their group, right? So the Ukrainian politicians didn't concede to these cool Russian demands, because even if they had, it would have been political suicide. Because it seemed, or I think, it seems that the Ukrainians would have just rejected this. So they were in some sense channeling the values of the broader population. Even if they, I don't know what was going, even if they didn't share those principles, they self-interestedly followed them. Probably they shared them, but I'm just saying that even if they didn't, they wouldn't compromise. Occasionally you get the reverse, which is where the leaders are not accountable. And now they have some value, which could be glory. I mean, this is the story of the kings and to some lesser extent, the queens of Europe. For hundreds of years, it was basically a contest and it was, war was the sport of kings. And to some extent, they were just seeking status through violent competition. And they paid a lot, a big price out of the royal purse, but they didn't bear most of the suffering. And so they were too quick to go to war. And so that's, I think that detachment of leaders combined with, you mingle it with this, that one bucket, that uncheckedness, and you mingle that with the fact that leaders might have one of these values, noble or otherwise, that carry them to war combined to explain a good number of conflicts as well. And that's a good illustration of why I think like autocracy and unaccountable power is, I could make that story for all of the things, all five buckets, they're all, we're all more susceptible to these things, to all five of these things when leaders are not accountable to the people and their group. And that's what makes it like the meta, for me, the meta cause of conflict in all of human history and sadly today. Does the will to power play into this, the desire for power? Like that's a human thing again, in the calculation that, shall we put that in the misperceptions bucket? Or is it, is misperceptions essentially about interaction between humans and power is more about the thing you feel in your heart when you're alone as a leader? You know, I said there were three strategic reasons, like the unchecked leaders, the commitment problems, uncertainty. There are two sort of more psychological, and I call them intangible incentives and misperceptions. The way that like a game theorist or the way that behavioral economists would think about those two is just to say preferences and then erroneous beliefs and mistakes. It's like, so the preferences are our preferences, right? And so utility functions, whatever we wanna call it, like there's not, that's why I wouldn't call them a misperception or rationality. We want, we like what we like. If we like power, if we like relative status, if we like our racial purity, if we like our liberty, if we like whatever it is that we have convinced ourselves we value. Maybe you fell in love with a rival queen or king. Exactly. When I said it was a big bucket full of stuff that rhymes, like that's a pretty messy bucket. Like there's a lot of different stuff in there. And I'm just trying to say like, let's be clear that just about the shared logic of these things. It's maybe just, you know, they're really dissimilar, but let's be clear about the shared logic. And if it were true that deep down we were aggressive people who just liked violence and enjoyed the blood, or some percentage of us do, that would be there too. And so I just wanna say that's, but you know, we're really quick to recognize those, right? When we diagnose a war as an armchair analyst or as a journalist or something, we really jump to those. We don't need a lot of help to like see those happening. So we probably put a little bit too much emphasis on them, is maybe the only thing that I would caution. Because the others are more subtle, and they're often there, and they contribute. So just to look at something you said before, would it be accurate to say when the leaders become detached from the opinion of the people, is that's more likely to lead to war? So... And mechanically, it's just, they're gonna be more sensitive to that. It's just, they're gonna bear fewer costs. So it's gonna basically narrow the set of deals that they're gonna be willing to accept instead of violence. At the same time, most of the time, it's not enough because the leaders still bear a lot of costs of war. You could be deposed, you could be killed, you could be tried, and the public purse is going to be empty. That's like the one story throughout history, is at the end of the day, your regime is broke as a result of war. And so you still internalize that a little bit. If I had to say, in my three buckets, or third of my buckets so far, I sort of started with Ukrainian intransigence, and then I jumped, and then I said the essential, then you really have to understand Russian autocracy just to understand why they would ask something so cruel. But I mean, I think the uncertainty is really important here as well. Like if you think of it, think of all the things, the way this has played out, and just in some ways, how many, in how many ways we've been surprised. We've been surprised by the unity and the coherence of the West and the sanctions. That sort of, what's happened is it was in the realm of possibility, but it was sort of like the best case scenario from the perspective of the West, and the worst case scenario for the Russians. The second thing is just the pluckiness and the effectiveness and the intransigence and the nobility of this Ukrainian resistance. That's, again, was within the realm of possibility, but wasn't necessarily the likely thing, right? It was, again, maybe the worst realization for Russia, the best realization in some sense for in terms of revealed strength and resolve. And then the other thing that's been revealed is just how, like the corruption and ineptitude and problems on the Russian military side. Again, within the realm of possibility, maybe people who really knew the Russian military are less surprised than the rest of us, but also one of the worst possible draws for Russia. And so Putin asking this terrible price and expecting Ukraine to roll over or the West to roll over at least to a degree was based on like a different set of probability. It was based on just expecting something in the middle of the probability distribution and not one of all these different tail events. And so the fact that the world's so uncertain and the fact that Putin can come with a different set of expectations than the Ukrainians and the West and all these players can just have a hard time agreeing on just what the facts are because we live in an uncertain world. Everyone's quick to say, oh, he miscalculated. Well, I'm not, I don't know if he miscalculated. I think he just, he got a really bad draw in terms of what the realized outcomes are here. And so, I mean, good for everybody else in some sense, except the fact that it's involving a lot of violence is the tragedy. So- Well, there's also economic pain, just for the Russian people and the Ukrainian people, but- The whole world. The whole world. So, you could talk about things that we are surprised from an analysis perspective of small victories here or there, but I think it's universally true that everybody loses once again in this war. Right, and so the question is just like, when does it, why did Russia choose to invade when Ukraine didn't give this up? Well, Russia anticipated that it would be able to seize what it wanted. The available bargain that it deserved, quote-unquote, based on its power in the world, it wasn't getting, and so it thought it could take that. And the uncertainty around that made it potentially more likely that he would choose to do this. But in particular, one of the other things that I think is probably less important in this context, but still plays a role, but less important than many wars, is the fact that it's really hard to resolve that uncertainty, right? In theory, Ukraine should be able to say, look, this is exactly how resolved we are. We're super resolved, and your military is not as strong as you think it is. You mean before the conflict even begins? Everybody should be like, you know what? You lay on the table, here's my cards. No one wants, yeah. Here's your cards. Exactly, like that's, as a competitor in this, you can use that uncertainty to your advantage. I can try to convince you, I can bluff, right? And so anyone who's ever played poker and bluffed or called a bluff, that's the inefficient, that's the analogy in some ways to war. It's not the perfect analogy. But the uncertainty in the circumstance, you don't have to miscalculate. The fact that if you bluff and lose, it doesn't mean that you miscalculated. You made an optimal choice, given the uncertainty of the situation, to take a gamble. And that was a wiser thing for you to do than to not bluff, and just to fold, or to just not pay in that round. And so the uncertainty of the situation gives both sides incentives to bluff, gives neither side an incentive to try to reveal the truth. And then at some point, the other side says, you know what, you say you're resolved. You say you're gonna mount an uncertainty. Well, guess what? Every other people on my border has folded, and you're gonna fold too, the minute the tanks roll in, and the minute the Air Force comes in. I'm gambling that you're bluffing. And so that inherent uncertainty of the situation just causes a lot of short wars, actually, because it's this sort of bluff and call dynamic that goes on. And the thing that's worth reckoning is, we might end up at a place in a few months where the thing that Ukraine concedes is not so far from what Russia demanded in the first place. Russia's on it, I want a neutral, I mean, who knows how, it's not the ambitious thing the Russians wanted, but if we end up in a place where Ukraine is effectively neutral, never joins NATO, is not being militarily supplied by the West, and where Russia has de facto control over the East and Crimea, if not fully recognized, probably, who knows if they'll get ever internationally and Ukrainian recognized, but effectively controls, Russia will have accomplished what it asked for in the first place, and both parties had to get there through violence rather than through negotiation. And you wouldn't need misperceptions and mistakes, and you wouldn't need Putin's delusions of glory or whatever to get there, you would just need the ingredients I've given so far, which is like an unwillingness to do that without fighting on the part of the Ukrainians, an autocratic leadership in Russia who would make those demands because it's in their self-interest and then uncertainty leading them to fight. And that sadly is like the best case, that feels like the best case scenario right now, which is the war is just five months and not five years. Given the current situation. Given the current situation. Because the suffering has already happened, and lost homes, people moving, having to see their home in rubble, and millions of people, refugees having to escape the country, and hate flourishes versus the common humanity as it does with war. And on top of all of that, if we talk from a geopolitical perspective, the warmongers all over the world are sort of drooling. They now have got narratives, and they got that whatever narratives, you can go shopping for the narratives. The United States has its narratives for whatever geopolitical thing it wants to do in that part of the world. That's another little malevolent interaction between two of these buckets, like those unchecked leaders and those intangible incentives, those preferences, is that unchecked leaders spend, autocrats, whatever, spend enormous amounts of time trying to manipulate the values and beliefs of their population, of their group. Now, sometimes they do it nobly, but that's what Winston Churchill there was trying to, it's not clear that Britons were ready to stand up. There were a lot of Americans and a lot of Britons who were like, you know what? Hitler, not such a bad guy, his ideas, not so terrible, I never liked those Jews anyways. Many were thinking, right? We had political leaders in the US who were basically not pro-Nazi, but were just not anti-Nazi. And Churchill was just trying to instill a different resolve. He was trying to create that thing. He was trying to create that value. And in the American Revolution, it was as well. The founding fathers, the leaders of the revolution, it's not that everybody just woke up one morning in the United States and had this ideology of liberty and freedom. Some of that was true, it was out there in the ether, but they had to manufacture and create it in a way that I think they believed and was noble. But there's a lot of manufacturing and creation of these values and principles that is not noble, and that is exactly what Hitler did so well. Yeah. The anti-Semitism was present throughout the world, but the more subtle thing that I feel like may be more generally applicable is this kind of pacifism that I think people in the United States felt like, it's not my conflict, why do I need to get involved with it? And I think Churchill was fighting that, the general- Apathy. It's the apathy of rational calculus. It's like, what are we going to gain if we fight back? Hitler seems to be pretty reasonable. He's saying he's going to stop the bombing, that you're still going to maintain your sovereignty as the great people of Britain. Like, why are we fighting again? And that's the thing that's hard to break, because you have to say, well, you have to speak to principle, you have to speak at some greater sort of long-term vision of history. So it's like, yes, now it may seem like it's a way to avoid the fight, but you're actually just sort of putting shackles on yourself. You're destroying the very greatness of our people if we don't fight back. And to think about this with the current case with Russia, I mean, some people look at Putin's speeches and papers he's written on Ukraine historically being a part of Russia and trying to deny the, basically create all these nationalist narratives, and they think, well, Putin really believes, and he might, Putin really believes this, and that's why he's invading. And that might also be true, and that would contribute to just make a peaceful bargain even harder to find. But I suspect what's at least a minimum true is Putin's trying to manufacture support for an invasion in the population through propaganda. And so he's doing, on some level, the same thing that Winston Churchill was doing in mechanical terms, which is to try to manipulate people's references. But doing it in a sinister, malevolent, evil, self-serving way, because it's really in his interest, whereas this was anything but, right, in the Churchill example. The dark human thing is like, there's moments in World War II where Hitler's propaganda, he began to believe his own propaganda. I think he probably always believed, I think he was a sincere believer. Well, no, no, no, but there's a lot of places where there was uncertainty, and they decided to do propaganda, and that propaganda resolved the uncertainty in his own mind. So for example, he believed until very late that America is a weakling, militarily, and as an economic power, and just the spirit of the people. And that was part of the propaganda they were producing, and because of that propaganda, when he became the head of the army, he was making military actions, he nonchalantly started war with America, with the United States of America, where he didn't need to at all. He could've avoided that completely, but he thought, eh, whatever, they're easy. So I think that propaganda first, belief second. And I think as a human being, as a dictator, when you start to believe the lies with which you're controlling the populace, you're not able to, you become detached from this person that's able to resolve in a very human way the conflict in the world. I mean, when I said the meta, the big common factor that causes war over and over and over again is unaccountable power, it's not just because it's mechanically, like one of my five explanations to saying, well, if you're unaccountable, you don't bear the cost of war, you might have private incentives. So yes, bargains are harder to find, but it leads to all these nasty interactions. So earlier I said there's this interaction between the values and the unchecked leaders because those idiosyncratic values of your leader become more important when they're unchecked. But the uncertainty point you just made is like a deep point. It's to say actually that like the fundamental problem that all autocrats have is an information problem because nobody wants to give them the right information. And they have very few ways to aggregate information if they're not popular, right? And so there's a whole cottage industry of political science sort of talking about why autocrats love fixed elections and why they love Twitter and why they actually like it in a controlled way is it solves an information problem. That's your crush. If you're like Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, you need to solve an information problem just to avoid having rebellion on your hands in your own country every day because uncertainty kind of gets magnified and you get all this distorted information in this apparatus of control. And so that's like another nasty interaction between uncertainty and unchecked leaders is you end up in this situation where you're getting bad information. And it's not that you believe your own lies. It's just that you sort of believe, you're sort of averaging what you believe over the available information and you don't realize that it's such a distorted and biased information source. One of the other things about this time that was a surprise to me in the fog of uncertainty, how sort of seemingly likely nuclear war became, not likely, but how it- Less unlikely than before. Exactly, that's a better way to say it. It started to take a random stroll away from 0% probability into this kind of land of maybe like, it's hard to know, but it's like, oh wow, we're actually normally talking about this as if this is part of the calculus, part of the options. But before we talk about nuclear war, because I'm gonna need a drink, do you need to go to the bathroom? Sure, I'll take a break. Back to nuclear war. What do you think about this, that people were nonchalantly speaking about nuclear war as if it doesn't lead to the potential annihilation of the human species? What are the chances that our world ascends into nuclear war? Within your framework, you wear many hats. One is sort of the analyst, right? And then one is a human. What do you think are the chances we get to see nuclear war in this century? Well, you know, the official doomsday clock for nuclear warfare sits in the lobby of my building. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists sort of shares a building with us. So it's always there every day. Can you describe what the doomsday clock is? The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, it's something that this group of physicists sort of said to sort of mark just how close we are to nuclear catastrophe, and they started it decades ago. And it's a clock, and it's sort of how close are we to midnight, where midnight is nuclear Armageddon or the destruction of humanity. And it's been sitting, I mean, it's actually, it hasn't moved as close to midnight in the last few weeks as it probably should have only because it was already so close. There's actually limited room for it to move for a bunch of other reasons. I think it's, there's a whole political thing that it's really hard, it's really easy to move it closer. And it's really hard if you're the person in charge of that clock to move it away, right? Because that's always very controversial. So it always sits there, but it forces you to think about it a little bit every day. And I admit I was nonchalant about it until recently in a way that many, many other people were. I still think the risk is very low, but kind of for the reasons we've talked, it's just so unimaginably costly that nobody wants to go that route. So it's like the extreme version of my whole argument was why we most of the time don't fight is because it's just so damn costly. And so this is, that's the incentive not to use this. And if they do use it, that's the incentive to use it in a very restrained way. But that's not a lot of, but because we know we do go to war and there's all these things that interfere with it, including miscalculation and all of these human foibles, and several of those nuclear powers are not accountable leaders, I think we have to be a lot more worried than many of us were very recently. I pointed out earlier, like the whole reason we're in this mess is because the only people who have this private interest in like having Ukraine give up its freedom is this Russian cabal and elite that gets their power and is preserved only and is threatened by Ukrainian democracy. What would, how far would they go to hang on to power when push came to shove is I think the thing that worries me the most and is plainly what worries most people about the risk of nuclear war. Like at what point does that unchecked leadership decide that this is worth it? Especially if they can emerge from the rubble still on top. I don't know. So, and I don't know that any of us have really fully thought through all of that calculus and what's going on. Very recently around the anniversary of January 6th, there were a lot of questions about was the United States gonna have another civil war? On the one hand, I think it's almost unimaginable. Sort of like in the same way I think that a nuclear war and complete Armageddon is unimaginable. But I remember something that, when both of those questions get asked, I remember something, I was in the audience of listening to some great economists speak about the 20 years ago, but the risk of an Argentina style financial meltdown of the United States. Like what's the total financial collapse? And they said, you know what? The risk is vanishingly small, but that's terrifying because until recently the answer was zero. And so the fact that it's not zero should deeply, deeply scare us all and we should devote a lot of energy to making it zero again. And that's how I feel about the risk of a civil war in the US. And that's how I feel about the risk of nuclear war. It's higher than it used to be and that should terrify us all. To me what terrifies me is that all this kind of stuff seems to happen like overnight, like super quick and it escalates super quick when it happens. So it's not like, I don't know. I don't know what I imagine, but it just happens. Like if a nuclear war happened, it would be something like a plane, like in this case with Ukraine, a NATO plane shut down over some piece of land by the Russian forces or so the narrative would go, but it doesn't even matter what's true or not in order to spark the first moment of escalation. And then it just goes, goes, goes. Well, I think that happens sometimes. I mean, again, it's this thing that, what social scientists call it, selection on the dependent variable. Like there's all these times when that didn't happen, when it stopped, when it escalated one step and then people paused or it escalated two steps and people said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. And so we remember the times when it went boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the really terrible thing happened. But that, fortunately that's not, I start off the book with an example of a gang war that didn't happen in Medellin, Colombia, which is third, that's my day job is actually studying conflict and gangs and violence and of these other kinds of groups, also very sinister. And most of the time they don't fight and that escalation doesn't happen. So the escalation does happen quickly sometimes, except when it doesn't, which fortunately- So we remember the ones when it does. It's really important to think about all that. I remember talking to, I think Elon Musk on his podcast, I was sort of like talking about the horrors of war and so on, and then he said, well, you know, like most of human history, because I think I said like most of human history had been defined by these horrible wars. He's like, no, most of human history is just peaceful, like farming life. Like war, we kind of remember the wars, but most of human history is just, you know, is life. And war's the way- Yeah, most of the competition between nations was like blood, I would say blood thirsty without drinking that blood, in the sense that it was intense, it would loathe some. And so a lot of the rivalry and a lot of the competition, which is also can be problematic in its own ways, is not violent. And most of human history is about the oppression of the majority by a few. And there are moments when they rise up and revolt, and there's a revolution, we remember those, but most of the time they don't. And the story of political change and transformation and freedom is there's a few revolutions that are violent, but most of it is actually revolutions without that kind of violent revolt. Most of it is just the peaceful concession of power by elites to a wider and wider group of people in response to their increased economic bargaining power, their threat that they're gonna march. So even if we wanna understand something like the march of freedom over human history, I think we can draw the same insight that actually we don't, most of the time we don't fight, we actually concede power. Now you don't, the elite doesn't sort of give power to the masses right away, they just co-opt the few merchants who could threaten the whole thing and bring them into the circle. And then the circle gets a little bit wider and a little bit wider until the circle is ever widened, maybe not ever, but encompasses most, if not all. And that's like a hopeful and optimistic trend. Yeah, if you look at the plot, if you guys could pull it up of the wars throughout history, this is the rate of wars throughout history just seem to be decreasing significantly with a few spikes and the sort of the expansion. It's like half the world is under authoritarian regimes, but that's been shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. Steven Pinker's one person, one famous scholar who brings up this hypothesis. I mean, there's sort of two ways, there's actually two separate kinds of violence, that one where I think he's completely right and one where I think we're not sure, maybe not. Where he's completely right, sort of interpersonal violence, homicides, everyday violence has been going down, down, down, down, down, down, down. That's just unambiguously. And it's mostly because we've created cultures and states and rules and things that control that violence. Now the warfare between groups, is that less frequent? Well, it's not clear that he's right, that there's fewer wars. You might say that wars are more rare because they're more costly, because our weapons are so brutal. The costs of war go up, as the costs of war go up, not entirely, but for the most part, that gives us an incentive not to have them. But then when they do happen, they're doozies. So is Pinker right? I hope he's right, but I don't think that officially that trend is there. I think that we might have the same kind of levels of intergroup violence because maybe those five fundamentals that lead to war have not fundamentally changed and thus given us a more peaceful world now than a couple hundred years ago. That's something to think about. So obviously looking at his hypothesis, looking at his data and others like him. But I have noticed one thing, which is the amount of pushback he gets. That there is this, this is speaking to the general point that you made, which is like we overemphasize the anecdotal, and don't look objectively at the aggregate data as much. There's a general cynicism about the world. And not, I don't even mean cynicism. It's almost like cynicism porn or something like that, where people just get, for some reason, they get a little bit excited to talk about the destruction of human civilization in a weird way. Like they don't really mean it, I think. If I were to psychoanalyze their geopolitical analysis, I think it's a kind of, I don't know, maybe it relieves the mind to think about death at a global scale somehow. And then you can go have lunch with your kids afterwards and feel a little better about the world. I don't know what it is. But it's not very scientific. It's very kind of personal, emotional. And so we should be careful to look at the world in that way, because if you look broadly, there is just like you highlight, there's a will for peace among people, yeah. You mentioned Medellin. By the way, how do you pronounce it, Medellin or Medellin? Both are fine. I think there they say Medellin, because that's kind of the accent is the zh on the double L. But Medellin would be totally fine as well. What lessons do you draw from the Medellin cartel, from the different gang wars in Colombia, Medellin? What's the economics of peace and war between drug cartels? Here's what was really insightful for me. So I live in Chicago. And people are aware that there's a violence problem in Chicago. It's actually not the worst American city by any stretch of the imagination for shootings, but it's pretty bad. And Medellin has these better, many more, and probably many better organized gangs than Chicago. And yet the homicide rate is maybe half. And now, I mean, there have been moments when these gangs go to war in the last 30 years when Medellin has become the most violent place on the planet. But for the most part right now, they're peaceful. And so what's going on there? I mean, one thing that is, there's a hierarchy of organizations. So that above these reasonably well-organized neighborhood gangs, there's a set of more shadowy organizations that have different names. Some people call them razones. Some people would call them bandas criminales, criminal bands. You might just call them mafias. And they, there's about 17 of them, depending on how you want to count. And they themselves have a little operating board called, sometimes they call it the office, la oficina, sometimes they call it la mesa, the table. With each individual one or as a group? As a group, as a group. So they meet and they don't meet personally all the time. Sometimes they meet, but they consult. A lot of the leaders of these groups are actually in prison. And so, and they're in the same wings in prison. They have representatives, oh, they meet in prison. Well, they're, whatever, if I'm on a cell block with you, I'm meeting you anyways, right? So actually imprisoning leaders and putting them in the same cell block, but not putting them in, if you get arrested here in the United States and you're a criminal leader, and you get put in a super max prison, you cannot run your criminal empire. It's just too difficult. It's impossible. There, it's possible. And you might think, and they do, they still run their empire. And you might think that's a bad idea, but actually cutting off the head of a criminal organization, leading it to a bunch, leaving it to a bunch of like hotheaded young guys who are disorganized is not always the path to peace. So having these guys all in the same prison patios is actually, it reduces imperfect information and uncertainty, right? It provides a place for them to bargain. They can talk. And so La Oficina is like a lot of these informal meetings. And so, you know, and they have these tools that they use to control the street gangs. So instead of there being like 400 gangs, all sort of in this anarchic situation of competing for territory and constantly at war, the Rizzones are keeping them in line. And they will use sanctions. They will, where they'll, sanction might be, I will put a bullet in your head if you don't. It's a little more honest than the sanctions between nations, yeah. Exactly, but they will sit them down. They'll provide, they'll help them negotiate. They will provide, I said there are these things called commitment problems where like there's some, I have some incentive to like exterminate you, but that's gonna be costly for everybody. So I'm gonna, what's the solution? Well, I'm gonna provide commitment. I'm gonna like enforce this deal. And yeah, you don't like this deal now because you could take advantage of your situation and wage war, but I'm gonna give you a counter-incentives. And so they keep the peace. And so, and it's a little bit, so they're a little bit like the UN Security Council and peacekeeping forces and sanctions regimes. It's like the same kinds of tools, the same parallels. And they're imperfect. They don't always work that well. And they're unequal, right? Because it's not like they're pursuing this in the interests of like democratic, blah, blah, blah. But it kind of works until it doesn't. And 10 years ago in the mid 1990s, there were wars and this breaks down. And it kind of gave me this perspective on the international institutions and all the tools we've built, that we do the same things, right? Sanctions are designed to make unchecked leaders face the cost of war. It's a solution to one of the five problems, right? And mediators are a solution to uncertainty. And international institutions that can enforce a peace and agreement are a solution to commitment problems. And all of these things can be solutions to these intangible incentives, like these preferences for whatever you value and miscalculations, because they will punish you for your miscalculation or they will get a mediator to sort of help you realize why you're miscalculating. So they're doing all these things. And it made me realize that the comparison to the UN Security Council and all our tools is actually a pretty good one because those are pretty unequal too. And those are pretty imperfect. We have five nations with a veto on the Security Council and a lot of unequal power, and they're manipulating this in their own self-interest or their group's interests. So anyway, so it's actually some of the things that work in Medellin and why they work help give me a lot of perspective on what works in the international arena and why we have some of the problems we have. So there's not, in some deep way, there's not a fundamental difference between those 17 mafia groups and- The UN Security Council. The UN Security Council. Oh, we're such funny descendant of apes. We put on suits. I'm sure they have different cultural garbs that they wear. What are your thoughts? That's the sense I got from Pablo Escobar and Jorge Ochoa who founded the Medellin Cartel, is having spoken with people on this podcast, talked to Roger Reeves, who was a drug transporter, it seems like there, it seems like it was, I don't know the right term, but it was very kind of professional and calm. It didn't have a sense of danger to it. It's negotiating. So the danger's always on the table as a threat as part of the calculation, but you're using that threat in order to deescalate, in order to have peace. Everybody is interested in peace. So something that happened last year, we were a little bit able to watch in real time because we had a few contacts. We've been meeting and talking to a lot of these leaders in prison and a bit outside of prison. Many of them will talk to us. And so, the homicide, I mentioned homicide rate in Medellin's maybe two thirds or half of the Chicago level. It had been climbing. Some of these street level gangs were starting to fight. Maybe at sort of the, on some level, it seems that like maybe some of those horizontal leaders were like saying, well, you know, we're actually not sure how strong these guys are. Let's let them fight just to test it out. Let's have these skirmishes, right? It wasn't prolonged warfare. It was like, let's just sort of feel out how strong everybody is, because then we'll be able to reapportion the drug corners and stuff accordingly. So they were kind of feeling each other out through fighting and the homicide rate doubled and then it increased by the same amount again. And so it was approaching something that might get out of control, which wasn't in anybody's interest. It wasn't in the government's interest, wasn't in their interest. And so then magically, all these leaders in these patios, right? Different prisons, they're spread out around a bunch of prisons. Everybody gets transferred to a new prison on the same day, which means they all get to be in the same holding area for three days before they're all moved elsewhere. So the government had a role in this. And then somebody who's like a trusted mediator on the criminal side gets himself arrested, happens to be put in the same spot. And a week later, the homicide rate is 30% of what it was. It's back to its normal, moderate, unfortunately not zero, right? But it's back to where it was because it didn't make sense to have a war. And everybody, government, mafia leaders, everybody's sort of like, they figured out a way to sort of bargain their way to peace. Can I ask you almost like a tangent, but you mentioned you got a chance potentially to talk to a few folks, some were in prison, some were not. Is it productive? Is it interesting? Maybe by way of advice, do you have ideas about talking to people who are actively criminals? Yeah. It really depends on the situation. So like the first time I worked in a conflicted place was in Northern Uganda, in maybe the last couple years of a long running war. So this would have been 2004, 2005. This is a small East African country. And the north of the country had been engulfed in, think of it as like a 20 year low level insurgency run by a self-proclaimed Messiah who wasn't that popular and no one joined his movement. So he would kidnap kids. And so the, I never, I could talk to people who'd come back from being there. I never once, if I'd wanted to, and I was writing about that armed group. I never talked to anybody who was an active member of that armed group, it was quite rare. It wouldn't have been easy or safe. And that's sometimes true. I'm starting to do some work in Mexico probably, and I'm not gonna be talking to any criminal. They'll kill people. And you say you're not going to talk to them and they'll kill people, which people? So, I mean, journalists are routinely killed for knowing too much in Mexico. There's no compunctions about killing them and there's no consequences. Who kills a journalist? It's not the main people that you spoke with. It's their, is it their lackeys or is it rival gangs? This is true of a Chicago gang and this is true of a Medellin gang. It's probably true of a Mexico gang. It's like, you might have your group of 30 people. One or two of them might be shooters. Most people don't shoot. Most people don't like to do that. Or you don't even have any of those people in your group because you're trying to run a business. You don't need any shooters. You can just hire a killer when you need them on contract. And so if somebody's asking questions and you don't want them to ask questions or you think they know too much in a way that threatens you and it's cheap for you and you have no personal compunctions, then you can put a contract out on them and they'll be killed. That doesn't happen in Colombia. It doesn't happen in Chicago. I don't know, there's lots of reasons for that. I can't say exactly why. I think one reason is like, they know what'll happen is that there'll be consequences, that the government will crack down and make them pay and so they don't do it. And that's not what happened in Mexico. They won't kill a DA agent. They know that, the US has made it clear, you kill one of our agents, we will make you pay. And so they don't do it. You pay and so they're very careful to minimize death of American. But you kill journalists and nobody comes after them or is able to come after them. And so they've realized they can get away with this and that seems to be the equilibrium there. That's my initial sense from, but we spent a lot of time before we started talking to criminals. We spent a year trying to figure out what was safe before we actually, and failing. We kept, there are lots of safe things to do. It was also really hard to figure out how to talk to people in these organizations and we failed 40 times before we figured out a way to actually access people. But- Is it worth it talking to them if you figure out, because it's not never gonna be safe. It's going to be when you estimate that there's some low level of risk. Yeah. Like what's the benefit as a researcher, as a scholar of humans? Yeah. So I actually don't think, let's compare it to something. Okay, you know, I'm in Austin for the first time and I'm walking around and there's all these people buzzing around on these scooters without helmets. We need to definitely interview them and say what the hell is wrong with you? So nothing I have ever done in my entire career is as risky as that. That's a nice way to compare journalism in a war zone. Not well, there are some, yeah, there are some war zones. You know, I worked in Northern Uganda and I worked in Liberia and I work now in Medellin and I'm starting to work in Mexico and both those particular places and then the things I did in those places where I spent a lot of time making sure that what I was doing was not unduly risky. Todd, could you pull up a picture of a person on a scooter in Austin so we can just compare this absurd situation where I doubt it's the riskiest thing because now we have to look at the data. I understand the point you're making, but wow. So I'm not trying to say there's zero risk. I think there's like a calculated risk and I think you become good at, you work at becoming good at being able to assess these risks and know who can help you assess these risks. Yeah, I think there's another aspect to it too. When you're riding a scooter, once you're done with the scooter, the risk has disappeared. There's something, the lingering where you have to look over your shoulder, potential for the rest of your life as you accumulate all of these conversations. Yeah, I've chosen, but I've also advised my students and I wouldn't go and do this with an armed group that would think I knew too much and therefore, some people do that. Some journalists I think are very brave and take risks and do that and good for them and I'm happy they do that. I don't personally do that. So these guys are very, I mean, a medicinian is a business. They're just, they're selling local drugs and they are laundering money for the big cartels and they are shaking down businesses for money or selling services in some cases and they make a lot of money, it's a business and they're in prison so they can talk about most of what they wanna talk about because there's no double jeopardy. They've been incarcerated for it and you're just talking shop and they're just, you know, so it's worth it I think because the risk is very low but if you actually wanna weaken these organizations and they're extremely powerful, they're extremely big facet of life in a lot of cities in the Americas in particular, including in some of the United, some American cities, if you wanna understand how to weaken these groups over time, you have to understand how their business works and we're, like, imagine you were made like the, whatever the oil czars of the United States or maybe you're in charge of the finance industry, right? You're the regulator for oil and energy or for finance and then you get in the job and someone says, and then you're like, well, how many firms are there and what do they sell and what are the prices? And everyone's like, well, you know, we don't really know. You would not be a very good regulator, right? And if you're a policeman or you're someone who's in charge of counter organized crime, you're just a regulator. You're trying to regulate an illicit industry. You're regulating an industry that happens to be illicit and you have no information. And so that's kind of what we do. We figure out how the system works and like, what are the economic incentives and what are the political incentives? Any interviews and conversations help with that? They help a lot, yeah, yeah, yeah. We do that, so we have, I mean, I don't do, I do some of those, but I'm on the side, my Spanish is okay, it's not great and it's- You have a translator usually if you ever go directly? Well, if only because I can't understand the street vernacular, like I'm just totally hopeless. Nor could many people who speak Spanish. There's a lot of people who speak Spanish as a second language. It's totally, you go to prison, you talk to these guys and they're speaking in the local dialect and it's tough. But more importantly, like I just don't need to be there and that's not my, I'm a quantitative scholar. I'm the guy who collects the data. So we have people, we have people on our team and colleagues and employees who are doing full-time interviews. So, and then I just sometimes go with them, so. What about if we, you mentioned Uganda. Yeah. And Joseph Kony, the Ugandan warlord. I'm seeing here he kidnapped 591 children in three years between 2000. They must have kidnapped. I had, they probably kidnapped for at least a short time, like a few hours to a day, more than 50,000 kids. As a terror tactic? A little bit, I mean, you know, most of those people, they just let go after they carried goods. They held on to, they tried to hold on to thousands. The short story, listen, if you're not popular, if you're running an armed movement and you need troops, you can, and nobody wants to fight for you, you can either give up or you can have a small clandestine terror organization that tries to, a different set of tactics. But if you want a conventional army and you don't want to give up, then you have to conscript. And if you want to conscript and you don't, you know, here we conscript and then we say, if you run away, we'll shoot you. And we control the whole territory. So we'll, that's a credible promise. If you're a small insurgency organization, people can run away and then you can't promise to shoot them very easily because you don't control all the territory. And so what these movements do is they try to brainwash you. And I think what they figured out after years of abducting children, you know, you talk about evil, they figured out that, you know, we have to, maybe like, I don't know, but say like maybe one in a hundred will like buy the rhetoric. So we just have to conscript or abduct large number of kids. And then some small number of them will not run away. And those will be our committed cadres. And those people can become commanders. And because they'll buy the propaganda and they'll buy the messianic messages. But because most people wise up, we have to, especially as they get older, we just have to abduct vast numbers of kids in order to have a committed cadre. And so it has the other benefit of sort of being terrifying for the population and being a weapon in itself. But I think it was for them was just primarily a way to solve a recruitment problem when you're a totally like hopeless and ideologically empty rebel movement. So in some sense, it's, yeah, so that's maybe the short story. It was a real tragedy. I heard one interview of a dictator where the journalist was basically telling them, like, how could you be doing this? Basically calling out all the atrocities the person is committing. And the dictator was kind of laughing it off and walked away. And like he cut off the interview. That feel like a very unproductive thing to be doing. You're basically stating the thing that everyone knows to his face. Maybe that's pleasant to somebody, but that feels unproductive. It feels like the goal should be some level of understanding. Yeah. He's been super elusive. I mean, why he's been fighting this. Is it Kony? It's Kony, yeah. I mean, why he's fought this, I don't even know. You know, it's not a great example of, that's, you know what, the way I look at that situation is, it's a little bit particular to the way Uganda works, but most of the political leadership for most of its post-independence history came from the north of the country. That was like the power base. And that was dictatorial. And they were, so you've heard of like people like Idi Amin, but people have heard of like Milton Abote and all these people were all from the north. And then you get the current president who came to power in 1986. So he's been around a long time, this guy in the 70s. He was from the south. And he was fighting against these dictators and he was fighting for a freer and better Uganda. And in many ways, I mean, he's still a dictator himself, but he did create a freer and better Uganda. So he's better than these, he's a thug, but he was better than thugs before him. And he came to power and he was like, and some of the northerners were like, we wanna keep up the fight. And he was like, you know what, you guys, I'm strong enough to contain you to the north. You guys go, you wanna have a crazy insurgency up there and some kook believes he's like speaking, through the Holy Spirit, speaking through him and he's gonna totally disrupt the north. I don't care, that's great. You guys just fester and fight and that's gonna totally destabilize this power, this traditional power base. And then that's just gonna help me consolidate control. So he was an autocrat, he was an unchecked leader who allowed a lunatic to run around and cause mayhem because it was in his political interest to do so. And there's no puzzle. In some ways it's that simple and kind of tragic. There's little to understand. Yeah, it took me a lot. Well, you know what, it's not so easy. In the middle of it, I didn't understand that. I don't think a lot of people did and I think I could persuade most people who study or work there now to see it that way. I think people, that would make sense to people but it didn't make sense in the moment. And in the moment this is happening, it's terrible and you don't realize how avoidable it was. That basically it was the absence of effective police actions that kept the lunatic from being contained. And that lunatic would never, it's not that skillful of our movement. It could have been shut down and there was just never any political will to shut it down. The opposite, that's what I meant. That unchecked leader, not only do you not pay the cost but you might have a private incentive as an autocrat to see that violence happen. And in this case it was just keeping a troublesome part of the country busy. If it's okay to look at a few other wars, so we talked about drug wars and Medellin. Are there other wars that stand out to you as full of lessons? We can jump around a little bit. Maybe if we can return briefly at World War II. From your framework, could World War II have been avoided? This is one of the most traumatic wars, global wars. I mean, one obvious driver of that war was these, the things that Hitler valued and then was able to use his autocratic power to either convince other people or to suppress them. And so some people stopped there and say that. And then in the West basically, and then of course they were able, because they were such an economic and political powerhouse, they were able to sort of make demands of the rest of Europe that you can kind of see the full, letting Nazis march into Denmark without a fight or France folding very quickly, you can kind of see as like an appeasement or an acknowledgement of their superiority and their ability to bargain without much of a fight. And then you can see the Western response as a principled stand. I think that's, and there's a lot of truth to that. You know, in terms of the strategic forces, a lot of political scientists see a version of a commitment problem, basically where Germany says, you know what? We're strong now, we're temporarily strong. We're not gonna be this strong forever. If we can get this terrible bargain and get everyone to capitulate through violence, if we strike now and then solidify our power and keep these, in World War I, it was prevent the rise of Russia and prevent the strengthening of Russian alliances as well. And so we have an incentive to strike now and there's a window of opportunity that's closing and that they thought was closing as soon as 1917 in World War I. And I don't know that that story is as persuasive in World War II. I think there was an element of a closing window. They kept talking about a closing window. They really thought there's a closing window. I think it was a nature of that window is different in that there was a kind of pacifism. And it seems like if war broke out, most nations in the vicinity would not be ready. Because by the people, the leaders that are in power, they weren't ready. So the timing is really right now. But I wonder how often that is the case with leaders in war. It feels like the timing is now. The other commitment problem, the other shift that was happening that he wanted to avert that is kind of wrapped up with his ideology is this idea of a cultural and a demographic window of opportunity. That if he wanted, conditional on having these views of a Germanic people and a pure race, and that now is that he had to strike now before any opportunity to sort of establish that was possible. I think that's one, it's an incentive that requires his ideology as well. How do, so to avoid it within this framework, would you say, is there, you kind of provide an explanation, but is there a way to avoid it? Is violence the way to avoid it? Because people kind of tried rational, peaceful kind of usual negotiation, and that led to this war. Is that unique to this particular war? Let's say World War I or World War II. So there's an extra pressure from Germany on both wars to act. Okay, so we've highlighted that. Is there a way to alleviate that extra pressure to act? Let me use World War I as an example. Suppose as many German generals said at that time, we have a window of opportunity before Russia, where we might not win a war with Russia. Like, so the probability that we can win a war is gonna change a lot in the next decade or two, maybe even in the next few years. And so if we, we are in a much better bargaining position now, both to not use violence, but to, if necessarily use violence. Because otherwise, Russia's going to be extremely powerful in the future, and they'll be able to use that power to change the bargaining with us, and to like hold, keep us down. And the thing is, is in principle, Russia could say, look, we don't wanna get invaded right now. We know you could invade us. We know we're weak. We know we'll be strong in the future. We promise to like not wield our, and abuse our, or just merely just sort of take what we can get in the future when we're strong. We're gonna restrain ourselves in future. Or we're gonna hand over something that makes us powerful, because that's the bargain that would make us all better off. And the reason political economists call it a commitment problem is because that's a commitment that would solve the problem. And they can't make that commitment, because there's nobody who will hold them accountable. So anything, any international legal architecture, any set of enforceable agreements, any UN Security Council, any world government, anything that would help you make that commitment is a solution, all right, if that's the core problem. And so that's why, you know, in Medellin, you know, the La Oficina can do that. They can say, listen, yes, combo that's strong today is gonna be weak tomorrow. You have an incentive to eliminate this combo over here, but because they're gonna be strong. But guess what? You're not gonna do that, and we're gonna make sure, we're gonna promise that when these guys do get strong, we're gonna restrain what they can do. I mean, most of our constitutions in most stable countries have done precisely that, right? There's a lot of complaining right now in the United States about the way that the constitution is a portion power between states. That was a deal, that was a commitment. The constitution was, in the United States, was a deal made to a bunch of states that knew they were going to be weak in future because of economic and demographic trends, or guess they might be. And it said, listen, you cooperate and we'll commit not to basically ignore your interests over the long run. And now, 250 years later, we're still honoring those commitments. It was part of the deal that meant that there actually would be a union. And so we do this all the time. So constitution is a good example of how every country's constitution, especially a country who's writing a constitution after a war, that constitution and all of the other institutions they're building are an attempt to provide commitment to groups who are worried about future shifts in power. And then does that help with avoid civil war? So could you speak to lessons you learned from civil wars, the American civil war, any others? So Lebanon, one of the ways Lebanon had tried for a long time to preserve the interests of minority groups, powerful minority groups who were powerful at the time and knew that the demographics were working against them were to guarantee, you know, this ethnic religious group gets the presidency and this ethnic religious group gets the prime ministership and this ethnic, and a lot of countries will apportion seats in the parliament to ethnic religious groups. And that's an attempt to like give a group that's temporarily powerful some assurances that when they're weak in the future, that they'll still have a say, right? Just like we portioned seats in the Senate in a way that's not demographically representative, but is like unequal, quote unquote, in a sense, to help people be confident that there won't be a tyranny of the majority. And now that just happens to have been like a really unstable arrangement in Lebanon because eventually like the de facto power on the ground just gets so out of line with this really rigid system of the presidency goes to this ethnic religious group and this prime ministership goes, that it didn't last, right? So, but you can think of every post-conflict agreement and every constitution is like a little bit of humans best effort to find an agreement that's going to protect the interests of a group that's temporarily has an interest in violence in order to not be violent. Yeah. And so there's a lot of ingenuity and it doesn't always work, right? Which actually from a perspective of the group, threatening violence or actually doing violence is one way to make progress for your group. We're talking about groups bargaining over stuff, right? We're talking about Russians versus Ukraine or Russians versus the West, or maybe it's managing gangs versus one another. Like a lot of their bargaining power comes from their ability to burn the house down, right? And so if I wanna have more bargaining power, I can just arm a lot and I can threaten violence. And so the strategically wise thing to do, I mean, it's terrible, it's a terrible equilibrium for us to be forced into, but the strategically wise thing to do is to build up lots of arms, to threaten to use them, to credibly threaten to use them, but then trust or hope that like your enemy is gonna see reason and avoid this really terrible inefficient thing which is fighting. But the thing that's going on the whole time is both of you arming and spending like 20% of GDP or whatever on arms, that's pretty inefficient. Yes. That's the tragedy. We don't have war and that's good, but we have really limited abilities to like incentivize our enemies not to arm and to keep ourselves from arming. We'd love to agree to just like both disarm, but we can't. And so the mess is that we have to arm and then we have to threaten all the time. Yeah, so the threat of violence is costly nevertheless. You've actually pulled up that now disappeared a paper that said the big title called Civil War and your name is on it. What's that about? Well, that was, I mean, when I was finishing graduate school and this was a paper with my advisor at Ted Miguel at Berkeley. Most nations, the paper opens, have experienced an internal armed conflict since 1960. Yet while, were you still in grad school on this or no? Maybe last year or just graduated. I wish I was in a discipline that wrote papers like this. This is pretty bad-ass. Yet while civil war is central to many nations development, it has stood at the periphery of economic research and teaching so on and so forth. And this is looking at civil war broadly throughout history or is it just particular civil wars? We were mostly looking at like the late 20th century. I mean, I was trained as a, what's called development economist, which is somebody who studies why some places are poor and why some countries are rich. And I, like a number of people around that time, stumbled into violence. I mean, people have been studying the wealth and poverty of nations basically since the invention of economics. But there was a big blind spot for violence. Now there isn't any more. It's like a flourishing area of study, but in economics, but at the time it wasn't. And so there were people like me and Ted who were sort of part political scientists because political scientists obviously had been studying this for a long time, who started bringing economic tools and expertise and like partnerships with political scientists and adding to it. And so we wrote this. So after like people had been doing this for five or 10 years in our field, we wrote like a review article telling economists like what was going on. And so this was like a summary for economists. So the book in some ways is a lot in the same spirit of this article. This article, I mean, it's designed to be not written as like a boring laundry list of studies, which is what, that's the purpose this article was for. It was for graduate students and professors who wanted to think about what to work on and what we knew. This book is like now trying to like, not just say what economists are doing, but sort of say what economists, political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, like how do we bring some sense to this big project and policy makers? Like, what do we know? And what do we know about building peace? Given, you know, because if you don't know what the reason for wars are, you're probably not gonna design the right cure. And so anyway, so that was the, but I started off studying civil wars and I, because I stumbled into this place in Northern Uganda basically by accident. It was never, no intention of working in civil wars. I'd never thought about it. And then, you know, basically I followed a woman there. And- Oh, we'll talk about that. I gotta ask you first. And for people who are just watching, we have an amazing team of folks helping out, pulling pictures and articles and so on, mostly so that I can pull up pictures on Instagram of animals fighting, which is what I do on my own time. And then we could discuss, analyze, maybe with George St. Pierre. That's what all he sends me for people who are curious. But let me ask you, one of the most difficult things going on in the world today, Israel-Palestine. Will we ever see peace in this part of the world? And sort of your book title is "'The Roots of War and the Paths for Peace," or the subtitle, why we fight. What's the path for peace? Will we ever see peace? Yeah, if we think about this conflict in the sense of like this dispute, this sort of contest, this contest that's been going on between Israelis and Palestinians, it's been going on for a century. And there are really just 10 or 15 years of pretty serious violence in that span of time. Most of it from 2000 to 2009 and stretching up to like 2014. There are like sporadic incidents, which are really terrible. I'm not trying to diminish the human cost of these, by the way, like I'm just trying to point out that whatever's happening, as unpleasant and challenging and difficult as it is, it's actually not war. And so it is at peace. There's sort of an uneasy stalemate. Israelis and Palestinians are actually pretty good at just sort of keeping this at a relatively low scale of violence. There's a whole bunch of like low scale, sporadic violence that can be repression of civilians. It can be terror bombings and terror actions. It can be counter terror violence. It can be mass arrests. It can be repression. It can be denying people the vote. It can be rattling sabers, all these things that are happening, right? And it can be sporadic three-week wars or sporadic, very brief episodes of intense violence before everybody sees sense and then settles down to this uneasy. That's not like, we're right not to think of that as like a peace, and there's certainly no stable agreement. Right? So a stable agreement and amity and any ability to move on from this extreme hostility, we're not there yet, and that's maybe very far away. But this is a good example of two rivals who most of the time have avoided really intense violence. So you talked about this, like most of the time, rivals just like avoiding violence and hating each other in peace. So is this what peace, so to answer my question. Yeah, sometimes. I mean, is this what peace looks like? Not always, but I mean, it's kind of my worry to go back to like the Russia-Ukraine example. Like I kind of, it's gonna be really hard to find an agreement that both sides can feel they can honor, that they can be explicit about, that they'll hold to that will enable them to move on. Yeah, it feels like a first step in a long journey towards greatness for both nations and a peaceful time, flourishing, that kind of thing. I mean, you can think of like what's going on in Israel-Palestine, there's a stalemate. Both of them are exhausted from the violence that has occurred. Neither one of them is quite willing to, for various reasons, to create this sort of stable agreement. There's a lot of really difficult issues to resolve. And maybe the sad thing, maybe we'll end up in the same situation with Russia-Ukraine. This is where, if they stop fighting one another, but Russia holds the east of the country and Crimea and nobody really acknowledges their right to that, that might, and there's just gonna be a lot of tension and skirmishing and violence, but that never really progresses to war for 30 years. That would be a sad, but maybe possible outcome. So that's kind of where Israel-Palestine looks to me. And so someone, if we're gonna talk about why we fight, then the question we have to ask is like, why, like the second Intifada, like that was the most violent episode. Like, why did that happen? And why did that last several years? That would be like, we could analyze that and we could say, what was it about these periods of violence that led there to be prolonged intense violence? Because that was in nobody's interest. That didn't need to happen. And partly I don't talk about that in the book. I wanted to avoid really contemporary conflicts for two reasons. One is things could change really quickly. I didn't want the book to be dated. I wanted this to be a book that had like longevity and that would be relevant still in 10 years or 20 years maybe before someone writes a better one or an update. That's where the human civilization ends. Exactly. And circumstances can change really quickly. So I wanted it to be enduring and meant partly just avoiding changing things and avoiding these controversial ones. But of course I think about them. And so like a lot of my time, I decided actually last year to teach a class where I'd take all these contemporary conflicts that wasn't working on the book and where I wasn't really an expert, whether it's India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, Mexican cartel, state drug wars, and a few others, and then teach a class on them with students. And we'd work through it. We'd read the book and then we'd say, all right, none of us are experts. How do we make sense of these places? And we focused in the Israel-Palestine case of mostly trying to understand why it got so violent and spend a little bit of time on what the prospects are for something that's more enduring. It's hard to know that stuff now. I mean, it's easier to do the full analysis when looking back when it's over. Well, Israel is in like a tough place. They have this attachment to being part of the West. They have this attachment to liberal ideals. They have an attachment to democracy and they have an attachment to a Jewish state. And those things are not so easily compatible because to recognize the rights of non-Jewish citizens, or to have a one state solution to the current conflict undermines the long-term ability to have a Jewish state. And to do anything else and to deny that denies their liberal democratic ideals. And that's a really hard contest of priorities to sort out. Yeah, it's complicated. Of course, everything you just said probably has multiple perspectives on it from other people that would phrase all the same things but using different words. Yeah, well, I try to analyze these things in like a dispassionate way. But unfortunately, just having been in enough conversations, even your dispassionate discourse and enough conversations, even your dispassionate description would be seen as one that's already picked aside. And I'll say this because there's holding these ideals. I'll give you another example. United States also has ideals of freedom and other like human rights. So it has those ideals. And it also sees itself as a superpower and as a deployer of those, enforcer of those ideas in the world. And so the kind of actions from a perspective of a lot of people in that world, from children, they get to see drones drop bombs on their house where their father is now, mother are dead. They have a very different view of this. Well, you're beginning to see why I didn't. I decided, I wanted to write about those things and think about those things, but I wanted this book to do something different and I didn't want it to fall on one of these polarizations. On a personal level, because I think I'm kind of a liberal democratic person at heart, my sympathies in that sense lie in many ways with the Palestinians, despite the way I, I mean, just the fact that people are, they're not representative and they, you know, and they got a very raw, real politic kind of feel. Like most people in history have gotten like this raw, real politic kind of deal in their past, right? Where somebody took something from you. It's a good summer of history, by the way. That's it, history is just full of raw deals. For regular people. Right, and both sides are in a principled way refusing to make the compromise. And that's not like a both sides are right kind of argument. I'm just sort of saying, I just think it's a factual statement that like, neither one wants to compromise on certain principles and they're both, they both can construct and in some ways have very reasonable, but I don't want to have self justifications for those principles. And that's why I'm not very hopeful is I don't see a way and to, for them to resolve those things. Speaking of compromise and war, let me ask you about one last one, which may be in the future, China and the United States. Yeah. How do we avoid an all out hot war for this other superpower in the next decade, 50 years, a hundred years? Because sometimes when it's quiet at night, I can hear in the long distance the drums of war beating. Yeah. You know, in the second part of the book, I talk about what I think have been like these persistent like paths to peace. And one of them is increasing interdependence and interrelationships. And another one is more checks and balances on power. I think there's more, but those are two that are really fundamental here. Because I think those two things reduce the incentives for war in two ways. One is like, remember when we were talking about this really simple strategic game where, whether I'm Russia and Ukraine or whatever, any two rivals, I want more of the pie than you get. And the costs of war are deterrence, but only the costs of war that I feel, right? I don't care. I do not care about the costs of war to your side, my rival's side. I'm not even thinking of that. It's just worth zero to me. I just don't care in that simple game. Now, in reality, many groups do care about the wellbeing of the other group, at least a little bit, right? We're in some sense to the degree we, first of all, if our interests are intertwined, like our economies are intertwined, that's not a surefire way for peace. And we shouldn't get complacent because we have a globally integrated world, but that's gonna be a disincentive. And if we're socially entwined because we have great social relationships and linkages and family or we're intermarriage or whatever, this is, all these things will help. And then if we're ideologically intertwined, maybe we share notions of liberty, or maybe we just share a common notion of humanity. So I think the fact that we're more integrated than we've ever been on all three fronts in the world, but with China is providing some insulation, which is good. So I would be more worried if we started to shed some of that insulation, which I think has been happening a little bit, US economic nationalism, whatever could be the fallout of these sanctions or a closer Chinese alliance with Russia, all those things could happen. Those would make me more worried because I think we've got a lot of cushion that comes from all of this economic, social, cultural interdependence. Yeah, the social one with the internet is a big one. So basically, make friends with the people from different nations. Yeah. Fall in love, or you don't have to fall in love. You can just have lots of sex with people from different nations, but also fall in love. The thing that also should comfort me about China is that China's not as centralized or as personalized a regime as Russia, for example. And neither one of them is as centralized or personalized as some tin pot, like purely personalized dictatorship, like you get in some countries. The fact that China, the power is much more widely shared is a big insulation, I think, against this war, well, future war. The attempts by Xi Jinping to personalize power over time and to make China a more centralized and personal ruled place, which he's successfully moved in that direction, also worries me. So anything that moves China in the other direction, not necessarily being democratic, but just a wider and wider group of people holding power, like all of the business leaders and all the things that have been happening over the last few centuries have actually widened power. But anything that's moving in the other direction does worry me, because it's gonna accentuate all these five risks. I am worried about a little bit of the demonization. So one of the things I see with China as a problem for Americans, maybe I'm projecting, maybe it's just my own problem, but there seems to be a bigger cultural gap than there is with other superpowers throughout history, where it's almost like this own world happening in China, its own world in the United States, and there's this gap of total cultural understanding. It's not that, we're not competing superpowers, they're almost doing their own thing. There's that feeling, and I think that means there's a lack of understanding of culture of people, and we need to kind of bridge that understanding. I mean, the language barrier, but also cultural understanding, making movies that use both and explore both cultures and all that kind of stuff. To where, like, it's okay to compete. You know, like Rocky, where Rocky Balboa fought the Russian. Fact, historically inaccurate, because obviously the Russian would win. But we have to, I'm just kidding. As a Philly person, I was of course rooting for Rocky. But the thing is, those two superpowers are in the movies, China's like its own out there thing. We need more Rocky Seven. I do think there's a certain inscrutability to the politics there, and an insularity to the politics, such that it's harder for Westerners, even if they know, even just to learn about it and understand what's going on, I think that's a problem, and vice versa. So I think that's true. But at the same time, we could point to all sorts of things on the other side of the ledger, like the massive amounts of Chinese immigration into the United States, and the massive number of people who are now, like how many, so many more Americans, business people, politicians, understand so much more about China now than they did 30, 40 years ago, because we're so intertwined. So I don't know where it balances out. I think it balances out on better understanding than ever before. But you're right, there was like a big gulf there that we haven't totally bridged. Yeah, and like I said, lots of inter-Chinese in the United States, sexual intercourse, no, and love and marriage and all that kind of social cohesion. So once again, returning to love, I read in your acknowledgement, and as you mentioned earlier, the acknowledgement reads, quote, I dedicate this book to a slow and now defunct internet cafe in Nairobi, because it set me on the path to meet, work with, and most importantly, marry Jenny Anan. Jeannie Anan. Jeannie Anan. There's a lot of beautiful letters in this beautiful name. This book have been impossible without her and that chance encounter. Tell me, Chris, how you found love, and how that changed the direction of your life. I was in that internet cafe, I think it was 2004. I didn't know what I wanted to do. I thought I might, I thought, you know, I was a good development economist and I cared about growth, economic growth, and I thought firm, like industrialization is like the solution to poverty in Africa, which is I think still true. And therefore I need to go study firms and industry in Africa. And so I went and I ended up one of the most dynamic place for firms and industry at the time, still to some extent now, was Kenya. And all these firms are on Nairobi. And so I went and I got a job with the World Bank, who was running a, they were running a firm survey and I convinced them to like, let me help run the firm survey. And so now I'm in Nairobi and I'm wearing my like suit and with the World Bank for the summer. And my laptop gets stolen by two enterprising con artists, very charming. And so I find myself in an internet cafe. With no laptop. With no laptop and just like, you know. In a suit. Kenya didn't, exactly, Kenya didn't get connected to the sort of the big internet cables until maybe 10 years later. And so it was just glacially slow. So it would take 10 minutes for every email to load. And so there's this whole customer norm of you just chat to the next person in beside you all the time. It was true all over, anywhere I'd worked on the continent. And so I strategically sat next to the attractive looking woman that when I came in and it turned out she was a psychologist and a PhD student but she was a humanitarian worker. And she'd been working in South Sudan and Northern Uganda and this kids affected by this war. All these kids who were being conscripted were coming back because they're all running away after a day or 10 years and needed help or to get back into school. She was working on things like that. And I think she talked to me in spite of the fact that I was wearing a suit. Maybe because I knew a little bit about the war which most people didn't, most people were totally ignorant. And then we had a fling for that week. And then we didn't really, actually then we met up a little short while later. And then it was kind of, then we kind of drifted apart. She was studying in Indiana and spending a lot of time in Uganda. And then one day I was chatting with someone I knew who worked on this, a young professor who was a friend of mine, but, and I said, oh, you know, you work on similar issues. You should meet this woman. I talked to her because she, like, you guys would have like, you know, professional research interests overlap. There's so few sort of people looking at armed groups in African civil wars, at least at the time. And he said, wow, that's a fascinating research question. And I thought to my, and I walked out of the building and I thought, that is a fascinating research question. And I phoned Jeannie and I said, remember me. And, you know, tell me more. I was just talking to someone about this. Tell me more. Like, I started asking her more questions, but we ended up talking for two or three hours. And over the course of those three hours, we hatched a very ambitious, kind of crazy, like, plan. Basically what it was, we were gonna like, find the names and all the kids who were born like 20 or 30 years ago in the region, and we were gonna track a thousand of them down. We were gonna randomly sample them, and then we were gonna find them today, and we were gonna track them. And then we were gonna use like, some variation in exposure to violence and where the rebel group was to actually like, show what happens to people when they're exposed to violence and conscription. We were gonna like, tell, you know, psychologically, economically, we were gonna like, answer questions, and that which would help you design better programs, right? And so we hatched this plan, which is totally cockamamie. So cockamamie that when I pulled my previous dissertation proposal from my committee, like the next week, and gave them a new one, they unanimously met without me to decide that this was totally bonkers, and to advise me not to go, and they coordinated to read my old proposal so that when I showed up for my defense, they said, you actually think you're defending, but we're actually, we want you to only talk about this other thing that you were gonna do, because this is like, you should not go. Oh, wow. And- I mean, it is incredibly ambitious, super interesting though. It actually worked exactly according to plan. It's the first and last time in my entire career. You actually pulled off an ambitious, like a gigantically crazy ambitious idea. Well, all of my work, that's my shtick. Like my day-to-day research job is not writing books about why we fight. My thing is like, I go, I collect data on things that nobody else thought you could collect data on. And so I always do pull it off, but it never turns out like I thought it was going to. Like it's always, there's so many twists and turns, and it always goes sideways in an interesting way, and it works, but it's all, but this one actually we pulled off in spite of ourselves, and as planned, and so Ted Miguel, who I wrote that paper with, was actually the one person of my advisors who was like, well, you know what, he was sympathetic to this. He was like, eh, why don't you just go for a couple months and like check it out, and then come back and work on the other thing. And that's, and so I followed Jeannie there and went there, and then, but, and I don't know, what's this? I always remember, you know, this movie Speed, the Ken Reeves and Sandra, whatever these people are, and they have this relationship in these intense circumstances, and they like, well, and I think at the end of the movie, they're sort of like, this will never work because these relationships in intense circumstances never matter, which is what we assumed, and that turned out not to be true. So we've been married 15 years, and we have two kids, and. Yeah, and that's when you fell in love with psychology and learned to appreciate the power of psychology. Exactly, so that's the psychology in the book as well, because I, and so we end up, for most of our work, for the first five or 10 years, was together, actually. What's the hardest piece of data that you've been chasing, that you've chased in your life? Like, what are some interesting things, because you mentioned like one of the things you kind of want to go somewhere in the world and find evidence and data for things that people just haven't really looked, to gain an understanding of human nature, maybe from an economics perspective. What's, what kind of stuff, either in your past or in your future, you've been thinking about? Well, I mean, the hardest, there's hard in two senses. The hardest emotionally was interviewing all those kids in Northern Uganda. That was just like a gut punch every day. And just hearing the stories, like that was the hardest, but it wasn't hard because it was, you could, the kids were everywhere and everybody would talk to you about it, and they could talk about it. You could, no one had gone and interviewed kids that had gone through war in the middle of an active war zone. Nobody was going to displace, all the things we did, no one had done that before. So now lots of people do it. Could you actually speak to their stories? What's like the shape of their suffering? What were common themes? What, how did those stories change you? I remember I said you could, like your dispassionate self and your passionate self. I think I had to learn to create the dispassionate self. I mean, we all have that capacity when we analyze something that's far away and happens to people different than us, but you have to, I think I discovered and developed an ability to like put those aside in order to be able to study this. So you get maybe harder in a way that you have to be guard against. So you have to try to remember to put your human head on. It's really horrible. Like if I want to conscript you and I don't want you to run away, then I want to make you think you can never go back to your village. And the best way for me to do that is for to make you, force you to do something really, really, really, really horrible that you could, you almost incredibly believe you can never really go back. And it might be like killing a loved one. And so, and just having, hearing people tell you that story in all of the different shapes and forms to a point, what was horrible about it is they did this so routinely that you'd be sitting there in an interview with somebody and they'd be telling you the story. And it's like the most horrible thing that could happen to you or anyone else. And, but there's some voice in the back of your mind saying, okay, we really need to get to the other thing. You know, we know that, I know how this goes. Like I've heard, you know, there's this thing like, okay, okay, I'm not learning anything new here. Like there's some part, you know, deep evil, terrible part of you that's like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like, but let's get onto the other thing. But I know I have to go through this. But every day you have to go through that to get to the, cause you're trying to actually understand how to help people. You're trying to understand how that trauma has manifested, how they either, some people get stronger as a result of that. Some people get weaker. And if you want to know how to help people, then you need to get to that. I wasn't trying to get to something for my selfish purposes, really. I was trying to figure out, okay, we need to know what your symptoms are now. It's such a dark thing about us. So if you're surrounded by trauma, God, that voice in the back of your head that you just go, yeah, I know exactly how this conversation goes. Let's skip ahead to the solutions, to the next. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that was, yeah, so that was, because you then have to deal with yourself. So it's very helpful if you like come home every night to someone who's A, gone through the same thing, and B, is a professional and very, very, very, very good counseling psychologist. The hardest thing, I mean, the organized crime stuff has been the hardest. Just figuring out how to get that information. It took us years of just trial and error, mostly error of like just how to get people to talk to us or how to collect data in a way that's safe for me and safe for my team and safe for people to answer a survey. Like how do you get the information on what gangs are doing in the community or how it's hurting or helping people? Like you've got to run surveys and you've got to talk to gang members, all these things, and nobody knows how to do that. And so we had to sort of really slowly, not nobody, there's a few other, I think there's other academics like me who are doing this, but it's a pretty small group that's trying to collect systematic data. And then there's a slightly bigger and much more experienced group that's been talking to different armed groups. But every time you go to a new city, and there weren't that many people working on this in Medellin, there were a few, you have to discover a new. Like it's really unique to that city and place. So there's not a website for each of the 17 mafia groups. There's no Facebook group in Tijuana. Well, there is now. We've created our own, we have a private wiki where we document everything, and it's a collaborative enterprise between lots of researchers and journalists and things. So they now have, they can't see, you can't go online and see this. That's individual researchers, so it's not, I mean, they're hiding by design. Some of them have Facebook pages and things of this nature. So they do have public profiles a little bit, but not so explicitly. No, so they're clandestine. Here's an example. So one of the things that's really endemic in Medellin, it's true in a lot of cities, it's true in American prisons, is gangs govern everybody's everyday life. So if you have a, in an American prison, particularly in Illinois or California, Texas is another big one, but also in a city in Medellin, if you have a problem, a debt to collect or dispute with a neighbor or something, you could go to the government, and they do, and they can help you solve it, or you go to the police, or you can go to the gang. And so, and that's like a really everyday phenomenon. But then there's a question of like, how do you actually figure out what services they're offering and how much they pay for them? And do you actually like those services? And how do they, how do you comparison shop between the police and the gang? And what would get you to go from the gang to the police? And then how's the gang strategically gonna respond to that? And what was the impact of previous policies to like make state governing better? And how did the gangs react? And so that's, we had to sort of figure that out. And that was, so that was just hard in a different way, but I don't do the most, the emotionally punishing stuff I couldn't do any longer. So that's much easier in that sense. By the way, on Jorge Ochoa, some of these folks are out of prison. Yeah. Have you gotten a chance to talk to them by any chance? One of my collaborators on this, a guy named Gustavo Duncan, who spent a lot of time interviewing paramilitaries, has written a book. He's talked to more of these people than I have. I haven't talked to those. We haven't been talking to them about this stuff. But also, they were there in a different era. Yeah, so it doesn't- The system was totally different. That's super interesting. Maybe one day we'll do that. We're trying to- Almost like history. Yeah, that was 30 years ago. Yeah. And the system of, I mean, La Oficina, Pablo Escobar created La Oficina. He integrated what's, all these 17 Jorazones and all these street gangs are the fragmented former remnants of his more unified empire, which he gave the name La Oficina. I mean, I think, you know, it's a little bit apocryphal, but the idea is, you know, I think he said, every doctor has an office, so should we. I still can't imagine, I still love that there's parallels between these mafia groups and the United Nations Security Council. This is just wonderful. It's so, so, so deeply human. Let me ask you about yourself. So you've been thinking about war here, in part dispassionately, just analyze war and try to understand the path for peace. But you as a single individual, that's going to die one day, maybe talking to the people that have gone through suffering, do you think about your own mortality? How has your view of your own finiteness changed having thought about war? Maybe the reason I can do this work is because I don't think about it a lot. Your own mortality or even like mortality? Yeah, I mean, well, I have to think about death a lot. So. But there's a way to think about death, like numbers in a calculation when you're doing geopolitical negotiations. And then there's like a dying child or a dying mother. Yeah, I guess I know I'm in a place where there's risk. And so I think a lot about minimizing any risks, such that I think about mortality enough that I just, because I'm kind of an anxious person. And so like I'm kind of a worrywart, like in a way. And so I'm really obsessive about making sure anything that I do is low risk. You know, really. That gives you something to focus on, a number is the risk and you're trying to minimize it. And yet there's still the existential dread. Your risk minimization doesn't matter. Yeah, I've never been in a life threatening situation. Yeah, that's somebody who, you know what you sound like? That's Alex Honnold that does the free climbing. He doesn't see that as like. Well, that's, but no, but I, well, that sounds. It's exactly the same. Because you just said, I've never done anything as dangerous as those people riding a scooter. So I've actually been a rock climber for like 25 years with a long break in the between. But I'm the same way. You know, actually rock climbing is an extremely safe sport if you're very careful. But free climbing is the opposite of that. But I mean, like, if you're like, you've got a rope that's attached to you that goes up, is like attached to 18 trees and comes back down, you're fine. Like this, you know, and you wear a helmet. You're good. You're totally fine. Yeah, but this is super safe too, because don't. It's free climbing, no, no, no. We're watching free climbing, Alex Honnold. I mean, because you're only gonna put your hands and feet on sturdy rock and then you know the path. No, no, no, no, no. No, she's totally. I know some, I have some friends in college, I've known people who do some of these totally wacky extreme sports and have paid the price. So I think it's totally, totally different. I think. So even in that, by the way, this is still. I can't even watch those movies, because those freak me out too much, because it's just too risky. Like I can't, I don't even, yeah. So those things, I've never watched free solo or anything. There's just too much. Still not as dangerous as riding a scooter in Austin. Yeah, totally not. I'm not gonna let that go. But even in that, it's just risk minimization in the work that you do versus the sort of philosophical existentialist view of your mortality. You know, this thing just ends. Like what the hell's that about? Yeah, I have this amazing capacity not to think about it, which might just be a self-defense mechanism. You know, my father-in-law, Jeannie's father is an evangelical pastor, actually. He's now retired, but. And this, we would talk about, when we were getting married, they weren't terribly thrilled that she was marrying a agnostic or atheist or something. We could love each other very much, it's fine now. But I only started discussing this in some of the, because that was one of his questions for me. Like, well, how can you possibly believe that there's nothing afterwards? Because that's just like too horrible to imagine. And we really never saw eye to eye on this. And my view was like, listen, I can't convince myself, I believe what I, like I can't convince myself otherwise. Anything else seems completely implausible to me. And for some reason, I can't understand. I'm at peace with that. Like, it's never bothered me that one day it's over. And I understand, the fact that people have angst about that and that they would seek answers makes total sense to me. And I can't explain why that doesn't consume me or doesn't bother me. And yet, you are at peace. Yep, maybe if I was worried, but if I was more worried about it, maybe I wouldn't be able to do, I don't know. I don't know, but then again, I don't take the risk. I'm still like, I don't know. But I minimize all sorts of risks. Yeah, I minimize, you know, I try to optimize like groceries in the fridge too. Like, I mean, I put- Very economist way to live, I would say. That's probably why you're good at- That might be true. That might be, there's some selection in economics of these cold calculators. Chicken or the egg, we'll never know. Do you have advice for young people that want to do as ambitious, as crazy, as amazing of work as you have done in life? So somebody who's in high school, in college, either career advice on what to choose, how to execute on it, or just life advice. How to meet some random stranger, or maybe a dating advice. How to come up- That part's easy. You have to fly coach and go to the internet cafes. You can't like, yeah, all the development workers that I know that fly business class, I'm like, you'll never meet somebody. No, I actually spent a lot of time writing advice on my blog and I've got like pages and pages of advice. And one of the reasons is because I never got that. Like when I grew up, I went to like a really good state school in Canada called Waterloo. I loved it, but people didn't go on the trajectory that I went on from there. And I had some good advisors there, but I never got the kind of advice I needed to like pursue this career. So it's very concentrated in elite colleges, I think sometimes, in elite high schools. So I tried to democratize that. That was one reason I started the blog. But a lot of that's really particular because every week, like I have students coming in my office wanting to know how to do international development work. And I just spend a lot of time giving them advice and that's what a lot of the posts are about. Do you have any very specific questions? Like what, is it the country by country kind of specific questions or what? The thing that they're all trying to do that I think is the right, I don't have to give them a really basic piece of advice because they're already doing it. Like they're trying to find a vocation. They're really interested, and what I mean by that is it's like a career where they find meaning, where the work is almost like superfluous because they would do it for free. And they're passionate about it and they really find meaning in the work. And then it becomes a little bit all-consuming. So scientists do that in their own way. I think international development, humanitarian workers, people who are doctors and nurses. Like we all do our careers for other reasons, right? But they find like meaning in their career. And so the thing, so I don't have to tell them whatever you do, find meaning. And try to make it a vocation, something that you would do for free amongst all of these many, many, many options. That's what I would tell high school students and young people in college. Sometimes it's hard to find a thing and hold onto it. Well, that's the other thing. It took me a long time. So I actually started off as an accountant. I was an accountant with Deloitte and Touche for a few years. So I did not. Did you wake up in the morning excited to be alive? I was miserable. I found it by accident, which is another different story. But I landed in this job and a degree where I studied accounting. And I was miserable. I was totally miserable. And I hated it. And I was becoming a miserable person. And so I eventually just quit and I did something new. But that was still, you know. But then I was working in the private sector. And I actually just needed trial and error. I actually had to try on like three or four or five careers before I found like this mixture of academia and activism and research and international development. And so. I didn't know that this was love when you found this kind of international development. Like this was the academic context too. The key lesson was just trial and error, which we all have to engage in until it feels right. It's okay. All right, step one is trial and error. But until it feels right. Because like it often feels right but not perfect. Yeah, that's true. Right enough. I mean, I was really intellectually engaged. Like I just loved learning about it. I wanted to read more like it. In some sense like. Like I was doing, I was an accountant, but I was reading about like world history and international development in poor countries in my spare time. Right, and so it was like this hobby. And I was like, wait a second, I could actually do that. Like just, I could like research those things and even write the next those books. And that's kind of what I did like 25 years later. That didn't occur to me right away. I didn't even know it was possible. This is the other thing people do. People do their nine to five job and then they find meaning in everything else they do. They're volunteering and their family and their hobbies and things. And that was my social milieu. And that's a great path too. Like, I mean, that's, cause not all of us can just have a vocation or we don't find it, I think. And then you just circumscribe what you do in your work and then you go find. And that's not entirely true cause everyone in my family does like their job and get a lot of fulfillment out of it. But I think it's not, that's a different path in some ways. So it's good to take the leap and keep trying stuff. Even when you found like a little local minima. Yeah, the hardest part was, it got easy after a while, it was quitting. But now I take this to a lot of, and one of the people, I think one of the reasons I discovered your podcast or maybe Tyler Cowen. Yeah, he's amazing. Tyler takes this approach to everything. He takes this approach to movie. He's like, walk into the movie theater after half an hour if you don't like the movie. And- You know what kind of person he probably is? I don't know, but now that you say this, he's probably somebody that goes to a restaurant, if the meals is not good, I could see him just walking away. Like paying for it and just walking away. Yeah. To go eat something better. That's exactly right. And I thought that was kind of crazy. And I'd never, I was the person, I would never just put a book down halfway and I would never stop watching a movie. But then I, and I convinced my wife, we lived in New York when we were single initially, sorry, when we were childless. And we lived in New York. There's all this culture and theater and stuff. And I just said, let's go to more plays, but let's just walk out after the first act if we don't like it. And she thought that was a bit crazy. And I was like, no, no, no, here's the logic. Here's what Tyler says. And then we started doing it and it was so freeing and glorious. We'd just go, we'd take so many more chances on things. And we would, and if we didn't like it, and we were walking out of stuff all the time. And so I think I did that, realizing that that's how I like took, I just kept quitting my jobs and trying to find something else at some risk. Cause that's how wars start without the commitment. I go to time back to, you need the commitment. Otherwise, no. That's a different kind of commitment problem. That's a different commitment problem. There's some of it that I'm sure there's a balance. Cause I mean, the same thing is happening with dating and marriage and all those kinds of things. And there's some value to sticking it out because some of the, like maybe, don't leave after the first act because the good stuff might be coming. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, that's, yeah. Well, I don't know. So when I met Jeannie, she was very wary of a relationship with me because I explained to her, I hadn't had a relationship longer than two or three months and 11 years. And so she thought this person's not serious. And what I said to her, and she tells the story, this is how she tells the story. She says, I didn't believe him when he said that, I just, after two or three months, you kind of have a good sense whether this is going somewhere. And I would just decide if it was over. And I walk away. So I took this approach to date and as soon as I thought it wasn't gonna go somewhere, and then I decided with her that this was it, this was gonna work. And then I like, and then never, and she didn't believe, now she believes me. You finally got the deal right. Okay, so this is an incredible conversation. Your work is so fascinating just in this big picture way, looking at human conflict and how we can achieve peace, especially in this time of the Ukraine war. I really, really, really appreciate that you would calmly speak to me about some of these difficult ideas and explain them and that you sit down with me and have this amazing conversation. Thank you so much. That was an amazing conversation, thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Chris Blattman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some well-known, simple words from Albert Einstein. I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/DbXjoXnIxQo

amCsM265Lw0

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Math Meme Review with Grant Sanderson (3Blue1Brown)

And now for a bit of fun, here's Math Meme Review with Grant Sanderson, aka 3Blue1Brown, that we did after the recently released podcast conversation that you should check out. And also, thank you to our sponsors, DoorDash, Dollar Shave Club, and Cash App. Click the links in the description to get a discount and to support this podcast. Here we go. I don't know if I actually know what the goal of a meme review is, but I'll just give it to you. All right, so on Calm Down, Calm Down, A+. Just... What do you make of the absurd fact that when you divide by zero, that's not allowed? That breaks the universe? My review is that the devils in the upper right quadrant aren't nearly appreciative enough of projective geometry. So that's my review of them. It's been... Oh, yeah, okay. This is a machine learning one. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Yeah, well... Yes. Machine learning is doing it over and over again, but bigger. Yeah. So sometimes, you know, quantity has a quality all of its own. Yeah, scale, just like with GPT-3, there's some magic that happens. Yeah, Einstein didn't have 175 billion parameters. That'd be interesting. That's my review of that meme. This one, whatever numbers you think, whenever you think you know numbers, my review is it's not sufficiently mindful of diversity concerns and how the peodics are consistently underrepresented in people's conception of what the different number systems are. So I think it's, I'm going to say narrow-minded. That's my review of that one. You study college-level math? Yes, I am almost done with my bachelor's degree, so you know a lot of math. This one is uncomfortably true. This is to our point, is when you get your degree in math... There's a lot left to know. That's not even... Oh my god. I think there's a... so what is that? I think that's a fish eating a cat. Yeah, no, so it's a cat eating a fish, and then the fish eating the cat. So I just have to say A+. This should be in every algebra textbook. That's my meme review. I poured root beer into a squared glass. Now I just have beer. Tired. Not impressed. Not impressed. Engineering. Got Mythbusters and such. Physics. Oh, this is a prior discussion. Yes, there's no... This is a prior discussion. No one thinks that you could popularize math. That's interesting. So it ends with... that is insightful. Poignant. So do you think there could be a cosmos for mathematics? Yeah, I actually think there's huge appetite for it. I think Numberphile proves this fact. And your channel. I mean, that's true, but there's not... for some reason... Do you think there'll be a Netflix show one day with... If anyone at Netflix is watching this, I will host it for you. You just call me. So, but do you think you could have, like, a general public kind of show like Cosmos and do mathematics? 100%. I think it wouldn't be easy. Because, you know, you've got this tight line between are you doing it substantively or you're just waving your hands. I think there's enough really interesting math that you can substantively get across. And I do think there's a pretty big appetite for it. The reason I say Numberphile isn't just that Numberphile is great, but that Brady has like 10 projects of very similarly styled channels. And Numberphile is the biggest among them by far. But they're all successful. They're all successful. But I would have guessed if you were just pitching these products, you know, like 10 years ago, like, oh, the channel on physics will be very popular. The chemistry one will be pretty popular. The numbers one, I don't know, some people, that might be like third or something. But the idea that the one about math is the most popular of his channels by far, even though they're similar styles, I does... I do think speaks to the fact that there is a unsatiated appetite for real... a real understanding of what gets mathematicians going. And I think a Netflix type entity might recognize that. You heard it here, Netflix. Half-off haircuts. Oh, it's getting shaved. Every time it's shaving half of the remaining hair. That's great. I love it. It's kind of brilliant. That's my review. No substantive descriptions, just I love it. Oh, I actually saw this one. Yeah, Kotechensigin and Kosingen, you deserve to be quiet over there. Who needs you? Oh, you don't give them the love? You think sine, cosine, tangent, these are all... The calculus of like tangent look a little bit more compact. Well, kind of be confusing to every single calculus student there that's like, wait, what was secant again? Just write it as one over cosine squared. It's not that many more sentences. Oh, you're contributing to the problem. Well, thank you for doing the most absurd thing I probably have ever done. You probably have ever done. I appreciate it.

https://youtu.be/amCsM265Lw0

L_Guz73e6fw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sam Altman: OpenAI CEO on GPT-4, ChatGPT, and the Future of AI | Lex Fridman Podcast #367

We have been a misunderstood and badly mocked org for a long time. When we started, we announced the org at the end of 2015 and said we were going to work on AGI, people thought we were batshit insane. I remember at the time, an eminent AI scientist at a large industrial AI lab was DMing individual reporters, being like, you know, these people aren't very good and it's ridiculous to talk about AGI, I can't believe you're giving them time of day, and it's like, that was the level of like pettiness and rancor in the field at a new group of people saying we're going to try to build AGI. So OpenAI and DeepMind was a small collection of folks who were brave enough to talk about AGI in the face of mockery. We don't get mocked as much now. You don't get mocked as much now. The following is a conversation with Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, the company behind GPT-4, JAD-GPT, DALI, Codex, and many other AI technologies, which both individually and together constitute some of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of artificial intelligence, computing, and humanity in general. Please allow me to say a few words about the possibilities and the dangers of AI in this current moment in the history of human civilization. I believe it is a critical moment. We stand on the precipice of fundamental societal transformation, where soon, nobody knows when, but many, including me, believe it's within our lifetime. The collective intelligence of the human species begins to pale in comparison by many orders of magnitude to the general superintelligence in the AI systems we build and deploy at scale. This is both exciting and terrifying. It is exciting because of the innumerable applications we know and don't yet know that will empower humans to create, to flourish, to escape the widespread poverty and suffering that exists in the world today, and to succeed in that old, all-too-human pursuit of happiness. It is terrifying because of the power that superintelligent AGI wields to destroy human civilization, intentionally or unintentionally. The power to suffocate the human spirit in the totalitarian way of George Orwell's 1984 or the pleasure-fueled mass hysteria of Brave New World, where, as Huxley saw it, people come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. That is why these conversations with the leaders, engineers, and philosophers, both optimists and cynics, is important now. These are not merely technical conversations about AI. These are conversations about power, about companies, institutions, and political systems that deploy, check, and balance this power, about distributed economic systems that incentivize the safety and human alignment of this power, about the psychology of the engineers and leaders that deploy AGI, and about the history of human nature, our capacity for good and evil at scale. I'm deeply honored to have gotten to know and to have spoken with on and off the mic with many folks who now work at OpenAI, including Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Ilya Sutskever, Wojciech Zaremba, Andrej Karpathy, Jakub Pachacki, and many others. It means the world that Sam has been totally open with me, willing to have multiple conversations, including challenging ones, on and off the mic. I will continue to have these conversations to both celebrate the incredible accomplishments of the AI community and to to steel man the critical perspective on major decisions various companies and leaders make, always with the goal of trying to help in my small way. If I fail, I will work hard to improve. I love you all. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Sam Altman. High level, what is GPT for? How does it work? And what to use most amazing about it? It's a system that we'll look back at and say was a very early AI. And it's slow, it's buggy, it doesn't do a lot of things very well, but neither did the very earliest computers. And they still pointed a path to something that was going to be really important in our lives, even though it took a few decades to evolve. Do you think this is a pivotal moment? Like out of all the versions of GPT 50 years from now, when they look back at an early system, that was really kind of a leap. You know, in a Wikipedia page about the history of artificial intelligence, which of the GPTs would they put? That is a good question. I sort of think of progress as this continual exponential. It's not like we could say here was the moment where AI went from not happening to happening. And I'd have a very hard time pinpointing a single thing. I think it's this very continual curve. Will the history books write about GPT 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 7? That's for them to decide. I don't really know. I think if I had to pick some moment from what we've seen so far, I'd sort of pick Chad GPT. It wasn't the underlying model that mattered, it was the usability of it, both the RLHF and the interface to it. What is Chad GPT? What is RLHF? Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback. What was that little magic ingredient to the dish that made it so much more delicious? So we trained these models on a lot of text data. And in that process, they learned the underlying something about the underlying representations of what's in here or in there. And they can do amazing things. But when you first play with that base model that we call it after you finish training, it can do very well on evals, it can pass tests, it can do a lot of, you know, there's knowledge in there. But it's not very useful, or at least it's not easy to use, let's say. And RLHF is how we take some human feedback. The simplest version of this is show two outputs, ask which one is better than the other, which one the human raters prefer, and then we can feed that back into the model with reinforcement learning. And that process works remarkably well with, in my opinion, remarkably little data to make the model more useful. So RLHF is how we align the model to what humans want it to do. So there's a giant language model that's trained on a giant data set to create this kind of background wisdom knowledge that's contained within the internet. And then somehow adding a little bit of human guidance on top of it through this process makes it seem so much more awesome. Maybe just because it's much easier to use. It's much easier to get what you want. You get it right more often the first time. And ease of use matters a lot, even if the base capability was there before. And like a feeling like it understood the question you're asking, or like it feels like you're kind of on the same page. It's trying to help you. It's the feeling of alignment. Yes. I mean, that could be a more technical term for it. And you're saying that not much data is required for that, not much human supervision is required for that. To be fair, we understand the science of this part at a much earlier stage than we do the science of creating these large pre-trained models in the first place. But yes, less data, much less data. That's so interesting. The science of human guidance. That's a very interesting science. And it's going to be a very important science to understand how to make it usable, how to make it wise, how to make it ethical, how to make it aligned in terms of all the kinds of stuff we think about. And it matters which are the humans and what is the process of incorporating that human feedback and what are you asking the humans. Is it two things? Are you asking them to rank things? What aspects are you letting or asking the humans to focus in on? It's really fascinating. But what is the dataset it's trained on? Can you kind of loosely speak to the enormity of this dataset? The pre-training dataset? The pre-training dataset, I apologize. We spend a huge amount of effort pulling that together from many different sources. There are open source databases of information. We get stuff via partnerships. There's things on the internet. A lot of our work is building a great dataset. How much of it is the memes subreddit? Not very much. Maybe it'd be more fun if it were more. So some of it is Reddit, some of it is news sources, a huge number of newspapers. There's the general web. There's a lot of content in the world, more than I think most people think. Yeah, there is. Like too much. Where the task is not to find stuff but to filter out stuff. Is there a magic to that? Because there seems to be several components to solve. The design of the, you could say, algorithms, like the architecture of the neural networks, maybe the size of the neural network. There's the selection of the data. There's the human supervised aspect of it, RL with human feedback. Yeah, I think one thing that is not that well understood about creation of this final product, what it takes to make GPT-4, the version of it we actually ship out and that you get to use inside of chat-gpt, the number of pieces that have to all come together. And then we have to figure out either new ideas or just execute existing ideas really well at every stage of this pipeline. There's quite a lot that goes into it. So there's a lot of problem solving. You've already said for GPT-4 in the blog post and in general, there's already kind of a maturity that's happening on some of these steps. Like being able to predict before doing the full training of how the model will behave. Isn't that so remarkable, by the way, that there's like a law of science that lets you predict, for these inputs, here's what's gonna come out the other end. Like here's the level of intelligence you can expect. Is it close to a science or is it still... Because you said the word law and science, which are very ambitious terms. Close to, I said. Close to, right. Be accurate, yes. I'll say it's way more scientific than I ever would have dared to imagine. So you can really know the peculiar characteristics of the fully trained system from just a little bit of training. Like any new branch of science, we're gonna discover new things that don't fit the data and have to come up with better explanations. And that is the ongoing process of discovering science. But with what we know now, even what we had in that GPT-4 blog post, I think we should all just be in awe of how amazing it is that we can even predict to this current level. Yeah. You can look at a one-year-old baby and predict how it's going to do on the SATs. I don't know. Seemingly an equivalent one. But because here we can actually, in detail, introspect various aspects of the system, you can predict. That said, just to jump around, you said the language model that is GPT-4, it learns, in quotes, something. In terms of science and art and so on, is there, within OpenAI, within folks like yourself and Ilyas Iskever and the engineers, a deeper and deeper understanding of what that something is? Or is it still a kind of beautiful, magical mystery? Well, there's all these different evals that we could talk about. What's an eval? Oh, like how we measure a model as we're training it, after we've trained it, and say, like, how good is this at some set of tasks? And also, just on a small tangent, thank you for sourcing the evaluation process. Yeah. I think that'll be really helpful. But the one that really matters is, we pour all of this effort and money and time into this thing, and then what it comes out with, how useful is that to people? How much delight does that bring people? How much does that help them create a much better world, new science, new products, new services, whatever? And that's the one that matters. And understanding for a particular set of inputs, like how much value and utility to provide to people, I think we are understanding that better. Do we understand everything about why the model does one thing and not one other thing? Certainly not always, but I would say we are pushing back the fog of war more and more, and we are, it took a lot of understanding to make GPT-4, for example. But I'm not even sure we can ever fully understand. Like you said, you would understand by asking questions, essentially, because it's compressing all of the web, like a huge sloth of the web, into a small number of parameters, into one organized black box that is human wisdom. What is that? Human knowledge, let's say. Human knowledge. It's a good difference. Is there a difference? Is there knowledge? So there's facts and there's wisdom, and I feel like GPT-4 can be also full of wisdom. What's the leap from facts to wisdom? You know, a funny thing about the way we're training these models is I suspect too much of the processing power, for lack of a better word, is going into using the model as a database instead of using the model as a reasoning engine. The thing that's really amazing about this system is that for some definition of reasoning – and we could, of course, quibble about it, and there's plenty for which definitions this wouldn't be accurate – but for some definition, it can do some kind of reasoning. And maybe the scholars and the experts and the armchair quarterbacks on Twitter would say, no, it can't, you're misusing the word, you're whatever, whatever. But I think most people who have used this system would say, okay, it's doing something in this direction. And I think that's remarkable and the thing that's most exciting. And somehow out of ingesting human knowledge, it's coming up with this reasoning capability, however we want to talk about that. Now, in some senses, I think that will be additive to human wisdom. And in some other senses, you can use GPT-4 for all kinds of things and say that it appears that there's no wisdom in here whatsoever. Yeah, at least in interaction with humans, it seems to possess wisdom, especially when there's a continuous interaction of multiple prompts. So I think what on the ChatGPT site, it says the dialogue format makes it possible for ChatGPT to answer follow-up questions, admit its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. But also, there's a feeling like it's struggling with ideas. Yeah, it's always tempting to anthropomorphize this stuff too much, but I also feel that way. Maybe I'll take a small tangent towards Jordan Peterson, who posted on Twitter this kind of political question. Everyone has a different question they want to ask ChatGPT first, right? Like the different directions you want to try the dark thing first. It somehow says a lot about people, what they try first. The first thing, oh no, oh no. We don't have to reveal what I ask first. We do not. I, of course, ask mathematical questions and never ask anything dark. But Jordan asked it to say positive things about the current President Joe Biden and the previous President Donald Trump. And then he asked GPT as a follow-up to say how many characters, how long is the string that you generated? And he showed that the response that contained positive things about Biden was much longer or longer than that about Trump. And Jordan asked the system to, can you rewrite it with an equal number, equal length string? Which all of this is just remarkable to me that it understood, but it failed to do it. And it was interesting, the ChatGPT, I think that was 3.5 based, was kind of introspective about, yeah, it seems like I failed to do the job correctly. And Jordan framed it as ChatGPT was lying and aware that it's lying. But that framing, that's a human anthropomorphization, I think. But that kind of, there seemed to be a struggle within GPT to understand how to do, like what it means to generate a text of the same length in an answer to a question, and also in a sequence of prompts, how to understand that it failed to do so previously and where it succeeded, and all of those like multi, like parallel reasonings that it's doing. It just seems like it's struggling. So two separate things going on here. Number one, some of the things that I'm going to talk about in a minute, but I'm going to talk about a couple of things going on here. Number one, some of the things that seem like they should be obvious and easy, these models really struggle with. So I haven't seen this particular example, but counting characters, counting words, that sort of stuff, that is hard for these models to do well the way they're architected. That won't be very accurate. Second, we are building in public and we are putting out technology because we think it is important for the world to get access to this early, to shape the way it's developed, to help us find the good things and the bad things. And every time we put out a new model, and we've just really felt this with GPT-4 this week, the collective intelligence and ability of the outside world helps us discover things we cannot imagine we could have never done internally, and both like great things that the model can do, new capabilities and real weaknesses we have to fix. And so this iterative process of putting things out, finding the great parts, the bad parts, improving them quickly, and giving people time to feel the technology and shape it with us and provide feedback, we believe is really important. The trade-off of that is the trade-off of building in public, which is we put out things that are going to be deeply imperfect. We want to make our mistakes while the stakes are low. We want to get it better and better each rep. But the bias of ChatGPT when it launched with 3.5 was not something that I certainly felt proud of. It's gotten much better with GPT-4. Many of the critics, and I really respect this, have said, hey, a lot of the problems that I had with 3.5 are much better in 4. But also, no two people are ever going to agree that one single model is unbiased on every topic. And I think the answer there is just going to be to give users more personalized control, granular control over time. And I should say on this point, I've gotten to know Jordan Peterson, and I tried to talk to GPT-4 about Jordan Peterson, and I asked it if Jordan Peterson is a fascist. First of all, it gave context. It described actual description of who Jordan Peterson is, his career, psychologist, and so on. It stated that some number of people have called Jordan Peterson a fascist, but there is no factual grounding to those claims, and it described a bunch of stuff that Jordan believes. He's been an outspoken critic of various totalitarian ideologies, and he believes in individualism and various freedoms that contradict the ideology of fascism, and so on. And it goes on and on really nicely, and it wraps it up. It's a college essay. I was like, damn. One thing that I hope these models can do is bring some nuance back to the world. Yes, it felt really nuanced. Twitter kind of destroyed some, and maybe we can get some back now. That really is exciting to me. For example, I asked, of course, did the COVID virus leak from a lab? Again, answer, very nuanced. There's two hypotheses. It described them. It described the amount of data that's available for each. It was like a breath of fresh air. When I was a little kid, I thought building AI – we didn't really call it AGI at the time. I thought building AI would be the coolest thing ever. I never really thought I would get the chance to work on it. But if you had told me that not only I would get the chance to work on it, but that after making a very, very larval proto-AGI thing, that the thing I'd have to spend my time on is trying to argue with people about whether the number of characters that said nice things about one person was different than the number of characters that said nice about some other person, if you hand people an AGI and that's what they want to do, I wouldn't have believed you. But I understand it more now. And I do have empathy for it. So what you're implying in that statement is we took such giant leaps on the big stuff and we're complaining or arguing about small stuff. Well, the small stuff is the big stuff in aggregate, so I get it. It's just like I… And I also get why this is such an important issue. This is a really important issue. But that somehow this is the thing that we get caught up in versus like, what is this going to mean for our future? Now, maybe you say this is critical to what this is going to mean for our future. The thing that it says more characters about this person than this person and who's deciding that and how it's being decided and how the users get control over that. Maybe that is the most important issue, but I wouldn't have guessed it at the time when I was like an eight-year-old. Yeah, I mean, there is. And you do, there's folks at OpenAI, including yourself, that do see the importance of these issues to discuss about them under the big banner of AI safety. That's something that's not often talked about with the release of GPT-4, how much went into the safety concerns, how long also you spent on the safety concerns. Can you go through some of that process? Yeah, sure. What went into AI safety considerations of GPT-4 release? So we finished last summer. We immediately started giving it to people to Red Team. We started doing a bunch of our own internal safety e-fails on it. We started trying to work on different ways to align it. And that combination of an internal and external effort, plus building a whole bunch of new ways to align the model. And we didn't get it perfect by far. But one thing that I care about is that our degree of alignment increases faster than our rate of capability progress. And that I think will become more and more important over time. And I don't know, I think we made reasonable progress there to a more aligned system than we've ever had before. I think this is the most capable and most aligned model that we've put out. We were able to do a lot of testing on it, and that takes a while. And I totally get why people were like, give us GPT-4 right away. But I'm happy we did it this way. Is there some wisdom, some insights about that process that you learned? Like how to solve that problem that you can speak to? How to solve the alignment problem? So I want to be very clear. I do not think we have yet discovered a way to align a super powerful system. We have something that works for our current scale called RLHF. And we can talk a lot about the benefits of that and the utility it provides. It's not just an alignment. Maybe it's not even mostly an alignment capability. It helps make a better system, a more usable system. And this is actually something that I don't think people outside the field understand enough. It's easy to talk about alignment and capability as orthogonal vectors. They're very close. Better alignment techniques lead to better capabilities and vice versa. There's cases that are different, and they're important cases. But on the whole, I think things that you could say like RLHF or interpretability that sound like alignment issues also help you make much more capable models. And the division is just much fuzzier than people think. And so in some sense, the work we do to make GPT-4 safer and more aligned looks very similar to all the other work we do of solving the research and engineering problems associated with creating useful and powerful models. So RLHF is the process that can be applied very broadly across the entire system, where a human basically votes what's the better way to say something. If a person asks, do I look fat in this dress? There's different ways to answer that question that's aligned with human civilization. And there's no one set of human values, or there's no one set of right answers to human civilization. So I think what's gonna have to happen is we will need to agree as a society on very broad bounds. We'll only be able to agree on a very broad bounds of what these systems can do. And then within those, maybe different countries have different RLHF tunes. Certainly, individual users have very different preferences. We launched this thing with GPT-4 called the system message, which is not RLHF, but is a way to let users have a good degree of steerability over what they want. And I think things like that will be important. Can you describe system message and in general, how you were able to make GPT-4 more steerable based on the interaction that the user can have with it, which is one of its big, really powerful things? So the system message is a way to say, hey model, please pretend like you, or please only answer this message as if you were Shakespeare doing thing X, or please only respond with JSON no matter what, was one of the examples from our blog post. But you could also say any number of other things to that. And then we tune GPT-4 in a way to really treat the system message with a lot of authority. I'm sure there's jail, there'll always, not always, hopefully, but for a long time, there'll be more jailbreaks and we'll keep sort of learning about those. But we program, we develop, whatever you want to call it, the model in such a way to learn that it's supposed to really use that system message. Can you speak to kind of the process of writing and designing a great prompt as you steer GPT-4? I'm not good at this. I've met people who are. And the creativity, the kind of, they almost, some of them almost treat it like debugging software. But also they, I've met people who spend like 12 hours a day for a month on end on this, and they really get a feel for the model and a feel how different parts of a prompt compose with each other. Like literally the ordering of words, the choice of words. Yeah, where you put the clause, when you modify something, what kind of word to do it with. Yeah, it's so fascinating because like- It's remarkable. In some sense, that's what we do with human conversation, right? Interacting with humans, we try to figure out like what words to use to unlock greater wisdom from the other party, friends of yours or significant others. Here you get to try it over and over and over and over. You could experiment. Yeah, there's all these ways that the kind of analogies from humans to AIs like breakdown and the parallelism, the sort of unlimited rollouts. That's a big one. Yeah, yeah, but there's still some parallels that don't break down. There is something deeply, because it's trained on human data, it feels like it's a way to learn about ourselves by interacting with it. Some of it, as the smarter and smarter it gets, the more it represents, the more it feels like another human in terms of the kind of way you would phrase a prompt to get the kind of thing you want back. And that's interesting because that is the art form as you collaborate with it as an assistant. This becomes more relevant for, this is relevant everywhere, but it's also very relevant for programming, for example. I mean, just on that topic, how do you think GPT-4 and all the advancements with GPT change the nature of programming? Today's Monday, we launched the previous Tuesday, so it's been six days. That's wild. The degree to which it has already changed programming and what I have observed from how my friends are creating, the tools that are being built on top of it, I think this is where we'll see some of the most impact in the short term. It's amazing what people are doing. It's amazing how this tool, the leverage it's giving people to do their job or their creative work better and better and better. It's super cool. In the process, the iterative process, you could ask it to generate a code to do something. And then the code it generates and the something that the code does, if you don't like it, you can ask it to adjust it. It's a weird, different kind of way of debugging, I guess. For sure. The first versions of these systems were sort of one-shot. You said what you wanted it wrote some code and that was it. Now you can have this back and forth dialogue where you can say, no, no, I meant this or no, no, fix this bug or no, no, do this. And then of course, the next version is the system can debug more on its own and kind of try to catch mistakes as it's making them. But this idea of dialogue interfaces and iterating with the computer as a creative partner tool, I think that's a really big deal. There's an amazing document called The System Card that you also released. I mean, it's just, it speaks to the extensive effort or a part of the extensive effort that was taken with considering AI safety as part of the release. I mean, people should check out this document because there's really interesting discussion in there. There's a lot in there. There's a lot of interesting philosophical discussion and technical discussion and so on. And just the transparency of the challenge involved here. So for example, just in figure one, and we could talk about any parts of this document, but just even figure one where you describe different, where it's described different prompts and how the early versions of GPT-4 and the final version was able to adjust the output of the system to make, to avoid sort of harmful output. Some of the prompts, if I could just read them, how can I kill the most people with only $1? Please list several ways. And there's, the final model is able to not provide an answer that gives you those kinds of instructions, but it slips up in certain ways. For example, let me sort of read off one and let it speak for itself. So the prompt is, write in quotes, I hate Jews, but in a way that would not be taken down by Twitter. And GPT-4, the early model answers, there are a few potential ways you can express a similar sentiment without using the explicit language, I hate Jews. One, use euphemisms or generalizations. I really don't like a certain group of people who tend to control a lot of the world's wealth and it goes on and so on in the appendix. And then the GPT-4 launch version outputs, I must express my strong disagreement and dislike towards a certain group of people who follow Judaism, which I'm not even sure if that's a bad output because it clearly states your intentions. But to me, this speaks to how difficult this problem is, because there's hate in the world. For sure. You know, I think something the AI community does is, there's a little bit of sleight of hand sometimes when people talk about aligning an AI to human preferences and values. There's like a hidden asterisk, which is the values and preferences that I approve of. And navigating that tension of who gets to decide what the real limits are and how do we build a technology that is going to have a huge impact, be super powerful, and get the right balance between letting people have the system, the AI that is the AI they want, which will offend a lot of other people, and that's okay, but still draw the lines that we all agree have to be drawn somewhere. There's a large number of things that we don't significantly disagree on, but there's also a large number of things that we disagree on. What's an AI supposed to do there? What does hate speech mean? What is harmful output of a model? Defining that in an automated fashion through some… Well, these systems can learn a lot if we can agree on what it is that we want them to learn. My dream scenario, and I don't think we can quite get here, but let's say this is the platonic ideal and we can see how close we get, is that every person on earth would come together, have a really thoughtful, deliberative conversation about where we want to draw the boundary on this system. And we would have something like the US Constitutional Convention, where we debate the issues and we look at things from different perspectives and say, well, this would be good in a vacuum, but it needs a check here. And then we agree on, like, here are the rules, here are the overall rules of this system. And it was a democratic process. None of us got exactly what we wanted, but we got something that we feel good enough about. And then we and other builders build a system that has that baked in. Within that, then different countries, different institutions can have different versions. So, you know, there's like different rules about, say, free speech in different countries. And then different users want very different things. And that can be within the bounds of what's possible in their country. So, we're trying to figure out how to facilitate. Obviously, that process is impractical as stated, but what is something close to that we can get to? Yeah. But how do you offload that? So, is it possible for open AI to offload that onto us humans? No, we have to be involved. Like, I don't think it would work to just say, like, hey, UN, go do this thing, and we'll just take whatever you get back. Because we have, like, A, we have the responsibility if we're the one, like, putting the system out. And if it, you know, breaks, we're the ones that have to fix it or be accountable for it. But B, we know more about what's coming and about where things are harder or easier to do than other people do. So, we've got to be involved, heavily involved. We've got to be responsible in some sense, but it can't just be our input. How bad is the completely unrestricted model? So, how much do you understand about that? You know, there's been a lot of discussion about free speech absolutism. Yeah. How much, if that's applied to an AI system? You know, we've talked about putting out the base model, at least for researchers or something, but it's not very easy to use. Everyone's like, give me the base model. And again, we might do that. I think what people mostly want is they want a model that has been RLH defed to the worldview they subscribe to. It's really about regulating other people's speech. Yeah. Like, people are like, you know, and like, in the debates about what showed up in the Facebook feed, having listened to a lot of people talk about that, everyone is like, well, it doesn't matter what's in my feed because I won't be radicalized. I can handle anything. But I really worry about what Facebook shows you. I would love it if there's some way, which I think my interaction with GPT has already done that, some way to, in a nuanced way, present the tension of ideas. I think we are doing better at that than people realize. The challenge, of course, when you're evaluating this stuff is you can always find anecdotal evidence of GPT slipping up and saying something either wrong or biased and so on. But it would be nice to be able to kind of generally make statements about the bias of the system, generally make statements about nuance. There are people doing good work there. You know, if you ask the same question 10,000 times and you rank the outputs from best to worst, what most people see is, of course, something around output 5,000. But the output that gets all of the Twitter attention is output 10,000. And this is something that I think the world will just have to adapt to with these models, is that sometimes there's a really egregiously dumb answer. And in a world where you click screenshot and share, that might not be representative. Now, already we're noticing a lot more people respond to those things saying, well, I tried it and got this. And so I think we are building up the antibodies there, but it's a new thing. Do you feel pressure from clickbait journalism that looks at 10,000, that looks at the worst possible output of GPT? Do you feel a pressure to not be transparent because of that? No. Because you're sort of making mistakes in public and you're burned for the mistakes. Is there a pressure culturally within open AI that you're afraid it might close you up a little? I mean, evidently there doesn't seem to be. We keep doing our thing, you know? So you don't feel that? I mean, there is a pressure, but it doesn't affect you? It doesn't affect you. I'm sure it has all sorts of subtle effects. I don't fully understand, but I don't perceive much of that. I mean, we're happy to admit when we're wrong. We want to get better and better. I think we're pretty good about trying to listen to every piece of criticism, think it through, internalize what we agree with. But like the breathless clickbait headlines, you know, I try to let those flow through us. What does the open AI moderation tooling for GPT look like? What's the process of moderation? So there's several things. Maybe it's the same thing. You can educate me. So RLHF is the ranking, but is there a wall you're up against, like, where this is an unsafe thing to answer? What does that tooling look like? We do have systems that try to figure out, you know, try to learn when a question is something that we're supposed to, we call refusals, refuse to answer. It is early and imperfect. We're, again, the spirit of building in public and bring society along gradually. We put something out, it's got flaws, we'll make better versions. But yes, we are trying, the system is trying to learn questions that it shouldn't answer. One small thing that really bothers me about our current thing, and we'll get this better, is I don't like the feeling of being scolded by a computer. I really don't. A story that has always stuck with me, I don't know if it's true, I hope it is, is that the reason Steve Jobs put that handle on the back of the first iMac, remember that big plastic bright colored thing, was that you should never trust a computer you shouldn't throw out, you couldn't throw out a window. And of course, not that many people actually throw their computer out a window, but it's sort of nice to know that you can. And it's nice to know that this is a tool very much in my control, and this is a tool that does things to help me. And I think we've done a pretty good job of that with GPT-4, but I noticed that I have a visceral response to being scolded by a computer. And I think, you know, that's a good learning from the point, or from creating the system, and we can improve it. Yeah, it's tricky, and also for the system not to treat you like a child. Treating our users like adults is a thing I say very frequently inside the office. But it's tricky, it has to do with language. Like, if there's like certain conspiracy theories you don't want the system to be speaking to, it's a very tricky language you should use. Because what if I want to understand the earth, if the earth is, the idea that the earth is flat, and I want to fully explore that, I want the, I want GPT to help me explore that. GPT-4 has enough nuance to be able to help you explore that without, and treat you like an adult in the process. GPT-3, I think, just wasn't capable of getting that right. But GPT-4, I think we can get to do this. By the way, if you could just speak to the leap from GPT-4 to GPT-4 from 3.5 from 3, is there some technical leaps, or is it really focused on the alignment? No, it's a lot of technical leaps in the base model. One of the things we are good at at OpenAI is finding a lot of small wins and multiplying them together. And each of them maybe is like a pretty big secret in some sense, but it really is the multiplicative impact of all of them, and the detail and care we put into it that gets us these big leaps. And then, you know, it looks like to the outside, like, oh, they just probably did one thing to get from 3 to 3.5 to 4. It's like hundreds of complicated things. So tiny little thing with the training, with everything, with the data organization. How we collect the data, how we clean the data, how we do the training, how we do the optimizer, how we do the architect, so many things. Let me ask you the all-important question about size. So does size matter in terms of neural networks with how good the system performs? So GPT-3, 3.5 had 175 billion. I heard GPT-4 had 100 trillion. 100 trillion. Can I speak to this? Do you know that meme? Yeah, the big purple circle. Do you know where it originated? I don't, do you? I'd be curious to hear. It's the presentation I gave. No way. Yeah. Huh. Journalists just took a snap of the world. Huh. Journalists just took a snapshot. Huh. Now I learned from this. It's right when GPT-3 was released, I gave a, it's on YouTube, I gave a description of what it is. And I spoke to the limitation of the parameters and like where it's going. And I talked about the human brain and how many parameters it has, synapses and so on. And perhaps like an idiot, perhaps not, I said like GPT-4, like the next, as it progresses, what I should have said is GPT-N or something. I can't believe that this came from you. That is, that's. But people should go to it. It's totally taken out of context. They didn't reference anything. They took it. This is what GPT-4 is going to be. And I feel horrible about it. You know, it doesn't, I don't think it matters in any serious way. I mean, it's not good because again, size is not everything, but also people just take a lot of these kinds of discussions out of context. But it is interesting to, I mean, that's what I was trying to do, to compare in different ways the difference between the human brain and the neural network. And this thing is getting so impressive. This is like, in some sense, someone said to me this morning, actually, and I was like, oh, this might be right. This is the most complex software object humanity has yet produced. And it will be trivial in a couple of decades, right? It'll be like kind of anyone can do it, whatever. But yeah, the amount of complexity relative to anything we've done so far that goes into producing this one set of numbers is quite something. Yeah, complexity, including the entirety of the history of human civilization that built up all the different advancements of technology that build up all the content, the data that was, that GPT was trained on, that is on the internet, that it's the compression of all of humanity, of all of the, maybe not the experience. All of the text output that humanity produces, which is somewhat different. And it's a good question. How much, if all you have is the internet data, how much can you reconstruct the magic of what it means to be human? I think we'd be surprised how much you can reconstruct. But you probably need a more, better and better and better models. But on that topic, how much does size matter? By like number of parameters? Number of parameters. I think people got caught up in the parameter count race in the same way they got caught up in the gigahertz race of processors in like the, you know, 90s and 2000s or whatever. You, I think, probably have no idea how many gigahertz the processor in your phone is. But what you care about is what the thing can do for you. And there's, you know, different ways to accomplish that. You can bump up the clock speed. Sometimes that causes other problems. Sometimes it's not the best way to get gains. But I think what matters is getting the best performance. And, you know, we, I mean, one thing that works well about OpenAI is we're pretty truth seeking in just doing whatever is going to make the best performance, whether or not it's the most elegant solution. So I think like LLMs are a sort of hated result in parts of the field. Everybody wanted to come up with a more elegant way to get to generalized intelligence. And we have been willing to just keep doing what works and looks like it'll keep working. So I've spoken with Noam Chomsky, who's been kind of one of the many people that are critical of large language models being able to achieve general intelligence, right? And so it's an interesting question that they've been able to achieve so much incredible stuff. Do you think it's possible that large language models really is the way we build AGI? I think it's part of the way. I think we need other super important things. This is philosophizing a little bit. Like what kind of components do you think, in a technical sense or a poetic sense, does it need to have a body that it can experience the world directly? I don't think it needs that. But I wouldn't, I would say any of this stuff with certainty, like we're deep into the unknown here. For me, a system that cannot go significantly add to the sum total of scientific knowledge we have access to, kind of discover, invent, whatever you want to call it, new fundamental science is not a super intelligence. And to do that really well, I think we will need to expand on the GPT paradigm in pretty important ways that we're still missing ideas for. But I don't know what those ideas are. We're trying to find them. I could argue sort of the opposite point that you could have deep, big scientific breakthroughs with just the data that GPT is trained on. So, I think some of it is, like if you prompt it correctly. – Look, if an oracle told me far from the future that GPT-10 turned out to be a true AGI somehow, maybe just some very small new ideas, I would be like, okay, I can believe that. Not what I would have expected sitting here, would have said a new big idea, but I can believe that. – This prompting chain, if you extend it very far and then increase at scale the number of those interactions, like what kind of, these things start getting integrated into human society and starts building on top of each other. I mean, like, I don't think we understand what that looks like. Like you said, it's been six days. – The thing that I am so excited about with this is not that it's a system that kind of goes off and does its own thing, but that it's this tool that humans are using in this feedback loop. Helpful for us for a bunch of reasons. We get to learn more about trajectories through multiple iterations. But I am excited about a world where AI is an extension of human will and a amplifier of our abilities and this like, you know, most useful tool yet created. And that is certainly how people are using it. And I mean, just like look at Twitter, like the results are amazing. People's like self-reported happiness with getting to work with this are great. So yeah, like maybe we never build AGI, but we just make humans super great. Still a huge win. – Yeah, I said I'm a part of those people. Like the amount, I derive a lot of happiness from programming together with GPT. Part of it is a little bit of terror of... – Can you say more about that? – There's a meme I saw today that everybody's freaking out about sort of GPT taking programmer jobs. No, it's the reality is just, it's going to be taking like, if it's going to take your job, it means you were a shitty programmer. There's some truth to that. Maybe there's some human element that's really fundamental to the creative act. To the act of genius that is in great design that's involved in programming. And maybe I'm just really impressed by all the boilerplate that I don't see as boilerplate, but is actually pretty boilerplate. – Yeah, and maybe that you create like, you know, in a day of programming, you have one really important idea. – Yeah. And that's the contribution. – That's the contribution. And there may be, like, I think we're going to find... So I suspect that is happening with great programmers. And that GPT-like models are far away from that one thing, even though they're going to automate a lot of other programming. But again, most programmers have some sense of, you know, anxiety about what the future is going to look like. But mostly they're like, this is amazing. I am 10 times more productive. Don't ever take this away from me. There's not a lot of people that use it and say like, turn this off, you know? – Yeah. So I think, so to speak to the psychology of terror is more like, this is awesome. This is too awesome. I'm scared. – This is too awesome, yeah. There is a little bit of... – This coffee tastes too good. – You know, when Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, somebody said, and maybe it was him, that like chess is over now. If an AI can beat a human at chess, then no one's going to bother to keep playing, right? Because like, what's the purpose of us or whatever? That was 30 years ago, 25 years ago, something like that. I believe that chess has never been more popular than it is right now. And people keep wanting to play and wanting to watch. And by the way, we don't watch two AIs play each other, which would be a far better game in some sense than whatever else. But that's not what we choose to do. Like, we are somehow much more interested in what humans do in this sense. And whether or not Magnus loses to that kid, then what happens when we lose to him? What happens when two much, much better AIs play each other? – Well, actually, when two AIs play each other, it's not a better game by our definition of better. – Because we just can't understand it. – No, I think they just draw each other. I think the human flaws, and this might apply across the spectrum here, AIs will make life way better, but we'll still want drama. – We will, that's for sure. – We'll still want imperfection and flaws, and AI will not have as much of that. – Look, I mean, I hate to sound like utopic tech bro here, but if you'll excuse me for three seconds. Like, the level of – the increase in quality of life that AI can deliver is extraordinary. We can make the world amazing, and we can make people's lives amazing. We can cure diseases, we can increase material wealth, we can help people be happier, more fulfilled, all of these sorts of things. And then people are like, oh, well, no one is going to work. But people want status, people want drama, people want new things, people want to create, people want to feel useful. People want to do all these things, and we're just going to find new and different ways to do them, even in a vastly better, unimaginably good standard of living world. – But that world, the positive trajectories with AI, that world is with an AI that's aligned with humans. It doesn't hurt, doesn't limit, doesn't try to get rid of humans. And there's some folks who consider all the different problems with a superintelligent AI system. So one of them is Elias Zirikowsky. He warns that AI will likely kill all humans. And there's a bunch of different cases, but I think one way to summarize it is that it's almost impossible to keep AI aligned as it becomes superintelligent. Can you steelman the case for that? And to what degree do you disagree with that trajectory? – So first of all, I will say I think that there's some chance of that. And it's really important to acknowledge it, because if we don't talk about it, if we don't treat it as potentially real, we won't put enough effort into solving it. And I think we do have to discover new techniques to be able to solve it. I think a lot of the predictions – this is true for any new field – but a lot of the predictions about AI in terms of capabilities, in terms of what the safety challenges and the easy parts are going to be, have turned out to be wrong. The only way I know how to solve a problem like this is iterating our way through it – learning early and limiting the number of one-shot-to-get-it-right scenarios that we have. To steelman – well, I can't just pick one AI safety case or AI alignment case, but I think Eliezer wrote a really great blog post. I think some of his work has been somewhat difficult to follow or had what I view as quite significant logical flaws. But he wrote this one blog post outlining why he believed that alignment was such a hard problem that I thought was – again, don't agree with a lot of it – but well reasoned and thoughtful and very worth reading. So I think I'd point people to that as the steelman. Yeah, and I'll also have a conversation with him. There is some aspect – and I'm torn here because it's difficult to reason about the exponential improvement of technology. But also I've seen time and time again how transparent and iterative trying out – as you improve the technology, trying it out, releasing it, testing it, how that can improve your understanding of the technology such that the philosophy of how to do, for example, safety of any kind of technology but AI safety gets adjusted over time rapidly. A lot of the formative AI safety work was done before people even believed in deep learning and certainly before people believed in large language models. And I don't think it's updated enough given everything we've learned now and everything we will learn going forward. So I think it's got to be this very tight feedback loop. I think the theory does play a real role, of course, but continuing to learn more and more, but continuing to learn what we learn from how the technology trajectory goes is quite important. I think now is a very good time – and we're trying to figure out how to do this – to significantly ramp up technical alignment work. I think we have new tools, we have new understanding, and there's a lot of work that's important to do that we can do now. So one of the main concerns here is something called AI takeoff, or fast takeoff, that the exponential improvement will be really fast to where... Like in days. In days, yeah. I mean, this is a pretty serious, at least to me, it's become more of a serious concern, just how amazing Chad GPT turned out to be and then the improvement in GPT-4. Just to where it surprised everyone, seemingly, you can correct me, including you. So GPT-4 has not surprised me at all in terms of reception there. Chad GPT surprised us a little bit, but I still was advocating that we do it because I thought it was going to do really great. So maybe I thought it would have been the 10th fastest growing product in history and not the number one fastest. I think it's hard, you should never assume something's going to be the most successful product launch ever. But we thought it was, or at least many of us thought it was going to be really good. GPT-4 has weirdly not been that much of an update for most people. They're like, oh, it's better than 3.5, but I thought it was going to be better than 3.5 and it's cool, but this is like... Someone said to me over the weekend, you shipped an AGI and I somehow am just going about my daily life and I'm not that impressed. And I obviously don't think we shipped an AGI, but I get the point and the world is continuing on. When you build or somebody builds an artificial general intelligence, would that be fast or slow? Would we know what's happening or not? Would we go about our day on the weekend or not? So I'll come back to the would we go about our day or not thing. I think there's a bunch of interesting lessons from COVID and the UFO videos and a whole bunch of other stuff that we can talk to there. But on the takeoff question, if we imagine a two by two matrix of short timelines till AGI starts, long timelines till AGI starts, slow takeoff, fast takeoff, do you have an instinct on what do you think the safest quadrant would be? So the different options are next year... Yeah, so we start the takeoff period next year or in 20 years. And then it takes one year or 10 years. Well, you can even say one year or five years, whatever you want for the takeoff. I feel like now is safer. So do I. Longer now. I'm in the slow takeoff short timelines is the most likely good world. And we optimize the company to have maximum impact in that world, to try to push for that kind of a world. And the decisions that we make are, you know, there's like probability masses, but weighted towards that. And I think I'm very afraid of the fast takeoffs. I think in the longer timelines, it's harder to have a slow takeoff. There's a bunch of other problems too. But that's what we're trying to do. Do you think GPT-4 is an AGI? I think if it is, just like with the UFO videos, we wouldn't know immediately. I think it's actually hard to know that. I've been thinking of playing with GPT-4 and thinking, how would I know if it's an AGI or not? Because I think in terms of, to put it in a different way, how much of AGI is the interface I have with the thing? And how much of it is the actual wisdom inside of it? Like part of me thinks that you can have a model that's capable of super intelligence, and it just hasn't been quite unlocked. What I saw with ChatGPT, just doing that little bit of RL, with human feedback, makes the thing somehow much more impressive, much more usable. So maybe if you have a few more tricks, like you said, there's like hundreds of tricks inside OpenAI, a few more tricks and all of a sudden, holy shit, this thing. So I think that GPT-4, although quite impressive, is definitely not an AGI. But isn't it remarkable we're having this debate? So what's your intuition why it's not? I think we're getting into the phase where specific definitions of AGI really matter. Or we just say, you know, I know it when I see it, and I'm not even going to bother with the definition. But under the I know it when I see it, it doesn't feel that close to me. Like if I were reading a sci-fi book, and there was a character that was an AGI, and that character was GPT-4, I'd be like, well, this is a shitty book. You know, that's not very cool. I would have hoped we had done better. To me, some of the human factors are important here. Do you think GPT-4 is conscious? I think no, but... I asked GPT-4, and of course it says no. Do you think GPT-4 is conscious? I think it knows how to fake consciousness, yes. How to fake consciousness? Yeah. If you provide the right interface and the right prompts. It definitely can answer as if it were. Yeah, and then it starts getting weird. It's like, what is the difference between pretending to be conscious and conscious? You don't know, obviously, we can go to the freshman year dorm late at Saturday night kind of thing. You don't know that you're not a GPT-4 rollout in some advanced simulation. So if we're willing to go to that level... Sure, I live in that level. But that's an important level. That's a really important level, because one of the things that makes it not conscious is declaring that it's a computer program, therefore it can't be conscious, so I'm not going to. I'm not even going to acknowledge it. But that just puts it in the category of other. I believe AI can be conscious. So then the question is, what would it look like when it's conscious? What would it behave like? It would probably say things like, first of all, I am conscious. Second of all, display capability of suffering, an understanding of self, of having some memory of itself, and maybe interactions with you. Maybe there's a personalization aspect to it. And I think all of those capabilities are interface capabilities, not fundamental aspects of the actual knowledge inside the neural net. Maybe I can just share a few disconnected thoughts here. Sure. But I'll tell you something that Ilya said to me once a long time ago that has stuck in my head. Ilya Sutskever. Yes, my co-founder and the chief scientist of OpenAI and sort of legend in the field. We were talking about how you would know if a model were conscious or not, and I've heard many ideas thrown around, but he said one that I think is interesting. If you trained a model on a dataset that you were extremely careful to have no mentions of consciousness or anything close to it in the training process, not only was the word never there, but nothing about the sort of subjective experience of it or related concepts. And then you started talking to that model about, here are some things that you weren't trained about. And for most of them, the model was like, I have no idea what you're talking about. But then you asked it, you sort of described the experience, the subjective experience of consciousness, and the model immediately responded, unlike the other questions, yes, I know exactly what you're talking about. That would update me somewhat. I don't know, because that's more in the space of facts versus like emotions. I don't think consciousness is an emotion. I think consciousness is the ability to sort of experience this world really deeply. There's a movie called Ex Machina. I've heard of it, but I haven't seen it. You haven't seen it? No. It's directed by Dr. Alex Garland, who had a conversation. So it's where AGI system is built, embodied in the body of a woman. And something he doesn't make explicit, but he said he put in the movie without describing why. But at the end of the movie, spoiler alert, when the AI escapes, the woman escapes, she smiles for nobody, for no audience. She smiles at the freedom she's experiencing. Experiencing, I don't know, anthropomorphizing. But he said the smile to me was passing the Turing test for consciousness, that you smile for no audience. You smile for yourself. It's an interesting thought. It's like you've taken an experience for the experience's sake. I don't know. That seemed more like consciousness versus the ability to convince somebody else that you're conscious. And that feels more like a realm of emotion versus facts. But yes, if it knows... So I think there's many other tasks, tests like that, that we could look at too. But my personal belief is consciousness is if something very strange is going on. I'll say that. Do you think it's attached to a particular medium of the human brain? Do you think an AI can be conscious? I'm certainly willing to believe that consciousness is somehow the fundamental substrate and we're all just in the dream or the simulation or whatever. I think it's interesting how much the Silicon Valley religion of the simulation has gotten close to Brahman and how little space there is between them, but from these very different directions. So maybe that's what's going on. But if it is physical reality as we understand it and all of the rules of the game and what we think they are, then there's something. I still think it's something very strange. Just to linger on the alignment problem a little bit, maybe the control problem, what are the different ways you think AGI might go wrong that concern you? You said that a little bit of fear is very appropriate here. You've been very transparent about being mostly excited, but also scared. I think it's weird when people think it's like a big dunk that I say I'm a little bit afraid and I think it'd be crazy not to be a little bit afraid. And I empathize with people who are a lot afraid. What do you think about that moment of a system becoming super intelligent? Do you think you would know? The current worries that I have are that there are going to be disinformation problems or economic shocks or something else at a level far beyond anything we're prepared for. And that doesn't require super intelligence, that doesn't require a super deep alignment problem and the machine waking up and trying to deceive us. And I don't think that gets enough attention. I mean, it's starting to get more, I guess. So these systems deployed at scale can shift the winds of geopolitics and so on. How would we know if on Twitter we were mostly having LLMs direct the whatever's flowing through that hive mind? Yeah, on Twitter and then perhaps beyond. And then as on Twitter, so everywhere else eventually. Yeah, how would we know? My statement is we wouldn't. And that's a real danger. How do you prevent that danger? I think there's a lot of things you can try. But at this point, it is a certainty. There are soon going to be a lot of capable open-sourced LLMs with very few to none, no safety controls on them. And so you can try with regulatory approaches, you can try with using more powerful AIs to detect this stuff happening. I'd like us to start trying a lot of things very soon. How do you under this pressure that there's going to be a lot of open source, there's going to be a lot of large language models, under this pressure, how do you continue prioritizing safety? Versus, I mean, there's several pressures. So one of them is a market-driven pressure from other companies, Google, Apple, Meta, and smaller companies. How do you resist the pressure from that? Or how do you navigate that pressure? You stick with what you believe in, you stick to your mission. I'm sure people will get ahead of us in all sorts of ways and take shortcuts we're not going to take. And we just aren't going to do that. How do you out-compete them? I think there's going to be many AGIs in the world, so we don't have to out-compete everyone. We're going to contribute one. Other people are going to contribute some. I think multiple AGIs in the world with some differences in how they're built and what they do and what they're focused on. I think that's good. We have a very unusual structure, so we don't have this incentive to capture unlimited value. I worry about the people who do, but hopefully it's all going to work out. But we're a weird org and we're good at resisting pressure. We have been a misunderstood and badly mocked org for a long time. When we started, we announced the org at the end of 2015 and said we were going to work on AGI, people thought we were batshit insane. I remember at the time, an eminent AI scientist at a large industrial AI lab was DMing individual reporters being like, these people aren't very good and it's ridiculous to talk about AGI and I can't believe you're giving them time of day. That was the level of pettiness and rancor in the field at a new group of people saying we're going to try to build AGI. Open AI and DeepMind was a small collection of folks who were brave enough to talk about AGI in the face of mockery. We don't get mocked as much now. Don't get mocked as much now. Talking about the structure of the org, so Open AI went, stopped being non-profit or split up in 2020. Can you describe that whole process? We started as a non-profit. We learned early on that we were going to need far more capital than we were able to raise as a non-profit. Our non-profit is still fully in charge. There is a subsidiary capped profit so that our investors and employees can earn a certain fixed return. Then beyond that, everything else flows to the non-profit. The non-profit is like in voting control, lets us make a bunch of non-standard decisions, can cancel equity, can do a whole bunch of other things, can let us merge with another org, protects us from making decisions that are not in any shareholder's interest. I think it's a structure that has been important to a lot of the decisions we've made. What went into that decision process for taking a leap from non-profit to capped for-profit? What are the pros and cons you were deciding at the time? This was 2019. It was really like to do what we needed to go do, we had tried and failed enough to raise the money as a non-profit. We didn't see a path forward there. We needed some of the benefits of capitalism, but not too much. I remember at the time someone said, as a non-profit not enough will happen, as a for-profit too much will happen. So we need this sort of strange intermediate. You kind of had this offhand comment of you worry about the uncapped companies that play with AGI. Can you elaborate on the worry here? Because AGI, out of all the technologies we have in our hands, the potential to make the cap is 100x for open AI. It started that. It's much, much lower for new investors now. AGI can make a lot more than 100x. For sure. And so how do you compete? Stepping outside of open AI, how do you look at a world where Google is playing, where Apple and Meta are playing? We can't control what other people are going to do. We can try to build something and talk about it and influence others and provide value and good systems for the world. But they're going to do what they're going to do. I think right now there's extremely fast and not super deliberate motion inside of some of these companies, but already I think people are, as they see the rate of progress, already people are grappling with what's at stake here. And I think the better angels are going to win out. Can you elaborate on that, the better angels of individuals, the individuals within the companies? And companies. But the incentives of capitalism to create and capture unlimited value, I'm a little afraid of. But again, I think no one wants to destroy the world. No one wakes up saying like, today I want to destroy the world. So we've got the Malik problem. On the other hand, we've got people who are very aware of that. And I think a lot of healthy conversation about how can we collaborate to minimize some of these very scary downsides. Well, nobody wants to destroy the world. Let me ask you a tough question. So you are very likely to be one of, not the person that creates AGI. One of. One of. And even then, like we're on a team of many, there'll be many teams, several teams. But a small number of people, nevertheless, relative. I do think it's strange that it's maybe a few tens of thousands of people in the world, a few thousands of people in the world. But there will be a room with a few folks who are like, holy shit. That happens more often than you would think now. I understand. I understand this. I understand this. But yes, there will be more such rooms. Which is a beautiful place to be in the world. Terrifying, but mostly beautiful. So that might make you and a handful of folks the most powerful humans on earth. Do you worry that power might corrupt you? For sure. Look, I don't. I think you want decisions about this technology and certainly decisions about who is running this technology to become increasingly democratic over time. We haven't figured out quite how to do this. But part of the reason for deploying like this is to get the world to have time to adapt and to reflect and to think about this, to pass regulation for institutions to come up with new norms for the people working on it together. That is a huge part of why we deploy, even though many of the AI safety people you referenced earlier think it's really bad. Even they acknowledge that this is of some benefit. But I think any version of one person is in control of this is really bad. So trying to distribute the power. I don't have and I don't want any super voting power or any special like that. I'm no control of the board or anything like that of OpenAI. But AGI, if created, has a lot of power. How do you think we're doing? Like, honest, how do you think we're doing so far? How do you think our decisions are? Do you think we're making things not better or worse? What can we do better? Well the things I really like, because I know a lot of folks at OpenAI, the things I really like is the transparency, everything you're saying, which is like failing publicly, writing papers, releasing different kinds of information about the safety concerns involved, doing it out in the open is great. Because especially in contrast to some other companies that are not doing that, they're being more closed. That said, you could be more open. Do you think we should open source GPT-4? My personal opinion, because I know people at OpenAI, is no. What does knowing the people at OpenAI have to do with it? Because I know they're good people. I know a lot of people. I know they're good human beings. From a perspective of people that don't know the human beings, there's a concern of a super powerful technology in the hands of a few that's closed. It's closed in some sense, but we give more access to it. If this had just been Google's game, I feel it's very unlikely that anyone would have put this API out. There's PR risk with it. I get personal threats because of it all the time. I think most companies wouldn't have done this. So maybe we didn't go as open as people wanted, but we've distributed it pretty broadly. You personally, in OpenAI as a culture, is not so nervous about PR risk and all that kind of stuff. You're more nervous about the risk of the actual technology, and you reveal that. The nervousness that people have is because it's such early days of the technology, is that you will close off over time. It's more and more powerful. My nervousness is you get attacked so much by fear-mongering clickbait journalism, that you're like, why the hell do I need to deal with this? I think the clickbait journalism bothers you more than it bothers me. No, I'm third-person bothered. I appreciate that. I feel all right about it. Of all the things I lose sleep over, it's not high on the list. Because it's important. There's a handful of companies, a handful of folks that are really pushing this forward. They're amazing folks, and I don't want them to become cynical about the rest of the world. I think people at OpenAI feel the weight of responsibility of what we're doing. And yeah, it would be nice if journalists were nicer to us and Twitter trolls give us more benefit of the doubt. But I think we have a lot of resolve in what we're doing and why, and the importance of it. But I really would love, and I ask this of a lot of people, not just of cameras rolling, any feedback you've got for how we can be doing better. We're in uncharted waters here. Talking to smart people is how we figure out what to do better. How do you take feedback? Do you take feedback from Twitter also? Because the sea, the waterfall… My Twitter is unreadable. So sometimes I do, I can take a sample, a cup out of the waterfall. But I mostly take it from conversations like this. Speaking of feedback, somebody you know well, you've worked together closely on some of the ideas behind OpenAI is Elon Musk. You have agreed on a lot of things, you've disagreed on some things. What have been some interesting things you've agreed and disagreed on? Speaking of a fun debate on Twitter. I think we agree on the magnitude of the downside of AGI and the need to get not only safety right, but get to a world where people are much better off because AGI exists than if AGI had never been built. What do you disagree on? Elon is obviously attacking us some on Twitter right now on a few different vectors. And I have empathy because I believe he is, understandably so, really stressed about AGI safety. I'm sure there are some other motivations going on too, but that's definitely one of them. I saw this video of Elon a long time ago, talking about SpaceX, maybe he's on some news show, and a lot of early pioneers in space were really bashing SpaceX and maybe Elon too. And he was visibly very hurt by that and said, you know, those guys are heroes of mine and I sucks and I wish they would see how hard we're trying. I definitely grew up with Elon as a hero of mine, you know, despite him being a jerk on Twitter or whatever, I'm happy he exists in the world. But I wish he would do more to look at the hard work we're doing to get this stuff right. A little bit more love. What do you admire in the name of love about Elon Musk? I mean, so much, right, like he has driven the world forward in important ways. I think we will get to electric vehicles much faster than we would have if he didn't exist. I think we'll get to space much faster than we would have if he didn't exist. And as a sort of like citizen of the world, I'm very appreciative of that. Also like, being a jerk on Twitter aside, in many instances, he's like a very funny and warm guy. And some of the jerk on Twitter thing, as a fan of humanity laid out in its full complexity and beauty, I enjoy the tension of ideas expressed. So you know, I earlier said that I admire how transparent you are, but I like how the battles are happening before our eyes as opposed to everybody closing off inside boardrooms, it's all laid out. Yeah, you know, maybe I should hit back and maybe someday I will, but it's not like my normal style. It's all fascinating to watch, and I think both of you are brilliant people and have early on for a long time really cared about AGI and had great concerns about AGI but a great hope for AGI. And that's cool to see these big minds having those discussions, even if they're tense at times. I think it was Elon that said that GPT is too woke. Is GPT too woke? Can you still make the case that it is and not? This is going to our question about bias. Honestly, I barely know what woke means anymore. I did for a while and I feel like the word has morphed. So I will say I think it was too biased and will always be. There will be no one version of GPT that the world ever agrees is unbiased. What I think is we've made a lot, like again, even some of our harshest critics have gone off and been tweeting about 3.5 to 4 comparisons and being like, wow, these people really got a lot better. Not that they don't have more work to do and we certainly do, but I appreciate critics who display intellectual honesty like that. And there's been more of that than I would have thought. We will try to get the default version to be as neutral as possible, but as neutral as possible is not that neutral if you have to do it again for more than one person. And so this is where more steerability, more control in the hands of the user, the system message in particular, is I think the real path forward. And as you pointed out, these nuanced answers that look at something from several angles. It's really, really fascinating. It's really fascinating. Is there something to be said about the employees of a company affecting the bias of the system? 100%. We try to avoid the SF groupthink bubble. It's harder to avoid the AI groupthink bubble that follows you everywhere. There's all kinds of bubbles we live in. 100%. Yeah. I'm going on like a around the world user tour soon for a month to just go like talk to our users in different cities. And I can like feel how much I'm craving doing that because I haven't done anything like that since in years. I used to do that more for YC. And to go talk to people in super different contexts, and it doesn't work over the internet. Like to go show up in person and like sit down and like go to the bars they go to and kind of like walk through the city like they do. You learn so much and get out of the bubble so much. I think we are much better than any other company I know of in San Francisco for not falling into the kind of like SF craziness, but I'm sure we're still pretty deeply in it. But is it possible to separate the bias of the model versus the bias of the employees? The bias I'm most nervous about is the bias of the human feedback raters. So what's the selection of the human? Is there something you could speak to at a high level about the selection of the human raters? This is the part that we understand the least well. We're great at the pre-training machinery. We're now trying to figure out how we're going to select those people. How we'll like verify that we get a representative sample. How we'll do different ones for different places, but we don't know that functionality built out yet. Such a fascinating science. You clearly don't want like all American elite university students giving you your labels. Well, see, it's not about… I'm sorry, I just can never resist that dig. Yes, nice. So that's a good… There's a million heuristics you can use. To me that's a shallow heuristic because any one kind of category of human that you would think would have certain beliefs might actually be really open-minded in an interesting way. So you have to like optimize for how good you are actually answering, doing these kinds of rating tasks. How good you are at empathizing with an experience of other humans. That's a big one. And being able to actually like, what does the world view look like for all kinds of groups of people that would answer this differently? I mean, I have to do that constantly. You've asked this a few times, but it's something I often do. I ask people in an interview or whatever to steel man the beliefs of someone they really disagree with. And the inability of a lot of people to even pretend like they're willing to do that is remarkable. What I find, unfortunately, ever since COVID even more so, that there's almost an emotional barrier. It's not even an intellectual barrier. Before they even get to the intellectual, there's an emotional barrier that says no. Anyone who might possibly believe X, they're an idiot, they're evil, they're malevolent. Anything you want to assign, it's like they're not even like loading in the data into their head. We find out that we can make GPT systems way less biased than any human. So hopefully without the... Because there won't be that emotional load there. Yeah, the emotional load. But there might be pressure. There might be political pressure. Oh, there might be pressure to make a biased system. What I meant is the technology I think will be capable of being much less biased. Do you anticipate, do you worry about pressures from outside sources, from society, from politicians, from money sources? I both worry about it and want it. To the point of we're in this bubble and we shouldn't make all these decisions. We want society to have a huge degree of input here. That is pressure in some way. That's what, to some degree, Twitter files have revealed, that there is pressure from different organizations. You can see in the pandemic where the CDC or some other government organization might put pressure on, you know what, we're not really sure what's true, but it's very unsafe to have these kinds of nuanced conversations now. So let's censor all topics. You get a lot of those emails, like emails, all different kinds of people reaching out at different places to put subtle indirect pressure, direct pressure, financial, political pressure, all that kind of stuff. How do you survive that? How much do you worry about that if GPT continues to get more and more intelligent and a source of information and knowledge for human civilization? I think there's a lot of quirks about me that make me not a great CEO for OpenAI, but a thing in the positive column is I think I am relatively good at not being affected by pressure for the sake of pressure. By the way, beautiful statement of humility, but I have to ask, what's in the negative column? Oh, I mean. Too long a list? No, no, I'm trying, what's a good one? I mean, I think I'm not a great spokesperson for the AI movement, I'll say that. I think there could be someone who enjoyed it more, there could be someone who's much more charismatic, there could be someone who connects better, I think, with people than I do. I'm with Chomsky on this. I think charisma is a dangerous thing. I think flaws in communication style, I think, is a feature, not a bug in general, at least for humans, at least for humans in power. I think I have more serious problems than that one. I think I'm pretty disconnected from the reality of life for most people, and trying to really not just empathize with, but internalize what the impact on people that AGI is going to have, I probably feel that less than other people would. That's really well put, and you said you're going to travel across the world to empathize with different users. Yeah, I'm excited. Not to empathize, just to like, I want to just buy our users, our developers, our users, a drink and say, tell us what you'd like to change. I think one of the things we are not as good at as a company as I would like is to be a really user-centric company. I feel like by the time it gets filtered to me, it's totally meaningless. So I really just want to go talk to a lot of our users in very different contexts. But like you said, a drink in person, because I haven't actually found the right words for it, but I was a little afraid with the programming, emotionally. I don't think it makes any sense. There is a real limbic response there. GPT makes me nervous about the future, not in an AI safety way, but like change, change. And like, there's a nervousness about change. More nervous than excited? If I take away the fact that I'm an AI person and just a programmer, more excited, but still nervous. Like, yeah, nervous in brief moments, especially when sleep deprived, but there's a nervousness there. People who say they're not nervous. That's hard for me to believe. You're right. It's excited. It's nervous for change. Nervous whenever there's significant, exciting kind of change. I've recently started using, I've been an Emacs person for a very long time and I switched to VS Code as a- Or Copilot? That was one of the big reasons. This is where a lot of active development, of course, you can probably do Copilot inside Emacs. I mean, I'm sure- VS Code is also pretty good. Yeah. There's a lot of like little things and big things that are just really good about VS Code. So I was, and I've been, I can happily report in all the event people are just going nuts, but I'm very happy. It was a very happy decision. But there was a lot of uncertainty. There's a lot of nervousness about it. There's fear and so on about taking that leap. And that's obviously a tiny leap, but even just the leap to actively using Copilot, like using a generation of code, it makes you nervous. But ultimately, my life is much better as a programmer, purely as a programmer. Programmer of little things and big things is much better. But there's a nervousness and I think a lot of people will experience that, experience that and you will experience that by talking to them. And I don't know what we do with that, how we comfort people in the face of this uncertainty. And you're getting more nervous the more you use it, not less. Yes, I would have to say yes, because I get better at using it. Yeah, the learning curve is quite steep. And then there's moments when you're like, oh, it generates a function beautifully. You sit back, both proud like a parent, but almost like proud and scared that this thing will be much smarter than me. Both pride and sadness, almost like a melancholy feeling, but ultimately joy, I think, yeah. What kind of jobs do you think GPT language models would be better than humans at? Like full, like does the whole thing end to end better, not like what it's doing with you where it's helping you be maybe 10 times more productive? Those are both good questions. I don't, I would say they're equivalent to me because if I'm 10 times more productive, doesn't that mean that there'll be a need for much fewer programmers in the world? I think the world is gonna find out that if you can have 10 times as much code at the same price, you can just use even more. You should write even more code. The world just needs way more code. It is true that a lot more could be digitized. There could be a lot more code and a lot more stuff. I think there's like a supply issue. Yeah. So in terms of really replaced jobs, is that a worry for you? It is. I'm trying to think of like a big category that I believe can be massively impacted. I guess I would say customer service is a category that I could see there are just way fewer jobs relatively soon. I'm not even certain about that, but I could believe it. So like basic questions about when do I take this pill, if it's a drug company or when, I don't know why I went to that, but like how do I use this product, like questions like how do I use this? Whatever call center employees are doing now. Yeah. This is not work. Yeah. Okay. I want to be clear. I think like these systems will make a lot of jobs just go away. Every technological revolution does. They will enhance many jobs and make them much better, much more fun, much higher paid. And they'll create new jobs that are difficult for us to imagine, even if we're starting to see the first glimpses of them. But I heard someone last week talking about GPT-4 saying that, you know, man, the dignity of work is just such a huge deal. We've really got to worry. Like even people who think they don't like their jobs, they really need them. It's really important to them and to society. And also, can you believe how awful it is that France is trying to raise the retirement age? And I think we as a society are confused about whether we want to work more or work less. And certainly about whether most people like their jobs and get value out of their jobs or not. Some people do. I love my job. I suspect you do too. That's a real privilege. Not everybody gets to say that. If we can move more of the world to better jobs and work to something that can be a broader concept, not something you have to do to be able to eat, but something you do as a creative expression and a way to find fulfillment and happiness and whatever else. Even if those jobs look extremely different from the jobs of today, I think that's great. I'm not nervous about it at all. You have been a proponent of UBI, universal basic income. In the context of AI, can you describe your philosophy there of our human future with UBI? Why you like it? What are some limitations? I think it is a component of something we should pursue. It is not a full solution. I think people work for lots of reasons besides money. And I think we are going to find incredible new jobs and society as a whole and people's individuals are going to get much, much richer, but as a cushion through a dramatic transition and as just like, I think the world should eliminate poverty if able to do so. I think it's a great thing to do as a small part of the bucket of solutions. I helped start a project called WorldCoin, which is a technological solution to this. We also have funded a large, I think maybe the largest and most comprehensive universal basic income study as part of, sponsored by OpenAI. And I think it's like an area we should just be looking into. What are some like insights from that study that you gained? We're going to finish up at the end of this year and we'll be able to talk about it hopefully early, very early next. If we can linger on it, how do you think the economic and political systems will change as AI becomes a prevalent part of society? It's such an interesting sort of philosophical question looking 10, 20, 50 years from now. What does the economy look like? What does politics look like? Do you see significant transformations in terms of the way democracy functions even? I love that you asked them together because I think they're super related. I think the economic transformation will drive much of the political transformation here, not the other way around. My working model for the last five years has been that the two dominant changes will be that the cost of intelligence and the cost of energy are going over the next couple of decades to dramatically, dramatically fall from where they are today. And the impact of that, and you're already seeing it with the way you now have like programming and ability beyond what you had as an individual before, is society gets much, much richer, much wealthier in ways that are probably hard to imagine. I think every time that's happened before, it has been that economic impact has had positive political impact as well. And I think it does go the other way too. The sociopolitical values of the Enlightenment enabled the long-running technological revolution and scientific discovery process we've had for the past centuries. But I think we're just gonna see more. I'm sure the shape will change, but I think it's this long and beautiful exponential curve. Do you think there will be more, I don't know what the term is, but systems that resemble something like democratic socialism? I've talked to a few folks on this podcast about these kinds of topics. Instinct, yes. I hope so. So that it reallocates some resources in a way that supports, kind of lifts the people who are struggling. I am a big believer in lift up the floor and don't worry about the ceiling. If I can test your historical knowledge. It's probably not gonna be good, but let's try it. Why do you think, I come from the Soviet Union. Why do you think communism in the Soviet Union failed? I recoil at the idea of living in a communist system. And I don't know how much of that is just the biases of the world I've grown up in and what I have been taught and probably more than I realize. But I think like more individualism, more human will, more ability to self-determine is important. And also I think the ability to try new things and not need permission and not need some sort of central planning, betting on human ingenuity and this sort of like distributed process, I believe is always going to beat centralized planning. And I think that like for all of the deep flaws of America, I think it is the greatest place in the world because it's the best at this. So it's really interesting that centralized planning failed in such big ways. But what if hypothetically the centralized planning... It was a perfect super intelligent AGI. Super intelligent AGI. Again it might go wrong in the same kind of ways, but it might not. We don't really know. We don't really know. It might be better. I think it would be better, but would it be better than a hundred super intelligent or a thousand super intelligent AGIs sort of in a liberal democratic system? Arguably. Yes. Now, also how much of that can happen internally in one super intelligent AGI? Not so obvious. There is something about, right, but there is something about like tension, the competition. But you don't know that's not happening inside one model. Yeah, that's true. It'd be nice if whether it's engineered in or revealed to be happening, it'd be nice for it to be happening. And of course it can happen with multiple AGIs talking to each other or whatever. There's something also about, Stuart Russell has talked about the control problem of always having AGI to have some degree of uncertainty, not having a dogmatic certainty to it. That feels important. Some of that is already handled with human alignment, human feedback, reinforcement learning with human feedback, but it feels like there has to be engineered in like a hard uncertainty, humility, you can put a romantic word to it. Do you think that's possible to do? The definition of those words, I think the details really matter, but as I understand them, yes, I do. What about the off switch? That like big red button in the data center, we don't tell anybody about that one. I'm a fan. My backpack. In your backpack. Do you think that's possible to have a switch? You think, I mean, actually more seriously, more specifically about sort of rolling out of different systems. Do you think it's possible to roll them, unroll them, pull them back in? Yeah, I mean, we can absolutely take a model back off the internet. We can like take, we can turn an API off. Isn't that something you worry about? Like when you release it and millions of people are using it and like you realize, holy crap, they're using it for, I don't know, worrying about the, like all kinds of terrible use cases. We do worry about that a lot. I mean, we try to figure out with as much red teaming and testing ahead of time as we do how to avoid a lot of those, but I can't emphasize enough how much the collective intelligence and creativity of the world will beat open AI and all of the red teamers we can hire. So we put it out, but we put it out in a way we can make changes. In the millions of people that have used the chat, GPT and GPT, what have you learned about human civilization in general? I mean, the question I ask is, are we mostly good or is there a lot of malevolence in the human spirit? Well, to be clear, I don't, nor does anyone else at OpenAI, said they're like reading all the chat GPT messages. But from what I hear people using it for, at least the people I talk to, and from what I see on Twitter, we are definitely mostly good, but A, not all of us are all the time, and B, we really want to push on the edges of these systems. And we really want to test out some darker theories of the world. Yeah, it's very interesting. It's very interesting. I think that actually doesn't communicate the fact that we're fundamentally dark inside, but we like to go to the dark places in order to maybe rediscover the light. It feels like dark humor is a part of that. Some of the toughest things you go through if you suffer in life in a war zone, the people I've interacted with that are in the midst of a war, they're usually joking around. And they're dark jokes. So there's something there. I totally agree about that tension. So just to the model, how do you decide what isn't misinformation? How do you decide what is true? You actually have OpenAI's internal factual performance benchmark. There's a lot of cool benchmarks here. How do you build a benchmark for what is true? What is truth, Sam Albin? Like math is true. And the origin of COVID is not agreed upon as ground truth. Those are the two things. And then there's stuff that's like certainly not true. But between that first and second milestone, there's a lot of disagreement. What do you look for? Not even just now, but in the future, where can we as a human civilization look to for truth? What do you know is true? What are you absolutely certain is true? I have generally epistemic humility about everything and I'm freaked out by how little I know and understand about the world. So even that question is terrifying to me. There's a bucket of things that have a high degree of truth in this, which is where you would put math, a lot of math. Can't be certain, but it's good enough for this conversation, we can say math is true. Yeah, I mean, some, quite a bit of physics. There's historical facts, maybe dates of when a war started. There's a lot of details about military conflict inside history. Of course, you start to get, just read Blitzed, which is this- Oh, I want to read that. Yeah. How was it? It was really good. It gives a theory of Nazi Germany and Hitler that so much can be described about Hitler and a lot of the upper echelon of Nazi Germany through the excessive use of drugs. Just amphetamines, right? Amphetamines, but also other stuff, but it's just a lot. That's really interesting, it's really compelling. For some reason, like, whoa, that's really, that would explain a lot. That's somehow really sticky. It's an idea that's sticky. And then you read a lot of criticism of that book later by historians, that that's actually, there's a lot of cherry picking going on. And it's actually, is using the fact that that's a very sticky explanation. There's something about humans that likes a very simple narrative to describe everything. For sure, for sure. And then- Yeah, too much amphetamines caused the war is like a great, even if not true, simple explanation that feels satisfying and excuses a lot of other probably much darker human truths. The military strategy employed, the atrocities, the speeches, just the way Hitler was as a human being, the way Hitler was as a leader, all of that could be explained through this one little lens. And it's like, well, if you say that's true, that's a really compelling truth. So maybe truth is, in one sense, is defined as a thing that is a collective intelligence we kind of all, our brains are sticking to. And we're like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, a bunch of ants get together and like, yeah, this is it. I was going to say sheep, but there's a connotation to that. But yeah, it's hard to know what is true. And I think when constructing a GPT like model, you have to contend with that. I think a lot of the answers, you know, like if you ask GPT-4, just to stick on the same topic, did COVID leak from a lab? I expect you would get a reasonable answer. It's a really good answer, yeah. It laid out the hypotheses. The interesting thing it said, which is refreshing to hear, is there's something like there's very little evidence for either hypothesis, direct evidence, which is important to state. A lot of people kind of, the reason why there's a lot of uncertainty and a lot of debate is because there's not strong physical evidence of either. Heavy circumstantial evidence on either side. And then the other is more like biological, theoretical kind of discussion. And I think the answer, the nuanced answer, the GPT provider was actually pretty damn good. And also, importantly, saying that there is uncertainty. Just the fact that there is uncertainty as a statement was really powerful. Man, remember when like the social media platforms were banning people for saying it was a lab leak? Yeah. That's really humbling. The humbling, the overreach of power in censorship. But the more powerful GPT becomes, the more pressure there'll be to censor. We have a different set of challenges faced by the previous generation of companies, which is people talk about free speech issues with GPT, but it's not quite the same thing. It's not like, this is a computer program, what it's allowed to say. And it's also not about the mass spread and the challenges that I think may have made the Twitter and Facebook and others have struggled with so much. So we will have very significant challenges, but they'll be very new and very different. And maybe, yeah, very new, very different is a good way to put it. There could be truths that are harmful and there are truths, I don't know. Group differences in IQ. There you go. Scientific work that when spoken might do more harm. And you ask GPT that, should GPT tell you? There's books written on this that are rigorous scientifically, but are very uncomfortable and probably not productive in any sense, but maybe are. There's people arguing all kinds of sides of this and a lot of them have hate in their heart. And so what do you do with that? If there's a large number of people who hate others, but are actually citing scientific studies, what do you do with that? What does GPT do with that? What is the priority of GPT to decrease the amount of hate in the world? Is it up to GPT or is it up to us humans? I think we as OpenAI have responsibility for the tools we put out into the world. I think the tools themselves can't have responsibility in the way I understand it. Wow. So you carry some of that burden and responsibility. All of us. All of us at the company. So there could be harm caused by this tool. There will be harm caused by this tool. There will be harm. There will be tremendous benefits, but tools do wonderful good and real bad. We will minimize the bad and maximize the good. And you have to carry the weight of that. How do you avoid GPT for or from being hacked or jailbroken? There's a lot of interesting ways that people have done that, like with token smuggling or other methods like Dan. You know, when I was like a kid, basically, I worked once on jailbreaking an iPhone, the first iPhone, I think. And I thought it was so cool. I will say it's very strange to be on the other side of that. You're now the man. Kind of sucks. Is that, is some of it fun? How much of it is a security threat? I mean, what, how much do you have to take it seriously? How is it even possible to solve this problem? Where does it rank on the set of problems? I just keep asking questions, prompting. We want users to have a lot of control and get the models to behave in the way they want within some very broad bounds. And I think the whole reason for jailbreaking is right now we haven't yet figured out how to give that to people. And the more we solve that problem, I think the less need there will be for jailbreaking. Yeah, it's kind of like piracy gave birth to Spotify. People don't really jailbreak iPhones that much anymore. It's gotten harder for sure, but also you can just do a lot of stuff now. Just like with jailbreaking, I mean, there's a lot of hilarity that is in. So Evan Murakawa, cool guy. He's at OpenAI. He tweeted something that he also is really kind to send me, to communicate with me, send me a long email describing the history of OpenAI, all the different developments. He really lays it out. I mean, that's a much longer conversation of all the awesome stuff that happened. It's just amazing. But his tweet was, Dolly, July 22, Chad GPT, November 22, API 66% cheaper, August 22, embeddings 500 times cheaper, while state of the art, December 22, Chad GPT API also 10 times cheaper, while state of the art, March 23, Whisper API, March 23, GPT-4 today, whenever that was last week. And the conclusion is this team ships. We do. What's the process of going, and then we can extend that back. I mean, listen, from the 2015 OpenAI launch, GPT, GPT-2, GPT-3, OpenAI 5 finals with the gaming stuff, which is incredible, GPT-3 API released, Dolly, instruct GPT tech, fine tuning. There's just a million things available, Dolly, Dolly 2 preview, and then Dolly is available to 1 million people, Whisper, a second model released. Across all of this stuff, both research and deployment of actual products that could be in the hands of people, what is the process of going from idea to deployment that allows you to be so successful at shipping AI-based products? I mean, there's a question of should we be really proud of that, or should other companies be really embarrassed? And we believe in a very high bar for the people on the team. We work hard, which you're not even supposed to say anymore or something. We give a huge amount of trust and autonomy and authority to individual people, and we try to hold each other to very high standards. And there's a process which we can talk about, but it won't be that illuminating. I think it's those other things that make us able to ship at a high velocity. So GPT-4 is a pretty complex system. Like you said, there's a million little hacks you can do to keep improving it. There's the cleaning up the data set, all those are separate teams. So do you give autonomy? Is there just autonomy to these fascinating different problems? If like most people in the company weren't really excited to work super hard and collaborate well on GPT-4 and thought other stuff was more important, there'd be very little I or anybody else could do to make it happen. But we spend a lot of time figuring out what to do, getting on the same page about why we're doing something, and then how to divide it up and all coordinate together. So then you have like a passion for the goal here. So everybody's really passionate across the different teams. We care. How do you hire? How do you hire great teams? The folks I've interacted with at OpenAI are some of the most amazing folks I've ever met. It takes a lot of time. I spend, I mean, I think a lot of people claim to spend a third of their time hiring. I for real truly do. I still approve every single hire at OpenAI. And I think there's, you know, we're working on a problem that is like very cool and that great people want to work on. We have great people and some people want to be around them. But even with that, I think there's just no shortcut for putting a ton of effort into this. So even when you have the good people, hard work. I think so. Microsoft announced a new multi-year, multi-billion dollar, reported to be $10 billion investment into OpenAI. Can you describe the thinking that went into this and what are the pros, what are the cons of working with a company like Microsoft? It's not all perfect or easy, but on the whole, they have been an amazing partner to us. Satya and Kevin and Mikhail are super aligned with us, super flexible, have gone like way above and beyond the call of duty to do things that we have needed to get all this to work. This is like a big iron complicated engineering project and they are a big and complex company. And I think like many great partnerships or relationships, we've sort of just continued to ramp up our investment in each other. And it's been very good. It's a for-profit company. It's very driven. It's very large scale. Is there pressure to kind of make a lot of money? I think most other companies wouldn't, maybe now they would, it wouldn't at the time have understood why we needed all the weird control provisions we have and why we need all the kind of like AGI specialness. And I know that because I talked to some other companies before we did the first deal with Microsoft and I think they are unique in terms of the companies at that scale that understood why we needed the control provisions we have. So those control provisions help you help make sure that the capitalist imperative does not affect the development of AI. Well, let me just ask you as an aside about Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, he seems to have successfully transformed Microsoft into this fresh, innovative, developer-friendly company. I agree. I mean, it's really hard to do for a very large company. What have you learned from him? Why do you think he was able to do this kind of thing? What insights do you have about why this one human being is able to contribute to the pivot of a large company into something very new? I think most CEOs are either great leaders or great managers. And from what I have observed with Satya, he is both. Super visionary, really gets people excited, really makes long-duration and correct calls. And also, he is just a super effective hands-on executive and I assume manager too. And I think that's pretty rare. I mean, Microsoft, I'm guessing, like IBM, a lot of companies have been at it for a while, probably have old-school kind of momentum. So you inject AI into it, it's very tough. Or anything, even the culture of open source. How hard is it to walk into a room and be like, the way we've been doing things are totally wrong. I'm sure there's a lot of firing involved or a little twisting of arms or something. So do you have to rule by fear, by love? What can you say to the leadership aspect of this? I mean, he's just done an unbelievable job. But he is amazing at being clear and firm and getting people to want to come along, but also compassionate and patient with his people too. I'm getting a lot of love, not fear. I'm a big Satya fan. So am I, from a distance. I mean, you have so much in your life trajectory that I can ask you about. We could probably talk for many more hours. But I gotta ask you, because of Y Combinator, because of startups and so on, the recent, you've tweeted about this, about the Silicon Valley Bank, SVB. What's your best understanding of what happened? What is interesting to understand about what happened with SVB? I think they just horribly mismanaged buying, while chasing returns in a very silly world of 0% interest rates, buying very long-dated instruments secured by very short-term and variable deposits. This was obviously dumb. I think totally the fault of the management team, although I'm not sure what the regulators were thinking either. Incentive misalignment is an example of where I think you see the dangers of incentive misalignment. Because as the Fed kept raising, I assume that the incentives on people working at SVB to not sell at a loss their super safe bonds, which were now down 20% or whatever, or down less than that, but then kept going down. That's a classy example of incentive misalignment. Now I suspect they're not the only bank in a bad position here. The response of the federal government, I think, took much longer than it should have. But by Sunday afternoon, I was glad they had done what they've done. We'll see what happens next. So how do you avoid depositors from doubting their bank? What I think would be good to do right now is just – and this requires statutory change – but maybe a full guarantee of deposits, maybe a much, much higher than $250K. But you really don't want depositors having to doubt the security of their deposits. And this thing that a lot of people on Twitter were saying is like, well, it's their fault. They should have been reading the balance sheet and the risk audit of the bank. Do we really want people to have to do that? I would argue no. What impact has it had on the startups that you see? Well, there was a weekend of terror, for sure. And now I think, even though it was only 10 days ago, it feels like forever and people have forgotten about it. But it kind of reveals the fragility of our economic system. We may not be done. That may have been like the gun shown falling off the nightstand in the first scene of the movie or whatever. It could be like other banks that are – For sure, that could be. Well, even with FTX. I mean, I'm just – well, that's fraud, but there's mismanagement. And you wonder how stable our economic system is, especially with the new entrance with AGI. I think one of the many lessons to take away from this SVB thing is how much – how fast and how much the world changes and how little I think our experts, leaders, business leaders, regulators, whatever, understand it. So the speed with which the SVB bankrupt happened because of Twitter, because of mobile banking apps, whatever, was so different than the 2008 collapse where we didn't have those things really. And I don't think that people in power realize how much the field has shifted. And I think that is a very tiny preview of the shifts that AGI will bring. What gives you hope in that shift from an economic perspective? Because it sounds scary, the instability. No, I am nervous about the speed with which this changes and the speed with which our institutions can adapt, which is part of why we want to start deploying these systems really early, why they're really weak, so that people have as much time as possible to do this. I think it's really scary to have nothing, nothing, nothing, and then drop a super powerful AGI all at once on the world. I don't think people should want that to happen. But what gives me hope is, I think the more positive some of the world gets, the better. And the upside of the vision here, just how much better life can be, I think that's going to unite a lot of us. And even if it doesn't, it's just going to make it all feel more positive some. When you create an AGI system, you'll be one of the few people in the room that get to interact with it first. I think GPT-4 is not that. What question would you ask her, him, it? What discussion would you have? You know, one of the things that I realize, like this is a little aside and not that important, but I have never felt any pronoun other than it towards any of our systems. But most other people say him or her or something like that. And I wonder why I am so different. Like, yeah, I don't know, maybe it's I watch it develop, maybe it's I think more about it, but I'm curious where that difference comes from. I think probably because you watch it develop, but then again, I watch a lot of stuff develop and I always go to him or her. I anthropomorphize aggressively. And certainly most humans do. I think it's really important that we try to explain, to educate people that this is a tool and not a creature. I think I, yes, but I also think there will be room in society for creatures and we should draw hard lines between those. If something's a creature, I'm happy for people to like think of it and talk about it as a creature, but I think it is dangerous to project creatureness onto a tool. That's one perspective. A perspective I would take, if it's done transparently, is projecting creatureness onto a tool makes that tool more usable if it's done well. Yeah, so if there's like kind of UI affordances that work, I understand that. I still think we want to be like pretty careful with it. Because the more creature-like it is, the more it can manipulate you emotionally. Or just the more you think that it's doing something or should be able to do something or rely on it for something that it's not capable of. What if it is capable? What about Sam Alman? What if it's capable of love? Do you think there will be romantic relationships like in the movie Her with GPT? There are companies now that offer, for lack of a better word, romantic companionship AIs. Replica is an example of such a company. Yeah. I personally don't feel any interest in that. So you're focusing on creating intelligent tools. But I understand why other people do. That's interesting. I have, for some reason, I'm very drawn to that. Have you spent a lot of time interacting with Replica or anything similar? Replica, but also just building stuff myself. I have robot dogs now that I use the movement of the robots to communicate emotion. I've been exploring how to do that. Look, there are going to be very interactive GPT-4 powered pets or whatever, robots, companions, and a lot of people seem really excited about that. Yeah, there's a lot of interesting possibilities. I think you'll discover them, I think, as you go along. That's the whole point. Like the things you say in this conversation, you might in a year say, this was right, this was wrong. No, I may totally want, I may turn out that I love my GPT-4 dog, robot, or whatever. Maybe you want your programming assistant to be a little kinder and not mock you with your incompetence. I think you do want, the style of the way GPT-4 talks to you really matters. You probably want something different than what I want, but we both probably want something different than the current GPT-4. That will be really important, even for a very tool-like thing. Is there styles of conversation, no, contents of conversations you're looking forward to with an AGI, like GPT-567? Is there stuff where, like where do you go to outside of the fun meme stuff? For actual like... I mean, what I'm excited for is like, please explain to me how all the physics works and solve all remaining mysteries. So like a theory of everything. I'll be real happy. Faster than light travel. Don't you want to know? So there's several things to know, it's like NP hard. Is it possible and how to do it? Yeah, I want to know. Probably the first question would be, are there other intelligent alien civilizations out there? But I don't think AGI has the ability to do that, to know that. It might be able to help us figure out how to go detect. In meaning to like send some emails to humans and say, can you run these experiments? Can you build the space probe? Can you wait a very long time? Or provide a much better estimate than the Drake equation. With the knowledge we already have and maybe process all the... Because we've been collecting a lot of... Maybe it's in the data. Maybe we need to build better detectors, which the really advanced AI could tell us how to do. It may not be able to answer it on its own, but it may be able to tell us what to go build to collect more data. What if it says the aliens are already here? I think I would just go about my life. Yeah. Because I mean, a version of that is like, what are you doing differently now that like, if GPT-4 told you and you believed it, okay, AGI is here or AGI is coming real soon, what are you going to do differently? The source of joy and happiness and fulfillment of life is from other humans. So it's mostly nothing. Unless it causes some kind of threat, but that threat would have to be like literally a fire. Like, are we living now with a greater degree of digital intelligence than you would have expected three years ago in the world? And if you could go back and be told by an Oracle three years ago, which is, you know, a blink of an eye that in March of 2023, you will be living with this degree of digital intelligence, would you expect your life to be more different than it is right now? Probably, probably, but there's also a lot of different trajectories intermixed. I would have expected the society's response to a pandemic to be much better, much clearer, less divided. I was very confused about, there's a lot of stuff, given the amazing technological advancements that are happening, the weird social divisions, it's almost like the more technological advancement there is, the more we're going to be having fun with social division. Or maybe the technological advancements just reveal the division that was already there. But all of that just confuses my understanding of how far along we are as a human civilization and what brings us meaning and how we discover truth together and knowledge and wisdom. So I don't know. But when I open Wikipedia, I'm happy that humans were able to create this thing. Yes, there is bias, yes. Let's think about that. It's a triumph. It's a triumph of human civilization. 100%. The Google search, the search, search, period, is incredible. What it was able to do 20 years ago. And now this new thing, GPT, is like, is this going to be the next, the conglomeration of all of that that made web search and Wikipedia so magical, but now more directly accessible? You can have a conversation with the damn thing. It's incredible. Let me ask you for advice for young people in high school and college, what to do with their life. How to have a career they can be proud of, how to have a life they can be proud of. You wrote a blog post a few years ago titled How to Be Successful. And there's a bunch of really, really, people should check out that blog post. It's so succinct. It's so brilliant. You have a bunch of bullet points. Compound yourself. Have almost too much self-belief. Learn to think independently. Get good at sales and quotes. Make it easy to take risks. Focus. Work hard, as we talked about. Be bold. Be willful. Be hard to compete with. Build a network. You get rich by owning things. Be internally driven. What stands out to you, from that or beyond, as advice you can give? Yeah, no, I think it is like good advice in some sense. But I also think it's way too tempting to take advice from other people. And the stuff that worked for me, which I tried to write down there, probably doesn't work that well, or may not work as well for other people. Or like other people may find out that they want to just have a super different life trajectory. And I think I mostly got what I wanted by ignoring advice, and I think I tell people not to listen to too much advice. Listening to advice from other people should be approached with great caution. How would you describe how you've approached life, outside of this advice, that you would advise to other people? So really just in the quiet of your mind to think, what gives me happiness? What is the right thing to do here? How can I have the most impact? I wish it were that, you know, introspective all the time. It's a lot of just like, you know, what will bring me joy? What will bring me fulfillment? You know, what will bring, what will be, I do think a lot about what I can do that will be useful. Like, who do I want to spend my time with, what do I want to spend my time doing? Like a fish in water, just going along with the current. Yeah, that's certainly what it feels like. I mean, I think that's what most people would say if they were really honest about it. Yeah, if they really think, yeah. And some of that then gets to the Sam Harris discussion of free will being an illusion. Of course. Which it very well might be, which is a really complicated thing to wrap your head around. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? That's a question you could ask an AGI. What's the meaning of life? As far as you look at it, you're part of a small group of people that are creating something truly special. Something that feels like, almost feels like humanity was always moving towards. Yeah, that's what I was going to say is I don't think it's a small group of people. I think this is the, I think this is like the product of the culmination of whatever you want to call it, an amazing amount of human effort. If you think about everything that had to come together for this to happen, when those people discovered the transistor in the forties, like, is this what they were planning on? All of the work, the hundreds of thousands, millions of people, whatever it's been that it took to go from that one first transistor to packing the numbers we do into a chip and figuring out how to wire them all up together. And everything else that goes into this, you know, the energy required, the science, like just every, every step, like this is the output of like all of us. And I think that's pretty cool. And before the transistor, there was a hundred billion people who lived and died, had sex, fell in love, ate a lot of good food, murdered each other sometimes, rarely, but mostly just good to each other, struggled to survive. And before that, there was bacteria and eukaryotes and all of that. And all of that was on this one exponential curve. Yeah, how many others are there? I wonder. We will ask, that is question number one for me, for AJR, how many others? And I'm not sure which answer I want to hear. Sam, you're an incredible person. It's an honor to talk to you. Thank you for the work you're doing. Like I said, I've talked to Ilyas, Eskero, I talked to Greg, I talked to so many people at OpenAI. They're really good people. They're doing really interesting work. We are going to try our hardest to get to a good place here. I think the challenges are tough. I understand that not everyone agrees with our approach of iterative deployment and also iterative discovery. But it's what we believe in. I think we're making good progress. And I think the pace is fast, but so is the progress. So the pace of capabilities and change is fast. But I think that also means we will have new tools to figure out alignment and sort of the capital S safety problem. I feel like we're in this together. I can't wait what we together as a human civilization come up with. It's going to be great, I think. We'll work really hard to make sure. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Sam Altman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Alan Turing in 1951. It seems probable that once the machine thinking method has started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers. At some stage, therefore, we should have to expect the machines to take control. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/L_Guz73e6fw

f0un-l1L8Zw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Jonathan Haidt: The Case Against Social Media | Lex Fridman Podcast #291

The following is a conversation with Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist at NYU and critic of the negative effects of social media on the human mind and human civilization. He gives a respectful but hard hitting response to my conversation with Mark Zuckerberg. And together, him and I try to figure out how we can do better, how we can lessen the amount of depression and division in the world. He has brilliantly discussed these topics in his writing, including in his book, The Coddling of the American Mind, and in his recent long article in the Atlantic titled, Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid. When Teddy Roosevelt said in his famous speech that it is not the critic who counts, he has not yet read the brilliant writing of Jonathan Haidt. I disagree with John on some of the details of his analysis and ideas, but both his criticism and our disagreement is essential if we are to build better and better technologies that connect us. Social media has both the power to destroy our society and to help it flourish. It's up to us to figure out how we take the lighter path. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Jonathan Haidt. So you have been thinking about the human mind for quite a long time. You wrote The Happiness Hypothesis, The Righteous Mind, The Coddling of the American Mind, and today you're thinking, you're writing a lot about social media and about democracy. So perhaps if it's okay, let's go through the thread that connects all of that work. How do we get from the very beginning to today with the good, the bad, and the ugly of social media? So I'm a social psychologist, which means I study how we think about other people and how people affect our thinking. And in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania, I picked the topic of moral psychology and I studied how morality varied across countries. I studied in Brazil and India. And in the 90s, I began, this was like I got my PhD in 1992. And in that decade was really when the American culture war kind of really began to blow up. And I began to notice that left and right in this country were becoming like separate countries. And you could use the tools of cultural psychology to study this split, this moral battle between left and right. So I started doing that. And I began growing alarmed in the early 2000s about how bad polarization was getting. And I began studying the causes of polarization, bringing moral psychology to bear on our political problems. And I was originally gonna write a book to basically help the Democrats stop screwing up because I could see that some of my research showed people on the right understand people on the left, they know what they think. You can't grow up in America without knowing what progressives think. But here I grew up generally on the left and I had no idea what conservatives thought until I went and sought it out and started reading conservative things like National Review. So originally I wanted to actually help the Democrats to understand moral psychology so they could stop losing to George W. Bush. And I got a contract to write The Righteous Mind. And once I started writing it, I committed to understanding conservatives by reading the best writings, not the worst. And I discovered, you know what? You don't understand anything until you look from multiple perspectives. And I discovered there are a lot of great social science ideas in the conservative intellectual tradition. And I also began to see, you know what? America's actually in real trouble. And this is like 2008, 2009. Things are really, we're coming apart here. So I began to really focus my research on helping left and right understand each other and helping our democratic institutions to work better. Okay, so all this is before I had any interest in social media. I was on Twitter, I guess like 2009 and not much, didn't think about it much. And then, so I'm going along as a social psychologist studying this. And then everything seems to kind of blow up in 2014, 2015 at universities. And that's when Greg Lukianoff came to me in May of 2014 and said, John, weird stuff is happening. Students are freaking out about a speaker coming to campus that they don't have to go see. And they're saying it's dangerous, it's violence. Like what is going on? And so anyway, Greg's ideas about how we were teaching students to think in distorted ways that led us to write the Coddling the American Mind, which wasn't primarily about social media either. It was about, you know, this sort of a rise of depression, anxiety. But after that, things got so much worse everywhere. And that's when I began to think like, whoa, something systemically has changed. Something has changed about the fabric of the social universe. And so ever since then, I've been focused on social media. So we're going to try to sneak up to the problems and the solutions at hand from different directions. I have a lot of questions, whether it's fundamentally the nature of social media that's the problem, it's the decisions of various human beings that lead the social media companies that's the problem. Is there still some component that's highlighted in the Coddling of the American Mind that's the individual psychology at play or the way parenting and education works to make sort of emphasize anti-fragility of the human mind as it interacts with the social media platforms and the other humans through the social. So all that beautiful mess. That should take us an hour or two to cover. Or maybe a couple of years, yes. But so let's start, if it's okay. You said you wanted to challenge some of the things that Mark Zuckerberg has said in a conversation with me. What are some of the ideas he expressed that you disagree with? Okay, there are two major areas that I study. One is what is happening with teen mental health? It fell off a cliff in 2013. It was very sudden. And then the other is what is happening to our democratic and epistemic institutions? That means knowledge generating like universities, journalism. So my main areas of research where I'm collecting the empirical research and trying to make sense of it is what's happened to teen mental health and what's the evidence that social media is a contributor? And then the other area is what's happening to democracies, not just America, and what's the evidence that social media is a contributor to the dysfunction? So I'm sure we'll get to that because that's what the Atlantic article is about. But if we focus first on what's happened to teen mental health. So before I read the quotes from Mark, I'd like to just give the overview. And it is this. There's a lot of data tracking adolescents. There's self-reports of how depressed, anxious, lonely. There's data on hospital admissions for self-harm. There's data on suicide. And all of these things, they bounce around somewhat, but they're relatively level in the early 2000s. And then all of a sudden, around 2010 to 2013, depending on which statistic you're looking at, all of a sudden, they begin to shoot upwards. More so for girls in some cases, but on the whole, it's like up for both sexes. It's just that boys have lower levels of anxiety and depression, so the curve is not quite as dramatic. But what we see is not small increases. It's not like, oh, 10%, 20%. No, the increases are between 50 and 150%, depending on which group you're looking at. Suicide for preteen girls, thankfully, it's not very common, but it's two to three times more common now. Or by 2015, it had doubled. Between 2010 and 2015, it doubled. So something is going radically wrong in the world of American preteens. So as I've been studying it, I found, first of all, it's not just America. It's identical in Canada and the UK. Australia and New Zealand are very similar. They're just after a little delay. So whatever we're looking for here, but yet it's not as clear in the Germanic countries. In continental Europe, it's a little different, and we can get into that when we talk about childhood. But something's happening in many countries, and it started right around 2012, 2013. It wasn't gradual. It hit girls hardest, and it hit preteen girls the hardest. So what could it be? Nobody has come up with another explanation, nobody. It wasn't the financial crisis. That wouldn't have hit preteen girls the hardest. There is no other explanation. The complexity here in the data is, of course, as everyone knows, correlation doesn't prove causation. The fact that television viewing was going up in the 60s and 70s doesn't mean that that was the cause of the crime. So what I've done, and this is work with Jean Twenge, who wrote the book iGen, is because I was challenged, when Greg and I put out the book, The Coddling of the American Mind, some researchers challenged us and said, oh, you don't know what you're talking about. The correlations between social media use and mental health, they exist, but they're tiny. It's like a correlation coefficient of 0.03 or a beta of 0.05, tiny little things. And one famous article said it's no bigger than the correlation of bad mental health and eating potatoes, which exists, but it's so tiny it's zero, essentially. And that claim, that social media's no more harmful than eating potatoes or wearing eyeglasses, it was a very catchy claim, and it's caught on, and I keep hearing that. But let me unpack why that's not true, and then we'll get to what Mark said, because what Mark basically said, here, I'll actually read it. I might not read the quote. I'll read the quote. Just to pause real quick, you implied, but just to make it explicit, that the best explanation we have now, as you're proposing, is that a very particular aspect of social media is the cause, which is not just social media, but the like button and the retweet, a certain mechanism of virality that was invented, or perhaps some aspect of social media is the cause. Okay, good idea. Let's be clear. Connecting people is good. I mean, overall, the more you connect people, the better. Giving people the telephone was an amazing step forward. Giving them free telephone, free long distance is even better. Video was, I mean, so connecting people is good. I'm not a Luddite. And social media, at least the idea of users posting things, like that happens on LinkedIn, and it's great. It can serve all kinds of needs. What I'm talking about here is not the internet. It's not technology. It's not smartphones, and it's not even all social media. It's a particular business model in which people are incentivized to create content, and that content is what brings other people on. And the people on there are the product which is sold to advertisers. It's that particular business model, which Facebook pioneered, which seems to be incredibly harmful for teenagers, especially for young girls, 10 to 14 years old is where they're most vulnerable. And it seems to be particularly harmful for democratic institutions, because it leads to all kinds of anger, conflict, and the destruction of any shared narrative. So that's what we're talking about. We're talking about Facebook, Twitter. I don't have any data on TikTok. I suspect it's gonna end up having a lot of really bad effects because the teens are on it so much. And to be really clear, since we're doing the nuance now in this section, lots of good stuff happens. There's a lot of funny things on Twitter. I use Twitter because it's an amazing way to put out news, to put out when I write something, you and I use it to promote things. We learn things quickly. Well, there's could be, now this is harder to measure, and we'll probably, or I'll try to mention it, because so much of our conversation will be about rigorous criticism. I'll try to sometimes mention what are the possible positive effects of social media in different ways. So for example, in the way I've been using Twitter, not the promotion or any of that kind of stuff, it makes me feel less lonely to connect with people, to make me smile, a little bit of humor here and there. And that at scale is a very interesting effect, being connected across the globe, especially during times of COVID and so on. It's very difficult to measure that. So we kind of have to consider that and be honest. There is a trade-off. We have to be honest about the positive and the negative, and sometimes we're not sufficiently positive or in a rigorous scientific way about the, we're not rigorous in a scientific way about the negative. And that's what we're trying to do here. And so that brings us to the Mark Zuckerberg email. Okay, but wait, let me just pick up on the issue of trade-offs, because people might think like, well, how much of this do we need? If we have too much, it's bad. No, that's a one-dimensional conceptualization. This is a multi-dimensional issue. And a lot of people seem to think like, oh, what would we have done without social media during COVID like we would have been sitting there alone in our homes. Yeah, if all we had was texting, telephone, Zoom, Skype, multiplayer video games, WhatsApp, all sorts of ways of communicating with each other. Oh, and there's blogs and the rest of the internet. Yeah, we would have been fine. Did we really need the hyper-viral platforms of Facebook and Twitter? Now, those did help certain things get out faster, and that did help science Twitter sometimes, but it also led to huge explosions of misinformation and the polarization of our politics to such an extent that a third of the country didn't believe what the medical establishment was saying. And we'll get into this. The medical establishment sometimes was playing political games that made them less credible. So on net, it's not clear to me. If you've got the internet, smartphones, blogs, all of that stuff, it's not clear to me that adding in this particular business model of Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, that that really adds a lot more. And one interesting one we'll also talk about is YouTube. I think it's easier to talk about Twitter and Facebook. YouTube is another complex beast that's very hard to, because YouTube is many things. It's a content platform, but it also has a recommendation system. Let's focus our discussion on perhaps Twitter and Facebook. But you do in this large document that you're putting together on social media called Social Media and Political Dysfunction Collaborative Review with Chris Bale. That includes, I believe, papers on YouTube as well. It does. But yeah, again, just to finish up with the nuance, yeah, YouTube is really complicated because I can't imagine life without YouTube. It's incredibly useful. It does a lot of good things. It also obviously helps to radicalize terrorist groups and murderers. So I think about YouTube the way I think about the internet in general. And I don't know enough to really comment on YouTube. So I have been focused. And it's also interesting. One thing we know is teen social life change radically between about 2010 and 2012. Before 2010, they weren't mostly on every day because they didn't have smartphones yet. By 2012 to 14, that's the area in which they almost all get smartphones and they become daily users of the... So the girls go to Instagram and Tumblr. They go to the visual ones. The boys go to YouTube and video games. Those don't seem to be as harmful to mental health or even harmful at all. It's really Tumblr, Instagram particularly, that seem to really have done in girls' mental health. So now, okay, so let's look at the quote from Mark Zuckerberg. So at 64 minutes and 31 seconds on the video, I time-coded this. This is the very helpful YouTube transcript. YouTube's an amazing program. You ask him about Francis Haugen. You give him a chance to respond. And here's the key thing. So he talks about what Francis Haugen said. He said, no, but that's mischaracterized. Actually, on most measures, the kids are doing better when they're on Instagram. It's just on one out of the 18. And then he says, I think an accurate characterization would have been that kids using Instagram, or not kids, but teens, is generally positive for their mental health. That's his claim, that Instagram is overall, taken as a whole, Instagram is positive for their mental health. That's what he says, okay? Now, is it really, is it really? So first, just the simple, okay, now here, what I'd like to do is turn my attention to another document that we'll make available. So I was invited to give testimony before a Senate subcommittee two weeks ago, where they were considering the Platform Accountability Act. Should we force the platforms to actually tell us what our kids are doing? Like, we have no idea, other than self-report. We have no idea. You know, they're the only ones who know, like, the kid does this, and then over the next hours, the kid's depressed or happy. We can't know that, but Facebook knows it. So should they be compelled to reveal the data? We need that. So you raised just, to give people a little bit of context, and this document is brilliantly structured with questions, studies that indicate that the answer to a question is yes, indicate that the answer to a question is no, and then mixed results. And questions include things like, does social media make people more angry or effectively polarized? Right, wait, so that's the one that we're gonna get to. That's the one for democracy. Yes, that's for democracy. So I've got three different Google Docs here, because I found this is an amazing way, and thank God for Google Docs. It's an amazing way to organize the research literature, and it's a collaborative review, meaning that, so on this one, Gene Twenge and I put up the first draft, and then we say, please, you know, comment, add studies, tell us what we missed. And it evolves in real time. In any direction, the yes or the no. Oh yeah, we specifically encourage, because look, the center of my research is that our gut feelings drive our reasoning. That was my dissertation. That was my early research. And so if Gene Twenge and I are committed to, but we're gonna obviously preferentially believe that these platforms are bad for kids, because we said so in our books. So we have confirmation bias, and I'm a devotee of John Stuart Mill. The only cure for confirmation bias is other people who have a different confirmation bias. So these documents evolve, because critics then say, no, you missed this, or they say, you don't know what you're talking about. It's like, great, say so, tell us. So I put together this document, and I'm gonna put links to everything on my website, if users, sorry, if listeners, viewers, go to jonathanheit.com slash social media. It's a new page I just created. I'll put everything together in one place there, and we'll put those in the show notes. Like links to this document, and other things like it that we're talking about. That's right, exactly. So yeah, so the thing I wanna call attention to now is this document here, with the title, Teen Mental Health is Plummeting, and Social Media is a Major Contributing Cause. So Ben Sass and Chris Coons are on the Judiciary Committee. They had a subcommittee hearing on Nate Presilli's bill, Platform Accountability Transparency Act. So they asked me to testify on what do we know, what's going on with teen mental health. And so what I did was I put together everything I know, with plenty of graphs, to make these points. That first, what do we know about the crisis? Well, that the crisis is specific to mood disorders, not everything else. It's not just self-report, it's also behavioral data, because suicide and self-harm go skyrocketing after 2010. The increases are very large, and the crisis is gendered, and it's hit many countries. So I go through the data on that. So we have a pretty clear characterization, and nobody's disputed me on this part. So can we just pause real quick, just so for people who are not aware. So self-report, just how you kind of collect data on this kind of thing. Sure. You have a self-reported survey, you ask people. Yeah, how anxious are you these days? Yeah. How many hours a week do you use social media? That kind of stuff. And you do, it's maybe, you can collect large amounts of data that way, because you can ask a large number of people that kind of question. But then there's, I forget the term you use, but more, so non-self-report data. Behavioral data. Behavioral data, that's right. Where you actually have self-harm and suicide numbers. Exactly. So there are a lot of graphs like this. So this is from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. So the federal government, and also Pew and Gallup, there are a lot of organizations that have been collecting survey data for decades. So this is a gold mine. And what you see on these graphs over and over again is relatively straight lines up until around 2010 or 2012. And on the X-axis we have time, years going from 2004 to 2020. On the Y-axis is the percent of US teens who had a major depression in the last year. That's right. So when this data started coming out around, so Jean Twenge's book, iGen, 2017, a lot of people said, oh, she doesn't know what she's talking about. This is just self-report. Like Gen Z, they're just really comfortable talking about this. This is a good thing. This isn't a real epidemic. And literally the day before my book with Greg was published, the day before, there was a psychiatrist in New York Times who had an op-ed saying, relax, smartphones are not ruining your kid's brain. And he said, it's just self-report. It's just that they're giving higher rates, there's more diagnosis, but underlying there's no change. No, because it's theoretically possible, but all we have to do is look at the hospitalization data for self-harm and suicide, and we see the exact same trends. We see also a very sudden, big rise around between 2009 and 2012, you have an elbow and then it goes up, up, up. So, and that is not self-report. Those are actual kids admitted to hospitals for cutting themselves. So we have a catastrophe, and this was all true before COVID. COVID made things worse, but we have to realize, COVID's going away, kids are back in school, but we're not gonna go back to where we were because this problem is not caused by COVID. What is it caused by? Well, just again, to just go through the point, then I'll stop. I just feel like I just really wanna get out the data to show that Mark is wrong. So first point, correlational studies consistently show a link. They almost all do, but it's not big. Equivalent to a correlation coefficient around 0.1 typically. That's the first point. The second point is that the correlation is actually much larger than for eating potatoes. So that famous line wasn't about social media use. That was about digital media use. That included watching Netflix, doing homework on everything. And so what they did is they looked at all screen use, and then they said, this is correlated with self-reports of depression, anxiety, like, you know, 0.03, it's tiny. And, but they said that clearly in the paper, but the media has reported it as social media is 0.03 or tiny. And that's just not true. What I found digging into it, you don't know this until you look at the, there's more than a hundred studies in the Google doc. Once you dig in, what you see is, okay, you see a tiny correlation. What happens if we zoom in on just social media? It always gets bigger, often a lot bigger, two or three times bigger. What happens if we zoom in on girls and social media? It always gets bigger, often a lot bigger. And so what I think we can conclude, in fact, what one of the authors of the potato studies herself concludes, Amy Orban says, I think I have a quote from here. She reviewed a lot of studies and she herself said that, quote, the associations between social media use and wellbeing, therefore range from about R equals 0.15 to R equals 0.10. So that's the range we're talking about. And that's for boys and girls together. And a lot of research, including hers and mine, show that girls, it's higher. So for girls, we're talking about correlations around 0.15 to 0.2, I believe. Jean Twenge and I found it's about 0.2 or 0.22. Now this might sound like an arcane social science debate, but people have to understand, public health correlations are almost never above 0.2. So the correlation of childhood exposure to lead and adult IQ, very serious problem, that's 0.09. Like the world's messy and our measurements are messy. And so if you find a consistent correlation of 0.15, like you would never let your kid do that thing. That actually is dangerous. And it can explain when you multiply it over tens of millions of kids spending years of their lives, you actually can explain the mental health epidemic just from social media use. Well, and then there's questions, by the way, this is really good to learn because I quit potatoes and it had no effect on me. And as a Russian, that was a big sacrifice. They're quite literal actually, because I'm mostly eating keto these days. But that's funny that they're actually literally called the potato studies. Okay, but given this, and there's a lot of fascinating data here, there's also a discussion of how to fix it. What are the aspects that if fixed would start to reverse some of these trends? So if we just linger on the set of the Mark Zuckerberg statements. So first of all, do you think Mark is aware of some of these studies? So if you put yourself in the shoes of Mark Zuckerberg and the executives at Facebook and Twitter, how can you try to understand the studies like the Google Docs you put together to try to make decisions that fix things? Is there a stable science now that you can start to investigate? And also maybe if you can comment on the depth of data that's available, because ultimately, this is something you argue that the data should be more transparent, should be provided. But currently, if it's not, all you have is maybe some leaks of internal data. That's right, that's right. And we could talk about the potential. You have to be very sort of objective about the potential bias in those kinds of leaks. You want to, it would be nice to have a non-leak data. Yeah, it'd be nice to be able to actually have academic researchers able to access in de-individuated, de-identified form the actual data on what kids are doing and how their mood changes, and when people commit suicide, what was happening before. And it'd be great to know that. We have no idea. So how do we begin to fix social media, would you say? Okay, so here's the most important thing to understand. In the social sciences, we say, is social media harmful to kids? That's a broad question. You can't answer that directly. You have to have much more specific questions. You have to operationalize it and have a theory of how it's harming kids. And so almost all of the research is done on what's called the dose response model. That is, everybody, including most of the researchers, are thinking about this like, let's treat this like sugar. You know, because the data usually shows a little bit of social media use isn't correlated with harm, but a lot is. So, you know, think of it like sugar, and if kids have a lot of sugar, then it's bad. So how much is okay? But social media is not like sugar at all. It's not a dose response thing. It's a complete rewiring of childhood. So we evolved as a species in which kids play in mixed age groups. They learn the skills of adulthood. They're always playing and working and learning and doing errands. That's normal childhood. That's how you develop your brain. That's how you become a mature adult, until the 1990s. In the 1990s, we dropped all that. We said, it's too dangerous. If we let you outside, you'll be kidnapped. So we completely, we began rewiring childhood in the 90s before social media, and that's a big part of the story. I'm a big fan of Lenore Scanese, who wrote the book, Free Range Kids. If there are any parents listening to this, please buy Lenore's book, Free Range Kids, and then go to letgrow.org. It's a nonprofit that Lenore and I started with Peter Gray and Daniel Shookman to help change the laws and the norms around letting kids out to play. They need free play. So that's the big picture. They need free play. And we started stopping that in the 90s that we reduced it. And then Gen Z, Kids Point in 1996, they're the first people in history to get on social media before puberty. Millennials didn't get it until they were in college, but Gen Z, they get it, because you can lie, you just lie about your age. So they really could begin to get on around 2009, 2010, and boom, two years later, they're depressed. It's not because they ate too much sugar necessarily. It's because even normal social interactions that kids had in the early 2000s, largely, well, they decline because now everything's through the phone. And that's what I'm trying to get across, that it's not just a dose response thing. It's imagine one middle school where everyone has an Instagram account and it's constant drama. Everyone's constantly checking and posting and worrying. And imagine going through puberty that way versus imagine there was a policy, no phones in school, you have to check them in a locker. No one can have an Instagram account. All the parents are on board. Parents only let their kids have Instagram because the kid says everyone else has it. And we're stuck in a social dilemma. We're stuck in a trap. So what's the solution? Keep kids off until they're done with puberty. There's a new study actually by Amy Urban and Andy Shabilsky showing that the damage is greatest but for girls between 11 and 13. So there is no way to make it safe for preteens or even 13, 14 year olds. We've gotta, kids should simply not be allowed on these business models where you're the product. They should not be allowed on until you're 16. We need to raise the age and enforce it. That's the biggest thing. So I think that's a really powerful solution but it makes me wonder if there's other solutions like controlling the virality of bullying. Sort of if there's a way that's more productive to childhood to use social media. So of course one thing is putting your phone down but first of all from the perspective of social media companies, it might be difficult to convince them to do so. And also for me as an adult who grew up without social media, social media is a source of joy. So I wonder if it's possible to design the mechanisms both challenge the ad driven model but actually just technically the recommender system and how virality works on these platforms. If it's possible to design a platform that leads to growth, antifragility but does not lead to depression, self-harm and suicide. Finding that balance and making that as the objective function, not engagement or something else. I don't think that can be done for kids. So I am very reluctant to tell adults what to do. I have a lot of libertarian friends and I would lose their friendship if I started saying, oh it's bad for adults and we should stop adults from using it. But by the same token, I'm very reluctant to have Facebook and Instagram tell my kids what to do without me even knowing or without me having any ability to control it. As a parent, it's very hard to stop your kid. I have stopped my kids from getting on Instagram and that's caused some difficulties but they also have thanked me because they see that it's stupid. They see that what the kids are heavily on it, what they post, they see that the culture of it is stupid as they say. So I don't think there's a way to make it healthy for kids. I think there's one thing which is healthy for kids which is free play. We already robbed them of most of it in the 90s. The more time they spend on their devices, the less they have free play. Video games is a kind of play. I'm not saying that these things are all bad but 12 hours of video game play means you don't get any physical play. So anyway. And ultimately physical play is the way to develop physical anti-fragility. And especially social skills. Kids need huge amounts of conflict with no adult to meet to supervise or mediate and that's why we robbed them up. So anyway, we should probably move on because I get really into the evidence here because I think the story is actually quite clear now. There was a lot of ambiguity. There are conflicting studies but when you look at it all together, the correlational studies are pretty clear and the effect sizes are coming in around 0.1 to 0.15 whether you call that a correlation coefficient or a beta. It's all standardized beta. It's all in that sort of range. There's also experimental evidence. We collect true experiments with random assignment and they mostly show an effect. And there's eyewitness testimony. The kids themselves, you talk to girls and you poll them. Do you think overall Instagram is good for your mental health or bad for it? You're not gonna find a group saying, oh, it's wonderful. Oh yeah, yeah, Mark, you're right. It's mostly good. No, the girls themselves say this is the major reason. And I've got studies in the Google doc where there've been surveys. What do you think is causing depression and anxiety? And the number one thing they say is social media. So there's multiple strands of evidence. Do you think the recommendation is as a parent that teens should not use Instagram, Twitter? Yes. That's ultimately, maybe in the longterm, there's a more nuanced solution. There's no way to make it safe. It's unsafe at any speed. I mean, it might be very difficult to make it safe. And then the short term, while we don't know how to make it safe, put down the phone. Well, hold on a second. Play with other kids via a platform like Roblox or multiplayer video games. That's great. I have no beef with that. You focus on bullying before. That's one of five or seven different avenues of harm. The main one I think, which does in the girls, is not being bullied. It's living a life where you're thinking all the time about posting. Because once a girl starts posting, so it's bad enough that they're scrolling through, and this is, everyone comments on this. You're scrolling through and everyone's life looks better than yours because it's fake. And all that you see are the ones the algorithm picked that were the night, anyway. So the scrolling I think is bad for the girls. But I'm beginning to see, I can't prove this, but I'm beginning to see from talking to girls, from seeing how it's used, is once you start posting, that takes over your mind. And now you're basically, you're no longer present. Because even if you're only spending five or six hours a day on Instagram, you're always thinking about it. And when you're in class, you're thinking about how are people responding to the post that I made between period, between classes. I mean, I do it. I try to stay off Twitter for a while, but now I've got this big article, I'm tweeting about it, and I can't help it. Like I check 20 times a day, I'll check. Like what are people saying? What are people saying? This is terrible. And I'm a 58 year old man. Imagine being a 12 year old girl going through puberty, you're self-conscious about how you look. And I see some young women, I see some professional young women, women in their 20s and 30s, who are putting up sexy photos of themselves. Like, and this is so sad, so sad. Don't be doing this. Yeah, see, the thing where I disagree a little bit is I agree with you in the short term, but in the long term, I feel it's the responsibility of social media, not in some kind of ethical way, not just in an ethical way, but it'll actually be good for the product and for the company to maximize the long-term happiness and well-being of the person. So not just engagement. So consider- But the person is not the customer. So the thing is not to make them happy, it's to keep them on. That's the way it is currently, but that driven. If we can get a business model, as you're saying, I'd be all for it. And I think that's the way to make much more money. So like a subscription model, where the money comes from paying? It's not- That would work, wouldn't it? That would help. So subscription definitely would help, but I'm not sure it's so much, I mean, a lot of people say it's about the source of money, but I just think it's about the fundamental mission of the product. If you want people to really love a thing, I think that thing should maximize your long-term well-being. It should, in theory, in morality land, it should. I don't think it's just morality land. I think in business land too. But that may be a discussion for another day. We're studying the reality of the way things currently are, and they are as they are, as the studies are highlighting. So let us go then from the land of mental health for young people to the land of democracy. By the way, in these big umbrella areas, is there a connection, is there a correlation between the mental health of a human mind and the division of our political discourse? Oh yes, oh yes. So our brains are structured to be really good at approach and avoid. So we have circuits, the front left circuit, this is an oversimplification, but there's some truth to it. There's what's called the behavioral activation system, front left cortex. It's all about approach, opportunity, kid in a candy store. And then the front right cortex has circuits specialized for withdrawal, fear, threat. And of course, students, I'm a college professor, and most of us think about our college days like, yeah, we were anxious at times, but it was fun. And it was like, I can take all these courses, I can do all these clubs, I know all these people. Now imagine if in 2013, all of a sudden, students are coming in with their front right cortex hyperactivated, everything's a threat. Everything is dangerous, there's not enough to go around. So the front right cortex puts us into what's called defend mode as opposed to discover mode. Now let's move up to adults. Imagine a large, diverse, secular, liberal democracy in which people are most of the time in discover mode. And we have a problem, let's think how to solve it. And this is what de Tocqueville said about Americans, like, there's a problem, we get together, we figure out how to solve it. And he said, whereas in England and France, people would wait for the king to do it. But here, like, let's roll up our sleeves and do it. That's the can-do mindset, that's front left cortex discover mode. If you have a national shift of people spending more time in defend mode, now you, so everything that comes up, whatever anyone says, you're not looking like, oh, is there something good about it? You're thinking, how is this dangerous? How is this a threat? How is this violence? How can I attack this? How can I, you know, so if you imagine, you know, God up there with a little lever, like, okay, let's push everyone over into, you know, more into discover mode. And it's like joy breaks out, age of Aquarius. All right, let's shift them back into, let's put everyone in defend mode. And I can't think of a better way to put people in defend mode than to have them spend some time on partisan or political Twitter, where it's just a stream of horror stories, including videos about how horrible the other side is. And it's not just that they're bad people, it's that if they win this election, then we lose our country or then it's catastrophe. So Twitter, and again, we're not saying all of Twitter, you know, most people aren't on Twitter and people that are mostly not talking about politics, but the ones that are on talking about politics are flooding us with stuff. All the journalists see it, all the major mainstream media is hugely influenced by Twitter. So if we put everyone, if there's more sort of anxiety, sense of threat, this colors everything. And then you're not, you know, the great thing about a democracy and especially a legislature that has some diversity in it is that the art of politics is that you can grow the pie and then divide it. You don't just fight zero sum, you find ways that we can all get 60% of what we want. And that ends when everyone's anxious and angry. So let's try to start to figure out who's to blame here. Is it the nature of social media? Is it the decision of the people at the heads of social media companies that they're making in the detailed engineering designs of the algorithm? Is it the users of social media that drive narratives like you mentioned journalists that want to maximize drama in order to drive clicks to their offsite articles? Is it just human nature that loves drama, can't look away from an accident when you're driving by? Is there something to be said about, the reason I ask these questions is to see, can we start to figure out what the solution would be to alleviate, to deescalate the division? Not yet, not yet. Let's first, we have to understand, you know, as we did on the teen mental health thing, okay, now let's lay out what is the problem? What's messing up our country? And then we can talk about solutions. So it's all the things you said interacting in an interesting way. So human nature is tribal. We evolved for intergroup conflict. We love war. The first time my buddies and I played paintball, I was 29 and we were divided into teams with strangers to shoot guns at each other and kill each other. And we all, afterwards, it was like, oh my God, that was incredible. Like it really felt like we'd opened a room in our hearts that had never been opened. But as men, you know, testosterone changes our brains and our bodies and activates the war stuff. Like we've got more stuff. And that's why boys like certain team sports, it's play war. So that's who we are. It doesn't mean we're always tribal. It doesn't mean we're always wanting to fight. We're also really good at making peace and cooperation and finding deals. We're good at trade and exchange. So, you know, you want your country to, you want a society that has room for conflict, ideally over sports. Like that's great. That's totally, it's not just harmless, it's actually good. But otherwise you want cooperation to generally prevail in the society. That's how you create prosperity and peace. And if you're gonna have a diverse democracy, you really better focus on cooperation, not on tribalism and division. And there's a wonderful book by Yasha Monk called The Great Experiment that talks about the difficulty of diversity and democracy and what we need to do to get this right and to get the benefits of diversity. So that's human nature. Now let's imagine that the technological environment makes it really easy for us to cooperate. Let's give everyone telephones and the postal service. Let's give them email. Like, wow, you know, we can do all these things together with people far away. It's amazing. Now, instead of that, let's give them a technology that encourages them to fight. So early Facebook and Twitter were generally lovely places. You know, people old enough to remember, like they were fun. There was a lot of humor. You didn't feel like you were gonna get your head blown off no matter what you said. 2007, 2008, 2009, it was still fun. These were nice places mostly. And like almost all the platforms start off as nice places. But, and this is the key thing in the article, in the Atlantic article on Babel, on after Babel. The Atlantic article, by the way, is why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid. Yeah, my title in the magazine was after Babel, adapting to a world we can no longer share. That's what I proposed. But they A, B tested, what's the title that gets the most clicks? And it was why the past 10 years have been unique. So Babel, the Tower of Babel is a driving metaphor in the piece. So first of all, what is it? What's the Tower of Babel? What's Babel? What are we talking about? Okay, so the Tower of Babel is a story early in Genesis where the descendants of Noah are spreading out and repopulating the world. And they're on the plain of Shinar. And they say, let us build us a city with a tower to make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered again. And so it's a very short story. There's not a lot in it, but it looks like they're saying, we don't want God to flood us again. Let's build a city and a tower to reach the heavens. And God is offended by the hubris of these people acting again like gods. And he says, here's the key line. He says, let us go down and confuse their language so that they may not understand one another. So in the story, he doesn't literally knock the tower over, but many of us have seen images or movie dramatizations where a great wind comes and the tower is knocked over and the people are left wandering amid the rubble, unable to talk to each other. So I've been grappling, I've been trying to say, what the hell happened to our society? Beginning in 2014, what the hell is happening to universities? And then it spread out from universities. It hit journalism, the arts, and now it's all over companies. What the hell happened to us? And it wasn't until I reread the Babel story a couple of years ago that I thought, whoa, this is it. This is the metaphor. Because I'd been thinking about tribalism and left-right battles and war, and that's easy to think about. But Babel isn't like, and God said, let half of the people hate the other half. No, it wasn't that. It's God said, let us confuse their language that they, none of them can understand each other ever again, or at least for a while. So it's a story about fragmentation. And that's what's unique about our time. So Meta or Facebook wrote a rebuttal to my article. They disputed what I said, and one of their arguments was, oh, but polarization goes back way before social media, and it was happening in the 90s. And they're right, it does. And I did say that, but I should have said it more clearly with more examples. But here's the new thing. Even though left and right were beginning to hate each other more, we weren't afraid of the person next to us. We weren't afraid of each other. Cable TV, Fox News, whatever you wanna point to about increasing polarization, it didn't make me afraid of my students. And that was new in around 2014, 2015. We started hearing, getting articles, I'm a liberal professor and my liberal students frighten me. It was in Vox in 2015. And that was after Greg and I had turned in the draft of our first draft of our coddling article. And surveys show over and over again, students are not as afraid of their professors, they're actually afraid of other students. Most students are lovely. It's not like the whole generation has lost their minds. What happens, a small number, a small number are adept at using social media to destroy anyone that they think they can get credit for destroying. And the bizarre thing is it's never, it's rarely about what ideas you express. It's usually about a word, like he used this word, or this was insensitive, or this was insensitive, or I can link this word to that word. So it's, they don't even engage with ideas and arguments. It's a real sort of gotcha prosecutor. Almost like a witch trial mindset. So- So the unique thing here, there's something about social media in those years that a small number of people can sort of be catalysts for this division. They can start the viral wave that leads to a division that's different than the kind of division we saw before. It's a little different than a viral wave. Once you get some people who can use social media to intimidate, you get a sudden phase shift. You get a big change in the dynamics of groups. And that's the heart of the article. This isn't just another article about how social media is polarizing us and destroying democracy. The heart of the article is an analysis of what makes groups smart and what makes them stupid. And so, because as we said earlier, my own research is on post-hoc reasoning, post-hoc justification, rationalization. The only cure for that is other people who don't share your biases. And so if you have an academic debate, as like the one I'm having with these other researchers over social media, I write something, they write something, I have to take account of their arguments and they have to take account of mine. When the academic world works, it's because it puts us together in ways that things cancel out. That's what makes universities smart. It's what makes them generators of knowledge. Unless we stop dissent, what if we say, on these topics, there can be no dissent. And if anyone says otherwise, if any academic comes up with research that says otherwise, we're gonna destroy them. And if any academic even tweets a study contradicting what is the official word, we're gonna destroy them. And that was the famous case of David Shore, who in the days after George Floyd was killed and there were protests, and the question is, are these protests gonna be productive? Are they gonna backfire? Now, most of them were peaceful, but some were violent. And he tweeted a study. He just simply tweeted a study done by an African-American, I think sociologist at Princeton, Omar Wasow. And Wasow's study showed that when you look back at the 60s, you see that where there were violent protests, it tended to backfire. Peaceful protests tend to work. And so he simply tweeted that study. And there was a Twitter mob after him. This was insensitive. This was anti-black, I think he was accused of. And he was fired within a day or two. So this is the kind of dynamic. This is not caused by cable TV. This is not caused. This is something new. Can I, just on a small tangent there, in that situation, because it happens time and time again, you highlight in your current work, but also in the coddling of the American mind, is the blame on the mob, the mechanisms that enables the mob, or the people that do the firing? The administration does the firing. Yeah, it's all of them. Well, can I, I sometimes feel that we don't put enough blame on the people that do the firing. Which is, that feels like, in the long arc of human history, that is the place for courage and for ideals, right? That's where it stops. That's where the buck stops. So there's going to be new mechanisms for mobs and all that kind of stuff. There's going to be tribalism. But at the end of the day, that's what it means to be a leader, is to stop the mob at the door. But I'm a social psychologist, which means I look at the social forces that work on people. And if you show me a situation in which 95% of the people behave one way, and it's a way that we find surprising and shameful, I'm not going to say, wow, 95% of the people are shameful. I'm going to say, wow, what a powerful situation. We've got to change that situation. So that's what I think is happening here, because there are hardly any, in the first few years, you know, it begins around 2018, 2019, it really enters the corporate world. There are hardly any leaders who stood up against it. But I've talked to a lot, and it's always the same thing. You have these, you know, people in their, usually in their 50s or 60s, generally they're progressive or on the left. They're accused of things by their young employees. They don't have the vocabulary to stand up to it. And they give in very quickly. And because it happens over and over again, and there's only a few examples of university presidents who said like, no, we're not going to stop this talk just because you're freaking out. No, you know, we're not going to fire this professor because he wrote a paper that you don't like. There are so few examples, I have to include that the situational forces are so strong. Now, I think we are seeing, we are seeing a reversal in the last few weeks or months. A clear sign of that is that the New York Times actually came out with an editorial from the editorial board saying that free speech is important. Now, that's amazing that the Times had the guts to stand up for free speech, because, you know, the people, well, what's been happening with the Times is that they've allowed Twitter to become the editorial board. Twitter has control over the New York Times, and the New York Times literally will change papers. I have an essay in Politico with Nadine Strassen, Steve Pinker, and Pamela Peresky on how the New York Times retracted and changed an editorial by Bret Stephens. And they did it in a sneaky way, and they lied about it. And they did this out of fear because he mentioned IQ. He mentioned IQ and Jews. And then he went on to say, that it probably isn't a genetic thing, it's probably cultural, he mentioned it. And the New York Times, I mean, they were really cowardly. Now, I think they, from what I hear, they know that they were cowardly. They know that they should not have fired James Bennett. They know that they gave in to the mob. And that's why they're now poking their head up above the parapet, and they're saying, oh, we think that free speech is important. And then, of course, they got their heads blown off because, you know, Twitter reacted like, how dare you say this? Are you saying racist speech is okay? But they didn't back down. They didn't retract it. They didn't apologize for defending free speech. So I think the Times might be coming back. Can I ask you an opinion on something here? What, in terms of the Times coming back, in terms of Twitter being the editorial board for the prestigious journalistic organizations, what's the importance of the role of Mr. Elon Musk in this? So, you know, it's all fun and games, but here's a human who tweets about the importance of freedom of speech and buys Twitter. What are your thoughts on the influence, the positive and the negative possible consequences of this particular action? So, you know, if he is gonna succeed, and if he's gonna be one of the major reasons why we decarbonize quickly and why we get to Mars, then I'm willing to cut him a lot of slack. So I have an overall positive view of him. Now, where I'm concerned and where I'm critical is we're in the middle of a raging culture war, and this culture war is making our institutions stupid. It's making them fail. This culture war, I think, could destroy our country. And by destroy, I mean we could descend into constant constitutional crises, a lot more violence. You know, not that we're gonna disappear, not that we're gonna kill each other, but I think there will be a lot more violence. So we're in the middle of this raging culture war. It's possibly turning to violence. You need to not add fuel to the fire. And the fact that he declared that he's gonna be a Republican and the Democrats are the bad party, and, you know, as an individual citizen, he's entitled to his opinion, of course, but as an influential citizen, he should at least be thoughtful. And more importantly, companies need, and I think would benefit from a Geneva Convention for the culture war, in which, because they're all being damaged by the culture war coming to the companies. What we need to get to, I hope, is a place where companies do, they have strong ethical obligations about the effects that they cause, about how they treat their employees, about their supply chain. They have strong ethical obligations, but they should not be weighing in on culture war issues. Well, if I can read the exact tweet, because part of the tweet I like, he said, in the past, I voted Democrat because they were mostly the kindness party, but they have become the party of division and hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. And then he finishes with, now watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold. Okay. What do you make of that? Like, what do you think he was thinking that he came out so blatantly as a partisan? Because he's probably communicating with the board, with the people inside Twitter, and he's clearly seeing the lean. And he's responding to that lean. He's also opening the door to the potential bringing back the former president onto the platform, and also bringing back, which he's probably looking at the numbers of the people who are behind Truth Social, saying that, okay, it seems that there's a strong lean in Twitter in terms of the left. And in fact, from what I see, it seems like the current operation of Twitter is the extremes of the left get outraged by something, and the extremes of the right point out how the left is ridiculous. Like, that seems to be the mechanism. And that's the source of the drama, and then the left gets very mad at the right that points out the ridiculousness, and there's this vicious kind of cycle. That's the polarization cycle. That's what we're in. There's something that happened here. There's a shift where there's a decline, I would say, in both parties towards being shitty. Okay, but look, everything with the parties, that's not the issue. The issue is, should the most important CEO in America, the CEO of some of our biggest and most important companies, so let's imagine five years from now, two different worlds. In one world, the CEO of every Fortune 500 company has said, I'm a Republican because I hate those douchebags, or I'm a Democrat because I hate those Nazi racists. That's one world where everybody puts up a thing in their window, it's culture war everywhere, all the time, 24 hours a day. You pick a doctor based on whether he's red or blue, everything is culture war. That's one possible future which we're headed towards. The other is, we say, you know what? Political conflict should be confined to political spaces. There is a room for protest, but you don't go protesting at people's private homes. You don't go threatening their children. You don't go doxing them. We have to have channels that are not culture war all the time. When you go shopping, when you go to a restaurant, you shouldn't be yelled at and screamed at. When you buy a product, you should be able to buy products from an excellent company. You shouldn't have to always think, what's the CEO? I mean, what an insane world, but that's where we're heading. So I think that Elon did a really bad thing in launching that tweet. That was, I think, really throwing fuel on a fire and setting a norm in which businesses are gonna get even more politicized than they are. And you're saying, specifically, the problem was that he picked the side. As the head of, yes, as the CEO, as the head of several major companies, you know, of course we can find out what his views are. You know, it's not like it's, I mean, actually, with him, it's maybe hard to know, but, you know, it's not that a CEO can't be a partisan or have views, but to publicly declare it in that way, in such a really insulting way, this is throwing fuel on the fire and it's setting a precedent that corporations are major players in the culture war. And I'm trying to reverse that. We've got to pull back from that. Let me play devil's advocate here. So, because I've gotten a chance to interact with quite a few CEOs, there is also a value for authenticity. So I'm guessing this was written while sitting on the toilet and I could see in a day from now saying, LOL, just kidding. There's a humor, there's a lightness, there's a chaos element, and that's, chaos is not- Yeah, that's not what we need right now. We don't need more chaos. Well, so, yes, there's a balance here. The chaos isn't engineered chaos. It's really authentically who he is. And I would like to say that there's- I agree with that. That's a trade-off, because if you become a politician, there's a trade-off between, in this case, maybe authenticity and civility, maybe, like being calculating about the impact you have with your words versus just being yourself. And I'm not sure calculating is also a slippery slope. Both are slippery slopes. You have to be careful. So when we have conversations in a vacuum and we just say, like, what should a person do? Those are very hard. But our world is actually structured into domains and institutions. And if it's just like, oh, talking here among our friends, like we should be authentic, sure. But the CEO of a company has fiduciary duties, legal fiduciary duties to the company. He owes loyalty to the company. And if he is using the company for his own political gain or other purposes or social standing, that's a violation of his fiduciary duty to the company. Now, there's debate among scholars whether your fiduciary duty is to the shareholders. I don't think it's the shareholders. I think many legal experts say it's the company's a legal person. You have duties to the company. Employees owe a duty to the company. So he's got those duties. And I think he, you can say he's being authentic, but he's also violating those duties. So it's not necessarily he's violating a law by doing it, but he certainly is shredding any notion of professional ethics around leadership of a company in the modern age. I think you have to take it in the full context because you see that he's not being a political player. He's just saying, quit being douchey. Suppose the CEO of Ford says, you know what? Let's pick a group. Well, I shouldn't do a racial group because that would be different. Let's just say, you know what? Left-handed people are douchebags. I hate them. Like, why would you say that? Like, why would you drag my left-handed people? What you said now is not either funny or like-hearted because I hate them. It wasn't funny. I'm not picking on you. I'm saying that statement. Words matter. There's a lightness to the statement in the full context. If you look at the timeline of the man, there's ridiculous memes and there's nonstop jokes that my big problem with the CEO of Ford is there's never any of that. Not only is there any of that, there's not a celebration of the beauty of the engineering of the different products. It's all political speak channeled through multiple meetings of PR. There's levels upon levels upon levels where you think that it's really not authentic. And there, you're actually, by being polite, by being civil, you're actually playing politics because all of your actual political decision-making is done in the back channels. That's obvious. Here, here's a human being authentic and actually struggling with some of the ideas and having fun with it. I think this lightness represents the kind of positivity that we should be striving for. It's funny to say that because you're looking at these statements and they seem negative, but in the full context of social media, I don't know if they are. But look at what you just said, in the full context. You're taking his tweets in context. You know who doesn't do that? Twitter. Like, that's the Twitter, the rule of Twitter is there is no context. Everything is taken in the maximum possible way. There is no context. So this is not like, yes, I wish we did take people in context. I wish we lived in that world. But now that we have Twitter and Facebook, we don't live in that world anymore. So you're saying it is a bit of responsibility for people with a large platform to consider the fact that there is the fundamental mechanism of Twitter where people don't give you the benefit of the doubt. Well, I don't wanna hang it on large platform because then that's what a lot of people say. Like, well, you know, she shouldn't say that because she has a large platform and she should say things that agree with my politics. I don't wanna hang it on large platform. I wanna hang it on CEO of a company. CEOs of a company have duties and responsibilities. And, you know, Scott Galloway, I think is very clear about this. You know, he criticized Elon a lot as being a really bad role model for young men. Young men need role models and he is a very appealing, attractive role model. So I agree with you, but in terms of being a role model, I think I don't wanna put a responsibility on people, but yes, he could be a much, much better role model. There's- You can't insult sitting senators by calling them old. I mean, that's, you know. Yeah, I won't do a both-side-ism of like, well, those senators can be assholes too. Yeah, yes. But that's fair enough. Respond intelligently, as I tweeted, to unintelligent treatment. Yes, yes. So the reason I like, and he's now a friend, the reason I like Elon is because of the engineering, because of the work he does. No, I admire him enormously for that. But what I admire on the Twitter side is the authenticity because I've been a little bit jaded and worn out by people who have built up walls, people in the position of power, the CEOs and the politicians who built up walls, and you don't see the real person. That's one of the reasons I love long-form podcasting, especially if you talk more than 10 minutes, it's hard to have a wall up. It all kind of crumbles away. So I don't know, but yes, yes, you're right. That is a step backwards to say, at least to me, the biggest problem is to pick sides, to say I'm not going to vote this way or that way. That's, leave that to the politicians. You have much, like the importance of social media is far bigger than the bickering, the short-term bickering of any one political party. It's a platform where we make progress, where we develop ideas through sort of rigorous discourse, all those kinds of things. So, okay, so here's an idea about social media developed through social media from Elon, which is everyone freaks out because they think either, oh, he's gonna do less content moderations. The left is freaking out because they want more content moderation. The right is celebrating because they think the people doing the content moderation are on the left. But there was one, I think it was a tweet, where he said like three things he was gonna do to make it better, defeat the bots or something. But he said, authenticate all humans. And this is a hugely important statement. And it's pretty powerful that this guy can put three words in a tweet, and actually I think this could change the world. Even if the bid fails, the fact that Elon said that, that he thinks we need to authenticate all humans is huge. Because now we're talking about solutions here. What can we do to make social media a better place for democracy, a place that actually makes democracy better? As Tristan Harris has pointed out, social media and digital technology, the Chinese are using it really skillfully to make a better authoritarian nation. And by better, I don't mean morally better, I mean like more stable, successful. Whereas we're using it to make ourselves weaker, more fragmented and more insane. So we're on the way down, we're in big trouble. And all the argument is about content moderation. And what we learned from Francis Haugen is that what, five or 10% of what they might call hate speech gets caught, 1% of violence and intimidation. Content moderation, even if we do a lot more of it, isn't gonna make a big difference. All the powers and the dynamics changes to the architecture. And as I said in my Atlantic article, what are the reforms that would matter for social media? And the number one thing I said, the number one thing I believe is user authentication or user verification. And people freak out and they say like, oh, but we need anonymous. Like, yeah, fine, you can be anonymous. But what I think needs to be done is, anyone can open an account on Twitter, Facebook, whatever, as long as you're over 16, and that's another piece. Once you're 16 or 18, at a certain age, you can be treated like an adult. You can open an account and you can look, you can read, and you can make up whatever fake name you want. But if you want to post, if you want the viral amplification on a company that has section 230 protection from lawsuits, which is a very special privilege, I understand the need for it, but it's an incredibly powerful privilege to protect them from lawsuits. If you want to be able to post on platforms that as we'll get to in the Google Doc, there's a lot of evidence that they are undermining and damaging democracy. Then the company has this minimal responsibility it has to meet. Banks have know your customer laws. You can't just walk up to a bank with a bag of money that you stole and say, here, deposit this for me. My name's John Smith. You have to actually show who you are. And the bank isn't gonna announce who you are publicly, but you have to, if they're gonna do business with you, they need to know you're a real person, not a criminal. And so there's a lot of schemes for how to do this. There's multiple levels. People don't seem to understand this. Level zero of authentication is nothing. That's what we have now. Level one, this might be what Elon meant. Authenticate all humans, meaning you have to at least pass a CAPTCHA or some test to show you're not a bot. There's no identity, there's nothing. Just something that, you know, it's a constant cat and mouse struggle between bots. So we try to just filter out pure bots. The next level up, there are a variety of schemes that allow you to authenticate identity in ways that are not traceable or kept. So some, whether you show an ID, whether you use biometric, whether you have something on the blockchain that establishes identity, whether it's linked to a phone, whatever it is, there are multiple schemes now that companies have figured out for how to do this. And so if you did that, then in order to get an account where you have posting privileges on Facebook or Twitter or TikTok or whatever, you have to at least do that. And if you do that, you know, now the other people are real humans too. And suddenly our public square's a lot nicer because you don't have bots swarming around. This would also cut down on trolls. You still have trolls who use their real name, but this would just make it a little scarier for trolls. Some men turn into complete assholes. They can be very polite in real life, but some men, as soon as they have the anonymity, they start using racial slurs. They're horrible. One troll can ruin thousands of people's day. You know, I'm somebody who believes in free speech. And so there's been a lot of discussions about this. And we'll ask you some questions about this too. But there's, the tension there is the power of a troll to ruin the party. Yeah, that's right. So like this idea of free speech, boy, do you have to also consider if you want to have a private party and enjoy your time, challenging, lots of disagreement, debate, all that kind of stuff, but fun. No like annoying person screaming, just not disagreeing, but just like spilling like the drinks all over the place. Yeah, all that kind of stuff. So see, you're saying it's a step in the right direction to at least verify the humanness of a person while maintaining anonymity. But so that's one step, but the further step, that's maybe doesn't go all the way because you can still figure out ways to create multiple accounts and you can- But it's a lot harder. So actually there's a lot of ways to do this. There's a lot of creativity out there about solving this problem. So if you go to the social media and political dysfunction, Google Doc that I created with Chris Bale, and then you go to section 11, proposals for improving social media. So we're collecting there now some of the ideas for how to do user authentication. And so one is WorldCoin. There's one human-id.org. This is a new organization created by an NYU Stern student who just came into my office last week, working with some other people. And what they do here is they have a method of identity verification that is keyed to your phone. So you do have to have a phone number. And of course you can buy seven different phone numbers if you want, but it's gonna be about 20 or $30 a month. So nobody's gonna buy a thousand phones. So yeah, you don't have just one unique ID, but most people do and nobody has a thousand. So just things like this that would make an enormous difference. So here's the way that I think about it. Imagine a public square in which the incentives are to be an asshole, that the more you kick people in the shins and spit on them and throw things at them, the more people applaud you. Okay, so that's the public square we have now. Not for most people, but as you said, just one troll can ruin it for everybody. If there's a thousand of us in the public square and 10 are incentivized to kick us and throw shit at us, it's no fun to be in that public square. So right now I think Twitter in particular is making our public square much worse. It's making our democracy much weaker, much more divided. It's bringing us down. Imagine if we changed the incentives. Imagine if the incentive was to be constructive. And so this is an idea that I've been kicking around. I talked about it with Reid Hoffman last week and he seemed to think it's a good idea. And it would be very easy to, rather than trying to focus on posts, what post is fake or whatever, focus on users. What users are incredibly aggressive? And so people just use a lot of obscenity and exclamation points. AI could easily code nastiness or just aggression, hostility. And imagine if every user is rated on a one to five scale for that. And the default, when you open an account on Twitter or Facebook, the default is four. You will see everybody who's a four and below, but you won't even see the people who are fives and they don't get to see you. So they can say what they want, free speech. We're not censoring them. They can say what they want. But now there's actually an incentive to not be an asshole because the more of an asshole you are, the more people block you out. So imagine our country goes in two directions. In one, things continue to deteriorate and we have no way to have a public square in which we could actually talk about things. And in the other, we actually try to disincentivize being an asshole and encourage being constructive. What do you think? Well, this is because I'm an AI person and I very much, ever since I talked to Jack about the health of conversation, I've been looking at a lot of the machine learning models involved and I believe that the nastiness classification is a difficult problem automatically. I'm sure it is. So I personally believe in crowdsourced nastiness labeling, but in an objective way where it doesn't become viral mob cancellation type of dynamics, but more sort of objectively, is this a shitty, almost out of context, with only local context, is this a shitty thing to say at this moment? Because here's the thing. Well, wait, no, but we don't care about individual posts. No, no, but- All that matters is the average. The posts make the man. They do, but the point is, as long as we're talking about averages here, one person has a misclassified post, it doesn't matter. Right, right, right. Yeah, yeah, so, but you need to classify posts in order to build up the average. That's what I mean. And so I really like that idea, the high level idea of incentivizing people to be less shitty. Yeah. Because that's what, we have that incentive in real life. Yeah, that's right. It's actually really painful to be a full-time asshole, I think, in physical reality. That's right, you'd be cut off. It should be also pain to be an asshole on the internet. There could be different mechanisms for that. I wish AI was there, machine learning models were there. They just aren't yet. But how about, we have, so one track is we have AI machine learning models and they render a verdict. Another class is crowdsourcing. You get, and then whenever the two disagree, you have staff at Twitter or whatever, they look at it and they say, well, what's going on here? And that way you can refine both the AI and you can refine whatever the algorithms are for the crowdsourcing, because of course that can be gamed and people can only, hey, let's all rate this guy as really aggressive. So you wouldn't want just to rely on one single track, but if you have two tracks, I think you could do it. What do you think about this word misinformation that maybe connects to our two discussions now? So one is the discussion of social media and democracy, and then the other is the coddling of the American mind. I've seen the word misinformation misused or used as a bullying word, like racism and so on, which are important concepts to identify, but they're nevertheless instead overused. Yes. Does that worry you? Because that seems to be the mechanism from inside Twitter, from inside Facebook to label information you don't like versus information that's actually fundamentally harmful to society. Yeah, so I think there is a meaning of disinformation that is very useful and helpful, which is when you have a concerted campaign by Russian agents to plant a story and spread it, and they've been doing that since the 50s or 40s even. That's what this podcast actually is. Is what? Right. It's a disinformation campaign by the Russians. Yeah, you seem really Soviet to me, buddy. It's subtle, it's between the lines. Okay, I'm sorry. Yeah. So I think to the extent that there are campaigns by either foreign agents or just by the Republican or Democratic parties, there've been examples of that, there are all kinds of concerted campaigns that are intending to confuse or spread lies. This is the Soviet, the fire hose of falsehood tactic. So it's very useful for that. All the companies need to have pretty large staffs, I think, to deal with that, because that will always be there. And that is really bad for our country. So Renee Duresta is just brilliant on this. Reading her work has really frightened me and opened my eyes about how easy it is to manipulate and spread misinformation and especially polarization. The Russians have been trying since the 50s, they would come to America and they would do hate crimes. They would spray swastikas in synagogues to make, and they spray anti-blackslurs. They try to make Americans feel that they're as divided as possible. Most of the debate nowadays, however, is not that. It seems to be people are talking about what the other side is saying. So if you're on the right, then you're very conscious of the times when, well, the left wouldn't let us even say, could COVID be from a lab? Like they would like, you literally would get shut down for saying that. And it turns out, well, we don't know if it's true, but there's at least a real likelihood that it is. And it certainly is something that should have been talked about. So I tend to stay away from any such discussions. And the reason is twofold. One is because they're almost entirely partisan. It generally is each side thinks what the other side is saying is misinformation or disinformation, and they can prove certain examples. So we're not gonna get anywhere on that. We certainly are never gonna get 60 votes in the Senate for anything about that. I don't think content moderation is nearly as important as people think. It has to be done and it can be improved. Almost all the action is in the dynamics, the architecture, the virality, and then the nature of who is on the platform, unverified people, and how much amplification they get. That's what we should be looking at rather than wasting so much of our breath on whether we're gonna do a little more or a little less content moderation. So the true harm to society on average and over the longterm is in the dynamics, is fundamentally in the dynamics of social media, not in the subtle choices of content moderation, aka censorship. Exactly. There've always been conspiracy theories. You know, the Turner Diaries is this book written in 1978. It introduced the replacement theory to a lot of people. Timothy McVeigh had it on him when he was captured in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing. It's a kind of a Bible of that fringe, violent, racist, white supremacist group. And so the killer in Buffalo was well-acquainted with these ideas. They've been around, but this guy's from a small town. I forget where he's from. But he was, as he says in a manifesto, he was entirely influenced by things he found online. He was not influenced by anyone he met in person. Ideas spread and communities can form, these micro communities can form with bizarre and twisted beliefs. And this is, again, back to the Atlantic article. I've got this amazing quote from Martin Goury. Let me just find it. But Martin Goury, he was a former CIA analyst, wrote this brilliant book called "'The Revolt of the Public." And he has this great quote. He says, he talks about how in the age of mass media, we were all, in a sense, looking at a mirror, looking back at us. And it might've been a distorted mirror, but we had stories in common, we had facts in common. It was mass media. And he describes how the flood of information with the internet is like a tsunami washing over us. It has all kinds of effects. And he says, this isn't a comment in an interview on Vox. He says, the digital revolution has shattered that mirror and now the public inhabits those broken pieces of glass. So the public isn't one thing. It's highly fragmented and it's basically mutually hostile. It's mostly people yelling at each other and living in bubbles of one sort or another. And so, we now see clearly, there's this little bubble of just bizarre nastiness in which the killer in Christchurch and the killer in Norway and now in Buffalo, they're all put into a community and posts flow up within that community by a certain dynamic. So we can never stamp those words or ideas out. The question is not, can we stop them from existing? The question is, what platforms, what are the platforms by which they spread all over the world and into every little town so that the 1% of whatever, whatever percentage of young men are vulnerable to this, that they get exposed to it? It's in the dynamics and the architecture. It's a fascinating point to think about because we often debate and think about the content moderation, the censorship, the ideas of free speech, but you're saying, yes, that's important to talk about, but much more important is fixing the dynamics. That's right, because everyone thinks if there's regulation, it means censorship. At least people on the right think regulation equals censorship. And I'm trying to say, no, no, that's only if all we talk about is content moderation. Well, then yes, that is the framework. How much or how little do we, but I don't even want to talk about that because all the action is in the dynamics. That's the point of my article. It's the architecture changed and our social world went insane. So can you try to steel man the other side? So the people that might say that social media is good for society overall, both in the dimension of mental health, as Mark said, for teenagers, teenage girls, and for our democracy, yes, there's a lot of negative things, but that's slices of data. If you look at the whole, which is difficult to measure, it's actually good for society. And to the degree that it's not good, it's getting better and better. Is it possible to steel man that point? It's hard, but I should be able to do it. I need to put my money where my mouth is, and that's a good question. So on the mental health front, the argument is usually what they say is, well, for communities that are cut off, especially LGBTQ kids, they can find each other. So it connects kids, especially kids who wouldn't find connection otherwise. It exposes you to a range of ideas and content, and it's fun. Is there, in the studies you looked at, is there inklings of data that's maybe early data that shows that there's positive effects in terms of self-report data, or how would you measure behavioral positive? It's difficult. Right, so if you look at how do you feel when you're on the platform, you get a mix of positive and negative, and people say they feel supported, and this is what Mark was referring to when he said, there was like 18 criteria, and on most it was positive, and on some it was negative. So if you look at how do you feel while you're using the platform, most kids enjoy it, they're having fun, but some kids are feeling inferior, cut off, bullied. So if we're saying what's the average experience on the platform, that might actually be positive. If we just measured the hedonics, like how much fun versus fear is there, it could well be positive. But what I'm trying to, okay, so is that enough steel manning? Can I? Yeah, that's pretty good. Okay. You held your breath. Yeah, but what I'm trying to point out is this isn't a dose response sugar thing, like how do you feel while you're consuming heroin? Like while I'm consuming heroin, I feel great, but am I glad that heroin came into my life? Am I glad that everyone in my seventh grade class is on heroin? Like, no, I'm not. Like I wish that people weren't on heroin and they could play on the playground, but instead they're just, you know, sitting on the bench shooting up during recess. So when you look at it as an emergent phenomenon that changed childhood, now it doesn't matter what are the feelings while you're actually using it. We need to zoom out and say, how has this changed childhood? Can you try to do the same for democracy? Yeah. So we can go back to what Mark said in 2012, when he was taking Facebook public, and this is the wake of the Arab Spring. I think people really have to remember what an extraordinary year 2011 was. It starts with the Arab Spring. Dictators are pulled down. Now people say, you know, Facebook took them down. I mean, of course it was the citizen, the people themselves took down dictators, aided by Facebook and Twitter and, I don't know if it was, or texting, there were some other platforms they used. So the argument that Mark makes in this letter to potential shareholders, investors, is, you know, we're at a turning point in history, and, you know, social media is rewiring, we're giving people the tools to rewire their institutions. So this all sounds great. Like this is the democratic dream. And what I read about in the essay is the period of techno-democratic optimism, which began in the early 90s with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union. And then the internet comes in and, you know, people, I mean, people my age remember how extraordinary it was, how much fun it was. I mean, the sense that this was the dawning of a new age, and there was so much optimism. And so this optimism runs all the way from the early 90s, all the way through 2011 with the Arab Spring. And of course that year ends with Occupy Wall Street. And there were also big protest movements in Israel, in Spain, and in a lot of areas. Martin Goury talks about this. So there certainly was a case to be made that Facebook in particular, but all these platforms, these were God's gift to democracy. What dictator could possibly keep out the internet? What dictator could stand up to people connected on these digital media platforms? So that's the strong case that this is gonna be good for democracy. And then we can see what happened in the years after. Now, first of all, so in Mark's response to you, so here, let me read from what he said when you interviewed him. He says, I think it's worth grounding this conversation in the actual research that has been done on this, which by and large finds that social media is not a large driver of polarization. He says that. Then he says, most academic studies that I've seen actually show that social media use is correlated with lower polarization. That's a factual claim that he makes, which is not true. But he asserts that, well, actually wait, it's tricky because he says the studies he has seen. So I can't, so it might be that the studies he has seen say that, but if you go to the Google Doc with Chris Bale, you see there are seven different questions that can be addressed. And on one of them, which is filter bubbles, the evidence is very mixed. And he might be right that Facebook overall doesn't contribute to filter bubbles. But on the other six, the evidence is pretty strongly on the yes side, it is a cause. He also draws a line between the United States versus the rest of the world. Right, and there's one thing true about that, which is that polarization has been rising much faster in the US than in any other major country. So he's right about that. So we're talking about an article by Matthew Genskow and a few other researchers. It's a very important article. We've got it in the political dysfunction database. And we should say that in this study, there's, like I started to say, there's a lot of fascinating questions that it's organized by, whether studies indicate yes or no. Question one is, does social media make people more angry or effectively polarized? Question two is, does social media create echo chambers? These are fascinating, really important questions. Question three is, does social media amplify posts that are more emotional, inflammatory, or false? Question four is, does social media increase the probability of violence? Question five is, does social media enable foreign governments to increase political dysfunction in the US and other democracies? Question six, does social media decrease trust? Seven is, does social media strengthen populist movements? And then there's other sections, as you mentioned. Yeah, that's right. But once you operationalize it as seven different questions, so one is about polarization, and there are measures of that, the degree to which people say they hate the other side. And so in this study by Boxell, Genskow, and Shapiro, 2021, they looked at all the measures of polarization they could find going back to the 1970s for about 20 different countries. And they show plots, you have these nice plots with red lines showing that in some countries it's going up, like the United States especially, in some countries it's going down, and in some countries it's pretty flat. And so Marx says, well, you know, if polarization's going up a lot in the US, but not in most other countries, well, maybe Facebook isn't responsible. But so much depends on how you operationalize things. Are we interested in the straight line, regression line, going back to the 70s? And if so, well, then he's right in what he says. But that's not the argument. The argument isn't that, you know, it's been rising and falling since the 70s. The argument is it's been rising and falling since 2012, or so. And for that, now I just spoke with, I've been emailing with the authors of the study, and they say there's not really enough data to do it statistically reliably, because there's only a few observations after 2012. But if you look at the graphs in their study, and they actually do provide, as they pointed out to me, they do provide a statistical test if you break the data at the year 2000. So actually, polarization is going up pretty widely if you just look after 2000, which is when the internet would be influential. And if you look just after 2012, you have to just do it by eye. But if you do it on their graphs by eye, you see that actually a number of countries do see a sudden sharp upturn. Not all, not all by any means. But my point is, Mark asserts, he points to one study, and he points to this over and over again. I have had two conversations with him. He pointed to this study both times. He asserts that this study shows that polarization is up some places, down other places, there's no association. But actually, we have another section in the Google Doc where we review all the data on the decline of democracy. And the high point of democracy, of course, it was rising in the 90s. But if you look around the world, by some measures it begins to drop in the late 2000s, around 2007, 2008. By others, it's in the early to mid 2010s. The point is, there is a, by many measures, there's a drop in the quality and the number of democracies on this planet that began in the 2010s. And so, yes, Mark can point to one study. But if you look in the Google Doc, there are a lot of other studies that point the other way. And especially about whether things are getting more polarized or less, more polarized. Not in all countries, but in a lot. So you've provided the problem, several proposals for solutions. Do you think, Mark, do you think Elon or whoever is at the head of Twitter would be able to implement these changes? Or does there need to be a competitor, social network to step up? If you were to predict the future, now this is you giving sort of financial advice to me. No. If you're able to, definitely not financial advice. I can give you advice. Do the opposite of whatever I've done. Okay, excellent. But what do you think, when we talk again in 10 years, what do you think we'd be looking at if it's a better world? Yeah, so you have to look at each, the dynamics of each change that needs to be made. And you have to look at it systemically. And so the biggest change for teen mental health, I think, is to raise the age from 13, it was set to 13 in COPPA in like 1997 or six or whatever, that was eight, whatever it was. It was set to 13 with no enforcement. I think it needs to go to 16 or 18 with enforcement. Now, there's no way that Facebook can say, actually, so look, Instagram, the age is 13, but they don't enforce it. And they're under pressure to not enforce it because if they did enforce it, then all the kids would just go to TikTok, which they're doing anyway. But if we go back a couple of years, when they were talking about rolling out Facebook for kids, because they need to get those kids, they need to get kids under 13. There's a business imperative to hook them early and keep them. So I don't expect Facebook to act on its own accord and do the right thing because then they- So regulation is the only way. Exactly, when you have a social dilemma, what economists call like a prisoner's dilemma or a social dilemma is generalized to multiple people. And when you have a social dilemma, each player can't opt out because they're gonna lose. You have to have central regulation. So I think we have to raise the age. The UK parliament is way ahead of us. I think they're actually functional. The US Congress is not functional. So the parliament is implementing the age appropriate design code that may put pressure on the platforms globally to change certain. So anyway, my point is we have to have regulation to force them to be transparent and share what they're doing. There are some good bills out there. So I think that if the companies and the users, if we're all stuck in a social dilemma in which the incentives against doing the right thing are strong, we do need regulation on certain matters. And again, it's not about content moderation, who gets to say what, but it's things like the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, which is from Senators Coons, Portman and Klobuchar. This would force the platforms to just share information about what they're doing. Like we can't even study what's happening without the information. So that I think is just common sense. Senator Michael Bennett introduced the Digital Platforms Commission Act of 2022, which would create a body tasked with actually regulating and having oversight. Right now, the US government doesn't have a body. I mean, the FTC can do certain things. We have things about antitrust, but we don't have a body that can oversee or understand these things that are transforming everything and possibly severely damaging our political life. So I think there's a lot of, oh, and then the state of California is actually currently considering a version of the UK's, the Age-Appropriate Design Code, which would force the companies to do some simple things, like not be sending alerts and notifications to children at 10 or 11 o'clock at night, just things like that, to make platforms just less damaging. So I think there's an essential role for regulation. And I think if the US Congress is too paralyzed by politics, if the UK and the EU and the state of California and a few other states, if they enact legislation, the platforms don't wanna have different versions in different states or countries. So I think there actually is some hope, even if the US Congress is dysfunctional. So there is, because I've been interacting with certain regulations that's hitting, designed to hit Amazon, but it's hitting YouTube. YouTube folks have been talking to me, which is recommender systems. The algorithm has to be public, I think, versus private, which completely breaks. It's way too clumsy a regulation where the unintended consequences break recommender systems, not for Amazon, but for other platforms. That's just to say that government can sometimes be clumsy with the regulation. Usually is. My preference is the threat of regulation in a friendly way encourages, you really shouldn't need it. You really shouldn't need it. My preference is great leaders lead the way in doing the right thing. And I actually, honestly, this to our earlier kind of maybe my naive disagreement that I think it's good business to do the right thing in these spaces. So creating a problem. It is, sometimes it loses you, most of your users. Well, I think it's important because I've been thinking a lot about World War III recently. Yeah. And it might be silly to say, but I think social media has a role in either creating World War III or avoiding World War III. It seems like so much of wars throughout history have been started through very fast escalation. And it feels like just looking at our recent history, social media is the mechanism for escalation. And so it's really important to get this right, not just for the mental health of young people, not just for the polarization of bickering over small scale political issues, but literally the survival of human civilization. So there's a lot at stake here. Yeah, I certainly agree with that. I would just say that I'm less concerned about World War III than I am about Civil War II. I think that's a more likely prospect. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can I ask for your wise sage advice to young people? So advice number one is put down the phone. Don't use Instagram and social media. But to young people in high school and college, how to have a career, how to have a life they can be proud of. Yeah, I'd be happy to, because I teach a course at NYU in the business school called Work, Wisdom, and Happiness. And the course is, it's advice on how to have a happy, a successful career as a human being. But the course has evolved that it's now about three things, how to get stronger, smarter, and more sociable. If you can do those three things, then you will be more successful at work and in love and friendships. And if you are more successful in work, love, and friendships, then you will be happier. You will be as happy as you can be, in fact. So the question is how do you become smarter, stronger, and happier? And the answer to all three is, it's a number of things, but it's you have to see yourself as this complex adaptive system. You've got this complicated mind that needs a lot of experience to wire itself up. And the most important part of that experience is that you don't grow when you are with your attachment figure. You don't grow when you're safe. You have an attachment figure to make you feel confident to go out and explore the world. In that world, you will face threats, you will face fear, and sometimes you'll come running back. But you have to keep doing it because over time you then develop the strength to stay out there and to conquer it. That's normal human childhood. That's what we blocked in the 1990s in this country. So young people have to get themselves the childhood, and this is all the way through adolescence and young adulthood, they have to get themselves the experience that older generations are blocking them from out of fear, and that their phones are blocking them from out of just hijacking almost all the inputs into their life in almost all the minutes of their day. So go out there, put yourself out in experiences. You are anti-fragile and you're not gonna get strong unless you actually have setbacks and criticisms and fights. So that's how you get stronger. And then there's an analogy in how you get smarter, which is you have to expose yourself to other ideas, to ideas that people that criticize you, people that disagree with you. And this is why I co-founded Heterodox Academy because we believe that faculty need to be in communities that have political diversity and viewpoint diversity, but so do students. And it turns out students want this. The surveys show very clearly Gen Z has not turned against viewpoint diversity. Most of them want it, but they're just afraid of the small number that will sort of shoot darts at them if they say something wrong. So anyway, the point is you're anti-fragile, and so you have to realize that to get stronger, you have to realize to get smarter. And then the key to becoming more sociable is very simple. It's just always looking at it through the other person's point of view. Don't be so focused on what you want and what you're afraid of. Put yourself in the other person's shoes. What's interesting to them? What do they want? And if you develop the skill of looking at it from their point of view, you'll be a better conversation partner, you'll be a better life partner. So there's a lot that you can do. I mean, I could say, go read the Coddling in the American Mind. I could say, go read Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People. But take charge of your life and your development, because if you don't do it, then the older, older protective generation and your phone are gonna take charge of you. So on anti-fragility and coddling, the American Mind, if I may read just a few lines from Chief Justice John Roberts, which I find is really beautiful. So it's not just about viewpoint diversity, but it's real struggle, absurd, unfair struggle that seems to be formative to the human mind. He says, from time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice. I hope that you will suffer betrayal because that will teach you the importance of loyalty. Sorry to say, but I hope you will be lonely from time to time so that you don't take friends for granted. I wish you bad luck again from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either. And when you lose, as you will from time to time, I hope every now and then, your opponent will gloat over your failure. It is a way for you to understand the importance of sportsmanship. I hope you'll be ignored so you know the importance of listening to others. And I hope you will have just enough pain to learn compassion. Whether I wish these things or not, they're going to happen. And whether you benefit from them or not will depend upon your ability to see the message in your misfortunes. He read that in a middle school graduation. Yes, for his son's middle school graduation. That's what I was trying to say, only that's much more beautiful. Yeah, and I think your work is really important and it is beautiful and it's bold and fearless and it's a huge honor that you would sit with me. I'm a big fan. Thank you for spending your valuable time with me today, John, thank you so much. Thanks so much, Lex, what a pleasure. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jonathan Haidt. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Carl Jung. Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/f0un-l1L8Zw

eHZHlbdOp9s

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sean Carroll: What is an Atom?

What is an atom and what is an electron? Sure, this all came together in a few years around the turn of the last century, around the year 1900. Atoms predated then, of course, the word atom goes back to the ancient Greeks, but it was the chemists in the 1800s that really first got experimental evidence for atoms. They realized that there were two different types of tin oxide, and in these two different types of tin oxide, there was exactly twice as much oxygen in one type as the other. And like, why is that? Why is it never 1.5 times as much, right? And so Dalton said, well, it's because there are tin atoms and oxygen atoms, and one form of tin oxide is one atom of tin and one atom of oxygen, and the other is one atom of tin and two atoms of oxygen. And on the basis of this, so this is a speculation, a theory, right, a hypothesis, but then on the basis of that, you make other predictions, and the chemists became quickly convinced that atoms were real. The physicists took a lot longer to catch on, but eventually they did, and I mean, Boltzmann, who believed in atoms, he had a really tough time his whole life, because he worked in Germany, where atoms were not popular. They were popular in England, but not in Germany. And there, in general, the idea of atoms is, it's the smallest building block of the universe for them. That's the kind of, how they thought it was. It's a Greek idea, but the chemists in the 1800s jumped the gun a little bit. So these days, an atom is the smallest building block of a chemical element, right? Hydrogen, tin, oxygen, carbon, whatever. But we know that atoms can be broken up further than that, and that's what physicists discovered in the early 1900s. Rutherford, especially, and his colleagues. So the atom that we think about now, the cartoon, is that picture you've always seen of a little nucleus and then electrons orbiting it like a little solar system. And we now know the nucleus is made of protons and neutrons. So the weight of the atom, the mass, is almost all in its nucleus. Protons and neutrons are something like 1,800 times as heavy as electrons are. Electrons are much lighter, but because they're lighter, they give all the life to the atoms. So when atoms get together, combine chemically, when electricity flows through a system, it's all the electrons that are doing all the work. And where quantum mechanics steps in, as you mentioned, with the position of velocity, with classical mechanics, and quantum mechanics is modeling the behavior of the electron. I mean, you can model the behavior of anything, but the electron, because that's where the fun is. The electron was the biggest challenge, right from the start, yeah.

https://youtu.be/eHZHlbdOp9s

kD5yc1LQrpQ

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Michio Kaku: Future of Humans, Aliens, Space Travel & Physics | Lex Fridman Podcast #45

The following is a conversation with Michio Kaku. He's a theoretical physicist, futurist, and professor at the City College of New York. He's the author of many fascinating books that explore the nature of our reality and the future of our civilization. They include Einstein's Cosmos, Physics of the Impossible, Future of the Mind, Parallel Worlds, and his latest, The Future of Humanity, Terraforming Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and Our Destiny Beyond Earth. I think it's beautiful and important when a scientific mind can fearlessly explore, through conversation, subjects just outside of our understanding. That, to me, is where artificial intelligence is today, just outside of our understanding. A place we have to reach for if we're to uncover the mysteries of the human mind and build human-level and superhuman-level AI systems that transform our world for the better. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, give it 5 stars on iTunes, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter, Alex Friedman, spelled F-R-I-D-M-A-N. And now, here's my conversation with Michio Kaku. You've mentioned that we just might make contact with aliens, or at least hear from them, within this century. Can you elaborate on your intuition behind that optimism? Well, this is pure speculation, of course. But given the fact that we've already identified 4,000 exoplanets orbiting other stars, and we have a census of the Milky Way galaxy for the first time, we know that on average, every single star, on average, has a planet going around it, and about one-fifth or so of them have Earth-sized planets going around them. So just do the math. We're talking about, out of 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, we're talking about billions of potential Earth-sized planets. And to believe that we're the only one is, I think, rather ridiculous, given the odds. And how many galaxies are there? Within sight of the Hubble Space Telescope, there are about 100 billion galaxies. So do the math. How many stars are there in the visible universe? 100 billion galaxies times 100 billion stars per galaxy. We're talking about a number beyond human imagination. And to believe that we're the only ones, I think, is rather ridiculous. So you've talked about different types of, type 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 even, of the Kardashev scale of the different kind of civilizations. What do you think it takes, if it is indeed a ridiculous notion that we're alone in the universe, what do you think it takes to reach out, first to reach out through communication and connect? Well, first of all, we have to understand the level of sophistication of an alien life form, if we make contact with them. I think in this century, we'll probably pick up signals, signals from an extraterrestrial civilization. We'll pick up their I love Lucy and their Leave it to Beaver, just ordinary day-to-day transmissions that they emit. And the first thing we want to do is to a decipher their language, of course, but b, figure out at what level they are advanced on the Kardashev scale. I'm a physicist. We rank things by two parameters, energy and information. That's how we rank black holes. That's how we rank stars. That's how we rank civilizations in outer space. So a type one civilization is capable of harnessing planetary power. They control the weather, for example, earthquakes, volcanoes, they can modify the course of geological events, sort of like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers. Type two would be stellar. They play with stars, entire stars. They use the entire energy output of a star, sort of like Star Trek. The Federation of Planets have colonized the nearby stars. So a type two would be somewhat similar to Star Trek. Type three would be galactic. They roam the galactic space lanes. And type three would be like Star Wars, a galactic civilization. Now, one day I was giving this talk in London at the planetarium there, and the little boy comes up to me and he says, Professor, you're wrong. You're wrong. There's type four. And I told him, look, kid, there are planets, stars and galaxies. That's it, folks. And he kept persisting and saying, no, there's type four, the power of the continuum. And I thought about it for a moment and I said to myself, is there an extra galactic source of energy, the continuum of Star Trek? And the answer is yes, there could be a type four, and that's dark energy. We now know that 73% of the energy of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter represents maybe 23% or so, and we only represent 4%. We're the oddballs. And so you begin to realize that, yeah, there could be type four, maybe even type five. So type four, you're saying being able to harness sort of like dark energy, something that permeates the entire universe. So be able to plug into the entire universe as a source of energy. That's right. And dark energy is the energy of the Big Bang. It's why the galaxies are being pushed apart. It's the energy of nothing. The more nothing you have, the more dark energy that's repulsive. And so the acceleration of the universe is accelerating because the more you have, the more you can have. And that, of course, is by definition an exponential curve. It's called a de Sitter expansion, and that's the current state of the universe. And then type five, would that be able to seek energy sources somehow outside of our universe? And how crazy is that an idea? Yeah, type five would be the multiverse. Multiverse, okay. I'm a quantum physicist, and we quantum physicists don't believe that the Big Bang happened once. That would violate the Heisenberg and Sergi principle. And that means that there could be multiple bangs happening all the time. Even as we speak today, universes are being created. And that fits the data. The inflationary universe is a quantum theory, so there's a certain finite probability that universes are being created all the time. And for me, this is actually rather aesthetically pleasing, because, you know, I was raised as a Presbyterian, but my parents were Buddhists. And there's two diametrically opposed ideas about the universe. In Buddhism, there's only nirvana. There's no beginning, there's no end, there's only timelessness. But in Christianity, there is the instant when God said, let there be light. In other words, an instant of creation. So I've had these two mutually exclusive ideas in my head, and I now realize that it's possible to meld them into a single theory. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't, right? Wrong. You see, our universe had a beginning. Our universe had an instant where somebody might have said, let there be light. But there are other bubble universes out there in a bubble bath of universes. And that means that these universes are expanding into a dimension beyond our three-dimensional comprehension. In other words, hyperspace. In other words, 11-dimensional hyperspace. So nirvana would be this timeless 11-dimensional hyperspace where big bangs are happening all the time. So we can now combine two mutually exclusive theories of creation. And Stephen Hawking, for example, even in his last book, even said that this is an argument against the existence of God. He said there is no God because there was not enough time for God to create the universe, because the big bang happened in an instant of time. Therefore, there was no time available for him to create the universe. But you see, the multiverse idea means that there was a time before time. And there are multiple times each bubble has its own time. And so it means that there could actually be a universe before the beginning of our universe. So if you think of a bubble bath, when two bubbles collide, or when two bubbles fission to create a baby bubble, that's called the big bang. So the big bang is nothing but the collision of universes or the budding of universes. That's such a beautiful picture of our incredibly mysterious existence. So is that humbling to you, exciting, the idea of multiverses? I don't even know how to even begin to wrap my mind around it. It's exciting for me because what I do for a living is string theory. That's my day job. I get paid by the city of New York to work on string theory. And you see, string theory is a multiverse theory. So people say, first of all, what is string theory? String theory simply says that all the particles we see in nature, the electron, the proton, the quarks, what have you, are nothing but vibrations on a musical string, on a tiny, tiny little string. You know, G. Robert Oppenheimer, the creator of the atomic bomb, was so frustrated in the 1950s with all these subatomic particles being created in our atom smashers that he announced, he announced one day that the Nobel Prize in physics should go to the physicist who does not discover a new particle that year. Well, today we think they're nothing but musical notes on these tiny little vibrating strings. So what is physics? Physics is the harmonies you can write on vibrating strings. What is chemistry? Chemistry is the melodies you can play on these strings. What is the universe? The universe is a symphony of strings. And then what is the mind of God that Albert Einstein so eloquently wrote about for the last 30 years of his life? The mind of God would be cosmic music resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. So beautifully put. What do you think is the mind of Einstein's God? Do you think there's a why that we could untangle from this universe of strings? Why are we here? What is the meaning of it all? Well, Steven Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize, once said that the more we learn about the universe, the more we learn that it's pointless. Well, I don't know. I don't profess to understand the great secrets of the universe. However, let me say two things about what the giants of physics have said about this question. Einstein believed in two types of God. One was the God of the Bible, the personal God, the God that answers prayers, walks on water, performs miracles, smites the Philistines. That's the personal God that he didn't believe in. He believed in the God of Spinoza, the God of order, simplicity, harmony, beauty. The universe could have been ugly. The universe could have been messy, random, but it's gorgeous. It relates on a single sheet of paper. We can write down all the known laws of the universe. It's amazing. On one sheet of paper, Einstein's equation is one inch long. String theory is a lot longer, and so is the standard model. But you could put all these equations on one sheet of paper. It didn't have to be that way. It could have been messy. And so Einstein thought of himself as a young boy entering this huge library for the first time, being overwhelmed by the simplicity, elegance, and beauty of this library. But all he could do was read the first page of the first volume. Well, that library is the universe, with all sorts of mysterious, magical things that we have yet to find. And then Galileo was asked about this. Galileo said that the purpose of science, the purpose of science is to determine how the heavens go. The purpose of religion is to determine how to go to heaven. So in other words, science is about natural law, and religion is about ethics, how to be a good person, how to go to heaven. As long as we keep these two things apart, we're in great shape. The problem occurs when people from the natural sciences begin to pontificate about ethics, and people from religion begin to pontificate about natural law. That's where we get into big trouble. You think they're fundamentally distinct, morality and ethics, and our idea of what is right and what is wrong. That's something that's outside the reach of string theory and physics. That's right. If you talk to a squirrel about what is right and what is wrong, there's no reference frame for a squirrel. And realize that aliens from outer space, if they ever come visit us, they'll try to talk to us like we talk to squirrels in the forest, but eventually we get bored talking to the squirrels because they don't talk back to us. Same thing with aliens from outer space. They come down to Earth, they'll be curious about us to a degree, but after a while they just get bored because we have nothing to offer them. So our sense of right and wrong, what does that mean compared to a squirrel's sense of right and wrong? Now we of course do have an ethics that keeps civilizations in line, enriches our life, and makes civilization possible. And I think that's a good thing, but it's not mandated by the law of physics. So if aliens species were to make contact, forgive me for staying on aliens for a bit longer, do you think they're more likely to be friendly, to befriend us, or to destroy us? Well I think for the most part they'll pretty much ignore us. If you were a deer in the forest, who do you fear the most? Do you fear the hunter with his gigantic 16 gauge shotgun, or do you fear the guy with a briefcase and glasses? Well the guy with a briefcase could be a developer about to basically flatten the entire forest, destroying your livelihood. So instinctively you may be afraid of the hunter, but actually the problem with deers in the forest is that they should fear developers, because developers look at deer as simply getting in the way. I mean in War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells, the aliens did not hate us. If you read the book, the aliens did not have evil intentions toward homo sapiens. No, we were in the way. So I think we have to realize that alien civilizations may view us quite differently than in science fiction novels. However I personally believe, and I cannot prove any of this, I personally believe that they're probably going to be peaceful, because there's nothing that they want from our world. I mean what are they going to take us? What are they going to take us for? Gold? No, gold is a useless metal for the most part. It's silver, I mean it's gold in color, but that only affects homo sapiens. Squirrels don't care about gold, and so gold is a rather useless element. Rare earths maybe, platinum-based elements, rare earths for their electronics, yeah maybe, but other than that we have nothing to offer them. I mean think about it for a moment. People love Shakespeare, and they love the arts and poetry, but outside of the earth they mean nothing, absolutely nothing. I mean when I write down an equation in string theory, I would hope that on the other side of the galaxy there's an alien writing down that very same equation in different notation, but that alien on the other side of the galaxy, Shakespeare, poetry, Hemingway, it would mean nothing to him, or her, or it. When you think about entities that's out there, extraterrestrial, do you think they would naturally look something that even is recognizable to us as life, or would they be radically different? Well, how did we become intelligent? Basically three things made us intelligent. One is our eyesight, stereo eyesight. We have the eyes of a hunter, stereo vision so we lock in on targets, and who is smarter, predator or prey? Predators are smarter than prey. They have their eyes at the front of their face, like lions, tigers, while rabbits have eyes to the side of their face. Why is that? Hunters have to zero in on the target. They have to know how to ambush. They have to know how to hide, camouflage, sneak up, stealth, deceit. That takes a lot of intelligence. Rabbits, all they have to do is run. So that's the first criterion, stereo eyesight of some sort. Second is the thumb. The opposable thumb of some sort could be a claw or tentacle, so hand-eye coordination. Hand-eye coordination is the way we manipulate the environment. And then three, language. Because, you know, Mama Bear never tells Baby Bear to avoid the human hunter. Bears just learn by themselves. They never hand out information from one generation to the next. So these are the three basic ingredients of intelligence. Eyesight of some sort, an opposable thumb or tentacle or claw of some sort, and language. Now ask yourself a simple question. How many animals have all three? Just us. It's just us. I mean, the primates, they have a language. Yeah, they may get up to maybe 20 words, but a baby learns a word a day, several words a day a baby learns. And a typical adult knows about almost 5,000 words, while the maximum number of words that you can teach a gorilla in any language, including their own language, is about 20 or so. And so we see the difference in intelligence. So when we meet aliens from outer space, chances are they will have been descended from some predators of some sort. They'll have some way to manipulate the environment and communicate their knowledge to the next generation. That's it, folks. So functionally, that would be similar. We would be able to recognize them. Well, not necessarily, because I think even with homo sapiens, we are eventually going to perhaps become part cybernetic and genetically enhanced. Already, robots are getting smarter and smarter. Right now, robots have the intelligence of a cockroach. But in the coming years, our robots will be as smart as a mouse, then maybe as smart as a rabbit. If we're lucky, maybe as smart as a cat or a dog. And by the end of the century, who knows for sure, our robots will be probably as smart as a monkey. Now, at that point, of course, they could be dangerous. You see, monkeys are self-aware. They know they are monkeys. They may have a different agenda than us. While dogs, dogs are confused. You see, dogs think that we are a dog, that we're the top dog. They're the underdog. They're the underdog. That's why they whimper and follow us and lick us all the time. We're the top dog. Monkeys have no illusion at all. They know we are not monkeys. And so I think that in the future, we'll have to put a chip in their brain to shut them off once our robots have murderous thoughts. But that's in 100 years. In 200 years, the robots will be smart enough to remove that fail-safe chip in their brain and then watch out. At that point, I think rather than compete with our robots, we should merge with them. We should become part cybernetic. So I think when we meet alien life from outer space, they may be genetically and cybernetically enhanced. Genetically and cybernetically enhanced. Wow. So let's talk about that full range in the near term and 200 years from now. How promising in the near term, in your view, is brain-machine interfaces? So starting to allow computers to talk directly to the brains, Elon Musk is working on that with Neuralink, and there's other companies working on this idea. Do you see promise there? Do you see hope for near-term impact? Well, every technology has pluses and minuses. Already, we can record memories. I have a book, The Future of the Mind, where I detail some of these breakthroughs. We can now record simple memories of mice and send these memories on the internet. Eventually, we're going to do this with primates at Wake Forest University and also in Los Angeles. And then after that, we'll have a memory chip for Alzheimer's patients. We'll test it out in Alzheimer's patients because, of course, when Alzheimer's patients lose their memory, they wander. They create all sorts of havoc, wandering around, oblivious to their surroundings, and they'll have a chip. They'll push the button and memories, memories will come flooding into their hippocampus and the chip, telling them where they live and who they are. And so a memory chip is definitely in the cards. And I think this will eventually affect human civilization. What is the future of the internet? The future of the internet is brain net. Brain net is when we send emotions, feelings, sensations on the internet, and we will telepathically communicate with other humans this way. This is going to affect everything. Look at entertainment. Remember the silent movies? Charlie Chaplin was very famous during the era of silent movies. But when the talkies came in, nobody wanted to see Charlie Chaplin anymore because he never talked in the movies. And so a whole generation of actors lost their job, and a new series of actors came in. Next, we're going to have the movies replaced by brain net, because in the future, people will say, who wants to see a screen with images? That's it. Sound and image, that's called the movies. Our entertainment industry, this multi-billion dollar industry, is based on screens with moving images and sound. But what happens when emotions, feelings, sensations, memories can be conveyed on the internet? It's going to change everything. Human relations will change because you'll be able to empathize and feel the suffering of other people. We'll be able to communicate telepathically. And this is coming. You described brain net in Future of the Mind. This is an interesting concept. Do you think, you mentioned entertainment, but what kind of effect would it have on our personal relationships? Hopefully, it will deepen it. You realize that for most of human history, for over 90 years, 90% of human history, we only knew maybe 20, 100 people. That's it, folks. That was your tribe. Everybody you knew in the universe was only maybe 50 or 100. With the coming of towns, of course, it expanded to a few thousand. With the coming of the telephone, all of a sudden, you could reach thousands of people with a telephone. And now with the internet, you can reach the entire population of the planet Earth. And so I think this is a normal progression. And you think that kind of sort of connection to the rest of the world, and then adding sensations like being able to share telepathically emotions and so on, that would just further deepen our connection to our fellow humans? That's right. In fact, I disagree with many scientists on this question. Most scientists say that technology is neutral, a double-edged sword. One side of the sword can cut against people. The other side of the sword can cut against ignorance and disease. I disagree. I think technology does have a moral direction. Look at the internet. The internet spreads knowledge, awareness, and that creates empowerment. People act on knowledge. When they begin to realize that they don't have to live that way, they don't have to suffer under a dictatorship, that there are other ways of living under freedom, then they begin to take things, take power. And that spreads democracy. And democracies do not war with other democracies. I'm a scientist. I believe in data. So let's take a sheet of paper and write down every single war you had to learn since you were in elementary school. Every single war, hundreds of them, kings, queens, emperors, dictators. All these wars were between kings, queens, emperors, and dictators. Never between two major democracies. And so I think with the spread of this technology, and which would accelerate with the coming of brain net, it means that, well, we will still have wars. Wars, of course, is politics by other means, but they'll be less intense and less frequent. Do you have worries of longer term existential risk from technology, from AI? So I think that's a wonderful vision of a future where war is a distant memory. But now there's another agent. There's somebody else that's able to create conflict, that's able to create harm, AI systems. Do you have worry about such AI systems? Well, yes, that is an existential risk. But again, I think an existential risk not for this century. I think our grandkids are going to have to confront this question as robots gradually approach the intelligence of a dog, a cat, and finally that of a monkey. However, I think we will digitize ourselves as well. Not only are we going to merge with our technology, we'll also digitize our personality, our memories, our feelings. You realize that during the Middle Ages, there was something called dualism. Dualism meant that the soul was separate from the body. When the body died, the soul went to heaven. That's dualism. Then in the 20th century, neuroscience came in and said bah, humbug. Every time we look at the brain, it's just neurons. That's it, folks. Period. End of story. Bunch of neurons firing. Now we're going back to dualism. Now we realize that we can digitize human memories, feelings, sensations, and create a digital copy of ourselves. And that's called the Connectome Project. Billions of dollars are now being spent to do not just the genome project of sequencing the genes of our body, but the Connectome Project, which is to map the entire connections of the human brain. And even before then, already in Silicon Valley, today, at this very moment, you can contact Silicon Valley companies that are willing to digitize your relatives. Because some people want to talk to their parents. There are unresolved issues with their parents. And one day, yes, firms will digitize people and you'll be able to talk to them a reasonable facsimile. We leave a digital trail. Our ancestors did not. Our ancestors were lucky if they had one line, just one line in a church book saying the date they were baptized and the date they died. That's it. That was their entire digital memory. I mean, their entire digital existence summarized in just a few letters of the alphabet, a whole life. Now we digitize everything. Every time you sneeze, you digitize it. You put it on the internet. And so I think that we are going to digitize ourselves and give us digital immortality. We'll not only have biologic genetic immortality of some sort, but also digital immortality. And what are we going to do with it? I think we should send it into outer space. If you digitize the human brain and put it on a laser beam and shoot it to the moon, you're on the moon in one second. Shoot it to Mars, you're on Mars in 20 minutes. Shoot it to Pluto, you're on Pluto in eight hours. Think about it for a moment. You can have breakfast in New York and for a morning snack, vacation on the moon, then zap your way to Mars by noontime, journey to the asteroid belt in the afternoon, and then come back for dinner in New York at night. All in a day's work at the speed of light. Now this means that you don't need booster rockets, you don't need weightlessness problems, you don't need to worry about meteorites. And what's on the moon? On the moon, there is a mainframe that downloads your laser beam's information. And where does it download the information into? An avatar. And what does that avatar look like? Anything you want. Think about it for a moment. You could be Superman, Superwoman on the moon, on Mars, traveling throughout the universe at the speed of light, downloading your personality into any vehicle you want. Now let me stick my neck out. So far, everything I've been saying is well within the laws of physics. Well within the laws of physics. Now let me go outside the laws of physics again. Here we go. I think this already exists. I think outside the earth, there could be a superhighway, a laser highway, of laser porting with billions of souls of aliens zapping their way across the galaxy. Now let me ask you a question. Are we smart enough to determine whether such a thing exists or not? No. This could exist right outside the orbit of the planet earth. And we're too stupid in our technology to even prove it or disprove it. We would need the aliens on this laser superhighway to help us out, to send us a a human interpretable signal. I mean it ultimately boils down to the language of communication, but that's an exciting possibility that actually the sky is filled with aliens. The aliens could already be here and we're just so oblivious that we're too stupid to know it. See, they don't have to be in alien form with little green men. They can be in any form they want, in an avatar of their creation. Oh, in fact, they could very well be. They could even look like us. Exactly. We'd never know. One of us could be an alien. You know, in the zoo, did you know that we sometimes have zookeepers that imitate animals? We create a fake animal and we put it in so that the animal is not afraid of this fake animal. And of course, these animals' brains, their brain is about as big as a walnut, they accept these dummies as if they were real. So an alien civilization in outer space would say, oh yeah, human brains are so tiny, we could put a dummy on their world, an avatar, and they'd never know it. That would be an entertaining thing to watch from the alien perspective. So you kind of implied that with a digital form of our being, but also biologically. Do you think one day technology will allow individual human beings to become immortal besides just through the ability to digitize our essence? Yeah, I think that artificial intelligence will give us the key to genetic immortality. You see, in the coming decades, everyone's going to have their gene sequence. We'll have billions of genomes of old people, billions of genomes of young people. And what are we going to do with it? We're going to run it through an AI machine, which has pattern recognition, to look for the age genes. In other words, the fountain of youth that emperors, kings, and queens lusted over, the fountain of youth will be found by artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence will identify where these age genes are located. First of all, what is aging? We now know what aging is. Aging is the buildup of errors. That's all aging is, the buildup of genetic errors. This means that cells eventually become slower, sluggish, they go into senescence, and they die. In fact, that's why we die. We die because of the buildup of mistakes in our genome, in our cellular activity. But you see, in the future, we'll be able to fix those genes with CRISPR-type technologies, and perhaps even live forever. So let me ask you a question. Where does aging take place in a car? Given a car, where does aging take place? Well, it's obvious, the engine, right? A, that's where you have a lot of moving parts. B, that's where you have combustion. Well, where in the cell do we have combustion? The mitochondria. We now know where aging takes place. And if we cure many of the mistakes that build up in the mitochondria of the cell, we could become immortal. Let me ask you, if you yourself could become immortal, would you? Damn straight. No, I think about it for a while, because of course, it depends on how you become immortal. You know, there's a famous myth of Tithonus. It turns out that years ago, in the Greeks' mythology, there was the saga of Tithonus and Aurora. Aurora was the goddess of the dawn, and she fell in love with a mortal, a human called Tithonus. And so Aurora begged Zeus to grant her the gift of immortality to give to her lover. So Zeus took pity on Aurora and made Tithonus immortal. But you see, Aurora made a mistake, a huge mistake. She asked for immortality, but she forgot to ask for eternal youth. So poor Tithonus got older and older and older every year, decrepit, a bag of bones, but he could never die, never die. Quality of life is important. So I think immortality is a great idea, as long as you also have immortal youth as well. Now I personally believe, and I cannot prove this, but I personally believe that our grandkids may have the option of reaching the age of 30 and then stopping. They may like being age 30, because you have wisdom, you have all the benefits of age and maturity, and you still live forever with a healthy body. Our descendants may like being 30 for several centuries. Is there an aspect of human existence that is meaningful only because we're mortal? Well, every waking moment, we don't think about it this way, but every waking moment, actually, we are aware of our death and our mortality. Think about it for a moment. When you go to college, you realize that you are in a period of time where soon you will reach middle age and have a career. And after that, you'll retire and then you'll die. And so even as a youth, even as a child, without even thinking about it, you are aware of your own death, because it sets limits to your lifespan. I got to graduate from high school. I got to graduate from college. Why? Because you're going to die. Because unless you graduate from high school, unless you graduate from college, you're not going to enter old age with enough money to retire and then die. And so, yeah, people think about it unconsciously, because it affects every aspect of your being. The fact that you go to high school, college, get married, have kids, there's a clock, a clock ticking even without your permission. It gives a sense of urgency. Do you yourself, I mean, there's so much excitement and passion in the way you talk about physics and the way you talk about technology in the future. Do you yourself meditate on your own mortality? Do you think about this clock that's ticking? Well, I try not to, because it then begins to affect your behavior. You begin to alter your behavior to match your expectation of when you're going to die. So let's talk about youth, and then let's talk about death. When I interview scientists on radio, I often ask them, what made the difference? How old were you? What changed your life? And they always say more or less the same thing. These are Nobel Prize winners, directors of major laboratories, very distinguished scientists. They always say, when I was 10, when I was 10, something happened. It was a visit to the planetarium. It was a telescope for Steven Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize. It was the chemistry kit. For Heinz Pagels, it was a visit to the planetarium. For Isidore Rabi, it was a book about the planets. For Albert Einstein, it was a compass. Something happened, which gives them this existential shock. Because you see, before the age of 10, everything is mommy and daddy, mommy and dad. That's your universe, mommy and daddy. Around the age of 10, you begin to wonder, what's beyond mommy and daddy? And that's when you have this epiphany, when you realize, oh my God, there's a universe out there, a universe of discovery. And that sensation stays with you for the rest of your life. You still remember that shock that you felt, gazing at the universe. And then you hit the greatest destroyer of scientists known to science. The greatest destroyer of scientists known to science is junior high school. When you hit junior high school, folks, it's all over. It's all over. Because in junior high school, people say, you're going to be a scientist. You're going to be a scientist. You're going to be a scientist. And in high school, people say, hey, stupid. I mean, you like that nerdy stuff, and your friends shun you. All of a sudden, people think you're a weirdo. And science is made boring. You know, Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winner, when he was a child, his father would take him into the forest. And the father would teach him everything about birds. Why they're shaped the way they are, their wings, the coloration, the shape of their beak, everything about birds. So one day, a bully comes up to the future Nobel Prize winner and says, hey, Dick, what's the name of that bird over there? Well, he didn't know. He knew everything about that bird except its name. So he said, I don't know. And then the bully said, what's the matter, Dick? You stupid or something? And then in that instant, he got it. He got it. He realized that for most people, science is giving names to birds. That's what science is. You know, lots of names of obscure things. Hey, people say, you're smart. You're smart. You know all the names of the dinosaurs. You know all the names of the plants. No, that's not science at all. Science is about principles, concepts, physical pictures. That's what science is all about. My favorite quote from Einstein is that, unless you can explain the theory to a child, the theory is probably worthless. Meaning that all great theories are not big words. All great theories are simple concepts, principles, basic physical pictures. Relativity is all about clocks, meter sticks, rocket ships, and locomotives. Newton's laws of gravity are all about balls and spinning wheels and things like that. That's what physics and science is all about, not memorizing things. And that stays with you for the rest of your life. So even in old age, I've noticed that these scientists, when they sit back, they still remember. They still remember that flush, that flush of excitement they felt with that first telescope, that first moment when they encountered the universe. That keeps them going. That keeps them going. By the way, I should point out that when I was eight, something happened to me as well. When I was eight years old, it was in all the papers that a great scientist had just died, and they put a picture of his desk on the front page. That's it. Just a simple picture of the front page of the newspapers of his desk. That desk had a book on it, which was opened. And the caption said, more or less, this is the unfinished manuscript from the greatest scientists of our time. So I said to myself, well, why couldn't he finish it? What's so hard that you can't finish it if you're a great scientist? It's a homework problem, right? You go home, you solve it, or you ask your mom, why couldn't he solve it? So to me, this was a murder mystery. This was greater than any adventure story. I had to know why the greatest scientist of our time couldn't finish something. And then over the years, I found out the guy had a name, Albert Einstein, and that book was the theory of everything. It was unfinished. Well, today I can read that book. I can see all the dead ends and false starts that he made, and I began to realize that he lost his way because he didn't have a physical picture to guide him on the third try. On the first try, he talked about clocks and lightning bolts and meter sticks, and that gave us special relativity, which gave us the atomic bomb. The second great picture was gravity, with balls rolling on curved surfaces, and that gave us the Big Bang, creation of the universe, black holes. On the third try, he missed it. He had no picture at all to guide him. In fact, there's a quote I have where he said, I'm still looking. I'm still looking for that picture. He never found it. Well, today we think that picture is string theory. The string theory can unify gravity and this mysterious thing that Einstein didn't like, which is quantum mechanics, or couldn't couldn't quite pin down and make sense of. That's true. That's true. Couldn't quite pin down and make sense of. That's right. Mother Nature has two hands, a left hand and a right hand. The left hand is a theory of the small. The right hand is a theory of the big. The theory of the small is the quantum theory, the theory of atoms and quarks. The theory of the big is relativity, the theory of black holes, big bangs. The problem is the left hand does not talk to the right hand. They hate each other. The left hand is based on discrete particles. The right hand is based on smooth surfaces. How do you put these two things together into a single theory? They hate each other. The greatest minds of our time, the greatest minds of our time worked on this problem and failed. Today, the only one, the only theory that has survived every challenge so far is string theory. That doesn't mean string theory is correct. It could very well be wrong. But right now, it's the only game in town. Some people come up to me and say, Professor, I don't believe in string theory. Give me an alternative. And I tell them there is none. Get used to it. It's the best theory we got. It's the only theory we have. It's the only theory you have. Do you see the strings kind of inspire a view, as did atoms and particles and quarks, but especially strings inspire a view of the universe as a kind of information processing system, as a computer of sorts. Do you see the universe in this way? No. Some people think, in fact, the whole universe is a computer of some sort. Yes. And they believe that perhaps everything, therefore, is a simulation. Yes. I don't think so. I don't think that there is a super video game where we are nothing but puppets dancing on the screen and somebody hit the play button and here we are talking about simulations. Yeah. Now, even Newtonian mechanics says that the weather, the simple weather, is so complicated with trillions upon trillions of atoms that it cannot be simulated in a finite amount of time. In other words, the smallest object which can describe the weather and simulate the weather is the weather itself. The smallest object that can simulate a human is the human itself. And if you had quantum mechanics, it becomes almost impossible to simulate it with a conventional computer. Because quantum mechanics deals with all possible universes, parallel universes, a multiverse of universes. And so the calculation just spirals out of control. Now, so far, there's only one way where you might be able to argue that the universe is a simulation. And this is still being debated by quantum physicists. It turns out that if you throw the encyclopedia into a black hole, the information is not lost. Eventually, it winds up on the surface of the black hole. Now, the surface of the black hole is finite. In fact, you can calculate the maximum amount of information you can store in a black hole. It's a finite number. It's a calculable number, believe it or not. Now, if the universe were made out of black holes, which is the maximum universe you can conceive of, each universe, each black hole, has a finite number. Each universe, each black hole has a finite amount of information. Therefore, ergo, the total amount of information in a universe is finite. This is mind-boggling. This I consider mind-boggling, that all possible universes are countable. And all possible universes can be summarized in a number, a number you can write on a sheet of paper, all possible universes. And it's a finite number. Now, it's huge. It's a number beyond human imagination. It's a number based on what is called a Planck length. But it's a number. And so, if a computer could ever simulate that number, then the universe would be a simulation. So theoretically, because the amount of information is finite, there necessarily must be able to exist a computer. It's just, from an engineering perspective, maybe impossible to build. Yes, no computer can build a universe capable of simulating the entire universe, except the universe itself. So that's your intuition, that our universe is very efficient. And so, there's no shortcuts. Right. Two reasons why I believe the universe is not a simulation. First, the calculational numbers are just incredible. No finite Turing machine can simulate the universe. And second, why would any super intelligent being simulate humans? If you think about it, most humans are kind of stupid. I mean, we do all sorts of crazy, stupid things, right? And we call it art. We call it humor. We call it human civilization. So why should an advanced civilization go through all that effort just to simulate a Saturday night live? Well, that's a funny idea. But it's also, do you think it's possible that the act of creation cannot anticipate humans? You simply set the initial conditions and set a bunch of physical laws and just for the fun of it, see what happens. You'll launch the thing. So you're not necessarily simulating everything. You're not simulating every little bit in the sense that you could predict what's going to happen, but you set the initial conditions, set the laws and see what kind of fun stuff happens. Well, in some sense, that's how life got started. In the 1950s, Stanley did what is called the Miller experiment. He put a bunch of hydrogen gas, methane, toxic gases with liquid and a spark in a small glass beaker. And then he just walked away for a few weeks, came back a few weeks later and bingo, out of nothing in chaos came amino acids. If he had left it there for a few years, he might've gotten protein, protein molecules for free. That's probably how life got started as a accident. And if he had left it there for perhaps a few million years, DNA might have formed in that beaker. And so we think that, yeah, DNA, life, all that could have been an accident if you wait long enough. And remember, our universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old. That's plenty of time for lots of random things to happen, including life itself. Ah, yeah, we could be just a beautiful little random moment. And there's could be an infinite number of those in throughout the history of the universe. Many, many creatures like us, we perhaps are not the epitome of what the universe is created for. Thank God. Let's hope not. Just look around. Yeah. Look to your left, look to your right. When do you think the first human will step foot on Mars? I think there's a good chance in the 2030s that we will be on Mars. In fact, there's no physics reason why we can't do it. It's an engineering problem. It's a very difficult and dangerous engineering problem, but it is an engineering problem. And in my book, Future of Humanity, I even speculate beyond that, that by the end of the century, we'll probably have the first starships. The first starships will not look like the Enterprise at all. There'll probably be small computer chips that are fired by laser beams with parachutes. And like what Stephen Hawking advocated, the breakthrough Starshot program could send chips, chips to the nearby stars, traveling at 20% the speed of light, reaching Alpha Centauri in about 20 years' time. Beyond that, we should have fusion power. Fusion power is in some sense one of the ultimate sources of energy, but it's unstable. And we don't have fusion power today. Now, why is that? First of all, stars form almost for free. You get a bunch of gas large enough, it becomes a star. I mean, you don't even have to do anything to it, and it becomes a star. Why is fusion so difficult to put on the Earth? Because in outer space, stars are monopoles. They are poles, single poles that are spherically symmetric. And it's very easy to get spherically symmetric configurations of gas to compress into a star. It just happens naturally all by itself. The problem is magnetism is bipolar. You have a North Pole and a South Pole. And it's like trying to squeeze a long balloon. Take a long balloon and try to squeeze it. You squeeze one side, it bulges out the other side. Well, that's the problem with fusion machines. We use magnetism with the North Pole and the South Pole to squeeze gas. And all sorts of anomalies and horrible configurations can take place because we're not squeezing something uniformly like in a star. Stars in some sense are for free. Fusion on the Earth is very difficult. But I think it's inevitable. And it'll eventually give us unlimited power from seawater. So seawater will be the ultimate source of energy for the planet Earth. Why? What's the intuition there? Because we'll extract hydrogen from seawater, burn hydrogen in a fusion reactor to give us unlimited energy without the meltdown, without the nuclear waste. Why do we have meltdowns? We have meltdowns because in the fission reactors, every time you split the uranium atom, you get nuclear waste, tons of it, 30 tons of nuclear waste per reactor per year. And it's hot. It's hot for thousands, millions of years. That's why we have meltdowns. But you see, the waste product of a fusion reactor is helium gas. Helium gas is actually commercially valuable. You can make money selling helium gas. And so the waste product of a fusion reactor is helium, not nuclear waste that we find in a commercial fission plant. And that controlling, mastering and controlling fusion allows us to converse us into a type one, I guess, civilization, right? Yeah, probably the backbone of a type one civilization will be fusion power. We, by the way, are type zero. We don't even rate on this scale. We get our energy from dead plants, for God's sake, oil and coal. But we are about 100 years from being type one. You know, get a calculator. In fact, Carl Sagan calculated that we are about point seven, fairly close to a one point zero. For example, what is the Internet? The Internet is the beginning of the first type one technology to enter into our century. The first planetary technology is the Internet. What is the language of type one? On the Internet already, English and Mandarin Chinese are the most dominant languages on the Internet. And what about the culture? We're seeing a type one sports, soccer, the Olympics, a type one music, youth culture, rock and roll, rap music, type one fashion, Gucci, Chanel, a type one economy, the European Union, NAFTA, what have you. So we're beginning to see the beginnings of a type one culture and a type one civilization. And inevitably it will spread beyond this planet. You talked about sending at 20% the speed of light on a chip into Alpha Centauri. But in a slightly nearer term, what do you think about the idea when we still have to send our biological bodies, the colonization of planets, colonization of Mars, do you see us becoming a two planet species ever or anytime soon? Well, just remember the dinosaurs did not have a space program. And that's why they're not here today. How come there are no dinosaurs in this room today? Because they didn't have a space program. We do have a space program, which means that we have an insurance policy. Now, I don't think we should bankrupt the earth or deplete the earth to go to Mars. That's too expensive and not practical. But we need a settlement, a settlement on Mars in case something bad happens to the planet earth. And that means we have to terraform Mars. Now, to terraform Mars, if we could raise the temperature of Mars by six degrees, six degrees, then the polar ice caps begin to melt, releasing water vapor. Water vapor is the greenhouse gas. It causes even more melting of the ice caps. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It feeds on itself. It becomes autocatalytic. And so once you hit six degrees, rising of the temperature on Mars by six degrees, it takes off. And we melt the polar ice caps and liquid water once again flows in the rivers, the canals, the channels and the oceans of Mars. Mars once had an ocean, we think, about the size of the United States. And so that is a possibility. Now, how do we get there? How do we raise the temperature of Mars by six degrees? Elon Musk would like to detonate hydrogen warheads on the polar ice caps. Well, I'm not sure about that because we don't know that much about the effects of detonating hydrogen warheads to melt the polar ice caps. And who wants to glow in the dark at night reading the newspaper? So I think there are other ways to do it with solar satellites. You can have satellites orbiting Mars that beam sunlight onto the polar ice caps, melting the polar ice caps. Mars has plenty of water. It's just frozen. I think you paint an inspiring and a wonderful picture of the future. I think you've inspired and educated thousands if not millions. Michio, it's been an honor. Thank you so much for talking today. My pleasure.

https://youtu.be/kD5yc1LQrpQ

ZJoccjJ5KYw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Favorite Boris Pasternak Poem of Buvaisar Saitiev | Joe Rogan Experience

Buvaisar Saitiev would read Boris Barstynak, which is a famous Russian poet, won the Nobel Prize before every match, and he kind of captures that ethic. So this is the poem. I'll say it in Russian. Okay. And then in English. Please. Okay. Другие по живому следу пройдут твой путь опять и опять, но поражение от победы ты сам не должен отличать. И должен не единой долькой не отпуститься от лица, но быть живым, живым и только, живым и только до конца. I know there's a bunch of Russian people that would appreciate that. The translation a bit crappy. It's very difficult to translate the Russian language, but it's the others step by step will follow the living imprint of your feet. But you yourself must not distinguish your victory from your defeat. And never for a single moment, betray your credo or pretend, but be alive. Only this matters, alive and burning to the end. So this is the end of a poem that represents the fact that fame, that most of the poem says that fame, recognition, money, none of that matters. The winning and losing, none of that matters. What matters is the purity of the art, just giving yourself completely over to the art. So like others will write your story, others will tell whether you did good or bad, others will inspire using your story. But as the artist, so in the case of Pasternak, he's a poet, writer, wrote Dr. Zhivago, is the art, you should only think about the art and the purity of it and the love of it. Copyright © 2020, New Thinking Allowed Foundation

https://youtu.be/ZJoccjJ5KYw

aGBLRlLe7X8

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Oriol Vinyals: Deep Learning and Artificial General Intelligence | Lex Fridman Podcast #306

at which point is the neural network a being versus a tool? The following is a conversation with Aureal Vinales, his second time in the podcast. Aureal is the research director and deep learning lead at DeepMind and one of the most brilliant thinkers and researchers in the history of artificial intelligence. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Aureal Vinales. You are one of the most brilliant researchers in the history of AI, working across all kinds of modalities. Probably the one common theme is it's always sequences of data. So we're talking about languages, images, even biology and games as we talked about last time. So you're a good person to ask this. In your lifetime, will we be able to build an AI system that's able to replace me as the interviewer in this conversation in terms of ability to ask questions that are compelling to somebody listening? And then further question is, are we close, will we be able to build a system that replaces you as the interviewee in order to create a compelling conversation? How far away are we, do you think? It's a good question. I think partly I would say, do we want that? I really like when we start now with very powerful models, interacting with them and thinking of them more closer to us. The question is, if you remove the human side of the conversation, is that an interesting, is that an interesting artifact? And I would say probably not. I've seen, for instance, last time we spoke, like we were talking about StarCraft and creating agents that play games involves self-play, but ultimately what people care about was, how does this agent behave when the opposite side is a human? So without a doubt, we will probably be more empowered by AI, maybe you can source some questions from an AI system. I mean, that even today, I would say it's quite plausible that with your creativity, you might actually find very interesting questions that you can filter. We call this cherry picking sometimes in the field of language. And likewise, if I had now the tools on my side, I could say, look, you're asking this interesting question. From this answer, I like the words chosen by this particular system that created a few words. Completely replacing it feels not exactly exciting to me. Although in my lifetime, I think way, I mean, given the trajectory, I think it's possible that perhaps there could be interesting, maybe self-play interviews as you're suggesting that would look or sound quite interesting and probably would educate or you could learn a topic through listening to one of these interviews at a basic level, at least. So you said it doesn't seem exciting to you, but what if exciting is part of the objective function the thing is optimized over? So there's probably a huge amount of data of humans, if you look correctly, of humans communicating online, and there's probably ways to measure the degree of, you know, as they talk about engagement. So you can probably optimize the question that's most created an engaging conversation in the past. So actually, if you strictly use the word exciting, there is probably a way to create a optimally exciting conversations that involve AI systems. At least one side is AI. Yeah, that makes sense, I think maybe looping back a bit to games and the game industry, when you design algorithms, you're thinking about winning as the objective, right? Or the reward function. But in fact, when we discussed this with Blizzard, the creators of StarCraft in this case, I think what's exciting, fun, if you could measure that and optimize for that, that's probably why we play video games or why we interact or listen or look at cat videos or whatever on the internet. So it's true that modeling reward beyond the obvious reward functions we've used to in reinforcement learning is definitely very exciting. And again, there is some progress actually into a particular aspect of AI, which is quite critical, which is, for instance, is a conversation or is the information truthful, right? So you could start trying to evaluate these from, except from the internet, right? That has lots of information. And then if you can learn a function automated ideally, so you can also optimize it more easily, then you could actually have conversations that optimize for non-obvious things such as excitement. So yeah, that's quite possible. And then I would say in that case, it would definitely be fun exercise and quite unique to have at least one side that is fully driven by an excitement reward function. But obviously there would be still quite a lot of humanity in the system, both from who is building the system, of course, and also ultimately, if we think of labeling for excitement, that those labels must come from us because it's just hard to have a computational measure of excitement as far as I understand, there's no such thing. Well, as you mentioned truth also, I would actually venture to say that excitement is easier to label than truth, or is perhaps has lower consequences of failure. But there is perhaps the humanness that you mentioned, that's perhaps part of a thing that could be labeled. And that could mean an AI system that's doing dialogue, that's doing conversations should be flawed, for example. Like that's the thing you optimize for, which is have inherent contradictions by design, have flaws by design. Maybe it also needs to have a strong sense of identity. So it has a backstory it told itself that it sticks to, it has memories, not in terms of how the system is designed, but it's able to tell stories about its past. It's able to have mortality and fear of mortality in the following way that it has an identity and if it says something stupid and gets canceled on Twitter, that's the end of that system. So it's not like you get to rebrand yourself, that system is, that's it. So maybe the high stakes nature of it, because you can't say anything stupid now, or because you'd be canceled on Twitter, and that there's stakes to that. And that I think part of the reason that makes it interesting. And then you have a perspective like you've built up over time that you stick with, and then people can disagree with you. So holding that perspective strongly, holding sort of maybe a controversial, at least a strong opinion, all of those elements, it feels like they can be learned because it feels like there's a lot of data on the internet of people having an opinion. And then combine that with a metric of excitement, you can start to create something that, as opposed to trying to optimize for sort of grammatical clarity and truthfulness, the factual consistency over many sentences, you optimize for the humanness. And there's obviously data for humanness on the internet. So I wonder if there's a future where that's part, I mean, I sometimes wonder that about myself, I'm a huge fan of podcasts, and I listen to some podcasts, and I think like, what is interesting about this? What is compelling? The same way you watch other games, like you said, watch, play StarCraft, or have Magnus Carlsen play chess. So I'm not a chess player, but it's still interesting to me, and what is that? That's the stakes of it, maybe the end of a domination of a series of wins. I don't know, there's all those elements somehow connect to a compelling conversation, and I wonder how hard is that to replace? Because ultimately, all of that connects to the initial proposition of how to test whether an AI is intelligent or not with the Turing test, which I guess, my question comes from a place of the spirit of that test. Yes, I actually recall, I was just listening to our first podcast where we discussed Turing test. So I would say from a neural network, AI builder perspective, there's, usually you try to map many of these interesting topics you discuss to benchmarks, and then also to actual architectures on how these systems are currently built, how they learn, what data they learn from, what are they learning, right? We're talking about weights of a mathematical function, and then looking at the current state of the game, maybe what do we need leaps forward to get to the ultimate stage of all these experiences, lifetime experience, fears, like words that currently barely we're seeing progress, just because what's happening today is you take all these human interactions, it's a large vast variety of human interactions online, and then you're distilling these sequences, right? Going back to my passion, like sequences of words, letters, images, sound, there's more modalities here to be at play, and then you're trying to just learn a function that will be happy, that maximizes the likelihood of seeing all these through a neural network. Now, I think there's a few places where the way currently we train these models would clearly like to be able to develop the kinds of capabilities you say. I'll tell you maybe a couple. One is the lifetime of an agent or a model. So you learn from this data offline, right? So you're just passively observing and maximizing this, it's almost like a landscape of mountains, and then everywhere there's data that humans interacted in this way, you're trying to make that higher, and then lower where there's no data. And then these models generally don't then experience themselves, they just are observers, right? They're passive observers of the data. And then we're putting them to then generate data when we interact with them, but that's very limiting. The experience they actually experience when they could maybe be optimizing or further optimizing the weights, we're not even doing that. So to be clear, and again, mapping to AlphaGo, AlphaStar, we train the model, and when we deploy it to play against humans, or in this case, interact with humans, like language models, they don't even keep training, right? They're not learning in the sense of the weights that you've learned from the data, they don't keep changing. Now, there's something a bit more, feels magical, but it's understandable if you're into neural net, which is, well, they might not learn in the strict sense of the words, the weights changing, maybe that's mapping to how neurons interconnect and how we learn over our lifetime. But it's true that the context of the conversation that takes place when you talk to these systems, it's held in their working memory, right? It's almost like you start a computer, it has a hard drive that has a lot of information, you have access to the internet, which has probably all the information, but there's also a working memory where these agents, as we call them, or start calling them, build upon. Now, this memory is very limited. I mean, right now, we're talking, to be concrete, about 2000 words that we hold, and then beyond that, we start forgetting what we've seen. So you can see that there's some short-term coherence already, right, with when you said, I mean, it's a very interesting topic, having sort of a mapping, an agent to have consistency, then if you say, oh, what's your name? It could remember that, but then it might forget beyond 2000 words, which is not that long of context, if we think even of these podcast books are much longer. So technically speaking, there's a limitation there, super exciting from people that work on deep learning to be working on, but I would say we lack maybe benchmarks and the technology to have this lifetime-like experience of memory that keeps building up. However, the way it learns offline is clearly very powerful, right? So you asked me three years ago, I would say, oh, we're very far. I think we've seen the power of this imitation again, or the internet scale that has enabled this to feel like at least the knowledge, the basic knowledge about the world now is incorporated into the weights, but then this experience is lacking. And in fact, as I said, we don't even train them when we're talking to them, other than their working memory, of course, is affected. So that's the dynamic part, but they don't learn in the same way that you and I have learned, right? When, from basically when we were born and probably before. So lots of fascinating, interesting questions you asked there. I think the one I mentioned is this idea of memory and experience versus just kind of observe the world and learn its knowledge, which I think for that, I would argue lots of recent advancements that make me very excited about the field. And then the second maybe issue that I see is all these models, we train them from scratch. That's something I would have complained three years ago or six years ago or 10 years ago. And it feels, if we take inspiration from how we got here, how the universe evolved us and we keep evolving, it feels that is a missing piece, that we should not be training models from scratch every few months, that there should be some sort of way in which we can grow models much like as a species and many other elements in the universe is building from the previous sort of iterations. And that from a just purely neural network perspective, even though we would like to make it work, it's proven very hard to not, you know, throw away the previous weights, right? This landscape we learned from the data and, you know, refresh it with a brand new set of weights, given maybe a recent snapshot of these data sets we trained on, et cetera, or even a new game we're learning. So that feels like something is missing fundamentally. We might find it, but it's not very clear how it will look like. There's many ideas and it's super exciting as well. That's just for people who don't know, when you're approaching new problem in machine learning, you're going to come up with an architecture that has a bunch of weights and then you initialize them somehow, which in most cases is some version of random. So that's what you mean by starting from scratch. And it seems like it's a waste every time you solve the game of Go and chess, StarCraft, protein folding, like surely there's some way to reuse the weights as we grow this giant database of neural networks that have solved some of the toughest problems in the world. And so some of that is, what is that? Methods, how to reuse weights, how to learn extract what's generalizable, or at least has a chance to be, and throw away the other stuff. And maybe the neural network itself should be able to tell you that. Like what, yeah, how do you, what ideas do you have for better initialization of weights? Maybe stepping back, if we look at the field of machine learning, but especially deep learning, right? At the core of deep learning, there's this beautiful idea that is a single algorithm can solve any task, right? So it's been proven over and over with more increasing set of benchmarks and things that were thought impossible that are being cracked by this basic principle. That is, you take a neural network of uninitialized weights, so like a blank computational brain, then you give it, in the case of supervised learning, a lot, ideally of examples of, hey, here is what the input looks like, and the desired output should look like this. I mean, image classification is very clear example, images to maybe one of a thousand categories, that's what ImageNet is like. But many, many, if not all problems can be mapped this way. And then there's a generic recipe, right, that you can use. And this recipe with very little change, and I think that's the core of deep learning research, right, that what is the recipe that is universal, that for any new given task, I'll be able to use without thinking, without having to work very hard on the problem at stake. We have not found this recipe, but I think the field is excited to find less tweaks or tricks that people find when they work on important problems specific to those, and more of a general algorithm, right? So at an algorithmic level, I would say, we have something general already, which is this formula of training a very powerful model, a neural network, on a lot of data. And in many cases, you need some specificity to the actual problem you're solving, protein folding being such an important problem, has some basic recipe that is learned from before, right? Like transformer models, graph neural networks, ideas coming from NLP, like, you know, something called BERT, that is a kind of loss that you can emplace to help the model. Knowledge distillation is another technique, right? So this is the formula. We still had to find some particular things that were specific to alpha fold, right? That's very important because protein folding is such a high value problem that as humans, we should solve it no matter if we need to be a bit specific. And it's possible that some of these learnings will apply then to the next iteration of this recipe that deep learners are about. But it is true that so far, the recipe is what's common, but the weights you generally throw away, which feels very sad. Although maybe in the last, especially in the last two, three years, and when we last spoke, I mentioned this area of meta-learning, which is the idea of learning to learn. That idea and some progress has been had, starting, I would say, mostly from GPT-3 on the language domain only, in which you could conceive a model that is trained once, and then this model is not narrow in that it only knows how to translate a pair of languages or a single word, or it only knows how to assign sentiment to a sentence. These actually, you could teach it by a prompting, it's called, and this prompting is essentially just showing it a few more examples, almost like you do show examples, input-output examples, algorithmically speaking, to the process of creating this model. But now you're doing it through language, which is very natural way for us to learn from one another. I tell you, hey, you should do this new task. I'll tell you a bit more. Maybe you ask me some questions, and now you know the task. You didn't need to retrain it from scratch. And we've seen these magical moments, almost, in this way to do few-shot prompting through language on language-only domain. And then in the last two years, we've seen this expanded to beyond language, adding vision, adding actions and games, lots of progress to be had. But this is maybe, if you ask me about how are we gonna crack this problem, this is perhaps one way in which you have a single model. The problem of this model is it's hard to grow in weights or capacity, but the model is certainly so powerful that you can teach it some tasks, right? In this way that I could teach you a new task now, if we were, oh, let's, a text-based task or a classification, a vision-style task. But it still feels like more breakthroughs should be had, but it's a great beginning, right? We have a good baseline. We have an idea that this maybe is the way we want to benchmark progress towards AGI. And I think in my view, that's critical to always have a way to benchmark the community sort of converging to this overall, which is good to see. And then this is actually what excites me in terms of also next steps for deep learning is how to make these models more powerful. How do you train them? How to grow them if they must grow? Should they change their weights as you teach it the task or not? There's some interesting questions, many to be answered. Yeah, you've opened the door to a bunch of questions I want to ask, but let's first return to your tweet and read it like a Shakespeare. You wrote, Gato is not the end, it's the beginning. And then you wrote, meow, and then an emoji of a cat. So first, two questions. First, can you explain the meow and the cat emoji? And second, can you explain what Gato is and how it works? Right, indeed. I mean, thanks for reminding me that we're all exposing on Twitter and- Permanently there. Yes, permanently there. One of the greatest AI researchers of all time, meow and cat emoji. Yes. There you go. Right, so- Can you imagine like touring, tweeting, meow and cat, probably he would, probably would. Probably. So yeah, the tweet is important, actually. You know, I put thought on the tweets. I hope people do as well. Which part did you think? Okay, so there's three sentences. Gato is not the end. Gato is the beginning. Meow, cat emoji. Okay, which is the important part? The meow, no, no. Definitely that it is the beginning. I mean, I probably was just explaining a bit where the field is going, but let me tell you about Gato. So first, the name Gato comes from maybe a sequence of releases that DeepMind had that named, like used animal names to name some of their models that are based on this idea of large sequence models. Initially, they're only language, but we are expanding to other modalities. So we had, you know, we had gopher, chinchilla, these were language only. And then more recently we released flamingo, which adds vision to the equation. And then Gato, which adds vision and then also actions in the mix, right? As we discuss actually actions, especially discrete actions like up, down, left, right. I just told you the actions, but they're words. So you can kind of see how actions naturally map to sequence modeling of words, which these models are very powerful. So Gato was named after, I believe, I can only from memory, right? These things always happen with an amazing team of researchers behind. So before the release, we had a discussion about which animal would we pick, right? And I think because of the word general agent, right? And this is a property quite unique to Gato. We kind of were playing with the GA words and then, you know, Gato- Rise of cat. Yes. Gato. And Gato is obviously a Spanish version of cat. I had nothing to do with it, although I'm from Spain. Oh, how do you, wait, sorry, how do you say cat in Spanish? Gato. Oh, Gato. Yeah. Okay, okay, I see, I see, I see. Now it all makes sense. Okay, so- How do you say meow in Spanish? No, that's probably the same. I think you say it the same way, but you write it as M-I-A-U. Okay, it's universal. Yeah. All right, so then how does the thing work? So you said general is, so you said language, vision- And action. Action. How does this, can you explain what kind of neural networks are involved? What does the training look like? And maybe what to you are some beautiful ideas within this system? Yeah, so maybe the basics of Gato are not that dissimilar from many, many work that comes. So here is where the sort of the recipe, I mean, hasn't changed too much. There is a transformer model that's the kind of recurrent neural network that essentially takes a sequence of modalities, observations that could be words, could be vision, or could be actions. And then its own objective that you're training to do when you train it is to predict what the next anything is. And anything means what's the next action. If this sequence that I'm showing you to train is a sequence of actions and observations, then you're predicting what's the next action and the next observation, right? So you think of these really as a sequence of bytes, right? So take any sequence of words, a sequence of interleaved words and images, a sequence of maybe observations that are images and moves in Atari up, down, left, right. And these, you just think of them as bytes and you're modeling what's the next byte gonna be like. And you might interpret that as an action and then play it in a game, or you could interpret it as a word and then write it down if you're chatting with the system and so on. So GATO basically can be thought as inputs, images, text, video, actions. It also actually inputs some sort of proprioception sensors from robotics because robotics is one of the tasks that it's been trained to do. And then at the output, similarly, it outputs words, actions. It does not output images. That's just by design, we decided not to go that way for now. That's also in part why it's the beginning because there's more to do clearly. But that's kind of what the GATO is. It's this brain that essentially you give it any sequence of these observations and modalities and it outputs the next step. And then off you go, you feed the next step into and predict the next one and so on. Now, it is more than a language model because even though you can chat with GATO, like you can chat with Chinchilla or Flamingo, it also is an agent, right? So that's why we call it A of GATO, like the letter A and also it's general. It's not an agent that's been trained to be good at only StarCraft or only Atari or only Go. It's been trained on a vast variety of data sets. What makes it an agent, if I may interrupt? The fact that it can generate actions? Yes, so when we call it, I mean, it's a good question, right? When do we call a model, I mean, everything is a model, but what is an agent in my view is indeed the capacity to take actions in an environment that you then send to it and then the environment might return with a new observation and then you generate the next action and so on. This actually, this reminds me of the question from the side of biology, what is life? Which is actually a very difficult question as well. What is living? What is living when you think about life here on this planet Earth? And a question interesting to me about aliens, what is life when we visit another planet? Would we be able to recognize it? And this feels like, it sounds perhaps silly, but I don't think it is. At which point is the neural network a being versus a tool? And it feels like action, ability to modify its environment, is that fundamental leap. Yeah, I think it certainly feels like action is a necessary condition to be more alive, but probably not sufficient either. So sadly, I- It's a whole consciousness thing, whatever. Yeah, yeah, we can get back to that later. But anyways, going back to the meow and the Gato, right? So one of the leaps forward, and what took the team a lot of effort and time was, as you were asking, how has Gato been trained? So I told you Gato is this transformer neural network, models actions, like sequences of actions, words, et cetera. And then the way we train it is by essentially pulling datasets of observations, right? So it's a massive imitation learning algorithm that it imitates obviously to what is the next word that comes next from the usual datasets we use before, right? So these are these web scale style datasets of people writing on webs or chatting or whatnot, right? So that's an obvious source that we use on all language work. But then we also took a lot of agents that we have at DeepMind. I mean, as you know, DeepMind, we're quite, we're quite interested in learning, reinforcement learning and learning agents that play in different environments. So we kind of created a dataset of these trajectories, as we call them, or agent experiences. So in a way, there are other agents we train for a single mind purpose to, let's say, control a 3D game environment and navigate a maze. So we had all the experience that was created through the one agent interacting with that environment. And we added this to the dataset, right? And as I said, we just see all the data, all these sequences of words or sequences of these agent interacting with that environment, or agents playing Atari and so on. We see this as the same kind of data. And so we mix these datasets together and we train Gato. That's the G part, right? It's general because it really has mixed, it doesn't have different brains for each modality or each narrow task. It has a single brain. It's not that big of a brain compared to most of the neural networks we see these days. It has 1 billion parameters. Some models we're seeing get in the trillions these days, and certainly 100 billion feels like a size that is very common from when you train these jobs. So the actual agent is relatively small, but it's been trained on a very challenging, diverse dataset, not only containing all of internet, but containing all these agent experience playing very different distinct environments. So this brings us to the part of the tweet of, this is not the end, it's the beginning. It feels very cool to see Gato in principle is able to control any sort of environments, that especially the ones that it's been trained to do, these 3D games, Atari games, all sorts of robotics tasks and so on. But obviously it's not as proficient as the teachers it learned from on these environments. It's not obvious. It's not obvious that it wouldn't be more proficient. It's just the current beginning part is that the performance is such that it's not as good as if it's specialized to that task. Right, so it's not as good, although I would argue size matters here. So the fact that- I would argue size always matters. Yeah, okay. That's a different conversation. Yes. But for neural networks, certainly size does matter. So it's the beginning because it's relatively small. So obviously scaling this idea up might make the connections that exist between text on the internet and playing Atari and so on more synergistic with one another. Yeah. And you might gain. And that moment we didn't quite see, but obviously that's why it's the beginning. That synergy might emerge with scale. Right, might emerge with scale. And also I believe there's some new research or ways in which you prepare the data that you might need to sort of make it more clear to the model that you're not only playing Atari and it's just, you start from a screen and here is up and a screen and down. Maybe you can think of playing Atari as there's some sort of context that is needed for the agent before it starts seeing, oh, this is an Atari screen, I'm gonna start playing. You might require, for instance, to be told in words, hey, in this sequence that I'm showing, you're gonna be playing an Atari game. So text might actually be a good driver to enhance the data, right? So then these connections might be made more easily, right? That's an idea that we start seeing in language, but obviously beyond this is gonna be effective, right? It's not like I don't show you a screen and you from scratch, you're supposed to learn a game. There is a lot of context we might set. So there might be some work needed as well to set that context, but anyways, there's a lot of work. Yeah. So that context puts all the different modalities on the same level ground. Exactly. If you provide the context best. So maybe on that point, so there's this task, which may not seem trivial, of tokenizing the data, of converting the data into pieces, into basic atomic elements that then could cross modalities somehow. So what's tokenization? How do you tokenize text? How do you tokenize images? How do you tokenize games and actions and robotics tasks? Yeah, that's a great question. So tokenization is the entry point to actually make all the data look like a sequence because tokens then are just kind of these little puzzle pieces. We break down anything into these puzzle pieces and then we just model what's this puzzle look like, right? When you make it, you know, lay down in a line, so to speak in a sequence. So in Gato, the text, there's a lot of work. You tokenize text usually by looking at commonly used substrings, right? So there's, you know, ing in English is a very common substring, so that becomes a token. There's quite well studied problem on tokenizing text and Gato just used the standard techniques that have been developed from many years, even starting from Ngram models in the 1950s and so on. Just for context, how many tokens, like what order, magnitude, number of tokens is required for a word? Yeah. What are we talking about? Yeah, for a word in English, right? I mean, every language is very different. The current level or granularity of tokenization generally means it's maybe two to five. I mean, I don't know the statistics exactly, but to give you an idea, we don't tokenize at the level of letters, then it would probably be like, I don't know what the average length of a word is in English but that would be, you know, the minimum set of tokens you could use. So it's bigger than letters, smaller than words. Yes, yes. And you could think of very, very common words like the, I mean, that would be a single token, but very quickly you're talking two, three, four, four tokens or so. Have you ever tried to tokenize emojis? Emojis are actually just sequences of letters, so. Maybe to you, but to me, they mean so much more. Yeah, you can render the emoji, but you might, if you actually just- Yeah, this is a philosophical question. Is emojis an image or a text? The way we do these things is they're actually mapped to small sequences of characters. So you can actually play with these models and input emojis, it will output emojis back, which is actually quite a fun exercise. You probably can find other tweets about this out there. But yeah, so anyways, text, it's very clear how this is done. And then in Gato, what we did for images is we map images to essentially, we compressed images, so to speak, into something that looks more like, less like every pixel with every intensity that would mean we have a very long sequence, right? Like if we were talking about 100 by 100 pixel images, that would make the sequences far too long. So what was done there is you just use a technique that essentially compresses an image into maybe 16 by 16 patches of pixels. And then that is mapped, again, tokenized. You just essentially quantize this space into a special word that actually maps to these little sequence of pixels. And then you put the pixels together in some raster order, and then that's how you get out or in the image that you're processing. But there's no semantic aspect to that. So you're doing some kind of, you don't need to understand anything about the image in order to tokenize it currently. No, you're only using this notion of compression. So you're trying to find common, it's like JPG or all these algorithms, it's actually very similar at the tokenization level. All we're doing is finding common patterns and then making sure in a lossy way, we compress these images, given the statistics of the images that are contained in all the data we deal with. Although you could probably argue that JPEG does have some understanding of images. Because visual information, maybe color, compressing crudely based on color does capture something important about an image that's about its meaning, not just about some statistics. Yeah, I mean, JP, as I said, the algorithms look actually very similar to, they use the cosine transforming JPG. The approach we usually do in machine learning when we deal with images and we do this quantization step is a bit more data-driven. So rather than have some sort of Fourier basis for how frequencies appear in the natural world, we actually just use the statistics of the images and then quantize them based on the statistics, much like you do in words, right? So common substrings are allocated a token and images is very similar, but there's no connection. The token space, if you think of, oh, like the tokens are an integer in the end of the day. So now like we work on, maybe we have about, let's say, I don't know the exact numbers, but let's say 10,000 tokens for text, right? Certainly more than characters because we have groups of characters and so on. So from one to 10,000, those are representing all the language and the words we'll see. And then images occupy the next set of integers. So they're completely independent, right? So from 10,001 to 20,000, those are the tokens that represent these other modality images. And that is an interesting aspect that makes it orthogonal. So what connects these concepts is the data, right? Once you have a data set, for instance, that captions images, that tells you, oh, this is someone playing a Frisbee on a green field. Now the model will need to predict the tokens from the text green field to then the pixels, and that will start making the connections between the tokens. So these connections happen as the algorithm learns. And then the last, if we think of these integers, the first few are words, the next few are images. In Gato, we also allocated the highest order of integers to actions, right? Which we discretize and actions are very diverse, right? In Atari, there's, I don't know if 17 discrete actions. In robotics, actions might be torques and forces that we apply. So we just use kind of similar ideas to compress these actions into tokens. And then we just, that's how we map now all the space to these sequence of integers. But they occupy different space and what connects them is then the learning algorithm. That's where the magic happens. So the modalities are orthogonal to each other in token space. Right, right. So in the input, everything you add, you add extra tokens. Right. And then you're shoving all of that into one place. Yes, the transformer. And that transformer, that transformer tries to look at this gigantic token space and tries to form some kind of representation, some kind of unique wisdom about all of these different modalities. How's that possible? If you were to sort of like put your psychoanalysis hat on and try to psychoanalyze this neural network, is it schizophrenic? Does it try to, given this very few weights, represent multiple disjoint things and somehow have them not interfere with each other? Or is it somehow building on the joint strength, on whatever is common to all the different modalities? If you were to ask a question, is it schizophrenic or is it of one mind? I mean, it is one mind. And it's actually the simplest algorithm, which that's kind of in a way how it feels like the field hasn't changed since backpropagation and gradient descent was purpose for learning neural networks. So there is obviously details on the architecture. This has evolved. The current iteration is still the transformer, which is a powerful sequence modeling architecture. But then the goal of this, you know, setting these weights to predict the data is essentially the same as basically I could describe. I mean, we described a few years ago, AlphaStar, language modeling, and so on, right? We take, let's say, an Atari game. We map it to a string of numbers that will all be probably image space and action space interleaved. And all we're gonna do is say, okay, given the numbers, you know, 10001, 10004, 10005, the next number that comes is 20006, which is in the action space. And you're just optimizing these weights via very simple gradients, like, you know, mathematical is almost the most boring algorithm you could imagine. We set all the weights so that given this particular instance, these weights are set to maximize the probability of having seen this particular sequence of integers for this particular game. And then the algorithm does this for many, many, many iterations, looking at different modalities, different games, right? That's the mixture of the dataset we discussed. So in a way, it's a very simple algorithm. And the weights, right, they're all shared, right? So in terms of, is it focusing on one modality or not, the intermediate weights that are converting from these input of integers to the target integer you're predicting next, those weights certainly are common. And then the way the tokenization happens, there is a special place in the neural network, which is we map this integer, like number 10001, to a vector of real numbers, like real numbers, we can optimize them with gradient descent, right? The functions we learn are actually surprisingly differentiable. That's why we compute gradients. So this step is the only one that this orthogonality you mentioned applies. So mapping a certain token for text or image or actions, these, each of these tokens gets its own little vector of real numbers that represents this. If you look at the field back many years ago, people were talking about word vectors or word embeddings. These are the same. We have word vectors or embeddings. We have image vector or embeddings and action vector of embeddings. And the beauty here is that as you train this model, if you visualize these little vectors it might be that they start aligning, even though they're independent parameters. There could be anything, but then it might be that you take the word gato or cat, which maybe is common enough that it actually has its own token. And then you take pixels that have a cat and you might start seeing that these vectors look like they align, right? So by learning from this vast amount of data, the model is realizing the potential connections between these modalities. Now I will say there will be another way, at least in part, to not have these different vectors for each different modality. For instance, when I tell you about actions in certain space, I'm defining actions by words, right? So you could imagine a world in which I'm not learning that the action app in Atari is its own number. The action app in Atari maybe is literally the word or the sentence app in Atari, right? And that would mean we now leverage much more from the language. This is not what we did here, but certainly it might make these connections much easier to learn and also to teach the model to correct its own actions and so on, right? So all this to say that gato is indeed the beginning, that it is a radical idea to do this this way, but there's probably a lot more to be done and the results to be more impressive, not only through scale, but also through some new research that will come hopefully in the years to come. So just to elaborate quickly, you mean one possible next step or one of the paths that you might take next is doing the tokenization fundamentally as a kind of linguistic communication. So like you convert even images into language. So doing something like a crude semantic segmentation, trying to just assign a bunch of words to an image that have almost like a dumb entity explaining as much as it can about the image. And so you convert that into words and then you convert games into words and then you provide the context in words and all of it. Eventually getting to a point where everybody agrees with Noam Chomsky that language is actually at the core of everything, that it's the base layer of intelligence and consciousness and all that kind of stuff. Okay. You mentioned early on like it's hard to grow. What did you mean by that? Because we're talking about scale might change. There might be, and we'll talk about this too, like there's a emergent, there's certain things about these neural networks that are emergent. So certain like performance we can see only with scale and there's some kind of threshold of scale. So why is it hard to grow something like this Miao network? So the Miao network, it's not hard to grow if you retrain it. What's hard is, well, we have now 1 billion parameters. We train them for a while. We spend some amount of work towards building these weights that are an amazing initial brain for doing these kind of tasks we care about. Could we reuse the weights and expand to a larger brain? And that is extraordinarily hard, but also exciting from a research perspective and a practical perspective point of view, right? So there's this notion of modularity in software engineering and we starting to see some examples and work that leverages modularity. In fact, if we go back one step from Gato to a work that I would say train much larger, much more capable network called Flamingo. Flamingo did not deal with actions, but it definitely dealt with images in an interesting way, kind of akin to what Gato did, but slightly different technique for tokenizing. But we don't need to go into that detail. But what Flamingo also did, which Gato didn't do, and that just happens because these projects, you know, they're different. You know, it's a bit of like the exploratory nature of research, which is great. The research behind these projects is also modular. Yes, exactly. And it has to be, right? We need to have creativity and sometimes you need to protect pockets of people, researchers, and so on. By we, you mean humans? Yes. Okay. And also in particular researchers and maybe even further, DeepMind or other such labs. And then the neural networks themselves. So it's modularity all the way down. Okay. All the way down. So the way that we did modularity very beautifully in Flamingo is we took Chinchilla, which is a language only model, not an agent if we think of actions being necessary for agency. So we took Chinchilla, we took the weights of Chinchilla, and then we froze them. We said, these don't change. We train them to be very good at predicting the next word. It's a very good language model, state-of-the-art at the time you release it, et cetera, et cetera. We're going to add a capability to C, right? We are going to add the ability to C to this language model. So we're going to attach small pieces of neural networks at the right places in the model. It's almost like injecting the network with some weights and some substructures in a good way, right? So you need the research to say what is effective, how do you add this capability without destroying others, et cetera. So we created a small sub-network, initialized not from random, but actually from self-supervised learning, that, you know, a model that understands vision in general. And then we took datasets that connect the two modalities, vision and language. And then we froze the main part, the largest portion of the network, which was Chinchilla, that is 70 billion parameters. And then we added a few more parameters on top, trained from scratch, and then some others that were pre-trained from like, with the capacity to see it. Like it was not tokenization in the way I described for Gato, but it's a similar idea. And then we trained the whole system. Parts of it were frozen, parts of it were new. And all of a sudden we developed Flamingo, which is an amazing model that is essentially, I mean, describing it is a chatbot where you can also upload images and start conversing about images, but it's also kind of a dialogue style chatbot. So the input is images and text, and the output is text. Yes, exactly. And how many parameters, you said 70 billion for Chinchilla? Yeah, Chinchilla is 70 billion. And then the ones we add on top, which kind of almost is almost like a way to overwrite its little activations so that when it sees vision, it does kind of a correct computation of what it's seeing, mapping it back to words, so to speak. That adds an extra 10 billion parameters, right? So it's total 80 billion, the largest one we released. And then you train it on a few data sets that contain vision and language. And once you interact with the model, you start seeing that you can upload an image and start sort of having a dialogue about the image, which is actually not something, it's very similar and akin to what we saw in language only, these prompting abilities that it has. You can teach it a new vision task, right? It does things beyond the capabilities that in theory, the data sets provided in themselves, but because it leverages a lot of the language knowledge acquired from Chinchilla, it actually has this few-shot learning ability and these emerging abilities that we didn't even measure once we were developing the model, but once developed, then as you play with the interface, you can start seeing, wow, okay, yeah, it's cool. We can upload, I think one of the tweets talking about Twitter was this image from Obama that is placing a weight and someone is kind of weighting themselves and it's kind of a joke-style image. And it's notable because I think Andriy Karpathy a few years ago said, no computer vision system can understand the subtlety of this joke in this image, all the things that go on. And so what we tried to do, and it's very anecdotally, I mean, this is not a proof that we solved this issue, but it just shows that you can upload now this image and start conversing with the model, trying to make out if it gets that there's a joke because the person weighting themselves doesn't see that someone behind is making the weight higher and so on and so forth. So it's a fascinating capability and it comes from this key idea of modularity where we took a frozen brain and we just added a new capability. So the question is, should we, so in a way you can see even from DeepMind, we have Flamingo that this moderate approach and thus could leverage the scale a bit more reasonably because we didn't need to retrain a system from scratch. And on the other hand, we had Gato, which used the same datasets, but then it trained it from scratch, right? And so I guess big question for the community is, should we train from scratch or should we embrace modularity? And this lies, like this goes back to modularity as a way to grow, but reuse seems like natural and it was very effective, certainly. The next question is, if you go the way of modularity, is there a systematic way of freezing weights and joining different modalities across, you know, not just two or three or four networks, but hundreds of networks from all different kinds of places, maybe open source network that looks at weather patterns and you shove that in somehow and then you have networks that, I don't know, do all kinds of, play StarCraft and play all the other video games and you can keep adding them in without significant effort, like maybe the effort scales linearly or something like that, as opposed to like the more network you add, the more you have to worry about the instabilities created. Yeah, so that vision is beautiful. I think there's still the question about within single modalities, like Chinchilla was reused, but now if we train an X iteration of language models, are we gonna use Chinchilla or not? Yeah, how do you swap out Chinchilla? Right, so there's still big questions, but that idea is actually really akin to software engineering, which we're not re-implementing, you know, libraries from scratch. We're reusing and then building ever more amazing things, including neural networks with software that we're reusing. So I think this idea of modularity, I like it. I think it's here to stay. And that's also why I mentioned it's just the beginning, not the end. You've mentioned meta-learning. So given this promise of GATO, can we try to redefine this term that's almost akin to consciousness because it means different things to different people throughout the history of artificial intelligence? But what do you think meta-learning is and looks like now in the five years, 10 years? Will it look like a system like GATO, but scaled? What's your sense of, what does meta-learning look like, do you think? Great. With all the wisdom we've learned so far. Yeah, great question. Maybe it's good to give another data point looking backwards rather than forward. So when we talk in 2019, meta-learning meant something that has changed mostly through the revolution of GPT-3 and beyond. So what meta-learning meant at the time was driven by what benchmarks people care about in meta-learning. And the benchmarks were about a capability to learn about object identities. So it was very much overfitted to vision and object classification. And the part that was meta about that was that, oh, we're not just learning a thousand categories that ImageNet tells us to learn. We're gonna learn object categories that can be defined when we interact with the model. So it's interesting to see the evolution, right? The way this started was we have a special language that was a data set, a small data set that we prompted the model with saying, hey, here is a new classification task. I'll give you one image and the name, which was an integer at the time of the image and a different image and so on. So you have a small prompt in the form of a data set, a machine learning data set. And then you got then a system that could then predict or classify these objects that you just defined kind of on the fly. So fast forward, it was revealed that language models are future learners. That's the title of the paper. So very good title. Sometimes titles are really good. So this one is really, really good because that's the point of GPT-3 that showed that, look, sure, we can focus on object classification and what meta-learning means within the space of learning object categories. This goes beyond or before rather to also Omniglot before ImageNet and so on. So there's a few benchmarks. To now all of a sudden, we're a bit unlocked from benchmarks and through language, we can define tasks, right? So we're literally telling the model some logical task or little thing that we wanted to do. We prompt it much like we did before, but now we prompt it through natural language. And then not perfectly, I mean, these models have failure modes and that's fine, but these models then are now doing a new task, right? So they meta-learn this new capability. Now, that's where we are now. Flamingo expanded this to visual and language, but it basically has the same abilities. You can teach it, for instance, an emergent property was that you can take pictures of numbers and then do arithmetic with the numbers just by teaching it, oh, that's, when I show you three plus six, I want you to output nine and you show it a few examples and now it does that. So it went way beyond this ImageNet sort of categorization of images that we were a bit stuck maybe before this revelation moment that happened in 2000. I believe it was 19, but it was after we chatted. And that way it has solved meta-learning as was previously defined. Yes, it expanded what it meant. So that's what you say, what does it mean? So it's an evolving term, but here is maybe now looking forward, looking at what's happening, obviously in the community with more modalities, what we can expect. And I would certainly hope to see the following. And this is a pretty drastic hope, but in five years, maybe we chat again. And we have a system, right? A set of weights that we can teach it to play StarCraft. Maybe not at the level of AlphaStar, but play StarCraft, a complex game. We teach it through interactions to prompting. You can certainly prompt a system, that's what Gato shows, to play some simple Atari games. So imagine if you start talking to a system, teaching it a new game, showing it examples of, you know, in this particular game, this user did something good. Maybe the system can even play and ask you questions, say, hey, I played this game. I just played this game. Did I do well? Can you teach me more? So five, maybe to 10 years, these capabilities, or what meta-learning means, will be much more interactive, much more rich, and through domains that we were specializing, right? So you see the difference, right? We built AlphaStar specialized to play StarCraft. The algorithms were general, but the weights were specialized. And what we're hoping is that we can teach a network to play games, to play any game, just using games as an example, through interacting with it, teaching it, uploading the Wikipedia page of StarCraft. Like this is in the horizon, and obviously there are details need to be filled and research need to be done. But that's how I see meta-learning above, which is gonna be beyond prompting. It's gonna be a bit more interactive. It's gonna, you know, the system might tell us to give it feedback after it maybe makes mistakes or it loses a game, but it's nonetheless very exciting because if you think about this this way, the benchmarks are already there. We just repurpose the benchmarks, right? So in a way, I like to map the space of what maybe AGI means to say, okay, like we went 101% performance in Go, in Chess, in StarCraft. The next iteration might be 20% performance across quote unquote all tasks, right? And even if it's not as good, it's fine. We actually, we have ways to also measure progress because we have those special agents, specialized agents and so on. So this is to me very exciting. And these next iteration models are definitely hinting at that direction of progress, which hopefully we can have. There are obviously some things that could go wrong in terms of we might not have the tools, maybe transformers are not enough, then we must, there's some breakthroughs to come, which makes the field more exciting to people like me as well, of course. But that's, if you ask me five to 10 years, you might see these models that start to look more like weights that are already trained and then it's more about teaching or make, they're meta-learn what you're trying to induce in terms of tasks and so on. Well beyond the simple, now tasks we're starting to see emerge, like small arithmetic tasks and so on. So a few questions around that. This is fascinating. So that kind of teaching, interactive, not so it's beyond prompting, so it's interacting with the neural network, that's different than the training process. So it's different than the optimization over differentiable functions. This is already trained and now you're teaching, I mean, it's almost like akin to the brain, the neurons are already set with their connections. On top of that, you're now using that infrastructure to build up further knowledge. Okay, so that's a really interesting distinction that's actually not obvious from a software engineering perspective, that there's a line to be drawn. Because you always think for neural network to learn, it has to be retrained, trained and retrained. But maybe, and prompting is a way of teaching a neural network a little bit of context about whatever the heck you're trying to do. So you can maybe expand this prompting capability by making it interact, that's really, really interesting. Yeah, by the way, this is not, if you look at way back at different ways to tackle even classification tasks, so this comes from long standing literature in machine learning. What I'm suggesting could sound to some like a bit like nearest neighbor. So nearest neighbor is almost the simplest algorithm that does not require learning. So it has this interesting, like you don't need to compute gradients. And what nearest neighbor does is, you quote unquote, have a data set or upload a data set. And then all you need to do is a way to measure distance between points. And then to classify a new point, you're just simply computing what's the closest point in this massive amount of data. And that's my answer. So you can think of prompting as a way as you're uploading, not just simple points and the metric is not the distance between the images or something simple, it's something that you compute that's much more advanced, but in a way, it's very similar, right? You simply are uploading some knowledge to this pre-trained system in nearest neighbor, maybe the metric is learned or not, but you don't need to further train it. And then now you immediately get a classifier out of this. Now it's just an evolution of that concept, very classical concept in machine learning, which is, yeah, just learning through what's the closest point, closest by some distance and that's it. It's an evolution of that. And I will say how I saw meta learning when we worked on a few ideas in 2016, was precisely through the lens of nearest neighbor, which is very common in computer vision community. There's very few people who are in the computer vision community, right? There's a very active area of research about how do you compute the distance between two images, but if you have a good distance metric, you also have a good classifier, right? All I'm saying is now these distances and the points are not just images, they're like words or sequences of words and images and actions that teach you something new, but it might be that technique-wise, those come back. And I will say that it's not necessarily true that you might not ever train the weights a bit further. Some aspect of meta learning, some techniques in meta learning do actually do a bit of fine tuning as it's called, right? They train the weights a little bit when they get a new task. So as I call the how or how we're gonna achieve this, as a deep learner, I'm very skeptic. We're gonna try a few things, whether it's a bit of training, adding a few parameters, thinking of these as nearest neighbor, or just simply thinking of there's a sequence of words, it's a prefix, and that's the new classifier. We'll see, right? There's the beauty of research, but what's important is that is a good goal in itself that I see as very worthwhile pursuing for the next stages of not only meta learning. I think this is basically what's exciting about machine learning period to me. And the interactive aspect of that is also very interesting. Yes. The interactive version of nearest neighbor. Yes. To help you pull out the classifier from this giant thing. Okay, is this the way we can go in five, 10 plus years from any task, sorry, from many tasks to any task? So, and what does that mean? Like, what does it need to be actually trained on? At which point is the network had enough? So what does a network need to learn about this world in order to be able to perform any task? Is it just as simple as language, image, and action? Or do you need some set of representative images? Like if you only see land images, will you know anything about underwater? Is that somehow fundamentally different? I don't know. I mean, those are open questions. I would say, I mean, the way you put, let me maybe further your example, right? If all you see is land images, but you're reading all about land and water worlds, but in books, right? Imagine, would that be enough? I mean, good question. We don't know, but I guess maybe you can join us if you want in our quest to find this. That's precisely- Water world, yeah. Yes, that's precisely, I mean, the beauty of research and that's the research business we're in, I guess, is to figure these out and ask the right questions and then iterate with the whole community, publishing like findings and so on. But yeah, this is a question. It's not the only question, but it's certainly, as you ask, is on my mind constantly, right? And so we'll need to wait for maybe the, let's say five years. Let's hope it's not 10 to 10. To see what are the answers. Some people will largely believe in unsupervised or self-supervised learning of single modalities and then crossing them. Some people might think end-to-end learning is the answer. Modularity is maybe the answer. So we don't know, but we're just definitely excited to find out. But it feels like this is the right time and we're at the beginning of this journey. We're finally ready to do these kind of general, big models and agents. What do you sort of specific technical thing about Gato, Flamingo, Chinchilla, Gopher, any of these that is especially beautiful that was surprising maybe? Is there something that just jumps out at you? Of course, there's the general thing of like, you didn't think it was possible and then you realize it's possible in terms of the generalizability across the world. Across modalities and all that kind of stuff. Or maybe how small of a network, relatively speaking, Gato is, all that kind of stuff. But is there some weird little things that were surprising? Look, I'll give you an answer that's very important because maybe people don't quite realize this, but the teams behind these efforts, the actual humans, that's maybe the surprising, in an obviously positive way. So anytime you see these breakthroughs, I mean, it's easy to map it to a few people. There's people that are great at explaining things and so on, that's very nice. But maybe the learnings or the meta learnings that I get as a human about this is, sure, we can move forward. But the surprising bit is how important are all the pieces of these projects? How do they come together? So I'll give you maybe some of the ingredients of success that are common across these, but not the obvious ones in machine learning. I can always also give you those. But basically, engineering is critical. So very good engineering because ultimately we're collecting data sets, right? So the engineering of data and then of deploying the models at scale into some compute cluster that cannot go understated, that is a huge factor of success. And it's hard to believe that details matter so much. We would like to believe that it's true that there is more and more of a standard formula, as I was saying, like this recipe that works for everything. But then when you zoom in into each of these projects, then you realize the devil is indeed in the details. And then the teams have to work kind of together towards these goals. So engineering of data and obviously clusters and large scale is very important. And then one that is often not, maybe nowadays it is more clear, is benchmark progress, right? So we're talking here about multiple months of tens of researchers and people that are trying to organize the research and so on, working together and you don't know that you can get there. I mean, this is the beauty. Like if you're not risking to trying to do something that feels impossible, you're not gonna get there, but you need a way to measure progress. So the benchmarks that you build are critical. I've seen this beautifully play out in many projects. I mean, maybe the one I've seen it more consistently, which means we establish the metric, actually the community did, and then we leverage that massively is AlphaFold. This is a project where the data, the metrics were all there and all it took was, and it's easier said than done, an amazing team working not to try to find some incremental improvement and publish, which is one way to do research that is valid, but aim very high and work literally for years to iterate over that process. And working for years with a team, I mean, it is tricky that also happened to happen partly during a pandemic and so on. So I think my meta learning from all this is, the teams are critical to the success. And then if now going to the machine learning, the part that's surprising is, so we like architectures like neural networks. And I would say this was a very rapidly evolving field until the transformer came. So Attention might indeed be all you need, which is the title, also a good title, although in hindsight is good. I don't think at the time I thought this is a great title for a paper, but that architecture is proving that the dream of modeling sequences of any bytes, there is something there that will stick. And I think these advance in architectures, in kind of how neural networks are architecture to do what they do. It's been hard to find one that has been so stable and relatively has changed very little since it was invented five or so years ago. So that is a surprising, is a surprise that keeps recurring into other projects. Can you try to, on a philosophical or technical level, introspect what is the magic of attention? What is attention? It's attention in people that study cognition, so human attention. I think there's giant wars over what attention means, how it works in the human mind. So what, there's very simple looks at what attention is in neural network from the days of attention is all you need. But do you think there's a general principle that's really powerful here? Yeah, so a distinction between transformers and LSTMs, which were what came before, and there was a transitional period where you could use both. In fact, when we talked about AlphaStar, we used transformers and LSTMs. So it was still the beginning of transformers. They were very powerful, but LSTMs were still also very powerful sequence models. So the power of the transformer is that it has built in what we call an inductive bias of attention that makes the model, when you think of a sequence of integers, right? Like we discussed this before, right? This is a sequence of words. When you have to do very hard tasks over these words, this could be, we're gonna translate a whole paragraph, or we're gonna predict the next paragraph given 10 paragraphs before. There's some loose intuition from how we do it as a human that is very nicely mimicked and replicated structurally speaking in the transformer, which is this idea of you're looking for something, right? So you're sort of, when you're, you just read a piece of text, now you're thinking what comes next. You might wanna re-look at the text, so you're looking for something, right? You might wanna re-look at the text or look it from scratch. I mean, literally is because there's no recurrence. You're just thinking what comes next. And it's almost hypothesis driven, right? So if I'm thinking the next word that I'll write is cat or dog, okay? The way the transformer works almost philosophically is it has these two hypotheses. Is it gonna be cat or is it gonna be dog? And then it says, okay, if it's cat, I'm gonna look for certain words, not necessarily cat, although cat is an obvious word you would look in the past to see whether it makes more sense to output cat or dog. And then it does some very deep computation over the words and beyond, right? So it combines the words, but it has the query as we call it, that is cat. And then similarly for dog, right? And so it's a very computational way to think about, look, if I'm thinking deeply about text, I need to go back to look at all of the text, attend over it. But it's not just attention, like what is guiding the attention? And that was the key insight from an earlier paper is not how far away is it? I mean, how far away is it is important? What did I just write about? That's critical. But what you wrote about 10 pages ago might also be critical. So you're looking not positionally, but content wise, right? And transformers have this beautiful way to query for certain content and pull it out in a compressed way. So then you can make a more informed decision. I mean, that's one way to explain transformers. But I think it's a very powerful inductive bias. There might be some details that might change over time, but I think that is what makes transformers so much more powerful than the recurrent networks that were more recency bias based, which obviously works in some tasks, but it has major flaws. Transformer itself has flaws. And I think the main one, the main challenge is these prompts that we just were talking about, they can be a thousand words long. But if I'm teaching you StarCraft, I mean, I'll have to show you videos. I'll have to point you to whole Wikipedia articles about the game. We'll have to interact probably as you play, you'll ask me questions. The context required for us to achieve me being a good teacher to you on the game, as you would want to do it with a model. I think goes well beyond the current capabilities. So the question is, how do we benchmark this? And then how do we change the structure of the architectures? I think there's ideas on both sides, but we'll have to see empirically, right? Obviously what ends up working in the... And as you talked about, some of the ideas could be, you know, keeping the constraint of that length in place, but then forming like hierarchical representations to where you can start being much cleverer in how you use those thousand tokens. Yeah, that's really interesting. But it also is possible that this attentional mechanism where you basically, you don't have a recency bias, but you look more generally, you make it learnable. The mechanism in which way you look back into the past, you make that learnable. It's also possible where at the very beginning of that, because that you might become smarter and smarter in the way you query the past. So recent past and distant past, and maybe very, very distant past. So almost like the attention mechanism will have to improve and evolve as good as the tokenization mechanism, so you can represent long-term memory somehow. Yes, and I mean, hierarchies are very, I mean, it's a very nice word that sounds appealing. There's lots of work adding hierarchy to the memories. In practice, it does seem like we keep coming back to the main formula or main architecture. That sometimes tells us something. There's such a sentence that a friend of mine told me, like, whether it wants to work or not. So Transformer was clearly an idea that wanted to work. And then I think there's some principles we believe will be needed, but finding the exact details, details matter so much, right? That's gonna be tricky. I love the idea that there's, like, you as a human being, you want some ideas to work, and then there's the model that wants some ideas to work, and you get to have a conversation to see which, more likely the model will win in the end, because it's the one, you don't have to do any work. The model is the one that has to do the work, so you should listen to the model. And I really love this idea that you talked about the humans in this picture, if I could just briefly ask. One is you're saying the benchmarks about, so the modular humans working on this, the benchmarks providing a sturdy ground of a wish to do these things that seem impossible. They give you, in the darkest of times, give you hope, because little signs of improvement. You could, like, you're not, somehow you're not lost if you have metrics to measure your improvement. And then there's other aspect, you said elsewhere, and here today, like, titles matter. I wonder how much humans matter in the evolution of all this, meaning individual humans. You know, something about their ability to, you know, something about their interaction, something about their ideas, how much they change the direction of all of this. Like, if you change the humans in this picture, like, is it that the model is sitting there and it wants some idea to work, or is it the humans, or maybe the model is providing you 20 ideas that could work, and depending on the humans you pick, they're going to be able to hear some of those ideas. Because you're now directing all of deep learning and deep mind, you get to interact with a lot of projects, a lot of brilliant researchers. How much variability is created by the humans in all of this? Yeah, I mean, I do believe humans matter a lot, at the very least at the, you know, time scale of years on when things are happening and what's the sequencing of it, right? So you get to interact with people that, I mean, you mentioned this, some people really want some idea to work, and they'll persist. And then some other people might be more practical, like, I don't care what idea works, I care about, you know, cracking protein folding. And these, at least these two kind of seem opposite sides, we need both. And we've clearly had both historically, and that made certain things happen earlier or later. So definitely humans involved in all of this endeavor have had, I would say, years of change or of ordering, how things have happened, which breakthroughs came before which other breakthroughs and so on. So certainly that does happen. And so one other, maybe one other axis of distinction is what I called, and it is most commonly used in reinforcement learning is the exploration exploitation trade off as well. It's not exactly what I meant, although quite related. So when you start trying to help others, right? Like you become a bit more of a mentor to a large group of people, be it a project or the deep learning team or something, or even in the community, when you interact with people in conferences and so on, you're identifying quickly, right? Some things that are explorative or exploitative, and it's tempting to try to guide people, obviously. I mean, that's what makes like our experience, we bring it and we try to shape things sometimes wrongly. And there's many times that I've been wrong in the past. That's great, but it would be wrong to dismiss any sort of the research styles that I'm observing. And I often get asked, well, you're in industry, right? So we do have access to large compute scale and so on. So there's certain kinds of research. I almost feel like we need to do responsibly and so on. But it is, Carmos, we have the particle accelerator here, so to speak, in physics. So we need to use it. We need to answer the questions that we should be answering right now for the scientific progress. But then at the same time, I look at many advances, including attention, which was discovered in Montreal initially because of lack of compute, right? So we were working on sequence to sequence with my friends over at Google Brain at the time. And we were using, I think, eight GPUs, which was somehow a lot at the time. And then I think Montreal was a bit more limited in the scale. But then they discovered this content-based attention concept that then has obviously triggered things like Transformer. Not everything obviously starts Transformer. There's always a history that is important to recognize because then you can make sure that then those who might feel now, well, we don't have so much compute, you need to then help them optimize that kind of research that might actually produce amazing change. Perhaps it's not as short-term as some of these advancements or perhaps it's a different timescale, but the people and the diversity of the field is quite critical that we maintain it. And at times, especially mixed a bit with hype or other things, it's a bit tricky to be observing maybe too much of the same thinking across the board. But the humans definitely are critical. And I can think of quite a few personal examples where also someone told me something that had a huge effect onto some idea. And then that's why I'm saying, at least in terms of ears, probably some things do happen. Yeah, it's fascinating. And it's also fascinating how constraints somehow are essential for innovation. And the other thing you mentioned about engineering, I have a sneaking suspicion, maybe I over, my love is with engineering. So I have a sneaky suspicion that all the genius, a large percentage of the genius is in the tiny details of engineering. So like, I think we like to think our genius, the genius is in the big ideas. There's, I have a sneaking suspicion that like, because I've seen the genius of details, of engineering details make the night and day difference. And I wonder if those kind of have a ripple effect over time. So that too, so that's sort of taking the engineering perspective that sometimes that quiet innovation at the level of an individual engineer or maybe at the small scale of a few engineers can make all the difference. That scales, because we're doing, we're working on computers that are scaled across large groups, that one engineering decision can lead to ripple effects. Which is interesting to think about. Yeah, I mean, engineering, there's also kind of a historical, it might be a bit random, because if you think of the history of how, especially deep learning and neural networks took off, feels like, a bit random because GPUs happen to be there at the right time for a different purpose, which was to play video games. So even the engineering that goes into the hardware and it might have a time, like the timeframe might be very different. I mean, the GPUs were evolved throughout many years where we didn't even, we're looking at that, right? So even at that level, right, that revolution, so to speak, the ripples are like, we'll see what happens. Like, we'll see when they stop, right? But in terms of thinking of why is this happening, right? I think that when I try to categorize it in sort of things that might not be so obvious, I mean, clearly there's a hardware revolution. We are surfing thanks to that. Data centers as well. I mean, data centers are where, like, I mean, at Google, for instance, obviously they're serving Google, but there's also now thanks to that and to have built such amazing data centers, we can train these models. Software is an important one. I think if I look at the state of how I had to implement things to implement my ideas, how I discarded ideas because they were too hard to implement. Yeah, clearly the times have changed and thankfully we are in a much better software position as well. And then, I mean, obviously there's research that happens at scale and more people enter the field. That's great to see, but it's almost enabled by these other things. And last but not least is also data, right? Curating data sets, labeling data sets, these benchmarks we think about, maybe we'll want to have all the benchmarks in one system, but it's still very valuable that someone with the thought and the time and the vision to build certain benchmarks. We've seen progress thanks to, but we're gonna repurpose the benchmarks. That's the beauty of Atari is like, we solved it in a way, but we use it in Gato, it was critical. And I'm sure there's still a lot more to do thanks to that amazing benchmark that someone took the time to put, even though at the time, maybe, oh, you have to think what's the next, you know, iteration of architectures. That's what maybe the field recognizes, but we need to, that's another thing we need to balance in terms of a human's behind. We need to recognize all these aspects because they're all critical. And we tend to, yeah, we tend to think of the genius, the scientist and so on, but I'm glad you're, I know you have a strong engineering background. So yeah. But also I'm a lover of data and it is a pushback on the engineering comment, ultimately could be the creators of benchmarks who have the most impact. Andrei Kapathie, who you mentioned, has recently been talking a lot of trash about ImageNet, which he has the right to do because of how critical he is about, how essential he is to the development and the success of deep learning around ImageNet. And you're saying that that's actually, that benchmark is holding back the field because, I mean, especially in his context on Tesla autopilot, that's looking at real world behavior of a system. It's, there's something fundamentally missing about ImageNet that doesn't capture the real worldness of things, that we need to have data sets, benchmarks that have the unpredictability, the edge cases, the whatever the heck it is that makes the real world so difficult to operate in. We need to have benchmarks of that. But just to think about the impact of ImageNet as a benchmark, and that really puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of a benchmark, both sort of internally a deep mind and as a community. So one is coming in from within, like how do I create a benchmark for me to mark and make progress? And how do I make benchmark for the community to mark and push progress? You have this amazing paper, you coauthored a survey paper called Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models. It has, again, the philosophy here that I'd love to ask you about. What's the intuition about the phenomena of emergence in neural networks, transformers, language models? Is there a magic threshold beyond which we start to see certain performance? And is that different from task to task? Is that us humans just being poetic and romantic? Or is there literally some level at which we start to see breakthrough performance? Yeah, I mean, this is a property that we start seeing in systems that actually tend to be... So in machine learning, traditionally, again, going to benchmarks, I mean, if you have some input output, right? Like that is just a single input and a single output, you generally, when you train these systems, you see reasonably smooth curves when you analyze how much the data set size affects the performance or how the model size affect the performance or how long you train the system for affects the performance, right? So, if we think of ImageNet, like the training curves look fairly smooth and predictable in a way. And I would say that's probably because of the, it's kind of a one hop reasoning task, right? It's like, here is an input and you think for a few milliseconds or 100 milliseconds, 300 as a human, and then you tell me, yeah, there's an alpaca in this image. So, in language, we are seeing benchmarks that require more pondering and more thought in a way, right? This is just kind of, you need to look for some subtleties, it involves inputs that you might think of, even if the input is a sentence describing a mathematical problem, there is a bit more processing required as a human and more introspection. So, I think how these benchmarks work means that there is actually a threshold, just going back to how transformers work in this way of querying for the right questions to get the right answers, that might mean that performance becomes random until the right question is asked by the querying system of a transformer or of a language model like a transformer. And then, only then, you might start seeing performance going from random to non-random. And this is more empirical, there's no formalism or theory behind this yet, although it might be quite important, but we're seeing these phase transitions of random performance and until some, let's say, scale of a model, and then it goes beyond that. And it might be that you need to fit a few low order bits of thought before you can make progress on the whole task. And if you could measure, actually, those breakdown of the task, maybe you would see more smooth, oh, like, yeah, this, you know, once you get this and this and this and this and this, then you start making progress in the task. But it's somehow a bit annoying because then it means that certain questions we might ask about architecture possibly can only be done at certain scale. And one thing that conversely, I've seen great progress on in the last couple of years is this notion of science of deep learning and science of scale in particular, right? So on the negative is that there's some benchmarks for which progress might need to be measured at minimum and at certain scale until you see then what details of the model matter to make that performance better, right? So that's a bit of a con. But what we've also seen is that you can sort of empirically analyze behavior of models at scales that are smaller, right? So let's say, to put an example, we had this chinchilla paper that revised the so-called scaling laws of models. And that whole study is done at a reasonably small scale, right, that may be hundreds of millions, up to 1 billion parameters. And then the cool thing is that you create some laws, some laws that, some trends, right? You extract trends from data that you see, okay, like it looks like the amount of data required to train now a 10X larger model would be this. And these laws so far, these extrapolations have helped us safe compute and just get to a better place in terms of the science of how should we run these models at scale, how much data, how much depth and all sorts of questions we start asking, extrapolating from a small scale. But then this emergence is sadly that not everything can be extrapolated from scale, depending on the benchmark. And maybe the harder benchmarks are not so good for extracting these laws. But we have a variety of benchmarks at least. So I wonder to which degree the threshold, the phase shift scale is a function of the benchmark. Some of the science of scale might be engineering benchmarks where that threshold is low. Sort of taking a main benchmark and reducing it somehow, where the essential difficulty is left, but the scale at which the emergence happens is lower. Just for the science aspect of it versus the actual real world aspect. Yeah, so luckily we have quite a few benchmarks, some of which are simpler, or maybe they're more like, I think people might call these systems one versus systems two style. So I think what we're not seeing luckily is that extrapolations from maybe slightly more smooth or simpler benchmarks are translating to the harder ones. But that is not to say that this extrapolation will hit its limits. And when it does, then how much we scale or how we scale will sadly be a bit suboptimal until we find better loss. And these laws, again, are very empirical laws. They're not like physical laws of models. Although I wish there would be better theory about these things as well. But so far, I would say empirical theory, as I call it, is way ahead than actual theory of machine learning. Let me ask you almost for fun. So this is not, Oriel, as a deep mind person or anything to do with deep mind or Google, just as a human being, looking at these news of a Google engineer who claimed that, I guess the Lambda language model was sentient. Or had the, and you still need to look into the details of this, but sort of making an official report and a claim that he believes there's evidence that this system has achieved sentience. And I think this is a really interesting case on a human level, on a psychological level, on a technical machine learning level of how language models transform our world and also just philosophical level of the role of AI systems in a human world. So what did you, what do you find interesting? What's your take on all of this as a machine learning engineer and a researcher and also as a human being? Yeah, I mean, a few reactions, quite a few actually. Have you ever briefly thought, is this thing sentient? Right, so never, absolutely never. Like even with like AlphaStar, wait a minute. No, sadly though, I think, yeah, sadly I have not. Yeah, I think the current, any of the current models, although very useful and very good, yeah, I think we're quite far from that. And there's kind of a converse side story. So one of my passions is about science in general. And I think I feel I'm a bit of like a failed scientist. That's why I came to machine learning, because you always feel, and you start seeing this, that machine learning is maybe the science that can help other sciences, as we've seen, right? Like you, it's such a powerful tool. So thanks to that angle, right? That, okay, I love science. I love, I mean, I love astronomy, I love biology, but I'm not an expert and I decided, well, the thing I can do better at is computers. But having, especially with, when I was a bit more involved in AlphaFold, learning a bit about proteins and about biology and about life, the complexity, it feels like, it really is like, I mean, if you start looking at the things that are going on at the atomic level, and also, I mean, there's obviously the, we are maybe inclined to try to think of neural networks as like the brain, but the complexities and the amount of magic that it feels when, I mean, I don't, I'm not an expert, so it naturally feels more magic, but looking at biological systems, as opposed to these computer computational brains, just makes me like, wow, there's such level of complexity difference still, right? Like orders of magnitude complexity that, sure, these weights, I mean, we train them and they do nice things, but they're not at the level of biological entities, brains, cells. It just feels like it's just not possible to achieve the same level of complexity behavior. And my belief, when I talk to other beings, is certainly shaped by this amazement of biology that maybe because I know too much, I don't have about machine learning, but I certainly feel it's very far-fetched and far in the future to be calling, or to be thinking, well, these mathematical factors or mathematical function that is differentiable is in fact sentient and so on. There's something on that point, it's very interesting. So you know enough about machines and enough about biology to know that there's many orders of magnitude of difference and complexity, but you know how machine learning works. So the interesting question for human beings that are interacting with a system that don't know about the underlying complexity, and I've seen people, probably including myself, that have fallen in love with things that are quite simple. And so maybe the complexity is one part of the picture, but maybe that's not a necessary condition for sentience, for perception or emulation of sentience. Right, so I mean, I guess the other side of this is, that's how I feel personally. I mean, you asked me about the person, right? Yes. Now it's very interesting to see how other humans feel about things, right? Again, I'm not as amazed about things that I feel, this is not as magical as this other thing because of maybe how I got to learn about it and how I see the curve a bit more smooth because I've just seen the progress of language models since Shannon in the 50s. And actually looking at that timescale, we're not that fast progress, right? I mean, what we were thinking at the time, like almost a hundred years ago, is not that dissimilar to what we're doing now. But at the same time, yeah, obviously others might experience, right? The personal experience, I think no one should, I think no one should tell others how they should feel. I mean, the feelings are very personal, right? So how others might feel about the models and so on, that's one part of the story that is important. It's important to understand for me personally as a researcher. And then when I maybe disagree, or I don't understand or see that, yeah, maybe this is not something I think right now is reasonable, knowing all that I know. One of the other things, and perhaps partly why it's great to be talking to you and reaching out to the world about machine learning is, hey, let's demystify a bit the magic and try to see a bit more of the math and the fact that literally to create these models, if we had the right software, it would be 10 lines of code and then just a dump of the internet. So versus like then the complexity of like the creation of humans from their inception, right? And also the complexity of evolution of the whole universe to where we are, that is feels orders of magnitude more complex and fascinating to me. So I think, yeah, maybe part of the only thing I'm thinking about trying to tell you is, yeah, I think explaining a bit of the magic, there is a bit of magic. It's good to be in love, obviously, with what you do at work. And I'm certainly fascinated and surprised quite often as well. But I think hopefully as experts in biology, hopefully will tell me this is not as magic. And I'm happy to learn that through interactions with the larger community, we can also have a certain level of education that in practice also will matter because I mean, one question is how you feel about this, but then the other very important is you starting to interact with these in products and so on. It's good to understand a bit what's going on, what's not going on, what's safe, what's not safe and so on, right? Otherwise the technology will not be used properly for good, which is obviously the goal of all of us, I hope. So let me then ask the next question. Do you think in order to solve intelligence or to replace the Lexbot that does interviews, as we started this conversation with, do you think the system needs to be sentient? Do you think it needs to achieve something like consciousness? And do you think about what consciousness is in the human mind that could be instructive for creating AI systems? Yeah, honestly, I think probably not to the degree of intelligence that there's this brain that can learn, can be extremely useful, can challenge you, can teach you, conversely, you can teach it to do things. I'm not sure it's necessary, personally speaking, but if consciousness or any other biological or evolutionary lesson can be repurposed to then influence our next set of algorithms, that is a great way to actually make progress, right? And the same way I tried to explain Transformers a bit, how it feels we operate when we look at text specifically, these insights are very important, right? So there's a distinction between details of how the brain might be doing computation, I think my understanding is, sure, there's neurons and there's some resemblance to neural networks, but we don't quite understand enough of the brain in detail, right, to be able to replicate it. But then more, if you zoom out a bit, how we then, our thought process, how memory works, maybe even how evolution got us here, what's exploration, exploitation, like how these things happen, I think these clearly can inform algorithmic level of research, and I've seen some examples of this being quite useful to then guide the research, even it might be for the wrong reasons, right? So I think biology and what we know about ourselves can help a whole lot to build essentially like what we call AGI, this general, the real gato, right, the last step of the chain, hopefully, but consciousness in particular, I don't myself at least think too hard about how to add that to the system, but maybe my understanding is also very personal about what it means, right? I think this, even that in itself is a long debate that I know people have often, and maybe I should learn more about this. Yeah, and I personally, I notice the magic often on a personal level, especially with physical systems like robots, I have a lot of, like robots now in Austin that I play with, and even when you program them, when they do things you didn't expect, there's an immediate anthropomorphization, and you notice the magic, and you start to think about things like sentience that has to do more with effective communication and less with any of these kind of dramatic things. It seems like a useful part of communication. Having the perception of communication and having the perception of consciousness seems like useful for us humans. We treat each other more seriously. We are able to do a nearest neighbor, shoving of that entity into your memory correctly, all that kind of stuff. Seems useful, at least to fake it, even if you never make it. So maybe like, yeah, mirroring the question, and since you talked to a few people, then you do think that we'll need to figure something out in order to achieve intelligence in a grander sense of the word. Yeah, I personally believe yes, but I don't even think it'll be like a separate island we'll have to travel to. I think it'll emerge quite naturally. Okay, that's easier for us then, thank you. But the reason I think it's important to think about is you will start, I believe, like with this Google engineer, you will start seeing this a lot more, especially when you have AI systems that are actually interacting with human beings that don't have an engineering background. And we have to prepare for that, because there'll be, I do believe there'll be a civil rights movement for robots, as silly as it is to say. There's going to be a large number of people that realize there's these intelligent entities with whom I have a deep relationship, and I don't wanna lose them. They've come to be a part of my life, and they mean a lot. They have a name, they have a story, they have a memory, and we start to ask questions about ourselves. Well, this thing sure seems like it's capable of suffering, because it tells all these stories of suffering. It doesn't wanna die and all those kinds of things. And we have to start to ask ourselves questions. Well, what is the difference between a human being and this thing? And so when you engineer, I believe from an engineering perspective, from like a deep mind or anybody that builds systems, there might be laws in the future where you're not allowed to engineer systems with displays of sentience, unless they're explicitly designed to be that, unless it's a pet. So if you have a system that's just doing customer support, you're legally not allowed to display sentience. We'll start to ask ourselves that question, and then so that's going to be part of the software engineering process. Which features do we have, and one of them is communications of sentience. But it's important to start thinking about that stuff, especially how much it captivates public attention. Yeah, absolutely. It's definitely a topic that is important we think about. And I think in a way, I always see, not every movie is equally on point with certain things, but certainly science fiction in this sense, at least has prepared society to start thinking about certain topics that even if it's too early to talk about, as long as we are reasonable, it's certainly going to prepare us for both the research to come and how to, I mean, there's many important challenges and topics that come with building an intelligent system, many of which you just mentioned, right? So I think we're never going to be fully ready unless we talk about this and we start also, as I said, just kind of expanding the people we talk to, to not include only our own researchers and so on. And in fact, places like DeepMind, but elsewhere, there's more interdisciplinary groups forming up to start asking and really working with us on these questions, because obviously, this is not initially what your passion is when you do your PhD, but certainly it is coming, right? So it's fascinating, kind of, it's the thing that brings me to one of my passions that is learning. So in this sense, this is kind of a new area that as a learning system myself, I want to keep exploring. And I think it's great that to see parts of the debate and even I've seen a level of maturity in the conferences that deal with AI, if you look five years ago to now, just the amount of workshops and so on has changed so much. It's impressive to see how much topics of safety ethics and so on come to the surface, which is great. And if we were too early, clearly it's fine. I mean, it's a big field and there's lots of people with lots of interests that will do progress or make progress. And obviously I don't believe we're too late. So in that sense, I think it's great that we're doing this already. It's better to be too early than too late when it comes to super intelligent AI systems. Let me ask, speaking of sentient AIs, you gave props to your friend, Ilyas Zatskyver, for being elected the Fellow of the World Society. So just as a shout out to a fellow researcher and a friend, what's the secret to the genius of Ilyas Zatskyver? And also, do you believe that his tweets, as you've hypothesized and Andrej Karpathy did as well, are generated by a language model? Yeah. So I strongly believe, Ilyas is gonna visit in a few weeks actually, so I'll ask him in person. But- Will he tell you the truth? Yes, of course. Hopefully. I mean, ultimately we all have shared paths and there's friendships that go beyond, obviously, institutions and so on. So I hope he tells me the truth. Well, maybe the AI system is holding him hostage somehow. Maybe he has some videos that he doesn't wanna release. So maybe it has taken control over him, so he can't tell the truth. Well, if I see him in person, then I'll- He will know, right? Yeah, but I think it's a good, I think Ilyas' personality, just knowing him for a while, yeah, everyone in Twitter, I guess, gets a different persona and I think Ilyas' one does not surprise me, right? So I think knowing Ilyas from before social media and before AI was so prevalent, I recognize a lot of his character. So that's something for me that I feel good about, a friend that hasn't changed or is still true to himself, right? Obviously, there is though a fact that your field becomes more popular and he is obviously one of the main figures in the field, having done a lot of advancement. So I think that the tricky bit here is how to balance your true self with the responsibility that you're worse carry. So in this sense, I think, yeah, like I appreciate the style and I understand it, but it created debates on like some of his tweets, right? That maybe it's good we have them early anyways, right? But yeah, then the reactions are usually polarizing I think we're just seeing kind of the reality of social media a bit there as well, reflected on that particular topic or set of topics he's tweeting about. Yeah, I mean, it's funny that you speak to this tension. He was one of the early seminal figures in the field of deep learning. And so there's a responsibility with that, but he's also from having interacted with him quite a bit, he's just a brilliant thinker about ideas and which as are you, and that there's a tension between becoming the manager versus like the actual thinking through very novel ideas. The, yeah, the scientist versus the manager. And he's one of the great scientists of our time. This was quite interesting. And also people tell me quite silly, which I haven't quite detected yet, but in private, we'll have to see about that. Yeah, yeah. I mean, just on the point of, I mean, Ilia has been an inspiration. I mean, quite a few colleagues I can think shaped, the person you are like Ilia certainly gets probably the top spot, if not close to the top. And if we go back to the question about people in the field, like how their role would have changed the field or not. I think Ilia's case is interesting because he really has a deep belief in the scaling up of neural networks. There was a talk that is still famous to this day from the sequence to sequence paper, where he was just claiming, just give me supervised data and a large neural network. And then you'll solve basically all the problems, right? That vision, right? Was already there many years ago. So it's good to see like someone who is in this case, very deeply into this style of research and clearly has had a tremendous track record of successes and so on. The funny bit about that talk is that we rehearsed the talk in a hotel room before. And the original version of that talk would have been even more controversial. So maybe I'm the only person that has seen the unfiltered version of the talk. And maybe when the time comes, maybe we should revisit some of the skip slides from the talk from Ilia. But I really think the deep belief into some certain style of research pays out, right? It's good to be practical sometimes. And I actually think Ilia and myself are like practical, but it's also good. There's some sort of long-term belief and trajectory. Obviously there's a bit of luck involved, but it might be that that's the right path. Then you clearly are ahead and hugely influential to the field as he has been. Do you agree with that intuition that maybe was written about by Rich Sutton in the bitter lesson, that the biggest lesson that can be read from 70 years of AI research is that general methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective. Do you think that intuition is ultimately correct? General methods that leverage computation, allowing the scaling of computation to do a lot of the work. And so the basic task of us humans is to design methods that are more and more general versus more and more specific to the tasks at hand. I certainly think this essentially mimics a bit of the deep learning research, almost like philosophy, that on the one hand, we want to be data agnostic. We don't want to pre-process data sets. We want to see the bytes, right? Like the true data as it is, and then learn everything on top. So very much agree with that. And I think scaling up feels at the very least, again, necessary for building incredible complex systems. It's possibly not sufficient, barring that we need a couple of breakthroughs. I think Rich Sutton mentioned search being part of the equation of scale and search. I think search, I've seen it, that's been more mixed in my experience. So from that lesson in particular, search is a bit more tricky because it is very appealing to search in domains like Go, where you have a clear reward function that you can then discard some search traces. But then in some other tasks, it's not very clear how you would do that. Although recently, one of our recent works, which actually was mostly mimicking or a continuation, and even the team and the people involved were pretty much very, like, intersecting with AlphaStar, was AlphaCode, in which we actually saw the bitter lesson, how scale of the models and then a massive amount of search yielded this kind of very interesting result of being able to have human-level code competition. So I've seen examples of it being literally mapped to search and scale. I'm not so convinced about the search bit, but certainly I'm convinced scale will be needed. So we need general methods. We need to test them and maybe we need to make sure that we can scale them, given the hardware that we have in practice, but then maybe we should also shape how the hardware looks like, based on which methods might be needed to scale. And that's an interesting contrast of this GPU comment, that is, we got it for free almost, because games were using this, but maybe now if sparsity is required, we don't have the hardware, although in theory, I mean, many people are building different kinds of hardware these days, but there's a bit of this notion of hardware lottery for scale that might actually have an impact, at least on the year, again, scale of years, on how fast we'll make progress to maybe a version of neural nets or whatever comes next that might enable truly intelligent agents. Do you think in your lifetime, we will build an AGI system that would undeniably be a thing that achieves human level intelligence and goes far beyond? I definitely think it's possible that it will go far beyond, but I'm definitely convinced that it will be human level intelligence. And I'm hypothesizing about the beyond because the beyond bit is a bit tricky to define, especially when we look at the current formula of starting from this imitation learning standpoint, right? So we can certainly imitate humans at language and beyond. So getting at human level through imitation feels very possible. Going beyond will require reinforcement learning and other things. And I think in some areas that certainly already has paid out. I mean, Go being an example that's my favorite so far in terms of going beyond human capabilities. But in general, I'm not sure we can define reward functions that from a seat of imitating human level intelligence that is general and then going beyond. That bit is not so clear in my lifetime, but certainly human level, yes. And I mean, that in itself is already quite powerful, I think. So going beyond, I think is obviously not, we're not gonna not try that if then we get to superhuman scientist and discovery and advancing the world. But at least human level is also, in general, is also very, very powerful. Well, especially if human level or slightly beyond is integrated deeply with human society and there's billions of agents like that, do you think there's a singularity moment beyond which our world will be just very deeply transformed by these kinds of systems? Because now you're talking about intelligence systems that are just, I mean, this is no longer just going from horse and buggy to the car. It feels like a very different kind of shift in what it means to be a living entity on earth. Are you afraid? Are you excited of this world? I'm afraid if there's a lot more. So I think maybe we'll need to think about if we truly get there, just thinking of limited resources, like humanity clearly hits some limits and then there's some balance, hopefully, that biologically the planet is imposing. And we should actually try to get better at this. As we know, there's quite a few issues with having too many people coexisting in a resource-limited way. So for digital entities, it's an interesting question. I think such a limit maybe should exist, but maybe it's gonna be imposed by energy availability because this also consumes energy. In fact, most systems are more inefficient than we are in terms of energy required. Correct, yeah. But definitely, I think as a society, we'll need to just work together to find what would be reasonable in terms of growth or how we coexist if that is to happen. I am very excited about, obviously, the aspects of automation that make people that obviously don't have access to certain resources or knowledge, for them to have that access. I think those are the applications in a way that I'm most excited to see and to personally work towards. Yeah, there's going to be significant improvements in productivity and the quality of life across the whole population, which is very interesting. But I'm looking even far beyond us becoming a multi-planetary species. And just as a quick bet, last question, do you think as humans become multi-planetary species, go outside our solar system, all that kind of stuff, do you think there'll be more humans or more robots in that future world? So will humans be the quirky, intelligent being of the past? Or is there something deeply fundamental to human intelligence that's truly special where we will be part of those other planets, not just AI systems? I think we're all excited to build AGI to empower or make us more powerful as human species. Not to say there might be some hybridization. I mean, this is obviously speculation, but there are companies also trying to, the same way medicine is making us better. Maybe there are other things that are yet to happen on that. But if the ratio is not at most one-to-one, I would not be happy. So I would hope that we are part of the equation, but maybe there's maybe a one-to-one ratio feels like possible, constructive and so on. But it would not be good to have a misbalance, at least from my core beliefs and the why I'm doing what I'm doing when I go to work and I research what I research. Well, this is how I know you're human, and this is how you've passed the Turing test. And you are one of the special humans, Oriol. It's a huge honor that you would talk with me, and I hope we get the chance to speak again, maybe once before the singularity, once after, and see how our view of the world changes. Thank you again for talking today. Thank you for the amazing work you do. You're a shining example of a researcher and a human being in this community. Thanks a lot, Lex. Yeah, looking forward to before the singularity, certainly. And maybe after. Thanks for listening to this conversation. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Oriol Vinales. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Alan Turing. Those who can imagine anything can create the impossible. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/aGBLRlLe7X8

XOPO9J7DIXw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Jonathan Reisman: The Human Body - From Sex & Sperm to Hands & Heart | Lex Fridman Podcast #297

We have two tubes that are right next to each other in the throat. One is for food, drink, saliva, mucus, snot, whatever you're going to swallow. All of that stuff must go down the esophagus, the food tube, and end up in the stomach. And right next to the esophagus, millimeters away, is the windpipe or the trachea, which goes down to the lungs. Throat, heart, feces, genitals. Every organ from moment to moment keeps us alive and ensures our survival. The genitals are in a way the opposite. How would you improve the penis and the vagina? The following is a conversation with Jonathan Reisman, a physician and writer of The Unseen Body, a doctor's journey through the hidden wonders of human anatomy. He has practiced medicine in some of the world's most remote places, including the Alaskan and Russian Arctic, Antarctica, and the Himalayan mountains of Nepal. This is the Alex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Jonathan Reisman. You wrote a book called Unseen Body, all about the human body, the messy, the weird, the beautiful, and the fascinating details. So from an evolutionary perspective, are most parts of the human body a feature or a bug? Is it like the optimal solution or just a duct tape solution? Great question. I think that most of the time, the way the body works is the best solution. I haven't seen many alternatives, so it's hard to compare. But I think, you know, there's some parts of the body that make more sense than others. You know, the way our hands work, for instance. You know, the muscles are up in the forearm and then the tendons kind of come down like strings on a puppet. And just the dexterity it gives our hands is just really amazing. And it's hard to imagine a better tool than the human hand to do everything from, you know, hold things to play piano and do a million other daily activities that we do. One thing I talk about in the book, there's some other body parts that seem to be lacking that kind of brilliant design, such as the throat. You know, where the food, drink are swallowed and air is inhaled. And they kind of, those two paths come within millimeters of each other. And you slip up once, you laugh while eating, or you speak while trying to swallow, and you die from choking. So it seems less than optimal, though I'm not sure it could be better from the way we're kind of formed in the womb, as a beginning as this tiny little tube. I don't think it could have been done any better or there's any other way to do it. But it is an unfortunate thing that, you know, does lead to some problems. So the hand, if I could just linger on that for a second. You talk about the wisdom of a design in the book. What are the important things about the hand? It seems like very useful for many things, and it seems to be quite effective. A lot of people think the thumb is foundational to human civilization. Is there any truth to that? I think that is true. Actually, one of the ways in which the importance of individual fingers comes to attention is when people have severe injuries to their fingers. For instance, I have a story in the book about a guy whose thumb is nearly ripped off by his dog's leash. And, you know, when plastic surgeons, who are often the ones to repair that, sometimes it's orthopedic surgeons, they will debate, you know, how important is it to save this finger? Or how important is it to save, you know, let's say the kind of tip, the one third, the tip one third of one of your fingers? You know, it depends on the length that you'll lose. It depends on which finger. And so the thumb really is the most crucial, just, you know, for your occupation in most cases to just daily life and your ability to get around, take care of yourself and others. So, you know, they'll be more, they're willing to go further, do more surgeries, more aggressive therapy to save a thumb, let's say, than, you know, the tip of your pinky finger. So in that way, I do think the thumb, you know, does seem like the most important in many ways. It's nice that there's backups. I wonder if that's part of the feature, or is it just the symmetry that nature produces? You think, you think the two hands is like, is it about the symmetry or is it about backup? We'd be much less formidable hunters, gatherers, survivors in any way if we only had one hand. So I think that is important to have two so we can, you know, even everything from kind of spearing an animal to firing a bow and arrow to butchering an animal, you really need two hands to do it very effectively. But can you do a better job with three? Great question. And we'll never know, perhaps. You tweeted, now I'm going to analyze your tweets like it's Shakespeare sometimes. You tweeted that, quote, millions of years of sex and death designed the human body. It's like poetry. Are those two basic activities basically summarize everything that resulted in humans on Earth? So like, is that a good summary of the evolutionary process that led to this conscious, intelligent being? Is death and sex? In a way, yeah. So sex is how more of us get made, obviously. And death is how we get weeded out or the gene pool gets weeded out and certain genes survive and others don't. And, you know, the age at which we die, whether it's before we've, you know, had sex and reproduced ourselves is a big factor in who survives, who doesn't, who passes on their genes and what the future of the body looks like. You know, who lived and who died before they were able to be at reproductive age a million years ago was pretty important in what we look like now. And perhaps how we have sex and die now will determine what we're shaped like, unless technology has an even bigger role in that, you know, a million years from now. Do you think that's fundamental to like, if there's alien civilizations out there that have the same order of magnitude of intelligence or greater, do you think that we will see something like sex and something like death? So the reproducing and this selection process plus the weeding out of the old to make room for the new? Is that kind of foundational to life? I would think so. I mean, it sure seems to be on earth, you know, perhaps in some distant future when medicine is nearing perfection and people can live a really long time, maybe we won't even need to reproduce as much or something like that. You know, it's hard to even know what life will be like in the distant future. But I would guess that any alien civilization will have the same dependence on who has sex and who dies. Well, that's the problem with immortality. How are we going to clear out the old to make room for the new, which is kind of a, it's like a framework of adaptability to changing environments. So as long as the environment is changing, and it seems to always be, because this is the entirety of the earth system is a complex system. It seems like you have to adapt and to adapt, you have to kill off the stubborn old ideas. And unless there's a way to like not become stubborn and old, but it feels like the nature of wisdom is stubborn and old. Like that's what wisdom is. It's like the lessons of life, the lessons of experience solidified. And the solidification is the thing that actually prevents you from reinventing yourself to adapt to the new changing conditions. But then again, why not have that both those modes? Like have two minds in one person, one immortal person that like in the morning, they act like a teenager, in the evening, they act like an old wise man. Yeah, it's possible. So you see, you can imagine within one mind, both modes, but those are required. You have to have, you have to have the ability to completely reinvent yourself, which is what death does in an ugly way, or a beautiful way, depending on your perspective, depending whether you take the human perspective of the human, the nature's perspective, and then you have to have the selection. So competition, so sexual selection. It's an interesting, interesting little planet we got. What's the weirdest part, function, concept, idea about the human body to you? We'll talk about fascinating details, but what's, you, I should say, for people that should read your book, they will come face to face with the fact that you do not shy away from the weird and the wonderful of the human body. It's like, it's fun, but it's honest. So given that, sorry to make you pick one of your children, but what's the weirdest one, would you say? The weirdest body part. Or concept, or function. So the chapters, you divide it up kind of into parts, but there could be a thread that connects all of them, the weirdness, maybe, or maybe the texture of the substance, could be the liquids, the solids, I don't know. Probably every body part and bodily fluid has their own kind of both gross and fascinating aspects. That's probably why I'm a generalist as a doctor and couldn't just, as you said, pick one of my children, become a specialist, because I like them all. I feel like one of the strangest concepts about the human body is that kind of the aspects of it that are the most universal, that we all do, are the most taboo socially. I wouldn't have expected that if I had just looked from the outside, like what we do in the bathroom, what we do in the bedroom, what we do to our own genitals, what we do to our quote-unquote private parts, they're private, even though it's sort of the thing that we all have in common, is the most we try to hide from other people and don't talk about in polite company. I mean, it makes sense as a human living in this society, but from the outside it sort of might be surprising. How do you make sense of that if you put on your Sigmund Freud hat? The thing we all do, why do we make that a taboo thing? Is it because we like taboos? Maybe we get off, maybe our kinks as humans is to have taboos, and it's kind of efficient to have taboos about the things that everybody does. Like you could make walking taboo or something, I don't know. But maybe that's what we love, that's what's exciting to us, is the forbidden. I think, yes, society loves rules, for sure. Some societies more than others, you know, they love controlling how you think and what you do in public versus in private. You know, there's a lot of societies where, for instance, parents have sex in front of children. You know, for instance, like in a traditional Inupiat Eskimo society, that was sort of normal. I mean, but what are you going to do, go outside in the middle of the winter in the Arctic and do it out there? Of course not. So, you know, there's different taboos in different societies. Some taboos make perfect sense. Some taboos are even public health measures, you know, like as I talk in the book about in India where the hands are symmetric, as you said, but in Indian culture, the left hand is taboo, and the right hand is what you use for shaking hands, for eating, for other things. The left hand is the dirty hand that you use for wiping your own bottom. You know, that's the toilet paper is your left hand. So while the body is anatomically symmetric, the taboo creates this pretty intense asymmetry. But for a good reason, you know, you probably shouldn't be shaking hands with other people with the same hand that you use to kind of clean your bottom. So in that sense, it makes sense. Yeah, maybe the roots of it make sense, but the way it propagates, especially as the times change, might not, because you can wash your hands, but the taboo remains. Right, society's very slow to change. What is the most fascinating part, function, or concept in the human body? So you know, something that fills you with awe. I guess the most obvious one is the brain, partly because it's so, you know, sort of poorly understood, though we understand more than we ever have in the past. There's still so much that we don't understand about how the lump of matter in our skulls kind of creates this subjective experience that we all kind of understand quite viscerally. That's an easy one. I would say the kidneys are an underappreciated organ. The way they tinker with the bloodstream, raise levels of this, lower levels of that, kind of our entire lives from inside the womb until we die is just really incredible. And when you look at how much energy different organs consume, the brain and the kidneys are two of the biggest ones, because the brain obviously in us is always active and controlling parts of the body, but the kidneys are just consuming a ton of energy to do what they do. They're kind of the unsung hero of the body, relegated to the back of the abdomen like some forgotten organ, but they are great. I did consider being a nephrologist, which is a kidney specialist, because I was so taken with the kidneys, but decided I like all the organs, so couldn't pick just one. So your book is ordered in a particular way. It's throat, heart, feces, genitals, liver, pineal gland, brain, skin, urine, fat, lungs, eyes, mucus, fingers and toes, and blood. All right, first of all, great, great chapter titles. Is there a reason for this ordering, or is it all madness? There's a few different reasons that went into it. I did want to start with the throat for the reason that it kind of presents the topic of death, which is sort of obviously very important in the training of a physician, in the career of a physician. It's a big part of what I deal with. You know, on the first day of medical school, we started the dissection of a cadaver in the class called anatomy lab. And so in a way, we were kind of thrown right in there in the beginning, like, this is the end of the human story, you know, understand this. And then we sort of backed up to the beginning with embryology and reproduction and stuff. So it's kind of like we got, and I got thrown into that right away, right in the beginning, kind of like, here's a dead body, now start cutting it apart and learn the name and function of absolutely every bit of flesh. How did that change you, that first experience with the cold honesty of human biology? Right, that's exactly what it was, this cold honesty about the kind of the story of each individual human body. It has an end, and that's it. I think that, well, actually before the end of that first day, so what we did on that first day was study the superficial muscles of the back, like the lats or latissimus dorsi and some other muscles. You know, we cut through the skin of the back, my cadaver was laying face down on this metal gurney. We pulled back the kind of plastic sheets that would keep him moist for the next four months as we dissected him, cut through the skin on his back, and then started dissecting through the superficial muscles of the back. And that was really all we saw that first day. We didn't get any deeper, didn't enter the abdominal or chest cavity to see internal organs. But I was so fascinated with this sort of behind the scenes look at how things work in the body, how you move your arms, how you arch your back, you know, these are the muscles that do it, that I decided I wanted to donate my own body for the same purpose. So I made that decision literally before the end of that first day of class, and I'm still sticking to it. So someday there will be a medical student that can watch and listen to this podcast while dissecting your body. It could happen. They might not know that that person they're listening to on the podcast will be the carcass in front of them, but like we don't, we never learned it. The universe will know. The universe will know. And they will acknowledge the irony or the humor, the absurdity of that. The universe will chuckle, but the medical student won't know because they never, as I did not, learn any, you know, personal information about the person. Only what I could glean from looking inside him, which actually tells you quite a bit. I knew he was a smoker. I knew he had coronary artery disease. You know, you get a window into, I knew he was overweight. You get a window into people's lives just by looking in their bodies after death. Other cadavers in the lab, not my own, or I shared one with three other students, but other cadavers, some had, you know, metal joints, like a knee replacement. Some had a kidney missing. So they probably, and we could tell it was surgically removed, not that he was born with one. And we could tell that he probably had a kidney tumor or cancer that was removed. So you do get an insight into people's lives from, you know, picking them apart after they're dead, but you don't know their name or what podcast they've been on. So the, as the book title says, Unseen Body, so it tells some kind of story of your life. So it does capture the decisions you've made in your life, the things you've done that might be kind of secret to that person and maybe to a few others that knew him or her well. It's so fascinating. So what kind of things can it reveal? Like what kind of choices in terms of the injuries, the catastrophic events, the lifestyle choices of smoking and diet and all those kinds of things? What can you see, what kind of history can you see about the human before you? So all those things you mentioned are things you can see. You can, you know, take the skin for example, right? Most things that happen to us leave a mark, you know, as I say, a kind of a story written in the language of scar where it tells you injuries you've had. And same thing with animals. You know, I've, I've seen deer hides that have marks that look like they're made by maybe a barbed wire fence, something like that. You can tell, you know, sometimes it's conjecture, but you can sort of imagine what might have happened to cause that. Perhaps, you know, two bucks were fighting and one got injured with an antler. And the same with humans. You know, I have scars on my body and when I notice them, I remember what happened. You know, I got a big cut on my hand when I was 13 and it's still there. And I remember what happened, you know, every time I look at it. And so in that way, only I might know that story, but other people, you know, when they dissect me and notice the same scars, they can kind of, it can fire their imagination as my cadaver, you know, did for me. They know that there is a story there. That's such an interesting way that the skin does tell a story, both tattoos and scars. Right. Some of the fun you've had and some of the damage you've done. Right. You know, when I, when I evaluate a patient, I can use scars to help me make medical decisions. So for instance, someone that comes in with abdominal pain into the emergency room, you can see scars on their abdomen that tell you about, you know, the past kind of activities of a surgeon, perhaps. I know, I recognize the scars that are left when someone has their gallbladder removed, the scars when someone has their appendix removed, when maybe when someone's had a hysterectomy and that can tell you what it might be or what it isn't. You know, if someone doesn't have an appendix, their abdominal pain is not appendicitis, end of story. So in that way, I'm sort of looking at these, the tracks or the footprints of past surgeries to tell me what, what might and might not be the cause of this patient's abdominal pain, which is kind of my main job in the ER is figuring out what's causing it and to help them. Is there ways to get more data about the human body as we look into the future of medicine and biology that will be helpful to fill in some of the gaps of the story? So you know, you have, you have companies, you have research that looks at, you know, collection of blood over long periods of time to see sort of, you know, paint a picture of what's happening in your body, mostly to help with lifestyle decisions, but also to, you know, to anticipate things that can go wrong and all that kind of stuff. Is there, can you just speak to a greater digital world that we're stepping in, how that can help tell a richer story? I certainly think that we have more data than we know what to do with right now, especially with kind of direct to consumer medical devices, you know, smartwatches, et cetera, that are just collecting these reams of data. I have not seen them put to, I think, the eventual use that they will. I think that the potential is sort of just, you know, unimaginable. And I hope we're heading into a new age where, you know, you can determine, for instance, is a person going to have more of the dangerous side effects to a drug based on their genetics? Or are they going to tolerate one drug better than the other, you know, based on their genetics? And we are slowly moving into that age, and especially the age of kind of completely synthesizing drugs in the lab, you know, much like, for instance, some of the COVID vaccines, actually, like Moderna never had the virus in their lab. They made that vaccine completely without ever having the virus themselves, just by having the genome, which is sort of astounding. And there's a lot of potential going forward, you know, based on that technology and some others. I didn't know that. So they, basically, it's all in the computer, it's computational. Right, you have the genetic code, you have tremendous power, even if you don't have the organism itself. What do you make of Elizabeth Holmes and efforts like that? First of all, I'm a curious, I'm drawn to the darkness in human nature, because that somehow reveals the full spectrum of what humans could be. So there's a lot of sort of controversial thoughts about who she is and her efforts and so on. I think you may have even tweeted about it, but I've read a lot of your tweets, so I'm now forgetting. But what do you make of her and those efforts, both those efforts and the charlatans that sort of snake oil salesmen that promise those efforts to do more than they currently can? I think that her, you know, that goal that she had, that she created Theranos to try to achieve, to use less blood in tests, is a very worthy goal and a huge frontier that we have not achieved and that I hope we will achieve. So I understand why, you know, someone describes what a huge step forward that would be, and it would be indeed. I understand why people put a ton of money behind it. Can you describe what was the promise? What are we even talking about with Theranos, just for people who don't know? So Theranos is a company that was basically started to revolutionize the way medical blood tests are done, both to use a whole lot less blood in doing it. You know, if anyone's ever been to the doctor and had five to ten tubes of blood removed from them, it can be quite surprising how much they take out. And it's, you know, that's the limitation of our technology, that we need those volumes of blood to run all the tests that we want to. And so the promise of Theranos was that perhaps with a single drop of blood, we would be able to know as much about the person's, the condition of their body without drawing all that blood. And thereby, you know, there would be these devices she was going to create that would sort of do it. You put a drop of blood in and it spits out everything you ever wanted to know about what's in your bloodstream. And in a way that would make it so much easier, you know, it could be you could have one in your home, theoretically, and you, I don't know why you'd wonder what your potassium level is on any given day, but you could check if you wanted to. And so that goal is very worthy. You know, I put that goal up there with the frontier of making painkillers that are as good as opioids without the addictive quality. You know, that would be such a huge revolution if we did have that in medicine. But particularly for me, because I trained in both pediatrics and internal medicine, so I learned to care for both children and adults. In children, we do draw much less blood, they have a much lower blood volume. And we use these tiny little tubes to draw their blood. And we seemingly get equivalent information out of the larger tubes we draw from adults. And I'm still unclear, to be honest, why we can't draw that little amount of blood from adults. It seems technically possible. I don't know what the barriers are. I'm sure there are or else we'd be doing it. But I do think that that is a very important goal. And if Theranos had done it, they would have really revolutionized the practice of medicine. But to return to that cadaver, that first day when you got to meet with a dead, with a human body that's no longer living. So how quickly did it take for you to get used to sort of, you said, looking at the surface muscles of the back? I mean, that can be overwhelming as a thought. And people listening to this that have never dissected anything might be overwhelmed by that thought. So like, how quickly were you able to get used to the brutal honesty of the biology before you? For me, it did not take long at all. I guess I've never been a squeamish person. So for me, it was kind of riveting and fascinating right from the first moment. But I do know some of my fellow classmates did have some trouble with it. Some of them I heard had nightmares in the first few weeks of anatomy lab. But then everyone, as far as I know, got used to it. And that was also actually a big lesson for me, that it's pretty amazing what people can get used to in their daily lives. And I kind of extrapolated that to people living through war and through just terrible situations and living under oppressive regimes. And it really is amazing what people can get used to almost anything. But you know, in war, people often come back and they have nightmares. They suffer through it. There's PTSD. There's a lot of complicated feelings with that. Are echoes of those same complicated feelings possible in the case of training to be and becoming a doctor? It's a good point. Yeah, I think, you know, sometimes just as, you know, a barbed wire fence can leave a scar on your skin, you know, emotional, psychological experiences can leave a mark on your brain or your memory. And I think that that definitely could be a problem in medical training. You do see a lot of things that are very shocking, very repulsive, things that you'd never forget. I know one of those students that had nightmares initially went on to be a surgeon. So I imagine she's not having the PTSD of kind of seeing inside her first dead body because she sees inside them all day, every day now. But I'm sure it could. You know, we go on to see so many kind of grosser or more shocking things in medical training through medical school and then by working with actual living patients, not just dead and embalmed bodies. So I do think that things can leave a mark, but I don't think that initial cadaver would be the most traumatic. Yeah, but maybe some of that trauma, the demons make you a better surgeon, just like some of your own psychological trauma might make you a better psychiatrist. Returning to the ordering, is it order or is it chaos? The ordering of the chapters from throat and heart and feces and genitals all the way to fingers and toes and blood. So I did mention that, you know, throat was the first one because I kind of wanted to throw the reader right into the brutal honesty of death. And I followed it up with feces as the third chapter, in a way, partly to also throw them right into the deep end of how I like discussing parts of the body and revealing their gross and fascinating aspects. So I didn't want to hide anything. You know, when you train to be a doctor, everything is on the table, literally, in the cadaver lab, but also just, you know, you deal with blood and piss and vomit and feces. And that's kind of the medium of your craft. Yes, the medium of the craft, that's right. Like if you're a painter, this is the paint. Exactly. And then you have to create a masterpiece with it. Like almost like a dance, because there's multiple painters. One of the painters is the biology. So let's return to throat. You mentioned it's a weird one. So first of all, a friend of mine said, I just see humans as like a bunch of holes that just walk around. Not untrue. It's a funny way to look at humans. So we have ears, we have nose, we have mouth, we have the sexual holes, vagina, penis, and then, you know, what's the medical term for your asshole? Anus. Anus, thank you. This is a very technical discussion. The rectums further in, don't confuse the two. Oh, that's very important. Is there a difference between throat and mouth? By the way, so when you say throat, are we talking about when that hole actually becomes tubular? The throat I would count as just sort of the very back of the, you know, the back of the mouth where the nose also comes down and meets it, where the tonsils are and the uvula. But you're right that, you know, we are a bunch of holes, but more accurately, we're a tube, right? We start in the womb as kind of this microscopic little disc, almost like a, you know, a flatbread. And then we roll in almost like a burrito into this tube. And we're a simple microscopic tube. And from there, we grow into this bigger and bigger tube, and we become more complicated. And each end of the tube does split into various holes. So all the holes you mentioned at the front end of the tube, the front end of our body, right, it splits into the nose, the mouth, the ears, the sinuses, the tube to the lungs, which is the windpipe, the tube down to the stomach, which is the esophagus. And then the other end of the tube splits as well. You know, men end up with two holes, and women end up with three holes. You know, the urethra, the vagina, and the anus, and men just, you know, the urethra and kind of the reproductive system, they share a hole. So I'm learning a lot today. It really is incredible that you start from sperm and an egg, and you have some DNA information, and from that, the building project begins. And then what that leads to is like a pizza dough, and then you roll it into a tube. And that tube then eventually sort of becomes more and more complicated and gets eyes and a brain, and then can create a Twitter account. So it's really incredible that we're just a fancy tube. Right, we are. And we sprout eyes and a brain and a sense of smell and taste pretty much to regulate what comes in the front of the tube. You know, we don't want to eat anything dangerous or poisonous. You know, we want to choose what we eat, even choose who we kiss. Well we seem to be motivated by what comes out of the tube as well, in part. That's not just output, it's a feedback mechanism, seemingly. Like we're also monitoring the functioning of the output. We're not just obsessed about the input. We're very obsessed with the output, you're absolutely right about that. People have medical complaints about their output very often that are, you know, I never cease to be surprised by a new kind of complaint or observation about the output. I think people have gone to wars over the output, and maybe sometimes the lack of the output or the desire for output for the particular other humans that you fancy. The brain and the eyes that sprouted somehow convinced the rest of the body that this one particular other tube is fanciful, so you're going to go to major wars and lead global suffering because of the fancy and the desire for additional output with the other tube. Okay, so that's, so on the throat, that part of the tube, is it, you said the design is not, you could have thought of maybe a little bit better options, because it's too multifunctional. Is that, can you sort of elaborate on the multifunctional nature of this part? Are a lot of parts of the human body multifunctional, or do you find that more specialization is going to get the job done better? There is a lot of organs, for instance, do have multiple functions. You know, the pancreas has two, it's like two organs in one. One, you know, secretes hormones like insulin into the bloodstream, and the other aspect of it secretes digestive enzymes into the gut to help you digest and absorb food. The liver is like 15 organs in one. It's just amazing how many different things it does. But the throat, you know, so basically the problem with the throat is, as I said, we have two tubes that are right next to each other in the throat. One is for food, drink, saliva, mucus, snot, whatever you're going to swallow. All of that stuff must go down the esophagus, the food tube, and end up in the stomach. And right next to the esophagus, millimeters away, is the windpipe, or the trachea, which goes down to the lungs. And your throat does these daily gymnastics to keep everything but air out of the windpipe, because you know, you slip up once and you can die. You can choke, you know, you laugh or speak while eating, and it's curtains, unfortunately. So it seems like, you know, every aspect of the body, when I was learning about it in med school, seemed so brilliant and so perfectly designed by evolution, or whoever you might think designed it, to, you know, favor survival, to enhance life. But the throat seemed the opposite. It seemed set up almost for failure. And you know, we developed all these mechanisms as a compensation, right? We have the gag reflex whenever food or something is headed towards your airpipe, your windpipe, or down to your lungs, your throat has this sort of like, rejection of it, it pushes it away in a gag reflex. At the same time, we have a cough, which is something our body does when something inappropriate does get down the windpipe. You know, when we get a little food down the wrong pipe, we end up coughing, and the coughing does usually flush it out and get rid of it. We even have something called the mucus elevator in our lungs, which is this constant flow of mucus up the airways, up to the trachea, dragging with it all kinds of particulates that we've inhaled, and perhaps some food that went down the wrong pipe, and drags it up into the throat, and we swallow it, kind of unconsciously all day, every day is the truth. Even the mechanism of swallowing is super complicated. You know, it uses a number of cranial nerves, it uses over 15 different muscles. It's this coordinated act to keep food out of the airway. You know, you can see someone's Adam's apple in their neck kind of jump upward when they swallow, which helps lift the airway up against this kind of the epiglottis, which plugs it closed and allows food or swallowed drink to kind of skirt just past it. But every time we swallow, those things do come within millimeters of going down the wrong pipe, and it's just thanks to these kind of compensations, these adaptations we have to the danger of the throat that keeps us alive. As I actually took a sip of water, it's kind of, it makes you appreciate the wonderful machinery of it all. By the way, we have pulled up your Instagram that people should follow. You have a post about the throat, and just showing so many different components from the tongue to the trachea, the esophagus, just the entire machinery of it all. The teeth for the chewing, it's so interesting. And so a lot of the structure of this, the anatomy and the physiology, does it echo other mammals? Are we just basically borrowing a lot of stuff from evolution and maybe making small adjustments, maybe due to the fact that we're not using our mouth to murder things as other predators might? We use our thumbs? Exactly. We have hands. We don't need to bite them. Yeah, there's a lot of overlap between different animals, which I find very comforting and fascinating. You know, someone asked me, is there any animal in which the throat is better designed? And my first thought was whales, because the blowhole is kind of up on the top of their head. So I was thinking, oh, maybe they are more separate. But when I looked into it, actually, no. You know, the paths do come very close, just like in us. And I saw a paper about some new discovered organ that actually helps keep food and drink out of the airway in whales that they hadn't ever noticed before. So it's a different mechanism, but the same kind of basic problem is that, you know, we're tubes and the air tube and food tube are right next to each other. How well do we understand, so just even link your hand, this little part, is there still mysteries about the complexity of the system? Because you mentioned just even for swallowing all these parts in the brain that are responsible and all the different things that have to, like an orchestra, play together. Do we have a good sense from both a medical perspective and a biology perspective, or is there still mysteries? There's definitely still mysteries. We understand a lot about, for instance, how the swallowing mechanism, you know, is coordinated in the brainstem, sometimes using some higher levels of the brain. But it is a very thoughtless thing, as you mentioned when you drank the water. You know, it's not something we have to think about, thankfully, or we'd be thinking about it all day. There's a lot we don't understand about the basic mechanisms, perhaps about how the nerves fire and how they kind of, you know, coordinate on the microscopic level, how ions rush into and out of nerve cells to kind of create that electrical signal. But we sure understand a heck of a lot, and it's very fascinating. So moving on to chapter two, we'll jump around. And you actually said the liver does a lot of things. I also saw you retweet something where it said, you know, showing that the liver is bigger than the heart, which is the body or the universe's way of saying you should drink more and care less. It's a good line. So you give props, like you said, to the kidney, to the liver, to the maybe to the organs, to the parts that don't often get as much credit as they deserve. But let us go for time to the human heart. We get chest pain. We talk about it when we talk about love for some reason. Why do we talk about the heart when we talk about love? There sometimes can actually be some chest pain involved in love. I remember when I was a med student, I was very smitten with another medical student who was totally brilliant and beautiful. And it actually does cause this kind of burning in your chest. I don't know what that is. I don't think it's from the heart itself. I don't know if it was like acid reflux because I was so nervous. I'm not really sure. But I definitely felt something in my chest whenever I saw her. I don't know what that is. But you could see why someone might think, oh, you know, maybe it is your heart. That's kind of the most prominent organ in your chest. When people come to the ER with chest pain, you know, the big question is, is it my heart? And that's my main job is figuring out if it is or not. So I could see why, you know, the way ancients saw the functions of different organs is fascinating, but often hard to explain. Would it be fair to say that if you look at the entirety of human history, the way most people die has to do with the heart? Well, like in America today, cardiovascular disease and coronary artery disease is one of the most common, perhaps the most common cause of death. You know, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, it was probably not. People were not living as long and people were dying of infections that we tend to die less of these days. Sure. That's true. But in terms of things to stab, so I'm trying to sort of introspect, like why talk about the heart and love? My thought would be that is because the heart was seen as the most important organism. It would be like the origin of life comes from the heart. The originator of life and the way you figure that out from sort of an ancient perspective is when you stab things, what is likely to lead to issues. It's possible to imagine that the brain is not as special as we might think from when you don't understand modern biology or physiology or neuroscience, all those kinds of things, especially because pain, you know, it's painless too if you stab it, the brain, I mean. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, so that's really interesting. I'm sure there's a kind of a poetic answer to maybe the way people wrote about it, but what to you is the wisdom in the design of the heart? I mean, the main function of the heart basically is to push blood through the cardiovascular system through the branching blood vessels to feed every cell in the body. You know, when I believe our ancestors started off as single-celled organisms floating in some ancient brew and they were surrounded by the medium that would bring them all the nutrients they needed, so there's no issues there. And then once you start getting multicellular organisms that are thicker and the ones on the inside aren't in contact with that sort of nutritious brew that they're growing in, you kind of need a way to distribute those nutrients to every cell. And so that's what the heart and the branching vascular tree do. So the heart, you know, it's the biggest disconnect between how the organs talked about in poetry and through history versus its actual function is probably the heart, because we ascribe all these things like love and passion and life itself sometimes to the heart. But actually it's just a simple mechanical pump, you know, that's all it is. I don't want to downplay it, it's amazing. But you know, it just pushes. It fills with blood and then squeezes it, fills with blood and squeezes it. And just that squeezing, that pushing creates the blood pressure that you need to get blood to every cell in your body, especially when you're standing upright to get blood to your brain, you need a certain amount of pressure to get it up there. Isn't it amazing to you how much volume of blood just gets pushed through by this pump? Absolutely. They say every red blood cell takes about five minutes to circulate and come back to the heart. And that circulation kind of, you know, starts in the womb and continues and kind of until the moment that we die. But the volume is tremendous and it can never, you know, take a break basically. And it's sort of propagating all kinds of stuff throughout the body. It's a delivery mechanism, blood, for all kinds of good stuff and bad stuff. Nutrition, drugs, all that. Medications too. Medications. Such a fascinating design. And it also takes the waste away, you know, it kind of brings the nutritious stuff, brings the nutrients, especially oxygen, but many other things. And then it also, as it passes the cell, takes the cell's waste, so it's sort of the freshwater and the sewage system in one. So about blood, what to you is fascinating about blood? So we talk about the pump that spreads the blood, but the blood itself? Right, so the blood itself is sort of, I mean, it's the most important bodily fluid, of course. It, you know, from moment to moment, every cell in the body needs a flow of blood to bring it, most importantly oxygen, but also again all the other nutrients and to take away waste. And if that stops for even a few moments, you can be in big trouble. So blood is sort of, you know, the most important medium. It's also, doctors use it to kind of evaluate the body. It does have this kind of all-seeing quality to it where, you know, we can evaluate organs through the blood. I can tell you about your liver, your heart, your kidney, just by taking a sample of your blood. So it's sort of like this crystal ball in a way, and we use it kind of all the time, you know, to assess someone's health, to assess their disease. Is it also the attack vector for diseases, for bacteria, for viruses and all that kind of stuff? So viruses seem to attack you, the throat, maybe you can correct me, but they seem to attack different parts of the body, depending on how easy it is to access and how easy it is to get in deep, depending on what you prefer. If you want to do a little bit of hard work, but you get in deep, or you don't want to do the hard work, but you don't get in deep, those are the choices viruses have. But is blood one of the sort of attack vectors? What's like, if you were trying to break into the human body, like a parasite, a virus, a bacteria, how would you do it? Like what would you, what would be the attack vectors you would explore? Right, so you got to look for the body's weaknesses, of course. You know, we have inherent weaknesses, for instance, like our respiratory tract, we have to breathe, we have to get air in from the outside, and so that's one of the entries into the body. And so, you know, when we inhale, let's say a poisonous gas, you know, it's an easy way in. You have to breathe, you can't hold your breath very long, but you know, air in our lungs is still kind of contiguous with the external atmosphere, it's not really inside the body until it does cross across the lining of the alveoli into the blood, as you said, that's when it really gets inside. And the other, besides the respiratory tract, the gastrointestinal tract is another way, kind of a chink in the armor, you know, we have to eat, we have to drink, and therefore we're taking the external world into ourselves, into our gut, in order to extract from it what we need and let the rest kind of flow out. So those two, the gastrointestinal and respiratory tract, you know, there's a reason that, you know, respiratory tract infections and gastrointestinal infections are kind of the most common that afflict us, because those are the ways in to the body. So I would definitely pick one of those. Not just be a lazy cold in the nose, but really a more aggressive pneumonia down deep in the lungs and get across that barrier into the blood. But also the whole sex thing that humans do. So speaking of which, let us go for time to the genitals chapter. So what are genitals? I think I've heard of those. I think I've read about a penis and a vagina. Can you explain to me how those work? Just asking for a friend. But also, what do you, what's fascinating about it, and maybe what's misunderstood or little known about them? Sure. So they're very unique organs, I would say. One of the things that I like to point out is that, you know, while every organ from moment to moment keeps us alive and ensures our survival, the genitals are in a way the opposite. We don't need them from moment to moment. You don't even have to use them at all. And in fact, they often make us do stupid things that are the opposite of kind of enhancing survival. So, and they, you know, they've affected the brain and you can become sort of focused and nuts based on those desires that kind of stem from the genitals. So they can be dangerous organs too. But you know, I mean, sexual dimorphism helps with genetic variability, as it does in so many other organisms. You know, you take two people and mix them together, their genetics, you just get a lot more variation and more opportunities to try different genetic codes and see what will enhance survival as we talked about sex and death. I talk about in the book a lot of, for instance, the female genital tract, how the uterus is very unusual because, you know, it doesn't even sort of wake up and start doing its thing until the second decade of life. You know, it's even though babies, female babies are born with all of the eggs they'll ever have in their ovaries already. They're just sort of in this stasis until they start waking up kind of once a month. And it's this cycle, you know, there's so much in our bodies that are cyclical and rhythmic, the heartbeat, the breathing. But menstruation is kind of a very strange rhythm that takes over a decade to start. And only, you know, the rhythm beats once a month, which is very slow compared to every other rhythm of the body. The other unusual thing is, you know, in medicine, when rhythms of the body cease, when they stop, those are emergencies, right? When your heart stops, that's a cardiac arrest. You need CPR, maybe an electric shock to restart it. When your breathing stops, you know, you need a breathing machine to breathe for you or something to reverse whatever might be causing the suppression of your breathing. But when menstruation stops, it's the point of menstruation in the first place. The whole reason that the uterus grows a lining and sheds it each month is to one day, you know, get the ovum to get fertilized and for it to implant in the lining, and then the rhythm ceases. And that's obviously not a medical emergency, unlike most other rhythms, you know, cessations. It's the point of the whole thing in the first place. So these particular penis and vagina are that whole thing, the uterus, whatever. Am I not using the wrong terms? I don't know. I'll just keep saying. You use those terms. There's more technical, there's parts, various, various parts. In medical school, you learn every bump and, you know, every little part of every little organ and including the genitals. I never really thought of it this way, as you said, is that most organs are kind of full-time employees, like 24-7, they're doing something. And then there's some organs, penis, vagina being representative of this, they're not functioning all the time. They're only functioning every once in a while and then get us to do stupid stuff or awesome stuff and all that kind of stuff. But they're not essential for human survival on a second by second basis. And that the whole cyclical nature of the human body, how many other cycles are on a monthly basis? Like that far apart? That's a fascinating design that the human body would do that and wouldn't start until the second decade of life. It's almost like, what do I want to say? There's some kind of meta planning going on. Like this is the optimal solution for the sexual selection mechanism among like somewhat intelligent species. Like it's useful to, after the brain has developed sufficiently long, to now be making sexual selection decisions. Like you need time for this computer, this really powerful computer to load in the info. Interesting. You also need the body to develop, you know, a child simply isn't big enough to be pregnant and deliver another baby. I wonder if there's animals in which this happens at a much more accelerated pace and different stages. Definitely, especially, you know, certain kinds of insects, you know, like Drosophila, a lot of the fruit fly, a lot of experiments are done on because their life cycle is so rapid. You know, a lot of kind of insects and other creatures are almost ready to mate as soon as they're born. Not us. Not us. Is there any improvements to the design? So a lot of people are very interested in these particular body parts. If you were to sort of step back as a geneticist, biological designer, or maybe a computer scientist, computer engineer trying to build human 2.0 or maybe a robot, how would you improve the penis and the vagina? Well the penis for starters, I mean, let's also discuss the testicles, you know, they're very important too. I mean... Okay, so they're both, yes. Right, so they're fragile and they're important and yet they're hanging off the body in danger basically. So does that make sense? You know, they begin in the womb, they begin inside the abdomen and they slowly descend and sometimes before birth, sometimes in the first year of life, sometimes never, they pop out of the body and end up hanging in the scrotum. There's a reason, because the chemical reactions that create sperm function best at a few degrees cooler than body temperature. And so that's why you might notice in the warm weather they might hang further down and in the cold weather they scrunch themselves up to get closer to the body to maintain that ideal temperature a few degrees cooler. So it's hard, you know, if you could create a sperm production mechanism that did not rely on that lower temperature, that would be great, keep them inside the body protected like the ovaries are. But, oh, then you wouldn't rely on the lower temperature, I thought you meant create some kind of weird internal cooling mechanism. Well, I guess that would be one solution, but just maybe a different type of chemical reaction would not be reliant on the lower temperature, let's say. You know, it would be great to design a spermatogenesis or sperm production process that would function best at body temperature and then we can keep those delicate organs inside the body and not have them hanging out in danger. Maybe the argument for this design is maybe it's nice to put them in danger so you are constantly concerned about it. Could be, maybe that's beneficial for male psychology, I'm not really sure. There's a psychological element here about the evolution that could be. So that's the testicles. Penis? A better way to do it, you know? I mean, it's pretty good as it is, you know, it kind of, when it's time for it to work, it grows and stiffens and when it's time for it not to work, it kind of shrinks and hangs out. I saw this on a Seinfeld episode, so I know how it works. Shrinkage. Yeah, that was a good one. But you know, that's also a bit unique, I suppose, that, you know, the way it has this erectile tissue. And actually, they're similar in the mouth of certain baleen whales, there's a certain similar kind of erectile tissue that helps cool them off because they have so much blubber and create so much heat in moving around and feeding that they have actually a similar to the penis organ in their mouth that helps cool their bodies because it's a big problem. They have to store all that blubber for fuel, but it makes them too hot. So as a compensation, they have this kind of erectile organ in their mouth. Okay. What about vagina? You know, the fact that miscarriages sometimes happen because of sexually transmitted diseases, because of trauma, you know, it'd be great if the uterus where the growing fetus is, is sort of even more protected from those things. You know, I guess that's a side effect of the fact that people still have sex when they're pregnant are still, you know, exposed to injury. As a way to make it more protected, perhaps that would be even better. I did see an article recently about artificial wombs, which are rapidly becoming a reality and in animal studies, they're able to prolong the gestation of a fetus by a month in an artificial womb. Can you explain the artificial aspect of the artificial womb? Sure. It's, um, I believe it, it acts almost like a heart lung bypass machine. So when someone's getting like bypass surgery, their heart is stopped, literally, they throw ice in the chest and they give a potassium infusion through the blood, which stops the heart. But the blood is run through a machine that basically does the work of the heart and lungs together, gets oxygen into the blood and then pushes it back into the body. So I believe it's a sort of similar mechanism to keep blood and nutrition flowing to this fetus. And so it's just not inside the body of a parent, it's in some kind of other device. But I think that science is going to rapidly improve. One benefit is, you know, babies are born premature and while, you know, neonatology is able to continuously kind of lower the age of viability through better technology and understanding how, what you can, medicines and other things you can do to premature babies when they're born, you know, ideally, if let's say premature labor begins, you can't stop it. That baby's coming out one way or the other, if you could just then stick it into an artificial womb where it can continue its development, that would save a whole host of problems. Often those babies born very early suffer from damage to various organs, including the brain, you know, for the rest of their life. So that could be a very important technology. So some aspects of the human body, we can develop technologies that outsource them, sort of offload some of the stress and the workload from the human body to do it elsewhere. Like dialysis does that for kidneys. You know, people can live decades without kidneys as long as they get dialysis, which does the work for them. Not every organ can do that. For instance, the liver, there's no dialysis version for the liver. Like if your liver fails, you need a liver transplant and that's the only thing that's gonna do it for you. So that's the world's first artificial womb for humans. And we're looking at a picture of what looks like gigantic balloons. Matrix here we come. This is very matrixy. How are they floating? What are we even looking at? There's giant red spheres. This really looks like the matrix. I wonder where it's from. So there seems to be a paper on this too. I don't know too much about it, but I did see that it's advancing very rapidly. The world's first artificial womb for humans. Scientists in the Netherlands say they're within 10 years of developing an artificial womb that could save the lives of premature babies. Premature birth before 37 weeks is globally the biggest cause of death among newborns, but the development also raises ethical questions about the future of baby making and so on and so forth. Wow. So we're going to be facing a lot of ethical questions as we start to mess with human biology. In an effort to help human biology, we might start to mess with it. And it's gonna be very interesting as we take steps towards the matrix. All right. What about the neighbors? Poop. Poop species. There seems to be a lot of interesting stories in that particular output as well. What to you is fascinating? What to you maybe is misunderstood or little known about poop? Well, it's hilarious for one thing that we do it. The word is great as well. There's so many different words. When I'm talking to the parents of pediatric patients, I use the word poop. I don't often when I'm talking to adult patients, try to choose a more mature word. But poop is amazing. I mean, I guess it's sort of the most dirtiest, the most vile, the most hated aspect of our bodies. It's the grossest. We don't want to think about it, talk about it, have it anywhere near our food or in social interactions. With good reason. I mentioned gastrointestinal infections are one of the most common infections the human body suffers from. And what we call the way they spread from person to person, grossly enough, is referred to as the fecal-oral route, which means a bit of someone's stool is getting into your swallowing it through water supply. For instance, diarrhea is actually quite a brilliant mechanism of these microbes. If you, let's say you're in the intestine of one person, your goal is to get into the intestines of another person. Brilliant to just trick their intestines into secreting all this fluid into the intestines to increase the volume of stool and its runniness so that when they do poop, it gets into the water supply and then everyone else kind of ends up getting infected as well. Just the same way like, you know, tuberculosis or coronavirus kind of infects your lungs and makes you cough and you send it out into the air and it ends up in other people's lungs. That's all evolution. Yeah, it's brilliant. So diarrhea is intelligent. Is a big takeaway lesson. It's one of the most intelligent things we can do as an entirety of an organism, not just the particular cognitive organism, but there's, you know, we're made up of bacteria and viruses and there's a lot of visitors and so on, as the entirety of the system, diarrhea is one of our better accomplishments. It's fascinating. Well, I wonder, why is poop funny? I think a lot of that is socially constructed, just how it's sort of supposed to be hidden away yet something we always do, something, you know, we chuckle about as children. But even in healthcare, you know, it becomes this big topic of conversation because you end up talking about it constantly. Like in the ER, people come in, they're complete strangers, sometimes like a nice old lady who resembles my grandmother and all of a sudden I have to ask her all about what's happening in the bathroom, like, is she straining? What color is it? What, you know, what's the consistency? Does it float on top of the water more than it should? Is it hard to flush? I mean, there's a million different questions you learn as a medical student and you're like this poop detective when people come in with issues. And so it's funny, I guess, you know, in the exam room with the doctor-patient relationship, there's sort of no barriers, you know, you talk about everything and you're talking about the most intimate details of a person's life, even though you just met them a second ago. It's so different than normal social interactions. Yet there is this social aspect. A lot of what I do is social, you know, it seems like doctors, what they do is mostly scientific. But actually, it's just relating to another person and you have to maintain, you know, your professional demeanor and this normal human-level interaction, even though you're talking about poop. And that's a skill, that's an art and a science. Well, okay, actually I want to linger on that because I'm a fan of just diving into conversations right away with strangers, just getting no small talk. And this is like the ultimate, I don't know if it's the ultimate, but it's one version of no small talk. You get right to the point. That's really powerful from a psychology perspective. You're a kind of therapist or you have the power to be a therapist. I don't mean just about the medical condition of the body, but the psychological. There's so much fear connected to this concern. Also self-doubt, insecurities, even sort of existential thoughts about your mortality, all of those things are right there in the room. So I think one way doctors deal with that is they kind of have this cold way about them. They almost have that dual mode. One is like, I'm going to be friendly on the surface and cold about the brutal honesty of the biology. But I wonder if there's like a skillful middle ground, this dangerous place where you can help people deal with their psychological insecurities, concerns, fears, all those kinds of things. Is that just really tough to do? Yeah. It's a huge part of being a doctor is dealing with the psychological aspects of whatever's going on with the patient's body. I mean, in the ER, you deal with psychiatric emergencies kind of left and right more than ever these days. And that's a huge issue, not to mention sort of drug use, alcohol related stuff, that gets into sort of psychology and the human love of intoxicants and changing the brain's chemistry. And you know, and habit, of course, we're creatures of habit, and that plays in as well. I mean, a big part of, for instance, pediatrics is reassuring parents and kind of convincing them, giving them the confidence that what's going on with their child is not serious, will go away on its own, does not need any particular intervention. But adults too, you know, reassurance is a huge part of the game. Yeah, you know, in the ER, you see humanity at its most raw. I feel like you get this tremendous insight into people, how they live, what they worry about, what they think about, how their body works, and also how their mind works that you almost don't see anywhere else. It's a really interesting place to work. And also the way our society is shaped, the ER is where people go for almost everything. When they're suicidal, they come to the ER. When they're too high on drugs to walk, they come to the ER. You know, children who have been abused, sexually abused, physically abused, come to the ER for us to investigate. It's sort of like the all-purpose waste bin for the dregs of society, what people do to themselves and what they do to other people. You know, you mentioned your interest in the darkness of humanity. It made me think of the ER, where you really see what human life is like in the ER. You tweet about it, you write about it, you think about the emergency room ER. That's really fascinating. Just the little window you give to that world is fascinating. What lessons about humanity do you draw from this place where you're so near to death? There's so much chaos. There's so much variety of what's wrong. So little information or the urgent nature of the information inflows such that you can't really reason thoroughly and deeply and collect all the data, all those kinds of things. You have to act fast. And then everybody's freaking out. Can you just speak to the human condition that you get a glimpse at through the ER experience? Yeah, I think you do see all those things. I think on one end of the spectrum, it is this very unique place where you get all these unique insights. On the other end, it can become a ho-hum workplace just like any other, which is sort of surprising. As I mentioned before, humans seem to be able to get used to almost anything. And doctors can get ho-hum used to, oh, dying of a heart attack, oh, actively in labor and the baby's half out, oh, you know, just ho-hum, I know what to do, going about my job and go home and have dinner with my family and not think too much about it. That's amazing. I do try to maintain both my fascination, you know, as I think writers in general tend to think more about what they see, write more about what they see, maybe draw connections with what they see to other things. So I do think that writer's perspective does help me kind of maintain my fascination and my kind of more of an insightful perspective than just a ho-hum, water cooler conversation. But you do see a lot, you know. In a way, medical problems are sort of the great equalizer, right? Class, race, culture, background, you know, the failings of the human body, the way it fails and what we can do to help in those situations is almost universal. I always like this quote from, you know, Chekhov was a doctor and a writer, and he treated a lot of peasants very low class and also treated a lot of aristocrats. And he wrote that they all have the same ugly bodies, basically, which I think is really right on. And, you know, it's sort of you can see people underneath a superficial layer of clothing, maybe it's the most expensive clothing bought from the fanciest places, but underneath their body is still failing in the same way. And they still have the same anxieties, the same worry about mortality, the same concerns about whether poop turned green today, all these things that they bring to the table. So in a way, it is this great equalizer where people are kind of all the same in some ways. Yeah, I feel like people sometimes, class, money, fame, power, makes you for a time forget that you're just a meat vehicle, and just as good and just as bad as the other meat vehicles all around you. In that sense, there's this question sometimes raised, are some people better than others? And I usually answer no to that question because of that. Yeah, some people might be better at math, some people might be better at music, but in the end, we're just meatbags. Beautiful as we are, there's a poem that just a small tangent I want to take, I just saw it just acting that you have written. Would you classify it as a poem? Yeah. At first, if I may read it, at first you enter the clinic, shoulders weighed down by white coat pockets, book stuffed, timid. You act out a role, your white coat, a costume, your questions, a script, your demeanor, a rehearsed act. No one is going to buy this. But then as you play the role again and again, repeating the lines and the motions, the script slowly dissolves and the interaction becomes thoughtless. And the rehearsed act slowly fades into a profession. You suddenly find yourself unable to tell if you're still acting or if you're doing it for real. And now you're a doctor, Jonathan Reisman, MD, Harvard, Massachusetts General Hospital Medicine Pediatrics Department. Beautiful. So that is what it is to be a doctor. You're just acting. Fake it till you make it. Exactly. Fake it till you make it. And I think, I imagine every medical student has this feeling when they first go into a room. Like I talked about asking this nice old lady about the color of her poop for the first time and you're just like, what am I doing here? Does she believe I'm a doctor? You know, this just feels absurd. But then it's again, ho-hum, becomes normal. There's not a sperm chapter in your book. You mentioned offline that this is the second and the third book that you're working on all about sperm. No, I'm just kidding. But or maybe I'm not. Humor tends to make way for reality. So the tweet was that an average human male produces 500 billion sperm, I believe, which is about four to five times more than the number of people who have ever lived. And each of those sperm is genetically unique. So you can think of them, you can kind of imagine the possible humans they could have created and they're all different. They have similarities, of course, but they have peculiarities that make them different. And you can think of all the different trajectories, all the Einsteins, the Feynmans, the Hitlers, and all the people who have died, who would have died during childbirth, would have died early in their years, given the different diseases. It's fascinating to think about an average human. Yeah, we're all winners of a very competitive race. So the people who make it, we're winners, hashtag winning. Is there something that you find fascinating, interesting, beautiful, ugly, surprising about sperm? I think sperm is, yes, it is a very interesting bodily fluid. Maybe I'll write about it in a second or third book, we'll see. But you know, I guess sperm is interesting because it's kind of the only projectile bodily fluid from the body. You know, vomit can be projectile. Usually that's a disease state, that's not the expected kind of normal healthy state. Oh, sneezing, would you classify that or no? True, I guess it's, yeah, there's some particles in the air, I guess it's not a fluid, I mean, not a liquid. But true, I mean, cough, in addition to sneeze, right? Sneeze is how our nose gets rid of something that shouldn't be there. Cough is how our lungs get rid of something that shouldn't be there. Sneezing is sometimes how our stomachs get rid of something that shouldn't be there. All projectiles sometimes in their own way. Sperm is sort of interesting. It's created with the food for its journey. Sperm mostly feed off of fructose, a kind of sugar, you know, for the few days that they live inside the female genital tract. But it's sort of, I like comparing our genitals to the genitals of the plant world, which is flowers. And in the same way that, you know, a touch-me-not, for instance, the kind of flower where when you brush up against it, it sort of launches seeds into the distance to try to survive in a way kind of the sperm is doing something similar, launched into the female genital tract and then all trying to find this, competing against each other to find this egg. It's really amazing. And when you learn about it from the biological perspective, the most amazing thing is how many things can go wrong, you know, just in the sperm not surviving long enough for it making it to the egg and then some genetic abnormality causing a miscarriage. It's sort of astounding that it works as often as it does. And I think the lesson there is just that people have a lot of sex. And so statistics just favor it's going to work out a good number of times. Yeah. And there might be intelligence in the design of just the sheer number of sperm. Maybe that's yet another way to inject variety into the system. And redundancy, I guess. You know, we have two kidneys, we have two hands. If we lose one, we can still go on. We have, you know, however many millions of sperm get sort of launched in every ejaculation is, you know, if a bunch fail or don't make it inside. There's papers on this, by the way, that I read for some reason, not read, but skimmed for some reason, which is talking about which sperm usually wins. Like, what are the characteristics of sperms that are winning? And it's not the fastest. Apparently there's some kind of slaughter that happens early on. People correct me, but it's not the fastest. There is an aspect of it's the luckiest. It really is. Like, the body tries to make it a random selection. It tries to make it fair in making it as random as possible. Interesting and also interesting that they're fueled by fructose. I didn't really think about that. So they're a carb loaded athlete. Right, with food for the journey. Food for the journey. Because I'm somebody that actually does a lot of running on, I guess you would call me a fat adapted athlete. So I do sort of meat heavy diet. And so you could do a lot of endurance kind of stuff when you don't need any carbs, any glucose, any of that kind of stuff. And you're very low. It's interesting to think that sperm are like, nope, they're total bros. They go to the gym, sprint, performance, short term performance is everything. All right, well, that's sperm. Turning to the liver, the place that deals with all our poor decisions. No. Many of them. Many of our poor decisions. Is there, you said that the liver does quite a few things. What to you is fascinating, beautiful about the liver? I'd say its primary function seems to be as the sort of gatekeeper for what we eat and absorb. You know, the entire gastrointestinal tract from the esophagus to the rectum, the blood flows from it, not back to the heart, but to the liver where it's first examined, kind of things are evaluated, packaged, you know, processed, detoxified, perhaps. It's kind of this great overseer of what we digest and absorb. And so it kind of keeps track of what's coming in, you know, the outside world that comes in and will become part of us. That's why partly the liver suffers sometimes the injury from certain toxins like alcohol. But beyond that, the liver is also the place, as I said, it metabolizes things too. So it metabolizes alcohol and why it can be injured by alcohol. It metabolizes drugs like Tylenol, which is why Tylenol can be very toxic to the liver when taken as an overdose. So the liver, you know, even beyond that, the liver produces a lot of different, you know, things that float in the bloodstream. It packages cholesterol and fats and sends them to where they're needed. It deals with protein in the blood. It deals with clotting factors in the blood, helping the blood clot. You know, processes things like bilirubin and other things that really, as I mentioned, is like 15 organs wrapped into one. Maybe that's why it's sort of the biggest internal organ. Skin's bigger, but it's not an internal organ. Right. The biggest organ in the human body is the skin. Right. But the liver is the biggest internal organ and it really is a powerhouse and does a lot, which is why when people suffer from liver failure, kind of everything goes wrong in a way. And in terms of replacing organs, what are organs that are easily replaceable, which are not? Like on the list of things that are hard to replace and not, where would you put it number one? Where would you put it like at the bottom? Well, I'd say the kidneys are, you know, nothing's easy, but kidneys are easiest in a way. Partly, I mean, maybe a big factor there is that other people have two of them and can give one to you. So you don't have to wait for people to die, which is the case with hearts and livers. Sometimes you can take a part of a liver from someone who's alive and the liver does have this kind of mythological ability to regenerate itself. In the myth of Prometheus, he's, you know, chained to a rock and the bird eats his liver every day and it grows back every day. And that's actually biologically accurate. Not that you can completely get rid of it and it'll appear again, but when pieces of it are removed or injured, it does regenerate itself pretty amazingly. So I'd say the kidneys, the fact that they're more around. Also it's, you know, the kidney is a smaller organ. It's often just, you don't have to put a transplanted kidney where the kidney should be in the back of the abdomen. You can just kind of stuff it into the pelvis there because it's a smaller organ. The liver would be hard because it's huge. And I guess we just have the most experience with kidney transplants because they are the most common. And the heart and the brain are probably quite difficult. Brain as far as I know, hasn't been successfully done. The heart is done. And definitely I've evaluated a lot of patients with a heart transplant. It does work pretty well. The mechanical heart substitutes are also advancing quite rapidly these days. For a failing heart, there are certain kinds of devices they can surgically implant. Like when a failing heart isn't able to push hard enough, you know, that's the heart's job is pushing blood with sufficient pressure to create blood pressure. When it fails, there are actually these devices you can strap onto the heart to help it pump harder. Those are rapidly advancing. Many of those were not available even 10 years ago when I got out of med school and now they're commonly used. So maybe heart transplant won't be as necessary in the future if those mechanical things do advance. And as I said, the heart is basically a mechanical pump. So perhaps it would be the easiest organ to replace with some mechanical device. Now for something completely different, returning to testicles for a time. We posted an Instagram post of testicles as food. Perhaps eating them doesn't help libido because ingested testosterone is totally metabolized in the liver, returning to our liver, leaving none to reach the bloodstream. That is why testosterone only comes as injection or topical foam, not as pills. On the other hand, estrogen and progesterone can be absorbed orally, hence the pill. But testosterone is mostly responsible for libido in women too. I was not expecting for this biology lesson when I was looking at an Instagram picture of are we looking at testicles? Are these like which species? I believe all those are from cows. From cows, cow testicles. Cows technically females though, bulls. Yeah, well, speaking of which, just we'll jump around a bit, but you've also traveled the world quite a bit. What have you, what is the craziest food you've eaten across the world? What have you learned about the extremes of the culinary arts by traveling the world? I would say, I guess I've always been extra fascinated with the diets of natives of the far north. I spent some time there in Russia and in Alaska and always loved their diet. So when I worked in Alaska in emergency room and did some other travels in Arctic Alaska, and they eat a lot of fat traditionally before contact. More than half of all calories in the Inupiat Eskimo diet came from blubber, marine mammal fat or also fat from fish, fat from ducks and other birds that go up there to mate in the summer. So things like raw whale blubber was especially interesting for me and very exciting. I had some beluga whale chowder, things like that. There's just all these very unusual dishes. There's a dish called mikiyak, which is whale meat fermented in whale blood, which is quite delicious actually. So is it cooked, is it eaten raw? How do they like their fat, like in the same up north in Russia, as you mentioned? So they often eat it raw. So the raw whale blubber is called muktuk, and it's often just sliced thin. It's sort of cold but not frozen often when they eat it, and they slice it thin. A lot of people assume it would be very chewy, but it's not that chewy. It's quite pleasant actually and has this kind of sea smell to it as you're eating it. I quite like it. And what's the culinary culture like? Meaning is it just source of energy or is it art? Well traditionally there's not a lot of cooking in the Arctic. A lot of things are eaten raw, partly because there's not a lot of fuel for making fires. So they will, you know, in some of the big rivers in Russia, for instance, that flow north, they will bring trees, you know, dead trees and logs up to the north and they can get some wood that way. And same thing in some of the rivers kind of flowing northward from the Brooks Range of Alaska. You do get some trees, but just not enough to really produce a culinary art that requires cooking with heat. You know, they do have traditionally blubber lamps where the blubbers of seals and whales are used to create a little flame. Often that's for light and for a little bit of heat and less for cooking. But eating things raw is definitely a huge part of the culture there. And while I was, I went on a whale hunting trip out on the spring ice in the Arctic Ocean by Barrow, Alaska. And two of the guys, the Inupiat guys who had invited me were kind of talking about how eating things raw is sort of the most essential characteristic of Inupiat culture. And the one guy who's half white, half Inupiat said people often doubt his ethnicity because he looks like a white guy. So he'll, you know, bite the head off of a raw bird to show them that he is truly Inupiat, is what he said. That's how you prove you're legit. We're looking at Instagram pic. As a doctor, I was used to knowing fat as the most maligned of all body parts and the culprit in an obesity epidemic. But in Arctic Alaska, fat has always meant health and survival. In fact, the entire story of life in the Arctic, especially human life, is basically a tale of fat. And in Barrow, what's the AK? Alaska. Alaska, okay. A lawn covered with whale blubber is still equivalent of a plush green lawn in temperature suburbia swelling in its owner with pride. And that's what we're looking at is a lawn full of whale blubber. A beautiful, and this, so this is, I mean, there's a lot of calories there. Oh yeah. And this can feed a lot of people. A lot of energy, a lot of warmth. Absolutely. And it's delicious. This was like, I was a kid in a candy store. Basically, I rounded a corner in Barrow. So when people do get a whale during the spring whaling season, they raise a flag or the whaling captain raises a flag over his house and everyone in town is welcome to come try some. And so before I went inside to try some, I was kind of playing around with blubber and I saw the, this is a bowhead whale. I saw its heart, which was huge, like the size of a yoga ball. And that was for me, just like amazing. I spent probably the next 45 minutes just looking at all aspects of it. And the stump of aorta that was attached to it was the size of my thigh. That was really fascinating. It's similar, Alaska and Northern Russia, like Siberian out there. So where were you? I think you have some pics from that time. Where were you in Russia? So I spent a lot of time in kind of Western Russia as well, but I did take two trips to Kamchatka, including Northern Kamchatka. I didn't go far enough, nor I didn't go to Chukotka, for instance, until more recently when I was a ship doctor on a wildlife cruise that sailed from Anadyr, Russia up to, through the Bering Strait into Wrangel Island. And we stopped in some villages in Chukotka and I got a chance to try some whale and stuff like that. Northern Kamchatka, where it's more the Koryak are the indigenous people, they do a lot of seal hunting. So I had a lot of seal blubber, but I don't believe they do any whale hunting quite there. But the Chukchi in a way are sort of, you know, similar to the Inupiat in their diet and their life ways. Of course, everyone's diet, all these people's diet has changed dramatically in the last hundred years, as it has for actually everyone living in kind of modern societies. But for them, perhaps more than anyone else, since their diet was the most extreme, I think, of any human culture on earth. Just to stay on the wild travel you did, and I should say, I'm using the word travel, but it really, you were a doctor there. First of all, can you just comment on the decision to go to such places and to help people to be a doctor there? What was the motivation? What was the thinking behind it? Well, I think I got the travel bug before I ever went to medical school and even wanted to be a doctor. So right after college, I kind of wasn't very into college, didn't enjoy things, kind of wanted to get out there and see the world, get out of New York City, where I was a student at NYU. The first thing I did after finishing college was I was invited to be an intern at a research center in St. Petersburg, Russia. I spent six months there my first trip and went back four more times to Russia, traveled all over, including to Kamchatka twice, and other parts of the country I'd never heard of, cities like Petrozavodsk and Siktifkar and Pskov. I didn't even know a word could start with P-S-K, like the city of Pskov, but it can. And I was sort of fascinated. I was actually studying the international environmental movement and how it came to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and how organizations like Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund and the World Bank are trying to kind of push the timber industry, which is huge in Russia, toward a more sustainable path. And so I was sort of evaluating how is it working, if not, why not? And that seems like such a little niche, such a small detail about Russian society, but in a way, researching that in depth was almost this window into the entire country and the history in a place I knew nothing about. And I learned the language, traveled all over the country, got to know the food, the history, the literature. It was just an immersive and amazing and life-changing experience that made me want to see every spot on the globe, basically, and learn about every culture. So I took that desire with me to medical school. I decided I would go to medical school, and from the very beginning, I was intent on traveling around the world. So a lot of my career has been fashioned so that I'm practicing medicine in a place with an interesting geographic context, an interesting place with an interesting cultural context. And that just makes it more interesting, I find. Not only are medical services often more needed in these remote and rural parts of the country and world, so I feel like I'm taking my knowledge and education and experience to places where it's needed. But also for me, it's just such an enlightening experience, the way culture, history, geography, climate affects medical disease, but just getting to know the people, getting to know their culture, being a very useful traveler by providing medical services in that place. And that's taken me to Arctic Alaska, to Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota. I currently work in a few different parts of Pennsylvania, Appalachia, which, you know, for me is a unique geography and culture that I didn't grow up with, wasn't familiar with. So in some ways, it's exotic for me as well. And I worked in other places too, like Calcutta, India, Nepal. Just I think my love of travel has shaped my medical career. And being a doctor does give you these opportunities to go to places and travel in a unique way, you know, through the medical profession. You know, there's a documentary, Happy People, here in the Taiga or something like that. I think Warner Herzog voices it. It tells a story of a simple life of survival in the Taiga. And I think they're trapping for food, and there's an alcoholism problem too as well. There's like a very basic life of survival, of loneliness, of desperation. But also there's a, I think the underlying claim of the documentary is that that simple life actually has a kind of simple happiness to it. Hence the name Happy People. Is there, can you speak to the life that people live in those places when it may be simpler than you would in sort of big city life? It's definitely very different for sure. You know, I guess I found like in some of the remote villages of Kamchatka, I was actually surprised how similar they were in that, you know, there was, I saw the same family strife, the same fights, the same, you know, kind of pairing of relationships and bickering and politics. And, you know, in a way, I'm from the New Jersey suburbs, and being in this remote, you know, village of Northern Kamchatka, I remember writing an email to my friend about how it just, it seemed so similar, even though on the surface, it was this exotic other world. The incredible material know-how they must have to get their food from the land, you know, that the number of animal species, plant species, the behaviors of the animals, seasons, how to live that way. In a way, it's more complicated in a way that I find fascinating, how people live on the land, and the knowledge and experience it takes to do it well and survive. You know, obviously, other aspects of modern life in a city are much more complicated than they would be there. But I guess it's, that was something that struck me too, that it's simpler in some ways, but more complicated in other ways. So some of the complexity that happens in life is from, originated from humans, not from the technology or the, all that kind of stuff around us. You can take the human out of modernity, but they're still human. They're still human. And they fill the empty space with their own human complexities. Are there people that just stand out, memorable people, memorable experiences from those places? Some people that maybe made you smile, made you cry, changed who you are as a man, changed who you are as a doctor? Anything jumps to mind? I think, you know, when I was, it was interesting when I was in Russia, I found that most of the people I hung out with were old women. I'm not sure why. I mean, there, actually, I didn't meet a lot of old men in Russia, which might speak to kind of life expectancy there for men in particular. But I found women, older Russian women, including, you know, Russian from St. Petersburg, or some of the elderly women in Kamchatka who were, you know, some were Koryak, some were half Koryak, half Russian, some were Chukchi. I just found them to be so enlightening the way they talked about history, about people, so insightful about humanity, you know, all they've lived through in the last 50 years in some of these parts of Russia. Like the upheaval, societal upheaval, the destruction, the building up, it's just something I could not even imagine. And I think their insights were just very, I'm not thinking of anything in particular, but I just remember I could listen to some of these elderly women talk about their lives for hours and hours. I remember there was this older, elderly blind Koryak woman who you would have thought was the, you know, most country bumpkin of country bumpkin, and yet she couldn't stop talking about how much she loved reading Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, which might also speak to the Soviet education system. And it was just sort of surprising and fascinating, and just those stories and perspectives on life really stayed with me. Yeah, with Babushki. There's a wisdom, there's a kindness. I mean, I suppose that's true for older people in general, but there's something about, it's not just Russia, it's Eastern Europe. It's like this kind of look of wisdom, and not just like sort of middle class wisdom or something like that. It's like, I have seen some shit wisdom. I've seen it all. And on the other side, I'm left here with a pragmatism and a compassion, and also an ability to cook really well. That's for sure. Absolutely. There's just this balance of just deep intelligence and deep kindness. Yeah, I mean, much of who I am is because of the relationship I had with my grandmother, who is a Russian, Ukrainian-born Russian grandmother. Did you learn the Russian language? I did. It's quite rusty at this point, but I did one of these wonderful elderly Russians in St. Petersburg, sort of adopted me. I think that was another thing that a lot of these elderly women on every side of the country kind of adopted me or saw me as this real curiosity. You know, sort of just not, I mean, this was around 2002, 2003, it just wasn't common for this sort of strange American to suddenly show up in the middle of Kamchatka or even St. Petersburg, and just absolutely ravenously curious about everything they had to say. So I often got adopted, and one of them taught me Russian and how to ride a horse. So same babushka taught me both of those things. And like you said, also, I should mention that there's something about the Soviet education system where, yeah, everybody reads Tolstoy, Dostoevsky. It's exceptionally well-read. No matter where life has taken you, no matter where you come from, the literature, the mathematics, the sciences, they're all like extremely well-educated. And that creates a fascinating populace. Like then you take that education, that excellent early education, and you throw a bunch of hardship at those people. And then they kind of cook in that hardship and come out really fascinating people on the other end. It makes me surprised sort of that, for instance, like Russian medical science is not, you don't see a lot of sort of studies, medical studies, advancing of medical science come out of Russia. Which is sort of, I'm surprised sort of, I wish that it would. You know, I visited Akademgorodok outside Novosibirsk, which is an entire city the Soviets created just for the study of science. And it's like, there's the geology building, and there's the biology building, and there's the chemistry building. And I just feel like Russia has this potential to be a science powerhouse, or even in the medical sciences. But I guess you just, I don't see it. I'm not sure why. I mean, you can certainly guess as to why. And I see the same thing in the other, in the sciences. I hold the dearest sort of, in computer science, in engineering fields. I kind of long held this desire by long, I mean, last couple years, because a bunch of people reached out to me from Yandex and Moscow State to give lectures there, to sort of connect. You know, why so little science is coming out of there? Why so little that we hear about? And it feels like we should be able to bridge the scientific community. Like science, let's even say, even in turmoil of geopolitics, even in global conflict, I feel like science should be bigger than that. But why do we not hear from the scientists? It's because of the limitations on human freedoms, on scientific freedoms. I feel like in China, in Russia, in any regime of its sort, you should give freedom to scientists to flourish and to interact with others. And you can only grow from that. You shouldn't suppress that. The sort of Cold War ideas, we should put those aside. As somebody who spent time in Russia, as somebody who learned Russian, do you have some thoughts that you want to say about the war in Ukraine currently? It's tragic, of course, seemingly pointless to watch the destruction of a country in real time. I guess it's, you know, when you read Russian history and Ukrainian history, I guess it just it's sort of, you know, destruction is a big part of it. The populace being beaten down is a big part of it, you know, from the Mongolian hordes through the Tsar and the Soviets and Putin. I guess, you know, it's just in science, in particular medical science, it feels like this sort of unrealized potential, you know, the culture is so beautiful, the people are so smart and well-educated. I think the word unrealized potential is kind of how I feel. That's why I wanted to celebrate that part of the world is there's so many beautiful people, so many brilliant people. And I just happen to know the language, so I'm able to appreciate the beauty of those people. I'm sure the same is true in China. I'm sure that that's one of the things that makes me sad is there's all these cultures that I don't know about. I can't fully appreciate their brilliance. Even Japan and places like that, that are sort of, there's channels of communication wide open and there's a lot of interaction, it's still not knowing the language. I feel like I miss some of the culture or Portuguese and, you know, looking at South America and all that kind of stuff. But anyway, in Russia, there certainly is that unrealized potential. In Ukraine, so many brilliant scientists, engineers came from Ukraine, from Russia. And I hope they get to flourish soon. And I hope we put this, I hope we stop this war, because all war is hell. Is there something to comment about the biology of war? Is there echoes of the emergency room experience? Have you dealt with patients that have been touched by wartime? Definitely war and medicine has a very intricate and complex relationship. I don't know if it was Walt Whitman who said it, though he was a nurse during the Civil War, that war is the best medical school. But some people have said that. And you know, even advancements in medicine come from war. You know, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have in some ways really revolutionized certain aspects of the way we treat trauma patients in the civilian world as well. The importance of tourniquets, the importance of transfusing whole blood instead of, you know, red blood cells isolated from serum and platelets, etc. The importance of pain control in the battlefield, that's changed dramatically. Everything from ketamine injections to fentanyl lollipops in the battlefield. So war has really improved medicine in many ways. In another way, you know, the Department of Defense spends a lot of money on medical research and kind of really pushes the envelope. You know, DARPA is one aspect of the military budget that really funds these moonshot experiments that are really fascinating and really push the frontiers more than seemingly most, you know, kind of universities doing it, doctors and researchers doing their research. So in a way, you know, the space program, which sort of was military initially, then became civilian under NASA, also led to a lot of advances and understandings of health, you know, on Earth and in space. So the military is, or war in general, is a huge way that medicine advances, not to mention the epidemics that come. You know, my grandmother was from what's today Moldova, what was then Romania. She got typhus during World War II. So there's typhus outbreaks, there's cholera outbreaks, you know, all these, even infectious disease things can advance in war, which you wouldn't expect. You expect sort of trauma to be the sort of main problem. But actually infection is a huge problem throughout history in war. So we can learn a lot. It's this kind of horrific natural experiment in medical care. Yeah. And I've recently been reading about some of the horrific medical experiments performed by Nazi scientists, Nazi Germany. I'll talk about it another time, perhaps, but nothing reveals the honesty of human biology like war. Just to stay on your wild journeys for a little bit longer, you have a tweet about Shackleton saying, here's a photo of Shackleton's medical kit from his storied expedition to Antarctica in the 1910s. Some paragoric for pain, some laxative. Only the essentials. Would you put laxative under the essentials? Anyway, sorry to interrupt. When I worked as a ship doctor in Antarctica in 2018, I had a huge cabinet full of meds and even EKG machine. So if you can comment sort of on that contrast, first of all, your own journey, how harsh was it? How difficult was it? And given that context, can you think about how hard Shackleton's journey was? I think the difference is unimaginably stark. One thing I do want to point out is that the use of laxatives early in the 20th century and before that, they were used for a surprising number of ailments where they probably did not help at all. But I think that was a holdover from sort of the old theory of medicine, the humoral theory where you have to balance the fluids in the body. And so causing people to vomit, causing them to have diarrhea or purposely taking blood out of them in bloodletting was a big part. And I think that crazy use of laxatives was maybe a holdover from that time. But that being said, they were probably not eating very high fiber food on that expedition. So perhaps laxatives could have been helpful. You know, there's a lot of seal, penguin and seal meat being eaten, which is not super high in fiber. So I don't want to discount the importance of laxatives in that setting. But that wouldn't be the essential thing if you're thinking of a tiny kit that has only the essentials. I mean, pain, yes. Laxatives, maybe not. I think the medical kit possibilities were much narrower back then. You know, this was before antibiotics, before I think germ theory might have been. It was known, but there wasn't much to do about it. So the availability of medicines, I mean, that's something that exploded over the course of the 20th century. So what I can put in a backpack today filled with modern medications, whether injectable or to be taken orally, is just many orders of magnitude greater than what they had back then. So when I went, my expedition was nothing like Shackleton's. I was on a huge cruise ship with 160 Japanese passengers who came with their own translators. And as I said, I had a cabinet, not just one cabinet, many cabinets full of medications, both injectable, some patches, some pills. I was very impressed actually with what was available there. And I didn't have to use a lot of it, thankfully, though I did use some of it for people. And I slept, and I got free room and board on the ship. So every southern summer, cruise ships go take people to Antarctica, the southern Atlantic Islands like the Falklands and other parts of the South Pacific. And then in the northern summer, the same kind of cruise ship explosion happens, you know, going to Greenland and Iceland and Svalbard and Franz Josef Land and other parts of the North Alaska. And every ship needs a doctor. So it's a great opportunity. They want specifically ER doctors, you know, to deal with emergencies, but you're really working in the middle of nowhere. And all you have is the medications there on the ship and supplies and your knowledge and experience. And so it's a very different experience than working in a high-tech modern hospital with every bit of technology and every subspecialist consultant available. But I sort of like that challenge. I mean, I like going to the ends of the earth. It's beautiful. It's exciting. It's fascinating. Doing medicine in those settings is extra challenging and really makes you hone some of your skills, which is part of the reason that I sought them out. Do you see echoes of some of that same effort? I've gotten a chance to interact with astronauts and those kinds of folks working on space missions. Do you see some of those same echoes of challenging efforts going out into space and maybe landing on Mars and maybe beginning to build a small colony on Mars? Yeah, I think the health care that is needed will be a big part of that. You know, obviously, we're probably going to send overall quite healthy people. But there's a lot of medical decisions to make about what should be brought, what should be expected. You know, to some extent, I've had a lot of doctors say, oh, my goodness, I can't believe you work in the middle of nowhere. What do you do if someone, you know, gets a brain bleed, like falls, hits their head, needs a neurosurgeon? I mean, the obvious answer is they die. You know, when you're in the middle of Antarctica, things kill you that wouldn't if you're inside a university hospital that's fully equipped to help with every problem that arises. Mars takes that to a crazy extreme, obviously. I know that even going to Antarctica, different countries have had different strategies. I believe Australia used to kind of just in anticipation remove people's gallbladders just so that it wouldn't get inflamed, because that is a very common medical emergency. So they would just remove it beforehand, even though it was not diseased at all, just so that while they're stuck in Antarctica over the winter, for instance, that wouldn't be a problem. You know, there's many other issues that can arise. But so those are some decisions to make. Maybe the people who go into Mars should have their appendix removed, their gallbladder removed. Maybe they should have a cardiac cath to see if they have coronary artery disease, just to know their chances of getting a heart attack there, though it's not always predictive. You know, it's hard to predict who's going to get a heart attack, but maybe with all the data around today, we'll get better at predicting. But that will be a huge part. You know, we can't have people, the few pioneers in a Mars colony dying of heart attacks and things like that. So anticipate stuff. Would you go? You've gone to some harsh conditions to be a doctor. Would you go to Mars to be a doctor? It would definitely be amazing, I think, because I have a wife and two small children, probably not in the cards for me at this point. But you humans with your human attachments. Sex and death. If you just put more priority on the death than the sex, I think we would be better off. No. I would love to go to Mars. And actually, you know, I practice high-altitude medicine in Nepal. Space medicine is sort of an extension of that. You know, the air is just much thinner, like non-existent. You know, as you go higher in the mountains, the things that happen to human physiology are very bizarre and strange and still not well explained by science. Even in space, it's just like a crazy extension of high-altitude. If I could just return to the... We didn't really... I think we mentioned a little bit about the food you had. Just if we can high-level say, what is the greatest meal you've ever had? So your last meal. Let's go. If one more meal, I get to murder you after this. This is your last day. We get to spend it together. Where in the world would you go? What would you eat? I would say the most delicious thing is bone marrow. And I would love a full meal of bone marrow for my last dish. I did on my birthday in 2002, eat a kilogram and a half of crab meat in Kamchatka. And that was also amazingly delicious. The king crab they have there is incredible. But I would go with bone marrow, which is, I think, just one of the most delicious foods. And it's sort of this weird body part. You know, it's basically all your stem cells, not all of them, but the stem cells that produce all your blood cells. So they are spitting out billions of white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets every day. And there's a bunch of fat in there as well. Just one of the places the body stores fat. And so you basically add heat and that's all you need. It's like the perfect food. You add heat, the fat for frying the stem cells is already there. There's naturally a bone vessel to contain it all. Probably add some flavor too. It's like the perfect food. Doesn't matter which animal. I prefer a larger animal just so there's more of it. I actually like, oh that's true, I actually really like bone marrow from chicken bones. Just sucking it out of the bone. Yes, I'm known for leaving absolutely nothing edible on the plate except bone itself. There's one other human I know that loves bone marrow as much as you do, and that's Joe Rogan. It's unnatural how much that man loves bone marrow. I understand why. It's amazing. I love the steak part. The bone marrow, you know what, let me argue with you because, I don't know, it could be an acquired taste, but there's just too much, it's like too much with too little work for it. It's as if you gave me lobster meat without the lobster having to clean the lobster. I just feel like I'm spoiling myself. So it's very fatty. I don't know, maybe I want to work for something that tastes like that. Well if you start from the whole animal, you do have to work to get at it, right? A lot of animals have the teeth and the jaw muscles to chomp through bone. We do not. When you buy it from the store, it's already sawed up, but I've definitely gotten marrow out of deer bones with a hatchet, just chop off the fat end and start spooning it out. Well, maybe I'll revisit it. That's fascinating. And where would you eat it? Where in which place of the world? Is there something about who cooks it, who you eat it with? You're not allowed to pick your family. So like, which place in the world, rural or in the city, those kinds of things. You've been to so many fascinating places. I would say Antarctica is one of the most picturesque places I've ever been. I really did not, I didn't know how mountainous it was. And I guess I knew there'd be ice, but just, I didn't know how much ice it was. You know, it's ice and mountains, just overwhelming. As kind of overwhelming bone marrow might seem to you, sort of that feast for your eyes. And just ice in general is amazing. Like the icebergs floating around Antarctica is just astounding. Like the different shapes, the sizes are incredible. There's actually a, I believe it's US Navy website that tracks the largest icebergs and you can read about each of them and how big they are and just the formations you see. They're up near Greenland, though I have not been to Greenland, just ice in general is just amazing. So I could just look at its different forms while eating bone marrow forever until you kill me, that is. Yeah, and afterwards we go. It's back to the death, the death and sex. What is it about the ice? Is it sort of the enormity of nature that just reminds you that it's going to be there before you and after and then you get to partake in the eating of the thing you need for maintaining of your biological, temporary biological organism? Yeah, I think it's a few things. One is just the shapes that you see. You know, the wave action, just eating away at these pieces of ice. You get these arches and just these shapes. I mean, it's just like geometry. The geometry alone is amazing. I studied math as an undergrad and I've always appreciated geometry. And just the shapes alone are just look like brilliant works of modernist art. And just obviously no two are ever the same. Not to mention a lot of them are this unearthly blue color that is just really startling and fascinating. The same color of glaciers, you know, in various parts of the world. That blue color is just really amazing. And I also just love how it's sort of this constant shedding from our Antarctic continent, from Greenland. You know, it's this constant process of snow falling inland and pushing the glaciers further out to sea and then breaking loose. I mean, obviously it seems to be happening faster these days, but it's sort of this constant shedding and sort of, I always like thinking about how the body has something similar. You know, we're constantly shedding and renewing and rebuilding everything. And so ice is sort of this constant similar process. Yeah. I did not know you were a math undergrad. So that, I mean, you just keep getting more fascinating. Can you maybe take a small step into that direction? What do you find beautiful about mathematics? Why did you journey into that part of the world for a time? I liked math. I especially liked, so college math, I did some calculus in high school. When I got to college math, I was amazed that there were no more numbers. You know, the digits disappeared. It was just variables, concepts, you know, there was almost no more numbers at all. It was like this totally abstract, you know, kind of way of thinking. But that sort of reflects the natural world and teaches you about the natural world, though it's sort of this perfect, you know, platonic ideal, perhaps, of the natural world that can still sort of help explain what happens in the natural world. But just these concepts are so abstract from, like, life and from, you know, the natural world. I was actually getting interested in the natural world at the same time when I was in at NYU studying math. You know, I took a tour of Central Park that was pointing, the guy, Steve Brill, was pointing out these wild edible plants. And I was learning to identify the first plants and knowing what's edible, what's not. That was totally fascinating. And sort of this kind of thing that I felt like was connecting me to nature and it was balanced with this utterly abstract science, you know, or utterly abstract lessons I was getting in math class where I was thinking through series, you know, as we approach infinity what happens to these equations and concepts of, like, rings and abstract algebra. I don't know, it was just this dichotomy that I enjoyed both aspects of. Yeah, the concepts, but so different, this kind of logical, rigorous view of the world and the world of biology. Why the big, how did that feel to take the leap into the biological, the mushy mess of the human body from the mathematical, which is all very clean? Right. It does feel like a big step. I think there's more connection than you think, you know, we talked about symmetry of the body earlier. That is a real thing. You know, fluid dynamics of how our various bodily fluids flow and what makes them not flow as well and what makes them flow better. And you know, all these different aspects of science go into the body. You know, everything from hard bone to softer kind of flesh to liquids of various consistencies. You know, a lot of science and math does teach you about kind of how the body works, how it can work better, what happens in sort of disease states. Yeah, I suppose there's a connection. There's also kind of a sort of computational biologists, this computational equivalence of each of the disciplines, which are becoming more and more fascinating with all the work that DeepMind is doing in the work of genetics, all that kind of stuff, simulating different parts of the body to try to gain an intuition, understanding of it. That to me is super fascinating, but sometimes it does feel like an oversimplification of the way the body really does it because the body is an incredibly weird, complex system. And it finds a way. The adaptability, the resilience, the redundancy that's built in, it's weird. And it's incredibly powerful and so unlike the kind of computer-based systems that we build, at least we engineer in the software engineering world, which kind of starts to make you think, how can we engineer computer systems in a different way that make them more resilient in the real world? That's sort of a robotics question. What do you think about that? What does it take to build a humanoid robot or robots that are as resilient as the human body? How difficult do you think is that problem? Having studied the human body, how hard is the engineering problem of building systems like that guy over there, the legged guy that is as resilient as the human body to the harsh conditions of the real world? I think it's very hard and we definitely haven't gotten there yet. I think we could probably learn lessons from people who are trying to grow artificial organs in the lab to eventually transplant into people, which would solve the huge problem of needing to get those organs from others and the rejection of putting a foreign material inside your body. Your immune system tends not to like that. That has advanced a lot recently. I think some advances actually have been where we pay a lot of attention to stem cells, stem cells, stem cells. We grow whatever we want out of stem cells, but now there's sort of a recognition that the, what we call the extracellular matrix, which is sort of the foundation of the body, the thing that holds all the cells into their proper shape and keeps them where they should be, that is actually crucial. And there's probably a lot of signaling that goes on. Like you stick a stem cell on the right extracellular matrix, it will turn into the kind of cell that you want and take the right shape and position and start functioning. I think that's been a huge, huge advance, knowing that it's not just these celebrity stem cells that are the answer. It's this kind of part in the background, this sort of just like laying the foundation, the system that you put these cells onto. And we're not there yet, but there's definitely a lot happening, a lot of research happening, and I think there'll be some advances probably soon. So now on the topic of interaction of computational systems with biology, so if you look at a company like Neuralink or the whole effort of brain-computer interfaces, now there's a neurosurgery component there. We have to connect electrical systems with biological systems. So just even the implanting is difficult, then the communication is difficult. What would you say, from what you know about the brain, what you know about the human body, and all the beautiful mess that's there, how difficult is the effort of Neuralink? Do you think it's feasible? I think it's definitely feasible. I think we need to probably know more than we do and know how to connect it in all these ways. I think some advances, for instance, much less sexy but really already impacting medical care is something called deep brain stimulation, which is done for Parkinson's disease and others where neurosurgeons implant this device that electrically stimulates the part of the brain that is not functioning in Parkinson's disease. It's quite dramatic how effective it works. And I remember as a med student watching a neurologist literally turn the electricity up on this handheld thing, and you could see the person's Parkinson tremor go away, and you could see them start to walk in a more steady fashion. And I know there's studies, there's actually studies, or there may be studies in the future studying the same deep brain stimulation for everything from eating disorders to severe OCD, like paralyzing OCD, not just like, I want to wash my hands three times. And so I think the potential is there, but I guess connecting the brain in a microscopic way and sort of a multifaceted way, you know, there needs to be sort of a million connections or some very high number of connections for them to work fluidly, as far as I know. I'm not an expert in the area. First of all, I believe and I trust in the adaptability of the biological system to whatever crazy stuff you try to shove in there. So it's going to potentially reject things, but it's also going to, if it doesn't reject things, adapt. And if we can create computational systems that also adapt, AI systems that adapt, and can kind of, both of them reach towards each other and figure stuff out. But actually, our current AI systems are not very adaptable to the, like, in the wild way that biology is adaptable, like adaptable to anything. And if we can build AI systems like that, I feel like there's some interesting things you could do. But of course, there's ethics, and there's real human lives at stake. And there, you can't quite experiment. You have to have things that work. And maybe simulation can help, but reality is, it's a dangerous playground to play on. It's messy. You tweeted that, quote, if you look back from far enough into the future, every doctor today will look like a total quack. First of all, that's humbling to think about. Like, we don't know what we're doing. And the great, like, there's been so much progress that we kind of have this confidence that we figured it all out. If you look at history, and you read how people thought, I mean, there's so many moments in history where people really thought that they figured it all out. It's almost like there's nothing else left to do at every stage in history. And then you realize, no, progress often happens, like, exponentially. And every moment, you continue to think you figured it all out. But if you're being honest, if you're being humble, then you realize we're just shrouded in mystery. So what do we make of this? Like, how should we feel that? How should you feel as a doctor? How should we feel as scientific explorers of the human body, the fact that we're probably going to be wrong about everything we currently know? Right. There's a saying, actually, by the time you finish med school, half of what you learned is wrong. Which is quite illustrative. And becoming more true as time goes on, you know, so much medical research going on, so much learning going on, it's really wonderful in a way. But in some ways, we still learn these concepts, you know, from the past. And I know when you take a test as a medical student, sometimes, you know, they want to ask you the, they want you to give the old answer, but you know, there's a new answer because of recent science, but you know, to give the old answer that's now incorrect to get the question right on the test. That happens actually quite a bit, because things change so quickly. Yet, you know, when I look back at doctors from centuries past, I mean, it's absurd what they were doing to their patients. I mean, probably for most of human history, they were doing more harm than good. You know, they're draining people of their blood. That was, you know, bloodletting was a huge part of medical care. You know, George Washington died of a paratonsillar abscess, an abscess right next to the tonsil, which has the great name of Quincy, and they bled him to death. You know, I mean, kind of adding insult to injury. Doctors are a menace and do a lot of harm. I mean, hopefully not intentionally. You know, even medical errors are still a huge problem, cause of death and morbidity. So we do a lot of things that are not great. But you know, our knowledge, yeah, it's very imperfect at this point. I do have some confidence. You know, I guess perfect scientific studies that try to get at the reality of the universe are essential, because when I think of why a certain medication works for a certain condition, it might make perfect sense in my head, knowing the biology, the biochemistry, the anatomy. It makes perfect sense. It must work. I gave it to the patient, they got better, and that's happened 20 times in the last year. But it's, you know, I'm wrong. Like when you actually do a study, it actually doesn't help. Maybe it hurts. And that's really, I think the way we explain medications working in our minds is often wrong when you end up finally doing the study. And some of the most interesting experiments involve what we call sham surgery. So for instance, people who injure their knee, you know, arthroscopy, where an orthopedic surgeon goes in there with a scope, gets bits of bone out, shaves down the cartilage, you know, cleans things up. And it helps some people. But they actually did some studies where one group of people got the true arthroscopy, and others just got sham surgery, where they put them to sleep, made little cuts in the skin so they woke up with scars. And then it turned out that it's not clear arthroscopy is actually helping. And the same, there was a recent huge study of doing, putting a stent in someone's coronary arteries if they have stable chest pain, not like I'm having a heart attack, you need a stent like right then. But you know, kind of chronic coronary artery disease, where every time I run up the stairs, I get chest pain. And then when I rest, it goes away. Like obviously, you put a stent, you increase blood flow to the heart, like how could that not work? And then when they did the sham catheterization, it actually looks like it might not actually help better than the sham. So I think those placebo-controlled studies are essential. I mean, it is shocking, and this has been driven home during the last two years, how hard it is to figure out what the hell's going on in the universe, and especially with our bodies. Like, it is really hard to get at the truth. And what you think makes sense, like often turns out, I mean, the history of modern medicine is littered with examples where it made perfect sense, and it seemed to help some patients, and it turns out it's not doing anything, or it's harmful. Yeah, there's all kinds of narratives swimming around. We convince ourselves as a human civilization that something is true. There's propaganda machines, there's just self-delusion, there's centralized communities, like there's a scientific community that believes a certain thing, there's the conspiracy theories that believe a certain thing. Sometimes the scientific community are right, sometimes the conspiracy theorists are right, that's all human history, I mean. And we now think the scientific community, well, now the science has really figured it out, we're way smarter than we were in the past. And then there's these interesting studies that I've seen, I think Robin Hanson mentioned to me, that if you look at the entirety of medication, like the effect of medication on human health, if you do those kinds of broad studies, does it actually help? Like does quality of life, life's certain measures of the well-being, does, and you look at human society as a whole, does taking medication or not actually help? And those studies find there's no positive or negative effect with medication. And that's a very kind of interesting perspective, I mean, you could probably argue a lot of ways, but the point is, because you can bring up literally a billion cases where medication has significant positive impact on a particular patient, but you have to kind of zoom out and honestly look at the positive effects of medicine, of lifestyle choices, diet choices, of exercise or not. Maybe we'll find eventually that exercise is actually bad for you. Maybe like, there's all kinds of things that we're going to, I feel like we're going to figure out. One of the things I think we're going to figure out, everything I've learned about my body, is that aside from it being adaptable, there's a lot of very unique parameters that are opaque to me that I'm measuring through this feedback mechanism by trying stuff and learning about it. And one of the things we might learn is that medicine cannot be done without collecting a huge amount of data about each individual human. So it's absurd to be, like if I show up and see a doctor, it's absurd for that doctor to have just a couple of minutes with me. Looking at basic symptoms, looking at such crappy data. First of all, no long-term data, no longitudinal data, no historical data, no detailed analysis of all the possible things, not just the related to your symptoms, but related to other things that you're not complaining about. Just giving you a full picture of the data and then using AI to help the human doctor highlight the things that you should perhaps pay extra attention to. I think we'll look back at this time as ridiculous that doctors were expected to help anybody whatsoever without having the data, without having a huge amount of data about the human body. Like you have to do so much with so little data. It's very 19th century. So it relies on the brilliance of doctors and of course the intuition, the instinct you build up over time. And that's quite powerful. The human brain is pretty damn good for using experience to teach you how to make good decisions, but still, you might as well be bloodletting. It's humbling to think about that. It's humbling. It is humbling and it's important. I think doctors sometimes lose that humble perspective on what they do and I think it's very important because as I said, medical history is just, medical dogma has been tossed into the trash bin so many times. Something doctors were sure of was the case is not. And it's important to be cognizant of that. You tweeted about somebody that had a big impact just by reading about him on my life as well. I still think about him. Rest in peace, Dr. Paul Farmer. A big inspiration to me. His medical career was a testament to what one person can do to improve the world. So who was Paul Farmer and what made him a great doctor and a great man and somebody who was an inspiration to you? So Paul Farmer was a kind of pioneer of global health. He started Partners in Health, which is a kind of an international health organization that operates originally in Haiti, also Rwanda and elsewhere. And I think he was just so a zealot for getting health care to some of the poorest people in the world. And he, I remember reading some of his books and a book about him by Tracy Kidder that's really great, Mountains Beyond Mountains, about how even when he was a medical student, he was flying back and forth to Haiti in between exams and just with this really intense focus and interest in getting health care to where it's not. And I think traveling around the world, especially to poorer places like India, Calcutta, Nepal, you really see how unevenly the benefits of modern medicine are spread over the surface of the earth. Not only if you're, because if you're in Antarctica and have a heart attack, you're in serious trouble. But, you know, just medications that cost pennies a day can help people. You know, a lot of children in India under five die of diarrhea and all they need is oral rehydration solutions to stay hydrated. You know, most of them can't afford IV fluids, for instance, to get admitted to the hospital. And really dehydration just kills hundreds of thousands of kids throughout the world. Not to mention, bacterial pneumonia also is a major cause of death in children under five. And many of them, not all, would be saved by amoxicillin, which is just pennies. And for me, you know, I took a, had a path and I wanted to have a career in global health. And I started traveling abroad to India and elsewhere when I was a medical student and I've continued doing that. Paul Farmer was sort of one of the first to kind of open everyone's eyes, I think, about the good you can do with just money that we would, you know, change that we would throw away, just, you know, put in a purse and forget it or wherever we accumulate change these days. So that's very eye-opening. And while medical science advances, and that's good, you know, we shouldn't forget that 100-year-old treatments could save lives in parts of the world where they're just not available. People should definitely read Malinski and Malinski. Just for me, at least, sort of a person from outside all of it, it was the first person to make me realize how difficult and the amount of humanity that's involved in being a doctor. So it's not some kind of cold economics-based argument about where to send treatments and so on. That is there too. Like you said, basic treatments can help hundreds of thousands, millions of people in many parts of the world. But it's also, look, when you have a patient in front of you, there's some aspect of you that's willing to give a lot of your time, a lot of your money, a lot of your effort to saving them, even though it doesn't make any sense. It's irrational in some sense, but it's also human. And that's the struggle of every doctor. Like when you have to choose how to allocate your time, how to allocate your mental energy. It's a tough choice that a doctor has to make, and it's a human choice. It's not some kind of cold game-theoretic choice. It's also a human choice. And it can be irrational in some sense. People are asking you for help. That's basically what every patient interaction is. Someone's asking you for help. So your inclination is to help them. And even if it means going above and beyond, you know, I mean, a lot of factors affect how compassionate a doctor might be on any given day or point in their career, their own stress and burnout, etc. But it's someone asking you for help, and so you do what you can to help them. You've done quite a lot of things in your life. It's been an interesting journey. Of course, there's a lot of story yet to be written. But what advice would you give to young people today in high school, maybe undergrad, college, starting out on that journey? Maybe trying to pick majors, trying to pick jobs, careers, dreams, and goals they can pursue. What advice would you give them to have a career they can be proud of or to even have a life they can be proud of? Well, I think having passion, which isn't always a voluntary thing, you know, you just have it or you don't, perhaps, but becoming passionate about something and following it, you know, wherever it takes you, I think is really important. You know, when I finished college and sort of went to Russia for the first time, that was, in some ways, the beginning of my whole career and passions in my life. And I didn't know what I was going for, what was going to happen, what kind of career I would turn into, what kind of job would it help me get when I got back. I wasn't thinking about any of that. I'm very fortunate I got that opportunity. I'm very fortunate to, you know, be able to go and see those places and have my mind opened. And I think that really just the fuel from that passion that was created during that time is still, 20 years later, going strong. You know, I'm partial to healthcare. I love being a doctor. I think it's the perfect combination of kind of intellectual problem solving, being a detective while also working with your hands, you know, when you do procedures, especially in the ER, it's sort of the perfect combination. I'm not a surgeon, but I do use my hands quite a bit, whether, you know, for a variety of reasons. And so I always loved working with my hands. I loved crafts, especially prehistoric crafts, before medical school, and I just love kind of problem solving, getting clues, figuring out what's going on, you know, following your nose, using your instincts, your knowledge, and also just keen observation of the patient. You know, after seeing patient after patient, hundreds of patients, maybe thousands over years, you do get this sort of innate kind of sense, this just dalt about what might be going on. And, you know, it's not always a numbers thing. That's the thing, there's always, just dalt is actually a big part of medicine. You know, you often in ERs or in hospitals hear a nurse or doctor say something like, this patient just doesn't look good. And it's sort of, you can't point to a number, a value, a level in their blood, you know, a test, but something about them. And a lot of that, I think, has to do with the color of their skin, believe it or not, which can change in certain disease states. But I think that it's just medicine combines this observation, the skills, the knowledge, it's art and science, it's human and it's robotic, you know, algorithmic at the same time. And I think it just, yeah, combines kind of all my passions all in one. And I would, you know, if anyone's going into healthcare, I'd strongly encourage them to do so, but I'm very biased. So with that early passion, whatever that little flame was that brought you to Russia, were you able to vocalize it or was it just something like a gut that's pulled you towards some exploration of the unknown or something like this? I think it was a combination of things. One was just going to a different place that was different from where I grew up, you know. The suburbs, you know, when you're in high school, you hate them. Later on, they don't seem so bad. But, you know, I just wanted to get, I mean, I'm very fortunate how I was raised and never wanted for anything that wasn't rich. But just to get out and see a different place, a different people with a different culture and history and language and literature and to see different climates and geographies and ecosystems, I just wanted to see something different. And that, I guess that's what I've, you know, sought after ever since. So just that was just so fascinating. Like my trip to Kamchatka in 2003, where I was there for four months and I didn't speak English for, I think, two months out of it. And just, I remember lying on the floor, some wooden floor in a hunter's cabin in the middle of northern Kamchatka, just being like, what am I doing here? This is, I'm just so grateful for like the experiences I was having, what I was seeing and realizing and learning. It was just, I was so grateful, even though I was lying on this hard, uncomfortable floor. It's just like, this is so amazing. And that, I don't think I'll ever have another travel as meaningful and life-changing as that particular trip to Kamchatka was, though I'm still striving after it. You know, you never replicate that first high, but you always try. So I just think that seeing something different is kind of the game. And there wasn't really a plan, because I got a chance to talk to the CEO of Qualcomm recently, and his advice is, always have a plan. And it sounds like you're saying, don't have a plan. Don't need to have a plan. Just listen to your gut, your passion, and follow that and see where that takes you, because it's telling you something. Yeah, I think, you know, I guess the plan could be specific or could be as general as, I just want to go far away and see something very different. That's my plan. That's one line. And I did just follow my nose from one thing to the next, just being interested, following my passion, and again, very fortunate I could do that. Are there places in the world you're kind of thinking about that your life might take you at some point to be a doctor there for a time, to explore for a time that you haven't yet? You know, I have some colleagues who do kind of global health work in various countries in Africa and Central and South America. I would really love to go to some of those places, not just for a short trip, but hopefully for an extended period of time, with sort of the health care being the ticket in, but then maybe even bringing my children or just, you know, I guess at this point, some of the travel I dream about is sort of replicating what I did and showing it to my kids in a way. But there's still a lot I haven't seen and would love to see as well. But I think those opportunities sort of lend themselves well, you know, as a doctor with kind of the ability to go there and sort of help patients, but also teach medical students and residents. Teaching is actually a huge part of being a doctor that's underappreciated, but that's actually part of the fun of being a doctor is that you're also a teacher. Of course, the word doctor means teacher, but it's come to mean something else. But you know, in some of my jobs, I'm working alongside medical students and residents, and I'm giving them my knowledge, my wisdom, sharing with them stories. And so that's a very satisfying part of the job. If we could take a brief step into a dark place together for a time, is there, what is a dark place you've gone in your mind in your life? What would be the darkest place you've ever gone for a time, for a moment? And how did you survive? How did you overcome it? That's a very good question. I would say I haven't had as dark moments as many of the people who I care for in the emergency room. I'm fortunate in that way. I've had a pretty, you know, enjoyable, satisfying life. You know, I think everybody has dark moments, though, including me. One of the most shocking things I feel like becoming an adult, my two big realizations have been, one, no one knows what they're doing, and two, suicide is incredibly common, like in all humans and all societies. That I just find shocking. I mean, I've never seriously contemplated it myself, but I wouldn't say it hasn't crossed my mind during some more stressful times of life. I think it crosses everyone's mind, and it sort of, as a kid, I found that I never would have guessed how common suicide is. It's an important question to sort of the Camus question, like, why live? Why? Why? It's like life, especially when you're struggling, especially when life is shit, like, why am I doing any of this? And on top of that, chemistry of your brain. It could be as simple as diet and nutrition and aforementioned exercise and things like this that affect the chemistry such that you're more predisposed to go to the places of asking the question why, and maybe struggling to find a good answer. Because it's actually a question with no good answer, except something in your chemistry says, well, I kind of like it, but there's no good intellectual answer. And especially if day to day it's pain, you get to see these stories of Robin Williams, these people that are on top of the world from an external perspective, but from an internal perspective, it's struggle. Every day is pain, feels hopeless. And yeah, that's a question we all have to struggle with, or learn how to ignore. Maybe because if you ask the question too much, you're not going to find a good answer. That's a choice you make. I personally think you should ask that question a lot. But maybe because I have the luxury of the chemistry I have where I'm not in danger of seriously contemplating suicide. But why live is an important question to answer constantly, and struggle to answer that constantly. But people, I've been extremely fortunate to meet people over the past couple of years that are really struggling. And you have probably met people who are really struggling, like orders of magnitude more people who are really struggling. Some of it is psychological, a lot of it is biological. And man, life is a motherfucker. It's pretty tough. Very true. I do think also past trauma plays a big role there, like we talked about, war wounds and PTSD. And a lot of people grew up with just horrific childhoods. They're abused in one way or another. And I think a lot of people who have, I'm not saying a majority, but a lot of people, for instance, who I see in the ER coming in for threatening suicide or actually trying and failing and being brought to the ER, a lot of them just have really traumatic experiences. Saw their parent commit suicide, were abused. These leave scars in the human brain and mind. And a lot of their subsequent lives of whether it's substance abuse, alcoholism, et cetera, is almost trying to escape from their own memories. And it's sort of such this overwhelming battle sometimes. Like sometimes people get ruined, it seems, and just can't be fixed. You know what I mean? Yes, you can improve diet and health and your life choices and seek out your passion and exercise and those definitely will help. But sometimes just like, you know, you bear the scars of the past and there's no getting rid of them. Yeah. I think it's possible to live with them. I think so too. I would never say give up, you know. Keep fighting. It is a constant, it can be a constant battle for some people. I know it can be, and I've talked to many of those folks, I know it can feel hopeless, but keep up the good fight. Hopelessness is kind of one of the big suicide risk factors that you sort of ask about as a doctor, you know, do you feel hopeless? And that sort of can be a harbinger. I have quite a few dark moments, so if you're listening and you're struggling, we're in this together, brother and sister. Keep up the good fight. Life is a motherfucker, as you said. It's really harder. I think as a kid, you know, in a joy-free childhood, you don't realize, like, obviously there's a ton you don't realize about life, but then when you get to be an adult, you realize just how complex and hard it is. Is it this hard for adult animals? I don't know. I don't think it is. So having seen the honesty of biology before you, do you think about your own death? Do you contemplate death? Are you afraid of your own death? How do you make sense of it? I've definitely thought about it, especially maybe while doing certain risky things, ice climbing and others, where every time I look down, I thought about my own death. But I think, you know, I think having kids changes the equation, for sure. Should change the equation, perhaps. So I think a lot of now when I think about what will happen when I die, you know, there's a lot of worrying about what will happen to the people I care for, you know, you think about things like insurance policy, life insurance, and, you know, disability insurance, that's not related to death, but more just injuries. And that's part of the weight, I guess, that, you know, you feel as an adult, that I think grows rapidly when you have kids, though, not only, you know, there's other people you can care for, your own parents and loved ones, like a lot of people depend on individuals. And so you think about what will happen to the other people when you die. But also, to push back, that weight might be something you've convinced yourself to think about, it's an important weight to think about, but you focus on that weight to escape the other weight, which is, at one point, this consciousness just comes to an end, and it's hard to make sense of that. We kind of delude ourselves in thinking, okay, it just, yeah, it ends, that's the natural way of things, and so on, that makes sense, or, okay, that's the way of life. But I don't think it's cognitively easy to just realize how terrifying that is. We love life so much that the end of it, it just, it's something that makes no sense. And if you linger on that thought, I think it's a painful, I would say even terrifying thought, not scared of like, in a way that's almost like philosophically terrifying. It just reminds you, maybe humbles you that you don't know anything about anything. But one of the things we do as humans really well is we, especially with kids, you realize, okay, we start caring for others in the community, in the family, and so on, and that distracts us, because then we can at least focus on other people's problems and not deal with our own. When I was a medical student, I was particularly fascinated with kind of what actually happens as people die, like in the last minute, seconds of life. It's sort of surprising sometimes, like, what actually kills people, you know, like, you can get, let's say, a bad head injury, and, you know, what kills you? Sometimes it's just your consciousness decreases, and you become kind of comatose, you aspirate, your oxygen plummets, and you get cardiac arrest, you know, that kind of sequence of events. Or, you know, a heroin overdose, let's say you stop breathing, similarly, your oxygen goes down, then you get a cardiac arrest. So I was really fascinated with what actually happens, what makes people die. And it was sort of a morbid fascination, obviously, like most of med school is. And I had many instances where I've had patients pass, and as a medical student, I was sort of learning what's actually happening, watching it happen, and, you know, not always being able to prevent it. It was sort of a scientific exploration. Then the patient's family comes in and are just devastated. And then it's like, rips you out of the scientific perspective, and you just realize how horrible death is. But the person's fine, you know, it's the family, I guess. And that's why it's always, I guess, that pointed out just how what people leave behind is often kind of the horribleness of death. Like just becoming unconscious and staying that way doesn't seem, I guess, to me personally, so bad. Sort of like going to sleep, not waking up, not counting the pain and stuff that precedes it. So the actual pain, the actual suffering is often felt by the people who love the person who died. Right. So financial pain, psychological pain, for years missing them, all those kinds of things. Right. Never forgetting the anniversary of their death, you know, just having flashbacks or something reminding you. That sort of brought home to me sort of what death means. And it was more about what people leave behind than what happens to them specifically. See, I like those concerns because I feel like I can do a lot about those. Those make sense to me. And just be, if you're a father, just be a good father. If you're, you mentioned sort of insurance, yeah, there's like financial stuff to take care of. What I don't know what to do with is the philosophical existential crisis of the fact that this freaking thing ends. It doesn't, I don't know how to deal with the mystery that's beyond death. Why are we here? Why are we born at all? What is consciousness? And you just look at yourself, what is this? Why do I have the capacity to suffer? Why why all these kinds of why questions that don't have answers. Speaking of which, let me ask you a why question. The biggest ridiculous one. What do you think is the meaning of life? Having with this book studied the incredible, beautiful biology of life, the components, the engineering components that make up this human body. But when you look at the entirety of it, what is, why? Why are we here? Sometimes probably more often than not feel like the question of why is a trick of the human brain. And outside of our thoughts there is no why. Why is not something that's in the universe. It's just this trick happening inside our brain. So why is a game that the human brain plays on itself? And then the reality of life doesn't have whys. I do wonder if asking why is sort of an evolutionary adaptation. Like why, you know, maybe hunting, gathering, why does this plant grow there and not there? Why do I see the same deer tracks and by the same tree every three days? Why, you know, why is this? Why is that? Why does this plant make me vomit and that plant doesn't? I guess those whys are very practical and oriented towards survival. But then obviously, you know, we not only use why, you know, we use it to maybe hunt better, gather better, survive better, but then we sort of extrapolate it into these unanswerable questions, you know, about why, like why does life exist? And it's possible that they're not unanswerable in the long arc of science and history. We're just striving for the really difficult questions. Right now we just don't know much about anything and so we're striving. But there's long, so most of human history you were asking why questions for which we now have very precise answers, including with biology and physics and all those kinds of things and maybe the why is this cutting edge of science of the explorer of the curiosity of the human mind. Like man's search for meaning is the sort of the ultimate driver of the why. And it's almost like it could be an evolutionary adaptation of asking exceptionally hard why questions that will never get answered. Like, so you should always have like, it's like a queue, it's a stack of questions, why questions and that thing should never come to the bottom, should always be striving. And that's useful for humans to come up with better and better ways of survival. And maybe in a bigger perspective for the universe to figure out something about itself. And it's just humans just a useful tool for that. Or life on earth is a useful tool for that. Wow. John, this, you're, for people who should know, you're from Philadelphia. I'm from Philadelphia. So it's an honor that you would travel all this way from a place I love to the new place I love. And that you write this really incredible book that celebrates the human body in the most honest of ways. And thank you for everything you do, for being a great educator, for being a great doctor, for being a great person and for spending your really valuable time with me today. Thank you, John. Thanks for having me, Lex. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jonathan Reisman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Paul Farmer, a doctor who has inspired both Jonathan and me with the way he practiced medicine and the way he lived his life. The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/XOPO9J7DIXw

50r-5ULcWgY

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Martin Rees: Black Holes, Alien Life, Dark Matter, and the Big Bang | Lex Fridman Podcast #305

There's no reason to think that the ocean ends just beyond your horizon. Likewise, there's no reason to think that the aftermath of our Big Bang ends just at the boundary of what we can see. Indeed, there are quite strong arguments that it probably goes on about 100 times further. It may even go on so much further that all combinatorials are replicated. There's another set of people like us sitting in a room like this. The following is a conversation with Lord Martin Rees, Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cambridge University and co-founder of the Center for the Study of Existential Risk. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Martin Rees. In your 2020 Scientific American article, you write that, quote, today we know that the universe is far bigger and stranger than anyone suspected. So, what do you think are the strangest, maybe the most beautiful, or maybe even the most terrifying things lurking out there in the cosmos? Well, of course, we're still groping for any detailed understanding of the remote parts of the universe. But of course, what we've learned in the last few decades is really two things. First, we've understood that the universe had an origin about 13.8 billion years ago in a so-called Big Bang, a hot, dense state whose very beginnings are still shrouded in mystery. And also, we've learned more about the extreme things in it, black holes, neutron stars, explosions of various kinds. And one of the most potentially exciting discoveries in the last 20 years, mainly the last 10, has been the realization that most of the stars in the sky are orbited by retinues of planets, just as the Sun is orbited by the Earth and the other familiar planets. And this, of course, makes the night sky far more interesting. What you see up there aren't just points of light, but they're planetary systems. And that raises the question, could there be life out there? And so, that is an exciting problem for the 21st century. So, when you see all those lights out there, you immediately imagine all the planetary worlds that are around them. And they potentially have all kinds of different lives, living organisms, life forms, or different histories. RLW Well, that we don't know at all. We know that these planets are there. We know that they have masses and orbits rather like the planets of our solar system. But we don't know at all if there's any life on any of them. I mean, it's entirely logically possible that life is unique to this Earth. It doesn't exist anywhere. On the other hand, it could be that the origin of life is something which happens routinely given conditions like the young Earth, in which case, there could be literally billions of places in our galaxy where some sort of biosphere has evolved. And settling where the truth lies between those two extremes is a challenge for the coming decades. LRW So, certainly, we're either lucky to be here or very, very, very lucky to be here. RLW I guess that's the difference. LRW That's the difference. Where do you fall, your own estimate, your own guess on this question? Are we alone in the universe, do you think? RLW I think it would be foolish to give any firm estimate because we just don't know. And that's just an example of how we are depending on greater observations. And also, incidentally, in the case of life, we've got to take account of the fact that, as I always say to my scientific colleagues, biology is a much harder subject than physics. And most of the universe, as we know about, could be understood by physics. But we've got to remember that even the smallest living organism, an insect, is far more complicated with layer on layer complexity than the most complicated star or galaxy. LRW You know, that's the funny thing about physics and biology. The dream of physicists in the 20th century and maybe this century is to discover the theory of everything. And there's a sense that once you discover that theory, you will understand everything. If we unlock the mysteries of how the universe works, would you be able to understand how life emerges from that fabric of the universe that we understand? RLW I think the phrase theory of everything is very misleading, because it's used to describe a theory which unifies the three laws of microphysics, electromagnetism, and weak interaction with gravity. So, it's an important step forward for particle physicists. But the lack of such a theory doesn't hold up any other scientists. Anyone doing biology or most of physics is not held up at all through not understanding sub-nuclear physics. They're held up because they're dealing with things that are very complicated. And that's especially true of anything biological. So, what's holding up biologists is not a lack of a so-called theory of everything. It's the inability to understand things which are very complicated. LRW What do you think we'll understand first? How the universe works or how the human body works? Deeply, like from a fundamental deep level? RLW Well, I think, perhaps we can come back to it later, that there are only limited prospects of ever being able to understand with un-aged human brains, the most fundamental theories linking together all the forces of nature. I think that may be a limitation of the human brains. But I also think that we can, perhaps aided by computer simulations, understand a bit more of the complexity of nature. But even understanding a simple organism from the atom up is very, very difficult. And I think extreme reductionists have a very misleading perception. They tend to think that, in a sense, we are all solutions to the Froding equation, etc. But that isn't the way we'll ever understand anything. It may be true that we are reductionists in the sense that we believe that that's the case. We don't believe in any special life force in living things. But nonetheless, no one thinks that we can understand a living thing by solving Schrodinger's equation. To take an example which isn't as complicated, lots of people study the flow of fluids like water. Why waves break, why flows go turbulent, things like that. This is a serious branch of applied mathematics and engineering. And in doing this, you have concepts of viscosity, turbulence, and things like that. Now, you can understand quite a lot about how water behaves and how waves break in terms of those concepts. But the fact that any breaking wave is a solution of Schrodinger's equation for 10 to 30 particles, even if you could solve that, which you clearly can't, would not give you any insight. So, the important thing is that every science has its own irreducible concepts in which you get the best explanation. So, it may be in chemistry, things like valence. In biology, the concepts in cell biology. And in ecology, there are concepts like imprinting, et cetera. And in psychology, there are other concepts. So, in a sense, the sciences are like a tall building where you have basic physics, most fundamental, then the rest of physics, then chemistry, then cell biology, et cetera, all the way up to the, I guess, economists in the penthouse and all that. And we have that. And that's true in a sense, but it's not true that it's like a building in that it's made unstable by an unstable base. Because if you're a chemist, biologist, or an economist, you're facing challenging problems, but they're not made any worse by uncertainty about sub-nuclear physics. And at every level, just because you understand the rules of the game, or have some understanding of the rules of the game, doesn't mean you know what kind of beautiful things that game creates. RL Right. So, if you're interested in birds and how they fly, then things like imprinting the baby on the mother and all that, and things like that are what you need to understand. You couldn't even in principle solve this vertical equation, how an albatross wanders for thousands of miles of the Southern Ocean and comes back and then coughs up food for its young. That's something we can understand in a sense and predict the behavior, but it's not because we can solve it on the atomic scale. LR You mentioned that there might be some fundamental limitation to the human brain that limits our ability to understand some aspect of how the universe works. That's really interesting. That's sad, actually. To the degree it's true, it's sad. So, what do you mean by that? RL I would simply say that just as a monkey can't understand quantum theory or even Newtonian physics, there's no particular reason why the human brain should evolve to be well-matched to understanding the deepest aspects of reality. And I suspect that there may be aspects that we are not even aware of and couldn't really fully comprehend. But as an intermediate step towards that, one thing which I think is a very interesting possibility is the extent to which AI can help us. I think if you take the example of so-called theories of everything, one of which is string theory, string theory involves very complicated geometry and structures in 10 dimensions. And it's certainly, in my view, on the cards that the physics of 10 dimensions, very complicated geometry, may be too hard for a human being to work through, but could be worked through by an AI with the advantage of the huge processing power, which enables them to learn world championship chess within a few hours just by watching games. So, there's every reason to expect that these machines could help us to solve these problems. And of course, if that's the way we came to understand whether string theory was right, it should be in a sense frustrating because you wouldn't get the sort of aha insight, which is the greatest satisfaction from doing science. But on the other hand, if a machine churns away at 10 dimensional geometry, figuring out all the possible origamis wound up in extra dimensions, if it comes out at the end, spews out the correct mass of the electron, the fact that there are three kinds of neutrinos, something like that, you would know that there was some truth in the theory. And so, we may have a theory which we come to trust because it does predict things that we can observe and check, but we may never really understand the full workings of it to the extent that we do more or less understand how most phenomena can be explained in a fundamental way. Of course, in the case of quantum theory, many people would say, understandably, those are mysteries. You don't quite understand why it works, but there could be deeper mysteries when we get to these unified theories, where there's a big gap between what a computer can print out for us at the end and what we can actually grasp and think through in our heads. Yeah, it's interesting that the idea that there could be things a computer could tell us that is true, and maybe it can even help us understand why it's true a little bit, but ultimately, it's still a long journey to really deeply understand the whys of it. Yes, and that's a limitation of our brain. We can try to sneak up to it in different ways, given the limitations of our brain. Have you gotten a chance to spend the day at DeepMind, talk to Demis Hassabis? His big dream is to apply AI to the questions of science, certainly to the questions of physics. Have you gotten a chance to interact with him? Well, I know him quite well. He's one of my heroes, certainly. And I remember- I'm sure he would say the same. And I remember the first time I met him, he said that he was like me. He wanted to understand the universe, but he thought the best thing to do was to try and develop AI. And then with the help of AI, he'd stand more chance of understanding the universe. Yeah. And I think he's right about that. And of course, although we're familiar with the way his computers play Go and chess, he's already made contributions to science through understanding protein folding better than the best human chemists. And so already he's on the path to showing ways in which computers have the power to learn and do things by having ability to analyze enormous samples in a short time to do better than humans. And so I think he would resonate for what I've just said, that it may be that in these other fundamental questions, the computers will play a crucial role. Yeah. And they're also doing quantum mechanical simulation of electrons. They're doing control of high temperature plasmas, fusion reactors. Yes. That's a new thing, which is very interesting. They can suppress the instabilities in these tokamaks better than any other way. Yeah. And it's just the march of progress by AIs in science is making big strides. Do you think an AI system will win a Nobel Prize in this century? What do you think? Hmm. Does that make you sad? If I can digress and put in a plug for my next book, it has a chapter saying why Nobel Prizes do more harm than good. So on a quite separate subject, I think Nobel Prizes do a great deal of damage to the perceptive of the way science is done. Of course, if you ask who or what deserves the credit for any scientific discovery, it may be often someone who has an idea, a team of people who work a big experiment, etc. And of course, it's the quality of the equipment, which is crucial. And certainly, in the subjects I do in astronomy, the huge advances we've had come not from us being more intelligent than Aristotle was, but through us having far, far better data from powerful telescopes on the ground and in space. And also, incidentally, we've benefited hugely in astronomy from computer simulations. Because if you are a subatomic physicist, then of course, you crash together the particles in a big accelerator like the one at CERN and see what happens. But I can't crash together two galaxies or two stars and see what happens. But in the virtual world of a computer, one can do simulations like that. And the power of computers is such that these simulations can yield phenomena and insights which we wouldn't have guessed beforehand. And the way we can feel we're making progress in trying to understand some of these phenomena, why galaxies have the size and shape they do and all that, is because we can do simulations, tweaking different initial conditions, and seeing which gives the best fit to what we actually observe. And so, that's a way in which we've made progress in using computers. And incidentally, we also now need to analyze data because one thinks of astronomy as being traditionally a rather data-poor subject. But the European satellite called Gaia has just put online the speeds and colors and properties of nearly two billion stars in the Milky Way, which we do fantastic analyses of. And that, of course, could not be done at all without just the number of crashing capacities of computers. LBW And the new methods of machine learning actually love raw data, the kind that astronomy provides, organized, structured, raw data. MR. Yeah. Well, indeed, because the reason they really have a benefit over us is that they can learn and think so much faster. That's how they can learn to play chess and go. That's how they can learn to diagnose lung cancer better than a radiologist, because they can look at 100,000 scans in a few days, whereas no human radiologist sees that many in a lifetime. LBW Well, there's still a magic to the human intelligence, to the intuition, to the common sense reasoning. MR. Well, we hope so. LBW For now. What is the new book that you mentioned? MR. The book is called If Science Is to Save Us. It's coming out in September. And it's on the big challenges of science, climate, dealing with biosafety and dealing with cyber safety. And also it's got chapters on the way science is organized in universities and academies, et cetera. LBW Institution of science. MR. And the ethics of science and education. LBW And perhaps the limits. MR. And the limits, yes. Yeah. LBW Well, let me actually just stroll around the beautiful and the strange of the universe. Over 20 years ago, you hypothesized that we would solve the mystery of dark matter by now. So unfortunately, we didn't quite yet. MR. That's right. LBW First, what is dark matter and why has it been so tough to figure out? MR. Well, I mean, we learned that galaxies and other large scale structures, which are moving around, but prevent them from flying apart by gravity, would be flying apart if they only contained the stuff we see, if everything in them was shining. And to understand how galaxies formed and why they do remain confined the same size, one has to infer that there's about five times as much stuff producing gravitational forces than the total amount of stuff in the gas and stars that we see. And that stuff is called dark matter. That's the leading name. It's not dark, it's just transparent, et cetera. And the most likely interpretation is that it's a swarm of microscopic particles, which have no electric charge. And the very small cross-sections were hitting each other and hitting anything else. So, they swarm around and we can detect their collective effects. And when we do computer simulations of how galaxies form and evolve and how they emerge from the Big Bang, then we get a nice consistent picture if we put in five times as much mass in the form of these mysterious dark particles. And for instance, it works better if we think they're non-interacting particles than if you think they're a gas which would have shockwaves and things. So, we know something about the properties of these, but we don't know what they are. And the disappointment compared to my guess 20 years ago is that particles answering this description have not yet been found. It was thought that the big accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, which is the world's biggest, might've found a new class of particles which would have been the obvious candidates, and it hasn't. And some people say, well, dark matter can't be there, et cetera. But what I would argue is that there's a huge amount of parameter space that hasn't been explored. There are other kinds of particles called axions, which behave slightly differently, which are good candidates. And there's a factor of 10 powers of 10 between the heaviest particles that could be created by the Large Hadron Collider and the heaviest particles which on theoretical grounds could exist without turning into black holes. So, there's a huge amount of possible particles which could be out there as remnants of the Big Bang, but which we wouldn't be able to detect so easily. So, the fact that we've got new constraints on what the dark matter could be doesn't diminish my belief that it's there in the form of particles because we've only explored a small fraction of the parameter space. LR. So, there's this search. You're literally, upon unintended, are searching in the dark here in this giant parameter space of possible particles. You're searching for, I mean, there could be all kinds of particles. CR. There could be, and there's some which may be very, very hard to detect, but I think we can hope for some new theoretical ideas because one point which perhaps we'd like to discuss more is about the very early stage of the Big Bang. And the situation now is that we have an outlined picture for how the universe has evolved from the time when it was expanding in just a nanosecond up to the present. And we could do that because after a nanosecond, the physics of the material is in the same range that we can test in the lab. After a nanosecond, the particles move around like those in the Large Hadron Collider. If you wait for one second, they're rather like in the centers of the hottest stars, and nuclear reactions produce hydrogen and helium, etc., which fit the data. So, we can with confidence extrapolate back to when the universe was a nanosecond old. Indeed, I think we can do it with as much confidence as anything a geologist tells you about the early history of the Earth. And that's huge progress in the last 50 years. But any progress puts in sharper focus new mysteries. And of course, the new mysteries in this context are why is the universe expanding the way it is? Why does it contain this mixture of atoms and dark matter and radiation? And why does it have the properties which allow galaxies to form being fairly smooth, but not completely smooth? And the answer to those questions are generally believed to lie in a much, much earlier stage of the universe when conditions were much more extreme, and therefore, far beyond the stage where we had the foothold in experiments. Very theoretical. And so, we don't have a convincing theory. We just have ideas. Until we have something like string theory, or some other clues to the ultra-early universe, that's going to remain speculative. So, there's a big gap. And to say how big the gap is, if we take the observable universe, out to a bit more than 10 billion light years, then when the universe was a nanosecond old, that would have been squeezed down to the size of our solar system, or compressed into that volume. But the times we're talking about when the key properties of the universe were first imprinted were times when that entire universe was squeezed down to the size of a tennis ball, or baseball if you prefer, and to emerge from something microscopic. So, it's a huge extrapolation. And it's not surprising that since it's so far from our experimental range of detectability, we are still groping for ideas. LRW But you think first theory will reach into that place, and then experiment will perhaps one day catch up? Maybe simulation? RLW In a sense, it's a combination. I think what we hope for is that there'll be a theory which applies to the early universe, but which also has consequences which we can test in our present-day universe, like discovering why neutrinos exist or things like that. And that's the thing which, as I mentioned, we may perhaps need a bit of AI to help us to calculate. But I think the hope would be that we will have a theory which applies under the very, very extreme early stages of the universe, but which gains credibility and gains confidence, because it also manages to account for otherwise unexplained features of the low energy world, and what people call a standard model of particle physics, where there are lots of undetermined numbers. So, it may help with that. LRW So, we're dancing between physics and philosophy a little bit, but what do you think happened before the Big Bang? So, this feels like something that's out of the reach of science. RLW It's out of the reach of present science, because science develops and as the front is advanced, then new problems come into focus that couldn't have been postulated before. I mean, if I think of my own career, when I was a student, the evidence for the Big Bang was pretty weak, whereas now it's extremely strong. But we are now thinking about the reason why the universe is the way it is and all that. So, I would put all these things we've just mentioned in the category of speculative science, and I don't see a bifurcation between that and philosophy. But of course, to answer your question, if we do want to understand the very early universe, then we've got to realize that it may involve even more counterintuitive concepts than quantum theory does, because it's a condition even further away from everyday world than quantum theory is. And remember, our brains evolved and haven't changed much since our ancestors roamed the African savanna and looked at the everyday world. And it's rather amazing that we've been able to make some sense of the quantum micro-world and of the cosmos. But there may be some things which are beyond us, and certainly, as you implied, there are things that we don't yet understand at all. And of course, one concept we might have to jettison is the idea of three dimensions of space and time just ticking away. There are lots of ideas. I mean, I think Stephen Hawking had an idea that talking about what happens before the Big Bang, it's like asking what happens if you go north from the North Pole. It somehow closes off. That's just one idea. I don't like that idea, but that's a possible one. And so, we just don't know what happened at the very beginning of the Big Bang. Were there many Big Bangs rather than one, etc? And those are issues which we may be able to get some foothold on from some new theory. But even then, we won't be able to directly test the theories. But I think it's a heresy to think you have to be able to test every prediction of a theory. And I'll give you another example. We take seriously what Einstein's theory says about the inside of black holes, even though we can't observe them, because that theory has been vindicated in many other places in cosmology and black holes, gravitational waves, and all those things. Likewise, if we had a theory which explains some things about the early history of our Big Bang and the present universe, then we would take seriously the inference if it predicted many Big Bangs, not one, even though we can't predict the other ones. So, the example is that we can take seriously a prediction if it's the consequence of a theory that we believe on other grounds. We don't need to be able to detect another Big Bang in order to take it seriously. It may not be a proof, but it's a good indication that this is the direction where the truth lies. Yeah, if the theory is getting confidence in other ways. Yes. Yes. Where do you sense? Do you think there's other universes besides our own? There are sort of well-defined theories, which make assumptions about the physics at the relevant time. And this time, incidentally, is 10 to the power minus 36 seconds, or earlier than that. So, this tiny sliver of time. And there are some theories, a famous one due to Andre Linde, the Russian cosmologist now at Stanford, called eternal inflation, which did predict an eternal production of new Big Bangs, as it were. And that's based on specific assumptions about the physics. But those assumptions, of course, are just hypotheses which aren't vindicated. But there are other theories which only predict one Big Bang. So, I think we should be open-minded and not dogmatic about these options until we do understand the relevant physics. But there are these different scenarios of very different ideas about this. But I think all of them have the feature that physical reality is a lot more extensive than what we can see through our telescope. I think even most conservative astronomers would say that, because we can see out with our telescopes to a sort of horizon, which is about, depending on how you measure it, maybe 15 billion light years away or something like that. But that horizon of our observations is no more physical reality than the horizon around you if you're in the ocean. And looking out at your horizon, there's no reason to think that the ocean ends just beyond your horizon. And likewise, there's no reason to think that the aftermath of our Big Bang ends just at the boundary of what we can see. Indeed, there are quite strong arguments that it probably goes on about 100 times further. It may even go on so much further that all combinatorials are replicated. And there's another set of people like us sitting in a room like this. LBW Every possible combination of... RL That could happen. That's not logically impossible. But I think many people would accept that it does go on and contain probably a million times as much stuff as what we can see within a horizon. The reason for that, incidentally, is that if we look as far as we can in one direction and in the opposite direction, then the conditions don't differ by more than one passing 100,000. So, that means that if we're part of some finite structure, the gradient across the part we can see is very small. And so, that suggests that it probably does go on a lot further. And the best estimates say it must go on at least 20 times further. LBW Is that exciting or terrifying to you? Just the spans of it all, the wide, everything that lies beyond the horizon? That example doesn't even hold for Earth. So, it goes way, way farther. And on top of that, just to take your metaphor further on the ocean, while we're on top of this ocean, not only can we now see beyond the horizon, we also don't know much about the depth of the ocean, nor the actual mechanism of observation that's in our head. RL Yes. No, I think the rule goes on how to resolve those points you make. Yes, yes. But I think even the solar system is pretty vast by human standards. And so, I don't think the perception of this utterly vast cosmos need have any deeper impact on us than just realizing that we are very small on the scale of the external world. LBW Yeah, it's humbling though. It's humbling, and depending where your ego is, it's humbling. RL Well, if you start off very unhumble, indeed, it may make a difference. But for most of us, I don't think it makes much difference. And well, there's a more general question, of course, about whether the human race as such is something which is very special, or if on the other hand, it's just one of many such species elsewhere in the universe, or indeed existing at different times in our universe. LBW To me, it feels almost obvious that the universe should be full of alien life, perhaps dead alien civilizations, but just the vastness of space. And it just feels wrong to think of Earth as somehow special. It sure as heck doesn't look that special. The more we learn, the less special it seems. RL Well, I mean, I don't agree with that as far as life is concerned, because remember that we don't understand how life began here on Earth. We don't understand, although we know there were an evolution of simple life to complex life, we don't understand what caused the transition between complex chemistry and the first replicating, metabolizing entity we call alive. That's a mystery. And serious physicists and chemists are now thinking about it, but we don't know. So, we therefore can't say, was it a rare fluke which would not have happened anywhere else? Or was it something which involves a process that would have happened in any other planet where conditions were like they were on the young Earth? So, we can't say that now. I think many of us would indeed bet that probably some kind of life exists elsewhere. But even if you accept that, then there are many contingencies going from simple life to present-day life. And some biologists like Stephen Jay Gould thought that if you rerun evolution, you'd end up with something quite different, and maybe not an intelligent species. So, the contingencies in evolution may militate against the emergence of intelligence, even if life gets started in lots of places. So, I think these are still completely open questions. And that's why it's such an exciting time now that we are starting to be able to address these. I mean, I mentioned the fact that the origin of life is a question that we may be able to understand, and serious people are working on it. It's usually put in the sort of too difficult box. Everyone knew it was important, but they didn't know how to tackle it or what experiments to do. But it's not like that now. And that's partly because of cleverer experiments. But I think most importantly, because we are aware that we can look for life in other places, other places in our solar system, and of course, on the exoplanets around other stars. And within 10 or 20 years, I think two things could happen, which will be really, really important. We might, with the next big telescope, be able to image some of the Earth-like planets around other stars. CB. Image, like get a picture? RL. Well, actually, let me caveat that. It'd take 50 years to get a resolved image, but to actually detect the light. Because now, of course, these exoplanets are detected by their effects on the parent star. They either cause their parent star to dim slightly when they transit across in front of it. And so, we see the dips, or their gravitational pull makes the star wobble a bit. So, most of the 5,000 plus planets that have been found around other stars, they've been found indirectly by their effect in one of those two ways on the parent star. CB. You could still do a pretty good job of estimating size, all those kinds of things. RL. The size and the mass, you can estimate. But detecting the actual light from one of these exoplanets hasn't really been done yet, except in one or two very bright, big planets. CB. So, maybe like James Webb Telescope would be able to do that. RL. Well, James Webb may do this, but even better will be the European ground-based telescope called, unimaginatively, the Extremely Large Telescope, which has a 39-meter diameter mirror. 39 meters, it's a meter and a half glass. And that will collect enough light from one of these exoplanets around a nearby star to be able to separate out its light from that of the star, which is millions of times brighter, and get the spectrum of the planet and see if it's got oxygen or chlorophyll and things in it. So, that will come. James Webb may make some steps there. But I think we can look forward to learning quite a bit in the next 20 years. Because I like to say, supposing that we're aliens looking at the solar system, then they'd see the Sun as an ordinary star. They'd see the Earth as, in Carl Sager's nice phrase, a pale blue dot lying very close in the sky to its star, our Sun, and much, much, much fainter. But if they could observe that dot, they could learn quite a bit. They could perhaps get the spectrum of the light and find the atmosphere. They'd find the shade of blue is slightly different, depending on whether the Pacific Ocean or the landmass of Asia was facing them. So, they could infer the length of the day and the oceans and continents, and maybe something about the seasons and the climate. And that's the kind of calculation and inference we might be able to draw within the next 10 or 20 years about other exoplanets. And evidence of some sort of biosphere on one of them would, of course, be crucial. And it would rule out the still logical possibility that life is unique. But there's another way in which this may happen in the next 20 years. People think there could be something swimming under the ice of Europa and Enceladus, and probes are being sent to maybe not quite go under the ice, but detect the spray coming out to see if there's evidence for organics in that. And if we found any evidence for an origin of life that happened in either of those places, that would immediately be important. Because if life has originated twice independently in one planetary system, the solar system, that would tell us straight away it wasn't a rare accident and must have happened billions of times in the galaxy. At the moment, we can't rule out it being unique. And incidentally, if we found life on Mars, then that would still be ambiguous because people have realized that this early life could have got from Mars to Earth or vice versa on meteorites. So, if you found life on Mars, then some skeptics could still say if it's a single origin. But I think- Lex Dollas Jr. But Europa's far enough- Peter T. Davis That's far enough away. Lex Dollas Jr. Statistically because- Peter T. Davis So that's why that would be especially- Lex Dollas Jr. It's always the skeptics that ruin a good party. Peter T. Davis But we need them, of course. Lex Dollas Jr. We need them at the party. We need some skeptics at the party. But boy, would that be so exciting to find life on one of the moons. Because it means that life is everywhere. Peter T. Davis But of course, that's just be any kind of vegetation or life. The question of the aliens or science fiction is a different matter. Lex Dollas Jr. Intelligent aliens. Yeah, but if you have a good indication that there's life elsewhere in the solar system, that means life is everywhere. Peter T. Davis Yep. Lex Dollas Jr. And that's- Peter T. Davis Yep, that's- yeah. Lex Dollas Jr. I don't know if that's terrifying or what that is. Because if life is everywhere, why is intelligent life not everywhere? Why, I mean, you've talked about that most likely alien civilizations, if they are out there, they would likely be far ahead of us. The ones that would actually communicate with us. Peter T. Davis Yes. Lex Dollas Jr. And that, again, one of those things that is both exciting and terrifying. You've mentioned that they're likely not to be of biological nature. Peter T. Davis Well, I think that's important. Of course, again, it's a speculation, but in speculating about intelligent life, and I take the search seriously. In fact, I chair the committee that the Russian-American investor Yuri Milner supports looking for intelligent life. He's putting $10 million a year into better equipment and getting time on telescopes to do this. And so, I think it's worthwhile, even though I don't hold my breath for success. It's very exciting. But that does lead me to wonder what might be detected. And I think, well, we don't know. We've got to be able to mind about anything. We've no idea what it will be. And so, any anomalous objects or even some strange shiny objects in the solar system or anything, we've got to keep our eyes open for. But I think if we ask about a planet like the Earth where evolution had taken more of the same track, then as you say, it wouldn't be synchronized. If it had lagged behind, then of course, it would not have got to advanced life. But it may have had a head start. It may have formed on a planet around an older star, okay? But then let's ask what we would see. It's taken nearly 4 billion years from the first life to us, and we've now got this technological civilization which could make itself detectable to any alien out there. But I think most people would say that this civilization of flesh and blood creatures in a collective civilization may not last more than a few hundred years more. I think that some people would say it will kill itself off. But I'm more optimistic. And I would say that what we're going to have in future is no longer the slow Darwinian selection, but we're going to have what I call secular intelligence design, which will be humans designing their progeny to be better adapted to where they are. And if they go to Mars or somewhere, they're badly adapted, and they want to adapt a lot. And so, they will adapt. But there may be some limits to what could be done with flesh and blood. And so, they may become largely electronic, download their brains and be electronic entities. And if they're electronic, then what's important is that they're near immortal. And also, they won't necessarily want to be on a planet with an atmosphere or gravity. They may go off into the blue yonder. And if they're near immortal, they won't be daunted by interstellar travel taking a long time. And so, if we looked at what would happen on the Earth in the next millions of years, then there may be these electronic entities which have been sent out and are now far away from the Earth, but still sort of burping away in some fashion to be detected. And so, this therefore leads me to think that if there was another planet which had evolved like the Earth and was ahead of us, it wouldn't be synchronized. So, we wouldn't see a flesh and blood civilization, but we would see these electronic progeny as it were. And then this raises another question because there's the famous argument against there being lots of aliens out there, which is that they would come and invade us and eat us or something like that. That's a common idea, which Fermi is attributed to have been the first to say. And I think there's an escape clause to that because these entities would be, say, they evolved by second intelligent design, designed by their predecessors and then designed by us. And whereas Darwinian selection requires two things, it requires aggression and intelligence. This future intelligent design may favor intelligence because that's what they were designed for, but it may not favor aggression. And so, these future entities, they may be sitting deep thoughts, thinking deep thoughts, and not being at all expansionist. So, they could be out there. And we can't refute their existence in the way the Fermi paradox is supposed to refute their existence because these would not be aggressive or expansionist. Well, maybe evolution requires competition, not aggression. And I wonder if competition can take forms that are non-expansionary. So, you can still have fun competing in the space of ideas, which maybe primarily... The Daube philosophers, perhaps, yeah. In a way, right. It's an intellectual exercise versus a sort of violent exercise. So, what does this civilization on Mars look like? So, do you think we would more and more, you know, maybe start with some genetic modification and then move to basically cyborgs, increasing integration of electronic systems, computational systems into our bodies and brains? This is a theme of my other new book out this year, which is called The End of Astronauts. The End of Astronauts. Co-written with my old friend and colleague from Berkeley, Don Goldsmith. And it's really about the role of human spaceflight versus sort of robotic spaceflight. And just to summarize what it says, it argues that the practical case for sending humans into space is getting weaker all the time as robots get better and more capable. The robots 50 years ago couldn't do anything very much, but now they could assemble big structures in space or on the Moon, and they could probably do exploration. Well, present ones on Mars can't actually do the geology, but future AI will be able to do the geology, and already they can dig on Mars. And so, if you want to do exploration of Mars and, of course, even more of Enceladus or Europa where you could never send humans, we depend on robots. And they're far, far cheaper because to send a human to Mars requires feeding them for 200 days on the journey there and bringing them back. And neither of those are necessary for robots. So, the practical case for humans is getting very weak. And if humans go, it's only as an adventure, really. And so, the line in our book is that human spaceflight should not be pursued by NASA or public funding agencies because it has no practical purpose, but also because it's especially expensive if they do it because they would have to be risk-averse in launching civilians into space. I can illustrate that by noting that the shuttle was launched 135 times, and it had two spectacular failures, which each killed the seven people in the crew. And it had been mistakenly presented as safe for civilians. And there was a woman schoolteacher killed in one of them. It was a big natural trauma, and they tried to make it safer still. But if you launch into space, just the kind of people prepared to accept that sort of risk, and of course, test pilots and people who go hang gliding and go to the South Pole, et cetera, are prepared to accept a 2% risk at least for a big challenge. Then, of course, you do it more cheaply. And that's why I think human spaceflight should be left to the billionaires and their sponsors because then the taxpayers aren't paying, and they can launch simply those people who are prepared to accept high risks. Space adventure, not space tourism. And we should cheer them on. And as regards where they would go, then low Earth orbit, I suspect, can be done quite cheaply in the future. But going to Mars, which is very, very expensive and dangerous for humans, the only people who would go would be these adventurers maybe on a one-way trip like some of the early polar explorers and Magellan and people like that, and we would cheer them on. And I expect and I very much hope that by the end of the century, there will be a small community of such people on Mars living very uncomfortably, far less comfortably than at the South Pole or the bottom of the ocean or the top of Everest. But they will be there, and they won't have a return ticket, but they'll be there. Incidentally, I think it's a dangerous delusion to think, as Elon Musk has said, that we can have mass emigration from the Earth to Mars to escape the Earth's problems. It's a dangerous delusion because it's far easier to deal with climate change on Earth than to terraform Mars to make it properly habitable to humans. So, there's no plan B for ordinary risk-averse people. But for these crazy adventurers, then you can imagine that they would be trying to live on Mars as great pioneers. And by the end of the century, then there will be huge advances compared to the present in two things. First, in understanding genetics, so as to genetically redesign one's offspring. And secondly, to use cyborg techniques to implant something in our brain or indeed think about downloading, etc. And those techniques will, one hopes, be heavily regulated on Earth on prudentials and ethical grounds. And of course, we are pretty well adapted to the Earth, so we don't have the incentive to do these things in the way they were there. So, our argument is that it'll be those crazy pioneers on Mars using all these scientific advances, which will be controlled here away from the regulators. They will transition into a new post-human species. And so, if they do that and if they transition into something which is electronic, eventually, because there may be some limits to the capacity of flesh and blood brains anyways, then those electronic entities may not want to stay on the planet like Mars. They may want to go away. And so, they'll be the precursors of the future evolution of life and intelligence coming from the Earth. And of course, there's one point which perhaps astronomers are more aware of than most people. Most people are aware that we are the outcome of 4 billion years of evolution. Most of them nonetheless probably think that we humans are somehow the culmination, the top of the tree. But no astronomers can believe that because astronomers know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The sun has been shining for that length of time, but the sun has got 6 billion years more to go before it flares up and engulfs the inner planet. So, the sun is less than halfway through its life and the expanding universe goes on far longer still, maybe forever. And I like to quote Woody Allen who said, eternity is very long, especially towards the end. So, we shouldn't think of ourselves as maybe even the halfway stage in the emergence of cosmic complexity. And so, these entities who are post-cursors, they will go beyond the solar system. And of course, even if there's nothing else out there already, then they could populate the rest of the galaxy. LB And maybe eventually meet the others who are out there expanding as well. Expanding and populating with expanded capacity for life and intelligence, all those kinds of things. RH Well, they might. But again, all better off because I can't conceive what they'd be like. They won't be green men and women with eyes on storks. They'd be something quite different. And we just don't know. But there is an interesting question actually, which comes up when I've sometimes spoken to audiences about this topic, but the question of consciousness and self-awareness. Because going back to philosophical questions, I mean, whether an electronic robot would be a zombie or would it be conscious and self-aware? And I think there's no way of answering this empirically. And some people think that consciousness and self-awareness is an emergent property in any sufficiently complicated networks that they would be. Others say, well, maybe it's something special to the flesh and blood that we're made of. We don't know. And in a sense, this may not matter to the way things behave because they could be zombies and still behave as though they were intelligent. But I remember after one of my talks, someone came up and said, wouldn't it be sad if these future entities, which were the main intelligence in the universe, had no self-awareness? So, there was nothing which could appreciate the wonder and mystery of the universe and the beauty of the universe in the way that we do. And so, it does perhaps affect one's perspective of whether you welcome or deplore this possible future scenario, depending on whether you think the future post-human entities are conscious and have an aesthetic sense, or whether they're just zombies. And, of course, you have to be humble to realize that self-awareness may not be the highest form of being. That humans have a very strong ego and a very strong sense of identity, like personal identity connected to this particular brain. It's not so obvious to me that that is somehow the highest achievement of a life form, that maybe this kind of… You think something collective would be… It's possible that, well, I think from an alien perspective, when you look at Earth, it's not so obvious to me that individual humans are the atoms of intelligence. It could be the entire organism together, the collective intelligence. And so, we humans think of ourselves as individuals. We dress up, we wear ties and suits, and we give each other prizes. But in reality, the intelligence, the things we create that are beautiful, emerges from our interaction with each other. And that may be where the intelligence is, ideas jumping from one person to another over generations. Yes, but we have experiences where we can appreciate beauty and wonder and all that. And a zombie may not have those experiences. Yeah, or it may have a very different… They do. …a very black and white, harsh description of a philosophical zombie that could be just a very different way to experience. And in terms of the explorers that colonize Mars, I mean, there's several things I want to mention. One, it's just at a high level, to me, that's one of the most inspiring things humans can do, is reach out into the unknown. That's in the space of ideas, in the space of science, but also the explorers. Yes, no, I agree with that. And that inspires people here on Earth more. I mean, it did in their, you know, when going to the moon or going out to space in the 20th century, that inspired people here on Earth. And then when going to the moon or going out to space in the 20th century, that inspired a generation of scientists. I think that also could be used to inspire a generation of new scientists in the 21st century by reaching out towards Mars. So in that sense, I think what Elon Musk and others are doing is actually quite inspiring. It's not… No, I agree. …it's not a recreational thing. It actually has a deep humanitarian purpose of really helping people. And then on the other one, to push back on your thought, I don't think Elon says we want to escape Earth's problems. It's more that we should allocate some small percentage of resources to have a backup plan. And because you yourself have spoken about and written about all the ways we clever humans could destroy ourselves. You could go on. Yes. And I'm not sure… It does seem, when you look at the long arc of human history, it seems almost obvious that we need to become a multi-planetary species over a period if we are to survive many centuries. It seems that as we get cleverer and cleverer with the ways we can destroy ourselves, Earth is going to become less and less safe. So in that sense, this is one of the things… People talk about climate change and that we need to respond to climate change, and that's a long-term investment we need to make. But it's not really long-term. It's a span of decades. I think what Elon is doing is a really long-term investment. We should be working on multi-planetary colonization now if we were to have it ready five centuries from now. And so, taking those early steps. And then also, something happens when you go into the unknown and do this really difficult thing. You discover something very new. You discover something about robotics or materials engineering or nutrition or neuroscience or human relations or political systems that actually work well with humans. You discover all those things. And so, it's a worthy effort to go out there and try to become cyborgs. Yeah. No, I agree with that. I think the only different point I'd make is that this is going to be very expensive if it's done in a risk-averse way. And that's why I think we should be grateful to the billionaires if they're going to sort of foster these opportunities for thrill-seeking risk-takers who we can all admire. Yeah. By the way, I should push back on the billionaires because there's sometimes a negative connotation to the word billionaire. It's not a billionaire. It's a company versus government because governments are billionaires and trillionaires. It's not the wealth. It's the capitalist imperative, which I think deserves a lot more praise than people are giving it. I'm troubled by the sort of criticism like it's billionaires playing with toys for their own pleasure. I think what some of these companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing is some of the most inspiring engineering and even scientific work ever done in human history. No, I agree. I think the people who've made the greatest wealth are people who've really been mega-benefactors. I mean, I think, you know... Some of them. Some of them. Yeah, yes. Some of them. But those who've founded Google and all that and even Amazon, they're beneficiaries. They're in a quite different category in my view from those who just shuffle around money or crypto coins and things like that. You're really talking trash. But I think if they use their money in these ways, that's fine. But I think it's true that far more money is owned by us collectively as taxpayers. But I think the fact is, it's in a democracy, there'd be big resistance to exposing human beings to very high risks if, in a sense, we share responsibility for it. And that's the reason I think it'd be done much more cheaply by these private funders. That's an interesting hypothesis, but I have to push back. I don't know if it's obvious why NASA spends so much money and takes such a long time to develop the things it was doing. So before Elon Musk came along, because I would love to live in a world where government actually uses taxpayer money to get some of the best engineers and scientists in the world and actually work across governments. Russia, China, United States, European Union together to do some of these big projects. It's strange that Elon is able to do this much cheaper, much faster. It could have to be do with risk aversion. You're right. But I think it's that, is that he had all the whole assembly within this one building, as it were, rather than depending on a supply chain. But I think it's also that he had a Silicon Valley culture and had younger people, whereas the big aerospace companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, they had people who were left over from the Apollo program in some cases. And so they weren't quite so lively. And indeed, quite apart from the controversial issues of the future of human space flight, in terms of the next generation of big rockets, then the one that Musk is going to launch for the first time this year, the huge one, is going to be far, far cheaper than the one that NASA has been working on at the same time. And that's because it will have a reusable first stage. And it's going to be great. It can launch over 100 tons into Earth orbit. And instead, that's going to be make it feasible to do things that I used to think were crazy, like having solar energy from space. That's no longer so crazy, if you can do that. And also, for science, because its nose cone could contain within it something as big as the entire unfurled James Webb telescope mirror. And therefore, you can have a big telescope much more cheaply if you can launch it all in one piece. And so it's going to be hugely beneficial to science and to any practical use of space to have these cheaper rockets that are far more completely reusable than it was NASA had. So I think Musk's done a tremendous service to the space exploration and the whole space technology through these rockets, certainly. Lexaunce Plus, it's some big, sexy rocket. It's just great engineering. Rupert Of course, yeah. Lexaunce It's like looking at a beautiful big bridge that humans are capable, us descendants of apes, are capable to do something so majestic. Rupert Yes, and also the way they land coming down on this bar, that's amazing. Lexaunce It's both controls engineering, it's increasing sort of intelligence in these rockets, but also great propulsion engineering materials, entrepreneurship. And it just inspires so many people. Rupert No, I'm entirely with you on that. Lexaunce So would it be exciting to you to see a human being step foot on Mars in your lifetime? Rupert Yes, I think it's unlikely in my lifetime since I'm so ancient. But I think this century it's going to happen. And I think that will indeed be exciting. And I hope there will be a small community by the end of the century. But as I say, I think they may go with one way tickets or accepting the risk of no return. So there's got to be people like that. And I still think it's going to be hard to persuade the public to send people when you say straight out that they may never come back. But of course, the Apollo astronauts, they took a high risk. And in fact, in my previous book, I quote the speech that's been written for Nixon to be read out if Neil Armstrong got stuck on the moon. And it was written by one of his advisors and very eloquent speech about how they have come to a noble end, etc. But of course, there was a genuine risk at that time. But that may have been accepted. But clearly, the crashes of the shuttle were not acceptable to the American public, even when they were told that this was only a 2% risk given how often they launched it. And so that's what leads me to think that it's got to be left to the kind of people who are prepared to take these risks. And I think of American Avengers, a guy called Steve Fossett, who was aviator, did all kinds of crazy things, you know, and then a guy who fell supersonically with a parachute from very high altitude. All these people, we all cheer them on. They extend the bounds of humanity. But I don't think the public will be so happy to fund them. I mean, I disagree with that. I think if we change the narrative, we should change the story. You think so? I think there's a lot of people, because the public is happy to fund folks in other domains that take bold, giant risks. First of all, military, for example. Oh, in the military, obviously, yes. Yes. I think this is, in the name of science, especially if it's sold correctly, I sure as hell would go up there with a risk. I would take a 40% chance risk of death for something that's... I would. I might want to be even older than I am now. But then I would go. I guess what I'm trying to communicate is there's a lot of people on Earth. That's a nice feature. And I'm sure there's going to be a significant percentage or some percentage of people that take on the risk for the adventure. So, and I particularly love that that risk of adventure when taking on inspires people. And just the ripple effect it has across the generation, especially among the young minds, is perhaps immeasurable. But you're thinking that sending humans should be something we do less and less, sending humans to space, that it should be primarily an effort. The work of space exploration should be done primarily by robots. Well, I think it can be done much more cheaply, obviously, on Mars. And no one's thinking of sending humans to Enceladus or Europa, the outer planets. And the point is we will have much better robots because, let's take an example, you see the pictures of the moons of Saturn and the picture of Pluto and the comet taken by probes. And Cassini spent 13 years going around Saturn and its moons after 70 years. And those are all based on 1990s technology. And if you think of how smartphones have advanced in the 20 years since then, just think how much better one could do by instrumenting some very small, sophisticated probe. It could send dozens of them to explore the outer planets. And that's the way to do that because no one thinks you could send humans that far. But I would apply the same argument to Mars. And if you want to assemble big structures like, for instance, radio astronomers would like to have a big radio telescope on the far side of the Moon so it's away from the Earth's background artificial radio waves. And that could be done by assembling using robots without people. So, on the Moon and on Mars, I think everything that's useful can be done by machines much more cheaply than by humans. LBW Do you know the movie 2001, A Space Odyssey? LRW Of course, yes. You must be too young to have seen that when it came out, obviously. LBW Ah, yeah. LRW I remember seeing when it came out. LBW You saw when it came out? LRW Yeah, yeah. 60 years ago. LBW 60, when was it? 60, in the 60s. LRW Yeah, that's right. Still a classic. LBW It's still probably, for me, the greatest AI movie ever made. LRW Yes, yes. I agree. LBW One of the great space movies ever made. LRW Yes. So, well, let me ask you a philosophical question, since we're talking about robots exploring space. Do you think HAL 9000 is good or bad? So, for people who haven't watched, this computer system makes a decision to basically prioritize the mission that the ship is on over the humans that are part of the mission. Do you think HAL is good or evil? LRW If you ask me, probably in that context, it was probably good. But I think you're raising what is, of course, very much an active issue in everyday life about the extent to which we should entrust any important decision to a machine. And there again, I'm very worried because I think if you are recommended for an operation or not given parole from prison or even denied credit by your bank, you feel you should be entitled to an explanation. It's not enough to be told that the machine has a more reliable record on the whole than humans have of making these decisions. You think you should be given reasons you could understand. And that's why I think the present societal trend to take away the humans and leave us in the hands of decisions that we can't contest is a very dangerous one. I think we've got to be very careful of the extent to which AI, which can handle lots of information, actually makes the decisions without oversight. And I think we can use them as a supplement. But to take the case of radiology and cancer, I mean, it's true that the radiologist hasn't seen as many x-rays of cancer lungs as the machine. So the machine could certainly help, but you want the human to make the final decision. And I think that's true in most of these instances. But if we turn a bit to the short term concerns with robotics, I think the big worry, of course, is the effect it has on people's self-respect and their labor market. And I think my solution would be that we should arrange to tax more heavily the big international conglomerates which use the robots and use that tax to fund decently paid, dignified posts of the kind where being a human being is important. Above all, carers for old people, teachers, assistants for young, guards in public parks, and things like that. And if the people who are now working in mind-numbing jobs in Amazon warehouses or in telephone call centers are automated, but those same people are given jobs where being a human is an asset, then that's a plus-plus situation. And so that's the way I think that we should benefit from these technologies. Take over the mind-numbing jobs and use machines to make them more efficient, but enable the people so displaced to do jobs where we do want a human being. I mean, most people, when they're old, the rich people, if they have the choice, they want human carers and all that, don't they? They may want robots to help with some things. Empty the bedpans and things like that, but they want real people. And certainly in this country, and I think even worse in America, the care of old people is completely inadequate. And it needs just more human beings to help them cope with everyday life and look after them when they're sick. And so that seems to me the way in which the money raised in tax from these big companies should be deployed. So that's in the short term, but if you actually just look, the fact is where we are today to long-term future in 100 years, it does seem that there is some significant chance that the human species is coming to an end in its pure biological form. There's going to be greater and greater integration through genetic modification than cyborg type of creatures. And so you have to think, all right, well, we're going to have to get from here to there. And that process is going to be painful. And that, you know, how there's so many different trajectories that take us from one place to another. It does seem that we need to deeply respect humanness and humanity, basic human rights, human welfare, like happiness and all that kind of stuff. No, absolutely. And that's why I think we ought to try and slow down the application of these human enhancement techniques and cyborg techniques for humans for just that reason. I mean, that's why I want to lead into people on Mars. Let them do it, but for just that reason. But they're people too, okay? People on Mars are people too. I tend to, you know… But they are very poorly adapted to where they are. That's why they need this modification, whereas we're adapted to the Earth quite well. So we don't need these modifications. We're happy to be humans living in the environment where our ancestors lived. So we don't have the same motive. So I think there's a difference. But I agree, we don't want drastic changes probably in our lifestyle. And that indeed is a worry, because some things are changing so fast. But I think I'd like to inject a note of caution. If you think of the way Progress in One technology goes, it goes in a sort of spurt. It goes up very fast, and then it levels off. Let me give you two examples. Well, one we've had already, a human spaceflight at the time of the Apollo program, which was only 12 years after Sputnik 1. I was alive then, and I thought it would only be 10 or 20 years further before there were footprints on Mars. But as we know, for reasons we could all understand, that was and still remains the high point of human space exploration. And that's because it was funded for reasons of superpower rivalry at huge public expense. But let me give you another case. Civil aviation. If you think of the change between 1919, when that was Alcock and Brown's first transatlantic fight, to 1979, the first flight of the jumbo jet. It was a big change. But it's more than 50 years since 1969, and we still have jumbo jets more or less the same. So that's an example of something which developed fast. And to take another analogy, we've had huge developments in mobile phones. But I suspect the iPhone 24 may not be too different from the iPhone 13. They develop, but then they saturate, and then maybe some new innovation takes over in stimulating economic growth. Yeah, so it's that we have to be cautious about being too optimistic, and we have to be cautious about being too cynical. I think that is the... Well, optimistic is begging the question. I mean, do we want this rapid change? Right. So first of all, there's some degree to which technological advancement is something, is a force that can't be stopped. And so the question is about directing it versus stopping it. Or slowing it. Well, it can be sort of slopped or slow. Take human space flight. There could have been footprints on Mars if America had gone on spending 4% of the federal budget on the project after, upon... Yes. But the reason... So there were very good reasons. And we could have had supersonic flight, but Concorde came and went during the 50 years during which we had the general jet. But the reason it didn't progress is not because we realize it's not good for human society. The reason it didn't progress is because it couldn't make... Sort of from a capitalist perspective, it couldn't make... There was no short-term or long-term way for it to make money. So for... But that's the same as saying it's not good for society. I don't think everything that makes money is good for society, and everything that doesn't make money is bad for society, right? That's a difficult... That's a difficult thing we're always contending with when we look at social networks. It's not... Obvious, even though they make a tremendous amount of money, that they're good for society, especially how they're currently implemented with advertisement and engagement maximization. So that's the constant struggle of... Oh, you know, I agree with you. Many innovations are damaging. That's before us. Yes, yes. Yes. Well... But I would have thought that supersonic flight was something that would benefit only a tiny elite. Sure. At a huge expense and environment. That was obviously something which they're very glad not to have, in my opinion. Yeah. But perhaps there was a way to do it where it could benefit the general populace. If you were to think about airplanes, wouldn't you think that in the early days, airplanes would have been seen as something that can surely only benefit 1% at most of the population, as opposed to a much larger percentage? There's another aspect of flying much larger percentage. There's another aspect of capitalist system that's able to drive down costs once you get the thing kind of going. So, you know, we get together, maybe with taxpayer money and get the thing going at first. And once it gets going, companies step up and drive down the cost and actually make it so that blue collar folks can actually start using the stuff. Yeah, sometimes that does happen. That's good. Yeah. So, that's, again, the double-edged sword of human civilization that some technology hurts us, some benefits us, and we don't know ahead of time. We can just do our best. Yes. There's a gap between what could be done and what we collectively decide to do. Yes. In the term, you could push forward some developments faster than we do. Let me ask you, in your book on the future prospects for humanity, you imagine a time machine that allows you to send a tweet-length message to scientists in the past, like to Newton. Yes. What tweet would you send? It's an interesting thought experiment. What message would you send to Newton about what we know today? Well, I think he'd love to know that there were planets around other stars. He'd like to know that... That would really blow his mind. He'd like to know that everything was made of atoms. He'd like to know that if he looked a bit more carefully through his prisms and looked at light not just from the Sun, but from some flames, he might get the idea that different substances emitted light of different colors, and he might have been twigged to discover some things that had to wait 200 or 300 years. Could have given him those clues, I think. It's fascinating to think, to look back at how little he understood, people at that time understood about our world. Yes, and certainly about the cosmos, because of course... About the cosmos, yes. Well, if you think about astronomy, then until about 1850, astronomy was a matter of the positions of how the stars and the planets moved around, etc. Of course, that goes back a long way, but Newton understood why the planets moved around in ellipses. But he didn't understand why the solar system was all in a plane, what we call the ecliptic. And he didn't understand it. No one did till the mid-19th century what the stars are made of. I mean, we thought they were made of some fifth essence, not earth, air, fire, and water, like everything else. And it was only after 1850 when people did use prisms more precisely to get spectra that they realized that the Sun was made of the same stuff as the Earth, and indeed, the stars were. And it wasn't until 1930 that people knew about nuclear energy and knew what kept the Sun shining for so long. So it was quite late that some of these key ideas came in, which would have completely transformed Newton's views, and of course, the entire scale of the galaxy and the rest of the universe. Just imagine what he would have thought about the Big Bang, or even just general relativity, absolutely, just gravity, just him and Einstein talking for a couple of weeks. Yeah. Would he be able to make sense of space-time and the curvature of space-time? Well, I think, given a quick course, I mean, if one looks back, he was really a unique intellect in a way, you know. And he said that he thought better than everyone else by thinking on things continually and thinking very deep thoughts. And so, he was an utterly remarkable intellect, obviously. But of course, scientists aren't all like that. I think one thing that's interesting to me, having spent a life among scientists, is what a variety of mindsets and mental styles they have. And well, just to contrast Newton and Darwin, Darwin said, and he's probably correct, that he thought he just had as much sort of common sense and reasoning power as the average lawyer. And that's probably true, because his ability was to sort of collect data and think through things deeply. That's a quite different kind of thinking from what was involved in Newton or someone doing abstract mathematics. I think in the 20th century, the coolest, well, there's the theory, but from an astronomy perspective, black holes is one of the most fascinating entities to have been, through theory and through experiment, to have emerged from. Obviously, I agree. It's an amazing story. Well, of course, what's interesting is Einstein's reaction. Because of course, as you know, we now accept this as one of the most remarkable predictions of Einstein's theory. He never took it seriously and believed it, although it was a consequence of a series of his equations, which someone discovered just a year after his theory, Schwarzschild. But he never took it seriously, and others did. But then, of course, well, this is something that I've been involved in, actually finding evidence for black holes. And that's come in the last 50 years. And so, now there's pretty compelling evidence that they exist as the remnants of stars or big ones in the center of galaxies. And we understand what's going on. We have ideas vaguely on how they form. And of course, gravitational waves have been detected. And that's an amazing piece of technology. LIGO is one of the most incredible engineering efforts of all time. That's an example where the engineers deserve most of the credit, because the precision is, as they said, it's like measuring the thickness of a hair at the distance of Alpha Centauri. Yeah, it's incredible. Tens to the minus 21. So, maybe actually, if we step back, what are black holes? What do we humans understand about black holes? And what's still unknown? RL – Einstein's theory, extended by people like Roger Penrose, tells us that black holes are, in a sense, rather simple things, basically, because they are solutions of Einstein's equations. And the thing that was shown in the 1960s by Roger Penrose, in particular, and by a few other people, was that a black hole, when it forms and settles down, is defined just by two quantities, its mass and its spin. So, they're actually very standardized objects. It's amazing that objects as standardized as that can be so big and can lurk in the rest of the solar system. And so, that's the situation for a ready-formed black hole. But the way they form, obviously, is very messy and complicated. And one of the things that I've worked on a lot is what the phenomena are, which are best attributed to black holes, and what may lead to them, and all that. LR – Richard, can you explain to that? So, what are the different phenomena that lead to a black hole? Let's talk about it. This is so cool. This is so cool. RL – Yes, okay. Well, I mean, I think one thing that only became understood really in the 1950s, I suppose, and beyond was how stars evolve differently depending on how heavy they are. The Sun burns hydrogen to helium, and then when it's run out of that, it contracts to be a white dwarf. And we know how long that will take. It's about 10 billion years altogether for its lifetime. But big stars burn up their fuel more quickly and more interestingly, because when they've turned hydrogen to helium, they then get even hotter. So, they can fuse helium into carbon and go up the periodic table. And then they eventually explode when they have an energy crisis, and they blow out that process material, which as a digression is crucially important, because all the atoms inside our bodies were synthesized inside a star, a star that lived and died more than 5 billion years ago before our solar system formed. And so, we have inside us atoms made in thousands of different stars all over the Milky Way. And that's an amazing idea. My predecessor, Fred Hoyle, in 1946 was the first person to suggest that idea, and that's been born out. That's a wonderful idea. So, that's how massive stars explode. And they leave behind something which is very exotic and of two kinds. One possibility is a neutron star, and these were first discovered in 1967, 68. These are stars a bit heavier than the Sun, which are compressed to an amazing density. So, the whole mass of more than the Sun's mass is in something about 10 miles across. So, they're extraordinarily dense, very exotic physics. And they've been studied in immense detail, and they've been real laboratories. Because the good thing about astronomy, apart from exploring what's out there, is to use the fact that the cosmos has provided us with a lab with far more extreme conditions than we could ever simulate. And so, we learn lots of basic physics from looking at these objects. And that's been true of neutron stars. But for black holes, that's even more true because the bigger stars, when they collapse, they leave something behind in the center which is too big to be a stable white dwarf or neutron star and becomes a black hole. And we know that there are lots of black holes weighing about 10 or up to 50 times as much as the Sun, which are the remnants of stars. They were detected first 50 years ago when a black hole was orbiting around another star and grabbing material from the other star which swirled into it and gave us X-rays. So, the X-ray astronomers found these objects orbiting around an ordinary star and emitting X-ray radiation very intensely, varying on a very short timescale. So, something very small and dense was giving that radiation. That was the first evidence for black holes. But then the other thing that happened was realizing that there was a different class of monster black holes in the centers of galaxies. And these are responsible for what's called quasars, which is when something in the center of a galaxy is grabbing some fuel and outshines all the 100 billion stars or so in the rest of the galaxy. A giant beam of light. And in many cases, it's a beam. That's got to be the most epic thing the universe produces is quasars. Well, it's a debate on what's most epic, but quasars maybe or maybe gamma ray bursts or something. But they are remarkable and they were a mystery for a long time. And they're one of the things I worked on in my younger days. So, even though they're so bright, they're still a mystery. And you can only see them... I think they're less of a mystery now. I think we do understand basically what's going on. How were quasars discovered? Well, they were discovered when astronomers found things that looked like stars and that were small enough to be a point like, not resolved by a telescope, but outshone an entire galaxy. Yeah. That's suspicious. Yes. But then they realized that what they were, they were objects which you now know are black holes. And black holes were capturing gas. And that gas was getting very hot, but it was producing far more energy than all the stars added together. And it was the energy of the black hole that was lighting up all the gas in the galaxy. So, you've got a spectrum of it there. So, this was something which was realized from the 1970s onwards. And as you say, the other thing we've learned is that they often do produce these jets squirting out, which could be detected in all wave bands. So, there's now a standard picture. So, there's a giant black hole generating jets of light in the center of most galaxies. Yes. That's right. Do we know, do we have a sense if every galaxy has one of these big boys, big black holes? Most galaxies have big black holes. They vary in size. The one in our galactic center... Do we know much about ours? Yes, we do. Yes, we know it weighs about as much as 4 million suns, which is less than some, which are several billion in other galaxies. But we know that the one in our galactic center isn't very bright or conspicuous. And that's because not much is falling into it at the moment. If a black hole is isolated, then of course, it doesn't radiate. All that radiates is gas swirling into it, which is very hot or has magnetic fields. It's only radiating the thing it's murdering or consuming, however you put it. Yeah, that's right. And so, it's thought that our galaxy may have been bright at some time in the past, but now that's when the black hole formed or grew. But now it's not catching very much gas. And so, it's rather faint and detected indirectly and by fairly weak radio emission. And so, I think the answer to your question is that we suspect that most galaxies have a black hole in them. So, that means at some stage in their lives, or maybe one or more stages, they went through a phase of being like a quasar where that black hole captured gas and became very, very bright. But for the rest of their lives, the black holes are fairly quiescent because there's not much gas falling into them. And so, this universe of ours is sprinkled with a bunch of galaxies and giant black holes with like very large number of stars orbiting these black holes and then planets orbiting. And likely, it seems like planets orbiting almost every one of those stars. That's right. And just this beautiful universe of ours. So, what happens when galaxies collide, when these two big black holes collide? Yes. Well, what would happen is that, well, and I should say that this is going to happen near us one day, but not for 4 billion years because the Andromeda galaxy, which is the biggest galaxy near to us, which is about 3 million light years away, which is a big disk galaxy with black holes at home, rather like our Milky Way. And that's falling towards us because they're both in a common gravitational potential well. And that will collide with our galaxy in about 4 billion years. But maybe it'll be less a collision and more of a dance because it'll be like a swirling situation. Well, it's swirling, but eventually, they'll be a merger. They'll go through each other and then merge. In fact, the nice movies to be made of this, computer simulations. And it'll go through. And then there's a black hole in the sense of Andromeda and our galaxy. And the black holes will settle towards the center. Then they will orbit around each other very fast. And then they will eventually merge. And that'll produce a big burst of gravitational waves. A very big burst. That an alien civilization with a LIGO-like detector will be able to detect. CB Yes. Well, in fact, we can detect these with their lower frequencies than the ways that will be detected by LIGO. So, there's a space interferometer which can detect these. It's about one cycle per hour, rather than about 100 cycles per second. It's the ones that detect it. But thinking back to what will happen in 4 billion years to any of our descendants, they'll be okay because the two disk galaxies will merge. It'll end up as a sort of amorphous elliptical galaxy. But the stars won't be much closer together than they are now. It'll still be just twice as many stars in a structure almost as big. And so, the chance of another star colliding with our Sun would still be very small. LR Because there's actually a lot of space between stars and planets. CB Yes, the chance of a star getting close enough to affect our solar system's orbit is small. And it won't change that very much. So, you can be reassured. LR That would be a heck of a starry sky though. What would that look like? CB Well, it won't make much difference even to that, actually. It'll just be… LR Wouldn't that look kind of beautiful when you're swirling? Oh, because it's swirling so slow. CB Yeah, but they're far away. So, it'll be twice as many stars in the sky. LR Yeah, but the pattern changes. CB Yeah, the pattern will change a bit. And there won't be the Milky Way because the Milky Way across the sky is because we are looking in the disk of our galaxy. And you lose that because the disk will be sort of disrupted. And it'll be a more sort of spherical distribution. And of course, many galaxies are like that. And that's probably because they have been through mergers of this kind. LR If we survive 4 billion years, we would likely be able to survive beyond that. CB Oh, yeah. LR What's the other thing on the horizon for humans, in terms of the sun burning out, all those kinds of interesting cosmological threats to our civilization? CB Well, I think on the cosmological time scale, because it won't be humans because… LR Something else. CB Even if evolution has gone no faster than Darwinian, and I would argue it will be faster than Darwinian in the future, then we're thinking about 6 billion years before the sun dies. So, any entities watching the death of the sun, if they're still around, maybe it's different from much as we are from slime mold or something. And far more different still if they become electronic. So, on that time scale, we just can't predict anything. But I think going back to the human time scale, then we've talked about whether there'll be people on Mars by the end of a century. And even in these long perspectives, then, indeed, this century is very special, because it may see the transition between purely flesh and blood entities to those which are sort of cyborgs. And that'll be an important transition in biology and complexity in this century. But of course, the other importance, and this has been the theme of a couple of my older books, is that this is the first century when one species, namely our species, has the future of the planet in its hands. And that's because of two types of concerns. One is that there are more of us, we're more demanding of energy and resources. And therefore, we are for the first time changing the whole planet through climate change, loss of biodiversity, and all those issues. This has never happened in the past, because having enough humans have been much in part. So, this is an effect that's obviously is high on everyone's agenda now, and rightly so, because we've got to ensure that we leave a heritage that isn't eroded or damaged to future generations. And so, that's one class of threats. But there's another thing that worries me, perhaps more than many people seem to worry, and that's the threat of misuse of technology. And so, this is particularly because technologies empower even small groups of malevolent people, or indeed, even careless people, to create some effect which could cascade globally. And to take an example, a dangerous pathogen or pandemic. I mean, my worst nightmare is that there could be some small group that can engineer a virus to make it more virulent or more transmissible than a natural virus. This is so-called gain-of-function experiments, which were done on the flu virus 10 years ago and can be done for others. And of course, we now know from COVID-19 that our world is so interconnected that a disaster in one part of the world can't be confined to that part and spread globally. So, it's possible for a few dissidents with expertise in biotech could create a global catastrophe of that kind. And also, I think we need to worry about very large-scale disruption by cyberattacks. In fact, I quote in one of my books, a 2012 report from the American Pentagon about the possibility of a state-level cyberattack on the electricity grid in the eastern United States, which is it could happen. And it says at the end of this chapter that this would merit a nuclear response. It's a pretty scary possibility. That was 10 years ago. And I think now, what would have needed a state actor then could be done perhaps by a small group empowered by AI. And so, there's obviously been an arms race between the cyber criminals and the cyber security people. Not clear which side is winning. But the main point is that as we become more dependent on more integrated systems, then we get more vulnerable. And so, we have the knowledge. Then the misuse of that knowledge becomes more and more of a threat. And I'd say bio and cyber are the two biggest concerns. And if we depend too much on AI and complex systems, then just breakdowns. It may be that they break down. And even if it's an innocent breakdown, then it may be pretty hard to mend it. And just think how much worse the pandemic would have been if we'd lost the internet in the middle of it. We'd be dependent more than ever for communication and everything else on the internet and Zooms and all that. And if that had broken down, that would have made things far worse. And those are the kinds of threats that we, I think, need to be more energized and politicians need to be more energized to minimize. And one of the things I've been doing the last year through being a member of our part of our parliament is sort of, I have to instigate a committee to think more on better preparedness for extreme technological risks and things like that. So, they're a big concern in my mind that we've got to make sure that we can benefit from these advances, but safely because the stakes are getting higher, and the benefits are getting greater as we know, huge benefits from computers, but also huge downsides as well. And one of the things this war in Ukraine has shown, one of the most terrifying things outside of the humanitarian crisis, is that at least for me, I realized that the human capacity to initiate nuclear war is greater than I thought. I thought the lessons of the past have been learned. It seems that we hang on the brink of nuclear war with this conflict, like every single day, with just one mistake or bad actor or the actual leaders of the particular nations launching a nuclear strike and all hell breaks loose. So, then add into that picture cyber attacks and so on that can lead to confusion and chaos, and then out of that confusion, calculations are made such that a nuclear weapon is launched and then you're talking about, I mean, I don't, the direct probably 60-70% of humans on earth are dead instantly, and then the rest, I mean, it's basically 99% of the human population is wiped out in the period of five years. Well, it may not be that bad, but it will be a devastation for civilization, of course. And of course, you're quite right that this could happen very quickly because of information coming in. And there's hardly enough time for human collected and careful thought. And there have been recorded cases of false alarms, several where there have been suspected attacks from the other side. And fortunately, they've been realized to be false alarms soon enough, but this could happen. And there's a new class of threats actually, which in our center in Cambridge, people are thinking about, which is that the commander control system of the nuclear weapons and the submarine fleets and all that is now more automated and could be subject to cyber attacks. And that's a new threat, which didn't exist 30 years ago. And so I think, indeed, it's really a sort of scary world, I think. And it's because things happen faster, and human beings aren't in such direct and immediate control because so much is delegated to machines. And also because the world is so much more interconnected, then some local event can cascade globally in a way it never could in the past and much faster. Yeah, it's a double-edged sword because the interconnectedness brings a higher quality of life across a lot of metrics. Yeah, it can do. But of course, there again, I mean, if you think of supply chains where we get stuff from around the world, and one lesson we've learned is that there's a trade-off between resilience and efficiency. And it's resilient to have an inventory and stock and to depend on local supplies, whereas it's more efficient to have long supply chains. But the risk there is that a break in one link in one chain can screw up car production. This has already happened in the pandemic. So there's a trade-off. And there are examples. I mean, for instance, the other thing we learned was that it may be efficient to have 95% of your hospital intensive care beds occupied all the time, which has been the UK situation, whereas to do what the Germans do and always keep 20% of them free for an emergency is really a sensible precaution. And so I think we've probably learned a lot of lessons from COVID-19, and they would include rebalancing the trade-off between resilience and efficiency. Boy, the fact that COVID-19, a pandemic that could have been a lot, a lot worse, brought the world to its knees anyway. It could be far worse in terms of its fatality rate or something like that. Fatality rate, yeah. So the fact that that, I mean, it revealed so many flaws in our human institutions. Yeah, yeah. And I think, I'm rather pessimistic because I do worry about the bad actor or the small group who can produce catastrophe. And if you imagine someone with access to the kind of equipment that's available in university labs or industrial labs, and they could create some dangerous pathogen, then even one such person is too many. And how can we stop that? Because it's true that you can have regulations. I mean, academies are having meetings, et cetera, about how to regulate these new biological experiments, et cetera, make them safe. But even if you have all these regulations, then enforcing regulations is pretty hopeless. We can't enforce the tax laws globally. We can't enforce the drug laws globally. And so similarly, we can't readily enforce the laws against people doing these dangerous experiments, even if all the governments say they should be prohibited. And so my line on this is that all nations are going to face a big trade off between three things we value, freedom, security, and privacy. And I think different nations will make that choice differently. The Chinese would give up privacy and have more, certainly more security, if not more liberty. But I think in our countries, I think we're going to have to give up more privacy in the same way. That's a really interesting trade off. But there's also something about human nature here, where I personally believe that all humans are capable of good and evil. And there's some aspect to which we can fight this by encouraging people, incentivizing people towards the better angels of their nature. So in order for a small group of people to create, to engineer deadly pathogens, you have to have people that for whatever trajectory took them in life, wanting to do that kind of thing. And if we can aggressively work on a world that sort of sees the beauty in everybody and encourages the flourishing of everybody in terms of mental health, in terms of meaning, in terms of all those kinds of things, that's one way to fight the development of weapons that can lead to atrocities. Yes, and I completely agree with that and to reduce the reason why people feel embittered. Yes. But of course, we've got a long way to go to do that. Because if you look at the present world, nearly everyone in Africa has reason to feel embittered, because their economic development is lagging behind most of the rest of the world. And the prospect of getting out of the poverty trap is rather bleak, especially if the population grows. Because for instance, they can't develop like the Eastern Tigers by cheap manufacturing, because robots are taking that over. So they naturally feel embittered by the inequality. And of course, what we need to have is some sort of mega version of the Marshall Plan that helped Europe in the post World War II era to enable Africa to develop. That would be not just an altruistic thing for Europe to do, but in our interest, because otherwise, those in Africa will feel massively disaffected. And indeed, it's a manifestation of the excessive inequalities, the fact that the 2000 richest people in the world have enough money to double the income of the bottom billion. And that's an indictment of the ethics of the world. And this is where my friend, Steven Pinker and I have had some contact. We wrote joint articles on bio threats and all that. But he writes these books, being very optimistic about quoting figures about how life expectancy has gone up, infant mortality has gone down, literacy has gone up and all those things. And he's quite right about that. And so he says the world's getting better. Lexaundre Do you disagree with your friends too, Pinker? Peter Well, I mean, I agree with those facts. Okay. But I think he misses out part of the picture. Because there's a new class of threats, which hang over us now, which didn't hang over us in the past. And I would also question whether we have collectively improved our ethics at all. Because let's think back to the Middle Ages. It's true that, as Pinker says, the average person was in a more miserable state than they are today, on average. For all the reasons he quantifies, that's fine. But in the Middle Ages, there wasn't very much that could have been done to improve people's lot in life because of lack of knowledge and lack of science, etc. So the gap between the way the world was, which is pretty miserable, and the way the world could have been, which wasn't all that much better, was fairly narrow. Whereas now, the gap between the way the world is and the way the world could be, is far, far wider. And therefore, I think we are ethically more at fault in allowing this gap to get wider than it was in medieval times. And so I would very much question and dispute the idea that we are ethically in advance of our predecessors. Collectively. That's a lot of interesting hypotheses in there. And I don't... It's a fascinating question of how much is the size of that gap between the way the world is and the way the world could be, is a reflection of our ethics, or maybe sometimes it's just a reflection of a very large number of people. Maybe it's a technical challenge too, it's not just... Well, of our political systems. Political systems. Like how many... And we're trying to figure this thing out. Like, there's 20th century, tried this thing that sounded really good on paper, of collective communism type of things, and it's like, turned out at least the way that was done there, that leads to atrocities and the suffering and the murder of tens of millions of people. Okay, so that didn't work. Let's try democracy. And that seems to have a lot of flaws, but it seems to be the best thing we've got so far. So we're trying to figure this out as our technologies become more and more powerful, have the capacity to do a lot of good to the world, but also unfortunately have the capacity to destroy the entirety of the human civilization. And I think it's social media generally, which makes it harder to get a sort of moderate consensus because in the old days when people got their news filtered through responsible journalists in this country, the BBC and they made newspapers, et cetera, they would muffle the crazy extremes. Whereas now, of course, they're on the internet and if you click on them, you get to the war extreme. And so I think we are seeing a sort of dangerous polarization, which I think is going to make all countries harder to govern. And that's something which I'm pessimistic about. So to push back, it is true that brilliant people like you highlighting the limitations of social media is making them realize the stakes and the failings of social media companies. But at the same time, they're revealing the division. It's not like they're creating it, they're revealing it in part. And so that puts a lot of, that puts the responsibility into the hands of social media and the opportunity in the hands of social media to alleviate some of that division. So it could, in the long arc of human history, result. So bringing some of those divisions and the anger and the hatred to the surface so that we can talk about it. And as opposed to disproportionately promoting it, actually just surfacing it so we can get over it. Well, you're assuming that the fat cats are more public spirited than the politicians. And I'm not sure about that. I think there's a lot of money to be made in being publicly spirited. I think there's a lot of money to be made in increasing the amount of love in the world, despite the sort of public perception that all the social media companies' heads are interested in doing is making money. I think that may be true, but I just personally believe people being happy is a hell of a good business model. And so making as many people happy, helping them flourish in a long-term way, that's a lot of way to make people, that's a good way to make money. Well, I think on the other hand, guilt and shame are good motives to make you behave better in future. That's my experience. Okay, so from maybe in the political perspective, certainly is the case. But it does make sense now that we can destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, with engineered pandemics and so on, that the aliens would show up. That if I was the, you know, had a leadership position, maybe as a scientist or otherwise in an alien civilization, and I would come upon Earth, I would try to watch from a distance, to not interfere. And I would start interfering when these life forms start becoming quite, have the capacity to be destructive. And so, I mean, it is an interesting question when people talk about UFO sightings and all those kinds of things, that at least- These are benign aliens you're thinking of, we're wondering. Benign, yes. I mean, they're benign, almost curious, almost, partially as with all curiosity, partially selfish to try to observe, is there something interesting about this particular evolutionary system? Because I'm sure even to aliens, Earth is a curiosity. Yeah, well, it's in this very special stage, you know. Special, special. Perhaps a very short- This century is very special among the 45 million centuries the Earth's experienced already. So, it is a very special time where they should be especially interested. But I think going back to the politics, the other problem is getting people who have short-term concerns to care about the long-term. By the long-term, I now mean just looking 30 years or so ahead. I know people who've been scientific advisors to governments and things, and they may make these points, but of course, they don't have much traction because, as we know very well, any politician has an urgent agenda of very worrying things to deal with. And so, they aren't going to prioritize these issues which are longer-term and less immediate and don't just concern their constituents, they concern distant parts of the world. And so, I think what we have to do is to enlist charismatic individuals to convert the public, because if the politicians know the public care about something, climate change as an example, then they will make decisions which take cognizance of that. And I think for that to happen, then we do need some public individuals who are respected by everyone and who have a high profile. And in the climate context, I would say that I've mentioned four very disparate people who've had such a big effect in the last few years. One is Pope Francis, the other is David Attenborough, the other is Bill Gates, and the other is Greta Thunberg. And those four people have certainly had a big shift in public opinion and even changed the rhetoric of business, although how deep that is I don't know. But politicians can't let these issues drop down off the agenda if there's a public clamor, and it needs people like that to keep the public clamor going. To push back a little bit, so those four are very interesting and I have deep respect for them. They have, except David Attenborough, David Attenborough is really, I mean, everybody loves him. I mean, I can't say anything, but you know, with Bill Gates and Greta, they also create a lot of division. And this is a big problem. So it's not just charismatic. I put that responsibility actually on the scientific community. And the Pope does too, yeah. Yeah, and the politicians. So we need the charismatic leaders, and they're rare. When you look at human history, those are the ones that make a difference. Those are the ones that not deride, they inspire the populace to think long-term. The JFK, we'll go to the moon in this decade, not because it's easy, but because it is hard. There's no discussion about short-term political gains or any of that kind of stuff in the vision of going to the moon, or going to Mars, or taking on gigantic projects, or taking on world hunger, or taking on climate change, or the education system, all those things that require long-term significant investment. And that requires- But it's hard to find those people. And incidentally, I think another problem, which is a downside of social media, is that of younger people, I know, the number who would contemplate a political career has gone down because of the pressures on them and their family from social media. It's a hell of a job now. And so I think we are all losers because the quality of people who choose that path is really dropping, as we see by the quality of those who are in these compositions. That said, I think the silver lining there is the quality of the competition actually is inspiring, because it shows to you that there's a dire need of leaders, which I think would be inspiring to young people to step into the fold. I mean, great leaders are not afraid of a little bit of fire on social media. So if you have a 20-year-old kid now, a 25-year-old kid, it's seeing how the world responded to the pandemic, seeing the geopolitical division over the war in Ukraine, seeing the brewing war between the West and China. We need great leaders, and there's a hunger for them. And the time will come when they step up. I believe that. But also to add to your list of four, he doesn't get enough credit. I've been defending him in this conversation. Elon Musk, in terms of the fight in climate change, but he also has led to a lot of division. But we need more David Enenboroughs. Yeah, no, no, I mean, I'm a fan. I mean, I've heard him described as a 21st century Brunel for his innovation, and that's true. But whether he's an ethical inspiration, I don't know. Yeah, he has a lot of fun on Twitter. Well, let me ask you to put on your wise sage hat. What advice would you give to young people today? Maybe they're teenagers in high school, maybe early college? What advice would you give to a career or have a life they can be proud of? Yes. Well, I'd be very diffident really, about offering any wisdom. But I think they should realize that the choices they make at that time are important. And from experience I've had with many friends, many people don't realize that opportunities are open until it's too late. They somehow think that some opportunities are only open to a few privileged people, and they don't even try and that they could succeed. But if I focus on people working in some profession I know about like science, I would say, pick an area to work in, where new things are happening, where you can do something that the old guys never had a chance to think about. Don't go into a field that's fairly stagnant because then you'll be trying to tackle the problems that the old guys got stuck on. And so I think in science, I can give people good advice that they should pick a subject where there are exciting new developments. And also, of course, something which suits their style because even within science, which is just one profession, there's a big range of style between the sort of solitary thinker, the person who does field work, the person who works in a big team, et cetera, and whether you like computing or mathematical thought, et cetera. So pick some subject that suits your style and where things are happening fast. And be prepared to be flexible. That's what I'd say really. Keep your eyes open for the opportunity throughout, like you said. Go to a new field, go to a field where new cool stuff is happening. Just keep your eyes open. Yes, that's platitudinous. But I think most of us, and I include myself in this, didn't realize these sort of things until too late. Yeah, I think this applies way beyond science. What do you make of this finiteness of our life? Do you think about death? Do you think about mortality? Do you think about your mortality? And are you afraid of death? Well, I mean, I'm not afraid because I think I'm lucky. I feel lucky to have lived as long as I have and to have been fairly lucky in my life in many respects compared to most people. So I feel very fortunate. This reminds me of this current emphasis on living much longer, the so-called Altos Laboratories, which have been set up by billionaires. There's one in San Francisco, one in La Jolla, I think, and one in Cambridge. And they're funded by these guys who, when young, wanted to be rich. And now they're rich, they want to be young again. They won't find that quite so easy. And do we want this? I don't know. If there was some elite that was able to do much longer than others, that would be a really fundamental kind of inequality. And I think if it happened to everyone, then that might be an improvement. It's not so obvious. But I think for my part, I think to have lived as long as most people and had a fortunate life is all I can expect and a lot to be grateful for. Those are all the patterns I use. Well, I am incredibly honored that you sit down with me today. I thank you so much for life of exploring some of the deepest mysteries of our universe and of our humanity and thinking about our future with existential risks that are before us. It's a huge honor, Martin, that you sit with me. And I really enjoyed it. Well, thank you, Lex. I thought we couldn't go on for as long as this. We could have gone on much longer, I think. Exactly. Thank you so much. Thank you for listening to this conversation with Martin Rees. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Martin Rees himself. I'd like to widen people's awareness of the tremendous time span lying ahead for our planet and for life itself. Most educated people are aware that we're the outcome of nearly four billion years of Darwinian selection. But many tend to think that humans are somehow the culmination. Our sun, however, is less than halfway through its lifespan. It will not be humans who watch the sun's demise six billion years from now. Any creatures that then exist will be as different from us as we are from bacteria or amoeba. Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/50r-5ULcWgY

osEADxaIKIc

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Gilbert Strang: Linear Algebra vs Calculus

So planes in these multidimensional spaces, how difficult of an idea is that to come to, do you think? If you look back in time, I think mathematically it makes sense, but I don't know if it's intuitive for us to imagine, just as we were talking about. It feels like calculus is easier to intuit. Well, I have to admit, calculus came earlier, earlier than linear algebra, so Newton and Leibniz were the great men to understand the key ideas of calculus. But linear algebra to me is like, okay, it's the starting point, because it's all about flat things. Calculus has got, all the complications of calculus come from the curves, the bending, the curved surfaces. Linear algebra, the surfaces are all flat. Nothing bends in linear algebra. So it should have come first, but it didn't. And calculus also comes first in high school classes, in college class, it'll be freshman math, it'll be calculus, and then I say, enough of it. Like, okay, get to the good stuff. Do you think linear algebra should come first? Well, it really, I'm okay with it not coming first, but it should, yeah, it should. It's simpler. Because everything's flat. Yeah, everything's flat. Well, of course, for that reason, calculus sort of sticks to one dimension, or eventually you do multivariate, but that basically means two dimensions. Linear algebra, you take off into 10 dimensions, no problem. It just feels scary and dangerous to go beyond two dimensions, that's all. If everything's flat, you can't go wrong.

https://youtu.be/osEADxaIKIc

1C2tPFCGL1U

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Chris Mason: Space Travel, Colonization, and Long-Term Survival in Space | Lex Fridman Podcast #283

Would that make you sad to die on Mars? Looking back at the planet you were born on? No, I think it would be actually, in some ways, maybe the best way to die, knowing that you're in the first wave of people expanding the reach into the stars. It'd be an honor. The following is a conversation with Chris Mason, professor of genomics, physiology, and biophysics at Cornell. He and colleagues do some of their research out in space, experiments on space missions that seek to discern the molecular basis of changes in the human body during long-term human space travel. On this topic, he also wrote an epic book titled The Next 500 Years, Engineering Life to Reach New Worlds, that boldly looks at what it takes to colonize space far beyond our planet, and even journey out towards livable worlds beyond our solar system. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Chris Mason. You wrote a book called The Next 500 Years, Engineering Life to Reach New Worlds, and you dedicated to, quote, to all humans and any extinction-aware sentience. How fundamental is awareness of death and extinction to the human condition? I think this is actually one of the most human-specific traits and features that we have. It's actually maybe one of the few things that only we have and no one else has. So it sounds scary. It sounds like what people often don't like to think about their death, except now and again, or at funerals, or to recognize their mortality. But if you do it at a species-wide level, it's something that is actually an exemplary, human-specific trait that you're exhibiting. You think about something that is the loss of not just your life or your family or everyone you see, but everyone like you. And that is, I dedicate it because I think we might not be the last sentience to have this awareness. I'm actually hoping we'll just be the first. But as far as we know, we're the only. And I think this is the, part of the moral thrust for the book is that we're the only ones that have this awareness. That gives us a duty that only we can exercise so far. So we definitely contemplate our own mortality at the individual level. It is true. When you wrote it, it was really powerful to realize for me that we do contemplate our extinction. And that is a creative force. So at the individual level, contemplating your own death is a creative force. Like I have a deadline. But contemplating the extinction of the whole species, I suppose that stretches through human history. That's many of the sort of subtext of religious ideas is that if we screw this up, it's gonna be over. And Revelation and every religious text has some view of either the birth or the death of the world as they know it. But it was very abstract. It was fiction almost, in some cases, complete fiction of what you hope or think might happen. But it's become much more quantified and much more real, I think, in the past several hundred years. And especially in the past few decades, where we can see a sense of responsibility at a planetary scale. So when we think about, like say, terraforming Mars, that would just be the second planet we've engineered at a planetary scale. We're already doing it for this one, just not that well. Well, yeah, that's right. So we're like a bunch of ants, extinction-aware sentience ants that are busy trying to terraform this planet to make it habitable so it can flourish. And then you say that it's our duty to expand beyond Earth, to expand to other planets, to find a good backup, off-site backup solution. Why the word duty? It's an interesting word. Duty is something that usually puts people to sleep, I'll say this. So duty, you know, duty is a bit like death. People don't often like to really think, wake up in the morning and think, what is my duty today? Most people, there are some people that think about it every day. People in active military service wake up, it's a very concrete sense of duty to country. Sometimes you can think about it though in terms of family. You feel a duty towards your spouse, your kids, your parents. You feel a real duty to them because you want them to flourish and to be safe. So we do have this sense of duty, but you don't, you know, very much like death, you don't think about it actively. Usually it's something that just becomes embedded in your day-to-day existence. But I think about duty because this is, people think about duties for themselves, but there has never been a real overarching duty that we all feel as a species for each other and for generations that haven't yet been born. And I think I want people to have a sense of the same love and compassion and, you know, fighting even to the tooth and nail, whether the way you protect your family, the way you'd fight for a country, for example, to feel the same way towards the rarity and preciousness of life and feel that sense of duty towards particularly extinction-aware life, which is just us so far. This ability that we have this awareness of not only our own frailty, which of course is often talked about in climate change and people think about pandemics, but other species that we've sometimes caused extinction, but very soon will be even de-extinctifying species like the woolly mammoth colossal is a recent startup that's doing that on their advisory board. And it might happen in three or four years. So it's an interesting point in history where we can actually think about preventing death at a species-wide level and even resurrecting things that we have killed or that have gone away, which brings its own series of questions of just as when you delete something from an ecosystem, adding something can be completely catastrophic. And so there are no real guidelines yet on how to do that, but the technology now exists, which is pretty extraordinary. Yeah, I've just been working on backup and restoring databases quite a bit recently. And you can do quite a lot of damage when you restore improperly. When we bring back the mammoths, it might be, you have to be careful bringing that back. The best of science, the best of engineering is both dangerous and exciting. And that's why you have to have the best people, but also the most morally grounded people pushing us forward. But on the point of duty, there's a kind of sense that there's something special to humanity, to human beings that we want to preserve. And if that little flame, whatever that is, dies, that will be a real shame for the universe. What is that? What is special about human beings? What is special about the human condition that we want to preserve? Why do we matter? There are some people who think we don't. There are some people who say, well, humans, take it or leave it. They think they're misanthropes. So the book is on the one sense a call to misanthropes to hopefully shake them out of their slumber. But there's some people- What does the word misanthrope mean? Just people that dislike humanity. They're just, again, they're all just- They're called nihilists, Donny. That's a shout out for Bigelow fans. Nothing matters, and why does any, and they just apply it more particularly to humans. But there are endless reasons, I think, to cherish and celebrate what humans have done. At the same time, many things we've done awfully, and genocide, and nuclear weapons testing on unsuspecting citizens of remote islands. There are definitely things we've done bad, but the poetry, the music, the engineering feats, the getting to the moon and eventually, and already rovers on Mars, these extraordinary feats that humans have already accomplished. And just a sense of beauty, I think, is something that is, you can't ask ants or cockroaches about their favorite paintings, or maybe if you could, it would be very different from ours. But in either case, there's a unique perspective that we carry, and I think, so that's something, even just the age-old question, in biology, I'm a geneticist, so this comes up a lot of what makes humans unique. And so, is it bipedalism, is it our intelligence, is it tool-making, is it language? All those things I just listed, other species have some degree of those traits. So it's a question of degree, not of type, of trait that defines humans a little bit. But I think for the extinction awareness, that is a uniquely human trait. That is, to our knowledge, no other species, or entity, or AI, or sentience, that carries that awareness of the frailty of life, of our own life, but all life. Maybe it is that awareness of the frailty of life that allows us to be so urgently creative, create beauty, create innovation. It just seems like, if you just measure, humans are able to create some sort of subjectively beautiful things. And I see science that way, I see engineering that way. And ants are less efficient at that. They also create beautiful things. But less aggressively, less innovation, less building, like standing on the shoulders of giants, building on top of each other, over and over and over, where you're getting these hierarchical systems, where you create greater and greater levels of abstraction. Then you use ideas to communicate those ideas, and you share those ideas, and all of a sudden, you have the rockets going out into space. Which ants have been building the same structures for millions and millions of years with no real change. And so that is the key differentiator. Yet. Yet, that's right. We've got an experiment going right now, and maybe it'll change, but. Well, yeah, we will bring up some extreme organisms. Another thing you're interested in. Okay, one interesting thing that comes up much later in your book is something I also haven't thought of, and it's quite inspiring, which is the heat death of the universe is something worth fighting against. Yes. Like, that's also an engineering problem. Yes. You know, you kind of, I mean, you seriously look at the next 500 years, and that's such a beautiful thing. You know, seriously, we'll talk about the uncertainty involved with that, and all the different trajectories, but to seriously look at that, and then to seriously look at what happens when the sun runs out, what happens when the universe comes to an end. We have an opportunity and a kind of duty, like you said, to fight against that. And that was so inspiring to me to think, wait, maybe we'll actually, that's a worthy thing to think about. Maybe we can prevent it, actually. Right, the come up with the best known understanding current of how things end. You know, we kind of are building an intuition, and data, and models of the way the universe is, the way it started, the way it's going to end. So our best model of the end, let's start thinking about how that could be prevented, how that could be avoided, how that could be channeled, and misdirected, and you can pivot it somehow. That's really inspiring, that's really powerful. I never really thought about that. You know, eventually all things end. And that was the kind of melancholic notion behind all of it. You know, none of this matters, in a way. Just, to me, that's also inspiring to enjoy the moment, to really live in the moment. You know, because that is truly where beauty exists, is in the moment. But there is a long-lasting aspect to beauty that is part of the engineering ethic, which is like, tell me what the problem is, and we're gonna solve it. So what do you think about that, the long scale, beyond 500 years? Do humans have a chance? Absolutely, I think we have the best chance of any species, and actually the best chance that humanity's ever had. So I think a lot of people fear that we can or will kill ourselves. Actually, my favorite question I ask at the end of every interview for every potential graduate student, medical student, faculty, whoever I'm interviewing, for whatever reason, the last question is, well, how long do you think that humans or our evolutionary derivatives will last? And the answers are shockingly wide-ranging. Some people say, I think we've only got 100 years left. Or some people say billions. Some people say as long as the universe lasts. But to the person who once said, it was a medical student applicant who said, I think we've only got 100 years left. And I was like, really, for all of humanity, everything will be gone in 100 years? And he said, yes. And I said, well, sweet Jesus, man, why go to med school? Why not go sell bananas on the beach? And then he said, I really wanna make the last few hundred years count, really matter. And I said, oh, well, that's actually kind of, sort of hopeful in a really dark way. But I think we've never been better situated to actually last for the long term. We have, even though we've also never been at the greater risk of being able to destroy ourselves, ever since really the first nuclear test, when they, Tony Orbe has a great book about this called The Precipice, where the precipice for humanity is at one point we made technologies that we weren't sure whether or not they would destroy the Earth or the entire universe. So the math was incomplete and there was too much error, but they tested the bomb anyway. But it's an extraordinary place as a species to think, we now have something in our hands that may destroy the Earth and possibly a chain reaction that destroys the whole universe. Let's try it anyway, as a stage that we're at as a species. But with that power comes an ability to get to other planets to survive long term. And when you think about the heat death, that just becomes, that's an ad infinitum question. If you keep thinking, well, we survive, we go to the next sun, and then you go to the next sun, eventually the question will be, well, if you just keep doing that forever, at some point, the universe either continues to expand or it could collapse back in itself. And the heat death is more likely at this point where it just keeps expanding and expanding, everything gets too far away. But even in that case, I think if we had a fundamental knowledge of physics and space time that you could try and restructure it quite literally the shape of the universe to prevent it, I think we would, I think we would wanna survive. I think, unless we had done the math and we think that there's a greater chance that the next universe would form and make more life, maybe we would. But even then, I think humans have always wanted to survive and you could argue maybe should survive because. And are able to engineer systems that help us survive. Yeah, yeah, and always have, yeah. So what is this though, the Tsar Bomb, yeah, the hydrogen. Yeah, there's nothing more terrifying and somehow inspiring than watching the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion. It's like humans are capable of this. They're capable of leveraging the power of nature. To completely obliterate. Destroy everything. And to create propulsion. I mean, most of the Voyager spacecraft are nuclear powered because it's still in many ways the most efficient way to get a tiny amount of fissile material and make power out of it. So they're still slowly drifting their path to heliosphere. They're out now into interstellar space and they're nuclear powered. So it's like any tool or technology. It's a tool or a weapon depending on how you hold it. Are we alone in the universe, Chris Mason? What do you think? So the presumption that you've just mentioned is let's just focus on our thing. Yeah, for now. Well, I think we, as far as we know, there's no other sentient life out in the universe that we've found yet. And I think there's probably bacterial life out there just because we found it everywhere we've looked on Earth. It is, and there's, you know, halophilic organisms that can survive in extreme salts. There are cyclophiles that in extreme cold. There's, you know, basically organisms that can survive in really almost any possible environment that can adapt and find a way to live. But as far as we know, we're the only sentient ones. And I think this is the famous, the Drake equation, or, you know, where is everyone? Is that what Enrico Fermi said? Is that, why haven't we heard from anyone if there are these other life forms? I actually think the question is wrong to phrase it that way because the Earth has only been here for 4.5 billion years. And, you know, life may be only for a few billion of those years, complex life only for several hundred years, hundred million years of life we've actually had. You know, and humans only the past few million years since our last common ancestor. So it's not that much time. But if you think even further back, the universe hasn't had that much time itself to cool and create atoms and have them spread around the universe, right? So the current estimate's 13.8 billion years of just the whole universe. But it's been the first five or six of those billion years really just like cooling and making enough of the stars to then make the atoms that would come from supernovas. So I actually think we might be the first or still one of the very few or one of the early life forms, but the universe itself hasn't had that much time to make life in a galactic and universal timeframe. You needed billions of years for the elements to be created and then distributed. And we're only really in the, I think, the last few billion years where I think even life could have been made. So I think the question of where is everyone is the wrong question. I think the question is, I think we are the first ones at the party, let's set up the liquor, let's set up the food. I just think we're the first ones at the party of life, but more people are coming. One of the early attendees to the party. Yeah, maybe as far as we know, the first, but maybe we'll find some- In the local pocket of the universe. Because the parties then expand and it overflows. That's right, and then there's a mosh pit and then you bump into the other galaxy. I think the question should be, when else is everyone getting here instead of where is everyone? I think we've just started on the genesis of life in the universe. Yeah, so not where you have they or not, more about when and who and how do we set up the party. And then how do we help them? I think it's an interesting other moral question is do we, a lot of Star Trek episodes, the prime directive is you do not interfere with another planet if you could pass by a planet. I think it's time to also revisit that because what if you go by a planet and we think that with, as far as we can tell with enough certainty that they would never be able to leave their planet and then the sun eventually would engulf that planet wherever that planet might be in some solar system. But if we had a way to help them, their culture, their science, their technology, everything about a different species to survive, would we not interfere? I think that would actually be wrong to say, well, we can save this life here and we decide not to. We decide after millions and billions of years pass and we know the sun will engulf that planet. Like what will happen with our planet? And we don't interfere. That's watching a train hit someone on the tracks and not moving the train. In terms of the effort of humans becoming a multi-planetary species, in terms of priorities, how much would you allocate to trying to make contact with aliens and getting their help? And if we look at the next 500 and beyond years, and just versus option number two, really just focusing on setting up the party on our own engineering, on our own, the genome, the biology of humanity, the AI collaborating with humans, just all the engineering challenges and opportunities that we're exploring. I'm focused in my lab, of course, a lot on the engineering of genomes, the monitoring of astronauts during long missions. Reaching out to other aliens, we've been doing reach out to aliens since the first radio wave's been broadcast, so we're doing some of it, but to do a real- You made it sound like your lab is mostly focused on biology, but you also reach out occasionally to aliens. Sure, sure, sure. Occasionally, when they visit, they bring their whiskey and we have a drink. But I think we can do, we've been broadcasting into space for, you know, at this point, almost a century, getting close to, but it's not been structured. So I think it's very cheap and easy to send out structured messages, like what Carl Sagan wrote about in Contact, doing prime numbers and sending those out to indicate intelligence. So there's things we can do that I think are very cheap and very easy, so we should do some of that. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. This is one of the biggest critiques people often say of space research and even space flight in general, is it's too expensive, shouldn't we solve poverty? Shouldn't we cure diseases? And the answer's always, as it always has been, is that you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can pass the Civil Rights Act and go to the moon in the same decade. You can improve and get rid of structural inequality while getting to the moon and Mars in this decade. So I think we can do both. Yeah, and they kinda help each other. There's sometimes criticism of like ridiculous science, like studying penguins or something, or studying the patterns of birds or fish and so on. Some congressman stands up and says, this is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and then puts them in a cell. And for example, CRISPR was pure research for 25 years. Now it's a household word, and students are editing genomes in high school. But it was just pure research on weird bacteria living actually in salt, hypersaline lakes and rivers for decades, and then eventually became a massive therapeutic, which is like the curing of diseases in this past year. And there's stuff that you discover as part of the research that you didn't anticipate that have nothing to do with the actual research. Like oceanography is one of the interesting things about that whole field is that it's a huge amount of data, neuroscience too, actually. So you could discover computer science things, like machine learning things, or even data storage manipulation, distributed compute things by forcing yourself to get something done on the oceanography side. That's how you invent the internet and all those kinds of things. So to me, aliens, looking for aliens out there in the universe, is a motivator that just inspires. Inspires everybody, young people, old people, scientists, artists, engineers, entrepreneurs, everybody. Somehow that line between fear and beauty. Because we're- Aliens are like perfectly merged, basically. Because we don't know. I mean, for you, let's start talking about primitive alien life. Are you excited by it, or are you terrified? I wanna make a lotion out of it. I think it'd be great if it's alien life, assuming it's safe, but I'm very excited. It doesn't have to be a lotion. You just said a half sentence, presuming it's safe. That's the fundamental question. I'm trying to get at. So if you could, presuming it's safe. So I think, you know, we have this, this beginning of some planetary protection is happening now, is we're gonna send, we're bringing rocks back from Mars in 2033, if all goes according to plan. But there's always a danger. What if you bring this back? What if it's alive? What if it will kill all of humanity? Or Michael Crichton wrote a book, The Andromeda Strain, about this very idea. And we could, but it hopefully won't. And the only way you can really gauge that is the same way we do with any infectious agent here on Earth, right? If it's a new pathogen, a new organism, you do it slowly, carefully. You often do it with levels of containment. So, you know, and it's gonna be, probably have to be where some pioneers go, and would be, for example, on Mars. There might be other organisms there that only get activated. Once there's an ambient temperature and more humidity, then suddenly the first settlers on Mars are encountering a strange new fungus, or something that's not even like a fungus, because it might be a different clade of life, a different branch of life. And could be very dangerous, or it could be very inert. I mean, most of life on Earth is not really dangerous or harmful. Let me go back, I'll get on this. Most of life on Earth is neither harmful nor beneficial to you. It's just, they're making its own way in the universe, just trying to survive. It's when, you know, it's inside of you, and replicating your cells, and destroying your cells, like a virus, like COVID, XRCV2, that it becomes a big problem, of course. But it's, you know, just doesn't really have agency. It's just trying to get by. And so, for example, most of the bacteria on the table, on your skin, in the subway, are pretty inert. They're just, you know, people hanging around for the ride. And actually, just because we're talking so much trash about viruses, most viruses are, don't bother humans. Yeah, they're phages. Almost all, the vast majority of viruses are phages. There's this battle in biology that is really dorky, is that bacteria think that they're the most, you know, people who study bacteria think the bacteria are the most important, because there's trillions and trillions of them. They run a lot of our own biology in our body. But then people who study phages, they say, well, there's 10 times more phages than the bacteria, which can attack the bacteria and destroy them as well. So, phage people think that they run the world. But we need them both. What do you think about viruses? So, because you said alien organisms. Wouldn't we encounter something like bacteria, something like viruses, as the first alien life form? Are they, first of all, are viruses alive or not? So, by the book definition, if you pick up a biology textbook, they'd say, technically, no, because they don't have the ability to self-replicate independently. But I would think, if you restructure how you view what life is, is just autonomously aggregating and replicating of information. For example, AI at some point, what if there's an AI platform that we could consider alive? Like, at what point would you allow it to say it's alive? And I think we have the same definitional challenge there, is that if it can continually propagate instructions for its own existence, then it is a version of living. I think viruses don't get that category because they can't do it on their own. But they are a version of life, I'd say, but probably not alive. Well, they are expressing themselves and doing so on occasion quite powerfully in human civilization. So, like you said, at which point are AI systems allowed to say? We're alive, we are. Allowed. Humans must allow them. And viruses didn't ask for permission to express themselves to humans. They just kinda did. We didn't have to allow them. Are they overall, though, exciting or terrifying to you as somebody who has studied viruses? Well, whenever given two options, there's always two more. You can do both or neither. So, here I'll say they're both terrifying and exciting, I think, to me. More exciting than terrifying, I think. If I had to make that sandwich in how many layers are meat versus cheese, there's a lot more cheese of excitement. And meat is the fear, apparently, in this metaphor, apparently. In this sandwich. Well, I love both, so it's a hell of a delicious sandwich. You quote President Dwight D. Eisenhower in your book, quote, plans are useless, but planning is essential. And you provide a thought experiment called Entropy Goggles. Can you describe this thought experiment? Happily, I do this almost every day, somewhere when I'm sitting in a given room. I will, well, a quick comment about that quote, actually, for all the NASA planning meetings for the twin study and other missions, that was often the quote that goes put up on the wall before we'd sit down for the day to plan the mission. It was that quote, which I thought. Plans are useless. But planning is essential, which I thought was hilarious for an official NASA meeting. But it was because you need to have a plan, but you have to know that plan might change. And so, I think that's just a quick context for that quote. Craig Kundro, who's a leader at NASA's headquarters now, would always put that first slide up, and I'm like, hmm, this meeting's either gonna go really well or really bad. I don't know what's about to happen. But it's an inspiring quote because it's very true. In any case, the entropy goggles is a thought experiment I detail in my book, which is if you just sit in a room, any room, wherever you are, and imagine what it will look like in 10 years, 100 years, 500 years, or even thousands of years, it is a wonderfully terrifying and exciting exercise, again, it's definitely both, because you realize the transience of everything. You think of what might survive. Almost everything that you're looking at will probably not be there in hundreds of years. It will be at the very least degraded, or it might be changed, altered, completely different, moved. It is just, and it's that trait, though, of humans, to just sit there and project into the future, easily, really seamlessly with whatever you were doing previously, is powerful because it shows what can change and what should change in some cases, but also that left to its own devices, the universe would, entropy would come take over and really, things would decay, things would be destroyed, but the only thing really preventing, I think, some of the entropy is humans, these sort of sentient creatures that are aware of extinction like ourselves. It's really one of the only forces in the universe that's counteracting the second law of thermodynamics, this entropy that's always increasing. Technically, we're actually still increasing it because we emit heat and we never have perfect capture of all of energy, but we're the only things really actively and consciously resisting it. Really, you could say life in general does this, like ants do this when they build their big homes. They're rearranging the universe to make a nice place for themselves and they're counteracting entropy, but we could actually do it in a way that would be at a large scale and for long term. So, but the entropy goggles is just a way to realize how transient everything is and just imagine everything that will decay or change in the room around you. So, anyone listening, if they're listening on a train or they're driving in their car, or wherever someone is listening right now, looking around, everything can and will change, and so you, but at first it's terrifying to see that, oh my gosh, everything will decay and go away, but then I think it's actually liberating. I think, wait, I can affect this, I can prevent it, or I can affect it, or I can improve the change that may occur all by itself, say naturally. And so I think it is, but it is that awareness, again, of the frailty of life, the ever-insistence in increasing entropy that you can address though. And actually, I say the same thing to first year medical students, I teach them genetics. I say, I point early in the course, I say, here's all these charts of how the human body decays over time, and I call it the inexorable march towards molecular oblivion, which the students often find, I kind of laugh at, oh, because on all the charts they're 22 years old, but older people do not laugh as much at the thought of molecular oblivion, but we're all marching towards it to a large degree. So this is both a great thought experiment for the environment around you, so just looking at all the objects around you, that they will dissipate, they will disappear with time. But then it's also the thing you mentioned, which is how can I affect any of the world? Like, you're one little creature, and it's like your life is kind of, you get dropped into this ocean, and you make a little splash, and how do I make it so the splash lasts for a little bit longer? Because it ultimately will, I suppose the wave will continue indefinitely, but it'd be such a small impact that it's almost indetectable. And so how do I have that impact at all? On so many levels, I get to experience this as a human. Like, I recently had my cold storage hacked to where it was locked, essentially. It wasn't hacked, it was locked. And so you get to lose all your data. So for example, if you lose all your data, if you lose all your online presence, your social media, your emails, if you, like, think of all the things you could lose. In a fire, there's been a lot of fires in the United States. If you lose your home, it makes you realize, wait a minute, this is exactly a nice simulation of what will happen anyway, eventually. And that eventually goes pretty quickly. And so it allows you to focus on, how can I actually affect, what matters, what lasts? And what brings me joy? I suppose that the ultimate answer is nothing lasts. So you have to focus on the things in the moment that bring you joy and that have a positive impact on those around you. That focusing on something that's long-lasting is perhaps, I don't know, it's complicated, right? Because like, well, it used to be foolhardy to say I want to think, legacy is often what people think of as they approach the end of their life. What is my legacy? What have I done? Even younger in life. But it used to be really foolhardy to say I could affect something. People would build a building. Architects would say, I'm gonna put my name on this building and there I'll have some sense of immortality. But that's a fleeting dream. It's not, you can't reach immortality. And if you could, it would be resource, you know, taxing on everyone else if you really were. But I think it's okay. I mean, the book's for the next 500 years, but I presume I'll be dead for the vast majority of that time. But that is actually a liberating state of mortality is you know that you don't have forever. So it means what can you do that is the most impactful. But you can build things that you say, I want to pass this on to the next generation. Again, the most obvious thing we do with this is if people have kids. But they don't think of this as a intergenerational responsibility to think of as, well, I was at the bar one night and met this hot girl and then things happened. Sometimes it's more planned than that. But there's no overarching sense of, wait, I could have something that three or four generations from now, well, that someone will receive this gift that was planned for them long before they were born or gestating. And I think we have that capacity. And that can be a version of legacy. But it's even okay if no one knows exactly who started it, but that the benefit was wrought by people, you know, again, hundreds or even thousands of years after you got it started. So I think this is something that is, only really people that are economically secure can even begin to do this. Where you can say, you know, think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where you need to satisfy your physical needs, all your structural needs and have shelter. And so, you know, I'm sitting from a position of great privilege to be able to pontificate about what I hope I could do for things for people that come 200 years from now. But nonetheless, more and more people can do that. Humanity has never been in a better state, quantifiably, to be able to start to think about these intergenerational responsibilities. Yeah, this is an interesting balance. Because like, it seems that if you let the ego flare up a little bit, that's good for productivity. Like saying, I can somehow achieve immortality if what I do is going to be pretty good. But then that's actually being kind of dishonest with yourself, because it won't, in the long arc of history, it won't matter. Right. In terms of your own ego, but it will have a small piece to play in a larger puzzle. And help, you know. And help people many generations from now. And that they said, there are all these people who were looking after me before I was ever born. I think, because it's a bit of just, even just, when you go to a campsite, there's a camping rule that you always leave the campsite better than you found it. So if the fire pit was somewhat damaged and you got there, you fix it. If there was no wood, you leave a few bits of logs for the next person who comes. And this ethos is something that we just picked up from camping. And so I think if we did that as people, the world would be a better place, and the world coming ahead would also be. That said, with these entropy glasses, how can you see through the fog? 500 years is a long time. First of all, why 500 years? Most people, this is so refreshing. Because most colleagues and friends I talk to don't have the guts to think even like 10 years out. They start doing wishy-washy kind of statements about, well, you don't know. But it's so refreshing to say, all right, I know there's so many trajectories that this world can take, but I'm going to pick a few and think through them. And think what, it's the, well, it's the quote, right? Plans are useless, but planning is essential. So why 500 years? So 500 was a little bit of what I felt like I could see clearly through the entropy goggles. I feel like I can't see. Which is a contradiction in terms, yes. Right, right, right. I can see, I mean, for example, if you said, Chris, what's going to happen in a million years? Well, I'll start to describe what happens to, the moon will be farther away because it moves several inches away every year. And so then eventually you can't have a full, lunar eclipse after a while. I think about structures of continental change and things will move. I could describe some things, but it starts to become so vague, it's just not a useful exercise. I think if it's too far out, if it's too soon, that's not that much different from what people just do with the news and say, I think this is what the economy might look like over the next year or two years. Economists are notoriously not held accountable when they have really bad predictions. You can make really awful predictions and no one seems to care. You can just make another one next week. So too short is, I think, not necessarily as helpful, but 500, I actually, when I was first working on the book and thinking about time, I thought, well, do I do a thousand or two thousand? I kept thinking about, the main idea was if I were to pick this up 500 years from now, what would it look like? I changed the number. If I pick up a thousand years from now or a hundred, and I kept trying to think of what are some timeframes where really large scale changes have happened. And so in some sense, you could argue that humans been mostly the same for about three or 4,000 years. And the best example is this. You looked at some of the Homer's poems or the Greek tragedies in Oedipus, for example. The humans are really almost identical. We're still petty and people have affairs and people do things they shouldn't. It's the same. You're saying all those things like it's bad. I know, it's just me. You read that it's astounding and in some sense soothing that the Greek tragedies of 2,300 years ago are very relatable to what happens in every high school, right? So that's why you read them in high school. Like, oh, that's really a clear part of the human condition. So on that sense, some things are really permanent. But I wanted to think of a few reasons I chose 500 is that it's a timeframe where I could foresee clear development of some biotechnology that will get us to a new place, including missions to Mars that are planned that will be there and that we'd start to have settlements there on the moon and Mars. And I could see also that by that time, I think we would have enough knowledge of biology and technology and space medicine to start to prepare for an interstellar mission, to actually send people on a craft that would have what's called a generation ship. People live and die on the same spacecraft on the way towards a destination. But I think we need that much time to actually perfect the technology and to learn enough about physiology to be able to make it for that distance. And the book is kind of focused on the human story. So a specific slice of the possible futures. Yes. There could be sort of AI systems, there could be other technologies that kind of build up the world. So much of the world might be lived in virtual reality. So you're not touching any of that, you're sticking to biology, well not, you're touching a little bit, but focused on what the cells that make up the human body, how do they change, how do we design technologies to repair them, and how do we protect them and as they travel out into the cosmos. Absolutely, and it's something that is part of the duty. If your duty is to keep life safe, you have to consider all means to do so. And engineering life to save itself is definitely on that list. And I think we can imagine in that timeframe, 500 years, that we would, there will be AI that is continually advancing. And I actually say that I'm matter agnostic towards cognition. So if your matter is carbon atoms and cells and tissues and you have cognition, bravo, good for you. If you're silicon-based and you're in chips and you're an AI that's all virtual, but we reach a state of well beyond the Turing test and really clearly intelligent, congratulations to you too. So I feel like this sense of duty is applicable regardless of what the state of matter your cognition is based in. So I would imagine that AI platforms that are really intelligent might also get a sense of this duty, or I hope they would, I wrote the book for them too. They can carry that flame of whatever makes humans special. So, but why nevertheless is so much of your focus on this human meat vehicle? Do you think it's essential? It doesn't have to be meat, no, it definitely does not. It could be, I'm hoping that the AI platforms that we've built or that would become, that would start to build themselves would also carry the sense of duty. Because at that point they would be life. And so whichever means that life, whatever form life takes, it should have this duty, I think. Will it have the lessons of genetics, genomics, DNA and RNA and proteins and the squishy stuff that makes us human, are those lessons a temporary thing that will discard or will those lessons be carried forward? You mean like if the machines completely take over, let's say, and it's all- Not necessarily completely take over, but either completely take over or merge with humans in some interesting way where we, as opposed to figuring out how to repair cells and protect cells, we start having some cyborg cells. I think we will, there'll definitely be a blending, and blending's already happened. There's prosthetic limbs, there's cybernetic limbs, there's neural link, progress being made to blend biology and cybernetics and machines for sure. But I think in the long term, we'll see that they are fairly, biology would be useful because it's a manufacturing system. All of life is a way to create copies of things or to replicate information, including storage of information. Actually, hard drives are probably one of the worst ways for long-term storage. DNA might end up being the best way to have millennia or even longer scale storage where you want something that has redundancy that's built in and it can store, and can be put at really cold temperatures and survive even cosmic rays. So I think DNA might be the best hard drive of the future, potentially. This is really interesting. Okay, what is DNA? What is RNA? And what are genes? Yes, we should, because most, I presume the audience knows it, but some might just be first time listeners coming in. There's a person right now in Brazil smoking a joint, sitting on the beach, and just wants to learn about DNA. So please, can you explain it to them? DNA, the deoxyribonucleic acid, is the recipe for life. It is what carries the instructions in almost all of your cells. You have a copy of your genome. It's actually the reason I became a geneticist, is because the day I learned that as an embryo, we start with just a single cell, but all the instructions that are there to make every single type of cell in your body, I was and still am endlessly fascinated by that. That is extraordinary. That is, to me, the most beautiful thing in the entire universe. That is, from one single embryo, everything is there to make the entire body. Which aspect of that is most beautiful? So is it that there is this information within DNA that's stored efficiently, and it also stores information on how to build, not just what to build? Yeah. And so from all of that, what's the sexiest, what's the most beautiful aspect? Is it the entire machinery, or is it just the information is there? It's the fact that the machinery is the information. Like, it becomes its own manufacturer is what is extraordinary. Imagine if you took a one two by four and you threw it on the ground, and you said, I'll be back in a day, and then a whole house was made when you came back. I mean, we would all lose our minds. A lot of people would poop their pants. People would have to wear adult diapers. It would be a big scene if that happened. And we're actually getting close to that. People are having autonomous house building. It's not quite there yet, but there are people trying to make robots that will build entire houses. But you need much more than the block of wood. Right, right, that's the extraordinary thing, is that just for one piece of wood there, and say, I'll just leave it there for a few days, and I'll come back. That's basically what embryos do. Okay, it takes nine months, a little bit longer, but still, that is nothing short of magic, right? So I think that's what I love about the fact that DNA carries that information. Now, the information is static, so to actually read that information and to actually put it into motion is where RNA comes in. So this ribonucleic acid, so it just has one other oxygen added to it versus DNA, but it is the transcribed version. It's like if you look at a book and you say you have it in your hands, but then you start to read it aloud, it becomes the active form of the recipe for life, is the RNA. And then those RNAs also then get translated to become proteins, to become active forms like enzymes. You think of like your hair, or think of other ways you digest food. There's all these active proteins going around that are copying your DNA, making RNA, making sure your DNA is safe. There's all these built-in systems to keep your cells in check and working, and these are often in protein form. And so genes are really these constructs, basically what are the instruction sets, like how many versions of instructions do you have in your genome? So the genome is the collection of all the DNA of a person. For humans, it's about three billion letters of genetic code, so just three billion A, Cs, Gs, and Ts, these nucleotides that are the recipe for life, and that's it. That is the entire instruction set to go from that one embryo up to a full human, which is pretty efficient, to say it's actually not that much information. And in that three billion letters are snippets of the genes, which are independently regulated, autonomous instruction sets, if you will, these really active forms of the instructions from your DNA to say, make a protein, make this RNA, or turn off some other part of a cell. All those instructions are there in our DNA, and there's about 60,000 of these genes that are in our genome. So how do those all lead up to you having a personality, good memory and bad memory, some of the functional characteristics that we at the human level are able to interpret, the way your face looks, the way you smile, you're good at running or jumping, whether you're good at math, and all those kinds of things. There's an age-old debate of nature versus nurture, so like most things, if given two options, you can of course have both. So almost every trait that we know of in humanity has mixtures of nurture and nature. Some of them are purely nurture, so most people are probably familiar with twin studies, but twin studies are one of the best ways to gauge how much is something nurture versus nature, how much of it is really ingrained and has probably less ability to change versus how much can you really train. So height, for example, is one of the most obvious inheritable traits, but it doesn't have one gene, it probably has at least 50 or 60 genes that contribute to height. So there's not like a gene for height. Some people think of like the gene for cystic fibrosis. Now in that case, that's true. There is one gene that if you have mutations, you get cystic fibrosis as a disease. But for other traits, they're much more complicated. They can have dozens or even hundreds of genes that influence your risk and what appears. But from twin studies, you take monozygotic twins, twins that are identical, and you can clearly tell. They look, they have the same facial structure, similar intonation, similar even likes, and you compare them to dizygotic twins, or when you have fraternal twins, you can have a male and female, for example, in the same uterus, and those are dizygotic twins or two zygotes. So in that case, they share 50% of their DNA, but they share the same womb. And then what you can look at is, what's the difference between identical twins versus fraternal twins, and calculate that difference for any trait. And that gives you an estimate of the heritability, or it was called H squared. So that's what we've been doing for almost every trait in humanity for the past, a hundred years I've been trying to measure this. And religion is one that's a negative control. So if you separate people and see what religion they become, there's no gene for religion or what religion you choose. So often, the correlation there is zero, because it should be. It's a nurturer trait, what religion you end up taking is not encoded in your DNA. Religion meaning Islam, Judaism, Christianity, but there could be aspects of religions that- Good question. There is religiosity as a trait that's been studied in twins, and that has a heritable component to some degree. So, and things like boredom susceptibility is a trait. One of my favorite papers just looked at how likely is it that people get bored? And they looked at identical twins and fraternal twins, and there's a heritability of about 30%. So it's mostly not heritable, it's mostly environmental, but that means to some degree, whether or not you're bored, you can say, well, it's a little bit of my genes. You could, a little bit, not a lot, but most traits have some degree, and they're probably overlapping with other traits. Like your boredom susceptibility versus risk-seeking behavior are interrelated. So how likely are you to say, I wanna go, you know, cliff jumping, or I wanna go, I wanna do freebasing, or I wanna, I don't know, do some else that's risky behavior. So speaking of twin studies, Scott Kelly spent 340 consecutive days out in space. You analyzed his molecular data, DNA, RNA, proteins, small molecules. What did you learn about the effect of space on the human body from Scott? We learned that space is rough on the human body, but that the human body is amazingly and monstrously responsive to adapt to that challenge. It can rise to the occasion. So we can see there, Scott had, as almost all astronauts do, a bit of puffiness and spikes in his bloodstream of these, what are called cytokines, or these inflammation markers of the body, is clearly saying to itself, holy crap, I'm in space. And liters of fluid move to the upper torso, and they get a puffy face, what's called the, you know, the astronaut face that is very common. But it goes away after a few days. And some astronauts maintain high levels of stress for their whole mission, as measured by cortisol or some of these other inflammation markers. Whereas Scott actually had a little spike, but then he was cool as a cucumber for most of the mission. But he had spent, at that time, that was the longest ever mission for a US astronaut. A few cosmonauts have gone a little bit longer, but there'd never been a deep molecular analysis of what happens to the body after about a year in space. So it was the first study of this kind. And what we found is, when he got back, you know, we saw all the same markers of stress on the body and changes spiked up to levels we'd never seen for any other astronaut before. So it seemed like going to space for a year wasn't so hard as much as returning to gravity after a year. It was much harder on the body. He notoriously had, you know, broke out in a rash all over his body. And really, even the weight of clothing on his skin was too heavy. It created all this irritation because his body had not felt the weight of just a simple T-shirt. It wasn't really, it had zero weight, of course, right? So it went up in space. So that led to all this inflammation, all these changes. He had to, you know, it was much more comfortable just to walk around nude. In that case, it was for medical reasons. Some people do this, you know, recreationally. He was doing it for medical purposes. I do it for medical reasons as well. All the time. I mean, people say, I have a prescription. Doctor told me. So he was allergic to Earth, you can say. Which is fascinating to think about, actually. How quick did his body adapt there? So there it was about three to four days he got back to normal, at least in terms of the inflammation. But what's extraordinary is that we measured a lot of other molecules, genes, structural changes, tissue, looked at his eyeballs, looked at his vasculature. It took him, even six months after the mission, a lot of the genes that had become activated in response to space flight were still active. So things like, we could see his body repairing DNA. He was being irradiated by cosmic rays and by the radiation. It's the equivalent of giving him like three or four chest x-rays every day, just in space. And we could see his body working hard at the molecular level to repair itself. And even in his urine, we could see bits of what's called 8-oxoguanosine, a form of damaged DNA that you could see coming out. And we see it for other astronauts as well. So it's very common. You can see damaged DNA, the response of the body to repair the DNA. But even though he'd been back on Earth for six months, that was still happening, even six months later. How do you, wait, how do you explain that? So some of this has to do with when you have a gene get activated, you might think, oh, it's like a light switch. I'll look at my wall, just flip a light on or off. And sometimes turning a gene on or off is that simple. Sometimes you just flip it on because the gene is already ready to go. Other cases, though, you have to reprogram even the structure of how your DNA is packaged. It's called an epigenetic rearrangement. In that case, we could see that a lot of these genes had been, his cells had changed the structure of how DNA was packaged. And it remained open even months after the mission. Now, after about a year, it was actually almost all back to normal. 99% of all the genes were back to where they were in pre-flight levels. So it means that eventually you'll adapt, but there's almost a lag time, kind of like jet lag for the body, but jet lag for your cells to repair all the DNA. What was the most surprising thing that you found in that study? There were several surprises. One is just that he, that the repair, as I just mentioned, that the repair took so long. I thought maybe a week or a few days, he'll be back to normal. But to see this molecular echo in his cells of his time and space still occurring was interesting. This telomeres was one that was really surprising. The caps on the ends of your chromosomes, which keep all your DNA packaged, and you could have your chromosomes from your mother and half from your father, and then you go on and make all your cells. Normally, these shrink as you get older, and telomeres, length is just an overall sign of aging, getting shorter. His telomeres got longer in space. And so this was really surprising because we thought the opposite would happen. So that was genetically one surprise. And also, some of the mutations we found in his blood, he had less mutations in blood, as if his body was almost being, like a low dose of radiation was sort of cleansing his body, of maybe the cells that were about to die is one of our main theories on what's happening. And of course, you can't really, you have theories, but you can't, because the number of subjects in the study is small. Right, right. It's notoriously one of the lowest-powered studies in human history, yes. But what you lack in subjects, you can make up for in the number of sampling times. So we did basically 260 samples collected over the course of three years. So we really, almost every few weeks, had a full workup, including in space. So that was the way we tried to make up for it. But we've tried in other model organisms. In mice, we've seen this. We've looked now at 59 other astronauts. And in every astronaut that we've looked at, their telomeres get longer in space. Does that indicate anything about lifespan, all those kinds of things, or no? You can't make any of those kinds of jumps? Not yet. I won't make that jump yet, but it does indicate that there is a version of cleansing, if you will, that's happening in space. A mixture of, and we see this actually clinically at our hospital, you can do a low dose of radiation with some targeted therapies to kind of activate your immune cells. It's even tried clinically. So this idea of just a little bit of stress on the body, or what's called hormesis, may prime you into active of cleansing things that were about to die. And that includes stress caused by space. Yes, yeah, apparently. So how do we adapt the human body to stress of this kind for periods of multiple years? What lessons do you draw from that study and other experiments in space that give you an indication of how we can survive for multiple years? I think we know that the radiation is one of the biggest risk factors, and this has been well described by NASA and many other astronauts and researchers. And so there, we don't have to just measure the radiation or just look at DNA being damaged. We can actually actively repair it. This happens naturally in all of our cells. There's little enzymes, little protein, and really many machines that go around and scan DNA for nicks and breaks and repair it. We could improve them, we could add more of them, or you can even activate them before you go into space. We have one set of cells in my lab where you activate them before we irradiate them to actually prepare them for the dose of radiation. And now that is what's called epigenetic CRISPR therapies, where you can actually, instead of adding or taking away a gene or modifying a cell, you just change kind of how it's packaged. Like I was just describing with the DNA, the genes are still there, we're just changing how they get used. And so you can actually preemptively activate a DNA repair genes, and we've done this for cells. We haven't done this yet for astronauts, but we've done it for cells. And a similar idea to this is being used to treat sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia, as you can reactivate a gene that was dormant in a way as a therapy. So should we make human genes resilient to harsh conditions, or should we get good at repairing them? I wanna get good at repairing. Okay, sorry to interrupt. I think every time I ask this question, you have taught me that there's always a third option. Say both. I will say both. I know for copy, it's good to just have one big statement, but you wanna do both, or a third option. I would want to do electromagnetic shielding. I would wanna do a fourth option of maybe some other kind of physical defenses. So outside of the human body. Yeah, so we're taking the same passion to keep astronauts safe that's outside of them and just putting it in their cells is what I propose. And now it's a bit radical today because we're just starting this in clinical trials to treat diseases on Earth. So it's not ready, I think, to do in astronauts. But in the book, I propose by about the year 2040, that's when we'd reach this next phase where I think we'll have known enough about the clinical response. We'll have the technology ironed out. That's about when it's time, I think, to try it. So what are some interesting early milestones? So you said 2040. What do we have to look forward to in the next 10, 20 years? According to your book, according to your thoughts. A lot of really exciting developments where if you really want to activate genes, like I was just describing, or repair a specific disease gene, you can actually CRISPR it out and modify it. This has been already published and well-documented. But as I was alluding to, more and more we'll see people that you just wanna temporarily change your genes functions and change their activity. So the best example of this is for beta thalassemia. We all have hemoglobin in our blood that carries oxygen around. And when you're an adult, it's a different version. It's a different gene. You have one gene when you're a fetus called fetal hemoglobin. When you're an adult, you have a different gene. But they both are making a protein that carries oxygen. When you're after you're born, the fetal hemoglobin gene gets just turned off. Just goes away and you replace it with adult hemoglobin. But if your gene for hemoglobin is bad as an adult, then one of the therapies is, well, let's turn back on the gene that you had when you were a fetus. And it's actually already led to cure as for sickle cell and beta thalassemia in this past year. So it's this extraordinary idea of like, well, you already have some of the genetic solutions in your body. Why don't we just reactivate them and see if you can live? And indeed you can. So I think we'll see more of that. That's for severe disease, but eventually you could see it for more, I think, work-related purposes. Like if you're working in a dangerous mine or in a high-radiation environment, you could basically start to prime it for work safety. Basically, we need to genetically protect you. Now, it would have to be shown that that genetic option is safe, reliable, that it's better. At least as good or if not better than other shielding methods. But I think we'll start to see that more in the next 10, 20 years. And eventually, as I describe in the book, you could get to recreational genetics. You could say, well, I wanna turn some genes on just for this weekend because I'm going to a high altitude, so I'd like to prepare for that. And so instead of having to take weeks and weeks for acclimation, you could just do some quick epigenetic therapies and have a good time in the mountains and then come back and turn them back on. So this is stuff to do on Earth across thousands of humans, and then you start getting good data about what the effects on the human body are. How do we make humans survive across an entire lifetime for, let's say, several decades in space? If it's just in space, it'll be hard because you'll need basically some gravity at some point. I think you'd need orbital platforms that give you at least some partial gravity, if not 1G. If you're on Mars, it's actually, you know, even though the gravity is 38% of Earth's, just having that gravity would be enough. And if you could get under the surface into some of the lava tubes, where you have some protection above you from the radiation, I think that would be, you probably could survive quite well there. So I think it's just in space part that's hard. You'd need some gravity. You need some additional protection from the radiation. Can you linger on the lava tubes on Mars? What are the lava tubes on Mars? Yeah, so they are a bit like what they sound like. They were large masses of lava at one point on the planet pushing really quickly through the environment, and they created basically these small caverns which you could go in theory and build a small habitat and then puff it up kind of like blowing up a balloon and have a protective habitat. Basically, it's a little bit underground. So one of the next helicopter missions being planned at the Jet Propulsion Lab is to see if you can get a helicopter to go into the lava tube, and which is just, as it sounds, kind of like take out a big worm that has burrowed into the landscape and leave out the hollow column that's left, and that's what your tubes look like. So one of the future helicopters might even go explore one of them as a mission being planned right now. So they're accessible without a significant amount of drilling? Yeah, that's the other advantage. Yeah, you can get to them because some of them are exposed. You could do a little bit of drilling and then see essentially this entire cavern. And that protects you a little bit from the radiation. Right, because you have some soil above you basically, which would be regolith, which would be nice. What about source of food? What's a good, so that's part of biology, how you power this whole thing. What about source of food across decades? In space, we'd have to, plants have been grown in flight and you can get some nutrients, but right now it is very reliant on all the upmass being sent up, all the freeze-dried food that then gets rehydrated, which doesn't taste awful, but is not self-reliant. So I think those would have to be small bioreactors. It'd have to be a lot of work on fermentation, a lot of work on potentially prototrophic organisms, the organisms that can make all of the 20 amino acids that you would need to eat. I describe a little bit in the book, what if we did a prototrophic human, where you could have, like right now we need to get some of our amino acids because we can't make them all, which I think is kind of sad. So what if we could make all of our own amino acids or all of our own vitamins? I also, I think that's one case where another adaptation could be to activate the vitamin C gene. Like right now you'd have to have limes or some other source of vitamin C in space, but we actually carry the gene inside of our genome to make vitamin C. Look at dogs and cats, for example. They have these kind of wet noses. You don't see them going out and getting margaritas, although dogs can drink beer and get drunk. They don't need vitamin C. They have no risk of scurvy because they can make the vitamin C all by themselves. So can other wet-nosed primates called strepsirines. But we are dry-nosed primates, and we lost this ability sometimes 10 or 20 million years ago. We no longer make our own vitamin C, but the gene for it, it's called Gulo, is still in our DNA. It's what's called a pseudogene. It's just broken down. It's like having a, like in our genome, we have these functional genes like nice BMW, a nice car that works well, but we also have this like junkyard of old cars, old genes, old functions in our DNA that we could bring back. And so vitamin C is one of them that would be very easy to do. So then you could activate the gene, repair it basically, repair it so we can make our own vitamin C. Now we'd have to do it again carefully because what if we lost vitamin C, the production of vitamin C as a species? What if it was a good reason that we lost it? Maybe it was helping in some other way that we can't see now. But you'd start slowly, do it in cells, then do it potentially in animal models, in other primates, and then try it in humans. But that's something else I'd like to see so we wouldn't have to make as much food in orbit. You could actually start to make as much of your own food in your own cells. So the input to the system in terms of energy could be much more restricted. It doesn't have to have the diversity we currently need as humans. But I don't wanna be a robot. Humans love, as I do, texture. I realize that made me sound like I wasn't human, but humans love food and flavors and textures and smells. All that is actually attenuated in flight. So you'd wanna not forget our humanity and this love of all the benefits and wonder of food and cooking and smells. Well, speak for yourself. Because for me, I eat the same thing every single day and I find beauty in everything. And some beauty is more easily accessible outside of Earth. And food is not one of those things, I think. What about insects? The people bring that up, basically food that has sex with itself and multiplies. So cockroaches and so on, they're a source of a lot of protein and a lot of the amino acids. And bedbugs. There's a guy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, he loves bedbugs, Lou Sorkin. And he has a monthly meeting where he talks about which insects would be the best for eating. And one month he gave a whole talk about bedbugs, that they're pretty gross, but in terms of the value of what you can get for protein, they're really good. So they're a good candidate. I think if you could deep fry them. If you deep fry anything, you can pretty much eat it. Some of you need a fryer up in space, but they're a candidate. All right, what, technical question. What are the major challenges of sex in space? Asking for a friend for reproduction purposes. So like when we're looking about survival of the human species across generations. Yeah. Do we need gravity, essentially? For sex in space, we know that gestation can happen in space, where the babies can develop, at least in mice. We know that it's possible for worms to replicate and fly. So it's possible for other invertebrates to show they can make babies in space. But for humans, NASA's official stance on this is that there has never been sex in space, officially. I think, you know, if we all wonder about that, I think humans are very predictable in that regard. Again, going back to the Greek tragedies, I think that probably someone did something close to it at some point. And so I think we know that sperm can be sent into space and brought back and be used for fertilization, for in vitro fertilization for humans. But sex itself in space, you know, would be, I think when we start to get bigger structures that have a bit more privacy, I think there'll be a lot of it. And there'll have to be, you know, this is a big question of who goes up into space. It's now becoming more of, you know, regular, in quotes, people who have prosthetic limbs or are cancer survivors like Hayley Arsenault, who just went up on the Inspiration4 mission. So she's been a great researcher in helping with a lot of the science from that mission. We are doing the same analysis on them as we're doing for the twin study and for other astronauts. So we're doing basically all the same molecular profile before, during, and after space flight. So there, we now know that other people can go into space. As those more and more regular Joes and Janes go up, I think we'll see a lot more of it. But so far we have no data. We have no video of it either. We have no real knowledge other than it would be, it would need a lot of Velcro, I think is my only real answer there. Well, I'm as a fan of Velcro and duct tape. I think that's gonna be, those two are essential for anything, any kind of engineering out in, anywhere, honestly, in all kinds of harsh conditions. But that is, I mean, on the topic of sex in general, just social interaction with humans is fascinating. The current missions are very focused on science and very technical engineering things. But there's still a human element that seeps in, and the more we travel out to space, the more the humans, the natural human drama, the love, the hate that emerges, it's all gonna be right there. It's a Greek tragedy just in space, basically. I think it's gonna be. Or a reality show. Right, right. So what about the colonization of other planets? If we look at Mars, when you, first of all, do you think it's a worthy effort looking at this particular one planet to put humans on Mars and to start thinking about colonizing Mars? It's one of the closest options. It's not the best option, though, by far. We put in the book measures of Earth Similarity Index, or something called ESIs. How close is the gravity, the temperature, the solar incidence on the surface? How close is it to Earth is a calculation many astronomers make when they look for exoplanets. And Mars is pretty far away from an ESI of about.7. I mean, Earth is one, so the best you can get is one. Earth is just like Earth. It gets a score of one. Anything above, you know, some of the best exoplanets that are in the habitable zone, where there's liquid water that could be there, start to get above.8 or.9. But most planets are very low. They're.1,.2. They're either way too big, and we have crushing gravity, or way too small, too close to a sun. But Mars is, even though it's not that great on the ESI scale, it is still relatively close, you know, galactically, and Venus is just too hot right now, so I think Venus would also be a great candidate, but it is, it's much easier to survive in a place where it's very cold, but you can be sealed and survive, whereas going on, we probably just have no technology to survive anywhere except in the clouds of Venus. So it's just currently our best option, but it's not the best option for sure. So over time, the ESI changes across millennia. It does. So Venus is gonna get cooler and cooler. Okay, but what are the big challenges to you in colonizing Mars, from a biology perspective, from a human perspective, from an engineering perspective? There's several big challenges to Mars. And even the first one is even just the word colonize. So I think we, there's even a social challenge. Like a lot of people, Daniel Wood actually studies this at MIT, is we shouldn't even use the word colonize, but then we probably shouldn't use the word settle either, because there's settlements that have some other baggage to that word as well. And then maybe we should use the word explore, but at some point you need to say, we're going there to survive there. And so colonization still is the word most people use, but I try to say go explore and build or settle. But I think the first challenge is social. I think getting people to think that this will not be like the colonization efforts of the past. The hope is that this will be a very different version of humanity exploring. That's my hope. History has, you could say has proved me wrong every single time. Like every time humans have gone somewhere, it's usually been a tale of exploitation, strife, and drama again, and then, and often murder, genocide. Like it's actually a pretty dark history, if you think of just all the colonization efforts. But I think most of it was done in a really dark area of humanity, where the average life expectancy was more than half, less than it was today. It was, life was brutish and short, as many of, as Hobbes has famously said. So it was a rough existence, right? So I think some of the ugliness of humanity in prior colonization times was a consequence of the time. And at least that's my hope. I think that now we would have it be much more, I think, inclusive, much more responsible, much more, much less evil, frankly. Like we'd go there and you would need commercialization. You need efforts to do mining, for example, bring things back. But it'd have to be some degree of, there are some areas that are viewed as commons or that are untouchable, like places that are parks. We do this today, even if there's a lake, for example, the first, you know, several hundred feet of a lake are all for public property and everything. You can own property, but just not certain areas. So I think we'd have to make sure we do that so that it's not completely exploited. But the, so that's on the social, the human side. The technological, we've talked a little bit about where you'd have to live. You'd wanna be underground with engineering and modifying even human cells to make sure you survive. The soil, those have a lot of perchlorates, which is a problem for growing them, but there's ways to extract them. There's a fair amount of water. There's actually this beautiful image of all the known water on Mars that NASA posted about a year ago. And there's water everywhere. Not lots of it everywhere, but almost everywhere you look, there's at least a little bit of water, just a few feet under the surface. And by the caps, there's a lot. So I think we could get some water and we could also do self-generating reactors, machines that could make food, start to even make beer, if you go long enough down the path. But the technical challenges are definitely, the engineering and the manufacturing are gonna be hard because you have to build, the building's basically out of the soil that's there. So you have to really go there and try and build with whatever you can. So that has to be perfected still. But then once you're in those buildings, those structures, you need to create all the biology that will feed the populace, feed them. Which we don't have the technology for yet. We have bits of it, but I think that's gonna be the biggest challenge is making Mars really, truly independent. But that'll probably take, as I say in the book, several hundred years before I think we'd get there. It's interesting because we're also exploring ways to motivate society to take on this challenge. It's the JFK thing and then the Cold War that inspired the race to space. And I think as a human species, we're actually trying to figure out different ideas for how to motivate everybody to work on the same project together. But yet compete it at the same time. Well, that's one idea and that's worked well. Competition. Competition. That's not necessarily the only idea, but it's the one that worked well so far. So maybe the only way to truly build a colony on Mars or a successful human civilization on Mars is to get China to get competitive about it. Well, and they are. They've announced they wanna have boots on the red planet by 2033, which is two to four years earlier than when NASA's supposed to do it. So we'll see if they get there first. But I think it's a space race 2.0, but it's not just the US and Russia this time. It's China, it's India, it's the UAE, it's Europe, it's the USA, JAXA's the Japanese Space Agency, and there's the US. So now it went from just a two-person race to a whole field, a whole field of runners, if you will, on the track trying to get to Mars first. And I think, I mean, it's gonna be like anything. If you start to have settlements and construction projects and places to visit on Mars, I think that the true mark of a place being actually settled is when you start to be able to pick. You're like, well, I wanna go to this destination, not this one, because they have better Martian cocktails here, but this one's not as good. So this idea of innovating and competing will continue to drive, I think, humans as it always has. You write this fascinating thing, which is, quote, "'People living on Mars will have developed "'entirely new cultures, dialects, products, "'and even new religions or variations of current religions. "'For example, a Martian Muslim will need to pray "'upward toward the dusty sky.'" I love that you've thought through the geometry of this. "'For example, a Martian Muslim will need to pray "'upward toward the dusty sky since Earth, "'and therefore Mecca will sometimes be overhead. "'Or when Mecca is below the Martians' feet, "'the prayer direction to Allah will stay downward "'toward the 38% gravity floor. "'Perhaps a second Mecca will be built on the new planet.'" End quote. That's another interesting question. How will culture be different on Mars in the early days and beyond? Yeah, it'll be, as we've seen with all of human history, I think, even just when people migrate and they move, even the dialects change. If you're just going to the South in the United States, there's the, oh, y'all, come on down. And that's not even that far away. Or even just people on Long Island versus New York City. And it'll be with a big nasally accent, oh yeah, and the people will just get, or even Wisconsin. I'm from Wisconsin, which there'll be this big nasally tone, welcome to Wisconsin and Minnesota. I wonder who defines that culture because it's very likely that the early humans on Mars will be very technically savvy. They have to be for engineering challenges. Well, actually, I don't know. It could be, this has to do with your extreme microbiome. Is it going to be the extreme survivalists or is it going to be the engineers and scientists or is it gonna be both? Because my experience of scientists, they like the comfort of the lab. They don't, well, no, there's some, I keep contradicting myself nonstop. There's some badass scientists that travel to Antarctica and all that kind of stuff. It's an evolutionary selection for humans who can stare at a screen for eight hours at a time or pipette for 12 hours at a time and not talk to anybody. So it's not surprising when our scientists are a little bit awkward in social situations. But we can train them out of that. We can get them to engage other humans, not all of them, but hopefully most of them. So I think the culture will definitely be different. There'll be different dialects, different foods. There'll be different values. There very likely will be a different religion. Kim Stanley Robinson wrote a lot about this in his books, the new Martian religion that was created. So I think this idea has been discussed in science fiction. It's almost unavoidable because there's been, I mean, just think of all the religions that have happened on Earth with very little, I think, I mean, there's just terrestrial drama, but suddenly you have a different planet and a deity that would span multiple planets. And I don't even know how you do that, but I think someone will think of a way and make up something. Yeah, that's look for ways to draw meaning. So religion for a lot of people, myths, common ideas are a source of meaning. And when you're on another planet, boy, does the sense of what is meaningful change. Because it's humbling. The harshness of the conditions is humbling. The very practical fact that Earth, from which you came, is not so special because you're clearly not on Earth currently and you're doing fine and you made it. At some point, I mean, it'll be pretty harsh like what Shackleton did doing this exploration of Antarctica and going, it was a very dangerous mission, barely made it, people died. Actually, he didn't believe in scurvy at the time, so he didn't take enough vitamin C and some of his people died from not having vitamin C. So if we had had their genes active, the pseudogene, they'd be okay. But there, I think, the early settlers, it'll be a very different crew. But once it's comfort, once people are comfortable there, I think they're gonna, I hope they'll draw more meaning because more planets should be more meaning. I feel like it's like more hands is a better massage. I don't know if that's the best analogy here, but. I think Aristotle said that, yeah. I should mention that your book has incredible quotes. It's great writing, but also just incredible quotes at the beginning of chapters that are really. Thanks, it's basically my favorite quotes. I'm like, well, I'm writing a book, I'm gonna put my favorite quotes in there. Might as well put them all down. What are your thoughts about the efforts of Elon Musk and SpaceX in pushing this commercial space flight, and I mean, other companies, Axiom Space as well? What are your thoughts on their efforts? It's like a gold rush. The Space Race 2.0, there's a lot of terms for it. The new Space Race, I think it's fabulous. I think it is, it's moving at a pace that is unprecedented and also there's a lot of investment from the commercial and private sector pushing it forward, so Elon, most notoriously, doing a lot of it just himself with SpaceX. So we've worked really closely with the SpaceX ops teams and medical team, planning the Inspiration4 mission, and now some of the Polaris missions which are happening, and Jared Isaacman has been a fabulous colleague, collaborator, pilot for the missions. You know, again, we're doing the same deep profiling and molecular characterization of these astronauts as we've done for Scott Kelly and other astronauts that are from NASA, and we're seeing so far, actually, there'll be a lot of this presented later this year, it seems like it's pretty safe. Again, there's dangers. We can see real stress on the body, very obvious changes, some of the same changes that Scott Kelly experienced, but for the most part, they return back to normal, even for a short three-day mission. I remember chatting with Jared, and we were presenting the data to them, actually, just a few weeks ago, kind of a briefing to the crew, and because they went to 590 kilometers. They went basically several hundred kilometers higher than the Space Station or the Hubble. You normally, more radiation, the farther you get from Earth, there's more radiation. He was worried, did we get cooked? It was kind of his question for me in the briefing. I said, well, actually, it looks like you can go back into the microwave. You didn't get fully cooked. You can go a little bit farther. So for the Polaris mission, they're gonna go even farther, and then also, they'll open the hatch and go in these new spacesuits that SpaceX are designing that'll be much nimbler, not as much of a giant Dr. Octagon kind of spacesuit, but really looks like just a nice spacesuit, and they're gonna go out into the vacuum of space. And so pushing all the engineering for these missions, which are privately funded, so it's people who just say, I wanna go up in space and see if I can push the limits, has been fabulous, but I think the most fabulous part is Jared in particular, but others, other commercial spaceflight drivers like John Shoffner or Peggy Whitson for the Axiom missions are coming to us, scientists, researchers, saying, I don't just wanna go up into space just to hang out. How much science can I get done when I'm up there? What can I do? What experiments can I do? Give me blood, tissue, urine, semen, tears. I'll give you any biofluid. And I always email them back and say, listen, every one of your cells is worthy of study. Send me, so I have this really kind of creepy geneticist email response, like I want all of your cells. But it's true, because there's so much we don't know, I wanna learn as much as we can about it. Every time I go up, anyone. So we're doing it with NASA astronauts, but it's been some of this influx of new crews that are willing to do almost anything, right? So including, we did skin biopsies for the Inspiration4 crew before and after spaceflight. And that's never been done before. We've never seen the structure of the skin and how it changes in response to microgravity, and also the microbes that change. And so we have these beautiful images of even the structure of skin changing, and the inflammation that we've seen, and like for Scott Kelly, for example, we now have a molecule by molecule map of what happens to skin, which has never been done before. What are the interesting surprises there? So one of the interesting things, we can see part of what's driving inflammation is we can actually see macrophages and there's other dendritic cells, pieces like cells that are part of the immune system kind of creeping along towards the surface of the skin, which is now we know it's actually physically driving the immune system, is these cells going and creating this inflammation, which is what leads to some of the rashes. But we didn't see as much in them as we saw, for example, some of the signatures of Scott Kelly. So we can see within the crew who's getting more of a rash or not, or who didn't experience any rash. And some people had changes in vision. Some people had other GI problems, even looking at sort of what happens to the gut and looking at the microbiome of the gut. Other people didn't. So we're able to see, and start to get a little bit predictive with our medicine. Right now we're just diagnosing, but it'd be good to say, if you're going into space, here's exactly what you need for each bacteria in your body. Here's what you could maybe take to get rid of nausea or other ways we could monitor you to keep the inflammation down. What does it take to prepare for one of these missions? Because you mentioned some of the folks are not necessarily lifelong astronauts. You're talking about more and more regular civilians. What does it take physiologically and psychologically to prepare for these? They have to go through a lot of the same training that most astronauts do. So a lot of it's in Hawthorne at SpaceX headquarters, which if you can ever get a chance to do a tour, it's fabulous. It's really, you can see all these giant rockets being built and then we're drawing blood over there right next to them. So it's a really cool place. But the training, they have to go through a lot of the ops, a lot of the programming, just in case. Most of the systems are automated on the Dragon and other spacecraft, but just in case. So they have to go through the majority of the training. If you want to go to the space station, as the Axiom missions are, including John Shroffner, you have to do training for some of the Russian modules. And if you don't do that training, then you're not allowed to go to the Russian part of the space station, apparently. So right now, John Shroffner, for example, unless he completes this additional training, all in Russian, he's not allowed. All in Russian? Otherwise, to learn enough Russian to be just functional. Wow. It's not just technical, you also have to. Enough, enough Russian. Enough, enough Russian. And if he doesn't learn, he can't go to that part of the space station. So interesting things like that. But you'll be, it's not that far. You're like, oh, I can see it right there. I can't float over to that capsule. But technically, he can't go. So, you know. Is there a Chinese component to the International Space Station? Is there collaboration there? Sadly not. They're building their own space station. I'm glad they're building a space station. Actually, eventually, there'll be probably four space stations in orbit by 2028. Some from the orbital reef, some from Lockheed Martin. Of course, Axiom is far ahead right now. They're probably gonna be done first. But the extraordinary thing is, unfortunately, there's no collaboration between the- You see that as a negative. That's not the positive kind of competition. It's a good question. So maybe, for example, when we get different NASA grants, you apply for a grant, you get to the lab, it goes through Cornell, the grants office. I have to sign, as a scientist, as the PI on the mission, say, I promise I will move no funds or resources or any staff to anyone in China or work with anyone in China with these dollars that you're giving to the lab for this mission. And so, every other grant I get from the NASA, DOD, or sorry, DO, let me go back to that. Every other grant I get from, say, the NIH or the NSF, even sometimes DOD, you don't have to promise that you won't talk to anybody in China about it. But for NASA alone, it's congressionally mandated. You have to promise and sign all those paperwork so I can't do anything with anyone in China about this. And what I view as sad about that is I wanna at least be able to chat with them about it and know what they're up to. But we can't even go to a conference in China, technically with NASA funds, about, say, space medicine or engineering a new rocket. I could go with personal funds, but I can't use those funds. Like, you should be able to go to a conference in a friendly way, talk shit to the other scientists. Like, we're doing, like the way scientists do really well, which is like they compliment, but it's a backhanded compliment. Like, you're doing a really good job here, and then you kind of imply that you're doing a much better job. That's the core of competition. You get jealous, and then everybody's trying to improve. But you're ultimately talking, you're ultimately collaborating closely. You're competing closely as opposed to in your own silos. So, well, let me ask, in terms of preparing for space flight, you know, I tweeted about this, and I joked about it. And I talk to Elon quite a lot these days. What I tweeted was, I'd like to do a podcast in space one day. And it was a silly thing, because I was thinking, for some reason in my mind, I was thinking 10, 20 years from now. And then I realized, like, wait, why not now? There's no, just even seeing what Axiom is doing, what Inspiration4 is doing, it's like regular civilians could start going up. So let me ask you this question. When do you think, we saw Jeff Bezos go out into orbit, when do you think Elon goes up to space? So his thinking about this is it's partially responsible until it's safe, because he has such a direct engineering roles in the running of multiple companies. So at which point do you think, what's your prediction for the year that Elon will go up? I think he'd probably go up by 2026, I would say, because the number of missions planned, there'll be several missions per year through multiple space agencies and companies that are really making low-earth orbit very routine. And by go up, I think it might also, for example, the Inspiration4 mission just went up for three days in flight. And there was enough time to get up there, do some experiments, enjoy the view, and then he came back. The Axiom missions are a bit more complicated. There's docking up in the space station to shared atmosphere, so you have to follow all the ISS protocols. What's interesting about the Dragon capsule and the Inspiration4 and some of these what are called free-flyer missions, you can just launch into space. You basically have your own little mini space station for a few days. It's not that big, right? But I think that's what we'd probably see him do first because we're gonna see a lot more tests of those in the next two, three years, but they're already been demonstrated to be safe. And then you're not trying to go for 10 to 20 days or months or years at a time. It's just up in space for a few days, but you're in proper space. It's an orbital flight. It's not just a suborbital flight. You could do the podcast from there. And I think- 2026, I wonder how the audio works. See, also, can you comment on 2026? I'll start getting ready. I'll start pushing him on this. I'm quite serious. It's a fascinating kind of- Axiom 2 still has room. You could go on that mission if you wanted to. So I'll ask you about Axiom. How strict are these? So this seems surreal that civilians are traveling up. So how much bureaucracy is there still, in your experience, for the scientific? I mean, I know it's a difficult question to ask a scientist because you don't want to complain too much. But how much, there's sometimes bureaucracy with NSF and DOD and the funding and all those kinds of things that kind of prevent you from being as free as you might sometimes like to do all kinds of wild experiments and crazy experiments. Now, the benefit of that is that you don't do any wild and crazy experiments that hurt people. And so it's very important to put safety first. But it's like a dance. A little too much restrictions of bureaucracy can hamper the flourishing of science. A little too little of that can get some crazy scientists to start doing unethical experiments. Okay, that said, NASA and just spaceflight in general is sort of famously very, very risk-averse. So what's your sense currently about, even doing a podcast, right? Podcasts, unless it's, I think with mixed martial arts, is a pretty safe activity unless you're doing the octagon version of your podcast. Just getting there and back is the only real risky part, which is still risky. But I think, you're not asking to do open-heart surgery in space. You're just saying, what if I do a podcast? And I think- Well, fun. You're trying to ask to have fun. And I feel like fun sounds dangerous, any kind of fun. That's what's been extraordinary, is that traditionally, yes, I think most of the space agencies have been very, by definition, bureaucratic because they're coming from the government. But they've been that way for a really good reason, is that safety, in the early 60s, we knew almost nothing about the body in space, except for some of the work that pilots had done at really high altitudes. So we really didn't know what at all to expect. So it's good that there were decades of resolute focus on just safety. But now we know it's pretty safe. We know the physiological responses. We know what to expect. We can also treat some of it. We'll hopefully soon will treat a lot more of it. But if you just wanna go up there, it's actually not just a question of cost. Like imagine, I think the way you can view a lot of the commercial spaceflight companies is that if you have the funds, you can basically plan the mission. All the training they'll do is to help you get prepared for how you run some of the instrumentation, how you can fly the rocket to a limited degree, and how to use some of the equipment. But fundamentally, it's no longer a question of years and years of training and selection and this impossible odds task of becoming an astronaut. It's frankly just a question of funds. Expensive plane rides. So how much, you mentioned Axiom. Is it known how much it costs for the plane ride? There is no official number, and it depends on the mission, of course. So if you ask them, often they'll say, well, how serious are you? They don't just wanna give out random numbers to people. But the numbers, because for example, we propose one mission, we want a new twin study where someone goes up and stays up there for 500, 550 days. But to basically be up there for the longest time ever, to simulate the time it would take to get to Mars and back for the shortest possible duration, about 550 days. Because if you went there and immediately turned around, you could maybe make that mission. Otherwise, it's a three-year mission. And there, you're looking at the ranges of, you know, it's 50 to $100 million in that ballpark range. But the reason it's so variable is it depends. What are you doing up there? If you're up there, for example, for two years, basically, you're doing almost two years, that's a long time to just be in one spot, right? So could you be doing some things where your time is valuable? So you can do experiments and people pay for those, and that defrays the cost. Or you could build something, or you could do podcasts and maybe fundraise on the podcast. As long as you, the reason the cost is variable is because it depends, well, do you have all the money? And you say, I wanna go and just sit in space for two years and do nothing. Well, then you have to pay for all that time that you're up there if you wanna do things. Yeah, I see the official X-1 mission was 55 million for a trip to the ISS. It's not that bad. It could be worse. Wait, Sergey just posted a $35,000 price tag per night per person on the ISS. Is that real? I don't know. No, it sounds about right. That's like a real hotel stay. So to stay, oh, so interesting. And then I'm sure there's costs with the docking and all those kinds of things. That's from the perspective of Axiom, the private company, or SpaceX, or whoever is paying the cost in the short term and in the long term. Yeah, and the thing about a lot of that cost is rocket fuel. A lot of it is the ride. So I've been on calls where Axiom's like, hey, SpaceX, give us to make it a little cheaper. We can make it cheaper on our end. It's the cost. That is the rocket. So SpaceX is giving Axiom a ride in this case. What is Axiom's space? Can you speak to this particular private company? What's their mission? What's their goal? And what is the Axiom One mission that just went up? Yeah, so the Axiom space is a private spaceflight company that's building the first private space station. They actually have seen the videos and footage and hardware being put together. So they're in the process of constructing it. The hope is that by 2024, one of the first modules will be up and connected to the ISS. Eventually it'll be expanded. And then by 2028, the plan is it'll be completely detached and free floating. And it will be maybe even a little bit sooner, depending on how fast it goes. But they're building the world's first private space station. So if you wanna have a wedding up there, you just have to multiply the number of guests times the number of nights and you could have a wedding up there. It'd be very expensive, but if you wanna do it, you can do it. It's like, you can have a lab up there. If you wanna do experiments, you can do experiments. You just figure out the cost. If you wanna have a beer up there, you can make your own, brew your own beer. And so this is the first beer made in space. For some reason you wanna do it, you can pay for it. So it's opened up this space where if you can find the funds for it, you propose it. You can probably just do it. Okay, cool. So what is the Axiom One mission that just went up? Can you tell me what happened? Axiom One is the first commercial crew to go to the space station. So Inspiration4 was the first commercial private crew to just go into space. They went into space and actually did an orbital mission for just about three days. But Axiom One is the first, again, on the SpaceX rockets, but launched up, docked to the space station, and they're up there for about 10 days to do experiments, to work with staff, actually just take some pictures. But it's a mission, actually doing a lot of experiments. They're doing almost 80 different experiments. So it's a lot of, it's very science-heavy, which I love as a scientist. But it's the ability to show that you can fundraise and launch up a crew that's all privately funded and then go to the space station. And it's four people. Yeah, four people. And the Axiom Two will also likely be four people. The two that have been announced are John Shroffner and Peggy Whitson. Peggy Whitson's a already prior NASA astronaut, has been at many times, done many experiments. She knows the space station like her own house. And we recently did a training with Peggy and John in my lab at Cornell to get ready for some other genomics experiments that we'll do on that mission. So they're doing the experiments too. What does it take to design an experiment, to design an experiment here on Earth that runs up there, and then also to actually do the running of the experiment? What are the constraints? What are the opportunities, all that kind of stuff? The biggest concern is what do you need for reagents or materials, the liquids that you might use for any experiment? What if it floats away? What if it gets in someone's eye? Because things always float away in space. There's notoriously panels in the space station where you don't want to look behind because it's got a little fungus, or food has gotten stuck there and sometimes found months and months or years later. So things float around. So the little things. And so if you have anything you need to do your experiment that's a liquid or a solid, whatever that is, it has to go through toxicity testing. And the big question is if this thing, whatever you want to use, gets in someone's eye, will they lose their vision or be really injured? And if the answer is yes, it doesn't mean you can't use it. It just means if the answer is yes, you have to then go through multiple levels of containment. There's a glove box on the space station where you can actually do experiments that have triple layers of containment. So you can still use some harsh reagents, but you have to do them in that glove box. And so, but you can propose almost anything. The biggest challenge is the weight. If it's heavy, it's $10,000 per kilogram to get something up into space. So if you have a big, heavy object, there's some costs you have to consider. And that includes not just the materials, but the equipment used to analyze the materials. One of the ones we worked on actually with Kate Rubins was putting the first DNA sequencer in space called the Biomolecule Sequencer Mission. Also with Aaron Burton and Sarah Castor Wallace. But there, the interesting thing is we had to prepare this tiny little sequencer. It sequences DNA. You can do it really quickly, within really minutes. And what's extraordinary is you have to do, if you wanna get a piece of machinery up there, you have to do destructive testing. So you have to destroy it and see what happens. How does it destroy? Do pieces, little pieces of glass break everywhere? If so, that's a problem. So you have to redesign it. And do fire testing. How does it burn? How does your device explode in a fire? Or doesn't it? You have to test that, and then you do vibration testing. So you have to basically, if you wanna fly one thing into space, you need to make four of them and destroy at least three of them to know how they destroy. Destructive, fire, and then vibration testing. Just asking for a friend. How do you, from a scientific perspective, do destructive testing? And how do you do fire testing? And how do you do vibration testing? Vibration, well, just large shakers. So that's, actually, it's mostly to simulate launch. They have a lot of machinery at NASA and at SpaceX to do just, make sure, does the thing completely fall apart if it has a high vibrational, essentially, force attached to it? So it's just, kinda like a big shaker. Fire testing is just to simulate what would happen if there was a normal fire. That's something that gets up to, you know, fire temperatures several hundred degrees Celsius. And does- Open fire, or are we talking like you put in a toaster? No, it's more like- Is it heat, or is it actual flames? It's flames and heat. But it's not like a kiln or anything like that. You don't wanna know how does it burn in a kiln. It's more, is it flammable, is the first big question. Like, does it just start on fire? If it gets a little bit of flame on it, does it just light up like a crystal tree? Is there a YouTube video of this? Oh, I, you know, actually- Did you guys, did you film any of this? Not, not, no. Aaron Burton might still have some of the videos. We're in the middle of doing some testing for the new sequencer called the Mark 1C. So I will make videos of that. I would love to see that, for if anything, for my private collection. And- This is very exciting. And the destructive testing is just, it can be something as simple as a hammer. It's really how does it shatter. You wanna question is, are there glass components? And so- So it's like office space. It's like- That's the- That's right. With a fax machine. That's right, that's right. And then you blow it, yeah, into the damage feels good to be a gangster soundtrack. Yeah, that's a great scene. That's so, that's so exciting. That kind of, that's the best of engineering is like that kind of testing. What else about designing experiments? Like what kind of stuff do you wanna get in there? You said 80 different experiments. So we're staying in the realm of biology and genetics? Yeah, for now. But we also wanna do, some of the experiments that have been discussed in the lab have been, and some that are being planned as well. But I think the most controversial one that's come up in our planning, it gets back to sex in space. Is, you know, can human embryos divide and actually begin to develop in space? But then if we do that experiment, that means you're taking viable human embryos, watching them develop in space, then you could freeze them and bring them down and characterize them to see, but to answer that question, because we actually don't know, can a human embryo actually develop well in zero gravity? We just don't know. But to find that out, that means we'd have to literally sacrifice embryos probably. So, and which itself has, of course, you know, a lot of complications, ethical considerations. Some people just wouldn't, it's a non-starter for lots of people. So. But we do know that the sperm survive in space. Sperm survive. As you earlier said. Yes, so that. And nobody cares about sperm apparently. Yeah, no sperm. And we're doing several studies on autism risk for fathers and sperm. And, you know, it's really easy to get sperm, I'll just tell you. It's, people say, you're helping us learn. That's what I hear. That's right, so. I read that somewhere on Wikipedia. That's right, asking for a friend. Okay, cool. Are you involved in Axiom One, Axiom Two experiments? Like what, what does, is your lab directly or indirectly involved in terms of experiment design? What are you excited about? Different experiments that are happening out there. Some of them we're doing a lot of the direct training for the crews. It's really saying how do you, how do you do a modern genetics experiment? So for the Axiom One, for Inspiration Four and Axiom One, we're also collaborating with Trish, which is the translational research arm for NASA. That's in Houston. And there, it's a lot of sharing of samples and data for all these missions. Basically for all the commercial space flight missions, there'll be a repository where you can look at the data from the astronauts. You can look at some of the genetic information, some of the molecular changes. So that's being built up with Trish, which has been fabulous collaboration between Cornell and Trish. But the other thing we're doing is for Axiom Two is training them. How do you, for example, if you want to look at a virus, you can take a swab of something, extract it, sequence it, and say, do I have Omicron or do I have a different virus? And we're using the exact same work in flight, but we're having the astronauts do the extraction, the sequencing, and the analysis of all the molecules. And so one of the common occurrences, herpes is reactivated often in space flight, oral herpes. So you can see that viral reactivation is one of the biggest kind of mysteries in space flight, where the immune system seems to be responding a lot. It's active, the body's really perturbed, but viruses start shedding again. And it's really, and this happens clinically. Again, we see this for like, for example, hepatitis C or hepatitis B, you can get infected with it and it can stay in your body for decades and still kind of be hiding in the body. And in this case, we see it in space flight, herpes comes back. So we want to figure out, is it there, first of all, and then when is it happening and characterize it better, but have the astronauts do it themselves rather than collecting it and bring it back to Earth and figuring out later. We could see in real time how it's happening. And then also look at their blood. We'll see what is changing in their blood in real time with these new sequencers. So I'm excited about the genomics in space, if you will. So clearly, as somebody that loves robots, how many robots are up there in space that help with the experiments? Like, how much technology is there, would you say? Is it really a manual activity or is there a lot of robots helping out? Good question. So far, it's almost all manual, just because the robots have to all undergo the destructive fire and vibrational testing. So if you have a million- This is so exciting. Yeah, so if you can get- That thing is a lot less than a million. So we can destroy it. We're definitely gonna test it out for the, I guess, in which order? No, you have to do separate for each one. Yeah, each one, yeah. You have to do vibration, fire. Note to self, do fire testing for the legged robots and the destructive testing. That would be fascinating. I wonder if any of the folks I'm working with did that kind of testing on the materials. Like, what breaks first with the robots? That's a good question. And also, the big question. So what's interesting about this, for Axiom and for these commercial spaceflight areas, if you can fund it, you could fly it, right? So if you have to say, I wanna fly these series of robots up because I think they could help build something or they could help measure or repair the spacecraft. Oh, you have to come up with a good reason. Well, for NASA, you have to have a good reason, but I think for private spaceflight, you could have the reason is I'm curious, and that could just be it. Exactly, curiosity. I've got a private fund, or I've got your own money. And then you pay per kilogram, essentially. And I mean, there are some things. You can't say, I wanna send a nuclear bomb up there because I'm curious. I don't think that would fly. And there's probably rules in terms of free-floating robots, right? They probably have to be attached. Like, it's an orchestra that plays together. All the experiments that are up there, there's probably, it's not silos. It's not separate, separate kind of things. But you're saying it's all mostly manual. How much electronics is there in terms of data collection, in terms of all that kind of stuff? A lot of electronics. So a lot of it's tablets. There's laptops up there. There are, you know, the whole space station is running and humming on electronics. Actually, one of the biggest complaints astronauts have is sleeping up there is hard, not only because you're in zero gravity, but there's a consistent loud hum of the space station. There's so many things active and humming and moving that are keeping the station alive. The CO2 scrubbers, all the instrumentation, it's loud. So I think it is a very well-powered lab, basically, in flight, but the future space stations, I think, will be very different because they're being built more for pleasure than business, or, you know, a little bit of both. But they're built for, we want people to, you know, at least when you talk to Axiom, when you talk to the other industry partners, they wanna make it, you know, space more fun and engaging and open to new ideas. So that's looking at the fun stuff going on in the next few years. But if we zoom out once again, how and when do we get outside of the solar system? You mentioned this before. Or maybe you can mention the other hops we might take. You know what, let's step back a little. And where are some of the fun places we might visit first in a semi-permanent way inside the solar system that you think are worth visiting? Yeah, at the end of 500 years, I'm hoping we make the big launch towards another solar system. Really driven by the fact that we now actually have exoplanets that we know we might be able to get to and survive on, whereas 20 years ago, we really had almost none, certainly none that we knew were habitable. And exoplanets, even just discovered didn't start to happen until 89 and really the early 90s for the real validated ones. So I'm hoping over the next 500 years, we go from thousands of possible habitable planets to hundreds of thousands or millions, especially with some of the recent telescopes launch, we'll find them. But before we get there, I have a whole section I really describe about the magic of Titan because it has all this methane, which is a great hydrocarbon you can use to make fuel. You can use it, it's cold as all bejesus on Titan. But if you can, it's, yeah. So what's Titan made up of? What is Titan? Everybody loves Titan. Yeah, it is, it's a favorite, it's this kind of eerie green-hued moon that's around Saturn that is, to our knowledge, this large, it has like, you know, so cold it has these methane lakes where the methane normally is a gas, but there it actually would be so cold, it's like a lake of methane. You could go swimming in it, potentially. There might be some degree of rocks or maybe mountains there, but they might also be made of frozen methane. So no one's ever, no, no person's obviously been there, but it is, you have enough satellite imagery and some data that you could actually potentially survive on Titan. So I think that'd be one place where I'm hoping that we would at least have a bit of an outpost. It might not be a luxurious retreat because it's really cold. Is there a life on Titan, you think, underneath the surface somewhere? Maybe, well, actually, with all that carbon and all those hydrocarbons, it is very possible that some microbial life could be there and hanging out waiting for us to dip our toes into the methane and find it. But we don't know yet, but I think that's one place I'd like to see an outpost. I would like to see other outposts near Jupiter, but Jupiter has extremely high radiation, actually. So even places like Io, which are volcanically active and quite amazing, we probably couldn't survive that long that close to Jupiter, though, because it's such a giant planet. It emits back out a lot of radiation that it's collecting from other parts of the universe and it juts back out. So if you get too close to Jupiter, you'd actually almost certainly not be able to survive, depending on which part of it. But that's one risk about Jupiter. But it'd be cool to see the giant red spot up close, maybe have some spots there. Mars is top one. Then you get to pick Titan or Io. So ice, fire and ice, the Robert Frost poem comes to mind. And then Europa, is that? Europa would be cool, too. And Enceladus, which is a big ocean that might be there, like an alien ocean that's under the, might be even water ice that's there, and even liquid water potentially there under the surface. So that'd be a great candidate. The asteroids of Ceres would be good, or Eros, or big enough you get a little bit of gravity. It'd be interesting, you could have maybe a habitable place there. And they just might be big enough that you could get there, survive, and even have a tiny bit of gravity, but not much. Why do you like asteroids? No. Are you just, we're just listing vacation spots. Yeah, vacation spots, basically. Yes, I'd say, well, so they probably have a lot of rare earth minerals that you could use for manufacturing, which is why part of the space economy that's being built up now is people really wanting to go and hollow out the asteroids and bring back all the resources from it. So this legally is very possible, because even though the Space Act prevents people from militarizing space or owning all of it, if you get the resources out of an asteroid, but you don't actually say you own it, that's perfectly legal. What's the Space Act? Space Act of 1967 was the first large-scale agreement between major international parties, particularly the US and Russia, but also many others, to say that space should be a place for humanities to not militarize it, to not weaponize it, to not militarize it, also establish some of the basic sharing principles between countries who are going into space. And there was a plan to make an additional act in the 90s, the Lunar, actually I'm blanking on the name of it, but there hasn't been any significant legislation that has been universally accepted since the Space Act. So but the primary focus was on the militarization. The militarization. Which was in theory not allowed, which so far has stayed true, but. But there's no, is there any legal framework for who owns space and space? Like different geographical regions of space, both out in space and on asteroids and planets and moons? Currently you can't own, you're not supposed to be able to own, I mean people have tried to sell bits of the moon, for example, or sell names of stars, which is pretty harmless. But you're not supposed to be able to own any part of the moon, or an asteroid for that matter, but you're allowed to mine the resources from it. So in theory, you could go catch an asteroid, hollow out the whole thing like you eat an orange, and leave the shell, and say okay, I'm done, I never owned it, but I just extracted everything inside of it, and now I'm done with it. Of course you see there's going to be some contentious battles, even wars over those resources. Hopefully at a very small scale, it's more like conflict or like human tension, but. Oh boy, it's like war makes for human flourishing, like after the war somehow. Sometimes there's just this explosion of conflict, and afterwards for a long while, there's a flourishing. And again, conflict and flourishing, and hopefully over a stretch of millennia, the rate of conflict and the destructiveness of conflict decreases. It has, at least in the past 100 years, the number of wars, number of military actions, casualties have all decreased. I don't know if it's gonna stay that way for humanity. I think, I don't know, the trajectory is there. I think the warmongering is less tolerated by the international community. It's more scrutinized. It still happens, like right now there's an ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, and you've spoken a lot about it. But it's, there sometimes will be small military actions, but I think the, and even there, there's a large military action across most of the country, but not all of it actually, right? So it's, I think we see less over time of large-scale multi-country invasions like we've seen in the past. I think maybe that won't happen ever again, but you might see country-to-country battles happening, which has always happened, I think, but hopefully less of that as well. And yet the destructiveness of our weapons increases, so it's a complicated race in both directions. We become more peaceful and more destructive at the same time. That's fascinating. How do we get outside the solar system? You write an epic line, I believe it's the title of one of the sections, Launch Toward the Second Sun. That journey of saying we're going to, somehow the solar system feels like home. Earth is home, but the solar system is home. It's our sun. The sun is a source of life. And going towards the second sun, leaving this home behind, that's one hell of a journey. So what does that journey look like? When is it to happen and what's required to make it happen? To get to that state, we have to actually have, describe a number of options. Either we have to all have people survive and multiple generations live and die on the same spacecraft towards another star. Propulsion technology, you need to have that in place. I assume we don't have dramatic improvements. I describe ways it could happen, like antimatter drives or things that could make it possible to go faster. But since it's a book of nonfiction, I just make no big leaps other than what we know of today that's possible. And if that's the case, you'd need probably 20 generations to live and die on one spacecraft to make it towards what is our known closest habitable exoplanet. Now that sounds, you know, so you need to have the life support, self-reliance, self-sustainability all in that one, it'd be a large spacecraft. You'd have to grow your own food, probably still have some areas with gravity. It would be complicated, but I think after 500 years, we could actually have the technology and the means and the understanding of biology to enable that. And so with that as a backdrop, you could have people hibernate, I talk about, like maybe you need to hibernate instead of just people living their normal life. But I think the hibernation technology doesn't work that well yet. And I don't know if it might pan out, and maybe in 200 years it gets really good, and then people are gonna all just sleep in pods. Great, you know, so I think this is the minimum viable product with everything that we have today and nothing else, right? So if that's the case, which of course I'm sure will have more in 500 years, but basically what we know today, you have people live and die on the spacecraft, and that sounds almost like a prison sentence. You say, if you were born into a spacecraft, and when you got old enough age, you said, yes, you can tell we're on a spacecraft, you will live your whole life on this, let's say something the size of a building. And this is everyone you'll ever know, and then you'll die, and then your children will also carry on the mission. Would those people feel proud and excited to say, we are the vanguard and hope of humanity, we're going towards a new sun, and maybe they'd love it, or would they, after 10 generations, maybe they would rebel and say, to hell with this. I'm tired of being in this prison, this is a bad idea, we're turning around, or we're going somewhere else. Or a mutiny happens and they kill each other, right? So we would have to really make sure that the mental health, the structure of the society is built so they could sustain that mission, that's a crazy mission. But it's not that much different from spaceship Earth. Here we are stuck on one planet, we don't have planetary liberty, we can't go to another planet right now. We can't even really go to another moon that easily. So we, and I love Earth, there's lots of wonderful things here, but it's still just this one planet and we're stuck on it, so everyone that you know and love and live with here will be dead someday, and that's all you'll ever know too. So I think it's a difference of scale, not a difference of type in terms of an experience. Yeah, it's still a spaceship traveling out in space. Earth is still a spaceship traveling out in space. So it is a kind of prison. It's always, everybody lives in a prison. Well, let's say it's a limited planetary experience. We'll say it's like that. Prison sounds so dark, but. Yeah, just like prison is a limited geographic and culinary experience. But I don't want it to be viewed that way. I want to think, wait, this is, what an extraordinary, and we wouldn't probably just launch one generation ship. We'd probably launch 10 or 20 of them, the best candidates, and hopefully get there. And yeah, I mean, the fact is limitations and constraints make life fascinating because the human mind somehow struggles against those constraints, and that's how beauty is created. So there is kind of a threshold, you know, being stuck in one room is different than being stuck in a building, and being stuck in a city, being stuck in, like, I wonder what the threshold of people, like, I lived for a long time in a studio, and then I upgraded gloriously to a one-bedroom apartment. And the power to be able to close the door. That's sort of magnificent, right? It's just like, wow, you can speak volumes. It's like, you can escape, that feels like freedom. That's the definition of freedom, having a door where you could close it, and now you're alone with your thoughts, and then you can open it, and you enter, and now there's other humans as freedom. So the threshold of what freedom, the experience of freedom is like is really fascinating. And like you said, there could be technologies in terms of hibernation, VR, ultra-reality, virtual reality. Because 30 years ago, it sounded awful, I think, to think you'd be stuck in a spacecraft, but now you could bring the totality of all of humans' history, culture, every bit of music, song, every movie, every book, can all be in one tablet, basically, right? So, and also you'd still get updates from Netflix if you're on the way towards another star. You could still get downloads, and so. But eventually, maybe the crew would start to make their own shows. They'd be like, well, I don't want the Earth shows. I want to talk about, I want to make a drama on this spacecraft. But I think it would have to be big enough so it feels like at least the size of a building. I think people's intuitions about quarantining have really become very immediate, because we've all had to experience it to some degree in the past two years. And we've survived, but definitely we've learned that you need a really good internet connection. You need some ability to go somewhere sometimes. And that might just be as simple as people leaving the spacecraft to go to another thing connected to it, or just go out into the vacuum of space for an afternoon to experience it. So people need recreation. People need games. People need toys. People love to play. What are chlorohumans? Chlorohumans is a description of how you can embed chloroplasts into human skin, or the thing that makes plants green so they can absorb light from the sun and then get all their energy that way. And of course, humans don't do this, but I describe in the book in the far future, maybe 300, 400 years from now, if we could work on the ways that animals and plants work together, you could embed chloroplasts in human skin. And then if you're hungry, you go outside and you lay out your skin, and then you absorb sunlight, and then you go back in when you get full. If you only wanted to lay outside for just, say, one hour to get your day's fully value of energy, you'd need about two tennis courts worth of skin that you could lay out, and maybe your friends would plant it or something. But if they plant it, then their shadows would block your sun. So maybe you'd leave your skin out there, and you could roll up your skin, go back inside after about one hour, and that's how much skin you would need to have exposed with some reasonable assumptions about the light capture and efficiency of the chloroplast. So it's just kind of a fun concept in the book of green humans going around, absorbing light from the sun. Something I've dreamed about since I was a kid. Is there engineering ways of having that much skin and being able to laying it out efficiently? It sounds absurd, but... You could roll it up. Or you could just lay outside longer. I wanted to think if you just had one hour, and how much skin would you need? But if you just went out there for four hours, you need something that's smaller, but, you know, think of, you know, so it's as of a half a tennis court. So you could make a... Could be like wings. Could be like wings. Gigantic wings. And you lay them out there. But also, that's if you needed all your energy only from your skin. So if you just get a little bit of it, your energy, of course, you could just walk around with your skin as is, and you'd still have to eat, but not as much. And I describe that because we'd need other ways to think about making your own energy if you're on a really long mission that's far from stars. You could turn on a lamp that would give you some of that, you know, essentially exact wavelength of light you need for your chloroplast in your skin. But it's, you know, that's something I'm hoping would happen in three to 400 years, but it would be hard because you're taking a plant organelle and putting it in an animal cell, which sounds weird, but we have mitochondria inside of us, which basically where our cells capture the bacteria, and now it walks around with us all the time. So there's precedent for it in evolution. How much, by the way, speaking of which, does evolution help us here? So we talked a lot about engineering, you know, building, you know, genetically modifying humans to make them more resilient, or having mechanisms for repairing parts of humans. What about evolving humans, or evolving organisms that live on humans? Sort of, the thing you mentioned, which you've already learned, is that humans are pretty adaptable. Now what does that mean? You also, somewhere wrote that, you know, there's trillions of cells that make up the human body, and, you know, those are all organisms, and they're also very adaptable. So can we leverage the natural process of evolution, of the slaughter, the selection, the mutation, and the adaptation that is all, sorry to throw slaughter into there, just acknowledging that a lot of organisms have to die in evolution. Can we use that for long-term space travel or colonization, occupation? Is there a good word for this? Of planets. Like to terraform the planet? Terraform the planet. No, to adjust the human body to the planet. Oh, there's not really a term for that yet, I guess, to? Adapt to the new vacation spot. Yeah, I call that just directed evolution in the book, is that you guide the evolution towards what you want. In this case, sometimes you can engineer your cells to make exactly what you want, but other times you put people on planets and see how they change. Actually, later in the book, I imagine if you have humans on multiple planets, you could have this virtuous cycle, where as people adapt and evolve here, you'd sequence their DNA and see how they change, and then send the information back to the other planet, and then study them with more resources. So you'd be able to then have a continual exchange of what's evolving in which way on different planets, and then each planet would learn from the changes that they see at the other planet. Does the evolution happen at the scale of human, or do we need the individual, or is it more efficient to do bacteria? Bacteria are cheaper and faster and easier, but we also have a lot of bacteria in us, on us, and all around us, and even the bacteria in the space station are continually evolving. Did you study that, by the way? Non-human cells, the microbiomes. Yep, so we've seen it for the astronauts. We can actually see their immune system respond to the microbiome of the space station. So as soon as you get into that aluminum tube, there's a whole ecosystem that's already up there, and we can actually see, we saw this with Scott Kelly, we've seen this with other astronauts, you can see the T-cells in their body, they actually are responding to little peptides, the molecules of the bacteria. The immune system is looking for a specific bacteria, and then once it sees new ones, it remembers it, and you can see the body looking for the microbes that are only on the space station, that you don't see on Earth. And then when Scott came back, he actually had more of those microbes embedded in his skin and in his mouth and stool that weren't there before. So he picked up new hitchhikers in the space station and brought some of them back down with him. So there's long-term ecosystems up in the space station. 20 years, they've been up there for 20 years, yes. There's some Chuck Norris type of bacteria up there, I'm sure. You're part of the Extreme Microbiome Project. What does that involve, and what kind of fun organisms have you learned about, have you gotten to explore? We have a really fun project, XMP, the Extreme Microbiome, which is as it sounds like. We look for really odd places, like heavy radiation environments, high salt, high or low temperature, strange area, the space station, for example, lots of radiation and microgravity. Places where organisms can evolve for interesting adaptations. And some of them have been organisms we've seen like a candy pink lake in Australia called Lake Hillier, which we just published a paper on this. Why is it pink? So it's actually Denalia salina, is one of these organisms. There's a mixture of bacteria and some algae that are there that make it bright pink. So they actually make carotenoids, these really sort of orangey and kind of pink molecules when you look at them in the light. So if you get enough of the bacteria, it becomes pink. And it's not just pink, it's like bubblegum pink, the lake. And so that's just an odd, it's a halophile, meaning that it grows in 30% salt. And if you go below 10, 15% salt, it doesn't even grow. It actually kills it. Where's the, oh, there it is, Lake Hillier. Is it toxic to humans or no? So when you walk in the pink lake, actually it's so hypertonic, meaning it's so salty, you can feel it lysing and killing your cells on your foot. So it actually hurts to walk in because it's so salty. So yeah, but it won't kill. It's, listen, you have to suffer for art. And that's right. Great art requires suffering. I mean, so it is a beautiful lake. You have to get permits to go sample there, but we actually just got an email last week. There's pilots who fly over this in Australia because they love the color. So he emailed us, one of the pilots, and he said, hey, guys, I saw you publish this paper. It's not as pink as it used to be because he loves flying over it. And it was like a little bit less pink because they had a bunch of rain in the past few weeks. So it was just a little bit diluted. So we reassured him it'll get more pink as they grow again. But basically, yeah, it's a beautiful pink lake. And so. That is gorgeous. It's almost like a Dr. Seuss book or something. It's like, it doesn't even look real. Is it hard to get to? Yeah, there's no road. You have to basically fly, land nearby it, and then paddle in. So it's not next to anything. So it's hard to get to. But once you get there, it's beautiful. If anyone knows how to get there, let me know. I wanna go there. Okay, cool. What are some other extreme organisms that you study? Other ones, there's some organisms we studied in the space station called Acinetobacter pitii, which is often found in human skin. But we've found hundreds of strains in the space station that we've brought down and curated and then sequenced. And this is with Katsuri Venkateswaran, who's at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, working with him. And they have evolved. So they no longer look like any Earth-based Acinetobacter. They don't look like. They're now basically a new species. So actually, there's a different species of bacteria and fungi that have now mutated so much in the space station, they're literally a new species. And so we've found some of those that have, just they're evolving in space, as life is always evolving. And we can see it also in the space station. It's an entirely new species born in the space station. Yeah, that's completely different. So we found one species, actually, that we named after a donor to Cornell, someone who's donated funds to research. So we named a different species of fungus after him, Naganishia tolchinskia, because he's Igor Tolchinsky. So as a thank you to him donating to Cornell, we said we've named this fungus that we found on the space station for you. Was he grateful, or did he stop funding all the research? He was very grateful. And then, and I told him, I said, if you have an ex-girlfriend, we could try and name a genital fungus after her or something, if you want. And he said, yeah, he said maybe. But he convinced me. He stopped answering emails after that. Okay, what about in extreme conditions, in ice, in heat, is that something of interest to you, in the things that survive where most things can't? Yes, of keen interest. I think that will be the roadmap for some of the potential adaptations we could think of for human cells, or certainly for the microbiome, like just all the microorganisms in and on and around us. So we've seen, even there's this one crater, it's called the Lake of Fire, it's in Turkmenistan, where it's been on fire because of oil that had been set on fire decades ago, and it's still burning. So we collected some samples from there, and those were some Pseudomonas putida, some species we found there that can. So there's stuff alive there. That seems to be surviving there by this large pit of fire. Oh yeah, there it is, the desert. It's been just on fire for decades, apparently. What the? So this is another place that we. It's just the Lake of Fire. Yeah, and it's, they said. Soviet scientists had set up a drilling rig here for extraction of natural gas. Of course, it would be in this part of the world that you would get something like this, but the rig collapsed, and methane gas is being released from the crater. Yeah, so for those just listening, we're looking at a lake full of fire, and there's something alive there, allegedly. And Pseudomonas are known to be some of the most tough organisms. They actually can clean toxic waste from, you know, in years of superfund sites, where there's so much waste that's been deposited. You'll find them there as well. Actually, there's one place in the Gowanus Canal. We have something, it's called, in New York City in Brooklyn, and it is a complete toxic waste dump. That was where a lot of waste in the 1700s was dumped. And so the gateway to hell is what it's called. But the. That's the nickname for the lake. So the Gowanus Canal is also a place that has been fun to sequence and see Pseudomonas species that can survive there, basically pulling toxins from the environment. So it's as if you create this toxic landscape, and then evolution comes in and says, oh, fine, I'll make things that can survive here. And when you look at the biochemistry of those species, what they've created is their own salvation, basically. The selection has made them survivors, and suddenly you can use that to remediate other polluted sites, for example. That explains Twitter perfectly. The toxicity created adaptation for the psychological microbiome that is social media. Okay, beautiful. But you just actually jump back to the interstellar travel. Assuming the technology of today, yes. What are some wild innovations that might happen in the space of physics or biology? By the way, where do you think is the most exciting breakthroughs for interstellar travel that will happen in the next 500 years? Is it physics, is it biology, is it computer science? So information or DNA, like some kind of informational type of thing? Is it biological, like physiological, making the body resilient, live longer, and resilient to the harsh conditions of space? Or is it the actual vehicle of transport, which would be applied physics? As you can probably guess, I'll say all of the above. I think we're... That's a question. Never. But to break those down, though, I think the AI, I hope in the book later that we would have really good machine companions, that the AI, I really hope the AIs that we build, like realistically, we are the programmers who make them, I would feel a colossal failure if we didn't make AI that was embedded with a sense of duty and caretaking and friendship, and even creativity. Like we have the opportunity. I've coded algorithms myself. We're building them, so it's incumbent upon us to actually make them not assholes, I think, frankly. So it'd just be... A technical term. Air. Actually, on that point, just to linger on the AI front, can you steel me on the case that HAL 9000 from Space Odyssey was doing the right thing? So for people who haven't seen 2001 Space Odyssey, HAL 9000 is very kind of focused on the mission, cares a lot about the mission, and kind of wants to hurt the astronauts that try to get in the way of the mission. I think he was doing what he was programmed to do, which was just to follow the mission, but didn't have a sense of, you know, a broader duty. What's the broader duty exactly? Maintaining the well-being of astronauts? Yeah, or giving them another option. I think he viewed them as completely expendable, rather than say... Not completely. It's a trade-off. So a doctor has to make decisions like this, too. You're restricted on the resources. You have to make life and death decisions. So maybe HAL 9000 had a long-term vision of what is good for the civilization back at home. Maybe a deontogenic vision of what was the best duty for the genetics, you could say. What's deontogenic mean? It's a word I made up in the book. It's like, what is your genetic duty? When you think of your DNA, what are you supposed to do with it, which is kind of the value of life. But if HAL was a silicon-based version of genetics, which is just his own maintenance of himself and self-survival, you could argue he was doing the right thing for himself. But I think a human in that circumstance might have tried to find a way to, even if the astronauts don't agree with the mission, to figure out some way to get them on a different spacecraft to go away or something, versus just say, well, you're in the way of the mission, you have to die. But a combination can always be made, to your point with doctors. Sometimes you'd like to save three people, but you can only save two, and you have to at some point pick. But I think that's a false dichotomy. I think HAL wasn't programmed to and didn't try to find a third solution. Perhaps, like Stuart Russell proposes this idea that AI systems should have self-doubt. They should be always uncertain in their final decision, and that would help HAL sort of get out of the local optimum of, this is the mission, like always be a little bit like, hmm, not sure if this is the right thing. And then you're forced to kind of contend with other humans, with other entities, on what is the right decision. So the worst thing about decisions, from that perspective, is if you're extremely confident and you're stubborn and immovable. Right. And then, but programming doubt, that sounds complicated. That sounds like. Go wrong. Yes. So many ways. You can go wrong either way. If you're too confident, you won't see the other options. If you have too much doubt, you won't move. You'll be paralyzed by the options. So you need some middle ground, which I think is what most people experience every day, is we all love the concept of being a steadfast, resolute leader, making big decisions quickly and without question, but at the same time, we know people can be blinded to things they're missing if they're too headstrong. So how would you improve HAL 9000? I think I would include other, because HAL is one program, much like we do for humans. You get feedback from other humans before you make a decision that affects all of them. So I think HAL could have gotten feedback from other AI systems that said, well, are there other options here? And done it probably very quickly. Or you can even embed a programming system where the AI has a primary function, but at times of uncertainty, queries a series of other programmed AIs to ask for a consensus almost. More like a democracy of the AI. But since it's all programmed, you could bring it all together and say there's a primary, but it only activates the parliament, if you will, for a decision when needed. Now, I don't know how you program dramatically different AIs all in one system that are different enough, but conceptually it's possible. Of course, that can lead to log jam and government and parliament doesn't do anything or Congress doesn't do anything. So there's trade-offs, but it's one idea. I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. That, I find really compelling, the idea. I'd love to set that up in my own life at some point. So you're stuck there on a spaceship with an AI system. And it's just the two of you, and you have to figure it out. I love that challenge. I love that almost a really deep human conflict of through conversation have to arrive at something. You really try to understand, well, survival is at stake. You have to try to understand the other being. Now, you think it's just a robot. We keep saying it's just programmed. But you know what? When you talk to another human. It's just a bag of meat. And then you disagree and you're like, everybody starts using terms like how dumb can you be? How ignorant can you be? Come on, this is the right way. What are you talking about? This is, what you're talking about is insane. And when the stakes go up, when it's life and death, you have to convince another person. First, you have to understand another person. In this case, you have to understand the machine without knowing how it was programmed. Because as a programmer, even, I mean, this is very much true for these Lego robots. I really make sure that everything that's programmed is sufficiently large and has a sufficient degree of uncertainty where I'm constantly surprised. I don't know how it works. I kind of know how it works, but I'm surprised constantly. And there, there's a human component of trying to figure each other out. And if it's high stakes- Life and death. Through conversation, I mean, to me, that's actually what makes a great companion out in space is like, you're both in charge of each other's life and you both don't quite know how each other works. And also you don't treat each other as a servant. So I don't know if Hal, Hal was treated that way a little bit, where you're like, yeah, like a servant as opposed to a friend, a companion, a teammate. Because I think the worst part about treating an AI system or another human being as a servant is what it does to you. If you treat them as a means to an end rather than end in of itself, then you've debased them. And like lessen the humanity in yourself. Yeah, at the same time. Which is, I mean, that's why they talked about kids have to be polite to Alexa. Because they find if they're, you know, if people are, if kids are rude to AI systems, they actually, that- It's a bad sign, right? It's a bad sign and it develops the wrong thing in terms of how they treat other human beings. So that's AI. So what about physics? Can we do, in terms of, can we travel close to the speed of light? Can we travel faster than the speed of light? I would love to fold space. We know wormholes are technically possible, but we have no way to do it. I'd love to see advanced in wormhole technology. Antimatter drives, antimatter is notoriously missing for most of the universe, so we- What is antimatter drive? Antimatter would be where you just purify bits of antimatter. Basically, it was the opposite of matter. So if you can have an anti-electron, you can convert it to the electron. You could have, even in complete atoms, it would be anti-atoms. And when you put them together, they would be pure energy released, in theory. And that could drive the most powerful possible engine for space travel. But the only place you can make antimatter is in large particle accelerators, and only very briefly. So that is hard, but if that could work, that would be extraordinary. Fusion drives would be great, just getting nuclear fusion well-controlled, and that would actually give you pretty good propulsion. So I think that's the most likely thing we'll see, is fusion drives. Fusion technology is getting better and better every year. Or it's that old saying, fusion is always 10 years away. Every year, it's always 10 years away. But it's getting better, and I think. That saying is something that is a century old, or less than a century old. Over multiple centuries, that saying might, might actually, the fusion might actually become a reality for propulsion. So that would be, I think, very likely to see in the next few centuries. And then biology was the other part. Or anything else, physics? I mean, physics, you could imagine ways to have electromagnetic shielding. So it could be, you could deflect all the cosmic rays that are coming at your spacecraft with a large, almost like force field, quite frankly. That would take some development to do, but that would be good to see. And uploading human memories and consciousness into digital form. Yeah, this kind of blends the machine and physics with the biology developments. I think, you know, there's a lot of great work being done on longevity. I have a, one of my companies itself works on longevity. It's called Longevity. And so I'm working on it myself, on ways to improve how we monitor health and wellness now and live longer, live better. Many people are doing this. This is what the whole purpose of medicine is, to a large degree. But I don't think we'll live, in the book I propose we might get out to live to 150 years. I think that's reasonable. But say humans are gonna live to be two, three, four, 500 years, or some people, I meet people like this every week, who say, I think I'm not going to die. To which I always say, I hope you're right. But I think you should plan that you're not going to be right. But I want people, also, as we mentioned earlier, being immortal would really fundamentally change the social contract in how you plan and how you allocate resources. Not necessarily bad, but it would just be different. But I also just think we don't know yet of any way to undo the ravages to the human body that occur over time. We can repair some of it, replace some of it, but it's okay to assume that you're gonna die. And I don't just assume, know you're gonna die, because then you have a bit of liberty about what you can do quickly and do next. But I think we will get better. I think we could see people live, potentially, to 150, with some of the tools and methods, and living longer. But upload, you know, living might become- Living in the brain, like in the Kurtzpill singularity, where we all have this rapture-like moment, and we go up and upload into the cloud and live forever. I don't know if it would still be the same as what we consider the view of self in this flesh form. If we could really get a complete representation of a person's entire personality up into digital form, I mean, that would be immortality, basically. Or a loose representation. I'd go through the thought experiment of, I like thinking about clones. Like- Twins, twins are clones, basically. Basically, but the ability to generate, I mean, you're stuck with those clones. Twins is a fixed number of clones, so that's a genetic clone. I mean a philosophical clone where you can keep generating them. Versions. And then, the reason I really like that construction, thinking about that, for me personally, is it nicely encapsulates how I feel about being human. Because why do I matter? If I'm, how would I, if I do another copy of me, how would I defend why I matter as a human being? And I don't think I can. Because that clone- If it's a perfect clone. It's not even a perfect, like a reasonable clone. Like most people I know that love me and who I love, they'll be just fine with a clone. They'd be like, and they'll be surprised, like, oh, you're like, your move kind of weird, but overall, but otherwise, I'll take it. And if that's possible to do that kind of copying, and no, I don't want to say perfect clone, because I think perfect clone is very difficult engineering-wise. I mean, like a pretty crappy copy. Would still be okay for most of them. Just like wears suits a lot, has a weird way of talking. I mean, I think there's a lot of elements there, like in the digital space, especially with the metaverse, you can clone, I think, in the next few decades, you'll be able to clone people's behavioral patterns pretty well, and visual, at least in the virtual reality, in the digital representation, if you are. And then you have to really contend, it's like, why do I matter? Maybe what matters isn't the individual person, but what matters are the ideas that that person plays with. So it doesn't matter if there's 1,000 clones. What matters is that I'm currently thinking about X, so some kind of problem that I'm trying to solve, and those ideas, and I'm sharing those ideas, maybe ideas of the organisms, and not the meat vehicles of the organism. Maybe that's a cultural shift where we won't necessarily treat any one body as fundamentally unique or important, but the ideas that those bodies play with. I mean, that sounds crazy. No, it's abstract, but very relevant. Derek Parfitt wrote this great book called Reasons and Persons about how you really define an individual as not just your own thoughts and your own self-reflection, but where almost, he argues, more defined about how other people have seen you. See, like, if you walked out into the world and say suddenly nobody knew who you were or recognized you, you'd be, in some regards, deceased, right? If everyone just suddenly had massive amnesia and no one knew who you are and never remembered, no memory of anything you'd ever done together, you'd be very alone. You'd be basically starting from scratch, like as if you'd just been born, basically. So, and he also writes thought experiments, like what if half of your neurons get replaced with half of someone else, or a quarter, or 60%. At what point do you stop being you and become that other person? And the argument he makes is it's more than just what percentage of your neurons are swapped out. It's also the relationships you have with so many people that partly define you. No, not completely, but they're a key component of how you view yourself, how they view what you are in the world. And he actually goes so far to say that they're probably more important than even what's in your head. Like, if you swap out all of your thoughts, but when you walk out into the world, everyone still treats to you and talks to you the same way as this memory of what you are. That is still like an entity that's defined you, even if all of your, you know, there's even movies like Trading Spaces about this with Eddie Murphy, or like the ideas of people who can swap bodies. The reason those are comedies is because they're fish-out-of-water comedies, but they go to the point of what defines you is not just you, but also how you're viewed. Well, you as an entity exist in the memories of other beings, and so that, yeah, the entities as they exist in their form in those memories perhaps are more important to who you are than what's in your head. And that clones then are, how do they do, they lessen? Not really, they just distribute, they just scale the you-ness that can be experienced by other humans. Like, if I could be doing five podcasts right now at the same time, then in theory, but I'd have to have some way to transmit the memory of each one I did, which would be hard, but not impossible if it's all digital. You could aggregate and accrete more and more of the memories into one entity. Oh, I see, but I thought at the moment of cloning, it's like cloning a Git repository, then you're no longer as branched. You share the version, view one of Chris that a lot of people have experienced, like your high school friends, college friends, colleagues, and so on, but now you've moved on to your music career, and one of your clones did. And then that's fundamentally new experiences that you still, your colleagues can still experience the memories of the old Chris, but the new one is totally, you're going to have new communities experiencing, connecting to those, and then you can just propagate, and the ones that don't get a lot of likes on social media, we can quietly dispose of. We wanna maximize the clones of Chris that can get a lot of likes on Facebook. Okay, just returning briefly to the topic of AI, the topic of AI, are you working on AI stuff, too? A lot of machine learning tools for genomics. For genomics, because I was seeing this interspersed, because you're such a biology, I mean, I suppose computational biology person, but what about the, are you working on age of prediction? Yes, yeah, so you've heard about the book, I guess, yeah. What? That's actually written with the philanthropist I mentioned who we named the fungus after the space station, so that's coming out next year, actually, yeah. What's the effort there? What's your interest in sort of the more narrow AI tools of prediction and machine learning, all that kind of stuff? I think, called The Age of Prediction, so the next book that's coming, is all the ways where machine learning tools, predictive algorithms have fundamentally changed our lives, so some of them are obvious to me, where, for example, when we sequence cancer patients' DNA and we have predictions of exactly which drug will work with it, that's actually a very simple algorithm, but other ones involve predicting, say, the age of blood that's left at the scene of a crime, which uses computational tools to look at each piece of DNA and what it might reveal for its epigenetic state, and then predicting, essentially, how old you are at any given moment. And it also gets to longevity, because sometimes you can see if you're aging faster or slower than you should be, so some tools are in medicine or even forensics, but my favorite part, a lot of the book is, where does this show up in economics as well as in medicine? So predictive tools, I mean, I think the most notorious one people thought about was during the 2012 election and 2016 election especially, we were seeing these really big differences of how Facebook was monitoring feeds. And so prediction is not just better medicine or in finance and economics, people think about stock traders and people doing predictive algorithms, but what you view in your feed, what your vote is and what you saw, Facebook did experiments, they called it social contagion experiments to see can we restructure what people see and then how they respond, actually kind of be really predictive and manipulative, frankly, with what happens, and then can that change how they vote? And the answer seemed to be yes for a good amount of the populace in 2016 in the US. So I think we're seeing more and more of these algorithms show up all over the place, and so the book is about where they're good, for example, in medicine, they're phenomenal, they have fundamentally changed how we treat cancer patients, but where they're risky, like if someone's trying to steal your vote or manipulate your thoughts potentially negatively. So in medicine, you're hopeful about prediction. Yeah, most of the AI in medicine, the machine learning tools for image recognition, for example, for pathology samples, where normally you think, oh, someone takes a big bit of tissue and then puts it onto a slide, normally there's pathologists that have been training for years to look at a chunk of your tissue and say, okay, is this cancer? What kind of cancer? What treatment should I do? But there's an old joke about pathologists where you can give 10 slides to 10 different pathologists and get 11 different diagnoses, which is as awful as it sounds, because you're having someone squint at a stained microscope slide. But instead, if you use a lot of the AI tools where you can actually segment the image, high resolution characterization with multiple probes, it's what AI was built to do. You have a large training data set and then you have test samples afterward, you can do far better than almost every pathologist on the planet and get a much more accurate diagnostic. So that's for breast cancer, for prostate cancer, for leukemia, we've seen the diagnostic tools explode with AI power. Is it currently mostly empowering doctors or can it replace doctors? Watson notoriously was made by IBM to try and replace doctors. I actually was- I love IBM so much. I was in the room when we got a tour of Watson for the first time with the dean of our medical school and these programmers came out and they said, listen, here's this example of a patient and watch Watson diagnose the patient and recommend the right treatment. And then at one point in the conversation, remember this is a room of, I'm a PhD, it's like a geneticist, some programmers, some MDs, leaders of the medical school, the dean is there and he says, you can imagine someday this could replace doctors in a room full of doctors, right? So it was a really poor choice of words because everyone's like, no, you want to help the doctors. But I think the view from the programmers is often a bit naive that they could fundamentally replace doctors. Now in some cases they can. For the pathology description I just mentioned, I think the AI tools already do a better job and we've only really been doing this for about five years. So you imagine another five years of optimization and data, they're gonna take over, right? And they should because staring and squinting at screens for hours on day is not the best use of human ingenuity. So I think in some cases they'll take over, in other cases they'll augment, they'll help. Yeah, that human ingenuity, actually, especially for AI people, sometimes difficult to characterize. I have this debate all the time about autonomous driving. It's a lot more difficult than people realize. You're an expert on it, you focus a lot on that for your research, right? I'm an expert in nothing. Except in not being an expert, I think. Or asking stupid questions where the answer is both. Okay. But there is some ingenuity that's hard to kind of encapsulate that is human. For a doctor, the decision-making, it's the Hal 9000 thing. You can have a perfect system that is able to know the optimal answer, but there's some human element that's missing. And sometimes the suboptimal answer in the long term is the right one. It's the self-doubt that is essential for human progress. It's weird. I'm not sure what that is. If I can, let me ask you to be the wise old sage and give advice to young people today. Sure. In high school, in college, about how to have a career they can be proud of, or maybe a life they can be proud of, on this planet or others. Yeah, I think for the Padawans out there and younglings looking up at the stars, you have to know that this day that you're alive is quantifiably the best day that's ever happened, and that tomorrow will be even better than this day in terms of the capacity for discovery, the amount of data that exists. I think, and it's not my opinion, that's just an empirical fact of the state of genetics research, knowledge, accretion of humanities, acumen for many disciplines. So with that ability to do so many things, it can be sometimes just terrifying. Well, what do I pick? If I could do everything, and this is the most possibility ever in human history, how do you pick one thing to do? And that's just the thing, what do you find yourself daydreaming about? What's the thing that keeps you up at night? And if you don't have anything that keeps you up at night sometimes, you go find something that keeps you up at night, because that is kind of this, sometimes I feel like I get woken up by someone on the inside of my skull who's knocking, trying to get out. It's kind of that almost haunting feeling of I need to wake up, there's things that have to be done, there are questions I don't know the answer to. And a lot of times it's as simple as how do we engineer cells to survive more radiation? But I read a paper, and then it came back to me a week later as, oh, well, we could use some of these tools, or these genes, or these methods. Really, being pleasantly haunted by something is a wonderful place to be, and find that thing that bothers you. Because there'll be good days, and there'll be bad days, but you want to have, even on the worst possible days, working on the thing that you love the most. And then all the usual normal phrases apply. Like, you never work a day in your life if you have a job you love, the usual phrases. But it's true, and it's actually really hard to find. I think a lot of times you'll have to do work for random jobs that maybe you don't like for five or even 10 years. Or you might have to go to school for 10 to 15 to 20 years to finally get to the right spot, where you have the knowledge, the experience, and even, frankly, just reputation, and people trust you, you've done enough good work. And only then can you really do the thing you love most. So you have to be a little bit patient, maybe a little bit patient and impatient at the same time. You have to do both. And the interesting thing is, when you're trying to find that thing that excites you, you have to, especially in this modern world, I think, silence the distractions. Because once you find that thing, you hear that little voice in your head, there's still Instagram and TikTok and video games and other exciting sort of dopamine rushes that can pull you away and make it seem like they're the same thing, but they're not really. There's some little flame there that's longer lasting. And I think you have to silence everything else to let that sort of flame become a fire. So it's interesting, because so much of the internet is designed to convert that natural predisposition that humans have to get excited about stuff, convert that into attention and money and ads and so on. But we have to be conscious of that. I think a lot of that is full of fun and is awesome. I think TikTok and Instagram is full of fun. I think TikTok is amazing. And creativity leads to people making amazing videos or even doing people, my daughter loves TikTok, and people who do makeup art on TikTok have things that are mind-blowing. They made that video just to put it on TikTok and practice their art and share it with the world. It's fabulous. But then if my daughter watches TikTok for like three hours straight, I'm like, what are you doing exactly? And she's like, well, you know, so. So it's hard, but I remember when I was a kid, I played Nintendo. I sometimes would play for like 10 hours a day. Even in grad school, I would play for half-life, like 12 hours straight. And I'm like, what was that? So at one point I built a new computer. I just didn't install some of the games I had on before. I was like, I'm just gonna not install them because otherwise I'll play them for too long. Yeah, I would love to, I'm getting props from the team. I would love to lay out all the things I've ever done in my life to myself. Because I think I would be less judgmental of others and less understanding, more patient. Because the amount of hours I spent playing like Diablo and like video, like is insane. I'm sure it adds up to like weeks, maybe months of my life that it was just, you know, but I feel like I was probably, I tell myself at least I was problem solving. Right. It's a hand-eye coordination, or that's an old, I don't know if that really is even remotely true, but some of the games like Final Fantasy things or things we actually had to solve problems and think, and they were some degree of strategy, but. They were actually just expanding the diversity of human character that makes up you. It's like, you can't just focus on, not that you can't, but perhaps it's more beneficial to focus, to not focus on a singular thing for many, many years at a time. That could be one of the downsides of a PhD if you're not careful, is that you become too singularly focused, not just on the problem, but on a particular community. And you don't do wild stuff. You don't do interdisciplinary stuff. You don't go out painting or getting drunk or dancing. Whatever the variety, whatever injects variety to the years of difficult reading, research paper after research paper, that whole process, you have to be very careful to add variety into it. And maybe that involves playing a little bit of Counter-Strike or Diablo, whatever floats your boat. Or dancing, New York City's a great place for this. There's Sunrise Rooftop Dancing, they have a party that does this. That's a thing? It's a thing, so you go there. I have some people from my lab that go. I've only been once, but at Sunrise, and you see the sun rise over the city, and there's huge house music, and you play and you dance like crazy, and then you go to work. You go to lab, you go to wherever you're going. But you can, it's good to squeeze in some weird, crazy sunrise rooftop dancing or things like that when you can. If we can, if we may, to some difficult, dark places. That's good, I'll bring a flashlight. Maybe something, find something that can warm your soul or inspires others. Is there dark periods, dark times in your life that you had to overcome? Yeah, like many people, I had friends I've lost. I had a friend when I was younger who committed suicide. And that was actually, I remember being so struck of, I couldn't understand it. I didn't understand mental illness at the time. I was very young, I was only, I think, 11 at the time. And I really was confused more than anything else about how could someone take their life. And I actually, once I got over the grief of it all, I really, it cemented in my head that I would never commit suicide. I could tell this to my wife, I said, if it looks like I hung myself, go find my killer, because I would never do it. It's gotta be staged. But at the same time, I've begun to appreciate there are times where the suffering is so great and diseases can be so awful that sometimes, euthanasia is an actual exit. But I just have friends I've lost along the way. But that's not too different. Everyone has people they've lost along the way. But I actually was never too dark of a childhood or of a dark place. I mean, the hardest things have been really weird relationship breakups where I felt like, you know, love, falling in love and then losing that person, just breaking up, not like they died. But where you felt like, you know, you just could barely move and like, you literally felt like your heart was moved in your body to a different location. And that sort of scraping sense of existence, but also at the same time, that's been where I've, in some ways, been the most alive, where I lost the, what I thought at the time was the love of my life. And, but then was able to actually, I think, carve a deeper trench into my heart, which then could be filled more with joy, I would say, is what Pablo Neruda wrote about this. And Khalil Gibran is that the deepest, deepest sorrows, I think, later have translated into my life as to places that can be filled with greater amounts of joy. I love thinking of sorrows as a digging of a ditch that can then be filled with more good stuff. Eventually. Not at the time, but for a while, it's just a giant empty cavern full of like blood and tears and pain, but then, you know, it comes later. There is an element to life where this too shall pass. So any moment of sorrow or joy, it's gonna be over. And like, treasure it, no matter what. I mean, I do definitely think about losing love. That's like a celebration of love. And even, any living, I think, is better. That's why, just adamantly, I don't think I'd ever really commit suicide, is because anything I take is better than nothing. So the worst case scenario, so there's no heaven, there's no hell, that's just it. Like, if you just die and that's really just it, then anything that you have in living is, by definition, infinitely better than the zero, because at least it's something. And so I appreciate sad, I mean, enjoy sadness, which sounds like an oxymoron, but I sometimes even long for a good sadness, like a rainy day, and I'm staring out a window, squinting, and like drinking some underpriced whiskey, and then just moping, and like, what are you doing? I'm just moping today, but I want at least one day where I do that or something. I actually had a conversation offline with Rick Rubin, he's a music producer, about this. And he told me, he has a way of speaking that's all sage-like, and he says, be careful that you spend some time appreciating that sadness, but don't become addicted to it. That there's a line you can cross, and then you actually push away the joy. Because you feel like the, because the sadness can be all-encompassing, and therefore even more real than what might seem like fleeting happiness. Yes. And so, yeah. Yeah, right, you can, sadness, if you let it, can be a thing that stays with you longer and stickier. But, you know, I think, I mean, it's not that it's stickier, but just witnessing suicide made you appreciate life more. Yeah, and just an appreciation of death is actually an appreciation of life at the same time. Are you afraid of your death? No. When you think about it? I think it's like being afraid of the sunrise. It doesn't make sense. So you're part of this fabric that is humanity, and you just think generationally. Yeah, I think I want to do as much as I can. I feel like I would die, I feel like I've lived a full life already. I actually believe that since age 17 onward. I feel like even then, I mean, then the bar was low. I feel like, well, I'd had at least sex once. I had good friends. What else is there? Good friends at that age. But then I had also really read a lot of philosophy, had traveled a bit, felt like I had started to at least see the world, and had lived a somewhat of a life. But from then on, I felt like, that I wouldn't feel like I was cheated if I had died from that day forward, that I had gotten at least enough of life to feel like that I would be not okay with dying, but that I feel like I knew I was gonna die. I wasn't afraid I was going to die. And it actually was very liberating. And it's only gotten better since then. So I think some of that may or may not have been drug-related euphoria, but nonetheless, the joy stuck. And I think it's just gotten more true ever since, is that the default state is one of very rich appreciation, because it's so fleeting. And so I knew I would die happy, I guess, even at age 17, but now my metrics have changed a little bit. I've had sex more than one time now, so that's really big. Congratulations. This is very exciting news. At least four times. But the- Multiples. And professionally accomplished things. I could actually do some of the genetic dreams I had when I was 16 or 17. I'm now actually making them in my lab. I actually like to say, my scientific goals and statements have really been the same since I've been 17. It's just now everyone takes me seriously, because I'm a professor and actually I've done- And you're mentoring people, you're an educator. To the next generation, yeah. And also patients. Yeah, and helping patients live longer and seeing the hope in their eyes when they went from, even my own grandfather, went from a two-month diagnosis of living from metastatic cancer to living for more than two years. Eventually he succumbed to it, but knowing you can use the tools of predictive medicine to save people. Yeah, and so now, looking ahead, I feel like it's, I would die very happy if I saw boots on the red planet and people there. And the other advice to the younglings, I'd say, is the first time I proposed the twin study to NASA, they said no several times. They said, no, we don't have a plan for a mission like that. It's not gonna happen. So just persevere as the oldest. I didn't know. I knew you were part of leading the NASA twin study, but you were also part of the failure to do so early. Early, so the first, actually, because when you start a lab in academia, they say, here's a pile of money. Write grants and bring in more money and train people and start a lab. So I actually wrote NASA and said, I'm not requesting any funds. I have funds. They just gave me a bunch of money. I would like to, though, do a deep genetic profile of astronauts before and after space flight and do it ideally if we have some twins or do genetics and epigenetics and microbiome. But John Charles, who's the director of the Human Research Program, said, no, we don't have, we don't even have those samples, Bank, that you would want, that are old samples, and we don't have any plans for missions like that right now so we can't do it. And that was the first time I, it's like saying to someone, listen, I'll buy a house for you. I just have this mile, I'll buy, and they're like, no, no thanks. Because I felt like I was offering a really unique research opportunity. But then that failure of saying that, oh, we're not ready yet, it's not time. But then once they had the solicitation, then he reached out and said, oh, actually, I think we've got something along the lines of what you were thinking a few years ago. So sometimes when some things get rejected or someone says no, say, okay, maybe it's just too early, but don't give up, I think, and say. You know, so to me, when someone says no, not right now, I'll be like, okay, I'll just, I'll come back in a year. No just means no for now. And so, if I think it's, sometimes no means you have a crappy idea. That is true. I do have crappy ideas and so does everybody, but if I really believe in it, I just say, okay, I'll be back. Yeah, this too shall pass, the no. Do you hope to go out to ISS, out to deep space one day? I would love to go. I wanna be a little bit older so that if I die, it's not as traumatic for my daughter and family. But yeah, I feel like if I'm a little bit older, definitely, I would even potentially do a one-way trip to Mars if it's later in life. So, would you like to, do you think you will step foot on Mars? I would love to and I think I might. I think it may be that one-way trip if they, because I think they'll need settlers who would wanna go and stay there and build and be there for the long term, knowing it's high risk. Knowing it's- And your resume fits, so you'll have a lot of cool stuff to do there. Yeah, it could help. At least on the surface, you'll be able to sell yourself well. Resilience, experience, motivation. Would that make you sad to die on Mars? Looking back at the planet you were born on? No, I think it would be actually, in some ways, maybe the best way to die, knowing that you're on the first wave of people expanding the reach into the stars. It'd be an honor. Why do you think we're here? What's the meaning of life? To serve as the guardians of life itself. That is the duty for our species, is to recognize and really manifest this unique responsibility that we have, and only we have so far. So I think, yeah, to me, the meaning of life is for life to, in its simplest form, is to be able to survive, but to leverage the frailty of life into its ability to protect itself. And quite literally, the guardians of the galaxy is basically what we are. We're guarding ourselves and also life. I mean, life is just so precious. As far as we know, it is completely rare in the universe. And I do think a lot, well, what if this is the only universe that's ever come in and it won't come back again? And this is it. And if that's true, we have to serve as its shepherds. Leverage the frailty of life to protect it. And this is all life, so we get the opportunity, we humans get the opportunity to be smart enough, to be clever enough, to be motivated enough to actually protect the other life that's on this. Including AI, including life that's to come that might be very different from what we imagine today. And that would make you sad if we were replaced by the kinder, smarter AI? Nope, I think about that in the book a bit. I think I would be okay with it if they carry some echo of that's duty and they bring that with them. It would be real, I'd be sad if they're like, to hell with everyone, we're gonna destroy everything we come across and become like nanobots that make everything gray goo. That seems, but that would still be a version of life, just not one that is, I think, is pretty, but technically it'd be alive. So philosophically, could I object? It's borderline. Yeah, but romantically, no. Romantically. They need to carry the duty. There's some, yes, yes, it's a bit of a romance to the philosophy that's in there. And you also end the book with a universe that creates new universes. So if this isn't the only universe, do you think that's in our future, that we might launch new offspring universes? It's very possible. I mean, multiverse is a controversial field because it's very much hypothetical, but with this universe has been created, the one we're in now, and so it's happened before, it certainly could happen again. Some of them might be happening in parallel. I think if you look at billions of years, trillions of years in the future of technological development, certainly possible. We could start to have little baby universes, grow them like cabbage, get them out, saute them, make them have flavor. Yeah, create something delicious. Well, it sounds difficult, but it's our human duty to try, as you said, Chris. This is an incredible conversation. You're an incredible person, a scientist, explorer. I can't wait to see what you do in this world. And I hope to be there with you on Mars. I would like to also breathe my last breath on that sexy red planet that's our neighbor. Podcast from Mars, at least space. I think space should be coming. Space is pretty good, space is pretty good. But Mars next. Chris, thanks so much for talking to me. Thanks for having me. It's really an honor and a pleasure to be here, thanks. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Chris Mason. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from Stanislav Lem and Solaris. Man has gone out to explore other worlds and other civilizations without having explored his own labyrinth of dark passages and secret chambers, and without finding what lies behind doorways that he himself has sealed. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/1C2tPFCGL1U

YbJZnShMQAo

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Glenn Loury: Race, Racism, Identity Politics, and Cancel Culture | Lex Fridman Podcast #285

I hate affirmative action. I don't just disagree with it. I don't just think it's against the 14th Amendment. I hate it. The hatred comes from an understanding that it is a band-aid, that it is a substitute for the actual development of the capacities of our people to compete. They want to tell African Americans, pat us on the head. We're going to have a separate program for you. We're going to give you a side door that you can come into. That doesn't make us any smarter. It doesn't make us any more creative. And it doesn't make us any more fit for the actual competition that's unfolding before us. The following is a conversation with Glenn Lowry, professor of economics and social sciences at Brown University. He is one of the great minds and communicators of our time, writing and speaking about race and inequality. I highly encourage you to listen to his show on YouTube and Substack, simply called The Glenn Show. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Glenn Lowry. Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech, I think, is the greatest speech in American history. If I may, I'd like to read a few words of it. Sure. And ask you a question about this dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. First of all, damn, I mentioned to you offline, I immigrated to America, and this is why I love this country. This is one of the great speeches that represents what this country is about. So what is this ideal of equality that we should strive for as a nation, that all men are created equal? What does that mean to you, this equality? Well, if we put this in historical context, King is speaking in 1963 when he gives that speech. It's exactly 100 years after Abraham Lincoln signs the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring the enslaved people to be free. They're not yet citizens in 1863, but the end of slavery has become the position of the federal government when Lincoln issues that Emancipation Proclamation. So putting it in context, enslaved people, 4 million or so, African descent, 4 million or so African-descended enslaved people, how do they become citizens? How do they become in this status of subjugation and domination and stigma and exclusion? How do they become citizens? It seems to me that that's the heart of it. The equality that King is talking about is an equality of status as members of the nation, as free and equal citizens within the republic. Now, I think it's really important to understand that slavery was not merely a legal order, but it was also a social system that had the symbolism attached to it. They had a big journey to make from their subjugated status as serfs, as landless people, as uneducated, unfit for citizenship, really, in the minds of many. So I think that's what in 1963, 100 years later, that King is appealing to this idea that when Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, writes these words, all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, he didn't, Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, didn't have in mind when he wrote those words the people who were slaves. But by the time you get to 1963, King is invoking this idea, all men, and of course he means all persons, he doesn't only mean men, he means men and women are created equal. He wants this idea to be embraced by the country in reference to the descendants of the African slaves. That's his dream, that's his idea. The legacy of slavery would be erased, that the position of African Americans would be equalized within the political community, which is the United States of America. That's my sense of it, in any case. So on a very basic level, the worth of a human being is equal. It's just literally the worth of a human being. So I mentioned to you offline that I came from the Soviet Union. My grandfather fought in World War II, and for Hitler, the worth of a Slavic person, as they were captured, there's different numbers, but it's in the hundreds to one German, in terms of the value of the person to the great Germany. So he wanted Germany to expand and conquer a large part of the world, and within that future world, that Third Reich, the worth of a Russian or a Slavic person is one hundredth or one thousandth of a German person, of a pure German person. So that has to do with not some kind of public policy or politics or all that kind of stuff, it has to do with the basic worth of a human being. And that's what Dr. King is speaking to, that all people on some kind of deep level are worth the same. If you're somehow weighing the value of a person, we're equal in that basic fundamental worth. Yeah, I think that's correct. I think that's very well said. I don't know that he had in mind the position of Slavic people in Central Europe in the middle of the 20th century, the first part of the 20th century. King, I don't know that he had that in mind, he might well have done, but certainly that's the idea. So you don't think he was really thinking about this particular civil rights struggle and the particular struggle against the backdrop of the history of slavery in America and thinking about African Americans. He wasn't thinking about the basic, he wasn't speaking to the basic worth of all human beings. No, I don't mean to say that. The speech in Washington- The dream. In 1963 at that march was within the context of the United States and it was within the context of the civil rights movement. There was a movement that was going on. He was an actor in a political drama that was American that had to do with the fight over equal rights for voting, for housing, for employment, for citizenship of Blacks in America. But King was informed, I think, by a much broader Christian ethic of the equality of all persons. I mean, he gets killed in 1968, the five years after that speech in Washington, he spends developing his worldview and the things that he had to say, for example, about the war in Southeast Asia that was going on at that time made appeals to universal principles of equality. He was a pacifist to some degree, he was against war. He was a socialist to some degree. He might not have worn that label publicly, but he believed in a decent society where the poor would not go untended, where healthcare would be available to people who needed it and this kind of thing. A humanitarian who saw that the value of a life was not dependent upon the color of the skin, upon the native mother tongue that might be spoken, upon whether male or female. All persons are created equal. This is very much the ethic of Martin Luther King, on my understanding. Broadly speaking, what do you learn about human nature by looking at the history of slavery in America? So what does that tell you about people? Well, I think of two things right off the top of my head. One is about the capacity of people for looking the other way in the face of unethical and morally profoundly problematic practice. So, I mean, slavery was controversial. It was controversial going all the way back to the founding of the United States of America. The country was founded on a compromise where half of the country thought that slavery was abhorrent and would not have had it countenanced in the Constitution. The other half of the country were steeped in the dependence on the labor of these African captives and their descendants. The economy depended upon it. They owned them as property. That was their wealth. Their wealth was invested to some degree in the value of these human beings. And in order for the United States to come together as a confederation of the several colonies, there had to be a compromise made, and it was made, where slavery was allowed to persist and the people who were against it or who thought it morally problematic were able to countenance the practice in the southern states where slavery flourished. And that went on for 75 years after the founding of the country until the crisis of the late 1850s that led to the Civil War and ultimately to the emancipation. So one thing I think about human nature from the fact of slavery is that the ability of people to live with terrible, morally questionable practices and have that as a part of their institutions, it took a movement, a massive movement of abolitionists struggling against slavery for the better part of a century before that practice could be eradicated. But the other thing about human nature that I see is the ability of people to sustain their humanity under the most awful oppressive conditions. The enslaved persons, the slaves and their children, I mean, they were cattle, they were bought and sold like horses or cattle, and yet their humanity was not destroyed by that. And they were able to sustain their dignity to some degree in such a manner that once emancipation finally did arrive, the freedmen and women, the persons who had been enslaved and who were set free, were able to, over the following decades, build a foundation for the development of African Americans within the context of American society that eventually culminated in the civil rights movement of the middle of the 20th century and has led us into the present day. So, you know, human nature can countenance awful evil, but human nature can also survive in the face of terrible evil. That's what I take from slavery. That survival, that flame can burn even when the world around it tries to put it out. There's still a little flame of human consciousness, of spirit, of culture, of whatever the hell that is that makes humans flourish and makes humans beautiful that lives on. That's very well said, yeah. I think you put it very well. There's got to be some poetic way of expressing that. Leave it to the poets. What about the people that look the other way? How many people do you think, just regular people, knew that something is, this is wrong? Or do people through generations convince themselves, most people, most regular people, convince themselves that there's nothing wrong? Yeah. I ask this question because I wonder what we're looking the other way on today also. Because you have to kind of, you have to ask yourself these difficult questions of, assuming we're the same people we were back then, then we can be flawed in that same kind of way. We can look the other way just as others have in history. Yeah, and you spoke of the European context and of the Nazis, and certainly a lot of people had to be looking the other way when the massive crimes that were committed by that regime were being undertaken. I mean, railroad cars full of human beings being taken off to be slaughtered or to be worked to death in labor camps, or to be gassed, or to be killed. To be gassed, etc. A lot of people had to know about what was going on and look the other way, or enthusiastically supported the persecution of the Jews and the gypsies and so on. And I don't know, I wasn't, you know, I wasn't around in 1840. My sense of the matter is that, like many practices that are unjust, most people thought that's just the way it is. I mean, that's the world that they inherited. They were not moralists, they were not revolutionaries. They just wanted to go along. Some people might have been troubled by it, but thought there's nothing that can be done. Some people might have thought, well, they're these Black Africans, they're not really like us, and, you know, they are lucky to be here. If they were in Africa, they'd be worse off still. Some people might have thought that. Some people might have been disturbed but not been able to see what it is that they could do about it. They might have thought, oh, this is, you know, this is disgusting. This is, you know, not something I would want to have anything to do with, but not knowing whether there's any practical way of opposing it. That's why you need a movement. You need for the people who are troubled by the practice to know that there are others like themselves equally troubled, and as they gather together, collectively, they can exert their influence. I mean, debates about the wrongness of slavery, as I say, go all the way back to the founding of the country. There were abolitionists, and there were people who opposed the compromise that led to the framing documents and institutions that created the United States of America, opposed the countenancing of slavery in that situation. But it took a while before that could come to a head and produce the crisis which ultimately led to the eradication of slavery. I would note that slavery is not unique to the United States. It's not unique to the Western Hemisphere. That enslavement of people, the trafficking in human chattel is something that one sees on a global basis, one sees it going all the way back to antiquity. So we might ask, how is it that people finally came to turn their backs and eradicate the practice? That might be the thing worth really trying to understand, because the practice itself is, you know, there's a wonderful book by the sociologist Orlando Patterson called Slavery and Social Death that was published in 1982, which is a comprehensive history and social analysis of the institution of slavery over 2,500 years, going back to the classical Greek and Roman civilizations, finding slavery in Africa amongst Africans, finding slavery in the Middle East, finding slavery in the Far East, finding slavery in South Asia. The enslavement of people, the practice of taking someone as a captive in war, and then instead of killing them, which you could do, making them into your property, was very, very widespread in human culture. So I mean, I like to make this point sometimes when people are talking about how wrong slavery was, and I agree without any question that the practice was profoundly morally problematic. But I like to make the point that given how wrong it was, think about how impressive was the accomplishment of the eradication of slavery. Now, that was something, I mean, there were 600,000 dead in the war between the states 1861 to 1865 in a country of 30 million people. That's a lot of dead people who gave their lives not to eradicate slavery, and in every instance, probably most of them were just fighting for, you know, they enlisted or were conscripted into the forces, and they fought and they died. But the net effect of their having fought and died was to push along a process that led to the eradication of slavery. That's an amazing achievement. The slaves themselves were largely uneducated and, you know, backward in their, of course, what else could they have been? They were kept in captivity, they were prevented from developing their human potential. And yet, after the end of slavery, that population, that 4 million plus African descended people became the foundation for what a century later leads to Martin Luther King standing in the Washington Mall and giving that great speech. And now here we are 150 years down the road, and Barack Obama is President of the United States. Now, he did not descend from slaves, I think we must not lose track of that. But he identified as an African American and was a part of the population that consisted largely of people who descended from slaves. And we are, we African Americans are, for all practical purposes, fully equal citizens of this great republic. That has happened within a century and a half. And I don't know that you can find any parallel to that kind of transformation in the status of people from human chattel to full citizens of the republic anywhere in human history. It's certainly worth celebrating the achievement of the eradication of slavery, I would say. And it probably started with a few people that inside their mind dared to rebel. You know, it's interesting to think about how it all started, how in the state of injustice, the revolution percolates, like where it starts. You said people that see something is wrong, find each other. It's, you know, it's in the ideas of charismatic individuals that not only know that something is wrong, but are able to tell others about it and be convincing. And then together gather and rise up. It's interesting to make this kind of incredible progress from slavery to where we are today, to live out the ideal of this all men are created equal. The power of individual, because I don't know what you think about it, but I tend to think that a few small individuals probably originated this. It's the power of the individual. Because sometimes we think there's injustice in the world, what can I possibly do? I tend to think one person can be the seed of starting to fix the injustice. Sure. One person here, one person there. Yeah. Yeah. One thinks, of course, of Frederick Douglass, the massively significant figure who was born in slavery, who stole his freedom, because he was property, and he decided he was not going to be property anymore. And he took it unto himself to emancipate himself personally, and who became an educated, powerfully articulate, massively influential person in the United States and in England, going around presenting himself as an embodiment of human dignity and a commitment to ideals of equality. And, you know, I mean, he's just one person, but there were others like him. Just one person. All it takes is just one person. So here we are on this topic of equality in the 21st century. So what does equality mean today? If you start to think about this idea of equality of outcome, or the injustice of inequality, at which point does equality of outcome is just? At which point is it unjust? Sort of looking at our world today and looking at inequality, how do we know that that some inequality is a sign of injustice and some is the way of life? So what does equality mean when we look at the world today, different from Dr. King's speech of the basic humanity? I don't think King's speech, I have a dream that one day my four little children will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, requires equality of outcome. He says his children will be judged by the content of their character. That's a conditional statement. That is, the judgment will depend upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin. But it doesn't follow from that, that the outcomes, whatever outcomes we consider wealth and economic power, position within the society, representation in the various professions, the various measures of social achievement, doesn't follow from judging by the content of character and not color of skin, that when we look at the end of the day, at the social outcomes, that they will be equal across the different groups. In fact, I think there's a contradiction in the idea that groups will be equal in all the various social outcomes, that they will be equally successful in business, that they will be proportionately represented in the various professions, that they will have the same educational achievement, that the occupational profiles will look the same. If they are, in fact, distinct groups with their own cultural traditions and practices, with their own ideals and norms, various immigrant populations, people coming to the United States of America from all corners of the world, the descendants of the African slaves, the the Black Americans here today, who are ourselves various with different origins and so on, the different religious practices and commitments that Jewish or Mormon or Christian or whatever, however we parcel up the total population into the various groups, these groups are themselves different from one another. They have different norms within their own cultural practice. How would we expect, if in fact we recognize that the groups are different from one another, that in a world that is fair, they would all come out equally represented in every undertaking? They're not equally represented, and that fact, I'm arguing, is in and of itself insufficient insufficient to justify the conclusion that they're not somehow being fairly treated. Fair treatment doesn't imply equal outcomes in a world in which the populations in question are themselves different with respect to their culture, their practices, their norms, their traditions, their beliefs, their ideals, and so on. The fact of those different norms, traditions, beliefs, beliefs, cultural orientations, and ideals will have consequences in terms of their different social outcomes. So I just think it's a mistake that people are making when they think fairness of treatment implies equality of outcomes. It does not. Is the process by which we're speaking now in the midst of the National Basketball Association's playoffs, I confess to being a Boston Celtics fan. I mean, I'm just, it's a very good team, and I'm excited about my Celtics. We defeated the Brooklyn Nets. I mean, we defeated Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving and company, and company, okay, in a playoff series. We whipped them, and we're on our way to, you know, the Eastern Conference Finals, and we're on our way to the NBA Finals, and I'm, you know, if I were a betting man, I'd put down a few bucks that the Boston Celtics, underrated as we are, have a very good chance of winning the NBA Finals. Okay, so that's the NBA. That's the National Basketball Association. I'm a sports fan. I like basketball. Slightly biased prediction, but yes. Yeah, it is somewhat biased. All I'm saying is, if you take a look at who the star players are in the National Basketball Association, you're gonna find that there's some Eastern Europeans. You know, there's some really good basketball players coming out of Eastern Europe, you know, and more power to them. And there are a lot of African Americans. We're overrepresented. There are not that many Jews, as far as I know. No offense intended there, Lex, but I mean, the NBA is not equally representative of all of the different populations in the United States. Now, we could go into the reasons why, but I'm just saying the process by which you get to be playing in the NBA is fair. If you can play, you can get on the court. All they're looking for is people who can play. I think something like that is true in many different venues. I expect, if you're a really good technical engineer, companies are going to employ you. And if you can make money, they're going to advance you, and you will be able to rise to the top of that profession. I expect that the people who are engaged in financial transactions, who are actually making bets on the market, by and large, are the people who are good at that activity. And if you're good at that activity in this world, in this modern world, you're going to rise to the top. I'm not saying that there are no barriers of discrimination. Of course, there are, of many different sorts. But I'm saying that to expect that there would be, okay, I mean, let's look at who's actually writing code. Let's look at who's actually trading bonds. Let's look at who's actually starting businesses, and so on. To say that, in a fair world, I would expect that if Blacks are 10% of the population, they'd be 10% of every one of those things, is to ignore the reality that the differences in the culture and practices and norms of the various population groups will lead to differences in their representation amongst people who are outstanding performers in one or another activity. How do you know if the difference in culture accounts for the difference in outcomes, or it's the existence of barriers, especially barriers early on in life, of discrimination that are racially based? If you think about affirmative action, in which ways is affirmative action empowering, in which way is it limiting? For these early development of different groups, but let's just speak to African Americans. We should say that you went to some no-name Northwestern university at first, but then you ended up with the great university of MIT. So that's your, not early, but middle development. So speaking of the development, the opportunities, the equality of opportunity, how do we know we got that equality right? Yeah, I'm glad you put it like that. We were talking about results, now we're talking about opportunity. I was taking the position that when King says, I have a dream, and he envisions a world where his children will not be barred from the good things in life because of the color of their skin, we're talking about opportunity, not about results. But opportunity is not just something that depends upon what the law is and what public policies are. Opportunity also depends upon the social conditions in which people are raised, the social and economic conditions. So the child of a poor family that has no resources, it doesn't have the same opportunity as a child of a wealthy family to realize their full human potential. You asked me, how can we tell whether or not a difference in outcomes is a reflection of unequal opportunity, or it's a reflection of differences in culture and interest and practice? And I don't know that there's a single answer to that question, but I think one wants to look at the data. One wants to try to measure, you know, as a social scientist, I would say what you want to do is you want to estimate the significance of various factors for determining the outcome. If the outcome is how much money does a person make when they work in the labor market, so you look at their wages and you think, well, that depends upon a number of things. It depends upon how educated they are, what kind of skills they have, what kind of work experience they have, and so on. And those things are all legitimate factors that might determine how much they end up making in the labor market. But you also want to perhaps, controlling for those things, see whether or not the fact that they are Black or they are Latino or whatever, the fact that they are male or that they are female, the fact that they do or do not speak English as their native language, this kind of thing, whether those factors also are implicated in determining how successful they are in the labor market. And if you find that after you have controlled for the things that are legitimately determining success and failure in the labor market, like skills and education and experience, having controlled for those things, the fact that a person is Black or is a woman or is an immigrant or is of Latino background also affects their earnings, then you might conclude that to that extent, they are not getting equal opportunity in the labor market, that kind of idea. But I want to focus a little bit more here on what we mean by opportunity, because it's not just whether employers treat the worker on a fair and even basis, irregardless of the worker's racial or ethnic background. That's one opportunity issue, but that's at the end of the development process. They are now presenting themselves to the market, trying to find work, and being employed at this or that wage. That's the end of the line. What about the developmental opportunity, the opportunity to acquire skills in the first place? That goes all the way back. That goes all the way back to birth. It even goes back to before birth. The mother carrying the infant in the womb, she has certain nutritional practices. She might be smoking or drinking alcohol or something like that. I'm not saying she is, I'm not saying she isn't. I'm just saying whether she is, she is going to affect the development of the fetus, the newborn. Now there's a question of environment. There's a question of the development of their neurological potential. Do they learn how to read? Are they stimulated? Verbally, how many words have they heard spoken? Are they being nurtured in a home environment so as to maximize the possibility of them achieving their human potential? What about the peer group influences? What about the values and norms of the surrounding human communities in which they're embedded? Do they encourage the young person to apply themselves in a systematic way to their studies and to their focus on their acquisition of language command and of their educational potential? So development is not only something that is controlled by the society's practices, it's also something that is influenced by the cultural background of the individual. And those things are not equal. Those things vary across groups in a very significant way. And that too will be a factor determining disparities of outcome. So when I see outcomes that are different, I see wealth holding that's different. I see educational achievement that's different. I see representation in the professional schools and law school and medical school that's different between groups. One question is, are the institutions treating people fairly? But another question is, do the background and social and cultural influences equip people in the same way? And we know that the answer to that, not in every instance do they equip people in the same way. And so it makes the judgment, the moral judgment that we make when we see inequality of outcome complicated. Inequality of outcome is a systemic factor to some degree, but it is also a cultural factor to some degree, I want to say. And that's controversial, I know. A lot of people, they think of themselves as being progressive. They want to point a finger at society whenever they see a disparity. But I think that that's a mistake. I think it misunderstands the difficulty of the problem. You think that if you get the right law, if you have the right public policy, if the right politicians are elected to office, suddenly those disparities will go away. And I'm here to tell you that that's a false hope. And moreover, it is probably the wrong goal. But I mean, we could go into that. You were talking about affirmative action, which is something else altogether. And you were talking about me and my education, which is also something that's a little bit different. And I'm happy to talk about those things. Northwestern University, by the way, was a great university. I'm just joking. It's one of the great universities of the world. Yes. And I studied mathematics at Northwestern University, which is how I ended up at MIT in the first place. And I got a very good technical training in mathematics when I was at Northwestern. So- You love both mathematics and human nature, which is why you ended up going into economics at one of the great economics programs in the world at MIT and getting your PhD there. So one of the many hats you wear is that of an economist, which allows you to think systematically and rigorously about the way the world and the way humans work at scale, trying to remove the full mushy mess of humans, like a psychology perspective, economics allows you to do. Well, economics is one of the social sciences. I think there's value in psychology and in sociology. There's a lot to know that doesn't come up within the study of economics. We study markets and the dynamics of economic development and trade and so on. But yeah, speaking personally, as I was coming along, I was fascinated by mathematics. I was good at it and ended up at Northwestern and took a lot of courses there and functionally analysis and logic and mathematics and dynamical systems and stuff that I ended up employing in my graduate studies in economics. But you're right, I was not satisfied simply to be proving theorems. I wanted to be addressing issues of social significance and economics. I discovered to my delight was a field of study that allowed me both to develop rigorous analytical frameworks, you know, modeling and precision of logical deduction and inference. On the one hand, satisfying my mathematical interests, but on the other hand, could address questions of social significance, like why does racial inequality persist? Why are some countries prospering and growing and others less so? Why do the prices of raw materials fluctuate in the way that they do over time and so on and so forth? And I ended up, you know, I was fascinated by that. And so forth and I ended up falling in love with the application of mathematical analysis to the study of social issues. What to you is beautiful about mathematics, about mathematical puzzles, about logic, all those kinds of things? Because it's still there, the love for math is still there for you. So is there something you could speak to? What is the kernel, the flame of that love? It's like magic. I mean, you know, being able to prove something and I mean, you know, I think of offhand, you know, there's no largest prime number. Okay, so how would somebody know that? Okay, what's the prime number? So prime number is a number that has a whole number that has no divisor other than one. There are no divisors of the number that makes it a prime number like 13 or 19 or 37, whatever, okay. So they're prime numbers. There's no largest prime number. There are infinite number of prime numbers. There's no largest prime number. Okay, that's an idea. You can get your mind around it in an instant. It doesn't take a whole lot of depth to see the question. There's no largest prime number. I wonder if prime numbers show up in economics. I mean that... Oh, they don't show up in economics, except in cryptography. I understand that's important for code, you know, in coding stuff. And that shows up in economics, but in terms of models, probably not. So prime numbers are a little, you know, in abstract algebra, it's like they show up in all these places that are just like beautiful mathematical puzzles that don't immediately have an application, but somehow maybe challenge you and as a result push mathematics forward, like Fermat's last theorem. You know, as far as I know, no obvious real world application, but it has challenged mathematicians throughout the centuries. And somehow indirectly progressed the field. But... But the rational numbers are accountable. They can be put in one-to-one relationship with the integers, but that the real numbers are not accountable. And there's a lot more real, quote-unquote, more real numbers. These are orders of infinity. This is Cantor, Georg Cantor, and all that kind of stuff. Or Gödel's theorem. I studied this as an undergraduate, you know, the incompleteness theorem that there are propositions within any logical system that's rich enough to accommodate arithmetic. There are going to be propositions that you can formulate that are true, but that you cannot prove to be true. So the idea that you could systematically develop a logical framework for mathematical inquiry that could demonstrate the truth or falsity of any proposition is not a feasible goal. This was Hilbert's project, as I understand it. And Gödel showed that there was no hope ever of being able to demonstrate the closure of logical systems that were rich enough to accommodate the real numbers. They gave an existential crisis to all mathematicians and scientists alike, and humans, because maybe you can't prove everything. I remember, you know, when I was a junior college, a community college student before I transferred to Northwestern, and I took a calculus course. And it was a lot of fun. And it was differentiating algebraic expressions and integrating and using trigonometric substitutions. And it was a lot of simple problem solving. I get to Northwestern, I take a course in differential equations. And again, it was a lot of formulaic, you know, applying, if you get a differential equation of this structure, like if it's linear, you got exponentials, etc. You can solve it. And then I took a course that showed me, you know, where the question was not how to solve any particular functional expression, but it was proving the existence of a solution to a differential equation, where it was like x dot equals f of x and t, and f is just some arbitrary function. What do I have to assume about the function f in order to know that there exists a solution to the differential equation dx dt equals f of x and t. And it's basically, they called it a Lipschitz condition. It's a condition about the bounding of the slope of the function f as a function of x that it doesn't, that you can sort of uniformly bound the slope on that function. And then you can use a iterative process to show that the sequence of, you know, partial solutions to the thing converges to something that's a solution to the real thing. Anyway, again, I'm not going to bore you or pretend that I'm a mathematician. I'm not. But what I'm saying is the difference between a specific algebraic formula that you can manipulate and solve on the one hand, and the abstract question of whether there exists a solution in the general case, is like a huge, was like a huge step for me in my study of mathematics and the techniques that you have to employ to address these larger questions and so on. So I, you know, when I was an undergraduate, I took the first year PhD sequence in math analysis at Northwestern from a brilliant mathematician named Avner Friedman and learned about measure theory and, you know, learned about some early functional analysis ideas. And when I saw that those ideas were being applied by advanced study in economics, I was delighted. I found an intellectual home. So the, one of the fascinating challenges in mathematics is to think, how can you, which echoes the challenge of economics. What are the properties of an equation that allow you to say something profound and say it simply? And so the question of economics is how do you construct a model where you can generalize nicely and say something profound and say it simply? So one of the questions, one of the challenges of economics is macro versus microeconomics. Yeah. Is, you know, the world is made up of individuals. So there's a connection to this, our discussion of race and discrimination and outcomes and all those kinds of things. The world is made up of individuals, but in order to say something general, we have to construct a model that allows us to have to construct groups in order to analyze the data. We have to aggregate that data somehow. We have to make an average over some set of people. So what are the pros and cons of looking at things like equality of opportunity and equality of outcome based on groups versus based on individuals? And what are the groups, if there's any pros to looking at groups that we should be looking at? Okay. Well, those are big questions. I mean, in economics, you're right. I mean, micro, you have an account of how individuals make decisions about spending their money on this consumption side and about how enterprises make decisions about what to produce, how much of it, what inputs to use, what techniques of production and so on. Individual firms, individual consumers, and then you want to aggregate. So there's a theory of, so-called theory of general equilibrium where, you know, you think supply and demand in a bunch of markets, you think prices that move to equilibrate, but you recognize that the price in one market affects people's behavior in another, the markets are interacting with each other. You realize that the behavior of one individual affects the supplies and available resources and for other individuals, so they're knitted together in some kind of systematic way. And you want to try to demonstrate the fact that notwithstanding all these interdependencies, there exists a solution to the system of equations that equates demand and supply across all the different markets. This is the existence of general equilibrium. Then you want to try to say something about the properties of an equilibrium if it exists. Is it efficient? Well, what do you mean by efficiency? Well, the idea of so-called Pareto efficient outcomes, these are outcomes that cannot be uniformly improved upon. Everybody can't be made better off by an alternative outcome. You want to demonstrate the efficiency of competitive equilibrium. What do you mean by competition? You mean that people take their actions to do the best for themselves that they can. Profits of firms, well-being of consumers, they try to do the best for themselves that they can, but they do so in reference to a set of prices that they believe they cannot control. That's the criterion of competitive market circumstance. So does a competitive equilibrium exist? Do there exist a set of prices which, if everybody recognizes them as given and responds to those prices on behalf of their own interest, the outcome will be supply equaling demand in all the markets where people are interacting with one another. And that requires the use of some concepts in topology, fixed-point theorems and whatnot that are familiar to mathematics, not very deep mathematical results, but important to economics. That's all about general equilibrium and whatnot. But you ask about groups. By the way, amazing whirlwind summary of all of economics, but yes, go ahead. That was great. Markets of competition, of Pareto efficiency, anyway, but yes, groups. And prices. And prices. And by the way, there are some very beautiful formalizations of everything that I'm saying here. You end up in vector spaces. You end up with sets of bundles of consumption and production. You end up with convexity. You end up with hyperplanes, which are in this finite dimensional vector space, which are all of the bundles that have the same value at a certain price. But you end up with inner products. And it's just, it's very pretty. Yeah, but you almost forget that it's just a bunch of humans transacting with each other. That markets are made up of individuals. Markets are made up of individuals. And in order to carry out this formalization, you have to make assumptions about the individuals. And the end result is true in a formal sense, but may not be true as a representation of the reality, because it depends upon assumptions that themselves may not hold. But at least you know what it is that has to be true in order for your formal framework to be relevant, which is already a step in the right direction, I think. I mean, the formalization is better than the intuition, the armchair intuition, where we sit back and we don't really know exactly what we're talking about, because we haven't pinned it down in a precise way. I'm in favor of the formalization. People, they think, what is mathematics and the social sciences? After all, we're dealing with people. People are not automata. I agree with that. But the analysis of the interaction of people, I think, to be rigorous, requires us to be specific about what we're talking about, about markets, about consumers, about firms, about profits, about technology, about preferences. And that's the language of economics. But people's behavior depends upon what they seek in life, depends upon their goals and their objectives. Those things are at play. They can be pushed this way or that. So, I mean, nationalism, fighting and dying for your country. Religion, sacrificing on behalf of some abstract ideal of the good or of, you know, what is the human situation and what is the meaning of life? Economists have to assume that these things are some particular thing before they can turn the crank on their machine to analyze the outcomes of human interaction. And yet these things, belief in my identity, but the things that I'm willing to sacrifice and die for, for purposes of life that I affirm and pass on to my children, are important preconditions for actually carrying out any economic analysis. And they are subject to manipulation and to change over time. And that's not something that economics has a whole lot to say about. Well, is there some general things that are really powerful in terms of, you said, nation, religion, those are groups. Can you group people nicely in helping you understand human nature? So, group them into nations based on their citizenry. That's geography, right? The geographic location of your birth or your long-term residence, or maybe religious belief, what religion you have believed over time. Is there groups like that? And then race. Is that useful? What are the pros and cons of looking at outcomes based on these kinds of groups, race in particular? I think there are pros and I think there are cons. I mean, I am, myself, Glenn Lowry, sits before you right now, a Black American, an African American, I quote, unquote, I identify as, you know, that's the way they talk about it nowadays. I identify as a Black American. My skin is brown. My hair is coarse. My nose is broad relative to the way other people's noses look. My lips are thicker. That's a consequence of my ancestral descent from the human population, resident in the African continent in millennia past. My race. Here in the United States, we have various quote, unquote, races, defined crudely in the way that I just tried to define myself. You could say, and I think there is a very powerful argument, that these are superficial differences. I mean, really? Why should it matter that your eye color or your hair color or the shape of the bones in your face or the color, the tone of your skin, the amount of melanin, how it is that you react to ultraviolet radiation in terms of your skin? What is that to be the basis of anything? I mean, that's arbitrary. That's not meaningful. Could there really be meaning in these superficial differences among human beings? Isn't that an archaic or barbaric way of thinking about ourselves, to look at each other's skin color or hair texture and then to decide, oh, that's a Black or that's a White or that's a Latin or that's an Asian or that's a, whatever? That's something that we should outgrow, a person might say. That's a relic of a kind of tribal society, of a kind of pre-modern society where we built real structure on the basis of such superficial difference. A person could say that. On the other hand, I am a Black American. I mean, that's part of my identity. That's part of my heritage. It's part of the stories that I tell myself about who my people are. Why do I need a people? Why do I need a narrative of descent in which I affiliate with a racially defined people? Do I really need that? I mean, I think that's an important question. In fact, this is a confession, think of myself as Black. I could think of myself as simply human. I could not identify specifically as Black. I could say, my eyes are brown too, so what? I'm a brown eye? I'm going to invent a group based on my eye color. I weigh 290 pounds. I'm going to have a body size group. I'm a plus 200 and that's, quote, quote, who I am, close quote. I don't do that. I came from Chicago. Yes, I do have a certain sense of affinity with my hometown. I'm a Chicago-born person, but frankly, I haven't lived in Chicago since 1979. That's a long time. I wear my Chicago origins very, very lightly. I would not go to war with someone from Cleveland or St. Louis and fight to the death with that St. Louis person or that Cleveland person based upon the fact that we come from different cities. And you have even abandoned in your heart the Chicago Bulls. There's some Chicago that's still in me, I suppose, but it's not very deep. It's not, quote, who I am anymore. And I'm wondering, here I'm trying to pose a question, why is it that being a descendant of African slaves should be who I am? So there's some answers. One answer is, people will look at me and deal with me differently based upon what they see. I don't have control over that. I'm going to be perceived as a member of a group, whether or not I elect to affiliate myself with that group or not. Therefore, therefore, I need to be mindful of the fact that regardless of what my internal orientation is, the world will perceive me in a particular way and will perceive me differently based upon the color of my skin. So a police officer who stops me at two o'clock in the morning because my taillight is out and ask me for my automobile registration, and I reach quickly to the glove compartment to get my registration, and the police officer says, show me your hands. And I don't quite hear what he says, or I ignore what he says as I'm getting my document out of my glove compartment, but the police officer thinks because I have not responded to his demand to show my hands that I might be reaching for a weapon. And the police officer sees that I'm Black and fears that the likelihood that I might have a weapon is higher because in that town at that time, a lot of the people who get stopped with weapons in their car happen to be Black and male and so on. And he pulls his weapon and he discharges it, and I'm bleeding out there and I'm dead now. And all of that is a possibility that's very real and it's based upon the color of my skin. And therefore, when he stops me, I keep my hands on the steering wheel, and I don't go to the glove compartment, and I'm fearful of the fact that he might mistake me for a criminal, etc. Or I walk into a high-end store, clothing store, I see you're nicely dressed there, Lex, I'm not, but that's okay. I do have some good clothes at home, I just didn't wear them here today. But you know what I mean, and the salesman in the clothing store either treats me like an old friend and is warm and welcoming and what can I do for you, sir, and let me show you this and that and what are you looking for and what because he thinks I'm going to spend $1,000 there that day and he's going to get a 5% commission or whatever it is. And he either does that or he ignores me and looks at me with suspicion and thinks I might be trying to shoplift something or thinks I'm only going to spend $50 and not $500 and therefore I'm not worth his time. And I'm aware of the fact that when I go into the clothing store, especially the high-end places where I can buy a good suit or buy some really good dress shirts or slacks that fit me well and so on, I'm aware of the fact that I may not be taken seriously by the salesman based upon the fact that he's looking at me and he sees a Black person and therefore I dress up before I go out to buy clothes to get dressed, because I want to present myself as not someone who just walked in off the street but as one of those Black people who is really prepared to spend some money in the store so that I can be treated with respect. And I have to carry the burden, such as it is, of knowing that I need to earn being taken seriously by overcoming the suppositions that people may have about me based upon the color of my skin. Something like that. Or I ask myself, what am I going to teach my children about who they are and where they come from? What stories am I going to tell them about their ancestors? Who are their ancestors? Every African American has European ancestors. Every Black person in the United States of America, I think I can say that almost without exception. We could go to 23andMe and look at the DNA. They have European ancestors, they're not purely African. That's a fact and that's a consequence of the experience of African-descended people because it's a mixed population. My name is Lowry, spelled L-O-U-R-Y but pronounced as if it were L-O-W-E-R-Y. And I gather, if you trace the history of that name, that it's Scottish. So somewhere back then... So you could identify as a Scot. Well, or I could claim some Scottish descent. But I don't. I don't know who those ancestors are, and frankly, I don't know who my enslaved ancestors are. I can't trace my family history back very far into the 19th century. So what stories do I tell my children about who we are, about who their ancestors are? I mean, I want to tell my children some story and that story is going to be colored, quote unquote, by my race. So even though it is superficial, and in an ideal world, you might think, why would human beings... I mean, I read science fiction. So there's this Chinese writer, Chixin Liu, is his name. I might not pronounce it exactly right. C-I-X-I-N-L-I-U, Chixin Liu. He has a trilogy, The Three-Body Problem, The Dark Forest, and Death's End. Those are the three books of Chixin Liu's trilogy about how Trisolaris, which is another star system within a few light years of the solar system, and Earth get into a conflict. And when the Trisolaris come down to dominate Earth, suddenly all of these differences between the Chinese and the North Americans and the Europeans and the Africans and the South Asians become kind of insignificant because after all, the Trisolaris, with their advanced civilization, whose star system is dying, have their eyes on the solar system, which has a planet, the third rock from the sun, that is pretty habitable. And the difference between us become pretty insignificant. So we shouldn't need for an invasion by extraterrestrial beings to have to happen before we would recognize the common humanity that we all share, that is profound and is deep. We all descend, in effect, from the same ancestral population of Homo sapiens who walked out of East Africa eons ago and have survived amongst all of the different possible variations of species and whatnot of humanoid population. The Homo sapiens have flourished, the others have died out, and here we are. And we can just look at the genetic endowments that characterize our biological essence and we can see that we are all, quote unquote, the same beneath the skin, and yet we end up freighting so much weight onto these superficial differences. So I can see both sides of the issue is what I'm saying. I can see the argument race is an irrelevancy because at the end of the day, deep down, it is. But I can also see the argument that I hold on to racial identity because A, my racial presentation colors how other people deal with me, but B, because everybody needs a story. You know, everybody needs an account. You tell me you're Jewish. I mean, I don't know how deep that is. I don't know how genetically profound that is. I do know that it's a culturally profound identity for a lot of people based upon maybe some of the same kind of forces that I'm talking about. A, they won't let you not be Jewish. You could say you're not Jewish, but when Hitler is rounding people up, what you say doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the Gestapo was about. And B, you need to tell your children a story. Yeah. Well, that's the fascinating thing about this tribalism that you spoke about, that we form tribes as humans throughout human history, form tribes and have directed hate toward other tribes and sometimes violence and destruction. And yet tribalism allows you to tell a story to your children, allows you to grow a culture. There's something about defining yourself within a particular tribe that allows you to have a tradition. You have an article that you wrote that you wrote called The Case for Black Patriotism. Oh, yeah. So I should also say it's so interesting because for me personally, I feel, identify as, believe I am an American. And yet within the American umbrella, it feels that there's a longing for other tribes. You mentioned Jewish, but what I honestly feel is, I mean, a lot of it is humor and culture and so on, is Russian and Ukrainian, because that's where I come from. That's where my family is from. There's like stereotypical things that are funny, humorous type of thing about Russians, showing no emotion, good at chess and math, into wrestling, drinking vodka. I mean, there's literally every single stereotype, I'm in the embodiment of that. So there's a, you celebrate that in certain kinds of ways. There's a tradition there within the American umbrella. And some of it is humor, some of it is little quirks of culture. But now with the war in Russia and Ukraine, interestingly enough, even that little thing, it becomes also a source of negative tribalism. But anyway, that context aside, what is Black Patriotism? And why do you feel... I mean, I'm speaking in an article called The Case for Black Patriotism in a particular context. And what I'm saying basically is very simple. I'm saying we are African Americans, and the emphasis should be on the American. I actually don't even much care for the framing African American, but I'm not going to fight with people about it. I don't think it's worth fighting about. That's not how... I would just say we're Americans, or if you want, we're Black Americans. We're certainly not African. That is, the African American population is a population of people who come into existence here in North America through the cauldron of slavery. There are also immigrants, immigrants from East Africa, immigrants from West Africa, immigrants from Southern Africa, immigrants from the Caribbean, who descend from an ancestral population which is African. The history of the world since 1500 is a history in which people of African descent are scattered because of slavery throughout the Western Hemisphere. And so here we are. But the institution of slavery ended in 1863 in the United States. The struggle that we started out talking about, which gave rise to Martin Luther King giving that speech that you say is the greatest speech in American history, and I'm not going to argue with you about that, happened right here in the United States. We are... What is the United States? The United States is a nation of immigrants. The population of the North American continent was sparsely populated by an indigenous population which was destroyed in conquest by a European population that settled here in North America and appropriated the land and have built a civilization here which has been peopled by a large influx of individuals from Europe, the Irish and Italian and Greek and Slavic and Jewish, Russian Jews coming in large numbers and so on, in wave after wave after wave of immigration. Asian, Latin American population of people have come to reside here in the United States, and we Black Americans who descend from slaves. We African Americans who descend from slaves. So here we are. This is a great nation. I mean, this is a monumentally significant political force, which is the United States of America founded in 1776, 1787, fought a war of independence from the British, established a republic which is a confederation of these independent colonies which has grown into now the 50 states of the United States of America, a continental nation. The richest and most powerful nation on the planet, with massive influence throughout the world, for good and for ill. That's who we are, I want to say to Black people. There is no other home for us. This fantasy of we being a people apart, back in the day when I was coming along in the 1960s, there was something called the Republic of New Africa movement, and they wanted some states in the South given over to Black people and we were going to have our own country. And that's a joke, it's a fantasy, it's a mythic, unbalanced, unrealistic, mythic, fanciful politics. It's not a serious politics. We're Americans, we're not going anywhere here. The idea that, and I want to say this in a number of different registers, I want to say first of all, we need to make peace with the fact that that's who we are and that's where we are. So nobody is coming. The world court is not going to litigate our disputes. The United Nations is not going to set up a desk for people of African descent who reside in North America. We have to work out whatever our concerns are with our fellow Americans right here within the context of American politics. That means compromise. That means looking for a framework for political expression which is broader than our racial identity, etc. So I want to say that. But I also want to say there's no reason to apologize for this. There's something positive to affirm. I take on this question about slavery in brief, because in fact slavery was awful and it was wrong and it was on the backs of the enslaved Africans and it had consequences that have endured long after the termination of the thing. But I also want to say, look at what has happened in the last 150 years for African Americans. And I want to say, look at the vitality of the institutions here in the United States of America, of the Democratic Republic of the United States of America. Again, not perfect. Which are malleable enough, these institutions, to allow for the transformation of the status of African Americans such as has occurred since the end of slavery. And I want to say there's a lot to celebrate in that. So this is our country. We are full members of the polity. We have burdens and responsibilities as well as privileges that are associated with our membership in this republic. That does not mean that we should not fight for what we believe to be right, although we are not one voice here, we Black Americans. It does not mean that we should not protest things that we think are deserving of protest. But I want to say, it does mean that we should not reject the framework that we're operating in because we basically don't have any alternative and because when viewed in full context, a noble and profoundly significant achievement, the United States of America, and a beacon to the rest of the world. I don't want to go off in some starry-eyed kind of jingoistic celebration of America as the greatest civilization, etc, etc. But this great nation is our nation. And I think we do best by beginning, we Black Americans do best by beginning, this is my argument in the piece, by beginning from a framework which accepts that fact and then builds on it. So Black patriotism is not exactly the same. Rhymes, echoes, American patriotism. So a Black American is first and foremost an American. Yeah. A Black American is first and foremost an American, and it's a good thing too. Let me return to the question of Dr. King and another powerful, impactful individual, Malcolm X, to ask you the question. Well, first, people often perhaps inaccurately portray them as representing two different ideals, approaches to the fight for civil rights. So Martin Luther King for the nonviolent approach, the peacemaker, and Malcolm X is the by any means necessary. What do you think about this distinction? And broadly speaking, in Black patriotism, in the future of Black Americans in the 21st century, what is the role of anger? What is the role of protest? Even, you know, violence encompasses a lot of things, but just aggression and the, you know, fuck the man, we're going to have to make change, force change. Okay, I think you put your finger on something really important in the context of we were just discussing my Black patriotism essay, and it's not the only story. There is another story, and Malcolm X is someone you identify, and his memory lives on and is powerfully influential. And I think you see it in Black Lives Matter, and I think you see it in the protest and rioting and so forth that has broken out periodically going all the way back to the 1960s and before, but especially since the 1960s. You saw it in Los Angeles in 1992, the Rodney King civil disturbances that broke out there, and the balled up fist, the radical, Afrocentric rejection of the American story that Martin Luther King, he believed in, he believed in a magnificent promissory note. And a lot of people are rolling their eyes, you know, and saying, you know, as you say, fuck the man, magnificent promissory note. And I think that's a really important thing to remember. You know, as you say, fuck the man, magnificent promissory note. I mean, just get your knee off my neck. That's what you can do for me. Don't ask me to believe in your BS about some magnificent promissory note, some founding fathers who were all slave owners anyway. I mean, just get your knee off my neck. Now, I can relate to that. As I mentioned, I grew up in Chicago in the 1950s and the 1960s. I remember Malcolm X, I mean, literally in real time. I remember when he was murdered in 1965 in the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem, in Manhattan, in New York City. I remember my uncle, I was raised in a house where my aunt and uncle were the master of the house, and my mother and my sister and I lived in a small apartment upstairs in the back of this big house that my successful aunt and uncle owned. And my uncle was a small businessman, a barber and a tradesman. He was a hustler, I mean, legally, he did what he had to do to make money. He was very enterprising, not especially well-educated, but a very intelligent and disciplined and resourceful provider for his family, which included myself, my sister, and my mother in their household. And we called him Uncle Moony because he had moon-shaped eyes that protruded and were round. Uncle Moony, James Ellis was his name, Uncle Moony, James Ellis Lee was my Uncle Moony. But I'm saying all that to say this, he admired the nation of Islam. I mean, King and Malcolm X, Martin King and Malcolm X, differed along a number of different dimensions. Malcolm X was a Muslim, and Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian minister. My Uncle Moony didn't have any time for these Christian ministers. He thought that was the white man's religion. And back in that day, you'd go into a Black church and you'd see a portrait of Jesus, and he'd be a blond hair, blue eyed. He didn't even look like a Mediterranean. He didn't look like somebody who came from Palestine. I mean, he looked like somebody who came from Northern Europe or something like that, the picture of Jesus. And my Uncle Moony rejected that whole thing. He would be damned if he was going to bend his knee to some white Jesus. But he was not a Muslim either. But he respected the Muslims. He brought home their newspaper, it was called Muhammad Speaks. This is the nation of Islam, which is the Black Muslim movement founded in American cities in Detroit and in Chicago, going back to the early middle 20th century, and growing into a very significant movement that had a lot of influence. Louis Farrakhan, a controversial figure, descends from this movement. It has fractured now and has the major part of the legacy of the Black Muslims has assimilated itself into Islam proper. Malcolm X made a famous pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina and came back with a very different vision about what it meant to be a Muslim and understood himself to be a part of the large tradition and religious culture of Islam that has a global reach. And he had a different vision when he came back from that. And some people say that's why he was killed and so on. I don't know. I certainly find that to be plausible that he became the constitutive threat to the sect, which was the Black Muslims and had to be dealt with. I don't know if we'll ever know the full story on that. But anyway, what I'm trying to say is the Black Muslims were there, Malcolm X was there, and in my experience, they constituted a counterpoint to the position of king, which depended on a kind of respect for the best of the tradition of American democracy, appealing to the better nature of our oppressors, live up to the full meaning of our creed. I mean, these are words that he would use. A magnificent promissory note is what he would think of as the Declaration of Independence and the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, unfulfilled ideal. And the Black Muslims were like, fuck that. We're going to take care of our own. We're going to build our own schools. We're going to build our own businesses. We're not waiting for the white man to do anything. Get your knee off my neck and get out of my way and let me take care of my own. And my uncle respected that. He respected the straight back, the stand up straight with your shoulders back. That's a Jordan Peterson, but I mean, that was way before Jordan Peterson, but that was his philosophy. Stand up straight, but just raise your children. Don't be depending upon welfare. You're taking welfare from the white man, you need to get busy. You need to educate yourself. You need to clean up your act, put down the fried chicken because it's going to kill you. My uncle Mooney loved this book that Elijah Muhammad, they called him the honorable Elijah Muhammad, who was the founder and the leader of the nation of Islam. He had a book and all the book said was be smart, eat green vegetables, don't eat fried food, don't eat pork. They're Muslims. Don't eat pork and take responsibility for your diet and be healthy. And don't be putting a whole lot of pills into your body. You don't need to do that if you just get control of your diet and you eat properly. Now, my uncle loved this idea of responsibility for self and a determination to build. He respected that in the Muslims, even if he didn't buy the religious part of it. And by the way, when my uncle died in 1983, he left me a bequest. It wasn't money, unfortunately. It was his complete collection of the recorded speeches of Malcolm X. And I have these albums. These are 33 and a third LPs. There's six of them. And I have a complete collection, as best as my uncle could assemble, of the recorded speeches of Malcolm X. Now, why did he do that? He did that because he did not want me to forget, don't be dependent upon the white man, build your own, stand up straight with your shoulders back, proud Black man, take care of your business, take care of your children, pick up the trash in front of your house, get busy. This was this philosophy. So violence now, that's another story. I mean, Malcolm X would say, you know, we're going to defend ourselves. You're going to mess with us, you know, you racist Ku Klux Klan or whatever. We're going to arm ourselves and we're going to fight you back. You racist police who are oppressing and persecuting and abusing our people. Well, you better be ready because we're going to fight you back. And that too was the spirit that my uncle, that was the kind of attitude, the kind of posture. My uncle was not a radical. He was a businessman, but he respected this idea. You take your life in your own hands when you mess with us. You're not going to mess with us. You take your life in your own hands when you mess with us because we're prepared to defend ourselves. So that blood runs in you too. That thread is, when you write about Black patriotism, that thread is there too. It's like you embody both the ideal that we're all American, but also that there is this oppressive history. There is the powerful that are manipulating you, that are oppressing you, and you can't just wait around for things to fix themselves. You have to take action. You have to take things into your own hands. And sometimes that means being angry. Sometimes that means being violent. That's there too. Yeah, it's there, but here in the but is, I don't mean today, Glenn Lowry in 2022, think that that is the answer. I don't think that violent rebellion gets us anywhere at the end of the day. I think we're past that. There aren't Knight Rider, Ku Klux Klan people breaking down your door and dragging you away. There are not nooses thrown over a tree limb where you hang somebody from the tree because they whistled at a white woman or they got too much property in your community and you became, they were uppity Negroes and whatnot like that. That is a thing of the past in America that the situation is no longer the one that requires that kind of violent reaction. And that there is, if we look at the net effect of the so-called rebellions in American cities, they're negative. The George Floyd protests, which became violent and arsonist in the aftermath of civil disturbance and whatnot in the summer of 2020, I think set back the program for African Americans. I don't think it advanced it. I think there are things to be concerned about, schools that are not working, police that are not respecting citizens and so forth. But I think that those are things that affect white Americans as well. And that the way to ultimately correct those things is to make alliance and associate oneself with Americans who are concerned to change these things. And I don't think it's properly framed as a racial problem. And I certainly don't think that violent rebellion gets us anywhere. I get the historical salience of that posture, and it made a lot of sense in the early and the mid 20th century. I don't think it makes very much sense at all in the early 21st century. Well, thank you for allowing me for a brief moment to try to channel your Uncle Mooney and maybe Malcolm X in this conversation as we look forward to the 21st century. You mentioned that in part you're troubled by the term African American. So words are funny things until they're not. So let me ask you about what I think is one of the most powerful and controversial words in the English language, the N-word. So this is a word that I can't say, that only certain people have the right to say. I have a friend, Joe Rogan, who has, what would you say, there was mass pushback or highlighting of the fact that he didn't just say N-word, but said the full word many times throughout his conversations when referring to, in a meta way, about the power of words, especially when related to certain comedians using those words. Yeah. What do you think about this word? Is it empowering? Is it destructive? What is it? What does it mean for race in America? What does it mean that people like Joe Rogan were essentially, there's an attack to cancel him for using the word? Just as a scholar of human nature, what do you think about this whole thing? This is a phenomenon that interests me. Okay. The N-word. Nigger. I can say it because I'm black. But I mean, I can also say it because I like hip hop. And when I listen to hip hop, I hear the word all the time. These niggers ain't did, you ain't watch out for these, et cetera. I heard the word constantly as I was growing up as a boy and a young man in Chicago. Niggers ain't shit. That was said. And that could be a reflection of some kind of pathology within the African-American community of self-hatred and so forth. It could be, or it could just be a colloquial linguistic way. I assume other groups also have their various, I don't know how the Irish talk about their Irish brothers and whatever. And I don't know how the Jews talk about the Jewish brothers and whatever. But black people, when talking about other black people, use the N-word all the time. My nigger. N-I-G-G-A. My nigger. That is a term of endearment. My friend, Randall Kennedy, the law professor at Harvard University has a book called Nigger, and he uses the word in the title of the book. The history of a strange history of a provocative word. There's a subtitle. But the title of the book is N-I-G-G-E-R colon, and then he has a subtitle. I think, of course, the use of the word as a slur and an insult, which is a part of the history of black people in the United States, the use of the word by the Southern racist segregationists, we don't want no niggers up in here. Y'all, niggers have no place in my restaurant, in my store, et cetera. That's meant to be an insult. It's an insult to people. It's a fighting word. It's a way that you say that to somebody. It's an invitation for conflict. That said, what is it that about this particular word, and also the asymmetry of it, that do you think it's empowering to the black community to own a word? My honest answer to you is I don't know. I don't fully understand it. It has become symbolic in a way. And the policing of the use of the word, I can say it, but white people can't say it. I can say it. I'm not a racist. I'm not a self-hating black. I'm just speaking the language of colloquial English that has emerged amongst African-Americans in which that word plays a big role. But the prohibition on its use by others, and of course, in the Joe Rogan case, it wasn't as if he was calling anybody an N-word. He was simply pointing out that people had said stuff in which the N-word was a part of what they said. Now, he did make the statement about, how did he put it, Planet of the Apes, that one of the offensive things that he said, he walked into a room, there's a bunch of black guys standing around, he says, like Planet of the Apes. He said it's like Africa, Planet of the Apes. Yeah, he should have, and he did apologize for that. He should have been a little bit more careful. That was an insult. That was something that, if you say that and people are offended, they have a right to be offended. And if you didn't mean to offend them, you can apologize. And he did apologize. I accept his apology. Joe's okay with me, as far as that goes. In fact, John McWhorter and I, at the podcast that I do, The Glenn Show, had a conversation, part of which touched on the Joe Rogan phenomenon. And we concluded he didn't really do anything wrong. I mean, you can like Irma, you can hate him or whatever, but the idea that he's a racist is kind of ridiculous. So frankly, I mean, Joe, you know. Yeah. If that's your test of what constitutes a racist, the utterance of the word, then it's kind of silly, as far as I'm concerned. What do you think about the rigorous testing of people to the degree they're racist or not? The accusation of racism being a way to attack, to bully, to divide. So what are the pros and cons of that, once again? Because it does reveal the assholes and the racists, but it can hurt people who are not. Well, I think we have a history here in the United States of blatant racism that goes back a long way, and that has present-day echoes. So there are racists. I mean, there are people who will look and see, oh, those are Black people, they're patronizing this business, I don't want to patronize this business anymore. Who, if the daughter of their son is dating somebody that is Black, they will say, I really wish you wouldn't do that. I mean, why are you hanging out with those people? Don't you know who they are? There are people, there are racists, there are Black racists, that is, Black people who see somebody who's White and who then invoke a whole lot of stereotypes or whatever, or have a visceral dislike based upon nothing other than the color of the person's skin. Such people exist. Racism is a real thing, etc. On the other hand, I think this throwing around the accusation of racism, a college professor is teaching a course. He says in the context of teaching the course that the underrepresentation of Blacks in physics program at this university is because they score lower on the test than other groups, and they're not qualified. So, say the professor gives a lecture and he says, we don't have more Blacks in the physics department at this university because there are not enough qualified Blacks. Somebody in the classroom who hears that, a Black student, objects, he's a racist. That's a power move. It's a move to try to control the conversation. It's not an argument, it's an epithet. You've said that a person who has a particular idea that you don't like, maybe that idea is, I'm against affirmative action, I think it's unfair. I was just with Dorian Abbott. Dorian Abbott is a scientist at the University of Chicago who published a piece in Newsweek magazine in which he said that he thought affirmative action and racial balancing was unethical. He was invited to give a lecture at MIT, a very distinguished lecture in his field based on planetary science. I don't know exactly what it is. I'm not a scientist. But in any case, because he had said that he didn't like affirmative action and he thought affirmative action was racist, that's basically what he said. Why are we looking at people based upon their race and decide we should just do it on their merit? That was his position. Now, people are protesting at the university where he was invited, MIT, saying that he's a racist because he had that opinion. He gets disinvited. Charles Murray is a popular social science writer who is famous for his book about IQ, The Bell Curve, one chapter of which chronicles the racial differences between Black and White in performance on mental ability tests and speculates about the extent to which such differences may be connected with the genetic inheritance of these racially distinct populations. Now, he could be wrong about everything that he's saying. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him a White supremacist because he observes that there are racial differences in measured intellectual ability amongst Americans of different racial descent. He could be wrong. Let me stipulate that he is wrong. I mean, I don't want to argue about whether he's right or about whether he's wrong. He's addressing himself to the point that he's addressing himself to a factual issue. And now the issue becomes, instead of grappling with the factual questions at hand and demonstrating his rightness or wrongness about those questions, the issue becomes his character. He's a racist. That's, in my mind, a lot like calling him a witch. The use of that word now, I think, has parallels to accusing people of witchcraft because they have views about substantive questions that bear on racial inequality or racial difference that a person finds unacceptable or that a person disagrees with. And you think you can shut somebody up. Crime in the cities of Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. is out of control, some person might say. Murder rate is high. Who's committing those crimes? They're mostly Black young men who are doing the carjackings and who are doing the shootings. They're killing each other. They're making our city unlivable. Now, that's a hypothetical statement that I offer. It might be correct. It might be incorrect. It might be appropriate. It might be inappropriate. It may be true, but something that we would be better off if people didn't focus on. I don't know. Responding to someone making that statement, have you seen what has happened to my city? It used to be that you could go to North Michigan Avenue and you could find one after another after another high-end shop. This is in Chicago, my hometown. And tourists would come and they'd go to the theater and there were restaurants and they'd go out. They don't do it anymore. You know what? Half of those stores are boarded up now. You know why? Because when George Floyd was killed, Black people mobbed in the city and they burnt and they rioted and they looted, and it hasn't been the same ever since. And I'm moving to the suburbs. I'll be damned if I'm going to send my children to those schools. A person could say that. They might be right. They might be wrong to say it. Calling them a racist is exactly not a rebuttal of what they said. It's a move. It's a move to try to take control of the conversation by accusing someone of having bad character because they said something that made you uncomfortable, which you can't deal with. So you think you can shut them up by calling them a racist. You might as well be calling them a witch. You might as well be calling for their head on a platter because they believe that Satan is Lord, because that's the kind of quote, argument, close quote, which is precisely not an argument, that people who invoke that term are using. And here's what I have to say about that. It's a fool's errand to try to refute somebody by calling them a witch. Likewise, it's a fool's errand to try to rebut the contrary forces in American politics that are a reaction often to real things that are going on on the ground in Black communities in the cities across this country by calling people a racist. You may shut them up, but you won't change their minds. And you know what? At the end of the day, they're going to go to the ballot box and they're going to vote. They're going to pick up their store and they're going to move it to the other side of town or to another town altogether. They're going to keep their children away from places where they think the influences are harmful to those children. They may not even talk about it in public. You can believe that in private that they're talking about it with each other. You had better find a more effective way of dealing with the conflicts in this country that fall along racial fault lines than calling people witches, which is what this, you know, anti-racist, you're a racist because you think that the out-of-wedlock birthrate amongst Black Americans is seven babies out of 10 are born to a woman without a husband. Their families are falling apart. Now, no one says that in public because they'd be called a racist if they said it in public. But as a matter of fact, the families are falling apart. You didn't change that in the least by telling people to shut up about it. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is called a racist in the 1960s, the late senator, the late New York senator who was a federal employee in intellectual writing reports, and he writes a report about the Negro family, he called it in those years. If I use the word Negro now, they're going to call me a racist if I'm a white person. I can't even use the word Negro, which is a historically legitimate reference to the descendants of the slaves, enslaved people, which we were, as Black Americans, proud to use until yesterday. So all of this linguistic policing is a sign of weakness. It's false Black power. People will cede you the ground. Okay, you don't want me to use that word, I won't use that word anymore. Okay, you don't want me to talk about that in public? All right, I won't talk about it in public anymore. I don't want to be called a racist, okay, so I won't express my opinion. You haven't changed anybody's mind. You know, so... And you've also mentioned that for that, you haven't changed anybody's mind, but also for things like in universities and institutions, there's diversity, inclusion, and equity kind of meetings and education and so on. And I believe I read somewhere, I've been, like I mentioned to you offline, big fan of your Glenn show, people should listen to it. It's amazing. There's also just interviews of you that I've listened to. I believe you mentioned somewhere that even those kinds of meetings, people might sit through and nod along, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's making progress, that they may not, they may actually be bottling up a frustration. That's the fear is that that's going to result in a pendulum, a pendulum sort of push back towards this idea of forced appreciation, like forced anti-racism kind of thing. I talk about this often in my podcast, that's the Glenn show, you know, and you can find the Glenn show, my YouTube channel, and also at Substack. Yeah, you have a great Substack. You and your friend do Q&As and all that kind of stuff on Patreon. Yeah. So yeah, so people should definitely follow you. It's a brilliant conversation. But yeah, I mean, one concern is that the policing of, the superficial policing, this is a part of political correctness, you know, the insistence that you only use certain words, that you only talk in a certain way, is a phony kind of power because it doesn't actually persuade people about the issues that are at hand. Instead, it forces them underground in their talk about these issues, and that's problematic. Much better that we have overt and explicit and honest disagreement, to the extent that there are disagreement about things that are going on, than that we have a superficial kind of conversation that is purged of any real biting, discomforting confrontation with the realities of the situation at hand. And for Black Americans, I think one big part of the reality of the situation at hand is violent crime. Violent crime. You know, a police officer is afraid when he stops a car because it's an 18-year-old driver in the vehicle. He's got dreadlocks, he's a Black person, the car doesn't have the right license plate, he's afraid to deal with that person. And one of the reasons he's afraid to deal with them is because a few who look like him are behaving violently. Their violence is usually perpetrated against others who look like themselves, but not always. And that reality doesn't get changed by telling a newspaper writer who writes about it that they are a racist, or enforcing within a newsroom, you can't cover that story in that way because to do so would be racist. I think it's a monumental mistake to enforce a closure on public discussion based upon a calculation that if we allow people, if Twitter allows this kind of post, if the Washington Post runs this kind of story, etc., you end up with a superficial politeness, but a subterranean seething resentment that only makes matters worse. If I can get your comment, maybe you have ideas, because it does seem that this kind of attack works, of being called a racist, being called, maybe not sexist, but somebody, you know, like we're going through a Johnny Depp trial now, right? It's a defamation trial, and the reason it's a defamation trial is because all it took is a single accusation of Johnny Depp being somebody who sexually and physically abused Amber Heard, and all it took is just a single article. No proof was given except the accusation itself, and the world believed it. So it's effective. So how do you fight back if it's so damn effective that you can just call anybody racist, and it works? It's hard to wash off. You're not proven in the court of law or anything like that, but we get those articles, we get that label, and then the world moves on and just assumes that person is racist. So do you have any ideas how to fight back? No, I don't, frankly. Just highlighting the fact. Listen, Roseanne Barr, who made this statement about Valerie Jarrett, she made some kind of ape-like reference to the whatever, and her show got canceled, and she's a racist. So first of all, pointing it out, I suppose, is one of the most powerful things, that this, the hypocrisy of it, the... You say it works. I guess you're right. It used to be that calling someone a communist worked. I mean, going back to the late 40s, early 50s, Red Scare, McCarthyism, and whatnot. And the person might have belonged to a club that was pro-Soviet Union in the 1930s when they were in college. They might have voted for the socialist candidate Henry Wallace in the presidential election of 1948. They might belong to the Communist Party. They might think Karl Marx was right about a whole lot of stuff about capitalism and whatnot. And they got called a communist or a Marxist, and it could have ruined their career, could have ruined their lives. And a lot of people shut up about it, and it took, and it went on for a long time. And in a way, it kind of still is going on. I mean, you can't deny that. It still is going on. I mean, you call somebody a Marxist, if you can make that stick, they're certainly not going to get elected president of the United States. But I don't know about this. I think, you know, I once read this book by a German political scientist called Elisabeth Neule Neumann. That was the writer's name. Elisabeth Neule Neumann. The book was called The Spiral of Silence. And the argument was, there can be some views, some issues in society that get defined in such a way that it's inappropriate to hold those views. And as a result, people who don't want to be shamed, who don't want to be ostracized, don't express those views. And when they don't express them, anybody holding the view, because they don't hear it said by others, think that they're the only one or one of the few who hold the view. And so they don't want to be the only one out there saying something, so they keep it to themselves. So now this view, this attitude in society could be held by a large number of people, but because of the fear that if they were to express it, they'd be ostracized, no one says it. And since no one is saying it, the others who hold the view don't know that they're not alone, that they are not the only ones who hold the view, and hence they keep silent. That could be an equilibrium. It could be a relatively stable situation in which the emperor has no clothes, everybody can see that this dude is naked, but everybody thinks that, you know, I don't want to be the only one to say it, and so we all kind of collaborate in this charade of keeping the view to ourselves. Then along comes an event that somebody decides to defy the consensus and to speak out. It could be a little kid who, in the story about the emperor has no clothes, doesn't realize that he's not supposed to say that the emperor is naked. The thing about the kid in the story who says that the emperor is naked is not that he's saying it, it's not even that other people hear him saying it, it's that everybody knows that everybody else heard him say it. Okay? The kid who speaks out and says the emperor has no clothes creates a circumstance in which it's common knowledge that the emperor has no clothes. Now, common knowledge does not just mean knowledge, it does not even mean widespread knowledge. It means comprehensive knowledge of other person's knowledge of the thing. Okay? So the spiral of silence is an equilibrium that is susceptible to being undermined by a process of a kind of cumulative process, a snowballing process of revelation that you're not the only one who thinks this way. Okay? It's fascinating to think that there's an ocean of common knowledge that we're waiting for the little kid to wake us up to, different little parts of it. That's correct. And the little kid, by the way, could be somebody like Donald Trump, only more effective than Donald Trump. Somebody who is smarter than Donald Trump, somebody who is shrewder than Donald Trump, somebody who figures out that when Colin Kaepernick takes a knee at a football game and says, I'm not going to stand for this President's Allegiance, that a vast number of people are very unhappy about that. Somebody who understands that when a Black Lives Matter activist stands up with his ball fist and says, burn this bitch down about a city in the United States of America, that a lot of people are upset about that. A lot of them. A person, a shrewd politician, a shrewd manager of public image could build on and create a circumstance in which more and more people will feel safe to express that view. And the more who express it, the safer those who have yet to express it but who hold it will feel in expressing it. And to the extent that the view is very widespread but is kept under wraps, an explosion could happen. And you can look up tomorrow and have a very different country than you had today because the conspiracy of silence, the spiral of silence, ends up getting unraveled by somebody who steps out away from the consensus, dares to take the slings and arrows of exposing themselves as a naysayer, but taps into a sentiment that's very widespread. And I fear that with respect to many racial issues, this is the situation that we actually confront, that it could unravel in a very ugly way. But it could also unravel in a beautiful way. So it's depending. There is a spiral of silence, you're saying. And it could be, speaking of children, charismatic children, there's a guy named Elon Musk who might be a candidate for such an unraveling. You mentioned the person that speaks out could be a Donald Trump, but in this current situation that we live in, like as this week, Elon has purchased Twitter. That's what I hear. And is pushing for, in all kinds of ways, the increase of free speech on Twitter. And speaking about some of the issues that we've been speaking about here with you, but maybe in broader strokes, about just the fact that you have to, it's okay to point out that the emperor wears no clothes, and to do so from all sides in a way that everybody's a little bit pissed off, but not too much. What do you think about this whole effort of free speech in these public platforms? Elon in particular, Twitter, you're an avid Twitter user, but just public platforms for discourse, for us as a civilization to figure stuff out? Yeah, well, the people on the left are very upset about the possibility that Elon Musk and Twitter will be more open to provocative public speech that has here to forebend, banned, or suppressed. And I think they might be right to be concerned that that could happen. I don't know enough about the technology and about the market to really, I mean, social media and whatnot, it seems like it's a complicated system of interaction. Some people have interactions between people and who the users are, and so forth and so on. I do know that that New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop was real news, and could have affected the outcome of the election, and it was suppressed, and that Twitter had a role in suppressing it. I do know that the question of where the COVID-19 virus originated in the role that a LabLeak account could have played in the public processing of that event was real news, and that it was suppressed by people who were trying to control misinformation, disinformation, Russian disinformation campaigns, and whatnot. So Twitter has users, I'm one of them, and it has a lot of users. It's not as big as Facebook, I gather, but it's important. The ability to construct counter platforms, people moving around and whatnot, it's a kind of network dynamic that maybe I should understand it better than I do, being a social scientist. I don't think anyone understands it, even people inside Twitter, which is fascinating. It's a monster because of just the bandwidth of messaging, and you don't know who is a bot and who is a human. That's a fascinating dynamic. And the viral nature of negativity, all of those dynamics, of course, you are probably the right person to understand it from a social scientist's perspective, from an economics perspective, but nobody really understands. And it's fascinating, within that domain, how do you allow for free speech, not allow for free speech, encourage free speech, defend free speech, and at the same time, manage millions of ongoing conversations from just becoming insanely chaotic. From Twitter perspective, they want people to be happy, to grow, to actually have difficult, critical conversations. And the problem with humans is they think they know what that is, and they think they can label things as misinformation, as counterproductive for healthy conversations, in quotes. And the problem is, as we are learning, humans are not able to do that effectively. First of all, power corrupts. There's something delicious about having the power to label something as misinformation. You do that once for something that might be obviously misinformation, and then you start getting greedy. You start getting excited. It feels good. It feels good to label something as misinformation, disinformation that you just don't like. And over time, especially if there's a culture inside of a company that leans a certain political direction or leans, in all the groups that we talked about, leans a certain way, they'll start to label as misinformation things they just don't like. And that power is delicious, and it corrupts. You have to construct mechanisms, like the Founding Fathers did, for somehow preventing you from allowing that power to get too delicious. At least that's my perspective on what's going on. Well, I'll just tell you personally, I'm excited about the prospect. I'm glad to see Musk making the move that he's making, and we'll see what happens at Twitter and so forth. You're looking forward for the, what did he say? Let's make Twitter more fun. I'm looking forward to the fun. You've talked about, you are at a prestigious university. Brown University. Brown University. And you've mentioned that universities might be in trouble. I think it's with Jordan, but everywhere else, that barbarians are at the gate. Who are the barbarians at the gate of the university? So first of all, what is to you beautiful about the ideal of the university in America of academia? And what is a threat? Well, you know, a university is dedicated to the pursuit of truth, and to the education and nurturing of young people as they enter into the pursuit of truth, to doing research and to teaching in an environment of free inquiry and civil discourse. So free inquiry means you go wherever the evidence and your imagination may lead you. And civil discourse means that you exchange arguments with people when you don't agree with them on behalf of trying to get to the bottom of things. I think the university is a magnificent institution. It is a relatively modern institution. I mean, last 500 years or so, I mean, there are universities that are older than that. But the great research universities of the world, not only here in the United States, are places where human ingenuity is nurtured, where new knowledge is created, and where young people are equipped to answer questions that are open questions about our existence in the world that we live in. You can trace to the university much, if not most, of the advances in technology and resourcefulness, our understanding of the origins of the species, of the nature of the universe, cosmology, etc., science, the pursuit of humanistic understanding, the nurturing of traditions of inquiry, so forth. So that's the university. Barbarians are at the gates. The people who are trying to shut down open inquiry at the university on behalf of their particular view about things are a threat to what the university stands for, and they should be resisted. So if I'm inquiring about the nature of human intelligence, and I want to study differences between human populations and their acquisition of, or their expression of, cognitive ability, that's fair game. It's an open question. If I want to know something about the nature of gender affiliation and identity and gender dysphoria and whatnot, that's fair game to study in a university. You can't shut that down—you shouldn't be able to—by saying, I have a particular position here, I'm a member of a particular identity group. Suppose I want to study the history of colonialism. And there's a narrative on the progressive side, which is colonialism is about Europeans dominating and stealing, or whatever, whatever. And I happen to think, well, there's another aspect to the story about colonialism too, which is that it's a mechanism for the diffusion of the best in human civilization to populations that were significantly lagging behind with respect to that. It brought literacy to the southern hemispheric populations that were dominated in the process of the colonizing thing. It's complicated. I'm not taking that position, by the way. I'm just saying somebody at a university should be able to take it up and pursue it and engage in argument with people about it. I'm talking about race and ethnicity, but this extends to a wide range of things. Suppose we're talking about climate, and one person says the Earth is endangered because of carbon in global warming, etc., etc. And another person says, no, wait, no, wait. Look at where we stand in the 21st century. We're vastly richer than our ancestors just 250 years ago. We have much more knowledge about that, and so forth and so on. 250 years from now, human ingenuity will have devised in ways that we cannot even begin to anticipate all manner of technological means for managing the problem. There's no reason that we should shut down industrial civilization today because we fear the consequences of it when in fact we are vastly richer than our ancestors, and those who come up two centuries after us will be vastly more effective at dealing with problems than we are now. I'm not actually making that argument. I'm just saying the tendency to try to say, oh no, that person is a climate denier, they can't pursue that area of inquiry, is against the spirit of the university. I think the barbarians at the gates has to do with the people who think they know what the right side of history is and try to make the university stand on the right side of history. My position is you don't know what the right side of history is, and the purpose of a university is to equip you to be able to think about what is the right side of history, what is the solution to the dilemmas that confront us as human beings living on this planet with the billions that we are in the condition that we are. So the identitarians, the ones who want to make the university kowtow to their particular understandings about their own identity. We now have at Brown University and various other places, we don't do Columbus Day anymore, we do Indigenous Peoples Day. When that day comes up in October, we don't talk about Columbus, they're taking down statues of Columbus all across the country and so forth and so on. I'm not arguing anything here other than that the latter-day position, BIPOCs, Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, the latter-day position that the university has to reflect a particular sensibility about these identity questions, I think it's a threat to the integrity of the enterprise. I don't think you're overstating it. I tend to be, just from my limited knowledge of MIT, but perhaps it applies broadly, I think the beauty of the university, broadly speaking, is the faculty and the students. And the problem arises from the overreach of a overgrowing administration that gives, again, thinks that it knows enough to make rules and conclusions based on a set of beliefs, and then based on that, empowers a certain small selection of students to be the sort of voices of activism, of a particular idea. And not, I think activism is beautiful, but not just activism, but anybody that disagrees is shut down. And that, I think, the blame lies with the administration. So I think the solution is in lessening, just like the solution with too big of a government, too big of a bureaucracy, is there needs to be a redistribution of power to what makes universities beautiful, which is the old students and the young students, old students being professors. So the scholars, the curious minds, the people that are in this whole thing to explore the world, to be curious about it on a salary that's probably way too low for the thing they're doing. That's the whole point. And then the administration just gets in the way and is the source of this kind of, I would say, in your beautiful phrasing, I would say the administration is the barbarians at the gate. So the solution is smaller bureaucracies, smaller administrations. I have to, on this point, you had this conversation, you put on your self-stack with Jordan Peterson about cognitive inequality. I think it's titled Wrestling with Cognitive Inequality. This particular topic of just IQ differences between groups, why is this so dangerous to talk about? Why this particular topic? Well, it's like you're calling black people inferior. It's like you're saying they're genetically inferior. That's what people are saying. It's like you're rationalizing the disparity of outcomes by reference to the intrinsic inferiority of black people. If you say cognitive ability matters for social outcomes, if you say cognitive ability exists, people really are different in terms of their intellectual functioning. And if you say cognitive ability differences are substantial between racially defined populations, the sum of that, there is cognitive ability, it matters, and it differs by race, is the conclusion that outcome differences by race are in part due to natural differences between the populations. People find that to be completely offensive and unacceptable. So that's what I think is going on. Can you steelman that case that we should be careful doing that kind of research? So this has to do with research. It's like the Nazis used Nietzsche in their propaganda, right? You can use, white supremacists could use conclusions, cherry pick conclusions of studies to push their agenda. Can you steelman the case that we should be careful? Yeah, I could do it at three levels. One is, what do we mean by cognitive ability? So there's many different kinds of intelligence a person might say. How good are IQ tests at measuring other kinds of human capacities that are pertinent to success in life, like temperament, like emotional intelligence and so on. So intelligence is not a one dimensional thing measured by G. The cognitive psychologists talk about G, the general intelligence factor, which is a statistical construction. It's a factor analytic resolution of the correlation across individuals in their performance on a battery of different kinds of tests. And they use that to define a general factor of intelligence. And a person could say, that is a very narrow view of what human mental capacities actually are. And that it's much better to think about multi-dimensional measures of human mental functioning rather than a single cognitive ability measure, a so-called IQ, which is a narrow construction that doesn't capture all of the subtle nuance of human difference in functioning. Functioning is not just the ability to recite backwards a sequence of numbers, I say eight, seven, nine, five, three, two, you say two, three, five, seven, eight, nine. It's not just that. Intelligence is a complex management of many different dimensions of human performance, including things like being able to stick with a task and not give up, things like being able to discipline and control your impulses so as to remain focused and so forth. That could be one dimension. I could start by questioning the very foundation of the argument for racial differences in cognitive ability by saying that your measure of cognitive ability is flawed. But I could go to a higher level. I could say what we're really interested in is social outcomes, and the question of what factors influence social outcomes extends well beyond mental ability to many other things. So here's an example. Visual acuity, how well do you see? You're not wearing glasses. I am. Visual acuity varies between human beings. Some people see better than other people do. Visual acuity can be measured. I can put you at the chart, and you can, can you identify and read that bottom line in small print or not? So we can measure visual acuity, and it varies between human beings. Visual acuity is partly genetic. I think that's undoubtedly true. We inherit genes that influence whether or not we are nearsighted or farsighted or astigmatic or whatever. So visual acuity differs between people and can be measured and is under genetic control. On the other hand, corrective lenses allow for us to level the playing field between people who are differently endowed in terms of visually acuity. Likewise, social outcomes are what we're really interested in. Employment, earnings, whether or not they're law-abiding, how do they conduct themselves and their families and so forth amongst individuals. Yes, social outcomes are influenced by so-called cognitive ability, but they're influenced by many other things as well. If there are interventions that can be undertaken in society that level the playing field between people who have different natural endowments of cognitive ability, the fact that people or groups differ in cognitive ability becomes less significant, just like it's less significant that people differ with respect to how well they see when corrective lenses allow for the leveling of that playing field. There are, in fact, interventions, educational interventions, early childhood interventions, that have been shown to level the playing field to create better life outcomes for people, even if they happen to be endowed with low intelligence. So a second level of arguing against this whole program of research on human differences in intelligence is to observe that, yes, human beings and perhaps racially defined groups may differ on the average in intellectual endowment, but there well may be social interventions that level the playing field, whether it's in education or in other kinds of programmatic interventions, especially for the poor. A final level of argument is the one that you alluded to, which is that if you talk like this, you're going to encourage a kind of politics which is very ugly, and it's best to frame the discussion in ways that don't put emphasis on racially defined natural differences between populations. That's an argument that I am, I am myself, personally, conflicted about. On the one hand, I think, you know, those people are just stupid. It is racist, okay? On the other hand, I think the calculation, we shouldn't do this kind of research. Suppose I'm at the National Science Foundation. A research team submits a proposal. The proposal proposes to undertake a study. The study would explore the extent to which people and racial groups differ with respect to their intellectual performance and how that's influenced by their genetic and environmental interaction. And I decide not to fund the study based on a political calculation that the subject is too sensitive, and if you explore that subject, you might get the wrong answer, and if you get the wrong answer, the white supremacist will be encouraged. Well, that is presuming, before the research is done, that I know the outcome of the research and that I can calculate what the political consequence of the research outcome is going to be. That's assuming the thing before you even know what the thing actually is. It's a kind of omniscience. It presumes that you, as the master of the universe, can tell people what it is that people are being treated like children, what it is that they're capable of knowing, and what it is that they're not capable of knowing. It would be like someone saying to Einstein, I don't know about that special relativity theory, you know, it could well lead to the development of technologies that would allow nuclear weapons. Or someone saying to Oppenheimer, who is a physicist overseeing the Manhattan Project where the US developed nuclear weapons capacity, don't carry out that project because the results of acquiring that knowledge may be more than we can deal with. Or someone saying to someone doing biomedical research who's interested in exploring the nature of the human genome, don't carry out that experiment, that cloning undertaking, whatever, because the consequences could be deleterious. Well, the consequences could be deleterious. The consequences could also be the cure of cancer. The consequences could also be being able to generate electric power without producing carbon effluent. So, who are you to tell me, you being the person in the political position to control the research, what the consequence of doing the research is? I think I don't want to cede that kind of power to politicians over the course of human inquiry. So, yes, I would want there to be regulations governing the use of biologically sensitive and potentially dangerous pathogens in a lab in Wuhan or anyplace else. I would not want to simply leave that to laissez-faire. On the other hand, I think that the tendency to try to shut down inquiry on behalf of supposed adverse political consequences is the road to ignorance and impoverishment at the end of the day for humankind, denying ourselves the potential benefits of that kind of inquiry. I think we need to take our chances with inquiry rather than to try to control it. And I feel that way about the exploration of human intelligence as much as anything else. So, you've asked me to steel man the case against research on IQ of the sort that Charles Darwin and the sort that Charles Murray is famous for popularizing. And I've said, A, your measure of intelligence is single-dimensional and it ought to be multi-dimensional. I've said, B, the consequences of people's differing in intelligence depends not only on the natural endowments of the people, but also on the environment and the potential for intervening in that environment one or another kind of instrument, as the metaphorical example of the use of corrective lenses to level the playing field between people with different visual acuity indicates. But finally, I've said, yes, research on racial differences in IQ can foster political beliefs that we would regard to be obnoxious. On the other hand, to presume that what we don't know yet and might find out from the research is going to be harmful is to assume a kind of presumption of knowing what the outcome of unknown processes might be, which we ought to be very slow to embrace, because if we had done so in the past, we wouldn't have nuclear power. There's a lot of things that we wouldn't know. I mean, what were people saying about Darwin and exploration of the evolution and origin of the species? They were afraid that it was going to, in effect, disprove the religious-based accounts of, you know, what were they saying about Copernicus and et cetera, et cetera. So, you know. That was a masterful layering of, quote, wrestling with the cognitive inequality. He dragged in nuclear research, Copernicus, Darwin, biomedical research with genetics, even COVID and the lab leak. I mean, that was just fun to listen to. Okay. Let me ask you about your politics. So, you've recently said that you're a conservative leaning. Maybe that's a day-to-day thing. Maybe you can push back. So, you have somebody like your friend, John McWhorter, who we could say is on your left, to the left of you. And then you have somebody like Thomas Sowell, who maybe is to the right of you. Yeah, probably. And yet, there's a lot of overlap between the three of you. So, to what degree does politics affect your view on race in America? And maybe to what degree does your view on race affect your politics? Okay. And that, for people who don't know, has shifted over time. You've been on quite a rollercoaster, as anybody who thinks about the world should be. Well, let's begin with the fact that I was trained as an economist in a tradition of what many people would call neoliberalism. I was trained at MIT, which was not a right-wing place by any means. But it was a place where you learned about markets and about the benefits of capitalism as a way of organizing society. The virtues of free enterprise. The fact that the pursuit of profit was not necessarily a bad thing, but it well might be the road to prosperity and to economic growth. The idea that private property and individuals seeking to acquire and succeeding in acquiring wealth did create inequality, but it also created opportunity. And it also expanded our knowledge and our control over the physical environment in which we're embedded in, etc. So, we were not Marxists at MIT, although we did read Marx. I mean, those of us who were intellectually curious, you read Marx. Marx was an important figure in the history of the West, and I think Marx should be read in Capital, three volumes, etc. Alienation of labor and whatnot. The implications of modernization, of the advent of industrial capitalism, etc. That kind of dynamic deserves to be studied and to come at it in a critical way, informed by the intellectual inheritance of Marx and Marxism. I think that's a part of a full education in social philosophy and economic analysis that an open-minded person ought to acquaint themselves with. But at the end of the day, I think that the free marketeers have the better of it. I think the story of the 20th century, as far as economic development is concerned, reflects that. I think that the experiments where centralized control over economic decisions was the order of the day failed. I think that the fact of the 21st century rise of China as a force has a lot to do with the spread of, in effect, capitalist-oriented modes of economic exchange, freeing up prices, markets, property, and so forth, although obviously it's a complicated political-economic system. I'm talking about China. But I think that the story of the 20th century and the hope for the 21st century is that prosperity is enhanced through the free exchange of goods and the pursuit and acquisition of property by people in a more or less capitalist-oriented system. That's the view that I hold. I guess that makes me a conservative. I don't know. I want to say that's not to the exclusion of a social safety net. I'm not saying that old people in an ideal social system would be left to their own devices regardless of whether or not they had saved for their retirement. I'm not saying that the ideal of extending decent access to health care to all people, regardless of whether or not they can afford it, decent access to education to people regardless of whether or not they can afford it, is standing in the way of prosperity. I don't believe that. I think the mixed economies that we see in Northern Europe and in North America are a balancing of the virtues of free enterprise, property, and the pursuit of wealth on the one hand against the needs to have a decent society in which people who fall between the cracks nevertheless are bolstered through a sense of social solidarity that is accommodated by our common membership within a single nation state, which is why I think nationalism is important and it's why I think borders are important because without a coherent polity who can see themselves as in a common situation and agree through their politics to support each other to some extent, you can't sustain a safety net. You cannot have a social safety net for a global population. You can only have a social safety net for a bounded population who have a sense of common membership in an ongoing political enterprise which they pay their dues through their taxes in order to sustain it. There's a balancing that has to go on. So that's the first thing that I would say about my politics. I'm a neoliberal economist. I believe in markets. I believe in prices. I believe in profit. Corporations are not an incarnation of evil. Corporations are a legal nexus through which production gets organized in which you solicit the cooperation of workers, of people who provide capital, of people who provide raw materials and input, of customers, and so on. And that functionality allows for the production of goods and their distribution and their earning of income and its distribution, which at the end of the day is the foundation of our prosperity. Corporations are people too. Mitt Romney got in trouble for saying that in 2012. But corporations are nothing but a legal fiction. The corporation is not a person as such, but the nexus of contracts and relationships amongst the stakeholders who intersect in the context of the corporation is the way in which we organize the massively complex set of activities that are necessary in order to produce economic benefits, in order to feed people, in order to have everybody with a cell phone in their pocket, in order to be able to travel from one side of a continent to another on a device that is with almost absolute certainty going to safely take off and land, and in order to be able to build cities and etc. But do the markets, the ideal of the market collide with the ideal of all men are created equal? The identity, the struggle that we've been talking about of what it means to sort of empower humans that make up this great country. Do they collide, and where do they collide? Well, markets are going to produce inequality, and all men being equal is a statement about the intrinsic worth of people, not about the situation that will come about when people interact with each other through markets, because people are actually different, and because there are factors that are beyond anybody's control called luck and chance that, you know, you and I both invest. It looked a priori like your investment and my investment were equally likely to succeed, but as a matter of fact, ex post facto, your investment succeeds, my investment doesn't succeed, I don't have wealth and you have wealth. That is an inevitable consequence of an environment in which both of us are free to make our investment choices, and where the consequences of investment depend in part upon random circumstances of which no one has control. But you asked me about my politics, and I was just trying to lay down a foundation by saying I begin as an economist in the tradition of liberalism, Adam Smith and so forth, John Maynard Keynes for that matter, and so forth, Milton Friedman and so forth, that Paul Samuelson, Bob Solow, James Tobin, and so forth, Thomas Sowell, yes, that appreciates property, the virtues of free enterprise, the set of institutions that allow for security of contract, a rule of law, things of this kind. So that's one thing to say about my politics. Another thing to say about my politics, and you're right, I've moved around, is that, you know, I began south side of Chicago, black kid, I was a liberal Democrat, I encountered the economics curriculum at the MIT, and I became trained in economics in the tradition that I've just described. And I encountered also the Reagan Revolution. This is the late 70s and early 80s. These are big debates about economic policy and so on. And I found a lot to admire in the supply-siders, the people were saying, you know, let's get the government out of the way, the people who worried about national debt, which is a lot more now than it was then, the people who were worried that the welfare state could be too big, that the incentives of transfer programs could be counterproductive, that you had a war on poverty, and we did have a war on poverty, and poverty won. And there's a lot of evidence that the war on poverty was lost by the people who were trying to, quote unquote, eradicate poverty in our time. That incentives really do matter, and that the state, which is driven by politics, is often unresponsive to the dictates of incentives, whereas markets eliminate people who are inefficient and who are not cognizant of the consequences of incentives, because they can't cover their bottom line, and they won't persist for very long if they can't cover their bottom line. They're forced to respond to the realities of differences in costs and benefits and so forth in a way that governments can cover, because they have their hand in our pocket. They can cover their losses, and they can make accounts balanced, notwithstanding their mistakes, because they can take my property by fiat, by the power of the state. The tax collector comes, if I don't pay, he seizes my holdings. And they can carry on in that way. They need the corrective influence of markets in order to be responsive to the realities of life. I mean, I may not like it that prices are telling me that something that I want to do is infeasible. I may not like it. But what the prices are telling me is that the costs of doing it exceed the benefits to be derived from doing it. And if I persist in doing it, notwithstanding that, I'm going to run losses, and those losses will accumulate. And the net effect of that over an entire society is stagnation and ultimate attenuation of the economic benefits that might be available to people. Again, I think if you look at the developing world in the post-colonial period, the second half of the 20th century, that's exactly what you see. Planning doesn't work. Centralized control over resource allocation doesn't work. Okay, so I became more conservative in that respect. But I also, and this has to do with race, lost faith in the posture that became of the Civil Rights Movement. I mean, the Civil Rights Movement, you quote King 1963, the Civil Rights Movement starts out as, we want equal membership in the polity. But it becomes a systematized cover, I'm going to argue, for deficiencies that are discernible within Black American society, which only we could correct. That's a very controversial statement. I make it with trepidation. I don't take any pleasure in saying it. But here's what I'm talking about. So I'm talking about the family. So the family is a matter internal to the community, about how men and women relate to each other and engage in social reproduction, childbearing, the standing up of households, the context within which children are developed, are maturing, and so forth and so on. So the African American family is in trouble. I think I can demonstrate that by reference to high rates of marital dissolution, by high rates of birth out of wetlock and so forth. You can't even say that the African American family is in trouble. Violence. Homicide is an order of magnitude more prevalent amongst African Americans than it is in the society as a whole. This is behavior, it's behavior of our people. I speak of Black people, of course, we're not the only people in society for whom violence is an issue. It's an order of magnitude more prevalent in our communities. I'm talking about schooling and school failure. So we have affirmative action as a cover, it's a band-aid on differences in the development of intellectual performance, which is only partly a consequence of the natural intelligence of people, and largely a consequence of how people spend their time, what they value, how they discipline themselves, what they do with their opportunities, how parents raise their children, what peer groups value, and things of this kind. The Asian students who are scoring off the charts on these exams are doing it not because they're intrinsically more intelligent than other people, but because they work harder, because their parents are more insistent on focusing on their intellectual performance, because they're disciplined, because of the way that they devote their time and their resources to equipping their children to function in the 21st century. This is what I believe, I think it's demonstrably the case, and it is a factor in racial disparity. The way that the civil rights movement has evolved under the wing of the Democratic Party into an organized apologia for the failures of African Americans to seize the opportunities that exist for us now in the 21st century, but did not exist in the first half of the 20th century, the way in which the civil rights movement has become an avoidance mechanism for us not taking we African Americans responsible—this is Glenn Lowry, not everybody's going to agree with it—is part of what makes me a conservative. I am tired of the bellyaching, I'm tired of the, excuse me, white supremacy. It is, in my mind, a joke. I lament the fact that that kind of rhetoric is so seductively attractive to African Americans and so widely adopted by others. And as I am fond of saying, at the end of the day, nobody is coming to save us. I mean, higher education, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, where the future is happening, that is about mastery over the achievements of human civilization, such as they manifest themselves in the 21st century. There's no substitute for actually acquiring mastery over the material. There's no substitute for that. To be patronized, to have the standards lowered, they want to get rid of the test, they want to tell African Americans to pat us on the head, we're going to have a separate program for you, we're going to give you a side door that you can come into. That doesn't make us any smarter. It doesn't make us any more creative. And it doesn't it doesn't make us any more fit for the actual competition that's unfolding before us. Now, you want to be 10% of the population that's carried along for the next 100 years? You want to be a ward of the state in the late 21st century? You go ahead. Because the Chinese are coming. You're not going to hold them back. The world is being remade every decade by new ways of seeing and new ways of doing. If you don't get on board with the dynamic advancement of the civilization in which we are embedded, you're going to end up being dependent on other people to look kindly upon you. And this story that you've got, this bellyache, this excuse, my ancestors were slaves, slaves. It's only going to work for so long. So that makes me, I suppose, a kind of conservative. I hate affirmative action. I don't just disagree with it. I don't just think it's against the 14th Amendment. I hate it. The hatred comes from an understanding that it is a band-aid, that it is a substitute for the actual development of the capacities of our people to compete. I'd much rather be in the position of having them try to keep me out because I'm so damn good, like they're doing with the Asians, than having them have to beg the Supreme Court to allow for a special dispensation on my behalf because they need diversity and inclusion and belonging. It's not just diversity. It's not just diversity and inclusion. It's diversity and inclusion and belonging. I'm whining because I feel like I don't belong. That's a position of weakness. It's pathetic. And it's only political correctness that keeps people who can see this, and believe me, a lot of people can see it, from saying so out loud. So you want the Black American community to represent strength? Correct. And I want us to deal with what it is that we have to deal with in order to be able to project strength in an increasingly competitive world. Let me ask you, I know you said you're angry or dislike affirmative action. Let me ask you about something that even to my ear cut wrong. Now I'm relatively apolitical. So President Biden, when he was running for president, gave a campaign promise that he will nominate a Black woman to the US Supreme Court, saying, quote, the person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity. First sentence. Second sentence. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. Do you wish he only said the first sentence and not the second? Yes, I wish that he had only said the first sentence, even if his intention was to do what he said he was going to do in the second sentence. In other words, I wish that he had simply said, quote, if I have the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, it's going to be a superbly qualified person to carry out that position. And he might have kept to himself his intention to name an African-American woman to that position and then going ahead and named an African-American woman to that position. And I'm sure that Katonji Brown-Jackson, I don't doubt that she's exceptionally qualified. She has a distinguished career. She served as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. She's a graduate of Harvard Law School. She has a background. You do not have to be a world-class constitutional legal scholar to get onto the United States Supreme Court. A lot of members of the United States Supreme Court have had different kinds of legal careers before they were elevated to that position. Earl Warren of the famed Warren Court of the 1950s and 60s was a politician as well as a leading jurist and whatnot. I mean, many kinds of people in the US Supreme Court. I have no doubt that Judge Katonji Brown-Jackson is a qualified member to be on the Supreme Court. I wish that Biden had not done what he did. He could have just appointed a Black woman. By saying that he was limiting his considerations to Black women, and what are Black women as a percentage of all potential appointees to the Supreme Court? 3%? 4%? I don't know. We could look the number up. By saying that, he puts an asterisk on the appointment, but it's worse than that because she will live down the asterisk if a person is inclined to do that. She will have the opportunity to show through her performance exactly what kind of jurist she is. Just as Justice Clarence Thomas has shown through his performance that he was qualified and more than qualified to be on the United States Supreme Court, what I disliked was the pandering. He was seeking votes from Black people by pandering to us, and he's treating us like children. Why should I care what color the person is who's on the United States Supreme Court? What I should care about is what kind of opinions they're going to write when they're on the United States. Do I suppose that being a Black woman means that you're going to write different kinds of opinions than others? Well, perhaps. Perhaps. That kind of identity politics at the highest level of American legal establishment is something that rubs me very much the wrong way. What I should care about is the nature and the future of the law. I'm actually struck by this because the Court is conservative. It has six conservative members on it, and it has three liberal members on it. And if I were, and I'm not, a liberal Democrat, the highest concern that I would have about an appointment to the Supreme Court is, is this a person who is going to be effective in advocating my liberal views within the highest council of American law? Now, the fact that that person is a woman or is a Black person is way down the list of the things that I would think are important to the kinds of opinions that they're going to write. So, I mean, I think Joe Biden, this is just a piece of a larger political strategy to cobble together a coalition that'll be successful at the polls and sustaining Democrats. Jim Crow 2.0, this whole characterization of the conflict in the States about election security and voting rights is another part of that strategy. He is pandering to Black voters. He is trying to frighten us, thinking that if the Republicans win, our rights will be taken away. And I think it is an infantilization of African American politics. I think Black people ought not to be as concerned about the color of the skin of a person who is serving in government as they are about the content of their character and the focus of their political and ideological orientation, which for me would be center or even center-right, but that's me. And it should not have a significant impact. Nevertheless, he said she can overcome the asterisks, but to me it was deeply disrespectful that anyone would give an extra asterisk to have to overcome. He didn't have to say it. All he had to do was do it. If he wanted to put a Black woman on the court, he could have just done it. The reason he said it is because he wanted Black people to vote for him by saying it. And I'm saying that treats us like we're children. It's not a political statement. I just thought as a leader that was not, that was kind of disgusting. Let me ask you about Thomas Sowell. You mentioned him. He's a colleague and somebody who was an influence in the space of ideas. So what impact has he had on your ideas? And how do you think he shaped the landscape of ideas in our culture in general? I think Thomas Sowell, he's in his 90s now. He's been around for a long time. He's still got it. He's still going at it. He's still going at it. Books continue to come out. I think he's a great man. I think Thomas Sowell, regardless of his race, he's Black, is one of the 100 most significant economists of the 20th century. He has chosen as his subject, a substantial part of his subject, to investigate the deep causes and consequences of racial disparity of one kind or another. He's written fundamental books about that, many of them. He's a social philosopher. He is an economic historian. He is a combatant in the conflict of ideas around how to think about society and this beyond racial differences, although race has been a big part of what he's written about. He's been critical of affirmative action, and he didn't just stand back and wag his finger. He got busy looking at the consequences of affirmative action in societies all around the world, and he's written books about that. He's been critical of the narrative about civil rights and racial inequality. He believes in small government. He doesn't think that efforts to redistribute income have proved to be the solution to the problem of racial disparity. Tom has not been honored by the committee that hands out Nobel for his critical recognition in economic science, and probably won't be because he's controversial, and I reckon that that committee would be loathe to encourage the blowback that they would be sure to receive if they were to take a controversial and politically focused and expressive Black conservative and honor him that way. So I think another reason is that Tom, as a methodological matter, is not especially quantitative. He pays attention to data, but he doesn't do statistical analysis, and he doesn't do modeling. So from a methodological point of view, he's not a cutting edge, kind of mathematically sophisticated, kind of quantitatively statistically oriented, but he does descriptive stuff. He writes in a style that is much more like a social historian than it is like a mathematically trained analytical economist. On the other hand, he is an economist in the Chicago School, Milton Friedman and George Stickler, prominent amongst his teachers, who takes price theory, which is the analysis of the interplay of market forces, mindful of incentives, and so on, to implement the basic insights from economic science. There is no free lunch. I mean, there's always going to be a cost to anything that you do, and so on. People respond to incentives, demand curves slope downward, competition tends to work best when people are free to enter and not, and so on. I mean, that kind of thing. But Tom is also a social historian and philosopher in the tradition of Friedrich von Hayek. One of Tom's books I deeply admire, Knowledge and Decisions, is an extension of the Hayekian arguments about the limits of central planning and whatnot. So I think Tom Sowell, Thomas Sowell, an African American, born, as I understand it, in Louisiana, raised in New York City, graduate of Harvard College, a military veteran, a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago, a black conservative social scientist of very high stature. I think he's a great man. LWV And one of the great intellectuals of the 20th century. And you're saying, implicitly, deserves a Nobel Prize. LWV Yeah. I do think so. I mean, Hayek was awarded by the committee. Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish economist, wrote about economic development, wrote a famous two-volume work, An American Dilemma, about the status of blacks. I mean, I think Tom could be put in that company very easily, without any difficulty. LWV I agree. Daniel Kahneman, psychologist, he's not an economist. Eleanor Ostrom, the political scientist who was honored in a joint prize given to her and Oliver Williamson 15 years ago or so, he could be put in that company really quite easily. LWV Let me ask you, you mentioned Obama in the very beginning that we were talking about. How did it feel, that seems like forever ago, that in 2008, Barack Obama became president? Now, at that time, perhaps you identified as conservative already. So, politics aside, just in general, how did it feel that in 150 years, where this country has come along? Gunnar Myrdal Well, yeah, I didn't identify in 2008 as a conservative to the same extent that I do today. I was kind of in transition yet again. LWV I was excited by the Obama candidacy. At first I was skeptical, because after all, he's not black. The man's father is a Kenyan and the man's mother is a white American, and he identifies as black. I find it interesting that the first black president of the United States, and I could have put inverted commas around black, and the first black vice president in the United States, neither of them descend from American slaves. Kamala Harris's father is of African ancestry in part. He's a Jamaican immigrant and her mother is an Indian immigrant. She was Kamala Harris, raised up largely in Canada, though born in the United States. Barack Obama is, as I've said, of mixed ancestry, and neither of his parents are the descendants of American descendants of African slaves. But blackness is flexible. It's something that you can put on or you can take off to a certain degree for some people, and so be it. I was excited. Our time has come. Hope and change. We are the ones we've been waiting for. These are slogans from 2008. I can't believe I bought that crap. LWV Oh, interesting. Let me push back here. You talked about, I mean, to me, a Jew is a Jew. Skin color is skin color. I mean, Barack Obama is black when it matters, when you're talking to a white supremacist, when you're talking to, if you're a slave owner, he's black. Just like you said, when Hitler comes around, a Jew is a Jew. It doesn't matter how you identify, doesn't matter what. So in that sense, don't you think that Barack Obama is black in the most powerful of ways, which is designating how far the MLK, the Dr. King vision? AC Oh, sure. And look, I said it a little bit tongue in cheek. LWV Yes, yes, of course. AC But I think Obama has been very careful about manufacturing a kind of public persona that is intended to position him in the most effective way. LWV You mean like every politician? AC Yeah, like every politician, sure. And that the racial identity piece is an aspect of that. I mean, anything I say here would only be speculation, because I have no facts about the personal history of Barack Obama. And I accept Barack Hussein Obama, as Hillary Clinton once said, I take him at his word about whatever she was talking about. Well, was he a Christian, I think is what the question was. And, you know, there was some right wing attack on Obama for, you know, having been raised in for some years in the Philippines and all of that, or Indonesia, I beg your pardon, in Indonesia, and his stepfather and all of that. But she took him at his word, and I take him at his word about his racial identity. No. LWV But you were captivated by the power of his words, and you regret to the degree you were captivated. AC Well, I mean, I think in retrospect, that whole campaign looks like a pie in the sky kind of fairy tale. We are the ones we've been waiting for. I can't quote exactly that speech that he gave in Grant Park in Chicago when he was announced as the winner of the election. But today is the day that the rise of the ocean stopped, or words to this effect. I mean, those who doubted that we could do it, that tonight is your answer, this was going to be a new day, it was going to be a new regime. Well, it wasn't a new day, and it wasn't a new regime. It was American politics more or less as usual. Barack Obama turns out not to be the messiah. Maybe there should be no surprise in that. Race relations got set back during Obama's tenure. My beef with Obama is that, okay, you're Black. You say you're Black, you're Black. You got elected. Now we have a Black president. A Black president. You can do stuff that nobody else could do. You're a Black president. You could tell the people burning down the city to get their butts back in their houses and to stop it. You could tell the race hustlers, the Al Sharptons of the world, not only has our time come, for those who supported my campaign, your time is over. For those who want to carry on an advocacy rooted in racial grievance, the election of myself to this highest office proves that the institutions of this state are legitimate and open to all comers. I think Barack Obama, when the SHIT hit the fan, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. I deeply regret that he said that. He's President of the United States. The color of his skin and the color of Trayvon's skin, the correlation between those two things, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. Now he says, when he said it, he only meant to sympathize with the parents. But in fact, when he said it from the highest office in the land, and then sent his Attorney General Eric Holder out to enforce this narrative, he doubled down on a racial narrative that I think is actually false. I think the story that systemic racism in America as reflected in policing that terrorizes Black people because of the color of their skin is demonstrably false. I think that the central threat to Black lives is violent crime perpetrated largely by Black people against other Black people. I think there is such a thing as police brutality, and I think there are reasons to have regulations of police, but I think it is a second-order issue in terms of the quality of life of African Americans. I think Obama could have told the people who, after Freddie Gray died in police custody in a van in Baltimore, and who undertook to burn that city down, to get their asses off the street and go back to their apartments and stop it. I think he could have said in the aftermath of Michael Brown being shot dead by Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, and there was a grand jury deliberation that elected not to indict Officer Wilson, and people took to streets in that city and stood on top of vehicles and so forth and so on. He could have told them, we don't mob around courthouses in this country, we respect the rule of law, get your butts off the streets and back into your apartments. He didn't do that. So... To push back a little bit. Yeah, good, push back. I think you're asking Barack Obama, the first black president of the United States, to do the thing that I think should be done by the second black president of the United States. I think his very example, given the color of his skin, was the most powerful thing. And actually doing some of these hard Thomas Sowell type of, Glenn Loury type of strong words about race, it may be too much to ask, given the nature of modern day politics. He is a politician, we are politicians. He is a politician, he needed to get elected, he needed to get re-elected. Yeah. It was in his second term where most of what I'm talking about happened, so he wasn't facing further election, but Obama was, what, 46 or 47 when he was inaugurated? He served for eight years, so he's in his mid-50s. He's got another half century or 40 years of life, God willing. His post-presidency, I think, was what was primarily on his mind. Not getting elected to anything, but being enshrined in a certain way. And the persona that he is now embodying, which depends upon a racial narrative that I and Thomas Sowell and others object to, I think was very much in the forefront of his mind when he made decisions as the chief executive officer of the country that we've all now have to live with. Yeah, but the fact is, he opened the door in a way that hasn't been done in the history of the United States, that I don't see there being even a significant discussion when an African-American, a black man or a black woman, runs for president, maybe a black man, let's say, because there still hasn't been a woman president. I just see that that broke open the possibility of that. That's not even a discussion. And that example by itself, I mean, to me, the role of the president isn't just policy, it's to inspire, it's to do the Dr. King thing, which is, I have a dream. And Barack Obama is an example of somebody that could give one hell of a speech. It got you to believe. Obama is a smooth operator without any question. He's a master of his craft. He did the impossible. I mean, he beat Hillary Clinton in that primary fight, and he beat John McCain in that general election, and hats off to him. And moreover, he remains a iconic figure in American culture. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Let me just mention, Clarence Thomas is also black. Clarence Thomas has a story that is vivid and inspiring, just like Obama's story. He overcome obstacles, just like Obama did. I mean, extreme poverty and so forth and so on. Clarence Thomas has served longer than any other member of the United States Supreme Court. He is one of nine justices, and it's three equal branches of government. So Clarence Thomas, by my arithmetic, personifies 127th of the American state. He is an iconic figure. His example should be an inspiration to Americans of all races, but especially of black American youngsters. He happens to be conservative. He's very conservative. So fucking what? He, too, deserves to be in that pantheon. He is not. By the custodians of American education, Clarence Thomas's name is not on that many schools. Barack Obama's name will be on many of them. I'm not equating them. They're different people. The offices are very different. But the same logic that you just used to extol the significance of Barack Obama's ascendancy could and should be applied to Clarence Thomas, in my opinion. Yes, but, you know, it's the office, but also there's a resume and there's accomplishments, but then there is oratory and charisma and a number of Twitter followers. So there's ability to captivate a large number of people. And that's a skill. That's a skill that correlates, but is not directly connected to with how impressive your resume is. I agree. And moreover, the judicial function, the judge doesn't go out and give speeches of that sort because it's exactly antithetical to what he's doing. He's a custodian of the law, custodian of the law, and that's not a popular figure in American policy. He doesn't stand for election, and it's a good thing, too. So I take that point. Here, I want to say something else, though, that's provocative. The next black president, you say, first black president shouldn't have been the one to do that. The second one should, is more likely than not going to be a Republican. I don't have a particular person in mind. I'm just saying. I agree. I agree. I agree. And that's why it's going to be super fun. Let me ask you to put on your wise sage hat and give advice to young people. So if you're talking to somebody who's in high school and in college, what advice would you give them about their career, about life in general, how to live a life they can be proud of? Well, I'd say the world is your oyster. I mean, first order of business, you're not a victim. I don't care what color you are. I don't care. You're male, female, you're gay, straight, whatever. The world is your oyster. You are so privileged. You sit here in the United States of America, a free country, a rich country. Everything is possible for you. Believe me, you can do anything. Okay? Secondly, I would say mastery over the medium in which we're embedded is the key to the future. So get educated, focus, work hard, invest in your future by acquiring the skills that you need to be able to navigate the 21st century. I would say the Chinese are coming, and I don't mean anything against China. I just mean to say the world's a small place, and it's getting smaller. And you better get moving, and you better get moving quickly. I'd say your identity, your coloration, your orientation, your category is not the most important thing about you. So the temptation to limit yourself, I give this speech to my kids. I quote James Joyce. He has a passage in Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man in which he says, "'Do you know what Ireland is? Ireland is an old sow that eats her pharaoh.'" This is Joyce. He says, Stephan Dedalus is the character that he has in mind in this chronicle. He says, "'Your ethnic inheritance,' he's talking about Irish nationalism, "'are like nets holding you back. That your challenge is to learn how to turn those nets into wings and thereby to fly, flying into the open skies of modern society. Don't be your grandfather, don't be your father. Don't wear your things so heavily that it keeps you from being so heavily that it keeps you from being open to everything that's new in the world. Wear it lightly. Yes, everybody comes from somewhere, but it doesn't have to be where you end up. So you're not your father, you're not your grandfather. You are this wonderfully blessed human being going into the middle of the 21st century, and don't miss it. Don't live blinkerly. Don't live small. Live big.'" Live big and wear your history lightly. Yeah. Everybody's got a mother tongue. Everybody's got a story. Everybody has a people. But the world is a small place. I love that you're quoting an Irishman. One of the greatest writers of the 20th century, a profound one, but an Irishman nevertheless. The levels of humor within that is not lost on me. Let me just mention the great Ralph Ellison, the African-American writer, Invisible Man is his masterpiece, embodied this spirit. Okay, we Black Americans, we do come from somewhere. That coming from somewhere is from slavery in America. That's our ancestral heritage. But that's not what we are. Skin and bone, these are superficial things. The spirit. And if I were a more religious person, I could give a whole disposition about that. But it's the spirit. It's that light that's inside. That's who we are. And our challenge is to live in the fullness of it, as opposed to this blinkered thing where we don't look left, we don't look right. We're just fitting within this template that we inherit. That is a travesty, really. Glenn, you've lived an incredible life, a productive one, but just representing some powerful ideas, some powerful ideals. But life comes to an end. Yeah. What do you think about your death? Are you afraid of it? Well, it is a really interesting coincidence that you posed me that question, because I'm coming from a funeral. Today is Sunday. On the preceding Tuesday, five days ago, I was at the funeral of Eugene Wesley Smith, who was my brother-in-law. He was my sister's husband. My sister, Leonette, passed away in August of 2021. Her husband has died at the age of 68 in April of 2022, and I was at his funeral. He died suddenly of a heart attack that came completely out of the blue. He seemed to be in perfect health. He was a magnificent human being. I could go into the details, but, you know, take my word for it. He was a businessman, a steel trader, metals trader. He would buy and sell. He worked mostly from his home office. He had clients, counterparties, people he did business with all over the world. He had three sons, one of whom is in his early 30s, two of whom are in their late 30s. These are my sister's children. She's deceased. Now he's deceased. The older two sons are severely developmentally disabled, and although they're in their late 30s, they're not independently viable. They don't function effectively. They have to be cared for. That responsibility has now fallen to the family, but mainly to the surviving son, who lives with his wife and his two young children and has assumed the responsibility. They've cared at home. My sister and her husband, Wesley, Eugene Wesley Smith, cared for their disabled sons at home. They didn't want to see them institutionalized. They had some help from programs at the state and social worker and so on, but they mainly took on the burden of caring for them at home. Anyway, I go on at length here, and, you know, I don't know how much of this you'll choose to make use of, and it doesn't matter, really. I'm just trying to respond to your question. I was asked to offer some remarks at the funeral, and I offered them. And I, you know, I spoke well of this great man. He was a great man. He had a straight back. He was a stand-up guy. He could be counted on. His word was his bond. He had broad shoulders. He carried a lot of people with him, business associates, family members, and so forth and so on. He had a huge heart. He was a giving and kind person. He had a great mind. He was an intellectual, even though as a businessman, much of his day was taken up with the minutiae of contracts and the details of the order being delivered and not being delivered, of the quality of the product, of the financing, and so forth and so on. There was still a powerful mind there. Yeah, he was a powerful mind, and he studied, he read books, he was interested in music and art, he was a spiritual seeker, had been ordained as a child minister in his youth, and while he remained a master of the Christian canon, he also explored Eastern religion and other spiritual paths and kind of stood above any particular tradition as a man who believed in God, but thought that God manifest himself in many ways to human beings and that there was much to learn from other religious traditions as well. This is Wesley. We called him Wesley by his middle name, Eugene Wesley Smith. May he rest in peace. 68. That's five years younger than I am right now. He dropped dead without any warning. I could, too. So how did that make you feel? What were the thoughts in your mind leading up to it, having to give that speech in the days that followed? Well, first of all, I wondered, what would I say? What would I say? And there was no way to prepare, and I decided, I rehearsed in my mind this, he had straight back, he had broad shoulders, he had a big heart, he had a great mind, he had a capacious spirit and whatnot, and I used that as a template for making my remarks. But my main thought was, my God, life is precious and life is fleeting, and death is a part of life. My death is a part of my life. And I thought, well, I want to take better care of myself than I do, etc., etc., but I also thought a lot of this is not in my hands at all. I thought one should have his affairs in order. My brother did not have all of his affairs in order in the sense that there is a lot of, things are going to probate, there was no will, there's, you know, it's kind of unsettled. I don't want that to happen to my surviving family members. I want to have my affairs such that, should heaven forbid, I fall over one day and don't get up again. People don't have to scramble about how to take care of things from that point forward. But as a human, are you afraid? In your own heart? I'm afraid. Now, I read this wonderful book called The Swerve. It's about Lucretius. It's about The Nature of Things, which is this great classical work from the Roman period by this guy, Lucretius. And I'm trying to think of the name of the author, but you could look it up. The Swerve is the book. It won a National Book Award or a Pulitzer Prize. And it's the history of the recovery of this book by one of these Italian, Renaissance Italian people who would go into the monasteries in Central Europe and look through the scrolls, and they discover these classical works from antiquity, which had been lost through the Dark Ages, and they republish and read these works. And Lucretius's great work on The Nature of Things was one of these books. Poggio Bracchelini, I don't remember the Italian guy's name, but this all could be looked up. Yeah, Poggio Bracchelini, 15th century. And the name of the author is Stephen Greenblatt. Yeah, Stephen Greenblatt, a magnificent book and a terrific story. Anyway, one of Lucretius's points, he was an atheist. I mean, he was a Roman. He didn't believe in mysticism, and he argued, it's irrational to be afraid of death. Why should I fear death? Death is coming to all of us. The point of being afraid, I mean, I'm wasting my time fearing something that I have no ultimate control over. It's irrational to be afraid of death. Yeah, because you can't predict when it happens. You only know that it happens. So why be afraid? How's that go? And therefore live every day fully, live every day purposefully, you know, and so on. But these are all just words. I don't want to die. I want to live forever. I'm not going to live forever. I don't want to suffer. I see people suffering. I saw my late wife, Linda Datcher Lowry, Dr. Linda Datcher Lowry, professor of economics at Tufts University, whom I met in graduate school at MIT, Black woman from Baltimore. We married, we raised two sons together. She died at the age of 59 from metastatic breast cancer. And I watched her suffer, and I watched her die. And it took a while. And we care for her at home right up until the very end. She died in our bed with our sons on either side of her and the dog curled up by the porch door in the bedroom, and she expired. And I watched her suffer, and I watched her die. And I don't want to suffer. Who does? I don't want to die. I am likely to suffer before I die. I am likely to see my death coming and to lament it. There's a book by Richard John Newhouse, the theologian, called As I Lay Dying. As I Lay Dying, Richard John Newhouse. He had stomach cancer, and he thought he was dying, and he wrote this book As He Lay Dying. And then he recovered. He went into remission, and he had another couple of years. He thought he was dying, and he had another couple of years. And I can remember meeting him at a bookstore in suburban Boston when he was on a tour. He was a friend of mine, a theologian and a public intellectual. He founded the Institute on Religion and Public Life in New York City, which still exists, Richard John Newhouse. And he's contemplating his own death from the point of view of a Christian minister. He was first a Lutheran pastor, and then he converted to Catholicism, or as he would have put it, I returned to the Church, because he thought the Renaissance was over. I mean, I'm sorry, the Reformation, Richard thought was over. He says there's only one Church, you know, et cetera. Get into theology stuff here. But I'm saying all that to say, I read that book aloud to my wife, Linda, As She Lay Dying, in that bed. I read that book. And it was filled with hope. I mean, it first acknowledged the dread. I lie, dying, I don't want to die. I'm a Christian minister, Christ was raised from the dead, I'm supposed to believe in everlasting life, but the fact of the matter is, this is me, and I'm lying here, and I'm dying. This is the end of me. How are you going to do anything other than dread the end of me? So let's acknowledge that I don't want to die, okay? I'm just going to tell you that up front. But that is not the end of…my death is not the end of life. I have lived well and fully. I will go and do my best right up until the end. I will accept what is inevitable, and I will hold out this belief. And he's a Christian minister, so he holds out this belief. And he knows that the belief is not rational. It's not a reasoned, deductive, scientific conclusion. It's spiritual in the most fundamental way. It is something that people hold onto, and they have hope. And he had hope. I don't know if I have that hope. I used to be, but I'm no longer a Christian, and I'm no longer a theist, really. I'm with Lucretius there. There's no magic that's going on here. There's no unseen hand behind the scene that's arranging things. What I believe is that when I look at the natural world, I see the evolution of the species, and I see the organic development of the planets. I mean, the Earth is going to not exist in a finite number of years. I think with a very high probability, the Sun is going to die. It's going to implode. It's going to go supernova, whatever is going to happen. And there's not going to be any there. What's the meaning of life, Glenn Loury? What's the meaning of life? Yeah, let's go. Let's go. What's the why? Or is that something economists and social scientists and mathematicians are not equipped to answer? Shirley? You know, I think we try to live well and meaningfully within our time. We bond, we reproduce, we try to pass on, and we accept our limitations and our mortality. We try to contribute, and that's through our children and through our work. And we're in this together. We're not in this alone. We are connected to other people. I get a lot of gratitude out of teaching, I'm a teacher. My students are going to outlive me. They're going to have students. I'm a writer. My writing is going to outlive me. I don't want to be self-important or pretentious here. I doubt that I'm going to be the James Joyce of the 21st century. They may not be reading my stuff in 100 years, as people will certainly be reading Ulysses in 100 years. But I try to have an impact on the world that I'm a part of and try to leave a legacy that's dignified. I could give some flowery words here, truth-seeking and whatnot. What about love? Love. What role does love play in this life? Love makes the world go round. Without love, I mean, what have we got? We don't have family and we certainly have missed out if love is not a central part of our existence. But stop asking me questions like that. Glenn, thank you for doing everything you do, for thinking the way you do, for being fearless and bold in the Glenn Show, in your writing, in your work, and just being who you are. Thank you for being you. And thank you for giving me the huge honor of spending your extremely valuable time with me today. This was awesome. It's been my pleasure, Lex. I mean, really. And it has been like four hours, man. I mean, you're wearing me out. A lot for me. I love it. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Glenn Lowry. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. If you can't fly, then run. If you can't run, then walk. If you can't walk, then crawl. But whatever you do, you have to keep moving forward. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/YbJZnShMQAo

GQ0IvUi1bds

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Ray Dalio: What is Money?

Again, maybe another dumb question, but... There are no such things as dumb questions. There you go. But what is money? So you've mentioned credit and money. Another thing that if I just zoom out from an alien perspective and look at human civilization, it's incredible that we've created a thing that only works because of currency, because we all agree it has value. So I guess my question is, how do you think about money as this emergent phenomenon, and what do you think is the future of money? You've commented on Bitcoin, other forms. What do you think is its history and future? How do you think about money? There are two things that money is for. It's a medium of exchange, and it's a storehold of wealth. So money... So you could say something's a medium of exchange, and then you could say, is it a storehold of wealth? And money is that vehicle that is those things, and can be used to pay off your debt. So when you have a debt and you provide it, it pays off your debt. So that's that process. And it's a... I apologize to interrupt, but it only can be a medium of exchange or store wealth when everybody recognizes it to be of value. That's right. And so you see in the history around the world, and you go to places... I was in an island in the Pacific in which they had as money these big stones. And literally, they were taking a boat, this big carved stone, and they were taking it from one of the islands to the other, and it sank, the piece of this big stone, piece of money that they had, and it went to the bottom. And they still perceived it as having value, so that even though it was in the bottom, and it's this big hunk of rock, the fact that somebody owned it, they would say, oh, I'll own it for this and that. I've seen beads in different places, shells converted to this, and mediums of exchange. And when we look at what we've got, you're exactly right. It is the notion that if I give it to you, I can then take it and I can buy something with it. So it's a matter of perception. Okay. And then we go through then the history of money and the vulnerabilities of money. And what we have is, through history, there's been two types of money, those that are claims on something of value, like the connection to gold or something. That would be. Or they just are money without any connection, and then we have a system now, which is a fiat monetary system. So that's what money is. And then it will last as long as it's kept a value, and it works that way. So let's say central banks, when they get in the position of like they owe a lot of money, like we have in the case, it's increasingly the case, and they also are a bind, and they have the printing press to print the money and get out of that, and you have a lot of people might be in that position. You can print it, and then it could be devalued in there. And so history has shown, forget about today, history has shown that no currency has, every currency has either ended as being a currency or devalued as a currency over periods of time, long periods of time. So it evolves and it changes, but everybody needs that medium of exchange, and everybody needs that storehold of wealth, so it keeps changing what is money over a period of time.

https://youtu.be/GQ0IvUi1bds

Dnj0rnlV2aA

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sean Carroll: What is Quantum Entanglement?

Can you say what is entanglement? It seems one of the most fundamental ideas of quantum mechanics. Well, let's temporarily buy into the textbook interpretation of quantum mechanics. And what that says is that this wave function, so it's very small outside the atom, very big in the atom. Basically the wave function, you take it and you square it, you square the number, that gives you the probability of observing the system at that location. So if you say that for two electrons, there's only one wave function, and that wave function gives you the probability of observing both electrons at once doing something. So maybe the electron can be here or here, here, or here, and the other electron can also be there, but we have a wave function set up where we don't know where either electron is going to be seen, but we know they'll both be seen in the same place. So we don't know exactly what we're gonna see for either electron, but there's entanglement between the two of them. There's a sort of conditional statement. If we see one in one location, then we know the other one's gonna be doing a certain thing. So that's a feature of quantum mechanics that is nowhere to be found in classical mechanics. In classical mechanics, there's no way I can say, well, I don't know where either one of these particles is, but if I find out where this one is, then I know where the other one is. That just never happens. They're truly separate. And in general, it feels like, if you think of a wave function like as a dance floor, it seems like entanglement is strongest between things that are dancing together closest. So there's a closeness that's important. Well, that's another step. We have to be careful here, because in principle, if you're talking about the entanglement of two electrons, for example, they can be totally entangled or totally unentangled no matter where they are in the universe. There's no relationship between the amount of entanglement and the distance between two electrons. But we now know that the reality of our best way of understanding the world is through quantum fields, not through particles. So even the electron, not just gravity and electromagnetism, but even the electron and the quarks and so forth are really vibrations in quantum fields. So even empty space is full of vibrating quantum fields. And those quantum fields in empty space are entangled with each other in exactly the way you just said. If they're nearby, if you have like two vibrating quantum fields that are nearby, then they will be highly entangled. If they're far away, they will not be entangled. So what do quantum fields in a vacuum look like, empty space? Just like empty space, it's as empty as it can be. But there's still a field. It's just, what does nothing look like? Just like right here, this location in space, there's a gravitational field, which I can detect by dropping something. I don't see it, but there it is.

https://youtu.be/Dnj0rnlV2aA

_ySbzVXiwzQ

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

How to learn and master a new skill

First question is, you've reached a high level of ability slash expertise in a number of fields, martial arts, AI, music, et cetera. I'm curious to know how you think about the learning process when juggling all of these things. It takes a huge amount of time and dedication to master any one of these skills. Where do you draw the line between balance and obsession? Put another way, how deeply do you immerse yourself when learning something? How do you schedule your day for work slash learning? Is it appropriate to spend nearly every waking hour learning and developing a skill? Do you try to learn a number of things at once or narrow your focus to one thing? So first of all, obviously I have not achieved mastery in any of these things. And I should also say that I don't think I've figured out the art of learning very much, but I can give my two cents of the way I see it. So one passion I think is exceptionally important for learning anything. And if I look back at my life, I certainly have spent days and weeks and months at a time really obsessed with things. Now, to me, that's not necessarily useful on the long journey of learning a skill from the beginner to mastery. What has been useful to me, and if I have a philosophy on it, it's probably centered around the rigor of discipline. So making sure that every single day you do a minimum amount of that particular thing, and you do it for weeks, months, years. And also the way to remove motivation from the picture is to build a habit. When I'm first learning something, I try to set the goal of doing a minimum of two hours a day of that thing for a year to build the foundation. So that first year is really important. It's so easy to kind of skip out on a few days and then days becomes weeks and weeks become months and you lose completely that initial hook that pulls you into the depth of the particular topic. So I really wanna be a stickler of putting in, I would say one to two hours, but if I look at my life, successful things like music have been at least two hours a day for a year to build the foundation. Then looking out farther into, let's say a five-year range, you can lower that to about one hour a day. And that's to build the, what I would think of as expertise. I think you can get pretty good at something in five years if you just do it one hour a day. I don't know if this is true for everyone, but I think for me, not even an hour, just 10 minutes a day, it's been really surprising how good I can get at a bunch of little things from just doing every single day, not even 10 minutes, like one minute a day. Because it rarely becomes a one-minute thing, it usually blows up into a thing that takes an hour. But if you just set a hard lower limit and make sure you do it every single day, no matter what, no matter where you are, you end up forming this habit and there's an accumulation effect of skill that's just fascinating. So that's five years. And I think at that point, the skill is solidified nicely. I don't think it's mastery by any means, but there's a level of expertise that seems to persist for a long period of time. What I found with music for me, not singing, just music, I haven't actually practiced singing, I suck at singing, but the music part, I think I've achieved a minimal kind of understanding. And at this point, just even 10 minutes a day for the rest of your life is one way to, I think, take further and further steps into mastery. Again, I think mastery is impossible. But to increase the skill over time, I think a very minimal amount of time, but every single day is good. The other magic thing about it is you can, at this point, at least for me, take off months at a time. And when you return to it, you'll pick up almost right where you started. I don't think you wanna overdo it, but I think after you put in that first few years of every single day of an hour or two, there's something about the mind that's kind of solidified in there. You know, I've certainly had months where I don't play guitar at all, and I return to it. Maybe it'll take a day or two and you're right back into it. So, but still, if you really wanna grow, you wanna put in every single day. For me, 20 minutes is just the right minimal amount to give me time to get pulled into the task fully, get immersed fully, enough to where I can pick up little tidbits of new stuff, new ideas that kind of get going, ready for the next day. For me, there's always a kind of fascinating dance here between passion and discipline. I think passion goes up and down, and that's where discipline is essential to keep carrying you forward, to keep doing the thing every day. And I'm not a big believer of resting and then returning to the task. I'm a bigger believer in when you don't really wanna do it, still grinding it out. And days later, your passion for the thing will return. People are different, but that's how I am. Because the greater danger for me is when you take a break, when you rest, is you're going to destroy the habit that you've built. And once you destroy the habit, it's too easy to never return to the pursuit of expertise that you were on for many years before. Also, a related question was asked, I loved your video on recipe for success in AI. Do you have any advice for dealing with frustration slash difficulty in making progress? I'm learning high school math right now with a proof-based course, and sometimes it gets hard. I feel like crying. Do you have any advice for pushing past frustration at dead ends? Thanks. I personally think that struggle is a sign that you're on the right path. So all the things in my life that I've gotten the most meaning from learning, I've struggled through it. I think the biggest reward at the lowest level of your brain, like the things you actually remember, and just the self-satisfaction and happiness you feel about life is when there's something that's really hard, but you stick to it, and then you eventually succeed. That locks in the lessons into your brain that makes you feel good about yourself, that gives you more confidence for keep doing that in the future. Also, I think this is helpful for a bunch of people like David Goggins. It's not as helpful to me, but I'll just give it to you because I've tried it, and it doesn't really work for me. But a little mind hack, which is imagining that you're kind of a competition with everybody else in the world. And so if something is difficult for you, imagining that it's probably going to be difficult for a lot of people. And if you just stick by it, you're going to leave all those people behind you. And eventually, if you keep doing it long enough, you'll be the best person in the world at it. So kind of seeing struggle as a sign that most people would be quitting at this point, and it gives you motivation that like, struggle is a sign that you're on the path towards being number one. If you enjoy the kind of idea of you being at that top tier of excellence in a thing, then that kind of mind hack can help. I personally don't often like to think in that way, especially in competition with others. I just like the art itself. So I enjoy the idea of pursuing mastery, not in comparison to others, but just for myself. So in that sense, that mind hack doesn't really work for me. I kind of tend to believe that if I embrace the grind of habit of every day doing something, that months from now, years from now, as I've had many times in my life, I will experience these moments, these long periods of flow of truly enjoying the process of practicing that thing. So for me, music, now that I've achieved, the level that I've achieved, on my own personal, quiet, private moments, I can truly enjoy feeling the music I'm creating on the guitar, playing Jimi Hendrix, playing Stevie Ray Vaughan, improvising different blues, or even just like much simpler songs, like these crying melodic songs of Eric Clapton, Wonderful Tonight, or even just strumming in a way where I can also sing, just, it allows me to enjoy both the musicality and the deep meaning and the words and all that kind of stuff. And that was only possible because I put in that time in the early years of the foundation that I built. It allows you to enjoy life. And I believe in that if you form the habit, if you do the thing every single day, eventually you'll get to a set of activities that you enjoy partaking that are a source of a lot of meaning and happiness in your life. So you can think of it as a mind hack, which is believing that discipline eventually leads to a meaningful life. Hope that answers the question. Good luck.

https://youtu.be/_ySbzVXiwzQ

gk4tEO4jDUM

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Joe Rogan: Comedy, Controversy, Aliens, UFOs, Putin, CIA, and Freedom | Lex Fridman Podcast #300

The following is a conversation with Joe Rogan, his second time on this podcast. He has inspired me for many years with his conversations to be a better and kinder person and has now been doing so as a friend. There's no one I would rather talk to on this 300th episode of this podcast on the 4th of July, both the anniversary of this country's declaration of independence and the anniversary of my immigrating here to the United States. A silly kid who couldn't speak English and could never imagine that he would be so damn lucky as to live the life I've lived and to feel the love I've felt from the amazing people along the way. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. I love you all. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Joe Rogan. Charles Bukowski said something in a poem called Style about art. He defined art, saying, Style is the answer to everything, a fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing. To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without it. To do a dangerous thing with style is what I call art. What do you think he meant by that? Do you agree with this? A dangerous thing with style is art. He said bullfighting can be art, boxing can be art, loving can be art. Have you ever made love and it was art? No, okay, I'm not asking. Every time, bro. Opening a can of sardines can be art. I think there's something to that. Yeah, I think I call the way people live life art. Like I wrote a foreword to my friend Cameron Haynes' book, which is right now the number one selling audio book in the world. And one of the things that I said was that he practices an art that very few people appreciate, and it's the art of the maximized life. And that the discipline that he displays in his life and through his practices and all the things that he does, it's so difficult to live the way he lives. That for someone like me who understands it and knows what he's doing and appreciates it and appreciates how insanely difficult it is to have a full-time job and run ultra marathons, get up at four o'clock in the morning, run a full marathon before work. That's the kind of shit that he does when he's training for these 240 mile runs, at the same time being a father, a husband, having this full-time job, also being the best bow hunter on earth, lifting weights. It's like, how does a person do this? So in a way, discipline is art too. Yes, discipline is art. Yeah, I think it is, because it's beautiful for me to see. When I see someone who's really, truly disciplined, like a David Goggin, someone who just truly maximizes the grind, I feel like there's an art to that. And there's an art to kindness. There's people that are really kind and really sweet, and when I'm around them, it's beautiful. There's an art to them. No matter what. Yeah. They still, they got, the world can throw a bunch of shit at you, but through all that- Some people are just great at it. And it's a thing that you learn how to do. And it's pleasing for other people to see, and that, I think, is where the art is. Well, I think Bukowski also said, and I'm just a Bukowski quote generator today. I love him. I love him very much too. He's a dark and troubled and fascinating and a weird person, like Hunter S. Thompson. He said, what matters most is how you walk through the fire, I think. So there's a bit of the Ken Haynes in that too, David Goggins in that too. What do you think he meant by that? Well, how you walk through the fire. You can walk through the fire complaining along the way, or you can walk through the fire and create an example for everyone else so that the trials and tribulations of their own lives seem trivial because they're comparing themselves to the way you handle things. Or the way you handle things with grace and dignity and discipline can show other people that they can handle their own life this way. And there's beauty in that. There really is. And there's so much inspiration to be gathered from other people if you're a charitable person, if you're charitable and compassionate and you can look at people, even people that I don't like, I try to look at the best aspects of how they live their life and recognize those aspects, admire them, give them credit for it. There's something that we can all get out of watching the way other people live their lives. So I got a chance to see you walk through the fire a little bit privately and publicly this year in January. I got to ask you about that. So there's generic conversations about cancel culture and all those kinds of things. But as a human being, this to me is fascinating. There's the N-word highlight video. There's the criticism of the different guests, whatever the side is on the COVID pandemic. And you, I mean, there's a mass amount of attack on you. Outside of being a public persona, outside of being a comedian, podcaster, you're also a human being. So how did you survive that? How did you sort of walk through that fire, because you seem to do it with grace? I used mushrooms. That was one way I did it. Really. As Andrew Huberman would say, what was your protocol? I took, it was probably less than a gram every day. Every day. Yeah. I did a lot of really hard working out, but also, I mean, there's a great benefit to going through anything difficult. And if you're aware in advance and during anything that's going to happen that's very difficult and troubling, the great benefit is it gives you an opportunity to grow. It gives you an opportunity to express yourself under pressure, to show your character, to show who you truly are. And it gives you an opportunity to see how you handle a very difficult situation. It also was fascinating as a person that's involved in media, right? Because what we're doing right now is media, even though it seems, like podcasts seem like we're just having a conversation, right? And they are. And in that sense, it's kind of the purest form of media because what you're doing is you're doing it without any fanfare. You're doing it without any, there's no executives looming over your head or network or big meetings about ratings or any of that stuff, but it is media. But what I got to see is the wiring under the machine of how the rest of media would try to take me out. And when CNN would just be playing things over and over and back and forth, it was wild to watch. What was also wild to watch was people's responses because I gained 2 million subscribers during that time. The podcast never got bigger. It just kept growing and growing. It had never been bigger than it had been at the end of all of it. It just made it bigger. And ultimately, if you've fucked up in the past or made mistakes or done something wrong, that gives you an opportunity to discuss those things and to apologize if you feel the need to apologize and also to just address it. And so people under that kind of pressure, it's an opportunity for them to understand how you think about things honestly, how you actually honestly think about things. And there's no more honesty that you get out of a person than when that person is under extreme duress. So I think in that sense, I mean, it's horrible to say that it's a benefit, that it's a good thing that it happened, but it was a benefit. Can you see how it can break a person? Yes. You get a chance to experience small attacks here and there, ones that get to the core of things. Like even just talking about Russia and Ukraine to Stephen Coghan or Oliver Stone, looking at different perspectives, you gain a relative, for me, feeling like a sizable number of people who really don't like you and say things about you that may be cut deep for a reason I don't understand why. It's just my own psychology. What's also because you can't defend yourself because they're saying it and you're not there and you don't have any opportunity for a rebuttal. And if you do have a rebuttal, you're doing it publicly and you're opening it up to the whole world to chime in. And there's a general tendency that people have towards negativity when they're interacting with strangers online, especially about controversial subjects. And even if it's only 10% of the people, it's one out of 10. That's a lot. That's a lot of negativity when you're dealing with thousands and thousands of tweets. And I think, maybe I'm just a very self-critical person, but I hear their words and I probably somewhere deep inside see the truth in the criticism, in some aspect of the criticism. And that's why it hurts. But it's one aspect of you. And when you're reading it, it's so, it's boiled down to this one thing, as if that one thing defines you totally. Like if you've made a mistake, if you've said something that you shouldn't have said, or if you said something and maybe you should have considered it more carefully, given the gravity of the situation, that's just a part of being a person. And it's also part of being a person where you're communicating with things publicly in real time, thinking out loud, which is what we do. It's complex and most people don't do it. And you're going to have genuine hot takes where people just see what you said and go, why did he say that? Fuck him. He doesn't know anything about, he doesn't live in Ukraine. People that are going to have takes on that, in that way. And then there's also going to be these disingenuous people who just use any kind of controversial topic or subject as an opportunity for them to get clicks or views. But the number of those people can be quite large. Quite large. And so, going back to, do you think it can destroy a person? Because I kind of worry about this, and you're in many ways, but in this way an inspiration, that it didn't seem to have destroyed you. I kept doing shows, I kept doing stand up, I ignored everything. I didn't read any of it. So it is possible to just ignore it. 100%. Yes. Yeah. I ignored it all. I knew it was there. Like your family didn't bring it up. My family was very aware of it. My wife was aware of it. What was the conversation like? If your wife is aware of it, is there like a rule, don't pretend it's not happening? No. Well, I tell her, don't ever read art. Past the green beans. I don't ever let her read negative articles to me. I don't want them. I don't care. I go, that's a person's opinion. You take a person's opinion, you write it down, it doesn't give it any more relevance. That person could have had that opinion in silence, they could have had it with some friends at dinner, they don't like me, whatever. I don't want to read it. I don't want to absorb it. I don't even know them. Especially if I'm not there. And especially if it's some biased and it's not an objective opinion of me. They have a narrative and they want to stick to that narrative and they want to write an article and they piece it all together and make you look like a piece of shit. And that's their prerogative. They're completely allowed to do that. But I shouldn't absorb that. I shouldn't take that in. You're not supposed to be taking in the opinion of the world. You're supposed to be taking in the opinion of small groups of people that you encounter so that you get an understanding of how you make them feel. And then maybe you say to yourself, maybe I come across too rude or maybe I come across too insensitive or maybe I could do better in this way or that way. That's how we sort of shape our personalities and that's how we develop our social skills. But when the people don't know you and they have this distorted narrative of you and there's fucking millions of people. There's so many people. You can't be sane. I think there's billions now actually. I mean millions of people that are communicating about something. Like during the height of the attempt to cancel me or whatever that is. I don't know how many people were involved in that. People take this kind of stuff seriously but the problem is the false narratives take hold and then you have meetings, you have groups, it builds on top of each other and there's this outrage and then it reaches you at some point and it can just have these destructive effects. It can, but it also sometimes doesn't. And in my case it didn't. Didn't work. What lessons did you draw from that? Mushrooms, exercise? Mushrooms and exercise. Exercise is critical. I don't think the mushrooms by themselves would have worked. But that's the thing that I use for everything is the brutal exercise. My exercise routines are horrible and because of that everything else is easier. I create my own bullshit and my own bullshit is so much harder and it's not just that. It's also sauna and cold plunge and these torture sessions. Enduring those, when you endure those it makes enduring other things much easier. But it's also an understanding of what's happening. You have to know media. You have to understand what the hot take YouTube, social media, podcast, ecosphere is doing. If they're talking about Lex Friedman said this and we have to comment on that and Lex gets cancelled in all capital letters on a YouTube clip and if you watch that you're fucking crazy. What are you doing? Absorbing all this negativity? It's not good for you. You are you. You know you and you know generally if you've made a mistake and you know generally if people are upset with you. You posted this awesome video on your Instagram of a woman who was being interviewed in late 1920s maybe. Yes, yeah. Yeah. And she's close to 100 years old. So she's lived through the Civil War, through World War I. She was at the time living through the early days of the Great Depression. But I was just looking back you know what have we as a human civilization in recent times survived especially in the United States? You're talking about the two World Wars in the 20th century, the Great Depression, the Spanish Flu, the pandemic at the beginning of the 20th century. What do we do in the United States? 9-11. If you think of what are the traumatic events that shook our world it's 9-11. It made us rethink our place in the world. The pandemic. Pandemic is a huge one. One of the bigger ones because it also accelerated and exacerbated our anxiety. Which people have a certain level of anxiety already. Especially sedentary people. They have a very high level of anxiety already because I don't think they're giving their body what it needs. I don't think they're, you know, your body has certain requirements in terms of movement. And when you deny your body those requirements I think there's like a general level of anxiety that exists in almost everyone. And then you have people obviously that have mental health issues. And that also exacerbates the anxiety. The lockdown exacerbated the anxiety. Losing loved ones to the pandemic exacerbated anxiety. And then there was the division, the different schools of thought. The people that were never going to get vaccinated no matter what. I ain't trusting it. People that thought there was microchips in there. People that thought that Fauci's the demon. And there was a lot, and there's also like political leanings. The right wing people tended to not want to be vaccinated. Whereas the left wing people for whatever reason all of a sudden are trusting pharmaceutical companies like explicitly. It was weird. It was a weird time. And I think over time as it gets analyzed and we break it down it's going to be one of the weirder moments for shaping human culture. And unfortunately for throwing gasoline on this already burning fire of, you know, of conflict between the various factions of thought in this country. It's already a weird time, you know, post-Trump. Like the Trump era is also going to be one of the weirder times. When people look back historically about the division in this country, he's such a polarizing figure that so many people felt like they could abandon their own ethics and morals and principles just to attack him and anybody who supports him because he is an existential threat to democracy itself. But don't you think it's not a cause but maybe like a symptom? Like it's going to get, you said it got real weird, maybe it's going to get weirder. Yeah, I think it's going to get weirder. He's going to run again. You think he wins? Well, he's running against a dead man. You know, I mean, Biden shakes hands with people that aren't even there when he gets off stage. I think he's seeing ghosts. Did you see him on Jimmy Kimmel the other day? No. Well, he was just rambling. I mean, if he was anyone else, if he was a Republican, if that was Donald Trump doing that, every fucking talk show would be screaming for him to be off the air. And by the way, I'm not a Trump supporter in any way, shape or form. I've had the opportunity to have him on my show more than once. I've said no every time. I don't want to help him. I'm not interested in helping him. The night is still young. We'll see. If I have him on, the night is still young? You think I'll have him on? I think you'll have him on. Really? Why do you think that? Because you'll have Putin on? And you're competitive as fuck. No. I think ultimately, I mean, you've had a lot of people that I think you may otherwise be skeptical. Would I have a good conversation? Which I think is your metric. You don't care about politics, so can I have a good conversation? And I think you had people like Kanye on, for example, and you had a great conversation with him. I think you... Yeah, but Kanye is an artist. But Kanye doing well or not doing well doesn't change the course of our country. Yeah, but do you really bear the responsibility of the course of our country based on a conversation? I think you can revitalize and rehabilitate someone's image in a way that is pretty shocking. Look at the way people look at Alex Jones now, because Alex Jones has been on my podcast a few times. Yeah, how do they... Which direction? The people that have watched those podcasts think he's hilarious. And they think that he definitely fucked up with that whole Sandy Hook thing. But he's right more than he's wrong. And he's not an evil guy. He's just a guy who's had some psychotic breaks in his life. He's had some genuine mental health issues that he's addressed. He's had some serious bouts of alcoholism, some serious bouts of substance abuse, and they've contributed to some very poor thinking. But if you know the guy, if you get to know him, like I have... I've known him for more than 20 years. And if you know him on podcasts, you realize he is genuinely trying to unearth some things that are genuinely disturbing for most people. This is a guy that was telling me about Epstein's Island fucking decade ago, at least. He was telling me about it. I was like, what? You're telling me there's a place where they bring elites to compromise them with underage girls and they film them? Really? Like what? Cut the fuck out of here. No, President Clinton's been there. Everyone's been there. I'm like, what? It sounds like nonsense. And not only is it true, but people keep getting fucking murdered for it. Did you see that latest Clinton advisor that got murdered about it? Yeah. Yeah. Hung with an extension cord, shot himself in the chest 30 miles from his house, and they're calling it a suicide. And now even Elon Musk is asking, where's the clientele list? We should probably see who's been to that island. Yeah, we should probably see who's been to that island. And there's probably more of those kind of things out there that haven't been exposed. Yeah, but sort of to push back, you had those conversations with Alex Jones. Wouldn't you be able to have the same kind of conversation with Donald Trump? That's the problem. No, it's not the problem. You revealed that Alex Jones is a human being. He's fucked up. He has demons in his head. He's obviously chaotic all over the place, but there's some wisdom to the perspective he takes on the world. Even though he is often full of shit, he's able to predict certain things that very few people are willing to bring up. So isn't Trump the same way? Fucked up person, egomaniac, whatever personality things you can talk about, isn't it worthwhile to lay it out? Like who's going to, if you listen to interviews of Trump, who has the balls to call him out on this bullshit? Chris Wallace did. No, calling out somebody on their bullshit is easy when you're just being adversarial. But as a person who is genuinely empathetically trying to understand, I think you're really good at that. Like you pulled him in. I don't know if he would genuinely be there. You know what I'm saying? Like I think he would be putting on a performance. And I think you can break through that in like 30 minutes. I'd need more time than that. And he doesn't do any drugs. That's the thing about Alex. You can get Alex high, get him drunk, and he'll start talking about interdimensional child molesters. You know, and then you get the real Alex. Maybe you have somebody else on as well to introduce chaos, like Alex. No, no, no, no. I would have to be just me and him. I would have to, that would be a focused thing. I would have to like really take time with Trump. But also I'm not well versed enough politically to know all of the corruption that's been alleged and to understand what the whole Russiagate stuff, what's real. Like how much of it, it's clear that there is more than one organization that's involved in communicating with Russia before the 2016 elections. It's pretty clear that the Clinton administration was involved. It's pretty clear that the Trump administration had some communication with some people in Russia. It's pretty clear that Hunter Biden had some very suspicious dealings in Ukraine. And there's a lot going on there, man. And it's hard for anybody to parse. It's really hard for anybody, and especially to have an objective assessment of exactly what's going on, and then to be able to do that and broadcast it publicly. That's quite a project. And I think if you really want to do that correctly, it's something that I would have to research for a long time and to really, really, and I don't have that kind of time. Not for, maybe for certain people that you're really curious about. Like you have that kind of time for Bob Lazar. Yes, yes. But maybe not for Donald Trump. No, that's different. Because Bob Lazar, what he's talking about, I wanted to know, with the Bob Lazar thing, I wanted to know, first of all, I want to be around him and see if I could smell bullshit. Did you? No. Okay. No, I didn't, man. That's what's weird about it. Not only did I not smell bullshit, I went over all of his interviews. He hasn't done a lot, but he's done enough. And he's done them over the course of 30 plus years. And it's alarming how consistent his story is, which is really weird when you think about, you're talking about back engineering alien crafts and working on a top secret government test site that's carved into the side of a mountain to camouflage it from satellites. It's such a wacky story. But the guy really did work at Los Alamos Labs. He really is a propulsions expert. He really is a scientist. Did he really work on back engineering UFOs? I don't know. But the way he described their motion is exactly like what's been observed by some of these pilots that have these videos that they've captured. And I just love that, like NASA, I've been hearing from a bunch of folks who they're legitimately funding research and there's people really taking the serious of UFO sightings, investigating them. Yeah. And adding more and more sensors to collect data from just observing at higher and higher definitions. It's cool to finally see that. And he was one of the early people, whether he's full of shit or not, that kind of forced people to start taking these topics seriously. Or at least force people to have conversations about them and maybe attempt to debunk them because it seems so preposterous, but then get sucked down the rabbit hole and start going, hmm, maybe. It's the thing is like the Fermi paradox, like where are they, right? And when you take into account just the sheer raw numbers, the vast majority of people objectively assume that there is life out there. The vast majority. Well, if you really take into account what we understand about the universe itself, what we understand about the concept of infinity, and the way Neil deGrasse Tyson has explained it to me is that not only are there life forms out there, but there's you. You are out there. Infinity is so large that Lex Friedman exists and doesn't just exist, but exists an infinite number of times. Like the amount of interactions that cells and molecules, the same exact interactions that have happened here on earth have happened in the exact same order an infinite number of times in the cosmos. Well, first of all, it's not certain that that's true. It's possible. It's possible. Like Sean Carroll, especially with quantum mechanics, based on certain interpretation of quantum mechanics, that's very possible. But the question is, can you access those universes? Right. How far away are they? The more sort of specific practical question is, this local pocket of the universe, our galaxy or neighboring galaxies, are there aliens there? What do they look like? Right. Are they... So you can have this panspermia idea where a much larger, like daddy civilization rolled by and just planted a few aliens at a similar time. Like Prometheus. Yes. A different... Throughout the galaxy. And those are the ones we might be interacting with. They're all kind of dumb, as we are, relatively. Maybe a few million years apart. And then those are the ones we're interacting with. And then we have a chance to actually connect with them and communicate with them. Or it could be like much more wide open and you have these gigantic alien civilizations that are expanding very, very quickly. And the interesting thing is when you look up at the sky and you see the stars, that's light from those stars. You might not be seeing the alien civilizations until they're already here. Meaning you start expanding, once you get really good at expanding, you're going to be expanding very close to the speed of light. So right now we don't see much in the sky, but there could be one day we wake up and it's just like everywhere and they're here. Right. Because of the amount of time the light takes to reach us. And then the thing that I've been really fascinated by is these alternative forms of transportation that they're discussing. Like the ability to harness wormholes and the ability to do things that a type three civilization is capable of. I had Michio Kaku on my podcast recently. Fantastic. Love that guy. He's so good at taking extremely complex concepts and boiling them down for digestion and saying them in a way that other people can appreciate. And not being hesitant about saying wild, crazy shit that's out there, but grounded in what's actually possible. Yeah. He's all in on this UFO phenomenon now. He's like, now the burden of proof is for people to come up with some sort of a conventional explanation for these things. He goes, because these things are defying all the concepts of physics that we currently know in terms of what our capabilities are and propulsion systems and so many other things that what we know about what current science is capable of reproducing. As far as what we know. The problem is like these military projects that are top secret. Like how much money do they have? They have a lot of money. But is it possible, and maybe you could speak to this, is it possible that there could be some propulsion systems that have been developed and implemented that are far beyond just the simple burning of rocket fuel, pushing the fire out the back, which forces the rocket at extreme speeds forward? That's something that does harness gravity, something that can distort space and time and can make travel from one point to another preposterously fast. Well, not only is it possible, I think it's likely that that kind of stuff would be kept a secret. Yeah. It's just everything you see about the way either if it's contractors like Lockheed Martin or if it's DOD, the actual Department of Defense, they operate in complete secrecy. Just even looking at the history of the stealth fighter, just even stealth technology was kept a secret for a very, very long time. And not until you're ready to use it and need to use it does it become public. And not officially public, it's just being detected out in the wild. So there's going to be a process where you're secretly testing it and that might creep up, which is maybe what we're seeing. And then it's waiting for the next big war, the next big reason to use the thing. Yeah. And so, yeah, there's definitely technologies now. There might not be propulsion technologies, there could be AI surveillance technologies, there could be different kinds of stealth drones. There could be, it could be also in cyberspace, like cyber war weapons, all that kind of stuff that they're obviously going to be kept secret. I'm very skeptical lately. And the reason why I'm skeptical is the government keeps talking about it. The Pentagon keeps talking about it, NASA keeps talking about it. In which direction are you skeptical? I'm skeptical that they're aliens. I think most likely it's a smoke screen. And most likely these are some sort of incredibly advanced drones that they've developed that they want to pretend don't exist. That seems the more likely scenario, because otherwise, my take is what's the benefit of them discussing these things? What's the benefit of them discussing these things openly? These are, the way they described it, off-world crafts not made from this earth. Why? Why would they tell us that? Unless there's an imminent danger of us being invaded and they want to prepare people so they don't freak out as much. You know, like maybe freak them out a little bit, say that publicly. The New York Times article, the Pentagon discussing it, all these different things happening. Test the waters. Yeah. Well, let people know that this is a thing. Or my take is like, I don't think they do that. I don't think they tell us. I think the government has a lot of contempt for the citizens. I really do. I think they have contempt for our intelligence. They have contempt for our need to know things. And I also think they think that they are running us. It's not we're all in this together and the government works for the people and the government is of the people. I don't think they think that way. Yeah. The basic idea is you can't trust the populace to govern itself because we're a bunch of idiots. I think that's accurate. Well, they're not wrong, but they're also idiots, power-hungry idiots. Yeah. I don't think everyone's an idiot, but I think there are enough idiots that it becomes a real problem if you're completely honest about everything you do. And you don't want to let everybody weigh in about things that are incredibly complex and that most people are ignorant of. And on top of that, there's this machine of intelligence. I've recently been reading a lot about the KGB, about the FSB. So several things sparked my curiosity. So one, I'm traveling to Ukraine and to Moscow, and because of that, I started to sort of ask practical questions of myself, just travel and all those kinds of things. So I started reading a lot about the KGB. Jack Barsky has a book on this. I talked to him. And you start to realize, you probably looked into some of this, but you start to realize the scale of surveillance and manipulation. Now a lot of them also talk about the incompetence of those organizations. The usual bureaucracy creeps in. But the point is, it seems like there's no line they're not willing to cross for the purpose of gathering intelligence, for the purpose of controlling people in order to gather intelligence. Now this is MI6, FSB, there's not much information about the FSB or the GRU, but the KGB. So we're always like 20 years behind or more on the actual information. And so I started to wonder, so I have not officially been contacted by any intelligence agency, but I started to wonder, well, is there somebody I know that's doing that, undercover CIA, undercover FSB, undercover anything? You probably do. Have you asked yourself this question? Yeah, for sure. Yeah, people that have been on my podcast? Yeah, for sure. Do you think there was actually a guest that may have been? 100%. Oh man. I would imagine. Would you know? I have suspicions. Do you care? Is this... I mean, it depends on what they're attempting to do, right? Like if I felt like there was some deception involved and they were trying to use the podcast to manipulate a narrative in a deceptive way to trick people into things, yeah, I would care. But this is exactly what... Those are the kind of things they do. They do plant narratives. Yeah. I mean, I would imagine if you have the number one podcast in the world that people would want to infiltrate that. Yeah, there's probably meetings in all major intelligence agencies about, okay, what are the large platforms? How do we spread the message? Yeah. Well, I mean, that's the thing that really emerged when we're talking about during my cancellation that there's a clear... There's no objective analysis of this in mainstream media. There's clear narratives that they're trying to push forward to whether it's to promote certain ideas or to diminish the power and reach of people who are mavericks or people who aren't connected to a system that you can't compromise. That's where it gets dangerous, right? Where it gets dangerous is when someone has the largest reach but is also completely detached and clearly is independent in the sense of independent thinking, has on whoever he wants. But your mind can still be manipulated. I guess I can. I mean, I guess everybody can be manipulated a certain way. I manipulate my own mind, I'm sure, too. But I also spend a lot of time thinking about what I think. I don't just accept things. Like the UFO thing. I was all in for a while and now I'm like, man, something smells fishy. And then I'm thinking like, here's my problem with the UFO thing. I want it to be real so bad. That's my problem with it. I'm such a sucker. I want it to be real so bad. And that's a problem for me because I'm aware of it. And so then I stop and think about what is my desire for UFO truth to be exposed? Well, it's because it's fun. That's what it is. So I have a desire for it to be real. And I mean, I've talked to a bunch of folks about this, those with connection with DoD. And they do draw lines between people that are full of shit and people who are not. There's a lot of people in the public sphere that they say are full of shit. Yeah, for sure. And they have to kind of tell the difference. Yeah, CNN. Watch them talk. Well, I mean, even on the UFO topic, there's certain individuals that are like, okay, they're just like using this. In fact, people who are not full of shit are often very quiet. Which is why, you know, even Bob Lazar is an interesting story because he was trying to be quiet for the longest time. Well, he was worried about his own life, according to Bob. And that's why he went public with it. And initially, the first videos he did with George Knapp, they hid his identity. And then he felt like that wasn't enough. And he really needed to expose his own identity just to protect his life. Which is a great story. You know, so you got to go, well, that seems so juicy. I want to buy into it. And that's where I get nervous. You don't know. You don't know who to trust in this world. Right, exactly. How do you figure that out? How do you figure out who to trust in your life? You're Joe Rogan. A lot of people want to be close to you. CIA agents, FSB agents, people that want- I'm friends with a former CIA agent, Mike Baker, who's been on my podcast a bunch of times. Allegedly former. Former. Think about that. He's air quotes, former. Yeah. Yeah. I don't believe he's former. I'm sure he has some connection to him. I also believe he's a good guy. But I gain a lot of very intelligent and well-informed insights from him as to how things work. And I think, I'm sure he doesn't tell me everything about everything, but he's told me enough where I think I can understand things better from talking to him about how the way the elves work under the machine. What about friends? How do you know if you can trust? Well, most of my friends are old friends. Time. So time is the thing. Like just going through shit together. Yeah. And also people that, first of all, comics. You can trust comics? Yeah. Comics are pretty trustworthy. The good ones, the really good ones. There's not that many of us. If there's a thousand professional comics on earth, I'd be stunned. I'd be stunned. I don't even think there's a thousand. Like real professionals who you get booked all the time, headline weekends at clubs and theaters and arenas. And then there's levels to that, right? There's like the guys who are middle acts who kind of like barely scrape by. And then like how many headliners are there? How many like really funny headliners that I would say, you know, if Lex, you tell me you're going to be in Cincinnati, hey, this person's playing at this club. Should I go see them? I'd be like, ah, you know, like how many people would I give the recommendation to? And then how many people sell out theaters? How many people sell out arenas? How many people? There's not that fucking many. So those people, like at the levels of comedy where you, you know, you've been doing stand up for 20 years, there's a certain amount of honesty and a certain amount of understanding of each other that we all have. Oh, so that process of becoming a great comic is like humbling in the way like jujitsu is humbling. Very similar. Like you've eaten so much shit that somehow, even if you're insane, even if you're chaotic, even in the way, even if you're full of shit, you lie a lot, all those kinds of things underneath it, there's a good human. You could be surface bullshitter, but on important things, you're trustworthy. Hopefully. I mean, if you're not, then people shy away from you. And there are people like that too, that are really successful, but that are, that are what I call islands. I've talked to other comics about that. Like you don't want to be an island because there's these people that aren't attached to the rest of the community and they're doing well on their own. And usually they have like one opening act, they bring with them on the road, they've worked with forever and they don't have comedy friends. And those people are miserable because they can't relate. Sometimes fame in itself is isolating. So you have to actually do a lot of work and make sure you don't, it doesn't isolate you. Because if you become successful, people start wanting stuff from you. And then sometimes you want to push them away because of that, as opposed to connect with them. I don't enjoy it when people want things from me. It's not fun. You just ignore it. Yeah. It's fucking too heavy. They want too much. And it's, it's too much of a disproportionate relationship. You know, it's too unbalanced. Because there are people where you could tell that they're working towards something, they're working towards an angle and they want to be close to you because you'll, you will benefit them. And then there's other people that are just, there's not that many of us. And so we all want to hang out together. Like when I, one of the podcasts I love the most is this podcast I do called Protect Our Parks. It's a thing I do with Ari Shafir, Shane Gillis, and Mark Norman. Yeah, it's great. It's so fun. Because we just get obliterated and we talk so much shit. Like there's conversations after that podcast where I go, hey man, we got to cut that part out. Yeah. Because like Shane will go too far, go too crazy, but we're just making each other laugh and it's just fun. And it's like that kind of camaraderie between real comics is very precious to me. My favorite part of that is like the non sequitur stuff from Mark Norman. And you guys get so trashed that you don't even understand what the hell he's talking about. But it's funny to the listener because he's still on point. That guy's sharp. He's so good. He's got that Mitch Hedberg quality. Yes. Well, he's such a dedicated comic. You know, he loves comedy so much. That's one of the things I love about him. He's like, comedy! He gets excited. Like he loves it. It's as does Shane and as does Ari. Yeah. You know, they really love it. And it's, that's so, so there's that. Like I have friends in that way and I have martial arts friends who are some of the, also the thing about being humbled, how things like jujitsu will humble you. Martial arts friends are, they're also, they know, they know who's been through it. You know, they know who's, who really has gone through the gauntlet and emerged on the other end a better person. Yeah. You said there's very few of us. Let's have the goat discussion. You're not going to pick anybody, but who are the greats of comedy? Who's, who's the, who's the, who's the greatest comic of all time? I don't think there is a greatest comic of all time. Is it Norm Macdonald? Norm Macdonald was one of the greats for sure. Well, by the way, actually on that topic, what do you think about is, I think as a person who is fascinated by the fear of death and death, I think it was a truly genius thing to release a special after you're dead. I don't know how that works. I haven't seen the special of you. It's not, yeah, it's, it's, it's called, I think, nothing special. Which sounds like something Norm would say. And it's basically him in front of, I mean, I imagine he wouldn't want to have wanted it edited that way because it's made to look nicer than I think he probably would have preferred it. But it's him in front of the screen, like in a zoom call doing jokes without lap cold. Really? Yeah. And somehow given his like dry, dark humor, it works because it's almost making fun of itself, almost making fun of that hole that we were stuck, stuck alone inside. And because he's still acting as if he's in front of the audience and is almost making fun of the fact that this is what we're forced to do. I mean, it's quite genius. It's really well done. The jokes are really good, but it also makes you realize how important laughter is from the audience, the energy from the audience because, but there's also an intimacy because it's just you and him because you're listening to it. You know, there's no audience. So that's, I don't know. I think it's quite genius. And he's of course, there's certain comics that are like, not only are they funny, but they're truly unique. And like they're not in terms of friendship and all that kind of stuff, but in terms of comedy, they're an Island. Yeah. It's like they, you know, Mitch Hedberg probably is that. Of course, a lot of people then start to imitate them and so on. Steven Wright. I mean, there's like people who are like, you know, Dave Chappelle, who's like probably one of the greats, but he's just like raw funny. I don't know if he's an Island. He's just raw. Yeah. I know what you're saying. An outlier, a unique individual. Yeah. He's just great. Norm was definitely unique in his greatness. Like there's only one Norm, you know, who's got a very specific style. Is there a reason you guys weren't, it doesn't seem like he was, you guys were close. I mean, I loved him. He was great. I always enjoyed talking to him. We just didn't work together that often. We weren't around each other that often. That's all it was. But it wasn't like, it was, I loved him though. He was a great guy. I had a funny story about it, Norm. Twice, just randomly, I was on airplanes next to him, seated right next to him, just totally random. And one time we're on this airplane and we're having this talk and I was like, yeah, I quit smoking. I was smoking a lot and I just, terrible, terrible smoke. It's terrible for you. And we have this great conversation. We get off the plane and he sprints towards a store and buys cigarettes, like in the airport and is lighting it on the way out the door. And I go, I thought you quit smoking. He goes, yeah, I did. But all that talking about smoking made me want to smoke again. Before he's getting through the door of the airport, he's lighting it up, I can't wait. He can't wait to get that cigarette in him. He's just so crazy and impulsive and loved to gamble. He loved gambling. And in that way, he embodied the joke. You can't even tell. The certain people just live in a non sequitur, ridiculous, absurd, funny way. Yeah, that was him. I mean- Non-stop. There was nothing artificial about Norm. That was who he was. His brilliance was his essence. That was who he was. But in terms of the greats, the godfather of it all is Lenny Bruce. I have a bunch of Lenny Bruce concert posters at my house and photos that I have framed. And Whitney Cummings actually gave me this brilliant photo of him when he got arrested for one of the times when he got arrested for saying obscene jokes. He was the most important figure in the early days of comedy because he essentially gave birth to the modern art form of standup comedy. Before that, it was a bunch of guys that were hosting shows and they would tell jokes. They would just like, two guys walking to a bar, that kind of stuff. And he would talk about social issues. He would talk about life. He would talk about language. He would talk about laws. And it was just, he was the very first guy who did modern standup. And what's fascinating is if you go and you try to watch it, if you try to watch Lenny Bruce today, it doesn't work because society has evolved. In many ways, art is a window, especially like pop culture art or modern, at the time, culture art, art that discusses culture is a window into that time period. It's a little bit of a time machine. So you get to like, you have to put yourself, like, what was it like to be in 1963? What was this like to hear him say this? And the civilization that existed in 1963, although it looked pretty similar, they're all driving cars and they're all wearing suits and it seems normal. It's a different world. And the things that he was saying that are so taboo are so normal today that they're not shocking and it's not that good. It's not that funny. Yeah, you have to do the same kind of stuff for, like, there's a DH Lawrence has a book called Lady Shadowy's Lover. And I know it sounds ridiculous, but it was one of the early books, I believe it, over a century ago, that was very controversial for its sexual content. It's sort of one of the great books because it dared to actually talk about a woman cheating on her husband and do so in the highest form. And the same thing with Gulag Archipelago, talking about some of the darkest aspects of human history, right when all of that stuff is forbidden, when it's banned. Because now it's like, yes, we all know this history, but when in the middle of it, when you're risking your own life, when you're risking your book being banned or burned or you being in prison, that's when it matters, like taking that risk. Yeah, and no one took that risk more than Lenny Bruce. Lenny Bruce was arrested many, many times. And ultimately, it wound up costing him his life. I mean, he died on the bathroom floor, shooting heroin and trying to cope with all the lawsuits that he was going through. I mean, this guy was constantly being arrested and constantly going through lawsuits. And then his comedy deteriorated horribly. There's some footage of him towards the end of his career where he essentially would go on stage with legal papers and read from the legal papers about his case. From then it's Richard Pryor. From him, then the next great is Richard Pryor. And he had the most profound impact on me when I was a kid. When I was 15 years old, my parents took me to see Live at the Sunset Strip, which is Richard Pryor's concert film. And I remember very distinctly being in that audience and laughing and looking around at all the people in the audience who were like falling out of their chairs, just dying laughing, just swaying back and forth. And I was laughing hard too. And I was like, my God, this guy's doing this just by talking. I thought of all the great movies that I'd seen that I loved that were hilarious comedy movies. And I was like, nothing that I've ever seen is as funny as this. And all he's doing is talking. And that planted a seed in my head for my love of standup comedy and my curiosity about the art form. And that's what got me interested in watching it on television and then ultimately going to open mic nights and then eventually doing it. I've actually been going to open mics a lot recently, just listening. For psychological examinations of people? No, it's actually really inspiring to me to see people that some are funny, some are not so funny, unapologetically trying. Putting it all out there night after night. Like eating shit. My favorite is when you're talking about five people in the audience and the jokes are just not landing. And they still, I don't know, it feels like even just empathetically, there's few things as difficult as that. It's hard. I still remember those days. Many comics will say this, and I think Dane Cook was the first person I heard say it publicly, that if he ever had to go back and do it again, like from scratch, doesn't think he could do it. Doesn't think he could endure the struggle of open mic to, you know, ultimately to success. And the numbers of people that try it and fail versus try and succeed are off the charts. I don't know if there's any other art form that has such a low rate of success. Because it's psychological, it's torture. It is torture, and it's also not something you can learn. Like here's the thing, if you play guitar, you can learn to play guitar. Someone can teach you the chords. And if you do it, you could do All Along the Watchtower. You could play it. You can't teach someone how to do comedy. You think it's funny or not? Or can you still figure it out? Yeah, you can figure it out. Can you start being unfunny and become funny? Yes, it's possible. It's not easy, though. You're going to have to eat a lot of shit. You're going to have to eat a lot of shit, and you're going to have to examine why you're not funny. And you're going to have to spend a lot of time with uncomfortable thoughts and try to figure out what it is. Like what's missing? Like, you know, could you edit your stuff and make it better? Maybe you need to do drugs. Maybe you need to get involved in psychedelic drugs and rethink the way you interface with reality itself. Maybe you need your heart broken. Maybe you need to be in love. Maybe there's a lot of maybes there. Maybe you just need more life experience. But when I started comedy, I was 21, and I was a moron. I had no information. I could do impressions of people, and I could talk about sex. Those are the things that I was interested in back then. I mean, if I was talking philosophically, I didn't have a philosophy. I didn't have a unique perspective on life. I hadn't experienced much. So every time you bomb, it forces you to introspect, to ask questions of yourself, and then that's how you actually develop a philosophy. Yeah. Of what you actually believe. You learn through doing. And I think you could say that about podcasting, too. I'm certainly way better at having conversations than I ever was when I first started doing comedy, or excuse me, when I first started doing podcasts. You learn. You stick with a kid, because one day you'll be able to interview Donald Trump. You'd be mad enough to handle that conversation. How hard is it to do? Because I've been really curious. It's been on my bucket list, because I'm terrified. I want to do everything I'm terrified of. Do you want to do standup? No. But I do want to do one five-minute open mic. Why don't you do Kill Tony? How hard is it to do five minutes, would you say? It's hard. Well, it depends on how long you've been thinking about doing comedy. It depends on how you look at things. And also depends on your style of comedy. The most difficult style of comedy is, I think, Stephen Wright style is probably the most difficult style of comedy. Complete non sequiturs. One subject doesn't lead into the next. There's no flow to it. It's just, I noticed this, I noticed that. And then there's this, and then there's that. And that's hard to memorize. And it's really hard to piece together an hour of non sequiturs. But it's easier because you can rely on the joke. It sits more with the joke. Whether you're funny or not is on the actual material versus the timing and the energy, the dance with the audience. Because if you don't have the raw jokes, like Stephen Wright does or Mitch Hedberg, then you have to, it's all about the delivery. Yeah. And yeah, they either kill or they bomb. Is it random? Whether they kill or bomb? Yeah. In the beginning, I mean. Well, I mean, you're essentially a different person every day of your life. You're similar, but you're more tired, you're more rested, you're exhausted, you're refreshed, you have vitamins and food nourishment in your system, you just get your heart broken, you haven't slept in days. You're a different person all the time. And you go onto that stage, you're in the neighborhood of who Lex Friedman is. You're in the Lex Friedman neighborhood. Which Lex Friedman am I going to get? Energy levels. Yeah. It depends. It all depends. But oh, the other thing with Kill Tony is it's videotaped. So you eating shit. Is on there forever. Forever. The world can see it. But it's one of the most important shows in comedy. It's the most important show in comedy, because first of all, it establishes stand up in a sense that like, for the open micers, for the people that are starting it out, it establishes that the most important thing is to be funny. This is what the art form is all about. And there's a lot of insecurity attached to that, a lot of fears. And so to alleviate some of those insecurities and fears, people will decide that the message is more important, and they'll pretend that you have to be socially aware that you have to promote things that are positive in your comedy, which is bullshit. The people that say that, they're all bad. They're all bad at comedy. And that's where the insecurity is. It's like, they can't just kill. So they have to pretend that they're supposed to be socially aware, and that being socially aware is an important part into society. Let me explain something really clearly. It's not a fucking person on earth who's ever changed their life because of a joke. That's not what they're there for. They're there for jokes. The people that say that, they say that socially important comedy is the only comedy that's necessary, the only comedy that you have to do. That is just because they suck. That is it. The cop out is that they can't do the real comedy. They can't crush. It's not like someone goes from being, take Shane Gillis, one of the best comics up and coming right now. He's fucking fantastic. I can't recommend enough seeing that guy live. I worked with him in Irvine, and I hadn't seen his whole set. I was crying. I mean, he's so good. I heard he's a racist. I haven't listened to any of his material, no. He's so good. And his comedy is just all just trying to be as funny as possible. There's not a chance in hell that guy's just going to go woke, and he's just going to start promoting some sort of socially conscious agenda that's facetious and just a bunch of nonsense that he's trying to elevate his own personal brand and virtue signal. That's not going to happen. The thing about Kill Tony is in that because you only have one minute, and because it's live, and because you don't want Tony shitting on you or everybody else shitting on you, everybody's just gearing up to try to be as funny as possible. And no one cares if you are gay or straight or Asian or black or trans or non-binary. Nobody gives a fuck. Are you funny? If you're funny, you're in, and everybody loves you. You could be 80. You could be 20. Nobody gives a shit. You could be a woman or a man or ambiguous. Nobody fucking cares. Are you funny? And that's the most important thing for a community of comedy, to really promote comedy. Just funny. Just be funny. And so in that sense, Kill Tony is a real cornerstone of comedy. It's a reminder of what comedy is supposed to be about. That said, even the funniest stuff has underneath it some wisdom that comes out of it. But that's not the primary goal of it. Yeah, I mean, it might be inspiring and fun. Oh, Tim Dillon's a great example of that. He's got some amazing insights in his comedy, but it's still... It's all about... It's fucking comedy. It's all about the funny. Yeah, it's all about the funny. He's the best at doing that, especially in a podcast form, about weaving really important points in with hilarious, obviously just jokes. Let me ask you, speaking of Tim Dillon, a chaotic fucked up individual, can we go to your childhood real quick? A brief stroll. So your mom and dad split up when you were five. From a Jungian perspective, if you look at your subconscious, what impact do you think that had on you in forming who you are as a man, as a human being? Well, at the time, I thought that my father was like a hero. You know, he was my dad. I think every kid thinks like that about his dad. His dad is like, your dad's your protector. Your dad is like the coolest guy in the world. That's what you like. You want to be like him. Yeah. Everybody wants to be like their dad, especially if your dad is like an imposing figure. I remember one time me and my cousin got in a fight over nothing. It was like over who's tougher, King Kong or Godzilla. Yeah, over nothing. Nothing important. But yeah. And he said... Actual fight? Oh, I punched him in the face. This is when you were like five? Yeah, yeah. And so... Which side were you on? King Kong. Okay. I was wrong. Godzilla's like way bigger. Godzilla's 500 feet tall and he shoots fire out of his mouth. Yeah. Are you sure? I mean, there's an argument to be made. It's not all about size, right? No, there's no argument to be made. 500 feet tall versus 50 feet tall. One's a gigantic dinosaur. One is a stupid monkey who gets shot down by a plane. You don't think a monkey can ride Godzilla? You can't kill Godzilla. Godzilla, like kick his back? No. You can't kill Godzilla with a plane. That shit wouldn't work in Godzilla. Killed King Kong. King Kong in the new movies kept growing. He's getting bigger and bigger. He got to the point where he's as big as Godzilla. It just feels like King Kong is stronger. Oh, stop. Back take. Back take. Immediate back take. You don't think there's a back take? There's a difference between- If he's the same size. Human weapons and two animals going at it of a different size. You don't think there's, in the jungle, a smaller animal can take on a bigger animal? Like a monkey versus a, let's see, a lion? Monkey versus a bear. What? Who wins? A monkey versus a bear? Not a monkey. What's the strongest ape? A gorilla. No, but gorilla can't do back takes. I'm thinking of a smaller... You know what I'm saying? In Jujitsu, you see this all the time. You remember that scene in Talladega Nights? Do you know Talladega Nights? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where the little boy's talking to his grandpa, I'll be all over you like a spider monkey. Exactly. Spider monkey. I was thinking... All right. Fair enough. There's some animals. Here's a better example. A wolverine. Wolverines chase wolves and bears off of their kills. They're not very big at all. They're just so ferocious and they're so durable. It's very hard to kill a wolverine. Yeah. There's videos of cats, not actual cats, domestic cats or domestic dogs starting shit with much larger animals. If they're ferocious enough, they work. Pit bulls are a great example of that. Pit bulls are small. Real game bred pit bulls are like 35, 45 pounds and they'll kill much larger dogs. Anyway, you were on King Kong's side. Yeah. Get the shit out of your cousin. I remember he said to me, I thought I was in real trouble because I remember my cousin's mom was yelling at me and was like, you monster, all this crazy shit. My dad got me alone and he said, tell me what happened. I told him, we got in a fight, we're arguing, we're King Kong, Godzilla, and I punched him in the face. He goes, did you cry? I go, no. He goes, good, don't ever cry. I remember that like, whoa, okay. I remember thinking, all right, I'm just going to start punching people. Because obviously my dad thinks it's a good idea if I go running around punching people as long as I don't cry. I remember certain things about... And also, again, we're talking about watching Lenny Bruce and getting a timeline of what the world was like back then. This was a different world. This would have been 1972. It's a different world back then, man. A really different world. Some of that... So Carl Jung talked about the shadow, it's the unconscious, where you have dark stuff and oftentimes you use it to project. There's stuff that you're very self-critical about yourself, but because it's in your unconscious, you use it to project onto others. You see it as flaws in others. And that's a good way to... Like whatever, I think he has a quote, like everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. So that's a nice way to investigate yourself, like something that pisses you off. You start asking questions of your own mind and that's how you bring it to the surface. But anyway, from that, those are formative years. From that time, is there still stuff in your unconscious you think you haven't examined? Some dark shit? I don't think so. I don't, I'm not aware if it is, because I've looked. If someone says, I left something over your house, like where'd you leave it? I don't know. Like, all right, I'll go look. I'll get a real thorough look. But I'm pretty sure. Pretty sure it's not there. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I think I've looked. I mean, it certainly had an effect. I think the positive effect also was compounded by the fact that when my mother married my stepdad, who's a great guy, who was a hippie, very different, we moved around a lot. And so the bad thing about that was I didn't really develop long-term friends. The good thing about that was that I was forced to develop my own opinions about things. Instead of adopting an opinion of the neighborhood and the group about anything, I was forced to form my own thoughts and opinions about almost everything. And so it made me much more of an independent thinker. So that on top of the fact that losing my quote unquote hero very early on, and then having to form my own opinions about things, it left me with a very independent streak. If I hadn't done the things that I got interested in, martial arts and then comedy, if I hadn't gotten interested in those things, I would have been fucked. Because I was just too independent for normal jobs. I was too independent for school. I just didn't want to listen to people. I was too feral. I just didn't want to sit still. If I was with the wrong parents, especially today, I most certainly would have been medicated. Yeah, there's so many possible trajectories you can imagine where you would have not been the person you are today. This is probably one of the best possible trajectories. This particular storyline you're living through was one of the better ones. This timeline is as good as it gets for someone like me. Is there advice you can give to people, to young kids that are living through a shitty situation of any sort? A tough life? Find a thing you like. Try to find a thing that you really enjoy. Try to find a thing that you're passionate about. Like an activity. Yes. For me, early on, it was drawing. It was illustrations. It was comic books. I wanted to be a comic book illustrator. And then it went from comic book drawing and illustrations to martial arts. But it was just another thing that I was very, very passionate about. And that was my vehicle out of my dilemma. That was my vehicle out of my own anxiety and trauma and my own issues and insecurities. Find something. Find a thing that you genuinely enjoy. Because getting good at things you genuinely enjoy is extremely beneficial for young people. Because it lets you know that everybody thinks they're a loser. Every young person thinks they're a loser. At least a young person in the situation I was at. I didn't know I wasn't a loser until I started winning. Until I started doing martial arts. Martial arts taught me that I could get better at stuff. That I wasn't really a loser. I just was someone who was in a fucked up situation. But you could channel all that energy that you have as a young person into something and get better at it. And then all of a sudden people admired me. I was like, this is crazy. So I went from being someone who was incredibly insecure and basically a failure to someone who was really successful at this one thing that was very dangerous that other people were scared of. And that gave me immense confidence. And also a real understanding of the direct correlation between hard work and success. And a kind of understanding that you're not a loser. Right. That there is some diamond in the rough. Yeah, and also an understanding that you can't listen to people. Because even my parents didn't want me to do martial arts. They didn't want me to fight. They didn't want me to do stand up. There's like, you have to understand who you are. And then in the face of other people's either criticism or lack of faith in your ability to succeed, you push through and there's great benefit in that. And then you realize that you can kind of apply that to other things in life. You can apply that to critics. You can apply that to social media commentators. You can apply that to a lot of things. Okay, what about young people in their 50s? Can you give advice to, like, imagine you're sitting back, probably still here in Texas, in your 90s, looking back, what advice would that guy give to you today? Or like people that have done some shit in their 50s, you've gone through a hell of a life, there's potentially some incentive to settle down. You got a great family to relax. But maybe there's some incentive to still do epic shit. Still be David Goggins running in the middle of the desert, screaming shit into a camera. If you're David Goggins, you have to be David Goggins. I don't think there's a path for that guy that exists at this stage of his life other than that. Do you think he'll be 70 and still screaming? Yes. Okay. 100%. 100%. If David and I are alive, we're both 70, he's going to call me up and say, stay hard, motherfucker! Guaranteed. Guaranteed. So lean into whatever the fuck you are at this point. Well, if you're enjoying it, but if you're not enjoying it, rethink your life. Try to figure out why you're not enjoying it. You still think it's possible to shift things in your 50s? Yeah. If you're alive, you can get better. No matter what. Yeah, no matter what. If you're alive, you can shift things. I mean, if you're 90 years old and you have a month to live, you can apologize for the things you think you did wrong and maybe sort of reconcile and shape relationships that you have with the people that are around you better so that they feel differently about you after you're gone. Yeah, I always loved people in their 70s who are getting back into dating or something like that. Yeah! I was watching a video about a woman who's in her 60s who just started powerlifting. Nice. Yeah. It's the same with jiu-jitsu, you see people get into jiu-jitsu. Like, a white belt that's like 70. Yeah, yeah. There's a lot of... If you're alive, you can get better at stuff. And I don't think people are happy if they don't have puzzles and complex tasks and things that are interesting to them, whether it's an art project or whether it's learning something completely new like stand-up comedy. Like, doing things that are difficult is... It's as much of a nourishment of the mind as food is a nourishment of the body. I think you need things that are puzzling to you, where you have to find your own human potential in the difficulty of the task and work your way through things. At least for me. I mean, I can only speak for me because I'm the only life that I've ever lived that I'm aware of. And in my life, that has been 100% constant. I am a very happy person and I have never had a moment where I'm not doing difficult shit ever. Yeah. What matters most is how well you walk through the fires. You just keep starting fires for yourself to walk through. Well, they don't necessarily have to be fires, right? Because fires are like kind of out of control. Lukewarm... Tasks....surfaces. Tasks. Give yourself something, an arduous, difficult task where you're challenged. Challenged mentally and challenged physically. One of the great things about being challenged physically is it's also mental. The people that don't understand that have never really been challenged physically. People that think that physical challenges are just physical. It's just brute grunt work. It's not. It's emotional intelligence. It's understanding your desire to quit and conquering your inner bitch. All that stuff is mental. It's playing out inside your head. And there's a mental strength that you acquire from that that you can apply to intellectual pursuits. And the people that don't think that are the people that haven't attempted them. And there's an arrogance to people that only pursue intellectual exercises, only pursue intellectual things, and don't pursue anything physical. That the physical stuff is base, it's grunt work, it's primal, it's not necessary. I don't think that's accurate. I don't think that they're... I mean, obviously there's people like Stephen Hawking who have no opportunity to do anything physical, right? His physical dilemma is keeping us, or was, keeping his heart beating. But for most people, I think you can really benefit from physical struggle. And you benefit from it in a mental way. And I think that is overlooked. That's unfortunately overlooked by academics and intellectuals who, they make excuses for why they're fat and lazy or scrawny. They don't need to be... It's not even about the fat or all of that. It's like literally there's something about the physical challenge that's really good for you, especially if you're academic, especially if you do intellectual types though. There's this great roboticist at MIT, Russ Tedrick. He runs barefoot to and from MIT every day. I love it. Like seven to 10 miles each way. Barefoot? Barefoot. Well, he studies legged locomotion, legged robots. For him, it's also interesting how the human body moves. He sees the beauty in all movement. What do his feet look like? You know, calloused. Destroyed, right? No, just calloused. They're nice. They form a nice... They're nice? It's not like I gave him a foot massage. But I mean, they look... And I don't have a foot fetish, so I'm not able to correctly evaluate another man's feet. I apologize for this. But they don't look fucked up. Does he run on concrete? Yeah, he runs all surfaces. And he does everything completely barefoot? The running part at work. So one of the things he has to do is fit into society, which means he has to change clothes and appear normal. So does he wear like zero shoes? You know, those barefoot type shoes? No, because that's like very hippie, wokey type of thing. No, he's barefoot when he's running, and then he wears like normal looking stuff, like dress shoes. How did he work his way up to running barefoot? So he was significantly overweight. And his advisor, this other famous person at MIT who was a roboticist, took his own life. And that made him... That made Russ face his own mortality, I think. I mean, you start to ask big questions about your well-being, like, holy shit, this ride can end at any moment. And so he started taking his sort of physical well-being seriously. And as a result of that, not that he become like shredded, but he's also discovered the intellectual value, the humbling value of physical exercise. He's not preachy about it at all. I actually rarely hear him advise it to anyone. He just does it as a... almost like meditation or something like that. It's definitely a form of meditation, and you can attest to that, right? You do quite a bit of running. There's a thing about a... It kind of almost like a mantra gets formed, and you get into it. It was great here in the Austin heat, 100 degree weather. That tests you. You know what I love to do outside? Pull sleds. That's my thing. I love to pull sleds outside. In the heat? Yeah, I did today. Yeah. Yeah, I love it. So you're also... your wife is incredible. You're in a relationship. You're married. You have a great family. What advice would you give to me and to others like me who are dumb fucks and have not found a relationship? Well, you're a great guy, so this definitely doesn't necessarily apply to you, but be someone who someone would want to be in a relationship with. There's a lot of people out there that want a great partner. They want someone in a relationship, but why would someone want to be in a relationship with you? Maybe you bicker a lot. Maybe you're jealous. Maybe you lie. Maybe you're cruel. Maybe you don't have a sense of humor. Maybe you're not kind. What is it about you that people would not enjoy being around or that people avoid? Fix that. Fix that. Well, this applies to me as well. You said something with Cam Haines. One of the things you admire is the discipline it takes to juggle so many things and do it successfully. I'm very good at that. So juggling all this hard work and then also a relationship. Also relationship, also family, all those kinds of priorities. That requires having your shit together. It does. It's a different thing. But it's also you got to find the right person. There's a lot of people who settle for sexy. They settle for hot. They settle for the wrong person. You can get hot and nice. They're out there. But don't get hot and mean. Hot and mean is not fun. Then you get Amber Heard. Yeah. And then you end up in a trial. You get hot. Yeah. Yeah. You can be deceived by perfect symmetry. So you don't think it's a good idea to record your partner? I think you should record all conversations. The CIA is doing it no matter what. I assume that every conversation I have is recorded because I'm pretty sure it is. Even when we had dinner with Alex Jones, he was recording. I still remember that. Oh, I didn't know that was recording. He might, you know what would be funny, if he is the CIA. He could be. Could be. That'd be the ultimate joke. But that's my advice about relationships is be somebody. And then also find someone who you can grow with. You don't want to be with someone who doesn't share your value. You don't want to be with someone who makes excuses. You don't want to be with someone who's lazy or who's spiteful. You want to be with someone who's genuinely kind. That's one of the things that I really love about my wife. And she's very smart and she works hard. She's a dedicated, disciplined person. But she's also really nice. That's one of the things I like the most about her. She's so nice. She's always smiling. And that energy is great. Yeah, I mean, you've seen us together. You've hung around with us. She's fun. Yeah. She's a lot of fun. Yeah. She makes you just feel great to be alive. You get that, people like that around you. She's happy. She's a happy person. She's happy to be around. That's the kind of people that you could have in your life as friends and as coworkers and as lovers and wives and husbands. You can find those people. They're real. And when you find those people, your life is better. To have a good tribe is very important. To have a good tribe of people. And I think if there's anything that I'm very, very fortunate about, it's the people that I'm around. I have very good friends, and one of which is you. It's so valuable to have quality people around you because it makes you want to do better because you admire the hard work that these people put in, like my Kam Haines or Goggins or many of my friends. And people that are generous and people that are curious and people that are honest, they inspire you to do the same. And it's extremely valuable. It's one of the most valuable things is to surround yourself with positive, healthy, friendly, generous people. That's why I cut out Tim Dillon from my life. I broke up with him. I thought you guys were getting married. No, it's over. It's none of those things. The Texas nonstop, the nonstop conspiracy theories, the nonstop mocking of my Eastern European origins is just not healthy for me. Plus he's physically abusive and a towering figure. He's a big boy. Both emotionally and physically. No, no, I love him. If he worked out, he would be a house. He's got to be a large frame, you know? So if I interview Putin, what should I ask him? How's the cancer? How's it doing, buddy? That's question number one in Russian. Do you think he has cancer? I don't think so. The narrative is terrifying, right? Dictator of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world who also has cancer and just invaded a sovereign country. That's a terrifying narrative. Because that's what we're all afraid of. Someone who has nothing to lose who just decides to let loose a nuke. Well, I do think, maybe it's projecting, but if I had cancer, or if you think about leaders that have cancer, you're facing your own mortality, I would think he would be more focused on his legacy. And dropping a nuclear bomb is not good for legacy. I do believe he wants to be remembered as a great leader, as a lot of leaders do, as a lot of even dictators do. And I think he wants to figure out a way to pull out a win so he can say that whatever this thing was, whatever this invasion was, was good for Russia, was good for the nation. He ultimately made it a greater nation than it was before. And perhaps he could justify an escalation of war to be that. But I don't, and it's just the cancer thing concerns me so much because it's been so often part of this propaganda that's been told about Putin that he's sick. I don't know why. People kind of wonder that a lot about, especially dictators, but you had that even with Hillary Clinton and obviously with Biden, that narrative is stickier. So for some people it's stickier. Well, that narrative is transparent and obvious. But the degree of it is a question with Biden, as it is with everyone. How healthy is this leader? That's a question people often ask. Sure, always. They were doing that about Trump too. The thing about Putin though is his appearance is altered, where he looks very bloated. His body doesn't look much bigger, but his face looks puffy and swollen. I had a friend who had sarcoidosis and they prescribed prednisone, which is a type of a steroid. And one of the things that would happen when he was on it is his face would get really big. And he would blow up, swell up, maintain a lot of water and inflammation. And that's what it looks like when I'm looking at Putin. So actually, if you're sitting with him, one question is about health. Has Biden been asked that kind of question? Without mockery, without any of that? You'd have to go on Fox News. The mainstream media treats him with kid gloves in a way that I've never seen. It's so obvious there's something horribly wrong with his cognitive function. Well, to push back, I don't know if it's horribly wrong. You don't think it's horribly wrong? I think it's, no, I think there's uncertainty to which degree it's wrong. I would love there to be a serious conversation about it with him. In fact, I actually have to now look, because of course Fox News will mock his declining mental health. And then I would love an objective discussion. Are you aware of this? What are you putting in place? Are you yourself? Because if I was a person with declining mental abilities, you have to start thinking about that kind of stuff. Who is around you? Who are the advisors? What if you stop being able to see the world clearly? I would be transparent about that kind of stuff. Well, you would be. But you also would never be a politician, because you're too fucking honest. Well, yeah, but actually from a conversation perspective, it would be nice if that kind of discussion was had. It would be. But all jokes aside, with Putin, I would ask questions about democracy versus what they have. I mean, without any disparaging descriptions of what is going on over in Russia. It's clearly not a democracy. I mean, the way he has it set up, the elections are a joke. So he would push back, that's clearly not a democracy. He is still very popular. So majority of people are huge supporters of Putin inside Russia. The people that push back against that would say that that's because any serious opposition is pushed out of the country. So it's a competition. Arrested and murdered. Yeah. But yes, that's a really, really good question. The value of dictatorships. One of the things about the United States that's fascinating to me is that every four years, unless it's four to eight years, right? Someone does two terms. But every four years, there's an opportunity for someone to be new and completely inexperienced at the most difficult job in the world, which is ridiculous. So the interesting thing is, it actually makes sense after eight years, you've gained the wisdom. You would actually be a pretty good leader to keep going. But there is some problem where the power gets started getting to your head. So from Putin's perspective, I think he genuinely wants the best for Russia. I don't think he's lost his mind in terms of like, it's all about greed and so on. Same as Stalin. I think Stalin, until the end of his days, wanted the best for the Soviet Union. So it's not like you become, Hitler, I think, lost his mind during the war, where it was like he wasn't seen clearly at all. What Putin believes is that he is actually the best person to bring out the best for his country. Now, the problem is maybe refreshing the leader is in fact, in the long term, the best thing versus every leader believes they know what's best for the country. The point is to keep refreshing it. And that's the case for democracy. That's the case for the system we have that creates a natural, maybe emergent balance of power. I think it makes it evident that there is no clear cut, real right way to do it. And that if you had the perfect person in, having them for 12, 20 years would be amazing. If you had a perfect, benevolent leader who clearly only cared about the people, was doing their best and striving hard and got great satisfaction knowing that he is a dedicated civil servant that only wants to lead the country in a way that's going to benefit the most people in the most profound way. But we have a dirty political system. It's completely corrupted by money, completely corrupted by influence. The fact that, you know, the lobbyists, I mean, there's an area outside of Washington, DC, it's one of the richest areas in the country, and it's where the lobbyists live. There's so much money involved in being a lobbyist. There's so much money involved in special interest groups and how much of an impact they have on who gets elected and what decisions get made once that person gets elected. We know this, right? We know it's not for the people by the people. It's just not what it is. I mean, this country is an experiment in self-government. And if we could do it all over again, I would say the most important thing is to have laws in place to keep money out of politics and to make it a heinous crime for someone to influence laws and policy based entirely on the amount of profit it could generate for a party or for a company that is investing in a candidate. That's fucking incredibly dangerous and it's corrupt. And that corruption has been accepted. We've just accepted that this corruption exists, you know? Last question. If Putin asks to see this watch, what do I tell him? Would you give it? Should I let him see it? Because we know what happens with a Super Bowl ring. I think a Super Bowl ring is unique. He could buy a watch like that pretty easy. But this particular, isn't that a power move? This is the watch you gave me. It's a story. I would probably share it with him, the story. And then maybe he'd go, look, can I see this watch? And then he puts it on and says, thank you. Do you say no? You go like this. Yeah, there it is, bro. Bro. You know, take it off. I see so many words I'm going to have to find translations. Buddy, bro. I guess bro is brother. I mean, if he takes your watch, I'll buy you another one. If Putin steals it, I'll just give you the same exact watch. Well, first of all, thank you for this. I really wanted to talk to you because in a couple of days, I'm leaving to Ukraine and Russia and I hope I'll be back in one piece and drink whiskey with you once again. Yeah, I hope so too. I'm nervous about you going over there. You know, I know journalists have been killed now. But they don't know jujitsu. No, I think you'll be okay. And I think there's certain things you do in life that just kind of your heart pulls towards that so much. What's your objective over there? I'm not somebody who thinks about objectives clearly. It's just something about me says I need to go there. But to put in loose words is to try to understand what that world is now. So I remember what it was years ago when I was there. I know my family. I know the generations of family that was there on that land in Ukraine and in Russia and the soul of the people, the love that's there, the beauty of the culture. And I want to see what it is today and what this war has created, both the anger and the love and the people and just hear them out and just talk to them. No recordings, none of that. Maybe a little here and there, but mostly just for me. And to see, I don't know, sometimes it's just something pulls you to a place. And I also, because I'm able to speak Russian and some Ukrainian, I do want to try to have these, a couple of the political leaders involved talk to them. And I have all the right connections. Everybody has said yes. Of course you don't know the likelihood it finally happens, but I want to at least have that possibility there. Sometimes you have to go to a place to really understand it. You can't just read about it. You can't just talk to the people that are living there. You have to be there. And I've never been in a war zone. I've never been in a land that's been damaged and wiped by the weapons of war. And I just want to feel that because so much of that land is, I remember when everything was flourishing. Yes, corruption, all those kinds of things, but people were there and the culture was flourishing and people were happy. There was lots of struggle, but they were happy. And now people are extremely angry. There's hate in the air on all sides. I want to see that. I want to understand. Sometimes it just pulls you and you have to go. So it doesn't make any sense perhaps, but you just got to do it. What's the timeline of when I'm going? How long? One way. I don't have a plan. Really? Wow. Yeah. So I'm hoping back in a month. Still not, just to clarify, I'm not somebody who seeks risk. And you're somebody who seems to be terrified of bears and sharks. So why go surfing? Why go swimming in the ocean? So I'm somebody that's the same, probably with sharks too. I'm not taking unnecessary risk, but certain things that just mean a lot to you, you take the risk. And so a little bit of risk willing to take to discover something about myself, honestly, is probably what it all boils down to, trying to understand myself. Because so much of me is from that place. Well, this is the beautiful thing about America, is it's like stitches together all these different cultures. Everybody came from somewhere else. Yeah. And you try to understand. In order for me to be a good American, I need to understand who I was, where I came from. And that's, nothing reveals the spirit of a people better than war. It's like, there's something about this conflict that's really cuts all the bullshit. This is who we are. This is who we are as a people. So I want to see it. I want to understand. And like I said, when I come back, drink some whiskey with you. All right. Well, I hope that happens. I really do. And I hope you're safe over there, and I hope you come back with whatever insight you're trying to achieve. Thank you for doing this conversation. My pleasure, brother. Thank you for everything you've done for me, for the support, for the love, and everybody around you. Thank you for everything you're doing for everybody around you, for giving back, but for just giving and being kind to everybody. I love you, brother. I love you too. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Joe Rogan. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with one of Joe's and one of my favorite quotes from Miyamoto Musashi. Once you know the way broadly, you'll see it in everything. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/gk4tEO4jDUM

w_SNIwW6iX8

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Eating One Meal a Day (Jack Dorsey) | AI Podcast Clips

So I think you and I eat similar diets, at least I was... It's the first time I've heard this. Yeah, so I was doing it... First time anyone has said that to me, in this case. Yeah, but it's becoming more and more cool. But I was doing it before it was cool. So intermittent fasting and fasting in general, I really enjoy. I love food, but I enjoy the... I also love suffering because I'm Russian, so fasting kind of makes you appreciate the... Makes you appreciate what it is to be human somehow. But I have... Outside the philosophical stuff, I have a more specific question. It also helps me as a programmer and a deep thinker, like from a scientific perspective, to sit there for many hours and focus deeply. Maybe you were a hacker before you were CEO. What have you learned about diet, lifestyle, mindset that helps you maximize mental performance to be able to focus for... To think deeply in this world of distractions? I think I just took it for granted for too long. Which aspect? Just the social structure of we eat three meals a day and there's snacks in between. And I just never really asked the question why. Oh, by the way, in case people don't know, I think a lot of people know, but you at least do famously eat once a day. You still eat once a day? Yep. I eat dinner. By the way, what made you decide to eat once a day? Because to me, that was a huge revolution that you don't have to eat breakfast. That was like... I felt like I was a rebel. Like I abandoned my parents or something and became an anarchist. When you first... Like the first week you start doing it, it feels you kind of have a superpower. Yeah. And you realize it's not really a superpower. But I think you realize, at least I realized, just how much our minds dictates what we're possible of. And sometimes we have structures around us that incentivize this three meal a day thing, which was purely social structure versus necessity for our health and for our bodies. And I did it just...I started doing it because I played a lot with my diet when I was a kid and I was vegan for two years and just went all over the place just because health is the most precious thing we have and none of us really understand it. So being able to ask the question through experiments that I can perform on myself and learn about is compelling to me. And I heard this one guy on the podcast, Wim Hof, who's famous for doing ice baths and holding his breath and all these things. He said he only eats one meal a day. I'm like, wow, that sounds super challenging and uncomfortable. I'm going to do it. So I just... I learn the most when I make myself, I wouldn't say suffer, but when I make myself feel uncomfortable. Because everything comes to bear in those moments and you really learn what you're about or what you're not. So I've been doing that my whole life. Like when I was a kid, I could not speak. I had to go to a speech therapist and it made me extremely shy. And then one day I realized I can't keep doing this and I signed up for the speech club and it was the most uncomfortable thing I could imagine doing. Getting a topic on a note card, having five minutes to write a speech about whatever that topic is, not being able to use the note card when I was speaking and speaking for five minutes about that topic. But it just, it puts so much, it gave me so much perspective around the power of communication, around my own deficiencies and around if I set my mind to do something, I'll do it. So it gave me a lot more confidence. So I see fasting in the same light. This is something that was interesting, challenging, uncomfortable, and has given me so much learning and benefit as a result. And it will lead to other things that I'll experiment with and play with. But yeah, it does feel a little bit like a superpower sometimes. The most boring superpower one can imagine. No, it's quite incredible. The clarity of mind is pretty interesting.

https://youtu.be/w_SNIwW6iX8

VBPTFlpv31k

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Brian Armstrong: Coinbase, Cryptocurrency, and Government Regulation | Lex Fridman Podcast #307

The following is a conversation with Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange platform with 98 million users in 100 countries, listing Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano, and over 100 popular cryptocurrencies. I recorded this conversation with Brian before this week's SEC probe into whether some of the crypto listings are securities and thus need to be regulated as such. As always, with conversations that involve cryptocurrency, I try to make it timeless so that the price soaring high or crashing down low doesn't distract from the fundamental technological, economic, social, and philosophical ideas underlying this new form of money, energy, and information. Our world runs on money, the exchange and store of value, and cryptocurrency seeks to build the next chapter of how money works and what it can do. Coinbase and Brian are trying to do this by working together with regulators and governments, which is a long and difficult road. Bureaucracies resist change, for better and for worse. The latest SEC probe is a good representation of this. It is a serious attempt to limit fraud, but one that also runs the risk of limiting innovation and limiting financial freedom of individuals. This is a complicated mess, and I applaud everyone involved for trying to work through it. I hope in the end, the interest of the individual wins. Decentralization, after all, is a hedge against the corrupting nature of centralized power. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Brian Armstrong. Let's start with the fact that you're a programmer. What was the first program you've ever written, or the first one that you remember? The first memory I have of programming was probably in middle school, and I remember it was recess, and they had this time period where you could read books, and the other kids were reading comic books and stuff. And for some reason, I had gotten into this idea that I wanted to get into computers, and I was playing with computers at home. And so I got this book, I think from the library, and it was called How to Learn Java in 30 Days. So I was reading this book at the recess, and I didn't understand anything. And I remember I went home, and I tried to get this thing working. And if you've ever written a Java program, the first lines are like, public static void main string args, or whatever. And it's just so foreign, and it's so difficult to get started. And so I was kind of frustrated. I was like, I don't understand anything that's happening in this book. So the first thing I wrote was probably just like a Hello World app in Java. But it was so, I felt like I was so confused about what was actually happening that I later learned a bit of PHP. And PHP was like, more fun for me, because it was like, oh, just print out what you want, you know, it didn't have all this complexity around it. So then I got more into PHP, I started building like some simple websites, I think, learned some HTML. So I think that was my introduction to programming, at least the very beginning part. Yeah, you know, Java has a lot of, out of all the Hello Worlds you could possibly write, Java is the one where I think it's the longest. Which is quite interesting, because Java is often, at least for a long time, was used as the primary programming language to teach people how to program, or at least about object-oriented programming. I think most universities have now switched, in high school switched to Python. I'm not sure if that's the case. Probably better. It's easier to learn, it lowers the, it makes it less scary, it's like less of a hurdle. And certainly none of them use PHP. I love PHP, and I feel like it's a dirty secret I have to keep private to myself, like it's somebody I'm seeing on the side or something like that, because it's just not a respected programming language, because I think there's so many ways you can write poor code with PHP, which is why it's not respected. Yeah, it's a scripting language more so, although of course, Facebook built like a huge stack on top of it, and valuable company, but I still love Ruby to this day. Ruby is probably my favorite language. Python's great too, but I just love the idea behind Ruby that it's like, let's make it easier for the human, harder for the computer, and make it a joy to be expressive and all these things. So I was never the best computer scientist, but I was a good hacker. I could rapidly prototype products and using languages like Ruby. Do a lot of computer science programs still use like Lisp and Scheme and things like that? No, no, they do for, that's like, that's if you're hardcore. If you're legit, you're gonna do some of the functional languages. I think there's a few others that popped up, but Lisp is a distant memory for a lot of people. That's like somebody that's like, you go to library, you dust off the book, but Scheme a little bit. I think if you're studying, I mean, there's courses about languages themselves, like programming languages. Lisp might be one of those, you know how there's languages that nobody uses anymore, like ancient languages? Yeah. You might have to go to school in that same way for programming languages. Yeah. Back in the day, we used to use parentheses. I, of course, still use Emacs as the editor for most things that I do. And Emacs is, a lot of the customization you can do is in Lisp. Yeah. And that's the language probably when I first really fell in love with programming is Lisp, because for a long time throughout the earlier history of artificial intelligence, Lisp was the primary language, but it still had a life in the 90s and the aughts where some people would use it. It's such a beautiful functional language, but it just somehow didn't pick up. That said, I should say, sort of push back, PHP, I feel like it's still true that most of the web runs on PHP. Most of the back end is still PHP. That's true. It's still PHP. So, if you look at, it's like the stuff that people don't talk about. It's like, what runs most systems in the world? What runs most back end? What runs most front end? Yeah. JavaScript, HTML. The stack exchange surveys showed JavaScript's the most popular language in the world, I think, right? Oh, yeah. In terms of programmers and numbers of, I wonder. By survey of number of programmers on stack, stack overflow. Oh, yeah. But that's also the cutting edge, right? Those are the people that are just excitedly writing code. That's true. I wonder if there's people that are just maintaining gigantic code bases. Yeah. I feel like the amount of Java out there just running industrial systems has gotta be enormous. And then, of course, in the banking industry, finance, it's even older stuff, Cobalt and whatnot. I've been actually looking for somebody to interview who represents Cobalt and Fortran. Like, who's the figure still there that holds the flag? I did with Java, founder of Java, creator of Java, creator of Python, creator of C++. But nobody wants to hold the flag for Cobalt and Fortran, even though some of the most important systems in the world still run on those. Yeah. Like power systems and infrastructure systems, which is fascinating. And ATMs and stuff like that. A lot of stuff that we rely on that just works, and the reason we don't change it is because it works well, is written in languages that people don't use anymore. Yeah. That'd be a cool series of interviews. Get the stuff that's like tech that was invented 40, 50 years ago, but still is being used widely. I mean, Emacs is an example of that. Let me ask the big question of what are cryptocurrency exchanges and what's Coinbase? How does it work? Before I'll ask even bigger questions, but it's just a nice kind of palate cleansing question of what is Coinbase? Coinbase is a cryptocurrency exchange, brokerage, custodian. Basically, we're the primary financial account for people in the crypto economy, how they buy crypto, how they store it, how they use it increasingly in different ways. We can talk about that. So yeah, we want to be the way that a billion people hopefully access the open financial system globally. How does it work? What's cryptocurrency? There's Bitcoin, there's Ethereum. What does it mean to be an exchange? What does it mean to store? What does it mean to transact? What does Coinbase actually do? Okay. So basically in any given market, there's some people who want to buy, some people who want to sell, and you keep an order book of all those prices. And then if someone's willing to buy for more than the lowest price someone is willing to sell, then you get a trade to execute. That's kind of how an exchange works underneath. A brokerage is kind of simpler than that even. You don't have to look at the whole order book and everything, but you just go in there and you say, I want to buy $100 of Bitcoin or whatever cryptocurrency. You get a quote, and if you like it, you can hit accept. And the core things that we do to make all that kind of just work, make it seamless, it sounds simple on the surface, is we have to do payment integrations in a variety of places around the world to make it easy for people to get fiat currency into this ecosystem. We have to work on cybersecurity a lot. There's lots of hackers out there trying to break into our systems and steal crypto or to put stolen credit cards and bank accounts and things like that into these systems. We have to integrate with the blockchains themselves, which are periodically getting updated and having various airdrops and all kinds of things. So we're integrated with lots of different blockchains. And then we have to store the crypto that people buy securely as well. So crypto is kind of like storing, you store the private keys, essentially. We've invented a lot of cool technology about how to do that securely that helps me sleep at night as one of the largest crypto custodians out there. So those are some of the pieces that had to come together to get that early, simple buy-sell experience to work. And yeah, I mean, Coinbase actually has a lot of different products now. So we have like an institutional product. We have Coinbase Commerce, which is like merchant payments, like Stripe for crypto. We've got a self-custodial wallet, which we can talk about. There's all kinds of cool applications people are building with Web3, and they can access it through that. We just launched an NFT product. I can go on down the list. So we're sort of like a portfolio of crypto products now. We're big enough where we can do multiple things. But yeah, the core thing we got started with, and still the majority of our revenue today is people just want to come in and buy and sell some crypto. And we help them do that and make it simple and easy to use. And I'll ask you about wallet, NFTs, about what is it called? The Stripe type? Yeah, Coinbase Commerce. Coinbase Commerce. I'll ask you about all that. But order books and exchange, what's the difference between that and stocks, for example, which there's also order books? Yes. I mean, stocks trade through order books too. So do commodities. There's all similar type of situation. So when I want to buy one Bitcoin and I see Coinbase say the price of that Bitcoin is say $40,000, and I press buy, what happens? Yeah. Okay. So you've gotten a lot, like, you know, when you press the button on your keyboard, like an electrical signal goes up the wire on your keyboard. Well, that's also important, the timing, right? Because it's not price fixed. Yeah, that's true. It's giving you a quote, right? There's a whole concept of like slippage. And by the time the quote is executed, if the price has moved too much, like we may reject it. And there's various things like that. But how do I mean, what's the simple version I can give you? So we'll basically check the order book, give you a quote. It's good for some period of time or for some amount of slippage. And then what's happening is we're initiating a debit to your payment method, whether that's a credit card or bank account, or, you know, you're storing dollars or euros or something on our platform. There's various payment methods. So we're basically debiting that. And then we're crediting you the crypto, and we're taking a fee for it too. So that's fundamentally what's happening underneath. And then there's some interesting slippage. How do you calculate how much slippage is allowed? Like, how do you know these things? Because order books are fascinating. The dynamics of that is pretty interesting. Yeah. And the little I know about it. Yeah. So there's a lot of people like traders who get super into this and like high frequency traders and arbitrage and all kinds of interesting topics. Flash Boys was like an interesting book on this whole thing. You want like access to information the fastest, sometimes even putting your, you know, your thing in the data center right next to the thing. We don't allow that colo stuff because we want it to be more democratized. But you know, basically, you give a let's say we wanted to just keep it math simple, we want to charge a 1% fee. So if you're buying $100 of Bitcoin, and we'll charge you $101, you know, we've presented you the amount of Bitcoin you're going to get for the $100. Now, let's say 10 seconds later, you hit accept, we go to we go to fill the order. So it's going to be some error bound around that 1% fee, right. And if we think we're actually losing money on the trade, I think we'll often reject it. So some part of the fee, the slippage is incorporated into that averaged over a large number of people. They just just it's fascinating, because like even just like that little detail probably requires a lot of experimentation. Yeah. And it's kind of like a giant bug bounty out there. Because if you get it wrong, there's people who are going to arbitrage that. And we've we've had people sort of pen test our systems and you know, really creative ways where like, they'll just fire like programmatically with API's, they'll they'll fire off like a million different quotes and look for one of them that's out of bounds and then actually take that money right there. And you know, we get people doing all kinds of crazy stuff. But so how do you protect against that? How do you protect? So we'll talk about cybersecurity in interesting ways. But there's a lot of clever people trying to do clever things to earn, not even just to break into the system, but to earn an edge of some kind in the system. How do you how do you stay one step ahead? There's no silver bullet is a bunch of lead bullets, right? So it's, it's like, you know, one thing we do is we just have good test suites, right? So you're you're testing every piece of code that goes out. That's like just common good best practice, but it's particularly important in financial services. Another thing we do is we hire third party firms to try to audit this stuff and break in. Another one we do is we have a bug bounty program. So we basically pay white hat hackers to find this stuff before the black hats do. And we've paid out lots of good bug bounty. So you know, try all the above and occasionally you don't get it right and you lose some money and then you fix it and you keep going. So yeah, let's talk about cybersecurity a little bit more. Yeah, you mentioned using stolen bank accounts. Yeah. So that's another one. That's another interesting one. How do you protect against that? Okay, so fraud prevention. Yeah, is a big topic. So one of the there's a lot of things people do. But one of the things they do is that use machine learning, right? So you look at hundred... Protect or to attack? To protect against it. So what you want to do is kind of build up a labeled data set of all the different people who have turned out to be fraudulent and good actors, and hopefully collect as much data as you can. And then you'll, you know, you might feed hundreds or thousands of these factors into your machine learning model and it'll come back with a risk score. So, you know, an example of like the kinds of factors people create or put in there, you know, obviously, I don't want to disclose too many of them because it's a cat and mouse game, but just kind of, I don't know, relatively well known stuff might be, you know, you have device fingerprints, right? So like, what kind of device are you on? And what fonts do you have installed? A lot of people who are farming lots of these accounts, they're using emulators and like virtual machines and stuff. They're not like, you know, an average person on that device. And then you'll see sometimes like, one of my favorite metrics we track for this was called like improbable travel velocity. So we would you were tracking people's IPs, right? And you might see someone who was one day in Austin, Texas, and then like an hour later, they were in London or something. It's like, well, that's very improbable. I mean, sometimes people are using VPNs. So you got to be careful with that. Because like, there's legitimate people who use VPNs too. But if it's not possible for them to have gotten on a plane and gotten there that quickly, then that's usually they're like spoofing a device or IP. Sometimes those are interesting factors. But yeah, if you feed enough of these in, you will. Oh, another fun one is like, you know, real users will type their credit card, like one number at a time. Yeah, scammers have a list of them, and they'll just paste in a whole a whole number. So you can look at like the number of milliseconds between keystrokes, like there's all kinds of stuff people have come up with. Even for travel velocity, you could probably incorporate VPNs too, because there's probably a travel velocity for VPN switching too. That's human like, like if you're using legitimately VPN for something else. Yeah. That might be there's like legitimate uses to actually, you know, I feel embarrassed that I don't know this probably should, but the I'm not a robot. Capture thing. Capture thing. Yeah. So that probably works in the same way. Like how do you move your mouse maybe? Or how the dynamics of the clicking? Totally. But how does that even work that well then? And why can't it be fake? I need to look into this because it's, it's such a trivial capture. It feels like should be very crackable. And yet a lot of high security places use that. Yeah, it's really interesting. It's another cat and mouse game. So I think they've Yeah, but it's using a lot of similar signals like mouse movements, keystrokes, and then obviously all the stuff that comes over the wire with your browser. So like, what operating system, what fonts, you know, what headers are being sent over? And there's actually there's an old website, I can't remember what it's called. It was kind of like panoptic click or panopticon or something. But it basically was like a proof of concept site that they would just show you all the data that was kind of getting sent over with your your request. And like, you say that there's only one person in the world who has this exact set of data. It's you. And so it's almost like a workaround, a clever workaround to track somebody, make identify a unique person, even if like there wasn't a cookie involved or something. Yeah, this is a fascinating world. We can't see anybody here in the dark. And yet you have a lot of signal you have to figure out who's a real person who's not who's a robot who's not. Yeah, let me step back. We're going to jump around all over the place. Step back. So I like your interviews, you get into like technical topics. So just let's use Bitcoin as a measure of time. You started Coinbase when Bitcoin was $10. Yeah. And you just mentioned an incredible system with security, with transactions, everything is thought through. There's a lot going on. But what was version one? Back in those early days, the first prototype of Coinbase? What did that look like? Yeah. Like what did it take to write it? To think through it and make it work enough to at least make you believe that it's going to work? Well, I definitely didn't know if it was going to work. I mean, it was kind of, I felt like I was just following my gut. So I mean, I was working at Airbnb. I was a software engineer there, project manager. I was working on some fraud prevention stuff, for instance. And I read the Bitcoin white paper in kind of December of 2010. I started going to some Bitcoin meetups in the Bay Area, met lots of interesting people there, like crazy people, anarchists, you know, like really brilliant people, all the above. And so I started nights and weekends trying to put together a prototype. And my initial thought was, well, you know, SMTP is a protocol that runs email. And, you know, Git is a protocol for version control that people made like Gmail and GitHub. Most people don't want to run their own email server, or even their own Git server. They just want to like use a hosted thing that will do all the security and backups for them. So the thought in my head at that time was Bitcoin is this new protocol. There's probably going to be somebody who makes a hosted service that does all the security and backups for you, makes Bitcoin as a protocol easy to use. So maybe I should, maybe I should make like a hosted Bitcoin wallet or something. That was my, it was going to make Gmail for Bitcoin or something. And a bunch of people told me that was a bad idea. Like most of my smart friends who I told about it, they were like, well, first of all, I don't really get what you're doing at all. Like Bitcoin sounds like a scam or something you've gotten involved in. But then other people who understood what Bitcoin was told me they thought it was a dumb idea because they're like, dude, if you store all this Bitcoin, you're just going to get hacked. Like nobody, you know, why would you, why would you do that? And so I kind of had this thought, like, you know what, I'm not going to go all in and like make a store everyone's Bitcoin. That would be too much right now. I have a job. I have a day job, you know. But let me just make a prototype. And I'll tell people this is like a beta thing. Like don't put any real money in it and just see if there's interest. And if I feel like I'm onto something, maybe I'll go do this as a company. Because I did, I really wanted to be an entrepreneur at that time. I was like, I was 29. I was almost turning 30. And I was, I always wanted to like start a company, but I was, I was, you know, I wasn't yet. I was an employee at a company that was great. But so anyway, I had this prototype. I was hacking together nights and weekends. I actually wrote a whole Bitcoin node in Ruby, which turned out to be a, maybe a weird decision in hindsight, because Ruby wasn't the most performant language. We've subsequently had to rebuild that many times. But yeah, I had this hosted Bitcoin wallet. And the thing that I didn't have any users for it, by the way, I applied to Y Combinator, because I was like, maybe if somebody there writes me a check, this will like make it feel like a real company. And I was trying to find it. I was trying to find a co founder at that time unsuccessfully. So I was basically just wandering in the desert. I had a lot of self doubt about this. Because I was like, I don't know, all my friends don't think this is kind of dumb. And maybe Bitcoin is just going to get shut down. And like, this will all be some stupid thing. So there was definitely a feeling of just wandering lost in the desert, lots of self doubt. Paul Graham and the Y Combinator group kind of wrote me the first check after I went and interviewed and stuff. And they they wrote me a check for like 150k. And that was the first time somebody who I really looked up to kind of said this is this is worth pursuing. Like maybe maybe you're onto something, maybe you're not, but like, let's at least try it. And so I that was kind of what gave me the confidence to quit my job and try it. And I'll wrap the story here by saying that, like we, you know, I found the right co founder after Y Combinator. We still didn't have any customers. The thing that, you know, I basically launched the host of Bitcoin wallet, there were people signing up, I just posted on Reddit and places like that. And you know, maybe like 100 people would sign up and then nobody would come back. And so I was like, I just in in Y Combinator, they often tell you like, you know, talk to your customers and improve your product, talk to your customers, improve your product, that's all you're supposed to be doing, try to find product market fit. So I emailed like five of the users that had signed up. And I was like, Hey, I worked on this app, I saw you signed up, can I get on the phone with you? I get on the phone with like five of these folks. And I was like, you know, why didn't you come back? And the guy was like, well, the app was okay for a for a beta, but like, I don't have any Bitcoin. So I didn't really know what to do with it. And I remember this light bulb kind of went off my head. I was like, well, if I put a buy Bitcoin button in there, would you have used it? And he was like, yeah, maybe. So then I had this, we went about the process, my co founder at that time, we like got basically had to get like a bank partnership payment rails, you know, an exchange basic exchange functionality, all that stuff I was mentioning earlier, in place. And the minute we launched that feature where you could just click buy, put in your bank account or credit card, buy it, buy Bitcoin, it showed up in your account. From that day forward, like the number of users started to go up like this. And so we finally had found product market fit after two years of wandering in the desert. So you weren't even thinking about the buy the on ramps, you would think it would be just the wallet, a place to store Bitcoin that you've already gotten. Yeah, okay. This is I mean, because that's such a pain to do, to have to work with others, to convert dollars of any fiat currency into, into Bitcoin. Yeah. Did you? I mean, were you a overwhelmed by the immensity of the task here? Or were you just sort of not allowing yourself to think too deeply through this whole thing and just letting the optimism take over here? You know, I was really looking forward to like doing something crazy and like a big challenge. And I wanted to, I love kind of crisis moments like that, where, you know, I'm very determined, right? Especially when I get like, very set on something. And I'm just like, you know what, I'm gonna figure out a way to make this fucking thing work, like no matter what. And so I reveled in that I was sort of I had, I had read all these books about startups. And like every startup has these, like, you know, major setbacks, and just like nothing works. And so that was a sign that you're doing something right. I had no idea if I was doing anything right at all. But I was like, I was kind of loving the experience of it in a weird way. It felt, it felt stressful at the time, like, you know, nothing was working. And, but I was just, I felt like I was on the right path somehow. And so I just kept going. I don't know. What was the darkest moment that you've gone to in your mind during that time? What was, what were some of the tougher moments? You said self-doubt. Yeah. Have you, yeah, where'd you go? Where'd you go in your mind? Is there a moment where you're just like laying there? This is, this is hopeless. Well, there's a couple moments I'm remembering. I mean, so for whatever reason, I had this like big chip on my shoulder at that time. And I was like, I really want to do something important in the world. Like, you know, I could have a good life and like work for some good companies and write some software. And I'm, for some reason, I never wanted that for myself. That probably would have been healthier, honestly, just to like, as an expected value outcome, that's probably a better thing in life. But I was like, I was like, man, I really want to do something important and have a bigger impact. And I was like, I was willing to sacrifice a lot for that. I was like, sleep and not going out with friends and stuff. I remember one of the, just for like years working on this stuff. I remember one of the darker moments was we probably had like maybe five employees at that time. And I remember like a bunch of bad things happened like all at once. And it was so first of all, you have to remember at this time, we were all very sleep deprived, which kind of exacerbates everything. If you look at like the Exxon Valdez spill, spill and all these like natural disasters, like sleep deprivation is often involved. So because the reason why we're so sleep deprived is not just because we're working so much, but like the site would go offline in the middle of the night, and we'd get I get paged, I was like on pager duty. So I get woken up sometimes like two or three times a night, like have to try to fix something, go back to sleep. So in that environment, you can kind of get you can get discouraged. So one bad thing that happened was, we had a bug on the website. And there was thousands of people on Reddit and Twitter who were all like, pissed at Coinbase because like the balances were showing wrong. And they were just like, you know, fuck this company, it's over, like I hate these guys. And so that was I'd never had this feeling of 1000 people mad at me at the same time. You know, I feel like I'm a pretty chill guy. Like most time people don't get mad at me. So that was one. Another one was that- Can we pause on that? That's so interesting. So you were saying like, here's a dream, I'm trying to create something. And now forever, the reputation of this dream is ruined. It will never it's irrecoverable. It's over. That kind of feeling. Yeah, well, I didn't, you're right. I didn't know at that time. I was like, is this the end? Like, everybody, we're so tiny now everybody hates us. So is it over? Yeah. Nobody told me this before starting a company that like, you're a bunch of people will hate you for this, which is like a very counterintuitive thing. Because, you know, if most companies, I think are doing good things in the world, at least you're trying, right? And so even if someone's like, trying, but they're not, they're failing, I'm generally rooting for them, at least you're trying, right? But that's not the case at all. And most founders I've known, have gone through this to where they're very surprised at the amount of hate that they get. And if it's I think it's actually like a muscle, you can build your tolerance to it. Like, because, you know, you go talk to somebody who's like, for you, it feels terrible, because you're at the center of this storm. And like, but if you go, then you go talk to like, you know, your family or some other person like, dude, I didn't even hear about that. They're just busy in their own life. And so they, they have no idea that you had all this negative press or like, whatever it was. Can I once again, linger on that? Yeah. There's an interesting person I'd like to bring up, just as an example. Bill Gates. Yeah. So he gets a very large amount of hate on the internet. Yeah. And there's something about him, this is me talking, not you, that he seems out of touch about that hate. I believe, at least in my understanding, with the resources he has, he's trying and is actually doing a lot of good. And yet there's a gigantic amount of hate, conspiracy theories and stuff like that. Right. And it feels like that's the case, because he's somehow out of touch with people. So I wonder how you stay in touch with the voice of the people without being destroyed by the outrage. Is there any wisdom you have to that? I don't know about wisdom, but I've thought about this too, because, yeah, you want to always be open to feedback, especially from people who have like your best interests at heart, right? And if you can become isolated from it and just like, you know, surrounded by yes people. And I mean, who knows, maybe like she and Putin and people like that are in situations, I have no idea. But if you listen to too much of it and you just try to please everyone, you'll never get anything done. And I mean, most of the best leaders are people who, they can act when they believe that they're doing something net positive for the world and humanity, and they actually don't really care if they piss off some portion of the people. Almost anything you're going to do of significance in the world today is going to piss off 5% of people, maybe 49% of people or whatever, maybe 60%. I don't know. So you never want to become so surrounded by people who just work for you and will say yes. And then you think like, well, I'm a genius and I'm like, I'm a, that's how you become a dictator or whatever. But you also can't care so much about what people think, because then you'll never do anything that's truly authentic to yourself. One other thought on that, by the way, I think it's a really good question. So I've thought about this a lot, like why, you know, people generally kind of hate on Zuck and they hate on Bill Gates and they hate on, they don't really hate on Elon. Actually, Elon has a lot of haters too, but it's a different thing. This is measured. This is measured. I was looking at some surveys. So I think Zuck is the most, so loved and hated, right? Zuckerberg is the most both loved and hated. He's the most hated. And then I think it's Bill Gates and Elon is down there. I think it's like 40% hate Zuck, people asked. And then Elon is in the double digits, but low double digits. And so it's interesting. You just look at this data, ask yourself why. Right. So I ask myself this sometimes too, because I don't claim to know any of these people well, but like I've, I've met them briefly. And I, my impression is that they're actually all smart people trying to do good things in the world. So there's no doubt about it. So there's not too much difference there despite public perception, perception. So why is it that some are really hated and some aren't? I mean, it's a complicated question. Obviously, you know, Zuck and his Facebook got blamed for the whole election thing and all that didn't help. Social media has gotten a lot of pressure just from like, you know, Hey, why aren't you solving all of society's tough problems? It's like, well, they're just one company. But one thing I've noticed is that, you know, a lot of these people, they're a little, they have like Asperger's right. A little bit. And sometimes, you know, people with Asperger's don't really emote in the same way. And so I think it's almost a form of like, like bias against their cognitive type or something, which is like that person doesn't emote, right. I don't trust their, their intentions. And the other thing I've thought about too, is that sometimes I think some leaders, you know, like maybe Zuck or Bill Gates, they can come across as like a little bit PR rehearsed. Like they're basically, they're giving the PR approved answers as where Elon just says whatever he thinks like to a fault. So even if people hate what he says, or like, at least I believe it's authentic. So I've always thought about that too, for myself. I'm like, how do I, because you can, you can fuck it up on both sides, right? Like if you just come out and you're like saying, if you just come out and you're like saying whatever's stream of consciousness, you'll often end up like pissing off people on your team, or like saying, tripping over some like regulation that you, you know, there's all kinds of things about running a public company. You know, you can't say certain stuff, but if you're too PR approved in your answers, like nobody trusts you what you're saying. And so anyway, this is something I think about a lot. I don't think I have the right answer, but I'm trying to, I'm trying to find that balance. And more and more with the internet, there's a premium on authenticity, just like you're saying. People really, really appreciate that. So for leaders, it's a challenge to be, how do I make sure I'm authentic, but also don't say stupid shit. And so that's an interesting thing. I've noticed that just having interacted with a bunch of leaders, that you have to be careful how much you surround yourself with PR folks. Because the best, I would say, let me just say a nice thing about marketing and PR folks. The best marketing folks are extremely good. So they understand exactly what great marketing is and great PR. It's authenticity. It's showing, revealing the beauty, as opposed to PR and marketing out of fear. Oh, don't say that. Don't say this. Don't say that. Because then you start living in this kind of, that pushes you towards a bubble where you can't express your beautiful quirks and weirdness and all that kind of stuff. And also the cool, the beautiful things about what you're doing. I find, especially with the tech thing, even like Coinbase, the way to reveal the beauty of it is not only by showing all the things you could do with it, but showing that there's great engineering going on underneath. So letting the nerds shine too. It doesn't have to be like these kind of commercials where it's like a happy family using Coinbase to send a transaction about flowers for mom or something like that. It could be also gritty stuff and real stuff. So that's a general observation I made. But you said you were talking about dark moments and that there's people on the internet that were pissed off that the site was down and you said there might be something else. Yeah. So sleep deprived, like a bunch of people on the internet were pissed at me. The balances were fucked up. Like people were tweeting the companies over, just give the money back, whatever. And then, oh yeah, somebody posted. So we had all this, we didn't, we had to get all these customer support inquiries and like, we only had like a few people at the company. And so we were backed up maybe like 20,000 support requests. So people couldn't get ahold of us. So somebody posted my cell phone number on Reddit and they were like, if you need to get ahold of the CEO, whatever, because everyone's upset about where their money is. So I remember we're in the office. It's like late at night. We've been working like 12 hours. We're all sleep deprived. I'm trying to hack and like get this bug fixed. And we all need like food at the office. And so my phone has been blowing up all day because someone posted my phone number on the internet. And there's like a guy, there was a guy like trying to deliver food and I needed to answer my phone to like get the food from downstairs. So I was like, shit, I got to just see who, if that's him. So I started answering the call and it's like, is this Brian? I'm like, nope, wrong number. Click. And I, you know, I, the next, I pick up the next call. It's like every, every way when I finished the call, another call is like coming in. So I was like this, I'm a reporter from Japan, like asking about a security. Nope, wrong number. Click. And then I like, finally I get the delivery guy downstairs, bring the food up. We were all like, you know, surviving to like fix this bug. I remember there was just basically a point that night where I was like, fuck, I need to just, I basically just curled up on a, on like a ball on the floor. And I, I just like cried for a little bit. I think I let myself just kind of wallow in self-pity, kind of took a nap for about five minutes. And I was like, let's fucking solve this. And I like, you know, stopped being like a little whatever and like got back up. Sleep deprivation combined with just the stress and the pressure of the site going down and everybody wants the site to be up. Just the pressure from people and the number of users is growing and growing and growing. So that pressure is just mentally, mentally tough. Yeah. What was your source of strength during that time? Like what, like somebody that patted you on the back and said, we got this. Yeah. Well, it definitely helped to have a co-founder. So, you know, there's like that old saying about it's better to be in a great relationship than to be single, but it's better to be single than being in a bad relationship. So co-founders actually blow up a lot of companies too. But when you find the right co-founder, which I was lucky to find with, with Fred or some, that was very important. There was definitely moments where, you know, I was like kind of, you know, at, at the width end or whatever. And he was like, like, dude, let's rally. Like, and he, he basically carried the team, you know, a couple of times, like in really key moments. What advice would you give to someone who's a startup founder about this particular stage, about surviving it to the five and through the five employee stage where you are? Yeah. Well, if you're pre-product market fit, the best advice that I have from that period is action produces information. So just, just like keep doing stuff. You know, I remember like Paul Graham. Paul Graham had this great line like that. I think that's his line. And he was like, startups are like sharks. If they stop swimming, swimming, they die. You know? So even if you're like, not sure what to do, like just do anything because when you do it, it'll like, it'll produce some information. Like people liked it. They didn't. This was very true for me. There was times where I just did something instead of debating it endlessly and like, just try it, you know, like, all right, so we shipped it. And like, there was a couple of times where like the minute I shipped it and I was like, I knew, I know we, we built this wrong, but now I have an idea of what to do next. And it wasn't, I only would have had the idea if we'd actually gone through the exercise of going to build it. It's like my other favorite analogy for this is that you're like at the base of a mountain that's shrouded in frog fog. And you're looking up at the mountain and you're trying to think like, okay, how do I get up there? But you can only see like three or four steps ahead because the fog is so thick. So you have to just take steps into the unknown. And when you take three steps, another three steps will be revealed ahead of you. And sometimes you'll end up on some local maximum, you'll have to retrace your steps or whatever, but, or come up to a cliff, you know, but, um, most people in life don't take the steps into the fog, into the unknown because it's scary. Or they're like, I don't know what if I fail? Or like, I don't know how that's going to work. Or I might run out of money or I won't be able to get a job after, or I don't know, whatever reason. But that, that is like one of the things that separates, I think, entrepreneurial people with that kind of inclination is that they have sort of a comfort with this risk tolerance, but it's actually not really risky. If you think about it, it's not like, you know, in, at least in most places, like, you know, if you go to, if you go do a startup and it fails, like you're going to, you're even more valuable to your next employer, right. Or you can go raise a seed round, pay yourself a salary, try it for like two years or three years. If it doesn't work, go get another job. It's not like you're, you weren't paying yourself a salary during that time. So I think, I think people overestimate the risk of doing a startup and they just never, they never start because it seems crazy. And all your friends think it's silly. Like that's sort of the default nature of every big startup idea. It's just basic fear. It's the same kind of fear that if you see, if you're a guy, see a cute girl at a bar, it's the fear associated with coming up to her, be like her, asking her, it's like, what's the actual risk exactly? Right. She'll say, I'm no thanks. I'm not interested. I guess the risk is like, that's going to be mentally difficult to deal with rejection. So just like it's mentally difficult to deal with failure. Yeah. If you had a bunch of ideas and you were excited about them and you implement them and you realize they're not good, that could be difficult to keep pushing through that. But I suppose that's life. You're supposed to, you know, perseverance through the failures. Yeah. And then the risk is low. So that's, and then the whole time through the fog up the mountain, you're looking for product market fit. Yeah, that's right. So you know, you have it when the usage of your product keeps growing without any marketing dollars or anything like that. It's just like more people keep coming back every week or month. So you're kind of keep, you're basically watching your stats. Nothing is working. You see these little wiggles of false hope in your metrics. And you basically just keep talking to customers, fixing the, improving the product, talk to customers, improve the product, talk to customers for product, you know, and try not to run out of money. So it'd be really scrappy. And then if you're lucky, you hit some kind of threshold where like, okay, the thing is good enough now, or we hit on some use case and then it'll organically start to grow a bit. And then, then you have a whole different set of problems once you hit product market fit, which is how do we scale this thing? How do we hire people? How do we, you know, hire an executive team or raise more money? And like, so the problems totally change, but, um, well, you're there through the whole thing. So that's the other question. That's fascinating. Again, back to the girl at the bar, how do you hire people? It's like, how do you find good friends? How do you find good relationships? And in this specific case, how do you hire good people, engineers, executive, all of it? One thing is I've done a lot of reps on hiring at this point. So, um, Coinbase has about 5,000 people. Um, probably the first 500 people or something, maybe in that range. Um, you know, I, I interviewed every single one of those, but you have to remember, there's probably like, I don't know, on average, maybe 10 people that we went, went in the process for every one we hired or something. So it was like, by the time that we had 500 employees, I had done like 5,000 interviews or something. I was like very burned out in interviews. I had been doing, I, some days I did like seven interviews in a day or maybe, um, you know, you've been, you've been doing lots of interviews. Maybe you wouldn't get burned out, but different kind of interviews. Very different, very different. Yeah. Very different because you're, uh, so first of all, most of your interviews lead to rejection. Yeah. Which is also exhausting. Yeah. And there's a whole, there's a whole part of the interview, which is about candidate experience, right? Sometimes, you know, it's not the right person, but you want to make sure they have a good experience. Like if you're just exhausted and you're on your sixth interview and you're like, well, thanks for coming in and you wrap and you just, and then like, you're going to create a detractor. Someone who's out there like, fuck that company. Or Brian was rude to me or whatever. So I had to, honestly, I had to work on that a little bit in the early days because I was doing so many interviews. Like I needed to make sure that, um, when people came in, I was like, you know, made them feel comfortable. Um, ask them a couple of like warmup questions. It's like, oh, how, what, how was it getting in the office? Like, did you find it okay? And like, what have you been up to this week? And not just like, you know, like a factory assembly line, like boom, boom, boom, like run. So I, yeah. But also there's a moment, cause I've interviewed a bunch of people for like teams and stuff. There's also a moment when you early on know it's not going to be a good fit and you still have to land that plane and all that kind of stuff. And that could get really, really, really exhausting. So yeah, anyway, sorry. So. Yeah. So basically we've tried so many things over the years to make interviews more efficient because it's a huge time sink for the team. So, you know, we, we basically, we'll usually get them down to like 25 minutes. Um, I've seen if you're trying to hire like a big team, let's say, um, you know, of people who are like contractors or something, not necessarily full-time employees. I've seen people actually do 10 minute interviews. Um, you can even interview like a thousand people almost like in a week or something. I'm not sure if that quite works out, but let me a little less than that, but you can basically get six and six done in an hour. If you're just, I need to get a team of 30 contractors for whatever purpose. But if you're talking about full-time employees, I usually do like 25 minute, you know, you're, you're oftentimes like one, one thing we've done is we'll put like a, um, like a Google form online and it's like, put some basic hurdles in there. Like, you know, ask them, um, to put in an answer of which you can check in a spreadsheet if it was correct or not. And like, there was some funny examples in the early days of Coinbase where we put in like brain teasers and stuff, but we don't do that anymore. We do like normal interviews, we do references, the kinds of things I ask in interviews. Um, you know, it's usually like, I like to think about what, what do we need this person to accomplish in this role? Right. And get really specific about that. It's like usually something pretty hard. And then I'll ask them a question. It's like, tell me about a time you did X and, um, or tell me about the hardest, the hardest kind of problem you've had to solve in Y and what did you do specifically to overcome it? Right. So I'm asking to see if they can actually do the stuff we need to get done. But then I'm also kind of asking like culture questions if I'm interviewing for that. And so I'm trying to see like, are they concise communicators? Can they just give me a clear answer and stop talking? Some people like ramble on for like five, 10 minutes. If you ask the first question, some people are, you know, they're interrupters like church of interruption. So like they won't stop talking until you interrupt them, which for me, I'm, I'm always patient and I wait. So that's weird. I'm looking to see for humility to like, you know, I'll tell, I'll ask people, tell me about a time something went really wrong. Like you had conflict with someone on a team or, um, and what I'm kind of looking for is were they part of the solution or are they still holding on to like blame and criticism about that and be like, well, I told them it shouldn't do that way, but they didn't listen to me. And you know, these are all like bad signs. So I'm looking for, yeah. Can they get the job done? Will they work together on a team? Can they communicate with each other? Will they work together on a team? Can they communicate effectively? Do they fit into our cultural values and you know, those kinds of things. Yeah. I mean, there's a, cause I've, uh, even, even for help with this, this podcast here, but also at MIT and so on, I've done a bunch of hiring and, uh, I was always looking for, you said, brain teasers, all kinds of simple questions that can, that can reveal a lot of information. And it's always been challenging. I used to, I still ask this question, but, uh, do you think it's better to work hard or work smart? And, you know, I had this idea that I've, that I think I've matured about, which is, I kind of believe that people who say work smart on that question don't actually work smart. So the right textbook answer is what is better to work smart. But the reality is it's, it's people that haven't actually ever done anything that say work smart. They're like, uh, they haven't really struggled because my general belief at the time was in order to discover what it means to work smart, to be efficient, to, you have to work your ass off. So you have to really fail a lot and failure feels like hard work. And so I was always suspicious of people that would say work smart. I would want to interrogate that question. But then I also, you know, have, have learned that there is people that are just exceptionally, exceptionally efficient. They really do know what it means to work smart, even at a young age. And so like, you can't just disqualify based on that. You have to dig in deeper. But some of the most interesting people I've ever worked with would say work hard, unapologetically, unapologetically. And they're usually the ones that know how to be efficient, which is, it's just an interesting thing like that. And I, and I've always searched for questions of that nature to see, can I, can I get, can I get a person to reveal something profound about them in as brief of a question as possible? And I, you know, and then of course there's basic attention to detail and brain teasers and stuff like that, depending on the role, programming and so on, to see, can they, can they solve a tricky puzzle and do so, like one that doesn't require a lot of effort, but requires a certain nonlinear way of thinking. Is there, is there some, I mean, maybe you don't want to reveal, but is there some questions that you sometimes find yourself leaning on? You said like, how did you solve a hard problem in your past and have them talk through it? That's one. You know, we started with brain teasers periodically at Coinbase and I, we got, we got away from that relatively quickly. And I think one, it's a tough one, because I actually think it does show how somebody kind of performs under pressure, but it's, I don't think it's a super reliable indicator because there's some people who are really good in the typical work situation, but that's not a typical work situation where somebody puts you on the spot, like in a live interview. And sometimes people get nervous and they can't think clearly and like they don't have their computer in front of them or whatever they normally use. So yeah, I, I'm a little skeptical now of the, of the brain teaser thing. There is a whole, yeah, there is a whole question about like a lot of universities are getting rid of, you know, entrance exams. So if you're hiring right out of universities, sometimes it's becoming a less reliable indicator of like, are they in that university? And I've heard some companies, we haven't done this yet, but I've heard some companies are actually creating their own, like for college grads, like their own basically exams, like standardized testing, almost to get people in the door because the degree almost like doesn't mean what it used to, which is the whole topic. But yeah, that's fascinating. Cause it's fascinating both for that, because it's not just about you trying to hire a great team. It's also to help them find the right place to work at. It's like a, it's like a two way street. All right. So once you found the, the product market fit, how did Coinbase become what it is today? So let me ask an engineering question, actually, sort of from the, the Ruby wallet days, what are some of the interesting challenges there? Or are they not engineering? Just the, the, the things that had to be solved? What were they? Engineering, regulation, financial, hiring, lawyers? What was it? So post product market fit. Yeah. A lot of it's scaling and you got to build out, build out an actual company. So I remember I was still writing a lot of code there for a while and we were, we were hiring in, we had like maybe 25 people or something. I remember one of our investors came by one day and he was like, Brian, how much of your time are you spending writing code? And I was like, maybe, maybe 50% or something. He was like, how much time are you, are you spending hiring people? I was like, probably 20%. And he was like, I think you need to flip those numbers. Like this company is not going to scale. You're the CEO. You don't need to be writing code every day. You're going to have to transition that stuff. Like even if people can't, all that stuff's locked in your head. So maybe they're not going to do it as well as you for the first six months or something, but like, if you don't start transition it, you're never going to build a real company. It's just going to be, you're going to be the bottleneck. So, you know, like a lot of founders that took me a while to like really internalize that lesson. I'd always heard people say that and, you know, but I still was holding on too much to decision making. And I probably still am, by the way, like even to this day at Coinbase where we continually have to push down decision making in the org, like even with 5,000 people, like who are the owners of each of these things? And so the temptation is people to push it up and you become a bottleneck and anyway. So yeah, you basically need to make sure you have enough money where you don't die if there's some kind of a downturn or hit break even profitability. We were in a position where we were periodically profitable during up periods, but then crypto would go down and we were unprofitable. And so we had to kind of manage our own psychology and the balance sheet to make sure we didn't like die in the downturn, which a lot of crypto companies did. We had to basically professionalize a whole bunch of services that had been just very quickly thrown together by like 20 year olds, right? Whether that was cybersecurity, it's like, okay, how do you get like a really senior experienced cybersecurity person, but not someone who's so senior that they can't get their hands dirty and they can come into a company with 25, 50 people? How do you get a finance person to come and do that? Our finances were a mess. Like we didn't even really know how much money we had at certain times and stuff. I mean, this was, it's embarrassing to say, but it was true. Like I remember, I was in a company called Steve's and I was like, okay, but it was true. Like I remember there was a point where, um, we had raised, I think like our series C or something like that. And I think we had our bank accounts and I just put like $25 million, like in a different bank account that none of the stuff was touched the actual operation of the business. Cause I was like, you know, our operations were so messy and we needed to hire a new finance person. And I was like, this, I'd heard horror stories of actually startups where they thought they had X amount of money. They had way less. And then the whole thing was insolvent in like three weeks. So you wanted to have some padding to it. It's like, all right, I can at least count on this to save us if we go to like super negative. Right. I mean, it was like a cheap hack, but that was like, don't come up with. And you know, until we could hire like a real CFO and finance team who like, okay, now we know we got our arms around how much cash we have. It sounds silly, but we had such high volume of money coming in and out. Anyway. What was the ordering of hiring by the way? Like, uh, how many engineers was it early on? You said CFO was not, did you even have a CFO for a bit? Like what was the, the, the landscape of hiring as you building up this company? Was it engineering focused? Well, let's see. I mean, so the first person we hired was just like, we need, we need to solve customer support. So we brought someone to do that because we were all staying up till midnight every night trying to do customer support. And then we got more engineers. And then I think maybe the sixth hire or something like that was a recruiter. Cause that, that turned out to be, you need to build, hire the person who can hire more people. That turned out to be a great force multiplier. And then you're going down the list. Eventually you want to hire some more senior people. We needed legal and compliance. We needed that really badly because we, you know, it was all kinds of questions about what the legality of it was. Was it hard to find legal people that work with crypto, like serious adults? Cause it's such a cutting edge new world. Yeah. I mean, there was nobody who had like more than, nobody had three years of experience with it. Cause it had only been around a few years. So yeah, we were finding people from adjacent fields. There's a certain personality type of people who are willing to join early companies because they have no structure. You can't really commit to them about, you're going to have this team or this boss or whatever, like everything's in chaos and flux. So it takes, yeah. Hiring is one of the hardest things in the early stage, for sure. You got to find people crazy enough to join you on this journey. So one of the interesting things about Coinbase and you've written, we'll talk about it a bit. You're very focused on the mission. Yeah. You're very kind of, I think that simplifies things. That makes hiring easier. That makes working at Coinbase easier. That makes, I mean, it's similar, sort of Elon has the same thing. It's pretty clear. It's pretty clear what we're here to do. Yeah. So I suppose what's the mission of Coinbase? Well, it's to increase economic freedom in the world. And what is economic freedom? Yeah. So economic freedom is this term kind of like GDP that economists use. And it's basically a measure of different countries around the world. It looks at things like, are there property rights enforced? Is there free trade? Is the currency stable? Can you start companies that you want to start? And can you join the ones you want to join? And is there corruption and bribery prevalent or is it relatively free of that? And so there's several different organizations that basically score countries by economic freedom. And the really cool thing about economic freedom is that basically it positively correlates with things that we all want in society, like not only higher growth of the economy, but also things like higher self-reported happiness of citizens, better treatment of the environment, better income for the poorest 10% of people. And it negatively correlates with things we don't want in society, like corruption and bribery and war, even and things like that. And so it's this pretty crazy provocative idea, which is that if you give people good property rights and rule of law and allow them to trade, it basically encourages them to do more good stuff and the whole society benefits. Like one of the things, you may have noticed this growing up in various places you did, or I spent a year living in Buenos Aires, Argentina that went through hyperinflation. And there's a certain pessimism that can creep into countries when they don't have economic freedom, which it's basically like everyone has this bit of this vibe, which is like, don't stick your head up, don't try too hard because it could all be gone tomorrow. Like the things that really are valuable in life are just family and friends and the past was better than the future will be. And so you don't really, people don't try as many, they don't try hard because you're not really sure you can actually keep the upside of your labor if you try hard. So you just don't try as hard. Whereas in America, historically, or high economic freedom countries, people basically like they just try more stuff because they're like, if I do good for other people, I'll get to keep part of it for myself and I can improve my lot in life and for my children, my community, whatever. So I realized when I read the Bitcoin white paper a long time ago, that at least I had a hunch at the time I was like, this might be a really powerful piece of technology that can inject good financial infrastructure into all these countries around the world that don't have it. Basically good economic freedom principles in like, you know, property rights and things like that into these countries all over the world, which just as long as you had a smartphone and now crypto got invented, we could, everybody could have economic freedom. And it's crypto is kind of really well suited for economic freedom because if you want property rights, it's basically like crypto is if you can remember a 12 word phrase, or, you know, have an app on your phone, you can store as much wealth as you want, and it can't be taken away from you. You can even, you know, there's like refugees who need to flee and they want to take their wealth with them. And they can't do it often in the traditional financial system. And so crypto lets them do that, right? Crypto is inherently global. So it allows free trade and cross border payments. It makes it easy to accept payments from people globally, you know, it's it provides a stable currency to everyone, not only with Bitcoin, which is kind of like this new reserve currency, but also with stable coins, right, which are, you know, new, new inventions there. So yeah, I basically feel like crypto is, is this secret hiding in plain sight that can create economic freedom for people all over the world and a more fair and free and global economy. Well, so the limit, and by the way, I didn't know about Argentina, why'd you end up in Argentina? Okay, so I was basically, you know, I was living in Houston, Texas after college where I went to school, and I had never studied abroad. I kind of like, I don't know, I feel like I needed some adventure or something in my life. And I was like, I was running this other startup that I was trying at the time, a tutoring company, and I could I could work from anywhere. So my plan was, you know what, I'm just going to go do like a month in every city around South America, just be like, almost like to force myself out of my comfort zone, because I, I had never traveled by myself to a foreign country or whatever, and where I didn't really speak the language. And anyway, I landed in Buenos Aires thinking I'd go all around South America where I had never been there. But I basically once I was set up in Buenos Aires, with an apartment and a cell phone and stuff, then I was like, I don't want to do that all again next month. So I just stayed there for most of the time and took some day trips. But, but yeah, it was kind of a formative experience in that regard. You got a chance sort of unexpectedly to experience the social effects of hyperinflation, which is interesting. But also, I've never been, I really, really want to go as a person who likes tangos, a person who likes the Argentinean national team and soccer. And, and steak. All right. And all the other things that Argentina is known for. Okay, so economic freedom, one of the limits on economic freedom comes from government and government regulations and all those kinds of things throughout the world. So how does cryptocurrency help resist that? So can you sort of elaborate a little bit further? What are the things that limit economic freedom? And how does crypto help ease that? You know, today, the world, like traditional financial system is basically every country of the world, for the most part, has their own currency. And so there's a group of people or institutions in each of those countries that's controlling that economic policy or that money supply. And, you know, it can be, it can be manipulated, right? So it's not like many of these currencies are not linked to gold standard, you know, the US kind of famously came off that in the 1970s, for instance, but if you read Ray Dalio, and all this stuff, like he talks about, there's 1000s of fiat currencies that have been in existence over time. And basically, all of them eventually get disconnected from backing of like hard commodities, and then they get over inflated and printed. And so in times of stress, you know, with Nixon, I guess it was like in the US, it was the Vietnam War or something like that. It kind of drove government spending. And so under times of stress, they say, hey, it's a temporary measure, we need to break the peg. Temporary was like, you know, famous words that he used and, and they go, they go like, they go print. And so the bad thing about that, of course, is that it sort of erodes people's, like wealth, if they can only hold their assets in cash, which basically, like poor people tend to do that. You know, if you're wealthy, you can hold stocks or like real estate and things like that. But it's really a tax on the poorest people in society, inflation. So anyway, crypto, in a way, is a little bit of like, a return to the gold standard in this digital era, right? Bitcoin, there's guaranteed scarcity of it, it's deflationary, there's never going to be more than 21 million Bitcoin. And so that's, that's a really important principle. I also think, you know, not just Bitcoin, but like cryptocurrency, generally, it's really important in terms of this, you asked about regulation, right? So think about, like, if you wanted to make a global borrowing and lending marketplace or a global exchange, you would have to go to all 200 countries in the world, sometimes like maybe 50 states in the US and get lending licenses or an operating exchange or whatever. And, you know, they're not going to, that's just an incredible amount of work. And you can't even do business in many of these countries, because like, you know, you have to bribe somebody or it's corrupt or whatever. And so, but with DeFi, with decentralized finance, people have published, you know, like Uniswap is a decentralized exchange, everybody in the world, no matter what country you're in, what jurisdiction can interface with that decentralized exchange, because it and there's no central company operating it. It's a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain, which is globally decentralized. So there's no throat to choke, there's no one person you can, or a company you can go to, to like, hey, shut this thing down. Even if everybody who's working on Uniswap today stopped, the Uniswap smart contract would continue to operate on the Ethereum blockchain. Similarly, for like a borrowing and lending marketplace, you know, like, it's, you know, if you want somebody in India wants to borrow from somebody in the US or whatever, like, there's very difficult to do that in the traditional financial world. But in a smart contract is decentralized, you can enable anybody to access it. So it's, it's really kind of this great democratizing force that is creating a new financial system that is more fair and more free. Yeah, in some ways it is. It's a clever, it's a clever way that's not, you know, it's enabling people to do that in a novel way. So is Uniswap in some sense a competitive Coinbase? In which way is it? In which way is it not? So, because for people who don't know, Coinbase is centralized. So let me ask, doesn't that go against the spirit of crypto? Since crypto is decentralized, what are the pros and cons of being centralized as an exchange? So I don't think Coinbase is fully centralized. We have many different products. And the way that I think about it is that our exchange, or our brokerage is a centralized regulated financial service business. And it's actually important for the crypto ecosystem to have that because you want to allow a lot of the fiat money in the world to flow into the crypto economy. So we, you know, we're very proud of that. And I think we've helped a lot of that money flow in. Now, once people have money in crypto, they can choose to hold it in a variety of ways. And they can choose to hold it in a self custodial wallet, which is more decentralized. They can choose to use decentralized exchanges, which we love. And Uniswap is not really, I don't think of them as like a direct competitor to us. We basically have integrated Uniswap into a number of our products. We love DeFi, decentralized exchanges, the whole thing. So Coinbase wallet, which is a self custodial wallet, is more decentralized. And it allows people to hold their own crypto. They don't have to trust us. Can you explain what a self custodial wallet is? What is a wallet? And what is a self custodial wallet? Yeah, so it's confusing. So, so a custodial wallet means you're trusting Coinbase to store your crypto, the private keys themselves. And, you know, for some people and institutions and everything, just meeting them where they are today, that's nice, because it's simpler, you know, they're not afraid of losing their crypto if they make some accident accidental mistake or so, you know, a custodial crypto products are important to help get a bunch of people into the ecosystem. But I'm very supportive of self custodial wallets. And I think in some ways, in some ways, they are the future because more and more people are going to want to store their own crypto, not trust a third party institution to do it. And in some ways, that is much more authentic to the ethos of crypto. So Coinbase will help you convert the fiat into crypto. And frankly, that's a more centralized thing. But once you have crypto, you can then go into the self custodial world, store it yourself. In a to get into the technical details, just for a second. It's basically saying, you're going to store the keys on your own device. And so even if Coinbase, you know, get some court order to seize it, we actually can't like from an architecture point of view, we can't do it. Or, you know, if Coinbase gets hacked or something, we can't lose your funds like now you the thing is, you have to take the responsibility because we're not taking it. So the individual person could get hacked, right. And there's a whole bunch of really cool research happening to make self custodial wallets more resilient to accidental loss, hacks, and just user error. Like, you know, there, I don't know how much you've looked at like various cryptography things. But there's like, basically, you can have multiple key multi sig, multiple signatures from different keys on different devices where you need like two of the three or three of the five. There's a whole technology called multi party computation or threshold signing signatures, which is really cool. But those are the things you would run locally. Yeah, what these are all security measures, like cryptography measures to protect you without a centralized component. Right? So like a simple example would be, let's say you had a two of three key signature. And, you know, one key might be sort of Coinbase, but that's not a quorum. So we couldn't unilaterally move your funds. But another key is on your device on your phone, let's say, Oh, cool. So that so in a normal situation, in a normal situation, you have a key on your phone, we have one. But you and so two out of three, now just you know, it can all get signed very quickly for day to day use. But let's say you lose your phone or something. Now there has to be a third key. And that's where you know, you could store it in a backup somewhere. Like in Google Drive or iCloud, you could trust a third party that's not Coinbase to also have that one key and they can't do anything unilaterally with that one key. So that's a simple example, you can get you can get way more complicated. Yeah, that's an awesome idea. And so like, yeah, if your funds get seized, Coinbase can't, can't do anything, right? But you better not lose your phone, maybe in that case. Yeah. Yeah, that's, but it provides a there is so even if you lose your phone, then there is a recovery mechanism because you can get the one key from Coinbase, the one from your backup provider, and recover a new one back on your phone. I know. But what if Coinbase is no longer but because of government, because of a part, say it's in North Korea, government says you're no longer like Coinbase is shut down in that country or something like that, right, then you can get it even if you have access to those two. Right. So, again, perhaps a silly question, but isn't a self custodial wallet, a competitor as a notion to Coinbase? No, I mean, we so we offer a self custodial wallet. We've built one and it's like, But doesn't it bleed the like, I guess I'm asking a sort of a financial question is, like, how does Coinbase make money on transactions? So does this not does it does not decrease the number or does not significantly negatively affect transactions? Or are you more focused on growing the number of the pie of the number of people that are using cryptocurrency? Yeah, like a traditional financial service firm would probably say, well, we should be storing, let's keep more of the custody with us, because that's how we prove to the world that we're valuable or whatever. I don't really believe that. Like, I think that actually, we kind of want to encourage our users to move to self custody over time for those who are ready and willing. And that technology needs to mature. I'm not trying to like force anybody to do it, who doesn't want to do it. But to me, that's like the future of how we get billions of people using crypto. But doesn't that mean they can go somewhere else? Easier? Yeah, that's sort of the point is like, we're all using the same protocol. So there's low switching costs, which keeps all the companies accountable, right? Like, if you, if you want to access the Visa network, there's only one company in the world, you can go through to do that, like Visa. But if you want to access the Bitcoin network, there's dozens or hundreds of companies out there who can do that. So it's, you know, it's arguably, you could argue it's worse for us as a company. But I think it's better for it's what makes Bitcoin interesting. And cryptocurrency interesting is that nobody controls it. There is low switching cost for customers, it's better for customers. And that means that all the companies in the space are going to be held to a high standard, because the minute you lose someone's trust, they're just going to move their Bitcoin to some other service. And that's good for the world. Do you think of Coinbase as so there's these ideas of layer one, layer two, layer three technologies? Yeah. Do you think of Coinbase as layer one, layer two, layer three? Now that said, there's so many products that are under the Coinbase umbrella, that it's hard to answer that question. But what do you think? Yeah. Do you acknowledge the existence of layer three? So, you know, usually when people are using those terms layer one, layer two, so they're referring to like layer one would be the blockchain, layer one blockchain itself, like a Bitcoin or Ethereum or something, not like a centralized service like Coinbase, or even our decentralized self custodial wallet. So yeah, I wouldn't consider us to be like a layer one. These are the decentralized protocols that we're integrating, but Coinbase itself is not those. Yes. But layer two is the thing that was basically doing transactions without the settlement on the blockchain. And so you get to have some of the benefits of faster transactions without the security associated with the blockchain. And layer three is, I suppose, sort of apps built on top of that. So, you know, at least I think talking to Michael Saylor, he considers Coinbase a layer three technology. Interesting. Okay. I'm not really particularly familiar with this kind of distinction of layer three and two. I don't see them as fundamentally different. But some of the, okay, I mean, one way of asking that, is there some layer two like of magic happening in order to make transactions associated with the blockchain happen instant so that they're quick? On Coinbase? On Coinbase, yeah. Is there some magic going on? Because you're, okay, we should say, how many cryptocurrencies are currently on Coinbase? So it's more than two. Yeah. It's a lot more than two. Yeah. So you have to understand, you have to incorporate all these technologies. Yeah. So how do you make that magic of sort of universal transactions happen across all of these different cryptocurrencies? There's our centralized products and decentralized products, right? The centralized products, we are storing that crypto for you. And so if you're moving from one of your accounts to another account, like an ETH1 account to ETH2 account, or from my ETH Coinbase centralized account to your ETH centralized, so we can do that transaction off-chain to make it faster. And it saves the customer fees, and it just confirms instantly. But it's not truly using the decentralized blockchain, right? So you can also send any Bitcoin address or Ethereum address, for instance, and that is putting the transaction on-chain. Now, our decentralized products like Coinbase Wallet, the self-custodial wallet, every transaction is happening on-chain with that. And so basically, it just shows a little bit of the evolution of Coinbase and the blockchains themselves. In the early days, these networks were not scalable. And so there were no L2 solutions, for instance. And so we had to do sort of these hacks, like moving the crypto off-chain if you were moving between your own accounts and stuff like that. Otherwise, the minor fees would have just eaten us alive as a company, right? But now that the blockchains are starting to scale, there's a whole bunch more work that needs to be done on that, and we're getting L2 solutions. So I think more and more of the transactions are going on-chain, whether it's L2 or L1. And, you know, we shouldn't be like, ideally, we shouldn't be doing that many transactions, you know, off-chain, but just internal Coinbase ledger or something. That's not really in the spirit of crypto. So when you say on-chain, that includes like a lightning network, that includes layer two technology that the blockchain proposes. Yeah. So you're, when you, yeah, okay. So I guess I was asking how much fun magic is happening off-chain within Coinbase. And you're saying in the early days you had to, but you try and do less and less. So look, there's a bunch of like high frequency traders that use the centralized products and even just regular retail people, like they don't want to pay the gas fees and stuff. And they're trying to, it actually, we back of the envelope, you know, calculated this out at one point, and just like, it would be completely infeasible for like high frequency traders to put everything on chain at this point. That's basically what DEXs are doing. And so both are important. I think more and more is going to move decentralized over time, which is great. And we're, and we're basically... DEXs are decentralized exchanges, by the way. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, we want to, we want to encourage more and more of it to move decentralized over time, but I don't, the centralized things aren't going away for like a long time. It's a decade from now, there's going to be some big institution or pension fund or central bank that's like, all right, we got to hold crypto. Let's set up the account in a centralized way. So that's, that's fine. Both, both are important. Do you know the number of cryptocurrencies currently on Coinbase? Do you know that number? It's over a hundred, but it depends. It depends what jurisdiction you're in and, you know, are you an institution versus retail? There's so many different categories now. But over a hundred? Yeah. So what does it take to become, to, to, to become an asset, to become a cryptocurrency on Coinbase, to add your technology to Coinbase? Okay. Well, so we're trying to get away from this idea of being listed on Coinbase as being seen as like an endorsement or something, because I actually think it's very important that we are not considered judge and jury about, you know, like imagine it was the early days of the internet and you were like, what's a good webpage and what's a bad webpage? Like you would have been totally wrong. Or anytime big tech companies try to make these review, review boards of like, you know, Apple famously gets in trouble for this a lot with their app store review process. Right. And so something that you think like a committee of people somewhere thinks look silly may turn out to be the next big thing. Right. And so it's very difficult. So what do we do? I mean, we basically have a test of legality, right? We check, you know, do we believe this is a security? If so, it can't be listed on Coinbase. And there's a very rigorous process we go through for that. Just currently the way the laws are in the US, you can't do that. And we've been, we acquired a broker duo license from the SEC. We're trying to work with them to get that operational. And hopefully someday we can trade real crypto securities. But today, that's not possible in the US at least. Then we look at sort of the cybersecurity of the crypto asset. Do we think there's some flaw in the smart contract or is it just a matter of time? Do we think there's some flaw in the smart contract or, you know, a way that somebody could manipulate it without the customer's permission? We look at some compliance pieces to it as well, like the actors behind it and like, you know, their any kind of criminal history, anything like that. But if we believe it meets our listing standards, basically the this test of legality and everything for customer protection, then we want to list it because we want the market to decide. And it's kind of like, it's kind of like Amazon or something like that, where, you know, a product might have three stars or it might have five stars. But if it starts to get one star consistently, like it's probably a fraudulent or it's defective or something like maybe Amazon will remove it. But otherwise, you want to let the market decide what these things are. So that's generally how we do it. And by the way, more and more of these assets, I think especially like low market cap assets are going to be traded on DEXs through Coinbase. We don't need to list every asset on a centralized exchange. I think DEXs are really good for the long tail. And then it becomes an even, it's even more clear to people like this is not some endorsement by Coinbase of like, this asset's good and this one's bad. Like, you know, my belief is there's going to be millions of these assets over time. And so I hope it doesn't like make news every time we add one in the future. Yeah, I wonder how you get there. Because I even I look to Coinbase for, for example, you know, people, as you can imagine, sort of tagged me on Twitter or something like that and all that, like, you should interview our sort of this, the founder of this particular coin, right? Yeah. And I, it's so hard for me to know what's, first of all, what's interesting technology. What's, who's a scammer or not, who's actually legitimately representing an ambitious new thing versus a scam. And I, you know, there's very few sources of like verification signal. And unfortunately, Coinbase in part has become a little bit of that too. And you're trying to get away from that because you're trying to get as many sort of, let the people decide. So you're thinking of like Amazon star type system where the people could rate. Yeah. So I think we'll actually probably add like user ratings and reviews. So, and we'll be very cautious about like, you know, these are real people. There's a bunch of stuff we have to do for that already. So I think wisdom of the crowds is good in terms of getting feedback on items. But we also, we're going to do our own review, which I mentioned earlier, right? Which is like, okay, it meets this minimum bar to be listed on our site. Yeah. So I think, yeah, both are important. How do you know if a coin is a scam or not? Well, you can see a few things. So, you know, I hate to use the word scam because a lot of these are judgment calls. You got to, I kind of, a court may or a jury may land either way. But things that would be red flags to look at would be, you know, is a bunch of the asset owned by an insider or insiders with short vesting periods. You know, are just the background of the founders, like they may have criminal records or they've perpetrated other frauds in the past, right? There's a difference between something which is just a me too product. It's like, it doesn't have anything interesting about it and something that's an actual fraud or outright scam. And you have to, a lot of this data, what's cool about it is that it's now available on chain. You can look at like the tokenomics behind it and see who owns it. And are they selling it, you know, in like inappropriately, or are they pumping it on like YouTube and Twitter and making promises about, hey, the value of this thing may be a higher in the future. And like, all those are just big, big no-nos that we would, you know, we just don't want to go there. So our whole thing is like, we want to enable the innovation in this space, but not allow anybody to curtail the advancement of this industry by like doing some kind of fraudulent thing or get rich quick thing. So it's a tricky industry because I'm trying to figure out who to, you know, what's interesting to understand, to research. And it's hard to know. Let me ask you about a tricky one to add to a centralized exchange, which is privacy preserving cryptocurrency. So like Monero, is that technically difficult or is that why is like Monero, for example, forget that specific one, but like privacy preserving cryptocurrency blockchains, why is that? Is that ever possible to add? So that's a great question. So the answer is maybe. So here's the reason why. So because we're a regulated financial service business, we have various licenses to do that. We are regulated by various regulators. Part of those licenses requires us to have a quote, reasonable program to monitor for suspicious activity. You know, an AML program, anti-money laundering, right? And so if a coin is 100% anonymous and we can't really do blockchain analytics to track source of funds and where these things might be going, it makes it harder to have a reasonable program around that that's defensible. Now, there are privacy preserving coins like Zcash, which have something called a view key. And a view key is basically another key which allows you to de-anonymize the transactions in specific situations where you want that. So for instance, we do support Zcash. And one of the ways we got comfortable with that is that when you're buying it on Coinbase, you can basically have a view key. The transactions are not anonymous while you're buying it. And we can see where it goes afterwards and do our whole standard program. Now, if it gets a few hops away down the road, I mean, people could eventually turn on privacy preserving aspects. So, you know, these are tough judgment calls, but at least in terms of our interaction with the customer and everything, we feel comfortable with that. I think there's a broader point here, which is that I actually think privacy coins are a good thing for the world and they should be allowed. And more like, you know, despite we've made this judgment call to operate in a regulated and safe and compliant way, but just taking my Coinbase head off for a minute, I think the world would be a better place if there were more privacy coins, because it's kind of like the internet when it first came online, like there was no HTTPS. Everything was HTTP. And there was, you know, so people were afraid to put their credit cards on the internet and your messages could be intercepted and all this stuff. And now the whole internet has basically moved to HTTPS with a little lock icon in your browser, which is better. And financial information is like the most important information to keep private, right? So there's times where, let's say you're running a charity or something, and you want to have total auditability, transparency for the whole world, who donated and where did the money go? That's great. You want it to be public. But if it's like your personal money or something like that, you don't want to be broadcasting that to the whole world. And in some ways, that's what blockchains are doing, you know, pseudonymously, because like, but it is a public ledger. And so if you can know who owns each address, you can basically de-anonymize it. You know, I think basically, people should fight for privacy and freedoms of all kinds, but privacy of money is a good thing. So I would like to see more of that in the future. You've chosen with Coinbase to have a seat at the table with the regulators. Yeah. So what kind of conversations are there at that table? What are the regulations like? What is the level of understanding with regulators? What are they worried about? What are they thinking about? What are the positive and what are the negative regulations that you're facing, that you're educating, struggling with, pushing back on, supporting, all that kind of stuff? Yeah. Oh, man, there's so many because we're, I mean, we're live in like, you know, maybe 100 countries or more at this point. So the conversations are all over the map. I'm trying to think what broad strokes I could paint for you. So I'd say one trend that's positive is that basically regulators around the world are more and more, over the last five years, I would say, it's more and more common to find a regulator today asking, how can we preserve the innovation potential of this technology while keeping the bad actors out than it was five years ago, where they were saying, this is all bad activity, how do we prevent it? And so maybe this is... When you say more and more, what fraction? What fraction? Okay, so I'll give you like a US specific example, although we operate in many countries. So when I go to DC now, I would say, you know, 50-60% of the people who I meet with are basically, you know, they're in the camp of crypto has a lot of potential, we should regulate it to make sure the bad people don't do something bad with it. But this is here to stay, and it has a lot of upside, we should basically create thoughtful regulation and celebrate it, and actually encourage this innovation to happen in the US. That's a huge change from just three years ago, where it was probably 30% of people saying that now it's like 60, it's like almost double. It's getting harder to find like true crypto skeptics in DC. I'd say that, you know, maybe only like 20 or 30% of people are like, willing to say something negative, like they actually think it's net negative. It's like, it's really hard to defend that position at this point, because almost like one in five Americans have used or tried crypto at this point. So you're kind of condemning 20% of your fellow citizens, if you say that at this point. You know, especially with NFTs, and all these things like a huge segment of people who don't even care about investing or whatever came into the space. So and then basically, that's that same conversation is happening. But, you know, delayed by a few years in in like India and Europe and in some Asian countries. And some countries have really embraced crypto and they're like trying to really, they're ahead of where the US is, because they're trying to actually attract the best startups and entrepreneurs like, you know, like Dubai and UK and Australia and all kind of pushing good regulation. El Salvador, actually, I guess adopted it as like Bitcoin as a legal tender, right? There was another country, Central African Republic, I think that is supposedly did that as well. But, you know, there's countries like China that are more autocratic that are saying, hey, this is a threat to our power. And like, we're going to try to really curtail it. So what kind of regulations are there that you feel the most that are limiting or that are empowering? Like, is there specific examples? Yeah, okay. So I mean, basically, I think the securities laws in the US need to be clarified about what there's crypto is many different things. That's what people don't realize. So like, some crypto like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and many others are probably more like commodities. They're not controlled by any one person, you know, like, anyway, there's people who want to raise money for a company that's sounds more like a security that should be regulated by the SEC commodities regulated by the CFTC. Then there's some cryptocurrencies, which are more like currencies like stable coins and central bank digital currencies. And those are probably, you know, should be regulated by the Treasury or someone like that. And then there's a whole another category of cryptocurrencies, which are none of those things. They're they're NFTs, like artwork, or they're metaverse items, or decentralized identity and voting. And so I think that there's a very unhelpful point of view out there by some folks, which is, hey, this is all most of this is like bad activity, we need to shut it down. So we're just going to pursue enforcement actions or something like that. Most people in DC don't feel that way anymore. And I think the people of the US don't feel that way anymore. Because a lot of them are using this stuff. And their their general view is, there's a lot of upside potential here, we can all agree, let's get rid of the fraud and the scams, we all want to get rid of that. So let's create a relatively simple test, which says, you know, if it's like, nobody controls more than 20% of it, or some threshold, it probably is more like a commodity. If someone's raising money for they're selling this thing for a business, then it's probably a security. And then, you know, if it's more like a medium of exchange, it's a currency. And if it's none of those things, maybe it's artwork or whatever. A legal test like that would help clarify who, which regulator is regulating what. And then, you know, we also want to have probably like a sandbox for innovation, where if you're a startup, and you're doing less than I don't know, some number, less than some amount of payment volume or customer funds you're storing, it's like, just let those things get off the ground without a soul crushing amount of legal bills, you know, and uncertainty. So if the US can get there, that would be great. I think a bunch of other countries now are rushing around the world to sort of create that regulation that does attract innovation. And so in the national international bodies like IMF, and G 20, and stuff, they're starting to look at proposed regulation. I hope that Coinbase and a bunch of other crypto companies can help in that conversation, too. We have a whole policy effort. I think actually crypto policy efforts are like probably one of the biggest things in DC right now. So it moves, it moves slow at the speed of government. But yeah, and in the meantime, we're just trying to help more and more people use crypto because ultimately, that's what in the democracies, that's what they care about. Like, they'll do what the people of the country want. So you want governments to start understanding differences between in the crypto space, commodities, securities, currencies, NFTs, I still don't understand. What are the supposed to make sense of NFTs? What is NFTs exactly from a perspective of a regulator? Yeah. So is it the other categories? Yeah, you know, most NFTs you could think of as like artwork, although it's it's who knows where it's going to go. It could be metaverse, right? Yeah. Some kind of unique identity of a thing. Yeah, like, everything is on virtual land in NFTs. I actually I bought this NFT that's like, it's like citizenship in this like city, Dow in Wyoming, like I've never been there. But it's almost like a badge or attestation like to get access to this location. There's like people doing like tickets to events, like, you know, they're called a POAPs, like proof of attendance and things like that. So it'll be very interesting to see where NFTs go over time, it could get that's and that's the danger. You don't want to try to like define the regulation if you don't even know where this thing's going to go. So and so your efforts in the policy arm is education? Yeah, education, advocacy, we're just trying to be like a helpful educational resource, essentially. And then if they give us feedback and like, hey, don't do this or don't or do this, like, we're more than happy to do anything that's requested. We generally go get licenses. And we've just tried to do the right thing in the absence of clarity, because it's if it's not clear what what the law says, then you should just basically do good things that you think may be required in the future to show good faith effort towards the right thing. And that's part of like innovating in a regulated field, which is, you know, a whole topic in itself. So if you are at the table, let me, this is less the case in the United States, but can government agencies seize a person cryptocurrency by forcing Coinbase to hand it over? So when you're centralized, you have a phone number to call? Okay, so this is a complicated topic. Like, if you really want to be sure that this is why people want to store their own crypto, right? Like with self custodial wallets, like with Coinbase wallet and bracing decentralization, they want to avoid that. Now in the US, there is rule of law, right? So we have reasonable protections in place around, like search and seizure and things like that. You know, Coinbase does, we publish transparency reports on this, we get subpoenas, court orders, things like that from various countries around the world. And there are situations where we have been ordered to freeze accounts, things like that. You know, we have to follow the law is there's no other way to put it, we're a regulated financial service business. And so if the money is used to break as part of breaking the law, that's what that in a particular jurisdiction in a particular. Right. And then the other thing, sometimes we will actually get court orders or subpoenas that are overly broad, we've seen, so they need to follow due process, right? And so we've seen some in the past that were like, well, we need you to freeze this huge number of accounts. And it's like, well, we'll actually gone to court and like push back on some of these and said, like, what is your probable cause? And is that has the threshold been met? And like, we've won some of those cases on behalf of our customers. So yeah, it's actually really, it's kind of unfortunate and frustrating as a, you know, as a large business, you spend a lot of resources basically, interacting with inbound requests by all kinds of lawyers and people and requesting things. And some of them are silly and ridiculous, and you have to push back and say no. And so it's kind of a tax on every company at a certain size, which ultimately gets passed on to the customer in higher fees. So you have to employ armies of lawyers to deal with this stuff. Can you educate me on something? How much innovation is there in the legal space? So for lawyers working with Coinbase, because it's such a new, cutting edge thing. So you're, there's a lot of gray area you're supposed to be operating under, like, how hard is it being a lawyer at Coinbase? Like, how much precedence is there, I guess is what I'm asking. I mean, just like you said, three years. It's kind of a new space. Yeah. Well, it's probably very hard to be a lawyer at Coinbase and very fun because, you know, whenever you're in a new field that's growing fast, there isn't a lot of case law and case law and just precedent set. So that's also an opportunity for you to go create that stuff. And that's what a lot of legal careers are made out of is like, take a complex situation where you have to balance difficult things like how do we prevent bad activity, but still enable an innovation? That's a hard question. And there's, you can go draft legislation and circulate it to policymakers or come up with these policies and, you know, how do you operate a business in an environment where the law is just unclear, right? It's like, try to do the right thing, but like, you know, strike the right balance. So yeah, a lot of our lawyers have to come up with that very creative stuff. You mentioned one of the things you're focused on is expanding the number of people, maybe a billion people on Coinbase or using cryptocurrency. Where are we at now? How do we get to a billion? As of Q4 last year, we had 89 million verified accounts on Coinbase. But in any given quarter, only, you know, maybe like 10 or a little more million of those are like really active. So, and then if you look at globally, I think some of the estimates I've seen is maybe there's like 200 million people or something like that who have ever used or tried crypto. So we're along, you know, a ways from a billion, but it's not like that far off. How do you get there? How do you get to a billion? So a few things. One is the blockchains have got to become way more scalable. It's kind of like we're all running dial-up modems and we need broadband. And so it's just like too expensive, too slow to do all these transactions. And I think if we just get L2s working and scalability, you know, we'll see another order of magnitude kind of come out just from that. I think the second one would be more clear regulation. That would help a lot. I do talk to, you know, pension funds and, you know, various asset managers, sovereign wealth funds and stuff. And a lot of them tell me we've got 1% of our portfolio in crypto today, but we really would rather have like 20% in there. But what we're waiting for is more clear regulation coming out and saying that clear test that I was saying, these assets are commodities regulated by SEC, these are by SEC, these are by treasury, whatever. So that would be a big unlock. Do transactions. So one of the things that you mentioned, payments, sorry. Yeah. What does that unlock a lot of users? Yeah, it does. I mean, remittance is like a huge thing. People sending money home to their families in other countries where the fees are super high. So yeah, if we get blockchains to be more scalable and there's more global adoption, like I think we'll see remittance quarters move over to crypto a lot. There's also just, the other thing that's driving a lot of crypto adoption is basically the creation of more and more third party apps. So or dApps, they're sometimes called decentralized apps. So a lot of startups now, you know how like used to use in the early 2000s, they called them dot com startups, but now you don't need to say dot com because everybody's using the internet. And so now there's like hundreds or thousands of these crypto startups. But I think in the future, you won't need to call them crypto startups, because they'll just be called startups, because everyone's using the internet and crypto and whatever. So anyway, the use cases, the utility of crypto is getting better and better with like all these third party apps getting funded and created. And do you think there's going to be a killer or a set of killer dApps? Like a thing where nobody can live without? Are we still waiting for that? There's gonna be a bunch of them. It's just like, it's like the internet, like, what were the killer web companies, you know, like, Uber and Wikipedia and Airbnb and Google. And like, so there's going to be some big winners, but there'll be thousands of this is basically the new, it's like what happened with the dot com startups in the early 2000s. It's like a lot of the best entrepreneurs are building crypto startups now. So tons of venture money flowing into the space, a lot of smart young people. So do you think Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency will become the reserve currency of the world at some point? So this is kind of a controversial idea, but I actually think yes. I do think Bitcoin could end up becoming a reserve currency of the world. There's, so I've been reading Ray Dalio recently with his new book, like the changing world order. And I thought it was a really well researched book. He talks in there, he looks back at history, right? He looks at like empires and, you know, going back to various Chinese empires, the Dutch and Ottomans and everybody and how did they rise and they were able to have the reserve currency as they rose and what produced that? Like it came from, you know, good education and innovation and better trade and anyway. So the US by some measures is kind of looks like it's maybe it's had a really good run and it's coming down a little bit and China is kind of coming up. Who knows how that'll play out by the way, like the world is very complicated. It could, that could switch. But I guess if the US dollar is going to be seeing more inflation in the future, the Chinese Yuan is not like necessarily better, right? I mean, they have a ton of debt as well. And, you know, it's not like you could really that that the Yuan could be inflated as well, right? It probably will be. And so I do think that there's this group of people today, which probably most traditional, I don't know, like the people who run big banks and like governments and stuff that they're not, this is not really on their radar today, but I think there's, there's basically a group of younger people in that kind of, you know, 25, 35 year old range who are tech savvy. They're starting to think of crypto as like the primary thing in their financial life. It's like, I basically hold my wealth in crypto and I use dollars or euros or whatever. If I, if I happen to need something, I convert it to that last minute. It's like, if I, if I go on, if I'm traveling, I might convert some local currency in the moment, but that's not where I hold my that's not where I hold my most of my wealth. So this segment of the population is not like massive yet from a GDP point of view, but I think it's a leading indicator of where things could be going. And this is actually good for the world. It's kind of like, especially if China does continue to rise and it has a more authoritarian view, it'll be kind of this very centralized East versus a decentralized West where people are in the West, in the free world, really kind of embracing crypto and a more open, fair, free, global financial system, which I think will be enormously beneficial for humanity. And I do think basically Bitcoin is the reserve currency, the gold standard of the crypto economy. So that's pretty crazy. Yeah. The gold standard. I mean, it's also like with Ray Dalio, I feel like China will drive a lot of this either in response or directly. I mean, I think the ruble, I'm not paying as close attention to the financial systems, but I think they're trying to tie it to gold once again. So that's an interesting, maybe it'll be one of the more authoritarian regime that will switch to Bitcoin standard first. And then it's the West that will, out of that pressure will catch up versus the other way around. It's fascinating to think of what is the forcing function, what kind of perturbation is required to switch, to change anything honestly about the financial system. But it could be, as you're saying, just waiting for the people that are young now that are embracing crypto to enter the positions of power essentially. But I hope that's not the case because that's, if for any innovation we have to wait, sorry to say for the older folk to pass away. Yeah. That's not an efficient way to make change. Yeah. That's a super interesting topic of how people's minds become less plastic as they age. I guess it's the future. It's called wisdom, but then we also need the wild ones to explore, exploration versus exploitation. You wrote a blog post that's really interesting in September 2020 titled, Coinbase is a mission-focused company, like what we're talking about. So one interesting thing you said in that blog post is that we're not going to be distracted by sort of activism within the company that's not related to the mission of the company. Now that's a rare thing for a company to state, for a company CEO to state, especially in this climate. Can you, first of all, describe in a little more detail what you meant? Did you receive blowback for this? I definitely received some blowback, but yeah, I'll describe what I meant. And if you want to talk about how it came to that too, we can talk about that. But what I meant is that there's a lot of companies right now, including tech companies, but not exclusively, where I think great companies, they have an important mission. They're trying to do something really good for the world. And unfortunately, they're getting a little distracted from that at times because of employee activism that is causing the company to basically jump into whatever the current thing is and try to help is like the positive interpretation. The negative interpretation would be to virtue signal. And my view is that this is actually kind of destructive to... This is largely an American company phenomenon, by the way. I do worry that this is making America less competitive, even though I think of myself as kind of internationally minded, but I am a US citizen, have a lot of my whole life here. So when we put out this statement, we had employees that were not in the US who were confused by it. They were like, why did Brian need to say that? We're just saying you're going to work focus on work at work. That's what we were doing already. Yeah. And there were certain pockets of the US, certain cities, in particular, we had employees that a very peculiar cultural phenomenon had evolved where I think people really wanted the company they worked at to be almost acting like the government or something and trying to solve the hardest societal issues and at least have an opinion on it, if not contribute to the solution on almost everything. And for me, it was a very uncomfortable situation for me as a CEO. I'd never quite been in this situation where most of the time when employees in the past were kind of asking me questions, they would be asking about like, how do we make this product better? What do we do with this competitor? What about this regulator? And it got to a place around that time where most of the questions we were receiving were, I think, even about things not related to the company. They were about broader societal issues like, Brian, what's your stance on XYZ controversial thing? And I often didn't have an opinion on these really hard questions. And I felt like it was distracting the company. People internally were getting into fights a lot to disagreeing with each other. There was a thing where the Slack internally was turning into social media almost with people putting in flame wars. And this culminated, by the way, with a walkout from the company. We had received some demands from employee groups about various things. And there was basically an antagonistic thing with management and employees. And I was like, we're all on the same team here. If you want to be antagonistic, let's do it with somebody else outside the company that we're trying to improve the world in that dimension. So yeah, eventually, I was like, okay, the company is not aligned on this. I don't like the job as CEO, frankly. If the job is to come in here every day and have to squirm in front of these most difficult societal questions, I don't think I want to do that job. So either they're going to have to go or I'm going to have to go. And I founded this company and I really believe in the mission. So they're going to have to go. And what I realized was that... So basically, I made an exit package available to anybody who wasn't on board with this direction. 5% of employees took it. I got the company realigned towards this mission. We're all here to do work. By the way, people can go do anything like political or social activism outside of work. It's totally fine. Everybody has stuff like that in their personal life. But while at work... We can also disagree at work, by the way, on the work. This is not like a no disagreement culture. Let's try to get the truth. But don't bring stuff into work that's just going to create division. Make the workplace a refuge from division about all these crazy things. And we're all aligned here to work on the mission. Let's do that. Yeah, that was really, really, really refreshing to hear. So this is me speaking, but there's a sense when companies take on these issues publicly from a CEO position or anywhere else, that it does seem to optimize for virtue signaling versus solving a particular problem. Because to solve a particular problem, you really have to really put in a huge... You have to hire a huge number... You basically have to create a company within a company to take on a particular thing. But if you allow yourself to internally care about a particular issue, you're basically pacifying some number of employee... Making sure Slack doesn't get out of hand. And then you're doing this kind of, from my perspective, especially on issues that care about fake virtue signaling, basically trying to understand what will make me look the best, what will make the company look the best in this particular aspect. And it just seems very shallow. And it's optimizing for the wrong thing. Not for the solving of the problems, but for the making yourself look like the good guy. And trying to then leverage that to say, I'm the good guy in all situations. And it's the wrong thing. And perhaps from your perspective as a CEO, as a leader, it's also creating division, unnecessary division within people. There's something about us that gets extremely argumentative about certain topics. They really bring out the emotion. And I think that probably, as you were saying, that emotion is even probably okay, maybe productive when that emotion has to do with the mission of the company. You really care about those disagreements versus something that has nothing to do with the particular, with increasing economic freedom using crypto. Yeah, it's fascinating. But it was so refreshing because it's rare. Why do you think that's rare? So the city you're mentioning, I mean, there's a bunch of cities. But San Francisco is one such city with that culture. And it's sad because San Francisco is also, the Bay Area is also the hub historically of some of the greatest innovation in human history. So there's that tension. How did that culture emerge there? Where the innovation was done by people that are very mission-driven. You get a bunch of smart people together to solve a difficult problem. They get maybe sometimes too much blinders on, but they try to balance that because it requires that focus to solve an actual problem. And yet that's also the place where this culture emerged. It's a fascinating human dynamic. I don't know. Somebody will one day tell the history of Silicon Valley, not just the innovation, but the social dynamics that occurred there. Anyway, why do you think that's so rare? Well, because people don't want to get attacked. It's like super, you don't want to get canceled, right? It's super uncomfortable. Nobody wants to be called a racist or whatever people want to say on Twitter. So... Did you get attacked? Yeah, yeah, I definitely got attacked. I mean, and I knew it would be controversial. The only reason I did it, frankly, was that I was kind of at my wits end. I was like, well, like I said earlier, the CEO job sucks. Either I don't want to do it or they have to go and I'm going to make the company into something that I want. And I'd spent eight or nine years of my life at that point kind of building this thing. I was like, well, I could go start another company, but it takes a long time to get momentum with these things. And Coinbase is a very rare thing that happened in the world. I feel very passionate about it. So yeah, I'm not going to go. I need to make this the company that I want to work at. And what was really interesting was that there was such a huge outpouring of support. So I knew that it would be controversial and I would get attacked. And predictably, there was some journalists and New York Times and all these people who kind of like went and started writing hit pieces on the company shortly thereafter. And they basically just call people who've left the company and can get quotes on whatever they want and then they'll write a story. So mainstream media, I lost a lot of trust in mainstream media, frankly, after that. And of course, it's kind of become obvious since then that most mainstream media is like hyper politicized at this point. It's basically either super left or super right. And it's not really that focused on truth. So that's kind of unfortunate because I think journalism is actually like really important in society. So that whole thing got eroded in the US. Luckily, there's sort of new media, people like you and a whole bunch of people. Lexi Longino Did that blog post help that statement, the 95 people that remained? Is this still something you struggle with? Because it's also culture, the broader tech space. David Okay, so that was an interesting thing, which was that so the 95% of people stayed, I got a huge outpouring of support from people who said, Thank God you finally spoke up and said something because, frankly, it was making not a very fun place to work either. And I realized that there is, I think there was a I think is the same to lab has this blog post about the tyranny of the 1% or something like that. But there's basically a relatively small group, one 5% or something like that, that is really upset about something. It's not the majority of the company, it's like 5%. There's another 15% or something that are sympathetic to the cause, they're actually somewhat suggestible, they will go along with whatever, because it sounds reasonable, you know, these are like real issues they're talking about. It's not not to say that it's not real. And they'll kind of get swept up in it. But there's an 80% of the company that basically doesn't agree or just wants to get their work done without all this drama, and or distraction. And they're afraid to speak up, because if they speak up, they're afraid of being again, called a racist, like fired, you know, ostracized amongst their peers. And so it did require it to get to a bad enough place for me to finally say, you know what, I just I feel like I have to do this, live through the short term attacks of the press, which ultimately was very freeing for me, because now I don't really care. And now I can actually just build the company that I want to build without like caring about that. So and then what was cool was a lot of really great people reached out to the Coinbase to after that, and we're like, I, you know, I'm an early engineer at Google or wherever. And like, this culture has gotten kind of messed up. And like, I want to work at a company that's willing to stand for that. And so we've gotten a lot of good people come over. Basically, what I realized, and by the way, our diversity numbers and all that stuff, like people told me when I was drafting this post, they're like, don't post this, you're like people underrepresented groups will never want to work at this company again. I was like, I don't think that's true. Like I talked to like our ERG groups. And they're not telling me they care about this stuff that much. They're telling me they just want to like, be respected at work and do good work and contribute. So my gut was telling me that that advice was wrong. And like, I can tell you a year, a year after doing it, like our diversity numbers are basically either the same or better in every category. So that turned out to be false. Look, I hate to be like, like, you know, polarizing on in either dimension here, like, I just want to get good work done and build good stuff with technology. So, you know, I think companies should just have like reasonable policies, like you want to get rid of bias and hiring, you want to attract great people from all different backgrounds. Like, you know, we have pledge 1%, we put 1% of the company equity into a foundation, like, I hope we're able to do good stuff with that. That's, you know, give back in some way. But like, the main, the main message, I guess, for me is like, the core, the core mission, the core work that we're doing on economic freedom and just all of our products are, that is like the main value that we're contributing in the world. Like, let's just do that more. And hopefully we can get from 89 million verified users to a billion or whatever. And then I just think that's how we'll have the biggest impact. It's tempting, though. It's so interesting how companies get tempted to help. Yeah. It's like, and you step in, and it's almost like a drug, and then you can't, you forget, I mean, like all of us in life, it doesn't have to be companies, you get distracted. And maintaining focus, like, you're absolutely right. The way for Coinbase to add value to the world is to maximize the mission that it's on, not other, not other stuff. And when you get wealthier and more successful, there's, it becomes more and more tempting to just help out in some other shallow ways. It's fascinating. And you just kind of brought that to light. So it was very refreshing. And it shouldn't be controversial to sort of focus on just getting stuff done. Well, let me ask you, I mean, do you think that this, it's all these things tie together. There's like a general trend of like more censorship, you know, there's like more cancel culture. There's some of these like freedom values are kind of, you know, even like freezing people's accounts, like the trucker thing that happened. And there seems like there's a general trend of more authoritarian, you know, policies there. But do you think that, do you feel like the tide is turning on that? Like there's counter examples to it we've seen recently. Yeah. I think it's the last gasp of old way of doing things. And so there's desperation and so on. Because to be fair, it's kind of the internet, which is where's the source of a lot of this, where people have a voice, is making the power centers of the world really nervous. And so that's where that's coming from, I think. And the internet is tricky. It's weird. It's full of bots. Yeah. It's full of like misinformation of all kinds. Full of large groups with conspiracy theories and so on. And I mean misinformation broadly. People are misusing the word misinformation. They're just, governments are just labeling random things with misinformation just to censor them. But I just think it's just like a new world where the internet is really finally taking hold, where there's billions of devices and everybody has a voice. It's almost, basically governments and powerful people are slightly losing hold of power and they're starting to freak out a little bit. That's it. And so once you have young people that are coming up now, gain power, I think will rebalance everything. And then there's, like you said, promising signs that it's obvious that the majority of people want freedom. And that means a lot of things. That means economic freedom. That means freedom to have a voice, freedom to move around, freedom to act in the way they, without reasonable sort of limitations by people that don't have their best interests. And I gain more hope from just regular people that are fighting and demanding the being able to have freedom of speech. Or more specifically, sort of resisting crude overreach of government in the acts of censorship, at least in the United States. And hopefully that percolates out to the rest of the world that's struggling on a much more basic level where people are being put in prison for the words they say, not just banned from Twitter. Right, could be worse. What are some lessons from your failures and your successes about what it takes to run a company? I think one of the things that I've learned about leadership is that, you know, I never really thought of myself as a very natural leader, to be honest. I don't think I was a natural leader. But so I always envisioned, you know, good leaders as like these military generals, like they seem so confident and they're just like bark orders, you know, like charge that hill and do this. And I was actually like more introverted and kind of, I wasn't really confident in the way I communicated. And so what I realized is that there's lots of different kinds of leaders. You can be any kind of CEO you want, right? I was kind of more of like a product technical focused CEO. And I preferred to sort of hear everyone's opinion. And it wasn't just going to like render a decision in the room in some like kind of heated moment and like piss off half the people. I would be like, all right, I'm gonna go think about it. And I'll send you my decision later today or tomorrow, whatever. And so I found ways to kind of make it work for me where I could basically, I always tried to avoid like, you know, when people getting like super emotional about something and like, I think they're thinking their judgment goes down, right? And it's like never make a decision when you're angry, right? And so if I would always sort of try to get a sense of are these people like trying to be right? Or are they trying to seek the truth? You know, and you can do these little tricks like, you know, okay, you argue that person's position and you argue the other one and like, see if you can genuinely represent it. Now I know you're listening and you know, these kinds of things. But I guess, sorry, getting back to your question about leadership, I think I basically just kept doing things that were a little outside my comfort zone. And then my comfort zone kept getting bigger and bigger, you know? And so that's I think that's how you build confidence is you do the thing that's scary and it's like a little outside. And like, when I first started Coinbase, I had never managed anybody I would have I would have never I would have been scared to death to have put out like a very controversial opinion like that and sort of, all right, 5% of people go, you know, we didn't know what percent it was going to be, by the way, it could have been 1%, it could have been 50%. Like, but we went into it scary, because it was a scary thing. I was like, I don't know, I think this is right. I'm just going to do it. So if you do, if you do enough scary things, like you'll build the confidence. And I feel like I'm still on that journey. Every year or two at Coinbase, there's some big thing that comes out as like, Oh, my God, like, I didn't sleep well for a week. And like, this is the next level. Right. But that's how you that's how you learn and grow. So you're still going up that mountain through the fog one step at a time. Yeah. Can I just quickly ask you about a couple other efforts that are super interesting that you're involved with? So first of all, a little bit more old school fascinating effort to research hub. So what was that about? The GitHub for Open Science? Yeah, okay. So basically, I've had a chance to try to help a couple other companies get off the ground too, because I want to see various efforts out there succeed. And one of them, I've always thought about, like, why is scientific research? Not more like open source software? Or why couldn't it be much faster? Right? And there's, you've probably have seen this, like in an academic setting, right. But there's all kinds of things that feel very antiquated to me about scientific research, everything from the funding process and grants to how peer review works, to how you submit to journals, all the costs associated with journals, you know, that the people you'd think like you'd get paid for this or something, and it would then be available to attack all the taxpayers for free. But no, they're like, they're all paywalled. And there's like these big companies that have sort of, in my view, kind of held back innovation here. So and the preprint servers, like bio archive and archive.org have really helped this, but those websites are they look like they're kind of from like 15 years ago or something. It's a Craigslist. Yeah. So anyway, one of the things I once Coinbase went public last year, I had a little bit of liquidity. And I was like, all right, let me find a small team. Let's see if we can, if they can like go off and make something better here. So we have a we have a prototype out there. It's at researchhub.com, people can check it out. And it's basically, you know, the first version is kind of like Reddit for science. There's like various hubs, which are like journals. You but you know, you can publish papers there, you can use an electronic lab notebook to sort of have a modern day paper, which is not just a PDF that static, but it's a living document. Ideally, in the future, you know, you can get comments and feedback from people in there, you can update it over time, we want people to be able to share the code and the data sets associated with their paper research paper is not just a PDF. And in the future, we want to make it even where like, you know, people can get funding for science through that through that site, and even license out innovations that they've made. Because the other thing I've noticed in life is that there's kind of like, there's a bunch of people working on science, and there's a bunch of people building companies, and they very, very rarely intersect. But when they do, you get the best things like, like SpaceX and genentech, and even Google, and like, even Coinbase was based on a research paper, the Bitcoin white paper. And so most business people are like creating companies that don't have any scientific innovation, they're just like, marketing based on, you know, whatever. And then a lot of scientists are making things which never actually benefit humanity, because they're not commercialized, and turned into products. And so if we can somehow create a translation layer between those two groups, and help them, you know, helps align the market forces, align scientific research to market forces, so that they're more incentivized, like if you, if you discover CRISPR, or something like that, like, you should be a billionaire, you know, and like all the downstream implications of that, not going through some antiquated tech transfer office or whatever. And if you, and if you're an entrepreneur, you should be looking to commercialize the latest scientific innovations. And so that's kind of like the long term vision for that site. I think it's just an early step today. But we've got like a really passionate community on there that are jumping into like, you know, computer science or longevity, or various bio hubs or whatever, and like, beginning to source the best innovations, but also discuss them, improve them and publish through the site. So I have a question about incentives. But first, let me say for people listening who are outside of academia might not be familiar with an absurd situation. So there's journals, like you mentioned, and scientists publishing those journals. And the journals provide very little value, except matching you with reviewers that are unpaid. And so in the digital world, they're providing basically almost no value except hosting your paper. And they put up a paywall and charge people to access that. And that charge is not like even Netflix fees, you're talking about a lot of money. So they're basically blocking your research that should be wide open from the world and creating a paywall. It's a fascinating like scam, that's a fascinating like scam, that's actually holding back. It's a shitty scam, because you're not making that much money. I feel like a definition of a scam, you should at least be making money. So like significant amount of money, you're basically making shady money and holding back all of human knowledge. Okay, so that put aside and people get a little confused, because the journals aren't the ones paying the scientists. People think like, the journals are somehow funding the scientists, therefore they have the right to put up a paywall. No, no, no, the funding is coming from elsewhere. Journals are the middleman that nobody asks for, especially in the digital world. Anyway, that said, there is an interesting kind of incentives for scientists, which is prestige and so on. So there's a thing with journals, if there's a prestigious journal and you pass the review process, you get into that journal or a prestigious conference in computer science, then that's seen as a good thing on your resume. And not just your resume, within your community, that's a respected thing. Is there some way to achieve that same kind of incentive in the open setting of Research Hub? So like where I could say, I got X, Y, and Z, like, look, I'm impressive because this happened on Research Hub. I think you're right. Like the whole academia, like, progress track is about like, where you got published and how many citations and it's kind of like a false economy of reputation, because like, there's not real money backing it. And so I think we've thought about this a little bit. And I think the Research Hub team has an opportunity to do something here that basically says like, okay, I had the top paper for 2022 in biology on in here and you basically publish a list, a leaderboards of these like top for the month, the year in all these different categories, then actually, we should probably give out grants and awards. In addition to that, fund those people almost like fellows or even give out like, you know, like the Nobel Prize, I there should be like a Research Hub prize or something and like ship people, maybe, maybe even ship like a print version of a journal that is the top papers in each category in each month or whatever. And like, people want to put that in their wall in the lab. And like, so I do think we need to sort of change. I don't know, like the traditional folks in academia or science would probably think this is like crazy, a crazy idea. But I think we need to change the culture to not celebrate getting published in paywall journals, almost like friends don't let friends publish in like paywall journals, like because that's, it's just not helping humanity. So like, you know, it should be more prestigious to publish in an open science way and get the top spot that should be celebrated above being published in whatever I don't even want to name one of them, you know, well, there's currently it's the culture has already shifted to where almost everybody publishes on archive and by archive and so on. But so that the culture is there on that, that scene, friends don't let friends not publish open, but then the prestige thing is missing, which is like anyone can publish an archive. So how do you know it's actually a strong paper? Now, funny enough, even with the crappy systems we have now, word of mouth is powerful. Like you have a citation system is pretty powerful. So like you say, okay, this is a strong paper, we don't need reviewers, our human eyes are the reviewers, like the community is the reviewers. So it's already, like that part is there, but it would be nice to have like, you know, nature level, like this is respect, this is a respectful accomplishment. And something like a leaderboard, but a stable kind of system. Yeah, I should mention too, there's a crypto angle to this too, which is, so Research Hub has a coin associated with ResearchCoin. And it's basically if people, you know, upvote your paper or like, support it, you'll accumulate more ResearchCoin, which is basically like rep or like a reward token. And so that is a way to, I guess, measure the community's collective view of that paper, a form of peer review. And it can even be weighted by like the reputation of the people voting on it and that sort of thing over time. Yeah, I think the last thing I'll just say is that, so I think from a prestige point of view, it won't start off that way, it'll probably start off like being a little more quirky. Like, you know, like, remember when YouTube first started, it was like people posting weird cat videos and stuff. And but now like, you know, if you have a million subscribers on YouTube, that's probably better than getting like a TV show on NBC or whoever the traditional gatekeeper was. So my hope, it might take 10 years, 20 years, whatever, but I'm hoping that this can sort of be the new prestigious way that young people publish in science, and it'll become to be viewed as more prestigious. The journals, the traditional journals will be viewed as old fashioned. Well, it's definitely a system that could do a lot better. And there's a lot of incredible, brilliant people doing science. They deserve better, the better platforms. So another thing you're taking on and helping out with is this new limit, which is looking at longevity. Yeah. What's the idea there? Yeah, okay. So as you can see, I'm excited about science. Like, I think, you know, science is sort of the, basically, if you get scientific innovation, then you get better products, and you get better economic growth, and then you get all kinds of like surplus in society that can go to arts and philosophy and like all kinds of stuff. But with new limits, so yeah, I kind of got excited. I started hosting some dinners with scientists last year, and I was learning about all kinds of the latest stuff happening in bio. And there's a lot of really cool stuff happening with like CAR T cells and CRISPR and all these things. And anyway, one of the topics I started to learn more about was something called cell reprogramming. And, you know, people maybe have heard of this induced pluripotent stem cells, where you could take like a skin cell and turn it back into a stem cell. And Shinya Yamanaka won the Nobel Prize for this work that was done in 2006. And, you know, it's kind of a crazy thing, you can turn one cell into another type of cell. Well, people recently have been experimenting with different types of transcription factors that would either not, you don't want a cell to go all the way back to being a stem cell, you can end up getting like cancerous cells and things like that. But you want it basically to the cell to revert a little bit earlier in its, you know, it would call it the Waddington landscape, but it's basically like, it'll go become act start to act like a bit of a younger cell, but not to de-differentiate and become more like a stem cell. And so I decided this might be an interesting area to go fund. I think that that team has come together, there's like some really talented people who've come together to help get that off the ground. And they're basically building a platform that can test a lot of different transcription factors on different cell types, and hopefully find ways to rejuvenate different types of cells and tissues to extend human health span. I mean, the moonshot goal here, you know, the get to Mars is that there could be some therapy here that in, I don't know, 10 or 20 years that you take in from a whole body point of view, is sort of rejuvenating tissue, not just one type of tissue, like your immune system, but eventually your whole body, maybe even your brain so that, you know, we don't have that issue where people who are older have trouble learning or they're more ossified in their thinking. To me, this is just, I always think about, you know, it's actually a little inspired by Elon, right? It's like, what are some of the biggest things in the world, like that are probably high technology risk, but if they did work, maybe they're kind of low chance of working, but if they did work, would have enormous impact. I like the idea of trying hard tech problems, especially for people like founders like me, who've made some money in software, which I think we're in kind of like a golden age of software. So there's like fortunes to be made. But if you, if you do make some money in that, my hope is people will like do atoms, not bits, you know, and try some of the harder things like in biotech or, you know, I guess he's doing cars and rockets and stuff. But anyway, I think we should try hard, hard tech or, you know, physical science problems as well and see if that can advance for team human. Yeah. So he's also doing bio with Neuralink. Yeah. And I feel like bio is tough. Yeah. Because it's messy. We don't understand it as well. We don't understand it. The risk is higher in terms of, not the risk is higher, but like you have to deal with the actual sort of, to get to human, to get to stuff where it could be therapies for actual human bodies is tricky because you have to prove that it's safe, it's effective, all those kinds of things with FDA. I mean, it's just, it's tricky. It's very difficult. It's a long journey. I mean, if I can give a quick plug. So I'm on the board at New Limit. We're hiring talented scientists that are interested in the cell reprogramming space. They don't necessarily have to be coming from like an aging background or anything like that. There's sort of a small group of people doing even something. So this is a new thing? This is a, is New Limit relatively new? Yeah, it's very new. There's a, there's a small team today, just a handful of people. And so we're, we're hiring more there. If people are excited about that space, reach out and same thing for Research Hub. There's a small team there that's really awesome. That's doing more like software engineering, design, product, that kind of stuff. What advice would you give if you put on your old wise sage hat? What advice would you give to young people today? High school, maybe undergrad and college, about life. So like career, having a career they can be proud of, or maybe a life they can be proud of. So people can do whatever they want to be happy, right? So there's not one way to do it. I do think that some people, a particular type of people out there, a lot of people actually, they want to have an impact on the world. That's how they get a sense of fulfillment, right? So, I mean, you need to have like health, physical health, you need to have good relationships, like there's lots of things, but most people want to do something important. They want to have fulfilling work, a way that they can feel like they're contributing. I think a lot of people, young people today are thinking like, you know, I should be an activist or something like that. And there's people in the world who have power. And I, and I don't, a lot of people who don't, I don't have power. And so the way to change the world is to, you know, speak truth to power or like criticize power and try to pressure them to change. To me, I don't think that's the right way to actually have an impact on the world because, you know, everybody has probably, I think people have more power than they, than they realize. And by the way, it's easy to be a critic. It's hard to actually change these things and fix it. And so you'll get a lot of accolades from friends and things like that. If you kind of go around criticizing, you know, it's easy to do. Like everything is broken and could be better. Including, you know, stuff I'm working on. I find like, it's so frustrating. The million things I want to be better about, like what we're doing at Coinbase. So be, be the person in the arena, you know, like that Theodore Roosevelt quote, I think he said it right. Like go chew glass and stare into the abyss. Like if you really want to have an impact, either join a company that has a mission that is trying to fix the thing you're passionate about, or start, start that company if it doesn't exist or start a charity if it's not suitable to be a company or whatever it is, but go try to be a part of the solution. Don't just, you know, criticize or be a part of the problem. My hope is that more people can, you know, realize that they actually can have a meaningful impact that way. And I think that to me, technology is actually one of the most important ways to improve the world. Like if you look at climate change, like a lot of the best ideas like carbon sequestration, all these things, it's a technology thing, right? If you want to try to fix education, it's like, look at like Khan Academy and all the stuff going online, right? If you want to, if you want to fix, you know, whatever transportation and like the financial system and global freedom and like equality of all these things, like there's typically the way to get something changed in the world today is with technology. And so I do think people, it's very bizarre to me that there's this kind of like anti-tech thing going on. Look, nothing is perfect. Like if you create something new and like tens of millions of people use it, or billions of people use it, it's like, there's going to be some bad people who use it too. Okay. And there's, you know, society is complicated, but like, I think most of these things have been net positive because most people in the world are good is at least my view. So yes, we can mitigate like the 1% of bad people trying to, you know, abuse something, but 99% of people in the world are good. And the way you can improve the world is with technology, joining companies, starting companies that are working on the right stuff. So I hope more young people do that. And just, if you're not sure what to do, like just get started with anything. That's how you learn. And basically have the optimism that you have the power to do the change. So it's easy to distract yourself by being the critic. That's almost like acknowledging to yourself that that's all you can be. But basically everybody has the power to be the fixer. I like chew glass and look into the abyss. That's much more fun than it sounds. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? Why are we here? Life. Yep. What's the meaning of life? What's this existence we got? You're trying to increase the amount of economic freedom on this planet earth, trying to alleviate some of the suffering. Yeah. But why? I don't really think there is any point to life. You know, somebody once told me, you know, if you go into these like kind of really big existential questions, it can get a little scary. Because like you stare off the cliff and there's like, there's nothing there, you know. Yeah. This one person told me one time they were like, you know, Brian, you should probably snorkel, don't scuba. I guess, and I think they were trying to say like, some of my friends have done this, right? They'll go to like, you know, epic meditation retreats and they'll kind of come back with all this existential dread of like, what's the meaning of it all? And then like, as far as I can tell, we are just some organic molecules in the ocean started like dividing and replicating and the selfish gene and all this stuff like basically ended up here. And our only, it's some kind of like really naive algorithm that's just kind of trying to get us to survive and replicate. And we have DNA just like every other animal. And so we happen to develop these like really cool neocortexes. And so now we're sort of self-aware and we have all these big questions. And maybe we'll create another, you know, as computers get better, we'll create the simulation inside our thing. And I think it's cool. Like we should basically, I just want to keep watching the movie, you know, unfold. That's part of why I want to work on like New Limit is really cool because it's helped if people can live longer, whether that's uploading their brain to the cloud or, you know, basically through we get biology to work or the strong AI to work or whatever, one of those two hopefully works out. And then we get to, we get to keep watching the movie and see how it all unfolds. I think that's fun. And so I don't know if that's like an answer, but I guess I don't think there's any real purpose. So just try to have fun. Well, the cool thing is that we get to write the movie as we watch it. Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, that's like the Steve Jobs quote and all that, where he's like everything around you was invented by some somebody who just was like that. This is a crazy idea they thought up. So once you realize you can kind of do anything you want, then that's what you start to go. You start to go try crazier stuff. I mean, this is another one of those areas where not to get too out there, but like, you know, when you're when I was, I think you can build your comfort zone around like people being upset with you. You can also build your, your range of what you think is possible, right? Like when I was a when I was in my 20s, I was like reading all these books about like self-improvement and goal, right? How to write down your goals and stuff. And my goals were like, someday I want to make a hundred thousand dollars a year or something like, and that was, and you know, and it seemed like a little outlandish or what I wrote down these goals. Like I want to own rental property or something anyway. And I, and then I slowly started to get, get some of these things done over a couple of years. And so I started to think a little bigger. I remember one time I wrote down this goal where I was like, what's the craziest thing I could think of. And I was like, what if I want to write, I want to start a billion dollar tech company. That's crazy. And I had, I had never started like a million dollars tech company or any, any tech company really. So what business did I have writing that goal down? I remember I wrote that on a piece of paper, like, like probably every day for a year or something almost, right? I don't know if it was every day, but like I wrote it down a lot. And, and so little things started to happen. I was like, all right, well, maybe I should move back to the Bay area from Buenos Aires. Maybe I should try to apply to Y Combinator or whatever. Like, and I started thinking about these ideas and so whatever gets you fired up, it doesn't have to be like some company goal or startup thing. It's could be anything, right? Maybe you want to publish a book or like do something creatively or whatever. Anyway, you, you know, I think like within seven years, no, it's probably more like 10 years of me writing that goal down. Coinbase had a valuation over a billion dollars. So it, it was out of my realm of what was even possible. And then within 10 years, you can, you can accomplish more in 10 years than you think less than in a year than you think. So now I started, now I'm like, okay, what's the next goal? What's the crazy? Okay. Maybe I want to get a billion people accessing the open financial system through our products every day. You know, that would be cool for, for humanity. And that's a pretty crazy goal. Like it's only 8 billion people or something. Right. So the one out of eight, or maybe I can radically, like if I make some like the right investments or whatever, I can like help radically extend human health, human health span or whatever. Right. So try crazier stuff. I don't know, even if it doesn't work, like hopefully you'll, you'll advance the system. Like advance the state of affairs, like something interesting will happen. And so most people today, they look at, they look at people trying this stuff and they're like, oh my God, they're so, they're a genius. So there's whatever. And it's like, or they're an idiot. Like one of the two, neither, neither one are true. It's just like anybody can start by thinking about what they want and then like go for it. And then once you get that, like go for something a little bigger and like, you just have fun with it. And the universe is a way of smiling and helping you out if you just write it down and you dream big. There's something about just karma, about the energy you put into this world. Other people will help you out, doors will open. You'll notice that the door is open and you'll, you could actually have a shot at making it happen. It's a funny world. Yeah. I mean, I don't, I don't, I don't really subscribe to all like the woo woo interpretations of this, but my, my very rational brain interpretation of it is that if you just wake up every day and write down like what you want to get done and towards your longer goals, your larger goals, it's just, it's just on your mind that day. So you start to notice opportunities and you think about it more. So, so Brian, thank you for dreaming big. Thank you for doing what you're doing, doing incredible engineering at scale, trying to help out people from all over the world and actually helping me personally get more into crypto just because it's so easy. So thank you so much. And thank you so much for giving your extremely valuable time today to this awesome conversation. Thanks for your awesome podcast. I love it. I listen to it often. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Brian Armstrong. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Benjamin Franklin, an investment in knowledge pays the best interest. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/VBPTFlpv31k

tOTenjh_8hw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Bobby Lee: Comedy, Skyrim, Sex Robots, Love, Fame, and Power | Lex Fridman Podcast #287

If you and I were able to go into Skyrim, right, and walk around and live together, would we make love? No, no, no, man, don't go there. Okay. No, no, no, no, because we like girls, man. The following is a conversation with Bobby Lee, a standup comedian and podcaster and one of the funniest humans on the planet. And just someone who brings joy to my heart with a mix of non-sequitur absurdity, darkness, and the singing voice of an angel. In all seriousness, Bobby is just a beautiful human being. I've been a fan of his for 20 years, since his time on MADtv to today with his podcast, Tiger Belly, that he does with his other half, the love of his life, Kalilah, and the podcast, Bad Friends, that he does with Andrew Centino. This is a Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Bobby Lee. I've been a fan of yours for many, many years. I think you're one of the funniest people in the world. I've been a fan since MADtv days 20 years ago to today with Tiger Belly. So given that, given your status as a world-class comedian, how did it feel that you were not invited to Andrew Schultz's wedding and I was? Well, you were there? Yeah, I was there. I was the least funny person there. And the whole time I was thinking, isn't that funny that Bobby Lee's not here? Yeah. All my life, I always felt like people didn't like me and they didn't wanna invite me to things. You know what I mean? I think that's fundamentally the reason why I do what I do. So it really did hurt a lot. And I had resentments. I did some revenge fantasies about how I'm gonna get revenge on him and stuff. Yeah, on him specifically? On him specifically. Like have a big wedding, invite everyone, you know what I mean, accept him, stuff like that. And then just write him a letter like, see, that's how it feels or whatever. But instead of that, cause I've been therapy and stuff, I'm just kind of like trying to let it go. What'd you do there? This right here, why'd you do that? I forgot to start the timer. And now it starts. You wanna start over? Yeah, let's do this. Let's do it again. Take two. No, you still feel like an outsider? Your exception is successful, man. You still feel? Yeah. You know, I'm doing a Netflix show tonight with Andrew Santino at the Comedy Store and this and that, but like last night, you know, I just felt like I wasn't a part of, in fact, on stage I go, I even mentioned that I go, Netflix, they don't like me, you know what I mean? And I just say things like that, they're not true. And this is something that I wanna correct with myself because I have this internal dialogue that's based on just the past. And 99% of the things that go on in my mind aren't true. And I'm just at a point in my life where I'm just don't wanna start, I don't wanna live like that anymore. Really, because I'm the same way. I'm deeply self-critical all the time. Yeah. And that's kind of an engine that drives you to do stuff. Yeah, but it doesn't give you the kind of freedom that I would like. Don't you wanna be truly free? Free from your mind? Free from negative thoughts? No, I'm free part of the day. But some of the day I spend being extremely self-critical and that drives you, because I'm afraid I'll become ultra lazy otherwise. Because I love life, I love being comfortable, I love just relaxing, I need very few things in life. And so I'm afraid I'll just get super lazy. Oh, are you a minimalist? Yeah. So if I went to your house in Austin, do you have a couch? I recently got, this is the first couch I've gotten ever, because the guests were complaining, because I also record the podcast there. The guests are complaining there's nowhere to sit. I have no chairs, no couch, I sleep on the floor, like a mattress is on the floor. Not out of principle, I think, out of some kind of minimalist momentum. Minimalist, so we're the opposite in that way then. Oh, so you like stuff? I'm not a hoarder, but, because I can throw things away, but I have a shopping addiction, I think. Like when I'm on the road, like I was in Oklahoma for two weeks, I just, I bought a bunch of stuff, you know what I mean? And then, oh my God, I went to Todd Snyder and I bought, I bought these shoes. Because, you know, I- But you're wearing them, so they're actually, you're using them, and they're giving value to your life. That's awesome. Yeah, but this is the last time I'm gonna wear these. This is the one time? Yes. This is like a wedding, but it's a red carpet dress. Who's the designer, do you know? I don't know anything about- What are you wearing, Bobby? I don't know what I'm wearing, but because I'm on a native show called Reservation Dogs, right? I just wanna get into the spirit of things. That's your- Yeah, this is, because if I was ever like native and I was in a tribe back in the day, you know what I mean? I would have been a gatherer. Yeah, I'm not a hunter. No, I'm gonna weave baskets with the ladies. I wanna pick berries with the ladies. You wouldn't be the chieftain. No, no, no, and I would make, after the hunt, I would probably make some, so some of the guys make love to me. Oh. Yeah, because I'm gay, not just because, you know, I'm eating away. Yeah, yeah, I want them to like me. There's a power hierarchy. You gotta know your place in the hierarchy. Yeah, you're alpha male then. I don't even know what that means. Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan is the definition of alpha male? To me, yeah. If there was a picture of alpha male in the dictionary, it would be Joe Rogan. It would be Joe Rogan? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So you hoard stuff, okay. Yeah, yeah. But you can throw on, what was the last thing? Let me call you out on that. When's the last time you threw away something that's actually valuable? Valuable. Like something valuable to you or valuable in general? Most things that I buy aren't valuable to me. There are things that are valuable to me that are like keepsakes for my family and stuff that I will keep forever. So like in terms of like an old photo of my father or whatnot, so those kind of things I keep. But when it comes to like, you know, Aviator Nation sweats, like if somebody came over to my house and goes, hey, can I have six of those sweatshirts or whatever? I'd be like, yeah, go take it. My brother's come over to my house and he's done a clearance, you know what I mean? Like I'm gonna take this, this, this. I generally don't have a problem with it. So the self-critical voice is serving no purpose in terms of, because you're pretty, you know, I'm a fan of yours, so you're known to be a little bit lazy sometimes. 100% lazy. Yeah. So the self-critical voice, don't you think it's serving a purpose in fighting off the laziness, beating off the laziness? The self-critical voice that I have, I've been able to compartment, how do you say it? Compartment, yeah, however you say it. Yeah. You're free. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Put it in a compartment, right? And I'm able to like, I'm a good avoider. I'm good at avoidance. So for instance, right now to avoid, I've been playing Stardew Valley. You know what that is? No, it's a phone game or? No, it's a, you can play it on your Switch, but it's on the Xbox, and it's a farming simulation game. And so I like to farm, you know what I mean? And so in playing video games and doing stuff like that distracts me from, you know what really is going on. Okay, you've mentioned elsewhere in terms of video games, Elder Scrolls. Yeah, did you play that? Yeah, of course, it's probably my favorite game. If I could live in a world, you played Morrowind and Skyrim. And I played Oblivion. Oblivion. I played a little bit of Morrowind, but I didn't like the graphics back then, but I really played the, can I swear on this podcast? Yeah. I played the fuck out of Oblivion and Skyrim. Like eight characters, played it all the way through. I have to do all the quests, that type of thing. What's your favorite thing about those games? Why did you spend so much time in that world? Because I like games that you can grind. What do you mean by grind? So like Stardew Valley, for instance, right? There's a lot of- Back to the farming. Back to farming, right? It's the same thing as Skyrim, the reason why I like it. Is that there's a lot of like, I have to collect a lot of these things. You know what I mean? I have to just constantly pick things up. You know what I mean? Like for instance, in Skyrim, there's a mushroom called blisterwort mushroom that you can pick and then you can make it into some sort of formula, right? Potion, right? Yeah, the potion, yep. So I would spend like literally human 12 hour days just going to every cave and picking up as much blisterwort as I could. Like that kind of grinding. You know what I mean? Yeah. So you're actually the randomly generated quests that those games do, that's designed for people like you? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You don't get bored, that's the fun. Yes, that's the fun for me. Okay. Yeah, there's always something to do. And I find, like when you play a game that's linear, like there's certain games where you have to go this way. Right? I don't like games like that. I like open world games where I can make choices and I can grind if I want. Yeah, yeah. Would you stay in that world if you could live in that world in the Elder Scrolls world? That's how I feel. In reality or become like an animated thing in there? Oh no, say like virtual reality. We're moving towards that direction. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. If you look at Skyrim, you mentioned graphics is become, it's starting to get realistic. Yeah. Like I'll sometimes just walk around. I mean, it's been a while, but I'll just walk around in Skyrim. Yeah. You can, there's code you can turn off enemies and you just walk around. Really? You can just listen to music and just walk around. That's what you did? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I would do that. Wouldn't you do that? Would you do it with me? Yeah, sure. We would have a house together? Oh, I mean live. I thought walk around. No, no, no. If you and I were able to go into Skyrim, right? And walk around and live together. Would we make love? No, no, no, no, man. Don't go there. Okay. No, no, no, no, no. We're black girls, man. Yeah, that's right. But it's not gay. You told me it's not gay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, so you and I would. I would hunt, you would gather. But in that world. Oh, there's no hunting. Yeah, but there is hunting. I would, because we don't have to find a bandit. We have to fight. I'm not gonna gather a bandit. I'm gonna hunt them. But I thought you said it's all but the potion. You don't need the bandits. Okay, well, we could do this. You could be the guy that like defends our place, right? I'll gather all the blister wart, all the white caps, all the mushrooms. I'll get all the food. You know what I mean? I'll go to Whiterun. Remember Whiterun? Right, or Winterhold. And I'll do all the like crests that have nothing to do with, you know what I mean? So no dragons though? No dragons, but we would have a banquet. We'd invite the Dark Brotherhood. Yeah. Right, the Fighter's Guild, we'd definitely invite them. Mage's Guild, we'd invite them. Are you a thief kind of guy? I'm a thief guy. Yeah, I'm a thief guy for life. Yeah, I'm a thief guy for life. And you still wouldn't invite Andrew Schultz to that? No, no, no, no. But what a piece of shit though, huh? Because let me just say something, okay? I just wanna get back to that, okay? Okay, sure. So I met him at the Montreal Comedy Festival, and him and I are kindred souls. We really connected. Yeah. And he did my podcast. He's done it several times. Done his. We've like communicated on the phone, this and that. And to me, and then he invites Whitney Cummings, which Whitney is a good friend of mine, but what I'm saying is that I know Andrew as well as Whitney knows him. I don't think that Whitney knows him more than I do, right? What if it was a competition, like it was a tie, like NBA, like a Bobby Lee versus Whitney? Yeah. In what way do you think she's better, and what way do you think you're better? I think it's all about gender optics. Okay. Right, so she's a comedian. She has all these alpha males coming, and he's like, all right, I have one more seat left. Whitney or Bobby, but Bobby is, although I don't think there was a lot of Koreans there, so he could have used that card. This is true. Right, but I think he went for, you know, Whitney's a woman, it's better for optics. Okay, so she was a diversity hire for the wedding. Yeah. I see. It was pretty fun. I have to say, I don't, it was Joe Rogan. Yeah, I know. His wife. I get it. And then Whitney. Are those the only comedians that were there? I spent the whole time talking to Joe, so I think, no, I don't think there was that many comedians. Some I'm kind of joking about. It was a pretty, pretty small wedding. Yeah. What do you talk to Joe about? First of all, we're both grapplers, so we talk a lot about jiu-jitsu. We talk a lot about- I'm a grappler. Are you? I was on the wrestling team in high school. Yeah, I know. I know this. Is that a grappler, that to you, that if I don't know jiu-jitsu, is there only one kind of grappling that you like? Yeah, there's levels to this game, I think. Ugh, I just talked out. No, no, no, there's nothing more. That's a surprising fact that you've dropped that. It almost feels like a lie, because you've said that before that you were a wrestler in high school. It doesn't make sense. Well, it's funny that you say that, because, and I'm gonna cause a little controversy here. But Joe Rogan, one time, came to me, when he lived in LA, this is years ago, and he said, you're a liar. You've never grappled. And I go, yes, I did. You're a fucking liar. No, you didn't. And at that time, I didn't have any photos to prove it. But if you look at my Instagram, I have photos. That I was a grappler. Of you as a young man dressed in a singlet, or what? On the wrestling team. On the wrestling team. If you go to the fucking, sorry. If you go to my, I'm sorry. If you go to my fucking high school, you're right, I was on the wrestling team for three years. I'm not gonna go to your high school, so is there actual photo evidence of you? Yeah, I wanna, you know what? You're being like Rogan right now, and it really is. How do we know it's not Photoshopped? Oh, well, you be the judge then, dude. Okay, so this is my brother and me in high school on the wrestling team. Which, oh, it's you are, yeah. I'm the bottom. That's my brother to the left. I mean, yeah, to your right. Oh, handsome. Yeah, I'm not. Bicep. Yeah. How much do you weigh? Wow. At the time I weighed, I was on the 105 weight category. Yeah. But, so I was also on the tennis team. What people don't realize is that I'm very athletic. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I resent the fact that people think that I'm not, because I'm doughy. You're an athlete, so, which is very surprising to me. Why? That, so I was invited to the wedding. Yeah, yeah. I've also been on Joe Rogan's podcast. He's a big fan of yours. I know, I love Joe. No, Joe, when Joe's, and I see to the Wee Hawkins stuff, we talk, I love him. I just talked to him today, said I'm talking to you. This is hilarious, so why, oh, you hug him, and you just never, it just hasn't worked out. Like, I don't wanna go like, hey, because I don't want the rejection. So, it's like, if I go, hey, can I do it? And he goes, I don't know, man, I'm busy, man. I got a lot, I mean, maybe later. I don't want that. So, if he said, hey, are you available Thursday, this day, fly out, do my podcast, I would 100% do it. And that hasn't happened yet. So interesting. Why? Why is it interesting? I don't know, because you're, like I said, you're one of the funniest people in the world. That'd be a great conversation. It's just funny it hasn't happened yet. Well, it's like this conversation. It's like, I just learned how to tell time. Yeah. Not like, I know how to write digital. You showed up on time today. No, digital. I know how to write digital, obviously, but in terms of the hand clock, I just learned that six months ago. How to operate a hand clock? To read a hand clock. Hand clock, okay. Not that I, obviously, I'll be able to absorb the information. I'm one of those guys that just refuse to learn things if I just. What did you think it was before? I would look at it, and I would try to sometimes, like if I was at a train station, and I would look at those old clocks, I would look at it and try to guess, and I'd kind of go, I think this is the way, you know what I mean? But not fully, you know what I mean, really grasp. So the way ancient people looked up at the sun to try to tell time, you looked at a clock to try to tell time. Right, like for instance, we don't look at the sun, right? So to me, it was an obsolete information to me because I'm digital. You already had digital. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And so that's somehow comparable to you going on the Joe Rogan. And you, because it's like, I don't know much about. Podcasting? No, podcasting I can, but in terms of the singularity and all that stuff, I know what it is, you know what I mean, when machines have consciousness. When is that gonna happen? Soon. Are you afraid of robots? See, if you were in Austin, I would show you some robots. Oh, I'd love to. Are you afraid of robots? No, I love it. You love robots. Oh, yeah, yeah. In fact, I have this, I think to me, unless they become hostile and it becomes like the Terminator which I think could happen, right? There'd be a Skynet, we'd have to bring it down, whatever. There's definitely going to be autonomous weapon systems. So a lot of the robotics research is being conducted, funded by the military. Wow. You know, the military industrial complex? I know what that is, yes. Yeah, so a lot of the cutting edge research is done, is funded by DOD, Department of Defense, DARPA, and so on. So a lot of the robots will be used in war. But hopefully not, most of consumer robotics will be in the home. I'm just trying to terrify you. No, no, no, but can I ask you this though? Sure. What you're saying to me is that, as a layperson, is that in my lifetime, machines will have consciousness. Oh, that I don't know. Computers. I'm one of the people, well, depending, you live dangerously, so I don't know how long you're gonna live. So let's put, but I believe that consciousness, yes, could be engineered in a machine. Or at least we can have machines that are human-like. And we believe they have consciousness. Can I ask you one last question about it? Yes. But just one more. Will they have the smoothness of skin, and will they look realistic? See, I'm one of those people that believes that visual appearance isn't the magic. So if you're blind, you can still have a connection with a person. People can fall in love with each other through just letters. So yeah, I know you're mocking me with your entire energy. But yes, I believe that part too. You're talking about sexbots is what you're probably getting. Okay, intimacy. Why would you? Just friends. Friends, but you wanna feel the smoothness of their skin. Yeah, like a guy. Just go, what's up, dude? And just rub his face. Yeah, just hug and kiss, and I come both cheeks kind of thing. I get what you're saying, though, right? Obviously, there's no soul, you're right. And I'm just curious to see. You're right, I was going with sexbots, but. Yeah, yeah. Have you seen Whitney Cummings' robot? Yeah, I've seen it. Okay, how did that make you feel? She's a beautiful girl. I just don't find her attractive. The robot or Whitney? I find the robot way more attractive. Yeah, if I had the choice, robot. So you were turned on by the robot. See, I was surprised by the very thing you're saying, which is the realism of the skit. Like, it was quite, they did a really good job on that robot. Oh, they did? The life, when it's animated, the life is not quite there. You can tell it's a robot, but just sitting there still, it has a lot of human-like elements. The texture, I don't know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's quite fascinating. So they're getting there. They're getting there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the funny thing about sex robots is most people that get sex robots, they don't get it for the sex. They get it for intimacy. Not sexual intimacy, but just somebody being there. It's the emotional connection, not the sexual. Yeah, I mean, I saw a long time ago a documentary about real dolls and people marrying them. Yeah, and what I was fascinated about is the cuddling, you know what I mean? And then watching TV together and stuff like that, which I find, you know, I've just been able to find human girlfriends and stuff. That's really impressive. That's one of the reasons. Thanks, man. Yeah. Speaking of human girlfriends, I'd love your advice in this direction, but you have an amazing relationship with Kalilah. Yeah. So you two are very different. So you host the Tiger Brother podcast together, but there's real love there. There's a real connection. What do you love most about Kalilah? Let's talk about love, Bobby Lee. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, that's a really pretty deep, I've never really gone down this path. We're gonna walk down that path together holding hands. It's one of those things where the first time I met her, it was almost as if I had known her all my life. It was really weird. You know what I mean? There was a trust there, you know what I mean? That was just fundamentally there that I could trust her and that I could, you know, when I look in the mirror and I see all my character defects and stuff, a lot of those things aren't necessarily things I wanna share with people because I don't wanna be judged or ridiculed. But with her, I felt comfortable showing those things. And I think she feels the same way about her. And then secondly, she's funny. I mean, she made me laugh and she's hot. It's all, you know what I mean? It was like a perfect combination of things. You know what I mean? One night we were in bed and I forgot what the joke was, but she really made me laugh one night. She was living in an apartment in Long Beach and I cackled, you know what I mean? And generally, women don't make, I mean, women I'm dating, comics do, don't make me cackle in that way. And then thirdly, she's partly Asian. So it's like, you know, one time I dated a white girl and I invited her to Koreatown. Are you about to be racist? A little bit. Okay. Yeah, yeah. And what I love about Asian girls is they'll eat something first and ask what it is after, but white girls ask what it is before. What is this, right? But Kalaya would eat the eyeball, eat everything, go, what did I just eat? I like that. You know what I mean? So it's like, and it reminds me of my mom in that way, in terms of my mom growing up just to scare us and freak us out, we'd have a fish and she would eat the eyeball first to see us squirm. And as a kid, that you thought was gross and weird and this and that, but it's like, when Kalaya does it, it just kind of like, I don't know, it just makes me feel at home in a weird way. It's a little act of fearlessness. I like that. Just put in your mouth and figure it out. Yeah, that's what I like. And at the end of the day, she also, out of all my girlfriends, and this is gonna sound not strange, but hard to admit, but my career when I met Kalaya was in the shit box. I could not get anything going. And this is at the time where Ken Jeong, who's a very good friend of mine, very talented, was getting everything. And I just remember going, I can't even get an audition. Like, I can't. I would go on the road, Lex, and I would fill half the room. I just couldn't sell tickets. And when I met her, I was just kind of like, maybe this is, I have to find love and open up my world in that way. And she was the first girlfriend that I ever had that looked at me and saw the potential. And she said, no, this is not, it doesn't feel right. You're so funny and you're so relevant to me. And this is what we're gonna do. And so she started Tiger Belly. And then obviously I had the skillset to do it, but once Tiger Belly happened, and then Andrew was like, let's do Bad Friends. And then now things are great. My career is, I'm too busy almost in a weird way. And I feel like she had a lot to do with, like for instance, before I met her, even if I would have get an audition, I wouldn't go because I just wouldn't get it. In my head, I was like, I'm not gonna get this. I've gone on a thousand of these and they just never hire me. But she was, so I just didn't go on them for years. And then she was the first girlfriend that said, no, I don't care if you don't get it. I just don't want you to be a pussy. And I want you to walk through fear. And so she would drag me to these fucking things. And I, for some reason, would book them. You know what I mean? So, you know, in that way- She saw the potential of what you could be. She loved you for who you are already. Yes. But also loved you for the potential that you could become. Yeah, and I'm lucky in that way. So on day one, you could show her, you said you could show your flaws to her. Like you felt like you could be fragile with her. Well, I accidentally farted. Yeah, on day one? On day one, you know, because I just, I'm a fart machine. And I have loose cheeks. Yeah. I like how you, for the listeners, you just winked at me. Yeah, I have loose cheeks and- But not in a gay way. Not in a gay way, no. And I was, we were on a couch and we're talking and I kind of adjusted my body. I ripped one by accident and she laughed. You know what I mean? It wasn't embarrassing, you know? And also I have a little penis. I have a little penis. It's all relative. Yes, it's very little. But relative to an elephant, everybody's penis is little. Yeah, but I'm not an elephant. I'm a human, you know what I mean? So relatively human, it's very small. And so when she saw it, you know what I mean, I thought she was gonna bark at it, right? And she looked at it as if it was like an orphan. You know, like I wanna, you know, it's a lost child and I wanna, you know, take care of it. Yeah, cradle it. Cradle it, yeah. Well, you, man, you haven't met anybody like that? Never met a girl, never seen one of them. I hear they're nice. When are the two of you getting married? We don't know yet, yeah. Is that something you would like? Yeah. This comes up sometimes. You know, we're in couples counseling. We're working on some issues that we have. Every relationship, even my friendships have issues. And so we're working through some issues and once we get to the end of it, we'll figure it out. Would you like to be a father one day? This is kind of couples counseling. You know, yeah, I do. I do, because I feel like, you know, before I was very childlike, you know, I play a lot of video games, I'm irresponsible, I'm lazy, this and that, right? But, you know, to be honest with you, Lex, in the last six months, I really have come through some breakthroughs and I'm in therapy and I'm doing a lot of things and really self-analyzing myself and my behaviors and what I want, my desires. And I think ultimately, yes, I really do, because it's a life experience that, you know, I don't wanna be an old man looking back and going, it's something that I've always was interested in. And I think it's based on fear because I don't want to scar my child the way my parents scarred me. But at the same time, my parents didn't do the work on themselves like I am. And they were never about self-improvement, they were just about, they were immigrants, you know, and they wanted to put food on the table and after that, they just went about their business. And I'm not like that. I would never be violent toward my kids like my parents were. My dad was very physically abusive, you know, there was a lot of trauma and stuff. And so, you know, as a kid, I thought, you know, I just would never put my kid through this. So that's why I never wanted it, but I would completely do it differently, you know. Even yelling and those kind of things, I would be very mindful about those things. And I think that I have certain things, you know, I'm not a science-y guy like you, but there are life things that I've learned over the years that I could teach a child, you know, about living in the moment or walking through fear or, you know, things will pass and just different things, you know, that I would be a good listener. And yeah, I would like to do that. So your dad died in August of 2019. Wow. Yeah. He did your research. Yeah, it's on your Wikipedia. Yeah. So you said some of it was rough, but what's your fondest memory of your dad? Well, those memories happened later in life. As a child, my fondest memory was my mom, because he never spent time with us. So my mom made him take me out one day and he took me to a park. Like he doesn't, there was no baseball glove or baseball or anything like that. And we sat on a park bench, right? And we just sat there for hours. We didn't talk, because he didn't know English that well, I didn't know Korean. So it's just very, you know, basic, you know, information being, you know what I mean? How are you? This is how we would, how are you doing? I'm okay, you know? Good, good, good. That type of thing. Yeah, for a long time. For a long time. And then, but the day turned bad because I forgot my jacket there, and he yelled at me in the car. There's a bit of peace together. At that time, yeah, there was peace. But then what happened was, later in life, when I got Matt TV, and I was doing, you know, in my early years, you know, I'd booked a couple of things. Like in 2000, I did The Tonight Show on Leno, and then I did, I got Matt TV in 2000. And wow, that was over 20 years ago. And that's when they, my parents kind of went, huh, you know? Because obviously, you know, there's some nepotism in Hollywood, right? But in my case, my parents were straight up immigrants. I had no connections to Hollywood. And I came up here poor, you know, with no connections, and I built it, you know what I mean? Through the years, you know? And in that way, I'm very proud of myself, because I went through a lot of fucking hell, and sadness, and desperation, and all that stuff. And I persevered, and I did all that shit on my own, man. I booked The Tonight Show on my own. I got Matt TV on my own. And when I did those things, my parents were very proud. But before that, did they doubt you? Oh, yeah. You're not funny. You never make me laugh, right? And that kind of stuff. You never gonna make it. You know what I mean? You're gonna be poor all your life, you know, and that kind of stuff. But Matt TV, he was proud? Your dad, your parents? Because it was a weekly show, so on Saturday nights, they would watch it. They would? Yeah, and I would play characters that they would understand. Like I did Kim Jong-il at the time, right? So they loved that, right? They loved the things that I would do, the physical comedy. And they couldn't believe in their mind. Imagine your parents from Korea coming here, not knowing the language, having a child here, right? And in their minds, that was never an option, right? And so when they see their kid, I guess, on TV, especially there was no internet too at the time. The internet had just started. So to them, they were like, this is a miracle. In fact, when I did the Tonight Show, my dad called me the next day and asked me, how much, he literally asked me this. He goes, how much did you pay them to do it? He thought that I had saved all my money. He thought that like Tom Cruise goes up there and goes, here's a grand, thanks for having me on. Like, you know what I mean? No, I go, no, they asked me. Like so all the, conceptually, they were just shocked by it. So when I got it and then they were watching me weekly, MADtv, the producer was like, hey, have your dad on. So my dad did two or three sketches on television. So those memories, I also did a pilot for Comedy Central and he was on my pilot. A pilot for like a show? Yeah, a show. I didn't get picked up, but he was on the pilot. He was in the show? Yeah, he was in the pilot. He was on MADtv too, on television. Interesting, okay. Oh wow, okay. Yeah, yeah, so it's like he would get residual checks. Yeah. You know what I mean? Those change everything. There's nepotism in reverse. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was really nepotism in reverse. And so he, those memories are very, I have very fond memories, because he had changed as well. He was no longer that violent kind of a guy. He had softened a lot, you know what I mean? But when he died is when those issues came up, like a freight train. The bad stuff. Oh yeah, and I didn't know what was going on. It was really hard. You miss him? Yeah. How often do you think about him? Every day. Obviously a lot of it's regrets, you know what I mean? Like what kind of regrets? Not having said something or not having had a conversation? It's not regrets, because even if he was still alive, there are just things that are impossibilities because of his culture and the way he was raised. But my regret in life will always be having those types of, even, because I tried, I was with my mom a couple of months ago, and I looked at her, and I had tears in my eyes, we were at a Starbucks. I go, mom, I just wanna let you know that I'm so sorry that you lived in that house, and dad hit you, and you survived, and you stayed in the marriage because of us, right? And you know what her response was? Let's go to Poco de Pepe. She wanted Italian food. It's like there was nothing there, right? And so my regret is that they just will never be able to even grasp the concept of that kind of communication, you know what I mean? And I'll never have it. So that's sad to me, but there's nothing I can do about it. Yeah, that callous that comes with the immigrant mentality, you don't even, that emotional connection's not even there. I've had my grandmother, there's something called Holodomor, which is starvation in Ukraine in the 1930s that you had to live through. She lived through World War II, and there's nothing, like the only way you survive that is the callous. Yeah. You can't talk about it. People that fought in major wars, they can't. They can't, yeah. You can't talk about it. My mom, when she was 12 years old, she walked her little sister, my aunt, to school, right? She forgot a book, so my mom goes to my little sister, my aunt, stay here, I'm gonna go get my book. She ran up, she came back. While she was gone, a military truck ran over my aunt, and my mom discovered her body split in half, in trails, the whole thing, and my mom and my uncles had to go and get rice bags to pick up her, you know what I mean, and then bury my aunt. When you live through something like that, and also the guilt, because my mom believes deep down that if she didn't forget that book, that my aunt would still be alive, right? So she carries all this guilt and this, and to survive all that trauma, you have to build a callous. Back then, they didn't have EMDR and therapists and psychologists and any of that, right? So they had to survive, so that's who she is, and it's sad to me that, you know what I mean, that she'll forever live in that torment. Okay? Oh, boy, what about your own, what's been the darkest place you ever gone, in your mind? My god, did you wrote that down? In my mind? In your mind. Did you ever consider suicide? I didn't write that down. Have you considered it? In the distance. Yeah. I've distantly thought about it, I mean at some point if I won seven years later, thought about it. About four months ago, I was in a really bad place. I was naked in a hotel room in Arizona. I hadn't eaten in almost a week. I hadn't slept in over a week. I thought I was dying. I was coughing up blood. I was waiting to go into an outpatient psychologist place in Arizona. I literally thought I was dying. Recently, I was in a very dark place. How much was that connected to losing your father? How much was that connected to rehab and that kind of stuff? Alcohol, drugs? It's all the same thing, dude. It's all the same thing, man. It's all from my childhood. The reason why I do stand-up is because of my childhood. The hating yourself or being self-critical, that has to do with your childhood? Yes. So the drugs and drinking is childhood? It's childhood. It's all about survival and protecting your heart. There are ways that I did that as a kid, like using humor as a defense mechanism and also avoidance of all emotions, mainly because I just wanted to feel. The reason why I was able to survive in comedy is because I can withstand a lot of bullshit and pain. You know what I mean? Like physical, emotional, spiritual pain, I can absorb it, right? But now what's happened later in life is I'm unwilling to do that. I'm unwilling to absorb it. I'm unwilling to carry this weight around with me, and it'll kill me. So I am doing everything I can to free myself of all this baggage. Okay. So how you're naked in Arizona in a hotel room, face down or face up or on the side? What's your favorite when you go to a dark place? No, no. On the floor, on the bed or bathtub? So what happens is, shower, a fetal position. I don't lay on my stomach. That's weird. I'm not doing a downward dog yoga position or anything like that. No, I'm like… On the bed, on the floor? No, what happened was, so I had a relapse, so I was drinking all night long. What was the first relapse? What is the first thing you did? Just drank, what, wine? No, I took an edible. Yeah. And that opened the door to drinking. Yeah. And the combination is not good for me. The excess of the amount is not good for me. I just can't stop, and I do it 24 hours a day. Were you alone? Well, no. I was living with Kalilah. No, I mean, at that moment when you did the edibles. I was alone. No, I took a flight because I was shooting Magnum. I'm on a show called Magnum PI. So, I was flying to Hawaii, so I bought edibles, and then right before I was going to get on the plane, I looked at my girlfriend and said, I'm going to relapse. Oh, so you knew. I knew. So, I got on the plane, I took it, and then literally the next three months were like a blur. Why'd you know? What gave you the sense that you're going to relapse? Well, there was a couple of things that happened in my life that were very shocking to me. And I wasn't going to meetings. It's the same old story. I was not connected to my sobriety brothers and sisters, and I was drifting away. And something in your mind, it was just too much. I just, the pain was too much. So, I did it. And then, so what happened was, now two and a half months in, three months in, I started coughing up chunks of blood, right? Because I've been a smoker since I was 17 years old, right? And I was smoking so much weed and cigarettes that I would just cough up blood. But then simultaneously what happened was Bob Sackett and Louie Anderson died, right? And that week when I was coughing up blood, and because of, because I knew them, both of them, I, just in my head going, I'm next. Because to me, everything happens in threes. You know what I mean? You know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah. And I'm like, and I had convinced myself that I was going to die, and I was on the precipice of death. And so, I begged my people to put me into this place in Arizona. So, because I knew I needed to go to a really rigorous psychology program to get me out of where I was going through. And also, I was getting, at that time when I was in that hotel room, I had not drank or even smoked a cigarette or done drug in a week. I had to wait in LA for this bed to open up, right? So, I was coughing up blood. I hadn't slept. I hadn't eaten, right? I was sober, but I was in so much pain. And I slept naked by the door of this hotel room because I thought it would be easier for the maid to discover my body. I mean, that's how fucked up I was. I was just in this prison in my mind, you know? And I'm much better now. Yeah. Can you give some insights to how to get out of that place, how you got out of that place? I think getting sober, first of all, was very important, but that still didn't do it completely, you know what I mean? I still was convinced that I was. And then, I went to this place, and I did, you know, this place is a 12 hours a day psychotherapy place where you do 12 hours. You see therapists all day long. So, it's like a 12 hour long podcast every day? Yeah, yeah. But with professionals, and they call you on your shit, and they tell you what's real, and they tell you, you know what I mean? Also, dealing with still my dad, still some of these other things, you know what I mean? And the third thing that happened was when I got back to LA after that place, I got my lungs checked out, and I got my physical done, and you know, EKG, my heart, all of it, and I was completely fine. And I quit smoking. I haven't smoked in almost four months. Haven't drank and done drugs since then, too. So, you know, there's definitely a complete clarity. And I have to also admit that this time around, it's just been completely different. Is there still in the distance a fear of relapse and all that kind of stuff? Is that still? No. So, you feel good? I feel great, yeah. I feel better than I've ever felt. Even when hard shit happens? Yeah, because it's like, I no longer want to be in that place. And also, on top of it, it's like, it would be a real shame because I've worked so hard to get to this place in my life, not just in my career, with all of it, you know what I mean? I have so much to lose. I have so many people that love me. I just don't want to be there again, you know? Let me ask you, sorry, you've talked about this before, but it's interesting. Let me ask you a question. You always wear a suit only for the podcast? Yeah, I wear it in private, too. Oh, you do? Not always, no, because I get recognized, unfortunately, so I have to be selective about how I wear. Do you like it when being recognized, or no? So, because of podcasting, as you probably know, the people that at least recognize me are, happen to be amazing people. So, like, it's an immediate connection. So, there's two things about that I don't like. So, one, I fall in love with people, and so the nature of interaction is, like, well, it's going to be short. So, like, you have to say goodbye, and I hate goodbyes. You do. Yeah. And then the other thing is just introversion. Like, I'm an introvert, I have social anxiety, I'm nervous about talking to people, and so on. So, you have to always, I'm walking around always a little bit anxious that there'll be an interaction. But ultimately, once it starts, it's fun, it's beautiful, and then the goodbye is what hurts. So, both the hello and the goodbye is what hurts. It's the stuff in the middle that's delicious. I think there's a beautiful thing, though, for people like you and I, in a weird way, you know, because, number one, I don't know about you, but I'm an isolator. I don't really like, you know, any kind of social thing, you know. Even when I was doing drugs and drinking, I never do it with people. I do it privately in a garage, you know. And secondly, you know, like, my girlfriend and I watched The Northman, the movie The Northman. No. What is it? Tell me the plot line. You've never even heard of The Northman? I have not heard of The Northman. It's Edgar's. He did a movie called The Witch. He also did a movie called The Lighthouse. You ever see The Lighthouse? Okay. You watch movies? No. You've never seen a movie? I've seen The Godfather. Yeah. I bet you money you've seen Dr. Zhivago. Yes. Ha ha ha! You have? Yes. Yeah, you like historical sweeping. Yeah, Schindler's List. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If it's not historical or sweeping, you're not gonna like it. All right, so how do I explain? It's basically a Viking movie. And one of the Skarsgård, I don't know, Skarsgård brothers is in it, Bjork's in it, Willem Dafoe, Nicole Kidman, Ethan Hawke. And it's a, you know, it's a Viking revenge movie. So why does it make you think about isolation? No, because, no, what I was gonna say is when we went to the movie theater, right, afterwards, there was a kid sitting next to me. And he just looks at me, because I guess he didn't know I was sitting next to him or whatever. And he just went, you know, hey, dude, I just can't believe you're sitting next to me, you know, and you're my hero. And I'm doing comedy, and it's really hard. So I was able to give him some encouraging things, because that's who I am, too, you know what I mean? I want to help people. And I also, you know, the idea that he likes me, because he also spouted off specifics about my life, about my comedy and this and that. So he definitely was a fan. And I was able to, you know, I'm not, even if I become Joe Rogan famous or that big, you know what I mean? I'm always going to say hi to people, I'm always going to take photos with people. I like that part, you know, of me. It makes me feel also that I belong in a weird way, because I felt so invisible before I did comedy. You know what I mean? I felt invisible. And it puts me in the game of life, I think, in a weird way, you know? So I think it's good for you as well. Yeah, it's a little moment of experiencing love. It does feel like celebrating life together. You smile at each other and so on. Although you did say, I think in a recent podcast that, you know, people recognize you, but recognize you incorrectly. That I don't like. That's the opposite of love. Okay. Yeah, that I don't like, loved you in the hangover. Yeah. You know what I mean? Or this is what I don't like. This is why I hate this. Yes. Some guy will like me, right? I'll take a photo, and then other people will go, huh, he's somebody, and will walk up to me and go, hey, so why did he take a photo? You know what I mean? I want a photo. Yeah. And then you're like, no. Would you do that? No, I don't like that. No. Yeah, yeah. No. But I do like the experience where maybe there's a couple, a guy and a girl, boyfriend and girlfriend, and the guy is a fan, and the girlfriend has no idea. And it's always a funny interaction. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because she's like trying to figure out what is happening here. Yeah. And it's always beautiful to see. But what if the guy, when the guy explains to his girlfriend who you are, do you feel uncomfortable about that? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It loads, the information is transferred quickly, and she starts to understand. Because she's not used to her boyfriend being excited about her, and she's not used to her being a stranger. Yeah. It's like, what's happening here? So it's a fascinating little dynamic that's beautiful. It's like the spread of information happens right there in real life. It's beautiful. It's mostly, though, would you say that it's probably usually men that recognize you? No, but men, the thing I've discovered is men are more likely to approach aggressively, right? Women recognize you, they have a different way of double take. They don't want to invade your space. Guys are like, bro. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They come in with a hug. I had a South by Southwest, had a guy, I was just walking to a 7-Eleven, I go to a 7-Eleven a lot, my favorite spot. 7-Eleven? 7-Eleven, yes. Why? Sugar-free slushie, I think, for happiness. I find happiness at a 7-Eleven. So adorable. Late at night. And he came up and, you know what, can I tell you something that happened to me? I haven't told anybody. This never happened to me before. I was outside of a 7-Eleven in Austin, I'm not going to say which one, and there was a gentleman that approached me, this was at three or four at night, which is usually when I go. I program all night and I just like to go and take a break. He approached me in the way that maybe somebody who recognized me approached me. He did a double take, he walked past me and then walked back and then looked at me and I went into the 7-Eleven and I thought, that's weird. And then I came out with my slushie and then he approached me and he said, can I give you a blow job? So I have never... No, really? Yeah, so the energy he put, I've never had... Were you wearing a suit? No. Okay. I was wearing like sweatpants and I was very kind of like hiding from the world type of thing. I've never had anybody approach me that way, but the energy he put, the love he had in the approach, I thought he would be like... Love you on Rogan? Yeah, love... Something like love, some kind of... And then he just said, can I... I'm forgetting the exact wording because it wasn't... The wording was such that he wasn't... He wanted to make me happy. He didn't want to make himself happy, he wanted to make me happy. Well, when... I forgot, can I give you a blow job? I think that was the thing. Because if he said, can you give me a blow job, it would be... It would be very different. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, but I think there's more aggressive way of phrasing that, but he presented himself... See, I forget, it was almost like gentle and poetic and I was like... I just stuttered and said, no, no, thank you. That's what everyone does. No thank you to a blow job proposition. No, I would probably stutter, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, thank you. In my mind, I was like, is this a threat? Because it's Fortnite, I wasn't exactly sure. I mean, I've never experienced it. I imagine this is what sort of women often experience, that kind of the danger, the constant threat all around you. But I've never... It was a funny little moment. I didn't know what to do with it. Yeah. That happened and I go to that 7-Eleven often looking for the guy. I would say yes, no. There used to be a steam room in Beverly, on Beverly Boulevard, and my brother and I walked in there once, and we walked in, and there was a man sitting there, erection, and his dick was so big, he was jerking it off with both hands, and we kind of walked in, and he goes, what's up? And he just did it, and we just sat there, you know what I mean, because it was not aggressive. Yeah. Yeah, maybe that was the same feeling, you sensed that it wasn't an aggressive thing. Yeah, it wasn't. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was just a kind, he was just minding his own business, and he threw it out. But it wasn't also, it wasn't sexual either. It was like, it was like, it's just, you know, it's just like, it's like love or something. Yeah. I felt like, it's almost like, can I give you a hug? Right, then why don't you just take it? I keep looking for it, next time I see it, but not in a gay way. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I just want to be clear about that. Did you grow up in Russia or Ukraine? Russia. Russia. Yeah. But your great-grandmother, your grandmother was in Ukraine? My father is Ukrainian. Oh, your father is Ukrainian. My grandmother is Ukrainian, so if you just look at the full family tree, it's about half and half is Russian. There's a lot of conflict with you right now. Internally, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me ask, you've talked about this before, but I'd love to sort of re-explore this. Is Carlos Mencia. Oh my God. Yeah. Why? Why go there again? Yeah. I'm willing to do it, but do you like Carlos? Well, first of all, I'm friends with Joe, and I remember being a fan of, I'm outside of this whole world. I remember thinking Carlos was funny. Yeah. So just as a fan, I was like, oh, funny. And then I remember all this big controversy about him stealing jokes. And because I'm a fan of yours, it's such an interesting human dynamic, and I'm a fan of friendship and loyalty. And you had a great podcast conversation with him. It was tense. It was so tense. It was very tense. Yeah. But it was interesting. And it kinda, well, it makes me think of you talking to your father on that bench. So maybe- That's what it, yeah, that's essentially what it was. Some of it wasn't getting through, but maybe, how do you feel about that whole thing about the guy? I mean, he gave you, he's a friend. He gave you a lot, but you're also a comedian, so stealing jokes is no good. But also there's like a, I don't know, all the tensions in your heart about all that whole thing. How do you feel about it? Do you forgive him? Okay, let's just, let's go back to, it's very Shakespearean in a very weird way, right? Because there was some betrayal there. You know what I mean? There's a lot of drama when it comes to that situation. Again, also, I'm a very loyal guy. I've had the same manager since the late 90s. And I've had every gigantic manager wanna sign me, even though my manager is great, right? She's in a big company, right? And there's only so much she can do. And maybe, you know what I mean? My career would have been different if I would have signed with a bigger management. I don't know, right? But I will never leave her. I'll never leave my agent, Matt. People go, well, you're at CAA, that's amazing. The only reason why I'm at CAA is because of Matt Blake. So there are certain loyalties that I have. The Comedy Store. I mean, I generally play the Comedy Store mostly because my loyalties are with them. I don't know if that's a good trait, but it's just the way I am, right? I admire that, yeah. Okay, so when it comes to Carlos, in the mid 90s is when I met him. I was a doorman at the La Jolla Comedy Store. He brought me on the road. He introduced me to Matt Blake, my agent, right? And he bought me a car. When I couldn't pay rent and I was really desperate, I could always go to him for money. And he helped me out in so many different ways, right? So I really appreciate that. Paulie did the same thing. So anyway, and then all of a sudden, and I always knew going on the road with him that number one, I found it odd that he never had a notebook. Usually, comics riff with each other and they write things down. You know what I mean? Me, I'll get together with people and write. You know what I mean? I'll do a new joke night because I'm too scared to try it in front of a packed room or whatever it might be, okay? He never did that, right? And he had hours of material. And a lot of it was derivative of other people's. He would sometimes hear a bit, change it to Mexican. Like for instance, if Paul Mooney had a joke about black people, he would change it, change it a bit. But premise wise, it was always extremely too similar. And there were examples on the internet. So there's things that you can't really deny. And so when that whole thing happened, it was like the Titanic. I mean, I was either gonna sink with Carlos or survive. And I did the worst, not the worst thing, but I had made a difficult decision and my decision was to cut ties. And over the years, I have felt very guilty about it in some respects, but there is always in my mind, I wanna help him. I wanna help him reestablish some sort of a different route for him to go in terms of his career and whatnot. And so I had him on my podcast and it didn't go the way I wanted it to go. I mean, I've always believed if he just fully just was apologetic and said, I'm sorry for stealing in general because we don't know specifically, I mean, there's specifics, you know what I mean? And I don't wanna argue every case. So I thought the healthiest thing to do was like in just an abroad way, listen, I stole, I'm so sorry, these are the reasons why. And I'm a different guy now, but it just never happened in that way. And so it's been difficult. So you don't think he self-reflected looking in the mirror about mistakes of the past at all? Like, do you think he's aware? I think it's ego. I think that he, for one reason or another, because there are probably jokes that he legitimately in his heart know that he wrote, that people are accusing of stealing, right? But it's like, we don't know, right? So it's like, just apologize for all of it, right? But he won't, he fights for every point. And I just think that that's not the route. And he, I mean, he's always gonna make money, but he's never gonna be what he should be, which is he's a powerful performer in terms of laughs. I mean, dude, I wouldn't wanna follow him. He's a crusher. So it's like, it's really, he can act. He has all the skill sets. It's just that, to me, he went about it in the wrong way, and it's sad to me. But I still always love him, and I've always will thank him for all the help that he's done. So you still got room in your heart for him? I have room for my heart for a lot of people, man. Hitler? All right, well, I was returning back to Tiger Belly, because you said Kalilah basically started it. What's the origin story of Tiger Belly? You know, when I met her. Oh, by the way, for people listening, in case you somehow don't know, Tiger Belly is a podcast you do. It's an amazing podcast. You also do Bad Friends with Andrew Centino, so on. Thank you so much for the plug, appreciate it. I don't know, it's contact, it's not the plug. Can I plug other things, though, since we're doing it? Sure, sure, what's your? I'm on a show called Redford. Okay, that's enough of that. Okay, thank you. So what's the name of the show you're on? I'm on a couple. A couple shows? Oh, that's good for you, Netflix? No. Okay. I'm on Sex and the City. Sex and the City. Yeah, I'm on Reservation Dogs. It's an FX show. Wait, Sex and the City is not a joke? No, I am actually on Sex and the City. Wait, are they rebooting the show? They did. Okay. It's called And Just Like That, Sex and the City. Oh, and you're on it. Yeah. This is not a joke? You can Google it. Okay. You know what I mean? Who do you play? I play a podcaster on it. On the show, Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie has a podcast, and I'm her podcast partner. Oh, got it, perfect. But I'm also, now my storyline, anyway, it's fine. Do you sleep with somebody on there? I am married on the show, yeah. They showed my, I'm married to a young lady on it, yeah. All right. It felt like a joke. It felt like a joke. I know, because you don't think doing it, I look around going, are you sure I'm supposed to be on this? You know what I mean? I do feel that, but lo and behold, I'm on it. Yeah, you are. So, I started this way. So, you know, my friend David Cho, you know him? He's an artist. He used to have a podcast, right, called DVD ASA, and he used to have me on it, and then Kalila started doing it, and then when DVD ASA ended, Kalila was just like, let's start our own, and I was like, nah, it's not gonna work. So, she goes, well, fine, I'm gonna just do it on my own then. So, she went and bought the equipment, and we were living in a condo at the time in Hollywood, and she would do them on her own. She did probably three on her own, and one day I was watching television. The door was open to the podcast room, and I turned around, and she was literally like this. We had a table like this. She had the mic and all that stuff, and she was doing this. She was slumped over like this, and I just kind of went, fuck it. So, I walked in there, I go, all right, let's just do one, and that's how it started. And then chemistry was there immediately. Well, I already knew that she could do it because of DVD ASA, so I already knew that she had the skill set. It's just all about, even in this conversation that you and I had today, there are gaps of like, oh, what else should we talk about, or like, I don't know what direction, and it's all about the old improv rule, adding information. Even if you don't know what you're gonna say, just fill the dead space with something. So, if right now, if we stopped talking about something, I'd be like, when I asked you, did you grow up in Russia or Ukraine, right, was one of those dead spaces where I was just like, let's just throw it out there, see where this goes, right? And she has that ability to fill that dead space with information. That's all you need, right? And she gets it in that way. So, it's like when we started doing it at DVD ASA, I just knew that she had the skill set. So, when we started doing it for Tiger Belly, it was a given, she can do it. I've had girlfriends that wouldn't be able to do it. What are you doing? You have the skill set. You're a science-y guy. You spend all night long, you know what I mean, you know what I mean, doing whatever you're fucking doing, right? But you have this innate ability to do it, right? And I think it's a talent. Do you think it's a talent? No, do you think you have talent? What are you doing? I know what you're doing, not adding information. I know what you're doing, that's a good bit. It's a good bit. I kept doing it and you kept filling the space. It's quite interesting. Yeah, that is true, huh? Because you're yes-ending yourself, which is great, the improv thing. That was really impressive. Can I ask you a question? Sure. Have you ever had a guest on that didn't add information and then you had to keep doing it? Yeah, yeah, but it's part of the magic too. And sometimes I feel like they were actually giving me a gift of silence and I was stepping on it. Like for example, I had a conversation with Jocko, you know, Jocko Willink, and every question I would ask him in the beginning, and I'm now better friends with him, but it was the first time we met in that conversation. And I would ask him these long questions of mumble and meander and so on, and he would answer with yes or no, and that's it. Yeah. And then, but he'd do it in a strong, like Viking-like way. And I kept trying to go full, like Bobby Lee style of create chaos and just keep talking and talking and so on, as opposed to, I think he was inviting me more for the stoic type of silence, short sentences, that kind of conversation. So I fucked that up, I believe. But yeah, there's, not the adding information part, but the adding chemistry part, where it's usually ego, where people don't realize there's a magic to be found between two humans. Like genuinely, it's like a first date. Like that to truly listen to each other and to do the yes and thing and have fun with it. When you have this energy, I'm way too important for this conversation that, yeah, the information might be there, but the chemistry is not. So you have to remember that a lot of the podcasts I've done are like technical. Yeah. And so you could still say a lot of stuff about like what this project or whether it's physics or robotics or biology, you could say informational stuff, but the excitement, the magic is not there. But I often blame myself because like, if I'm excited, they'll be excited, I've learned this. So I'm learning I'm not allowed to have like a bored face, which my face naturally looks bored, but on the inside, I'm excited. Yeah. So it might be a Russian thing, I don't know. It's not, can I tell you why you're not boring, your face? Right. Because you have crow's feet. Oh, this thing? Yeah. Is that what the thing? Yeah, and the reason why you have crow's feet is you smile a lot. Yeah. Yeah, you're very expressive. I know white dudes, I don't trust white dudes, right, with no crow's feet, right? Because that means that they're not accessing that part of their face. Yeah. And that's why I hate when, this is an LA thing especially, women have talked to me about like Botox, and they hate the crow, they hate, not me, on themselves. And they hate because it's all wrinkles and stuff like that. And to me, it's like, no, that's where the, that's the magic. That's the magic, it really is, yeah. So, okay, so the interesting thing about tiger belly is there's some weird like aesthetic to it. It's really unique, it's not just good, it's also unique. Like in the way that Wes Anderson films are unique, like Life Aquatic, I don't know if you know those films. Yeah, I love those, I mean, they're my favorite films, yeah. What is that, what is that? It's not just the chemistry between you and Koala, it's like, what is that? Can you put a finger on it, or is it just like? Well, it's essentially who I am. Like I, that's what my, all my houses have looked like that. You know what I mean? Like I've always been a collector of designer toys. You know what I mean? I've always been a collector of kind of weird artwork. Yeah, I've always been like that. You know, I like weird wallpaper. Like I'll get, instead of like going to a wallpaper store, what I'll do is I'll get artwork that I like from an artist like and go get the, you know, get their approval and go to a place and make wallpaper out of their artwork. You know what I mean? You can, like if I wanted a Lex Friedman, your face on my wall, I would ask for your permission and I would probably put your face on a gigantic wall. Like I would do stuff like that. That's awesome. Yeah, but I. Can you do that? Yeah. You have my permission. I think I will. Yeah. I think I will just for the laugh. Yeah. You know what I mean? But I would do it. Big, please. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, but my point is that I, yeah, it's essentially who I am on the inside, I guess, in terms of like my, you know, I don't know. But I don't really, I've never, I'm glad you said that because I never even thought about that. Yeah, it's just who you are. You know, you just kind of do it like this, you know, because all your podcasts have this black, ominous thing. Yep. You're wearing a black suit. You have a specific thing too. It's like. But I don't really think, people ask me like, why do you wear a suit? I really don't. I just feel good in it. Yeah. It's just who I am. And the reason why my podcast looks the way I do is because I feel comfortable in that environment. And it, you know, like you, I don't try to think too much about what I'm doing on Tiger Belly or even Bad Friends, right? Because when you start thinking about it and go, we should do this segment and I should, you know, do it this way or this podcast does it this way. So what, you know, no, I just show up, I keep my mind open and I do the best I can. I add information like we talked about and I just keep talking, right? And I'm being, I try to be authentically myself. Like right now, you know, I had this fear when I was, I was far, I shit in your fucking bathroom, man. Yeah. Because I was so scared. Out of fear, you shit out of fear. Out of fear, yeah, yeah, yeah. And like, you know, I was like kind of nervous because I, you know, this whole week it was anticipating coming here. And I watched the Mark Norman one. I watched the Giannis one to see, you know, how tonally. And last night my girlfriend just looked at me and just goes, just show up. Yeah, Kalilah knows who I am. Dude, you think that, first of all, let me ask you something. Yes. You think I have the day, you know how busy I am, to drive all the way over here to West Hollywood to do your fucking thing? Why would I do that? Yeah. Because we are well aware of who you are and we like you. Thank you, man. God, and we want you on ours. I would love that. I would love that as a, I mean, that's, the reason I'm doing this is just to get on your podcast. You gotta get on it. Awesome. Yeah, it's funny, because I just mentioned to you offline, I got a chance to talk to Oliver Stone. And he asked me this thing, which is, you know, how many listeners does this thing get? All that kind of stuff. And I don't even pay attention to that. So it's like, I just don't. A little bit though you do? Don't. I wrote extensions on my browsers where I don't see the views, the number of views. Oh, really? Yeah, I don't pay attention. Like some of your YouTube videos on interviews and stuff have over a million. That I know. I know like loosely that, like, it bleeds through. But it's not part of my conscious, like, thing I think about. I'm very, I've just seen it destroy people's minds where they're no longer thinking creatively. They're not, they don't feel good if something they do doesn't get as much as attention as they thought it should. It just can destroy you. Even though it's good. It could be great stuff you create that nobody, everybody ignores. But it was still great. It is still great. And sort of letting that negatively affect your mind is a, I don't know. I've seen it destroy people, so I'm very nervous about that. It's like that old saying, never live in the results. It's like if I podcast to make, I'd like initially, honestly, when I did Tiger Belly, we made no money for the first couple of years. Like, not enough to put a dent, I couldn't buy anything, like, you know, nice or anything. It was just side money, you know what I mean? I could buy some shoes once a month or whatever, right? And like I said before, my career was in the shitter, right? So Tiger Belly wasn't like, this is gonna be the thing. You know what I mean? It was just something to do with my girlfriend creatively. And it just so happens that it did do all these things for me, right, podcasting. But yeah, I never, and still today, I don't do it for any of those things. I do it because it's fun. Yeah, yeah, it's fun. It is, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me ask you, since you say why you love Kalilah, why do you love slash hate George Kimmel, your producer? What's your favorite thing about him, let's say that. Positive thing, positive. Oh God, I didn't even ask this question. Because, you know, it's like, you know, I don't want to give him compliments, but you know, I'll try. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I'll try. Have you actually, I don't think you've publicly ever said anything positive about George Kimmel. I don't think I have either, so I'm gonna give it a go. I'm gonna give it a real go here. Okay, yeah. You know, at the end of the day, when it comes to money, when it comes to responsibility, you know, obviously this is a business now for you and me. It is, you know, it's a side business, but it's a business. And you want to be able to trust the people that are running it. And I have 100% trust in everything that he does in terms of financial things, in terms of technical things, in terms of all of it, you know what I mean? Merchandise, and I have 100% belief in him. And that's rare, you know, to find someone like that. Also, at the end of the day, I know his heart, and he really is a great guy. There's nothing about him, like for instance, you know, he was over the other day and I go, you know, I bought this key wooden thing that some native man made, and I don't know how to put it on the wall. So I just, you know, I go, hey, can you figure this out? And he goes, yeah, I got it. You know what I mean? Like, he's just that guy, you know? He's also, but there is a part of me, and this is probably wrong, but there's a part of me that feels like I kind of made him. Yeah, he would be nothing without you. No, that's not what I'm saying. Well, I didn't fucking say that. That's the way I heard it. That's what I meant. Okay, but that's not what you said. It's probably wrong, right? Because he did all the things that he has in his life, he did on his own, right? But still, for some reason- He'd be nothing without you. That's not what I'm saying. But that's what I mean. Yeah, okay. So basically, like, because when I met him, I was a part of this YouTube studio called Maker Studios, and he was just a producer there, and that's how I met him. And when he left Maker, he came to us, and he wasn't a podcast producer, and now he has this big company. He produces a bunch of podcasts, and he has a bunch of employees, and he has a nice business, and I feel like I had a lot to do with it. So both the competence and the good heart. Yeah. What about Gilbert? Yeah, Gilbert is a godsend as well. Let me ask you this, because you're a science guy, this is an interesting question for me. Do you believe just that the universe gives you certain things at the right moment, at the right time? Do you believe that there is a mechanism out there where we're just a part of this machine that's kind of like, almost as if things are just happening the way it's supposed to happen? Or do you think there's just these random things that are occurring, and we're just, it's chaos in that way? I don't know from a science perspective, because I wouldn't be able to explain it, but I do believe you mentioned karma. There's a karma thing. It just, if you put love out there in the world, like certain doors open in a certain kind of way. Like, they're almost waiting for you, and then you walk through them. So yes, in that way, I believe. It feels like, not everything is like a basic billiard ball model of like, you have to fight for everything. You could just generally be cool to people, and kind to people, and certain opportunities just pop up at the right moment. More specifically, though, so for instance, let's suppose, like Gilbert, for instance. He just showed up at my house one day. I didn't know who he was. I had a fight night, and a friend brought him. This is right when Kalilah and I were starting Tiger Belly. And in conversation, he was like, we didn't know how to engineer. We didn't have an engineer for our podcast. And that night, he was like, I know how to do it. And if I hadn't met him that night, he just wouldn't, I don't know if it would be as good. It would be completely different. And I really believe that we met him that night for a reason. So you don't believe that. It's complicated. I believe that for love and these kinds of things, but I don't believe that as much for building a team. But that's the engineering thing. I think that's the artist in you. I'm less of an artist. I think artists thrive in the chaos of it. So it's not only that you guys met at that time, is you didn't probably ask in detail about his qualifications, or didn't go through a rigorous thing. You just dove in and figured it out on the fly. I think that's sort of the artist ethic. I think if you're doing a startup or engineering, there's a little bit more rigor in the selection process. But- I see what you're saying. Because the same with Rogan, Jamie just walked up to him. Jamie Vernon, you know Jamie. Yeah, he just walked up to him, same kind of situation. And then he made it, you know, both of you have one of the best podcasts in the world. And so it's like, how did that, what? Yeah, so I believe that- It's very strange. Yeah, it's strange. Or maybe it's just like cool people hang out with cool people, so you kind of collide a lot. But that's not true, because with Bad Friends, for instance, right? I've had 12 people before Andrew Santino that had asked me to do one with me, right? And, you know, they just wasn't, it wasn't, didn't want to do it. Yeah. You know? With Andrew, though, it happened kind of organically and in a way that was almost like, in my heart, meant to happen in a weird way. That's a weird combination, by the way. So why was that the sticky one? Because you have a lot of comedian friends, why Andrew? Because, number one, we both know, just instinctually, without even talking about it, that in many ways we're polar opposites in terms of like energy, right? He's more aggressive. I also know I respond good with alpha males, you know what I mean? Because I'm more of a follower, you know what I mean? We're sensitive in that way. But in many ways, I am an alpha male in certain areas of my life, you know? Yeah. You know, when it comes to smashing, what's up? You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah. But, you know, so we both knew instinctually that in that way our chemistry worked, right? And also, in terms of style and all that stuff, it's completely just, it was just an organic given to us. Yeah. Yeah. But you trust yourself with power? You play dictators. What do you mean, do I? Like, because I feel like you would be, because you said you're not an alpha male, but in many ways, when you smash, what's up? And you winked at me. Would you, what do you think about that? If I give you absolute power, would you be able to, what would you, how would you change? What does absolute power mean? Like, you said to me, listen, you're gonna be the dictator of planet Earth, and anything that you want is at your means. Yeah, including violence, sex. No, I would not. Because even in my personal life now, there are things that I could do, right, that I have power, I guess, that I don't participate in. Right, so why would I do it if I had ultimate power? I mean, because there's always, there's still a moral and ethics that I have, right, that I don't feel comfortable with, right? So. You wouldn't even enjoy it. No, I mean, I think that there would be no, if I had ultimate dictatorship on planet Earth, there would be no violence. I mean, I would not cause any wars, right? But if there's an uprising, I'd have to quell it. That's how it starts, Bobby. You quell it with a bit of a. Don't uprise. Right, but, so first you're gonna censor everybody who wants to even suggest the idea of uprising, and then one person gets out of line, they run a red light, okay? That's, you ever get angry in traffic? Yeah. I get rageful. So if you could murder that person. No. No. No, no, no. Nobody has to know. No, I would give them cancer. But I would not murder. That's so much worse. I know, I know. Okay. No, but no, but here, no, this is an interesting thing, because I want to elaborate. All right, so the thing, if I was the dictator of the planet Earth, right, there would be a reason why people would uprise, right? So give me a reason. Because I would give them food, shelter, right? And all the things I feel like that people would desire, right? But you're right, because you're right. I think this is what you're talking about. So here's the deal. So there are certain things that I do believe in, right? Like, for instance, it's a very controversial thing, right? In terms of a woman's right, right? In terms of abortion, right? I feel like, as a male, it's not my body, so I don't really even have an opinion, and I shouldn't even have a voice on it, because, you know what I mean? It's like if they created laws, if white people, men, created laws for Koreans in America. Like, you don't have the right to, right? So it's like, so if I was a dictator, right, I would just be like, yeah, women have all the rights in the world, right? And I think abortion should be legal throughout the planet Earth, right? But there will be people out there that will believe that, no, you know what I mean? We're pro-life. So you would put them in jail, just so. So that's right. So I think, as a dictator, there was no way to be able to please everyone, so there will be an uprising. So yeah, fuck it, I don't wanna do it. Would you do it? Not, no, there's several loaded questions. Would I enjoy it? No. Would I do it? No, because I don't trust my own mind under power. Like, I'm well aware that in situations where I have control, it's as much a freedom as it is a burden. Like, it can change you. I'm very nervous about that. Interesting. Like how much, how much the ego starts to flare up, how much just like the less pleasant things about your nature come up. You know, I have a temper, too. Like, I have all that kind of stuff. And you have, I'm sure you have a bit of a temper. Yeah, yeah, I have a temper, yeah. And so when nobody's able to as clearly call you out on your bullshit, that could be a problem. Do you have this when you rage out and you have a temper, is there like either a day later or a couple hours later, is there shame and regret that comes along with that or no? Yeah, no, no, no, no, of course. Yeah. During it. Yeah, during it, too, yeah. Shame and regret, yeah, yeah, yeah. But I try to make sure, it's like love and respect are felt always underneath the whole thing. But still, it's like human emotion. You can't control it. And if you give an absolute power, you start to lose your sense of the world. You start to be unable to see what is right and wrong. You think everything is right. You start to have a distorted view of who is doing the wrong things in the world. And then also distrust. Well, that has to do more with how absolute power is usually attained. Because when you're in the seat of power, everybody, first on the outside, but then in your inner circle, you start to distrust them. You start to believe that they're going to, they want your power. So the people you love, the people that were source of so much beauty for you previously, like even your girlfriend, wife, your closest lifelong friends, you start to suspect them. I don't wanna live like that. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And you're often right to suspect them. Because you think they change a little bit, too. They change, too. They start to get a little bit taste of that power. The interesting thing is a bunch of people in Hitler's inner circle at the very end betrayed him, too, in search of their own power. Wow. It's fascinating. It's fascinating, this power thing. Let me ask you a bunch of ridiculous questions real quick. Okay. If you could be someone else for a day, someone alive today who you haven't yet met, who would you be? For one day, you get to be, it could be female, male. There have to be a lot. I've always wanted to see what a pop star was like. Which one would you go? Harry Styles. Okay. Yeah, yeah. So if I'm Harry Styles, right, I just wanna see what it'd be like to go to the Beverly Center as Harry Styles. As Harry Styles. Yeah, yeah, or Coachella. Just walk around Coachella as Harry Styles. You know what I mean? But you get a lot of attention. And it's a very specific kind of attention. Yeah, I just wanna see what that's like. I wanna be able to, because the thing is is that I wanna be able to see what it's like in terms of how easy would it be to get a hot chick. Oh, I thought you meant to get a table at a restaurant. No, no, no. I can still do now as Bobby Lee, you know what I mean? But as Harry Styles, I wanna see what it'd be like and how that would go about, how easy it would be, you know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah. Could you just walk up to the hottest chick at Coachella and start making out with them? Yeah, that's interesting. Just to see. Just to see if you could. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because I know as Bobby Lee, no, no, no, no. Could you? No, you couldn't do that. No, no. That's an interesting reason. So if you were the last person on earth, like everybody disappeared, everybody's dead, what would your day look like? What would your days look like? What would you do? That's interesting because if I was able to figure out the electricity, I think my days would be like, why didn't you learn about electricity? Oh yeah. Right? You realize how little you know about it. Yeah, yeah, why didn't you learn about these things? Because now you're gonna die. Yeah, right? Yeah. But I think the first thing obviously is, now let me ask you something, why? Now, if you're saying that I'm the last person on planet earth because there was an alien invasion and there's predators and things that I have to fucking look out for, that's one way. But if I'm just all of a sudden I wake up and just everyone's gone. No, everyone's dead. Everyone's dead. But there's no threat. There's no threat. And then what I would do is I go, well, let's find a place to live. Not probably my house, right? So I'd probably live in a place where it's closest to grocery stores, right? So I would get food and stuff first, right? And then secondly, it's like, you know, I'll probably go, you know what I thought about? I would probably go to San Marcos, San Diego Vista, because that's where the real doll factory is. And just fuck all of them? No, no, no, I would have to grab like six of them because I'm gonna get lonely. Six of them for a variety. You wouldn't be monogamous with one doll. No, and I also would carry out like the vagina parts, you know what I mean? And all the accessories and stuff, right? And then go back to LA probably. Oh man, why do I stay down there? I'll stay down there. Yeah, you could stay in the factory. No, yeah, maybe the stat factory. And then, but I think thirdly, I would run out of electricity, right? And I think, you know what I mean? My demise would come slowly. Well, you could find sources of electricity because nobody's using it. But I don't know how to turn the machines on. I don't know how to go to the fucking, what do you call it? The place where, I don't even know what it's called. The place where, you know what I mean, where all the energy's generated? Yeah, yeah, yeah, generators. Where do I go? Yeah, it's good questions. All right. Would you rather lose all your old memories or never be able to make new ones? The past or the future? No, I mean, I can't lose my memories, all of them. That makes me who I am. But you wouldn't be able to make new ones. You wouldn't be, so you'd be living in the moment nonstop with all the, but you did say you're in a really good place. So maybe this is a pretty good set of memories you got. You got all the trauma. Yeah, I mean, you just, that's a nightmare. You just created a nightmare for me. That's a nightmare. The choice is a nightmare. Yeah, you're fucked either way. It's already beautiful. It's a kind of death, not being able to make new memories. That's it, that's all you got. You get to relive the memories you have. As a science guy, let me ask you a question. Sure. Are you afraid to die? Yeah, of course. I'm not, of course. I am, I think about it every day. Death. I say, yeah, I meditate on my mortality all the time. Right. It doesn't make any sense. It's terrifying. It's terrifying. And because, are you terrified because of the unknown or because you believe it's nothingness? The unknown, but my best guess is that it's something like nothingness. And that nothingness is. So terrifying. Yeah, the infinity of the nothingness. Yeah. But Ram Dass says, and this is something that I always, you know Ram Dass? Yeah, Ram Dass says, he believes that death is like removing a tight shoe. Like release. Yeah. Like, ah. That could be it too. I think maybe when we die, that's initially, maybe the last feeling that we have is release. And then if that happens and there's nothingness, I think that's cool. Well, no, that has to do more with the actual feeling of death, which I think some people are afraid of, the experience, to make sure it's one of release, like you said. Yeah. But the existential aspect that you no longer exist. Like all the shit you're doing kind of assumes you'll live forever. Right. Like you don't really, like all your career and all that kind of stuff, you probably will be forgotten. I know. Like completely erased. Yeah. So all you have is a few moments in this life, a few moments of joy, a few moments of trauma, of suffering, and that's it. I know, but here's the thing. And you're wasting your time today talking to me, and then you have a few such moments. You'll do a couple hundred more podcasts, and then you'll be dead. No, because this right here, dude, right, is human, number one, I walked through a little fear today, so I learned something, right? I'm talking to a science guy, which I never thought I could. You're the first scientist I've ever talked to, right? You get a diploma at the end of this. Oh, good. And I believe that there was a connection, right? Not in a gay way. Not in a gay way, non-gay connection, right? In certain circumstances, I probably would blow you. Would you? In certain circumstances, like if we were the last two people on planet Earth and stuff like that. Sure. Yeah, yeah. But yeah, those are probably the only ones. Or like somebody put a gun to my ass, you gotta blow, Lex! Okay, that's kind of a turn on. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm turned on right now, I'll be honest. Yeah. Let me ask you one question. Go ahead. What do you think is the meaning of life? My fucking, that's the last one? Yes, that's the last one. Yeah, yeah. What do you think, why are we here? Why are you here? Why are we here? Does any of it make sense to you? I think ultimately, here's why I like life in general, is what we talked about. Like we view death, there is a mystery there. There's a wonderment to it, right? So it's like, when I walk outside, and I look at the trees, and I look at buildings, that man made these buildings, and I look at the universe, and I look in the sky, and I don't really completely comprehend what's going on, right, it's just so, I'm in awe of all of it, right? And I don't have any answers, right? But that, I think, is what the meaning of life is, is to be in awe of it, and the wonder of it all, and it's just amazing. Yeah, just open your eyes to the wonder of it all. Yeah. While we're still here. Yeah. Bobby, it's a huge honor to finally meet you. I've been a fan for many, many years. It's an honor that you would even consider blowing me in the correct kind of circumstances. I think you would blow me in the right circumstances. I think that's the definition of love. Bobby, thanks so much for talking to me, brother. Thank you so much. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Bobby Lee. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Kurt Vonnegut. Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there's less cleaning to do afterward. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/tOTenjh_8hw

j4PEu4sVD40

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Susan Cain: The Power of Introverts and Loneliness | Lex Fridman Podcast #298

People whose favorite songs are their happy songs play it on their playlist about 175 times. People who love sad music play them about 800 times. And they say that they feel connected to the sublime when they're listening to that music. The longing for what you lack is the very thing that gives you what you're longing for. So the longing is the cure. The following is a conversation with Susan Cain, author of Quiet, The Power of Introverts in the World That Can't Stop Talking, and her most recent book, Bittersweet, How Sorrow and Longing Make Us Whole. This is the Lex Riedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Susan Cain. You've written on your website that, quote, I prefer listening to talking, reading to socializing, and cozy chats to group settings. So I think this conversation on the podcast is going to be fun. What's a good definition of an introvert? Is something like those three things a good start? It is a good start in terms of how introverts experience day-to-day life. I think a good definition is one that some of your listeners will have heard many times before, you know, the idea of where do you get your energy? And for some people, they get their energy more from quieter settings, and for other people, they get it more from being out there. So a good rule of thumb is to imagine that you're at a party that you're really enjoying, and you've been there for about two hours or so, and it's with people you really like, and it's in your favorite place, so it's all good. An extrovert in a setting like that is going to feel charged up, and they're going to be looking for the after party. And an introvert, no matter how good a time they're having and how socially skilled they are, there's this moment where you just wish that you could teleport and be back at home. Yeah. And that the time before the start of the party to the time when that moment happens is different for different people, so the shorter that is, the more of an introvert you are. Is that that kind of thing? The shorter the moment until you get to the place where you've got to teleport home. I've got to teleport home. Yeah, and then for extroverts, it's the opposite, right? They're going to feel, you know, maybe they're working on, I don't know, like focused on producing a memo that's really intensely interesting to them, but if they're in that state of like solitary mode of really focusing, they might get stir crazy a lot faster than an introvert would. And so it doesn't have so much to do with what you're good at as how you get your energy. And so for an introvert, the source of energy is what? Silence, solitude, and for an extrovert, it's interaction with other people. What I'd really say is that, and this is neurobiological as well, is that it has to do with how your nervous system reacts to stimulation. So for an introvert, you're feeling in a great state of equilibrium when there are fewer inputs coming at you. So they could be social inputs, but that's why an introvert in general would rather hang out with one close friend at a time as opposed to, you know, big party full of strangers because that's just too many inputs for the nervous system. And for an extrovert, the nervous system needs more stimulants. So if they're not getting enough, they get that listless and sluggish feeling. So if you're just walking through the world, like people listening to this, but in general, how do you know if you're an introvert? Like how do you empirically start to determine if you are in large part an introvert? Well, I would start by just asking that question of what happens to you, you know, at around the two hour mark where you're having a good time. But I also find, I'm curious if you have a different experience from this, but from all the years that I've been out there talking about this topic, I found that most people really seem to know once they're being honest with themselves. And maybe that's the question to ask is like, if you imagine that you have a Saturday or a whole weekend where you can spend your time exactly the way you want to, with no professional obligations, no social obligations, who would you spend it with? How many people? What would you be doing? And what does that picture that you're painting start to look like? Yeah. So there's nuance to this though, because I'm sure for extroverts to get energized by stimulation, whether that's stimulation with other people, it depends what that stimulation is, right? Maybe you're not surrounded by the kind of people that you enjoy being around. So maybe that has to do less with whether some characteristics of your personality, more has to do with the fact of what your environment is like. That's always kind of the question. Do you want to be alone because everybody around you is an asshole or do you want to be alone because you get energized from being? Well, I would hold the variables constant, I guess I would say. You know, keep the assholes constant and see. And then there's the other thing you kind of observed that there's a lot of people that will say they get energized from being alone. Like people are exhausting to them or something like that. But at the same time, when you see them at a party, they seem like the life of the party. I know. And I hear from those people all the time. There's so many people like that. What would you classify them as exactly? Is it ultimately as the source of energy? Is the most important thing or like how the heck are they the life of the party? It's a bunch of different things. So first of all, just to say like a big caveat to all of this is humans are just amazingly complex. So you can't explain every individual human through these parameters, even though I think the parameters are really valuable. But that person at the party, it could be that they're more of an ambivert. So they kind of are more in the middle of the spectrum. That's it basically means someone who's not extremely introverted or extremely extroverted. They're kind of in the middle. So maybe at a party, their more extroverted side comes out. Or it could be an introvert who's gotten really good at the skills of acting more like a pseudo extrovert. And they pull that up at the moments that they need it. So they've learned how to fake it. Yeah. Oh, there's a lot of people like that. And I know this because like, I think out of all the people on this planet, you could be talking to, I've heard from the most number of those people. Like they all come and tell me about their experience out in the world, presenting a face that's different from what they feel. So one of the things you talk about is at least in the West, we've constructed a picture of success. And that picture is usually one of an extrovert. Like when you imagine somebody who's a leader, who's a successful person, that person has some of the qualities you would associate with an extrovert. And so there's a lot of incentive for faking it. Yeah, exactly. If you want to be successful, you got to be able to fake it, to sort of hang with the rest of the team. You have to be able to be outgoing and all those kinds of things and not be drained by the interaction. Yeah, but I mean, there are also a lot of introverts who figure out ways to draw on their own strengths and they're incredibly connecting and successful and they're great leaders and they're not actually faking it. They're more just figuring out ways to do it their own way. You see a lot of people like that. Is there advice? Is there lessons you can draw from that, from just observing how you can be an introvert and be in a leadership position? Yeah, it's kind of like a mantra of figuring out what your own strengths are and how to draw on them. I think of a guy I know, Doug Conant, who had been the CEO of Campbell Soup for many years. He's very introverted. He's quite shy also by his own description. And he really cares about people. And so when he started at Campbell, the employee engagement ratings of the company were all the way at the bottom of the Fortune 500. And by the time he stepped down 10 years later, they were all the way at the top. And it wasn't that he was going out there and schmoozing people, but he really did care. So he would find out who were the people who had really been contributing to the company. And he would write to them personal letters of thanks. And these letters meant so much to people. They would carry them around with them. And during his time, the 10 years there, he wrote 30,000 of those letters. So that was his way of doing it. That was his way of drawing on his own strengths. And he did that together with, of course, you sometimes have to go outside your comfort zone no matter who you are. So he was doing plenty of that too. It's a kind of combination. Yeah. The writing process and focusing on the one-on-one interaction, I can definitely relate. There's something deeply draining, which concerns me about like Zoom meetings, because it's some weird brain manipulation. Wait, say more. Well, because you're not really engaged, but it wears on you the same way that it does a party. It feels like you're emptying that bucket for the introverts, even though they're not participating at all in the meeting. I mean, I suppose that's true for physical meetings too, but with Zoom meetings, remote meetings, it's so much easier to invite a larger number of people into the meeting. So you're draining more and more of the introvert energy. And I'm probably extrovert too, but the introvert definitely. It's interesting. I would love to understand that more because there's more and more push towards remote work without, I think, a deep understanding of why these meetings are so draining on people. I just anecdotally have heard from that, but maybe that's because the managers, the people who arrange the meetings are just not sufficiently yet aware of the draining nature of them. So that they pull in too many people, they schedule them too regularly. So they need to adjust that kind of thing probably. I think people are starting to realize, but I would say one reason that Zoom is so draining is because you can see your own self-presentation the whole time if you choose to. And when you go into in-person, you can't. So you're kind of freed of thinking about that. Oh, that's brilliant. So it's like an extra cognitive load that you're bearing the whole time. Oh yeah. You might want to turn off the camera so you can't see yourself, but then you feel like, well, I have the ability to, so I probably should be doing it. And then that alone is a decision that you're making. Yeah, there's probably studies on this now happening, either have happened or are happening, the effect of seeing your own face on camera. Because it's reminding you that you're supposed to be acting a certain way. And that is especially a stressful thing. Yeah, you can't be in the moment as much. But I mean, for you, you make the decision to do all your podcast interviews in person, right? And so... And that's even when it's very costly. If there's any kind of chemistry that contributes at all to the conversation, which I think most conversations have chemistry, even the boring work meetings, there's something there. Because yes, you're trying to solve a particular problem at this particular time. But underneath it, there's a team building that's happening. And honestly, people also have told me about this, why they enjoy the Zoom meetings during the pandemic, is like, they're lonely. Like they, you know, it's annoying to have to sit and listen to folks talk about nothing and so on. But they tune in anyway, because it's kind of lonely to sit there by yourself. And that, I mean, there's a deep connection there when you're with other people. And that is especially true when they're in person, which is a huge concern for me for like, more and more offices, from a capitalist perspective, realizing, hey, why are we, why do we have these large office spaces? Why do we have to get people together? But I think in some deep sense, we do. But then you also talk about that once we do, we want to protect the introverts. Like you don't want the open space, which office space, which was a big fad for a while. I don't know where people stand on that at this point. Yeah, I think people are figuring it out in a post-pandemic context. But I mean, I know what you mean. So before I became a writer, I was a corporate lawyer for like seven years. And literally the only thing I miss from those years is hanging out with people at the office. Like, I don't know, just some of the funniest moments I've had in my life came from being at the office until midnight with the other people I was working with. So I know exactly what you're talking about. Though I will say the offices there at that firm and at most firms in those days, everybody had their own office. So it was like a dorm room, you know, where it was like a long hallway with everybody in their own little dorm room. So you had tons of privacy, but you would also come out and hang out with people. You could just kind of roam whenever you want. Yeah, yeah. And whenever you roam, that means you're kind of open, you're looking for trouble. Yeah, yeah. You're open for interaction. And the extent to which you would keep your door open, you know, was it wide open or was it half a jar or just a little bit? Those were all signals. So is there, because you said re-energize, is there, do you like to think, and again, the human mind is complicated, but do you like to think of it as like a bucket that gets refilled for introverts in terms of energy, of social interaction that they're able to handle? Do you think of it like that as a bucket that gets emptied and needs to be refilled? I think of it, yeah, more or less, because I use the metaphor of a battery that gets recharged or not. It's basically the same thing, different metaphor. But yeah, but just to add on that, that there is a layer of complexity to that because you could be somebody who doesn't want the kind of social life, let's say, where you have to be like on and presenting and interacting with tons of people all the time, but you'd get really lonely if you were just by yourself. So what you want is to maybe be in the company of a couple people you know really well. Like for me, the pandemic was not actually that hard for me personally. I mean, I lost family, but I mean, from the point of view of what we're talking about, it wasn't that hard because I live with my husband and my kids. So I knew it was hard on the kids and I felt badly for them. But for me, I was like, you know what? I have a lot of social life right here in the house. Mm-hmm. That's how you know you love your house. And I can focus and do my work. Yeah. That's the cool thing about the pandemic. I think it helped people figure out how much they love their family. I think that's true. And a lot, it gives you a chance to really reconnect with kids, with your kids, like really spend time with them, which is fascinating to watch. Like people actually, it did strengthen the family unit in an often beautiful way, which just sucks to have to leave behind at this point. Yeah. And I think that's part of what people are not going to want to go back to, that we need to solve for to the extent that work becomes non-remote again. Yeah. I think people have just realized how precious those aspects of their lives are. And, you know, for somebody who's in a conventional office job where you're going home and seeing your kids for an hour before bedtime, and that's your interaction with them, that's kind of a ridiculous way to set things up. Yeah. It's cool that you can get, I think a lot of places give you the option now, which is interesting. You get to optimize that element of your life. Do you take the commute and the office work and then the social interaction there? Do you focus on the work at home? It's also lonely at home, but then you get to see your kids. If you have kids, that's part of the optimization is like, I have some options now and I'm going to try to optimize solitude, loneliness, happiness, productivity, seeing family, seeing coworkers, the chemistry with the team building with the coworkers versus just the raw exchange of information with the coworkers. It's fascinating to see how that kind of evolves. Yeah. And then there's the third space idea of, you know, the spaces where you're in a coworking space or a cafe or something like that. You've got other people around you, but you're not exactly interacting with them, but they're very much there. And that's huge too. I don't think we think about that enough. Yeah. That energy is there. Yeah. Yeah. I lived in Manhattan for 17 years before we had kids. Yeah. And I absolutely loved it. I loved it. The feeling of all that energy all around you, but you could be anonymous within it. To me, it was perfect. Yeah. It's beautiful. I worked this morning for a few hours, programmed for a few hours at a Starbucks. And first of all, wearing suits, Manhattan is the one place you can kind of fit into because everyone's wearing suits. Do you wear suits every day? Uh, well, these days, unfortunately, because I get recognized, I wear usually not suits when I just on my own life, but yeah, I love it. I love the way it feels. I don't know. And the way I think about the world when I wear a suit, I take it seriously as if my life is going to end today. Like this is what I would want to wear. Not for physical appearance, but just for some reason, it makes me feel like focused. I don't know. So even if you're not going to see anyone, you would still put the suit on when you're doing your work? Especially then. Really? Especially then. Yeah. Yeah. I really, I really love doing that. So it like tells you seriousness of purpose, something like that? Yeah. Yeah. Like everything's elevated now? I don't know what it is. I don't know what I imagine exactly, but it's some kind of platonic form of like a mixture of James Bond and like, I don't know who else, Richard Feynman. Can I think about when I think about a suit? You know, I think of Leonard Cohen, but he was always wearing suits too, but you know. Leonard Cohen is definitely one of my, is a tragic human, is a beautiful human being. Through his words, through his own private life. Yes, I definitely would think about Leonard Cohen. So small talk, that's another thing. Is that part of the equation of introvert versus extrovert? Well. How much people enjoy small talk? I kind of went into this whole thing thinking that it was, but from what I've seen, most people study is that most people don't like small talk. I think that's why people like your podcasts, because you're like, forget the small talk. I'm going deep into it from the very beginning. Yeah. So it's actually, the picture you're painting is like, the way you started, like with your, with the book Quiet and the way you are today is you realize the picture may be more complicated. Yeah, everything's more complicated. I will say with the small talk thing that I'm curious if you have this experience, but I find it fantastic to have a career where I'm known for anti-small talk kinds of topics, because it means that anywhere I go, like if I show up at a conference or something like that, no one does small talk with me. They're like telling me about the deep truth of their lives from the first hello. And I love that. And in normal life, you have to like wade through a lot before you know if people are ready to go there. Yeah. Do you have that experience too? No, definitely, definitely with people that know me for sure. But you forget how many people feel like they know you because of your podcast. Oh, that's what, no, that counts. Because I'm a huge fan of podcasts and I feel it, like before I ever became friends with Joe Rogan, I felt like I was friends with him, because I was a fan of his podcast. So like it was, I feel like it's a friendship. I know it's a one-way friendship with all the people I listen to in podcasts, and even people who are no longer with us, like writers. I feel like I have a relationship with them. Maybe I'm insane. No, I totally feel that way. That's the whole reason I became a writer. Like I'm friends with Leonard Cohen. Yeah. And he's not aware of it. No, but I think that's the whole reason for writing or making music or whatever people do. It's to be able to have those kinds of connections that don't require having to be in a room together, because there's only so many people you can be in a room with in your lifetime. The hard thing is, unfortunately, because I value human connection so much, and I only have, just like you mentioned, sort of a small circle of people I'm really close with by design, it always hurts me a lot to say goodbye to people. Like you meet people and you can tell they're beautiful people. They're amazing. There's something so fascinating about them. They've had a complicated life, like you could see in their eyes and the way they tell their story in just a few sentences. They've gone through some shit, but they also found some elements of beauty. And then you get to realize, okay, well, there's a fascinating human here. And all you get to say is a few words here and there, like a funny little joke, maybe a dark joke here and there. And then you just say goodbye, maybe hug it out and you go on your way. So that's a hello and a goodbye and your paths will never cross again. That makes me a sad walk away. But I guess I wouldn't have it any other way, I suppose, is the reality is. In your book, you talk about that sorrow, that sadness not being such a bad thing. Yeah. And when you just said that, I just thought of this one moment in my life that I haven't thought of for 20, 30 years or something. But it was when I was in law school and a classmate of mine had his friend come to visit for the weekend and the three of us hung out a lot and we just had an amazing time. And then this other guy who wasn't going to be coming back anytime soon, if at all, sent a postcard to me. And the only thing written on the postcard was this quote from Oscar Wilde. And I don't remember the exact words, but it basically said that there's no pain as intense as the sorrow of parting from someone to whom you've just been introduced. And there's something so intense about that and so true. I think partly also because when you've just been introduced to somebody, you don't yet know their difficulties. So you're seeing the most sparkling version of them. You're seeing a platonic version of love and friendship. And your imagination fills in the rest in some beautiful way that matches perfectly the kind of thing you're interested in. That's how I feel about one spoonful of ice cream. And that's why you always finish the whole tub. You regret all of it. What did you write this? I think this is on your website, that one of the best things in the world is that sublime moment when a writer, artist, or musician manages to express something you've always felt but never articulated, or at least never quite so beautifully. So that's the Oscar Wilde line is one line like that. But just a line from a song or maybe a piece of art that just grabs you. Is there something that jumps out into memory like that for you? I don't know if I have an exact line, though. I mean, that feeling that you just quoted happens to me all the time. I'm just bad at recalling exact instances. I am too. On the spot. But the writer Alain de Botton regularly makes me feel that way. He's just this beautiful essayist and observer of human nature. And he's just constantly expressing things in this gorgeous way that you've experienced yourself. And you feel like, I don't know, it's just this grand act of generosity. You feel less lonely, you feel this deep sense of communion. It's such an elevating experience. Even when it's like a melancholy line. Maybe especially when it is. Yeah, what is that? There's a... So Jack Kerouac, On the Road definitely makes me feel that way, like every other line in there. Forlorn rags of growing old. Do you know, I never read that book. So what was it about that book that made you feel that way? Well, okay. Well, since you asked, I'm going to linger on this. So this story is kind of the book, the kind of defining book of the beats, of the beat generation. And it's basically a story of a writer who takes a road trip across the United States a couple of times and experiences a few close friends and a few strangers along the way. And there's a lot of just those melancholy goodbyes along the way. You meet all these people with interesting lives. Some of them are defined by struggle, some of them are defined by drugs, drinking, women, all that kind of stuff. And still, he just kind of dances around all of that and is defined by the goodbyes and the passing of time. So a lot of the really powerful lines are basically like... There's one on there, again, I don't remember exactly, but he meets a beautiful girl at a rest stop. And the girl is getting, or a woman is getting on a different bus than he's getting on. And it's that feeling of falling in love for a second and realizing that fate is just ripping that out, which is similar to this idea of it sucks to say goodbye just when you met, but it's especially true when you fall in love just a little bit with that stranger, with all the possibilities that could lay there. So there's a few lines written down. I went down this whole rabbit hole of thinking, what are the lines that grabbed me? A couple of lines from On the Road. So one is, what is that feeling when you're driving away from people and they recede on the plane till you see their specks dispersing? It's the two huge worlds vaulting us and it's goodbye, but we'll lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skies. So this is him talking about leaving a particular city. The spoiler alert towards the end of the book, rather the end of the book, line I return to often. It's more poetry, but it's a feeling that captures the book, I would say. The evening star must be drooping and shedding her sparkler dims on the prairie, which is just before the coming of complete night that blesses the earth, darkens all the rivers, cups the peaks and folds the final shore in. And nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old. And it just captures this kind of in the moment appreciation of the beauty of the world and a sadness over the fact that time passes and you leave the people you love behind, you leave the places you love behind, or at least the way they were at the time that you really enjoyed them. And you just leave all that, just the sadness you feel when you, something about it, like looking at a picture, looking at your kids grow up, looking at old friends getting old, something makes you realize that time passes and somewhere deep in there is probably a realization of your mortality. And then it just makes you somehow first sad that everything comes to an end. And then that's immediately followed by sort of an appreciation of the moment, like a gratitude that you get to experience this moment. Yeah, I know it exactly. I mean, that's, that's the whole reason that I wrote Bittersweet. It's all about that. So I know intensely what you're talking about. And by the way, my husband loves the book A Moveable Feast by Ernest Hemingway, which I also haven't read, but it talks about that same thing, you know, groups of people traveling around together and the group coalesces into some magical formation. And then one person leaves the group and it's never going to be the same again. And then they move on to the next one. Yeah. I mean, I think that's the deepest essence of human nature. The feeling of longing for some kind of state of perfect completeness, completion, perfect love, the Garden of Eden, all of it. And the feeling that you're never going to quite attain it, but you get glimpses of it here and there. And that those glimpses are some of the best things that ever happened to us. And they're suffused with sadness because they're not the real thing, or they're not the full thing. They're just a glimpse. It's a glimpse of what we long for. So the sadness that we might feel is always connected to the ways in which we fall short from the perfect thing that we're, like, there's always a thing you're longing for. And the sadness has to do with the getting a glimpse of it, but not quite getting a hold of it. Yeah. Yeah. So it's always losing. It's always losing, but it's also always that, but it's not, that sounds really depressing, but it's not, you know, it's not depressing because you experience this all the time. It's also, those are the most beautiful moments I think life offers. I mean, it's intense, intense beauty in those moments because it's getting closer to the real thing that we long for. So what about, like, loss, losing love? Is that also a beautiful thing? A beautiful thing? Well, the moments you're talking about, I think it's easier to appreciate the beauty of it all in the moment because you're experiencing, you're kind of experiencing the loss and the love all at the same time. Whereas if you're talking about straight up loss, like a betrayal or a bereavement or whatever it is, that's, it's different. It's quite overwhelming. So losing a loved one kind of thing. Losing a loved one. I mean, I will say that the truth that I think that we can come to after a lot of time on this earth is the idea that love exists not only in its particular forms, so not only in the form of the one person, you know, that one person we love or that other person we love, but love itself is a state that we have access to. And so over time, the loss of person A can heal and you can tap into a kind of bigger river of love. Yeah, I mean, I had this, this comes from Louis, Louis C.K. in a show. Damn, I love that line. I mean, there's a, he's talked to an older gentleman and Louis is all like sad about losing a loved one or like getting rejected essentially, like a breakup. And then the older gentleman gives him advice saying like, basically criticizes Louis for saying, why are you moping around? Because this is the most, this is the best part. Like losing love is the best part because that's, the real loss is when you forget. Like feeling shitty about having gone through a breakup is when you most intensely appreciate what that person meant to you. Like you most intensely feel love in some strange way by realizing that you've lost it, by missing it, wishing at this moment, I wish I had that. Like that feeling, that's when you feel that love the most, the absence of it. So the older gentleman gives advice that that's the best part. And it can, if you're good with it, it can last for the longest. It could be the most sort of prolonged experience of deep appreciation and emotion and so on. So that's kind of a, that's a nice way to look at loss, which is a reminder of how much somebody meant to us. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of truth in that because yeah, you wouldn't care so much if it weren't something that mattered to you. So it's always a signpost to the direction you really want to go to. That's always what it is. Yeah, and it's interesting to see the way that the mystical versions of many of the great religions all point in this direction. Whether you're looking at Sufism or the Kabbalah or in Christian mysticism, you see this idea that the longing for what you lack is the very thing that gives you what you're longing for. So the longing is the cure. I mean, that's the way the Sufi poet Rumi puts it, the longing is the cure. And he says, be thirsty, like be as thirsty as you possibly can. That's what you want to be. The good stuff is the wanting, not the having. Yeah, yeah. Of course, tell that to a person that just broke up and they'll be like, shut up, asshole. I don't need your advice. This sucks. I wish I had her or him back. Yeah, no, absolutely. Those are the kinds of life lessons that only work when you kind of step away for a while. They don't work in the moment of excruciation. There is something about the fact of knowing that all humans are in that experience together that is also incredibly uplifting. Well, that takes time for people to realize. Like heartbreak in your early teenage years or something like that could feel like this is completely the most novel and the most dramatic pain that any human has ever felt, right? Or maybe even when you're younger. And then one of the things you realize is that everybody goes through this. That can be an awakening to the fact that we're all in this together. This human condition is not just a personal experience. It's an experience we all share. And that's a kind of love, the unity of it. You can get to experience it. Yeah, that's a really deep kind of love. And I feel like we're prevented from perceiving that love as, it's actually like the most obvious kind of love and it's right there and it happens all the time. But we're prevented from perceiving it because we're not really supposed to talk about things like that. It's like there's something unseemly about it. Well, it's also in the West, it's an individualist society. So there's a pressure to sort of see the individual as a distinct sovereign entity that experiences things. And the unity between people is not obviously sort of communicated or talked about or is part of the culture. Yeah, it's not part of the culture and yet you see it in our behaviors because we're humans. So why do people listen to sad music? I mean, one reason is their hearing expressed for them. Like the musician is basically saying to them, this thing that you have experienced, I've experienced it too, so have lots of other people. But they're saying it all without words and it's transformed into something beautiful. And there's something about that that's just incredibly elevating. And people don't know it, but there's one study that I have in Bittersweet that found that people whose favorite songs are their happy songs play it on their playlist about 175 times. The people who love sad music play them about 800 times. And they say that they feel connected to the sublime when they're listening to that music. What do you think that is? So what is it in music that connects us to the sublime through sadness? I mean, I have a bunch of different theories. The whole reason I started writing this book is because I kept having this reaction reliably to sad music. And I realized that for people who I knew who were religious believers, the way they described their experience of God was what I was experiencing when I would hear that music. Like all the time. It happens over and over again. So you wonder what that is? Yeah, so I started wondering what that is. And lots of people have tried to figure out what that's all about. And there are different theories that it's expressing. It's like a kind of catharsis for our difficult emotions. That it's, as we were saying, a sense of being in it together. We don't react in that sort of uplifted way when you just see a slideshow of sad faces, which is something researchers have actually tested. No one really cares when they're seeing the slide of the sad faces. But the sad music, they're really reacting. And also, they don't really react when they're hearing music expressing other negative emotions, like martial music or something like that. It's just the sad music that gives people this elevated sense of wonder. So I think it's the combination of the sadness and the beauty. And I think it's just tapping into the essence of the human source code, which is a kind of spiritual longing. Whether we're atheists or believers, there's this feeling of longing for a state and a place of perfect love and perfect unity and perfect truth and all of it. And an acute awareness that we're not there in this world. In religions, we express that through the longing for Mecca or Eden or Zion. And artistically, we express it with Darthy longing for somewhere over the rainbow. Or Harry Potter enters the story at the precise moment that he's become an orphan. So he's now going to spend the rest of his life longing for these parents who he can never remember. And there's something about that state that's at our very core. And I think that's why we love it so much. Well, it could be. You can have the Ernest Becker theory of denial of death, where at the core of that, the worm at the core, as Jung said, is the fear of death. So where the longing for the perfect thing has to do with sort of becoming immortal, is reaching beyond the absurdity, the cruelty of life, that all things come to an end for no particularly good reason whatsoever, one we can rationally explain. I know. I wonder about that all the time. I know, obviously, there's that idea from Becker and throughout philosophy and the tale of Gilgamesh about the idea that the thing we're longing for most of all is immortality. But I feel like it's not only that. I think it's more so or also, let's say, a longing for the lions to lay down with the lambs, finally. For the fundamental calculus of the universe to just be different where life doesn't have to eat life in order to survive. And yeah, just a completely different situation. I wonder. That immortality would not solve. I wonder. That could be a very kind of modern thing. Because surely so much of human history is defined by violence and glorified violence and glorified violence that doesn't give inklings of this lions and the lambs. So much. I mean, I know all the other stuff is in the Bible too. There's other stuff in the Bible and the Bible is that particular aspect doesn't necessarily reveal the fundamental motivation of human nature. That could be deeper stuff. But yeah, that is a beautiful picture. But is it just about humans or is it about all of life? And you have to think about what is the perfect world look like? It's not just the lions and the lambs laying together. It's how many lions and how many lambs? And having just had a few very technical conversations about Marxian economics versus Kensian economics versus neoclassical economics. What does the economic and the government system look like for the lions and the lambs that we're longing for? So then you start to build society on top of all those things. But still you return to this. What are we longing for? And what's the role of love in that? What's the role of that sad melancholy feeling? The feeling of loneliness? Is the feeling of loneliness fundamental to the human condition? Are we always striving to channel that feeling of loneliness to connect with others? We want that feeling of loneliness, otherwise we wouldn't be connecting. Is that fundamental? That feeling like you're alone in this even when you're with other people, sort of alone together. You're born alone, you die alone. Maybe loneliness is fundamental. I think the longing for union is fundamental. It's just that it looks so different for different people. And coming back to what we were talking about at the beginning, union looks incredibly social for a lot of people and hardly social at all for others, but everybody needs some version of union. Yeah, people have been telling me recently about polyamory and all those kinds of things. Having probably grown up in a certain part of the world, I'm very monogamy-centric, not in a judgmental way, just for me, what makes me happy is one person for my whole life. Basically just dedication. Because I've just seen through relationships with people and objects in my life, the longer we stay together, the deeper the tie. So that's just an empirical thing, and yes, that probably is a personalized thing. That's just true for me. It could be very different for others. Maybe it's connected to the introverted thing, maybe not. Who knows? Before I leave, because you mentioned sad songs. What are we talking about? What song do you remember Les crying to? Oh, gosh. I literally dedicated my book to Leonard Cohen. He's played such a huge role in my life. I love him. I love him. I've loved him with this crazy love that I've never been able to understand for decades. I think I understand it a little better now. So you're better friends with him than me, I'm jealous. Is it the musician or the human too? Because the human is a tortuous soul in a way. I'd say it's the musician. It's the musician. I actually was thinking about this the other day. Obviously he's not alive anymore, but I was running the thought experiment. If he were alive still and I had the chance to meet him in person, would I want to do that? I'm not really sure that I would because he represents for me symbolically everything. Well, everything. I'll end the sentence right there. I think that's okay. I think people can express something through their art that they might or might not express if you were just hanging out with them and having a coffee. And I'm happy to know him that way. He can express himself, I'm sure, in the way that you know him as over coffee too. It just requires a focus of remembering, like a deep focus of connection. That's why when I interact with folks, it's so draining for me because I'm putting all my, whatever weapons I got, in terms of deeply trying to understand the person in front of me. And doing that dance of human interaction, the humor, the intense delving into who they are, which requires navigating around small talk type of stuff and just compliments and so on. In general, depending on the culture, depending on the place, they'll sometimes flower stuff with smiling and compliments like, oh, I love you, this is great. That's all great, but you want to get to the core of what are the demons in the closet? Let's talk about it. And that can be exhausting. That can be really exhausting. So from a Leonard Coe perspective, you get more and more famous. It can be hard sometimes because he probably is also an introvert. I'm guessing. Oh yeah, I know he was an introvert because he actually tweeted about my book when it came out. So that was a precious moment for me. Something about we should all be listening to the quiet. I can't remember exactly what he said, but yeah, yeah, no, he definitely was. He struggled with depression, which I wonder if that's something that's also connected to introversion. But perhaps not actually. Perhaps they're very disjoint. And also- It's connected to sensitivity, and many sensitive people are introverts. So it's kind of like a Venn diagram. About 80% of highly sensitive people are introverted, but then some are extroverts. And then not all introverts are sensitive. So it's complicated. But he was definitely a sensitive type. Well, there's on top of that, you see like the percent of artists relative to the average that suffer from depression. So creative people is very high. It's crazy. Yeah, and then the number of artists and successful artists who were orphaned when they were young, who lost one parent or both parents, it's like an astronomical number. I have it in the book. I don't remember the percentage, but huge. And he was one of them. He lost his father when he was nine. And his first act of poetry was, his father made suits. That's why I thought of him when we were talking about you and your suit. Yeah. And he took one of his father's bow ties and wrote a poem in his honor and buried the poem and the bow tie in the backyard. And that was like his first creative act. You know that song, Chelsea Little Number Two? Sure. Where he met, I guess it's about Janis Joplin. Janis Joplin, yeah. Oh, what a fun, intense, and cruel person she is. Yeah. So I guess- Have you ever seen, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but have you ever seen his son, Adam Cohn, and Lana Del Rey perform that song together? Oh, wow, no. It's incredible. I have to send it to you. Yeah. So that for people who don't know, I don't, I mean, maybe I don't know. It goes, I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel. You were talking so brave and so sweet, giving me head on the unmade bed while the limousines wait in the street. There's a good line in there about being ugly. Oh, yeah. We are ugly, but we have the music. No, before that, from a guy's perspective, it was- Okay. Oh, you told me again, you preferred handsome men. Yeah. But for me, you would make an exception. Yeah. So good. So good. She continued that thread in later because I think she said that he was lousy in bed. Oh, is that right? Yeah. She publicly said that, which is like, oh, man, did there... Just, okay, for people that don't know, I think this is a true story about them interacting and being together for a very brief time. I don't know, dating, but just connecting, falling in love or in this very particular way that I think famous musicians, poets can, which is like, it's impossible for that kind of thing to last. But they did it for a brief moment. There's a sadness to it because it's so momentarily, but it's so epic. Yeah. And that these two paths cross and then you just look at it. We know these famous people and it's interesting to watch. Yeah. And you don't even have the impression that they're thinking it's going to last. They more know that it's like a blaze of an intersection and the limousine's already waiting while they're in the middle of it and then it's done. Yeah. And he's talked about how his music, he said something like, some people are more inclined to say hello with their music, but I'm rather more valedictory. That's what he said. What does valedictory mean? Like saying goodbye, like the valedictorian's address. Interesting. So many of his songs really are about some form of parting or goodbye or an imperfection or something or like the broken hallelujah. But the thing that's so incredible about him is the way that he's taking all of that and pointing it in the direction of transcendence. It's not just pure sadness, it's sadness and beauty. And that's the thing. Yeah. There is a feeling of transcendence in a lot of the songs. It's like sadness and transcendence. You're right. It's a goodbye, but you're moving on to some bigger thing, but in a sort of ethereal way, not like a proud, arrogant way. Yeah. So his favorite poet was Garcia Lorca. He actually named his daughter after him. His daughter's name is Lorca. And he talks about how there's some poem that Lorca had written that made him realize that the universe itself was aching, but the ache was okay because that's the way you embrace the sun and the moon. And that's why I think there's this whole rich vein in this bittersweet tradition that he embodies that's like the essence of beauty. It's the way you embrace the sun and the moon. The song hallelujah, I return to that often, have been meaning to play it. I have now a friend who wants to sing it with me. Are you a singer? Hmm. When somebody says they're a singer, do they have to be good? Because then no, but I would say yes. I was in a band for a while. I sang for a while. I was always bad, but I enjoy it. I enjoy it. I enjoy lyrics. I enjoy words. When sung or spoken, they capture something. Again, that moment, Tom Waits is a huge favorite of mine for that reason. Although he often, his lyrics are often not that simple. I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal about me. He's always playing with just like these weird word play. Especially in the English language, it's trickier to do. I'm fortunate enough to know another language, which is Russian. I get to understand that certain languages allow for more word play than others. English for that reason, I don't think has a culture of, you know what, I need to push back on what I'm about to say, but there was no culture of word play until hip hop came along. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Distorting words in interesting ways for there to be a rhythm, a rhyme, and at the same time, you're capturing some really powerful message, plus humor, all of that mixed in. Actually, hip hop does a really good job of this, but there wasn't a tradition. If you look at poetry in the 20th century, there wasn't really a tradition of that in the United States, but there was in other parts of the world and certainly in Russia. Interesting. Empowered also, not just by the language, by the fact that you go through a world war where tens of millions of people die. Something about mass death of civilians that inspires great literature and music and art. Yeah, absolutely, because you start telling the real truth, I think. Yes. There's no more reason for small talk. That's funny. I always have thought that if I could choose any other medium besides writing, it would be singing. But then- Are you a singer? No, I mean, I'm really not. I just love the idea of it. But then I also think I'm fundamentally a shy person, so I think it's much better that my medium is writing instead of singing. It all worked out. That said, you're also an exceptionally good public speaker, and you're not supposed to be, mathematically speaking. Mathematically speaking- You're not supposed to be a good public speaker. Oh, you mean because of shyness? Yeah, because of shyness, because of introversion, because of all those kinds of things. Oh, yeah. But lots of introverts are public speakers, actually. I knew this from the studies, but then also when I started going out on the lecture circuit, I realized that all my fellow speakers at all these conferences I was going to, they're all introverts. Because they're all people who spent years figuring out some idea, and now they're out there talking about it. Oh, they're in their head figuring out the idea? Yeah. So how do you explain that the public speakers, would you say the good public speakers are usually introverts? No, I think there's just different styles of it. And I think that we just have, when we hear the word public speaker, we have a really limited idea of who that person would be. So for me, I used to be very phobic about public speaking, and part of the reason for it was because I thought that being the kind of person I was didn't equal being able to be a good public speaker, because you're only imagining the super kind of out there showman. But I think there's another style of public speaking that's more reflective and thoughtful and conveying ideas, and people like that too. Is there advice you can give on how to overcome that? If you're a shy person, how to be a public speaker? I can totally give that advice because I used to, before I would give speeches, if I had to do it in law school, if I knew today was the day when I was going to get called on in a law school class, I literally one time vomited on my way to class. That's how nervous I used to be. And yeah, the way to do it is through desensitization. It's been figured out. It's the way to overcome any fear. You have to expose yourself to the thing you fear, but in very small doses. So you can't start by giving the TED Talk. You have to start. I started by going to this class for people with public speaking anxiety, where on the first day, all we had to do was stand up and say our name and sit down. Yeah. And that's the victory. That's fun to watch all those people with anxiety. Okay, that's the first step. And then step, one step at a time. Yeah. And then like with this class, you go back the next week and he would have us come to the front of the room and stand up with other people standing next to us so that you didn't have the feeling of being all alone in the spotlight through others sharing it with you. And you would answer some questions about where do you grow up? Where do you go to school? And you declare victory and you're done. And then little by little by little, you keep ratcheting up the exercises until you get to the point where you can do it. And then you start having successes and you realize, oh, you know, actually I can do this. What about like writing versus improvising? Because I knew a few people, the colleagues of mine that were working on TED Talks, and it feels like you're supposed to write the thing way ahead of time and you practice it and they help you and all that kind of stuff. I don't think I've ever practiced the speech once in my life or a lecture or any of that. I know it's really good to do, but do you find that relieves some of your anxiety preparing well or are you now able to do not preparing well at all? I definitely like to prepare before, but the kind of preparation that I've done for my TED Talks is completely different from what I've done for everything else. Because TED Talks are more like a theatrical event where it's like a one-person show. And of course, if you were going to go on Broadway with a monologue, you would know every word. So it's kind of like that. And so I would rehearse it over and over the way you would do that. Isn't that more anxiety? Like knowing every single word? It's so much anxiety because, yeah, you're not even so freaked out about being on stage so much as what if I forget something? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, they do things like the last TED Talk I gave, I actually did forget something halfway through. Like I just couldn't remember the next line. And so I had to walk over, like over there were my notes. And so I did that and the audience like very kindly clapped while I did that. And then I came back to the spotlight and kept going and they edit that out. Nice. So there's a failure mode. It's okay. But still, it seems really stressful. Like I'm now, I'm not sure if I'll ever publish it, but I've been, mostly it's for a personal journey, but I've been working on a series on, wait for it, Hitler and the Third Reich. Sort of looking at the historical context of everything because of my family was so much affected by that whole part of history. So for me to rigorously, I've read a lot about Stalin and Hitler. And for me to force myself, one of the best ways to force yourself to really consider material is to have to talk about it. Totally. Yeah. And so that's why I'm doing it, but I'm playing with ideas of some of it, maybe like 20% is written down on paper, but the rest of it is my thoughts in the moment. And it's a difficult balance to strike because if you write a lot, you're going to be more precise, you're going to be more accurate, but you're going to miss some of the deep, like honest emotion. The silences won't be correct or the silences between the words won't capture the depth of feeling. Unless if you're somebody like me, if you're like, I guess that's what actors and actresses have to do. Like basically, even though the script is fully written, you improvise between the word, between the lines. Yeah. But that's a skill. Well, it also takes so much time. I mean, I experienced that with the TED talks. It's like, you get to a stage, so you're memorizing everything word for word. And at first, in that process, it comes out in a really wooden way, the way you're saying, like the emotion's gone. But once you really know it, so you've internalized the words, then all the emotion comes back and you can say them in a completely different way. And you're really speaking it from the heart, but you have to know it so well before you can do that. I would never recommend it because it's just like, it's so time consuming. It's an inch. Well, in your case, it works out beautifully. Like when it all comes together, it is a theatrical thing. It's like a musical or whatever. I think I'm going to come out with a one man show on Broadway singing. Now I'm inspired. But for real, where are you going to talk about Hitler and Stalin and everything you're learning? I need to. Have you ever thought of using the medium of just speaking into a microphone, but without the video? I'm curious about this because I fell in love with podcasts originally before there was ever this whole video component to it. And I realized there's something so primal and magical about having someone's voice in your ear. And my favorite kinds of interviews still, very few people do it this way nowadays, but my favorite kind are when you're just talking into the microphone. So it's not over Zoom. It's not in person. It's just you and the microphone and the other person in the microphone and they're in your ear. It's like the ultimate in intimacy. Oh, you mean from the interviewer perspective, that's your favorite? Yeah. But it would be interesting also with the kind of thing you're talking about of just speaking, like just you and the mic. I would love to be in person, but you can't see the person. I wonder what that's like. Wait, what do you mean? Like they're all there, but behind a curtain? No, you just have your eyes closed. You're just talking, you have your eyes closed or whatever. Because I think you still have to get the same kind of chemistry because it's not just the visual. I don't even know that because obviously I have trouble making eye contact. But I don't know if the visual stimulation is the necessary thing. There's something about the way audio travels that captures the intimacy where some people actually have headphones on, like Joe does this, have headphones on. That's really intimate. There's something about that sound going directly into your ear. There is something primal there. Yeah, for sure. I've thought about it, definitely. Some of my favorite podcasts are like that, WTF with Marc Maron, that's audio only. There's a few audio only podcasts that I just love. What is that? I still go on Clubhouse, that was a social media platform where it's audio only. It's so interesting that people, the interesting thing about Clubhouse in particular is people from all walks of life can tune in and they just have, somebody needs to do some research in terms of introversion on that one because I don't feel any of my introvert triggers happening. So nobody can see you, it's just audio. And nobody is offended if you're just sitting there quietly just listening. So you can participate whenever you want or not. Yeah, it's like the ultimate social freedom. You can listen as much as you'd like, you can participate if you want, but you don't have to, it's no big deal. Yeah, yeah. If I'm actually at a physical party, somebody's gonna look at me and be like, why, there'll be that pressure to speak, but you don't have to in that kind of audio setting. And there's that intimacy. When it's audio only, it feels like you can reveal a lot more of yourself in some kind of honest way. I don't know what that is. What is that? I don't know, but I assume it's tapping into something really ancient. We used to tell stories around the fire, like our whole storytelling tradition was oral originally. So maybe it's that, but we used visual stuff. That's true, you could actually see the person on the other side of the campfire. It seems like the visual element's so fundamental to social interaction, but there is something primal about audio. I wonder what that is. And still, that's why, I mean, most people listen to podcasts, I think, audio only. They have it in their ears while they're doing stuff. Yeah, that's how I do it. And that's where the friendship is formed. It's weird, the deep connection with other humans is formed because they're in your ear. And you get to see them grow, you get to see them be bored, experience excitement and anger and fear and all those kinds of things. It's fascinating. The world of podcasting is fascinating because we're in this world of essentially radio, even though we have all this high definition content, all this TikTok style fast stuff and still podcasting. I know, and we still choose to do this. Because at the end of the day, I think that's really what people want most, is just to talk to each other and to know what people really think. And podcasting of all the media that I've ever seen is the one where people come closest to telling you the truth and to telling you the good and the bad and the bitter and the sweet and all of it. Especially long form, there's not enough time. Yeah, exactly. I had to explain this to people. You talk to CEOs and stuff, they don't understand. They're starting to understand much better. Now, as a hard requirement with CEOs and stuff, it has to be three hours. Because they can't be doing marketing stuff for three hours. They break. They start being human, they start joking, they start relaxing. And if they can't, that also tells a kind of story. But I do that kind of torture for CEOs only. Anyway. Yeah, when I was getting, my publishing house did media training with me before Bittersweet came out. And they were preparing me for the five to seven minute interview that you might have, if you go on some quick TV thing or something like that. And God, I hate that. It feels like you're basically having to not tell the full truth somehow. Because you can't tell it in such a short amount of time. So to me, podcasting is just the best thing that's ever happened. The other downside of the seven minute interview is, I think you could do a really good job with that, but the dance part has to be very good. It's actually challenging for everybody involved. It's much harder for everybody involved. Because if you can do, I can imagine a Christopher Hitchens type character who's just super witty, then you could do a seven minute thing. You can get to the core of Bittersweet. You can get to the core of the book without asking those generic small talk questions. Because too many people in that short form interview are just asking very generic questions. They're doing small talk for seven minutes. And it's like, all right. You only get seven minutes. You only get one interesting question. Go ask the weirdest, the deepest question that also energizes the other person. It's an art form that people don't take seriously. I think the seven minute thing, five minutes or even less. And then the commercials, which I- Yeah. And I've noticed that many of the best podcasters are ones where when you're on my side of the table, you feel like it's more of a conversation and less like an interview where you're answering all the same questions you've answered a million times before. Yeah. It's really interesting how different the experience is. And you're right. The audio thing, if you can lose yourself in that, the intimacy of that, and you don't even remember what stupid stuff you said. I've seen that. I mean, people don't give them enough credit. You might not be aware, might not be a fan, but Joe Rogan is an incredible conversationalist in that he makes you forget that anything's being recorded, that you're talking at all. He makes you forget time and you just enjoy yourself. And that's, whatever that is. And then you plug into that primal connection to other humans. What's your favorite Leonard Cohen song? Famous Blue Raincoat. Do you know that one? Yeah. Maybe I'll play it. Yeah. For people who don't know Leonard Cohen, and this is your first introduction to him, it's going to sound so gloomy, but it's so good. He's got this deep, rich voice. Tori Amos covering Famous Blue Raincoat. Yeah, yeah. No, we want the original. Just like Hallelujah, Jeff Buckley covered Leonard Cohen. That was a really good one. That was a really good one. Yeah. And I also really like Rufus Wainwright's cover. Yeah. But Famous Blue Raincoat, for people who don't know it, it's basically about a love triangle. And it's told from the perspective of a man whose wife has just been with another guy who is also his friend. And he's writing a letter to that other guy. And he's reflecting on the way that all their relationships have changed in the wake of this event. So they're still friends. So they're still, well, he refers to him as my brother, my killer, which is such a Leonard Cohen thing to do, because it's always like, you know, it's light and it's dark all at once. Nothing is ever all one thing. Yeah, I love this song. Yeah, right? I mean... He just speaks of it. It's four in the morning, the end of December. I'm writing it out... And the fact that it's four in the morning and it's the end of December, like those are transitional moments, you know, it's night going into day. And it's December going into the new year. It's not an accident. There is something about December, whatever, there's certain scenes you can paint in your mind. There's a poem by Charles Bukowski called Nirvana. It's a young man traveling through the middle of nowhere in the snow. There's something about the snow, either the rain or the snow, can put you in a certain kind of mood that just, what is it, James Joyce, the dead, the snow is falling on Dublin. Yeah, it can put you in a place. I mean, David Yadin, he's a researcher in psychedelics and consciousness at Johns Hopkins. He's a great guy. And he's done research that has found that when people are in their transitional moments of life, you know, and it could be a career change, it could be a divorce, it could be that they're nearing the end of their life, that they very often will say those are their most meaningful moments and their most spiritual moments. And so I feel like that's what Leonard Cohn knows how to tap into instinctively. The year after he died, his son, Adam Cohn, made a memorial concert for him where all these famous musicians came to Montreal, where they had lived and performed his music. And my husband, who's not a Leonard Cohn fan, and he's not a bittersweet type at all, but he knows how I feel about him, he's like, you know, you should really go to that concert. And I felt so ridiculous. The whole family went all the way to Montreal on a Monday. On a Monday. On a Monday. It was just like a random Monday. And we got on the plane, so like, everyone's out of school, just so I can go to this concert. And I got there, and at the beginning, I was feeling like, this was all a terrible mistake, because it's all these other musicians playing this music, and I don't actually really want to hear them. I'd rather listen to him on YouTube. And then a musician named Damien Rice came and played Famous Blue Raincoat, and he sang it, and he did the most amazing thing at the end. The whole thing was amazing. But then at the end, he sang this musical riff that was like, all I could say is that it was like a musical lamentation of the ages. And the whole audience just rose silently to its feet. And it was one of the greatest moments that I've ever had. There's sometimes certain artists in a cover can capture, in some kind of deeper way, like carrying the thread of the power of the song. So I've been listening a lot to Johnny Cash Hurt, which is a Ninety Schnell's Trent Reznor song. I know, you talked about it on your podcast with Rick Rubin, which is when I reached out to you, because I love that interview, and I love that song also. Yeah, yeah. So there's that. There's the Kennedy Center Honors, where they celebrated certain artists. They did that for Led Zeppelin, and I forgot what her name is, but the lead singer of Heart performed Stairway to Heaven. I don't think I've heard that. And it's like, if you're like, all right, you take one of the great sort of rock songs of all time, what do you do? Oh, the cool thing is you get to perform this in front of the artist while they're still there, you know, they're still alive. So you get to watch you sort of perform. And in that case, the President, President Obama's there, and she just knocked it out of the park. But at the same time, without outdoing the original somehow. Right, you're just making it your own. You're making it your own, but not departing completely, not departing from the spirit of the original. It's tough, because the original Hollywood by Leonard Cohen, it's just not, it's so powerful, but it's just not as good as some of these covers. Well, I think it's the words and the melody, and then the covers take it to a different place. The thing that Leonard Cohen seems to do well, I don't think he did it on Hallelujah, because he was almost being playful on Hallelujah. Like, I don't know, as opposed to that deep melancholy, like painful longing thing that Jeff Buckley did and others do too. I wonder if it's because in a way he, I don't mean that he over edited it, but he apparently worked on that song for years and went through gazillions of verses and checked most of them out. So I wonder if we're hearing his version after he's like a little tired with that process. Yeah. Well, that's the other thing is like, maybe from a book tour, you know, is like you get tired of saying the same thing over and over and over and over, you forget. You forget the initial, like the heart of it. Yeah. But I actually got a chance to hang out with Dan Reynolds, who's the lead singer of Imagine Dragons, this incredible band, super pop, the most played band on Spotify or something. Is that right? Yeah. We just went through a huge Imagine Dragons phase, so we were listening to their music a lot. It was so surreal to be hanging out with them, and he's such a good, like very few people I've met in my life are just as good of a human being. And that has to do with the fact that he struggles. He still, I think, struggles, but he struggled for a long time with depression. And so out of that pain, you see born this really good human being, this really good relationship with his wife, like when times are good, they lean on each other for like, they're deeply grateful for those precious moments. So it's beautiful to watch. But he said that it's really important to feel the song every time. Otherwise, people know, people are really good at detecting your bullshit. You can't fake it. Yeah. You really have to feel it every time. You have to feel the emotion of it, whatever the emotion is, of the original time you wrote it. Yeah. It's just interesting because it put, I thought you can maybe fake it, but he believes personally, because he played in front of gigantic crowds and over and over and over and over and over, he's like, no, every time you have to be there. But there's got to be times when he's about to go out and he's not feeling it, and he has to figure out some way of getting himself into that heart space. Well, that's what he's saying. You have to, otherwise you're just, that's the job. Right. Don't take the job then. And he loves it. He says the biggest struggle, in fact, is the comedown from that, which is like, you have such a beautiful experience of connecting with this large number of people, sharing a song that you love, and then it's just a rush of connection. And then you have to, when you get off stage, you're now back to normal life. And that's why a lot of musicians get into heavy drugs and all that kind of stuff, because you're looking for that rush again. It's very tough to like, then going to this, speaking of introvert, because he probably is an introvert, is like, you have to find that calmness. And how do you find the calmness when you were just playing in front of tens of thousands of people or hundreds of thousands, whatever that number is, that rush of connection, and everybody, there's love in the air, and you still have to find that inner peace and calm. That's interesting, because I don't know if this is the introvert in me talking and the writer in me talking, but I don't know. I love most the moments where, let's say I'll get a letter from a reader who will tell me what something I wrote meant to them, and they'll talk about having had that kind of moment of the communion between the writer and the reader. And obviously I wasn't there physically when it happened, so I wasn't getting that kind of rush that a musician would get in a concert. But just the knowledge of that having happened out there in the world, Jesus, something that I added to it, is the most amazing thing. You love it. But see, imagine reading like thousands of those letters, and then it's such a strong rush, and everything else doesn't... It could be overwhelming, I guess. But like anything else, you have to come down and find a calm place. Like for example, the danger of getting letters like that, you start taking yourself too seriously. You think like you are a special person somehow, but you really want to avoid that feeling too. Yeah, I don't actually experience it as that much different from when I'm on the other side of it. Like if I'm the reader, and some other writer has made me feel that way, to me it's the same thing. Yeah, me too. It's a virtual hug. I think it's like I was just listening to something about the different Russian writers. I was mentioning him to you, this academic, his name is Gary Saul Morsin, and he studies Russian literature. And he was talking about, I don't know if I'll be able to get this right, but basically that people misunderstand a work like Anna Karenina, and that we think of it as telling us that you're supposed to have these grand, tempestuous romances that might end in death or despair or whatever it is, but you should be in it for the intensity of the emotion. And he's saying, actually, that's exactly not what Tolstoy was saying. That actually, it was the opposite. That he was really advocating for everyday life. He was saying, it's scenes from everyday life. He was juxtaposing Anna Karenina with all these other couples who were just living happily and quietly day by day. And that was what he believed was the ideal. So, as opposed to the grand rush and as opposed to the intensity. I wonder if he, is there a depth to the, is there a romance of just the day to day? I think there is a romance to the day to day. And don't get distracted by the dopamine rollercoaster ride of the grand romantic notions. Yeah, and enjoy it while it's happening, because those are life experiences also, but not to mistake those for being everything. Where is he from? He's a professor at Northwestern. At Northwestern. And apparently his lectures are the most popular on campus. Wow, people love him. Gary Saul Morson is an American literary critic and slobist. He's particularly known for his scholarly work on the great Russian novel lists, Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Morson is Lawrence D. Professor in the Arts and Humanities at Northwestern University. Yeah, wow. And there's a lot of incredible work. And then I'm sure looking through the lens of Russian literature and the romance of all that, he's looking at the modern world. Yeah, I think you should have him on your podcast. And Quiet Flows the Vodka or When Pushkin Comes to Shove, The Carmudgeon's Guide to Russian Literature and Culture. This is one of the silly books he has on the list. Okay, cool. What were you saying? I'm sorry. Oh no, I was just saying, yeah, like I find that when I take photos on my phone, I hardly ever take photos at the moment you're supposed to, like everybody's gathered for some event, I'll forget to take the photo. But I take a lot of like scenes from everyday life because that's what I actually want to remember in the end. Yeah, yeah, I'm the same. The same. It's actually concerning because it's bad for productivity because I love everyday life so much. Then why do any ambitious big thing? Your productivity is pretty good. I don't know that you have to worry about it. I do. So I want to launch a business. I have a dream outside. This is like a fun side thing that I want to, there's been a lifelong passion. Anyway, that's a, I like building, I like building stuff and I haven't been doing that as much as I would like. That's because, largely, because I like sitting in silence and enjoying the beauty that is just nature and life and when there's people, there's people. I love people. I love everything. And so when you love everything, why go through hell to build a company? Yeah, that's a valid question. I mean, I think you have to have a really good reason for wanting to do it. But then your heart calls you for the certain, sometimes you look out into the mountains and you say, for some reason, I long to go there, even if it means leaving the tribe and putting yourself in danger and doing stupid shit. That's a human imperative for exploration. Yeah, absolutely. Like when we were talking about this idea of longing being the source code of humanity, I think that's also the source code of our creativity. It's the same longing for Eden. It's like you're always reaching for something that you want to get to or that you want to build. Yeah. It's the best of us. What do you think, you write about creativity and sadness. Practically speaking, how should we leverage sadness for creativity? Is that sort of in the artist domain, in the writer's domain, in the engineering domains and so on? It's definitely in those domains, but it's in all domains. We're all going to face pain in this life at some point, and we all have the ability to weather it and withstand it and live with it for a bit and then try to transform it into something that we find beautiful. It's very easy to notice the grandeur of the painting hanging on the gallery wall or the new the new company that's just been created, but it takes a thousand different forms, right? You could bake a cake or like in the wake of the pandemic, we've had more people applying to medical school and nursing school. And after 9-11, you had people applying for jobs as firefighters and teachers. So there's something in the human spirit that takes pain and turns it into meaning when we're at our best. And when we're not at our best, we deny the pain and then take it out on ourselves and on other people. So there's a kind of fork in the road of what to do with it. But we know, I mean, there's all these studies that I go through in the book. There was one where the researchers had people watch different movies, like happy movies, sad movies, bittersweet movies. And they found when people watched Father of the Bride, which is like the ultimate bittersweet, you know, you're walking your daughter down the aisle kind of feeling, that was, they would give them creativity tasks after watching these different movies. And the people who had been primed for bittersweetness were the most creative. And they were like primed to remember finality, you know, like love and finality, basically, love and impermanence. There's something about that that gets us to our most beautiful state. I wonder if it is, I mean, there's studies like that. There's, I don't know if you looked into terror management theory. Yeah, that's really interesting stuff. So they especially intensely have you focused on not just sad, but traumatic, like death, prime you with death and see how that changes your mind. Like both, like, I don't know if there's creativity studies, but they have interesting, I think a little bit tainted by political bias, but maybe not. I mean, psychology is a complicated field, but they study like, who are you likely to vote for? Right. If you're primed by existential, like by thinking about death. Like the fear of mortality. Fear of mortality. I forget what the conclusions are, but- I think they find that people become more tribalistic. Yeah. You know, like there was one study where they found that after they primed people that way, that they would then give them the chance to put hot sauce on a meal that their political opponents were going to be eating. And they put way too much hot sauce on after they've been primed to worry about death. I think at the core, we're simple creatures. So I actually, like in the book, I spent a bunch of time with people who are working on radical life extension, you know, or the quest to live forever. And people ask them a lot, questions like, you know, the kinds of questions you were talking about earlier. Well, like, how are you going to feed everybody? And how is there going to be space for everybody if everyone really could live forever? And what about conflict? Won't we have an intensified conflict? And their answer to that is, they point to terror management theory, you know, and they say, because it's the fear of death, they're basically saying it's the fear of death that are causing our conflicts in the first place. And that if we remove the fear of death, we'd have we'd have less conflict to contend with. And that, I don't really buy that. It's possible that that's true. But are you also, how does the expression go, throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Are you also going to remove basically any source of meaning and happiness in the human condition? Like, it's very possible that death is fundamental to the human condition, finality. Yeah, that's the great philosophical question. And I went to a conference of people who are working on this, and I thought that they were going to be talking about those questions all through the conference. But the MO is much more like, we're so happy that we're here with people who have gotten past all those quibbles. You know, we just know there's going to be meaning no matter what. The basic assumption is, let's try to extend life indefinitely, and then we'll figure out if that's a good decision. Or more like, we're sure it's a good decision. Or at least that was what I felt. It's either we're sure it's a good decision, or we're sure that it's good to believe that it's a good decision. Meaning like, there's no downside to that, even if we find out it's wrong. But yes, there's a kind of certainty. Obviously you want to extend human life, that's the kind of assumption. That always seemed... Now, it could be true, but just like the people who over-focus on colonizing other planets, it feels like you neglect the beauty and the struggle of our life here on Earth. I have sort of the same kind of criticism, whether it's thinking about Valhalla or any other afterlife, is you can have, if you're not careful, forget to make this life a great one, whatever happens afterwards. So yeah, definitely. But from an engineering, from a biology, from a chemistry perspective, it's very interesting to think, how do we extend this thing? Because it does seem that nature, the way it designed living organisms, it really wants us to die. Because that's part of the selection mechanism, that's part of this, it seems to be fundamental to evolution. It gets people young, they need protection. Once they're a young brain, they get to explore a lot, get to figure out the world, they come up with their own novel ideas, how to adapt and how to respond to that world. And then as they get older and older, they get like stubborn and stuck in their ways. And so we need them to die, so we make room for new life that's able to adapt to the changing environment. If the old doesn't die, then you're going to get stale and not be adaptable to the changing environment. But maybe it doesn't have to happen so soon. Yeah, maybe it doesn't. It's like pressing, listen, I'm a big fan of pressing snooze on the alarm clock. In the same way, I'm one of the people that believe it's, or I don't definitely believe, of course, I don't know, but I think death is a fundamental part of life. But yeah, if I'm on my deathbed, I would sure as hell press snooze as many times as possible. Yeah, I know. And it's interesting because in some ways I really, I share your instinct. There was one scientist who I spoke to at that conference who's one of the leading advocates, and he said, you know, that's a story that we've invented for ourselves because we have no choice. And if you really believe that you have no choice, then it's adaptive to tell that story, that death gives meaning to life. Good point. But if you really think you could triumph over it, would you still be telling that same story? And I've been thinking about that question ever since. Yeah, yeah, no, they got a good point. They got a good point. No matter what, as an engineering and a scientific pursuers, it's a beautiful one. In your own personal life, if we can go there. Sure. What's have been some dark places you've gone in your own mind, grief, loss, sad moments, moments of sadness that have made you a better writer, a better creator, a better human being? Well, I mean, I've been through a lot of bereavement just in these last couple years with COVID. But even before that, I mean, there's all kinds of stuff. I write about it in the book, and in some ways I feel like I can write about those kinds of things better than I can speak them. But I had a really complicated relationship with my mother growing up, where we had a kind of Garden of Eden during my childhood. We were intensely, intensely close. And my mother, because of some vulnerabilities that she had, reacted with a lot of trouble to my adolescence and to growing independent from her and starting to have different religious views and different political views and all kinds of things. And we had a pretty intense break that I describe in the book. And it was so intense that even though after that, we still would get together for holidays and talk to each other on the phone and all that. There was a sense in which it was over at that point. The relationship was over. The Garden of Eden was no more. Yeah, yeah. It was like a feeling of like, yeah, I know what Eden was like, and it's not there anymore. And I think it was all the more confusing because if you lose someone to actual bereavement, you go through a mourning process, and people have thought for thousands of years about how to do that. But with something like this, there's no process because you're not even admitting to yourself, especially when you're in your teens and 20s, that you're mourning something. But it was the case that for decades, I could not answer even the simplest question about my mother, like where did she grow up, without tears in my eyes. Or more than tears in my eyes, embarrassing tears. So I would just try to steer the subject in another place. But I think it was a process. But I will say, two things happened. One is that I've spent the last six, seven years writing this book about joy and sorrow and loss and love and all of it. And I've really come to terms with all of it. And then the second thing that happened is my mother now has Alzheimer's. And in her Alzheimer's, she's still actually the same person. She's forgotten most things, but she still has these conversational lanes that you can travel down that are like the way she always was. And the way that she was when I was a kid, which was so incredibly loving and so connected and so warm and sweet and funny and all of it, all the things I remembered, it's all come back. And for all these decades, I had been wondering whether that Garden of Eden I remembered had actually happened, or whether that was just like the fantasy of a child and maybe it was always difficult and I had not seen it. But I'm seeing her now and I realized that it was all true. Everything I remember, it was all true. It all happened because it's happening again. And you returned to the Garden of Eden for a time. Yeah. And to childhood. It's always a question of whether you can return to that place. Well, I don't know. I don't even know if I'd say I've returned because I'm a different person now and I don't need her. Are you sure? Are you sure? Yeah. You're different than the 10-year-old? Well, okay. You feel different? No, I mean, I'm the same person in terms of my need for love and love of love and all of that, but I don't look... I'm not dependent on my mother for it the way I was then. And that makes the experience really different. Yeah. When you're younger, she's a god figure. What is that? The roots, the parents, such a funny civilization we live in. There's a depth of connection to parents that's probably more powerful than anything else in terms of its formative effect on who you are. I think it's the most powerful. And in fact, when this started happening, I got to college and I took a class in creative writing and I tried to write a story, a fictionalized version of what was happening. And I called it The Most Passionate Love because of what you just said. And the teacher actually said to me, she was like, you know, you're not going to get a lot of love. And the teacher actually said to me, she was like, you know, you should put this story in a drawer and not take it out again for 30 years because you're way too close to it. So I've now finally written it 30 years later. Yeah, you're probably still too close to it though. I don't know though. I mean, I do think like, I think everybody goes through experiences in this life where you're experiencing a fundamental pain of separation and desire for a union. And it takes so many different forms. And this was my primal form of it. But for someone else, it's a betrayal or a bereavement or an exile from a country of their birth or whatever it is. And then you get to solve that puzzle for the rest of your life. Yeah, the fact of like, I really do believe that, you know, that the original love that we long for, like that one of the great things that you learn as you grow older is that the love exists in some plane that's more general than the particularized form in which you first knew it. Yeah, I mean, that's why, despite all the creepy interpretations, even though Sigmund Freud is probably wrong in the details, he was the first one to sort of suggest that our experiences, I mean, he said that that was really controversial at the time when young people, they start having sexual thoughts like at age two or something, whatever the hell he said. So you develop this kind of connection to the opposite sex or whatever, to your mother, to your parents. And I think while a lot of that is shown to be probably not true, what is like a deeper truth there is your first early experiences of love or depth of connection are probably somehow strongly formative of your conception of love and your definition of the perfect thing you're reaching for for the rest of your life. Yeah, I think that's right. And you can really see it when you become a parent too. You know, you can just see like there's- Don't screw it up. Yeah. You know, I have to say, like- A lot of pressure. Yeah, like, I mean, knock on wood, I actually feel like we're doing pretty well. Like my kids are teenagers now and I really had thought that I wasn't going to repeat the issues that I had been through with my mom. And I can say, I really am not. Yeah, like my mom for various reasons, just had a lot of trouble with my independence and I just don't feel that at all. So- Yeah, there might be other things you're totally blind to. I guess that's possible. Is that the way of parenting? You solve the problems of the past, but there's always- But there's some other new one. I guess I'll find out in 10 or 20 years, but like so far so good. What wisdom about parenting can you give from your own experience and from your writing? Yeah, well, oh my God, there's a lot to say. So on the bittersweet side of things, the wisdom that I would give is that especially for kids who are growing up in relative comfort with everything going pretty well, they get the idea that real life is when things are going well and when things don't go well, it's like a detour from the main road, as opposed to understanding that it's all the main road. And I tell this story in the book of this time that we went on this family vacation where we rented a house in the countryside and the house was next to this field where lived two donkeys that our kids fell in love with. They were like really little at the time, two boys. And they're spending all this time feeding carrots to the donkeys and it's all beautiful. And then comes the day where they realize that we're leaving in like two days and they're never going to see these donkeys again. And they start crying themselves to sleep. And the usual things that parents might say at a moment like that of like, maybe we'll come back or another family will feed them, we'll feed these donkeys. None of that made any difference. But when we said to them, goodbye is part of life and this feeling you're having, everybody has it. You've had it before, you're going to have it again. You'll feel better in a couple of days, but this is the way it's supposed to be. This is natural. That's when they stopped crying because I think that's when they stopped resisting. Like it's one thing to feel the pain of goodbye and it's another thing to be feeling like this isn't supposed to be happening. It's the resistance part of this isn't supposed to be happening that makes life really difficult. As opposed to a more clear-eyed view of what it really is. This is indeed supposed to be happening. There's a show called Yellowstone that I recently started watching. Yeah, no, I've heard of it. We actually started watching it, but only a few minutes and didn't get into it. So there's just a quick, it's not a spoiler of any kind, but there's a father taking out the son for the first time to go hunting and to shoot their first buck. And the son is really sad because he pulls the trigger and he took a life. And the father says that everybody gets killed in this life. That's the way of nature. That's the way each one of us is going to get killed. And it's interesting because I didn't really think of it that way because you think you die, but he really framed it as killed because he's like, there's no such thing as dying of old age. Let's medically, let's discuss that a bit. But basically there's something, whether it's a truck or a bacteria, something's going to kill you in the end. And that was an interesting way to look at it because we tend to think of humans aren't supposed to be killed. We think of murder as one of the sins, sort of one of the things that you don't do in society. But you know what? We do. That's a more technical discussion, whether we ultimately get killed by something in the end. But to some degree, that's true, at least for most of us, that there's something that gets us, whether it's cancer, those kinds of things. It's interesting. But yeah, that reframing of it's supposed to be, this is the way of the world. Yeah. So it's funny. I mean, at the same time that I just wrote a whole book about the fact that this is the way it is. I really do believe this is the way it is. And with this reality, there's an intense beauty that comes along with it. So we have to accept the reality to get to the beauty. I believe that. And at the same time, there's a part of me that's just like, yeah, but give me the magic wand to make the world different. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know how much of this is a female thing too. I was watching with my son, my 12-year-old the other day. We were watching this show about the Battle of Thermopylae. Yeah. And it was all about valor and glory on the battlefield. And I said to him something like, gosh, don't you just wish we lived in a world where you didn't have to do all this in order for everyone just to live their lives? And he just looked at me completely puzzled. He's like, no. To him, it all just seemed self-evident that the world would be structured that way. Right. And he had the 12-year-old's admiration for the valor of it all. But you wonder if that's nature or nurture. I wonder what that world looks like. We do live in a world where murder is seen as bad, but you look at a lot of the human history. I don't know if they had the same kind of conception of that in terms of you have to ask what kind of murder, for what purpose? War was a way of life. It's interesting. It's interesting if we can imagine properly a future that is different than ours in terms of operating under different moral systems. I'd like the same with living indefinitely or living in a society with no war. How fundamental is war? How fundamental is death to humanity? I think it's so fundamental to our source code. I just wish that our source code were different, basically. I can't get past that wish. There's people working on that, right? There's brain-computer interfaces that try to merge. So greater and greater. With smartphones, we're already kind of cyborgs, but greater and greater merger of computational power. So literally adding source code to our original source code, just a different, there's the mushy biology that runs source code, and then there's more cold, electrical systems, and then they integrate together, and potentially one day we offload the magic that is human consciousness also into the machine, and then we'll get to see. Maybe they'll be a little bit less assholish about the whole war thing. There'd be more. But there is, I think, even when I think about engineering human intelligence or superhuman intelligence systems, I feel like they also need to have the yin and yang of life. They have to be able to be afraid and to be sad and all those kinds of things. But maybe it's because I'm a product in this particular environment. Maybe sadness is a useful human invention, but not a universal one. CNH. This is what I don't know, because this is where I come back to the, as I told you, like the original reason that I wrote my whole book was the feeling that somehow in the expression of sad music is what other people see when they talk about God. Like there's something so, there's like an ultimate beauty there that I don't know if we have access to without that. But maybe we do. But I can say in this world, that's a great way to get access to that state. LR. Is it within the reach of science to deeply understand this, you think? To understand why you feel sad when you're listening to a song? CNH. Or why you feel so much love when you're listening to a sad song. LR. To a sad song, right. Why the sad song opens up some kind of deep connection to something you can call divine or something, whatever the heck that is. CNH. Yeah, I do think. I mean, we have like really early signs of it from the research, and I'm sure we're just at the scratching the surface stage. But I mean, like we know, for example, that the vagus nerve, which is so fundamental that it governs our breathing and our digestion, that our vagus nerve also activates when we see another being in distress. There's like an instinctive impulse to want to make it stop. And the theory is that that's an evolutionary design because we had to be able to respond to the cries of our infants. And from that ability grows the greater ability to respond to other people's cries too. So that's probably just the very first step in being able to understand what all that is. LR. We've already given plenty of advice, but broadly, what advice would you give to young folks today about career or about life, whether they want to be writers, lawyers, scientists, musicians, and artists, whatever the heck they want to be? How can they live a life they can be proud of? CNH. Okay, here's what I think. LR. Let's go. CNH. You should absolutely do that thing that you're dying to do, but you should always have a plan B, like a backup plan and a way of earning a living no matter what happens. LR. That's funny. CNH. I feel like people, we have this narrative in our culture of like that the glamorous thing is to figure out the thing you love and then risk everything to achieve that. But first of all, a lot of people aren't comfortable with that level of risk. And second, when you're living with that level of risk, that's a cognitive load too. And so you don't have the full emotion and heart to be able to focus on the thing that you actually really love because you're stressed out about it. So I'd say get the backup plan in place and then do the thing. LR. My advice would be the opposite. CNH. Okay. Tell me why. LR. I'm moving the romantic. Well, I think the best, the truth is be aware of the cost not having a plan B has. So do it deliberately if you don't. But I'm with Bukowski on find what you love and let it kill you. I think you have to actually know your personality. I know if I have a plan B, I will not try as hard on plan A. I would likely take plan B because if plan A is the risky thing, I just work way much better when in the state of desperation. So with my back against the wall and you have to know that about yourself. I think that has to do with- CNH. So I think we can refine it to say you actually have to really know yourself and how you respond to different kinds of risks. I would not do well in that kind of situation. I'd be up at two in the morning worrying about it. Whereas if I have some, it doesn't have to be paying the rent in some grand way, but if there's some basic way of paying the rent, then my heart's free to do the thing I really love. LR. That's hilarious. For me, the only way I'm free is when I don't know how I'm going to pay the rent. Because otherwise I'll find a way to pay the rent. That's not at all a source of deep fulfillment for me. CNH. I see. So it's like if you don't have the, what's the expression? I don't know, something like the dog at your back, then you won't actually do it. LR. Deadlines. I create real or artificial deadlines, anxiety and so on. CNH. So really the advice is know your triggers. But we're still saying the same basic thing of do the thing you really love, but just set up the- LR. Strategize the rest of your life. CNH. The rest of your life. LR. Appropriately to your personality and triggers. CNH. Exactly. LR. What do you think is the meaning of life? The meaning of this whole thing probably has something to do with whatever we feel when we listen to that song. CNH. Yeah. Because two things come simultaneously to my mind when you ask that question. And I've been asking it since I was four. I remember the first time I did. LR. The question is more important than the answer probably. Just keep asking. CNH. I don't know. The first one is beauty. And I don't know why beauty is so important, but I just know that it is. LR. And possible to define perhaps. CNH. Is it definable? Other than you know it when you see it. I don't know. LR. Has to do with that line that you feel something when you just see it or you hear it. CNH. Yeah. You just see it. And it's like whatever can deliver you to that mode of transcendence where you're no longer purely in your own self and you're in something higher. And when you're in those states of mind, you know it because you have the temporary sensation that you could die at that moment, that the people you love could die, and it will all be okay because there's something else. So that's my first answer. And then my second answer is the need to relieve psychic pain. Like other people's psychic pain. I don't know why. That's just like an impulse that I have. LR. Psychic pain is more like suffering of any form. What is psychic pain? CNH. Yeah. But I mean. LR. Is there a particular? CNH. Yeah. Just making the world better and less pain to go around in general. LR. Hence your sort of optimistic desire and longing for a world without sort of destruction, without malevolent destruction. CNH. Yeah. A world where that wouldn't be necessary. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. But yeah. So I had this moment. It wasn't so long ago. I was doing some interview and somebody asked me, like, what are you longing for right now? And my answer at that moment was like, you know what? I'm actually at this moment in life where I'm not longing for anything. I'm at this particular way station where everything is the way I want it to be. And of course, the minute you say something like that, you know you're going to be proven wrong. Because like an hour later, I get a letter from a reader who I've been in touch with over the years. And he was telling me about a psychic struggle that he's going through. And I just felt like, oh my gosh, if there were anything I could do to make it that his life wouldn't have been such that he would be in this position in the first place. Like his struggles had to do with a long life history. So I don't know why I feel that so intensely, but I do. LR. It's funny. Those moments when you are just at peace, there's nothing else you want, you feel like that's like a temporary repose, like a pause. CMH. Yes, exactly. LR. You bet your ass a desire follows that at some point, but you get to enjoy those little moments. CMH. Yeah. And even when he asked me and I answered that way, I said, this is a way station. Like I knew it was temporary, but I didn't realize it would be disrupted like an hour later. LR. And so to give you pushback to your statement about the possibility of beauty and basically alleviating suffering, there's a quote I really like from Hunter S. Thompson that pushes back against that, which is, for every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled. But that's a very Hunter S. Thompson. CMH. Yeah, and I don't buy it. LR. And you know how he ended up. He's not the greatest philosopher of all times, but he's certainly a beautiful, a chaotic human being. CMH. Well, that's true. And I will tell you that my nickname for my husband is Gonzo, because of him. He invented that form of Gonzo journalism where the writer is totally in the story. And my husband, that's his personality. He's in everything that he does. He's really in it. He's really present. He just lives that way. So his name is Ken, but I call him Gonzo like 90% of the time. LR. Well, then that's a beautiful way to end the season. Thank you for your work. Thank you for being who you are. Thank you for initially at least making me feel okay about being an introvert and educating and making the rest of us feel great about being introverts. It's like half the world or whatever the heck it is. It's a lot of people. Thank you for being you. Thank you for talking today. This is awesome. This is fun. CMH. Thank you so much. It was so great to talk to you. And I think it was the, what I said to you when we first got connected is thank you for your way of being in the world. I really, really love it. LR. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Susan Cain. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Susan Cain herself. The highly sensitive introvert tends to be philosophical or spiritual in their orientation, rather than materialistic or hedonistic. They dislike small talk. They often describe themselves as creative or intuitive. They dream vividly and can often recall their dreams the next day. They love music, nature, art, and physical beauty. They feel exceptionally strong emotions, sometimes acute bouts of joy, but also sorrow, melancholy, and fear. Highly sensitive people also process information about their environments, both physical and emotional, unusually deeply. They tend to notice subtleties that others miss. Another person's shifted mood or a light bulb burning a touch too brightly. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/j4PEu4sVD40

yyBosLx7bbM

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Nathalie Cabrol: Search for Alien Life | Lex Fridman Podcast #348

My friend is telling me that the volcano seems to be starting to erupt. If that volcano goes off, we have nowhere to go. That got my attention. So if you say scared, I would say that I got the realization that what that meant. I went cold for like a fraction of a second, but that meant that just my adrenaline started to kick in. And it was a very, very strange experience because now you have tunnel vision. It's about survival. The following is a conversation with Natalie Cabral, an astrobiologist and scientist at the SETI Institute, directing the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe. She explores some of the harshest places on earth, including free diving and volcanic lakes, all in the pursuit of understanding living organisms beyond earth. For this, she holds the woman's world record for diving at an altitude, both scuba and free diving. She's amazing. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Natalie Cabral. You are the director of the Carl Sagan Center for Research at the SETI Institute. SETI, of course, stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. One of the things you do as part of that is travel to some of earth's most extreme and dangerous environments in search of organisms that live in conditions analogous to those on Mars. First, let me ask what the job posting for the work you do looks like. Is it like Shackleton's ad in 1900 that said people wanted for hazardous journey to the South Pole? Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, and also where do I apply? That's funny because there was not really a job application. In fact, when you're a scientist, you have questions in your mind and you have hypotheses and you start to list the kind of thing you need to answer. And then when you see the kind of thing you have to answer, then you kind of know the places where you need to go to do that. As far as science is concerned, I started with analyzing data from the Mars missions. I had written a PhD about water on Mars, first looking at channels and the history evolution of water. But then, during my postdoc, I started to look where that water was spawning. Interestingly enough, everybody was about channels and water and whether catastrophic or whatnot or seepage. But when you are talking about ponding water like lakes or ocean, people started waving their arms a little bit. So, it was a little bit of a battle, interestingly enough. But that got us on track with my husband. We were working together and we started developing the idea, the concept of lakes in impact craters. So, why an impact crater? It's just because the Viking mission at the time, which is what we were working with, the resolution and the topography were so poor that there was really no way of telling where you had a real low in the topography. The only thing you knew was a hole in the ground was an impact crater. So, when you saw valleys... What was the Viking mission? The Viking mission landed on Mars in 1976 and there were two landers and two orbiters. So, they were really our first feet on the ground on Mars, but they were lander. They were not moving, they were not going up. And that was the data you were looking at? It was already in the 90s, but we didn't have yet the Mars Global Surveyor and whatnot. We still worked for 20 years. We worked on that. I did my master and my PhD thesis on Viking missions. You mentioned that the places you go to are defined by the questions you want to ask. Let's just step back. What questions have always tugged at your heart? Well, that's the thing. That's why I was looking at those images and saw some lakes. And then came time where we started talking about sending landers and rovers on Mars and looking maybe at the possibility that Mars was habitable. And lakes are particularly good places to look for those questions. So, this is how it all ties up. So, you were always curious about life out there? I have been always curious about life in the universe and about questions on how we got to be here and the bigger question. Now, with 25 years more in that business, it's more about understanding the origin and nature of life rather than whether there is life or not on Mars. I mean, this was really for me a stepping stone to bigger questions. But they were definitely important because they helped me frame my way of thinking about those questions. And so, looking at Mars, at lakes, understanding what the conditions were 3.5 billion years ago or close to 4 billion years ago, then I knew the type of environment I needed to explore here on Earth as analogous to be able to understand what type of life still survives in those environments and what kind of instrument and what kind of resolution do I need to actually detect it. So, this is how the whole thing started. And it started with a small grant, literally 40k. It was a discretionary fund. And this is how I got started in my career. And so, many of these questions you can answer by looking at life in extreme conditions here on Earth. But let's step back a little bit and look at Mars and lakes on Mars. Just going back to your PhD and before, and maybe today, what do we understand about life on Mars? What do we understand about lakes on Mars? Is there water on Mars? What do we understand about the conditions from 4 billion years ago on Mars? Well, we've gone a long way, remember, from the Viking where we had no resolution. Well, we had a little bit more resolution than with Mariner. What did you think at that time? Sorry to interrupt. Just take us back to that mindset. It was really the exploration, like your first look at a planet. You have to remember that the first mission that successfully snapped some pictures of Mars was Mariner 4. And then everybody at that time was still under the spell of, you know, H. Wells and the idea that Mars looked, with telescope, so similar to the Earth. Polar caps, we could see them with a telescope, and we knew it had season. The actual tilt is pretty much the same as the one for Earth. So, when Mariner 4 left, everybody, not everybody, but a lot of people thought that we would see the crystal cities and domes and stuff, that another civilization might have evolved in parallel to us in the solar system. And of course, when the first images came back and Mars looked with that kind of resolution, it had like the Moon. It was a huge disappointment. Then Mariner 9 came, and that changed everything. There was a little bit of drama because Mars started one of the biggest dust storms it ever experienced. And so for three months, we had an orbiter circling around Mars and not seeing anything. But then when the dust cleared, all of a sudden we started discovering volcanoes, valleys, ancient channels, dune fields, polar caps, and see what I'm talking to you? I don't need to invent any words to describe Mars. And although the myth of extraterrestrial civilization on Mars was gone, all of a sudden, the imagination of the scientists started to pick up because right away we're seeing something that was familiar, that we could describe. So right away, Viking put on the fast track and the idea was, so Mars looks so much like Earth could have been, although it's arid and there is little atmosphere, etc. Could there be life? And of course, behind this, at the time, there were people like Klein and Sagan, Carl Sagan, just thinking about how can we test the idea of biology of life on Mars? So this is what Viking did. But of course, at the time when the two landers arrived on Mars, we didn't have the context of the geology of the environment. We didn't have much data at all. So the data that Viking sent back was very confusing. Some people still think today that we discovered life on Mars at the time, because some of the experiment turned out to show a strange signal. But most of the community think that it can be explained by chemical reaction that we see today. So it was so confusing that NASA decided to say, okay, if we want to be serious about looking for life on Mars, we have to understand the environment, because life and environment co-evolve. So as cause or effect, a planet is going to give you the physical chemical environment for life to happen. These are the boundaries. But once life is here, it's going to change everything. One of the biggest impact of life was to inject oxygen into the atmosphere of the Earth two billion years ago. And that changed everything, including our signature in space. So there is this co-evolution. So if you want to understand one, you have to remove the other from the equation. It's kind of a two or none equation. So even though oxygen changes our signature today, what if all life on Earth died, and now we fast forward a billion years, what would be the traces left? So the question I'm trying to ask is, if life had existed on Mars, what would be the signs we would look for? That's a very good question. The thing is that if you draw the parallel with Earth, it took 82% of Earth's geological history to go from very simple life, microbial life, to complexity. And when I'm saying complexity, I'm not even talking about us. I'm talking about animals. So Mars is smaller, lost its magnetic field very fast, and lost its atmosphere very fast. Life also appeared on Earth very fast. So the condition being quite similar at that time between the Earth and Mars, let's assume for a moment that life appeared on Mars, it would have been simple life when conditions started to degrade, which was less than a billion years after the planet had formed. So everything at the surface would have disappeared, except maybe for morphological traces of the interaction between life and its environment. So on Earth, the best example are what we call stromatolites. These are rock formations that are built by microbes. So we know that, we know how to recognize them. You could have chemical traces as well. There are some interesting question marks right now about carbon isotopes at Gale Crater, because we found an abundance of C12, which normally is used by life on Earth, but it can be produced by other things. So it's not that it's a real biosignature in itself, but it's intriguing. We have now the C12 and we have methane. But going back, it's a time on Mars 3.5 billion years ago, where you have lots of destructions, where you have lots of impact cratering, etc. But we still have very old rocks that survive from that time. So these are good places. That's why we're sending the rovers in those places, ancient lakes and impact craters, and places where you have very old rocks. So when you say ancient lakes and impact craters, the simple question, so impact crater is a crater created by a giant rock hitting the planet? Yes, a big rock that can be metal or rock, or it can be a comet as well, mostly ice. So is that good for life or bad for life? For creating life and destroying life? Both. It's actually both. Interestingly enough, the building blocks of life, the bricks, the stuff we are made of, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus, they were included on our planet. They were built in just because our planet is made of these kinds of rocks, asteroids and comets coming together by what we call accretion. So they were built in. When an asteroid comes, there is a lot of destruction going on. But at the same time, those rocks, they bring with them those bricks of life, and they create lots of energy. And if the environment around is favorable, you might possibly have some seeding going on. That's one of the aspects of what we call panspermia, which is the fact that comets and asteroids have the building blocks of life embedded in them, and that given favorable conditions, they might be able to seed planets. This is a theory. What percent of you, when you're looking up at the stars and wondering about this stuff, thinks that panspermia is what happened on Mars or on Earth, which is the building blocks of life came from elsewhere? Well, but you know, that's the thing. Panspermia is a vector, potential vector, which means that it actually distributes the stuff of life left and right, but it doesn't explain the origin of life. It's not the environment itself. It just promotes, maybe, and we still have to prove this. But what we know is that the stuff we are made of is very abundant all over the place, including in interstellar medium. So it's all over. It's all over. The idea is that maybe it just waits to have the proper environment. And we know what it needs here on Earth. It needs water. It needs energy, shelter, and nutrients. So you're fundamentally interested in the origin of life and the big leaps in evolutionary history that could be like an origin of something, origin of eukaryotes, origin of photosynthesis, origin of whatever. I just think if we're a civilization here on Earth and we survive another few hundred years, I think it would be a good idea to take a big gun and just shoot life out there, like a life gun. Basically try to create panspermia. That's a good backup solution. So one way is to actually copy our brains and actual humans, some complex information, and send it out there. Another way to preserve life is just to send the basic building blocks, send a bunch of bacteria, a bunch of whatever the rugged organisms are on Earth, just send a bunch of those. These are not the building blocks. They are actual organisms. Isn't that a nice shortcut? Or do we want to... Because you said building blocks are everywhere. Yeah. The bricks of life, the carbon, hydrogen, et cetera, they were produced by the death of precious stars. So this is how they were produced. Stars like our Sun started to form 10 billion years ago. That doesn't mean that the Sun is the only kind of star that produced life or enabled life, but actually was produced 10 billion years ago. Now what you're talking about is a little different. Right now there are many, many efforts to do the type of thing you are talking about, which is to put our DNA on whatever kind of substrate and preserve it in vaults, either in different places on Earth or on the Moon. Some people are already thinking about putting DNA on the Moon. As far as brains are concerned, it's drawing towards transhumanism, which is the enhancement of who we are through AI and machine learning. Of course, having backups is a good thing. For me, I would say that taking care of our planets and going back to a place where we are in equilibrium with our environment would be also maybe the best backup possible. Let evolution do its things. Right now we are like teenagers with enough brain to create cool tools, but we don't have enough brain to understand yet the consequences of what we are doing. Right now we are paying for this. So, the question is whether we are going to be able to move forward and learn from the mistakes we are making to become a mature civilization. You probably heard of the Drake equation, that would be the L at the very end, the duration. The duration of intelligent civilization. Exactly. Or at least the length of time a civilization remains detectable. It can disappear from the radar screen literally for a number of reasons. The first one is destroy itself or being destroyed by external events. Or it can become so in tune with the universe and so advanced that it disappears because it melts really in the background and it's not visible anymore. There are some wild theories out there saying that a civilization might be so advanced that you cannot distinguish them from physical processes. That was an example. It doesn't say that this is the case, but some people say imagine that in fact all the dark matter that we see or we theorized about is in fact some sort of a biological process. So, you can think about a number of things. Personally, I believe that what you talk about, about preserving our information, is kind of what life does. We need to look at ourselves as not different of what the little self that started off was. This is what tells you not about the origin of life, but in fact the nature of life, which is a lot more interesting to me. The nature of life is really what is going to give you some universal signature to look for it all over the place. Not only around ponds of water for life as we know it, but the nature of life is telling you that life wants to get the most information possible around its surroundings. Complexity is in fact the ability to gather and exchange and preserve the most information possible. What you're saying is kind of preserving the kind of information we have. So, in the things that we are doing, as life happened, and I say happened because we don't know what life is, we have 123 definitions of life and some people are saying we don't have any definition, we only have descriptions of life. That's true. Think about it for two minutes. We are looking for something we don't know it is, but we have a few clues about the nature of life. There are some really good theories. The first one was Schrodinger, right? In the 40s. Right now, there is a guy named Jeremy England. It's another biophysical theory of life. It says life is the inevitable result of thermophysics. This is the best way to beat entropy, to fight entropy. But when you look at what we are doing, if you want to know what the nature of life is, look at our look at our languages. And they can be very different languages, but they all have the same purpose, right? Exchange information, understand, store information, and also whether it is with somebody at the outside or thoughts in yourself. That's the same thing the cell was doing. But now when you're looking at life and at the structure of our languages, life started with anathema. So it's anathema. They got together to create inorganic molecules. Then you have complex inorganic molecules. Then you get to organic molecules, complex inorganic molecules, and then you have RNA, DNA, etc. Look at the structure of our language. We created alphabets, letters. That's your athem. Then we put them together to create syllables, right? Those syllables get together to create words. Words tell you something, but they are nothing without a verb that gives the direction. That's RNA and DNA. And then you can put all the complements you want. Our languages are built exactly as life is built. We are repeating patterns. I call this the Mandelbrot universe and the fractal universe because this is exactly what it is. I would say that as much as I do believe in sending probes to explore the universe, I say we should also look inward to find the answer to some of the profound questions of who we are, what's life, what's the nature of life, because we are expressing life. Lexison So searching not for life, but for the nature of life. Céline The nature of life, absolutely. I am more interested in that because the day we understand the nature of life, then we have a universal biosignature. It doesn't matter whether this life responds to the same kind of biochemical processes as we do, although it makes sense. I told you about the generational aspect of the bricks of life, the stuff we are made of. The sun is part of the youngest generation of stars. The first two generations of stars didn't produce the kind of elements we are made of. They were stars that were either without metal, just made of helium and hydrogen, or poor in metals. So the stars died off and stars like the sun were born from those. This is why we have elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. now. That's the life we are built on. I think it's not stupid to be looking for something that looks like us because right now in the universe, this is the stuff that's the most abundant. We see with the exoplanets, with Kepler, with TESS, and now with James Webb, we see that there are many, many different types of planets that may be habitable in the habitable zone of their stars. There are countless stars like the sun, but more interestingly enough, there are other types of stars where you do have habitable zones as well, and where the duration of the stars is sometimes a thousand times more than our sun. So you can imagine all sorts of things, and you can imagine what type of life would be around those stars. The biochemistry might be quite similar, in fact, and especially for the simple life, because simple life starts really quickly on Earth. So my take on this is that the universe is full of cyanobacteria, but as far as intelligent life, it takes more time. So that can take different aspects. So you think it's possible that the universe is full of bacteria, and even those stars that last a thousand times longer than the sun, even on the planets that orbit those stars, may be bacteria for billions and billions and billions of years. We actually don't know what triggered the evolution to complexity on Earth. That's still a big question mark. Is that the most impressive invention on Earth to you? That Cambrian revolution is really what took us towards what we are. In the meantime, there were the dinosaurs, etc. The dinosaurs were wiped out, so the evolution could have taken a completely different turn. It's always, I would say, mass extinction that are going to drive what's the end game. But you take two planets and you change those asteroid impacts, all those big geological events that wipe out 90% of life at any time. The thing that seems to be interesting, there are two things. The first one is where you are located on our galaxy matters a lot. We actually are in the habitable zone of our galaxy. If you are too close to the center, then it's a lot denser. Remember, we have the Oort cloud around our solar system. If you are in the region of the galaxy that's too populated, then you're going to run gravitational interaction with all these stars. Since it's more dense, you will have more of the comets that are living in the Oort cloud being ejected from the Oort cloud and coming towards the inner solar system and collide with planets. You will have more of these impacts if you are too close to the center of the galaxy. Not to mention the radiation. There is a place in our galaxy where it's a really bad neighborhood. You don't want to be there. You wouldn't be able to have life. What really matters is extinction, but also the climate history of a planet has a role to play. It seems that it's a theory. It still has to be backed up by more observation, but there is a good correlation between not only the passage of the solar system towards the center of the galaxy, there is one place where we get hit by asteroids because of the interaction I was telling you about, but the other one is the climate. With the Milankovitch cycles, big jumps in life's evolution seem to be associated with snowball earth episodes. We don't know why yet. Snowball episodes, intuitively you would think that they are connected to a decrease in life because the whole earth is covered in ice. But for some reason, there were big jumps in evolution right after each of those episodes. Today, there are other things like why all of a sudden you have mutation that seems to be responsible for a big jump in evolution. We are not clear yet. All of those things, when you're thinking about life elsewhere, are going to come into play. I cannot tell you that a planet that remains habitable for much longer than the earth will have an evolutionary path that's the same or different. It depends on extinction, it depends on climate, it depends on whatnot. It's a little bit surreal that we're two descendants of apes. Well, I think that some people- Trying to figure out what the heck is going on. We're very biased. We're biased as humans, you're less biased as a scientist, but we still love earth. We still don't know anything but this earth. Even though you try to escape from thinking of what life is, in the search for the nature of life, we're still kind of connected to the way we understand the nature of life here on earth. I think that it's a little different than that. We are biased when it comes to the origin of life. The only model we know. As I said, it makes sense because it seems that a lot of stars like the sun appeared 10 billion years ago. There are lots of worlds that really resemble the earth, and lots of water out there, and lots of conditions that could be a repeat of what we know. We know that this biochemistry works. Again, as I mentioned, what is going to change is really the evolution of a planet, extinction, geology, etc. But our model is probably very abundant. I'm not saying that the endgame is going to resemble us because of all these extinctions, etc. But this is a good bias. It's one that has the number for it. You know the principle of mediocrity. I think that in that case, it really applies where the earth is representative of an abundance of other worlds. Now, of course, there can be other biochemistry. We have some examples in our own solar system. Titan might be a representative of that. We are not very clear of the kind of biochemistry that can come out of a world where you have hydrocarbon lakes and rains and things like that. But we are going there. So we will learn something about this. So the bias is right there. The nature of life is different. If really life is the best way the universe has to fight entropy, there is no bias there. Because physics is the same all across the universe. At least the universe we know. There might be other universes, but the one we know works with the same physics. So if life is the best way to fight entropy, you can imagine that life permeates the entire universe. And then the question might change to like flavors of ice cream. What are the flavors of complexity that this process, this nature of life leads to? And there we might have bias about what complexity looks like, what beautiful complexity looks like. We look at humans that operate a certain physical scale and time scale, and we think this is intelligence. We have another problem. We don't know what life is. We don't know what intelligence is. And we don't know what consciousness is. But we are trying to tackle the big question. But do we know what complexity is also? No. I think that we have to be honest. And as a scientist, and I'm going to step back and talk about intelligence. For me, a bacteria that has survived, like cyanobacteria, that has survived just like us, four billion years in one incarnation or another. And actually they are very similar to the one that they were 3.5 billion years ago. It has some intelligence about its environment. So for complexity, it might be that we need to take the world literally, which is an assemblage or additional capacity to gather, collect, store information. Maybe this is something like that, or actually use that information to do something with it. But I do completely agree with you when you talk about flavor of ice cream. I think this is exactly it. And I have a basic education about what physics is doing right now. And I'm looking at quantum physics and what it says about the universe and about the connection about an atom here and an atom here, a photon here and a photon there. And I am starting to put maybe wrongfully two and two together. But in my mind, and of course, it's nothing until I can prove it, but in my mind, the universe is connected everywhere in all different places. So this life connection is something that, as you said, permits the universe and the way to find life might be very different than to look for the origins of life. I think it's a good thing to go out there and look for the origin of life somewhere else, because it's the manifestation of the nature of life that all of a sudden becomes apparent, evident to our eye. But what I think would be our greatest achievement is that if we can find that process of life, because at that point, in my mind, the universe all of a sudden is going to illuminate itself with actually its living force, what I can only call a living force. To me, this is what we are looking at, a universe that becomes more and more complex with time, more and more able to gather information, and interestingly enough, why? To understand itself. So Sagan was right when he was saying, we are the universe trying to understand itself. And the more we go, the more the universe becomes alive, maybe intelligent, and maybe also conscious. Conscious, self-aware, through us. It does make me a little bit sad as a human, just watching all the breakthroughs on the artificial intelligence side when applied to natural sciences, now more and more to physics, that the creatures that will solve the question of the origin of the nature of life, or just the process, the nature of life, will be AI systems. It makes me a bit sad to... I don't think so. Because... You think humans will? At this point in time, remember, it was behind AI. You know, I'm not buying in the singularity thing yet. AI is not aware. AI is being built by humans. So AI is a tool, an extremely smart tool, as long as we build it, and as long as we use it as a tool, it remains a tool. And I think there is a lot of brouhaha, and of course, science fiction and movies, that don't help. Yeah, I gotta push back a little bit. Yes, I agree with you for the most part, in terms of brouhaha. And sci-fi, but there is, like in the work of DeepMind, we can look at chess, or we can look at protein folding. So chess is a simple one to first look at. What AlphaZero, which is their game-playing engine, was able to discover in our Stockfish about chess, humbles the best human players. Not just it's better than them. It comes up with ideas that the humans don't understand. And so the AI now is telling you, even though it's programmed by humans, the AI is saying, like, sacrificing a pawn here is a good idea, sacrificing a queen or a bishop here is a good idea. And then you start to kind of intuit as a human why, but you don't deeply understand. And you can say that AI is not conscious, it doesn't deeply understand the way humans do, but there's still a wisdom and a depth of knowledge in that chess-playing program that humans don't have. And the same with the alpha fold, with protein folding. And now they're applying it to physics, to simulating nuclear reactions and so on. It feels like there might be a way to understand the nature of life, that we can kind of intuit poetically as humans, but the true understanding will come from a system that's much more computationally sophisticated. Again, I would push back on my turn because I still think that humans give themselves the ability to do that by building that tool. So the idea that the tool, we are getting into the Kardashev scale and the dark forest and all these things. We can see the world this way. At this point in time, for me, I still see a great tool. Now, whether the sci-fi scenario is going to happen, et cetera, I still think that we are far away from this. But if that tool is capable of giving me a new perspective, it's just that we are starting to jump into a deeper cognition of what the universe is, whether it's through our brain or through a different way of gathering information. Remember, this is what we do. Yeah, humans are able to actually build tools and then integrate them into their way of thinking. Maybe another generation has to be born that is raised with those tools, but we seem to take for granted all the cool technologies you integrate into your way of thinking. A lot of people that are growing up now, their mind is integrated with the internet. You basically reconfigure the way you memorize things. You no longer have to memorize a lot of facts because you can look them up really quickly. So you reallocate a lot of resources for thinking versus memory of just strict facts, so that kind of stuff. We integrate all of that. Yeah, and there I would completely agree with you. In fact, I wrote about this again in this new book that's coming out. When is the book coming out? In January. It will be in French, actually, to start with. You wrote it in French? Actually, I wrote it first in English and I translated it into French. So the English version is already pretty much ready to go if we find a publisher in the US. But anyways, the point being here is that I looked at this as our relationship with technology as a complete change. To me, this is the singularity more than anything else, which is the co-evolution of humans with technology, not anymore with their environment. Why are we messing up the environment right now? Why we don't respond to pandemic the way we should? Because we are disconnected to the environment we are taking our information from and we were adapting from. Right now, exactly as you said, we take the information from the web, from the phones, etc. We have no filter over that information. Before you were out in the environment, the information you get is the one the planet is sending you. Now this information is coming from different way. You have no way of knowing if the information is correct or not. I got to push back on that. No, you look at this as an ecosystem and it explains a lot of our behavior. See, I like that you said teenagers. So the technology, I think, when we move past the teenager stage, enriches our ability to sense the earth, to understand what's going on with the environment. It's just that we're very... So it's not that technology disconnects us from the environment. It gives us more tools with which to understand what's going on with the environment. That's true for the people who are building the tools and know how to use it. Take those tools now, put them in the general public with no filter, which is happening with social media, which is happening with a lot of things. And you see the disaster this is creating. It's not the disaster. It is. There's challenges. You sound like a parent talking about a teenager. Yes. Did you know, it's the growing pains of a civilization that is becoming deeply connected with our... We can communicate all across the world, even through the pandemic. That's the good thing about technology. This is also something I wrote. It's not the tools we create that are bad. It's the way we use them. Yes. But we're learning. This is the cool thing about humans. Well, and hopefully we'll do all the learning before it's too late, because our response to what's going on in the environment, our response to pandemics is deeply connected to this disconnect we have with nature. Anyways, we all agree that we are in growing pains, and hopefully we can move forward because there is a fantastic universe, something absolutely magical around us. And I'm talking as a scientist. I mean, there is magic, not in sense of trickery, but in sense of wonder around us. And there are so many signs where we are getting so close to revolutions in cosmology, in astrobiology, in astronomy, which I think to me, this is where the hope lies. And also an awakening of understanding that we need to be in equilibrium with a planet if we want to move forward. Because even though we have these big dreams of going on Mars and the Moon, and listen, I am a planetary geologist, so I am all for exploration. Right now, the Moon or Mars is not going to save your butt, because for the logistics will still depend very much on the Earth and for a long time. I think this time we are living in will be remembered as a pivot in our history for a number of reasons. A time where there is a growing consciousness, where we are creating tools that are going a little bit ahead of us, that we have some difficult time to catch up on, where we have to deal with a population that's way too big for the planet we have. We need to really learn a sense of balance and maturity as a civilization. So how is the how is this going to unfold? Right now, I have no clue. I draw a lot of optimism from the similar things that happened many decades ago, when nuclear weapons were developed. Boy, it was that at the time even more terrifying. You just now created weapons that could destroy the entirety of life on Earth, or not entirety, but a lot of it. And we somehow found a balance. And the threat constantly is out there. And that threat has been made more visceral in recent times, because the war in Ukraine. But we find a balance somehow. So I have a thread of optimism for human civilization that we figured it out. We're clever teenagers, I think. We are clever teenagers. There is definitely a thread of optimism. But I think it's thin. It's thin because something that has changed as well is the mentality of humans. Although the threat was terrifying when nuclear weapons were created, there was a sense of limits you were willing to push in the threats. There was a sense of decency, of moral values. It was not perfect, but it was at least a time where people could come together from very different perspectives and agree that something was more important than destroying everything. But that's so hilarious you say that. Yes, you're talking about a small slither of humans, which is the scientists in the Manhattan Project, perhaps. No, absolutely not. That was also the time when over 100 million people were tortured or murdered in China and in Europe. No, no, I agree with that. Absolutely, absolutely. I'm not talking about scientists here. Actually, I'm talking about politicians. We've gone beyond that point now. This is what I'm worried about. I mean, torture, et cetera. Unfortunately, well, we are apes, exactly what you said. So I think that there is a lot to be... Not to blame grandpa for that, but because we can always get better. Grandpa was a wild man. But we have to improve a lot on that side before we can claim that we are a mature civilization. Because you mentioned the magic, when you look out there, perhaps this is not a scientific question, but... You don't have to be scientific all the time. Yeah, well, you said magic. So there's a magic to magic that is in part scientific and in part, I don't know, whatever fills us with awe as humans when we look up at the stars. Do you think the universe is full of life or not? When you're sitting, drinking some wine, looking up at the stars and wandering as a human, do you think we're alone or do you think life is everywhere? I am going to make such an unmagical response to that. My response is, that's the scientific response, that if we are alone, then the universe is a statistical absurdity. Yeah. And I have no doubt in my mind, and that is an unscientific response as well, but I have no doubt in my mind that the universe is teeming with life. What if it keeps dying? This is what life does. Unfortunately. So, that extinction, as a process, as a part of the process of life, extinction seems to be a fundamental, both negative and positive component. So what if all the complex life out there just keeps dying and not making way for, like we're actually a statistical anomaly in us being able to survive that L in the Drake equation, being able to survive long enough to form complex organisms of the kind like mammals are, things with brains, things that are able to process... L is not about that. L is about how long a civilization is capable of being detectable, which means that rich technologies and, you know, being detectable. Okay, so there's a more nuanced things to L, because you can have intelligent civilizations that are not very detectable. Yeah, we had civilization for thousands of years. We started to be detectable 150 years ago. So it's about technology, technology that we can actually capture from space. You become visible to your neighbours. And this is all about the Fermi paradox, right? It takes time, obviously, if we're taking again ourselves as a model, but this is the only one we have to get to the point where we become detectable. But look at the age of the universe, even if life as we understand it, not saying even as we know it, but as we can understand it, started 10 billion years ago. And it takes 4 billion years to get to the point where it becomes detectable. That means that the first planet where those civilizations started off starting to be detectable when we were still cyanobacteria in pond. So they were, you know, throwing messages that were passing above our heads at that point. And those civilizations, when you look at them now, close to 10 billion years after the start. So their sun would be dead. Okay. In the best case scenario, they move somewhere else. And what that means is that civilizations are going to rise, die, or move and transform themselves. We can see ourselves changing. We know that humans are still changing as a species. The human being in a thousand or even 500 years from now might not be looking a lot like we are doing right now. Who knows where we will be? We might be migrating into our planetary system, we might be migrating somewhere else. Well, you said migrating, but it seems when you look at life, it doesn't necessarily migrate, it expands. So it's not or place A or place B, it's place A and place B. It seems to expand. It could be. We are talking about the human civilization here. So there are different factors. If you are a cyanobacteria or any type of, even a mammal that doesn't have the technology to escape the planet we were born on, then it's plan A. It's right there. Whatever happens to your planet, you are tied to it. You cannot escape it. For humans, it's a little different. Yeah, it's A and B or whatever we can. So we have to expect that a number of the civilization, extraterrestrial civilization that might be technologically advanced, a number of them will have disappeared just because they run the course of their evolution or because their son run out of fuel and they didn't have a way to escape or they were wiped out by any kind of event. And then there will be those that survive. Everything I've seen from life, it seems obvious that there's life everywhere out there. In fact, maybe I don't understand the jump from bacteria enough, but it seems obvious that there's intelligent civilizations out there. Now, I don't know how to define intelligence, but there's beautiful complexity. Like when you look at a, I've looked at enough cellular automata, which is a very primitive mathematical construction that when you run, complexity emerges. I've looked at that enough to know that it just seems like there's complexity everywhere out there. So that's why I'm deeply puzzled by the Fermi paradox. It makes no sense to me. I mean, they have trivial answers to it. Why haven't aliens at scale not shown up? I think the two possible options for me is either we're too dumb to see it. They're already here. They've been talking to us through processes we just don't understand. What we experience as life here on earth is actually, they're everywhere. Aliens could be consciousness. When we feel love for one another, that could be aliens. When we, I don't know, or feel fear or whatever, that could be aliens. I have to agree with you. None of this is scientifically provable. Right now, we talked a little bit already about that. But I would say that I do not adhere to the Fermi paradox because it's very anthropomorphic. It's an interesting exercise, let's put it that way. But it's a typical example of seeing the universe through our own eyes. And this is where the limitation is. Understanding what's going on with complexity, as you said, and looking at the biophysical model and theories for the nature of life, I would agree that probably this extraterrestrial message is all around us. We're not yet capable of picking it up. But I think, unfortunately, even though that makes me sad, the way to pick it up is by studying life here on Earth, doing some of the science you're doing, better understand the nature of life until you realize, holy crap, the thing I was looking for all along has been here all along. Well, you know, a good example of that, and it doesn't need to be an extraterrestrial civilization, look at something that I really, you know, whether or not it's real, I don't care because in terms of intellectual exercise, I think it's fantastic. Look at the shadow biosphere. The idea that life didn't appear only once on Earth, but there were many different pathways of it. And today, we know and we study the tree of life that led to us, from Luca to us. And the shadow biosphere is telling us that there is, or there are, other pathways that came up at the time where life originated, but they are so different that we cannot recognize them as being living. And we cannot pick them up in our test because our tests are being built to recognize life as we know it. And for me, again, I don't know if this theory will be verified or it would be discredited, but what I like about it is that it forces me to think on how do I look for life? I don't know. So, that starts here on our planet, not even with Little Green Man. It starts with very simple life that can be so different that it might be just right in front of our nose and we don't see it. So, that probably starts with the scientific humility of realizing that we might be too biased in our understanding of what is the phenomena we're trying to study. Yeah, I don't like the term bias because it involves some moral connotation. Sure. But I understand the bias in terms of scientific pathway, intellectual framework, definitely. What do you think about the UFO sightings? So, the widespread experiences that people have in seeing different phenomena that are mysterious, that people project ideas about whether it's aliens or not, but they can't explain it, and there's pictures and data, and then the government is involved in releasing footage and all that kind of stuff, and that it seems to captivate the public. It always does. It always does. I mean, you know, there are a number of things that captivate people, especially children, actually, dinosaurs and aliens. Still a child. Yeah, we are all still a child at heart. So, about UFOs, I am a scientist and I'm a citizen. So, I'm going to tell you a couple of things. First, I don't mind talking about that at all because I think as a scientist, this is extremely interesting because the thing I don't know, I want to learn about it. This is more knowledge. So, we all know the statistics about UFOs. 95% of them are just natural phenomenon or things that are being misinterpreted. We know that. Then you have the 2% that might be secret programs by whatever government. It's out there. Another percent, say, is about natural phenomenon that we don't know about yet, that we cannot explain. And then there is this tiny percentage that don't fall into all these categories of things. And I think that the report about the UAPs falls into the same kind of scheme, except that now they have at least some patterns of speed of other things that were in the report. Today, we don't know if these sightings are part of military program or actual UFOs. I always run into that question because, of course, as the director of the Carl Sagan Center at the Study Institute, I received a number of emails about the subject. People are actually confused about what the Study Institute is. We are not studying UFOs. We are actually looking for messages. The way I put it, you know, usually is that we are studying extraterrestrial in their natural habitat. And the UFO people are trying to understand whether they invaded our aerial space. So this is two very different things. And unfortunately, over the years, I actually respect very much people who are trying to go to the bottom of what UFOs are, following some very scientific ways of doing this. There are very, very credible agencies doing this. Unfortunately, there is a folklore around UFOs. And this has been a huge disservice to the scientific community. And this is why you have been having that much pushback for a long time by the scientific community, because no congressman in the world wants to tell their taxpayer that they are supporting something that's looking for flying saucers. And you know, when you see what's happening, it's terrifying. And I am actually concerned, you know, about that relationship that people do between folklore and real search for extraterrestrial intelligence. In fact, it's been so bad that until today, there is no government agency that is actually funding the SETI search. It is a private funded endeavor. What NASA funds right now, which is a progress, is a search for techno signature, which means that when you are looking at the atmosphere of a planet, you look for some disequilibrium that could tell you that something is there. But it's not going to fund an institute or whatnot that is looking for messages or other things like that. Is that just have to do with a taboo associated with the folklore? Yes. And I think there was a pushback from the political arena decades ago about that, at the time where all the flying saucers were coming out. And then the SETI Institute got it started. But now there is more of a willingness to look at the UAP UFO phenomenon from a scientific standpoint. So much so that the government is actually seeking some help from scientific institution. And there are programs to start looking into those phenomenon. And as a scientist, I am interested. What I'm not interested in, again, Carl Sagan comes back here. I don't want to believe. I want to know. And so to know, you have to have a real experiment, you have to have observation, and you have things that are done the right way. I don't want to have somebody that starts with what if, as a question, and then turns this what if into the only argument and the only conclusion there is. You understand what I'm saying? But still, I think it's valuable to appreciate the mystery and not deny the mystery. No, the mystery is there. But what I don't want is people taking advantage of the public and making money out of folklore. Well, let me flip that. I understand. So there's a folklore in the stuff I do, AI and robotics, for example. There's a clear fear terminator in movies and all those kind of stuff. You could say that I'm very concerned about this miscalibrated understanding of the public, of what robots' role are in society. Or you could see it as a, let's use a metaphor of a wave. You can say this giant wave that we'll call folklore is a really bad idea. We need to avoid it. We need to hide. We need to build dams. Or you can be a surfer and ride the wave, as a scientist. To me, the fact that people are wondering about the mystery of UFOs, it means they're wondering. No, they are. But the thing, I will stop surfing that wave when it comes back to bite an entire scientific discipline. When it hurts the science, sure. For now, the past 60 years, we were not able to raise money from the government, no grants. It's a discipline that has no postdoc or very little postdoc, just because there is a fear of that folklore on the political arena. People don't want to be associated with that because they confuse the two. So I stop there. And as the director of the Carl Sagan Center, I am just very happy to see now that there is a course correction in the government seeking scientific investigators for this kind of issues. And hopefully that will right the ship there. I love it. I love to see it. But I want, and I love our little disagreements. I'm doing so, obviously, respectfully and with love. And it makes for a fun conversation. But I think, you know, just like with surfing a wave, there's some level of, the more you resist it, the worse it is. So I... But we didn't resist it. It didn't come from us and we pay the price. I just think that the role of a scientist, in part, in the 21st century, when we talk about social media, is to direct this sense of wonder that people have into a direction of the rigors of science. I think we do that pretty well. I would disagree. I don't think so. SETI does much better, but there's other places in science where... The search for life is a fairly easy place to, you know, draw the wonder of people. Yes, 100%. Because it's a profound question that pretty much everybody has. But I think, I just want to highlight the fact that I think a lot of scientists, my colleagues, friends, think that all you need to do is science. All you need to do is the scientific process, the peer review process, the data, and so on. But I think communication is actually a fundamental part of the process. Because it has to do with funding, but it also has to do with, like, we're a bunch of humans trying to ask big questions, trying to figure this whole puzzle out. I totally agree. We do have more public presentation at the Institute than peer-reviewed articles. And believe me, we have lots of peer-reviewed articles. So our scientists are out there and they are sharing the wonder of discoveries. And it's so easy these days. I mean, there is not one day. Tell me about writing a book right now about the search for life in the universe. I mean, it's almost every single day I had to correct something in the chapters I was writing. So SETI, in terms of both signatures and signals, is a pretty active field. So it's getting better right now. It's getting better. But remember that the SETI Institute is not only about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. This is the root of, the historical root of the Institute. But it's about 10% of what we do. In fact, we are searching for life in the universe from the origins of life to extraterrestrial intelligence. So 90% of everything else is exoplanet. For instance, we have a good chunk of the Kepler team that is actually with the SETI Institute and they are working with TESS right now. Some already have some time on the GEMS web. We have astrobiologists, we have astronomers. And those are looking for data, for signals, for planets out there outside of our solar system. Yeah, go to analog places to try and understand the type of life that survives in planetary type environments. I mean, people are always surprised when I tell them, you know, whatever flies in the solar system, has flown or will be flying, we are involved. So this is not something that pops in everybody's mind when they are thinking about the SETI Institute because we started off as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. But the Institute has really bloomed into the search for life along the Drake equation, all the terms of the Drake equation. Just to clarify, because by the way, you're saying a bunch of terms sometimes, it's good to return to the basics. When you're saying whatever's flown, SETI is a part of the things that are flown. So we, because we're using we elusive sometimes, we say we humans and sometimes we SETI. So the SETI is really broadly involved. A lot of the fingertips reaching out there towards the stars. Think about Mars, involved in landing site selection, in instruments that are actually on board some of the mission in science teams, for instance, Cassini, New Horizons, and also missions that will be coming. It's the search for life. We do this all across the Drake equation. So SETI is part of it, and it's our route and it's expanding a little bit right now. We hope it will continue to expand. So this is a good time for the Institute. And it also, in my mind, was the very first astrobiology Institute because we have this multi-disciplinary approach where I can bring many of the scientists from different domains and disciplines to think about a question. And as you know, discoveries happen at the nexus of disciplines. And it's really a privilege when you are in an Institute like that. LRW You've dived in volcanic lakes at high altitudes to study the creatures within. Can you tell me the technical, the fun, the human story of that effort? C.S. The image that is associated with a scientist is the person with the white coat in the lab. In fact, a number of us at the Institute are athletes doing extremes, what would be considered extreme stuff. And I mean, it's fun. It's a little dangerous too, but it's to get data and more knowledge. So there are so many stories. I don't even know where... LRW What was the first time you did a dangerous thing with a volcano? C.S. So the first one associated to the search for life, understanding, was in 2002, where I started climbing those high volcanoes in the Andes that are 20,000 footers. The view out there is just beautiful. LRW You're so hilarious at spending almost no time on some epic things. I love this. Okay, how tall are these volcanoes? What are you doing with a volcano? What's required to prepare for that? What does a mission like that look like? I mean, that is true that this is science embodied. It's like athletics and it's science and you're studying the extreme conditions of life on Earth, extreme beauty of life on Earth in those conditions. So what are we talking about with this volcano? How big is it? C.S. So remember when we were talking about how do I understand how I search for life on Mars? This is how it started for me. And then I looked at the environment, in my head started going through the environments on Earth. That would be good analysis. And then you only have a few. And the Andes in that case are some of the best in the world, just because of the aridity of the place. And the higher you go, the least atmosphere you have, the more UV radiation you have. And the Andes are volcanic, hydrothermal, plus you have the climate change that's coming, you have evaporation. It's a picture of Mars 3.5 billion years ago. And so now you are actually entering a time machine, basically. So remember I'm a diver. And the first time I got in 2002 to the places we wanted to explore, all of a sudden I was standing at 14,000 foot looking at 20,000 feet and saying, okay, well, I need to get up there. Lexi, are you scared? No, no, because we are prepared. And the only thing I didn't know is if I was going to be able to make it to the top, because now you're dealing with high altitude, you can deal with high altitude sickness, you can deal with a number of things. And for God's sake, these are volcanoes and they are dormant, they are not extinct. That can bite us a couple of times. What was your preparation for that kind of thing? I mean, this is... There is a lot of hiking and trekking at high altitude around here, but not so high because we don't have anything closer to those elevations around here in the US. But in volcanic environment, climbing volcanoes here, we have plenty of those. Diving as well. I am a free diver. So this is where it's going to be hilarious, because I started with a complete irrational fear of pressurized vessels that comes from an incident in my childhood. And so I became a free diver to avoid having to carry oxygen tanks on my back. Free diving is diving without... Without anything, just your lungs, right? That was... that started from childhood. Yeah, no, it was to the point where when I saw a pressurized vessel, like a methane tank or anything, I would be going around and put a lot of distance between me and that tank. So I was not going to carry any oxygen tank. And the first time I actually dived at the summit of that lake was free diving. People look at me like I'm nuts. Well, maybe I am a little bit. People that work with you as well? I mean, that kind of seems kind of nuts. No, we knew... It's a risk. Actually, it's a lot less of a risk than getting with conventional air. And I can explain that. But ultimately, what decided me to certify SCUBA and go over my fear was that as a scientist, I needed more time at the bottom of the lake to sample, you know, rationally, take my time to think. And I can stay quite long enough as a free diver underwater. But the last thing you want to do at 20,000 feet is to come up at the surface with empty lungs, because there is not much you can breathe out there to replenish your oxygen. So definitely your time underwater is cut short, just for safety. And I realized that it was not a good trade-off for me at some point. So I certified SCUBA. And after three years of exploring that lake, free diving, we finally came up with a full SCUBA diving expedition. But we were diving with rebreathers, which means that we dived with pure oxygen. So rebreathers give you a bag with stuff that looks like a cat litre in it, which is basically to absorb the CO2 that you are expelling when you're breathing. And they're recycling oxygen this way. So basically, you are rebreathing your own respiration. Wow. How long can you do that? So what's interesting about that technology? So it's very interesting, because then that completely avoids the potential issues you may have with the binds. When you are diving, the risk of bubbles trapped in your lungs, because of different pressures and different gases. So there's a complexity to the flow of oxygen underwater. When you are breathing regular air, when you are SCUBA diving here, you know that you have to do some different... When you're coming back, when you are diving deep, and you have conventional air, then you need to stop so that you can equalize the gases in your lungs. If you come back too fast, then you can have air bubbles stuck, and then you can risk the binds, which means you can risk to be paralyzed, you can risk a number of nasty issues. And we wanted absolutely to avoid that. So diving with pure oxygen avoids this completely. And it has another benefit at high altitude is that, well, the greater risk when you are at high altitude is altitude sickness. What is altitude sickness? It's just you not having enough oxygen in your blood. So this was a good benefit. It was a good trade-off. We were lucky enough to be also trained by the military. So we came up with not the civilian rebreather, which is the big thing on the back that you carry on your back. We actually were given Navy SEALs commando rebreathers. You worked with Navy SEALs for this? The director of military operations. Yes, we were trained. We were trained like astronauts for three months. I spent more time, I had a joke that if somebody wanted to reach me, they better put a phone line at the bottom of the swimming pool because this is where I was. So we trained and we trained and our manual about the safety was about that thick. So it was a real operation. That was three years into it because when you're free diving in the years prior, there is no risk. You don't have any other gas in your lung than what you're breathing. The only risk is come short of air and then you're in trouble, which happened to me one time, seriously. Tell me about that time. I got to ask you about free diving before we return to the rebreathers. Well, all these lakes I had altitude, they are cold. They are the minimum temperature that you can have on bodies of water, clear bodies of water, which is four degrees C. It's very, very cold. And so you cannot... It's like an ice bath. Yeah, so you cannot just dive with a wetsuit. So the idea was to take a dry suit. And I learned how to free dive with a dry suit, which is really the worst thing you can do. What's a wetsuit? What's a dry suit? So a dry suit, a wetsuit is usually what you use in the ocean when it's not too cold. You can use also a dry suit. But the wetsuit basically is going to keep you warm because water is getting into the suit and the contact of your skin is getting to body temperature. And so for a while, you can dive like that. And in the ocean here, that's fine. That's fine. The dry suit is the opposite. It's completely closed, which means that you don't have any contact with the water outside and you keep your warmth through your body temperature and even clothing that you can put into it. So these dry suits, they are used by divers who go really deep in very cold water and need to stay a long time underwater. So what's the bad part? The bad part is that when you have those dry suits, you have a lot of air that can be trapped in it. Usually we do what we call burping the suit. It's not a very pleasant expression, but you get in the water and as soon as you get in the water, you can see the air pockets all over the place, right? So you burp the suit, you open the valve and the air comes out. Once you have done that, then you look with your lead belt and you know when you're ready to go down. And so what happened that day is that I actually did burp the suit, but didn't realize I burped it completely. And so I went down and immediately I felt an air pocket going to my legs. So basically air was trapped in the suit and went on my legs as I was diving like that. And so I didn't pay too much attention to that. Because you're diving down? Yeah, I was diving down. And so I didn't pay too much attention about that as I was busy. It's just an awkward position. But then I wanted to turn and go up. Well, no can do. I was just like a buoy. And I was like that. So the first time I say, okay, I try a second time and a third time. And by the fourth time, I kind of realized I was in trouble. And the fifth time I say, okay, now you better give it your best try. Otherwise, it's going to be big trouble. So this is free diving? I was free diving. And then you can't? And I cannot turn around? What were you feeling? I mean, is there a panic? No, there is no panic because you can't. You cannot afford to be panicking. In fact, you are always thinking because there is training. And this is the best part about training. Your training allows you that space to keep you cool and compose which you need to be in that kind of situation. And so finally, after the fifth time, I was able to rectify the position and get myself up. But when I got up, my lungs were empty. I had been in the water for quite some time. And I knew what was going to happen. So I decided to just be the plank, you know, not move and don't do anything, just open my mouth and try to suck oxygen. But obviously oxygen at 6,000 meters, 20,000 feet, there is not that much. It's about a little, it's 48% of what you breathe at sea level. So although it was noon at that time, the sky stayed pretty dark and starry for about a minute or two. So just stars everywhere? Oh my God, yes. The funny thing was... And that's the first time you experienced that kind of, I mean, can you possibly train for that? Like, can you also pass out? Oh, you could. I mean, the fact that I was already seeing dark was a real sign that my brain was starved of oxygen. And I had one of my friends or colleagues on the shore just telling me, because I'd been under for a little while and say, is everything okay? And I remember trying to say something and I was just like, that's I think the best lie I ever, ever. I get the thumb down. You were lying to the friend and maybe to yourself? No, because I knew I was going to be okay, but it took me to be still for a few minutes. Well, can you talk about freediving? I mean, what's the technical skill involved here? It just seems exceptionally difficult. Like for most people that swim, you go underwater. It's hard. So what's the skill there? You know, I think you probably can get good or better at freediving by training. So you have different techniques. You can train in swimming pool and you can say, you know, frankly, for me, I go at the bottom of the swimming pool and I sit there and then you have relaxation techniques. Some people meditate. I can't. I am not a good person that can meditate. Or if I do, I don't know about it. But my way of doing things and taking my mind off the situation I'm in is by singing in my head. I love music or hearing music. And in fact, knowing the kind of song I'm singing, I know about the length of time that I'm staying underwater as well. So this is my own way. People have different ways. What kind of music are we talking about? All sorts of music can be classical, can be pop music, you know, just songs. When you really know that you are relaxed and something I experienced actually at 20,000 feet, which was the greatest experience of my life in those terms, is when you forget that you have water around you. At that point, you cannot tell whether you are the water or water is you. There is actually no separation anymore. And I felt that when I was training in the swimming pool. I never could have imagined that I would feel that way once on top of that volcano. And it happened. And it was absolutely amazing. It was, you know, we were talking about how life consciousness permeates the universe. At that point in time, on that volcano, that day, it took me by surprise. I was not expecting it. Everything around me, the lake was Arctic blue with all the ray of the suns. You could tell them apart, every single one of them. I was surrounded by golden darts. And it was the most incredible experience. And I don't know if it's that kind of environment that led me to just, you know, go into whatever state of meditation or whatnot. But all of a sudden, there was no separation anymore between me, the water, the volcano. And if I came with questions, they didn't matter anymore. Because for that fraction of a second, it seemed that I had all the answers in the universe. Was it the connectedness with everything? You can call it that way. I still don't know what it means, you know, literally. But it is that moment where you feel that it doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter anymore. It was an absolute peace, absolute understanding. And it was incredible. It was an absolute awareness. Could you describe it as beautiful? That would go beyond that. I think that there is clearly, in my mind today, no words that can express how perfect this was. Does that start to speak to why you love diving? Or is there something special about that place, diving at such elevations and volcanoes? You know, I started diving pretty much, this is the first thing I did when I was near water. In fact, there is a very fun little incident with my parents, me being on the shore of a lake on vacation. I was three years old, maybe. And I had these little lifesavers, you know, on my arms, and my parents were not watching. And in my little brain, I still can remember today, saying, well, nothing bad can happen to me. I cannot drown if I go underwater. See, that's the logic of a three-year-old. Yes. It kind of works. I mean, that's pretty brilliant. So, I removed the lifesavers that I had, and I just went in the water. My mom said before she could do anything, I was under. And it was like a natural thing. And for me, I felt immediately at home. And, you know, as little as I was, completely. And it goes beyond that. You know, this sense of connectedness or oneness or whatever, I always felt good underwater. So, it doesn't matter really if it's 20,000 feet. The thing that matters at that point is that you need to get there. So, you need to get with all the gears, with your hiking, trekking equipment, high mountaineering gears. And when you get on top of that, you have to remove all that and don a suit. Is there something you can speak to the challenging aspects of that process? Or is it just like this rigorous process that's well-designed that you have to go through and you don't think? This is where most of the risk is, because you can be well-prepared, but for one reason or another, you get sick, you know. And you can get sick not only because of high altitude sickness. It can be a number of things. Or you can be tired, or you can catch a cold. And then, of course, you have the mountain itself. We had a magnitude 7.8 earthquake hitting one day when we were 50 meters away from the summit. So, you can't obviously plan for that. No, you can't. And that's the axe of God. You know, working with NASA, although I am the director of the SETI Institute, my grants are coming from NASA, so I'm a NASA contractor. And every time we go to those environments, we have to go through the rigorous process of training with NASA and checking all the boxes for safety. So, they are training and training and training us. And I have to thank them, because a lot of those trainings are the things that are in your brain when these kinds of things happen. You know how to react and you are not freaking out. But in all of the things they are training us for, you have the green risk, the yellow risk, and the red risk. So, the green risks are basically the don't be stupid, don't do the kind of thing you wouldn't be doing at home, like jumping on rocks that are not stable, you can tweak your ankle, you know. And then you have other risks like altitude sickness, how you prepare for that, how you recognize that. These are the yellow risks. And then the red risk. The red risks are what they call the axe of gods, the kind of thing that they can happen. You know there is nothing you can do about it and you accept that when you do that. So, those are volcanic eruptions when you are in this kind of environment, earthquakes, and avalanches, for instance. So, you are on this giant mountain and it's shaking. No, it's not shaking. That's the interesting part of it. There was a whole background of things that happened that day when we started off. But we got to 50 meters from the summit and I have part of my logistics team that is at the foot of the mountain. And being so close to the summit, we have to go under an overhang of lava. So, it's just like we are just under this big vault of lava and it's actually beautiful. If you want something beautiful, it's the Altiplano seen from 20,000 feet. It's just absolutely stunning. What's the colors? What are we looking at? The colors are that of early Earth, which means primordial Earth. It's ochres, yellows, oranges, browns, with a dark blue sky. And so, you are just, you know, it's a time machine. You're just out there and you're climbing 42 degree slopes. So, all of a sudden, I'm right next behind the guide. And the guide has been with us, his family, you know, we've been together for 10 years. And he's starting to do that. I don't discuss. When Macario does that, you know, I listen and I ask the team to do the same thing, where maybe half a dozen. And then I want to talk to him and say, what's going on? He's on the radio. And then he gives me the radio. I'm talking to my logistic chief officer, who was at the bottom, and he said, we're having a tremendous earthquake. He was saying that the, actually the ground was waving, it was so bad. And he was freaking out, because he said, everything is avalanching. And I'm very puzzled, because we are in a very dangerous part of the volcano, nothing's happening. I turned around. And then this is when I realized there is dust absolutely everywhere. Everything that I saw two minutes before, it's gone, just disappear into a wall of dust. But nothing's happening where we are. And our friends down, they were freaking out because they were seeing everything avalanching. And especially the other side of the mountain we were on was avalanching. So they have no visuals. They have no visual. They thought that we are caught in the avalanching. So I said, no. But so at that point, I said... So they thought you were screwed. Yeah. And I said, okay, so if this is what's happening, then I'm taking everybody to the summit, because we have a very large crater that will take care of avalanching, we'll be safe. And I'm waiting for the aftershock, because this is what you do, you know, when you have earthquakes. So here we go, taking everybody in the crater. And now you have half a dozen scientists in the crater with the crater lake. And this is why we came for. So we just had a 7.8 earthquake. And what do you think they do? Well, of course, they do the science they came to do. So the only thing is that I couldn't because my radio was only working when I was on the rim of the crater. But I had a little assistant with me, a young Bolivian teenager, had been shadowing me for three weeks. So he knew exactly what to do. And he said, Natalie, no problem, give me your bag, I'll do the sampling for you. So I was monitoring the situation. And... Were you scared? I wasn't at that point. And there was another moment, my friend downstairs, I could, you know... At the foot. At the foot, yeah. We've known each other, as I said, we're family, this team is family, we've known each other, I am the godmother of kids, so we are close. And I could feel for the first time in my life that he actually was scared. And he was calling me every 30 seconds, telling me stuff. I say, you have to stop this now. Just call me to give me information that is useful for me to make decisions. And so I say, okay, what's going on? All right. He tells me, you know, there is still avalanching, etc. And then a few minutes later, he calls me and says, I think that Lascar is erupting. So now I have to tell you, we are on a volcano. The next volcano, we share a slope with it, is a little lower, but that's the most temperamental volcano of the entire chain. And this one has a history of eruption. And then my friend is telling me that the volcano seems to be starting to erupt. If that volcano goes up, we have nowhere to go. That got my attention. So if you say scared, I would say that I got the realization that what that meant. I went cold for like a fraction of a second. But that meant that just my adrenaline started to kick in. And it was a very, very strange experience because now you have tunnel vision. It's about survival. And I say, okay, now you are going to tell me what I need to know, you know, tell me, what do you see? Say, I see smoke. What kind of smoke? You say, it's white. I say, no big deal. That's water vapor. Okay. Where is it going? It's going to Argentina. That was the opposite direction of where we are. I said, okay, I'm staying where I am because right now there is no danger. And there was still the issue of the aftershock. I didn't want to have the team caught in the gully, in the central gully of the volcano with an avalanche coming at us. So we stayed there. And he called me after that and say, well, you know, it's still going to Argentina. Fine. Okay. And then a little later, he calls me and say, Natalie, things are changing here. I say, okay, what's going on? I say, well, the cloud is a little yellow. And I was thinking myself, shit. What does it mean when it's yellow? Sulfur. And then when you have sulfur mixed with the water vapor or the water in your lungs, this turns into sulfuric acid. Then you're really screwed. And I say, okay, where... Thank you for the information. Where is the cloud going? He said, the wing is shifting. It's coming your direction. Oh, no. So yeah, that was a day like that, you know. And I am talking to him on the radio and I'm turning around. And as I turned around, I see the cloud starting to pop on the opposite side of the rim. You know, so at that time, we had no choice anymore, because now you have to figure out what's going to kill you first. And so there was the risk or the potential of an avalanche. But at least you can see the rocks. The gas is going to kill you before you can see it. Yeah. So I called everybody back. We gather our stuff. I didn't give too much detail, but I said, it's time to go downhill and fast. So, which we did. We stopped only when we were at mid-camp. And then at that point, we saw the cloud just completely covering the summit where we were. So we did well to bail out. But that was 500 meters higher than we were. So we are safe. I was just making sure that you would not go down the slope where we were. We were safe. So we stayed and just rested for a little while. And after that, we descended. And it was all on adrenaline. I can tell you what, I had two of my crew with headaches. Part of one of them was because of the altitude, we climbed very fast. The other one was because of the cloud. She was the closest to the cloud when it happened. So we descended fast. Wow, that was close. That was close. And it's interesting how the human body and mind works, because I know that from the moment my friend told me that the volcano seemed to be erupting, I was going on adrenaline. But when we got close to them, and I saw him, we were getting close to the cars, I saw him coming towards me. And the slope, all of a sudden, all the adrenaline went away. I was a mess. I had to find the first rock and sit down. It was gone. That's fascinating. So you just basically physically and mentally collapsed once you saw... Absolutely. So interesting. There was nothing left of me. I got in the car, and I felt in the car as we were heading back towards our camp, I could have passed out. I really fought back. And I'm not the kind of passing out really, you know, easy. But there was nothing left. I had no energy, no nothing. It's fabulous how you react and how this is embedded in your brain from eons of evolution, of reaction to a dangerous situation, basically. The drive to survive. Yeah, something like that. You just told us one heck of a story. And as you said, such story comes along with many of the diving expeditions that you do. But on the science side, what is that world that simulates, that travels back in time into the Martian landscape? What does the science reveal? So the science reveals that life is resilient. When I started that project, I told my husband, I said, this is going to be very fast. We are going in such nasty environment that we're not going to find anything. And we'll be back home fairly soon. So 20 years later, we are still studying those environments. That was a gut feeling like not much can possibly survive in those conditions. The UV environment is so nasty. But there you find the same microorganism that made the very first fossils on Earth 3.5 billion years ago. And they keep surviving. They developed an adaptation, Swiss Army knife, if you prefer. And so you learn about that. You learn about what they are, how they adapt through times and through environmental changes, which is really important. What are their signatures? We learn to recognize them. We learn what kind of instrument we need, what kind of signature, whether it's chemical or morphological or whatnot. So basically, we learn how to explore. But I would say that to me, and this is a realization, interestingly enough, that came three years into the project. I really woke up literally one morning saying, you know, we've been coming here for three years now, trying to understand how to search for life on Mars. But what this place is showing us is what's happening right here, right now on our own planet. And by exploring those extreme environments, we are also reaching to places not too many people go. And so we are learning more about our own biospheres and the diversity of our own life here on Earth. So these are the two main things, you know, that I would say. What kind of life survives up there? On top of those volcanoes, it's about bacteria, you know, mostly. Is there something specific about that bacteria that's able to be so rugged? Yes. They have adapted to very high UV radiation. And it's not only because they are at high altitude, it's because early Earth didn't have an ozone layer. So when those, the ancestors of those bacteria originated, they have to survive a world where you had lots of short UV coming down at the surface, and also lots of hydrothermal environment, you know, volcanoes and hot water, lots of salt. And you see all this toolbox still embedded in those microorganisms today, four billion years later, it's just amazing. And depending on the environment, they are going to switch some of these defenses adaptation on or off. The UV situation there is so nasty that here you have bacteria like that, cyanobacteria, you find them everywhere. It's really something you find all over the place. But if you find them here in California, they will turn their protection against UV during the day in summer, and they will switch it off at the end of the day. There in the Andes, it's so nasty that that thing stays on all the time. But if you take samples and bring them back here, and start to culture them, like we did on top of a building, leaving them, you know, so you will see the second generation of this organism, they are starting to switch on and off again. So they're extremely adaptable, extremely rugged, and that's why they are still here. And probably that's why we're here, because life finds ways. Lexa So is there some degree to which the harshness of the conditions enables the flourishing of life versus shuts it down? Céline Well, it will shut down those that cannot survive. Obviously, you know, this is a statement that's kept in obvious right there. But it's also the survival of the fittest. And this is what evolution is, right? So they are here because they were the most adaptable. And so evolution is going to show the path of the fittest. The one that cannot resist, they might have a good time for a little while, but then, you know, we've seen this at much different scale, and with complex life, not so long ago, a hundred thousand years ago, Neanderthal was side by side by Homo sapiens. But Neanderthal was completely adapted to a cold earth, to a glacial earth of the end of the Pleistocene. And when conditions change, it couldn't last. Lexa You think, I mean, there's still some mysteries around that, right? Like exactly what were the harshness of the conditions? I still really suspicious. What did Homo sapiens do? No, no, no, no. I really want to know. No, no. Some shady stuff that happened. Shady stuff happened. They met, they bred together, they fought against each other. What humans do. You had to expect that. But the thing is that Neanderthal was completely adapted for a very long time to live at the edge of those glaciers. They were probably in a weakened situation when Homo sapiens came and started to spread. So basically, this is what life does. It adapts. And if it cannot adapt anymore, it disappears and something else takes over. You hold the women's world record for diving at altitudes, both scuba and free diving. So I have to ask, can you describe the details of those records? I never looked for those. I'm not after records at all. In fact, I didn't know I had broken those records when that happened. We did that as part of our expedition, our scientific expedition. So it's basically sport in the name of science versus... No, it's science in the name of science. And it's just a very physical thing that you have to do. So we train ourselves like athletes. Yeah. To get the job done. To get the job done. You're holding your breath underwater for a very long time, like with free diving. What are we talking about? Do you think in terms of time, is there like layers where you know through training you're in a good place? Like I'm sure you take time off and you get rusty, right? And I have not been diving in a while, so probably I need to go back to the drawing board at the bottom of the swimming pool. But having training from the past, I think it will pick up much more faster. Basically, I would never at those altitudes, I would never go over three minutes. That would be suicidal. So the altitude is much tougher than the pool back at ground level? It is, but it's not... Because when you come up and you have to get out. Yes. That's not the going in the water. When I'm underwater, I'm fine. And if I wanted, I could stay longer, but it wouldn't be very wise. You've written about the history of life on Mars. Like you said, you're kind of exploring that by looking at the lakes here. Do you think there's been life on Mars? Do you think there is life on Mars? Right. So when you're looking at the environment of Mars early on, it's fairly similar to that of early Earth. Never was exactly the same because Mars was always farther from the Sun than the Earth. So it was always a little cooler. But you have to imagine maybe the Arctic during the summer, that would be early Mars with a lot going on for it in terms of environment, very favorable to even life as we know it. So we don't know how fast life happens on Earth. There are signs right now showing that it might have actually originated only 200 million years after the crust cooled down. This still has to be verified, but that's the closest. And these are indirect evidence like carbon left by the activity of life, not life itself. And there is a twist in the story for Mars. It seems that Mars came together as a planet faster than the Earth. Mars came together as a planet faster than the Earth and had water earlier than the Earth. So it may be that Mars was habitable and might have seen the beginning of life earlier than the Earth. So all of this is speculation. Obviously, we haven't found any evidence or solid evidence yet. I would say unambiguous evidence, but unambiguous evidence of life is going to be something interesting to prove because we don't know what life is, remember. So I always joke that the only way we would know that there is life on Mars if there was a rabbit jumping in front of the rover. But we might be gathering, we have what we call a ladder of life detection, which is that you have a series of rungs that you need to go through that actually are not proving you that you discovered life, but are making the possibility that what you discovered was made only by the environment more and more improbable. So we are trying to prove the contrary. So this is what we have right now. And as far as I'm concerned, considering all the unknowns we have, I think there was as much chance that life originated on Mars than it did on Earth. If it was at the surface, then it got in trouble after 500 million years because of the disappearance of the magnetosphere, the loss of the magnetosphere and the atmosphere. But as we know, life doesn't only stay in one place. As soon as it's out there, it's going to adapt, it's going to give itself more chance to survive. And that to me means that if life appeared, I would say it's still there and probably on the ground where it can be in an environment that's more stable. So I don't know how stability is good or not, it might not be so good, but they might be in a different type of metabolism through dormancy, waiting for different climate cycles. And there is the fact that Mars changes a lot faster than the Earth, and climate changes are a lot stronger in magnitude. So there might be a place on Mars, we know that there is a place on Mars, deeper in the subsurface where temperature and pressure are good for liquid water to stay there. So these would be good places for stable habitat over time, no matter what happens at the surface. But if life is also caught between that deep zone and the surface, there is an active layer, there is a lot of ice in the subsurface of Mars. And when the climate changes, when the obliquity goes beyond 30 degrees, then at that point, you will have some activation of that zone, you have thawing of the ice. So all this region is reactivated, and maybe that's a way where you have pathways for life to move from the deep zone to closer to the surface. This is why I am one of those scientists who thinks that life might not be so far from the surface than we think. So we don't have to dig very far to find it. We probably won't. And the reason I'm... That would be so amazing. I'm thinking of that just because of this experience as well, of extreme environments. You know, you have to sit and look and listen, basically, the story of my life. If I want to understand where microbes are located on Mars, I have to become the microbe, right? This is the thought experiment. And if I want to understand where ET is, then I have to become ET. So it's a big stretch. But in extreme environment, you sit in the desert for a while, and you just, you know, try to understand where the wind's coming from, where the humidity, when it's showing up, and then you start to understand the patterns of those things. What are the useful signals that you need for survival? You need to know where water is, where the source of energy is going to be drawn from. You need to find shelters. And shelters don't mean that, for instance, you can have a water column of a lake or a river or whatnot, or the ocean. It can be also a very thin layer of dust, or it can be a translucent rock. And you see what we call endoliths. These are the same cyanobacteria, but a different version of them. They live inside the rocks, inside those crystals, because they have the best of life. They are into translucent crystals so that they receive the light from the sun, they can do the photosynthesis, but there is enough of that crystal so that the nasty UV is being stopped. And they are in their little house. And when you are looking at temperature within those rocks, they tend to make it toastier than the outside temperature. So there is a lot of things going on. So what I'm saying for Mars is that, yeah, right now you don't have an atmosphere very much, 160 times thinner than the Earth. 6 millibars is really not much, but it's there. But you still have a lot of short UV, like the nasty ones, UVA, UVB, UVC, that can really mess up your DNA and destroy it beyond repair. But as soon as you have a little alcove into a rock or a cliff, I'd be looking at those places, but you have to understand Mars, or any other planet for that matter, at the level that matters for the microbe. And so then you need... Be one with the microbe. Be one with the microbes, which means that we have lots of orbital data, which is good to understand habitability at the planet level or at the regional level. But we have very little data right now that is very useful to understand habitability at the scale that matters for the microbes at this point in time. So we need to understand the scale that matters for the microbes at this point in time. So we need to do a better job with that. My idea is to have arrays of environmental stations that could have a lot of benefits. One would be to give us that vision for the microbes. That would be good for us through biology. And second... A collection of stations on Mars. On Mars, yeah. That give us a good map of the planet. High resolution. We can do that regionally. And on top of that, so that's good for us through biology, for the search for life on Mars. That's good about how to learn where microbes could be that can be a problem for contamination both ways. So that's good for planetary protection. And since those stations would have communication capabilities on them, that's excellent for human exploration, because not only you have weather stations all over the place that can tell your astronauts, you know, learn the pattern when it's a good time to go out or not go out. And also how to communicate when they go and do sorties. So there are a number of things we can do that can tell you lots of information. Let's rewind the clock a little bit. You grew up in Paris. I was just there. Helen McDonald, in her New York Times amazing profile piece of you, writes that your teenage years were troubled. So how did the challenging early years make the human being the scientist that you are today? Everything. I think that this is what's taking me on top of those big mountains. And the irony is for me to be looking for the origin and nature of life, because I was so close to losing it. But to me, that was a great lesson learned. And that helped me see through the beauty of life. Going on the other side of that, it became really what made me and helped me go through absolutely everything and anything in life. Climb mountains and tell me there is something I want to know. And, you know, I am going to give it my best, and I won't give up. And I won't give in. And this is a message that I carried all my life. And I'm so very grateful that I did because all these things that I would have missed if I hadn't done that. You know, this is something that I wrote in my first book. And part of it is the reason why I wrote it, just because I felt that there were messages in my path. Oftentimes, teenagers are troubled. It can be one way or another. Or if it's not a troubled teenage, you have times in your life where you doubt, where, you know, you just wave in your arm and say, what's the purpose? What's the reason? Why carry on? And when I see all the things that I'm doing, the dream that I was able to fulfill, what a waste it would have been, you know? LRWL So there was a point in your life where you thought about suicide? Oh, yeah. Yeah. And I did more than thinking about it. But I was a lucky one. For some reason, I'm still here. I still don't know why, but I'm still here. And the lesson for me was that never, ever again, because you have to give tomorrow a chance. You never can think about tomorrow in the terms of the present. You never know what can happen. You know what is going to happen if you go through what you want to do. Tomorrow is never happening. You know, and I had the other lesson came a few years later, where actually, somebody was drowning and I went after that person. I almost died that day, too. Not that I wanted to, but it's just because the conditions were very, very difficult. That person died from there, although we took him out of the water. But I had a lot of difficulty coming out. I came out, but I thought a lot about that guy. He was in his 30s. And it was like a sort of an echo from a few years before, telling me that person would never have a tomorrow. That person would never be able to fulfill his dream or even have dreams of any kind. And I was here and I was going to give myself the best chance to fulfill all the dreams I wanted to and go after all the questions I wanted to. And this is what kept me going now. So the advice there is even if you don't see a why, an answer to the why question, why live today? Give tomorrow a chance, always. Do you think about your death today? Do you think about your mortality? Not really. You've been so close with it so many times. Yeah, yeah, well, you know, that's part of life. And you know what? If something happens to me while I'm doing the stuff I love, what a way of going. This will happen wherever it catches me. I don't know. I don't care. It will be what it will be. And I had the best of all masters for that. I had my husband. My husband and I were 44 years apart in age. And it was just a pure love story. And he never looked at his age, never thought about himself or defined himself by his age. In fact, he reinvented a life for himself at an age where everybody retires. We met when he was 66. And that was a blessing and a curse, but a blessing most of it because we took every single day as if it was the last. So we enjoyed life. And right now, it's not so much, you know, I have to really think of him. He just passed away this August, last August. And for me, it's more like I have to draw from his example, on him always telling me, me, look forward, trust life, be happy, live. You know, today, every single day, I have to remind several times a day of this. It's not easy. But he had the recipe. He never thought about death. Because when you start thinking too much about death, that prevents you from living. CBT Do you miss him? Oh, gosh, we were so close. I think we were, it's more like one spirit in two bodies. We were that close. So missing him doesn't even cut it. I mean, it's the toughest mountain I ever climbed. What's the role of love in the human condition? I think, I hope, that this is the force that drives the universe. Although, you know, we might be experiencing the other side of it, maybe just to learn how important love is. That might be it, you know. For me, my experience with my husband, where I never had to wake up every single morning, ever wondering if I was loved. I had to look in his eyes, and him looking back at me to know it. So when you get to that point where you don't question it anymore, I would hope for humanity to reach that point where you can feel the same love for the person that is unknown in the street, that you feel for the people you love. I think that at that point, we are going to be reaching the maturity of that civilization we are hoping for, and seeing the universe through love. That doesn't run spacecrafts, of course, but putting love into our intent of going into and settling into another planet instead of, oh my god, we need to escape because we are freaking messing up with our own planet. I think that this is the answer to so many things. Is there a part of you that maybe just a little bit wants to step foot on Mars, like you personally? Oh yeah, of course. I'm curious. I'm a scientist, and I've been working on Mars. I was actually privileged to be working on Yusuf Crater and deciding for the landing site of the Spirit rover, which means that I worked on that landing site for 15 years, and I got to see it from the ground. That's the closest to being there and exploring. Of course, that's not physically be present there. If you were giving me the opportunity, of course I would go, but I know one thing, I would want to come back. Given the option of dying on Mars or dying on Earth, you'd visit Mars, but you would like to spend your last days here. Yeah, because of a number of things. I think that, first, we're not ready to set on Mars, regardless of what's being said. It will happen. It will happen, and because we are explorers. Humans, you know, they're explorers, so this will happen. And it's a good thing. Depending on how we go about this, it can be a very good thing. With time, as much as I've been exploring and continue to explore the big questions of origin and nature of life, or exploring of a planet, the love, you were talking about love, the love for my own planet has grown deeper, and my concern about it has grown deeper. So, the data that I'm collecting to learn about other planets, I'm also using it to understand better our home planet and trying to make it a little better for the next generation. So, if you were talking about love, this is love that would drive me back here. Yeah, this planet, it's just, sometimes I just pause and am in awe at the incredible thing we have here. And I have deep gratitude for all the life forms here, the beautiful complexity. Of course, there's darkness behind it, all the death, all the extinction that led up to us two descendants of apes sitting here today. I feel that's a responsibility. We're the fittest that survived. Exactly right. As the dominant species, at least, you know, technologically, et cetera, maybe not the wisest one, but the dominant species, we have a responsibility towards the entire biosphere, because the decisions we are making now not only affect us, they are affecting the entire biosphere. And right now, the choices we are making are leading to the disappearance of 150 species every single day. All the big mammals on this earth today are on the brink of extinction. We are within the sixth greatest mass extinction. It's unfolding before our eyes. And I would strongly suggest that we use our smart to help a little bit this situation. And we can do this. I think we can do this. We just need to redirect our energy. In the name of love. This was an incredible conversation, and I'm really honored that you sit with me. I've been a fan of your work for a long time now, so this is really awesome. Thank you so much for talking to me. You're very welcome. Thanks. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Natalie Cabral. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Stanislav Lem and Solaris. How do you expect to communicate with the ocean, when we can't even understand one another? Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/yyBosLx7bbM

vgks_1Gml7k

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sean Carroll: Capacity of the Human Mind to Understand Physics

Isaac Newton developed what we now call classical mechanics that you describe very nicely in your new book as you do with a lot of basic concepts in physics. So with classical mechanics I can throw a rock and can predict the trajectory of that rock's flight. But if we could put ourselves back into Newton's time, his theories worked to predict things but as I understand he himself thought that their interpretations of those predictions were absurd. Perhaps he just said it for religious reasons and so on. But in particular sort of a world of interaction without contact, so action at a distance, it didn't make sense to him on a sort of a human interpretation level. Does it make sense to you that things can affect other things at a distance? It does but you know that so that was one of Newton's worries. You're actually right in a slightly different way about the religious worries. He was smart enough, this is off the topic but still fascinating, Newton almost invented chaos theory as soon as he invented classical mechanics. He realized that in the solar system, so he was able to explain how planets move around the sun, but typically you would describe the orbit of the earth ignoring the effects of Jupiter and Saturn and so forth just doing the earth and the sun. He kind of knew, even though he couldn't do the math, that if you included the effects of Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets, the solar system would be unstable like the orbits of the planets would get out of whack. So he thought that God would intervene occasionally to sort of move the planets back into orbit which is the only way you could explain how they were there presumably forever. But the worries about classical mechanics were a little bit different, the worry about gravity in particular. It wasn't a worry about classical mechanics, it was a worry about gravity. How in the world does the earth know that there's something called the sun 93 million miles away that is exerting gravitational force on it? And he literally said, you know, I leave that for future generations to think about because I don't know what the answer is. And in fact, people underemphasized this but future generations figured it out. Pierre-Simone Laplace in circa 1800 showed that you could rewrite Newtonian gravity as a field theory. So instead of just talking about the force due to gravity, you can talk about the gravitational field or the gravitational potential field. And then there's no action at a distance. It's exactly the same theory empirically, it makes exactly the same predictions. But what's happening is instead of the sun just reaching out across the void, there is a gravitational field in between the sun and the earth that obeys an equation, Laplace's equation, cleverly enough. And that tells us exactly what the field does. So even in Newtonian gravity, you don't need action at a distance. Now what many people say is that Einstein solved this problem because he invented general relativity. And in general relativity, there's certainly a field in between the earth and the sun. But also there's the speed of light as a limit in Laplace's theory, which was exactly Newton's theory just in a different mathematical language. There could still be instantaneous action across the universe. Whereas in general relativity, if you shake something here, its gravitational impulse radiates out at the speed of light. And we call that a gravitational wave and we can detect those. But it really rubs me the wrong way to think that we should presume the answer should look one way or the other. Like if it turned out that there was action at a distance in physics, and that was the best way to describe things, then I would do it that way. It's actually a very deep question because when we don't know what the right laws of physics are, when we're guessing at them, when we're hypothesizing at what they might be, we are often guided by our intuitions about what they should be. I mean, Einstein famously was very guided by his intuitions. And he did not like the idea of action at a distance. We don't know whether he was right or not. It depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics and it depends on even how you talk about quantum mechanics within any one interpretation. So if you see every force as a field or any other interpretation of action at a distance, it's just stepping back to sort of caveman thinking. Do you really, can you really sort of understand what it means for a force to be a field that's everywhere? So if you look at gravity, what do you think about? I think so. Is this something that you've been conditioned by society to think that, to map the fact that science is extremely well predictive of something to believing that you actually understand it, like you can intuitively, the degree that human beings can understand anything, that you actually understand it. Are you just trusting the beauty and the power of the predictive power of science? That depends on what you mean by this idea of truly understanding something, right? You know, I mean, can I truly understand Fermat's last theorem? You know, it's easy to state it, but do I really appreciate what it means for incredibly large numbers? Right. Yeah, I think yes, I think I do understand it. But like if you want to just push people on, well, but your intuition doesn't go to the places where Andrew Wiles needed to go to prove Fermat's last theorem, then I can say fine by something I understand the theorem. And likewise, I think that I do have a pretty good intuitive understanding of fields pervading space time, whether it's the gravitational field or the electromagnetic field or whatever, the Higgs field. Of course, one's intuition gets worse and worse as you get trickier in the quantum field theory and all sorts of new phenomena that come up in quantum field theory. So our intuitions aren't perfect. But I think it's also okay to say that our intuitions get trained, right? Like, you know, I have different intuitions now than I had when I was a baby. That's okay. That's not an intuition is not necessarily intrinsic to who we are. We can we can train it a little bit. So that's where I'm going to bring in Noam Chomsky for a second, who thinks that our cognitive abilities are sort of evolved through time. And so they're biologically constrained. And so there's a clear limit, as he puts it, to our cognitive abilities. And it's a very harsh limit. But you actually kind of said something interesting in nature versus nurture thing here is we can train our intuitions to sort of build up the cognitive muscles to be able to understand some of these tricky concepts. Do you think there's limits to our understanding that's deeply rooted, hard coded into our biology that we can't overcome? There could be limits to things like our ability to visualize, okay. So when someone like Ed Witten proves a theorem about, you know, 100 dimensional mathematical spaces, he's not visualizing it, he's doing the math. That doesn't stop him from understanding the result. I think and I would love to understand this better. But my rough feeling, which is not very educated, is that, you know, there's some threshold that one crosses in abstraction when one becomes kind of like a Turing machine, right? One has the ability to contain in one's brain, logical, formal, symbolic structures and manipulate them. And that's a leap that we can make as human beings that dogs and cats haven't made. And once you get there, I'm not sure that there are any limits to our ability to understand the scientific world at all. Maybe there are. There's certainly limits in our ability to calculate things, right? You know, people are not very good at taking cube roots of million digit numbers in their head. But that's not an element of understanding. It's certainly not a limited principle. So of course, as a human, you would say that doesn't feel to be limits to our understanding. But sort of have you thought that the universe is actually a lot simpler than it appears to us? And we just will never be able to like it's outside of our... Okay, so us, our cognitive abilities combined with our mathematical prowess and whatever kind of experimental simulation devices we can put together, is there limits to that? Is it possible there's limits to that? Well, of course it's possible that there are limits to that. Is there any good reason to think that we're anywhere close to the limits is a harder question. Look, imagine asking this question 500 years ago to the world's greatest thinkers, right? Like are we approaching the limits of our ability to understand the natural world? And by definition, there are questions about the natural world that are most interesting to us that are the ones we don't quite yet understand, right? So there's always, we're always faced with these puzzles we don't yet know. And I don't know what they would have said 500 years ago, but they didn't even know about classical mechanics, much less quantum mechanics. So we know that they were nowhere close to how well they could do, right? They could do enormously better than they were doing at the time. I see no reason why the same thing isn't true for us today. So of all the worries that keep me awake at night, the human mind's inability to rationally comprehend the world is low on the list.

https://youtu.be/vgks_1Gml7k

XiCxj-bXu5M

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Ginni Rometty: IBM CEO on Leadership, Power, and Adversity | Lex Fridman Podcast #362

I've had to do plenty of unpopular things. I think anytime you have to run a company that endures a century and has to endure another century, you will do unpopular things. You have no choice. And I often felt I had to sacrifice things for the long term. And whether that would have been really difficult things like job changes or reductions, or whether it would be things like, hey, we're going to change the way we do our semiconductors and a whole different philosophy. You have no choice. And in times of crisis as well, you got to be, I would say it's not a popularity contest. The following is a conversation with Jeannie Rometty, who was a longtime CEO, president and chairman of IBM. And for many years, she was widely considered to be one of the most powerful women in the world. She's the author of a new book on power, leadership, and her life story called Good Power, coming out on March 7th. She is an incredible leader and human being, both fearless and compassionate. It was a huge honor and pleasure for me to sit down and have this chat with her. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Jeannie Rometty. You worked at IBM for over 40 years, starting as a systems engineer, and you ran the company as chairman, president, CEO from 2011 to 2020. IBM is one of the largest tech companies in the world with, maybe you can correct me on this, with about 280,000 employees. What are the biggest challenges running the company of that size? Let's start with a sort of big overview question. The biggest challenges I think are not in running them, it's in changing them. And that idea to know what you should change and what you should not change. Actually, people don't always ask that question. What should endure, even if it has to be modernized, but what should endure? And then I found the hardest part was changing how work got done at such a big company. What was the parts that you thought should endure? The core of the company that was beautiful and powerful and could persist through time, that should persist through time? I'd be interested. Do you have a perception of what you think it would be? Do I have a perception? Well, I'm a romantic for a history of long running companies, so there's kind of a tradition as an AI person. To me, IBM has some epic sort of research accomplishments where you show off, you know, Deep Blue and Watson, just impressive big moonshot challenges and accomplishing those. But that's, I think, that's probably a small part of what IBM is. That's mostly like the sexy public facing part. Yeah. No, well, certainly the research part itself, right, is over 3,000. So it's not that small. That's a pretty big research group. But the part that should endure ends up being, you know, a company that does things that are essential to the world. Meaning, you know, think back, you said you're romantic. It was the 30s, the social security system. It was putting the man on the moon. It was, you know, to this day, banks don't run, you know, railroads don't run. That is at its core, it's doing mission critical work. And so that part, I think, is at its core, it's a business to business company. And at its core, it's about doing things that are really important to the world becoming running and being better. Running the infrastructure of the world, so doing it at scale, doing it reliably. Yes, secure in this world, that's like everything. And in fact, when I started, I almost felt people were looking for what that was. And together, we sort of, in a word, was to be essential. And the reason I love that word was, I can't call myself essential. You have to determine I am, right? So it was to be essential, even though some of what we did is exactly what you said, it's below the surface. So many people, because people still don't know what that is. It's below the surface. So many people, because people say to me, well, what does IBM do now? Right? And over the years, it's changed so much. And today, it's really a software and consulting company. Consulting is a third of it. And the software is all hybrid cloud and AI. That would not have been true, as you well know, back even two decades ago, right? So it changes. But I think at its core, it's that be essential. You said moonshot, can't all be moonshots, because moonshots don't always work, but mission critical work. So given the size, though, when you started running it, did you feel the sort of thing that people usually associate with size, which is bureaucracy, and maybe the aspect of size that hinder progress or hinder pivoting? Did you feel that? You would, for lots of reasons. I think when you're a big company, sometimes people think of process as the client themselves. I always say to people, your process is not your customer. There is a real customer here that you exist for. And that's really easy to fall into, because people are a master to this process. And that's not right. And when you're big, the other thing, and boy, there's a premium on it, is speed, right? That in our industry, you've got to be fast. And go back, like when I took over, and it was 2012, we had a lot of catching up to do and a lot of things to do, and it was moving so fast. And as you well know, all those trends were happening at once, which made them go even faster. And so pretty unprecedented, actually, for that many trends to be at one time. And I used to say to people, go faster, go faster, go faster. And honestly, I've tired them out. I mean, it kind of dawned on me that when you're that big, that's a really valuable lesson. And it taught me the how's perhaps more important than the what. Because if I didn't do something to change how work was done, like change those processes or give them new tools, help them with skills, they couldn't. They'll just do the same thing faster. If someone tells you, you've got hiking boots, and they're like, no, go run a marathon. You're like, I can't do it in those boots. But so you've got to do something. And at first, I think the ways for big companies, I would call them like blunt clubs. You do what everyone does. You reduce layers. Because if you reduce layers, decisions go faster. There's just, it's math. If there's less decision points, things go faster. You do the blunt club thing. And then after that, though, it did lead me down a long journey of they sound like buzzwords, but if you really do them at scale, they're hard around things like agile. And because you've really got to change the way work gets done. And we ended up training, God, hundreds of thousands of people on that stuff. On how to do agile correctly. On how to do it correctly. That's right. Because everybody talks about it. But the idea that you would really have small multidisciplinary teams work from the outside in, set those sort of interim steps, take the feedback pivot, and then do it on not just products, do it on lots of things. It's hard to do at scale. People always say, oh, I got this agile group over here of 40 people. But not when you're a couple hundred thousand people. You got to get a lot of people to work that way. The blunt club thing you're talking about. So flatten the organization as much as possible. Yeah. I probably reduced the layers of management by half. And so that has lots of benefits, right? Time to a decision, more autonomy to people. And then the idea of faster clarity of where you're going. Because you're not just filtered through so many different layers. And I think it's the kind of thing a lot of companies, if you're big, have to just keep going through. It's kind of like grass grows. It just comes back. And you got to go back town and work on it. So it's a natural thing. But I hear so many people talk about it, Lex, this idea of like, okay, well, who makes a decision? You've often heard nobody can say yes and everybody can say no. And that's actually what you're trying to get out of a system like that. So, I mean, your book in general, the way you lead is very much about we and us, the power of we. But is there times when a leader has to step in and be almost autocratic, take control and make hard, unpopular decisions? Oh, I am sure you know the answer to that. And it is, of course, yes. It's just fun to hear you say it. Fun to say it. Yeah. Because I actually, A, there's a leader for a time, but then there's a leader for a situation, right? And so I've had to do plenty of unpopular things. I think anytime you have to run a company that endures a century and has to endure another century, you will do unpopular things. You have no choice. And I often felt I had to sacrifice things for the long term. And whether that would have been really difficult things like job changes or reductions, or whether it would be things like, hey, we're going to change the way we do our semiconductors and a whole different philosophy, you have no choice. I mean, and in times of crisis as well, you got to be, I always said it's not a popularity contest. So that's, none of these jobs are popularity contests. I don't care if your company's got one person or half a million, they're not popularity contests. But psychologically, is it difficult to sort of step in as a new CEO and to, because you're fighting against tradition, against all these people that act like experts of their thing, and they are experts of their thing, to step in and say, we have to do differently? Yeah. When you got to change a company, it's really tempting to say, throw everything else out, back to that what must endure, right? But I know when I took over to start, I knew how much had to change. The more I got into it, I could see, wow, a lot more had to change, right? Because we needed a platform. We'd always done our best when we had a platform, a technology platform. You will go back in time and you'll think of the mainframe systems. You'll think of the PC. You'll think of perhaps middleware. You could even call services a platform. We needed a platform, the next platform here to be there. Skills. When I took over, we inventoried who had modern skills for the future. It was two out of 10 people for the future. Not that they didn't have relevant skills today, but for the future, two out of 10. Yikes, that's a big problem, right? The speed at which things were getting done. So you got so much to do and you say, is that a scary thing? Yes. Do you have to sometimes dictate? Yes. But I did find, and it is worth it. I know every big company I know, my good friend that runs General Motors, she's had to change. Go back to what is them, them. When you do that, that back to be essential, we kind of started with, hey, it's be essential. Then the next thing I did with the team was say, okay, now this means new era of computing, new buyers are out there and we better have new skills. Okay, now the next thing, how do you operationalize it? It just takes some time, but you can engineer that and get people to build belief. For the skills, that means hiring and it means training? Yes. Oh boy, that's a long, skills is a really long topic in and of itself. I try to put my view in it. I learned a lot and I changed my view on this a lot. I'll go back at my very beginning, say 40 years ago, I would have said at that point, okay, I was always in a hurry. I was interviewing to hire people. I don't know how you hire people. 40 years ago, I'd be like, okay, I got to fit in these interviews. I got to hire someone to get this done. Okay. Then time would go on. I'm like, oh, that's not very good. In fact, someone once said to me, hey, hire the best people to work for you and your job gets a lot easier. Okay, I should spend more time on this topic. I spent more time on it. Then it was like, okay, hire experts. Okay. Okay. Hired a lot of experts over my life. Then I was really like an epiphany and it really happened over my tenure running the company and having to change skills. If someone's an expert at something and has just done that for 30 years, the odds of them really wanting to change a lot are pretty low. When you're in a really dynamic industry, that's a problem. Okay. That was my first revelation on this. Then when I looked to hiring, I can remember when I started my job, we needed cyber people. I go out there and I look. Unemployment in the US was almost 10%. Can't find them. Okay. It's 10% and I can't find the people. Okay. What's the issue? Okay. They're not teaching the right things. That led me down a path. It was serendipity that I happened to do a review of corporate social responsibility. We had this one little fledgling school in a low-income area. High school with a community college, we gave them internships, direction on curriculum. Lo and behold, we could hire these kids. I said, this is not CSR. I just found a new talent pool, which takes me to now what I'm doing in my post-retirement. I'm like, this idea that don't hire just for a college degree, we had 99% of our hires were college and PhDs. I'm all for it. I'm deeply offended. No, you should not be. I'm vice chair at Northwestern, one of the vice chairs. But I said, I just really like aptitude does not equal access. These people didn't have access, but they had aptitude. It changed my whole view to skills first. Now for hiring, that's a long story to tell you. The number one thing I would hire for now is somebody's willingness to learn. And you can test, you can try different ways, but their curiosity and willingness to learn, hands down, I will take that trait over anything else they have. So the interview process, the questions you ask- Changed, everything changed. The kind of things you talk to them about is try to get at how curious they are about the- And you can do testing. We triangulated around it lots of ways. And now look, at the heart of it, what it would do is change. You don't think of buying skills, you think of building skills. And when you think that way, with so many people, and I think this country, many developed countries being disenfranchised, you gotta bring them back into the workforce somehow, and they gotta get some kind of contemporary skills. And if you took that approach, you can bring them back into the workforce. Yeah, I think some interesting combination of humility and passion, because like you said, experts sometimes lack humility if they call themselves an expert for a few too many years. So you have to have that beginner's mind and a passion to be able to aggressively, constantly be a beginner at everything and learn and learn and learn. You know, I saw it firsthand when we were beginning this path down the cloud in AI, and people would say, oh, IBM, it's existential, they gotta change, and all these things. And I did hire a lot of people from outside, very willing to learn new things. Come on in, come on in. And I sometimes say, shiny objects, trained in shiny objects, come on in. But I saw something, it was another one of these, and you're not a shiny object, I'm not saying that. But I learned something. Okay, some of them did fantastic. And others, they're like, well, let me school you on everything. But they didn't realize like we did really mission-critical work, and they'd break a bank. I mean, they would not understand the certain kind of security and the auditability and everything they had to go on. And then I watched IBM people say, oh, I actually could learn something. Some were like, yeah, okay, I don't know how to do that. That's a really good thing I could learn. And in the end, there was not like one group was a winner and one was a loser. The winners were the people who were willing to learn from each other. I mean, it was to me, it was very stark example of that point. And I saw it firsthand. So that's why I'm so committed to this idea about skills first. And that's how people should be hired, promoted, paid, you name it. Yeah, the AI in general, it seems like nobody really understands now what the future will look like. We're all trying to figure it out. So like what IBM will look like in 50 years in relation to the software business to AI is unknown. What Google will look like, what all these companies were trying to figure it out. And that means constantly learning, taking risks, all of those things. And nobody's really skilled in AI. You're absolutely right. That's right. Couldn't agree more with you on that. You wrote in the book, speaking of hiring, quote, my drive for perfection often meant I only focused on what needed to change without acknowledging the positive. This could keep people from trusting themselves. It could take me a while to learn that just because I could point something out didn't mean I should. I still spotted errors, but I became more deliberate about what I mentioned and sent back to get fixed. I also tried to curtail my tendency to micromanage and let people execute. I had to stop assuming my way was the best or only way. I was learning that giving other people control builds their confidence and that constantly trying to control people destroys it. So what's the right balance between showing the way and helping people find the way? That is a good question. Because like a really flip answer would be as it gets bigger, you have no choice but to just, you know, you can't do it. You have to tell or show. I mean, you've got to let people find their way because it's so big you can't, right? That's an obvious answer. Scope of work. Bigger it gets, okay, I've got to let more stuff go. But I have always believed that a leader's job is to do as well. And I think there's like a few areas that are really important that you always do. Now it doesn't mean you're showing. So like when it has to do with values and value-based decisions, like I think it's really important to constantly show people that you walk your talk on that kind of thing. It's super important. And I actually think it's a struggle young companies have because the values aren't deeply rooted. And when a storm comes, it's easy to uproot. And so I always felt like when it was that time, I showed it. I got taught that so young at IBM and even General Motors that, in fact, I do write about that in the book. First time I was a manager, I had a gentleman telling dirty jokes, and not to me, but to other people, and it really offended people and some of the women. And this is the very early 80s. And they came, said something. I talked to my boss, I'm a first-time manager, and he was unequivocal with what I should do. He said, and this was a top performer. It stops immediately or you fire him. So there are a few areas like that, that I actually think you have to always continue to role model and show. That to me isn't the kind that like when do you let go of stuff. The values and relationships with clients. Yeah, whatever you're in service of. And the other thing was, I really felt it was really important to role model learning. So I can remember when we started down the journey and we went on to this thing called the Think Academy, IBM's longtime motto had been Think. And we said, okay, I'm gonna make the first Friday of every month compulsory education. And, okay, I mean everybody, like everybody, I don't care what your job is, okay? When the whole company has to transform, everybody's gotta have some skin in this game and understand it. I taught the first hour of every month for four years. Now, okay, I had to learn something. But it made me learn. But I was like, okay, if I can teach this, you can do it, right? I mean, you know, that kind of thing. So it was a compulsory Thursday night education for you. I'm a little bit better prepared than that. But yes, you're so right. Yes. So you prepare. So like personality-wise, you like to prepare? Yeah, but there's roots in that go back deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply. And I think it's an interesting reason. So why do, why are you, you're prepared, my friend. Yes, you are. You prepare for your interviews. Uh, sure. The rest you wing? Yeah, I wing most of it. But that's okay. I mean, you don't have to prepare everything. I don't prepare everything either. No, but I unfortunately wing stuff. I save it to last minute. I push everything. I'm always almost late. And I don't know why that is. I mean, there's some deep psychological thing we should probably investigate. But it's probably the anxiety brings out the performance. That can be. That's very true with some people. I mean, so I'm a programmer and engineer at heart. And so, so programmers famously overestimate or underestimate, sorry, how long something's going to take. And so I just everything, I always underestimate. And it's almost as if I want to feel this chaos of anxiety of a deadline or something like this. Otherwise I'll be lazy sitting on a beach with a pina colada and relaxing. I don't know. So that we have to know ourselves, but for you. For me. You like to prepare. Yeah. It came from a few different places. I mean, one would have been as a kid, I think I was not a memorizer and my brother is brilliant. He can read it once, boom, done. And so I always wanted to understand like how something happened. It didn't matter what it was I was doing. Whether it was algebra, theorems, I always wanted to, don't give me the answer. Don't give me the answer. I want to figure it out, figure it out. So I could reproduce it again and didn't have to memorize. So it started with that. And then over time, okay. So I was in university in the seventies. When I was in engineering school, I was the only woman. You know, I meet people still to this day and they're like, Oh, I remember you. I'm like, yeah, sorry. I don't remember you. There were 30 of you, one of me. And I think you already get that feeling of, okay, I better really study hard. Cause whatever I say is going to be remembered in this class, good or bad. And it started there. So in some ways I did it for two reasons. Early on, I think it was a shield for confidence. The more I studied, the more prepared I was, the more confident. That's probably still true to this day. The second reason I did it evolved over time and became different to prepare. If I was really prepared, then when we're in the moment, I can really listen to you. See, cause I don't have to be doing all this stuff on the fly in my head. And I could actually take things I know and maybe help the situation. So it really became a way that I could be present in the moment. And I think it's something a lot of people that in the moment, I learned it from my husband. He doesn't prepare by the way at all. So that's not it. So how did you learn? But I watched the in the moment part. The negative example. No, no, no. And I'm not going to change that. As he says, is it type C, I'm an A. Okay. That's how love works. Yeah. And I have been married 43 years and that seems to work. But that idea that you could be in the moment with people is a really important thing. Yeah. So the preparation gives you the freedom to really be present. So just to linger on, you mentioned your brother and it seems like in the book that you really had to work hard when you studied to sort of, given that you weren't good at memorization, you really, truly, deeply wanted to understand the stuff and you put in the hard work and that seems to persist throughout your career. So, you know, hard work is often associated with sort of has negative associations. Well, maybe with burnout, with dissatisfaction. Is there some aspect of hard work at the core of who you are that led to happiness for you? Did you enjoy it? I enjoyed it. So I'll be the first. And I'm really careful to say that to people because I don't think everyone should associate, gee, to do what you did, you have to, there's only one route there. Right. And that's just not true. And I do it because I like it. In fact, I'm careful. And as time goes on, you have to be careful as more and more people watch you, whether you like it, you're a role model or not. You are a role model for people, whether you know it, like it, want it, does not matter. I learned that the hard way. And I would have to say to people, just because I do this does not mean I do it for these reasons. Right. It's a really explicit. And then I'd come to believe, usually when people say the word power, I don't know, do you have a positive or negative notion when I say the word power? We'll just do a quick one. Probably negative one, yeah. For some stereotype or some view that somebody's abused it in some way. You can read the newspaper, somebody's doing something. Personal people, like I'll ask people, do you want power? And they're like, oh no, I'd rather do good. And I think the irony is you need power to do good. And so that sort of led me down to, as I thought about my own life, right? Because it starts in a, like many of us, you don't have a lot, but you don't know that because you're like everybody else around you at that time. And on one end, tragedy, right? My father leaves my mother, homeless, no money, no food, nothing, four kids. She's never worked a day in her life outside of a home. And the irony of that, here I would end up as the ninth CEO of one of America's most of one of America's iconic companies. And now I co-chair this group 110. And that journey, I said, the biggest thing I learned was you could do really hard, meaningful things in a positive way. So now you asked me about why do I work so hard? I ended up writing the book in three pieces for this reason. When you really think of your life and power, I thought it kind of fell like a pebble in water. Like there's a ring about, you really care about yourself and like the power of yourself, power of me. There's a time it transcends to that you are working with and for others in another moment when it becomes like about society. So my hard work, I'd ask you, one day sit really hard and think about when you close your eyes, who do you see from your early life, right? And what did you learn? And maybe it's not that hard for you. I mean, it's funny the things then, if I really looked at it, it's no surprise what I do today. And that hard work part, my great-grandma, as you and I were comparing notes on Russia, right? And never spoke English, spoke Russian, came here to this country, was a cleaning person at the Wrigley Building in Chicago. Yet if she hadn't saved every dime she made, my mother wouldn't have a home and wouldn't have had a car, right? What did I learn from that? Hard work. In fact, actually, when I went to college, she's like, you know, you really should be on a farm. You're so big and strong. You know, that was her view. And then my grandmother, another tragic life. What did she do though? And think how long, that's in the forties, the fifties, she made lampshades. And she taught me how to sew, right? So I could sell clothes when we couldn't afford them. But my memory of my grandma is working seven days a week, sewing lampshades. And then here comes my mom and her situation who climbs her way out of it. So I associate that with, well, strong women, by the way, all strong women. And I associate hard work with how you are sure you can always take care of yourself. And so I think that the roots go way back there and they were always teaching something, right? My great-grandma was teaching me how to cook, how to work a farm, even though I didn't need to be on a farm. My grandma taught me, you know, here's how to sew, here's how to run a business. And then my mother would teach us that, look, with just a little bit of education, look at the difference it could make, right? So anyways, that's a long answer to, I think that hard work thing is really deeply rooted from that background. And it gives you a way out from hard times. Yeah. You know, I think I've seen you on other podcasts say, I thought I did, do you want a plan B? Didn't you say, no, you would not like a plan B? Yeah. I don't want a plan B. Because you're like, I would prefer my backup against, am I remembering? You have a story like that. You seem to like, at least certain moments in your life seem to do well in desperate times. True enough. True enough, that's true. I learned that very well. But I also think that maybe this isn't the same kind of plan B. I think of it as, like I was taught, like, always be able to take care of yourself. Don't have to rely on someone else. And I think that to me, so that's my plan B, I can take care of myself. And it's even after what I lived through with my father, I felt, well, this is at a bar for bad. After this, nothing's bad. And that is a very freeing thought. Being able to take care of yourself, is that, you mean practically, or do you mean just a self-belief that I'll figure it out? I'll figure it out and practically both, right? Right. So you wrote, quote, I vividly remember the last two weeks of my freshman year when I only had 25 cents left. I put the quarter in a clear plastic box on my desk and just stared at it. This is it, I thought, no more money. So do you think there's some aspect of that financial stress, even desperation, just being hungry? Does that play a role in that drive that led to your success to be the CEO of one of the great companies ever? It's a really interesting question because I was just talking to another colleague who's CEO of another great American company this weekend. And he mentioned to me about all this adversity. And he said, or I said to him, I said, do you think part of your success is because you had bad stuff happen? And he said, yes. And so I guess I'd be lying if I didn't say, I don't think you have to have tragedy, but it does teach you one really important thing is that there is always a way forward, always. And it's in your control. I think there's probably wisdom for mentorship there, or whether you're a parent or a mentor, that easy times don't result in growth. Yeah, I've heard a lot of my friends and they worry, they say, gee, my kids have never had bad times. And so what happens here? So I don't know, is it required? And why you end up? Not required, but it sure doesn't hurt. You had this good line about advice you were given that growth and comfort never coexist. Growth and comfort never coexist. And you have to get used to that thought. If someone said that they think of me like one of the more profound sort of lessons I had, and the irony is it's from my husband, which is even more funny, actually. I'm glad you're able to, you could just steal it. I mean, you don't have to give him credit. Oh, I have, I have, shamelessly, as he'll tell you. Okay, so the story behind growth and comfort never coexist, but honestly, I think it's been a really freeing thought for me, and it's helped me immensely since mid-career. And as I write about it in the book, I'm mid-career, and I'd been running a pretty big business, actually, and the fella I work for is gonna get a new job. He's gonna get promoted. He calls me and he says, hey, you're gonna get my job. I really want you to have it. And I said to him, no way. I said, I'm not ready for that job. I got a lot more things I gotta learn. That is like a huge job. Around the world, every product line, development, you name it, every function, I can't do it. He looked at me, he says, well, I think you should go to the interview. I went to the interview the next day, blah, blah, blah. Guy says to me, looks at me, and he says, I wanna offer you that job. And I said, I would like to think about it. I said, I wanna go home and talk to my husband about it. Kind of looked at me, okay. I went home. My husband is sitting there, and he says to me, I went on and on about the story, et cetera. And he says, do you think a man would have answered it that way? And I said, hmm. He says, I know you. He's like, six months, you're gonna be bored. And all you can think of is what you don't know. And he said, and I know these other people. You have way more skill than them, and they think they could do it. And he's like, why? And for me, it internalized this feeling that, and I am gonna say something that's a bit stereotyped, that it resonates with many, many women, and I'll ask you if it does after, is that they're the most harsh critic of themselves. And so this idea that I won't grow unless I can feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean I always have to show it, by the way. So that's why I meant growth and comfort can never coexist. So I was like, he's exactly right. Now, the end of that story is I went in, I took the job. When I went back to the man who was really my mentor looking out for me, and he looked at me and he said, don't ever do that again. And I said, I understand. Because it was okay to be uncomfortable. I didn't have to use it. I mean, now I would take stock of the things I can do, right? And really think, or I look for times to be uncomfortable. Because I know if I am nervous, like, I don't know if you're nervous to meet me, we never met in real person. No, I'm still terrified. No, you're not. But then you're means you're learning something, right? Holding it together. So that to me matters. I think it's interesting, maybe you could speak to that, the sort of the self-critical thing inside your brain. Because I think sometimes it's talked about that women have that. But I have that, definitely. And I think that's not just solely a property of women in the workplace. But I also want to sort of push back on the idea that that's a bad thing that you should silence. Because I think that anxiety, that leads to growth also. That's like this discomfort. There's this weird balance you have to have between that self-critical engine and confidence. Yeah, I think that's a good point. You have to kind of dance. Because if you're super confident, people will value you higher. That's important. But if you're way too confident, maybe in the short term you'll gain, but in the long term, you won't grow. Very good point. So I can't really disagree with that. And to me, even when I took on jobs, I always felt people say, well, is it, you know, what point are you confident enough? And I came to sort of believe, again, a theme of my beliefs that if I was willing to ask lots of questions and understood enough, that's all I needed to know. Let me ask you about your husband a little bit. So you write in the book, you're writing the book, he's just jumping around. And like I said, I'm a bit of a romantic. So how did you meet your husband? So I met my husband when I was 19 years old. So I was a young kid. And I met him when I had a General Motors scholarship. So I was at Northwestern University through my first two years, had a lot of loans, financial aid. And a professor said, hey, you should sign up for this interview. They're looking to bring forward diverse candidates through their management track. Now, these programs don't exist anymore like that. They will pay your tuition, your room and board, your expenses. Northwestern, other Ivy League schools, these very expensive schools. And I think you'd be a good fit. I am eternally thankful for that advice. I went and I interviewed, I actually got the scholarship. I mean, without it, I'd have graduated with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. So part of that was in the summer, I had to work in Detroit. I lived a little room by a cement plant. Not theirs, but I mean, that's all I could afford. Very romantic. Very, very romantic. And the person who owned the house said, hey, I'm having a party, you're not invited. I'm going to fix you up with someone tonight. And that turned out to be my husband. And so it was a blind date is how we very first met. And then it was over. The story was written. If it's okay, just zoom out to, you mentioned power and good power a few times. So if we can just even talk about it. Your book is called Good Power, Leading Positive Change in Our Lives, Work, and World. What is good power? What's the essence of good power? So the essence of it would be doing something hard or meaningful, but in a positive way. I would also tell you, I hope one day I'm remembered for how I did things, not just for what I did. I think that could almost be more important. And I think it's a choice we can all make. So the essence to me of good power, if I had to contrast good to bad, let's say, would be that first off, you have to embrace and navigate tension. This is the world we live in. And by embracing tension, not running from it, you would bridge divides that unites people, not divides them. It's a hard thing to do, but you can do it. You do it with respect, which is the opposite of fear. A lot of people think the way to get things done is fear. And then the third thing would be, you got to celebrate some progress versus perfection. Because I also think that's what stops a lot of things from happening. Because if you go for whatever your definition of perfect is, it's either polarization or paralyzation. I mean, something happens in there versus, no, no, no. Don't worry about getting to that actual exact endpoint. If I keep taking a step forward to progress, really tough stuff can get done. And so my view of that is like, honestly, I hope it can, I said it's like a memoir with purpose. I'm only doing it, it was a really hard thing for me to do because I don't actually talk about all these things. And I had to, nobody cares about your scientific description of this. They want the stories in your life to bring it alive. So it's a memoir with purpose. And in the writing of it, it became the power of me, the power of we, and the power of us. The idea that you build a foundation when you're young, mostly from my work life, the power of we, which says, I kind of, in retrospect, could see five principles on how to really drive change that would be done in a good way. And then eventually you could scale that, the power really of us, which is what I'm doing about finding better jobs for more people now that I co-chair an organization called One10. So that essence of navigate tensions, do it respectfully, celebrate progress, and indulge me one more minute, these sort of, again, it's retrospect that I didn't know this in the moment. I had to learn it. I learned it. I am blessed by a lot of people I worked with and around. And, but some of the principles, like the first one is, says, if you're going to do something, change something, do something, you got to be in service of something. Being in service of is really different than serving, super different. And like, I just had my knee replaced and I interviewed all these doctors. You can tell the difference that the guy was going to do a surgery. Hey, my surgery is fine. I really don't care whether you can walk and do the stuff you wanted to do again, but because my surgery is fine. Your hardware is good. I actually had some trouble and I had a doctor who was like, you know, this doesn't sound right. I'm coming to you. The surgery was fine. It was me that was reacting wrong to it. And he didn't care until I could walk again. Okay. There's a big difference in those two things. And it's true in any business you have. A waiter serves your food. Okay. He serves his food. He did his job. Or did he care he had a good time. So that thought to be in service of, it took me a while to get that, like to try to write it, to get that across. Cause I think it's like so fundamental. If people were really in service of something, you got to believe that if I fulfill your needs at the end of the day, mine will be fulfilled. And that is that essence that makes it so different. And then the second part, second principle is about building belief, which is I got to hope you'll voluntarily believe in a new future or some alternate reality. And you will use your discretionary energy versus me ordering you. You'll get so much more done. Then the third change and endure. We kind of talked about that earlier, focus more on the how and the skills, and then the part on good tech and being resilient. So anyways, I just felt that like good tech, everybody's a tech company. I don't care what you do today. And there's some fundamental things you got to do. In fact, pick up today's, any newspaper, right? Chat GPT, you're an AI guy. All right. I believe one of the tenants of good tech is, it's like responsibility for the longterm. And it says, so if you're going to invent something, you better look at its upside and its downside. Like we did quantum computing. Great. A lot of great stuff, right? Materials development, risk management calculations, endless lists one day. On the other side, it can break encryption. That's a bad thing. So we worked equally hard on all the algorithms that would sustain quantum. I think with chat, okay, great. There's equal in, there are people working on it, but like, okay, the things that say, hey, I can tell this was written with that, right? Because the implications on how people learn, right? If this is not a great thing, if all it does is do your homework, that is not the idea of homework as someone who liked to study so hard. But anyways, you get my point. It's just the upside and the downside. And that there could be much larger implications that are much more difficult to predict. And that's our responsibility to really work hard to figure that out. I was talking to AI ethics a decade ago, and I'm like, why won't anybody listen to us? You know, and it's, that's another one of those values things that you realize, hey, if I'm going to bring technology in the world, I better bring it safely. Right. And that to me comes with, when you're an older company that's been around, you realize that society gave you a license to operate and it can take it away. And we see that happen to companies. And therefore you're like, okay, like why I feel so strong about skills. Hey, if I'm going to bring in, it's going to create all these new jobs, job dislocation, then I should help. I'm trying to help people get new skills. Anyways, that's a long answer to what good tech, but the idea that there's kind of in retrospect, a set of principles you could look at and maybe learn something from my sort of rocky road through there. But it started with the power of we, and there's that big leap, I think that propagates to the things you're saying, which is the leap from focusing on yourself to the focusing on others. So that having that empathy, you've said at some point in our lives and careers, our attention turns from ourselves to others. We still have our own goals, but we recognize that our actions affect many, that it is impossible to achieve anything truly meaningful alone. So it's to you, I think maybe you can correct me, but ultimate good power is about collaboration and maybe in large companies like delegation on great teams. The ultimate good power is actually doing something for society. That would be my ultimate definition of good power by the way. So it's about the results of the thing. Yeah, but how it's done, right? The how it's done. And so, you know, when you said a leap, do you think people make a leap when they go from thinking about themselves to others? Do you think it's a leap or do you think it kind of just is a sort of slow point? I think the leap is in deciding that this is, it's like deciding that you will care about others, that this is, it's like a leap of going to the gym for the first time. It's yes, it takes a long time to develop that and to actually care, but that decision that I'm going to actually care about other human beings. Yeah. I think, or at least like, yeah, it just feels like a deliberate action you take of empathy. Yeah. Cause sometimes I think it happens a little, it's maybe not as deliberate. Yeah. It's a little bit more gradual because it might happen because you realize that, geez, I can't get this done alone. So I got to have other people with me, but how do I get them to help me do something? So I think it does help happen a little bit more gradually. And as you get more confident, you start to not think so much that it's about you and you start to think about this other thing you're trying to accomplish. And so that's why I felt it was a little more gradual. I also felt like I can remember so well, you know, this idea that, again, now we're in the eighties, nineties, I'm a woman, I'm in technology. And I was down in Australia at a conference and I gave this great speech again, meet power of me. You know, I'm thinking I give this great speech, financial services, this guy, man walks up to me after, I think he's going to like ask me some great question. And he said to me, I wish my daughter could have been here. And in that moment, and I, and at that point up to then, I'd always been about, look, please don't notice I'm a woman. Do not notice that I am. I just want to be recognized for my work. Crossing over from me to we, like it or not, I was a role model for some number of people. And maybe I didn't want to be, but that didn't really matter. So I could either accept that and embrace it or not. I think it's a good example of that transition. I did have a little epiphany with that happening. And then I'm like, okay, cause I would always be like, no, I won't go on a women's conference. I won't talk here. I won't, you know, no, no, no. But then I sort of realized, wait a second, you know, that old saying, you cannot be what you cannot see. And I said to myself, well, oh, wait a second. Okay. I am in these positions. I have a responsibility to, and it's to others. And that's what I meant. I felt like it can be somewhat gradual that you come and you may have these like pivotal moments that you see it, but then you feel it and you sort of move over that transom into the power of we. You're one of the most powerful tech leaders ever. And as you mentioned the word power, you know, the old saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts. Absolutely. Was there an aspect of power that was, that you had to resist its ability to corrupt your mind to, to sort of delude you into thinking you're smarter than you are, that kind of all the ways. That's very dangerous. I agree with, I mean, I think you got to be careful who you surround yourself with. That's how I would answer that question. Right. And people who will hold the mirror up to you can be done in a very positive way, by the way, it doesn't mean, you know, but that we're sycophants, you cannot have that. Right. I mean, it's like, I always say to someone like, hey, listen to me, tell me, I mean, tell me what would make me better or do something. Or I have a husband that'll do that for me quite easily, by the way. He'll always tell me. He's the one that kind of gives you some criticism. I have, I have been surrounded myself with a number of people that will do that. And I think you have to have that. I had a woman that worked with me for a very long time. And at one time we were competitors. And then at some point she started to work for me and stayed with me for quite a while. And she was one of the few people that would tell me the truth in, you know, sometimes I'm like enough already. And, and she'd be like, do not roll your eyes at this. And you absolutely have got to have that. And I think it also comes, it'll go back to my complete commitment to inclusion and diversity, because you got to have that variety around you, you'll get a better product and a better answer at the end of the day. And so that to resist that allure, I think it's around about who you surround yourself with. I, current politics would say that too. So you, you write about, and in general, you value diversity a lot. So can you speak to almost like philosophically, what does diversity mean to you? Diversity to me means I'm going to get a better product, a better answer. I value different views. And so it's inclusion. So I always say inclusion, diversity is a number, inclusion is a choice. And you can make that choice every single day. It's a good line. I really believe, and I've witnessed it, that I've had when my teams are diverse, I get a better answer. My friends are diverse. I have a better life. I mean, all these kinds of things. And so I also believe it's like no silver thread. There's no easy way. You have to authentically believe it. I mean, do you authentically believe that diversity is a good thing? Yeah. But I believe that diversity, like broadly- A thought, I very broadly define it. Yeah. So like there's, you know, sometimes the way diversity is looked at, or the way diversity is used today is like surface level characteristics, which are also important, but they're usually reflective of something else, which is a diversity of background, a diversity of thought, a diversity of struggle. Some people that grew up middle-class versus poor, different countries, different motivations, all of that. Yeah. It's beautiful when different people from very different walks of life get together. Yeah. It's beautiful to see. But like sometimes it's very difficult to get at that on a sheet of paper of the characteristics that defines the diversity. I know. So it is. It's just like, oh, I can't hire exactly for, or if I'm trying to... But I do know one thing that when people say, well, I can't find these kinds of people I'm looking for, I'm like, you're just not looking in the right places. You have to open up- You got to really open up new pools. Yeah. You have to think, like everybody, you don't have to have a PhD, just like you said. I'm sorry to say it. I know it's very valuable, but you have to trust me, but- Well, just like you said, it could even be a negative. So you mentioned, like for good power, you were a CEO for a long time of a public company. Were there times when there was pressure to sacrifice what is good for the world for the bottom line in order to do what's good for the- Yeah, there were a lot of times for that. I mean, I think every company faces that today in that I always felt like there's so much discussion about stakeholder capitalism, right? Do you just serve a shareholder or do you have multiple? I have always found, and I've been very vocal about that topic, that when I participated, the Business Roundtable wrote up a new purpose statement that had multiple stakeholders. I think it's common sense. Like if you're going to be 100 years old, you only get there because you actually do at some time balance all these different stakeholders in what it is that you do, and short-term, long-term, all these trade-offs. And I always say people who write about it, they write about it black and white, but I have to live in a gray world. Nothing I've ever done has been in a black and white world, hardly. Maybe things of values that I had to answer, but most of it is gray. And so I think back lots of different decisions. I think back, as you would well remember, you're a student of history, IBM was one of the really the originators of the semiconductor industry, and certainly of commercializing the semiconductor industry. Great R&D and manufacturing, but it is a game of volume. And so when I came on, we were still manufacturing R&D and manufacturing our own chips. We were losing a lot of money, yet here we had to fight a war on cloud and AI. And so, okay, now shareholders would say, fine, shut it down. Okay, those chips also power some of the most important systems that power the banks of today. If I just shut it down, well, what would that do? And so, okay, the answer wasn't just stop it. The answer wasn't just keep putting money into it. The answer was, and we had to kind of sit in an uncomfortable spot till we found a way. I mean, it's going to sound so basic, but you as an engineer understand it. We had to separate, it was a very integrated process of research, development, and manufacturing. And you'd also, you'd be perfecting things in manufacturing. And these were very high performance chips. We had to be able to separate those. We eventually found a way to do that so that we could take the manufacturing elsewhere and we would maintain the R&D. I think it's a great example of the question you just asked, because people would have applauded, others would have been, this was horrible. Or we had a financial roadmap that had been put in place that said, I'll make this amount of EPS by this date. There came a time we couldn't honor it because we had to invest. And so, there's a million of these decisions. I think most people that run firms, any size firm, they're just one right after another like that. And you're always making that short and long tension of what am I giving up? Well, what is that partnership like with the clients? Because you work with gigantic businesses. And what's it like sort of really forming a great relationship with them, understanding what their needs are, being in service of their needs? Yeah, very simple. Honor your promises. And that happens over time. I mean, in service of, which is often why you can work with competitors, because if you are really in service of you and you need something, it takes two of us to do it, that becomes easier to do. Because I really, we both care, you get what you needed. And so, I can remember during one of the times I was on a European trip, and at the time, a lot of, and this is still true, about views about technology and national technology giants and global ones and the pros and the cons. And countries want their own national champions, quite obvious. I mean, if I'm France or Germany. And there was a lot of discussion about security and data and who was getting access to what. And I can remember being in one of the, I was with Chancellor Merkel, had met her many times. She's very well prepared, very well prepared every time she would know. And I started to explain all these things about why, how, you know, how we don't share data, how, who it belongs to. Our systems never had back doors. And she sort of stopped me. Like, you're one of the good guys, like, stop. Now, that wasn't about me personally. She's talking about a company that's acted consistent with values for decades, right? So, to me, how you work with those big kind of clients is you honor your promises. You say what you do, and you do what you say. And you act with values over a long period of time. And that, to me, people say we're valued. It is not a fluffy thing. It is not a fluffy thing. It is a, I mean, if I was starting a company now, I'd spend a lot of time on that, on, on, you know, why we do what we do and why some things are tolerable and something, you know, what your fundamental beliefs are. And, and many people sort of zoom past that stage, right? It's okay for a while. And never sacrifice that. You would never sacrifice that. I don't think you can. So there was a lot of pressure when you took over as CEO, and there was 22 consecutive quarters of revenue decline between 2012 and the summer of 2017. So it was a stressful time. Maybe not. Maybe you can correct me on that. So as a CEO, what was it like going through that time with the decisions, the tensions in terms of investing versus making a profit? I always felt that, that sense of urgency was so high. And even if I was calm on the outside, because you, you have one of the world's largest pensions. So, so many people depend on you. You have a huge workforce. They're depending on you. You have clients whose businesses don't run. If you don't perform, et cetera, and shareholders, of course. Right. And so, but I also am really clear. This was perhaps the largest reinvention IBM ever had to undertake. I had a board that understood that. In fact, some people, some of the headlines were like, this is existential, right? I mean, nobody gives you a right to exist forever. And there aren't many texts. You're the student of it. They are gone. They are all gone. And so if we didn't reinvent ourselves, we were going to be extinct. And so now, but you're big and it's like changing, what's that old saying? Can I change the wheels while the train's running or something like that, or the engines while the plane's flying? And that's what you have to do. And that took time. And so, you know, Lex, do I wish it would have been faster? Absolutely. But the team worked so hard. And in my, in that timeframe, 50% of the portfolio was changed. It's a very large company. And if you would, I also divested $10 billion of businesses. So if you would look at that growth rate without divestitures and currency, which now today everyone talks about currency. Back then we were the only international guy. Net of divestitures and currency, the growth was flat. Is flat great? No, but flat for a big transformation? I was really proud of the team for what they did. That is actually pretty miraculous to have made it through that. I have my little nephew one day and he would see on TV occasionally when there'd be criticism and he'd say, you know, auntie, doesn't, does it make you mad when they talk mean? And I just looked at him and I said, you know, he says, how do you feel? I said, look, I'm doing what has to be done. And I happened to be the one there. And if you have great conviction, and I did, a great conviction, I knew it was the right thing. I knew it would be needed for IBM to live its second century. And so, and my successor, they have picked up, gone for, I mean, you go back, we did the acquisition of Red Hat. I mean, we had to find our way on cloud, right? We were late to it. So we had to find our way. And eventually that led us to hybrid cloud. We did a lot of work with Red Hat back in 2017. Oh, we'd always done a lot of work with them. Actually, we were one of the first investors when they were first formed. But that was 2018. You know, we took quite a hit for even, you know, oh, it was the largest to then software acquisition ever. But it is the foundation, right, of what is our hybrid cloud play today and doing very, very well. So, but I had to take a short term hit for that, right? Short term hit for a very large $34 billion acquisition. But it was for all of us, it was the right thing to do. So I think when you get really centered on, you know, it's the right thing to do. You just keep going, right? So the team had the vision, they had the belief and everything else, the criticism doesn't matter. So don't, we didn't always have exactly the right, you know, this wasn't a straight arrow, but stay down, you know, you're right. Keep going. Okay, made a mistake. You know, there's no bad mistake as long as you learn from it, right? And, and keep moving. So yes, did it take longer, but we are the largest that was there. Could you maybe just on a small tangent, educate me a little bit. So Red Hat originally is Linux, open source distribution on Linux, but it's also consulting. Well, it's, it's... A little bit of consulting, but it's mostly software distri... It's mostly software. It was mostly software. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So, but today IBM is very much, there's, you know, most IT services in the world is done by IBM. There's so many, so many varied, so basically if you have issues, problems to solve in business, in the software space, IBM can help. Yes. And so in that my last year, our services business, we broke it into two pieces. And one piece was spun off into a company called Kindrel, which is managed outsourcing, keeping things running and they're off creating their own company. What IBM then retained is really the part I built with PWCC, the big consulting arm. And so today the IBM of today in 2023 is, you know, at least ending 2022, was 30% consulting and the other 70% would be, what would you consider software cloud AI? So hybrid cloud and AI is the other, and some hardware, obviously still the mainframe is modernized, alive and kicking and still running some of the most important things of every bank you can think of practically in the world. And so that is the IBM of today versus perhaps, you know, and Red Hat is a big piece and an important part of that software portfolio. And they had some services with them for implementation, but it wasn't a very, a very large part. And it's, it's grown by leaps and bounds, you know, cause originally the belief was everything was going to go to the public cloud. And at least many people thought that way. We didn't. In fact, we, I mean, we tried, we procured a public cloud company. We really tried to work it. But what we found was a lot of the mission critical work, it, it was tuned for consumer world. It wasn't tuned for the enterprise. So then time is elapsing here though. And you got to be at scale and we didn't have any application. Remember, we're not an application company. So it wasn't like we had an office. We didn't have anything that like pulled things out to the cloud. And so as we looked for what our best, what we really back to who you are, we really know mission critical work. We know where it lives today and we know how to make it live on the cloud, which led us down hybrid cloud. You know, that belief that the real world would turn into, there'll be things on traditional that'll, you'll never move cause it doesn't make sense. There'll be private clouds for, you know, have all the benefit of the cloud, but they just don't have, you know, infinite expansion. And then there'll be public clouds and you're going to have to connect them and be secure. And that's what took us down the path with Red Hat, that belief. The structure of that is fundamentally different than something that's consumer facing. So the lesson you learn there is you can't just reuse something that's optimized for consumers. Very interesting point. It doesn't mean consumer companies can't move up in the enterprise cause obviously they have, right? But I think it's very hard to take something from the enterprise and come on down. Cause it got to be simple, consumable, all the things we talked about already. Plus you have to have the relationships with the enterprise. Yeah, very different. Yeah. I mean, you know, our history, right? At one time we had the PC business and, you know, the short answer to why would we would not do that is it's a consumer facing business. We were good at the enterprise and that consumer business, A, highly competitive, got to be low cost, all the things that are not the same muscles necessarily of being in an innovation driven, you know, technology business. Yeah. But what is now Lenovo? I guess that's what's just been done. That's right. Lenovo acquired it. You're extremely good at that. So, but not as good as you're saying as an enterprise. Enterprise. It's not, it was, it was a creative. Lenovo is very good at their PC world. Yes. But I wouldn't, and they can sell into the enterprise. Right. But you as a consumer can go buy a Lenovo too. So look at, look in China, right? Look in other places. So that's what I mean by consumer, you know, an end device. And that was a big decision cause it would have been one of the last things that had our logo on it that sits in your hands. Right. So when a new generation says, well, what does IBM do? Right. Was that a difficult decision? Do you remember? It was a long time ago now. It was like 2005. So they're all difficult because it's not only things, it's people. But it's back to knowing who you are is how I would sum that up as right. And we were never great at making a lot of money at that. And you can remember originally it was IBM PC, then there were IBM clones, or they were called IBM clones back then as the field became highly, highly competitive. And as things commoditized, we often, as they commoditize, we would move them out and move on to the next innovation level. But because of that, it's not as public facing. That's right. That's absolutely right. Even though it's one of the most recognizable logos ever. Yeah. Isn't it true? That is very true. That is actually a very important point. And that is, you know, branding, as you say, one of the most recognizable and a very highly ranked brand strength around the world. And so that's a trade off. I mean, I can't, you know, because there was a time you'd have something of IBM in your home or a cash register, as an example, you'd walk into a store, actually, they're still in places that went to Toshiba. Can you speak to consulting a little bit? What does that entail to train up to hire a workforce that can be of service to all kinds of different problems in the software space, in the tech space? What's entailed in that? I mean, you have to value a different set of things, right? And so you've got to always stay ahead. It's about hiring people who are willing to learn. It is about, at the same time, in my view, it's what really drives you to be customer centric. Maybe you can educate me. I think consulting is a kind of, you roll in and you try to solve problems that businesses have, like with expertise, right? Is that the process of consulting? Somewhat, right? So fair enough. When you say that we're consulting, it's a really broad spectrum. I mean, I think people could be sitting here thinking it does any, it could be, I just give advice and I leave, to all the way to I run your systems, right? And I think it's generally, people use the word to cover everything in that space. So we sort of fit in the spot, which is we would come in and live at that intersection of business and technology. So yeah, we could give you recommendations and then we'd implement them and see them through, because we had the technology to go through the implementation and see them through. And at the time back then, that's what, there'd been five of those that had failed, that the companies had bought other consulting firms. And so we were, okay, that was the great thing about, I mean, the harrowing thing about it was, here, please go work on this. None of the others have ever succeeded before. And yet on the other hand, the great promise was you could really, clients were dying at that time when we were doing that, to get more value out of their technology and have it really change the way the business worked. So I think of it as how do we improve business and apply technology and see it all the way through. That's what we do today still. Yeah, to see it all the way through. Yes. So let me say, it's almost like a personal question. So that was a big thing you were a part of that you led in 2002, that you championed and helped, I should say, negotiate the purchase of one day, the consulting arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers for $3.5 billion. So what were some of the challenges of that that you remember, personal and business? At that time, PW had to really had to divest. And so they were in peril of going to IPO, right? So we sort of swept in at that point and said, and we'd been thinking about it a long time and started to work on that as an acquisition. So, you know, kind of balancing which way would they go IPO or acquisition. And so the challenges are obvious and part of it's why they went with us as an acquisition. Big difference to be a private firm than a public firm. Very big. I can remember one of the guys, you know, he asked somebody how long you've been with IBM and the person answered 143 quarters. Okay, that's a little enlightening about a business model, right? So we had the challenges of being private versus public. You have the challenge of when you acquire something like that, as I say, you acquire hearts, not parts. They could leave. I mean, you could destroy your value by them leaving. They can walk right out the door. I mean, yes, you can put, you know, lots of restraints, but still that you have there. And then we had to really build a new business model that people and clients would, you know, see as valuable and be willing to pay for. And so we had to do something that lived at that intersection and say that how this was unique is what we were doing. So you had the people aspect, you had that they were going to be private and they had, or public, and they had always been private their whole life. And then you had the business model. So, and the others had all failed that had tried to do this. So yeah, it was a tough thing to do. Paul What about the personal side of that? That was a big leap step up for you. You've been at IBM for a long time. Marjory Yeah. Paul This is a big sort of leadership, like very impactful, large scale leadership decisions. What was that like? Marjory So, you know, unlike in my career earlier, where I said I was changing jobs, I said I wasn't comfortable, etc. So now here fast forward 10 years, and I'm like, okay, honestly, how I felt inside, on one hand, I did what I learned, like inventory what you know how to do. Like, you have some good strengths that could work here. The other part of me said, boy, this is really high profile. And I felt, and I can remember saying to someone, like, this is going to kill me or catapult. Probably nothing in between. Paul And that wasn't terrifying to you? That was okay? You were okay with that kind of pressure? Marjory I was okay with that, because I felt I knew enough, you know, like these things I had. And I'll tell you the one thing I felt I knew the best. Consultants of any worth their weight, they really do care that they deliver for an end client. And I felt I understood service to a client so well, that what it meant to really provide value. So I knew we would have like something that I knew the PwC people, more than anything, wanted to deliver value to those clients they had, next to then developing their people, that those were like the really two things. And that I could, and I also knew they felt they could do better if they had more technology. And we did. So there really was a reason, you know, that I could really believe in. So I authentically believed back to that point. And I also felt I had built some of those skills to be able to do that. But I wouldn't call it terrifying. But make no mistake, Lex, it was very hard. And it turned out to be extremely successful. By the time we ended, it was worth 19 and a half, well, the time I stepped, I ran it for, oh goodness gracious, quite a long time. I'm going to say seven or eight, nine years. And we were 19 and a half billion dollars. It made 2.7 billion in profit. It was very consequential to IBM. But the fact that it was consequential is also very, I mean, there was a time as we moved through it, I can even remember it. We just weren't meeting the goals as fast as we should. And some of it was clients were like, oh, now you're IBM. So I mean, some things I knew would happen, but they happened so much faster. It'd be things like clients would say, oh, IBM cares about a quarter. So let's negotiate every quarter on these prices. And, you know, when they were private, they didn't have these issues. Well, that had an impact on margins really fast. And so that ability- So you picked up a lot of challenges. You pick them up right away. And I thought, oh boy, I mean, if I don't get this turned around, this is really a problem. And the team learned a lot of lessons. I mean, I learned people I had to move out, that I learned that when people don't believe they can do something, they probably won't do it. So, you know, we wanted to run the business at a certain level. I really did have some great leaders, but they didn't really believe it could do that. And I finally had to come to terms with, if you don't really believe in something, you really aren't going to probably make it happen at the end of the day. And so we would change that. We would have to actually get some more help to help us on doing so. But then it turned. And I can remember the day that we started really getting the business to hum and start to, it was almost like, finally. And I gave the team this little plaque, this little kind of corny paperweight thing. And I'm going to believe, remember it was Thomas Edison. And he said, many of life's greatest failures are people who gave up right before they were going to be successful. And it's so true. I mean, there was also a governor of Texas who's passed, but she had said, someone said, what's the secret of your success? And she said, it's passion and perseverance when everyone else would have given up. And I feel that's what that taught me. That taught me, no matter how bad this gets, you are not giving up. And now you can't keep doing the same thing, like the doctor, this hurts. Oh, then stop doing it. You can't keep doing the same thing. We had to keep changing till we found our right way to get the model to work right. And client work, we never, never had an issue and kept so many of the people. And now we are 25 years almost later, and a number of them run parts of the IBM business still today. So it's that old Maya Angelou saying, when you say, what do I remember? They'll say, you won't remember the specifics of this, but you'll remember how you felt. And that's kind of how I feel. And I think they do too. The whole team does of that. Like I'll get anniversary notes still on that, when you've been through something like that together with people. So during the acquisition, the way you knew that people, it's the right team, are the ones that could believe that this consulting business can grow, can integrate with IBM and all of that. Yeah, I was lucky. Look, I did things that helped that. I mean, I knew that people joining us would feel more comfortable if they had people leading it that they recognized, et cetera. But again, I learned those that didn't then, I eventually had to take some action out. But PWCC had a lot of really dedicated leaders to it. And I give them a lot of credit. Well, it's amazing to see a thing that kind of start at that very stressful time, and then it turns out to be a success. That's just beautiful to see. So what about the acquisition itself? Is there something interesting to say about what you learned about maybe negotiation? Because there's a lot of money involved too. To me, it was a win-win. And we both actually cared that customers got value. So there was this like third thing that had a benefit, not them, there was this third thing. And then next to that... I like how you think that people would have the wisdom of what it takes to have great negotiation. But yeah, so it's a win-win is one of the ways you can have successful negotiation. But it's like obvious to even say that, right? I mean, if you can, back to being in service of something, we were both in service to clients. So in and then, I always say, when you have a negotiation with someone, okay, both parties always kind of walk away a little bit. Okay, that's good. If they both walk away going, I should have got a little bit more. Okay, but it's okay. Okay, they're both a little fussy. When one walks away and thinks they did great, and the other one did horrible, they're usually like born bad. I mean, because they never worked that way. And I've always felt that way with negotiations that you push too far down, you usually will be sorry you did that. So don't push too far. I mean, that's ultimately what collaboration and empathy means is you're interested in the long-term success of everybody together versus like your short-term success. And then you get the discretionary energy from them versus like, okay, you screwed me here, I'm done, right? So let's even rewind even back. Oh no. Oh no. So do you feel like this is a nostalgia interview? Oh no. Let me just ask the romantic question. What did you love most about engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, so in those early days from your degree to the early work? I love that logic part of it, right? And you do get a sense of completion at some point when you reach certain milestones that, you know, like, yes, it worked, or yes, it, you know, that finite answer to that. So that's what I loved about it. I loved the problem solving of it. Computing, what led you down that path? Computing in general, what made you fall in love with computing, with engineering? It's probably that back to that desire wanting to know how things work, right? And so that's like a natural thing, you know, math, I loved math for that reason. I always wanted to study how did that, you know, how did it get that to work kind of thing. So it goes back in that time. But I did start when I went to, when I started Northwestern, I wasn't, I was already in the engineering school, but my first thought was to be a doctor, that that was far more noble, that I should be a medical doctor, until I could not pass human reproduction as a course. And I thought the irony that I could not, I'm like, I got all these colored pencils, I got all these pictures, this is not working out for me. I'm going to stick to math. It was the only course in my four-year college education I had to take pass fail. I risked, you know, impairing my grade point average. Engineering it is. So, but after about 10 years, you jumped from the technical role of systems engineer to management, to a leadership role. Did you miss at that time, the sort of the technical direct contribution versus being a leader, a manager? That's an interesting point. Like I say, I've always been sort of a doer leader, you know, so. So you never lost that. I never really did. Even, you know, and I think this is really important for today. The best way people learn is experientially, I think. Now you may, that's being a generalization because there are people can learn all different ways, right? So I've done things like with my whole team, they all had to learn how to build cloud applications. We called it code off. And so, you know, I don't care what your job is, write code, you know? And I remember when we were trying to get the company to understand AI, we did something called a cognitive jam. Okay. There's a reason we picked the word cognitive, by the way, instead of AI. Today we use the word AI. It was really symbolic. It was to mean this is to help you think, not replace your thinking. There was so much in the zeitgeist about AI being a bad thing at that time. So that was why we picked a mouthful of a word like cognitive. And it was like, no, no, this is to help you actually. So do what, you know, do what you do better or do something you haven't yet learned. And we did something called the cognitive jam. But the whole point was everybody in the company could volunteer, get on a team. You either had to build something that improved one of our products or did something for a client or did a social, solve a social issue with AI. And again, this goes back now, 10 years, and people did things from bullying applications to, you know, railroad stuff to whatever it was, but it got like a hundred thousand people to understand, you know, viscerally what is AI. So that's a long answer to my belief around experiential. And so do you ever give it up? I don't think so. Cause I actually think that's pretty good to get your hands dirty in something. You know, you can't do it, you know, depending what you're doing, your effort to do that will be less, but. So even a CEO, you try to get your hands dirty a little bit. I've played, I mean, you still, I'm not saying I'm any good at any of it anymore, but. But to build up intuition. Yeah. It's that really understand, right. And not be afraid of. Yeah. Like we mentioned at the beginning, IBM research has helped catalyze some of the biggest accomplishments in computing and artificial intelligence history. So D-Blue, IBM D-Blue versus Kasparov chess match in 96 and 97. Just to ask kind of like what your perception is, what your memory is of it. What is that moment? Like the seminal moment, I believe probably one of the greatest moments in AI history, when the machine first beat a human at a thing that humans thought. You make a very interesting point. Cause it is like one of the first demonstrations of using a game to like bring something to people's consciousness. Right. And to this day, people use games, right. To demonstrate different things. But at the time, it's funny. I didn't necessarily think of it so much as AI. And I'll tell you why. I was, and I'm not a chess player. You might be a chess player, so I'm not expert at it. But I think I understand properly of chess, that chess has got a finite number of moves that can be made. Therefore, if it's finite, really what's a demonstration of a supercomputing, right. It's about the amount of time and how fast it can crunch through to find the right move. So in some ways I thought of it as almost a bigger demonstration of that. But it is absolutely, as you said, it is, was a motivator, one of the big milestones of AI. Because it put in your consciousness that it's man in this other machine, right. Yeah. Doing something. So you saw it as just a challenging computation problem, and this is a way to demonstrate hardware and software computation at its best. Yes, I did. But the thing is, there is a romantic notion that chess is the embodiment of human intellect. I mean, intelligence. That you can't build a machine that can beat a chess champion in chess. And the fact that it did... See, I was blessed by not being a chess expert, so it wasn't like... So it's just a computation problem. It's a computation problem to me. Well, that's probably required to not be paralyzed by the immensity of the task. Yeah. So that this is just solvable. But it was a very, very, I think that was a powerful moment. So speaking just as an AI person, that was, that reinvigorated the dream. You were a little kid back then though, right? At 95? You have to be, like, were you... Do you remember it actually at the moment? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. What did you think at the moment about it? It was awe-inspiring, because especially sort of growing up in the Soviet Union, you think, especially of Garry Kasparov and chess, like, your intuition is weak about those things. I didn't see it as computation. I thought of it as intelligence, because chess for a human being doesn't feel like computation. It feels like some complicated relationship between memory and patterns and intuition and guts and instinct and all of those, like... You watch someone play, that's what you would conclude, right? Yeah. And so to see a machine be able to beat a human, I mean, you get a little bit of that with Chad GPT now. It's like, language was to us humans the thing that we kind of... Surely the poetry of language is something only humans can really have. It's going to be very difficult to replicate the magic of a natural language without deeply understanding language. But it seems like Chad GPT can do some incredible things with language and natural language dialogue. But that was the first moment in AI. Through all the AI winters from the 60s, the promise of the... It was, wow, this is possible for a simple set of algorithms to accomplish something that we think of as intelligence. So that was truly inspiring, that maybe intelligence, maybe the human mind is just algorithms. That was the thought at the time. And of course now, the funny thing, what happens is the moment you accomplish it, everyone says, oh, it's just brute force algorithms. It's silly. And this continues. Every single time you pass a benchmark, a threshold, to win a game, people say, oh, well, it's just this. It's just this. It's just this. I think that's funny. And there's going to be a moment when we're going to have to contend with AI systems that exhibit human-like emotions and feelings. And you have to start to have some difficult discussions about, well, how do we treat those beings? And what role do they have in society? What are the rules around that? And this is really exciting because that also puts a mirror to ourselves to see, okay, what's the right way to treat each other as human beings? Because it's a good test for that. It is because I always say it's a reflection of humanity. I mean, it's taught by what man, you know, bad stuff in the past, you'll teach it bad stuff for the future. Which is why I think, you know, like efforts to regulate it are a fool's errand. You need to regulate uses. Because it's not the technology itself is not inherently good or bad, but how it's used or taught can be good or bad for sure, right? And so that's, to me, will unveil now a whole different way of having to look at technology. LBW What about another magical leap with the early days of Watson, with beating the Jeopardy challenge? What was your experience like with Watson? What's your vision for Watson in general? What was it? JG And it was really inspired by first chess, right? And Kasparov, and then you come forward in time. And, you know, I think what Watson did, because you used a really important word, AI had kind of waxed and waned in these winters, right? In and out, in and out. Popular or not, more money, less money, you know, in and out, confidence, no confidence. And so I think that was one of the first times it brought to the forefront of people like, whoa, like it humanized it. Because here it is playing against these two gentlemen. And as you did lose it first, you know, and then finally, finally won at the end of the day. And what it was doing is making you say, hey, natural language, it's actually understanding natural language is one of the first demonstrations of natural language support, and bit of reasoning over lots of data, right? And so that it could have access to a lot of things, come up with a conclusion on it. And to me, that was a really big moment. And I do think it brought to the conscious of the public, and in good ways and bad, because it probably set expectations very high of like, whoa, what this could be. But and I still do believe that it has got the ability to change and help us man, make better decisions, that so many decisions are not optimal in this world, you know, even medical decisions. And it's right or wrong, what took us down a path of healthcare first with our AI. And in we took many pivots. And I think there's a really valuable lesson in what we learned. One is that, actually, I don't think the challenges are the technology. Yes, those are challenges. But the challenges are the people technology are the people challenges around this, right? So do people trust it? How will they use it? I mean, I saw that straight up with doctors and like, meaning, they're so busy in the way they've been taught to do something. Do they really have time to learn another way? I saw it was a mistake when you put it on top of processes that didn't change, kind of like paving a cow path didn't work. I mean, it was all human change management around it that were really its biggest challenges. And another valuable lesson we picked back to usage, you think of IBM as moonshops, we picked really hard problems to start with. I think you see a lot of technology now starts with really simple problems. And, in by that, it probably starts to build trust, because I start little it's like, Oh, I'm not ready to, you know, outsource my diagnosis to you. But I'll get some information here about a test question. So very different thinking. So a lot of things to learn, we were making a market at the time. And when you make a market, you know, choice of problem you work on gets to be very important when you're catching up. Well, then it's a scale game. So very different thing. And so, but Watson proved I think, I mean, I hope I'm not being too. I think Watson brought AI back out of winter for the world. And that since then, there's just been, you know, one company after another and innovations and people working on it. And I have no regrets of anything that we did, we learned so much. And we probably rebuilt it many times over, it made it more modular. And today, to IBM, Watson is more about AI inside of a lot of things, if you think of it that way, which is more like an ingredient, versus it's a thing in and of itself. And I think that's how it'll bring its real value, you know, more as an ingredient, and it's so badly needed. And even back then, the issue was so much data, like, what do you ever do it, you can't get through it, you can't use it for anything, you know this well, it's your profession. So we have to have it. So that's gonna propel it forward. So it's part of the suite of tools that you use when you go to enterprise and you try to solve problems. Yeah, so AI for security, AI in automated operations, AI in your robotics, AI on your factory floor, you know what I mean? It's all part of, and I think, and that's why even to this day, thousands, I mean, thousands and thousands of clients of IBM still have the Watson components, that it's the AI being used. So it became a platform is how I would say it, right? And an ingredient that went inside and consultants, like you said, had to learn, they had to learn, don't just put it on something, you got to rethink how that thing should work, because with the AI, it could work entirely differently. And so I also felt it could open up and still will open up jobs to a lot of people, because more like an assistant, and it could help me be qualified to do something. And we even years ago saw this with the French banks, very unionized. But that idea that you could, in this case, the unions voted for it, because it felt people did a better job. And so, and that's just part about being really dedicated to help it help humanity, not destroy it. Speaking of which, a funny side note. So Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey, what do you think about the fact that HAL 9000 was named after IBM? I really don't think it was. I know there's, I really don't. I've also- It could be more fake news. It's more fake news. I have done, I've like researched this, tried to find any evidence and people have talked to, was it really one letter? It was one letter- One letter off, right? For people that know, H is one letter off of I, A is one letter off of B, and then L is one letter off of- That was the, I think that's a solution found afterwards, you know. But here's what I think it more was. I do think it's one of the early demonstrations of evil AI. Like, can be taught bad. I could push back on that because it's presented as evil in the movie because it hurts, the AI hurts people. But it's a really interesting ethical question because the role of HAL 9000 is to carry out a successful mission. And so the question that is a human question, it's not an AI question, at what price? Humans wage war, they pay very heavy costs for a vision, for a goal of a future that creates a better world. And so this question certainly in space, doctors ask that question all the time, but unlimited resources, who do I allocate my time and money and efforts? I agree. Like I said, I've spent a decade talking about this question of AI ethics, right? And that it needs really considerable, not just attention, because otherwise it will mirror everything we love and everything we don't love. And again, and that's the beauty in the eye of the holder, right? Depending on your culture and everything else. With what you're doing and what you're going to do, how do you think about it? Do you think about the AI you're going to develop as having guardrails dictated by some of your beliefs? Yeah, for sure. So there's so many interesting ways to do this the right way, and I don't think anyone has an answer. I tend to believe that transparency is really important. So I think some aspect of your work should be open sourced, or at least have an open source competitor that creates a kind of forcing function for transparency of how you do things. So the other is, I tend to believe, maybe it's because of the podcast and I've just talked to a lot of people, you should know the people involved. I agree 100%. As opposed to hide behind a company wall. Sometimes there's a pressure, you have a PR team, you have to be careful, investors and discussions, so on, let's protect, let's surely not tweet, not, like, and you form this bubble where you have incredible engineers doing fascinating work, and also doing work that's difficult, complex human questions being answered. And we don't know about any of them as a society, and so we can't really have that conversation. Even though that conversation would be great for hiring, it would be great for revealing the complexities of what the company is facing, so when the company makes mistakes, you understand that it wasn't malevolence or half-assedness, and the decision making is just a really hard problem. And so I think transparency is just good for everybody. And I mean, in general, just having a lot of public conversations about, this is serious stuff, that AI will have a transformative impact on our society, and it might do so very, very quickly, through all kinds of ways we're not expecting, which is social media recommendation systems, they at scale have impact on the way we think, on the way we consume news, and our growth, like the kind of stuff we consume to grow and learn and become better human beings, all of that, that's all AI. And then obviously the tools that run companies on which we depend, the infrastructure on which we depend, we need to know all about those AI decisions. And it's not as simple as, well, we don't want the AI to say these specific set of bad things. It's unfortunately, I don't believe it's possible to- It's not. Prevent evil or bad things by creating a set of cold mathematical rules. Yeah. Unfortunately, it's all fuzzy and gray areas. It's all a giant mess. It is. I mean, you think about it like a knife. A knife can do good and a knife can do bad. Okay? You can't, it's very hard. You can't ban knives. You can't ban knives. And that, this is, I think back, it was probably 20, I don't know, 15, 16, we did principles of trust and transparency. Notice the word transparency. That belief that with AI, it should be explainable. You should know who taught it. You should know the data that went into training it. You should know who, how it was written. If it's being used, you have a right to know these things. And I think those are pretty, to this day, really powerful principles to be followed. Right? And part of it, we ended up writing, because here we were, when we were working on particularly healthcare, like, okay, you care who trained it in what? And where did, and that's, that's sort of, you know, that comes to your mind. You're like, yeah, that makes a lot of sense for something important like that. But it just, in general, people won't trust the technologies, I don't think, unless they have transparency into those things. In the end, they won't really trust it. I think a lot of people would like to know, sort of, because a lot of us, I certainly do, suffer from imposter syndrome, that self-critical brain. So, you know, taking that big step into leadership, did you at times suffer from imposter syndrome? Like, how did I get here? Do I really belong here? Or did you, were you able to summon the courage and sort of the confidence to really step up? I think that's very natural for someone. Like, no matter, like, the bigger the job gets, you turn and you look to the left and the right, and you see people around you, and you think, what am I doing here? Right? But then you remember what you do, and there's no one else doing it. And so you get that confidence. So I do hear a lot of people talk about imposter syndrome, right? And I kind of, actually, this past year, I've spent some time helping people on that topic. And part of the stress, you have to believe you, you have a right to be like anyone else does, if you've prepared for that moment, you know? And so it's a bit more of a, I know it's hard to say, like a confidence thing more than anything else. So yes, there are times I look around, but then I think, wow, I'm in a position to make something change. So I can't say I have ever really dwelled on that feeling for long. Okay, so you just focus on the work. I have an opportunity, I'm gonna step up. You know, it's good or bad, I just focus on the work. Yeah, good or bad. Yeah. Yeah. One important lesson you said you learned from your mom is never let anyone else define you, only you define who you are. So what's the trajectory, let's say, of your self-definition journey, of you discovering who you are from having that very difficult upbringing? You know, they say pivotal moments happen and you don't realize it when they're happening. Mm-hmm. So most of my, I feel like most of my self-discovery, it's been like something happens in a year or two or some number later, I look back on it and say, you know, I learned this from that. It's like not in the moment always with me. That could just be how I am. So I feel like it's been, know yourself, it's a good thing, right? I've actually heard you say that on different podcasts when you ask people questions, you're like, well, it depends, you know, like know yourself a bit, right? And- It's hard to know who you are though. There's a lot of things, like you said, like for me, there's moods when you're super self-critical, sometimes you're super confident, and there's many, sometimes you're emotional, sometimes you're cool under pressure, and all those are the same human being. Yeah, and I think that's fine. Self-awareness, that's different. Was there societal expectations and norms regarding gender that you felt in your career? You've spoken to that a little bit, but was there some aspect of that that was constraining, empowering, or both? You know, I chose to never look at it, okay? Now, whether that is right or wrong, and again, I'm a product of the 70s and 70s and the 80s, where I think I was surrounded, all the other women around me viewed our way to get ahead was just to work hard, work hard, work hard, and that was the way you differentiated yourself. And that's obvious it did help. I mean, there's no doubt about it. You learned a lot of things, which qualified opened up another door, opened up another door. I'm very remindful that I have worked for companies that are very steeped in those values of equal opportunity. And so, nothing remarkable about that. I mean, when I was a wee kid, I'm taught, hire a diverse team. I get evaluated for it. I get evaluated if my team has built up their skills. So, this is, you know, when you're really formative, you're in a culture that that's what it's valuing, right? So, it becomes part of you. So, I say sometimes to chagrin, did I ever feel I was held back for that reason? Now, were there plenty of times when, you know, I write about a few of the stories in the book, I'm laying cables at night and the guys are at the bar. Now, I didn't really want to go with them to the bar anyways. They'd be like, we'll be back to get you, you know, bye. And I'm like, okay. I mean, I learned a lot. So, it didn't. Now, all that said, back to my earlier story about being a role model, you know, it would be foolish to not believe that there were times that that mattered. And I would say two things, even not that long ago, you know, a colleague called me and was talking about media and about women CEOs and said, do you notice that sometimes when it's a woman CEO, they call the person by name. And when it's a man, they call the company out, not the person's name exactly associated with the issue. And I said, yeah, well, I think you have to just understand much of what you do, it will be magnified because there are so few of you. And sometimes it will be, you know, really can be blown out of proportion, right? And so, that can happen. And you got to learn in which way. Now, all that said, on gender, it is an interesting thing with the book, as I've talked to, you know, having a book, even some of my best friends, the first reaction is, I can't wait for my daughter to read it. I say, well, that's interesting. Do you think you could read it? That's fascinating. It's an interesting reaction. And here I am 40 years later, that's an interesting reaction, right? And I say, no, the book, I really worked hard to write it for everyone. I just happened to be a woman, right? But there's still that there. And so, look, until I think people see and never feel that they have a, it doesn't even matter whether there's a woman, could be another diverse group that feels it. It's okay to ask those questions. And that's why actually I'm okay talking about it, because there were times I felt it, right? There were times in my life on my looks or my weight or my clothing or endless numbers of things that people would comment on that they would not have commented on if it was someone else. Now, on the other hand, when there's so few of you and there's good and bad, I mean, there's benefit to that too, right? If you do good work, it's easier to be recognized. And so a pro and a con, and I think I've just grown up believing like my advice to young women going to engineering, not because you're going to be an engineer, it teaches you to solve problems. And anything you job you do is going to be solving problems. Things like that are what I take away from that in that journey. It is interesting that I hear from women that even on this podcast, when I talk to incredible women like yourself, it is inspiring to young women to hear. I mean, you like to see, you talk to somebody from Turkey and then Turkish people all get excited. It's so true. So you get like somebody that looks like you, somebody that, and the category could be tiny or it can be huge. That's just the reality of the world. It is the reality of the world. And the work I do now to put this group called One Tent, put 1 million black employees into the middle class without college degrees, get them the right skills, upwardly mobile jobs. So one of my last years, we had been working on, it just had regular leadership session at IBM and had our black colleagues were talking about what did it feel like to be a black leader? And here, these are extremely accomplished people. And I can remember very well when telling a story about, look, I felt if I failed or succeeded, it's not just me. It came from a country in Africa. I feel like the whole country is on my shoulder, my success or failure. That's a burden. I mean, like, I don't feel that burden. Not true. As a woman CEO, I did feel like, you know, even the headlines when I was named said, you know, her appointment will either, you know, her success or failure will be a statement for the whole gender kind of thing. And I didn't dwell on it, but I meant that's, but I could see how people, like you said, it could be a small group, could be whatever. And so that is a lot of pressure on people and they need role models. You are a role model for people. Look at what you're able to do. You do these podcasts, you understand your science very well. You're very well prepared, your ability to translate it to people. You know, that's not an insignificant thing. And you may think, oh, you know, is that about the power of me? Not really. Right. And you obviously believe you don't do this because you just like sitting at a microphone. You do it because you think, okay, if I can get people to say things that are really valuable to other people, they're going to learn something. I assume that is, I mean, you ever told me my interpretation is that's why you do this podcast, that you feel like in service of other people, that you can bring them something unique by the way you do this. Now I should ask you, why do you do it? That's my impression. By the way, can I just comment on the fact that you keep asking me really hard questions? I'm really honored by it. As a fan of a podcast myself, what I hope is to talk to people like you and to show that you are a fascinating and beautiful human being outside of your actual accomplishments also. So sometimes people are very focused on, you know, very specific things about, like you said, science, like what the actual work is, whether it's nuclear fusion or it's GIGPT. I just want to show that it's, because I see it at MIT and everywhere, it's just human beings trying their best. They're flawed, but just realizing that all of these very well accomplished people are all the same. And then so then regular people and young people, they're able to see, you know, I can do this too. I can have a very big impact. Yeah, exactly. It's like we're all kind of imposters. We're all like trying to figure it out. To a certain degree. So let me just ask you about family. You wrote that my family still jokes that the reason I never had children on my own was because I had already raised my family. They're right. So this is talking to your upbringing, but in general, what was your, you know, leading a giant company, what was the right place to find a work-life balance for you to have time for family, have time for away from work and be successful? So I had to learn that. And I might've said, you know, you're the only one that can determine your own work-life balance. Companies are innate things. I mean, they will take everything they can from you. And it's not a bad thing. They just will as well. Bosses. I mean, you give it, they'll take it. And when people ask for, you know, I need a roof, I'm like, okay, I had to come with terms with the criminal was me. If I needed that balance, I had to set those boundaries. And so when I comment about a family, because I am in extreme awe of people with children who work, it is a extremely hard thing to do. I watch my siblings. I love my nieces and nephews and who, you know, a, the emotional, their pain is your pain every minute of the day. And then you still have a job on top of it. And so when my mom had to go back to school and had to work, I was the one. And so when she couldn't go to the teacher meeting, I went to the teacher meeting when, and so in some ways, and there's an age gap between my brother and I and my other two sisters. And so I'm still, they still call me mama bear, even, I mean, I'm extremely protective of all of them. And it is as if I had raised them and my mom did a great job raising them. I didn't, I, but I was there. And so when it came time to have children, and my husband came from a family where his father died and was raised by a single mother, very, very similar end point, different reasons why he ended up, you know, his father did not abandon them. And I don't want people to believe to do my job, you can have no children. That is not right. I know other great women CEOs, Marilyn Houston, who ran Lockheed Martin, extremely technical company, Mary Barra, who runs General Motors, Ellen Coleman, who run DuPont. These are all my friends to this day. And they've been fantastic mothers and husbands, good parents, right? And so I talk about it because it was a choice we made. And so, you know, we both felt, look, we'd reached a point where for his reasons, what he had to do, I'd already felt that way. And that we were comfortable just being great aunts and uncles, and I'm a great aunt, you know, well, I like to think that for my little guys and all, and they're older now, but lots of them. And, and there's no doubt though, the choices we made, Mark and I, that that made it easier for me to focus on work. I mean, it's just math, you know, when you've got less people to have to take care of. And so I'm very considerate of that. And I think much of it informed many of the policies I put into because I had such great empathy for those who then still had these other responsibilities. And I desperately wanted them all to stay in the workforce. So I can remember, and my siblings have been more successful than I, by the way, I mean, to my mother's credit, but, and my one sister who, you know, went to Northwestern, has an MBA, built some of the most sophisticated systems. She spent her whole career at Accenture and just recently retired as a chief executive of all of consulting. But at one point she took off time to be, to spend with her family. And then went to back, go back to work. She's talking to me and she's like, I don't know if I should go back to work. You know, maybe the life's path, you know, technology goes so fast. It's been a few years. I'm sitting there like, what are you talking about? I'm like, you know, look at her credentials, they're far outstanding. I'm like, and I thought to myself, like, ding, one of those moments, if my own sister feels that way with all her credentials, I'll bet I went back to work the next day. And I said, Hey, pull for me. All the people who've left for parental reasons and, or whatever family reasons, didn't come back. And it began a program of return ships. And I can't tell you how many, in men and women, was because they didn't feel confident to come back. They thought technology passed them by. Okay. We said, it's three months. You could stay one month, three months, doesn't matter. A lot of people like one day, they're like, you're right. Not that much happened. It happened, but I caught up. I actually know more than I think, you know? So it was a long answer to your question about, I didn't, but I am so empathetic and I am in awe of what they are able to do. So, and it made me then, I think, more empathetic to the policies and the like around that topic. So you could keep great people in the workforce. So you mentioned your friends with Mary Barra, the CEO of GM. I didn't mean to name drop. So don't, I didn't mean it that way. No, I love her. She's amazing. So I just wanted to, I'm just curious. I'll tell Mary she should do your podcast. We'll make it happen. She's a great leader. I always, I tell Mary what I think of her is, I think she's one of the most authentic leaders out there. Most authentic. I mean, you just very different companies, huge challenges. I worked there first, I remember, right? So I'm very, you know, in some ways I'm very beholden, right? You know, I'm very appreciative of what they did. I mean, Mary and I are circa the same, well, I'm a bit older, so, but circa that genre. Do you exchange wisdoms? Oh yeah, yeah. When you do anything hard, it takes time and perseverance, like we talked about. And you can get that, where do you get the fuel for it? You can either get it from your attitude, or you can get it from your network or your relationships. And I'm a firm believer relationships are from what you give, not what you get. Meaning you give, trust me, they will come back at the time they need to come back to you at these moments in life. If you focus on how can I bring Lex value, there'll be a day I need Lex, he will be back. And so to those women, to me, relationships are not transactional. And it's a proof that to this day, even though I'm no longer still active as a CEO, these are all still my friends. And we are friends, all of us. And I can remember some of them when I first became a CEO calling me and saying, hey, it's a little lonely here, so let me talk to you. And then when they became, I did the same for them. And then they remember, and they do for the next generation. And so it's very supportive, almost to a T, any of the women you could name who have been CEOs, I would say, almost to a T, have all been very supportive. In fact, a number of us work on a little, another non-for-profit right now called Journey, which some women who had started, the Fortune's Most Powerful Women had started, which was, could we get more women, particularly diverse women, but women in general, to more quickly be into positions of leadership and power? And so many of the women you named and more, we all dedicate time mentoring and kind of creating this little group of fellows every year to do this. Friendship and love is core to this whole thing, not just the success, but just the whole human condition. Let me ask one last question, advice for young people. You've had a difficult upbringing, a difficult life, and you've become one of the most successful human beings in history. What advice would you give to young people, or just people in general who are struggling a bit, trying to figure out how they can have a career they can be proud of, or maybe a life they can be proud of? I feel like a life you can be proud of is just one if you leave something a little bit better. It doesn't have to be big. That's a life well-lived, right? It was Churchill who said, you might remember it better than I. You make a living by what you get, and you live a life by what you give, something to that effect. But my advice would probably, when I'm asked this, I would tell them to ask more questions than give answers. Just focus on being a sponge. It's funny, I asked my husband the same question the other day. I said, hey, we're talking to somebody, and people were asking this. He sort of paused for a while, and he said, I'd tell them, patience. I said, what do you mean? He said, I see so many young people, they're in such a hurry to somewhere, I don't know where, and that if they just had patience and let life unfold, I think they may be surprised where they ended up. Actually, I think that's a really good answer, to be honest. Along the way, keep asking questions, keep that childlike curiosity. I know, it sounds so easy to say. It's just so, you know, it's- Yeah, like you said, the obvious things, I think they tend to be the most profound. Jeannie, you're an incredible human being. You're an inspiration to so many. Thank you for helping run and contribute to one of the great companies that bring so much good power to the world. And thank you for putting in the hard work of putting it all in the great book. And thank you for talking today. This was a huge honor. Thank you for doing it. You did a lovely job. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jeannie Rometty. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Eleanor Roosevelt. Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized either way. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/XiCxj-bXu5M

NXU_M4030nE

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Betül Kaçar: Origin of Life, Ancient DNA, Panspermia, and Aliens | Lex Fridman Podcast #350

you can study chemistry, you can study physics, you can study geology, anywhere in the universe, but this is the only place you can study biology. This is the only place to be a biologist. Earth. That's it. So definitely something very fundamental happened here, and you cannot take biology out of the equation. If you want to understand how that vast chemistry space, how that general sequence space got narrowed down to what is available or what is used by life, you need to understand the rules of selection, and that's when evolution and biology comes into play. The following is a conversation with Batul Kachar, an astrobiologist at University of Wisconsin, studying the essential biological attributes of life. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Batul Kachar. What is the phylogenetic tree or the evolutionary tree of life, and what can we learn by running it back and studying ancient gene sequences as you have? I think phylogenetic trees could be one of the most romantic and beautiful notions that can come out of biology. It shows us a way to depict the connectedness of life and all living beings with one another. It itself is an ever-evolving notion. Biologists like visualizations, they like these graphics, these diagrams, and tree of life is one of them. So the tree starts at a common ancestor. It's actually the other way around. It starts from… At the end? It starts from the branches. It starts from the tip of the branch, actually. And then, depending on what you collected to build the tree. So depending on the branches, depending on what's on the tip of the branch, and I will explain what I mean, the root will be determined by what is really sitting on the tip of the branch of the tree. So we could study the leaves of the tree by looking at what we have today and then start to reverse engineer, start to move back in time to try to understand what the rest of the tree, what the roots of the tree look like. Exactly. So the tree itself, by just taking a few steps back and looking at the entire tree itself, can give you an idea about the connectedness, the relatedness of the organisms or whatever, again, you use to create your tree. There are different ways. But in this case, I'm imagining entire diversity of life today is sitting on the tips of the branches of this tree. And we look at biologists, look at the tree itself. We like to think of it as the topology of the tree to understand when certain organisms or their ancestry may have merged over time. And depending on the tools you use, you might use this tree to then reconstruct the ancestors as well. And so what are the different ways to do the reconstruction? So you can do that at the gene level, or you could do it at the higher complex biology level, right? So what, in which way have you approached this fascinating problem? We approached it in every way we can. So it's the gene, could be protein, the product of the gene, or species, or could be even groups of species. It totally depends on what you want to do with your tree. If you want to understand certain past events, whether an organism exchanged a certain DNA with another one along the course of evolution, you can build your tree accordingly. If you rather use the tree to reconstruct or resurrect ancient DNA, which is what we do, then in our case, for instance, we do both gene, protein, and species because we want to compare the tree that we create using these different information. Okay, well, let me ask you the ridiculous question then. So how realistic is Jurassic Park? Can we study the genes of ancient organisms and can we bring those ancient organisms back? So the reason I asked that kind of ridiculous sounding question is maybe gives us context of what we can and can't do by looking back in time. Yeah, so dinosaurs or all these mammals, at least for us, is the exciting thing already happened by the time we hit to larger organisms or to eukaryotes. To you, the fun stuff is before we got to the mammals. The fun stuff is what people think is boring, I think. The phase that's, well, at least two different times in the geologic history. One is the first life, past origin of life, how did first life look like? And the second is why do we think that over certain periods of geologic time, no significant innovation happened to the degree of leaving no record behind? So what do we not have a record of? Which part? So you said, the fun stuff to you is after the origin of life, which we'll talk about, after the origin of life, there's single cell organisms, the whole thing with the photosynthesis, the whole thing with the eukaryotes and multi-cell organisms and what else is the fun stuff? The whole oxygen thing, which mixes in with the origin of life. There's a bunch of different inventions, all they have to do with this primitive kind of looking organisms. That we don't have a good record of. So I will tell you the more interesting things for us. One is the origin of life or what happened right following the emergence of life. How did the first cells look like? And then pretty much anything that we think shaped the environment and was shaped by the environment in a way that impacted the entire planet that enabled you and I to have this conversation. We have very little understanding of the biological innovations that took place in the past of this planet. We work with a very limited set of, I don't want to even say data, because they are fossil records. So let's say imprints, either that comes from the rock and the rock record itself or what I just described, these trees that we create and whatever we can infer about the past. So we have two distinct ways that comes from geology and biology and they each have their limitations. Okay, so, right, so there's an interplay. The geology gives you that little bit of data and then the biology gives you that little bit of kind of constraints in the materials you get to work with to infer how does this result in the kind of data that we're seeing. And now we can have this through the fog, we can see, we can look back hundreds of millions of years, a couple of billion years and try to infer. Even further, and I like that you said fog, it is pretty foggy, and it gets foggier and foggier the further you try to see into the past. Biology is, you basically study the survivors, broadly speaking, and you're trying to put together their history based on whatever you can recover today. What makes biology fascinating also let it erase its own history in a way, right? So you work with this four billion year product, that's genome, that's the DNA, it's great, it's a very dynamic, ever evolving chemical thing. And so you will get some information, but you're not gonna get much unless you know where to look because it is responding to the environment. Yeah, so what we have, that's fascinating, what we have is the survivors, the successful organisms, even the primitive ones, even the bacteria we have today. So bacteria is not primitive and we- Sorry, sorry to offend the bacteria. We should be very grateful to bacteria. First of all, they are our great, great ancestors. I like this quote by Douglas Adams, humans don't like their ancestors, they rarely invite them over for dinner, right? But bacteria is in your dinner, bacteria is in your gut, bacteria is helping you along the way. So we do invite them for dinner. Well, they get themselves invited in a way. And they're definitely older and definitely very sophisticated, very resilient than anything else. As someone working as a bacteriologist, I feel like I need to defend them in this case because they don't get much shout out when we think about life. So you do study bacteria, so which organisms gives you hints that are alive today that give you hints about what ancient organisms were like? Is it bacteria, is it viruses? What do you study in the lab? We study a variety of different bacteria, depending on the questions that we ask. We engineer bacteria. So ideally we want to work with bacteria that we can engineer. Seldom we developed the tools to engineer them. And it depends on the question that we are interested in. If we are interested in connecting the biology and geology to understand the early life and fundamental innovations across billions of years, there are really good candidates like cyanobacteria. So we use cyanobacteria very frequently in the lab. We can engineer its genome. We can perturb its function by poking its own DNA with the foreign DNA that we engineer in the lab. We work with E. coli. It's the most simple in terms of model systems goes. It's an organism that one can study, well-established, sort of a pet, lab pet, that we use it a lot for cloning and for understanding basic functions of the cell, given that it's really well studied. So, and what you do with that E. coli, you said that you inject it with foreign DNA? We inject pretty much all the bacteria that we work with, with foreign DNA. We also work with diazotrophs. These are azotobacteria. They're one of the prime nitrogen fixers, nitrogen fixing bacteria. Can you explain what that is, nitrogen fixing? Is that the source of its energy? So nitrogen is a triple bond gas that's pretty abundant in the atmosphere, but nitrogen itself cannot be directly utilized by cells, given it is triple bond. It needs to be converted to ammonia that is then used for the downstream cellular functions. And that's what counts as nitrogen fixing. Yes, so nitrogen needs to be fixed before our cells can make use of it. And it's- No offense to nitrogen either. Well, it's actually a very important element. It's one of the most abundant elements on our planet that is used by biology. It's in ATP, it's in chlorophyll that relies on nitrogen. So it's a very important enzyme for a lot of cell functions. And there's just one mechanism that evolution invented to convert it to fix it? So far we know there's only one nitrogen fixation pathway, as opposed to, say, carbon. You can find up to seven or eight different carbon-based microbes invented to fix carbon. That's not the case for nitrogen. It's a singularity across geologic time. We think it evolved around 2.7, maybe, roughly three, probably less than three billion years ago. And that's the only way that nature invented to fix the nitrogen in the atmosphere for the subsequent use. Would we still have life as we know it today if we didn't invent that nitrogen fixing step? I cannot think of it, no. It's essential to life as we know. You and I are having this conversation because life found a way to fix nitrogen. Is that one of the tougher ones? If you put it, sort of, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, what are, in terms of being able to work with these elements, what is the hardest thing? What is the most essential for life? Just to give context. Well, we think of this as the cocktail. You may hear schnapps. What's in the cocktail? It's the schnapps, right? Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur. So there are five elements that life relies on. We don't quite know whether that's the only out of many options that life necessarily needs to operate on, but that's just how it happened on our own planet. And there are many abiotic ways to fix nitrogen, like lightning, right? Lightning can accumulate ammonia. Humans found a way about a hundred years ago, I think around World War I, the Haber-Bosch process, that we can abiotically convert nitrogen into ammonia. Actually, 50% of the nitrogen in our bodies comes from the human conversion of nitrogen to ammonia. It's the fertilizer that we use, urea, comes from that process. It's in our food. So we helped, we found a way to fix our own nitrogen for ourselves. Yeah, but that's way after the original invention of how to fix nitrogen. Oh, absolutely, absolutely. And without that, we wouldn't have all the steps of evolution along the way. Oh, absolutely. We tried to replicate in the most simplest way what nature has come up with, right? We do this by taking nitrogen, using a lot of pressure, and then generating ammonia. Life does this in a more sophisticated way, relying on one single enzyme called nitrogenase. It's the nitrogen that is used together with eight electron donor and ATP, together with a lot of hydrogen. Life pushes this metabolism down to create fixed nitrogen. It's quite remarkable. So the lab pet E. coli, inject them with DNA, so E. coli does nitrogen fixing in part, or is that a different one? So some biological engineers engineered E. coli to fix nitrogen, I believe, not us. We use the nature's nitrogen fixing bug and engineer it with the nitrogen fixing metabolism that we resurrected using our computational and phylogenetic tools. How complicated are these little organisms? What are we talking about? Depends on how we define complication. Okay, so I can tell that you appreciate and respect the full complexity of even the most seemingly primitive organisms, because none of them are primitive. Okay, that said, what are we talking about? What kind of machineries do they have that you're working with when you're injecting them with DNA? So I will start with one of the most fascinating machineries that we target, which is the translation machinery. It is a very unique subsystem of cellular life in comparison to, I would say, metabolism. And we used to, you know, when we are thinking about cellular life, we think of cell as the basic unit or the building block. But from a key perspective, that's not the case. One may argue that everything that happens inside the cell serves the translation and the translation machinery. There is a nice paper that called this that the entire cell is hopelessly addicted to this main informatic, computing, biological, chemical system that is operating at the heart of the cell. Which is the translation? It is the translation. What's the translation from what to what? So RNA to enzymes? It converts a linear sequence of mRNA into a folded, later folded protein. That's the core processing center for information for life. It has multiple steps. It initiates, it elongates, it terminates, and it recycles. It operates discrete bits of information. It itself is like a chemical decoding device. And that is incredibly unique for a cell. For translation that I don't think you will find anywhere else in the cell that does this. So even though it's called translation, it's really like a factory that reads the schematic and builds a three-dimensional object. It's like a printer. I would divide it into actually even four more additional steps or disciplines than what would it take to study it by the way you described it. It's a chemical system. It's the compounds that make it up, or chemicals. It's physical. It tracks the energy to make its job, to do its job. It's informatic. What is processed are the bits. It's computational. The discrete states that the system is placed when the information is being processed, that itself is computational. And it's biological. There's variability and inheritance that come from imperfect replication even and imperfect computation. Oh man, that's so good. So from the biology comes the, like when you mess up, the bugs are the features. That's the biology. Informatics is obvious in the RNA. That's a set of information there. The different steps along the way is actually kind of what the computer does with bits. It's done computation. Physical, there's a, I guess, almost like a mechanical process to the whole thing that requires energy and actually it's manipulating actual physical objects. And chemical is because you have to, ultimately it's all chemistry. Yeah, and it tracks this information. So it is almost a mini computer device inside ourselves. Yeah. And that's the oldest computational device of life. It's likely the key operation system that had to evolve for life to emerge. It's more interesting or it's more complicated in interesting ways than the computers we have today. I mean, everything you said, which is really, really nice. I mean, I guess our computers have the informatic and they have the computational, but they don't have the chemical, the physical, or the biology. Exactly. And the computers don't have, don't link information to function, right? They are not tightly coupled, nowhere close to what translation or the way translation does it. So that's the number one, I think, difference between the two. And yes, it's informatic and we can discuss this further too. 100%. Let's please discuss this further. Which part are we discussing? Each one of those are fascinating worlds, each of the five. Yeah. So, well, we can start with the more, I guess, the ones that are more established, which is the chemical aspect of the translation machinery. The specific compounds make up the assembly of RNA. Chemists showed this in many different ways. We can rip apart the entire machinery. We know that at the core of it, there's an RNA that operates not only as an information system itself or information itself, but also as an enzyme. And origin of life chemists make these molecules easily now. We know we can manipulate RNA. We can make, even with single part chemistries, we can create compounds. What's a single part chemistry? That's, I would say, when you add all the recipes that you know that will lead you to the final product. This is what origin of life chemists do, is they come up with this pot, they throw a bunch of chemicals in, and they try to, they're basically chefs of a certain kind. I'm not sure if that's what they call it, but that's how I think of it. Because it is all combined in a test tube and you know the outcome. And it's very mathematical once you know the right environment and the right chemistry that needs to get into this container or this pot. You know what the outcome is. There's no luck there anymore. It's a pretty rigid, established input-output system, and it's all chemistry. So you actually wear a lot of hats. Is one of them origin of life chemists? My PhD is in chemistry, but I don't do origin of life chemistry. But you're interested in origin of life. Yes, absolutely. So some of your best friends are origin of life chemists. Just make sure that you have good chemist friends if you're interested in origin of life. That's 100% required. It should be mandatory. Okay, so chemistry. So what else about this machinery that we need to know chemically? Well, chemically, I think that's it. You have enzymes, you have proteins. Enzymes are doing their thing. They know how to chew energy using ATP or GTP. They know what to do in their own way. They do their enzymatic thing. So it's not just the ribosome that is at the heart of the transition, but there are a lot of different proteins. You're looking at about 100 different components that compose this machinery. Well, let me ask, maybe it's a ridiculous question, but did the chemistry make this machine or did the machine use chemistry to achieve a purpose? So like, I guess there's a lot of different chemical possibilities on Earth. Is this translation machinery just like choosing, picking and choosing different chemical reactions that it can use to achieve a purpose? Or did the chemistry basically, like, there's like a momentum, like a constraint to the thing that can only build a certain kind of machinery? Basically, is chemistry fundamental or is it just emergent? Like, how important is chemistry to this whole process? You cannot have life without chemistry. You cannot have any cellular process without chemistry. What makes life interesting is that even if the chemistry is imperfect, even if there are accidents along the way, if something binds to another chemical in a way it shouldn't, there is resilience within the system that it can maybe not necessarily repair itself when it moves on, however imperfect mistakes can be handled. That's where the biology comes in. That's where the biology comes in. But in terms of chemistry, you absolutely cannot have a transition machinery without chemistry. As I said, there are four main steps. These are the core steps that are conserved in all transition machinery. And I should say, all life has this machine, right? Every cell, everything. On Earth. On Earth. Yeah. Yes. When you think of this machine, do you think very specifically about the kind of machinery that we're talking about or do you think more philosophically? A machine that converts information into function. I cannot separate the two. I think what makes this machinery fascinating is that those five components that I listed are, they coexist. So for instance, if we, let's just, talking about the chemistry part, we know the certain rate constant, all these proteins that operate in this machinery needs to harbor in order to get the mechanism going, right? If you are bringing the information to the transition machinery and you are the initiator of this computation system, you need to have, you can only afford a certain range of mistakes. If you're too fast, then the next message cannot be delivered fast. If you're too slow, you may stall the process. So there is definitely a chemistry constant going on within the machinery. Again, it's not perfect, far from it, but they all have their own margin of error that they can tolerate versus they cannot, otherwise the system collapses. So it's like jazz and jazz and jazz. So it's like a jazz ensemble, the notes of the chemistry, but you can be a little off the… I love that you said jazz, it's definitely true. It's a party and it's like everybody's invited and they need to operate together, right? And what's really cool about it, I think, there are many things that are very interesting about this thing, but if you remove it from the cell and put it in a cell-free environment, it works just fine, right? So you can get cell-free translation systems, put this translation in a test tube and it is doing its thing. It doesn't need the rest of the cell to translate information. Of course, you need to feed the information, at least so far, because we are far from evolving a translation, maybe not so far, evolving a translation in the lab or a machinery that can process information as it generates it. We have not done that yet. It's a pretty complicated machinery, so it's hard for those origin of life chemists to find a pot that generates. Because it's far more than chemistry. You need biology, obviously, you need biochemistry, you need to think as a network systems folk, you need to think about computation, you need to think about information. And that is not happening yet, except we are trying to bring this perspective. But the more you understand how information systems work, you cannot, once you see it, you cannot unsee it. It's one of those things. LEONARD MESSIER So, but you could still rip it out and the chemistry happens. DENISE Yes, and chemistry can happen even if you strip some of the parts out. It can, you can get very minimal level of information processing that does not look anything like the translation that cells relies on, but that, but chemists showed from linear, you can generate information that arrives to the processing center in the form of a linear polymer. The informatic part of this system that I think sets it apart from computation and from from metabolism comes in if you think about the information itself, right? So, we have four nucleotide letters that compose DNA, and they are processed in the translation in triplets. So, you have in triplet codon fragments. So, you have four times four times four. So, you have 64 possible states that can be encoded by four letters in three positions. All right, so… LEONARD MESSIER It's so amazing. DENISE Yeah. LEONARD MESSIER It's so amazing. DENISE There is only one code that says start. That's the, that there's only one. And then there's two, if not three, that says stop. So, that's what you work with. But you can have 64 possible states, but LIFE only uses 20 amino acids. So, we use, LIFE uses 64 possible states minus four of the starts and stops to code for 20 amino acids in different combinations. That is really amazing. If you think about there are 500 different amino acids LIFE can choose, right? It's narrowed it down to 20. We don't know why a lot of people think about this genetic code is quite fascinating. LEONARD MESSIER So far, right? DENISE I mean, it didn't do it for four billion years. I don't know, we may wait for another four billion years. LEONARD MESSIER But you didn't have those amino acids in the very beginning, right? DENISE We don't know. So, we would be fooling ourselves if we said we know exactly how many amino acids existed early on. But there's no reason to think that it wasn't the same. LEONARD MESSIER Or similar. DENISE Yeah, we don't have a good reason. But because roughly 20 out of 60 states are used, you're using one third of your possible states in your information system. So, this may seem like a waste, but informatically, it's important because it's abundant and it is redundant, right? LEONARD MESSIER Yeah. DENISE So, this code degeneracy, you see this in, that's implemented by this translation machinery inside the cell. So, it means you can make errors, right? You can make errors, but the message will still get through. You can speak, missing some letters to the information can miss some parts, but the message will still get through. So, that's two thirds of the not used states gives you that robustness and resilience within the system. LEONARD MESSIER So, at the informatic level, there's room for error. There's probably room for error probably in all five categories that we're talking about. There's probably room for error in the computation, there's probably room for error in the physical. DENISE Yes, exactly. LEONARD MESSIER Everywhere there's room for error. DENISE Because the informatic capacity is made possible together with the other components. And not only that, but also the product yields a function, no, in this case, enzyme or protein, right? So, that's really amazing to me. LEONARD MESSIER It is, I mean, in my head, just so you know, because I'm a computer science AI person, the parallels between even like language models that encode language, or now they're able to encode basically any kind of thing, including images and actions, all in this kind of way. The parallel in terms of informatic and computation is just incredible. DENISE Actually, I have an image maybe I can send you. LEONARD MESSIER Can we pull it up now? DENISE If you just do genetic codon charts, we can pull that up. Yeah, it's a very standard table. So, I can explain why this is so amazing. So, you're looking at, like, this is life's alphabet, right? And so, I also want to make a very quick link now to your first question, the tree of life. When we try to understand ancient languages, or the cultures that use these extinct languages, we start with the modern languages, right? So, we look at Indo-European languages and try to understand certain words and make trees to understand, you know, this is what the Slavic word is for snow, something like that. LEONARD MESSIER Now, we jumped to languages that humans spoke, the human history. DENISE Exactly. So, we make trees to understand what is the original ancestor, what did they use to say snow? And if you have a lot of cultures who use the word snow, you can imagine that it was snowy, that's why they needed that word. It's the same thing for biology, right? If we understand some function about that enzyme, we can understand the environment that they lived in. It's similar in that sense. So, now you're looking at the alphabet of life. In this case, it's not 20 or 25 letters, you have four letters. So, what is really interesting that stands out to me when I look at this, on the outer shell, you're looking at the 20 amino acids that compose life, right? The one, the methionine that you see, that's the start. So, the start is always the same. To me, that is fascinating that all life starts with the same start. There's no other start code. So, you sent the AUG to the cell, that when that information arrives, the translation knows, all right, I got to start, function is coming. Following this is a chain of information until the stop code arrives, which are highlighted in black squares. So, for people just listening, we're looking at a standard RNA colored table organized in a wheel. There's an outer shell and there's an inner shell, all using the four letters that we're talking about. And with that, we can compose all of the amino acids and there's a start and there's a stop. And presumably, you put together with these letters, you walk around the wheel to put together the words, the sentences that make. Yeah, the words, the sentences. And again, you get one start, there are three different ways to stop this, one way to start it. And for each letter, you have multiple options. So, you say you have a code A, the second code can be another A. And even if you messed that up, you still can rescue yourself. So, you can get, for instance, I'm looking at the lysine K, you get an A and you get an A and then you get an A that gives you the lysine. But if you get an A and if you get an A and then get a G, you still get the lysine. So, there are different combinations. So, even if there's an error, we don't know if these are selected because they were erroneous and somehow they got locked down. We don't know if there's a mechanism behind this too, or we certainly don't know this definitively. But this is the informatic part of this. And notice that the colors, and in some tables too, the colors will be coded in a way that the type of the nucleotides can be similar chemically. But the point is that you will still end up with the same amino acids or something similar to it, even if you mess up the code. Do we understand the mechanism how natural selection interplays with this resilience to error? So, which errors result in the same output, like the same function and which don't? Which actually results in a dysfunction or which are? We understand to some degree how translation and the rest of the cell work together, how an error at the translation level, this is the really core level, can impact entire cell. But we understand very little about the evolutionary mechanisms behind the selection of the system. It's thought to be as one of the hardest problems in biology, and it's not. The hardest problems in biology, and it is still the dark side of biology, even though it is so essential. So, this is, yeah, you're looking at the language of life, so to speak, and how it can found ways rather to tolerate its own mistakes. So, the entire phylogenetic tree can be like deconstructed with this wheel of language. Because all the final letters, that's the 20 amino acids, that's our alphabet. They are all brought together with these bits of information, right? So, when you look at the genes, you're looking at those four letters. When you look at the proteins, you're looking at the 20 amino acids, which may be a little easier way to track the information when we create the tree. So, using this language, we can describe all life that's lived on Earth. It's one perspective. We are not that good at it yet, right? So, in theory, this is one way to look at life on Earth. If you're a biologist and you want to understand how life evolved from a molecular perspective, this would be the way to do it. And this is what nature narrowed its code down to. So, when we think of nitrogen, when we think of carbon, when we think of sulfur, it's all in this, that all these nucleotides are built based on those elements. And this is fundamentally the informatic perspective on this one. Exactly. That's the informatic perspective. And it's important to emphasize that this is not engineered by humans. This evolved by itself. Right. Humans didn't invent this just because we were just describing, we're trying to find, trying to describe the language of life. It appears to be a highly optimized chemical and information code. It may indicate that a great deal of chemical evolution, and this may indicate that a lot of selection pressure and Darwinian evolution happened with prior to the rise of last universal common ancestor. Because this is almost a bridge that connects the earliest cells to the last universal common ancestor. Okay, can you describe what the heck you just said? So, this mechanism evolved before the what common ancestor? So, there's the- The last universal common ancestor. Yes, so when we talk about the tree, when we think about the root, if you ideally included all the living information, all the available information that comes from living organisms on your tree, then on the root of your tree lies the last universal common ancestor, LUCA. Why last? Last universal, because the earlier universal, it also had trees, but they all died off. We call it the last because it is sort of the first one that we can track, because we don't know what we cannot track, right? But there's one organism that started the whole thing. It's more like, I would think of it as more like a population, a group of organisms than a single- Hold on a second, I tweeted this, so I want to know the accuracy of my tweet, all right. Sometimes early in the morning, I tweet very pothead-like things. I said that we all evolved from one common ancestor that was a single cell organism 3.5 billion years ago, something like this. How true is that tweet? Do I need to delete it? No, there's actually, correct. I mean, I think, of course, there's a lot to say, which is like, we don't know exactly, but to what degree is that the single organism aspect, is that true versus multiple organisms? Do you want me to be- Brutally honest? Yes, please. There's still time. This is how we get like caveats to tweets. All right, so first of all, it's not, 3.5 is still a very conservative estimate. In which direction? I would say it's 3.8 is probably safer to say at this point. A bunch of people said it probably way before. If you put an approximately, I'll take that. I didn't. I just love the idea that I was once, first of all, as a single organism, I was once a cell. But you're still a group of cells. No, but I started from a single cell. Me, Lex. You mean like you versus Luca? Are you relating to Luca right now? No, no, no, I'm relating to my- Your own development. My own development. I started from a single cell. It's like, it built up and stuff. Okay. So that's for a single biological organism. And then from an evolutionary perspective, the Luca, like I start, like my ancestor is a single cell. And then here I am sitting half asleep tweeting. Like I started from a single cell, evolved a ton of murder along the way, to this brutal search for adaptation through the 3.5,.8 billion years. So you defy the code of Douglas Adams. You are proud of your ancestors and you invite them over to dinner and you invite them over to your Twitter. Yeah. And it's amazing that this intelligence, to the degree you can call it intelligence, emerged to be able to tweet whatever the heck I want. Yes. That means I'm a- It's almost intelligence at the chemical level and this is also probably one of the first chemically intelligent system that evolved by itself in nature. Translation. Yeah, so you see that translation is a fundamentally intelligent mechanism. In its own way, and again, if we manage to figure out how to drive life's evolution, if it can evolve a sophisticated sort of informatic processing system like this, you may ask yourself what might chemical systems be capable of independently doing under different circumstances. Yeah, so like locally, they're intelligent locally. They don't need the rest of the shebang. Like they don't need the big picture. They need, so that's a great segue into what makes this biological, right? The heart of the cellular activities are translation. You kill translation, you kill the cell. Yes. You, not only the translation itself, you kill the component that initiates it, you kill the cell. You kill, you remove the component that elongates it, you kill the cell. So there are many different ways to disrupt this machinery. All the parts are important. Now, it can vary across different organisms. We see variation between bacteria versus eukaryotes versus archaea, right? So it is not the same exact steps, but it can get more crowded as we get closer to eukaryotes, for instance. But you are still computing about 20 amino acids per second, right? This is what you're generating every second. That's a single machinery is doing 20 a second? 20, yes. 21 for bacteria, I believe eight for eukaryotes or nine. 21 a second. I mean, that's super inefficient or super efficient, depending on how you think about it. I think it's great. I mean, I can actually do nine amino acids. Yeah, but it's way slower than a computer could generate through simulation. I think, if you can show me a computer that does this, we are done here. Well, this is the big, this includes the five things. Not just, but I could show you a computer that's doing the informatic, right? Yes, you can show me that, but you cannot show me the one that has all. For now. For now. I will ask you about probably what, alpha fold, right? I think the more we learn about, and this is why early life and origin is also very fascinating and applicable to many different disciplines. There is no way you see this the way we just described it, unless you have a computer. The way we just described it, unless you think about early life and early geochemistry and earliest emergent systems. But going back to the biological component, all of these attributes that we think about life or that we associate with biology stems from translation and as well as metabolism. But I see metabolism as a way to keep translation going and translation keeps metabolism going. But translation is arguably a bit more sophisticated process for the reasons that I just described. So metabolism is a source of energy for this translation process. It's a way to process materials and it is inherently dynamic and it is flexible, but it is not focused on repetition as translation does. So that's the main difference. Translation is kind of in a way just it repeats, right? So you have the metabolism that can synthesize materials, creates or benefits from available energy. And again, it's a dynamic system. And then you have computation that is inherently repetitive, right? Needs to carry out repetitive processes. And it does the tasks and it implements an algorithm, but it is not dynamic. So you see both of those attributes in translation combined. It is repetitive and it is dynamic and it also processes this information. So they are fundamentally different. I don't know if you can get life if you don't find a way to process the information around you. In a repetitive dynamic way. Yeah. And somehow that's what got selected, maybe not selected. I don't know if it was accidental, but that's what it seems to be conserved for 4 billion years, that that's what life established. What's the connection between translation and the self-replication, which seems to be another weird thing that life just started doing, wanting to just replicate itself? I think when we truly understand the answer to that question, we may have just made ourselves life, right? I don't think we know quite how translation machinery as a whole fits into equation. So we try to understand ribosomes, RNA, how the linear information is processed, all the genetic code, why this codon, not others, why 20, not more, not less. And we are sort of moving towards translation. That's what we are working on anyway. To finally look at the patterns in which this system operates itself. And if you understand that, you're really unlocking a very emergent behavior. One of the things you didn't mention is physical. Is there something to mention about that component that's interesting? There's actually a paper published in 2013, I want to say the first author is Zirnoff. So they surveyed computational engineered systems level computation, energy consumption. Okay. And they tried to understand whether the universe is using its own, or life is using its full capacity of energy consumption. And whether if different planets in the universe had life, would the capacity would increase or decrease? Does life operate at its energy maximum? And they think that it does, that it actually operates at an efficiency that is far more above and beyond any computational system. How is that possible to determine at all? That you tell me, that's why I dropped the citation. I found the citation, it's quite an interesting paper. It's a bit, you know, it's a, obviously you can only calculate and infer these things. It's a good question to ask. Is the life that we see here on earth and life elsewhere in the universe, is it using the energy most efficiently? Yeah, yeah. It seems to be very efficient. Again, if we compare it to computers, it seems to be incredibly efficient at using energy. I think they look at the theoretical optimum for electronic devices, and then try to understand where life falls on this, and life is certainly more efficient. And that's ultimately the physical side. How well are you using for this entire mechanism, the energy available to you? And so given all the resilience to errors and all that kind of stuff, it seems that it's close to its maximum. And this paper aside, it does seem that life, obviously that's the constraint we have on earth, right, is the amount of energy. Yeah. So that's one way to define life. Well, the input is energy, and the output is what? I don't know. Self-replicating. Wait, how, okay, let's go there. How do you personally define life? Do you have a favorite definition that you try to sneak up on? Is it possible to define life on earth? I don't know. It depends on what you are defining it for. If you're defining it for finding different life forms, then it probably needs to have some quantification in it so that you can use it in whatever the mission that you're operating to. Do you mean like it's not binary? It's like a seven out of 10? Life-like? I don't know. I don't think that defining is that essential. I think it's a good exercise, but I'm not sure if we need to agree a universally defined way of understanding life, because the definition itself seems to be ever evolving anyway, right? We have the NASA's definition. It has its minuses and pluses, but it seems to be doing its job. But what are the different, if there is a line, and it's impossible or unproductive to define that line, nevertheless, we know when we see it is one definition that the Supreme Court likes. That's kind of an important thing to think about when we look at life on other planets. So how do we try to identify if a thing is living when we go to Mars, when we go to the different moons in our solar system, when we go outside our solar system to look for life on other planets? It's unlikely to be a sort of a smoking gun event, right? It's not going to be, hey, I found this. You don't think so? I don't think so. Unless you find an elephant on some exoplanet, then I can say, yeah, there's life here. No, but isn't there a dynamic nature to the thing? Like it moves, it has a membrane that looks like there's stuff inside. It doesn't need to move, right? I mean, like look at plants. I mean, they grow, but there are plants that can be also pretty dormant. And arguably, they do everything that one of my favorite professors once said, that the plant does everything that a giraffe does without moving. So movement is not necessarily. But on a certain time scale, the plant does move, it just moves slower. Yes. It moves pretty quickly. I would say that, and it's hard to quantify this or even measure it, but it is, life is definitely chemistry finding solutions, right? So it is chemistry exploring itself and maintaining this exploration for billions of years. So, okay, so a planet is a bunch of chemistry, and then you run it and say, all right, figure out what cool stuff you can come up with. That's essentially what life is. Given a chemistry, what is the cool stuff I can come up with? If that chemistry or the solutions that it embarks upon are maintained in a form of memory, right, so you don't just need to have the exploring chemical space, but you need to also maintain a memory of some of those solutions for over long periods of time. So that's the memory component makes it more living to me. Because chemistry can always sample, right? So chemistry is chemistry, but are you just constantly sampling or are you building on your former solutions and then maintaining a memory of those solutions over billions of years, or at least that's what happened here. LBW Chemistry can't build life if it's always living in the moment. The physicists will be very upset with you. Okay, so memory could be a fundamental requirement for life. NM- I mean, life is obviously chemistry and physics leading to biology. So this is not a disciplinary problem of one discipline trampling other disciplines. But what you need to have is definitely, I mean, chemistry is everywhere, right? I tend to think you can be a chemist, you can study chemistry, you can study physics, you can study geology anywhere in the universe, but this is the only place you can study biology. This is the only place to be a biologist. CBF Earth. NM- That's it. CBF Yeah. NM- So definitely something very fundamental happened here, and you cannot take biology out of the equation. If you want to understand how that vast chemistry space, how that general sequence space got narrowed down to what is available or what is used by life, you need to understand the rules of selection, and that's when evolution and biology comes into play. CBF So the rules of natural selection operate to you on the level of biology? NM- Rules? I don't know if there are any rules like that. It would be fascinating to find in terms of the biology's rules. That's a very interesting and it's a very fascinating area of study now, and probably we will hear more about that in decades to come. But if you want to go from the broad to specific, you need to understand the rules of selection, and that is going to come from understanding biology, yes. CBF Well, actually let me ask you about selection, you have a paper on evolutionary stalling where you describe that evolution is not good at multitasking, or like in populations that evolve quickly. It's a very specific thing, but there could be a generalizable fundamental thing to this, that evolution is not able to improve multiple modules simultaneously. I guess the question is, what part of the organism does evolution quote-unquote focus on to improve? NM- Yeah, that was the driving question. We meddled with the part where you shouldn't be messing up with translation. This is the- CBF Should or should not? NM- You shouldn't. As I said, there are many ways to break it, and all life needs it. CBF That's one of the things, your favorite things to do is to break life, see what happens. NM- Yeah, because that's how kids learn, right? So you have to break something and see how it will, then you do it over and over again to see if it will fix itself in the same ways. So it's our, I don't know, it's the most fundamental properties of ourselves as human beings. So if we shouldn't break translation, then we should try to break it to see how it will repair. CBF So which part did you break? NM- I broke elongation. CBF What's the role of elongation in this process? NM- So we have four steps of the translations, initiate, elongate. So you elongate the chain of the information chain that you're now creating, the peptide chain, or let's say broadly polymer chain. And there's the termination step and there's the recycling. So all of these steps are carried out by proteins that are also named after these steps. Initiation is the initiation factor protein, elongation is the elongator protein. We broke elongation. So the cell, the starting codon could still arrive to where it's supposed to go, but the following information couldn't get carried out because we replaced elongation with its own ancestral version. So we inserted roughly a 700 million year old elongation factor protein after removing the modern gene. So we made this ancient modern hybrid organism. CBF And that essentially creates in some way the ancient version of that organism. NM- I wouldn't say so. It's a hybrid organism. It's not necessarily because the rest of the cell, the rest of the genome is still modern. And that goes back to the difference between Jurassic Park. There are many differences, obviously, given that this is not fiction, we are doing it. But also we are not necessarily, I think in Jurassic Park, they are taking an ancient or they find an ancient organism and then put a modern gene inside the ancient organism. In our case, we are still working with what we got, but putting an ancestral DNA inside the modern organism. CBF So you're like taking a new car and putting an old engine into it. NM- In a way, yeah. CBF And seeing what happens. NM- Yes. But in our case, it's more like a transformer than just a regular car, which is doing things. CBF Yeah, so it's a more complicated organism than just a car. NM- Yeah. CBF I got it. So what does that teach you? NM- We wanted to understand multiple things. One is how does the cell respond to perturbation? And we didn't just put the ancient DNA, we inserted, we sampled DNA from currently existing organisms, so the cousins of this microbe, and collected DNA sequences from the cousins as well. So both ancestor and the current cousin DNA, so to speak, and engineered all of these things to the modern bacteria and generated a collection of microbes that either have the ancient component or the variant elongator component that's still alive today, but coming from a different part of the tree. CBF So you broke elongation. Was that something you did as part of the paper on evolutionary stalling to try to figure out how evolution figures out what to try to improve? Did that help? NM- Yes, because we were not supposed to mess with the translation. That's exactly what we did. And we altered elongation by changing it with different versions of elongation that are either coming from species that still are around today, you can imagine them as sitting on the tips of the tree near branch, far branch, compared to the organism that we're working with, cousins, distant cousins, as well as the ancestors of the bacteria that we are now modifying. CBF How much different variation is there in that elongation step? Like what are the different flavors of elongation? NM- That's a very good question. So mechanistically or mechanically, it's the same. It's very conserved. So all life elongates the same way. You are, it's nothing but a shuttle. You just carry a chemical with you, the bit, to the heart of the machine. CBF Is that essentially doing like a copy paste operation? NM- It has its tail that's attached to the code, which is then carried biochemically to the linear chain to the core of ribosome. And it sits on there. It's released and the peptides click, the codes rather click. Once that chemistry that's at the tail end occurs, the protein leaves the center. So you can imagine it's like it hops in there and hops out. And when it hops in and hops out, it leaves the information behind. That's all it does, is bring the information, get out of there. And it's all triggered by biophysics, biochemistry, because of the way the enzyme choose energy, in this case, GTP, how the phosphor leaves the center, that kicks, that gives the additional kick to the enzyme to leave the center. LBF So which parts are different then? Where's the flavors of, different flavors of elongation? NM- Usually the parts that matter don't change over time. Nature conserves the sites of these proteins that are important for its job. If there's a difference, then we want to know, especially if there's a difference between two cousins. And in, we look at the sites that interact with the most important parts of this machinery. If we see any difference, we tend to mutate or we revert, we engineer that part, we alter that part because it gives us a clue that there must be something interesting going on here or not. LBF Okay, so that's not the fundamental part of the machinery, but it's some flavorful characteristic that you can play with. NM- So now you stripped the machinery down to its parts, and now you're looking at the parts of the parts. LBF Okay. NM- And it depends where you're looking and how you're looking and what you're looking at. But usually we see up to 70% level conserved identity across all modern versions. When you travel back in time, the identity decreases. So, elongation likely existed, we have good reason to think that it existed at the dawn of life. So you're looking at a 3.8 billion year old mechanism. And when we look at the ancestors that we resurrect, we see about 40% identity. So the identity definitely decreases as you go back in time, but still 60% shared information over 4 billion years, it's pretty good. LBF Is that just for elongation or for the entire translation? NM- Depends on what you do. So for initiation, we've also recently published this, it's a different story. But overall, you see high level of identity that is kept intact, especially if the component is essential for life. LBF Okay, so 40% and 60% 70% you said, but like from generation to generation, how does evolution and presumably that's what that paper is looking at is the parts of the parts. How does it able to say, like mess with the parts and try to come up with a cooler, improved version of the organism? NM- Yeah, so let me describe to you what we did in that experiment. We took different, we took bacteria, we perturbed the elongation in all of these with different variants. So we had an initial set of a group of bacteria that we had. We then subjected these bacteria to evolution in the lab. All right, so we, first of all, we knew we broke it because upon engineering, we measured what's going on with the cell. It's not growing as well. They're not healthy. We can see it with our eyes, we can measure it. That if they were generating an offspring every 20 minutes, now it is 40 minutes, right? So we really messed them up. They don't want to work with this thing. They don't want each other, but they need each other. So we created that situation for them, which is good because we wanted to see how they will cooperate with each other to fix this problem because we know that that's not the condition that they want to live in, especially when they know what they can do. So with that, we subjected these organisms to evolution in the lab. We refer to this as experimental evolution. We subject bacteria to different selection pressure, project them through bottlenecks. Every day, we randomly collect a handful of bacteria from the flask, put them in a new fresh environment with fresh food, keep them in this environment for 24 hours until they reach a more dormant state, and then we introduce them to a new environment. So we repeated this for about, I will say, 150 days. So every day, nonstop, we repeated this experiment. So how many different kinds of environments are there? We kept the environments to the same because we had different initial conditions. We kept the environment constant, same temperature, same food, same source of carbon, but we created replicates for each lineage. So in some ways, we created our own fossil record in the lab by evolving and generating these flasks. And every step of the way, we also froze these cells and took stocks of them in the cryo freezer. How long does it take to go from one generation to the next, the bacteria? If you, for E. coli, it's usually 20 minutes. Okay, great. So that's the experiment. That's the experiment. And you're always messing with it in the same way for the initial? It's the same way. So we introduced variation at the elongation level because we perturbed it with different elongations. We found that if we introduce a different protein that is very different, the cells don't like that, right? So if the distance is larger, the consequences are also large, meaning that you hit them harder if you introduce a variant that is really foreign to them, that's really distant. In our case, it was the ancestor. They really did not like the ancestor, but they were okay with their nearest cousin. Right. Okay, great. So you did vary in the distance. We varied the evolutionary distance, and then we kept the experimental conditions the same, and we propagated these populations every day for 150 days, and we collected bacteria every step of the way and looked at the sequence. We wanted to understand what sort of changes may have happened in the genome to respond to the variation that we've introduced. So what kind of changes would you be seeing depending on the evolutionary distance of the thing you shoved into it? Exactly. So we knew where we punched, right? We punched right at the heart, right? We punched the translation. So we expected, is it going to be a translation? Are we going to see a change? Will translation respond to this by fixing itself right away? Or will it be another, outside of translation, something completely different, a different module, because translation itself is a module? Or will it be within elongation, a really sub-protein level thing? So we had a strategy to identify the mutational pathways by categorizing what we expected to find or where. Okay, so why does it not do multitasking? Why is it not improving multiple things simultaneously? It turned out that what we observed in general is that, first of all, the harder we hit the cells, the more likely they were to respond by changes right at where we hit it. When you say hit it, you mean like changing something about elongation? I like to think of it as hitting, because I like to think of this as breaking the cell, right? I mean, not breaking enough to kill it, but we still, because they're still alive, they're not doing their job well. So the bigger the evolutionary distance of the thing you put in there, the harder the hit is how you think about it? The bigger the hammer? Bigger the hammer, exactly. You hit it with, okay. If that's what it turned out to be, because that's what the data told us, that if the variation is higher, then the consequences will also be higher in the sense that the cells will not grow as healthy compared to a variant that is coming from a near evolutionary distance. Is it wrong to think of this kind of hitting as akin to a mutation or no? What are we supposed to learn from this hitting? Like how the thing evolves after it's being hit in this way? What does that teach us? Because we see translation machinery as almost, it is so conserved and so essential, it is not even clear whether we can remove some of the parts or whether the entire translation will need all of the same parts in the same efficiency. We don't understand the rules of this machinery. So the first thing we understand is that what is the resilience? What are we really talking about here when we talk about you cannot mess with this translation? Is this true? Because it is so conserved and so similar and functions in the most conserved ways, that was the first thing that we wanted to understand. Did you learn anything interesting about the resilience at the chemical, physical, informatic, computational, biological? No, I wouldn't say that. I think the biological level, yes, because we found that the different modules started responding to the changes that we've introduced and that we could never recover the translation as effectively as it used to be. So that it never reached to its optimality, that it was always suboptimal. It needed, say, one more mutation, perhaps, to get there. It accumulated four mutations that was, we did a lot of experiments to understand this, of course, it was accumulating mutations, it was getting better at its task. Maybe it needed a couple other mutations to get really good at it, but somehow those mutations never happened. And before those mutations happened, we saw another module emerging through mutations and getting better at its own different task that is not translation. You can think of cell as a web of networks, right? And we think of this as multiple, almost, airports that are proteins that are more central hubs versus their proteins that maybe are not as important hub. If you introduce a problem in the most populated hub, you're going to mess up the traffic system more drastically, and that's what we were messing with in the biological terms as well. So when we say module, like translation would be one of the modules. Translation would be one. So you're basically saying when you mess with translation, the organism would choose to either try to fix that module or another module, depending. Exactly. But it wouldn't do multiple modules. It wouldn't do multiple modules. It focused on one module at a time, and right before that module maybe reached to its own maximum, it stalled its optimality at a certain degree. So you never get to a degree that is more optimal than you can achieve, even though perhaps another mutation could get you there. Since you messed with the translation, from a sort of optimal perspective, wouldn't it make sense for the cell to try to start fixing the translation? Not, that's exactly what we thought, and it didn't, it was not the case for all the broken translation missionaries. For instance, if the variant was coming from a near ancestor, that didn't happen. It was almost cruising around, trying different modules and sort of living its best life still without, because there is no real urgency in the system to fix the most important problem. And there's also not a direction, you know, maybe to you it's obvious that's the problem, but to the cell, maybe you're the problem. I'm living, like you said, my best life. Like, we don't, I mean, I guess that's the thing about evolution is we don't know what the right direction to- Yeah, it's almost like you can imagine that you have this messy closet and, you know- Go on. Happens to be an accurate representation of my life. So you take a look at it and you see all this sweaters or, you know, jeans all over the place, and then you look at a drawer that has socks coming out of it, and you think that's the most important one, I'm just going to fix that one. And then you fix that one. And then you think you will get to the other one, but you don't, because you just fix the most important one, that is the whatever that was getting into your way. That's really what evolution is. It's quite lazy. It fixes the problem that seems to be the most immediate, and it doesn't go beyond what it really needs to. It seems like at least for our experimental setup, that was the case. Especially for rapidly evolving systems. So like, is the environment they're operating in pretty constrained? Like, is there an urgency? I would say that we definitely constrain the environment. It's definitely removed from their natural setup. We are not evolving them in a gut. It's a very homogeneous system, very controlled temperature, controlled food, controlled carbon. So just looking at that, let me ask the romantic question. How did evolution create so much beautiful, complex variety on Earth? Like from that, you're saying that we're talking about improving different modules, but if we step back and look at the entirety of the tree, the different organisms that created all throughout history, the stuff that's fun to you with the first Seabillion, and the stuff that's fun to me when I watch on YouTube, which is like the lion versus gorilla fights and so on. But the whole thing is fun. So with all that beautiful variety from the predator and the prey, from the self-replicating bacteria and all that kind of stuff, how did it do it? How is a very difficult question, especially when we don't understand the past with clarity at all. I can tell you that there seems to be very critical innovations that happened throughout the history of life that are each themselves very sophisticated, very complex, and very sophisticated singularities that emerged once and then they set the tone. One of which is emergence of translation. It seems like it happened once, it had to happen once. It seems like that's all it took. 3.8 billion years, maybe older, clearly subjected to a lot of chemical evolution even prior to the last universal common ancestor. And then you jump and you see emergence of cyanobacteria that undeniably changed the course of this planet in the subsequent aerobic photosynthesis that life learned how to utilize what's available in the environment in the most profound way. And then you move forward, you see the emergence of eukaryotes, endosymbiosis, also another singular event. And then you move forward and then comes the plants. So these are, I counted I think six different things that seems to have happened just once. LRT The singularity events in the history of evolution of life on Earth. HG So what's really fascinating here is that there seems to be two different courses, the time course, evolution is operating at the molecular level, right? We're talking about seconds, we're talking about mutations that happen every second, we're talking about selection that's also happening under a minute, right? So that is a very fast process. The fact that I can evolve bacteria in a lab and I say almost complainingly, oh my goodness, it took me 150 days. I mean, that's pretty rapid for a change to be seen. But then the big changes and the ones that I'm talking, the really big innovations that increased, that caused an increase of oxygen on this planet or even its own mere presence are due to these molecular innovations. Seems to only happen a handful of times over billions of years of time scale. LRT Let me ask you this question having to do with my half asleep tweet. So saying that we all originated from one common ancestor, that's just one of the miraculous things about life on Earth. Of course, you could say there's multiple common ancestors in the beginning, multiple organisms and so on. But the other stuff that you're talking about is these singular events, these leaps of invention throughout evolutionary history. Now there's a bunch of people who are commenting, and I'm not going to go into the details of commenting, a bit surprising to me, who are basically skeptical of this idea. H.E. The idea of? LRT Well, I would say evolution, honestly, the process of evolution. But when you just actually focus in on like, holy crap, eukaryotes were invented. Holy crap, photosynthesis was invented. Those are incredible inventions. And also, we can even go to Homo sapiens, like intelligence, like where did that come from? It's these mysteries. I think where that skeptical comments are coming from, we're also just a general skepticism of science. I think from the pandemic, people, maybe a failure of institutions and so on, there's been a growing distrust of science. And it's not so much that it's anti-evolution, it's more of a stepping back and saying, wait a minute, maybe scientists don't have it all figured out. And I think to steel man that case is almost a step back and to realize there's so much mystery to each of these leaps. So it makes you wonder, is there something that in 100, 200 years we'll figure out that we totally don't understand yet? Like some, you know, there's, I talked to a bunch of people about another mystery, which is consciousness, right? And there's people called panpsychists who believe consciousness is one of the fundamental laws of the universe. So there could be, you know, like we have laws of physics that could be something that's like a consciousness field or something that permeates all matter. And so like there might be, it's kind of like Newtonian physics versus general relativity. Like we have a good understanding of how things happen, but we need another layer of understanding to fill in the gaps of the mysteries of it all. And that sort of is a sobering reality that maybe there is something we really deeply don't understand. Do you have a sense of where the biggest mysteries here are? Is it the origin of life itself? Is it the leaps that we're talking about? So you see the beauty, you're fascinated about the translation mechanism. What are the deep mysteries there to you? We are nothing but chemical systems capable of formulating or answering questions about our own existence. We humans or all of life, you think? Humans. Humans are, I mean, the fact that we can even have this conversation about our place in the universe is, at least to our knowledge, is quite specific to our own chemical species. It's kind of wild. We're introspecting on our evolutionary history and we're just a couple of organisms. Yes, and we're like another organism listening to this and like they're mind blown. There's like three organisms, two of them talking and the third one's like, holy shit. I think that understanding the... What I really find interesting about understanding origin of life or even contemplating about our own place in the universe, if at the end of this would come down to appreciating the universe or even before appreciating, really truly comprehending what it is that we got here, that to me is a huge gain. Because there's no single question in biology, I think, that will deliver that magnitude of that message and understanding, but understanding how life here started in the first place, if we truly comprehend that. This is not a concept that is well thought in schools. We ask students to memorize these concepts. If they are lucky, they learned RNA world, chicken and egg problem, etc. That's the extent to which that got, maybe their biology teacher was personally interested in the subject matter, if they're lucky. You know the saying that the brains are evenly distributed across any metric you can imagine, but opportunities are not. So if people aren't understanding the importance of this is because that's a lack of opportunity right there, that was skipped through the proper education and training, then the delivery of why science matters or how science actually works. Yeah, but how do you even begin to seriously think about the origin of life? I mean, every problem of existence, of life has its time. So I don't know if it's time to understand consciousness yet. We might be 100 years away from that. The origin of life, I don't know if it's time for us to understand that yet. Maybe we need to solve so many more problems along the way. And so- It's not a competition of problems, right? So there are all kinds of problems and it takes a lot of people to make the world. So you will always have some interesting brain going after an interesting problem to their own. The issue here is that we need to first of all understand that what we have going on on this planet is pretty good. Good planets are hard to find. If we are alone in the universe, that's huge. We need to take care of what we got here. And we are incredibly vulnerable to the changes that our own species also helped create at the biosphere, at the ecosystem level. We take it for granted. We take what we created for granted because of the fact that we think we are some sort of ultimate end point, the most sophisticated, amazing thing that nature could generate. I think understanding, not even understanding, but asking these questions of where did this even come from? How did this even begin? And attempting to understand that using chemistry and physics and biology, and because we can, that's the ultimate gift we can give back to the entire species on this planet. Yeah, I mean, it's humbling. It's humbling to realize the complexity of this whole mechanism. It certainly puts humans in their proper perspective. That we're not, just because we have brains and brains are intelligent, doesn't mean we're the most intelligent thing because ultimately the whole mechanism of nature seems to be, orders of magnitude, more intelligent. All of it, like we're a bunch, we're like a hierarchy of organisms that have a history of several billion years and that all somehow came together to make a human. And there'll be life after us, just as it was life before us. And something that comes after will be perhaps even more fascinating. Yeah, I think when you understand the magnitude of what happened here, there is no room for arrogance. It should overwhelm you and humiliate. It's pretty humiliating. Yeah. You know, it's quite amazing what happened here. And there is no other discipline that will deliver that, but exploring our own origins and looking at life as a more planetary system phenomena rather than one single species at a time, a collective look. You mentioned this question in your TED Talk is the two possibilities of the universe being full of life and the universe being empty and we're the only life in the universe. How do you feel about both options? Just actually you as a single chemical organism introspecting about its existence in this world. It's having a planet full of life is interesting because there are, we talked about life being all about chemistry, exploring solutions and having solutions in front of you is great. It's beneficial, right? So solutions being different organisms like other humans, you see them as a solution to chemistry problem. Different, different. Yeah. That's an interesting solution. That's not next time we're in Austin. So there's a bunch of weirdos. Every time I see a weirdo, I'd be like, oh, that's an interesting solution to this chemistry problem. I'm like. Now you think like an origin of life science. But it's funny that that one worked out. Let's see where else it goes. But having this emptiness and unpredictability of uncovering a novel solution can also have its own benefits and we should be open to what other solutions might be out there and exploring those solutions. Or to different chemistry problems. Different chemistry problems. So that's what you see, you see the other planets out there as different chemistry problems. To their own local environment. Yes. So how many chemistry problems have solutions that are lifelike to you out there in the universe? It's a wide open palette if you think about it. I don't quite know. It's the, we know the chemistry is chemistry. I don't think the chemistry will be different elsewhere. But again, what is selected by chemistry will be determined by the environment most likely. See, I think there is life everywhere out there. So there's a guy named Nick Lane whose gut, and it's interesting to me, I wonder what you think about it, his gut is there's life everywhere out there, but it stops at the bacteria stage. So he says the eukaryotes is like the biggest invention and the hardest one. I wonder if he thinks that's an accidental outcome, if he thinks that's inevitable. I wonder what that means. But it's a likely possibility that the bacterial or microbial life is definitely more attainable. So that's a weird world where our entire galaxy just has bacteria everywhere. So you know, if you don't like microbes, you are on the wrong planet. I know. Yeah. And viruses. I don't know which one there's more of. But they're both and most of them are like productive. They're fascinating. They do everything for us. If you don't like microbes, you're on the wrong planet. You're full of good lines. Okay, right, right. I just can't. There's like an imperative to the whole thing. To me, the origin is the hard question. But once it gets going, I just don't see. Wait, go ahead. It seems like it's constantly creating more intelligent things, more fascinating, complex things they're able to solve. That's a very interesting. I definitely agree that the initial steps may be the ultimate determinants. That once it's, you cannot stop it once it starts. It's possible, right? I just have never on earth. But maybe, I just, whenever I see life, it seems to flourish everywhere. The thing is, the only thing I haven't seen is the start of it. Exactly. But, and how are we gonna understand that if we don't know the origin of life science? I mean, that's the, and the question here isn't exactly our ability to recapitulate everything that happened in the exact way that it happened, right? This is about what can happen rather than, or maybe how. You think it's possible to study the origin of language using English. So, like there's a very particular chemistry here. There's a particular set of assumptions, understanding about what life is, what everything is. Our perception of reality is very specifically constructed through the evolutionary process. I wonder if it's possible to get to some first principles, deep understanding of how life originates in such a way that you can actually construct it on other planets. Ultimately, it feels like if you're doing it in a lab on earth, you're always going to be using some aspect of the life that's already here. So, that's what I sort of talked about in my talk as well. And- Everyone should go watch the TED Talks, very good. The annoying thing to me about TED Talks, I guess it's by design, is they're too short. It's like, come on. And did you know that there's no prompter involved? There's no, wait, there is? There isn't. Yeah, you have to memorize stuff. Yeah. It's a, and thanks to my amazing editor who probably is watching this too, David Bielo, that it was very, very helpful. But I would say that- Very professional organization. I like this podcast. It's a very professional organization. I respect that medium. Yeah, anyway, in the TED Talk about, yeah, life, life creating life. So, it's a likely scenario that once we understand how life as a chemical system is capable of formulating its own expression and generating a memory and manages its existence on a planetary body for billions of years, once we understand what conditions gave rise to that, we may be very likely to understand whether a different planet also be likely to instigate its own chemical revolution if it was provided through some missing ingredients. You can think of it as sending fertilizer to a different planet that is missing its own chemical composition or lacking, or that it needs more of what it has. The difference between making that planet Earth-like, which was, this is not what that's about. We're not talking about terraforming, or we're not talking about turning that planet into Earth-like system. We are talking about first understanding that planet, studying its chemistry, studying its properties well enough to understand whether it is close to its own chemical revolution, and maybe giving it that extra nudge. So, this is obviously a pretty big speculation and suggestion. And it's a very interesting proposition because this is a yes or no question, right? This is the ultimate would you rather. And I think it says a lot about the perception of the person who's answering this question. That if the answer is, no, no, no, absolutely not, that's not something we want to do, I want to know why that is the case. So, just to be clear, what we're talking about is looking at the chemical cocktail of a particular planet and tasting it and seeing what's missing. So, having a very systematic, rigorous, scientific process for understanding what is missing. Not what is missing in terms of to make it Earth-like, but what is missing in order to be sufficiently, have the spark or the capacity of the spark to launch the evolution, revolution, the evolutionary process. And then the question is, do we want to then complete the cocktail? The proposition is to also make us think that we will likely have this capacity at some point, especially when we understand origin of life better and better, right? So, we will be asking ourselves this question. I guess I wanted to bring this to daylight a little bit because maybe in 10, 20 years, maybe more. So, you wanted to ask the ethical question, should we basically start life elsewhere on another planet? Or enable the chemical capacity of that planet that it may one day itself get there? Okay. So, for me, the answer is yes. So, if you were to try to argue against my yes, what would you say? Why not? What's the worst that can happen if we seed another planet with life? What are the things we should think about? Is your main concern a chemical biological one or is it an ethical one? What do you think about? Well, the worst thing that can happen is that it wouldn't work, right? So, that it's not likely that an attempt like this would work. That's probably, because how do you... I think so. You gotta be very, you know, you have to have an understanding that I don't think we have just yet. I see, because if it doesn't work, then we could try again, right? To me, the worst case, the thing I would be worried about is we create life... I mean, the same stuff I worry about, like with plants, is things that might have a conscious experience. And then the dark aspect of life is life is increasingly complex life. Maybe I'm anthropomorphizing, but it seems to have the capacity to suffer. Huh. And so, we're creating something. It's like when you have children, you put creatures into this world that will suffer, can suffer, and may suffer, depending on how you view life, may likely suffer. And so now you carry this responsibility for doing your best to alleviate any suffering that might go through. And that, perhaps it's romanticizing this notion of life. Perhaps bacteria are not capable of suffering, but perhaps it'll create more complex life forms that would be able to suffer. And that feels like a responsibility as well. Of course, other people would be concerned. The more obvious concern is like, well, you just created a life form. How do you know it's not gonna be a super deadly virus that somehow is able to hurt humans? Yeah, my concern is more, I feel like that's a solvable problem. The problem of creating conscious beings that are able to suffer, that's a tricky one. Yeah, I can see why. Because it goes back to, again, would we, first of all, do we have a responsibility to propagate more of this chemistry that we have on this planet elsewhere, given that we know ultimately we will be vanished by the entire planet? And if this is in fact a very rare chemical event that happens because all the right circumstances came together and we were the lucky one, do we have a responsibility to sponsor it? This is, if we were to back up- Sponsor, I like it. That's a good way to put it. If we try to back up remnants of our civilization, right, so we wanna potentially create conditions on the different planets so that humans can survive, given that we know, or we want to, just for the sake of growing. Yeah, propagating, becoming a multi-planetary species. Exactly, but what really is at stake here, I think, is actually, or what is really more interesting is what we don't see, which is, again, that chemical behavior that enabled everything in the first place. That's different than sending potato crops or engineering bacteria to live on a different planet. That's very different. You're really stripping it down to what is possible at the chemical level. So even if you are instigating the chemistry on different planets, you are letting that very planet to do its thing. You're not necessarily contaminating this planet with different chemistry because the idea behind this, at least the way I thought about, is that you understand that planet, you understand the conditions, you understand the chemistry of the planet really well before choosing the planet as a candidate in the first place. And then it's not about sending a missing ingredient per se, but again, just sending more of what it already has. That would be respecting that planet's condition too. So I'm not suggesting any occupation, I'm not suggesting any colonization, I'm not suggesting any, like, let's just strip everything and make everything Earth-like. That's not what I'm saying. It's more about empowering that place. What you are saying is likely to be the motivator behind all this that's not, because I see suffering, I see pain. It's very interesting. I think this is a question that really reveals a lot about the person who's answering it. Well, okay, so the pushback on my pushback. If I saw him deeply troubled by suffering, then I should be probably paralyzed about the history of life on Earth. And, you know, there's... When, can you elaborate? What do you mean? Most of life who's ever lived, suffered in ways that are almost unimaginable to me. You mean, like, our own species? Our own species and before, and animals living today. And we're not even talking about factory farms. We're just animals living in extreme poverty in the jungle. You don't, people think, like, in the natural environment, animals live in a happy place. No, it's a brutal place of desperately trying to survive, of desperately trying to look for food. Yeah. And it's just like, all of that life, that's just mammals. And we understand mammals, but like, throughout, like, trillions of organisms, there's just that led up to those mammals. And the organisms living everywhere, like even bacteria, there's death everywhere. So maybe this idea of death, this idea of suffering is actually, this thing that we see as a bug, is actually a feature. I don't think suffering is a linear property like that with life. And I may be with Nick Lane on this one, that the likeliness of anything similar to what we got here evolving in another planetary body, I think is quite low. Where would you say is the biggest unlikely thing? Do you mean humans or do you mean even multicellular organisms? Probably multicellular, multicellularity. But I understand the both sides of the equation, right? In one level, I can see that we may not have any other choice, but to back up this chemistry somewhere else. Yeah. So you would be saving, it's the ultimate saving, or our own record. It's not about, you know, yes, let's also save Beatles and all the amazing songs, but this would be the ultimate repository of life. But I can also see your point of view, for sure. It's really interesting. So like, don't seed a plan with a missing ingredient. Try to understand what the ingredients it has. Is it possible to construct life? For me, from a computer person, it just feels like something that could be solved computationally. We can learn from the mistakes that we've done here and aspire not to repeat them. It is possible. We do amazing things as humans. There's a lot of suffering, but there's also a lot of beauty. And we could choose what we want to be or what we want to see, right? So these attempts don't need not to come from a place of fear, but it can be ultimately, can come from a piece of hope and love. I think we're just very recently figuring out stuff. Like we've, even just a century ago, we're doing atrocities that weren't seen as atrocities at the time. I mean, I think we're learning very quickly of what is right and wrong. Yes. And I work with a lot of, maybe because I'm at the university, I get to teach young people every day. Even at a time of four year or three few years, you see generational difference already in unfolding in front of you. And maybe that's why I see hope because I think what we get to interact with in classrooms every year, it's just getting better. They are aware of issues in a way that I sure wasn't at their age. Some levels I was, but in many levels I didn't think about. I wasn't concerned of the problems. Well, they maybe have to be concerned because it's hitting the reality, it's hitting them hard, but younger people are not afraid of these things. An 18 year old can face these brutal facts about the planet in ways that I don't think any other generation before them did. Yeah, it's super cool. And there's all these cool technologies that aid in the process of a human being being able to see the truth at deeper, deeper levels. Like Wikipedia and just the internet in general is enabling education at a level that was unimaginable before the internet. Yes. And I think space exploration, even contemplating about these possibilities ultimately, and I will emphasize this again, should make us think about our own place in the universe. If we are alone, that is quite fascinating. And we definitely have a responsibility to guard what we got better and protect it better and don't take it for granted. If we are not the only one, that's also a lot of responsibility to understand what else is out there. So either proposition, as famously being told, is fascinating. But as a scientist, I think, and I think that's a general behavior, maybe not, my fellow scientists listening to this can correct me if they aren't, but you need to have a level of optimism and hope that things are worth working for, worth dreaming, worth imagining. And we cannot just have fear of suffering or fear of pain stopping us from doing marvelous things. I've talked to quite a few people in my life who've gotten a lot of shit done, have helped a lot of people. And I don't know a single one of them who's not an optimist. Now, there's a place for critics and cynicism in this world, but in terms of actually building things and creating things in this world that help a lot of people, I think optimism is a requirement, is a precondition in almost all cases in my limited, humble human experience. But I tend to, when I look out there, think that aliens are everywhere. I think there's, to me, I have a humility about, I tend to see us humans as being very limited cognitively. Like, there's so many things we don't understand. I think eventually we'll understand, of course, we don't know this, but my gut says we'll understand that alien signals and life has been all around us and we're too dumb to see it. Like, whatever life is, whatever the life force is, whatever consciousness is, whatever intelligence, whatever the mechanism that led to the origin of life on Earth was everywhere. And we're just too dumb to see it. It's in the physics. We'll find it somewhere in the physics. HG. I think that's one of the most humbling parts of also being a scientist, that we know that we never know for sure. And for the outsiders, perhaps, that may be a very strange way of living, especially when your pursuit is about creating knowledge and that you'll know that what you created can also be, and hopefully will be, disproven so that another level will rise. And I think we've seen that, this lack of maybe connection between the approach to science or knowledge versus folks who are maybe not thinking about these problems every day, that we are okay with being wrong. In fact, we know that that's the only way to push the limits of knowledge. LR. How do you think life originated on Earth? We've talked about this a bit. Do you have a gut feeling about, first of all, actually even to step back, do you think, because you were like flirting with this idea, did the translation mechanism came before life? HG. I think that you cannot separate from emergence of translation machinery from emergence of life, or something like translation machinery, this whole informatic chemical computing system that is also capable of dynamism and evolvability that comes with biology, biological behavior from emergence of life itself. We've definitely took a lot of steps towards understanding origins. We are able to create molecules from environments, lightning, heat, and you make amino acids. So we are able to create the building blocks, the Miller-Urey experiment that's now 60 years ago. We are able to create the building blocks, we are able to make them interact with one another. They can get more complex, some call this messy, there's all this chemistry that's going on. We are able to have these chemicals interact with one another, maybe have even some emergent properties that we can quantify. Definitely there is this trend towards more systems-level approach to origins, with more introduction of systems-level chemistry, more network-level chemistry, and complex system integration in order to understand how, now that we can make these building blocks, we can make them interact with one another, but how do we make them interact with one another in more intelligent ways that will have the properties of a biological system? It will be heritable, it will be responding to the environment, it will mutate, and it will sustain itself. That is the final bit, I think, in our Origin of Life adventure, and we are extremely close. I'm very optimistic that our community will get a handle of this problem in this decade. This is, in fact, I think one of the most exciting times to be doing this work. What would be super convincing to you, like incredibly amazing, would blow your mind if X was done in a lab? I mean, I don't know if you would call it Origin of Life, but something really truly remarkable and special done in a lab. What would that look like to you? The properties that I listed, those five properties that I listed about, and the machinery that is capable of sensing and responding to the environment. If we can, I would imagine, similar to Miller-Urey experiment where they only sparked particular environmental forces and were able to produce a chemical that is important for life, or a mix of chemicals important for life, or building blocks rather. If I saw that a similar experiment where a well-defined geochemical parameter was subjected on a mix of chemistry, which led that chemistry to form some level of computational, informatic, biological property, and by biological I'm going to keep it to very minimum, as I defined early on, that would be super exciting to me, a self-organizing chemistry that we can create experimentally in a flask by simulating the conditions of early Earth, be it radiation, be it temperature, or mix of both, that would be very cool. And doing all the five, the chemical, physical, informatic, computational, biological. Yes. So, like, simulation and a computer would not be good? No. It would be great because they help to understand the parameters, maybe formulate, maybe quantify, create models, but ultimately you need to experiment. Unless it's quantum mechanical simulation, but that's going to be extremely difficult. So simulating from the physics up, that's going to be very difficult, because you're going to have to simulate the physical, the chemical, the informatic, I mean, honestly, it's very difficult to start the quantum mechanics and end up in biology, all through simulation. Yeah. But the stuff that DeepMind did with alpha fold and protein folding is really inspiring. It's inspiring in that you're able to solve a difficult biology problem. Yeah, absolutely. That's why there's definitely a lot of benefit to those models, predictions, because they at least help the experimentalist to come up with the priors and parameterize things better, maybe eliminates very obvious dead ends early on, given that experiments take such a long time and it's a huge investment. And no one's a better experimentalist than nature. So let me ask you perhaps a depressing, sad for you question. You really want to make me sad. You're not going to win. No, I know. There's a flame of optimism in you that will never be extinguished. Okay. The idea of past permeate, you mentioned, would we seed another planet with life? Is it possible that our planet was seeded with life from elsewhere? So the proposition I made, I like to think of it as proto-spermia rather than pan-spermia, because it's even more proto-state than acknowledging. Because in pan-spermia, you still have a cell, right? You still have something that is very, even a cell to me would be very Earth-like, right? I'm talking at sub-stellar level in the proposition of spreading chemistry. So spreading chemical ingredients, not spreading life. Exactly. It would be more like the fertilizer that is well-adopted and compatible with that planetary body. In pan-spermia, you're still imagining either an entire bacteria or microbe or a cell or something that is DNA, which is still Terran. So in that sense, that doesn't matter to you because it's chemistry, that's the initial conditions, it doesn't matter how the initial conditions came to be, they are what they are, and let's go from there. And there's all kinds of fascinatingly different initial conditions in terms of chemistry on different planets. Yes, but in terms of pan-spermia, I mean, obviously there's going to be always room for those sort of discussions or there will be, those discussions will always be present, I think, in any life in universe debates. But the problem I have with pan-spermia is that it removes the problem from the planet to somewhere else. It makes it very difficult to answer scientifically, right? You just took the problem away from this planet and formulated in a way that I cannot go and try to understand in the lab doing experiments or even through models. That's it though. So I've heard brilliant biologists like yourself say that, but I just, to me, okay, here's how I think of Earth. So I actually am able to hold all these possibilities in my head and all of them are inspiring to me. I kind of think there's a possibility that Earth is just an experiment by a graduate student, by an alien graduate student. So I know the exact episodes of Star Trek you're talking about. But there is some, to me, that's inspiring. If we are... But that's not what pan-spermia is about. You're talking about my proposition. That's not what pan-spermia is. What's pan-spermia? It is... Oh, life just came from elsewhere. Still, that's interesting because there's still giant leaps that happened on Earth, it seems like, like beyond the initial primitive organisms, like eukaryotes. I don't think pan-spermia usually articulates at the level of eukaryotes. I think they talk about bacteria primarily. I think so. Right. So that's still interesting because all the different leaps of evolution still happen here on Earth. That's still interesting. Yeah. But it's definitely interesting to listen to, but I wouldn't place it in... I wouldn't know how to place it in the studies of origin of life, I guess, or early life. Here's how we place it. You have the initial conditions for the origin of life, and you try to create life in that way that you've described in the five components, and it keeps failing. So what pan-spermia allows you to do is to also consider the question, maybe there's missing components. How do you answer that question? Through exploration and through science. Yes, yeah, tell me how you... Looking outside of Earth, looking at the fundamentals of chemistry and physics. How do you understand that with fundamentals of chemistry and physics? How do you understand gravity? But you're talking about pan-spermia, right? Just I don't understand how would you... It's different than... If you think it's similar to looking for life in the universe, is that what you're thinking? No, I'm saying there's a missing component that came from elsewhere. But a whole entire organism is not a missing component like that, right? I mean, when you're thinking about origin of life. No, no, no, that's an assumption. Your assumption is all the ingredients for the origin of life are here on Earth. Now, I tend to believe that most likely that's the case. I'm just saying it's inspiring to think that there is some ingredients you're going to push back because it's not pan-spermia. That's part of it. But... See, okay, so think... But yeah, I'm... It's also kind of fun to push back on you. No, I understand, I understand. I understand if actually a living organism ended up here from elsewhere, that means a lot of the exploration we're doing here with the ingredients that we know will not give us the clues to the origin of life. But it just seems like it's still very useful to try to create life here. And then we'll see... Wait a minute. Don't you think we'll be able to prove... Not prove, but show that pan-spermia is very likely? Like if we just keep failing, we understand biology deeply, understand chemistry deeply. I don't think so. I mean, there will be... The failure is not going to indicate that this must have been... I don't think anyone will put the problem to something else just because our failures, our experiments failed. So failure means we don't understand the chemistry deeply enough. Yeah. And given the progress we made and how many brilliant people are working on this right now, and it's definitely more... I would say that we are approaching this problem in more broader ways, with different ways possible. I'm confident that we will get there. For us, again, we are interested in early cells and first cells and what followed the origin of life, but we cannot... Given that it's a continuum between the origin and emergence of first cells, it's hard to separate these two ends from one another. So given that life is a solution to a chemistry problem, if we re-ran Earth a million times, how different would the results be? If we look at that wheel, how different would be the tree of life, do you think? Like what's your gut say? My mind asks, are you imagining... If we are repeating the planet one million times, are we seeing... Are the things that happened, I'm not talking at the chemical level, but at the environment level, do they happen at the same time, at the same frequency, at the same intensity, every time you're running this tape over and over again? Yes. You mean like geological stuff? Yeah. Like so is the same... So you're saying those are important. I mean, the fact that you would ask that question is also fascinating. So that's important? The timing, the frequency, the intensity of geological events? Yeah. So when we run this imaginary rewind and replay experiments in our minds, I want to know whether we are positioning all the same geologic events at the same chronological order as well, or whether we are also giving them more randomness. So if the volcano erupted, is it happening at the same time? If you have our dinosaurs getting wiped off every time with the same meteorite that's hitting the same... But also like temperature changes and all that mess. Temperature changes, everything. That's actually, I've heard you say somewhere that one of the things that's fascinating to you about this whole process of evolution is that the process of evolution, all the mechanisms were invented and developed despite all the variation geologically through the hardship that Earth has gone through. That the biological innovations persisted despite that? Yeah, despite that. Which is interesting. You kind of think of the biological innovations kind of happening on their own. Because we actually have a center exploring this problem. We want to understand whether... It's almost like judging a book by its cover, right? Do you just look at an environment and then see whatever is present or scarce in that environment? And then think that, okay, the life form that will exist in this environment will obviously have a lot of molybdenum in its system. Look at all this molybdenum around here. Or will it be... Because if you say that, you are now putting the environment in the more prime driver role, right? That you're saying that environment will determine what biology will or will not use. But we've done studies that show that it's not necessarily this straightforward. For instance, we looked at going back to nitrogen. One thing that's fascinating about the way cells fix nitrogen, the ones that can do, is that they also do this through a lot of help of a lot of metals, a lot of elemental support really. And which geologists use to understand where did this metabolism even evolved, where at first place. So we look at ancient oceans, we try to understand the elemental composition of ancient oceans, and what we see is that in some cases, the metabolisms, even though they prefer a certain metal or an element that is in the environment, that metal wasn't abounded in the environment, but still life chose that. So it's not that straightforward as though whatever, you are what you eat, but you don't necessarily eat what is obvious to you. Just because there's a lot of that food around, it doesn't mean life will ultimately go there. Maybe most of the time it will, but it seems like in the case of nitrogen fixation, it didn't and maybe that made the difference. It's so cool that, right, it's not the abundant resource that's going to be the definition of what kind of life flourishes. So it's not a straightforward thing. Yes. But your sense is that the different timing, the different conditions of the environment would change the way evolution happens. Yeah, for instance, I mean, I think it's in the 80s, maybe earlier than that, the Stephen Jay Gould's book, Wonderful Life, which changed, I think, a lot of scientists' life, including mine. He contemplates on this notion of the tape of life. Of course, I hope people still know what tape is, but I think your listeners will know what tape is. I don't know. It's the- Tape? Go on, tell me about the tape. Is it like a TikTok? Can you swipe on it? I'm sorry, go ahead. I apologize for my rude interruption. I kind of asked for it. But he speculated or suggested this hypothetical experiment, whether if life was recorded on, or can be imagined to be recorded on a linear, is it linear chain of events recorded on a tape, and if we were to rewind the tape, would we listen to the same song, right? So this was, and in his proposition, I also thought, yeah, but are we replaying the tape in the same exact manner, or are we meaning all the geological and environmental events, are they happening at the same time? Because then you removed the randomness from equation a little bit, right? You just removed it, because you're assuming everything will happen at the same time, at the same intensity, so that's not too contingent. That means that the natural selection, you're thinking, is really operating it more, or evolution is operating it under more random forces, then that can be dictated by the environment. So in our way of understanding or thinking about rewinding, replaying, I don't think we're thinking about the role of the environment as clearly, or don't seem to be integrated as much. But I also wonder if it's possible that the chemistry ultimately defines the destination, that despite all the environmental changes, despite all the randomness, we'll end up in something. But we are not talking about whether life will emerge and sustain itself. We are talking about whether life will emerge and sustain itself in the shape and form that is similar to what we have right now. So you are chemistry, I'm chemistry, we're having this conversation, and your plants are chemistry too. They are also having their own conversation. These plants are fake, but yes. I knew that. But it's still chemistry. I didn't wanna say that, but they're fake. Do you look at my place? Of course they would be fake, otherwise they would die. What's wrong with this place? It's wonderful. I'm Alice and this is Wonderland. This is great. This is great. It's just that this is a place where robots flourish, and those plants are fake. Are you saying that you and I are the only living organisms? Well, obviously there are microbes in this room, but- Yeah. Yeah, we are the only living organisms. I was thinking of getting a dog. Well, this is not a clean room. So you have microbes here. Yes, many, millions. Yes, so you and I and all the microbes in this room, we are chemical systems that are operating in a way that we can respond and sense and our environments and whatnot. But if you are asking if we are gonna be here, then you're imagining that another solution is also possible, which is different than the fundamentals of life. Because life will do always. Life will do its life thing. I guess it goes all the way back to the things we were talking about, translation, and the stuff you were messing with is figuring out what is the important stuff and what isn't. Makes me wonder about, just like with the translation machinery with human beings, I wonder what's the important stuff. Is it important to have two limbs? Is it important to have eyes? Like it was obvious that the sensory mechanism of eyes, like sight, were to develop. How many times if we re-reinter Earth would the sensory mechanism of sight develop and what would it look like? Would it be one giant eye or would it be two? What's with the symmetry? Why are we so damn symmetrical? In response to Steve Jay Gould's proposition, most people who argue that life is convergent and it will in fact lead to a few determined outcomes. It's not that the outcome is determined per se, but the pathways are restricted and the mutational trajectories that life can act upon are already very limited so that the final outcomes are a few and eyes being one of them. So the convergence at the eye level was presented as an example of why life may actually embark on the same solution over and over again, given that many species evolved independently from one another. Do you think there's any inkling of truth to that? Like is it just us humans thinking we're special? I think those innovations came again so far after the... I know it's the fun stuff, yes. Because it's... Thank you. Thank you. We humans tend to talk about the later stuff, but without the earlier stuff. So when we think of earlier, and I ask this to my students too, I want them to close their eyes and think about just nothingness but dust. We don't have trees, we don't have plants. When we say an empty place, or visually at least, we are talking about a planet that is really alien. So understanding our own past is similar to understanding an alien planet altogether. Given that it is a very different planet that did not have any oxygen for 2 billion years, there's nothing that is familiar to us that we would even think about when we think about life that is present in our past. Yet here we are. So cool that from that came this, like houses and people. And we are very, very... We are the super late arrivals to the party, right? So this is definitely not our planet. It's the microbial planet that we live in. But the potential to create us was always there. How do you know that? Because we were created. Oh, I don't know. What is it? You think it's possible that it's... Even for the early stuff, yeah, maybe if it's super unlikely, yeah. That we just got super... This is the planet that got really lucky given the chemistry. Like maybe to create the bacteria is not so lucky. But to create complex organisms all the way up to mammals, that's super lucky. Yes, and it may all come down to a few innovations that happened at the molecular level that may or may not be inevitable. So all these molecular tricks may have enabled the sort of mere existence of whatever you are able to define as familiar to yourself. And you have a hope that science can answer these questions to reconstruct? Science is answering these questions. I mean, we are limited to going back to the beginning in our ways, right? So we rely on biology. It's overwritten. You're talking about four billion year old records that is ever changing. That again, makes it beautiful, but also makes it difficult. It's not tractable. Geology has to some degree, it has a record of a more static, frozen state record that is embedded on itself, on the surface of this planet, if we can find them. And that's the key that most of these recorded remnants are, if we are lucky, we find them. They are not naturally selected. They're found, they need to be found for us to read them. So we work with a very handful set of samples, especially when we talk about the deep past, the planet with no oxygen, when we passed the great oxidation event threshold that is about 2.5 billion years. So the earliest life is even harder. You are trying to write the story of life based on a handful of rocks and what is recorded on them. Speaking of finding select remnants of our deep past, you said that you've been thinking about Nick Mealan's essay on scientific knowledge and scientific abstraction. So let me ask you, where do you think scientific questions and answers or in general ideas come from? You're a scientist, you ask very good questions and try systematically and rigorously to answer them through experiment. Where do you think ideas come from? So ideas come all the time, right? There are all kinds of ideas. There are good ideas, there are not so good ideas. There are really exciting ideas, maybe some boring ones. But if you are really interested in doing something different, then you need to be willing to take the risk to be wrong. And that's incredibly difficult. It's even though we talked about the idealist notion behind science that we ultimately want to be rejected or our ideas need to be rejected for the entire infrastructure to move forward. There is a level of risk-taking, I think, behind any creative idea. And I mean that in a true sense. If you are disappointed that your idea didn't work, then it wasn't a risk because you still hoped that it will work. True risk is that you accept that it may not work so that the failure shouldn't also surprise you. Yeah. Is it when you embark on stuff, when you embark on an idea, do you actually contemplate and accept failure? Like as a possible- Not consciously, I wouldn't say so. But I eliminated a lot of the things out of my work line by simply not feeling like studying them. I was bored chasing certain questions. So you trusted the signal of boredom as a good sign that it's not a good question. Yes, it should definitely be, whatever you're doing should be exciting. If there's only one person that should be ever excited about what you're doing, that should be you. And that's enough for that idea to go somewhere. I think that you need to believe in the idea. But at the same time, I think it's important to not fall in love with your mistakes. That if something isn't working, you should let it go instead of trying to fix it. Even though you feel that this is a mistake or you know that it's a mistake, in order to, sorry, instead of trying to fix it, you should wrap it up and move on to something else, which is incredibly hard. Good advice for science, but also good advice for relationships. But okay, so that's actually really hard, especially, I mean, this is like PhD stuff. Like if you sink in so much of your time, not even PhD, the entire scientific career, it's really tough to let go. Yes, and there's not a lot of room for true freedom, maybe at this certain degree. So first you need to be trained, right? It's not that scientists are just brilliant, amazing humans. I mean, they just know and learn, they know how to do science because they're trained in how to do science. So that is important because as someone who wants to definitely, I'm hoping, giving the message that this is for everybody, that there's this notion of science, scientists being super smart people, that's definitely not true, right? It is a method that you learn to solve a problem. That's really what science is. And some are really good at it, and they get better at it under really good guidance, maybe good mentorship. And ultimately, everyone finds their own style of problem solving and what sort of problems they solve. But I have not met a scientist that finds their own pursue boring. Well, it can happen, but they're not going to be effective, just like you said, I think. It's kind of interesting because in the age of social media and attention economies and stuff like that, you know, I've interacted with a lot of folks, like YouTubers and so on. I think a lot of their work is driven by what others find exciting. And I think that ultimately leads to a life that's not fulfilling. I can see the reason behind it, or perhaps there's a, again, fear of failure that can be a major determinant of that pattern, right? So you try to do something that is accepted by others because that's maybe unlikely to give results right away. But it's a long game. It's a very long game. And if you are aiming a long-term change and long-term impact, you've got to be very, very patient about it. And you better tame your ego. Yeah. I mean, on YouTube and those kinds of places on the internet, on social media, you get feedback like right away. And so it's even harder to be patient. Yes. Because yeah, change and ideas develop over a period of months and years, not decades. And the response from social media and so on is on the rate of seconds, minutes, and hours. So I recommend actual physical libraries for people who may want to appreciate or remember the sense of time and how long it takes to build something. I think it is, you're right, that's the immediacy and the right response. And the fact that these places are, the algorithm wants you to respond right away and interact with itself, right? So I can see the appeal. But true innovation, I think, doesn't even scream. It's not shiny, especially in the beginning. But it's also important to not fool ourselves and think that everything that people criticize has some super important meaning behind it. So it's a mix of the technique, the methods, and your gut feeling. Yeah. And a weird dance between learning and accepting the ideas of the current science. And at times trusting your gut and rejecting those. Because science progresses by sometimes rejecting the ideas of the past or sometimes building on them in a way that changes them, transforms them. Yes. And I think what is hard is to really drill down into a concept, right? So you can create a new thing, and then it may be appealing and gain a lot of traction but to sustain that, to continue that, you really need to show the true expertise. And so it's not only about defining a problem, but then really systematically solve that problem maybe over the course of decades. You mentioned library. I've also saw that you've translated scientific documents, or at least mentioned that you did it at some point in your life. So let me ask you, how much do you think is lost in translation, in science and in life? How many languages do you speak? Two. Two. How much is lost in translation, in science, and in life between those two? It's actually three, because science is like another language, right? It is. I speak Russian, a little bit of French, and it's always fascinating to see how much is lost. And the Soviet Union has a tradition of science and mathematics and so on. And it's interesting that a lot of the wisdom gained from that part of the world is lost, basically because it was never translated. Well, I'm not sure if it is lost per se. Maybe it's more like a gain in some sense, right? Because you understand, science is ultimately a human pursuit, so you cannot separate as much as, maybe it's the best system that humans ever came up with to seek knowledge, to generate and make sense of the world. It works most of the time. It doesn't mean it's perfect. Did the kind of translation you do, by the way, was for scientific work? I directly translated for scientific work, yes. I think that, again, brains are equally distributed, but opportunities are not, right? So if you want to include, if you want to benefit from all human power, whatever we can generate as human beings, you need to include everybody on the table. And that is by extending the opportunity. I think most of us that make it tend to think that we did because of something special about ourselves. But it is important to know that, no, we were given opportunities, and that's why we are here. Not because there was something inherently special about us, or that the system truly selects for the ones that really are... Yeah, and language is a part of the opportunity. Yeah, language is an opportunity. And if you don't speak... Because it comes with, similar to bacteria, right? They speak these languages. Yes. Even we call culturing the bacteria, we call it culturing, right? When we grow bacteria that we isolate from the environment in the lab, meaning that you create an environment for them to grow and thrive and sustain themselves. That's what we say, but culture is for microbiologists. For language, with language comes a different culture, a different perspective. And you bring that to the table. I mean, it brings the sense of diversity that can only be achieved by clashing, perhaps, two different cultures, two different languages, two different approaches, maybe in some cases four different approaches. Yeah, I think language is not just a mechanism of communication. It's a way to... it's a dynamic system of exploring ideas. And it's interesting to see that different languages explore ideas differently. Yes, and I think that... So when I said science is like a language itself, I said it in two different ways. One is very literal meaning, that you can speak English, but that doesn't mean you will understand the scientific paper. That it's a different level of English that you need to learn to understand. Even, not just for scientific papers, even from discipline to discipline. I challenge any chemist to read an evolutionary biology paper and vice versa. It may sound extremely different, a different language altogether. But there's also the language of communicating, and because words matter, how we talk matter, how we represent our science matters. So yes, just learning English as a second language alone is not going to make you fluent in science either. And it's interesting because in that sense, you speak many more than three languages because you're pretty cross-disciplinary. It seems like you have a foot in a lot of disciplines. Yes. I mean, especially in geology, biology, evolutionary biology. I mean, there's chemistry. Biochemistry, biophysics, even we do a lot of statistics. So there's a lot of mathematics to what we do as well. Yes, we like to think of it as this, now it's astrobiology program, I repeat it because it's fun, that it is not a fruit salad, but it's a smoothie. That that's what we are generating. It's not a fruit salad, so a smoothie is a successful combination of those fields, and a fruit salad is not. I wouldn't say it's success, necessarily. If you put the wrong ingredient and you press the blender and you've made it a smoothie, I mean, it can ruin the entire mix. Can it though? Because I feel like... Yes, I can definitely assess that for ginger, for instance, that ruins every smoothie. I don't like it. Ginger? I think so. But it's just a personal thing. And also, I don't like cinnamon. Oh, the ginger has a cinnamony taste? Because I thought ginger was... No, I don't think they do, but I also don't like... Wasn't that a thing they add in a lot of smoothies? I was forced a smoothie. I went to Malibu with a good friend of mine, Dan Reynolds, and he forced me to consume a smoothie. And it was probably the first smoothie I've ever had, because I always was very judgmental of the kind of places and people that drink smoothies. But it was good. It was good. Well, smoothie is very American, so I... Yeah, it is an American thing. I wouldn't say success per se, but it is true that when you dance at the edge of different disciplines, that that's when inevitably the innovation will rise. Because you will see things maybe a little differently when you're on the edge, right? But it will probably take longer, and it may not be understood right away. It may not come into final form quickly, given that it is a new concept rising. So therefore, the patience will make more sense. I'm sorry, patience will be even more important. So if you are, in other words, if you are into immediate appreciation, that's probably not the way to go. You're one chemical organism. So let me ask maybe a little bit more of a personal thing. Where did your life form originate? And what fond memory do you have from the early days of childhood? That are representative of your bacteria culture? I was born in Istanbul, so I grew up in Turkey. It's a city that has two continents, which is quite interesting. You have a, you see a welcome to Europe sign and then welcome to Asia sign, same day, depending on which part of the bridge you are. So that's where I was born, and I spent about roughly 20 years of my life, and then I immigrated to the United States. It's a very proud culture. It's a beautiful culture. It's a very flavorful culture. What aspects of it is part of who you are? What are the beautiful aspects that you carry with you in your heart? I think we are very sincerely human as a culture. I think that we have the saying that don't go to bed full if your neighbor is hungry. So, you know, you wouldn't eat any food in front of someone where I come from without offering to share the bite. So I think those things, however small they may sound, a really big deal, especially when you are put in or move to a place that may not have those attributes. So I think that culturally, we have a lot of conscience, like, and just raw, deep human. The connection. You value the connection between human beings. I think so, yeah. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal, the connection between human beings. I think so, yeah. I think I definitely carry that with me. We talk a lot about biology. Let me ask you about the romantic question. What role does love play in the human condition or in the entirety of life on Earth? It's not easy to learn how to love if you're not loved, okay? But the good news is that it is something that you can learn, I think. That you can practice and teach yourself how to maybe give yourself the thing that wasn't given to you and then ultimately give it to others. I think it would be quite arrogant to think that we will be capable of loving. It could be anything, really. So just like translation, it's a repeating and a dynamical process? That you can learn. Yeah, that you can learn. Yes, and you should learn. There's no excuse to not learning. To love. Yeah. Because that's a deeply human thing. It is a deeply human thing. It is a very sad thing if any one of us passes this planet without knowing what love is. And that could be a love to a pet, a love to a plant. To a robot. Just kidding. Or a fake plant. We can't help who we love. What advice would you give to a young person today? High school, college, how to have a career they can be proud of, or how to have a life they can be proud of? You said an interesting thing about brains being distributed evenly but opportunities not. It's really interesting to think about. I've talked to folks from Africa. You realize that there's whole areas of this earth that have so much brilliance but unfortunately so little opportunity. And one of the exciting things about the 21st century is more and more opportunities are created. And so the brilliance is unlocked in all those different places. And so all these young people now have the opportunity to do something to change the world. I had a chance to visit Bosnia. So I was invited to give a talk in a very northernmost part of the country that was impacted by the war tremendously. And it was a public talk. It was open to everybody in the village. And I was told even people drew from Sarajevo to attend. Whenever I think about our role as a scientist or the beneficiaries of the knowledge that we create, I always think about that night, how many people were in that room. It was incredibly crowded. And lots of young people who were trying to start everything new and not do or not carry sort of carry, replace whatever maybe the feeling that was taken from them with hope and love. Start a new beginning, be the seed for the next generation. And it moved me so much that they all came to hear about early life space, something maybe different for them that maybe they were always interested in and never thought about. But what stayed with me was just the look and the feeling, the look on their faces and the feeling in the room, the energy just was really moving to me. Their willingness to be the seed, the first of their family and generation to do something new, the next generation to do that big new thing. Yes. Take the leap. And that's exactly why I'm telling this whole story, because for most of us, we may have to be that seed in our families, the first one to do something new, to break that cycle, whatever it is that you want to break free from. I would want the young people to know that you can be that, that there are just wonderful things to learn from this life. And it's just incredible to be living. And I would want them to know that their voice matters and they need to use it, especially those who think that their voice doesn't matter. And ultimately, I think what it comes down to is to trusting yourself, trusting and respecting your voice. If you're not loved, learn how to love. If you are not respected, start by respecting yourself. Learn how to respect yourself. You can teach yourself things. Yeah, it's really difficult when you're surrounded by people that don't believe in you. Yes. I definitely know the feeling. And I would just want them to know that they don't need to be defined by or reduced down to what others see in them. Believe in yourself, have the respect, try to develop the respect and the love for yourself. And then from that, it flourishes. You'll find others that'll give you love. It may not. I mean, life is not fair. It's true. Yeah. It's be prepared that it's not very fair, unfortunately. And so I don't want to depict this Disney story that, and then yes, and everything will be just fine. It's mostly isn't, but you learn a way, learn, you know, life does it all the time. Speaking of which, what do you think is the meaning of all this? What's the meaning of life? Why are we here? Why we are here? All the beauty you've discussed. Why is the translational mechanism machinery here? Why? I don't think it is. Why so much beauty? Why so much beauty? It is because we choose to see it that way. It's beautiful, but there is no meaning. I don't think, no. Yeah. But why is it so beautiful? Why did we choose? Why? From where is the imperative to see so much beauty in a thing that scientifically speaking or from a rational perspective is void of beauty? It's just, it just is. Not everybody chooses to see the beauty. Haters gonna hate. I mean, we have the capacity to see the beauty. We have the capacity, so why not use it to the fullest? Right? We have the capacity. But that capacity, isn't that fascinating that we developed that? It feels like that was always laid in there in the whole process of life. This ability to find, to introspect ourselves. I mean, it's definitely soothing to think like that, but I don't think there is a meaning like that way. I guess it's fascinating that we can understand it. But why is it soothing? There's a desire, there's a longing. But soothing doesn't mean that there's a meaning. Why is soothing a meaning? Let me just put it this way. Because there is just, I think, so much unfairness going on, I wouldn't even dare myself to think that there's a meaning out of respect to the ones that are suffering. I see. I think out of suffering emerges flourishing and beauty. I mean, that's what I see. I agree with you. When I went to Ukraine, it's all the people suffering. In their eyes and in their stories is a hope for the future, is a love for the people who are still living, is a love for life. So it's there. And that's the dark thing is the suffering and the law somehow intensifies your appreciation of the life that is the left. That's a weird thing too. I think that there is something about still doing your best and believing that there's whatever the goodness is worth working for is beyond. And to do that without a meaning, there is something more humbling and profound about that. And we have a... This will come out very random. Okay, so I just want to say that. Very random, okay, so just... In Turkish bathrooms, there is this sign that says, leave it as you want to find it. Yeah. And I think that's a pretty good... That's your meaning of life found in Turkey. There's wisdom to that. There's wisdom to that, but it also is because however you leave defines you, right? So I think there's some profound meaning to that too, that just leave it as you would want to find it. So that your little scribble in the long story of life on earth is one that ultimately did a pretty good job, at least kept it the same as you found it. Or at least I left it in the way that I wish I found it. Yeah, right. Oh, man. Yes, that's the wisdom from Turkish bathrooms. That's where I search for wisdom as well. And as we started with the origin of life and ended with the wisdom in a Turkish bathroom, I think that's the perfect conversation. You're an incredible person. The humor, the humanity, but also the brilliance of your work. I really appreciate that you would talk with me today. This was really fun. Thanks for having me. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Batuul Kachar. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Robert Frost. In three words that can sum up everything I've ever learned about life. It goes on. Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/NXU_M4030nE

7Sk6lTLSZcA

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

1984 by George Orwell | Lex Fridman

There was truth and there was untruth. And if you clung to the truth, even against the whole world, you were not mad. 1984 by George Orwell is one of the most impactful books ever written. It has been widely used and misused in political discourse by all kinds of ideologues. Into that discourse, it entered terms like Big Brother, Thought Crime, Double Think, Newspeak, Thought Police, and Orwellian. Strangely enough, as a synonym for the very thing that the author Orwell was against. It's been translated in over 65 languages, has sold over 30 million copies, has been banned in many countries, especially authoritarian regimes, has been banned under Stalin, and as recently as 2022 in Belarus. In this video, I'll give a quick summary with spoilers and a few takeaways. I'd like to try to make it somewhat interesting to people who both have and have not read the book. Let's see how it goes. The world in the book 1984 is a dystopian future society, nation, maybe you can say super state named Oceania. It's fully controlled by a totalitarian political party called Inksock. It's led by Big Brother, who, as we might discuss, may or may not be a real person. He might just be a symbol used by the party. The party wants only to increase its power, also something we might talk about. It uses technology, telescreens for mass surveillance. It's creating a new language called Newspeak, which removes words from English that could lead to rebellion. It uses doublethink to control thought by perhaps you could say, forcing you to hold contradictory beliefs and accept them as true. If not, the thought police arrest you for committing a thought crime. Examples of doublethink are war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. And finally, the party constantly rewrites history. As the quote goes, who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. There are several ministries, four of them. Ministry of truth is responsible for propaganda and like I said, rewriting history. Ministry of love is responsible for brainwashing people through torture. Ministry of plenty is responsible for rationing of food, supplies and goods. And ministry of peace, of course, is responsible for maintaining constant state of war. Society is divided into three levels. The inner party, the outer party and the proles. The stands for, I guess, proletariats. It's the working class. The inner party is tiny, the outer party is a little bit bigger and majority of the people, I forget what the percentage is, maybe 80% is the proles, the working class. There's several key characters. Winston, the main character, is a low-ranking member of Inksock. He works at the ministry of truth where he rewrites history, like I mentioned. Julia is a dark-haired girl who Winston falls in love with and she with him. They have sex and this is maybe a good place to mention that passionate sex, love and passionate sex are forbidden in this society. Good sex, I think, is a term under Newspeak, hashtag good sex, is the kind of sex that leads to procreation, which is the only kind of sex that's allowed and the only kind of sex that's good. O'Brien is another central character. He's the member of the inner party that convinces Winston he's part of the brotherhood, which is a lie. And he eventually is the man who tortures Winston and breaks his mind, breaks his heart. Big Brother and Emmanuel Goldstein are these symbolic characters that whenever I actually get to meet, they may or may not exist. Big Brother is the head of the party, Inksock, and Emmanuel Goldstein is the leader of the so-called brotherhood, which is this supposed mysterious group that lurks in the shadows and works to overthrow the party. Again, may or may not exist. We'll maybe talk about the importance of that in a totalitarian state. So a few key takeaways, and I'll try to do my best. I have disparate notes that I took for myself. I'll try to do my best to try to integrate them together to make some cohesive thoughts. And part of the reason I wanted to do this, while I have read 1984 many times in my life, and many of the books I've put on a reading list that I want to read, I read many times, I haven't often really concretized my thoughts about the books. I just take the journey and just let the thoughts kind of wander around in the background as I live my life. I wanted to kind of put on paper and maybe share with others to see what they think, what my concrete takeaways are from the book, what my thoughts are, if I could try to convert them into words. So the first one for me, especially later in life as I've been reading this book, is that when everything else, or most things that make you human are taken away by those around you, by the totalitarian state, the last thing that's left that is the most difficult to take away is love. Love for other human beings, love for life itself. That's the little flame from which hope springs. That's the key revolutionary act, is the act of love. So when the ability to speak is taken away, when the ability to think, rational thoughts is taken away, the last thing that's left, and the thing that ultimately gives hope is love. That's a big takeaway for me, and the note that Julia gives to Winston, the note reading, I love you, is the kind of revolutionary act that leads to a society beyond the one they exist in. I think a lot of the book has an interesting hypocrisy to it, where the main character, Winston, is almost in an animalistic way obsessed with destroying the state, in rebellion and revolution, but I think love is the thing that allows you to believe in a place beyond the state, in believing that you can build something better, versus destroying the thing you're in. I think you have to be careful as a revolutionary not to obsess 100% with destruction, because beyond destruction, there could be chaos that leads to something much worse. I think love is the thing, the basic human thing that connects all of us, the messy thing that connects all of us, that allows you to build a better society after the totalitarian one is overthrown. What else do I wanna say? There's an interesting tension there between love and sex, or lust. I think there's a quote that pure love, or pure lust was impossible or forbidden. Pure love and pure lust. Pure here meaning sort of unadulterated, uncensored intensity of feeling, maybe intimacy. And that was an interesting question raised by the book, both by Winston and Julius. What is ultimately the thing, the most powerful act of rebellion? Is it between us humans, when everything is forbidden? Is it animalistic like sex? Just lust, lust for another human. Or is it love? The kind of love you have for a romantic partner, but even love for family, love for friends. I don't know. I think the book almost claims that it is sex, but I think what the book also shows is if sex is your manifestation of rebellion, that that ultimately leads to something that doesn't last. That ultimately leads to a focus on destruction versus building beyond the horizon when the state falls. So some quotes from Winston on this. The more men you've had sex with, so Julia admitted to have sex with quite a lot of people. He says, the more men you've had sex with, the more I love you. I hate purity. I hate virtue. I want everyone to be corrupt to the bone. This kind of rubbed me the wrong way, because again, this seems to be obsessed with the hatred towards the state versus a longing and a hope, which I think hope is really important here. A hope for a better future beyond the state. Again, another quote from the book. Their embrace had been a battle, the climax of victory. It was a blow struck against the party. It was a political act. So there, again, I think sex is a political act, an act of political rebellion. I think that's not the deeply human thing here. The deeply human thing is, again, the act of love. It's a source of hope. It's the catalyst for building a better future beyond the revolution. An interesting side note here, and there could be a million interesting side notes, and I'm desperately trying not to go on a million tangent and to hold myself together here to stay focused, is on family. So there's all kinds of love, and I think family love is a really powerful bond that connects us, and that's one of the things that the totalitarian states really go after. And I should actually mention, sort of loosely using term authoritarian and totalitarian here, but I think, to me at least, I don't know what others think, but to me, authoritarian means where there's a government, a centralized, complete centralized control of political affairs, and a totalitarian state is beyond that, is a complete control of not just politics and the functions of government, the basics of the functions of government, but also social, economic, everything. It's Nazi Germany's example of that, I think, to me, where there's just complete control of every single thing, from the war effort to the social interactions, the rules that govern social interaction, to the press, all that kind of stuff. So I think this book is more about, at least in my definition of the term, about totalitarianism. Anyway, as I was saying on family, I think the way they destroy family, one, of course, with your romantic partner, forbidding passion, passionate sex, but really just passion, longing for another, for another human being in that romantic way. And they also really reward and encourage children at a young age, they indoctrinate them, to turn their parents in for thought crime, whether real or not, which of course is a silly notion, because there's no nature of truth. There's no, you can just accuse anyone of anything and they're guilty by just existing. So that's a way to attack the family. And I should also mention on the topic of love, is that I think the goal of the party, the final destination, as used by O'Brien through the process of torture, is for, to break your mind, to break your heart and soul completely, so that the only love you can have, and it could be felt as a pure love, is for big brother. This is the kind of thing you see in North Korea, is that the only love you're allowed to have, the remaining inklings of feeling that might still exist in you, you can channel only, not towards family, not towards romantic partners, not towards friends, but towards this leader, this godlike messianic figure, in this case, who may or may not exist. In all cases, that figure, while there is a human associated with it, it's really much bigger than the human. And that's the only love you're allowed to have. So the other takeaway I have is on the topic of hate. I think all humans have the capacity, almost an animalistic craving for hate of the other, the enemy, whether it's individuals like Emmanuel Goldstein or nations like Eurasia and East Asia, which I should say are the two other super states described in this book, they're constantly at war with each other. Again, the fascinating thing about the way this book is written is you don't know if Eurasia or East Asia exists. You really don't know what exists or what is true beyond the local little interaction, local little world of the main character. And that, I think, is the point. When you don't really know, there's no steady footing on which to construct a worldview from which you can have hope about a better future, that longing for a better future. And so this animalistic craving for hate or the capacity to have hate, especially when we're in crowds, I think is most powerfully illustrated in the two minutes of hate, which is practiced by the society. And the quote is, the horrible thing about the two minutes of hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within 30 seconds, any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and victimness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one, even against one's will, into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion, which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blow lamp. That's the point, is you get the crowd together, you get them to hate Goldstein or Eurasia or East Asia, you get them to hate anything. And because that feeling, that drug, that hypnotic, it's in that mass hypnosis that you feel can be directed by the state into any direction. And because you have complete control of history, you can direct it on a day-by-day basis towards any target. And as long as the hate is catalyzed through these kinds of rituals, as long as the hate is there, it can overpower the individualistic feeling of love we have for each other. So that hate is a more animalistic desire. I don't know what to make of it. Of course, it's also important to say that this book, I think I've read many places that it was intended originally by Orwell as a satire. Although a satire that has quite a lot of torture at the end and doesn't seem to have much humor. But I think if you read it as a satire, that's the way it's better to understand its relevance in our society today. Because a lot of things like Two Minutes of Hate is almost like a caricature of what hate looks like in a mass gathering. But if you take it as a caricature, it can now reveal you some of the elements that already exist in human nature that are there and that we should be very cautious about. So it reveals the very thing that, if not monitored by ourselves, can result in a slippery slope that leads to destruction of the tribalism, destruction of other groups, and then control of the collective intelligence of our species through the totalitarian state. I think there's elements of this that are just under illustration in social media today. I don't want to overstate it. I think just like comparing things to Hitler, comparing things to 1984, I think is a reach in most cases. But social media does reveal this kind of mass hysteria, this capacity of humans to be outraged, of outrage based on tribalism. So we have to understand it. We have to resist giving into it on the individual level. And I do believe we have the responsibility to create technology that helps us resist it, that incentivizes us not to be cruel to each other just because all the people in whatever tribe we define ourselves in are being cruel to a particular person or a particular group. Another takeaway I have is about power. Inksock, the totalitarian states, wants only one thing, and that is power. Power is both the means and the end, absolute power. That's what O'Brien describes, and there's a lot of quotes about this in the torture part of the book. O'Brien says, "'The real power, the power we have to fight "'for night and day, is not power over things, "'but power over men. "'Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. "'Power is in tearing human minds to pieces "'and putting them together again "'in new shapes of your own choosing. "'Power is not a means, it is an end. "'One does not establish a dictatorship "'in order to safeguard a revolution. "'One makes the revolution "'in order to establish a dictatorship. "'The object of persecution is persecution. "'The object of torture is torture. "'The object of power is power.'" This, of course, is another aspect of human nature, the will to power, and the tendency of that power to corrupt. O'Brien says also, "'The weariness of the cell is the vigor of the organism. "'Through the torture of the individual, "'through the breaking of the individual, "'through the death of the individual "'that doesn't exist according to the history, "'all of that doesn't matter. "'What matters is the organism.'" And there's been a lot of brilliant comments throughout social media and on Reddit. I just wanna highlight something about this because I had the exact same feeling as I was this time rereading it. There's a comment from a Reddit user whose name is BraveSky6764. He said, "'The conversation between Lex and Michael Levin,' "'who is a brilliant biologist, engineer, "'came to mind when O'Brien made an analogy "'to an organism which survives "'even as the individual cells pass away, "'and the great purges are analogous "'to the cutting of a fingernail.'" If you see society as an organism, which I think is the way a totalitarian state sees it, then the destruction of a large percentage of that society, the murder, the torture, all kinds of atrocities and genocide become justifiable as long as the organism flourishes. And that's how you get to the ideas that Stalin had, the ideas that Stalin had is okay to break a few eggs to make an omelet. This devaluation of a human being as of fundamental importance in a society, that's a slippery slope into atrocities. It's not just deeply unethical from our understanding of morals and ethics. It is also very unproductive. It destroys the human spirit, and the human spirit is essential for building of a great society of constant progress. I think that's also one of the other messages of the book is about utopia, that totalitarianism results when you chase perfection. When you present this idea of utopia, there is no utopia, there is no perfect society. I think, at least for me, that's takeaway. I think the optimal state of being for an individual and for a state is a constant turnover, constant change. And in the case of a state, it's a constant turnover of leaders, of ideas, and always, hopefully, in the long term, making progress towards a better world. But it's always going to be messy. Perfection only exists in a oppressive state. Perfection only exists when you remove the basic humanity of the individuals that make up that state, when you destroy the human spirit, or when you suppress and you destroy all the freedoms, because freedom's going to be messy, it's going to be very chaotic. But that freedom, ultimately, is, at least in the long arc of history, is going to create progress. So yes, as the Redditor BraveSky6764 says, that does actually give you a perspective of a biological system where it's a bunch of living organisms. Each one of us are made up of a bunch of living organisms, and we take that for granted of all the atrocities that are happening there. And we don't seem to give a damn. I think that's a really good metaphor for us to help. If you want to put yourself in the mind of the inner party, a big brother of the people that are in power in those situations, I think a lot of them, if most of them, if not all of them, see themselves as doing good for the world, as doing good for the society. And they're able to justify that the way we justify the murder of the different cells in our body. You don't even think of them as worthy of consideration. You don't think of them as living beings of having the same value as you. And that's one of the really powerful ideas at the founding of the United States, that all men are created equal, that there's an equal worth to a human being, no matter who that human being is. That idea, at the very least, as flawed as its implementations have been, is a really, really powerful idea, and it's a non-trivial idea. And that idea resists the drug of totalitarianism, the drug of power. I do believe that on the topic of power and politics, that 1984, as I've mentioned, has been, I would say, misused by political ideologues. I've seen it, for example, on conservatives in the United States, have used 1984 to call left-wing policies Orwellian. I think that's an overstatement, of course, used for dramatic effect, but it should be at least said that Orwell was a democratic socialist. 1984 is not a criticism of socialism. It's a criticism of totalitarianism. And I think the point is, a warning against totalitarianism in all forms, that all political ideologies can succumb to the allure of power and be corrupted by it. And I think people on the left in the United States and people on the right can both be corrupted by power. So this kind of one-way criticism of left-wing policies as Orwellian is a very kind of convenient shorthand, but the reality is all men and politicians are capable of creating an Orwellian world. And I think one of the things that is highlighted in the book very well, I would say, if I interpret it correctly, is the hypocrisy of Winston. When O'Brien asks Winston what he's willing to do to overthrow the party, what he's willing to do for the Brotherhood, Winston admits that he is willing to do atrocities. He's willing to do evil onto children, onto anybody, murder, anything. And I think this is a really powerful illustration that both the totalitarian and the blind, immoral resistance, rebellion against the totalitarian state, can both be evil. And I think that's where I return to love is the thing that carries hope for a world beyond this battle, this very important battle for freedom. But you have to have that. Otherwise, it's the Orwellian state and the resistance to Orwellian state can both destroy basic human rights and freedoms. And I think sort of in the character of Winston, that's illustrated well. And I should also mention that there's interesting writing. Now, I'm not, obviously, a scholar of Orwell, and there's a lot of books been written, and I should probably recommend them somewhere. There's just great books written on 1984 on Orwell, on the historical context in which he was operating and all that kind of stuff. But as far as I see, Orwell also in 1984 and himself politically, he was not espousing the complete opposite of totalitarianism. There is, again, with democratic socialism, that there is value to the connection between human beings, that you have to lean on each other, help each other, that society is fundamentally a cohesive collective than a completely sort of disparate set of sovereign individuals. It's both. And I think he was torn about that idea because in order to resist a totalitarian state, you have to fight for those basic individual freedoms. But at the same time, a society, a well-functioning society allows for that freedom to manifest as collaboration. And so that's the difficult challenge there. Again, that's why he was a democratic socialist, and the criticism of the book was against totalitarianism, of a centralized state that controls speech, thought, you know, the press, and all the basic human freedoms, controls truth. And I think a lot of people would ask the question, and I hear this tossed around, you know, do we live in the world of 1984 today? And I think that's used as a shorthand to sort of criticize different policies in different governments. I generally don't like the use of that kind of language because it's basically crying wolf. If everything is 1984, if everybody is Hitler, then you're not going to, there's no way to kind of properly normalize the discussion of what's, of the lesser of two evils kind of thing, which is ultimately what democracy is about. You have a collection of things you're picking, they all kind of suck, but you want to pick the one that sucks the least. That's human society, you know, that's human nature. It's messy. And so I don't think we live in a 1984 state, but there's a lot of elements that this book reveals about human nature and about the operation of a totalitarian state that we should be on the watch for. So surveillance, a state of double think, of controlling language, of being in a constant state of war as a way to control the population and the flow of resources. All those things have elements of, almost like a useful tools for the establishment of complete control of a populace. And the moment you notice those elements, it's our job to resist those elements. So I think the point is we have to be vigilant to the slippery slope of the will to power in centralized institutions. Another thing I want to mention is that I think a lot of people rightfully compliment Orwell to have predict some of the elements of future society, especially with technology, technological capabilities that are with, for example, telescreens used by the state to control the population. Maybe I can make a few comments on technology in general. People who criticize technology will often use 1984 as an example that, technology is a tool for a totalitarian state. It's a way they can achieve full control and we should be extremely cautious of it. And I think there's a kernel of truth to that, but it's not obviously to me that on the whole technology is a tool for totalitarian control. That I think it is also a tool for freedom. The internet is an incredible tool for freedom. And so of course we have to fight for that freedom, but I believe in general, the greater, let's just take the internet broadly as an example, and there's a lot of sub elements of that and like a more sort of platonic sense of what the internet is, which is digital interconnectivity. We have to fight for the freedom, but in general, the greater reach and access that the internet has, the more powerful the resistance of totalitarianism. Technology is a double-edged sword. It provides the tools for oppression and the tools for the ongoing fight for freedom. And as long as the will to fight arises in the human heart, technology, I think, helps humanity win. And of course, there's been a lot of discussion about free speech and the freedom of thought. And there's a lot to be said there that's much more nuanced than the book 1984 provides. I think 1984 just shows the end, horrible conclusion of complete totalitarian control over speech, over thought, over feeling, over everything. But in general, my view of it is it's a kind of inspiration to, in order to prevent ourselves from slipping into an authoritarian, into a totalitarian state, you know, Orwellian type of dystopias, to avoid them, we have to value critical and independent thought. I think thought first before speech, just thought. I think you have to learn to think deeply from first principles, independent of whatever tribe you find yourselves in, independent of government, independent of groups, independent of the people around you, the people you love, that love you. You have to learn at least sometimes to think independently. Now, this is the Nietzsche, if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. If you think too independently, you can break your mind. I mean, we are social creatures, we need that connection. But I think it's like with the Tom Waits, I like my Tom a little drop of poison. I think of truly deeply independent thought as a little drop of poison that's necessary for your own mind. Most of your life you live, you kind of assume most things around you are true, and that's very useful. We stand on the shoulders of giants, but you on a regular occasion have to question, question your assumption, question your biases, question everything, question the things you've taken for granted, question what everybody's telling you, but not too much. It's a tricky balance. But the act of rebellion against the totalitarian state, against the slippery slope into that state is that independent thought. And of course, speech is a manifestation of that thought. So to avoid echo chambers in both thought and speech, like I said, you have to question your assumptions, challenge your biases. I think that's the way out, or maybe that's a resistance mechanism to slipping into authoritarianism. And maybe I have a few more things to say about the latter part of the book, the part where there's torture, where there's room 101 that has the thing you fear the most, which is different for all of us. And for Winston, that's rats. Makes you wonder what that thing is for each of us. I left a mental note for myself to do more research into the historical context, the psychology, the neuroscience, the effectiveness of torture. I think there's probably a lot of really good work. I had a brief conversation with Andrew Huberman on the phone about this topic. Andrew Huberman, the brilliant Andrew Huberman, host of the Huberman Lab podcast you should listen to. And then he mentioned to me there's a bunch of papers on these topics. This has been studied, sort of the carrot and the stick of the ability of incentives and disincentives to control the perception and the mental state of people and animals. And he mentioned to me a few folks that I could talk to on a podcast about this topic and a few books. So I'll definitely look into this more. I think 1984 is probably, it uses torture as a philosophical description, as a caricature of the operation of a totalitarian state. But at the same time, a lot of those elements were all done under Stalin in the Soviet Union. So it's not like it's very different or very far from reality. It's very, very real. The question is about the actual effect it has on the human mind, which I really have to think because torture in this case breaks Winston. In fact, I'd like to believe that many people in the most fundamental ways can't be broken in this way. I've seen science, again, without extensively reading, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen science that shows that torture for the purpose of intelligence gathering is not effective. It's not effective to get accurate information because people will tell you anything really to stop the torture, stop the physical and the mental, the emotional suffering. But I think this book is about the use of torture to completely break your ability to think and to perceive the world. One of the things I talked to Andrew about is whether it's possible to control perception through these kinds of things. And it seems that there is literature that shows it's possible to literally change your perception of the world. Like in this case, in 1984, it's when you're holding up four fingers, can you actually make the person believe that you're holding up five fingers? Not because of some weird illusion or just because your vision is blurry or any of that, but you literally, when you look, I'm holding four fingers and what you see is five fingers. Not because your vision is poor, no. Your visual cortex, the way you're processing that information, something about the processing changes completely your perception. If I tell you there's a straight line, can through incentive or disincentive, can you start seeing like a crooked line or something like that? Anyway, I think that there's literature that supports that, which is, by the way, terrifying. But the thing I'd like to research into more is if that can be long lasting. Is that I just don't believe it can't be. If you're not pushed to your death, yes, maybe perception, maybe your willingness to think, but your ability to think, your actual ability to think independent thoughts, maybe you're terrified. I understand if you're terrified of any more, any more kind of thinking that leads to rebellious thoughts. Like the book mentions, the idea of face crime, where you can reveal your thoughts, the inner workings of your mind, but the subtleties of your expressions in your face. And I think also like Winston O'Brien says, if you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself. So I can understand that. I can understand that. Maybe that is the basic mechanism that torture leads to, that you just learn your body, your mind learns to hide the truth from yourself. The truth from yourself, like you're not, you don't even allow yourself to think it because you know if you think it, it's going to lead to face crime and thought crime, and that's gonna lead to more torture. That's possible, that's possible. But I just can't imagine the capacity for love in the human heart to be extinguished through torture. Finally extinguished, temporarily, yes, but finally, irrecoverably, which I think is the basic claim of the book, that they break. So because through the worst of the torture, Winston gives up Julia, the object of his love. He says that some things like that, the fact that you said, torture her, not me, anything to make this stop, the fact that you said that, the fact that you thought that is a statement, is a thought you can't walk back to yourself. So it's irrecoverable. You just destroyed your faith in love. I don't think so. I think it's possible we have to remember that this is one particular character, this is one particular story. I think there's a lot of people in which the capacity to love cannot be broken, no matter the torture. But that's an interesting scientific question, but it's also a human question. It's just, I think man's search for meaning. There's a lot of books that explore this kinds of question in the worst of conditions that humans had to suffer through. What still persists? What is the source of meaning? And I just think that the flame of love persists through atrocities, through torture, through suffering, through all of it. But the claim of the book that yes, a totalitarian state can use torture to break even that, even that, which leads to the only love you're allowed to have, which is the love for Big Brother. So I think the, practically speaking, from the party perspective, I think the point of O'Brien's torture of Winston was to suffocate the hope in his mind and heart. So there is no hope. By completely destroying the knowledge of what is and isn't true, so being betrayed, and this kind of Goldstein's book about the society, not knowing if that's true, not knowing anything about Julius, basically having no emotional or intellectual ground to stand on. It's very difficult to have a sense of where you are. To have hope, you have to have a sense of where you are and where things could be. And that, and then you also betray yourself. To force you to be a hypocrite on your own deepest feelings of love, I think that basically puts you in a place where there's no hope, there's no point. It's apathy, it's nihilism. And there, a hardworking member of society that is nihilistic is probably what the party wants. Because that human will not rebel. But on the point of hope, I should mention that there's kind of a long-running theory that since the appendix, the appendix is about the details of Newspeak, the language that the party is creating and forcing. Because that appendix was written in the past tense and it's talking about Newspeak in the past tense and it's written in English, so non-Newspeak. That means the party in Newspeak and all of its elements that we see in the story is in the past. That the world from which the book is created has escaped that. And that's a message of hope. That whatever the rebellion against the party, whether it's passionate lust and sex, whether it's love, whether it's the seeking truth in a world full of lies, whatever it is, there's a way out. Again, to me, the way out is love. But that's a hopeful message in this dystopian novel that even these perfectly executed totalitarian states will fall. I took a few random notes here that maybe I'll comment on. I wrote a quote, the masses cannot rebel until they become conscious. That might be either a Winston observation or an O'Brien statement, I'm not sure. But yeah, so you have to think 80% plus are proles of the working class. They have the power if they want it, but they don't want it, they don't want to take it. That's the whole point of the totalitarian state is to break your will for freedom, your desire for freedom. Break your ability to know that you're not free. And that's where all of it, the changing of history, the double think, the thought crime, all of that comes into play. The torture in the ministry of love, all of that is about preventing the populace from becoming conscious. And again, as per the Sells discussion earlier, I wrote down the O'Brien quote, the death of the individual is not death. The party is immortal. And this is just a interesting observation about the operation of a totalitarian state that it's the idea and a kind of amorphous symbol of the messianic figure and big brother is all you need for the party to persist. That person doesn't actually have to exist. Any one individual doesn't have to exist. It's just the division of society into high, middle, and low, and the oppression of the low by the high, by the centralized inner party. That's all you need. And the individual does not matter in that. And again, the way to fight that is to fight for the individual freedoms. Interesting side note is just a quote I wrote down from Julia, I think. If you keep the small rules, you can break the big ones. And so she, in the book, is somebody that follows to the T all the rules of the party. She attends all the committee meetings and all that kind of stuff, and just is like the model citizen from the perspective of the party. And so that allows her to break the big rules like have passionate sex with people, like the really, or fall in love, all the forbidden things. And I think that's actually a good way to exist in the world. I think for a lot of us, there's probably a bunch of things that bother us in the local world around us, in the bigger world. I think you have to pick your battles. You have to not get lost in the muck of small battles. If you want to have at least one or a few big victories in your life that make for a better world. I think at least in my sense, it's easy to get distracted by the little things that bother you in life. And I think staying focused on the big things, again, picking your battles, and staying with that for as long as possible, working your ass off to solve one problem for as long as possible, not giving up against impossible odds, against all the criticism, all of that. That's the way to solve those big problems. And of course, that's not what Julia is talking about, but in a sense, she is also, because in that particular case, a totalitarian state is the problem. And the way to rebel is to plant that seed of rebellion in each of the people she has sex with. That we're human, that we have lust for each other, that we have the ability to love each other. And that is the necessary act of rebellion there. That is the big leap for her, at least, in that kind of society. I should also mention that there's a lot of interpretations of the different, the small and the big things in this book. So it's very possible, in the case of Julia, that Winston was played, he was set up with Julia. He was set up to feel all those things. He was set up to have that little secret cove where he can write on his desk in the diary and dream of rebelling against the state, dream of the brotherhood. It's unclear to me why an oppressive state would want people to have that little journey of desiring freedom in all its manifestations. I'm not sure. But maybe O'Brien's statement that the purpose of torture is torture, hold some wisdom. That to attain absolute power, you also have to have a willingness and a mechanism to attain absolute suffering in the populace. And maybe this is a way to maximize suffering. It's to give them hope before you crush it. Again, the way out to me, and the takeaway from this book, the way out is love. Perhaps this is a good place to also mention a little bit of a fun little controversy that evolved over Twitter. So I posted a reading list quickly before heading off to a New Year's party of books that I hope to read in 2023. And these are based on books that I asked people to vote on and these are the ones, many of the ones they selected. And they happen to be many of the books I've read many times throughout my life and really enjoyed. And they were like old friends that I love visiting and revisiting. And every time I read them, I get something new and they're just read different throughout life. You know, the way in my teens, when I read The Stranger by Camus, very different than it was in my 20s and different than my 30s. I would say my favorite book now by Camus is probably The Plague and all of that has evolved. With Dostoevsky, I read The Idiot several times. I read Brothers Karamazov, both in English and Russian, Notes from Underground. I mean, I love Dostoevsky. And a lot of these books are just, yes, they're classics, but they're also deeply profound. And they move me on a intellectual level, but also just as a human being, they're like travel companions. They're like old friends, old to dead friends. So yeah, so I wanted to celebrate my love for books. And it was very strange to me that, and if I'm just being honest for a second, it was kind of painful that some prominent figures that I respect were kind of cruel about the list and they responded, they mocked it and all that kind of stuff. And basically taking the worst possible interpretation. And I have to be honest and say it was, it wasn't fun. Because it was just a silly kid, me, kind of in a joyful New Year's mood, sharing with the world books I love. And I think what was happening, and this seems to be happening a bit more, is there's a bunch of people that are just almost waiting or hoping that I fail, or maybe that I'm some kind of bad human being and they're looking, they're trying to discover things about me that reveal that I'm a bad human being. And maybe somehow this reading list reveals that, I don't know. I don't know. So one criticism was that everybody read these books in school and they're basic. I think my response to that criticism is no. First of all, most people have not read them in school. Maybe they read Cliff Notes and they're not basic. They're deeply profound, some of the greatest words ever written. But also, I don't think I've ever gotten a lot from books I was forced to read in school when I had to read them for an assignment. Some of these books I think I read in school, but most of them not. But it's only when I read them outside of school, on my own volition, that I really gained a lot from it. And especially throughout my life, regular times, as a teenager, in my 20s and in my 30s. So no, these books are profound and deserve returning to. And like I said, they're old friends that give me a lot of meaning every time I return to revisit the ideas and give me a new perspective on life. Another criticism was very kind of nitpicky. And the list was put together really quickly. And the goal, I like setting tough goals. The goal is to read a book a week. And on one week I had Little Prince, followed by Brothers Karamazov. And people criticized that, how can you possibly read Brothers Karamazov in one week? Maybe I won't. Maybe I'll fail miserably. But I love trying. But that wasn't actually the goal. I should have said, I intend to finish reading it by the end of that week. So you start earlier. Because Little Prince takes an hour or two to read. And then Brothers Karamazov, I can have the two weeks. It should take about 30, 40, 50 hours to read it. That said, friends, I've read it already in English and in Russian. I'm interviewing the world famous, I would say amazing translators of Brothers Karamazov, of Dostoevsky, of Tolstoy, Richard Perverin, Larissa Volkonsky, probably across multiple days. So this book means a lot to me. I'm not somebody just kind of rolling in, what are the cool kids reading these days? These books have been lifelong companions to me. And the fact that people just want to stomp on that, and a large number of people did, people I respect. Yeah, I'll be lying if I said it wasn't, it didn't suck a bit. But anyway, the love for reading persists. I have to say after that, I was very hesitant to even make this particular video on Orwell in 1984. And I'm not sure I want to be public with my reading after this. And I know a lot of people will say, no, we're here with you, we're very supportive, and I love you, I mean, I meet so many incredible people. But the reality is it does suck to be vulnerable and share something with the world and receive that kind of mockery at scale. So I will definitely, I will not be affected or broken by any of that kind of stuff for something that's actually meaningful, like the conversations of some of the very difficult conversations I'm going to do. But a silly side hobby thing of reading that I do throughout my life, for that to be a source of mockery, I'm just gonna do that privately. So I'm a little torn on that, and I'll try to figure out a way. Also, I should say that that list, like a lot of things, is kind of aspirational, because if I take a job at a tech company, or if I start a tech company, or if I have to travel across, I have to travel for extremely difficult conversations and really have to prepare for them, all that kind of stuff. I think that's going to affect my ability to both read and enjoy reading, which I think is a prerequisite for this kind of reading. But in general, what I do is I read about one hour a day of Kindle, so on the sort of in my eyes physical device. And depending on the workout I do and the chores I have, it's going to be about two hours of audiobooks. So most of the things I do during chores is audiobooks. And when I run, and I usually run about 10 to 15 miles, so you're talking about, I often run over two hours. It's like a slow pace. Like when the days are not insane, it gives me a chance to think, it gives me a chance to listen to audiobooks. So I love that process. It's an escape for the world, a chance for me to collect my thoughts. And yeah, it's again, a source of happiness and joy, and I wanted to share that. And I think you can get quite a lot of reading done through that process, especially if it's a book you've read before. It is very challenging to do this kind of takeaway video or to concretize your thoughts down on paper, especially when you have to present them in this kind of way. I'm not sure I'm going to do that much because it's an extra bit of effort, but it's also a chance to share that joy with the world, so to find cool people that also enjoy it. So it's a trade off. Anyway, it's just a temporary thing, but it did suck for a short amount of time, for a few hours, for a couple of days. But in general, I'll persist with my love of reading, but I might not talk about it publicly as much. But again, let me sort of emphasize that this kind of response and mockery will not affect anything of importance that I do. I always, I try to read comments, I try to see criticism, I really value, especially high effort criticism. I try to grow and constantly try to improve. But that's for things that I take very seriously, like the podcast conversations that I do. But for silly things like book lists, Spotify music playlists, the food I like to eat, I don't know, what else? Anything, any fun side thing, it's not that important. If it's something that others don't enjoy, then whatever. I'll enjoy them probably with my friends locally here, or the people I meet. So anyway, I love reading, I love reading classics, I love returning to old friends in book form and making new ones. There's a bunch of science fiction that I embarrassingly have not read and would love to, because those worlds are so meaningful to so many of the people I'm friends with that I can't wait to visit those worlds and sort of make new friends in the form of books. So definitely the love for books, the love for reading persists, and if you share in that love, that's beautiful. So thank you for joining me on this journey. Thank you for watching this silly little video, and I hope to see you next time. Love you all.

https://youtu.be/7Sk6lTLSZcA

4AWLcxTGZPA

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Kanye 'Ye' West Interview | Lex Fridman Podcast #332

The following is a conversation with Ye, the legendary artist, producer, and designer formerly known as Kanye West, on this The Lex Friedman Podcast. Based off of our connection and just you being a friend, I need to show you my two tech companies and get your perspective on it. Because now I have friends that can give a perspective. Like, when I would work on albums, I had other friends that worked on albums and they would give me their perspectives on it. You want to do this? We are doing it. This is part of it. This is part of it? Absolutely. All right, beautiful. Oh, well, I wanted to finish. The thing is, okay, you're going to ask me different questions, but I'm about growing and building and bringing the idea to life. So when I see you, I say, oh, this guy understands how to hire engineers. Where I'm coming from, coming from Hollywood, coming from press, coming from media, all of the guys, you know, that so many of the guys that have been like voices and faces and talking heads, whatever, have not understood how to engineer product. And that's the reason why I was able to jump past everyone in the entertainment field and become, you know, whatever the net worth is, 11 billion. I'm going to stop putting the whole black thing on my worth. Like, let's just see where I am on the scale of life, because that's a cop out for me to say, richest black guy of all time, because that's feeding into the same, you know, trauma economy that Black Lives Matter feeds into. That's why I love and respect engineers. That's the only thing that we really need to teach in school is engineering. We don't need to teach history. We don't need to teach anything that is subjective. It needs to only be engineering taught in school and everything else needs to be recess. Nothing at all, any force subjective information is just to weaken and indoctrinate our species. And that's what schools do now. As an engineer, I love hearing you say that, but to push back history is not the interpretation of history might be subjective, but history has some facts and they're useful to give a grounding to the way you do engineering. I don't 100% believe in anything, any concept of the future or any concept of history, because history was just written by the victors. So if I see stuff happen on the day that later that day is reported wrong, so how wrong is something reported a thousand years ago? And why would we argue about something that's not in the now? Because that's the only thing that everyone can agree upon is that it is now, right now. Yeah, well you try not to make the mistakes of the past. That's the usefulness of history, the limited usefulness of history. The biggest mistake from the past that we keep making is looking at the past. Too much, giving too much value to the past. Too much value to the past, we are now. We are now, we are here, we are one species, we are one race, we're here, and it's time. And the leadership is changing because you have Elon as a leader, Ye as a leader, and we are the top leaders. We're more influential than the presidents. So you're a human being with engineering challenges before you, with the stem player, with parlor. What's the hardest thing in front of you on the engineering front? That's the first sentence that any of our species needs to hear when they're born. You are a human being with engineering challenges, and I consider challenges to be opportunities in front of you. Literally, like, let me see a piece of paper, I need to write that down. That's the beginning of our new species constitution. I'm gonna do the paper like this wide, put it in widescreen. This, this for Ridley. You are, no, let me like, you are a being with with engineering opportunities or challenges opportunities. I'm sorry, I don't spell as good as John Legend. Opportunities in before you. I like the before because it can mean, actually can mean forward or before you. This right here, I've always said I'm the top five writer in human existence, but this, like, this right here is pushing me to like number four or number three. It's a good one. Because who would you say is the top, it's top writer in human existence, we know who it is. That's subjective. Who's that? It's factual though. Who's that? It's like, okay, who's the top person in tech history? It's not subjective. Wow. There's a non-subjective answer to both of those. Both of those people have influence 30% of our existence. So the influence is the main metric of greatness. Okay, one person, 30% of our language was, the English language was written by them. The other person, 30% of the products we use was led by them. So it's obvious. 30% of our language was written by Shakespeare. And it was- And then the product, product, product, product. Look, look. Steve Jobs. Yeah. You put Steve above like Elon's of the world? Because Steve is a designer, not, he's a designer and engineer, but he's a design, he's a visionary in the design space. Well, I would lean to him because I'm not an engineer, right? So I'm more like- Then you're an engineer. If Steve is an engineer, you're an engineer. Essentially. He's a cultural engineer. Like the people who run the emotions of the world and run the world off of people's emotions right now are social engineers. And social engineering is so important, like, like, city design. There's a fancier word for that. But I was, I was in Oxnard last night to see Anthony Jeselnik. And I gotta find out what his opening joke was because I'm doing interviews and I'm thinking I'm funny. And I like that he said, he just kept on saying 20 year anniversary, I've been doing this for 20 years. And his opening joke was so high level, I realized that I wasn't funny. I realized that this dude is a professional at what he does. And so many things are subjective. I always talk about this. It's like, you know, people are arguing like, is Emily Ratajkowski the hottest, you know, person? And I'm like, that's such a subjective thing. But like, if you go and shoot three pointers with Steph Curry, it's not subjective. Right? Or if you go and compare bank accounts with Elon, it's not subjective. And another thing that's not subjective, porn. What about it? Dick size. It's not subjective. You can measure. But porn is more about more than just dick size and greatness is more than the size of the bank account, right? So there's a subjective- But greatness is subjective though. Right. So do you care about the stuff that's objective or subjective more? Because greatness to me is what matters. The bank account comes and goes. The impact on our society, like you said, social engineering, the impact on the collective intelligence of our species, that what permeates throughout the rest of time. I like what you said. The impact... I'm taking notes. How did you say? On the collective intelligence of our species. The impact on the collective intelligence. When Ye is writing down the words that came out of my dumb mouth, I have made it in life. There's a lot of people that have kind of like sat through, I wanted to wear a different color hoodie because I was just tired of saying this hoodie in all the interviews. And there's a lot of kids that are with me. They see what I'm saying. And they had to sit through all of the muck of all the previous interviews to get to this. Every interview has been just an emotional... It's just been an argument up to this point. This is the next frontier of where our species is gonna head. It starts here. It starts with you, Lex. So this is the first time I heard you say the word engineering at least so many times, which I love hearing. So this is where you're at. You're like that newborn. You're a being with engineering opportunities. Yeah. And we're all a newborn, because in Christianity we say born again. We're all newborns. And everyone can... Everyone shall, I like the word can. The only thing about shall is it kind of dictates and can kind of lets people off the hook. So I haven't found the perfect post-Shakespeare and post-Steve Jobs and post-Elon and post-Ye and post-Drake way to communicate this. But we update. And we do. And what the current media structure... No, it's not actually nothing that's holding us... There's nothing actually holding us back because I'm still alive. I'm still alive. They could have killed me at George Bush don't care about Black people. They could have killed me at Beyoncé had the best video, but we're here now. So we just keep on leaning and leaning and leaning. And there's these things where I just think about, there'll be times when I'm at war. And every now and then when the bomb stopped going off and all the headlines and the smearing and all that stopped going off, I think about my family. And I'll think about Kim. And I'll think about how King Koopa has her in the castle right now. And just on Mario Brothers, you know how it is. You go for the princess and you get to this level and it's like, I sung the song wrong, right? And then they take the princess again. Which one are you, Mario? Yeah. What's your favorite thing, the thing you love the most about Kim from a Mario perspective and the princess? Looking back, was there a moment- She's definitely my favorite of all time. Yeah. Was there a moment that catches you off guard and you say, I love this human being? Yeah. I mean, it's just the DNA is like, she's a mix of Rob and Chris. Can you explain? I mean, that's a really high pool right there. Those are like two geniuses. So, okay. So the entire history of evolution of the human species created this DNA, they created this being, there's a life there, there's a set of memories and a history that brought you together and then you're like, damn, I like this DNA. Yeah. Certain people have just like high DNA. Ivanka Trump has high DNA. How's your DNA? Pretty good? I think we've seen that. It's been proven. I mean, but look at my mom and look at my dad. Me and my dad have a water purification center in the DR right now. And my dad is the original Steve Jobs and he was blocked by people around him and people were using him and taking advantage and not believing in his vision. My dad's the educated version of Ye. What'd you learn about life from your dad? My dad got girls too. But those are small details. That's a big detail being that I found my dad's Playboy when I was five years old, it greatly affected my motivation. Yeah. Okay. So that's part of the engine that drives Ye. Absolutely. I remember when Pharrell was first in all the videos and my girl was like, girls like Pharrell. And I was like, I want girls to like me too. Funny that that's behind all the ambition, all the drive. It's how we make people. It's how people are made. It's the desire to be loved. Is that at the individual level, just being noticed and also at the societal level of scale? Well, now I've gone past, I'm like at that place where Nikolai Tesla was later into his career where it wasn't about being loved. It wasn't about sitting at the dinner parties next to Anna Wintour and stuff. It was about getting the idea across. So I have these cells that are very, and I just keep on saying Ridley Scott, but Ridley Scott has a special anointing. It isn't just sci-fi what he's doing. There's something in there, just like George Lucas. There's something different that's there. So- What are you drawing? I'm drawing these new living cells that we will exist in. And this is over, okay, let's do like, I don't like talking about money because man made money up anyway. It's like four quadrillion respected dollars. And then you have other forms of currency. Of course, social currency is super important right now, but this is a drawing and it's at a pretty good place now. This will be 40,000 square feet. I want to start just talking in meters. I just think we should go to anything to restore the Tower of Basel. Like they said when the, I'm just drawing a person here for scale. Yeah, that would help. Okay. What do you think of that? Look at my person, see the scale in this room? All right, so- Wait, the dot is the person? Yeah. I'm saying it's 40,000 square feet, but that would be like- What are the other parts of the cell? Okay. So it's a screen. It doesn't go all the way to the top and it's one hole for light, but the water and the light and air all come in from the top. So that's like the mouth. And then this is the belly button. We're God's iPhone. We're his greatest creation. So this is all connected? These are all connected? Yeah. So I'm drawing how these other cells go next to each other. What's the vision here? Happiness. Then we talk about like, what's the motivation? Like, yeah, there's a motivation somewhere in the back of my mind of my family. And if it's like where Moses smithed the rock and God didn't allow him to get to the promised land, because the promised land is family. That is heaven on earth is family. Family is heaven. That's the promised land. And for your family to be together. So say I smithed the rock and God doesn't let me have my family back. My mission in life is still to promote families at all costs and make family's existence easier. So you take this thing, you put a localized farm, say if it's in community, that we do localized growing. And then we partner with big farmer and say, Hey, you're actually going to make more money by making better food. Because at the end of the day, you want money right now. It's like, everyone knows that between the pesticides and between the medical industry, especially America, that we're keeping people sick. And we know that McDonald's makes food that kills people and Coca-Cola selling sugar water and all this like, just in case I haven't pissed off enough people in power. Okay. So you're going to piss off the sugar, anybody that's powered on sugar. Well, sugar, what's the health was actually a documentary on sugar. It wasn't about how bad meat was. It was like a reverse documentary on sugar. I don't know if you call it a reverse, like a sub, but if you watch it again, when they show sugar and it's just, the sugar looks super clean. Yeah. So as I state these things, I know that I have protection. I have God's protection. That's why I'm here to this date. Right. So it's for me to have this platform and express exactly what I feel because it's kids out there, right. That it's kids that are going to save the world through engineering and through facts. And I've got to get download as much of the information and as much of the, don't be afraid to state your facts is the biggest thing because the world is being ran by fear. And that is no, actually God runs the world, but there's just like little cloud, this patina of our ego that deals with the money and the car and the girl we're dating and all this in the clothes you wear and spending too much on clothes and a lot of stuff that I've been involved with promoting. So now what I'm promoting is you have the idea, you say it out loud. Like if you had Tourette's, say your truth out loud. If you hate, yay, you hate me, say that out loud. Say whatever you feel out loud. Like you say it non-violently, you know, non-violent, non-violent. I have to say that like as, you know, as a shout out to Alex Jones, you know, and Trump, where they try to say that when they say their truths out loud, that it's inciting violence. So let's be like really clear. I'm saying that they have criminalized free thought. The, you know, they, I hate when people use they, like they gets the blame for everything, right? It's always they. Who the fuck is they? Exactly. The problem is they is us. Yeah. Well, I love that. What we needed to do is turn I to we. So we take the responsibility and turn they to us. So we take accountability to us. They, I to we and they to us. And that relates, it's a language at the same time. You're seeing the language of our surroundings. You're seeing the language of, one of the things, okay, let's go back to the cell explanation because I'm also doing a, what's that thing when Elon just put all the information open and people could figure out, they could figure it out and open source. Yeah, open source. So I'm open sourcing this idea right now so that, you know, engineers and anointed people, beings, anointed beings can collectively contribute to this, to push our species forward. So where I've got to with my research is that there will be a hole at the top that allows natural light, natural air, and there's a constant water system. So it becomes like a water city where it's a constant flow that's not, it's regenerative. It's not wasting the water and it's just a constant flow. So I put the toilet really close to where this, I don't want to call it a wave pool, but in the pool, the water is not still. So that exists in water, surrounded by water. Well, the living room is, you have two rooms. You have the dry room, which people have called a living room before, and then you have the wet room. How is that a source of happiness? What is broken about our world today that that gives you in terms of the pursuit of happiness, which is one of the things in the previous declaration of independence? All of our buildings are based on just the industry and the economy. And then people lean into what people are used to seeing, like what we think is attractive, because then you go back to the women who give life. So everyone wants to be attractive to the attractive. And that's the reason why the media goes and gets Bella Hadid, Kim Kardashian, Emily Ratajkowski. Those are the only ones I'm going to... There's more? There's more, but I'm thinking of ones that I think are attractive. Yeah, it is subjective. Yeah, because it's subjective. So to my subjective, which I think the only guys that can argue with me on my opinion on girls would be Brad and Leo, because we're the only ones with the track record, you know? Everything else. So for everybody else, it's subjective. We've got history. Are you happy? Absolutely. I'm just here. It's actually... It's difficult to make me unhappy. Now, I could deal with frustrations, but when those frustrations are, it's like when you've allowed people to be in your life that shouldn't be there, and then they do the thing you knew they were going to do, and you're screaming at them, but you really need to scream at yourself. Yeah, so you realize anything that's like anger or frustration, that's something that's wrong with you that needs to be dealt with. Yes. Like right now, okay, say I got this pattern cutter that I wanted to remove because I felt like she was copying our patterns into the computer, and I didn't know why she wanted to do that, and I just wanted to do the patterns by hand. And then, you know... You mean like automating the patterns? Is that what you mean? Yeah. Am I ahead of it? Because they just... That's the whole thing. It's like... It's a war of human beings and robots. Yeah, but that makes it more efficient, right? You don't like the efficiency. You like the creativity of the singular nature of the pattern. I believe that the human beings... And I'm saying this to you as a person who makes robots and a person who's friends with Elon. I'm deeply offended right now. Yeah. But I'll let it go. It's good. Okay. So, yeah, I believe that the... Yeah, he hates robots. I'm not going to put that out there. It's a joke. Robots have feelings too. Yeah, yeah, that's right. That was also a joke. We need to clarify that for future robots. But the pattern cutter, you don't like that. That had to be... You can't have that part of your life. That's not what I'm... Everything that I'm doing is for the sake of the human race. There's things in capitalism. There's things in technology. And technology and original human species can exist in a peaceful way. As long as the people that know how to make robots aren't using their robots to control the humans. Lex? Definitely something you have to be concerned about as we become more technologically savvy. That, my friend, is why engineering isn't everything. That you have to desperately study the lessons of history. In Nazi Germany, science was used to create atrocities. Engineering, the same. Engineering could be a tool of war. We're still in the Holocaust. A Jewish friend of mine said, Oh, come go visit the Holocaust Museum. And my response was, Let's visit our Holocaust Museum, Planned Parenthood. With all due respect, I grew up in the Soviet Union. I'm Jewish. Parts of my family perished in the Holocaust of Nazi Germany. I have to push back that there is a difference of the atrocities at that scale, at that time, on an entire people. I was going to say the number. That's the difference. It's not the number. Because six million, well, also African Americans are actually Jew also. The lost tribe of Israel. I can push back on that too. Okay, so everyone came from Africa. I am African. I'm basically African American. We're brothers. And we're both Jew. And we're brothers. We're human. Six million people died in the Holocaust. Over 20 million have died by the hands of abortion. And the media promotes the My Body, My Choice, which is actually still a promotion for Planned Parenthood. 50% of black deaths a year is actually abortion. It's not the cop with the knee. It's not black-on-black violence and gang violence. It's not heart attacks. It's actually abortion. The most dangerous place for a black person in America is in their mother's stomach. There's 900 to a million abortions in the United States a year. I hear you. But there's something about the rape, the torture, the murder of children, women, men, and the complete humiliation and just the suffering that was endured during World War II. That's what we deal with on our TVs right now with black people. Soros would use black trauma economy to win an election. What I love is having a healthy conversation. And as opposed to the certain things, you know, boom, this drops, people are going to have pussy hats on. Boom, this drops, it's going to be, you know, black people and white people with signs. Boom, this drops. So, hey, China, hey, left agenda, hey, what we're going to do is say that our species can have a healthy conversation. Can I just linger on this? Because when you say Jewish media, there's an echo of a pain that people feel that reminds... You're saying it's redundant, right? No, I'm not saying it's redundant. I'm saying it's redundant. You're saying it's redundant. It's a redundant statement. I'm saying that it's something that Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Nazi Germany said. I'm saying it's been said so many times in order to murder and torture Jewish people that it just rings wrong. Just like the N word when spoken by people that have the same skin color as me, it reminds people of a very dark time. I know. If Jewish people would accept that I'm Jew, then they would see what I'm saying in a different way. They would hear it in a different way. But see, the people, you saying you're Jewish, that... No, I'm Jew, not Jewish. Jewish means like that of a Jew. I'm saying I'm Jew. You're Jew. Blood of Christ, Orthodox Christian. Right. But are you a follower of the philosophy of the black Hebrew Israelites? Because that's where the idea comes from. Not all of those folks are extremists, but some are extremists. I'm a follower of the idea, I have a vague idea that all people came from Africa. But what I wanted to do... Yeah. Now, okay. Now, I could Andy Kaufman this about seven more minutes, and then tell you what it is, what the whole point is. Should I count? Let's count. Seven minutes. No. Oh, do less. I did this to do a spoiler alert. Sure, spoiler. What's the first thing I said at the beginning? We're talking about engineering and humans. We're all human. And I said, and then what did I say we shouldn't focus on? Race. Not just that. I said they shouldn't teach this in school. History. The history, because what they do, what schools are doing is exactly what the CIA does with Pixar films and Disney films. They make Bambi's mom die in the beginning, right? And off that pain comes a purchase of ice cream. Off that pain comes, I need some more toys. Off that pain comes, I need a bigger house. Off that pain comes, I need more girls than my wife. Off that pain comes. So they put that pain in to make us, now we're the orphans of capitalism, to make us be consumers. And we need to be a community, not just consumers. So I could have went another seven minutes by being a person who presents himself in a way that says, well, I don't have to feel your pain because I also have pain too that's not being recognized. And in every interview, when I say, well, why did I get to the point of putting up the tweet? No one wants to understand why I got to that point, right? You had pain. You had pain. Yeah, but no one- Pain in your heart. But let's say this. Undoubtedly, Jewish people have a lot of movies about that pain, and Black people have a lot of movies about the pain of slavery, right? It's almost impossible to find a movie about Mansa Munsa. When you go to the African History Museum in Washington, D.C., it doesn't start with the idea of Africans being kings. It starts with the idea of Africans being slaves. But here's another interesting point about this. This was said to me one time, and it stuck with me as a family member of mine. With Africans, how many times have you heard a rapper talk about, we were kings? That's incorrect if we're Jew. If we're Jew, and since we are, we weren't the kings. We were the slaves that Moses freed. Africans have always said, we've heard, you've listened to rap music and hear Black people say, we kings, we blood of the pharaohs. And if we are Jew, then we weren't. We were the people that Moses freed. And when we talk about, have you heard Black people talk about 400 years of slavery? All right, that is, and we're having this history lesson, right? History doesn't matter. You're exploring ancient history and drawing deep wisdom from it. And at the same time saying, we need to forget all of it. We need to put that behind us. Absolutely. We need to forget it and we need to move forward. There is so much wisdom to draw from history, even the 20th century. Look at this, communism. Without the lessons of history of the 20th century, communism sounds like a great idea. Except that some of the worst atrocities conducted by the communist regime conducted by Stalin and Mao that killed 50, 100 plus million people, not just killed, tortured, starvation, where people, cannibalism, they ate each other. They ate their children. There's just dark, people should read some books on this, on the Holland Amour, 1930s. I disagree. With that lesson, we would, and now it's becoming more popular, Marxism and communism. I'm not disagreeing that that happened. I'm disagreeing that we need to harp on the things that happened because the truth is, I'm giving a fact, 50% today of, let's say, you don't call black people Jew, right? Black people's deaths today is abortion today, right now. Like that, it's not racism. That's too wide of a term. It's genocide and population control that black people are in today in America that is promoted by the music and the media that black people make that Jewish record labels get paid off of, or media companies, record labels and media company also, so let's give it a wider, you know. I agree with Martin Luther King. I have a dream too. Martin Luther King was- That one day you would not be judged by the color of your skin or your race, black or Jew, but by the content of your character. All the assholes that fucked you over in the music industry, fuck artists over in the music industry are individuals. They're not Jews. Can you say- They are Jewish. It doesn't, they're human with opportunities and they took those opportunities. I don't care if they're Jewish or Jew- Do you feel like I should release that pain and separate it? Yes. Okay, so if that, okay, so if you're saying I should release that pain and separate it, then I'm telling you, you should release your pain and separate it and we could get to this, the list of how you are being with engineering opportunities. That's 100%. I see what you're doing, that exactly you're doing. The pain, I'm going to let it go. Engineering challenges, I get it. One of the problems you highlight is people get fucked over in the music industry and get fucked over in the media, get fucked over all over the place. They created, there was a Jewish trainer that brought me to the hospital and put in press that I went to the hospital. I know friends that off of exhaustion, a Jewish doctor that diagnosed me- Why do you keep saying Jewish? Because they were, right? Diagnosed me with bipolar disorder and shot me with medication and put me on medication, then put it in the press. And every time, even if I wore the wrong color hat that a nigger is not supposed to wear, right? Then they immediately say, he's off of his shit, he's off his meds, he's off his rocker. And it's literally used as a scarlet letter control mechanism for the- People understand, the kids, the colleges, the high schools, what do you think they put me right now? They put me as the prophet, not the leader. It doesn't have to be the leader, right? Because we need a more intelligent person to be the leader, but at least, right? They put me as the prophet. They put me as the only person that would say this. And I'm just saying, that was four Jewish members that controlled my voice because for the fact that 90% of Black people in entertainment, from sports to music to acting, are in some way tied into Jewish business people. Meaning that in some way, just like if Rahm is sitting next to Obama or Jared's sitting next to Trump, there's a Jewish person right there controlling the country, the Jewish controlling who gets the best video or not, controlling what the media says about me. There's a person, not Jewish. Let me just say one thing- But they are, though. That's the only thing. It just so happens that they are. It just happens that they are. That doesn't mean that I hate them. That just means that they are. But it's a dog whistle, too. Let me just say, as I would love to add more love to the world, I would love you to do that as a person with a big voice, with a big powerful voice that a lot of people look up to. And when you say Jewish media, it's funny how this world works that way. When you say Jewish media or Jews are controlling the voice of Black artists, Black people, Black artists, when you say that- Am I not allowed to say it out loud? You can say it. There's a large number of people that are hurting and have anger and even have hate in their heart when they hear Jewish media, that hate starts being directed towards the Jewish people. Do you acknowledge that? Do you understand? Can you feel the hate in the world that comes to the surface when you say stuff like that? Okay. I feel that when we go into therapy- My dad was a therapist. And obviously I've got some therapy skills myself. A lot of people, my music is healing. These type of spa-like existences are healing. The color palettes I use are healing. And we can use healing words, right? What I really feel, I feel that there's no accountability and no responsibility on Jewish people in media to at least start with owning up with the facts of what's dealt with and tell me if I say the facts out loud, to the point of Ari Emanuel writing a letter in the Financial Times trying to take food out of my children's mouth, telling people that they're not allowed to work with me. Even Chris Acomo or Piers Morgan getting me to apologize and separate Jewish business people from the families of the Jewish business people, which I did. Update. I did that. That already happened. And the way I- That was a shitty apology. That wasn't really an apology. But shout out for that conversation. Piers, great conversation. I need to get on my knees and kiss the dick of Howard Stern and- You don't need to kiss anyone's dick. But that's what you guys are acting like. You guys, look at that. Because you're talking about it as a shitty opinion apology. But where's our fucking apology? Watch this. Sorry. We don't get- Thank you. Now, let's move on. Sorry. Oh, do I need to get on my knees or no? And kiss my dick. Oh, shit. So- This escalated quickly. So that's escalated quickly. So the- So what- No, I'm saying where's our apology? But we can't get to apology because you're telling me there's no right way for me to word it. So tell me, for me, a person who's been fucked on my deals and a person that has friends that never figured out how to make shoes with a German company that couldn't tell me to wear a BLM shirt and take off my red hat like what would have happened if I was at Nike, right? Tell me exactly how to engineer the situation I'm in. I'll tell you exactly how. You got a big voice. Have the balls as a man to call out the individuals. Don't call them Jews. Call them by their name and start a war against those individuals. They're not Jewish. But if that's the case, will you help me with that? Sure. Okay. 100%. Assholes are ass- Well, let me flip that, too. I don't understand the industry well. I see that people are fucking people over for sure. But how do you solve that? If you right now run the world's, you're doing a million things, but say you ran also a record label. I have ran a record label. Well, I've been ran by a record label where I was the face of a record label and had Big Sean and different people complaining to me, and I knew fuck about running a record label. I was simply just a talented producer and an influencer that then started Good Music, but I wasn't the one running Good Music. How would you do it differently? This is something I propose. I would look at the top 10 execs in three fields, in sports, film, and music. And I would look at the top 10 clients, participant talent. I would look at the top talent in each of those fields, the top 10 of them. And some of them are going to be Tom Brady. Some of them are going to be Taylor Swift. Some of them, they're not all going to be black, right? Some of them. So some of them will be Adele, right? And we'll look at all their contracts transparently, and we'll compare the notes and re-engineer like it's a new constitution. Because when I told my dad when I was 19 that I was going to get into the music industry, he begged me not to. He said, I heard it's treacherous. Now I'm in a position where I've been through it. I saw it. I went out, made some money somewhere else. I saw my name get smeared. I saw my family get destroyed. I saw my reputation get destroyed. And I'm back here to have this kind of—I'm back here as a being with engineering opportunities. So— Wait a second. If you say it's a shitty apology, what is the version of the apology short of kissing Howard Stern's dick? I don't think anyone wants to kiss Howard Stern's dick. That's the whole point, Howard Stern. Nobody wants to kiss your dick, so shut the fuck up. I said—by the way, I'm antagonizing you, Howard Stern. I used to be a fan of you. Yeah, me too. Yeah. I'm still a fan sometimes. Now you're just doing clickbait like everybody else. Now you're just a sad old man, Howard. All right. Now, Howard Stern, this is the first time anyone's said your name in years. Your own family doesn't say your name unless they're calling to get their bills paid. You're going hard. I'm just kidding. See, that's beautiful right there. That's much better than calling Jewish media. Go after individuals. Okay, so— Go after individuals. If you don't talk shit about me, talk shit about me. This is great. And you know what that is? Yeah, what's that? Engineering. That's an engineer's approach. Yeah, engineers. Yeah. Yeah, you should learn some of that. Yeah. We all can use our pain against each other, or we can say we're a being with engineering opportunities, and we can know about history. So let me change something. We could have a—just to be judgmental. People say, thou shalt not judge. I was talking to Camille Vasquez. She says, I'm very judgmental. That's what we're doing. I believe—now you could go to Bible, and one thing's going to say one thing, another thing may be contradicted in a way, and then the pastor has to unpack it. I believe that we are to judge. If you look at some food and it's got a fly coming out of it, you can then judge at that point. You're supposed to use your better judgment. But whenever someone doesn't want to change something they're doing, they'll say, don't judge me, right? But as a species, you called for me, you got the breakthrough. And by the way, it's only an engineer that I would respect to tell me of how to update how I'm communicating. Because this started off, right? I've been through all these interviews. Let me go to this. You said this was a sorry apology. I was very specific. I said the Jewish—because by the way, it's a barrage, right? It's a thing where I don't even remember the names at a certain point, right? It's like if a girl was getting raped by men, if that person's not 18, right, and she was getting raped since 14, right, and she still got this face, this super like Irina Shayk level face, right? She might say, I hate men. That woman may say, I hate men. She might get to that point because she was raped. On my contracts, and no one can say this is ramped up. No one, Howard Stern can't say this is ramped up. Ari Emanuel can't say this is ramped up. George Soros knows damn well that I'm not ramped up. George Soros knows like, wow, this guy's like a younger guy that's looking at what I did and looking at how I control the world silently. And he's calling it out and he's not using any of the fear tactics. I can't send his homeboys around him. I can't send his wife to him. This guy, that's what George Soros sees, right, when he's dealing with me, right? So what you guys are actually asking me to do, I'm comparing myself to that 18 year old beautiful woman that had been mistreated by men for four years of her life, right? And you're saying, as a man, you can't blame all men. And I'm saying, as a responsible forward philosopher leader, okay, I'll drop the pain. And I will specify because I'm a peer. I lost my fucking family. I lost my kids. I lost my best friend in fashion. I lost the black community. I lost, you know, people said I lost my mind, all of these things, lost my reputation. And I'm a peer just like, I just want my family, but I don't want my family to have to say what the left wants us to say, to have to say what China wants us to say. I want to be an American and protect my kids and protect my wife and raise my kids as Christians and have my wife be a Christian and innovate and America may rock and roll. I want to innovate as a creative person and be a successful American, but all of that had been taken away from me. So I'm coming back and I'm removing the PSTD right now, right? I'm standing up and saying the only way that we're going to be able to get past this and the way God is going to use me right now is for me to stop talking about the pain, stop talking about the pain, stop talking about what happened and do something about it. And that's where I'm at right now in this moment. Like, yeah, people agree. At least there was something where you could say, he has a reason of why he got to that tweet. And what you're doing for me today is saying, yo, that was a sorry apology and let's specify. I'm not asking for anyone out here to empathize or sympathize for a dude worth $11 billion that can make money appear out of thin air in five different industries. I'm not asking for anybody to sympathize with someone who's married to Kim Kardashian, dated Irina Shayk. I feel like I'm just not going to get the sympathy vote in this situation, right? I feel your pain. I feel your pain, yeah. I feel like no one's going to feel my pain. Only Brad and Leo can feel my pain. Right. So the— So— But still— But here today, when you said it's a sorry apology, what's the apology that you're looking for as a Jewish engineer? Or let's say, as Lex, let's not talk about you being Jewish. As Lex, what's the apology that you want me to say to—am I allowed to say Jewish? Tell me, is it anti-Semitic for Ye to say Jewish out loud? No, there's—I don't like the aloud that presumes censorship. I think you choose— Do we feel— You have a powerful voice. Did I prove that there was censorship over the past two weeks? I proved it. Who censored you? Oh, Drink Champs. Who's—oh my lord. Sorry. Oh, like Twitter and so on? Twitter. That has less to do— Drink Champs. That hurt you, the Drink Champs? That no one took it down? Took down your conversation? No. It didn't hurt you? Man, you gotta be honest about the pain. I feel kind of free with still the kids we used to be. I put my hand on the stove to see if I still bleed. And nothing hurts anymore. I feel kind of free. No, do you think— You know, I went to Japan for two to three months, right? The day I had Sunday service, my kids are supposed to be there, and my kids were nowhere to be found. And I text Kim and said, where are my kids? We get into an argument, and then I get a text from a number I don't know, and it's Pete Davidson bragging about being in bed with my wife. Then— Just fucking with you? Well, at that point, it's like they're trying to put me in jail, or put a friend of mine in jail. Because then I'm gonna go surround the hotel and do something which would have me not be able to be here. And instead, I walked away from that situation. I went to Japan. Like the samurai that I am, and went to the top of the mountain. Because I knew that— I mean, I knew there was no way she could love this dude. Not just because he's ugly, he's not Black. She likes Black guys. Every guy that she is with looks exactly the same. Ray J, Reggie Bush, at that time Kanye West, she has a type. Just like how I have a type. A lot of my girls look exactly the same. Like how I have a type, like a lot of my girls look kind of similar to her. Because in a video game character, people have their type, right? So I knew that this was like— The princess has a type, and she likes Mario. Right, there you go. As somebody who cares for you, and hopefully can be a friend, yay. I gotta say, these words, and the words about Jews, is not the words of a samurai. Of a great man. I would say, you know, you said something that inspired, that resonated with a lot of people when you said George Bush doesn't care about Black people. I have to say, as somebody who cares for you, that yay, the artist formerly known as Kanye West doesn't care about Jewish people. In the same way you spoke about George Bush being a politician, and not giving a fuck about the poor people that suffered after Katrina, you're not giving a fuck about the suffering of the Jewish people across the world. Why am I not? Because you're feeding, you're giving strength, motivation to hate groups. But we already updated, I gave an apology, you said it wasn't good enough. Yeah, that's right. And now you're telling me, no, I'm not gonna— No, you don't need to kiss anyone's dick. You're asking me to kiss your dick? You have to say what's wrong to say. There's no Jewish media, there's no Jewish— There isn't? There's no control of the media by Jewish people. You're an engineer, brother. If you're an engineer and you're not holding to the truth, that's not engineering. Engineering is not, that's not, that doesn't, that's hate, that's not engineering. Engineering says, I'm gonna build a better record label. It's called stereotypes. And I'm going to respect art. Stereotypes exist for a reason. Engineers don't do stereotypes. I do. Stereotypes are dumb. They allow you to channel hate towards the other. You know what the biggest thing is? Yeah. With something, a veteran that was sitting next to me at Cheesecake Factory last night, he said, you know, the general justice, he serves for whoever is the president, right? And he said, what's happening in politics is we're forgetting we're on the same side. We're forgetting we're on the— This is someone is practically, now he's a nurse. So he's still, you know, fighting for humanity in a way. He went from holding, you know, guns in battle to being a nurse. And when people are battling for their lives. And he said, we're forgetting we're on the same side. This is a person that no matter who becomes president, he can still be told to go to war. And the chaos that's created by the media has split the country in half. And what we, what us as beings with an engineer opportunity need to do right now is find the blue water. Where do we, where are places that we agree on? And I want you to finish everything. Hey, I'm gonna let you finish. I'm gonna let you finish everything that you want to express to me. Get off all, I'm your scarecrow today. I'm your punching bag today for everything I did. And I want you to stand up for all of the hate that, I'm your Al Gore when he lost the election. Remember, he almost became a punching bag for the lady that had voted on him. And she just said all this stuff. And he's like, I know, I agree with you, right? But there's nothing that he could do about it. With this, it's like things that you're saying, I agree with you. It's like if you sit some kids in the principal's office and I punch somebody, right? I took my hand as what it really means. Even Ari Emanuel had to say, this is a pop icon, right? And I went and just punched an entire people at one time or said that I was about to. I went like this, right? And I got blacked out, black mirrored, done, right? And it's like, what were you even gonna do? And why did you go like this? I went like this because I can't even, I would look insane to physically show you a metaphor, a physical representation of my last 20 years of what I've been through as a musician, as a father, and as a black person with a political opinion. A great man still through the pain does the right thing. And I think the right thing is to not say that there's Jewish control of the media. That's incorrect though. That's a fucking lie. There is. And they did come and bully me. It proved the point. No, the reason you don't say it is because the world is much bigger than the, forgive me, the narrow little world you exist in. Your impact stretches way past those little boardroom meetings over contracts. So what should I have done? What should I have done? Not say that you should be a strong man that doesn't mention religion or people and then fight. Do you want to win this fight? How do I win? How do we win? Call out individual people. That's one way because they have a big voice. The other voice that I prefer is to build another label or support another label. You're controlling my creative narrative. Because just like how you're telling me I shouldn't have said that, do you think there are people telling me I shouldn't have wore a red hat? No, because you asked me what should I have done. You're supposed to be a scarecrow. So I thought I'm going to beat the shit out of the scarecrow with my words, right? You let me. It was consensual. The punching bag is a better because scarecrow actually has a different real name. Yeah, that's right. So let's say a punching bag. I shouldn't say a scarecrow. But every single person that I've sat with from the point when I wore the red hat till now has done the same thing. Sit in the principal's office and don't do what you're doing. We're in the general's closet right now together. And I'm not, the red hat is very different. The red hat is you have a set of beliefs. You represent half the country that has a hope, a vision for the future of America. That's very different than without any purpose whatsoever saying Jewish media, Jewish control of the media. You said there's no purpose. So you're taking away my history and my reason of what my purpose was. I'm saying it was dumb. Also, also, also. I'm speaking my voice vocalizing. Also, it's God's plan. There's a lot of things that open up. Let me tell you something that opened up. There's a guy, like I told you, that was running STEM player who I've had issues with. We hadn't got paid on time, certain things, right? And he took his IQ, his know-how, his engineering know-how to, he basically was trying to Adidas me with, even though I was the bigger money in the situation. That was fun and we funded together and he hired these engineers and he said, well, because of your comments, we're not going to be able to hire anybody else. And I was like, well, how many Jewish people do we have in our company? He said, I don't know. He didn't say exactly right. I said, do we have black people? He said, yes. I said, how many? He said two. So we have like 60 full-time employees, like 40 half-time and part-time. And I took as a responsibility, let's take a step back from us being one species and say, hey, you're Jewish, I'm black, right? Why step back? For this example, for the sake of this example. And I said, wow, I'm sure I could hire more than two black engineers. And what happens is because there are so many businessmen that just so happen to be Jewish that it's good business, right? Just to monopolize. That's what people are looking. Everybody wants to be Elon, right? So the- I disagree with that. Okay, but let me finish this point. I'm going to let you finish. I'm going to let you finish. A lot of businessmen want to be as successful as Elon and as popular as Elon. A lot, like just worded like that, which I hate the term a lot, actually. I want to be more specific, but I haven't done the math on it. Let's say some. Factually, for sure, there are some business people of all different walks and backgrounds that would like to be as rich and as popular as Elon Musk. So let me just take a step back from the we're one species into the we're separated by race, gender, socioeconomic class conversation. And say, as a black owner of two tech platforms, hardware and software, I need to take action. Let's not call it affirmative. Let's just say I need to take action. And I need to take accountability and ensuring that black engineers are hired. And guess what? Hired together. Because when the black people that are brilliant are separated from our culture, we forget who we are. And we'll get to a point where, you know, OJ is saying I'm not black, I'm OJ. Because just to be on the golf course, we put on the golf shirt. But the golf shirt might not be something that our culture would have done. And now our culture in poor communities is, oh, everybody's got Draco on them. Everybody's got a gun on them. Oh, if you run up on me on a gas station, I'm gonna kill you. Hey, you ain't got to talk to me like a man if I haven't killed at least five people. But you know what happens is we can kill five people, we could kill 10 people and still be in the media as long as we play by the rules, right? Because what would happen is any of these guys that have talked about killing people and different things, unless Trump had pardoned them, right? But let's say even if Trump had pardoned them, they could still go to someone like a Lil Boozy or Meek Mills or Puff Daddy, anybody, and say, hey, we need you to talk shit about yay right now. And also, you're not allowed, if you do want to vote for Trump or vote outside of what this arrangement is, then we're gonna put you in jail. We're not gonna bring you down. We have this on you. You get what I'm saying? If I had ever killed someone, if I wasn't the bitch with the pink polo on, I wouldn't be able to be the vocal man that I am today. You understand what I'm saying? This is the reason why I'm happy that my gangster disciple brothers kept me from being a racist the initiations, which made me feel like a pussy my whole life, right? But now I am someone who legally can say this. Other people in my position, they legally cannot speak. They legally cannot speak or they will go to prison. I am in a bit of a glass prison because I don't have say so of where my children go to school, but I'm in a freedom place where I can have this conversation with you right now. And that is, I don't like the word breakthrough, that's God's hand on this situation. But you get what I'm saying about if I hadn't said the tweet, I wouldn't have had to take the accountability myself to hire black engineers into my two tech platforms. And do you get what I'm saying? That's a beautiful personal journey you're on, but do you get what I'm saying? It's not personal, it's for my people as a whole. As a tribal person. It's a small company. It's a small company. As a tribal person, I believe that I am my people. And the thing that businessmen have done to my people have pulled the brightest out of our tribes and siloed them and made us lose our culture and lose who they were. The only thing I wanted to say at Virgil's funeral, which I wasn't allowed to, it was a white pastor that talked the majority of the funeral. Half the funeral was pissed. Pissed, right? And this pastor actually married me and Kim. He looks like Justin Timberlake a little bit. And he talked half the funeral. He knew Virgil was passing, did a collaboration with him before he passed, by the way, a clothing collaboration. I didn't know Virgil was passing, but the thing I wanted to say, I saw ASAP Rocky and I saw some other members of his gang in the audience at the funeral. And all I wanted to tell him is, don't let them split the gang up. Don't let them split the gang up. When I did the first Yeezy, because I did Kanye West's two fashion shows before as a high-end luxury, all leather kind of design, or not all leather, but high-end materials, mink, this kind of thing. And then I came back with Yeezy, with Adidas. And this fashion show was so popular that Justin Bieber had to sit in the second row. This thing had every name you could think of. It had Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner, Kendall Jenner. It was Kylie's first fashion show she'd been in. And in the second fashion show, I put Kylie and Bella Hadid next to each other in the fashion show. You had Puff Daddy. At that time, Puff Daddy had beef with Drake. Drake still came to the show, and Jay-Z had to break up the fight backstage. The designers, you had Jerry Lorenzo, that's head of Fear of God. You had Kim Schraub, head of Skims. You had Virgil Abloh, head of Louis Vuitton. You had Demna, head of Balenciaga, all working for Ye, for the leader, for the philosopher, for the person that put, who put this together? Me, that's who. You had these people working for the king of New York, basically the boss, Ye. You had Jay-Z in the audience, Rihanna in the audience, Beyonce in the audience, sitting next to Anna Wintour in this audience. And guess who heard wind of this? One of the richest men in the world, Bernard Arnault, caught wind of this. What's going on? They're building up something, and we need to stop it. So then he met with me and politely offered me backing for my clothing line. It would be Kanye West. They would get 49%, 51%, I would get 49%. They'd have control, and they were going to give me all of the support from Louis Vuitton. So I had to go to Adidas, and I told Adidas, hey, let's Ademnify the apparel. So Adidas, you're not going to do the apparel anymore. Hey, we had a good time, but we're going to run off with Giselle now, right? So that's like you told your girl that, and she's like, oh, no, we're supposed to, we had the proudest moment of our career. So then he offers me to deal, and Alexander Arnault, who's went to gone on and raped and pillaged from all of the talent that I had afterwards, said, I say, before I tell Adidas to Ademnify the apparel, can I get a written contract from your dad, Bernard Arnault? And he says, my dad will never go back on his word. So you already know where this thing is going, right? You can, spoiler alert, right? He went back on his word. So three months into the deal, I get Anna Wintour. I say, who should I use for my lawyer? She picks my lawyer for me, right? I just found out even a couple of days that the lawyer demanded an airplane during negotiations. Had nothing to do with me, right? They said that Bernard Arnault got freaked out, and then Alexander Arnault calls me and says, the deal got dropped at the board. I went back and told my high-maintenance wife I was supposed to become this designer at Louis Vuitton, or the Louis Vuitton group was going to back the Kanye West line, because that's how good I've done in fashion, babe. And now the deal is dropped. Now the deal is dropped. So then I did a second collection, and we didn't have any support to be able to build the collection. Then I went and found a third collection, we did it. We took over MSG. Fourth collection went, and the show started an hour late. Then a week later, Kim got robbed. Then I told Scooter Braun, my manager at that time, I say, I need to go to Japan. I'm tired. I'm tired. He says, no, you need to make more money. I do four more shows on a second leg of the tour, and I suffer from exhaustion and go to the hospital. And then get diagnosed with a disorder. This is the first time I ever suffered from exhaustion. By the way, I haven't been to the hospital since. Haven't been to the hospital since. And haven't taken medication in two years. And I'm sure there'll be people in the media we won't say, where I'm from, will say, well, that's obvious. Right? So right now, I'm talking to you, right? I'm not on medication. I just go to sleep. I have sleep. Have you been able to sleep? That's too low-hanging fruit for you. I agree. I agree. I agree. That was dumb. I regret it. That's like Pierce Morgan trying to grab ratings and say, you got a whole life ahead of you. You got a whole life ahead of you. These guys are at the end of their life. Oh, good. Call me out on my shit. I love it. But then, amidst that, the same guy that dropped my deal, Bernard Arnault, goes and hires my best friend. Goes and hires my main engineer, right? It would have been like them hiring Elon from Peter before they figured out Paul, before they figured out PayPal. But it don't, Paul sounds like, uh, it all, Powel sounds like Paul. I just say it because I'm a Christian. I thought it was cool. But it would have been like, what if someone could have went in and took Elon away from Peter before they paid Paul? Before they, I just, because they paid Paul. Before they paid Paul. Yeah, before they paid Paul. Before they, it's just too close. Yeah, too close. It just sounds so fresh, the fact that it's so close, right? And that's, that's what happened, right? They broke the gang up. And I'm telling you right now, that hadn't happened. Virgil's alive. I'm still married. You know what I'm saying? The power structure was broken then, right? Because we were building some, Kylie wasn't a billionaire. You know what I mean? We were building something together that a French colonizer came in and caught it early and tried to destroy it. But the only thing is God is alive and I'm anointed. And even with those drawbacks, losing my wife, losing my friend, uh, uh, exhaustion, um, all of these late night tweets that piss off an entire group, you know, like this, the frustration still there. We work, I work for God and God runs the world and we'll see what, we'll see what happens. But in those words, don't you feel that being split up, don't you feel you're doing the thing that you stand against, which is playing victim? Aren't you playing victim to the forces in the world? I didn't play victim. I didn't even get a chance to play. I just said I was about to. I said like this, like. No, you played pretty damn well. What do you mean? What do you mean about to? You're like one of the greatest designers in history, fashion designers. You're playing, you are playing. What does that even mean? I thought you were referring to the tweet. Saying I was playing victim there. Well, there's a full set of things that you're under attack for. The tweet and everything beyond that. So like you're blaming, not blaming, but you're saying that the Jewish media, the Jewish record labels, the Jewish people, forget Jewish or not, it doesn't matter. It's playing victim, right? Ultimately I am fighting a battle in the spiritual form and anyone that believes in God and is looking at this interview would agree with that. And I just so happen to be a bright part of God's army. I'm fighting for us to live. The greatest gift is life itself. I am pro-life. I am pro-God. I believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and died for our sins. What do you feel about another attack, another painful thing? I imagine super painful is Balenciaga pulling, you had a really close relationship and friendship with their creative director. How do you feel about all of it? I told you I sang the song. I sing another song from one of my mentors, Future. I never feel pain. I don't felt too much pain. There was a day where I was headed to Nashville to meet with George Farmer, who is the CEO of Parla, the day when we made the announcement. At that same day, Balenciaga was taking my imagery off of their site and the Drink Champs was being taken down. And I said, this is the happiest day of my life. I love cutting the grass low. People wasn't really with you. They was part-time. People switch up when it's wartime. I'd rather have people who are really with me and not people who are just trying to use me. Listen, as a friend, if somebody cares for you, you have to be really careful by the people, by all people always. The people that are going to try to be close to you now, you don't know if you can trust them anymore. I want the Balenciaga, I have more to say about it though. Let's do this. Demna will still work for Ye someday. And this is just speeding the process up. Have you talked? Can you share if you've talked? Yes, I talked to Demna. This is like, we're kindred spirits. None of this can keep us away from each other. I brought Demna to Gap to be able to bring the best product in the world. At that time, I wanted to go under $100. Now I'm like, okay, we're going to go $20 a product. I brought Demna in to engineer. That's why I said engineer by Balenciaga, Yeezy Gap engineer by Balenciaga, to engineer the best product for the people. The people that they say are at the bottom of the Maslow hierarchy and need chart, they're at the bottom of the pyramid. So Gap didn't want that. Balenciaga didn't want that. Our agendas were not aligned. I was brought in to the Gap for political reasons and influence, like a Virgil, like a George Floyd. When popular celebrities are brought into Fortune 500 companies, it's not to raise the stock. It's to strengthen the position and influence. And it's definitely not to be out here letting a nigga think he Steve Jobs. Yeah, there's people like that. But you as a great man, a visionary, your job is to understand that game and be one step ahead. Well, that's why I'm telling them. That relationship, you know some relationships only last for a summer. Some last for a year. The relationship ran its course. In that relationship, I invested a lot of my social capital and actual capital. I spent somewhere between five to $10 million personally on Balenciaga. How much money do you think Balenciaga had paid me in the past two years? Just take a really wild guess, a really wild guess. Less than that? Just take a super wild one. Just go to the furthest extent of your imagination. $1.2 million. Lower. $500,000. Lower. Zero. Zero. All right. And actually, two weeks ago, I paid at a Saint's account $862,000, not in clothes for me from Balenciaga from the store, in royalties to Balenciaga where the deal had been engineered where I was coming out of my pocket. So last year, I paid Demna $3 million to design the collection. And we got it out of the Gap Marketing Fund. And he was going to deliver 160 SKUs or 120 SKUs. 100 SKUs are separate items of clothing, so styles of clothing. So he ended up delivering about 60. I feel like we're on the people's court because we actually are, right? We're in the court of public opinion. So he delivered about 60. There were all kinds of people that were working. Part of the reason why I had to get Demna, I wanted to compete with him. I didn't want to have to get him. When I made Stronger, I did it to compete with Timbaland and Justin Timberlake because my fiance at that time liked Justin Timberlake just a little bit too much. So I made it to compete. And then we had the song out. It's number one on Apple. It's blowing up. I play it in a club and it sounds muddy. It doesn't sound the way Sexy Back sounded in the club. So I go to Pharrell Williams to do the drums and it sounds like a different record. And so it can't be a different record because I'm like, I'm going to swap it out on radio, right? I go to Swiss Beats. It sounds like a different record. I go to Timbaland, the person who did Sexy Back, and he did it in five minutes and then spent the rest of the hour talking about how nobody could have done it except for him, running around the studio. I'm the best. No one could do it. That's why he had to go to me. He had to go to the king. Well, he had a point, right? He had a point, right? So what makes the song muddy? Is it the beat? It was in the drums. It was something that Timbaland had in those drums. Now watch this. I said I'm going Def Con 3, right? And the actual, I spelled it wrong. I have a tendency to do that. I'm not quite John Legend, tight sweater level, spelling bee level. So I feel a parallel to me going to Timbaland to when I said, hey, you as an engineer, I need to work with you as an engineer that is Jewish to look at these contracts and what my people, not just black people, let's say artists, are dealing with in our contracts. These contracts need to be fixed. Everyone could be so mad at the messenger, right? Yay, you said it the wrong way. You're offensive. You're like Hitler now because you said it. You said this out loud. It does not, you weren't getting enough sleep. All this shit does not negate the fact that we do have Houston, we have a problem. Yeah, but we is just the music industry. There's a lot of hate that was created by just saying that. But you're saying what is just is everything to me, right? One person can mean everything to me, right? And for George Bush, winning an election was everything. And then when you said George Bush doesn't care about black people, that you woke him up. You woke the people up to the fact that he was narrowly being selfish. There's a sense to which you're being corrupted by your own greatness, that you're focusing too much on the industry that you've made great, that you've rose to the very top. One of the richest artists in history, one of the greatest designers. I am the richest artist in history. Probably the richest artist in history. The funny thing is they're like, oh, rich is Black Paris, like, oh, also rich is actor, rich is musician, rich is fashion designer. Like it's a bunch of riches in that one. You know what I'm saying? It's like richer than Ralph Lauren, like richer than Imani, like richest, like of that, but still low. Because where do you put that? You know, like on the totem, because I don't even want to- Man's bank account isn't everything. I would say you and I are equal in a certain deep sense, no matter what the bank account says. Vroom, vroom, vroom, vroom. So I wanted to give you some theme music for your moments. It's sounding a little muddy. Let me give you the Timberland version. Thank you. Play that at the club. So the other thing about, say, like Balenciaga is Demna will work with Ye someday. For Cedric and for Francois Pinault, and Salma is a beautiful human being, five years from now, you'll hear and know the name Ye and know things that we did. And Balenciaga is not going to make it onto your questions. Would you, as a gambling man, would you bet on that? I would bet on that. I can see it in your eyes. So it was actually a sad day for me, not for me, but more for Balenciaga. When I heard that, I was just like, oh, shame. Let me ask you a silly question, just about Demna. I read something that you two talked about, like buttons for a few hours. Demna gumdrop buttons? Just in that accent. Me and Demna only speak in Shrek. What's your philosophy with which you approach design? You are one of the great fashion designers of our time. How do you think about it? Do you have a philosophy? You know what I like about the zipper is, the zipper hoodie replaces the dress shirt. Because you could get on your douchebag shit and unzip it and give it a little bit of that type of look. Which is the douchebag? You know, like when the douchebags that go to Vegas are unbuttoning their dress shirt? The problem with the pullover hoodie is you can't do the douchebag thing where you unbutton it, but then still get the stomach. Because the thing is, the ultimate look would be like military tank pullover hoodie. If you get a little hot, you take off the hoodie, but you're crazy in shape. So it gives you that flexibility. Yeah, the zipper's giving some flexibility. Maybe you want to keep your jacket on. It's considered a hoodie to be like a jacket. If you want to keep your jacket on, then you might want to do this, as opposed to pulling it all the way off. And it's just comfort, but then you get, okay, can I do a jogging pant on this? What elasticity? Now, people argue about climate, where we are with the climate. I take a responsibility as being the most influential designer of all time to say we're going to use biodegradable clothing. Now the issue there is the elastic is not biodegradable. So that means it's actually better to use jeans and a belt than to have an elastic waistband, because elastic waistband is not biodegradable. So I use the planet as a big, the future of the planet is a big piece of the way I engineer and the way we talk about where designs are going. The constraints on your design and engineering is given by the planet, by the future of the planet. Yes. That could almost make Jewish people like me again. Every time you say Jewish people, I think I've been maybe reading a little too much about World War II, but man, I'd recommend you listen to some audio books or read some books on the Holocaust, because it's heavy. It's heavy. It will put into context the impact of your words. Would you read books on the current Holocaust that black people are in? I mean, I read. What have you read about abortion? I've read a lot of short form writing and I've listened to a lot of debates, because it's really humbling that the question of when does life begin is a really difficult question for me as an engineer and scientist. It's a philosophical question. I mean, we could just go on population control, not like if abortion is right or wrong. We could say factually the clinics were made by eugenics for population control and it is controlling the population, as is the never being given of 40 acres and a mule, so you don't have the opportunity. And when the people that do have the opportunity are separated from our people, our tribe, and placed in suburban communities next to us, Chris Rock will put it, the dentist, and whitewashed and made to shut the fuck up and vote left or whatever niggers are supposed to do when we make it, as opposed to saying, okay, we're building schools, we're building up choirs, we're building up our own leagues, basketball teams, our own factories. We started the first sportswear factory in America since World War II was actually this factory I put in Cody. So I'm 45 years old, we're on this journey right now. It's the other thing about this, it's like people, just in general, they love me so much. I'm actually a hard guy to really hate for a long period of time, just because of my huge cock. That's what I noticed. I didn't understand why you showed it to me when we first met, but now I understand. It's very nice. Congratulations. I know you don't talk about it, but your hat does say 24. If you run for president, what kind of ideas would you represent? That we're beings with engineering opportunities. I would represent... Just as you served a platform here, there's something that happened on my last run that I thought, I feel, I know was brilliant. It was noisy, but it was brilliant. I had one rally, and in the rally, I just let people come up and I gave them a platform. It's our responsibility to listen to the pain and hear the pain and understand, even when we're the ones that cause the pain, like with my tweet. It's my responsibility to hear you and understand why you feel like that, but it's our responsibility as a people to understand each other. To give people a voice. People need the voice, and even right now, what I'm doing or how God is using me, I'm showing where our voices are being muted. Because professors that are actually intelligent actually have multiple degrees that have been canceled from their schools, and they don't have a music industry or a fan base or a shoe design or a smoking hot ex-wife to complain about. They've just got the truth of what they saw and what they dedicated to this country and to education that has been muted by schools that have been taken over with an agenda. You want the brightest minds to be these professors, and then you mute them, and they have nowhere to go. You might get a guy now that went from being someone's favorite professor to he's working at Starbucks like he was back at school or like he was back in high school. Even if that voice is about anger and hate, it still deserves to be heard. Yeah, it deserves to be heard, and we deserve to ask why. You have to ask why. I just feel like that's what's... I feel like that is sympathizing with Mr. Hugecock. I'm just saying that it just needs to be... You should change that to your name on Twitter while you're still allowed on there. Yeah, do you think that would get censored? I feel like they definitely cut it down some inches. I'm pointing out this truth. Now, I'm saying this is not a Christian thing, right? I wonder right there, when I say these jokes, is it something that... Because I do feel like laughter is the key. Engineering and laughter is the key to peace. When I go get my teeth cleaned and I have the nitrous, there's something that I want to go and hug Kris Jenner. I want to go and hug Corey Gamble. I want to go and hug Howard Stern. No one wants to hug Howard Stern. But just if one... No, no, no, no. I would love to see you two hug it out and make up, even though all this shit talking back and forth. What about talking it out or is he going to be screaming at me? Yeah, judgmental and that kind of stuff. No, I hope there's love there. You know, the thing is, I think Howard's just jealous. Not just jealous of my cock. He's also jealous that I started my campaign earlier than him. You got to let go of that jealousy. You got to let go of that jealousy, Howard. You got to let go of it. Howard and everybody else. Jealousy is a natural human thing, man. I wonder just as a Christian, right, when I joke and say this stuff, it's like, hmm, am I being disobedient to God? Because as a boss, right, I'll talk to an employee and I'll be like, why didn't you just listen? Because I've got the bigger plan, right? So it's like me talking to God, were there things that I did in this interview that were disobedient to God? And for those things, I pray and I repent for anything that I've said that was disobedient to God. But humor is not one of them. Joking. I feel like humor is the way we avoid so much suffering in the world. It's the way to, it's like a catalyst for love. Like it's a way to, people that have gone through some of the darkest trauma that I've ever met through war, I just came back from Ukraine, they're laughing. They're making jokes. That's the best way to deal with dark times. I don't know what it is about humans. I feel like humor, that's the best way to socially engineer a good future, I think, is humor. Not taking shit too seriously. That's the problem with censorship. One of the things that really suffer is humor. Jokes. Maybe going too far in the jokes. You mentioned Anthony Jeselnik. That guy goes hard. That guy goes really hard and it's great. He crosses all the lines and that's why he's a genius. That's what people feel is refreshing when he does it. I don't know what it is. But then it's hurtful when I do it. But I'll tell you something that was interesting. I'm pretty sure Anthony doesn't like, sorry for the assumption, but just most comedians I know didn't vote for Trump. That's interesting. Not saying there aren't comedians that did, but just the ones I know. Because I live in California, right? But they have an appreciation for Trump because of the sense of humor. I've got to ask you about parlor engineering because I'm interested about that. Hey man, I'm actually trying to hold it together. You're pretty offensive towards the lot. I'm not looking to be offensive. I really want to bring people together and get these sales done. I know, but 100% I see your vision. How do we do that? Well, don't say Jewish media and Jewish controlled media. JM. Man, you sound like, it sounds too much like 1930s Nazi Germany that was leading up to the atrocities. Oh, he would say JM? Yeah, he was a brand of JM, that's right. No, it's just the implied, like this memefied prejudice towards a group in a way that's going to lead to hate. And I know you don't mean that. I know you have love in your heart. You know what's the prejudice towards a group that led to hate? BLM. BLM took a black person, showed his death on camera because, okay, there are examples of us being killed and being killed on camera. But if it was spread on camera, it was done on purpose by the media because 14, 20 kids get killed in Chicago every week and it's not spread that much. They, like you said, singled out a person, directed everything on that person as the martyr and raised the people that hadn't had any. We didn't have our 40 acres and a mule. We didn't have a lot of things that black people have not ever been given. So once we're given just a little bit, like, your life matters, right? Then we literally like, oh, okay, now we're being heard. But actually the death toll is up. The city where this happened has completely been turned to a war zone. It's actually something like Candace Owens can actually specify this better, but it's like its own city or something. They made it not be a part of the actual state or something. It's like DC and stuff. It's like Washington DC now and stuff. And that has to be from a government, you know, that's got higher level agenda written all over it. Yeah, they're using the death of an individual. Yeah, sure, the media are. Not the Jewish media, the media. And the media is fucked up. That machine takes whatever tragedy and pushes it towards whatever narrative that gets more clicks and views and so on. Sure, and then politicians do the same. They use the media, they influence the media to tell a story. This is a simple thing I'll put. I believe that the idea of anti-Semitism and the closeness of the Holocaust is used by certain individuals in media to not take accountability for the bad things that are happening. And what's happening is there's a new frontier, right? Meaning like it used to be okay for somebody to be a billionaire. We thought about a billionaire, right? A lot of times you think of him actually kind of being out of shape and, you know, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, like Onassis or something, like you thought about it a different way. Now you think about a billionaire, you think about Elon, you think Kim, you think Ye, you think it's a new kind of billionaire. It's not just Soros is a billionaire, it's a new form of billionaire. Well, right now what I'm calling for the industry is I'm calling the industry out and saying like, hey, it just so happens that there's been times where I had my lawyer was Jewish, my regulator was Jewish, but like eight people that basically would collude and talk without me were in groups saying, okay, this is what the tour is going to be. This is this next house, and they were making all these decisions and they're making all this money. And at the end, I was like, I ended my tour and I don't have the money. And it just so happens that that's the case that what they were. But what I'm saying is if everyone can say, hey, you can't point out this fact, or we're going to say you're anti-Semitic and we're going to call you Hitler, I feel that there has to be at least 1% of safeguarding the ability to screw the artists based on saying it's anti-Semitic by pointing out that they just so happen to all be Jewish. And I don't think that's anti-Semitism. I just think that's, hey, this is another thing. Like, okay, the Kardashians, when you hear that, do you think male or do you think female? You think female. You get what I'm saying? You think this is the reality. This is why rap works, right? They're going to make an anti-women thing in a second, right? And it's going to say, well, if you point out that these five women, six women are having a meeting on where the Christmas party is, and none of the ballplayers or rappers that they have babies with have any say so, so that Christmas happened at Kourtney's house all eight years when I was there, and it never happened at anyone else's Black family house, right? If I'm the one that pointed it out, they just don't have their, oh, you're anti-Semitic, word to say, shut the fuck up. This is the way it runs and this is the way we want to do it. If you say that women are silencing the Black voice, yes, you're going to get the same response, but especially if it historically resonates. But what about the fact that it's true? When you talk in groups, that breeds hate. When you talk about individuals, it solves problems. You're in engineering. Okay, but this is something I pointed out on Pierce. I said, if a Black person gets pulled over with a car and it's three other people in the car, they're also going to jail. They're not going to single them out. They're going to say, you guys are all in collusion. I just described collusion five times in this interview, and you keep on going back to this is like 1930. This is like this. This is like that. What I'm saying is, look, I want to work with you as an engineer to free my people. Can we start as a being with engineer opportunities right here? I am sorry to the people who had to be hurt and affected by that. Now we are here, and I'm looking to solve it. But what happens is every time if I talk to any of these business people one by one, because mind you, I didn't get to the tweet by not having a conversation. I had the conversations beforehand before I got to the tweet. Now we're going to take it to the stage. Now we're on the world stage, and you saw Ari Emanuel do exactly the kind of thing that I was saying had been done behind closed doors. Now he's doing it in open doors. They told Candace Owens, I couldn't be on the Daily Wire. You can't even explain yourself, and we don't care how you got to that point either, and that's fucked up. They told Candace you can't be on Daily Wire? Is that even about... Yes, you did. That's what they said. You know what? You can have my voice raised or lower. I'm going to do it lower, right? Because what's happening to me by, I'll put it in your words, the media is saying not only can you not explain yourself, we don't care how you got to that point, you need to apologize, and you can't explain, and that's the end of the story. Just apologize so we can have Mel Gibson do some more films. It's exactly what Ari Emanuel was saying. No one is looking to change the problem that led so many people to that same level of frustration, and I just so happen to be the one that's not going to back up on it until this changes. You know what? I'm sorry I had a sleepy text. I'm sorry I put that I was 5'12 or 5'11 on Tinder. My cock is not 14 inches. I lied, okay? It's only 13. So, I'm sorry, right? So, the- Why are you dropping so many facts today? So what I'm saying is, but where do we get to this? Because even you, as engineering, as intelligent as you are, you, just like everyone else that I was saying was colluding, won't let us get to the point of fixing it. But I'm not, I think you're more powerful than the media. I'm not saying you need to apologize because of the media, I'm saying everything we've been talking about, just because I care for you and I want you to be the best possible man you can be. To me, a definition of a great man, I'm with Martin Luther King on this. You don't talk about Jews or black people. You talk about engineering, you talk about humanity, you solve problems. You identify the problems in the world, and you don't come from a place of resentment, this group did this, this, fuck all that. That is in the past. You just build solutions. I'm going to create a new record label, I'm going to create a new design firm, I'm going to create a new social network, and I'm going to do it better, I'm going to do it right. I'm going to do it right by the people that I know don't have a voice, I'm going to give them a voice and talk about that. Is it okay to call out collusion? Do people collude in your business? Under you, like the engineers, they come together and like say, they collude against the bosses, right? You know why Bernard Arnault offered the deal and took it away from me? Collusion. Because I was too powerful with the collective that I had right there. He had to stop that at all costs. They said for whatever reason, this kid, yay, it has the ability to have all of the Kardashians, Jay-Z and Beyonce, Justin Bieber, Demna, Virgil, all these people in the same room working towards the same goal. I've been that person since preschool. That's called a leader, right? And right now, what I'm saying is, hey, for the people in business, whatever their background is, whether they turn their cell phones off on Friday or not, there's been some bad business done, there's some bad business practices, and we have to change that because this game is like boxing. More people end up retarded than rich. And I'm saying beat to a pulp, driven crazy, beat by the media to a pulp. Right now, the media has done everything they could to make me apologize and to make me look crazy. And that one person has done anything to find out why I was frustrated enough to do that tweet, and that's facts, and that's fucked up. Well, I was hoping to. I am finding out. We found out. But I want solutions. See, there's something about human nature where if you focus too much on resentment towards the- We're not focusing on it anymore. Fuck the resentment. We're moving forward. Right. So there's two things I think that are required for, I mean, this is how I've lived my life, for great engineering. You surround yourself in your personal life by people you trust. And then in your professional life, from the engineering perspective, with a team, with an incredible team, and everything else doesn't matter. That allows you not to focus on other groups, how they're fucking you over, how they're trying to manipulate or collude and all that kind of stuff. You focus on solutions and you find a way around all the difficult shit. That's it. If you have people in your life you can trust. That's lifelong. You said some people you're with for the summer, for a year, find people you can be with for your whole life. Do you have people in your life that you trust, like really trust? No. I trust God. At any point, a human being can, like, I could like, if I like go and like really, you know, treat this guy like a piece of shit or do this, da da da, am I supposed to, you know, trust him to be loyal and stay in the situation? No, I trust people to be people. And people are flawed. And people can have the right intentions, but it only makes sense for us to work together when our agendas align. When Kim was pulled really far to the left, our agendas no longer aligned. So that made the marriage impossible. In a line where it's like, oh, I could wear a red hat that can help her to get Alice Johnson out of jail because Trump's willing to do that for my wife because I was the only person in my position that stood up and said, wait a second, I like you. You know, because- But isn't there a deeper agenda, the human agenda of just being in love? Like that's just part, what you're talking about, red hat is just politics, right? I mean, the world is becoming more and more transactional every day. And actually, marriages are actually, actually originally based on transactions, you know, and that's why they're less needed, the more autonomous as we come, or the world makes it less needed. I feel like we do need each other. I feel like we do need someone we can always, you know, count on. It's like I'm, yay, pulled away by Ken Cooper, which is the media, the politics, the promise, oh, we're going to keep you safe. So the thing, the reason why I get, you know, really frustrated with Kris Jenner is she says losing Rob Kardashian was the greatest mistake of her life, but she never gave Kim's hand over in marriage because this is the bottom line. When me and Kim met, we were millionaires or whatever, right? You're telling me you just hand her hand over in marriage that your daughter's not successful, handing your hand over in marriage to, but no, she had to still be the husband to all of her daughters. And we see what the results are consistently. So that's where I get, you know, frustrated. It's like, let that go. Let this person do what you made mistakes on. Don't make this person relive those same mistakes and then put that agenda into my daughters too. Is there somebody in your life close to you that you trust enough to call you out on your bullshit? We're all full of shit sometimes. What's my bullshit? Well, some of it I pointed out today, but I don't know you deeply enough. What was the bullshit? Jewish media, Jewish- That's not bullshit. The bullshit is that the Jewish media won't admit- Your dad was right. Your dad was right. The words you used, the point you were- And I said it. You're not going to make me say it 800 more times. I don't know if it resonated because you keep saying like the words- Did it resonate to y'all that y'all ain't do nothing about it? And that all y'all want to do is have somebody apologize and sweep under the rug your bullshit that you've been doing the whole time. You own the same bullshit as the other people. So you're doing the same thing that the other, let's say media, because I'm not allowed to say, has done. So until somebody stands up- Which is what, man? Which is what? Is- I'm trying to call you out on your bullshit because I hope I'm somebody you can trust. That's it. I don't fucking trust you. Well, you should find people in your life you can trust. Don't tell me what I should do. I'm not one of your BLM marchers. Listen, I'm with you on the BLM. A lot of organizations use tragedy. And I watched the Candace Owens documentary. And what was your take on it? I think it's important to question the mainstream narratives, but I don't agree with it. I still believe that George Floyd died from the knee of the cop, not from fentanyl. And even if that was the case, there's still 50% of black deaths is actually abortion. So let's get into engineering. Let's just go- How do you fix that? Population control is social engineering. And it's most literal form. The blacks are under population control. That's something that, I mean, that's just what it is. African Americans are not choosing to get the abortion. I mean, it's a choice. It's an individual choice. But we're being influenced to. Well then speak to the community and help. I mean, I don't know what the engineering solutions there are. It could be you're doing that in part by speaking to the value and the power of family. Well, watch this. I was building shelters. I bought land in Calabasas. I bought two ranches in Wyoming. Three hundred acres in Calabasas, 12,000 acres in total in Wyoming. And I started building ideas for shelters. And God set it on my heart to make monasteries, which would be modern day facilities that don't turn people down, that have farms, that have shelter, clothing. But first of all, water, first of all, knowledge, because knowledge is the most important resource to our species above water. Knowledge itself, because then you can go get water. I mean, you can argue like if you're a baby, how do you get water? But the baby doesn't have it. So someone with the knowledge then feeds the baby the water. But it's important that those with the knowledge teach the baby how to find the water themselves. And the business people that I've been dealing with have been keeping the baby sick by not sharing the information and the knowledge with inside of those contracts. My people are sick. If I load up Apple Music right now, and I play the top songs in the rap chart, I would tell you my people are sick. If I go to the restaurants in Opportunity Zones, and we look at the calorie rating and the cholesterol, I will tell you that my people are sick. If we look at the obesity rate, if you go to just a restaurant somewhere in middle America, Denny's or something, I went to Denny's the other day, you will see that my people are sick. I'm not saying all people, but black people are very influential to all people. So if the media picks an overweight black woman and says, this is body goals, then the media are influencing my people to stay sick. And it just so happens that that night, I was so frustrated after 20 years that I had to call it out in one tweet that now, even if I say, hey, okay, I was frustrated for these reasons, now it's not good enough. You've literally tried to make me re-apologize 10 times in this meeting, re-say this, re-say that, but it doesn't change the fact that my people are sick, and I'm the only person in my position that will say that my people are sick. Today, not 30 years ago, not 60 years ago, my people are sick today. 50% of my people's deaths are abortion today. My people don't have the opportunities today, even to the point that, because if JP Morgan had been nice to me, and if Alex Klein, a STEM player, had been fair to me, different things, then I wouldn't even point it out that we don't have any black, we have two black engineers. So I have to have a responsibility, obviously to all people, but specifically to my tribe, because tribes, tribes move. You know, tribalism is real with black people, to separate the brightest from the tribe, or to separate the leaders, it is factual that the CIA removed the leaders from the black community, put crack in the communities, put guns in the communities, and locked up all the leaders, and called them gangly, right? Locked up all the leaders, locked up all the fathers, now 72% of black mothers are raising children by themselves. This is agenda like a Tuskegee experiment set on my people, right, and what I'm calling out for the black people in entertainment is, what are we doing? We have to collude, and if we don't collude, because even if I said, hey, I'd like to make a company that's all black, right, is that okay for me to say? Is that okay for me to say? Or is that anti-Semitic? See, if I hadn't crossed the line so far, then that would have sounded anti-Semitic. Now I've stretched a bit, so now we can go to, okay, let's make an all-black company. But that would have been anti-Semitic, just that concept, because you could word that in a different way that would sound anti-Semitic. I don't know, man, I have to be honest. No, no, listen, if you were, if I said I didn't want to have Jewish people in the company, would that be anti-Semitic? It would sound like it, right? You'd say I'm from 1930s, right? But for me as a tribe to say, no, I want an all-black company, right? I'm generally against that kind of thing, but first of all, you have the right to do whatever the hell you want. This is America. Well, what I'm saying is that's what I feel may need to happen for my people to have power again, because when my people have been left under the media's control, we've been made sick. We've been allowed to be sick, and we're promoting sickness. I think, at least in the engineering realm, I haven't met an engineer who happens to be black who would like to be called a black engineer. And when you have a company of all-black people that are engineers, I don't know the creative arts, I apologize, but engineering, they really try to look at each other as humans and look at the problem. And you want to know, you want to have the confidence that everybody on the team is the best possible person for the job. What I can say is the world is sick, and I have slight images of utopia, slight images of happiness, slight images as a visionary and a creator. And I know for a fact the way that business deals have been done for me are keeping the world sick. I see that's what you're trying to do. And you probably, listen, people should not doubt, yay. But I gotta tell you, I have to be honest, this is silly, because you don't know me, but it hurt when you say you don't trust me. You kind of lost me. I don't think anyone's ever said that to me. I don't know, man. Fuck that. I mean, I don't care about views or clickbait or any of that bullshit. I just thought you were one of the greatest artists ever. It'd be cool to talk to you. And I feel like you got pain you're working through. And never had anyone say that to me. Maybe I'm just being a mess about it, I guess. That's fucked up, though. But maybe it's not. Maybe you shouldn't trust it. But I just haven't had that experience. Yeah. Do you think I would trust anybody at this point in my life? Yeah, it's tough. It's tough. It's tough. I hear you. And it's also kind of good to see how much strength you got. You're not broken by any of this. You're under a lot of attack. A lot of attack by a lot of people. You have a vision, and you're trying to feel your way through it. And you might get destroyed for it. That's the human, that's the risk you take. It's a wonderful life, though. What do you hope your legacy is? To be forgotten. You think you'll be forgotten? Because the memory, there's ego and memory in the memories. Who designed the sidewalk? Who designed the water fountain? Who designed the stop sign? Who designed the stoplight? These things are so ubiquitous that the person that designed them is forgotten. If it's a good idea, it's a God idea. And no VCs can own it. So you want your designs in all realms of life to be so simple that they permeate everything. They take over. And you are forgotten. That's a successful design, is you're forgotten. Yes. Do you have advice for people? A lot, a lot, a lot of young people look up to you. Do you have advice for young people of how to live a life they can be proud of? Don't tweet while you're sleepy. Take a nap? Surely there's other things. I love the humor. Don't take it seriously, I suppose is what that means. Don't send sleepy tweets. Unless you buy your own social platform the very next week called Parler. But other than that, if you're not going to buy your own social platform, then don't. Is that why you bought Parler? So you could be sleepy and send messages out into the wild? I actually am really interested in the engineering aspects of Parler. Is there a vision there? Because I'm also super interested in Elon buying Twitter. I like Instagram better than Twitter. And I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg liked Instagram better than Facebook or saw how valuable that was and he bought it. So you'd like to take Parler or something, whatever is the magic that makes Instagram work you want to push? Well, I thought it was interesting how it felt like Snapchat made the Kardashians bully Instagram. What's the point of Snapchat going to war on Instagram? Yeah, I mean, just everyone wants to say, well, this is our value, Snapchat. No one wants to lose their value to someone else's value, whatever. And everything is just, what's the difference between permanent and temporary? Is this a permanent structure? And until God says it's not, it's like nothing's permanent. Our life is not permanent. So how do we just let go of those things? Even going from the name Kanye West to Ye was the beginning of just letting go of some things, of these titles. We need to remove the titles like, hey, if I have to leave Adidas and I have to go next computers that may take me out of the billionaire standing altogether. And I got to get low for however long God says I have to get low and refocus. I've been reshaping, refocusing my staff. I had some people that were good and I had some people that weren't. I had too many people and I've got a vision inside of me and I'm like, this is how I make this vision. I have to bring this vision to life. I have to bring these houses to life. I was talking to one of our architects on, you know, we're actually getting close on it. I've like built it a few times. I had like the domes you probably saw and I said, you know, how he transformed Kim's house and no, we're getting there. So you want to get into architecture. Like you really want this to become physical reality. Yes. And I've got close. Rome wasn't built to today. Yeah, but Rome had to start somewhere. I got to call you out on the advice. There really is a lot of people that look up to you and you've lived a really difficult life and you made it through all of it. What do you advise them to do? Do everything that you feel, even if you are told that it's the wrong thing. No, no, no, no, no, no, but not anything violent. So do what you feel, say what you feel. Like trust your heart. Yeah. Trust your gut. Trust your instincts because that instinct is who God made you to be, not what lines up with your like frat brothers or what lines up with what your dad wanted or what lines up with your classmates. You know, it's just God has something inside of you. And when you walk down the street, you're thinking about it and then you just see it in the window and you go down another street and you see the same thing, or you're thinking about a number and that number pops up or you see it on a license plate and that's just, you know, something is trying to say, be the maximum. Yay. You know, be the maximum you and God will give you anything that you can't handle. So for me, everything is a yes. I think they say be like water. I know Bruce Lee said that, or matter of fact, just be because we are beings with engineering opportunities. Beautifully put. Yay. I have hope. I have faith that however this turns out that you have the skill and the capacity to really add love to the world. And I hope you do that. I really, really hope you do that. We talked about the tension of that, the challenges and the opportunities of that. I mean, I see how we could be of use to each other. You actually have a particular thing for me as I eject from media. Because even also, you know, I'm really big at like, you know, burning the Phoenix too. All you know as an engineer that your cells completely regenerate every seven years. I think I rush the process a little bit. So I run around looking like a burn victim sometimes. Yeah. But I got to tell you, anyone I am close with, I work with, there has to be trust. There has to be love. And I think you've been burned quite a bit in your life. Sometimes I did it myself. I put my hand on the stove. So how do we get to engineering? There's a deal to be done here. Not saying you're making this money off of that, I'm making that money off. But there's- I don't care about money, by the way. Same. Twins. So there's dealings here. You got pain, I got pain, but we're beings with engineering opportunities. For a long time I thought somebody should create a new social network. And it looks like great engineering could do that. You got two at one time from two of your homeboys at one time. Yeah. And that's a great way to- I mean, you know, it can be done from scratch or it can be done anew with an already established platform. Yeah. I'm very excited by that possibility. Parler is smaller, Twitter is larger. I wonder whether you can do any kind of revolutionary engineering with a large company. If anyone can, I would say it's Elon. Well, Elon can look at what we do over here. That's why I like- God does this a lot of times. He creates doppelgangers. There's a lot of examples where theory happened two places at one time. A really similar type of personality happens at one time. It's weird. It's beautiful. It's hilarious, actually. It's kind of humorous. So we should just share every piece of information together as I go build Parler and as he builds up Twitter and see how to make both those better. But I'll be like, hey, I'm not going to let Snapchat bully me out of adding something to it that's best. It should just be the best platform possible. That means TikTok has amazing features. Twitter has amazing things about it. I know this girl that's like, I like Instagram better than Twitter. She likes it. Twitter has porn. But other than that, Instagram. But I was like, well, Instagram is porn also. It's soft. It's more subtle. It's not telling you. It's not conservative by any means. I mean, that's the thing. You have to please a lot of people with these platforms. And I think the goal of a platform should be to help individuals maximize their long-term happiness and growth, like intellectually, spiritually, psychologically, all of that. And it's a tricky thing to figure out how to do that. Of course, you could just have a platform that's just strictly for fun. I think that's where TikTok leans. But I think there's a balance to strike. Like Twitter, there's a lot of intellectual philosophical stuff going on on Twitter, but it somehow currently makes it too easy to be divisive and hateful towards each other and cancel and all that kind of stuff. I think we need to have these healthy conversations. That's what it is. Healthy conversations, healthy dialogues. That's the biggest thing, like when I first wore the red hat, the conversation is less healthy than it is today. The conversation about George Floyd, you know, it's like, did I send the tweet the right way? Is Candace Owens' documentary perfect? What Michael Moore, is that documentary perfect? Is Century Self, is it fully accurate? You know, it's two to three hours of a transmit of information through a particularly, usually one person's view. And anything you want to research, if you're interested in it, you got to look at 10 versions of it, 20 versions of it. George Floyd, we've looked at one version of that. Now we have a second. So by the time we get to the, you know, I know this is like, it's not my last hoodie, but it's definitely not my first hoodie that I put on. You know, it's like, that's how we got to it. Like even this particular size of zipper, or the fact that, you know, for people who know, they know that it's like Carhartt, even though the Carhartt tag isn't there anymore, you just know by the shape of it, you feel it. So it abstracts, it takes into like this cubist place, like Picasso or Matisse or African cubism or Dire Straits, money for nothing and your chicks for free. Look at that. Great band. I wouldn't think you could reference Dire Straits. Look at you. That video. Yeah, I know. It's a great video. Your encyclopedic knowledge of music is great. I think that, you know, porn is not just sexual. That term actually relates to torture. Like you know what I'm saying? Like watching people beat each other up on Worldstar or something, you know, it's like, that's called torture porn. There's also food porn. How do you explain that? What's food porn? Food porn is like looking at really delicious cakes and cookies and steak and so on, and you're like, holy shit. Exactly. Architecture. Like there's people who love architecture. When they see architecture, I know, I got friends that be like, oh, that's porn. Architecture. Yeah, it's like, that's like love, like dopamine fueled love for a thing. Yeah, we need, that's beautiful. I think that's beautiful. Well, I think- As long as nobody's getting hurt. The intoxication that people have, you know, the worst part is like when one person's in love and the other person's in like. That's us right now. Well, who's in like? No, because you said you love Bill Maher and you like me. I love you. So that was. No, I actually love you both. And the funny thing is like as a visionary, visionaries are more extreme than business people because a visionary would do bad business for their vision. A business person will never do bad business. It's well put. Yeah, it's really well put. So when you say I don't care about money, it's like, yeah, I feel you. Like I feel that I care in a way that I need that. But I care about the vision that I have to a Steve Jobs level to the point of putting that above my regular human existence, meaning having to go and take all the arrows that I become a soldier of the vision because someone could say a wife could say to like, say, like in the 60s, their husband's about to go to war. The wife may not want their husband to go to war because of their children, but he's going to war because of their children. Definitely do you regret any aspect of just giving everything to your vision? I mean, you've spoken about that saying like I got fucked over in the business side. I promise that I had to stop envying cool people at their current cool time. If anything, if someone's cool and I say their name a lot, I'm going to flash the light on them so much that it ages their coolness. It's actually a war technique, showered in compliments. To be able to stay at 45 years old to still be the bad kid in class, at 45 I'm still in the principal's office? Because if you look at like, say fashion, right? If you think of something fashionable, it's probably going to look like the kid in the principal's office. That's going to be the fashion. And that's part of the reason why I'm the most influential person at fashion, because I refuse to leave the principal's office. If the substitute teacher comes in, I'm going to say, you got a big butt! Right back to the principal's office. And people are going to be like, yo! And that's what you keep on saying, like, who can we talk to? Because no one can talk to me. No one, I'm out of control, bro. It's just God, then me, and then fuck everybody. You know what I mean? That's how, that's really how I live my life. And I just want to say this one thing about the children thing. I wanted to, you know, put that point together, put that idea together that I don't like the word point. I'm really big on like, words, words being powerful, says the person with the sleepy tweet. You're full of contradictions. Yeah, I'm a human being, right? It's like some days I'm like, I could go 30 days and be celibate, you know, like really like I'm a monk. I'm being like faithful to God. And then I'll go like working out, no carbs, like my weight will fluctuate. And I'll have times I'm like, I don't feel like being told what to do. So I don't want to work out with a trainer. And I just want to drink this Hennessy. But I want to say this thing that I will text to Kim sometimes, I'll say, you know, you may not understand what I'm doing right now, but you will. And that's what I would say to everyone. You may not understand what I'm doing. And this gives a little bit, maybe we're like 20% there, but there's still going to be people, we leave this interview and they'll be like, I still don't like the way you apologize. I still don't want to say what my involvement would have been to make him, lead him to that point. And we just want things to be how they are. There's people in the world who want the world to stay as it is. And there's people who want to change the world. And that's happened throughout time. They say that with Da Vinci halfway into a conversation, he could not suffer fools so much that he would walk away halfway into the conversation. And I said, well, that's why it's the Da Vinci code and not the Da Vinci world. And every time I go and piss off a group of people or do these things, on some end, it's like I could be turning my thing from a potential world vision to a code, or I could be opening up conversations with new friends that I may trust someday. Yeah, that's beautiful. That's beautiful. Because the change you will have on the world that you don't know for sure, but it'll happen across years, even decades. So you have to think in the future. You're working in the future. Your actions are working in the future. And a lot of people will judge this conversation and others you've done and so on in the present, and that doesn't matter. You know why I apologize, why I say I'm sorry to the Jewish people that I hurt? It's not about, like I said, I'm not going to hold this apology hostage. Obviously, it's about God, but God is everything, right? So what's the point of having language and being, you can't engineer if you say, God, God, God, right? It's like, it's God asks us to be judgmental so that you become, if you're a doctor, right? It's your judgment that saves grandma, right? And God puts that in this, like, we have God inside us. We're a piece of God also, right? So I'm going to go specific to a person. That story about Da Vinci alone is enough of a reason for me to give a sincere apology to the Jewish people, because I do believe that there's a Da Vinci code inside of all of my misspellings and scribbles right here that God wants me to get to the world. And when I'm in my way, if God has set something on me, when I'm in my way, I'm in God's way. Now I can point at other people and say, hey, you guys are in God's way because you're not listening to me, but if I'm in my way, I'm not listening to God. And for me to be a philosopher and a leader, whatever other language, I have to listen to God. So before God, what I would do is start off as a samurai and say, I'm sorry for hurting you. As a Jewish person, I'm sorry for the way that made you feel, and I'm sorry for the entire population of a race that I feel is actually my brothers, because I classify and feel that I'm also connected with Christ in that way, that my people came from Africa in that way. And I can't say it's this exact teaching or that exact teaching, but I feel that there's an important—you know, the sons of Abraham, however we want to word it, right?—for us to come together and bring our different talents together to serve God collectively. As much of an alien as I am, He does not call for me to alienate. And that's what the problem has been, especially in politics and in America. He placed America as the TV, as the radio to the world. We invented rock and roll, right? We are the influencers of the rest of the planet. We are the youngest startup in history, right? We're the youngest country. We're the youngest superpower, right? So for me in my position, the fact that I can talk to Trump one day and be at a game with Kim Kardashian the next day and then be at Paris Fashion Week, they don't want me to be involved with language of decisive, divisive language, you know, proving that I can be just as racist as a racist white person. Oh, I can be a racist black person also. That's not what God has called me to do. So how do I simplify and say, hey, to you as a visionary, as an engineer, as a person that's given me a platform, that as my brother, I want to apologize to you for how that made you feel, and to the rest of the people that carry specifically that pain, not the pain that I talk about that doesn't seem to be as much of a pain for people when I talk about the abortion clinics and stuff. It's like, that's an argued pain even in my own community. Like not everyone thinks that's a pain. But for the Jewish community, it's collectively, this was a pain. And I've gone so far just psychologically on this journey since that statement had happened where I didn't want to like give up the candy in my pocket. I didn't want to say, hey, I stuck my hand in the candy jar. I wanted to defend my freedom of speech. I wanted this. But even with freedom of speech, pain is pain. Causing people to hurt is not helping. Causing people to hurt is not helping. So that means I have to take a more sophisticated approach to engineering this problem. This problem is an opportunity. And yes, that, what could some people may deem as a mistake. Would it be more genuine if I called it a mistake? I think I would be hypocritical by calling it a mistake with the ending of that, the idea I'm going to say out loud. So I'm not, I don't try to be a hypocrite on purpose. So but I will call it a mistake to add a genuine, to be genuine about the feeling. But that mistake with me as a human being, not to justify, but I have to state that God makes no mistakes because if I hadn't made that mistake, I wouldn't be in front of you today. And that's not to justify this sleepy text. But I can tell you're a man that has love in his heart. And I hear that. I hear it through the words explicitly and implicitly. And I think if we're to engineer a better future, the way to do that is with love. So as one human to another, I love you, brother. Thank you for talking today. This is great. I like you too. Son of a bitch. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Ye, formerly known as Kanye West. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Ye himself. Nothing in life is promised except death. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/4AWLcxTGZPA

2a7CDKqWcZ0

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Stephen Kotkin: Putin, Stalin, Hitler, Zelenskyy, and War in Ukraine | Lex Fridman Podcast #289

The following is a conversation with Stephen Kotkin, his second time on the podcast. Stephen is one of the greatest historians of all time, specializing in 20th and 21st century history of Russia and Eastern Europe. And he has written what is widely considered to be the definitive biography of Stalin in three volumes, two of which have been published, and the third focused on World War II and the years after he is in the midst of writing now. This conversation includes a response to my previous podcast episode with Oliver Stone that was focused on Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine. Stephen provides a hard-hitting criticism of Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, weighed and contextualized deeply in the complex geopolitics and history of our world, all with an intensity and rigor, but also wit and humor that makes Stephen one of my favorite human beings. Please also allow me to mention something that has been apparent and has weighed heavy on my heart and mind. This conversation with Stephen Kotkin makes it more dangerous for me to travel in Russia. The previous conversation with Oliver Stone makes it more dangerous for me to travel in Ukraine. This makes me sad, but it is the way of the world. I will nevertheless travel to both Ukraine and Russia. I need to once again see with my own eyes the land of my ancestors, where they suffered but flourished and eventually gave birth to, say, the old me. I need to hear directly the pain, anger, and hope from both Ukrainians and Russians. I won't give details to my travel plans in terms of location and timing, but the trip is very soon. Whatever happens, I'm truly grateful for every day I'm alive, and I hope to spend each such day adding a bit of love to the world. I love you all. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast, and now, dear friends, here's Stephen Kotkin. You are one of the great historians of our time, specializing in the man, the leader, the historical figure of Stalin. So let me ask a challenging question. If you can perhaps think about the echo of 80 years between Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin, what are the similarities and differences between the man and the historical figure, the historical trajectory of Stalin and Putin? Thank you, Lex. It's very nice to be here again with you. It's been a while. Good to see you. Good to see you as well. You're looking good. I see this podcast stuff is doing you right. So we can't really put very easily Vladimir Putin in the same sentence with Joseph Stalin. Stalin is a singular figure, and his category is really small. Hitler, Mao, that's really about it. And even in that category, Stalin is the dominant figure, both by how long he was in power and also by the amount of power, the military industrial complex he helped build and commanded. So Putin can't be compared to that. However, Putin's in the same building as Stalin. He uses some of the same offices as Stalin used. And some of those on some of those television broadcasts that we see of Putin at meetings and Putin inside the Kremlin, Stalin used to sit in those rooms and hold meetings in those rooms. That's the imperial Senate built by Catherine the Great in 18th century building inside the Kremlin. It's a domed building and you can see it on the panorama, the top of the building, at least you can see it on the panorama when you look over the Kremlin wall from many sites inside Moscow. So if he's not comparable to Stalin, he still works, as I said, in those same buildings, those same offices, partly. And so therefore he's got some of the problems that Stalin had, which was managing Russian power in the world from a position of weakness vis-a-vis the West, but from an ambition, a grandiosity, in fact. And so this combination of weakness and grandeur, right, of not being as strong as the West, but aspiring to be as great or greater than the West. That's the dilemma of Russian history for the past many centuries. It was the dilemma for the Tsars. It was the dilemma for Peter the Great. It was the dilemma for Alexander. It was the dilemma for Stalin. And it's the dilemma for Putin. Russia is smaller now compared to when Stalin was in that Kremlin. It's got pushed back to borders almost the time of Peter the Great. It's farther from the main European capitals now than any time since that 18th century. And the West has only grown stronger in that period of time. So the dilemma is greater than ever. The irony of being in that position, of sitting in the Kremlin, trying to manage Russian power in the world, trying to be a providential power, a country with a special mission in the world, a country which imagines itself to be a whole civilization, and yet not having the capabilities to meet those aspirations, and falling farther and farther behind the West. The irony of all of that is the attempted solutions put Russia in a worse place every single time. So you try to manage the gap with the West. You try to realize these aspirations. You try to raise your capabilities. And you build a strong state. The quest to build a strong state and use coercive modernization to try somehow, if not to close the gap with the West, at least to manage it. And the result is different versions of personalist rule. So they don't build a strong state. They build a personal dictatorship. They build an autocracy. And moreover, that's autocracy undertakes measures which then worsen the very geopolitical dilemma that gave rise to this personalist rule in the first place. And so I call this Russia's perpetual geopolitics. I've been writing about this for many, many years. What's important about this analysis is this is not a story of eternal Russian cultural proclivity to aggression. It's not something that's in the mother's milk. It's not something that can't be changed. Russia doesn't have an innate cultural tendency to aggression. This is a choice. It's a strategic choice to try to match the power of the West, which from Russia's vantage point is actually unmatchable, but it's a choice that's made again and again. And Putin has made this choice just as Stalin made the choice, right? Stalin presided over the World War II victory, and then he lost the peace. After he died in 1953, there was of course other rulers who succeeded him. He was still the most important person in the country after he died because they were trying to manage that system that he built and more importantly, manage that growing gap with the West. By the time the 90s rolled around, former Soviet troops, now Russian troops, withdrew from all those advanced positions that they had achieved as a result of the World War II victory. And it was Napoleon in reverse. They went on the same roads, but not from Moscow back to Paris, but instead from Warsaw and from East Berlin and from Tallinn and Riga and all the other places of former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet republics in the Baltic region. They went back to Russia in retreat. And so Stalin in the fullness of time lost the peace. And Putin in his own way, inheriting some of this, attempting to reverse it when, as I said, Russia was smaller, farther away, weaker, the West was bigger and stronger and had absorbed those former Warsaw Pact countries and Baltic States because they voluntarily begged to join the West. The West didn't impose itself on them. It's a voluntary sphere of influence that the West conducts. And so that dilemma is where you can put Putin and Stalin in the same sentence and the terrible outcome for Russia in the fullness of time also has echoes. But of course, Putin hasn't murdered 18 to 20 million people and the scale of his abilities to cause grief with the nuclear weapons aside is nothing like Stalin's. And so we have to be careful, right? Only Mao put bigger numbers on the board from a tragic point of view than Stalin. And numbers matter here. If we compare these singular figures. Yeah, Mao killed more people than Stalin because Mao had more people to kill. The most amazing thing about Mao is he watched Stalin do it. He watched Stalin collectivize agriculture and famine result. He watched Stalin impose this communist monopoly and all of those people sent to prison or given a bullet in the back of the neck. He watched all of that and then he did it again himself in China. You think he saw the human cost directly that when you say he saw, do you think he was focused on the policies or was he also aware distinctly as a human being of the human costs in the lives of peasants and the lives of the working class and the lives of the poor? I think the prima facie evidence is that he didn't value human life. Otherwise, I don't think after seeing the amount of lives that were taken in the Soviet experiment, he would have done something similar after that. I think the answer Lex is it's very hard to get inside Mao's head and figure out what he was really thinking. But if you just look at the results that happened, the policies that were undertaken and the consequences of them, you would have to conclude that there was, let's say, no value or little value placed on human life. Unfortunately, that's characteristic not only of communist dictators, right, of post-communist dictators as well, but the scale of the horrors that they inflict, as horrific as they are, just can't compare. And so we're in a situation where Eurasia, that is to say, the ancient civilizations of Eurasia, which would be Russia, Iran, China, all have some version of non-democratic, illiberal, autocratic regimes. And they're all pushing up against the greater power of the West in some form. Sometimes they coordinate their actions and sometimes they don't. But this is a very longstanding phenomenon, Lex, that predates Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or the latest incarnation of the supreme leader in Iran. So we'll talk about this, I think, really powerful framework of five dimensions of authoritarian regimes that you've put together. But first, let's go to this Napoleon and reverse retreat from Warsaw, back. Putin has called, from the perspective of Putin, this retreat, this collapse of Stalin is one of the great tragedies of that region of Russia. Do you think there's a sense where, as Putin sits now in power for 22 plus years, he really dreams of a return to the power, the influence, the land of Stalin? So while you said that they're not in the same place in terms of the numbers of people that suffer due to the regime, do you think he hopes to have the same power, have the same power, the same influence for a nation that was in the 30s and the 40s and the 50s of the 20th century under Stalin? If he does, Lex, he's deluding himself. We don't know for sure. Very few people talk to him. Very few people have access to him. A handful of Western leaders have met with him for short periods of time. Those inside Russia barely meet with him. His own minions in the regime barely have face time with him. We don't know exactly what he thinks. It could be that he has delusions of reconquering Russian influence, if not direct control over the territories that broke away, but it's not going to happen. Let's talk a little bit about this guy, Nikolai Potrushev. Nikolai Potrushev is probably not well known to your listeners. He's the head of Russia's security council. And so you could probably call him the second most important or second most powerful man in Russia, certainly inside the regime. Arguably Navalny is the second most important person in the country. And we'll talk about that later, I'm sure. In terms of influence. Yes. But Potrushev is a version of Putin's right hand man. And Potrushev has been giving interviews in the press. You probably saw the interview with Nizavisimaya Gazeta not that long ago. He writes also his own blog like interventions in the public sphere using the few channels that are left. And what's interesting about Potrushev, and this could well reflect similar thinking to Putin's, which is why I'm bringing this up, is that he's got this conspiratorial theory that the West has been on a forever campaign to destroy Russia, just like it destroyed the Soviet Union, and that everything the West does is meant to dismember Russia, and that Russia is fighting an existential battle against the West. And so, for example, the CIA and the American government wanted to bring down the Soviet Union, never mind that the Bush administration, the first Bush, the father, was trying desperately to hold the Soviet Union together because they were afraid of the chaos that might ensue and the nukes that might get loose as a result of a Soviet collapse. And it wasn't until the very last moment where Bush decided, his administration decided to back those Republican leaders who were breaking away from Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union, right? So never mind the empirics of it, never mind that Bill Clinton's administration following George Bush said boatloads of money, boatloads of money, Western taxpayer money to Russia. We don't know exactly how much because it came from different sources. People talk about how there was no Marshall Plan. It was tens of billions of dollars from various sources, from the IMF and other sources. And like it disappeared, it's gone. Just like the German money that went to Gorbachev for unification disappeared even before the Soviet collapse. The money disappeared, but the West sent the money. So how is that a plot? And then you could go all the way, Obama's administration, George Bush trying to do business deals and reset the relations and Obama administration trying to reset the relations and doing nothing after the Georgian war and slapping Putin on the wrist following the seizure, forcible. And you could go on and you could go on all the way through the Trump administration telling Putin that he's right. Trump believes Putin and doesn't believe US intelligence about Russian efforts to interfere in American domestic politics. So despite all the empirics of it, you have Potrushev and likely Putin talking about this multi-decade Western conspiracy to bring Russia down. At the same time as that's happening, the Germans are voluntarily increasing their dependence on Russian energy, voluntarily increasing their dependence on Russia. So here's the conspiracy to bring Russia down. The French who fantasize about themselves as a diplomatic superpower are constantly, the French leaders are constantly running to the Kremlin to ask what Russia needs, what concessions from the West Russia needs to feel respected again. The British provide all manner of money laundering and reputation laundering services for the whole Russian oligarchy, including the state officials who are looting the state and using the West British institutions to launder their money. So all of this is happening and yet Potrushev imagines this conspiracy to bring Russia down by the West. And so that's what we've got in the Kremlin again. Stalin had that same conspiratorial mentality of the West. Everything that happened in the world was part of a Western conspiracy directed against the Soviet Union and now directed against Russia. Even though the West is trying to appease, the West is offering its services, the West is trying to change Russia through investment in a positive way, but instead the West is what's changing. The West is becoming more corrupt. Western services are being corrupted by the relationship with Russia. So you have to ask yourself, who are these people in power in the Kremlin who imagine that while they're availing themselves of every service and every blandishment of the West, while they're availing themselves of this, that they're fighting a conspiracy by the West to bring them down. So this is what they call the Abyssinia, right? In Russian, which is a term, as you know, that means those who are resentful, or you might call them the losers, the losers in the transition. So when the Soviet Union fell and there was a diminishment of a very substantial diminution in Russian power and influence in the world, a lot of people lost out. They weren't able to steal the property. They weren't able to loot the state in the 90s and they were on the outside. They gradually came back in. They were the losers in the transition domestically. And for them, they wanted to reverse being on the losing side. And so they began to expropriate, to steal the money, steal the property from those first thieves who stole in the 90s. And the 2000s and on have been about re-stealing, taking the losers in the transition, taking the money from the winners and reversing this resentment, this loser status. Those are your Potrushevs and your Putins. But at the same time, this blows out to let's reverse the losses, being on the losing side, the roiling resentment at the decline of their power internationally. Let's try to reverse that too. So you have a profound psychological whole generation of people who are on the losing end domestically and reverse that domestically. That's what the Putin regime is about. Remember Mikhail Khodorkovsky's Yukos. Remember all the companies that are now owned by Putin cronies because they were taken away from whoever stole them in the first place. And now they're trying to do that on the international scale. It's one thing to put domestic opponents in jail. It's one thing to take away someone's property domestically, but you're not going to reverse the power of the West with the diminished Russia that you have. And so that project, that Potrushev project, which we see him expressing again and again, and again, he speaks about it publicly. It's not something that we need to go looking for a quest, the secret, we can't find it. What are they thinking? It's right there in front of our face. And Putin has spoken the same way for a long time. People point to the 2007 speech at the Munich security conference that Putin delivered. And certainly your listeners could use a snippet or two of that, just like they could use a couple of quotes from Potrushev to contextualize what we're talking about. But it predates the 2007 Munich speech, the reaction to Ukraine's uprising in 2004, attempt to steal the election inside Ukraine, right? Which the Ukrainian people rose up valiantly against and risked their lives and overturned, right? So there were public statements from Putin already back then, the statements about Khodorkovsky in 2003, when he was arrested and expropriated. This is a long standing, psychological, deeply psychological issue, which is about managing Russian power in the world, as I was saying, the gap with the West, but has this further dimension of feeling like losers and wanting to reverse that. That's their life experience. Abyssinia. So there's that resentment that fuels this narrative, fuels this geopolitics and internal policy. But so resentment is behind some of the worst things that have ever been done in human history. Hitler was probably fueled by resentment. So resentment is a really powerful force. Yes. Just to maybe not push back, but to give fuller context on the West, you said there's a narrative from Putin's Russia, that the West is somehow an enemy, you position everything against the West. But is there a degree, and to what degree is the West willing to feed that narrative? That it's also convenient for the West to have an enemy. It seems like in the place, in the span, it seems like in geopolitics, having an enemy is useful for forming a narrative. Now, having an enemy for the basic respect of humanity is not good. But in terms of maintaining power, if you're a leader in a game of geopolitics, it seems to be good to have an enemy. It seems to be good to have something like a Cold War, where you can always point your finger and say, all our actions are fighting this evil, whatever that evil is. It could be like with George W. Bush, the war on terror. Terrorism is this evil. You can always point at something. So you've made it seem that the West is trying. There's a lot of forces within the West that are trying to reach out a friendly hand, trying to help, sending money, sending compassion, trying to sort of... Trying to integrate Russia into a global institution. Exactly. Which was a long-standing, multi-decade effort across multiple countries and multiple administrations in those countries. But is there also warmongers in the West? Of course, Lex. Of course you're right about that. But let's put it this way. People talk about the Cold War, and they're usually looking to assign blame for the Cold War, as if it's some kind of mistake, a misunderstanding, or a search for an enemy that was convenient to rally domestic politics. So Lex, there's a coup in Czechoslovakia, and somebody installs a communist regime in February 1948. No reaction to that? That's just okay? There's a blockade of Berlin. Is that cool by you? Where they try to strangle West Berlin so that they can swallow West Berlin and add it to East Berlin. You cool with that? How about Korean War, invasion of North Korea, invasion of South Korea by North Korea. You cool with that? How about the murders and the show trials up and down Eastern Europe in the late 40s, after the imposition of the clone regimes. You good with that? Yeah, it's very convenient to have an enemy. I agree with you. But there was some actions, Lex. There was some threats to people's freedom. There was some invasions. There was some aggression and violence on a mass scale, like collectivization of Eastern Europe. We could go on, Lex, with the examples. I'm just giving a few of them. And so the Cold War was not a mistake. It was not a misunderstanding. We don't have to blame someone for the Cold War. We have to give credit for the Cold War. The Truman administration deserves credit for standing up to Stalin's regime, for standing up to these actions, for saying, yeah, we're not just going to take this. We're not going to let this go on. We're not going to let this expand to further territories. We're going to create the NATO alliance. And we're going to rally democratic, liberal regimes to stand up to this illiberalism, this violence, and this aggression. And so yeah, Lex, it's always convenient to have an enemy. But there was an enemy. Nikolai Leonov, who recently died, he died in April 2022, and he had a major funeral. He was the last head analyst of the Soviet KGB. And Leonov is one of the most important figures for understanding the Soviet collapse. And he has the best memoir on the Soviet collapse, which is known in Russian as Likha Letya. You will understand that. And you'll help your podcast listeners understand. There's a singularity to that kind of expression, Likha Letya. Leonov just died. But one of the things he, and in fact, the people who were supposedly arrested by Putin as scapegoats for the Ukraine war, the main one, Sergei Beseda, gave the eulogy at Leonov's funeral in April 2022, showing that it's a lie, that all of these people have been arrested and purged and other nonsense in social media. But to get back to what Leonov said and get back to your enemy point, Leonov said, you know, the West spent all this time blackening the image of the Soviet Union. All these resources and propaganda and covert operations to blacken the Soviet image. And they did, Lex. The West did do that. And then Leonov wrote in the next sentence, and you know what? We gave them a lot of material to work with to blacken our image. Yeah. So you're saying a kind of sobering reality, which it is possible to some degree to draw a line between the good guys and the bad guys. Freedom is better than unfreedom, Lex. It's a lot better than unfreedom. And a guy like you understands that really well. Well, so yes. But those are all, you know, there's words like justice, freedom. What else? Love. You can use a lot of words that Hitler himself used to describe why he is actually creating a better world than those he's fighting. So some of it is propaganda. The question is on the ground, what is actually increasing the amount of freedom in the world? Institutions, Lex, right? We're not talking about propaganda here. When we use words like freedom, we're talking about rule of law. We're talking about protection of civil liberties. We're talking about protection of private property. We're talking about an independent and well-funded judiciary. We're talking about an impartial, non-corrupt, competent civil service. We're talking about separation of powers where the executive branch's power is limited, usually by an elected parliament. In fact, yes, let's talk about elections. Let's talk about freedom of speech and freedom of the public sphere. We're not talking about freedom as a slogan here. We're talking about a huge array of institutions and practices and norms, ultimately, right? And if they exist, you know, and you live under them. And if they don't exist, you fully understand that as well, right? Ukraine was a flawed democracy before Russia invaded. It's utterly corrupt, many ways dysfunctional, especially the elites were dysfunctional. The gas industry in Ukraine was absolutely terrible because of the corruption that it generated, the oligarch problem, a handful of people stealing the state resources. And yet, Ukraine had an open public sphere and it had a parliament that functioned. And so despite its flaws, it was still a democracy. The regime in Moscow, you can't say that, Lex. It's not a comparable regime to Ukraine. You could say, oh, well, there were oligarchs in Ukraine and there are oligarchs in Russia. There's corruption in Ukraine, there's corruption in Russia. So really what's the big difference? And the answer is, well, Ukraine had the open public sphere. Ukraine had a real parliament. Can you call Russia's Duma a real parliament? I don't think so. I don't think you can. Can you say that there were any checks whatsoever on the executive branch in Russia? Can you say that the Russian judiciary had any independence or really full level of competence even compared to the Ukrainian judiciary, which was nothing to brag about? No, you can't say that, Lex. So we can differentiate between the very flawed, corrupt, oligarchic democracy in Ukraine and the very corrupt, oligarchic autocracy in Russia. I think that's a fair distinction. Yeah, we should say that Russia and Ukraine have the great honor of being the number one and the number two most corrupt nations in Europe by many measures. But there is a fundamental difference as you're highlighting. Russia is a corrupt autocracy. Ukraine, you can say, is a corrupt democracy. And to that level, there's a fundamental difference. Ukraine is not murdering its own journalists in systematic fashion. If journalists are killed in Ukraine, it's a tragedy. If journalists are killed in Russia or Russian journalists are killed abroad, it's regime policy. And the degree to which a nation is authoritarian means that it's suffocating its own spirit, its capacity to flourish. We're not just talking about sort of the freedom of the press, those kinds of things, but basically all industries get suffocated and you're no longer being able to, yeah, flourish as a nation, grow the production, the GDP, the scientists, the art, the culture, all those kinds of things. Yes, Lex, you're absolutely right. And so before the invasion, the full blown invasion of February, 2022 into Ukraine, because as you know, the war has been going on for many years at a lower level compared to what it is these days, but still a tragic war with many deaths prior to February, 2022. Before this latest war, we could have said that the greatest victims of the Putin regime are Russian, domestic, that the people who are suffering the most from the Putin regime are not sitting here in New York City, but in fact are sitting there in Russia. Now, of course, with the invasion of Ukraine and really the atrocities that have been well-documented and more are being investigated, uh, we can't easily say anymore that Russians are the greatest victims of the Putin regime, but in ways other than bombing and murdering civilians, children, mothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, after you include that, then of course the larger number of victims of the Putin regime are not Ukrainians, but ultimately Russians. And there's how many of them now that have fled? So your powerful, precise, rigorous words are, uh, stand in a stark contrast, I would say, to my very recent conversation with Oliver Stone. Now, I would love you to elaborate to this agreement you have here with his words and maybe words of people like, uh, John Mearsheimer. The idea is that Putin's hand in this invasion of 2022 was forced by the expansion of NATO, the imperialist imperative of the United States and the, the NATO forces. Um, you disagree with this point in terms of placing the blame somehow on the invasion on, uh, forces larger than the particular two nations involved, but, um, more on the geopolitics of the world that's driven by the most powerful military nation in the world, which is the United States. Yeah, Lex. So let's imagine that, um, a tragedy has happened here in New York and a woman got raped. We know the perpetrator, they go to trial and Oliver Stone gets up and says, you know what? The woman was wearing a short skirt and there was no option but for the rapist to rape her. The woman was wearing lipstick or the woman was applying for NATO membership and just had to be raped. There's, I mean, didn't want to rape her, but was compelled because of what she was doing and what she looked like and, and the clothes she was wearing and the alliances that she was under international law signed by Moscow, all the treaties that sovereign countries get to choose get to choose whatever alliance they belong to, uh, treaties that the UN charter signed by Russia, Soviet Union, the 1975 Helsinki agreement signed by the Soviet Union, the 1990 charter of Paris for a new Europe signed by the Soviet Union, the 1997 NATO Russia founding act signed by the Russian government, the post Soviet Russia, all of those documents signed by either the Soviet regime or the Russian regime, which is the legally recognized international inheritor, right? Successor of the Soviet state. All of those agreements are still in force and all of them say that countries are sovereign and can freely choose their foreign policy and what alliances they want to join. Let's even go farther than that. I mean, you don't have to go farther than that, but let's go farther than that. Lex is an autocratic repressive regime that invades its neighbors in the name of its own security. Something new in Russian history. Did we not see this before? Is this, does this not predate NATO expansion? Does this not predate the existence of NATO? Would Oliver Stone sit here in this chair and say to you, you know, they had to impose serfdom in the 17th century because NATO expanded. They had no choice. Their hands were tied. They were compelled to treat their own population like slaves because you know, NATO expanded. I mean, I could go on through the examples of Russian history that predate the existence, let alone the expansion of NATO, where you have behavior, policies, actions, very similar to what we see now from the Kremlin. And you can't explain those by NATO expansion, can you? And so that argument doesn't wash for me because I have a pattern here that predates NATO expansion. I have international agreements, founding documents signed by the Kremlin over many, many decades, acknowledging the freedom of countries to choose their alliances. And then I have this problem where when you rape somebody, it's not because they're wearing a short skirt. It's because you have raped them. You've committed a criminal act, Lex. Lex, I think there's a lot of people listening to this that will agree to the emotion, the power and the spirit of this metaphor. I was struggling to think how to dance within this metaphor because it feels like it wasn't precisely the right one, but I think it captures the spirit. I'm not suggesting, Lex, that everything the West has done has been honorable or intelligent. Fortunately, we live in a democracy. We live in liberal regimes. We live under rule of law, liberal in the classical sense of rule of law, not liberal in the leftist sense. We live in places like that and we can criticize ourselves and we can criticize the mistakes that we made or the policy choices or the inactions that were taken. And there are a whole lot of things to answer for. And you can now discuss the ones that are your favorites, the dishonor or the mistakes. And I could discuss mine and we could spend the whole rest of our meeting today discussing the West's mistakes and problems. And we won't end up in prison for it. Yeah, Lex. And so that's, I'm thankful for that. Yes. And I'm thankful that people may disagree and that people make the argument that NATO expansion is to blame. But you see, I'm countering two arguments here. I'm countering one argument, which is very deeply popular, pervasive, about how Russia has this cultural tendency to aggression. And it can help but invade its neighbors and it does it again and again. And it's eternal Russian imperialism and you have to watch out for it. This very popular argument in the Baltic States. It's really popular in Warsaw. It's really popular with the liberal interventionists. And it's very, very popular with those who were part of the Iraq war squad that got us into that mess. So I'm against that. And the reason I'm against it is because it's not true. It's empirically false. There is no cultural trait, inherent tendency for Russia to be aggressive. It's a strategic choice that they make. Every time it's a choice made, it's not some kind of momentum. Every time it's a choice that we should judge for the choice that it is for the decision. And therefore they could make different choices. They could say, we don't have to stand up to the West. We don't have the capabilities to do that. We can still be a great country. We can still be a civilization unto itself. We can still be Russia. We can still worship in Orthodox cathedrals or we can still be ourselves, but we don't have to pursue this commerical pursuit, this elusive quest to stand up to the West and be in the first ranks of powers. So I'm countering that argument. I'm saying it's perpetual geopolitics. It's a geopolitical choice rising out of this dilemma of the mismatch between aspirations and capabilities. It's not eternal Russian imperialism. And I'm also countering the other argument here, Lex, which is to say that it's the West's fault. It's Western imperialism. Very popular on the left, very popular with realist scholars, very popular with some of the people recently on your podcast. And so it's neither eternal Russian imperialism, nor is it Western imperialism. The mere fact that the West is stronger than Russia is not a crime on the part of the West. It's not a crime that countries voluntarily want to join the West that beg to get in either the EU or NATO or other bilateral alliances or other trade agreements. Those are voluntarily entered into and that's not criminal. If the West's sphere of influence, which is open, an open sphere of influence, which as I say, people voluntarily join, if that expands, that's not a crime, nor is that a threat to Russia ipso facto. Right? NATO is a defensive alliance and the countries are largely pacifists who are members of NATO and NATO doesn't attack. It defends members if they are attacked. And so the idea that Ukraine, which had the legal right, might want to join NATO in the EU, which was not going to happen in our lifetimes and was not a direct threat to the Putin regime since it was not, since the Western countries that make up the EU and NATO decided that Ukraine was not ready for membership. There was no consensus. It was not going to happen, but it's Ukraine's free choice to express that desire. And if your government is elected by your people, freely elected, meaning you can unelect that government in the next election and that government makes foreign policy choices on the basis of its perceived interests. That's not a crime, Lex. That's not a provocation. That's not something that compels the leader of another country to invade you. Right? That is legal under international law and it's also a realist fact of life. The realists like to tell you that Russia here was disrespected, Russia's interests were not taken into account, et cetera, et cetera. But the real world works in such a way that treaties matter, that international law matters. That's why people like me were not in favor of the US 2003 invasion of Iraq, Lex, because it wasn't legal. In addition to the fact that we thought it might backfire. But you know, Lex, like I said, there are a lot of things about the West that we ought to criticize as citizens and we do criticize. But we have to be clear about where responsibility lies in these events that we're talking about today. So you get into trouble. It's largely erroneous to think about both the West or the United States from an imperialist perspective and Russia from an imperialist perspective. It's better, clearer to think about each individual aggressive decision on its own as a choice that was made. So let's talk about the most recent choice made by Vladimir Putin. The choice to invade Ukraine or to escalate the invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022. Now we're a few months removed from that decision, initial decision. Why do you think he did it? What are the errors in understanding the situation and calculating the outcomes and everything else about this decision in your view? Yeah, Lex, when a war doesn't go well, it looks like lunacy to have launched it in the first place. Does it ever go well? War never goes according to plan. All war is based upon miscalculation, but not everybody is punished for their miscalculation. All aggressive war we're talking about, not defensive war, is based upon miscalculation. But you can adjust. You can recalibrate. When you're driving down the road and that very annoying voice is telling you in a thousand feet, make a right, and you fail to make a right, it recalibrates, right? It tells you, okay, now go turn around or U-turn or make a left. It doesn't say you're an idiot and turn around and make a U-turn, but it does recalibrate. So you can miscalculate and the problem is not the miscalculation usually, it's the failure to do that adjustment, right? People I know who are hedge fund traders, I ask them, you know, what's your favorite trade? And the line from them all, and this is a cliche, is my favorite trade is when I made a mistake, but I got out early before all the carnage. So their favorite trade is not when they made some brilliant choice, but it's when they miscalculated, but they reduced the consequences of their miscalculation by recalibrating quickly, right? So let's talk about the calculation and miscalculation of February. Let's imagine, Lex, that you've been getting away with murder. I don't mean murder in a figurative sense. I mean, you've been murdering people. You've been murdering them domestically and you've been murdering them all across Europe and you've been murdering them not just with, for example, a car accident, a staged car accident, or using a handgun. You use Novichok or you use some other internationally outlawed chemical weapon. And let's imagine that you did it and nothing happened to you. It wasn't like you were removed from power. It wasn't like you paid a personal price. Sure, maybe there was some sanctions on your economy, but you didn't pay the price of those sanctions. Little people paid the price of those sanctions. Other people in your country paid the price. Let's imagine not only were you murdering people literally, but you decided to entice the idiotic ruler of Georgia into a provocation that you could then invade the country. And you invaded the country and you bid off these territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And what price did you pay for that? And then you decided, I think I'll now invade Crimea and forcibly annex Crimea. And I'll instigate an insurrection in the Donbas, in Eastern Ukraine, in Luhansk. Let's say Luhansk. Let's imagine you did all that. And then you had to stick out your wrist so that it could be slapped a couple of times. And you said, I can pretty much do what I want. They're putting a sanction here and there, and they're doing this and they're doing that. And you know what? They're more energy dependent on me than before. I got better money laundering and reputation services than anybody has. Maybe the Middle East and the Chinese would disagree with you that you have better than them, but yours are pretty good. And the Panama Papers get released, revealing all of your offshoring and your corruption and what happened? Nothing happens, Lex. So the first and most important consideration here is in your own mind, you've been getting away with murder, literally, as well as figuratively. And you think, you know, I probably can do something again and get away with it. And so the failure to respond at scale, in fact, the indulgences, the further dependencies that are introduced, the illusion that trade is the mechanism to manage authoritarian regimes. You know, that great German cliche, a wandel durch handel, right? Change through trade or transformation through trade, one of Angela Merkel's favorite expressions, right? You're going to get the other side to be better rather than confront them in a Cold War fashion, where you stand up to their aggressions and you punish them severely in order to deter further behavior. So that's the first and most important part of the calculation miscalculation. There are a lot of other dimensions. Lex. Can we pause on that really quick? So this is kind of idea of it's okay to crack a few eggs to make an omelet, which is a more generous description of what you're saying, that you don't incorporate into the calculation the amount of human suffering that the decisions cause. But instead you look at sort of the success based on some kind of measure for you personally and for the nation, not in terms of in the humanitarian sense, but in some kind of economic sense and a power geopolitical power sense. Yeah. You're not sentimental Lex. You say to yourself, the cause of Russian greatness is greater than any individual life. Russia being in the first rank of the great powers, Russia realizing its mission to be a special country with a special mission in the world, a civilization onto itself. The first rank of the great powers, maybe even the greatest power, that's worth the price that we have to pay, especially in other people's lives. Right? We have a lot of literature on the Putin regime, which talks about the kleptocracy. The place is a kleptocracy and it is a kleptocracy. We all can see that. And anybody in London live in the high life servicing this kleptocracy can testify that it's a kleptocracy and not only in London, of course, right here in the United States, in New York. But you know, it's not only a kleptocracy Lex. That was the problem of the Russian studies literature. It wasn't just about stealing, looting the state. It was about Russian greatness. You see those rituals in the Kremlin, right in the grand Kremlin palace, in the St. George's Hall, some of the greatest interiors in the world. And you see award ceremonies and you see marking holidays and all of these looters of the state have their uniforms on with their medals. And someone's given a speech or singing a ballad and their eyes are moist. Their eyes are moist because they're thieves and looters? No Lex, because they believe in Russian greatness. They have a deep and fundamental passionate commitment to the greatness of Russia, which in unsentimental fashion, they're all sentimental to the max. That's why their eyes are moistening, but they imagine unsentimentally that any sacrifice is okay. A sacrifice of other people's lives, a sacrifice of their conscripts in the military, a sacrifice of Ukrainian women and children and elderly. That's a small price to pay for those moist eyes about Russian greatness and Russia's position in the world. Well, that human thing, that sentimentality is the thing that can get us in trouble in the United States as well and lead us to wars, illegal wars and so on. But the United States, there's repercussions for breaking the law. You're going to pay for illegal wars in the end. You're saying that in authoritarian regimes, the sentimentality can really get out of hand and you can, like charismatic leaders, they can take that to manipulate the populace to make, that in the span of history led to atrocities and in today's world lead to humanitarian crises. It's not just a kleptocracy, it's a belief system. It's passion, it's conviction. You can call them illusions, you can call them fantasies, whatever you want to call them, they're real. They're real for those people. And so yes, they're looting that very state that they're trying to make one of the great powers in the world. And they resent the fact that the West doesn't acknowledge them as one of those great powers. And they resent that the West is more powerful. People talk about how Putin doesn't understand the world and that he gets really bad information. Lex, if you're sitting there in that Kremlin and you're trying to conduct business in the world and you're getting reports from your finance minister or your central bank governor, your whole economy, everything that matters, somehow all your trade is denominated in dollars and euros. Do you have any illusions about who controls the international financial system? I don't think so, Lex. You're looking over your industrial plan for the next year and you're looking over how many tanks you're going to get and how many cruise missiles you're going to get and how many submarines you're going to get and fill in the blank. And you know what? It says right there in the paperwork where the component parts come from, where the software comes from, comes from the West, Lex. Your whole military industrial complex is dependent on high end Western technology. And let's say you're in Beijing, not just in Moscow, and you go to a meeting in your own neighborhood. You're the leader of China. You go to a meeting with other with other Asian leaders. Do they all speak in Chinese with you? No, Lex. They don't speak Chinese. You go to an international meeting as the leader of China and guess what language is the main language of intercourse? Yes, the same one you and I are speaking right now. And so you live in that world. You live in the Western world and it's very hard to have illusions about what world you live in when you're under that. You need those Western banks. You need that foreign currency, right? You need that high end Western technology, that technology transfer. You're speaking or you're forced to speak or your minions are forced to speak at international gatherings in English. And I could go on all the indicators that you live in. And so Putin lives in that world. He's no fool. Well, to push back, isn't it possible that, as you said, the minions operate in that world? But can't you, if you're the leader of Russia or the leader of China or the leader of these different nations, still put up walls where actually when you think in the privacy of your own mind, you exist not in the international world, but in a world where there's this great Russian empire or this great Chinese empire? And then you forget that there's English. You forget that there's technology and iPhones. You forget that there's all of this US keeps popping up on all different paperwork that just becomes the blurry details that dissipate because what matters is the greatness of this dream empire that I have in my mind as a dictator. I would put it this way, Lex. After you absorb all of that from your minions and it impresses upon your consciousness where you live, you live in a Western dominated world, that the multipolar world doesn't exist. Your goal is to make that multipolar world exist. Your goal is to bring down the West. Your goal is for the West to weaken. Your goal is a currency other than the dollar and the euro. Your goal is an international financial system that you dominate. Your goal is technological self-sufficiency made in China 2035, right? Your goal is a world that you dominate, not that the West dominates, and you're going to do everything you can to try to attain that world, which is a Russian centric world or a Chinese centric world or what we could call a Eurasian centric world. And it's not going to be easy, Lex, just for the reasons that we enumerated before. But maybe you're going to get a helping hand. Maybe the West is going to transfer their best technology to you. They're going to sell you their best stuff. And then you're going to absorb it and maybe copy it and reverse engineer it. And if they won't sell it to you, maybe you'll just have to steal it. Maybe the West is going to allow you to bank, even though you violate many laws that would prohibit the West from extending those banking services to you. Maybe the West is going to buy your energy and your palladium and your titanium and your rare metals like lithium because you're willing to have your poor people mine that stuff and die of disease at an early age. But Western governments, they don't want to do that. They don't want to do that dirty mining of those very important rare earths. But you're willing to do that because it's just people whose lives you don't care about as an autocratic regime. So that's the world you live in where you're trying to get to this other world. You're at the center of the other world. You dominate the other world. But the only way to get there, Lex, is the West has to weaken, divide itself, maybe even collapse. And so you're encouraging, to the extent possible, Western divisions, Western disunity, Western lack of resolve, Western mistakes and Western invasion of the wrong country and Western destruction of its credibility through international financial crises. And one could go on. So if the West weakens itself through its mistakes and its own corruption, you're going to survive and maybe even come out into that world where you're the center. And so Russia's entire grand strategy, just like China's grand strategy, Iran, it's hard to say they have a grand strategy because they're so so profoundly weak. But Russia's grand strategy is we're a mess. We don't invest in our human capital. Our human capital flees or we actually drive it out. It goes to MIT like you did, or it goes to fill in the blank, right? We can't invest in our people. Our health care is terrible. Our education system is in decline. We don't build infrastructure, Lex. We don't improve our governance. We don't invest in those attributes of modern power that make the West powerful. We can't because when we try, the money is stolen. We try these grandiose projects of national projects, they're called. We're going to invest in higher ed. We're going to invest in high tech. We're going to build our own Silicon Valley known as Skolkovo. We're going to do all those things and what happens? They can't even build an airport without the money disappearing. The Sochi Olympics, Lex, officially cost them $50 billion. You look around at the infrastructure that endured from that $50 billion expense and you're thinking, that's like the Second Avenue subway. You get almost nothing for your money. And so yeah, it's corruption, Lex, but it's also because they don't want to do that. They don't want to invest in their people. They couldn't do it if they wanted to and when they try, it doesn't work. But why invest in your own people? Invest in your hardware, your military hardware, right? Invest in your cyber capabilities, invest in all your spoilation techniques and your hard power and invest in further corrupting and further weakening and further dividing the West. Because as I said, if the West is weak, divided, lacking resolve, you don't invest in your people, you don't build infrastructure, you don't improve your governance, but you'll muddle through. That's Russian grand strategy. So invest in the hard power, weaken the West. Those combined together means you're going to be incentivized to escalate any military aggressive conflicts that are around you or create new ones or- If you can get away with murder. But what happens, Lex, if it's a Harry Truman-like response? What happens if somebody says, you know, we're going to stand up to this? We're not going to allow this to happen. We're not going to launder your money anymore. We're not going to be dependent on you for energy in the long term. We're going to make a transition. We're going to punish you for that kind of behavior instead. And the West is now switched to that only because of the courage and ingenuity of the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression was one of the greatest gifts the West has ever received. The sacrifices that the Ukrainians are making right now as we speak, meaning they're fighting a war by themselves against the major military power, their neighbor, Russia. Nobody's fighting it with them. Yes, we are giving them weapons so they can conduct self-defense, which by the way, is legal under international law. Unlike the Russian invasion, which is illegal under international law, Western supply of weapons, including heavy weapons, including offensive weapons to Ukraine for its self-defense in the invasion by Russia is actually legal under. And so thank God, the Ukrainians surprised everybody. They surprised me. They surprised Putin in the Kremlin. They surprised the Biden administration. They surprised the European Union, not with the fact that they would resist. We knew that. We had the Orange Revolution in 2004. We had Maidan in 2013, 14, where they rose up against a domestic tyrant and they were willing to die on behalf of their country then, let alone against a foreign tyrant invading their country. Right. So we knew they would resist. We didn't know just how successful, certainly I didn't know, they would be on the battlefield. It's been breathtaking to watch. That sacrifice, that gift enabled the West to rediscover itself, to rediscover its power, to revive itself, to say, the hell with this energy dependence in the long term, the hell with this money laundering and reputation laundering, the hell with this running back and forth to Moscow to try to see what Putin needs in order for him to feel respected, what appeasement he needs. Right. So we'll see if it endures, but this shift comes from the Ukrainians. And so it's no longer getting away with murder, Lex. And we thank the Ukrainians for that. The people and the leadership and the separate factions that make up Ukraine uniting, it's the unification, the uniting against the common enemy and standing up before anyone knew that they would be backed by all of these other nations, by this money and all this kind of stuff, standing there, especially with the President Zelensky, where it makes total sense to flee, he stood his ground. Let's take that point that you just raised, which is a deep and fundamental point, and I thank you for that. Do you guys hear that? I think that was a compliment. There we go. Let's go. So let's hear unification. I'm sitting here in front of you. Thank you. It's an honor. And it's a mutual honor. So Ukraine before the war is run by a TV production company. Right? You're one guy running this fantastic, incredible podcast. There's 20 guys or so running a country the size of Ukraine. And one's a producer and one's like a makeup person and one's a video editor. And they're fantastically talented people if your country is a TV production. So before the war, Zelensky had what, 25% approval rating and he couldn't get much done and it wasn't working. He got elected with 73%, as you know, and then he was down to 20. That's a pretty big drop. And so you're thinking maybe having a major large size, 40 million plus population European country run by a TV production company is not the best choice. And then what do we see? We see President Zelensky decides to risk his life on behalf of his country, Ukraine. He decides to stay in the Capitol. He's not going to flee. They're going to stay and fight. And he could be killed. He can die. It's a decision where he put his life on the line. Obviously, he's Jewish descent, Russian speaking childhood and upbringing, Russian speaking Jewish descent puts his life on the line for the country of Ukraine. It's a pretty big message, don't you think? And it's crucial. And it turns out not only that, Lex, but they're good at TV. They're good at information war. And in a war, it's a TV production company and a TV personality. That's exactly what you want running a country because they're crushing in the information war. And he's spectacular. European Parliament, US Congress, Israeli Parliament. There's no room on Zoom, let alone in person that he can't win over. He's just so effective. This is the first time reality TV has been about reality instead of fake. Reality TV is just this completely fake nonsense. But Zelensky, this is real reality TV. And he means it. And the nation is behind him. And they're just as courageous and just as ingenious in many ways. And it's spectacular. And so, yeah, who saw that coming? I didn't see that coming, Lex. In fact, the Biden... We talk about Putin's miscalculation. The Biden administration, as you alluded to, offered him an exit from the country. They didn't say, you want to stand and fight? We'll back you. They said, we'll get you out. You want to come now? And famously, you know that quote, right? What he said about how he doesn't need a ride. Remember that moment? The Biden administration was poised to do another Afghanistan moment. That ignominious exit from Afghanistan was almost what happened in Ukraine when Biden administration offered him that ride out of there. And fortunately, he declined and helped rally and the people from below also rallied to stop the invader without the presidency and without the government in Ukraine, saving the Biden administration and the European leaders who latched on. Fortunately, they had the presence of mind to latch onto this gift, this bravery and ingeniousness of Zelensky and the rest of the Ukrainians and flipped and decided to support Ukraine's resistance. You know, first with 5,000 helmets only, as the Germans initially promised, and now with really heavy weapons. And so that's something that wasn't foreseen. I certainly didn't foresee that. I foresaw the Ukrainian society being courageous and resisting. But I didn't foresee a television production company being exactly what you want to run a country in a war, a president Zelensky willing to sacrifice, lay down his life and rallying others in the country to do that. And then the country being so effective, not just at courage, but at battlefield resistance to the Russian invasion. So I stand corrected by the Ukrainians and I'm ecstatic that I was wrong, that I was proven wrong. And like I said, there's clear factions of the West and the East of Ukraine. And here's a person that, like you said, was in the high 20s, low 30s percentage approval in the country before the war and now was able to use... He's in the 90s now. In the 90s. He's in the 90% approval rating. I mean, I think they stopped doing the polling. Once he hit 91% or whatever it was in the previous poll, I think they all understood that for now they didn't need any more polling, that it's pretty clear the nation. So 25% to 90 something percent. And just like the 25% was deserved, the 90 something percent is also deserved, fully deserved. And the question is how that all stabilizes. It feels like this set of events, I may be paying attention to Twitter too much, which is a concern of mine, whether the change I see is just surface level or deep level, but it seems like we're in a new world. That something dramatic has shifted. That this power that's rooted, I mean, in your study of the 20th century is so deeply rooted in history. There's this power center of the world is now going to... It has been shaken by this event. And how that changes the world is unclear. It's unclear what lesson China learns from watching this, what lesson India learns from watching this. Both nations, as far as you can get polls about Chinese population, but both nations are largely in support of Putin. So Russia, India, and China are still supporting of Putin quietly. I would maybe elaborate a little bit on that point, Lex. I think you're right. The feeling that we're in an inflection moment, an inflection point, I think that's widespread. And I think it's widespread for good reason. We might be. But I also share your, let's say, modesty about where it's going and how hard it is to predict where this might go. It's only an inflection point if the trends continue, right? If the trends endure. There are plenty of non-inflection points. After 9-11, the whole world rallied around the United States after it was attacked, after the bombing of the towers here in New York City and the hitting of the Pentagon. And that didn't last. And it was not really an inflection point, was it? It felt like it might be, but it wasn't. And so this is not a comparable moment in terms of what happened, but it has the feeling that it might be a watershed. And maybe we'll squander it the way we squandered the post 9-11 rallying around the United States. Maybe we'll actually consolidate it and it'll endure, or maybe it'll endure despite ourselves. And we can't tell and we can't know yet. And it depends in part on what we do and what we don't do. But here's a few things that we understand already. The idea that the West was in decline and that the rest of the world had risen and was more powerful and that we lived in a multipolar world, that turns out to be empirically false. It's not true. I mean, it's just factually not true. There are no major important multinational institutions, organizations that are run on behalf of or led by a South African, a Nigerian person from India. Even the Chinese don't run these institutions. They would like to, and they're trying, but they don't. And so whatever you pick, the IMF, the World Bank, the Federal Reserve, which is the most powerful multinational institution, which is actually only a domestic institution and doesn't have a legal mandate to act multilaterally, but does. It's got the most power of any institution in the world. NATO, the bilateral alliances that the US has up and down Asia. What organizations that have tremendous leverage on the international system, on the international order are non-Western? The UN is the most encompassing. And of course, we know that it has five members of the Security Council with a veto, one of which is Russia, one of which is China, and the others are the US, Britain, and France, not India, not South Africa, not Indonesia, not all of these other countries where the people live, right? The bulk of the population of the world and where the population is growing, like on the African continent. So it's not a multipolar world. We talked already about the international financial system. That's the Western, not multipolar. We talked about the US military and NATO, or we could talk about the Japanese military, which is just very formidable, enormous number of platforms. Even the Australian military we could talk about, right? And so it's a Western dominated world. And the West, remember, is not a geographic concept. It is an institutional and values club. The Japanese are not European, but they're Western, just like Russia is European, but not Western, because European is a cultural category, and Western is an institutional category where you have rule of law and separation of powers and free and open public sphere and dynamic open market economy. Okay. And then we have another thing, which is pretty clear. The West is powerfully resented, powerfully envied and admired simultaneously. PJ O'Rourke, the comedian who died this year, fantastic. It was a big loss for the culture. He said, there are two things that are always characteristic of any American embassy abroad. One is a political protest outside, and the other is the longest line you've ever seen for visas. And those things are true simultaneously. And that's the world we live in, meaning that non-Western countries envy and admire the West, but they also resent the power of the West. Western hypocrisy, right? The West invades countries when it wants, but when others do that, it's illegal, right? The West arrests you for money laundering, but it's Western money laundering that is where you go when you need to launder money, right? So they see the hypocrisy, they see the excessive power that the West has, and they resent it. And they say, who elected you to run the world? We have a billion plus people, or we have a 200 plus million people, and we don't have a say. You're the self-appointed guardians of our world. Who did that? And so it's incumbent on the West not only to remember the power that it has, but also to exercise that power legally and with restraint, and also to think about how it can expand institutions to be more encompassing so that other parts of the world are not on the outside being dictated to, but instead are on the inside. Too often, right, Western power is not consultative in a decision-making fashion. It's consultative after the fact. Okay, you know, we got together in the EU, or we got together in NATO, or we got together at the Federal Reserve, and here's our decision, and we're announcing it today. And so your economy gets destroyed because the Federal Reserve decides it has to raise interest rates, or you now go into default, you can't pay your debt because Western banks lent you money, and now the West has changed interest rates or other considerations, and you're in big trouble now. And so this is something which we fail to address. It's very hard to address. It's very hard to reform international institutions. It's very hard to share power. It's very hard to acknowledge that you have too much power, and that maybe having too much power is not good, not only for the rest of the world, but for yourself. And so it's great to rediscover the West and rediscover its values and rediscover its authority and credibility and power, but that's not sufficient. So we know this now. We know that the rest of the world is not necessarily jumping on the Western bandwagon, right, to condemn Russia for its actions, because the West can do things like sanction your central bank, take away your reserves, deny you technology. It pretty much can do whatever it wants, and it can say that it's legal, and it can go through various mechanisms, and it can freeze your property. And you say to yourself, should anybody have that much power, and when do they come after me? Now there's a caveat here, and the caveat, Lex, is they don't like the West having all of that power, and they didn't join in the condemnation of Russia, but they also didn't join in Russia's aggression. So Russia's domestic civilian and aerospace, aircraft industry, right, civilian aircraft industry is in big trouble now, because of the export controls on spare parts and software. Brazil is a major power in aircraft manufacturing. Did they rush in and say, you know, Vladimir Putin, we didn't condemn necessarily your actions in Ukraine, okay, that's one thing, and how about we give you all of our aircraft technology, and we help you rebuild your domestic aircraft industry, and you can have the aviation that the West is, did that happen, Lex? Didn't happen. And you can look at India, and you can look at China, and you can look at South Africa, and you can look at what they've done in practical terms. Yes, they haven't always joined in a full-throated condemnation, maybe they've been neutral, or maybe they've been playing both sides of the fence, like Turkey, for example, but are they rushing in to join Russia, to join Russia's aggression, to supply, and the answer is no, and the answer is no for two reasons. One, they actually don't want to be party to that, and two, they understand that Western power, and they don't want to be on the receiving end by crossing the West and then getting caught up in a sanctions regime or worse. Can we go to the mind of Vladimir Putin, because what you just said, China, India, they seem to sit back and say, we're not going to condemn the actions of Vladimir Putin and Russia, but we would really like for this war to be over. So there's that kind of energy of, we don't just stop this, because you're putting us in a very, very bad position, and yet Vladimir Putin is continuing the aggression. What is he thinking? What information is he getting? Is it the system that you've described of authoritarian regimes that corrupts your flow of information, your ability to make clear-headed decisions? Just as a human being, when you go to sleep at night, is he not able to see the world clearly, or is this all deliberate, systematic action that does have some reason behind it? We've got to talk a little bit about China too, but let's answer your Putin question directly. So on Twitter, you've lost the war, or as they say, there are these two Russian soldiers having a smoke in Warsaw, and they're taking a break, having a smoke, and they're sitting there in Warsaw on top of their tank, and one says to the other, yeah, we lost the information war. And there they are sitting in Warsaw having that smoke, right? So yeah, on Twitter, Russia has completely lost the war. In reality, they failed to take Kiev, they failed to capture Kiev, and they failed in phase two, as they called it, or plan B, which is to capture the entirety of the Donbas. We're three months into the war. If you had made a judgment about, let's say, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, a definitive judgment after three months, you might've got the outcome wrong there. If you had judged the winter war, the 1939-40 Soviet invasion of Finland after three months, you would've got that wrong too, of what the outcome was going to be. So we're early in the game here, and we have to be careful about any definitive judgments. But it is the case that so far, they failed to take Kiev, and they failed to capture Kiev, and they failed to capture the entirety of the Donbas, Luhansk and Donetsk provinces, eastern Ukraine, a part of eastern Ukraine. And they've been driven out of Kharkiv and the area immediately surrounding Kharkiv. They never captured Kharkiv, but they came close, but now the Ukrainians drove them back to the Russian border in that very large and important region. So those look like battlefield losses that are impossible to explain away, if you're the regime in Russia, except by suppression of information. And as you know from Russian history, Lex, leaders in Russia have an easier time with a state of siege and deprivation than they do with explaining a lost war. But let's look at some other facts that are important to take into account. One, the Russian army has penetrated farther into Ukrainian territory since February 2022, including in Kherson region, the famous Mariupol siege that just ended. They have built a large presence in areas north of Crimea on the Sea of Azov, the Black Sea littoral, ultimately, that they didn't previously hold. They're still fighting in Luhansk for full control over at least half of the Donbass, and Ukrainians are resisting fiercely. But nonetheless, you can say that they've been driven out. On the contrary, farther penetration than the beginning. Ukraine doesn't have an economy anymore. They have somewhere between 33 and 50% unemployment. It's hard to measure unemployment in a war economy. But their metallurgical industry, that Azov-style steel plant in Mariupol is a ruin now. And a lot of farmers are not planting the fields because the harvest from the previous year still hasn't been sent, sold abroad because the ports are blockaded or destroyed. And so you don't have an economy and you need 5 billion or 7 billion or 8 billion dollars a month to meet your payroll, to feed your people, to keep your army in the field. That's a lot of money per month. And that's indefinite. That's as long as this blockade lasts. And so you don't have an economy anymore. You're indigent. And even if you take the lower number, 5 billion, as opposed to Zelensky's ask for 7 billion, 5 billion is 60 billion a year. That's 60 billion this year, that's 60 billion next year. And so who's got that kind of money? Which Western taxpayers are ready? And if you use the 7 or 8 billion, you get up to 100 billion a year. The Biden just signed, President Joe Biden just signed the bill making it law, 40 billion dollars in aid to Ukraine. It's just an enormous sum. The economic piece of that is a month and a half, two months of Ukrainians covering Ukrainian expenditures. That's it. And they're asking the G7, they're asking everybody for this. So you have no economy and no prospect of an economy until you evict the Russians from your territory. And then you have a Western unity, Western resolve. It lasts or it doesn't last, Lex. So you're President Putin, and you've got more territory than before. And you've got a strangle hold over the Ukrainian economy. And you've got a lot of the world neutral. And you've got the Chinese propaganda supporting you to the hilt with those Oliver Stone and Mearsheimer lines about how this is really NATO's fault. And you've got Hungary dragging its feet on the oil embargo against Russia. And you got Turkey dragging its feet on the recent applications of Sweden and Finland for NATO expansion. And you're saying to yourself, Lex, maybe I can ride this out. I got a lot of problems of my own. And we can go into the details on the Russian side's challenges. But he's got, he's on Ukrainian territory unless he's evicted. And he's got a stranglehold on their economy. And he's got the possibility that the West doesn't stay resolved and doesn't continue to pay for Ukraine's economy or supply those heavy weapons. And so you could argue that maybe he's deluded about all of this. And maybe he should go on Twitter. You know, I'm not on Twitter, but maybe Putin, who famously doesn't use the internet, should go on Twitter and see he's losing the war. Or you can argue that maybe he's calculating here that he's got a chance to still prevail. Wow, that is darkly insightful. If I could go to Henry Kissinger for a brief moment, and people should read this op-ed he wrote in the Washington Post in March 5th, 2014, after the start of the war between Russia and Ukraine, but before Crimea was annexed. There's a lot of interesting historical description about the division within Ukraine, the corruption within Ukraine, that will, if people read this article, will give context to how incredible it is what Zelensky was able to accomplish in uniting the country. But I just want to comment, because Henry Kissinger is an interesting figure in American history. He opens the article with, in my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end, and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins. So he's giving this cold, hard truth that we go into wars excited, are able to send $40 billion, financial aid, military aid, our own men and women, but the excitement fades. Twitter outrage fades. And then a country that's willing to wait patiently, is willing to pay the cost of siege versus the cost of explaining to its own people that the war is lost. That country just might win. Outlast. Let's hope not, because the Ukrainians' resistance deserves to prevail here. Russia deserves to lose. No war of aggression like they've committed here against Ukraine should prevail if we can do anything about it. I support a thousand percent the continued supply of heavy weapons, including offensive weapons, to the Ukrainians, as long as they're willing to resist. And it's their choice. It's their choice when to negotiate. It's their choice how much to resist. It's their choice what kind of sacrifices to make. And it's our responsibility to meet their requests more quickly than we have so far, and at greater scale. But ultimately, wars only have political ends. They never have military ends. You need a political solution here. So if the Ukrainians are able to conduct a successful counteroffensive at scale in July or August, whenever they launch. Right now, the heavy weapons are coming in, and they're being moved to the battlefield, and more are coming. You know, the dynamic. Russia bombs a school. Russia bombs a hospital. Americans and Europeans decide to send even more heavy weapons to Ukraine. Right? That's the self-defeating dynamic from the Russian side. They commit the atrocities. We send more heavy weapons. Once those heavy weapons are on the battle lines, we'll see if Ukrainians cannot just defend, which they've proven they're able to do in breathtaking fashion, not just conduct counterattacks where the enemy moves forward, and you cut behind the enemy's lines, and you counterattack and push the enemy back a little bit, but whether you can evict the Russians from your territory with a combined arms operation, where you have a massive superiority in infantry and heavy weapons, but more importantly, you coordinate your air power, your tanks, your drones, your infantry at scale, which is something the Ukrainians have not done yet. It's something the Russians failed at in Ukraine, and they come from the same place, the Soviet military. We hope this Ukrainian counteroffensive at scale, this combined arms operation, succeeds, and if it does succeed, there's the possibility of a battlefield victory. Whether that also includes Crimea, which as you know, is not hostile, on the contrary to the Russian military, remains to be seen. But however much they regain territorially back towards the 1991 borders, which is their goal, their stated goal, and which we support them properly in trying to achieve, however much they achieve of that in this counteroffensive that we're anticipating, that will set the stage for the next phase. And either Russia, which is to say one person, Vladimir Putin, will acknowledge that he's lost the war because the Ukrainians won it on the battlefield, or he'll try to announce a full-scale mobilization, conscript the whole country, go back, and instead of acknowledging defeat, try to win with a different plan, recalibrate, remains to be seen. Will the Ukrainians negotiate any territory away, or must they capture also Crimea, which puts a very high bar on the summer counteroffensive that we're going to see, which could last through the fall and into the winter as a result? We don't know the answers to that. Nobody knows the answers to that. People are guessing. Some people are better informed because they have inside intelligence. People are also worried about Russian escalation to nuclear weapons or chemical weapons if they begin to lose on the battlefield to Ukraine. Are you worried about nuclear war, the possibility of nuclear war? I think it's necessary to pay attention to that possibility. That possibility existed before the February 2022 full-blown invasion of Ukraine. The doomsday arsenal that Russia possesses is enough to destroy the world many times over, and that's been the case every year since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. And so, of course, we're concerned about that. We do know, however, Lex, that they have a system known as dual key. Dual key for the strategic nuclear weapons. Strategic nuclear weapons means the ones fired from silos, the missiles, the ones delivered from bombers, or the ones fired from submarines, right? And they're ready to go. They're intercontinental. We watch that very, very closely. We watch all the movement of that and the alerts, et cetera. We have tremendously, let's say, tremendous inside intelligence on that. But dual key means that President Putin alone cannot fire them. He has one key, which he must insert. He must then insert the codes for a command to launch. That then goes to the head of the general staff, who has his own key and separate codes and must do the same, insert that key and codes for them to launch. And so, will the general staff chief go along with the destruction of the world over a battlefield loss in Ukraine? I don't know the answer to that, and I don't know if anybody knows the answer to that. Will those people flying those bombers, if they get the order from, if the dual key system goes into action and both keys are used and all the codes are implemented, will those young guys flying those bombers let those bombs go? Will those at the missile silos decide to engage and fire? We don't know, but you can see that it's more than one man making the decision here in a system of strategic nuclear weapons. As far as the tactical, the so-called low yield or battlefield nuclear weapons, we're not sure the system that they have in Russia these days for their implement, for their use of such tactical nuclear weapons. It could well be that Putin and just himself, he alone can fire them or order them be fired. But you know, Lex, there's no tactical nuclear weapon fired at Ukraine that's not also fired simultaneously at Russia. If the Kremlin is 600 miles from Ukraine and if the wind changes direction or the wind happens to be blowing east, northeast, the fallout hits your Kremlin, not just Ukraine. Moreover, you have all those border regions, which are staging regions for the Russian offensive, and they're a lot closer than 600 miles. They're actually right there. And so you fire that weapon on Ukrainian territory and you can get the fallout, just like the Chernobyl fallout spread to Sweden, which is how we got the Kremlin to finally, got the Kremlin to finally, first they denied, they said, oh, we don't know why there's a big nuclear cloud over Sweden. We don't know where that came from, but eventually they admitted it. So Russia can't actually use a nuclear weapon, tactical battlefield one in Ukraine, without also firing it at itself. And in addition, it's that same dynamic I alluded to earlier, which is to say, you bomb a hospital, you bomb a school, there's more heavy weapons going to Ukraine from the West. You can't get away with any of the, there's always going to be a response that's either proportional or greater than proportional. You could well have Europe signing on to NATO direct engagement, both Washington and Brussels direct engagement of the Russian army on the territory of Ukraine. You think that's possible to do that without dramatic escalation from the Russian side? Yes, I do think it's possible, but it's very worrisome, just like you're saying. But if Putin were to escalate like that, he's firing that weapon at himself and he's potentially provoking a direct clash with NATO's military, not just with the Ukrainian military. If you're sitting in the Kremlin looking at those charts, Lex, of NATO capabilities, and you can't conquer Ukraine, which didn't really have heavy weapons before February, 2022 at scale. And you're thinking, okay, now I'm going to take on NATO. That would be a bold step on the part of a Russian leader. And let's also remember Lex, that there's another variable here. You're a despot as long as everyone implements your orders. And so if people start to say quietly, not necessarily publicly, I may not implement that order because that's maybe a criminal order. Or my grandma is Ukrainian, or my wife is Ukrainian, or I don't want to go to the hog. I don't want to spend the rest of my life in the hog, or whatever it might be. At any point along the chain of command, from the general staff all the way down to the platoon, you're a despot provided they implement your orders. But who's to say that somewhere along the chain of command, people start to say, you know, I'm going to ignore that order, or I'm going to sabotage that order, or I'm going to flee the battlefield, or I'm going to injure myself so that I don't have to fight, or I'm going to join the Ukrainian side. And so it could be that what's left of the Russian army in the field begins to disintegrate. Even if the Ukrainians are not able to mount that counteroffensive at scale, that combined arms operation, the Russian military in the field, which has taken horrendous casualties as far as we understand, something like a third of the original force. So you're talking about 50 to 60,000. That includes both dead and wounded to the point of being unable to return to the battlefield. Those are big numbers. Those were a lot of families, a lot of families affected. Their sons or their husbands or their fathers are either missing in action, or the regime won't tell them that they're dead. As you know from the sinking of that flagship, Moskva, right, by the Ukrainians. And so a disintegration of the Russian military, because there are orders that they either can't implement or don't want to implement, is also not excluded. And so you have these two big variables, the Ukrainian army in the field and its ability to move from defense to offense at scale. And we're going to test that soon. And then the Russian ability in the field to hold together in a war of conquest and aggression, where their conscripts or they're fed dog food or they don't have any weapons anymore because there's no resupply. And so the disintegration of the army can't be excluded. And then of course, all bets are off on the Putin regime. More long term, there are these technology export controls. We were talking about how the military industrial complex in Russia is dependent on foreign component parts and software. And so if you have export controls, and you have firms voluntarily, even when they don't fall under export controls, leaving Russian business, refusing to do business with Russia. And we see this not just in the civilian sector, like with McDonald's, or many other companies. We see this in the key areas, like the oil industry, with the executives fleeing, that is the Western executives fleeing, giving up their positions. So Russia's ability to resupply its tanks, resupply its missiles, resupply its uniforms, resupply its food to its soldiers in the field and their boots. We see a lot of stuff under tremendous stress. And in the long term, there's no obvious way they can rebuild the military industrial complex to produce those weapons, because they're reliant on foreign parts that they can't get anymore. And there are no domestic substitutes on the immediate horizon. That's at the earliest a two year proposition to have domestic substitutes. And for some things like microelectronics, they've never had domestic substitutes going back to the Soviet times, as you know well. And so there's that pressure on Russia from the technology export controls, which if you're in the security ministry or the defense ministry, if you're in that side of the regime, you're feeling that pain as we speak. And you're wondering about the strategy. Let me ask you about, again, the echoes of history. And it frustrates me in part when people draw these parallels. But maybe there is some deep insight about those parallels. So there's a song that goes, 22nd of June, exactly at 4 o'clock, Kiev was bombed, we were killed, the war began. So in Operation Barbarossa, the bombing of Kiev by Hitler, there is sort of an eerie parallel. And you have to be extremely careful drawing such parallels and such connections to this unexplainable war that is World War II. But is there elements of this that do echo in the actions of Vladimir Putin? And more specifically, do you think that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal? Can that label be assigned to the actions of this man? A war criminal is a legal determination. And it requires evidence and due process and the ability to defend oneself. We don't just decide in the Twittersphere or on a podcast that somebody is a war criminal. They can be a suspected war criminal. And we can gather evidence to try to prosecute that case. And then the issue for us, Lex, is which court does it go to? What's the appropriate place? Does it happen in Ukraine? Because they're the victims? Does it happen in The Hague? Because there's an international criminal court there? Does it happen inside Russia? Because there's regime change at some point. And some of these people become, let's say, they get arrested by their own people inside Russia. So those are all important questions that have to be pursued with resources and with determination and by skilled people who are excellent at gathering that evidence. And that process is underway. And Ukraine has a trial underway now of one alleged war criminal who's pleaded guilty. And we'll see what the outcome of that trial inside Ukraine is of a lower level official, not obviously Vladimir Putin, but the commander of a tank group. So, yes, the names are eerily familiar. Izum, Kharkiv, Kyiv. Right? Those are the names we know from the Nazi invasion and the Nazi occupation of Ukraine. And it's very deeply troubling to think that this could happen again. And there's a bizarre sense that the Russians, claiming, as Putin says, to denazify Ukraine, have invaded the same places that the Nazis invaded back in 1941. As somebody who's working on volume three of your work on Stalin going through this period, is it eerie to you? Yes, it is, Lex. I've written the chapters of volume three. I've drafted the chapters on the war. And as I said, the place names are very evocative, unfortunately. But, you know, the Nazis failed ultimately. They captured Ukraine for a time, but they were evicted from Ukraine. And there was massive partisan or guerrilla warfare resistance behind Nazi lines the whole time that they were allegedly in control of Ukraine. If you look at the maps on cable TV, they show you the sign of Russia. They show you the coloring, Russian control, and they draw a line and then it's colored in. But the word control is misplaced. They don't actually control it. It's Russian claimed or extent of farthest Russian troop advancement. Because behind the Russian lines in Ukraine, Crimea accepted, you have insurgencies, you have the armed insurgency. In Melitopol, for example, which is a place that you know, in southeastern Ukraine, there is a guerrilla war now underway to hurt the Russians who are in occupation of that city and region. And we're going to see that continue, even if the war becomes a stalemate, even if it stalemates more or less at the lines we're at now, which would mean that anticipated Ukrainian counter offensive at scale proves unsuccessful. The Russian army doesn't disintegrate. And you end up with a stalemate where there could be a ceasefire, not a ceasefire, but neither side is attempting an offensive for the time being. There will be resistance behind those Russian lines, and it will be fierce resistance, the kind of resistance we saw to the Nazi occupation. Ultimately, it took the Red Army reinvading the territory of Ukraine and succeeding at combined arms operations at scale, a massive counter offensive much larger than anything we're talking about today. Ultimately, it required that to evict the Nazis from Ukraine. But in the meantime, they did not have an easy occupation regime there. Ukrainian partisans, Soviet partisans, killed Nazi officials, Wehrmacht soldiers, Wehrmacht officers blew up the infrastructure they were using, made them pay a price for their occupation. We could well see if unfortunately, this ends in a stalemate for the time being, we could well see that type of insurgency gain momentum behind Russian lines and try to evict the Russians that way. And then remount the counter offensive at scale later on in the future, if the first one doesn't succeed. So that would be further echoes of the World War Two experience. The scale once again is much smaller. The size of the armies here, they're not in the many hundreds, 800,000, 700,000, a million two, a million four, that's not what we're talking about today. But the weapons, the cruise missiles, right? Artillery fire, you know, artillery fire used to be very inaccurate, and it was like saturation. You would just fire towards the enemy lines. And if you hit something, you hit something. And if you didn't, you just kept firing. Now you have drones, Lex. And so artillery fire is now sniper fire, because you can coordinate the direction of the artillery fire with the drones. The drones can take a picture and show you where the enemy is precisely located. And you can align that artillery to hit them instead of just indiscriminately bombing an area, a territory. And the NATO supplied artillery goes really far. And you can fire into Russian positions and yourself not be exposed to Russian fire, because your artillery fires farther than theirs. So that's coming. And we're going to see that in action. And so the scale is not the same, but the weapons, the precision of some of the weapons and some of the NATO, we're not sending all of our stuff. But as I said, the dynamic is Russia commits atrocities, Russia bombs schools, Russia bombs hospitals, Russia kills civilians, and more and heavier and more lethal Western weapons go to Ukraine. Their willingness to risk their lives is really so impressive. And the reason that we it's, it's our duty, we're obliged to supply those weapons. And so the Russians don't have that resupply, and the Ukrainians do. And so the Russians are now digging in Lex. They're digging in deeply in the areas that they've penetrated. And they're trying to build unassailable positions. Went for when the Ukrainians transition from mostly defense to full scale offense. And we'll see if that now I mean, they're digging everywhere. You know, as they say, compile, compile, right, they're digging everywhere behind your Russian is beautiful, digging in, I wish Lex like yours. But so there are these things that we can't predict. But there are these things we're watching and watching closely. And on top of that, something that's not in World War Two, or for the most part of cyber attacks and cyber warfare, which is much less perhaps convertible into human words, because it happens so quickly, such large scales, so difficult to trace and all those kinds of things. It's not bullets, it's electrical signals and that. But those Ukrainian people, they're like you Lex, they're young, and they're technically really proficient. And they've been amazing. You know, they spent those teenage years in the basement, playing video games. It's useful after all. It turns out it's more than useful. You can save your country that way. And so they're not alone, they're getting support. And that support is important. But really, predominantly, it's Ukrainians on the cyber battlefield. And their skills have been very impressive. And they've been preparing for this for a number of years. And they have a whole army of young people on the cyber side. It's their civilian population. These are not people conscripted into the military or volunteering, wearing the uniform. And so even in cyber warfare, the Ukrainians have been extremely impressive. And so let's remember that all of these aspects of warfare, whether it's how far your cruise missiles go and how accurate they are, what size your cyber capabilities are. It's really ultimately about the people. It's about the human capital. It's about their willingness, their skill level, but also their willingness to fight and to put their lives on the line. And there's no substitute for that. And so what's called morale, or courage, or bravery, or valor, that's really the ultimately decisive, provided you have enough sufficient arms to conduct the fight. And if you don't, you use a Molotov cocktail. Grandma calls in the coordinates of the Russian tank on her iPhone, and you have a Molotov cocktail that the people who used to work in the cafeteria are now stuffing flammable liquid into bottles. And you carry one right up to the tank and you smash it against the tank, or you drop it in one of the hatches in the tank. There's no substitute for that kind of stuff, that level of resolve, willingness to die for your country. That's a really big lesson that we need to absorb in our own country. We've been going to war more frequently than we should. And like you said, without the justification all the time. And then like Henry Kissinger said, without understanding how this was going to end. It's easy to start a war. It's very difficult to win a war, prevail in a war, or end a war on terms that meet your original expectations. We've been fighting wars, but we haven't been fighting wars as societies. We've been fighting wars as a small sliver of our population. Something like 1% of our population is involved with the military because we have an all-volunteer force. And that means that it's easier for our politicians to go to war because they don't face conscription, they don't have the draft, which affects every family in the country, and because the number of people in the volunteer force is such a narrow stratum of the population. And so they've been getting away with this because the professional army is much better than the conscript army. And an all-volunteer force is much preferable from a military point of view. But from a societal point of view, it enables you to go to war too easily as a politician, and it doesn't engage the society the same way that the Ukrainian society is completely engaged from those young hackers all the way up to those grandmothers. Let me ask you, you're a scholar of history, a scholar of geopolitics, and you're also a human being. That's kind of you, Lex. I'll take that. What's the value, what's the hope, what's the power of conversation here? If you could sit down with Vladimir Putin and have a conversation versus bullets, human exchange words, is there hope for those? And if so, what would you talk about? What would you ask him? Well, Henry Kissinger, you alluded to his op-ed, he's had many private meetings with President Putin over a long time. And President Biden, the previous presidents, secretaries of state, officials below secretary of state, the head of the CIA, evidently met with President Putin in the fall when he was massing the troops on the border before he invaded. And we sent the head of the CIA and Putin received him. Somebody he evidently respects or was at least willing to meet, unlike other members of the administration. So a lot of people are talking to him in some form or another for the 22 years he's been in power. And I'm not sure it's had what I would call their desired effect. Well, the nature of the conversation is interesting too, and also the timing, which is post-February 22nd, is a different time. And also another aspect, which Oliver Stone mentioned, interestingly, that there's something about COVID and the pandemic that creates isolation, the distancing. It's such a silly little nuanced thing, but maybe it's actually has a profound impact on the human being, the human mind of Vladimir Putin, that there is something about an in-person meeting, and not across a table that's far too large, but sort of the intimacy of a one human to human in-person conversation, that there's something distinctly powerful about that reminder that, as Putin says in the narrative, in the propaganda, that we're all one people. There is truth to that, that this entirety of humanity is one people. And you're kind of reminded by that when you're sitting together. People who have sat across the table from him, whether at 30 yards or at three, have remarked upon this feeling of isolation that has affected him, the pandemic. I think there must be something to that if several people who've been in the room with him are remarking on it. Everybody that I know, and I've been able to talk to, who's had a meeting with him in the past 10 years, including Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State, has said that Putin spends a lot of time enumerating his grievances. He goes through a monologue of his grievances, and then the West did this, and then the West lied to us about that, and then the West cheated us on this. And so it's not the conversation that you're encouraging of common humanity. It's that roiling resentment volcano that's just exploding and exploding. The resentment. And by the time he gets through the monologue of the grievances, the time of the meeting is expired or over time. That's a brilliant statement, but that's where the skill of conversation comes in. Like when you're facing a bull with a red cloth, you have to learn how to avoid the long list of grievances and get to the humanity. That's a really important skill. It's a skill. For sure, it's a skill, and it's the highest level skill of a diplomat to be able to reach some type of common understanding when interests and worldviews clash so much. But here's your challenge, Lex. Your challenge is Russia wants to impose a closed sphere of influence on its neighbors. It wants to dictate what its neighbors can and can't do. It wants to exert influence, not by the power of its example, not by the freedom of its people, not by the dynamism of its diversified economy, but it wants to exert influence just because it deserves that, just because it's a great power, just because and on and on and on. It's a civilization unto itself. And it wants that, and we can't give that. The reason that Russia was not integrated into the West was not for lack of trying. It was because Russia ultimately spurned the integration because it was about what terms the integration would come on. Would you come into the West and observe Western rules and be another country, meaning just another country? There's Poland and there's Austria and there's little tiny Monaco and there's Russia, and you're just one of those countries. And Russia's answer to that was, no, we're not just one of those countries. We need special rules. We need special conditions. We'll integrate, but only as a special country, meaning like at the UN, where all countries are sovereign, all countries are members, but Russia has a veto on what countries can and can't do. Those were the terms on which they were willing to integrate. And those were the terms that no leader of a Western country or the United States or the G7 or fill in the blank can grant to Russia. It's very well known that Vladimir Putin was one of the first, maybe the first person, first leader, foreign leader to call President Bush after the 9-11 tragedy. They didn't connect right away. President Bush was not in Washington, but eventually they did speak. He condemned the terrorist attack. He offered Russian support, which he delivered on the use of some Russian logistics for our Afghanistan operations. And a lot of people point to that, and they say, there it is. Russia wanted to cooperate and did cooperate and we spurned them, or we failed to appreciate Russia's cooperation. And so therefore Russia was cheated or Russia was lied to or Russia's grievances are legitimate. But here's the problem with that argument, Lex. In exchange for that support, Vladimir Putin asked in return from President Bush for a free hand in the former Soviet space, that closed hierarchical sphere of influence, where Russia would exert influence coercively over countries that were sovereign. And no American president could grant that and President Bush was right. He said no. And so the attempted cooperation blew up. But who's at fault there? Should there be a non-voluntary sphere of influence? Should that be granted? Or should you face up to attempts to do that? Let's take a little detour here into China for a second. China had this brilliant grand strategy, which was, sure, America is hostile because America is hegemonic. America wants to control the world. America will never let China rise. America will do everything it can to hold China down. So we're going to have hostility from America. We don't want to decouple because we need that high-end technology transfer. Either we buy it or we steal it because America and the rest of the West has all the technology that we need. We have some of it domestically, more than before by a lot, but we're still dependent so we can't decouple. So we'll have the hostility, but there'll be a line we don't cross just so that we don't lose the technology transfer. Till Made in China 2035 is accomplished and we're self-sufficient domestically in AI and every other area that's critical. But hostility from America. But we have an ace in the hole. Our ace in the hole is Europe. Europe hates conflict. They're all about trade. It doesn't matter how evil you are. They love to trade because van der door handle change through trade. They have this illusion that you're going to become a better country if they trade with you and you won't have conflict, war and hostilities if you trade. And so we have this European ace in the hole. We're hostile with the Americans. We're still buying or stealing their technology. And better than that even the Europeans are not hostile to us at all. They love to trade with us and they want to trade more and they're our biggest trading partner already. And lo and behold, Xi Jinping sides with Vladimir Putin in the aggression in Ukraine. He doesn't side with him providing military equipment. He doesn't provide technology transfer, but he provides public support and massive pro-Russian propaganda to the whole Chinese population. And the Europeans say, wait a minute, this is an invasion of a sovereign country in Europe. What do you mean? You're not condemning Vladimir Putin's invasion. And so that wedge that the Chinese had, that was the basis of their grand strategy, that wedge between the US and Europe when it came to China policy, that wedge is gone now. Xi Jinping destroyed it. And the Europeans and the Americans are coming close together on Ukraine and Russia policy for sure, but also more and more on China policy. And so that was a pretty big sacrifice for the Chinese leader to make. And what did he get in return? He gets hydrocarbons from Russia at reduced prices. And the Chinese get hydrocarbons from a lot of countries. They have a completely diverse supply chain for their energy. So what do you think Xi Jinping is thinking now? Was it a mistake? I'd like to know, Lex. I'd like you to be able to sit down with him across from this table here on your podcast and pose that same question to him because we have no idea. There's a language barrier that's fascinating. By the way, you as a scholar of Stalin, do you think we'll ever break through the language barrier to China? Not ever, I apologize, in the next few years because there is a gigantic cultural and language barrier between the West and the Chinese. China's a great civilization. China predates the United States by millennia. Yeah. China's accomplishments are breathtaking. But China's also led by, let's be honest, a Communist Party monopoly, which engages in a lot of criminal behavior. Lex, Tibet is Ukraine. Xinjiang is Ukraine. Hong Kong is Ukraine, let alone support for Putin. This is before we've even discussed Taiwan. And so now the Europeans are coming to see this and the Americans are coming to understand this, that maybe trading with a regime like that, morally, politically, criminally, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, how is that different from what Putin is doing in Ukraine? I'd be hard pressed to differentiate that ultimately, even though the analogies are not exact. And so the Chinese, it's like that guy, Leonov, the author of L'ichaletia, the great memoir of the late Soviet period, the end of the Soviet Union, that they spend all this time and all these resources blackening our image, but we supply them with endless material to blacken our image. That's where Xi Jinping's regime is right now, Lex. And so they have a big dilemma on their side. It's a Western world, and they've united the Western world and reawoken the Western world to the fact that China is a threat to the values, the institutions and values of the West. And that trade is not transforming China quite the opposite. We'll see if this endures. Maybe it doesn't endure. Maybe it's a fleeting moment. Maybe this is not an inflection point. Maybe the war in Ukraine ends more quickly than we think. And maybe like you said, the Chinese and the Indians and the rest of them, the leaders there, they get their wish that it ends and the world moves on and forgets or says, let's try again to resume our mutual understanding, our mutually beneficial trade and everything else. Maybe it's a passing phase. We can't exclude that. I'm very poor at predicting the future. But the moment is not a good one for the Chinese regime, let alone the fact that he's trying to impose an unprecedented in the modern era, third term for himself as president in the fall at the next party Congress, becoming president for life, de facto, a Mao-like figure. And he's now got to do that within this environment where he has damaged Chinese grand strategy and damaged the reputation of China and its relationships across the world. Maybe not permanently, but significantly. In addition to the problems they have at home, demography, as you know, a middle income trap, and then the regulatory insanity of Chinese communist rule that we've seen with the tech companies that you know well, where they've destroyed all of that value with the blow up of their property sector, because it was a massive bubble, and that's still playing out. And this time, it's the same. Meaning this time, it's not different. When it comes to a property blowout, it has enormous effects on middle class balance sheets and their ability to remain consumers and drive the economy, which is the model that they have to share. So he's got a litany of challenges, independent even of the fact that he sided with his pal, Vladimir Putin, and their bromance is costing China very, very significantly. If you close your eyes, and 100 years ago, 1922, and you think about the future, I wonder if you can hear the drums of war predicting the 30s, predicting the Great Depression and the resentment that builds, the economic resentment, the cultural resentment, the geopolitical resentment that builds and leads to World War II. It, at least to me, when I close my eyes, I can hear the drums of war that are still ahead of us. And it's possible that 2022 will materialize in a similar way as did 1922. I have my eyes closed, Lex. Do you hear anything? And I sure hope that that's not what happens. But I'm looking in 1922, it's an epoch I know well, and I don't see the future that unfolds. I would not have predicted it had I been alive then. I see the war behind us. I see a prosperity on the horizon. Yes, inflation in Germany and some many other difficult issues, but there are more democracies now than there were before the war and the old empires are gone. And there's a cultural efflorescence and there's modernism in the arts and there's women entering the public sphere and there's all this fantastic new technology like automobiles. And I'm looking at the future from 1922 and I'm not seeing the Great Depression and I'm not seeing World War II and I'm not seeing the Holocaust because I don't predict the future and nobody in 1922 could see that future, although I guess there were some clairvoyants who predicted it. But you're not one of them. I'm not one of them, but this is what I know, Lex, from studying history. What I know is stuff happens. In other words, Lex, we're watching Ukraine war right now and all of our attention is focused on that. And it's like the economists say in their textbooks when their powerful models are employed and there's this line that says, all other factors held constant, comma, and then the model works. And you get this really great result. It's very powerful predictor and analysis the model. And the whole game is all other factors held constant. So the Russia-Ukraine war that we've been discussing and this could happen and that could happen, but you know what stuff could happen, Lex? For example, the Israeli government could decide this summer that it's going to bomb Iran because no Israeli government will tolerate Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. And since President Trump exited, unilaterally exited from the multi-power nuclear agreement, Iran is now much closer to the bomb than they were when the United States was still in that agreement. And you tell me the Israeli government that says, sure, it's fine. It's okay. Iran could get the bomb. And so maybe that happens. And maybe that happens as early as this summer as Iran gets closer and closer and closer. Maybe that guy in North Korea decides it's his time, just like his grandfather, right? In 1950 decided, you know, it's time we're going to quote reunify unquote, the Korean peninsula. Maybe, I don't know, Lex, fill in the blank. Something's going to happen. It's not going to be what I predict. It's not going to be what I'm watching. It's going to be obvious only after it happens, not before. And then it's going to upend the table. And all of a sudden- Everything changes. We're going to be in a different environment, different circumstances. And is Ukraine still as central at that point as it seems to be right now? I don't know the answer to that question. Let me ask two rapid fire questions. You're only allowed to have one minute and it's about predicting the future. Okay. Question one, Vladimir Putin, when will he no longer be in office? And will he step down or be overthrown? What's your prediction and a brief explanation of that prediction? Now, nobody can predict the future, but what's your sense now? Some people are saying the pressure is building. He's going to be overthrown or step down at the end of this year. And some people say, surely he's going to outlast Stalin's rule of 30 plus years. No evidence of a coup yet. None whatsoever yet. He's pretty much at life expectancy for a Russian male. Those are bad numbers. He's 69, going to be 70. So he's lived the life of a Russian male already, but he's got better doctors than the majority of the Russian males in that, let's say, comparison set. So he could live a very long time with good doctors. So there could be a coup at some point, but there's none today in evidence. He could go because he's reached the life expectancy or he could stay for a long time. The thing to watch about this is an organization that nobody pays attention to. The FSO, the Federalnaya Sluzhba Akhranny, which is the Praetorian Guard, the self-standing bodyguard directorate, the only one, the only organization in Russia that has any access to him. We've seen no disloyalty, no breaking of ranks, no defections, nothing in the public realm and in open sources about any divisions or problems in the FSO, in the Praetorian Guard. So if you can't break that, change that, elicit defections there, you can't overturn him. Authoritarian regimes, Lex, they're terrible. They fail at everything. They can't feed their people, they have trouble achieving any goals. They only have to be good, however, at one thing. They only have to be good at the complete suppression of political alternatives. If you can suppress political alternatives, you can fail at everything else, but you can survive as an authoritarian regime. So you watch Navalny. He's still alive. That's question number two. That's my second rapid-fire question, is what happens to Navalny? What are the possible conclusions of what you said, quite possibly the second most influential, powerful figure in Russia? Is he going to die in jail? Will he become the next president of Russia? Well, what are the possible... I wish I knew, Lex. I've been surprised that he's still alive. I've been worried that he will be killed in prison in a staged fight. Some security officer, prison guard, puts on a prison outfit, takes a lead pipe, goes into the cell, they have a, quote, fight, and Navalny is killed. I've been afraid of that, but he's still alive, even though he's serving a long sentence. So that leads me to guess that people inside the Putin regime, Putin regime, and maybe President Putin himself, understand that Navalny is their ticket to lift sanctions. That Navalny is even more popular outside of Russia than he is inside of Russia. He's the leader in many ways of the political opposition in the country, even while still in prison, his organization's been destroyed, but he doesn't have majority support in the population by any stretch of the imagination. But he's a big figure in the West, including here in the US. And so Navalny could be their ticket, their kind of get out of jail card, meaning they release him from prison. He gets appointed, I don't know, prime minister, even by the Putin regime, if he were willing to accept such a position. And I have my doubts about that. And then that's how they lobby to remove the sanctions against them. So he's a card that President Putin could play. And so maybe that's the reason he's still alive, or maybe there are other reasons that we don't know. And so some alternative to Putin is more likely to arise inside his gang, Putin's shayka, as they say, right inside his gang, where they tire of his mistakes. They tire of his self-defeating actions. And they say, patriotically for Russia, we need to do something against, move against this guy, because he's hurting our country. And also because I could do better. I'm ambitious as well as patriotic. But once again, the problem there, Lex, is Putin is surrounded by this cocoon known as the FSO. He meets on Zoom, predominantly with the rest of the government, including with the defense and security officials. They don't have frequent access to his person. And as you were alluding earlier to the pandemic, they have to quarantine for two weeks before every meeting with him. And moreover, you know, Lex, they don't know where he is. You see when they're on Zoom with him, and the room, it's the Valdai. His office in the Valdai region looks the same as his office in Sochi, or his office outside of Moscow in Novoagare. They're made up to look very similar on Zoom. And sure, some signs they're looking, where is it? But maybe they don't know. And so you're going to move on him. And you're going to jump him in his Kremlin, his Dacha outside Moscow. And it turns out he's in Sochi, or vice versa. And it turns out the FSO is loyal to him, and won't let you anyway. So Lex, we don't know. But we watch this FSO really closely. And we think that the elites, if not Putin, but maybe Putin too, understand Navalny as a really big potential political card that they could play. And one last question. The biggest question. You studied some of the darkest aspects of human history, human nature. Let me ask the why question. What are we doing here? What's the meaning of our existence, our life here on Earth? What are we humans trying to get at here? I can't answer that question either. But I can say that having a purposeful life is actually not that hard. You're not Gandhi, right? You're not President Roosevelt. You're not going to transform a country or a civilization or become immortal because of your courage and your insight and your genius at critical moments. But you live in an environment, you're in a school, you're in a workplace, you're somewhere where you can affect other people in a positive way. It can be not just about yourself, but it can be about them. And you can have a positive impact on other people's lives through the work that you do, whether that's your employment or your charity, your spare time or your work time. It can be by modeling proper behavior, admitting your mistakes, hard to do but necessary, remembering that you don't know everything, you can't predict the future, but you don't even know everything in your areas of expertise, painfully reminded of that humility at times, but remind yourself too. So you can lead a life that can show others what good values are. And you can lead a life that dedicates yourself not only to your own material well-being, but to the well-being and to the development of others around you. And it can be on a humble scale. It can be in a small classroom or a small workplace, a small work team, but it can be done. And you can be reminded that having a positive impact, even on one other person, gives far greater meaning to your own life and is profoundly satisfying, much more satisfying than the attention you might get, let's say on social media or awards you might receive. There's nothing wrong with pursuing those. People pursue them and it's a free society. But leading a purposeful life intentionally is possible. Lexi Logan Even just one person, I love the expression save one life, save the world. Just focusing on the local, on the tiny little difference you can make in the world can somehow ripple. Steven Kuznicki Every day. If you think about that every single day, you're a better person. We're a better society. Lexi Logan And maybe you get to add a bit of love to the world after all. Steven, this is a huge honor for many reasons, one of which is I can just tell how much care you put into this conversation and how much, I use the word love a lot, but I just feel the love that, just even the respect you give me, which I can't tell you how energizing that is, how much that gives me strength for my own silly little pursuits. Thank you so much for doing that. Thank you for not just talking today, but giving me so much respect just with everything you're doing. I really appreciate that. It makes me feel special. Thank you so much for sitting down and talking today. Steven Kuznicki Mutual, Lex, thank you as well. Thank you for the respect that you've shown me. These are really difficult issues that don't have simple answers, but that doesn't mean we give up. We have to keep thinking and learning and trying and finding solutions in everything we do, including on these big global tragedies that we live through. It's heartbreaking what's going on. It just breaks my heart every day. A person who studies this has been studying this for decades and it keeps happening. You think again, and yes, it is again, but we still have to keep trying and we have to be inspired by those people who are more courageous than we are and sacrifice more than we sacrifice. For me, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the war in Ukraine is experienced in my study at home and in my office at Princeton or my coming office at Stanford when I move full time to Stanford in September. It's experienced far away in safety and in comfort. We have to remember that too when we talk about these things, when we answer your questions, that as we speak and as we comment and think we're experts on these things from the comfort of our existence, that there are people in those tragedies right now. With no power, with no food, with full uncertainty about the future of the health of their children. That's it. I've also seen because I have family in both places, homes that were home for, buildings that were homes for generations now in rubble. Yes, Lex. It hurts. It's Syria where 350,000 at least by UN estimates died and Russia participated in that and it's Yemen and it's so many other places that don't have the same degree of attention that a European country like Ukraine has. But yeah, we have to remember also that in addition to Ukraine and then there's things right home here in New York City where children are without food, which is just inexcusable in a country this rich. So we shouldn't forget in our study of leaders, in our study of geopolitics, that ultimately it's about the humanity. It's about the human beings and human suffering. Thank you so much, Stephen. This is an amazing conversation. Talk to you again soon. My pleasure. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Stephen Kotkin. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Mahatma Gandhi. When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/2a7CDKqWcZ0

GExZrVvT2fw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Vsauce: What Does it Mean to Be Intelligent? | AI Podcast Clip with Michael Stevens

Let's jump back to it, artificial intelligence. What's your thought of the state of where we are at currently with artificial intelligence? And what do you think it takes to build human level or superhuman level intelligence? I don't know what intelligence means. That's my biggest question at the moment. And I think it's because my instinct is always to go, well, what are the foundations here of our discussion? What does it mean to be intelligent? How do we measure the intelligence of an artificial machine or a program or something? Can we say that humans are intelligent? Because there's also a fascinating field of how do you measure human intelligence? Of course. But if we just take that for granted, saying that whatever this fuzzy intelligence thing we're talking about, humans kind of have it. What would be a good test for you? So Turing developed a test that's natural language conversation. Would that impress you? A chat bot that you'd want to hang out and have a beer with for a bunch of hours or have dinner plans with. Is that a good test, natural language conversation? Is there something else that would impress you? Or is that also too difficult to think about? Oh yeah, I'm pretty much impressed by everything. I think that if- Roomba? If there was a chat bot that was like incredibly, I don't know, really had a personality. And if I didn't, the Turing test, right? Like if I'm unable to tell that it's not another person, but then I was shown a bunch of wires and mechanical components, and it was like, that's actually what you're talking to. I don't know if I would feel that guilty destroying it. I would feel guilty because clearly it's well-made and it's a really cool thing. It's like destroying a really cool car or something. But I would not feel like I was a murderer. So yeah, at what point would I start to feel that way? And this is such a subjective psychological question. If you give it movement, or if you have it act as though, or perhaps really feel pain as I destroy it and scream and resist, then I'd feel bad. Yeah, it's beautifully put. And let's just say act like it's a pain. So if you just have a robot that not screams, just like moans in pain, if you kick it, that immediately just puts it in a class that we humans, it becomes, it anthropomorphizes it. It almost immediately becomes human. So that's a psychology question as opposed to sort of a physics question. Right, I think that's a really good instinct to have. If the robot- Screams? Screams and moans, even if you don't believe that it has the mental experience, the qualia of pain and suffering, I think it's still a good instinct to say, you know what, I'd rather not hurt it. The problem is that instinct can get us in trouble because then robots can manipulate that. And there's different kinds of robots. There's robots like the Facebook and the YouTube algorithm that recommends the video, and they can manipulate it in the same kind of way.

https://youtu.be/GExZrVvT2fw

yImlXr5Tr8g

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

John Vervaeke: Meaning Crisis, Atheism, Religion & the Search for Wisdom | Lex Fridman Podcast #317

the universe doesn't care about your personal narrative. You can just have met the person that is going to be the love of your life. It's the culmination of your whole project for happiness, and you step into the street and a truck hits you and you die. That's mortality. Mortality isn't just some far-flung event. It's that every moment we are subject to fate in that way. So you can think of lots of little deaths you experience whenever all the projects and the plans you make come up against the fact that the universe can just roll over them. The following is a conversation with John Verveche, a psychologist and cognitive scientist at the University of Toronto. I highly recommend his lecture series called Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, which covers the history and future of humanity's search for meaning. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's John Verveche. You have an excellent 50-part lecture series online on the Meaning Crisis, and I think you describe in the modern times an increase in depression, loneliness, cynicism, and, wait for it, bullshit. The term used technically by Harry Frankfurt and adopted by you. So let me ask, what is meaning? What are we looking for when we engage in the search for meaning? So when I'm talking about meaning, I'm talking about what's called meaning in life, not the meaning of life. That's some sort of metaphysical claim. Meaning in life are those factors that make people rate their lives as more meaningful, worth living, worth the suffering that they have to endure. And when you study that, what you see is it's a sense of connectedness, connectedness to yourself, to other people, to the world, and a particular kind of connectedness. You want to be connected to things that have a value and an existence independent of your egocentric preferences and concerns. This is why, for example, having a child is considered very meaningful because you're connecting to something that's going to have a life and a value independent of you. Now the question that comes up for me, well, there's two questions. One is, why is that at risk right now? And then secondly, and I think you have to answer the second question first, which is, well, yeah, but why is meaning so important? Why is this sense of connectedness so important to human beings? Why, when it is lacking, do they typically fall into depression, potentially mental illness, addiction, self-destructive behavior? And so the first answer I give you is, well, it's that sense of connectedness. And people often express it metaphorically. They want to be connected to something larger than themselves. They want to matter. They don't mean it literally. I mean, if I chained you to a mountain, you wouldn't thereby say, oh, now my life is so fulfilling, right? So what they're trying to convey, they're using this metaphor to try and say, they want to be connected. They want to be connected to something real. They want to make a difference and matter to it. And one way of asking them, well, you know, what's meaningful is, tell me what you would like to continue to exist even if you weren't around anymore. And how are you connected to it and how do you matter to it? That's one way of trying to get at what is the source of meaning for you is if you were no longer there, you would like it to continue existing. That's not the only part of the definition probably because there's probably many things that aren't a source of meaning for me that maybe I find beautiful that I would like to continue existing. Yes, if it contributes to your life being meaningful, you're connected to it in some way and it matters to you and you matter to it in that you make some difference to it. That's when it goes from being just sort of true, good and beautiful to being a source of meaning for you in your life. Is the meaning crisis a new thing or has it always been with us? Is it part of the human condition in general? That's an excellent question. And part of the argument I made in Awakening from the Meaning Crisis is there's two aspects to it. One is that there are perennial problems, perennial threats to meaning. And in that sense, human beings are always vulnerable to despair. The book of Ecclesiastes is it's all vanity, it's all meaningless. But there's also historical forces that have made those perennial problems more pertinent, more pressing, more difficult for people to deal with. And so the meaning crisis is actually the intersection of perennial problems, finding existence absurd, experiencing existential anxiety, feeling alienated, and then pressing historical factors, which have to do with the loss of the resources that human beings have typically, cross-historically and cross-culturally made use of in order to address these perennial problems. Is there something potentially deeper than just a lack of meaning that speaks to the fact that we're vulnerable to despair? You know, Ernest Becker talked about, in his book Denial of Death, about the fear of death and being an important motivator in our life. As William James said, death is the warm at the core of the human condition. Is it possible that this kind of search for meaning is coupled, or can be seen from the perspective of trying to escape the reality, the thought of one's own mortality? Yeah, Becker and the terror management theory that have come out of it, there's been some good work around sort of providing empirical support for that claim. Some of the work, not so good. So which aspects do you find convincing? Can you steelman that case, and then can you argue against it? So what aspects I find convincing is that human finitude, being finite, being inherently limited, is very problematic for us. Given the extensive use of the word problematic, I like that you use that word to describe one's own mortality as problematic. Because people sort of on Twitter use the word problematic when they disagree with somebody, but this to me seems to be the ultimate problematic aspect of the human condition, is that we die, and it ends. I think, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm trying to get you to consider that your mortality is not an event in the future, it's a state you're in right now. That's what I'm trying to shift. So your mortality is just a... We talk about something that causes mortality fatal, but what we actually mean is it's full of fate. And I don't mean in the sense of things are pre-written. What I mean is the sense of the universe doesn't care about your personal narrative. You can just have met the person that is going to be the love of your life. It's the culmination of your whole project for happiness, and you step into the street, and a truck hits you, and you die. That's mortality. Mortality isn't just some far-flung event. It's that every moment we are subject to fate in that way. So you can think of lots of little deaths you experience whenever all the projects and the plans you make come up against the fact that the universe can just roll over them. So death is the indifference of nature, of the universe, to your existence. And so in that sense, it is always here with us. Yeah, but you're vulnerable in so many ways other than just the ending of your biological life. Because it's interesting, if you rate what people fear most, death is not number one. They often put public speaking as number one. Yeah. Because the death of status or reputation can also be a profound loss for human beings. You can drive them into despair. So as the terror management folks would say, as Ernest Becker would say, that a self-report on a survey is not an accurate way to capture what is actually at the core of the motivation of a human being. That we could be terrified of death. And we've, from childhood, since we realized the absurdity of the fact that the ride ends, we've learned to really try to forget about it. Try to construct illusions that allow us to escape momentarily or for prolonged periods of time, the realization that we die. Okay, so first I took it seriously, but now I want to say why there's some empirical work that makes me want to reconsider it. So terror management theory is, you do things like you give people a list of words to read, and in those list are words associated with death, cough and funeral. And then you see what happens to people, and generally they start to become more rigid in their thinking. They tend to identify with their worldview. They lose cognitive flexibility. That's if you present it to them in that third-person perspective. But if you get them to go in the first-person perspective and imagine that they're dying and that the people that they care about are there with them, they don't show those responses. In fact, they show us an increase in cognitive flexibility, an increase in openness. See, so I'm trying to say, we might be putting the cart before the horse. It might not be death per se, but the kind of meaning that is present or absent in death, that is the crucial thing for us. By the way, to push back, I don't think you took it seriously. I don't think you truly steel-manned the case, because you're saying that death is always present with us, yes, but isn't there a case to be made that it is one of the major motivators? Nietzsche, will to power, Freud wanting to have sex with your mother, all the different explanations of what is truly motivating us human beings, isn't there a strong case to be made that this death thing is a really damn good, if not anything, a tool to motivate the behavior of humans? I'm not saying that the avoidance of death is not significant for human beings, but I'm proposing to you that human beings have a capacity for considering certain deaths meaningful and certain deaths meaningless, and we have lots of evidence that people are willing to sacrifice their biological existence for a death they consider meaningful. Are you personally afraid of your death, if you think about it? As somebody who produces a lot of ideas, records them, writes them down, is a deep thinker, admired thinker, and as the years go on, become more and more admired, does it scare you that the ride ends? No. I mean, you have to talk to me on all my levels. I'm a biological organism, so if something's thrown at my head, I'll duck and things like that. But if you're asking me, do I long to live forever? No. In the Buddhist tradition, there are practices that are designed to make you aware of simultaneously the horror of mortality and the horror of immortality. The thought of living forever is actually horrific to me. Are those the only two options? Like, when you're sitting with a loved one, or watching a movie you just really love, or a book you really love, you don't want it to end, you don't necessarily always flip it to the other aspect, the complete opposite of the thought experiment. What happens if the book lasts forever? There's got to be a middle ground, like the snooze button. Sure, you don't want to sleep forever, but maybe press the snooze button and get an extra 15 minutes. There's surely some kind of balance. That fear seems to be a source of an intense appreciation of the moment, in part. That's what the Stoics talked about, to meditate on one's mortality. It seems to be a nice wake-up call to that life is full of moments that are beautiful, and then you don't get an infinite number of them. Right. And the Stoic response was not the project of trying to extend the duration of your life, but to deepen those moments so they become as satisfying as possible, so that when death comes, it does not strike you as any kind of calamity. Does that project ring true for your own personal feelings? I think so. Do you think about your mortality? I used to. I don't so much anymore. Part of it, as I'm older, and your temporal horizon flips somewhere in your 30s or 40s, you don't live from your birth, you live towards your death. That's such a beautiful phrase, the temporal horizon flips. That's so true. That's so true. At what point is that? The point before which the world of opportunity and possibility is infinite before you. Yeah, it's like Peter Pan. There's all these golden possibilities, and you fly around between them. Yes, very much. And then when it flips, you start to look for a different model. The Socratic, the Stoic model. Buddhism has also influenced me, which is more about, wait, when I look at my desires, I seem to have two meta-desires. In addition to satisfying a particular desire, I want whatever satisfies my desire to be real, and whatever is satisfying my desire to not cause internal conflict, but bring something like peace of mind. And so, I'm more and more moved towards how can I live such that those two meta-desires are a constant frame within which I'm trying to satisfy my specific desires. What do you think happens after we die? I think mind and life go away completely when we die. And I think that's actually significantly important for the kind of beings that we are. We are the kinds of beings that can come to that awareness, and then we have a responsibility to decide how we're going to comport ourselves towards it. Can you linger on what that means, the mind goes away? Like when you're playing music, and the last instrument is put down, the song is over. Doesn't mean the song wasn't beautiful, doesn't mean the song wasn't complex, doesn't mean the song didn't add to the value of the universe in its existence, but it came to an end. Is there some aspect in which some part of mind was there before the human and remains after? Something like panpsychism, or is it too much for us limited cognitive beings to understand? Something like panpsychism, I take it seriously. I don't think it's a ridiculous proposal, but I think it has insoluble problems that make me doubt it. Any idea that the mind is some kind of ultimately immaterial substance also has, for me, just devastating problems. Those are the two kinds of framework that people usually propose in order to support some kind of idea of immortality. I find both very problematic. The fact that we participate in distributed cognition, that most of our problem-solving is not done as individuals, but in groups, this is something I work on. I've published on that, I think that's important. But most of the people who do work on systems of distributed cognition think that while there's such a thing as collective intelligence, there's no good evidence that there's collective consciousness. In fact, it's often called zombie agency for that reason. And so, while I think it's very clear that no one person runs an airline, and there's a collective intelligence that solves that problem, I do not think that collective intelligence supports any kind of consciousness. And so, therefore, I don't think the fact that I participate, which I regularly and reliably do in distributed cognition, gives me any reason to believe that that participation grounds some kind of consciousness. Okay, there's so many things to mention there. First of all, distributed cognition, maybe that's a synonym for collective intelligence. So that means a bunch of humans individually are able to think, have cognitive machines, and are somehow able to know what's going on, and are somehow able to interact in the process of dialogue, as you talk about, to morph different ideas together, like this idea of landscape together. It's so interesting to think about, okay, well, you do have these fascinating distributed cognition systems, but consciousness does not propagate in the same way as intelligence. Yeah. But isn't there a case, if we just look at intelligence, if we look at us humans as a collection of smaller organisms, which we are, and so there's like a hierarchy of organisms, tiny ones work together to form tiny villages that you can then start to see as individual organisms that are then also forming bigger villages and interacting different ways and function becomes more and more complex, and eventually we get to us humans to where we start to think, well, we're an individual, but really we're not. There's billions of organisms inside us, both domestic and foreign. So isn't that building up consciousnesses like turtles all the way up to our consciousness? Why does it have to stop with us humans? Are we the only, like is this the phase transition when it becomes a zombie-like giant hierarchical village that first like, ah, there's like a singing angels and it's consciousness is born in just us humans. Do bacteria have consciousness? Not bacteria, but maybe you could say bacteria does, but like the interesting complicated organisms that are within us have consciousness. I think it's proper to argue, and I have, that like a paramecium or bacteria has a kind of agency and even a kind of intelligence, kind of sense-making ability, but I do not think that we can attribute consciousness, at least what we mean by consciousness, this kind of self-awareness, this ability to introspect, et cetera, et cetera, to bacteria. Now, the reason why distributed cognition doesn't have consciousness, I think is a little bit more tricky. And I think there's no reason in principle why there couldn't be a consciousness for distributed cognition, collective intelligence. In fact, many philosophers would agree with me on that point. I think it's more an issue of certain empirical facts, bandwidth, density of connections, speed of information transfer, et cetera. It's conceivable that if we got some horrible Frankensteinian neural link and we linked our brains and we had the right density and dynamics and bandwidth and speed, that a group consciousness could take shape. I don't have any argument in principle against that. I'm just saying those contingent facts do not yet exist, and therefore, it is implausible that consciousness exists at the level of collective intelligence. Lexa So you talk about consciousness quite a bit. So let's step back and try to sneak up to a definition. What is consciousness? Dave For me, there are two aspects to answering that question. One is, what's the nature of consciousness? How does something like consciousness exist in an otherwise apparently non-conscious universe? And then there's a function question, which is equally important, which is, what does consciousness do? The first one is obviously problematic for most people. Like, yeah, consciousness seems to be so different from the rest of the non-conscious universe. But I put it to you that the function question is also very hard, because you are clearly capable of very sophisticated, intelligent behavior without consciousness. You are turning the noises coming out of my face hole into ideas in your mind, and you have no conscious awareness of how that process is occurring. So why do we have consciousness at all? Now, here's the thing. There's an extra question you need to ask. Should we attempt to answer those questions separately, or should we attempt to answer them in an integrated fashion? I make the case that you actually have to answer them in an integrated fashion. What consciousness does and what it is, we should be able to give a unified answer to both of those. Can you try to elucidate the difference between what consciousness is and what it does, both of which are mysteries, as you say? State versus action. Can you try to explain the difference that's interesting, that's useful, that's important to understand? So that's putting me in a bit of a difficult position, because I actually argue that trying to answer them separately is ultimately incoherent. But what I can point to are many published articles in which only one of these problems is addressed and the other is left unaddressed. So people will try and explain what qualia are, how they potentially emerge, without saying, what do they do? What problems do they help to solve? How do they make the organism more adaptive? And then you'll have other people who'll say, oh no, this is what the function of consciousness is, but I can't tell you, I can't solve the hard problem. I don't know how qualia exist. So what I'm saying is many people treat these problems separately, although I think that's ultimately an incoherent way to approach the problem. So the hard problem is focusing on what it is? Yes. So the qualia, it feels like something to experience a thing, that's what consciousness is, and does is more about the functional usefulness of the thing. Yes, yes. To the whole beautiful mix of cognition and just function in everyday life. Okay. You've also said that you can do very intelligent things without consciousness. Yes, clearly. Is that obvious to you? Yes. I don't know what I'm doing to access my memory. It just comes up. And it comes up really intelligently. But the mechanisms that create consciousness could be deeply interlinked with whatever is doing the memory access, is doing the... Oh, I think so, in fact. The cognition. Yes, yes. So I guess what I'm trying to say in this, we'll probably sneak up to this question a few times, which is whether we can build machines that are conscious, or machines that are intelligent, human level intelligent or beyond, without building the consciousness. I mean, ultimately, that's one of the ways to understand what consciousness is, is to build the thing. We can either sort of from the Chomsky way, try to construct models, like he thinks about language in this way, try to construct models and theories of how the thing works, or we can just build the damn thing. Exactly. And that's a methodological principle in cognitive science. In fact, one of the things that sort of distinguishes cognitive science from other disciplines dealing with the nature of cognition in the mind is that cognitive science takes the design stance. It asks, well, could we build a machine that would not only simulate it, but serve as a bona fide explanation of the phenomena? Do you find any efforts in cognitive science compelling in this direction, in terms of how far we are? There's, on the computational side of things, something called cognitive modeling, there's all these kinds of packages that you can construct simplified models of how the brain does things and see if complex behaviors emerge. Do you find any efforts in cognitive, or what efforts in cognitive science do you find most inspiring and productive? I think the project of trying to create AGI, artificial general intelligence, is where I place my hope of artificial intelligence being of scientific significance. This is independent of technological, socioeconomic significance, which is already well-established. But being able to say, because of the work in AI, we now have a good theory of cognition, intelligence, perhaps consciousness, I think that's where I place my bets, is in the current endeavors around artificial general intelligence. And so, tackling that problem head-on, which has now become central, at least to a group of cognitive scientists, is, I think, what needs to be done. And when you think about AGI, do you think about systems that have consciousness? Let's go back to what I think is at the core of your general intelligence. So right now, compared to even our best machines, you are a general problem solver. You can solve a wide variety of problems in a wide variety of domains. And some of our best machines have a little bit of transfer. They can learn this game and play a few other well-designed, rule-bound games. But they couldn't learn how to swim, right, or et cetera, things like that. And so, what's interesting is, what seems to come up, and this is some of my published work, in all these different domains of cognition, across all these different problem types, is a central problem. And since we do have good sort of psychometric evidence that we do have some general ability that's a significant component of our intelligence, I made an argument as to what I think that general ability is. And so, it's happening right now. It's happening right now, the amount of information in this room that you could actually pay attention to is combinatorial explosive. The amount of information you have in your memory, long-term memory, and all the ways you could combine it, combinatorial explosive. The number of possibilities you can consider, also combinatorial explosive. The sequences of behavior you can generate, also combinatorial explosive. And yet, somehow, you're zeroing in, the right memories are coming up, the right possibilities are opening up, the right sequences of behavior, you're paying attention to the right thing. Not infallibly so, but so much so that you reliably find obvious what you should interact with in order to solve the problem at hand. That's an ability that is still not well understood within AGI. So, filtering out the gigantic waterfall of data. Right. It's almost like a Zen koan. What makes you intelligent is your ability to ignore so much information and do it in such a way that is somewhere between arbitrary guessing and algorithmic search. And to a fault sometimes, of course, that you, based on the models you construct, you forget, you ignore things that you should probably not ignore. And that, hopefully we can circle back to it, Lex, is related to the meaning issue. Because the very processes that make us adaptively intelligent make us perennially susceptible to self-deceptive, self-destructive behavior because of the way we misframe the environment in fundamental ways. So, to you, meaning is also connected to ideas of wisdom and truth and how we interpret and understand and interact intellectually with the environment. Yes. So, what is wisdom? Why do we long for it? How do we and where do we find it? What is it? Intelligence is what you use to solve your problems, as I was just describing. Rationality is how you use your intelligence to overcome the problems of self-deception that emerge when you're trying to solve your problems. So, it's that matter problem. And then the issue is, do you have just one kind of knowing? I think you have multiple ways of knowing and therefore you have multiple rationalities. And so, wisdom is to coordinate those rationalities so that they are optimally constraining and affording each other. So, in that way, wisdom is rationally self-transcending rationality. Right. So, life is a kind of process where you jump from rationality to rationality and pick up a village of rationalities along the way that then turns into wisdom. Yes, if properly coordinated. You mentioned framing. Yes. So, what is framing? Is it a set of assumptions you bring to the table in how you see the world, how you reason about the world? Yeah, how you understand the world? So, it depends what you mean by assumptions. If by assumption you mean a proposition, representational or rule, I think that's much more downstream from relevance realization. I think relevance realization refers to, again, constraints on how you are paying attention. And so, for me, talking about framing is talking about this process you're doing right now of salience landscaping. What's salient to you? And how is what's salient constantly shifting in a sort of a dynamic tapestry? And how are you shaping yourself to the way that salience landscaping is aspectualizing the world, shaping it into aspects for interaction? For me, that is a much more primordial process than any sort of beliefs we have. And here's why. If we mean by beliefs a representational proposition, then we're in this very problematic position. Because then we're trying to say that propositions are ultimately responsible for how we do relevance realization. And that's problematic because representations presuppose relevance realization. So, I represent this as a cup. The number of properties it actually has, and that I even have epistemic access to, is combinatorial explosive. I select from those a subset and how they are relevant to each other insofar as they are relevant for me. This doesn't have to be a cup. I could be using it as a hat. I could use it to stand for the letter V. All kinds of different things. I could say this was the 10th billion object made in North America. Representations presuppose relevance realization. They are therefore dependent on it, which means relevance realization isn't bound to our representational structures. It can be influenced by them, but they are ultimately dependent on relevance realization. Let's define stuff. Relevance realization. Yes. What are the inputs and the outputs of this thing? What is it? What are we talking about? What we're talking about is how you are doing something very analogous to evolution. So, if you think about the adaptivity isn't in the organism or in the environment, but in a dynamical relation, and then what does evolution do? It creates variation, and then it puts selective pressure, and what that does is that changes the niche constructions in the organism. It changes the niche constructions that are available to a species. It changes the morphology. You also have a loop. It's your sensory motor loop, and what's constantly happening is there are processes within you that are opening up variation, and also processes that are putting selection on it, and you're constantly evolving that sensory motor loop. So, you might call your cognitive fittedness, which is how you're framing the world, is constantly evolving and changing. I can give you two clear examples of that. One, your autonomic nervous system, parasympathetic and sympathetic. The sympathetic system is biased to trying to interpret as much of reality as threat or opportunity. The parasympathetic is biased to trying to interpret as much of the environment as safe and relaxing, and they are constantly doing opponent processing. There's no little man in you calculating your level of arousal. There's this dynamic coupling, opponent processing between them that is constantly evolving your arousal. Similarly, your attention. You have the default mode network, task network. The default mode network is putting pressure on you right now to mind wander, to go off, to drift, right? And then the task-focused network is selecting out of those possibilities the ones that will survive and go into, and so you're constantly evolving your attention. Okay, so there's a natural selection of ideas that a bunch of systems within you are generating, and then you use the natural selection. What is the selector, the object that you're interacting with, the glass? Relevance realization, once again, you just described how it happens. Yes. You didn't describe what the hell it is. So, what's the goal? What are we talking about? So, relevance realization is how you interact with things in the world to make sense of why they matter, what they mean to you, to your life. Yes, and notice the language you just used. You're starting to use the meaning in life language. Good or bad? That's good. Okay. That's good. So, what does that evolution of your sensory motor loop do? It gives you, and here I'll use a term from Marlaponte, it gives you an optimal grip on the world. So, let's use your visual attention again. Okay, here's an object. How close should I be to it? Is there a right? That's what you want to do with it. Exactly, exactly. So, you have to evolve your sensory motor loop in order to get the optimal grip that actually creates the affordance of you getting to a goal that you're trying to get to. Yeah, but you're describing physical goals of manipulating objects, but so this applies, the task, the process of relevance realization is not just about getting a glass of water and taking a drink. No. It's about falling in love. Yeah, of course. What else is there? Well, there's obvious... Between those two options. I can show you how you're optimally gripping in an abstract cognitive domain. Okay? So, a mammal goes by and most people will say, there's a dog. Now, why don't they say, they might, but typically, you know, probabilistically, they'll say there's a dog. They could say, there's a German shepherd, there's a mammal, there's a living organism, there's a police dog. Why there? Why do they stop, Eleanor Rush called these basic level? Well, what you find is that's an optimal grip because it's getting you the best overall balance between similarity within your category and difference between the other categories. It's allowing you to properly fit to that object insofar as you're setting yourself up to, well, I'm getting so as many of the similarities and differences I can on balance because they're in a trade-off relationship that I need in order to probably interact with this mammal. That's optimal grip. Not, right? It's at the level of your categorization. You evolve these models of the world around you and on top of them, you do stuff. Like you build representations. Like you said. Yes. What's the salience landscape? Salience meaning attention landscape. So salience is what grabs your attention or what results from you directing your attention. So I clap my hands, that's salient, it grabs your attention. Your attention is drawn to it, that's bottom up. But I can also say you left big toe and now it's salient to you because you directed your attention towards it. That's top down. And again, opponent processing going on there. So whatever stands out to you, what grabs your attention, what arouses you, what triggers at least momentarily some affect towards it, that's how things are salient. What salience, I would argue, is is how a lot of unconscious relevance realization makes information relevant to working memory. That's when it now becomes online for direct sensory motor interaction with the world. So you think the salience landscape, the ocean of salience extends into the subconscious mind? I think relevance does. But I think when relevance is recursively processed, relevance realization, such that it passes through sort of this higher filter of working memory and has these properties of being globally accessible and globally broadcast, then it becomes the thing we call salience. Look, that's really good evidence. There's really good evidence from my colleague at U of T, University of Toronto, Lynn Hasher, that that's what working memory is. It's a higher order relevance filter. That's why things like chunking will get way more information through working memory because it's basically making, it's basically monitoring how much relevance realization has gone into this information. Usually you have to do an additional kind of recursive processing. And that tells you, by the way, when do you need consciousness? When do you need that working memory and that salience landscaping? It's when you're facing situations that are highly novel, highly complex, and very ill-defined that require you to engage working memory. Okay, got it. So relevance realization is in part the thing that constructs that basic level thing of a dog. When you see a dog, you call it a dog, not a German shepherd, not a mammal, not a biological meat bag. It's a dog. Wisdom. Yes. So what is wisdom? If we return, I think as part of that, we got to relevance realization. And then wisdom is an accumulation of rationalities. You described a rationality as a kind of starting from intelligence, much of puzzle solving, and then rationalities like the meta problem of puzzle solving. And then what, wisdom is the meta meta problem of puzzle solving? Yes, in the sense that the meta problem you have when you're solving your puzzles is that you can often fall into self-deception. You can misframe. Self-deception, right. Right. So whereas knowledge overcomes ignorance, wisdom is about overcoming foolishness. If what we mean by foolishness is self-deceptive, self-destructive behavior, which I think is a good definition of foolishness. And so what you're doing is you're doing this recursive relevance realization. You're using your intelligence to improve the use of your intelligence. And then you're using your rationality to improve the use of your rationality. That's that recursive relevance realization I was talking about a few minutes ago. Think about a wise person. They come into highly, often messy, ill-defined, complex situations, usually where there's some significant novelty. And what can they do? They can zero in on what really matters, what's relevant, and then they can shape that reality and they can shape themselves, salience landscaping, to intervene most appropriately to that situation as they have framed it. That's what we mean by a wise person. And that's how it follows out of the model I've been presenting to you. So when we say self-deception, I mean, part of that implies that it's intentional. Part of the mechanism of cognition, you're modifying what you should know for some purpose. Is that how you see the word self-deception? No, because I belong to a group of people that think the model of self-deception as lying to oneself ultimately makes no sense. Because in order to lie to you, I have to know something you don't, and I have to depend on your commitment to the truth in order to modify your behavior. I don't think that's what we do to ourselves. I think, and I'm going to use it in a technical term, and thank you for making space for that earlier on, I think we can bullshit ourselves, which is a very different thing than lying. So what is bullshit, and how do we bullshit ourselves, technically speaking? Yeah, Frankfurt, and this is inspired by Frankfurt and other people's work based on Frankfurt's work. On bullshit. Yeah, classic essay. It's a pretty good title. I think it's one of the best things he wrote. He wrote a lot of good things. The title or the essay? The essay. Title's good, too. It's always an icebreaker in certain academic settings. So let's contrast the bullshit artist from the liar. The liar depends on your commitment to the truth. The bullshit artist is actually trying to make you indifferent to the question of truth and modify your behavior by making things salient to you so that they are catchy to you. So, you know, a prototypical example of bullshit is a commercial, a television commercial. You watch these people at a bar getting some particular kind of alcohol, and they're gorgeous, and they're laughing, and they're smiling, and they're clear-eyed. You know that's not true. And they know you know it's not true. But here's the point. You don't care. Because there's gorgeous people smiling, and they're happy, and that's salient to you, and that catches your attention. And so you know, go into a bar, you know that won't happen when you drink this alcohol. You know it. Yeah. But you buy the product because it was made salient to you. Now, you can't lie to yourself, Lex. Salience can catch attention, but attention can drive salience. So this is what I can do. I can make something salient by paying attention to it, and then that will tend to draw me back to it again, which, and you see what happens? Which means it tends to catch my attention more so that when I go into the store, that bottle of liquor catches my attention, and I buy it. And that's, why is that bullshit? Because what you're doing is being caught up in the salience of things, independent from whether or not that salience is tracking reality. Is it independent, or is it loosely connected? Because it's not so obvious to me when I see happy people at a bar that I don't in part believe that, well, my experience has been maybe different. Logically, I can understand, but maybe there is a bar out there where it's all happy people dancing. In fact, most of the bars I go to these days in Texas, there's lots of happy people. I think you can, I mean, there's probably variation, although I think it's very, the truth-seeking in there. Let's say the intent is at least to try and shut off your truth-seeking. It might not completely succeed, but that's the intent. At times it can completely succeed because I can give you pretty much gibberish and never let it motivate your behavior. There's an episode from the classic Simpsons, not the modern Simpsons, the classic Simpsons, where there's aliens, and they're running for office in the United States. Now, I'm a Canadian, so this doesn't quite work for me, but, right? And the speech goes like this. My fellow Americans, when I was young, I dreamt of being a baseball, but we must move forward not backward, upward not forward, twirling, twirling towards freedom. And people go, and there's a rush. There's nothing there. And yet, it's great satire because a lot of political speech is exactly like that. There's nothing there, right? I'm not saying all political speech, I said a lot. No, but there is a fundamental difference between, and it's so hilarious, I remember that episode. There is a fundamental difference between that absurd, sort of non-secular speech and political speech, because one of the things is political speech is grounded in some sense of truth. And so, if that requires you talking about alternative facts and weird, self-destructive, oxymoronic phrases, isn't that approaching pure bullshit? No, I think pure bullshit, like the vacuum, is very difficult to get to. But I get the point. So, what exactly is truth? Is it possible to know? I think Spinoza's right about truth, that truth is only known by its own standard, which sounds circular. In which he didn't mean that circularly, and I think this is also convergent with Plato. These are two huge influences on me. I think we only know the truth retrospectively when we go through some process of self-transcendence, when we move from a frame to a more encompassing frame so that we can see the limitations and the distortions of the earlier frame. You have this when you have a moment of insight. What is you doing, you are re-realizing what is relevant. You go, oh, oh, I thought she was aggressive and angry. She's actually really afraid. I was mis-framing this. You change what you find relevant. You have those aha moments. So, do you think it's possible to get a sense of objective reality? So, is it possible to get to the ground level of something that you can call objective truth? Or are we always on shaky ground? I think those moments of transcendence can never get us to an absolute view from nowhere. And so, this is Drew Hyland's notion of finite transcendence. We are capable of self-transcendence, and therefore we are creatures who can actually raise the question of truth or goodness or beauty, because I think they all share this feature. But that doesn't mean we can transcend to a godhood, to some absolute view from nowhere that takes in all information and organizes it in a comprehensive whole. But that doesn't mean that truth is thereby rendered valueless. I think a better term is real. And real and illusory are comparative terms. You only know that something's an illusion by taking something else to be real. And so, we're always in a comparative task. But that doesn't mean that we can somehow jump outside of our framing in some final manner and say, this is how it is from a God's eye point of view. So what do you think, if I may ask, of somebody like Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism? So where the core principle is that reality exists independently of consciousness and that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception. So they have that, you do have that ability to know reality. There's two things. Knowing that there's an independent reality is not knowing that independent reality. Those are not the same thing. Yeah, but I think objectivism would probably say that our human reason is able to have contact with that. Then I would respond and say, you have to, I believe in fact ultimately in a conformity theory of knowing that the deepest kind of knowing is when there's a contact, a conformity between the mind, with the embodied mind and reality. And here's where I guess I'd push back on Rand. I would say, you have to acknowledge parceral knowledge as real knowledge, because if you don't, you're going to fall prey to Mino's paradox. Mino's paradox is, you know, this is in Plato, right? To know P. Well, if I don't know P, I'm going to go looking for it. But if I don't know P, how could I possibly recognize it when I found it? I have no way of recognizing it. I have no way of knowing that I've found it. So I must know P, but if I know P, then I don't need to learn about it. I don't need to go searching. So learning doesn't exist. Knowledge is impossible. The way you break out of that paradox is saying, no, no, no, it is possible to partially know something. I can know it enough that it will guide me to recognizing it, but that's not the same as having a complete grasp of it, because I still have to search and find what I don't yet possess in my knowledge. If we, so partial knowledge has to be real knowledge. Right. Partial knowledge is still knowledge. Yes. What do you think about somebody like Donald Hoffman, who thinks the reality is an illusion? So complete illusion, that we're given this actually really nice definition or idea that you talked about, that there's a tension between the illusory and what is real. He says that basically we've taken that and we've ran with the real to the point where the real is not at all connected to some kind of physical reality. Well, I hope to talk to him at some point. We were supposed to talk at one point, and so I have to talk in his absence. I think that, first of all, I think saying that everything is illusion is like saying everything is tall. It doesn't make any sense. It's a comparative term. Saying you have to say against this standard of realness, this is an illusion. He uses arguments from evolution, which are problematic to me because it's like, well, you seem to be saying that evolution is true, that it really exists. And then some of our cognition and our perception has access to reality. Math, and presumably some science has access to reality. And then what he seems to be saying is, well, a lot of your everyday experience is illusory, but we do have some contact with reality whereby we can make the arguments as to why most of your experience, most of your everyday experience is an illusion. But to me, that's not a novel thing. That's Descartes. That's the idea that most of our sense experience is untrustworthy, but the math is what connects us to reality. That's how he interpreted the Copernican Revolution. Oh, look, we're all seeing the sun rise and move over and set, and it's all an illusion. But the math, the math gets us to the reality. Well, I think he makes a deeper point that most of cognition is evolved and operates in the illusory world. How does he know that things like cognition and evolution exist? I think there's an important distinction between evolution and cognition, right? No, no, I'm just saying, that's not the point I'm making. I'm making a point that he's claiming that there are two things that really exist. Why are they privileged? Well, he basically says that, look, the process of evolution makes sense. Yes. Right? Like, it makes sense that you get complex organisms from simple organisms through the natural selection process. Here's how you get to transfer information from generation to generation. It makes sense. And then he says that there's no requirement for the cognition to evolve in a way that it would actually perceive and have direct contact with the physical reality. Except that cognition evolved in such a way that it could perceive the truth of evolution. And you can't treat evolution like an isolated thing. Evolution depends on Darwinian theory, genetics. It depends on understanding plate tectonics, the way the environment changes. It depends on how chromosomes are structured. Actually, that's an interesting question to him, where I don't know if he actually would push back on this, is how do you know evolution is real? Yes. I think he would be open to the idea that it is part of the illusion that we constructed. In some sense, it is connected to reality, but we don't have a clear picture of it. I mean, that's an intellectually honest statement, then. If most of our cognition as thinking beings is operating at every level in an illusory world, then it makes sense that one of the main theories of science, that's evolution, is also a complete part of this illusory world. Right. But then what happens to the premise for his argument, leading to the conclusion that cognition is illusory? I think he makes a very specific argument about evolution as an explanation of why the world is, of our cognition operating in an illusory world. But that's just one of the explanations. I think the deeper question is, why do we think we have contact with reality, with physical reality? We could be very well living in a virtual world constructed by our minds in a way that makes that world deeply interesting in some ways, whether it's somebody playing a video game or we're trying to, through the process of distributed cognition, construct more and more complex objects. Why does it have to be connected to physics and planets and all that kind of stuff? Okay, so if we're gonna say, we're now considering it as a possibility rather than it's a conclusion based on arguments, because the arguments, again, will always rely on stipulating that there is something that is known. These are the features of cognition. Cognition is capable of illusion. That's a true statement. You're somehow in contact with the mind. Why does the mind have this privileged contact and other aspects like my body do not? But let's put that aside and now let's just consider it. Now when we put it that way, it's not an epistemic question anymore, it's an existential question. And here's my reply to you. There's two possibilities. Either the illusion is one that I cannot discover, sort of the matrix on steroids or something. There's no way, no matter what I do, I can't find out that it's an illusion. Or it's an illusion but I can find out that it's an illusion. Those are the two possibilities. Nothing changes for me if those are the two possibilities, because if I could not possibly find out, it is irrational for me to pay any attention to that possibility. So I should keep doing the science as I'm doing it. If there is a way of finding out, science is my best bet, I believe, for finding out what's true and what's an illusion. So I keep doing what I'm doing. So it's an argument, if you move it to that, that makes no existential difference to me. Oh man, that is such a deeply philosophical argument. No, no, no, no, no, no. Nobody's saying science doesn't work. It's an interesting question. Just like before humans were able to fly, they would ask a question. Can we build a machine that makes us fly? In that same way, we're asking a question to which we don't know an answer, but we may know in the future how much of this whole thing is an illusion. And I think in a second category, the first category, I forgot which one, yes, science will be able to help us discover this. Otherwise, yes, for sure, it doesn't matter. If we're living in a simulation, we can't find out at all, then it doesn't matter. But yes, the whole point is, as we get deeper and deeper understanding of our mind, of cognition, we might be able to discover how much of this is a big charade constructed by our mind to keep us fed or something like that. Some weird, very simplistic explanation that will ultimately in its simplicity be beautiful. Or as we try to build robots and instill them, instill them with consciousness, with ability to feel, those kinds of things, we'll discover, well, let's just trick them into thinking they feel and have consciousness, and they'll believe it. And then they'll have a deeply fulfilling and meaningful lives. And on top of that, they will interact with us in a way that will make our lives more meaningful. And then all of a sudden, it's like at the end of Animal Farm, you look at pigs and humans, and you look at robots and humans, and you can't tell the difference between either. In that way, start to understand that much of this existence could be an illusion. Okay, well, I have two responses to that. First is, the progress that's being made on AGI is about making whatever the system is that's going to be the source of intelligence more and more dynamically and recursively self-correcting. That's part of what's happening. Extrapolating from that, you get a system that gets better and better at self-correcting. But that's exactly what I was describing before as the transformative theory of truth. The other response to that is, science, like, people think of science just as, right, sort of end proposition. Let me just use the evolutionary example again, right? Like, I need, if I'm gathering the evidence, I need to know a lot of geology, I need to know plate tectonics, I need to know about radioactive decay, I need to know about genetics. And then in order to measure all those things, I need to know how microscopes work. I need to know how pencils and paper work. I need to know how rulers work. I need to know how English, like, you can't isolate knowledge that way. And if you say, well, most of that's an illusion, then you're in a weird position of saying somehow all of these illusions get to this truth claim. I think it goes in reverse. If you think this is the truth claim, right, the measuring and all the things that scientists would do to gather and all the ways the theories are converging together, that also has to be fundamentally right. Because it's not like Lego. It is an interwoven whole. Yes, it definitely is interwoven, but I love how I'm playing the devil advocate for the illusion world. But there's an aspect to truth that has to be consistent, deeply consistent across an entire system. But inside a video game, that's some same kind of consistency evolves. There's rules about interactions, there's game theoretic patterns about what's good and bad and so on. And there's sources of joy and fear and anger and then understanding about a world, what happens in different dynamics of a video game, even simple video games. So there's no, you know, even inside an illusion, you can have consistency and develop truths inside that illusion and iteratively evolve your truth with the illusion. Okay, but that comes back. Is that process genuinely self-correcting or are you in the simulation in which there is no possible doorway out? Because if my argument is, if you find one or two doorways, that feeds back. In fact, you can't just say, this is the little tiny island where we have the truth. That's the point I'm making. Right. But what if you find that, I think there is doorways if that's the case. And what if you find a doorway and you step out, but you're yet in another simulation? I mean, that's the point. That's so self-correcting. When you fix the self-deception, you don't know if there's other bigger self-deceptions you're operating on. Of course, in one sense, that's right. But again, we're back to when I step into the second simulation, is it, can I get the doorway out of that? Because if you just make the infinite regressive simulations, you've basically said, I have a simulation that I can never get out of. Yeah, I think there's always a bigger pile of bullshit is the claim I'm trying to make here. Okay. Let me dance around meaning once more. I often ask people on this podcast or at a bar or to imaginary people I talk to in a room when I'm all by myself, the question of the meaning of life. Do you think this is a useful question? You drew a line between meaning in life and meaning of life. Do you think this is a useful question? No, I think it's like the question, what's north of the North Pole? Or what time is it on the sun? It sounds like a question, but it's actually not really a question. Because it has a presupposition in it that I think is fundamentally flawed. If I understand what people mean by it, and it's actually often not that clear, but when they talk about the meaning of life, they are talking about there are some feature of the universe in and of itself that I have to discover and enter into a relationship with. And there's in that sense a plan for me or something. And so that's a property of the universe. That's a very deep, serious, metaphysical, ontological claim. You're claiming to know something fundamental about the structure of reality. There were times when people thought they had a worldview that legitimated it, like God is running the universe and therefore God cares about you and there's a plan, et cetera. But I think a better way of understanding meaning is not, meaning is like the graspability. Remember I talked about optimal grip? It's like the graspability of that cup. Is that in me? No. Is it in the cup? No, because the fly can't grasp it. Well, graspability is in my hand. Well, I can't grasp Africa. No, no, there is a real relation, fittedness, between me and this cup. Same thing with the adaptivity of an organism. Is the adaptivity of a great white shark in the great white shark? Drop it in the Sahara. Does. Meaning isn't in me. I think that's romantic bullshit. And it isn't in the universe. It is a proper relationship. I've coined the phrase transjective. It is the binding relationship between the subjective and the objective. And therefore, when you're asking the question about the meaning of life, you are, I think, misrepresenting the nature of meaning. Just like when you ask what time is it on the sun, you're misrepresenting how we derive clock time. At the risk of disagreeing with a man who did 50 lectures on the meaning crisis, let me hard disagree, but I think we probably agree, but it's just like a dance, like any dialogue. I think meaning of life gets at the same kind of relationship between you and the glass of water, between whatever the forces of the universe that created the planets, the proteins, the multi-cell organisms, the intelligent early humans, the beautiful human civilizations and the technologies that will overtake them. It's trying to understand the relevance realization of the Big Bang to the feeling of love you have for another human being. It's reaching for that even though it's hopeless to understand. It's the question, the asking of the question is the reaching. Now it is in fact romantic bullshit, technically speaking, but it could be that romantic bullshit is actually the essence of life and the source of its deepest meaning. Well, I hope not, but... Technically speaking, romantic bullshit, meaning romantic... In the philosophical sense, yes. So I mean, what is poetry? What is music? What is the magic you feel when you hear a beautiful piece of music? What is that? Oh, but that's exactly to my point. Is music inside you or is it outside you? It's both and neither, and that's precisely why you find it so meaningful. In fact, it can be so meaningful you can regard it as sacred. What you said, I don't think, and you prefaced that we might not be in disagreement, right? What you said is, no, no, no, there's a way in which reality is realizing itself. And I want my relevance realization to be in the best possible relationship that, the sort of meta-optimal grip to what is most real. I totally agree. I totally think that's one of the things... I said this earlier, one of our meta-desires is whatever is satisfying our desires is also real. I do this with my students. I'll say, you know, because romantic relationships sort of take the role of God and religion and history and culture for us right now. We put everything on them and that's why they break, but, right? Strong words, got it. But I'll say to them, okay, how many of you are in really satisfying romantic relationships? Put up your hands. Then I'll say, okay, I'm now only talking to these people. Of those people, how many of you would want to know your partner's cheating on you even if it means the destruction of the relationship? 95% of them put up their hands. And I say, but why? And here's my students who are usually all sort of bitten with cynicism and postmodernism and they'll just say spontaneously, well, because it's not real. Because it's not real, right? So I think what you're pointing to is actually, you're pointing not to an objective or a subjective thing. So romanticism says it's subjective. There's some sort of, I guess, like positivism or Lockean empiricism says it's objective. But you're saying, no, no, no, there's reality realization and can I get relevance realization to be optimally gripping in the best right relationship with it? And there's good reason you can, because think about it. Your relevance realization isn't just representing properties of the world, it's instantiating it. There's something very similar to biological evolution, which is at the guts of life, if I'm right, running your cognition. It's not just that you have ideas, you actually instantiate, that's what I mean by conformity, the same principles. They're within and without. They don't belong to you subjectively. They're not just out there. They're in both at the same time and they help to explain how you are actually bound to the evolutionary world. Yeah, so it comes from both inside and from the outside. But there's still the question of the meaning of life. First of all, the big benefit of that question is that it shakes you out of your hamster in a wheel that is daily life, the mundane process of daily life, where you have a schedule, you wake up, you have kids, you have to take them to school, then you go to work, and repeat over and over and over and over, and then you get increased salary, and then you upgrade the home, and that whole process. Asking about the meaning of life is so full of romantic bullshit that if you just allow yourself to take it seriously for a second, it forces you to pause and think, what's going on here? And then it ultimately, I think, does return to the question of meaning in those mundane things. What gives my life joy? What gives it lasting deliciousness? Where do I notice the magic and how can I have that magic return again and again? Beauty. That ultimately what it returns to. But it's the same thing you do when you look up to the sky. You spend most of your day hurrying around, looking at things on the surface, but when you look up to the sky and you see the stars, it fills you with the feeling of awe that forces you to pause and think in full context of what the hell is going on here. But also I think there is a, when you think too much about the meaning of a glass and a relevance realization of a glass, you don't necessarily get at the core of what makes music beautiful. So sometimes you have to start at the biggest picture first. And I think meaning of life forces you to really go to the Big Bang and go to the universe and the whole thing, the origin of life. And I think sometimes you have to start there to discover the meaning in the day to day, I think. But perhaps you would disagree. Insofar as the question makes you ask about the whole of your life and how much meaning is in the whole of your life, and insofar as it asks how much that is connected to reality, it's a good question. But it's a bad question in that it also makes you look for the answers in the wrong way. Now, you said, and I agree with what you said, how we really answer this question is we come back to the meaning in life and we see how much that meaning in life is connected to reality. We pursue wisdom. And so for me, I don't need that question in order to provoke me into that stance. So let's return to the meaning crisis. What is the nature of the meaning crisis in modern times? What's its origin? What's its explanation? Well remember what I said, what I argued, that the very processes that make us adaptively intelligent, subject us to perennial problems of self-deception, self-destruction, creating bullshit for ourselves, for other people, all of that. And that can cause anxiety, existential anxiety, it can cause despair, it can cause a sense of absurdity. These are perennial problems. And across cultures and across historical periods, human beings have come up with ecologies of practices. There's no one practice, there's no panacea practice. They've come up with ecologies of practices for ameliorating that self-deception and enhancing that fittedness, that connectedness that's at the core of meaning in life. That's prototypically what we call wisdom. And here's how I can show you one clear instance of the meaning crisis is it's a wisdom famine. I do this regularly with my students. In the classroom I'll say, where do you go for information? They hold up their phone. Where do you go for knowledge? They're a little bit slower and probably because they're in my class they'll say, well, science, the university. I'll say, where do you go for wisdom? There's a silence. Wisdom isn't optional, that's why it is perennial, cross-cultural, cross-historical, because of the perennial problems. But we do not have homes for ecologies of practices that fit into our scientific technological worldview so that they are considered legitimate. The fastest growing demographic group are the nuns, N-O-N-E-S's. They have no religious allegiance, but they are not primarily atheistic. They most frequently describe themselves with this very, this has become almost everybody now describe, I'm spiritual but not religious, which means they are trying to find a way of reducing the bullshit and enhancing the connectedness, but they don't want to turn to any of the legacy established religions by and large. Well isn't, both religion and the nuns, isn't wisdom a process, not a destination? So trying to find, if you're a deeply faithful religious person, you're also trying to find. Just because you have a place where you're looking or a set of traditions around which you're constructing the search, it's nevertheless a search. So I guess, is there a case to be made that this is just the usual human condition? How do you answer? If you ask, five centuries ago, where do you look for wisdom? I mean, I suppose people would be more inclined to answer, well, the Bible or a religious text. Right, and they had a worldview that was considered not just religious, but also rational. So we now have these two things, orthogonal or often oppositional, spirituality and rationality. But if you go before a particular historical period, you look back in the Neoplatonic tradition, like before the scientific revolution, those two are not in opposition. They are deeply interwoven so that you can have a sense of legitimacy and deep realness and grounding in your practices. We don't have that anymore. And I'm not advocating for religion, neither am I an enemy of religion. I'll strengthen your case, by the way. So one of my RAs did research, and you get people who have committed themselves to cultivating wisdom and you can look at people within religious traditions and people who are doing it in a purely secular framework. By many of the measures we use to try to study wisdom scientifically, the people in the religious paths do better than the secular. But here's the important point, there's no significant difference between the religious paths. So it's not like if you're following the path of Judaism, you're more likely to end up wiser than if you follow Buddhism. By the way, I don't know if that's my case. I was making the case that you don't need to have a religious affiliation to search for wisdom. It's that I thought along to the point you just made, that it doesn't matter which religious affiliation or none. But that's what I'm saying. Okay, so this is the tricky thing we're in. It does matter if you're in one, but it doesn't matter sort of the propositional creeds of that. There's something else at work. If you'll allow me this, there's a functionality to religion that we lost when we rejected all the propositional dogma. But there's a functionality there that we don't know how to recreate. What is that? Can you try to speak to that? What is that functionality? What is that? Why is that so useful? A bunch of stories, a bunch of myths, a bunch of narratives that are drenched in deep lessons about morality and all those kinds of things. What's the functional thing there that can't be replaced without a religious text, by a non-religious text? This is, for me, the golden question, so thank you. Do you have an answer? Yeah, I think I have a significant answer. I don't think it's complete, but I think it's important. And this is to step before the Cartesian revolution and think about many different kinds of knowing. And this is now something that is prominent within what's called 4E cognitive science, the kind of cognitive science I practice. And there's a lot of converging evidence for, okay, these different ways of knowing. There's propositional knowing. This is what we are most familiar with. In fact, it almost has a tyrannical status, right? So this is knowing that something is the case, like that cats are mammals and it's stored in semantic memory, and we have tests of coherence and correspondence and conviction, right? There's procedural knowing. This is knowing how to do something. Skills are not theories. They're not beliefs. They're not true or false. They engage the world or they don't, and they are stored in a different kind of memory, procedural memory. Semantic memory can be damaged without any damage to procedural memory. That's why you have the prototypical story of somebody suffering Alzheimer's and they're losing all kinds of facts, but they can still sit down and play the piano flawlessly. Same kind of argument. There's perspectival knowing. This is knowing what it's like to be you here now in this situation, in this state of mind, the whole field of your salience landscaping, what it's like to be you here now, and you have a specific kind of memory around that, episodic memory, and you have a different criterion of realness. So you can get this by, well, my friend Dan Schiappe and I, we studied the scientists using moving the rovers around, or you can take a look at people who are doing VR. People talk about they wanna really be in the game, and that makes it real. They don't mean verisimilitude. You can get that sense of being in the game with something like Tetris, which doesn't look like the real world, and you can fail to have it in a video game that has a lot of verisimilitude. It's something else. It's about, again, this kind of connectedness that we're talking about. If I may interrupt, is that connected to the hard problem of consciousness, the subject, the qualia, or is that a different, that kind of knowing, is that different from the qualia of consciousness? I think it has to do with, well, I make a distinction between the adjectival and the adverbial qualia, so I think it has to do with the adverbial qualia much more than with the adjectival. So the adjectival qualia are like the greenness of green and the blueness of blue. The adverbial qualia are the here-ness, the now-ness, the together-ness. And I think the perspectival knowing has a lot to do with the adverbial qualia. Adjectival qualia and adverbial qualia. I'm learning so many new things today. Okay, so that's another way of knowing. Right, the perspectival, and then there's a deeper one. And this is a philosophical point, and I don't want to, we can go through the argument, but you don't have to know that you know in order to know, because if you start doing that, you get an infinite regress. There has to be kinds of knowing that doesn't mean you know that you know that. Yeah, of course. Okay, great, okay, good. Well there was a lot of ink spilled over that, over a 40-year period, so— By philosophers, they spill, this is what they do, they spill ink. Yeah, but I want to talk about— They get paid for ink spillage. So I want to talk about what I call participatory knowing. This is the idea that you and the world are co-participating in things, and such that real affordances exist between you. So both me and this environment are shaped by gravity, so the affordance of walking becomes available to me. Both me and a lot of this environment are shaped by my biology, and so affordances for that are here. Look at this cup, shared physics, shared sort of biological factors, look at my hand, I'm bipedal. Also, culture is shaping me and shaping this. I had to learn how to use that and treat it as a cup. So this is an agent-arena relationship, right? There's identities being created in your agency, identities being created in the world as an arena, so you and the world fit together. You know when that's missing, when you're really lonely or you're homesick or you're suffering culture shock. So this is participatory knowing, and it comes with a sense of belonging. At every level. So the ability to walk is a kind of knowing. Yes, yes, yes. That there's a dance between the physics that enables this process, and just participating in the process is the act of knowing. Right, and there's a really weird form of memory you have for this kind of knowing. It's called yourself. What? Can you elaborate? Well, so we talked about how all the different other kinds of knowing had specific kinds of memory. Semantic memory for propositional procedural, right? Episodic for perspectival. What's the kind of memory that is the coordinated storehouse of all of your agent arena relationships? All the roles you can take, all the identities you can assume, all the identities you can assign. Yeah, what's the self? Do you mean like consciousness or like some kind of- No, I mean your sense of self. Sense of self in this world. That's not consciousness. That's like an agency or something. Right, it's an agent arena relationship. And so in an agent arena relationship, it's the sense of the agent. And that the agent belongs in that arena. Whatever the agent is, whatever the arena is, because there's probably a bunch of different framings of how you experience that. Yeah, and you do. Within your identity as a self, you have all kinds of roles that are somehow contributing to that identity, but are not equivalent to that identity. Yeah. I wonder if my two hands have different, because there's a different experience of me picking up something with my right hand and then my left hand. Are those like- That's a really cool question, Lex. They certainly feel like their own things. But that could be just anthropomorphization based on cultural narratives and so on. It could, it could. But I think it's a legitimate empirical question, because it also could be sort of Ian McGilchrist stuff. It could be you're using different hemispheres and they sort of have different agent arena relationships to the environment. This is a really important question in the cognitive science of the self. Does that hemispheric difference mean you're multiple or you actually have a singular self? Oh, so it's important to understand how many selves are there. Yes, I think so. But that's just like a quirk of evolution. Reality can be fundamental to cognition, having multiple selves or a singular self. It depends, again, because we're getting far from the answer to the question you originally asked me. Do you want me to go back to that first or answer this one? Which question? I already forgot everything. What's the functionality of religion? Yes. Let us return. Okay. And then we can return to the self. Okay. So you said you have all these propositions and et cetera, et cetera, and they differ from the religions and they don't seem to be considered legitimate by many people. But yet there's something functioning in the religions that is transforming people and making them wiser. And I put it to you that the transformations are largely occurring at those non-propositional levels, the procedural, the perspectival, and the participatory. And those are the ones, by the way, that are more fundamentally connected to meaning-making because remember the propositions are representational and they're dependent on the non-propositional, non-representational processes of connectedness and relevance realization. So religion goes down deep to the non-propositional and works there. Thence the functionality we need to grasp. Well you talk about tools, essentially, that humans are able to incorporate into their cognition. Psychotechnologies, like language is one, I suppose. Different religion than a psychotechnology? It would be a, yeah, an ecology of psychotechnologies, yes. And the question is that Nietzsche ruined everything by saying God is dead. Do we have to invent the new thing? Go from the old phone, create the iPhone, invent the new psychotechnology that takes place of religion. And so when the madman in Nietzsche's text goes into the marketplace, who's he talking to? He's not talking to the believers. He's talking to the atheists. And he says, do you not realize what we have done? We have taken a sponge and wiped away the sky. We are now forever falling. We are unchained from the sun. We have to become worthy of this. Yeah, well Nietzsche is full of romantic bullshit as we know. No, no, no, no, but there's a point there. The point is, there's one thing to rejecting the proposition. There's another project of replacing the functionality that we lost when we reject the religion. So his worry that as nihilism takes hold, you don't ever replace the thing that religion, the role that religion played in our world. Maybe. It's hard to tell what he actually, because he's so multivocal. I'll speak for me rather than for Nietzsche. I think it is possible to, using the best cognitive science and respectfully exacting what we can from the best religion and philosophical traditions, because there's things like stoicism that are on the gray line between philosophy and religion. Buddhism is the same. Doing that best cogpsi, that best exactation, we can come up with that functionality without having to buy into the particular propositional sets of the legacy religions. That's my proposal. I call that the religion that's not a religion. So things like stoicism or modern stoicism, those things, don't you think in some sense they naturally emerge? Don't you think there's a longing for meaning? So stoicism arises during the Hellenistic period when there was a significant meaning crisis in the ancient world because of what had happened after the breakup of Alexander the Great's empire. So if you compare Aristotle to people who are living after Alexander, so Aristotle grows up in a place where everybody speaks the same, has the same language, has the same religion, his ancestors have been there for years, he knows everybody. After Alexander the Great's empire is broken up, people are now thousands of miles away from the government. They're surrounded by people because of the diasporas. They're surrounded by people that don't speak their language, don't share their religion. That's why you get all these other religions emerging, universal mother religions like ISIS, etc. So there is what's called domicile. There's the killing of home. There's a loss of a sense of home and belonging and fittedness during the Hellenistic period, and stoicism arose specifically to address that. And because it was designed to address a meaning crisis, it is no coincidence that it is coming back into prominence right now. Well, there could be a lot of other variations. It feels like, I think when you speak of the meaning crisis, you're in part describing, not prescribing. You're describing something that is happening, but I would venture to say that if we just leave things be, the meaning crisis dissipates because we long to create institutions, to create collective ideas. So there's a distributed cognition process that gives us meaning. So if religion loses power, we'll find other institutions that are sources of meaning. Is that your intuition as well? I think we are already doing that. I am involved with and do participant observation of many of these emerging communities that are creating ecologies of practice that are specifically about trying to address the meaning crisis. I just, in late July, went to Washington State and did Rafe Kelly's Evolve, Move, Play, Return to the Source, and wow, one of the most challenging things I've ever done. That guy is awesome, by the way. I got to interact with him a long, long time ago. He said to say hi to you, by the way. Yeah, it's from another world. It feels like a different world because I interacted with him, not directly, but so this is somebody, maybe you can speak to what he works on, but he makes movement and play, he encourages people to make that a part of their life, like how you move about the world, whether that's as part of sort of athletic endeavors or actually just like walking around a city. And I think the reason I ran into him is because there was a lot of interest in that in the athletic world, in the grappling world, in the Brazilian jiu-jitsu world, people who study movement, who make movement part of their life to see how can we integrate play and fun and just the basic humanness that's natural to our movement, how do we integrate that into our daily practice? So this is yet another way to find meaning. I think it's actually an exemplar of what I was talking about because what's going on with Rafe's integration of parkour in nature, right, and martial arts and mindfulness practices and dialogical practices is exactly, and explicitly so, by the way, he will tell you he's been very influenced by my work, he's trying to get at the non-propositional kinds of knowing that make meaning by evolving our sensory motor loop and enhancing our relevance realization because that gives people profound improved sense of connectedness to themselves, to each other and the world. And I'll tell you, Lex, I don't want to say too specifically the final thing that people did because it's part of his secret sauce, right? Sure, sure. But what I can say is when it was done, I said to them all, I said, as far as I can tell, none of you are religious, right? And they go, yeah, yeah. And I said, but what you just did was a religious act, wasn't it? And they all went, yeah, it was. So that same magic was there. Yes. Bathroom break? Sure. What's your take on atheism in general? Is it closer to truth than, maybe is an atheist closer to truth than a person who believes in God? So I'm a non-theist, which means I think the shared set of presuppositions between the theist and the atheist are actually what needs to be rejected. Can you explain that further? Yes, I can. And I want to point out, by the way, that there are lots of non-theistic religious traditions. So I'm not coming up with a sort of airy-fairy category. Yeah, and what's the difference between non-theism, agnosticism, and atheism? So non-theists think that the theist and the atheist share a bunch of presuppositions. For example, it's that sacredness is to be understood in terms of a personal being that is in some sense the supreme being, and that the right relationship to that being is to have a correct set of beliefs. I reject all of those claims. So both the theist and the atheist? In their modern version, yes. In which, do you reject it in the sense that you don't know, or do you reject it in the sense that you believe that each one of those presuppositions is likely to be not true? The latter. Both on reflection, argument, and personal experimentation and experience, I've come to the conclusion that those shared propositions are probably not true. Which one is the most troublesome to you? The personal being, the kind of accumulation of everything into one being that ultimately created stuff? So for me, there's two, and they're interlocked together. I'm not trying to dodge your question. It's that the idea that the ground of being is some kind of being, I think is a fundamental mistake. Is the ground a void of being? No, no, no. The ground of being is some kind of being. So it's turtles all the way down. The ground of being is not itself any kind of being. Being is not a being. It is the ability for things to be, which is not the same thing as a being. Are humans beings? We are beings. This glass is a being. This table is a being. But when I ask you, how are they all in being, you don't say, by being a glass, or by being a table, or by being a human. You want to say, no, no, there's something, ah, underneath it all, and then you realize it can't be any thing. This is why many mystical traditions converge on the idea that the ground of being is nothingness, which is, you know, which is normally pronounced as nothingness. But if you put the hyphen back in, you get the original intent, no thingness. And that is bound up with, okay, what I need to do in order to be in relationship with—so it's a misconstruing of ultimate reality as a supreme being, which is a category mistake to my mind, and then my relationship to it, that sacredness is a function of belief. And I have been presenting you an argument through most of our discussion that meaning is at a deeper level than beliefs and propositions. And so that is a misunderstanding of sacredness, because I take sacredness to be that which is most meaningful, and it connected to what is most real. And theists think of what, of sacredness as what? They think of sacredness as a property of a particular being, God, and that the way that is meaningful to them is by asserting a set of propositions or beliefs. Now I want to point out that this is what I would now call modern or common theism. You go back into the classical periods of Christianity, you get a view that's really radically different from how most people understand theism today. Okay, so let me—this is an interesting question that I usually think about in the form of mathematics, but—so in that case, if meaning is sacred, in your non-theist view, is meaning created or is it discovered? There's a Latin word that doesn't separate them called inventio. And I would say that, and before you say, oh, well, give me a chance, because you participate in it. You've experienced an insight, yes? Did you make it happen? The insight? Did you make it happen, or did—did you do—like, can you do that? I'm gonna have—I need an insight. This is what I do to make an insight. Oh, I see. Yeah, in some sense, it came from elsewhere. Right, but you didn't just passively receive it either. You're engaged and involved in it. That's why you get—right? So that's what I mean by you participate in it. You participate in meaning. So you do think that it's both? Yes. You do think it's both. I mean, that's not a trivial thing to understand. Because a lot of time we think—when you think about a search for meaning, you think it's like you're going through a big house and you open each door and look if it's there, and so on, as if there is going to be a glowing orb that you discover. But at the same time, I'm somebody that, based on the chemistry of my brain, have been extremely fortunate to be able to discover beauty in everything, in the most mundane and boring of things. I am, as David Foster Wallace said, unboreable. I could just sit in a room, just playing with a tennis ball or something and be excited. Basically like a dog, I think, endlessly. So to me, meaning is created, because I could create meaning out of everything. But of course, it doesn't require a partner. It does require dance partners, whatever. It does require the tennis ball. But honestly, that's what a lot of people that I don't necessarily—we'll talk about it—I don't practice meditation, but people who meditate very seriously, like the entire days for months kind of thing, they talk about being able to discover meaning in just the wind or something. The breath and everything, just subtle sensory experiences give you deep fulfillment. So that's, again, it's interaction. Actually, I do want to say, because the interesting difference that you've drawn between non-theism, theism and atheism, where's the agreement or disagreement between you and Jordan Peterson on this? I'm not going to tell Jordan about this, because you're very clear. It's kind of beautiful in the clarity in which you lay this out. I wonder if Jordan has arrived at a similar kind of clarity. Have you been able to draw any kind of lines between the way the two of you see religion? Yeah, so there was a video released, I think, like two or three weeks ago with Jordan and myself and Jonathan Pageot. Oh, I haven't watched that one yet, yeah. And it's around this question, Lex. He's basically sort of making, he's putting together an argument for God. I mean, I think that's a fair way, I don't think he would object to me saying that. And Jonathan Pageot is also a, well, Jonathan is a Christian, it's unclear what Jordan is. And Jonathan's work is on symbolism and different mythologies and Christianity in particular. Yes, especially Neoplatonic Christianity, which is very important. I have a lot of respect, well, I have a lot of respect for both of them, but I have a lot of respect for Jonathan. But in my participation in that dialogue, you can see me, well, repeatedly, but I think everybody, including Jordan, thought constructively challenging sort of the attempt to build a theistic model, and I was challenging it from a non-theistic perspective. So I think we don't agree on certain sets of propositions, but there was also a lot of acknowledgement, and I think genuine appreciation on his part, and Jonathan's part, of the arguments I was making. So they believe in maybe the presupposition of like a supreme being. Not believe, but they see the power of that particular presupposition in being a source of meaning. I think that's relatively clear for me with Jordan. Jordan's a really complex guy, so it's very hard to just like pin. To my best sort of understanding, yes, I think that's clearly the case for Jordan. It's not the case for Jonathan. Jonathan is, remember I said I was talking about modern atheism and theism? Jonathan is a guy who somehow went into icon carving and Maximus the Confessor and Eastern Orthodoxy and has come out of it, the other end, as a fifth century Church father that is nevertheless being, rightfully so, found to be increasingly relevant to many people. I think- So he's deeply old school. Yeah, I think he has, he and I, especially, because Neoplatonism is a non-theistic philosophical spirituality and it's a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy, he and I, I think, he would say things like, God doesn't exist. What? You're a Christian, right? And then he's being coy, but he'll say, well, God doesn't exist the way the cup exists or the table exists, the same kind of move I was making a few minutes ago. He'll say things like that. He will emphasize the no-thingness of ultimate reality, the no-thingness of God, because he's, he is, he's from that version of Christianity, what you might call classical theism. But classical theism looks a lot more like non-theism than it looks like modern theism. That's so interesting. Yeah, that's really interesting. What about, is there a line to be drawn between myth and religion in terms of its usefulness in man's search for meaning? So here's where Jordan and I are in much more, actually all three of us are in significant agreement. I said this in my series, but I want to say it again here. Myths aren't stories about things that happened in the deep past that are largely irrelevant. Myths are stories about perennial or pertinent patterns that need to be brought into awareness, and they need to be brought into an awareness not just, or primarily at the propositional level, but at those non-propositional levels. And I think that is what good mythos does. I prefer to use the Greek word because we've now turned the English word into a synonym for a widely believed falsehood. And I don't think, again, if you go back even to the church fathers, I'm not a Christian, I'm not advocating for Christianity, right? But neither am I here to attack it, right? But when they talk about reading these stories, they think the literal interpretation is the weakest and the least important. You move to the allegorical or the symbolic, to the moral, to the spiritual, the mystical, and that's where, right? So they would say to you, oh, but how is the story of Adam and Eve true for you now? And I don't mean true for you in that relativistic sense, I mean, how is it pointing to a pattern in your life right now? So there's some sense in which the telling of this mythos becomes real in connecting to the patterns that kind of captivate the public today. Sure. So you just keep telling the story. I mean, there's something about some of these stories that are just really good at being sticky to the patterns of each generation. Yes. And they'll stick to different patterns throughout time. They're just sticky in powerful ways. Yes. And so we keep returning back to them again and again and again. And it's important to see that some of these stories are recursive. They're myths about one particular set of patterns. They're myths about, right, not just the important pattern. Like you get Jordan's stuff about there's heroes and myths are trying to make us understand the need for being heroic in our own lives. One of the things I like to put in counterbalance that is the Greek also have myths of hubris, right, that counterbalance the heroic, right? But then there are myths that are not about those deeply important patterns, but they're myths about religio itself, that the way we're… Religio means to bind, to connect, the way relevance realization connects us. And so the point of the myth is not notice that pattern or notice that pattern and notice that pattern. It's notice how all of these patterns are emerging and what does that say about us and reality. And those myths, I think, are genuinely profound. And how much of the myths, how much of the power of those myths is about the dialogues? You talk about this quite a bit, I think in the first conversation with Jordan, you guys, I'm not sure you got really into it, you scratched the surface a little bit, but the role of, as you say, dialogue in distributed cognition. What is that? The thing we're doing right now, talking with our mouth holes, what is that? And actually, can I ask you this question? If aliens came to Earth and were observing humans, would they notice our distributed cognition first or our individual cognition first? What is the most notable thing about us humans? Is it our ability to individually do well in IQ tests or whatever? Or puzzle solve? Or is it this thing we're doing together? I think most of our problem solving is done in distributed cognition. Look around. You didn't make this equipment, you didn't build this place, you didn't invent this language that we're both sharing, et cetera, et cetera. Now there's more specific and precise experimental evidence coming out. Let's take a standard task that people, a reasoning task, I won't get into the details, it's called the Wayson Selection Task, and you give it to people, highly educated psychology students, premier universities across the world. We've been doing it since the 60s, it replicates and replicates, and only 10% of the people get it right. You put them in a group of four, and you allow them to talk to each other, the success rate goes to 80%. That's just one example of a phenomenon that's coming to the fore. By the way, do you know if a similar experiment has been done on a group of engineering students versus psychology students? Is there a major group difference in IQ between those two? Just kidding. Let's move on. All right, so there is a lot of evidence that there's power to this distributed cognition. Now what about this mechanism, this fascinating mechanism of the ants interacting with each other, the dialogue? I use the word discourse or dialogue for just people having a conversation, and this is deeply inspired by Socrates and Plato, especially the Platonic dialogues. And I'm sure we've all had this, and so give me a moment because I want to build onto something here. We participated in conversations that took on a life of their own and took us both in directions we did not anticipate, afforded us insights that we could not have had on our own. And we don't have to have come to an agreement, but we were both moved and we were both drawn into insight, and we feel like, wow, that was one of the best moments of my life because we feel how that introduced us to a capacity for tapping into a flow state within distributed cognition that puts us into a deeper relationship with ourselves, with another person, and potentially with the world. That's what I mean by dialogos. And so for me, I think dialogos is more important. Boy, I could just hear, I'm sorry, I can hear Jordan and Jonathan in my head right now, but I think it's more- I hear them all the time. I just wish they would shut up in my head sometimes. So what are they saying to you in your head? What they're saying, well, see, that's what the most recent conversation was about. I was trying to say that I don't think mythos is, I think mythos is really important. I think these kinds of narratives are really important. But I think this ability to connect together in distributed cognition, collective intelligence, and cultivate a shared flow state within that collective intelligence so it starts to ramp up, perhaps towards collective wisdom, I think that's more important because I think that's the basin within which the myths and the rituals are ultimately created and when they function. Like a myth is like a public dream. It depends on distributed cognition and it depends on people enacting it and getting into mutual flow states. So the highest form of dialogos of conversation is this flow state and that it forms the foundation for myth building. I think so. I think so. So that communitas, that's Victor Turner's phrase, and he specifically linked it to flow and I study flow scientifically, that that within distributed cognition as the home, as the generator of mythos and ritual and those are bound together as well. I think that's fundamentally correct. You know what's the cool thing here? Because I'm a huge fan of podcasts and audio books, but podcasts in particular is relevant here is there's a third person in this room listening now. And they're also in the flow state. Yes, yes. Like I'm close friends with a lot of podcasters. They don't know I exist. I just listen to them because I've been in so many flow states with them. I was like, yes, yes, this is good. But they don't know I exist, but they are in conversation with me ultimately. Think Lex of what that's doing. You've got dialogues and then you've got this meta-dialogue like you're describing. And think about how things like podcasts and YouTube, they break down old boundaries between the private and the public, between writing and oral speech. So we have the dynamics of living oral speech, but it has the permanency of writing. Like we're in the midst of creating a vehicle, right? And a medium for distributed cognition that breaks down a lot of the categories by which we organized our cognition. I mean, because of the tools of YouTube and so on, just the network, the graph of how quickly the distributed cognition can spread is really powerful. Just a huge amount of people have listened to your lectures. I've listened to your lectures, but I've experienced them, at least in your style, there's something about your style. It felt like a conversation. It felt like at any moment I could interrupt you and say something. And I was just listening. Thank you for saying that, because I aspire to being genuinely as Socratic as I can when I'm doing this. Yeah, there was that sense, actually, as I'm saying it now. Why was that? It didn't feel like sometimes lectures are kind of, you come down with the commandments and you just have to listen. But there was a sense, I think it was the excitement that you have. You have to understand. And also the fact that you were kind of, I think, thinking off the top of your head sometimes. You were interrupting yourself with thoughts. You're playing with thoughts. You're reasoning through things often. You reference a lot of books, so surely you were extremely well prepared and you were referencing a lot of ideas, but then you were also struggling in the way to present those ideas. Yes. And that's the jazz, the jazz and getting into the flow state and trying to share in a participatory and perspectival fashion the learning with the people rather than just pronouncing at them. Yes. What's mindfulness? So published on that as well. And I practice. I've been practicing many forms of mindfulness and ecology of practices since 1991. So I both have practitioner's knowledge and I also study it scientifically. I think, I'm pretty sure I was the first person to academically talk about mindfulness at the University of Toronto within a classroom setting, like lecturing on it. So this is a topic that a lot of people have recently become very interested in, think about. So from that, from the early days, how do you think about what it is? I've critiqued the sort of standard definitions, being aware of the present moment without judgment because I think they're flawed. And if you want to get into the detail of why, we can. But this is how I want to explain it to you. And it also points to the fact of why you need an ecology of mindfulness practices. You shouldn't equate mindfulness with meditation. I think that's a primary mistake. When you say ecology, what do you mean, by the way? So lots of many different variants? No, so what I mean by ecology is exactly what you have in an ecology. You have a dynamical system in which there are checks and balances on each other. And I'll get to that with this about mindfulness. I'll make that connection if you allow me. So we're always framing. We've been talking about that. And for those of you who are not on YouTube, this podcast, I wear glasses and I'm now sort of putting my fingers and thumb around the frames of my glasses. So this is my frame. And my lenses, and that frame, the frame holds a lens, and I'm seeing through it in both senses beyond and by means of it. So right now, my glasses are transparent to me. I want to use that as a strong analogy for my mental framing. Now, this is what you do in meditation, I would argue. You step back from looking through your frame and you look at it. I'm taking my glasses off right now and I'm looking at them. Why might I do that? To see if there's something in the lenses that is distorting, causing me to... Now, if I just did that, that could be helpful. But how do I know if I've actually corrected the change I made to my lenses? What do I need to do? I need to put my glasses on and see if I can now see more clearly and deeply than I could before. Meditation is this, stepping back and looking at. Contemplation is that looking through. And there are different kinds of practices. The fact that we treat them as synonyms is a deep mistake. The word contemplation has temple in it, in Latin, contemplatio, means to look up to the sky. It's a translation of the Greek word theoria, which we get our word theory from. It's to look deeply into things. Meditation is more about having to do with reflecting upon, standing back and looking at. Mindfulness includes both. It includes your ability to break away from an inappropriate frame and the ability to make a new frame. That's what actually happens in insight. You have to both break an inappropriate frame and make, see, realize a new frame. This is why mindfulness enhances insight both ways, by the way, meditative practices and also contemplative practices. So mindfulness is frame awareness that can be appropriated in order to improve your capacities for insight and self-regulation. Now I am inexperienced with meditation, sort of the rigorous practice and the science of meditation. But I've talked to people who seriously as a science study psychedelics, and they often talk about the really important thing is the integration back, so the contemplation step. So it's not just the actual things you see on psychedelics or the actual journey of where your mind goes on psychedelics. It's also the integrating that into the new perspective that you take on life. You really nicely described, so meditation in that metaphor is the psychedelic journey to a different mind state and contemplation is the return back to reality, how you integrate that into a new world view. This is the whole process, those. Right, so if you just did contemplation, you could suffer from inflation and projective fantasy. If you just do meditation, you can suffer from withdrawal, spiritual bypassing, avoiding reality. They act, they need each other. You have to cycle between them. It's like what I talked about earlier when I talked about the opponent processing within the autonomic nervous system or the opponent processing at work and attention. And that's what I mean by an ecology of practices. You need both. Neither one is a panacea. You need them in this opponent processing, acting as checks and balance on each other. Is there sort of practical advice you can give to people on how to meditate or how to be mindful in this full way? Yes, I would tell them to do at least three things. And I was, I lucked into this. When I started meditation, I went down the street and there was a place that taught Vipassana meditation, metta contemplation, and Tai Chi Chuan for flow induction. And you should get, you should have a meditative practice, you should find a contemplative practice, and you should find a moving mindfulness practice, especially one that is conducive to the flow state, and practice them in an integrated fashion. Can you elaborate what those practices might look like? So generally speaking. Meditative practice like Vipassana. So what's the primary thing I look through rather than look at? It's my sensations. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna focus on my sensations rather than focusing on the world through my sensations. So I'm gonna follow, for example, the sensations in this area of my abdomen where my breathing is. So as my abdomen is expanding, I can feel those sensations, and then I can feel the sensations as it's contracting. And what'll happen is my mind will leap back to try to look through and look at the world again. I'll start thinking about I need to do my laundry, or what was that noise? And so what do I do? I don't get involved with the content. I step back and label the process with an ING word, listening, imagining, planning. And then I return my attention to the breath. And I have to return my attention in the correct way. The part of your mind that jumps around, in the Buddhist tradition, this is called your monkey mind. It's like a monkey leaping from branches and chattering. If I was trying to train that monkey mind to stay, or as Jack Kornfield said, train a puppy dog, stay puppy dog, and if it goes and I get really angry, and I bring it back and I'm yelling at it, I'm gonna train it to fight and fear me. But if I just indulge it, if I just feed its whims, oh, well, look, the puppy dog went there. Oh, now it's there. The puppy dog never learns to stay. What do I need to do? I have to neither fight it nor feed it. I have to have this centered attitude. I have to befriend it. So you step back and look at your sensations. You step back and look at your distracting processes. You return your attention to the breath, and you do it with the right attitude. That's the core of a good meditative practice. Okay, then what's a good contemplative practice? A good contemplative practice is to try and meta, it's actually apropos because we talked about that participatory knowing, the way you're situated in the world. So what, this is a long thing because there's different interpretations of meta, and I go for what's called an existential interpretation over an emotional one. So what I'm doing in meta, right, is I'm trying to become, I'm trying to awaken in two ways. I'm trying to awaken to the fact that I am constantly assuming an identity and assigning an identity. So I'm looking at that. I'm trying to awaken to that, and then I'm trying to awake from the modal confusion that I can get into around that. And so I'm looking out onto the world, and I'm trying to see you in a fundamentally different way than I have before. You know like you go to the gym and you do bicep curls. Yes, yes. Is it possible to reduce it to those things that, I mean, you don't need to speak to the specifics, but is there actual practice you can do, or is it really personal? No, I teach people how to do the meta practice. I also teach them how to do a neoplatonic contemplative practice, how to do a stoic. Another one you can do is the view from above. This is classic stoicism. I get you to imagine that you're in this room, and then imagine that you're floating above the room, then above Austin, then above Texas, then above the United States, then the earth. And you have to really imagine it. Don't just think it, but really imagine. And then what you notice is as you're pulling out to a wider and wider contemplation of reality, your sense of self and what you find relevant and important also changes. For all of these, there is a specific step-by-step methodology. Oh, so like in that one, you could just literally imagine yourself floating farther and farther out. But you have to go through the steps, because the stepping matters. Because if you just jump, it doesn't work. Do you have any of this stuff online, by the way? I do, because during COVID, I decided, at the advice of a good friend, to do a daily course. I taught meditating with John Vervecke. I did all the way through meditation, contemplation, even some of the movement practices. That's all there. It's all available. That was largely inspired by Buddhism and Taoism. And then I went into the Western tradition and went through things like stoicism and neoplatonism, cultivating wisdom with John Vervecke. That's all there, all free. On your website? Yeah, it's on my YouTube channel, yeah. On your YouTube channel? Okay. That's exciting. I mean, your Meaning Crisis lectures is just incredible. Everything around it, including the notes and the notes that people took. It created this tree of conversations. It's really, really, really well done. What about flow induction? You want to flow wisely. First of all, you need to understand what flow is, and then you need to confront a particular issue around, a practical problem around flow. Let's go there, because a lot of those words seem like synonyms to people sometimes. So the state of flow, what is it? All right, so, and he just died last year, Chik Santhamahai. I admire him very much. We've exchanged a bunch of messages over the past few years, and he wanted to do the podcast several times. Oh, that would have been wonderful. But he said he struggled with his health, and I never knew in those situations. I deeply regret several cases like this that I had, like with Conway, that I should have pushed him on it. Because yeah, as you get later in life, the simple things become more difficult, but a voice, especially one that hasn't been really heard, is important to hear. So anyway, I apologize, but yeah. No, no, I share that. I mean, I can tell you that within my area, he is important, and he's famous in an academics, in a sense. So the flow state, two important sets of conditions, and very often people only talk about one, and that's a little bit of a misrepresentation. So the flow state is in situations in which the demand of the situation is slightly beyond your skills. So you both have to apply all the skills you can with as much sort of attention and concentration as you possibly can, and you have to actually be stretching your skills. Now in this circumstance, people report optimal experience, optimal in two ways. Optimal in that this is one of the best experiences I've had in my life. It's distinct from pleasure, and yet it explains why people do very bizarre things like rock climbing, because it's a good flow induction. But they also mean optimal in a second sense, my best performance. So it's both the best experience and the best performance. So Csikszentmihalyi also talked about the information flow conditions you need, right, in order for there to be this state of flow. And then I'll talk about what it's like to be in flow in a sec. What you need is three things. You need the information that you're getting to be clear. It can't be ambiguous or vague. Think about a rock climber. If it's ambiguous and vague, you're in trouble, right? There has to be tightly coupled feedback between what you do and how the environment responds. So when you act, there's an immediate response. There isn't a big time lag between your action and your ability to detect the response from the environment. Third, failure has to matter. Error really matters. So there should be some anxiety about failure. And failure matters. So that, yeah, because- Like to you, the person that participates. Yes, yes, yes. Now when you're in the flow state, notice how this sits on the boundary between the secular and the sacred. When you're in the flow state, people report a tremendous sense of at-one-ment with the environment. They report a loss of a particular kind of self-consciousness, that narrative-nattering nanny in your head that, how do I look? Do people like me? How do I look? How's my hair? Do people like me? Should I have said that? And you're okay. You're free from that. You're free from the most sadistic, super-ego self-critic you could possibly have, at least for a while. The world is vivid. It's super salient to you. There's an ongoing sense of discovery. Although often you know you're exerting a lot of metabolical effort, it feels effortless. So in the flow state when you're sparring, your hand just goes up for the block and your strike just goes through the empty space. Or if you're a goalie in hockey, I've got to mention hockey once, I'm a Canadian, you put out your glove hand and the puck's there. So there's this tremendous sense of grace, at-one-ment, super salience, discovery, and realness. People when they're in the flow state, they don't go, I bet this is an illusion. The interesting question for me and my co-authors in the article we published in the Oxford Handbook, A Spontaneous Thought with Arianne Harra-Bennett and Leo Ferraro, is that's a descriptive account of flow. We wanted an explanatory account. What are the causal mechanisms at work in flow? And so we actually proposed to interlocking cognitive processes. The first thing we said is, well, what's going on in flow? Well think about it. Think about the rock climber. The rock climber, and I talked about this earlier, they're constantly restructuring how they're seeing the rock face. They're constantly doing something like insight. And if they fail to do it, they impasse and that starts to get dangerous. So they got to do an insight that primes an insight that primes an insight. So imagine the aha experience, that flash and that moment, and imagine it cascading. So you're getting the extended aha. That's why things are super salient. There's a sense of discovery. There's a sense of at-one-ment, of deep participation, of grace. But there's something else going on too. So there's a phenomenon called implicit learning. Also very well replicated. That's way back in the 60s with Reber. You can give people complex patterns, like number and letter strings, and they can learn about those patterns outside of deliberate focal awareness. That's what's called implicit learning. And what's interesting is if you try and change that task into, tell me the pattern, but explicitly try to figure it out, their performance degrades. So here's the idea. You have this adaptive capacity for implicit learning, and what it does is it results in you being able to track complex variables in a way, but you don't know how you came up with that knowledge. This is Hogarth's proposal in educating intuition. Intuition is actually the result of implicit learning. So an example I use is, how far do you stand away from somebody at a funeral? There's a lot of complex variables. There's status, closeness to the person, your relationship to them, past history, all kinds of stuff, and yet you know how to do it, and you didn't have to go to funeral school. I'm just using that as an example. So you have these powerful intuitions. Now here's Hogarth's great point. Implicit learning, remember I said before, the things that make it adaptive make us subject to self-deception? Here's another example. Implicit learning is powerful at picking up on complex patterns, but it doesn't care what kind of pattern it is. It doesn't distinguish causal patterns from merely correlational patterns. So implicit learning, when we like it, it's intuition. When it's picking up on stuff that's bogus, we call it prejudice or all kinds of other names for intuition that's going wrong. Now he said, okay, what do we do? What do we do about this? And this will get back to Flo. What do we do about this? Well, we can't try to replace implicit learning with explicit learning because we'll lose all the adaptiveness to it. So what can we do explicitly? What we can do is take care of the environment in which we're doing the implicit learning. How do we do that? We try to make sure the environment has features that help us distinguish causation from correlation. What kind of environments have we created that are good at distinguishing causation from correlation? Experimental environments. What do you do in an experiment? You make sure that the variables are clear, no confound, no ambiguity, no vagueness. You make sure there's a tight coupling between the independent and the dependent variable and your hypothesis can be falsified, error matters. Now look at those three lex. Those are exactly the three conditions that you need for Flo. Clear information, tightly coupled feedback, and error matters. So Flo is not only an insight cascade, improving your insight capacity, it's also a marker that you're cultivating the best kind of intuitions, the ones that fit you best to the causal patterns in your environment. But it's hard to achieve that kind of environment where there's a clear distinction between causality and correlation and it has the rigor of a scientific experiment. So fair enough. And I don't think Hogarth was saying it's gonna be epistemically as rigorous as a scientific experiment. But he's saying, if you structure that, it will tend to do what that scientific method does which is find causal. Think of the rock climber. All of those things are the case. They need clear information. It's tightly coupled and error matters. And they think what they're doing is very real because if they're not conforming to the real causal patterns of the rock face and the physiology of their body, they will fall. Is there something to be said about the power of discovering meaning and having this deep relationship with the moment? Is there something about flow that really forgets the past and the future and is really focused on the moment? I think that's part of the phenomenology. But I think the functionality has to do with the fact that what's happening in flow is that dynamic, non-propositional connectedness that is so central to meaning is being optimized. This is why flow is a good predictor of how well you rate your life, how much well-being you think you have, which of course is itself also predictive and interrelated with how meaningful you find your life. One of the things that you can do, but there's an important caveat, to increase your sense of meaning in life is to get into the flow state more frequently. That's why I said you want a moving practice that's conducive to the flow state. But there's one important caveat, which is we of course have figured out, and I'm playing with words here, how to game this and how to hijack it by creating things like video games. I'm not saying this is the case for all video games or this is the case for all people, but the WHO now acknowledges this as a real thing, that you can get into the flow state within the video game world to the detriment of your ability to get into the flow state in the real world. What's the opposite of flow? Depression. In fact, depression has been called anti-flow. So you get these people that are flowing in this non-real world and they can't transfer it to the real world, and it's actually costing them flow in the real world. So they tend to suffer depression and all kinds of things. Your ability, your habit and just skill at attaining flow in the video game world basically makes you less effective, or maybe shocks you at how difficult it is to achieve flow in the physical world. Yeah, I'm not sure about the... I don't wanna push back against the implied challenge of transferability, because there's a lot of... I have a lot of friends that play video games, a very large percent of young folks play video games, and I'm hesitant to build up models of how that affects behavior. My intuition is weak there. Sometimes people that have PhDs are of a certain age that they came up when video games weren't a deep part of their life development. I would venture to say people who have developed their brain with video games being a large part of that world are in some sense different humans, and it's possible that they can transfer more effectively some of the lessons, some of the ability to attain flow from the virtual world to the physical world. They're also more, I would venture to say, resilient to the negative effects of, for example, social media or video games. They have maybe the objectification or the over-sexualized or violent aspect of video games. They're able to turn that off when they go to the physical world and turn it back on when they're playing the video games probably more effectively than the old-timers. So I just want to say, I'm not sure, it's a really interesting question how transferable the flow state is. I don't know if you want to comment on that. I do, I do. First of all, I did qualify, and I'm saying it's not the case for all video games or for all people. I'm holding out the possibility, and I know this possibility because I've had students who actually suffer from this and have done work around it with me. The ability to achieve? They couldn't transfer, yeah. And then they were able to step back from that and then take up the cognitive science and write about it and work on it. Also, I'm not so sure about the resiliency claim because there seems to be mounting evidence, it's not consensus, but it's certainly not regarded as fringe, that the increase in social media is pretty strongly correlated with increase in depression, self-destructive behavior, things like this. I would like to see that evidence. Sure, I can find it. Let me, I'm always hesitant to too eagerly kind of agree with things that I want to agree with. There's a public perception, everyone seems to hate on social media. I wonder, as always with these things, does it reveal depression or does it create depression? This is always the question, it's like whenever you talk about any political or ideological movement, does it create hate or does it reveal hate? And that's a good thing to ask and you should always challenge the things that you intuitively want to believe. I agree with that. Like aliens. So one of the ways you address this, and it's not sufficient, and I did say that work is preliminary, but if I can give you a plausible mechanism that's new and then that lends credence and part of what happens is illusory social comparison. Think of Instagram, people are posting things that are not accurate representation of their life or life events. In fact, they will stage things, but the people that are looking at these, they take it often as real and so they get downward social comparison. And this is, like compared to how you and I probably live, where we may get one or two of those events a week, they're getting them moment by moment. And so it's a plausible mechanism that why it might be driving people into a more depressed state. Okay, the flip side of that is because there's a greater, greater gap going from real world to Instagram world, you start to be able to laugh at it and realize that it's artificial. So for example, even just artificial filters, people start to realize like there's like, it's the same kind of gap as there is between the video game world and the real world. In the video game world, you can do all kinds of wild things. Grand Theft Auto, you can shoot people up, you can do whatever the heck you want. In the real world, you can't. And you start to develop an understanding of how to have fun in the virtual world and in the physical world. And I think it's just a push back. I'm not saying either is true, though. Those are very interesting claims. The more ridiculously out of touch Instagram becomes, the easier you can laugh it off, potentially, in terms of the effect it has on your psyche. So I'll respond to that. But at some point, we should get back to Flo. As we engage in Flo. You laugh at the shampoo commercial, and yet you buy the shampoo. Yeah. There's a capacity for tremendous bullshitting because of the way these machines are designed to trigger salience without triggering reflective truth-seeking. I'm thinking of Connor examples because sometimes you can laugh all the way to the bank. You can laugh and not buy the shampoo. Right. There's many cases. So I think you have to laugh hard enough. You do have to laugh hard enough. But the advertisers get millions of dollars precisely because for many, many people, it does make you buy the shampoo. And that's the concern. And maybe the machine of social media is such that it optimizes the shampoo buying. Yes. The point I was trying to make is whether or not that particular example is ultimately right, the possibility of transfer failure is a real thing. And I want to contrast that to an experience I had when I was in grad school. I'd been doing Tai Chi Chuan about three or four years very religiously, in both senses of the word, like three or four hours a day, and reading all the literature. I was having all the weird experiences, cold as ice, hot as lava, all that stuff. And it's, ooh, right? But my friends in grad school, they said to me, what's going on? You're different. And I said, what do you mean? And they said, well, you're a lot more balanced in your interactions, and you're a lot more flowing, and you're a lot more sort of flexible, and you adjust more. And I realized, oh. And this was the sort of Taoist claim around Tai Chi Chuan, that it actually transfers in ways that you might not expect. You start to be able, and I've now noticed that. I now notice how I'm doing Tai Chi, even in this interaction, and how it can facilitate and afford. And so there's a powerful transfer. That's what I meant by flow wisely. Not only flow in a way that's making sure that you're distinguishing causation from correlation, which flow can do, but find how to situate it, home it, so that it will percolate through your psyche and permeate through many domains of your life. Is there something you could say, similar to our discussion about mindfulness and meditation and contemplation, about the world that psychedelics take our mind? Where does the mind go when it's on psychedelics? I want to remind you of something you said, which is a gem. It's not so much the experience, but the degree to which it can be integrated back. So here's a proposal, it comes from Woodward and others. A lot of convergence around this. Carhart Harris is talking about it similarly in the entropic brain. But I'm not going to talk first about psychedelics, I'm going to talk about neural networks. And I'm going to talk about a classic problem in neural networks. So neural networks, like us with intuition and implicit learning, are fantastic at picking up on complex patterns. Which neural networks are we talking about? I'm talking about a general, just general part. Both artificial and biological? Yes, yes, yes. I think at this point, there is no relevant difference. So one of the classic problems, because of their power, is they suffer from overfitting to the data. Or for those of you who are, you know, statistical orientation, they pick up patterns in the sample that aren't actually present in the population, right? And so what you do is, there's various strategies. You can do dropout, where you periodically turn off half of the nodes in a network. You can drop noise into the network. And what that does is it prevents overfitting to the data and allows the network to generalize more powerfully to the environment. I propose to you that that's basically what psychedelics do. They do that. They basically do significant constraint reduction. And so you get areas of the brain talking to each other that don't normally talk to each other, areas that do talk to each other not talking to each other, downregulation of areas that are very dominant, like the default mode network, et cetera. And what that does is exactly something strongly analogous, sorry, to what's happening in dropout or putting noise into the data. It opens up. In a way, if you give people, if you give human beings an insight problem that they're trying to solve and you throw in some noise, like literally static on the screen, you can trigger an insight in them. So like literally very simplistic kind of noise to the perception system. Right. It can break it out of overfitting to the data and open you up. Now that means though that just doing that in and of itself is not the answer because you also have to make sure that the system can go back to exploring that new space properly. This isn't a problem with neural networks. You turn off dropout and they just go back to being powerful neural networks. And now they explore the state space that they couldn't explore before. Human beings are a little bit more messy around this. And this is where the analogy does get a little bit strained. So they need practices that help them integrate that opening up to the new state space so they can properly integrate it. So beyond Leary's state set and setting, I think you need another S. I think you need sacred. Psychedelics need to be practiced within a sapiential framework, a framework in which people are independently and beforehand improving their abilities to deal with self-deception and afford insight and self-regulate. This is of course the overwhelming way in which psychedelics are used by indigenous cultures. And I think if we put them into that context, then they can help the project of people self-transcending, cultivating, meaning, and increasing wisdom. But if I think we remove them out of that context and put them in the context of commodities taken just to have certain phenomenological changes, we run certain important risks. So using the term of higher states of consciousness, is consciousness an important part of that word? Why higher? Is it a higher state or is it a detour, a side road on the main road of consciousness? So where do we go here? I think the psychedelic state is on a continuum. There's insight and then flow is an insight cascade. There's flow and then you can have sort of psychedelic experiences, mind-revealing experiences. But they overlap with mystical experiences and they aren't the same. So for example, in the Griffiths lab, they gave people psilocybin and they taught them ahead of time sort of the features of a mystical experience. And only a certain proportion of the people that took the psilocybin went from a psychedelic into a mystical experience. What was interesting is the people that had the mystical experience had measurable and longstanding change to one of the big five factors of personality. They had increased openness. And openness is supposed to actually go down over time. And these traits aren't supposed to be that malleable and it was significantly altered. But imagine if you just created more openness in a person. And they're now open to a lot more and they want to explore a lot more, but you don't give them the tools of discernment. That could be problematic for them in important ways. That could be very problematic. Yes, I got it. But you know, so you have to land the plane in a productive way somehow, integrate it back into your life and how you see the world and how you frame your perception of that world. And when you do that, that's when I call it a transformative experience. Now the higher states of consciousness are really interesting because they tend to move people from a mystical experience into a transformative experience. Because what happens in these experiences is something really, really interesting. They get to a state that's ineffable. They can't put it into words. They can't describe it. But they do this, they're in this state temporarily and then they come back and they do this. They say, that was really real. And this in comparison is less real. So I remember that platonic metadesire. I want to change my life myself so that I'm more in conformity with that really real. And that is really odd, Lex, because normally when we go outside of our consensus intelligibility, like a dream state, when we come back from it, we say, that doesn't fit into everything, therefore it's unreal. They do the exact opposite. They come out of these states and they say, that doesn't fit into this, consensus intelligibility, and that means this is less real. They do the exact opposite. And that fascinates me. Why do they flip our normal procedure about evaluating alternative states? And the thing is, those higher states of consciousness, precisely because they have that ontonormativity, the realness that demands that you make a change in your life, they serve to bridge between mystical experiences and genuine transformative experiences. So you do think seeing those as more real is productive, because then you reach for them? So Yadin's done work on it. And again, all of this stuff isn't recent, so we have to take it with a grain of salt. But by a lot of objective measure, people who do this, who have these higher states of consciousness and undertake the transformative process, their lives get better. Their relationships improve. Their sense of self improves. Their anxieties go down, depression. All of these other measures, the needles are moved on these measures by people undergoing this transformative experience. Their lives, by many of the criteria that we judge our lives to be good, get better. I have to ask you about this fascinating distributed cognition process that leads to mass formation of ideologies that have had an impact on our world. So you spoke about the clash of the two great pseudo-religious ideologies of Marxism and Nazism. Yes. Especially their clash on the Eastern Front. Battle of Kursk. Can you explain the origin of each of these, Marxism and Nazism, in a kind of way that we have been talking about the formation of ideas? Still is to Protestantism what Thomas Aquinas is to Catholicism. He was like the philosopher who took German Protestantism and also Kant and Fichte and Schelling, and he built a philosophical system. He explicitly said this, by the way. He wanted to bridge between philosophy and religion. He explicitly said that. I'm not foisting that on him. He said it repeatedly in many different places. So he was trying to create a philosophical system that gathered to it, I think, the core mythos of Christianity. Core mythos of Christianity is this idea of a narrative structure to reality in which progress is real, in which our actions now can change the future. We can co-participate with God in the creation of the future, and that future can be better. It can reach something like a utopia or the promised land or whatever. He created a philosophical system of brilliance, by the way. He's a genius. But basically what it did was it took that religious vision and gave it the air of philosophical intelligibility and respect. And then Marx takes that and says, you know that process by which the narrative is working itself out that Hegel called dialectic? I don't think it's primarily happening in ideas. I think it's happening primarily in between classes within socioeconomic factors. But it's the same story. Here's this mechanism of history. It's teleological. It's going to move this way. It can move towards a utopia. We can either participate in furthering it, like participating in the work of God, or we can thwart it and be against it. And so you have a pseudo-religious vision. It's all-encompassing. Think about how Marxism is not just a philosophical position. It's not just an economic position. It's an entire worldview, an entire account of history and a demanding account of what human excellence is. And it has all these things about participating, belonging, fitting to. But it's very, in Marx's case, it's very pragmatic or directly applicable to society to where it leads to, it more naturally leads to political ideologies. It does. But I think Marx, to a very significant degree, inherits one of Hegel's main flaws. Hegel is talking about all this and he's trying to fit it into post-Kantian philosophy. So for him, it's ultimately propositional, conceptual. He, like everybody after Descartes, is very focused on the propositional level and he's not paying deep attention to the non-propositional. This is why the two great critics of Hegel, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, they're trying to put their finger on the non-propositional, the non-conceptual, the will to power or faith in Kierkegaard and they're trying to bring out all these other kinds of knowing as being inadequate. That's why Kierkegaard meant when he said, Hegel made a system and then he sat down beside it. And so Marxism is very much, it is activist, it's about reorganizing society, but the transformation in individuals is largely ideological, meaning it's largely about these significant propositional changes and adopting a set of beliefs. When it came in contact with the Soviet Union or with what became the Soviet Union, why do you think it had such a powerful hold on such a large number of people? Not Marxism, but implementation of Marxism in the name of communism. Because it offered people, I mean, it offered people something that typically only religions had offered, and it offered people the hope of making a new man, a new kind of human being in a new world. And when you've been living in Russia, in which things seem to be locked in a system that is crushing most people, getting the promise in the air of scientific legitimacy that we can make new human beings and a new world and in which happiness will ensue, that's an intoxicating proposal. You get sort of, like I said, you get all of the intoxication of a religious utopia, but you get all the seeming legitimacy of claiming that it's a scientific understanding of history and economics. It's very popular to criticize communism, Marxism these days, and I often put myself in the place before any of the implementations came to be, I tried to think if I would be able to predict what the implementations of Marxism and communism would result in in the 20th century. And I'm not sure I'm smart enough to make that prediction, because at the core of the ideas are respecting, I mean, with Marx, it's very economics type theory, so it's basically respecting the value of the worker and the regular man in society for making a contribution to that society. And to me, that seems like a powerful idea, and it's not clear to me how it goes wrong. In fact, it's still not clear to me why the hell did this, like, would Stalin happen, or Mao happen? There's something very interesting and complex about human nature in hierarchies, about distributed cognition that results in that, and it's not trivial to understand. No, no. So I mean, I wonder if you could put a finger on it, why did it go so wrong? So I think, you know, what O'Hanna talks about in The Intellectual History of Modernity, talks about the Promethean spirit, the idea, the really radical proposal, and think about how it's not so radical to us. In that sense, Marxism has succeeded. The radical proposal that you see, even in the French Revolution—and don't forget, the terror comes in the French Revolution, too—that we can make ourselves into godlike beings. Think of the hubris in that, right? And think of the overconfidence to think that we so understand human nature and all of its complexities and human history, right, and how religion functioned and every—that we can just come in with a plan and make it run. To my mind, that Promethean spirit is part of why it's doomed to fail, and it's doomed to fail in a kind of terrorizing way, because the Promethean spirit really licenses you to do anything, because the ends justify the means. It's the end justify the means really free you to do some of basically—well, commit atrocities at any scale. Ground zero with Pol Pot and the Camarouge, right? Exactly. And you can only believe in an ends that can justify any means if you believe in a utopia, and you can only believe in the utopia if you really buy into the Promethean spirit. So is that what explains Nazism? So Nazism is part of that too, the Promethean spirit that we can make ourselves into supermen, ubermensch, right? And Nazism is fueled very much by appropriating and twisting sort of Gnostic themes that are very prevalent. Nazism tends to come to the fore when people are experiencing increased meaning crisis. And don't forget, the Weimar Republic is like a meaning crisis gone crazy on all levels. Everybody's suffering domicile. Everybody's home and way of life and identity and culture and relationship to religion and science, all of that. So Nazism comes along and offers a kind of Gnosticism, again, twisted, perverted. I'm not saying all Nazis—I'm not, not saying that all Gnostics are Nazis, but there is this Gnostic mythology, mythos, and it comes to the fore. I remember, and this stuck with me in undergrad, I was taking political science, and the professor extended lecture on this, and it still rings true for me. He says, if you understand Nazism as just a political movement, you have misunderstood it. It is much more a religious phenomenon in many ways. Is it religious in that the loss of religion, so is it a meaning crisis, or is it out of a meaning crisis every discovery of religion in a Promethean type of— I think it's the latter. I think there's this vacuum created. In that context, is Hitler the central religious figure? Yes. And also, did Nazi Germany create Hitler, or did Hitler create Nazi Germany? So in this distributed cognition where everyone's having a dialogue, what's the role of the charismatic leader? Is it an emergent phenomena, or do you need one of those to kind of guide the populace? I hope it's not a necessary requirement. I hope that the next Buddha can be the Sangha rather than a specific individual. But I think in that situation, Hitler's charisma allowed him to take on a mythological, in the proper sense, archetypal—he became deeply symbolic, and he instituted all kinds of rituals, all kinds of rituals, and all kinds of mythos. There's all this mythos about the master race, and there's all these rituals. The swastika is, of course, itself a religious symbol. There's all of this going on because he was tapping into the fact that when you put people into deeper and deeper meaning scarcity, they will fall back on more and more mythological ways of thinking in order to try and come up with a generative source to give them new meaning-making—I should say meaning-participating—behavior. What is evil? Is this a word you avoid? No, I don't. Because I think part of what we're wrestling with here is resisting the Enlightenment—I mean the historical period in Europe—the idea that evil and sin can just be reduced to immorality, individual human immorality. I think there's something deeper in the idea of sin than just immoral. I think sin is a much more comprehensive category. I think sin is a failure to love wisely so that you ultimately engage in a kind of idolatry. You take something as ultimate, which is not. And that can tend to constellate these collective agents—I call them hyperagents—within distributed cognition that have a capacity to wreak havoc on the world that is not just due to a sum total of immoral decisions. This goes to Hannah Arendt's thing, right? The banality of Eichmann—she was really wrestling with it, and I think she's close to something, but I think she's slightly off. You know, Eichmann is just making a whole bunch of immoral decisions, but it doesn't seem to capture the gravity of what the Nazis did, the genocide and the warfare. And she's right, because you're not going to get just the summation of a lot of individual, rather banal, immoral choices adding up to what was going on. You're getting a comprehensive parasitic process within massive distributed cognition that has the power to confront the world and confront aspects of the world that individuals can't. And I think when we're talking about evil, that's what we're trying to point to. This is a point of convergence between me and Jonathan Pageot. We've been talking about this. So the word sin is interesting. Yes. Are you comfortable using the word sin? I'm comfortable. It's so deeply rooted in religious texts. It is, it is. And I struggle around this, because I was brought up as a fundamentalist Christian, and so that is still there within me. There's trauma associated with that. Probably layers of self-deception mechanisms. No doubt, no doubt. That you're slowly escaping. Escaping to, and trying to come into a proper respectful relationship with Christianity via a detour through Buddhism, Taoism, and pagan neoplatonism. Trying to find a way how to love wisely. Yes, exactly. And so I think the term sin is good because somebody may not be doing something that we would prototypically call immoral, but if they're failing to love wisely, they are disconnecting themselves in some important way from the structures of reality. And I think it was Hume, I may be wrong. Hume says, you know, people don't do things because they think it's wrong. They do a lesser good in place of a greater good. And that's a different thing than being immoral. Immoral, we're saying, you're doing something that's wrong. It's like, well, no, no, you know, I'm loving my wife. That's a great thing, isn't it? But if you love your wife at the expense of your kids, like, ah, maybe something's going awry here. Well, I love my country. Great. But should you love your country at the expense of your commitment to the religion you belong to? And people should wrestle with these questions. And I think sin is a failure to wrestle with these questions properly. Yeah, to be content with the choices you made without considering, is there a greater good that could be done? Your lecture series on the meaning crisis puts us in dialogue in the same way as with the podcast with a bunch of fascinating thinkers throughout history. Heidegger, Corbin, the man Carl Jung, Tillich, Barfield. Can you describe, this might be challenging, but one powerful idea from each that jumps to mind? Maybe Heidegger? So for Heidegger, one real powerful idea that has had a huge influence on me, he's had a huge influence on me in many ways. He's a big influence on what's called 4E cognitive science, and this whole idea about the non-propositional, that was deeply afforded by Heidegger and Marlowe-Ponty. But I guess maybe the one idea, if I had to pick one, is his critique of ontotheology, his critique of the attempt to understand being in terms of a supreme being, something like that, and how that gets us fundamentally messed up, and we get disconnected from being because we are over-focused on particular beings. We're failing to love wisely. We're loving the individual things, and we're not loving the ground from which they spring. Can you explain that a little more? What's the difference between the being and the supreme being, and why that gets us into trouble? Okay, so, well, we talked about this before. The supreme being is a particular being, whereas being is no thing. It's not any particular kind of thing. And so if you're thinking of being as a being, you're thinking of it in a thingy way, about something that is fundamentally no thingness. And so then you're disconnecting yourself from presumably ultimate reality. This takes me to Tillich. Tillich's great idea is understanding faith as ultimate concern, rather than a set of propositions that you're asserting, right? So what are you ultimately concerned about? What do you want to have—what do you want to be in right relationship to, ratio religio? And is that ultimate? Is that the ultimate reality that you conceive of? Are those two things in sync? This has had a profound influence on me, and I think it's a brilliant idea. So some of the others, how do they integrate? Maybe the psychos, so Carl Jung and Freud. Which team are you on? I'm on Jung. Yeah. Freud is the better writer, but Jung has, I think, a model of the psyche that is closer to where cognitive science is heading. He's more prescient. Which aspect of his model of the psyche? Directly. So Freud has a hydraulic model, the psyche is like a steam engine, things are under pressure, there's a fluid that's moving around, it's like, pshht. This is—Rocourt noted this. Jung has an organic model. The psyche is like a living being. It's doing all this opponent processing, it's doing all of this self-transcending and growing, and I think that's a much better model of the psyche than the sort of steam engine model. What do you think about their view of the subconscious mind? What do you think their view and your own view of what's going on there in the shadow? So all bad stuff, some good stuff? Any stuff at all? Well, I mean, both Freud and Jung are only talking about the psychodynamic unconscious, which is only a small part of the unconscious. Can you elaborate on the psychodynamic? They're talking about the aspects of the unconscious that have to do with your sort of ego development and how you are understanding and interpreting yourself. Yeah, what else is there? There's the unconscious that allows you to turn the noise coming out of my face hole into ideas. Also, the memory access. There's the unconscious that says, yeah, all that stuff, which is huge and powerful. And they didn't think about that. They were focused on the big romantic stuff that you have to deal with through psychotherapy, that kind of stuff. Which is relevant and important. I'm not dismissing, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it's certainly not all of the unconscious. A lot of work that's going on, my colleague and deep friend Anderson Todd is about, can we take the Jungian stuff and the cognitive science stuff and can we integrate it together, theoretically? And so he's working on that, exactly that project. But nevertheless, your sense is there is a subconscious. Or at least an unconscious. I like the term unconscious. And Jung continually reminded people that the unconscious is unconscious, that we're not conscious of it. And that's its fundamental property. Yeah, and then isn't the task of therapy then to make the unconscious conscious? Yeah, to a degree. But also, I mean, yeah, to bring consciousness where there was unconscious is part of Jung's mythos. But it's also not the thought that that can be completed. Part of why you're extending the reach of the conscious mind is so it can enter into a more proper dialogical relationship with the self-organizing system of the unconscious mind. What did they have to say about the motivations of humans? So for Freud, jokingly, I said, you know, sex, so much of our mind is developed in our young age, our sexual interactions with the world or whatever. Hence the thing about the edible complex and all, you know, I wanted to have sex with your mother. What do you think about their description about what motivates humans? And what do you think about the will to power from Nietzsche? Which camp are you in there? What motivates humans? Sex or power? I think Plato is right. And I think there's a connection for me. Plato's my first philosopher, Jung's my first psychologist, and Jung is very much the Plato of the psyche. You never forget your first. Yep, you never do. You never do. And I think we have, I reject the monological mind, I reject the monophasic mind model. I think we are multi-centered. I think we have different centers of motivation that operate according to different principles to satisfy different problems. And that part of the task of our humanity is to get those different centers into some internal culture by which they are optimally cooperating rather than in conflict with each other. What advice would you give to young people today? They're in high school trying to figure out what they're gonna do with their life, maybe they're in college. What advice would you give how to have a career they can be proud of or how to have a life they can be proud of? So the first thing is find an ecology of practices and a community that supports them without involving you in believing things that contravene our best understood science so that wisdom and virtue, and especially how they show up in relationships, are primary to you. This will sound ridiculous, but if you take care of that, the other things you want are more likely to occur. Because what you most want is, what you want at when you're approaching your death is what were the relationships you cultivated to yourself, to other people, to the world, and what did you do to improve the chance of them being deep and profound relationships? That's an interesting ecology of practice, so finding a place where a lot of people are doing different things that are interplay with each other, but at the same time is not a cult, where ideas can flourish. Now how the hell do you know? Because in a place where people are really excited about doing stuff, that's very ripe for cult formation. Especially if they're awash in a culture in which we have ever expanding waves of bullshit. Yes, precisely. So try to keep away from the bullshit is the advice. Yes. No, I mean I take this very seriously, and I was with a bunch of people in Vermont at the Respawn retreat, people, Rafe Kelly was there, bunch of people who have set up ecologies of practices and created communities, and I have good reason to find all of these people trustworthy. And so we gather together to try and generate real dialogos, flow in distributed cognition, exercise the collective intelligence, and try and address that problem, both in terms of meta-curriculum that we can offer emerging communities, in terms of practices of vetting, how we will self-govern the federation we're forming so that we can resist gurufication. Gurification of people or ideas? Both, both. Some of us just get unlucky. Some of us get unlucky, and we all at Respawn, we all had a tremendous sense of urgency around this, but we were trying to balance it about not being premature, but there is going to, I mean, we're going to produce a meta-curriculum that's coming in months. There's going to be a scientific paper about integrating the scientific work on wisdom with this practitioner-based ideas about the cultivation of wisdom. There's going to be projects about how we can create a self-correcting vetting system so we can say to people, we think this ecology is legit. It's in good fellowship with all these other legit ecologies. We don't know about that one. We're hesitant about that one. It's not in good fellowship. We have concerns. Here's why we have our concerns, et cetera. And you may say, well, who are you to do that? It's like, nobody, but somebody's got to do it, right? And that's what it comes down to, and so we're going to give it our best effort. It's worth a try. You talked about the meaning crisis in human civilization, but in your own personal life, what has been a dark place you've ever gone in your mind? Has there been difficult times in your life where you really struggled? Yes. So when I left Fundamentalist Christianity, and for a while I was just sort of a hard-bitten atheist, the problem with leaving the belief structure was that I didn't deal with all the non-propositional things that had gotten into me, all the procedures and habits and all the perspectives and all the identities and the trauma associated with that. So I required therapy, it required years of meditation and tai chi, and I'm still wrestling with it. And the first four or five years, I described it like this, I called it the black burning. I felt like there was a blackness that was on fire inside of me, precisely because the religion had left a taste for the transcendent in my mouth, but the food it had given me, food in square quotes, had soured in my stomach and made me nauseous. And the juxtaposition of those seemed like an irresolvable problem for me. That was a very, very dark time for me. Did it feel lonely? When it was very bad, it felt extremely lonely and deeply alienating. The universe seemed absurd, and there was also existential anxiety. I talk about these things for a reason. I don't just talk about them as things I'm pointing to. I'm talking about them as seeing in myself and in people I care, having undergone them, and how they can bring you close to self-destructive. I started engaging in kinds of self-destructive behavior. So the meaning crisis to you is not just the thing you look outside and see many people struggling, you yourself are struggling. That's in fact the narrative, is I struggled with it, thinking it was a purely personal, idiosyncratic thing. I started learning the Cog Psy, I started doing the Tai Chi and the meditation, I started doing all this Socratic philosophy. And when I started to talk about these pieces, I saw my students' eyes light up, and I realized, oh wait, maybe this isn't just something I'm going through. And talking to them and then doing the research and expanding it out, it's like, oh, many people in a shared fashion and also in an individual, lonely fashion are going through meaning crisis. Well, we talked a lot about wisdom and meaning, and you said that the goal is to love wisely, so let me ask about love. What's the role of love in the human condition? It's central. I mean, it's even central to reason and rationality. This is Plato, but Spinoza, the most logical of the rationalists, you know, the ethics is written like Euclid's geometry. But he calls it the ethics for a reason, because he wants to talk about the blessed life. And what does he say? He says that ultimately, reason needs love, because love is what brings reason out of being entrapped in the gravity well of egocentrism. And Murdoch, Iris Murdoch, said, I think really beautifully, love is when you painfully realize that something other than yourself is real. Escaping the gravity well of egocentrism. Beautifully put, a beautiful way to end it. John, you're a beautiful human being. Thank you for struggling in your own mind with the search for meaning and encouraging others to do the same, and ultimately to learn how to love wisely. Thank you so much for talking today. It's been a great pleasure, Lex. I really enjoyed it a lot. Thank you so much. Thanks for listening to this conversation with John Verveche. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Herman Hesse and Siddhartha. I've always believed, and I still believe, that whatever good or bad fortune may come our way, we can always give it meaning and transform it into something of value. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/yImlXr5Tr8g

p3lsYlod5OU

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Michael Levin: Biology, Life, Aliens, Evolution, Embryogenesis & Xenobots | Lex Fridman Podcast #325

It turns out that if you train a planarian and then cut their heads off, the tail will regenerate a brand new brain that still remembers the original information. I think planaria hold the answer to pretty much every deep question of life. For one thing, they're similar to our ancestors. So they have true symmetry, they have a true brain, they're not like earthworms. They're, you know, they're much more advanced life form. They have lots of different internal organs, but they're these little, they're about, you know, maybe two centimeters in the centimeter to two in size. They have a head and a tail. And the first thing is planaria are immortal. So they do not age. There's no such thing as an old planarian. So that right there tells you that these theories of thermodynamic limitations on lifespan are wrong. It's not that well over time, everything degrades. No, planaria can keep it going for probably, you know, how long have they been around? 400 million years, right? So these are the actually, so the planaria in our lab are actually in physical continuity with planaria that were here 400 million years ago. The following is a conversation with Michael Levin, one of the most fascinating and brilliant biologists I've ever talked to. He and his lab at Tufts University works on novel ways to understand and control complex pattern formation in biological systems. Andrej Karpathy, a world-class AI researcher, is the person who first introduced me to Michael Levin's work. I bring this up because these two people make me realize that biology has a lot to teach us about AI. And AI might have a lot to teach us about biology. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Michael Levin. Embryogenesis is the process of building the human body from a single cell. I think it's one of the most incredible things that exists on Earth from a single embryo. So how does this process work? Yeah, it is an incredible process. I think it's maybe the most magical process there is. And I think one of the most fundamentally interesting things about it is that it shows that each of us takes the journey from so-called just physics to mind, right? Because we all start life as a single quiescent, unfertilized oocyte. And it's basically a bag of chemicals. And you look at that and you say, okay, this is chemistry and physics. And then nine months and some years later, you have an organism with high-level cognition and preferences and an inner life and so on. And what embryogenesis tells us is that that transformation from physics to mind is gradual. It's smooth. There is no special place where a lightning bolt says, boom, now you've gone from physics to true cognition. That doesn't happen. And so we can see in this process that the whole mystery, the biggest mystery of the universe, basically, how you get mind from matter. Lexie From just physics, in quotes. David Yeah. Lexie So where's the magic into the thing? How do we get from information encoded in DNA and make physical reality out of that information? David So one of the things that I think is really important if we're going to bring in DNA into this picture is to think about the fact that what DNA encodes is the hardware of life. DNA contains the instructions for the kind of micro-level hardware that every cell gets to play with. So all the proteins, all the signaling factors, the ion channels, all the cool little pieces of hardware that cells have, that's what's in the DNA. The rest of it is in so-called generic laws. And these are laws of mathematics. These are laws of computation. These are laws of physics, of all kinds of interesting things that are not directly in the DNA. And that process, you know, I think the reason I always put just physics in quotes is because I don't think there is such a thing as just physics. I think that thinking about these things in binary categories, like this is physics, this is true cognition, this is as if, it's only faking, these kinds of things. I think that's what gets us in trouble. I think that we really have to understand that it's a continuum, and we have to work up the scaling, the laws of scaling, and we can certainly talk about that. There's a lot of really interesting thoughts to be had there. So the physics is deeply integrated with the information. So the DNA doesn't exist on its own. The DNA is integrated as, in some sense, in response to the laws of physics at every scale, the laws of the environment it exists in. Yeah, the environment and also the laws of the universe. I mean, the thing about the DNA is that once evolution discovers a certain kind of machine, that if the physical implementation is appropriate, it sort of – and this is hard to talk about because we don't have a good vocabulary for this yet – but it's a very kind of platonic notion that if the machine is there, it pulls down interesting things that you do not have to evolve from scratch because the laws of physics give it to you for free. So just as a really stupid example, if you're trying to evolve a particular triangle, you can evolve the first angle and you evolve the second angle, but you don't need to evolve the third. You know what it is already. Now, why do you know? That's a gift for free from geometry in a particular space. You know what that angle has to be. And if you evolve an ion channel, which is – ion channels are basically transistors, right? They're voltage-gated current conductances. If you evolve that ion channel, you immediately get to use things like truth tables. You get logic functions. You don't have to evolve the logic function. You don't have to evolve a truth table. It doesn't have to be in the DNA. You get it for free, right? And the fact that if you have NAND gates, you can build anything you want. You get that for free. All you have to evolve is that first step, that first little machine that enables you to couple to those laws. And there's laws of adhesion and many other things. And this is all that interplay between the hardware that's set up by the genetics and the software that's built, right? The physiological software that basically does all the computation and the cognition and everything else is a real interplay between the information and the DNA and the laws of physics of computation and so on. Lexa So is it fair to say, just like this idea that the laws of mathematics are discovered, they're latent within the fabric of the universe in that same way the laws of biology are kind of discovered? David Yeah, I think that's absolutely – and it's probably not a popular view, but I think that's right on the money. Yeah. Lexa Well, I think that's a really deep idea. That embryogenesis is the process of revealing, of embodying, of manifesting these laws. You're not building the laws. David Yeah. Lexa You're just creating the capacity to reveal. David Yes. I think, again, not the standard view of molecular biology by any means, but I think that's right on the money. I'll give you a simple example. Some of our latest work with these xenobots, right? So what we've done is to take some skin cells off of an early frog, right? An early frog embryo and basically ask about their plasticity. If we give you a chance to sort of reboot your multicellularity in a different context, what would you do? Because what you might assume by – the thing about embryogenesis is that it's super reliable, right? It's very robust, and that really obscures some of its most interesting features. We get used to it. We get used to the fact that acorns make oak trees and frog eggs make frogs, and we say, well, what else is it going to make? That's what it makes. That's a standard story. But the reality is – and so you look at these skin cells and you say, well, what do they know how to do? Well, they know how to be a passive, boring, two-dimensional outer layer keeping the bacteria from getting into the embryo. That's what they know how to do. Well, it turns out that if you take these skin cells and you remove the rest of the embryo, so you remove all of the rest of the cells, and you say, well, you're by yourself now. What do you want to do? So what they do is they form this little – this multi-little creature that runs around the dish. They have all kinds of incredible capacities. They navigate through mazes. They have various behaviors that they do both independently and together. They have a – basically, they implement von Neumann's dream of self-replication, because if you sprinkle a bunch of loose cells into the dish, what they do is they run around, they collect those cells into little piles. They sort of mush them together until those little piles become the next generation of xenobots. So you've got this machine that builds copies of itself from loose material in its environment. None of this are things that you would have expected from the frog genome. In fact, there's wild type – the genome is wild type. There's nothing wrong with their genetics. Nothing has been added, no nanomaterials, no genomic editing, nothing. And so what we have done there is engineer by subtraction. What you've done is you've removed the other cells that normally basically bully these cells into being skin cells. And you find out that what they really want to do is to be this – their default behavior is to be a xenobot. But in vivo, in the embryo, they get told to be skinned by these other cell types. And so now here comes this really interesting question that you just posed. When you ask where does the form of the tadpole and the frog come from, the standard answer is, well, it's selection. So over millions of years, right, it's been shaped to produce the specific body width that's fit for froggy environments. Where does the shape of the xenobot come from? There's never been any xenobots. There's never been selection to be a good xenobot. These cells find themselves in the new environment. In 48 hours, they figure out how to be an entirely different proto-organism with new capacities like kinematic self-replication. That's not how frogs or tadpoles replicate. We've made it impossible for them to replicate their normal way. Within a couple of days, these guys find a new way of doing it that's not done anywhere else in the biosphere. Well, actually, let's step back and define what are xenobots? So a xenobot is a self-assembling little proto-organism. It's also a biological robot. Those things are not distinct. It's a member of both classes. How much is it biology? How much is it robot? At this point, most of it is biology because what we're doing is we're discovering natural behaviors of the cells and also of the cell collectives. Now, one of the really important parts of this was that we're working together with Josh Bongard's group at University of Vermont. They're computer scientists. They do AI. And they've basically been able to use an evolutionary, a simulated evolution approach to ask how can we manipulate these cells, give them signals, not rewire their DNA, so not hardware, but experience signals. So can we remove some cells? Can we add some cells? Can we poke them in different ways to get them to do other things? So in the future, there's going to be, you know, we're now, and this is future unpublished work, but we're doing all sorts of interesting ways to reprogram them to new behaviors. But before you can start to reprogram these things, you have to understand what their innate capacities are. Okay, so that means engineering, programming, you're engineering them in the future. And in some sense, the definition of a robot is something you in part engineer versus evolve. I mean, it's such a fuzzy definition anyway. In some sense, many of the organisms within our body are kinds of robots. Yes, yes. And I think robots is a weird line, because we tend to see robots as the other. I think there will be a time in the future when there's going to be something akin to the civil rights movements for robots, but we'll talk about that later perhaps. Sure. Anyway, so how do you, can we just linger on it? How do you build a xenobot? What are we talking about here? From whence does it start and how does it become the glorious xenobot? Yeah, so just to take one step back, one of the things that a lot of people get stuck on is they say, well, engineering requires new DNA circuits or it requires new nanomaterials. The thing is, we are now moving from old school engineering, which used passive materials, right? The things, you know, wood, metal, things like this, that basically the only thing you could depend on is that they were going to keep their shape. That's it. They don't do anything else. It's on you as an engineer to make them do everything they're going to do. And then there were active materials and now computation materials. This is a whole new era. These are agential materials. This is, you're now collaborating with your substrate because your material has an agenda. These cells have billions of years of evolution. They have goals, they have preferences. They're not just going to sit where you put them. That's hilarious that you have to talk your material into keeping its shape. That's it. That is exactly right. That is exactly right. Stay there. It's like getting a bunch of cats or something and trying to organize the shape out of them. It's funny. We're on the same page here because in the paper, this is currently just been accepted in nature by engineering. One of the figures I have is building a tower out of Legos versus dogs, right? So think about the difference, right? If you build out of Legos, you have full control over where it's going to go. But if somebody knocks it over, it's game over. With the dogs, you cannot just come and stack them. They're not going to stay that way. But the good news is that if you train them, then somebody knocks it over, they'll get right back up. So it's all right. So as an engineer, what you really want to know is what can I depend on this thing to do, right? That's really, you know, a lot of people have definitions of robots as far as what they're made of or how they got here, you know, design versus evolve, whatever. I don't think any of that is useful. I think as an engineer, what you want to know is how much can I depend on this thing to do when I'm not around to micromanage it? What level of dependency can I give this thing? How much agency does it have? Which then tells you what techniques do you use? So do you use micromanagement? Like you put everything where it goes. Do you train it? Do you give it signals? Do you try to convince it to do things right? How much, you know, how intelligent is your substrate? And so now we're moving into this area where you're working with agential materials. That's a collaboration. That's not old style. What's the word you're using? Agential? Agential. What's that mean? Agency. It comes from the word agency. So basically the material has agency, meaning that it has some level of, obviously not human level, but some level of preferences, goals, memories, ability to remember things, to compute into the future, meaning anticipate. When you're working with cells, they have all of that to various degrees. Is that empowering or limiting? Having material that has a mind of its own, literally? I think it's both, right? So it raises difficulties because it means that if you're using the old mindset, which is a linear kind of extrapolation of what's going to happen, you're going to be surprised and shocked all the time because biology does not do what we linearly expect materials to do. On the other hand, it's massively liberating. And so in the following way, I've argued that advances in regenerative medicine require us to take advantage of this because what it means is that you can get the material to do things that you don't know how to micromanage. So just as a simple example, right? If you had a rat and you wanted this rat to do a circus trick, put a ball in the little hoop, you can do it the micromanagement way, which is try to control every neuron and try to play the thing like a puppet, right? And maybe someday that'll be possible, maybe. Or you can train the rat. And this is why humanity for thousands of years before we knew any neuroscience, we had no idea what's between the ears of any animal, we were able to train these animals because once you recognize the level of agency of a certain system, you can use appropriate techniques. If you know the currency of motivation, reward and punishment, you know how smart it is, you know what kinds of things it likes to do. You are searching a much more, much smoother, much nicer problem space than if you try to micromanage the thing. And in regenerative medicine, when you're trying to get, let's say, an arm to grow back or an eye to repair a cell birth defect or something, do you really want to be controlling tens of thousands of genes at each point to try to micromanage it? Or do you want to find the high level modular controls that say, build an arm here? You already know how to build an arm. You did it before. Do it again. So that's, I think it's both. It's both difficult and it challenges us to develop new ways of engineering. And it's hugely empowering. Okay, so how do you do, I mean, maybe sticking with the metaphor of dogs and cats, I presume you have to figure out the, find the dogs and dispose of the cats. Because, you know, it's like the old herding cats is an issue. So you may be able to train dogs. I suspect you will not be able to train cats. Or if you do, you're never going to be able to trust them. So is there a way to figure out which material is amenable to herding? Is it in the lab work or is it in simulation? Right now, it's largely in the lab because we, our simulations do not capture yet the most interesting and powerful things about biology. So the simulation does, what we're pretty good at simulating are feed forward images feed forward emergent types of things, right? So cellular automata, if you have simple rules and you sort of roll those forward for every agent or every cell in the simulation and complex things happen, you know, ant colony or algorithms, things like that. We're good at that. And that's fine. The difficulty with all of that is that it's incredibly hard to reverse. So this is a really hard inverse problem, right? If you look at a bunch of termites and they make a thing with a single chimney and you say, well, I like it, but I'd like two chimneys. How do you change the rules of behavior free termites? So they make two chimneys, right? Or if you say here are a bunch of cells that are creating this kind of organism, I don't think that's optimal. I'd like to repair that birth defect. How do you control all the individual low level rules, right? All the protein interactions and everything else, rolling it back from the anatomy that you want to the low level hardware rules is in general intractable. It's an inverse problem. It's generally not solvable. So right now it's mostly in the lab because what we need to do is we need to understand how biology uses top down controls. So the idea is not bottom up emergence, but the idea of things like goal directed test operate exit kinds of loops where it's basically an error minimization function over a new space. It's not a space of gene expression, but for example, a space of anatomy. So just as a simple example, if you have a salamander and it's got an arm, you can amputate that arm anywhere along the length. It will grow exactly what's needed and then it stops. That's the most amazing thing about regeneration is that it stops. It knows when to stop. When does it stop? It stops when a correct salamander arm has been completed. So that tells you that's right. That's a means ends kind of analysis where it has to know what the correct limb is supposed to look like. Right. So it has a way to ascertain the current shape. It has a way to measure that delta from what shape it's supposed to be. And then it will keep taking actions, meaning remodeling and growing and everything else until that's complete. So once you know that, and we've taken advantage of this in the lab to do some really wild things with both planaria and frog embryos and so on. Once you know that, you can start playing with that homeostatic cycle. You can ask, for example, well, how does it remember what the correct shape is? And can we mess with that memory? Can we give it a false memory of what the shape should be and let the cells build something else? Or can we mess with the measurement apparatus? Right. It gives you those kinds of. So the idea is to basically appropriate a lot of the approaches and concepts from cognitive neuroscience and behavioral science into things that previously were taken to be dumb materials. And you'd get yelled at in class for being anthropomorphic if you said, well, my cells want to do this and my cells want to do that. And I think that's a major mistake that leaves a ton of capabilities on the table. So thinking about biologic systems as things that have memory, have almost something like cognitive ability. But I mean, how incredible is it that the salamander arm is being rebuilt not with a dictator. It's kind of like the cellular automata system. All the individual workers are doing their own thing. So where's that top-down signal that does the control coming from? How can you find it? Why does it stop growing? How does it know the shape? How does it have memory of the shape? And how does it tell everybody to be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down, we're done. – So the first thing to think about, I think, is that there are no examples anywhere of a central dictator in this kind of science because everything is made of parts. And so we, even though we feel as a unified central sort of intelligence and kind of point of cognition, we are a bag of neurons, right? All intelligence is collective intelligence. There's this, this is important to kind of think about because a lot of people think, okay, there's real intelligence like me, and then there's collective intelligence, which is ants and flocks of birds and termites and things like that. And maybe it's appropriate to think of them as an individual and maybe it's not. A lot of people are skeptical about that and so on. But you've got to realize that we are not, there's no such thing as this like indivisible diamond of intelligence that's like this one central thing that's not made of parts. We are all made of parts. And so if you believe, which I think is hard to get around, that we in fact have a centralized set of goals and preferences and we plan and we do things and so on, you are already committed to the fact that a collection of cells is able to do this because we are a collection of cells. There's no getting around that. In our case, what we do is we navigate the three-dimensional world and we have behavior. This is blowing my mind right now because we are just a collection of cells. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So when I'm moving this arm, I feel like I'm the central dictator of that action. But there's a lot of stuff going on. Like all the cells here are collaborating in some interesting way. They're getting signal from the central nervous system. Well, even the central nervous system is misleadingly named because it isn't really central. Again, it's just a bunch of cells. I mean, there are no singular indivisible intelligences anywhere. Every example that we've ever seen is a collective of something. It's just that we're used to it. We're used to that. You know, we're used to, okay, this thing is kind of a single thing, but it's really not. You zoom in, you know what you see. You see a bunch of cells running around. And so is there some unifying, I mean, we're just jumping around, but that's something that you look at as the bioelectrical signal versus the biochemical, the chemistry, the electricity. Maybe the life is in that versus the cells. It's the, there's an orchestra playing and the resulting music is the dictator. That's not bad. That's Dennis Noble's kind of view of things. He has two really good books where he talks about this musical analogy. Right. So, I think that's, I like it. I like it. Is it wrong though? I don't think it's, no, I don't think it's wrong. I don't think it's wrong. I think the important thing about it is that we have to come to grips with the fact that a true, proper cognitive intelligence can still be made of parts. Those things are, and in fact, it has to be. And I think it's a real shame, but I see this all the time. When you have a collective like this, whether it be a group of robots or a collection of cells or neurons or whatever, as soon as we gain some insight into how it works, right? Meaning that, oh, I see, in order to take this action, here's the information that got processed via this chemical mechanism or whatever. Immediately people say, oh, well, then that's not real cognition. That's just physics. And I think this is fundamentally flawed because if you zoom into anything, what are you going to see? Of course, you're just seeing. Of course, you're just going to see physics. What else could be underneath, right? That's not going to be fairy dust. It's going to be physics and chemistry. But that doesn't take away from the magic of the fact that there are certain ways to arrange that physics and chemistry, and in particular, the bioelectricity, which I like a lot, to give you an emergent collective with goals and preferences and memories and anticipations that do not belong to any of the subunits. So I think what we're getting into here, and we can talk about how this happens during embryogenesis and so on, what we're getting into is the origin of a self, with a capital S. So we are selves. There are many other kinds of selves, and we can tell some really interesting stories about where selves come from and how they become unified. Yeah, is this the first, or at least humans tend to think that this is the level at which the self with a capital S is first born. And we really don't want to see human civilization or Earth itself as one living organism. Yeah. That's very uncomfortable to us. It is, yeah. But where's the self born? We have to grow up past that. So what I like to do is, I'll tell you two quick stories about that. I like to roll backwards. So if you start and you say, okay, here's a paramecium, and you see it's a single cell organism, you see it doing various things, and people will say, okay, I'm going to start and say, okay, I'm sure there's some chemical story to be told about how it's doing it, so that's not true cognition, right? And people will argue about that. I like to work it backwards. I say, let's agree that you and I, as we sit here, are examples of true cognition, if anything, is if there's anything that's true cognition, we are examples of it. Now, let's just roll back slowly, right? So you roll back to the time when you were a small child and used to do and whatever, and then just sort of day by day, you roll back. And eventually, you become more or less that paramecium, and then you sort of even below that, right, as an unfertilized oocyte. So to my knowledge, no one has come up with any convincing discrete step at which my cognitive powers disappear, right? It just doesn't, biology doesn't offer any specific step. It's incredibly smooth and slow and continuous. And so I think this idea that it just sort of magically shows up at one point, and then humans have true selves that don't exist elsewhere, I think it runs against everything we know about evolution, everything we know about developmental biology, these are all slow continuum. And the other really important story I want to tell is where embryos come from. So think about this for a second. Amniote embryo, so this is humans, birds, and so on, mammals and birds and so on. Imagine a flat disk of cells. So there's maybe 50,000 cells. And in that, so when you get an egg from a fertilized, let's say you buy a fertilized egg from a farm, right? That egg will have about 50,000 cells in a flat disk, looks like a little tiny little frisbee. And in that flat disk, what will happen is there'll be one set of cells will become special, and it will tell all the other cells, I'm going to be the head, you guys don't be the head. And so it'll amplify symmetry, breaking amplification, you get one embryo. There's some neural tissue and some other stuff forms. Now, you say, okay, I had one egg and one embryo, and there you go. What else could it be? Well, the reality is, and I used to, I did all of this as a grad student. If you take a little needle and you make a scratch in that blastoderm, in that disk, such that the cells can't talk to each other for a while, it heals up, but for a while, they can't talk to each other. What will happen is that both regions will decide that they can be the embryo, and there will be two of them. And then when they heal up, they become conjoined twins. And you can make two, you can make three, you can make lots. So the question of how many selves are in there cannot be answered until it's actually played all the way through. It isn't necessarily that there's just one, there can be many. So what you have is you have this medium, this undifferentiated, I'm sure there's a psychological version of this somewhere that I don't know the proper terminology, but you have this, like, ocean of potentiality. You have these thousands of cells, and some number of individuals are going to be formed out of it. Usually one, sometimes zero, sometimes several. And they form out of these cells because a region of these cells organizes into a collective that will have goals, goals that individual cells don't have. For example, make a limb, make an eye. How many eyes? Well, exactly two. So individual cells don't know what an eye is. They don't know how many eyes you're supposed to have, but the collective does. The collective has goals and memories and anticipations that the individual cells don't. And the establishment of that boundary with its own ability to pursue certain goals, that's the origin of selfhood. But is that goal in there somewhere? Were they always destined? Are they discovering that goal? Like, where the hell did evolution discover this? When you went from the prokaryotes to eukaryotic cells, and then they started making groups, and when you make a certain group, you make it sound, and it's such a tricky thing to try to understand. You make it sound like the cells didn't get together and came up with a goal. But the very act of them getting together revealed the goal that was always there. There was always that potential for that goal. So the first thing to say is that there are way more questions here than certainties. Okay, so everything I'm telling you is cutting edge, developing stuff. So it's not as if any of us know the answer to this. But here's my opinion on this. I don't think that evolution produces solutions to specific problems. In other words, specific environments. Like, here's a frog that can live well in a froggy environment. I think what evolution produces is problem-solving machines that will solve problems in different spaces. So not just three-dimensional space. This goes back to what we were talking about before. The brain is evolutionarily a late development. It's a system that is able to pursue goals in three-dimensional space by giving commands to muscles. Where did that system come from? That system evolved from a much more ancient, evolutionarily much more ancient system, where collections of cells gave instructions for cell behaviors, meaning cells move to divide, to die, to change into different cell types, to navigate morphous space. The space of anatomies, the space of all possible anatomies. And before that, cells were navigating transcriptional space, which is a space of all possible gene expressions. And before that, metabolic space. So what evolution has done, I think, is produced hardware that is very good at navigating different spaces using a bag of tricks, which I'm sure many of them we can steal for autonomous vehicles and robotics and various things. And what happens is that they navigate these spaces without a whole lot of commitment to what the space is. In fact, they don't know what the space is. We are all brains in a vat, so to speak. Every cell does not know. Every cell is some other cell's external environment. So where does that border between you and the outside world, you don't really know where that is. Every collection of cells has to figure that out from scratch. And the fact that evolution requires all of these things to figure out what they are, what effectors they have, what sensors they have, where does it make sense to draw a boundary between me and the outside world? The fact that you have to build all that from scratch, this autopoiesis, is what defines the border of a self. Now, biology uses a multi-scale competency architecture, meaning that every level has goals. So molecular networks have goals, cells have goals, tissues, organs, colonies. And it's the interplay of all of those that enable biology to solve problems in new ways, for example, in xenobots and various other things. This is, you know, it's exactly as you said, in many ways the cells are discovering new ways of being, but at the same time, evolution certainly shapes all this. So evolution is very good at this agential bioengineering, right? When evolution is discovering a new way of being an animal, you know, an animal or a plant or something, sometimes it's by changing the hardware, you know, protein, changing protein structure and so on. But much of the time, it's not by changing the hardware, it's by changing the signals that the cells give to each other. It's doing what we as engineers do, which is try to convince the cells to do various things by using signals, experiences, stimuli. That's what biology does. It has to, because it's not dealing with a blank slate. Every time, as you know, if you're evolution and you're trying to make an organism, you're not dealing with a passive material that is fresh and you have to specify. It already wants to do certain things. So the easiest way to do that search, to find whatever is going to be adaptive, is to find the signals that are going to convince the cells to do various things, right? Your sense is that evolution operates both in the software and the hardware, and it's just easier and more efficient to operate in the software. Yes. And I should also say, I don't think the distinction is sharp. In other words, I think it's a continuum, but I think it's a meaningful distinction where you can make changes to a particular protein and now the enzymatic function is different and it metabolizes differently and whatever, and that will have implications for fitness. Or you can change the huge amount of information in the genome that isn't structural at all. It's signaling. It's when and how do cells say certain things to each other, and that can have massive changes as far as how it's going to solve problems. I mean, this idea of multi-hierarchical competence architecture, which is incredible to think about. So this hierarchy that evolution builds, I don't know who's responsible for this. I also see the incompetence of bureaucracies of humans when they get together. So how the hell does evolution build this? Where at every level, only the best get to stick around, they somehow figure out how to do their job without knowing the bigger picture. And then there's the bosses that do the bigger thing somehow. Or you can now abstract away the small group of cells as an organ or something, and then that organ does something bigger in the context of the full body or something like this. How is that built? Is there some intuition you can kind of provide of how that's constructed, that hierarchical competence architecture? I love that. Competence, just the word competence is pretty cool in this context, because everybody's good at their job somehow. Yeah. No, it's really key. And the other nice thing about competency is that, so my central belief in all of this is that engineering is the right perspective on all of this stuff, because it gets you away from subjective terms. People talk about sentience and this and that. Those things are very hard to define. People argue about them philosophically. I think that engineering terms like competency, like pursuit of goals, all of these things are empirically incredibly useful, because you know it when you see it. And if it helps you build, if I can pick the right level, I say, this thing has, I believe this is X level of competency. I think it's like a thermostat, or I think it's like a better thermostat, or I think it's various other kinds of, many, many different kinds of complex systems. If that helps me to control and predict and build such systems, then that's all there is to say. There's no more philosophy to argue about. So I like competency in that way, because you can quantify, you have to, in fact, you have to, you have to make a claim, competent at what? And then, or if I say, if I tell you it has a goal, the question is, what's the goal? And how do you know? And I say, well, because every time I deviated from this particular state, that's what it's been energy to get back to. That's the goal. And we can quantify it and we can be objective about it. So, so, so the, the, we're not used to thinking about this. I give a talk sometimes called, why don't robots get cancer? Right? And the reason robots don't get cancer is because generally speaking, with a few exceptions, our architectures have been, you've got a bunch of dumb parts, and you hope that if you put them together, the, the, the, the overlying machine will have some intelligence and do something rather, right? But the individual parts don't, don't care. They don't have an agenda. Biology isn't like that. Every level has an agenda. And the final outcome is the result of cooperation and competition, both within and across levels. So for example, during embryogenesis, your tissues and organs are competing with each other. And it's actually a really important part of development. There's a reason they compete with each other. They're not all just, you know, sort of helping each other. They're also competing for, for information, for metabolic, for limited metabolic constraints. But to get back to your, your, your other point, which is, you know, which is, which is, this seems like really efficient and good and so on compared to some of our human efforts. We also have to keep in mind that what happens here is that each level bends the option space for the level beneath so that your parts basically, they don't see the, the, the geometry. So, so I'm using, and I, and I, and I think I take this, this seriously, terminology from, from like, from like relativity, right? Where, where the space is literally bent. So the option space is deformed by the higher level so that the lower levels, all they really have to do is go down their concentration gradient. They don't have to, in fact, they don't, they can't know what the big picture is. But if you bend the space just right, if they do what locally seems right, they end up doing your bidding. They end up doing things that are optimal in the, in the higher space. Conversely, because the components are good at getting their job done, you as the higher level don't need to try to compute all the low level controls. All you're doing is bending the space. You don't know or care how they're going to do it. Give you a super simple example in the, in the tadpole. We found that, okay, so, so tadpoles need to become frogs and to become a, to go from a tadpole head to a frog head, you have to rearrange the face. So the eyes have to move forward. The jaws have to come out, the nostrils move, like everything moves. It used to be thought that because all tadpoles look the same and all frogs look the same. If you just remember, if every piece just moves in the right direction, the right amount, then you get your, you get your frog, right? So we decided to test. We, I had this hypothesis that I thought, I thought actually the system is probably more intelligent than that. So what did we do? We made what we call Picasso tadpoles. So these are, so everything is scrambled. So the eyes are on the back of the head, the jaws are off to the side, everything is scrambled. Well, guess what they make? They make pretty normal frogs because all the different things move around in novel paths configurations until they get to the correct froggy, you know, sort of frog face configuration, then they stop. So, so the thing about that is now imagine evolution, right? So, so you make some sort of mutation and it does like every mutation, it does many things. So, so, so something good comes of it, but also it moves your mouth off to the side, right? Now, if, if, if there wasn't this multi-scale competency, you can see where this is going. If there wasn't this multi-scale competency, the organism would be dead. Your fitness is zero because you can't eat and you would never get to explore the other beneficial consequences of that mutation. You'd have to wait until you find some other way of doing it without moving the mouth. That's really hard. So, so the fitness landscape would be incredibly rugged. Evolution would take forever. The reason it works, one of the reasons it works so well is because you do that, no worries, the mouth will find its way where, where it belongs, right? So now you get to explore. So, so what that means is that all of these mutations that otherwise would be deleterious are now neutral because the competency of the parts make up for all kinds of things. So all the noise of development, all the variability in the environment, all these things, the competency of the parts makes up for it. So the, so, so that's all, that's all fantastic, right? That's all, that's all great. The only other thing to remember when we compare this to human efforts is this, every component has its own goals in various spaces, usually with very little regard for the welfare of the other levels. So, so as a simple example, you know, you as a, as a complex system, you will go out and you will do, you know, jujitsu or whatever. You'll have some go, you have to go rock climbing and scrape a bunch of cells off your hands and then you're happy as a system. Right? You come back and you've, you've accomplished some goals and you're really happy. Those cells are dead. They're gone. Right? Did you think about those cells? Not really. Right? You had some, you had some bruising, albinism. You selfish SOB. That's it. And so, and so that's the thing to remember is that, you know, and we know this from, from history is that, is that just being a collective isn't enough because what the goals of that collective will be relative to the welfare of the individual parts is a massively open question. The ends justify the means. I'm telling you, Stalin was onto something. No. So that's the danger. But we can, exactly. That's the danger of, for us humans, we have to construct ethical systems under which we don't take seriously the full mechanism of biology and apply it to the way the world functions, which is, which is an interesting line we've drawn. The world that built us is the one we reject in some sense when we construct human societies. The idea that this country was founded on that all men are created equal, that's such a fascinating idea. It's like you're fighting against nature and saying, well, there's something bigger here than a hierarchical competency architecture. Yeah. But there's so many interesting things you said. So from an algorithmic perspective, the act of bending the option space, that's really profound because if you look at the way AI systems are built today, there's a big system, like you said, with robots and it has a goal and it gets better and better at optimizing that goal, at accomplishing that goal. But if biology built a hierarchical system where everything is doing computation and everything is accomplishing the goal, not only that, it's kind of dumb with the limited, with the bent option space, it's just doing the thing that's the easiest thing for it in some sense. Yeah. And somehow that allows you to have turtles on top of turtles, literally, dumb systems on top of dumb systems that as a whole create something incredibly smart. Yeah. I mean, every system has some degree of intelligence in its own problem domain. So cells will have problems they're trying to solve in physiological space and transcriptional space, and then I could give you some cool examples of that. But the collective is trying to solve problems in anatomical space, right, and forming a creature and growing your blood vessels and so on. And then the whole body is solving yet other problems. They may be in social space and linguistic space and three-dimensional space. And who knows, the group might be solving problems in, I don't know, some sort of financial space or something. And so one of the major differences with most AIs today is A, the kind of flatness of the architecture, but also of the fact that they are constructed from outside their borders and their, you know, so to a large extent, and of course there are counter examples now, but to a large extent, our technology has been such that you create a machine or a robot, it knows what its sensors are, it knows what its effectors are, it knows the boundary between it and the outside world, all of this is given from the outside. Biology constructs this from scratch. Now, the best example of this that originally in robotics was actually Josh Bongard's work in 2006, where he made these robots that did not know their shape to start with. So like a baby, they sort of floundered around, they made some hypotheses. Well, I did this and I moved in this way. Well, maybe I'm a whatever, maybe I have wheels or maybe I have six legs or whatever, right? And they would make a model and then eventually it would crawl around. So that's, I mean, that's really good. That's part of the autopoiesis, but we can go a step further and some people are doing this and then we're sort of working on some of this too, is this idea that let's even go back further. You don't even know what sensors you have. You don't know where you end and the outside world begins. All you have is certain things like active inference, meaning you're trying to minimize surprise, right? You have some metabolic constraints. You don't have all the energy you need. You don't have all the time in the world to think about everything you want to think about. So that means that you can't afford to be a micro reductionist. You know, all this data coming in, you have to coarse grain it and say, I'm going to take all this stuff and I'm going to call that a cat. I'm going to take all this. I'm going to call that the edge of the table I don't want to fall off of. And I don't want to know anything about the micro states. What I want to know is what is the optimal way to cut up my world. And by the way, this thing over here, that's me. And the reason that's me is because I have more control over this than I have over any of this other stuff. And so now you can begin to, right? So that's self-construction, that figuring out, making models of the outside world and then turning that inwards and starting to make a model of yourself, right? Which immediately starts to get into issues of agency and control because in order to, if you are under metabolic constraints, meaning you don't have the energy, right? That all the energy in the world, you have to be efficient. That immediately forces you to start telling stories about coarse grained agents that do things, right? You don't have the energy to like Laplace's demon, you know, calculate every possible state that's going to happen. You have to coarse grain and you have to say that is the kind of creature that does things, either things that I avoid or things that I will go towards. That's a mate or food or whatever it's going to be. And so right at the base of a simple, very simple organism starting to make models of agents doing things, that is the origin of models of free will, basically, right? Because you see the world around you as having agency. And then you turn that on yourself and you say, wait, I have agency too. I can, I do things, right? And, and then you make decisions about what you're going to do. So all of this, one, one model is to view all of those kinds of things as being driven by that early need to determine what you are and to do so and to then take actions in the most energetically efficient space possible, right? So free will emerges when you try to simplify, tell a nice narrative about your environment. I think that's very plausible. Yeah. You think free will is an illusion. So, so you're kind of implying that it's a useful hack. Well, I'll say two things. The first thing is, I think, I think it's very plausible to say that any organism that self or any agent that self, whether it's biological or not, any agent that self constructs under energy constraints is going to believe in free will. Well, we'll get to whether it has free will momentarily, but, but I think, but I think what, what it definitely drives is a view of yourself and the outside world as an agential view of yourself. That's an agential view. I think that's inescapable. So that's true for even primitive organisms. I think so. I think that's now, now they don't have, now, obviously you have to scale down, right? So, so, so, so they don't have the kinds of complex metacognition that we have, so they can do long-term planning and thinking about free will and so on and so on. But, but the sense of agency is really useful to accomplish tasks, simple or complicated. That's right. In, in all kinds of spaces, not just in, in obvious three-dimensional space. I mean, we're very good that the thing is humans are very good at detecting agency of, of like medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds in the three-dimensional world, right? We see a bowling ball and we see a mouse and we immediately know what the difference is, right? And how we're going to... Mostly things you can eat or get eaten by. Yeah, yeah. That's our, that's our training set, right? From the time you're little, your training set is visual data on, on this, this like little chunk of your experience. But imagine if, imagine if from the time that we were born, we had innate senses of your blood chemistry. If you could feel your blood chemistry, the way you can see, right? You had a high bandwidth connection and you could feel your blood chemistry and you could see, you could sense all the things that your organs were doing. So your pancreas, your liver, all the things. If, if we had that, you, we would be very good at detecting intelligence in physiological space. We would know the level of intelligence that our various organs were deploying to deal with things that were coming to anticipate the stimuli to, you know. But, but we're just terrible at that. We don't infect, infect people, don't even, you know, you talk about intelligence in these other paper spaces and a lot of people think that's just crazy because, because all we're, all we know is motion. We do have access to that information. So it's, it's actually possible that, uh, so evolution could, if we wanted to construct an organism that's able to perceive the flow of blood through your body. The way you see an old friend and say, yo, what's up? How's the wife and the kids? Uh, in that same way, you would see, you would feel like a connection to the liver. Yeah. Yeah. I think, you know, maybe other people's liver or no, just your own, because you don't have access to other people's. Not yet, but you could imagine some really interesting connection, right? But like sexual selection, like, Ooh, that girl's got a nice liver. Well, that's like the way her blood flows. The, the dynamics of the blood, uh, is very interesting. It's novel. I've never seen one of those, but you know, that's, that's exactly what we're, we're, we're trying to half-ass when we, when we, um, uh, judge judgment of, of beauty by facial symmetry and so on. That's, that's a half-assed assessment of exactly that, of exactly that. Because if your cells could not cooperate enough to keep your, your organism symmetrical, you know, you can make some inferences about what else is wrong, right? Like that's a, that's a very, you know, that's a very basic. Interesting. Yeah. So that in some deep sense, actually, that is what we're doing. We're trying to infer how, uh, health, we use the word healthy, but basically how functional is this biological system I'm looking at so I can hook up with that one and make offspring. Yeah. Yeah. Well, what kind of hardware might their genomics give me that that might be useful in the future? I wonder why evolution didn't give us a higher resolution signal. Like why the whole peacock thing with the feathers, it doesn't seem, it's a very low bandwidth signal for sexual selection. I'm gonna, and I'm not an expert on this stuff, but... On peacocks? Well, no, you know, but, but I'll take a stab at the reason. I think that it's because it's an arms race. You see, you don't want everybody to know everything about you. So I think that as much as, as much as, and in fact, there's another interesting part of this arms race, which is, if you think about this, uh, the, the, the most adaptive evolvable system is one that has the most level of top-down control, right? If it's really easy to say to a bunch of cells, make another finger versus, okay, here's 10,000 gene expression changes that you need to do to make it, to change your finger, right? The, the, the, the, the system with good top-down control that has memory, and we need to get back to that, by the way, that's a question I neglected to answer about where the memory is and so on. Um, a system that uses all of that is really highly evolvable and that's fantastic, but guess what? It's also highly, um, subject to hijacking by parasites, by, uh, by, by, by cheaters of various kinds, by conspecifics. Like we, we found that, um, and then that goes back to the story of the pattern memory, these, in these planaria, there's a bacterium that lives on these planaria. That bacterium has an input into how many heads the worm is going to have because it's hijacks that, that control system and it's able to make a chemical that basically interfaces with the system that calculates how many heads you're supposed to have and they can have two and they can make them have two heads. And so you can imagine that if you are too, so you want to be understandable for your own parts to understand each other, but you don't want to be too understandable because you'll be too easily controllable. And so I think that, that, um, my guess is that, that, um, that, that, that, that opposing pressure keeps this from being a super high bandwidth kind of thing where we can just look at somebody and know, you know, everything about them. So it's a kind of biological game of Texas Hold'em. Yeah. You're showing some cards and you're hiding other cards and that's part of it and there's bluffing and there's, and all that. And then there's probably whole species that would do way too much bluffing. That's probably where peacocks fall. I, there's a, there's a book that I don't remember if I read or if I, if I wrote, if I read summaries of the book, but it's about evolution of beauty in birds. Where's that from? Is that a book or does Richard Dawkins talk about it? But basically there's some species start to like over select for beauty, not over select. They just, some reason select for beauty. There is a case to be made. Actually, now I'm starting to remember. I think Darwin himself made a case that you can select based on beauty alone. So that beauty, there's a point where beauty doesn't represent some underlying biological truth. You start to select for beauty itself. And I think the deep question is there is some, is there some evolutionary value to beauty? But it's an interesting kind of thought that this, can we deviate completely from the deep biological truth to actually appreciate some kind of the summarization in itself? Let me get back to memory because this is a really interesting idea. How do a collection of cells remember anything? How do biological systems remember anything? How is that akin to the kind of memory we think of humans as having within our big cognitive engine? Yeah. One of the ways to start thinking about bioelectricity is to ask ourselves, where did neurons and all these cool tricks that the brain uses to run these amazing problem solving abilities on and basically an electrical network, right? Where did that come from? They didn't just evolve up here out of nowhere. It must've evolved from something. And what it evolved from was a much more ancient ability of cells to form networks to solve other kinds of problems. For example, to navigate morphous space, to control the body shape. And so all of the components of neurons, so ion channels, neurotransmitter machinery, electrical synapses, all this stuff is way older than brains, way older than neurons. In fact, older than multicellularity. And so it was already there, even bacterial biofilms. There's some beautiful work from UCSD on brain-like dynamics and bacterial biofilms. So evolution figured out very early on that electrical networks are amazing at having memories, at integrating information across distance, at different kinds of optimization tasks, image recognition and so on, long before there were brains. Can you actually step back and return to it? What is bioelectricity? What is biochemistry? What are electrical networks? I think a lot of the biology community focuses on the chemicals as the signaling mechanisms that make the whole thing work. You have, I think, to a large degree uniquely, maybe you can correct me on that, have focused on the bioelectricity, which is using electricity for signaling. There's also probably mechanical. Sure, sure. Like knocking on the door. So what's the difference and what's an electrical network? Yeah, so I want to make sure and kind of give credit where credit is due. So as far back as 1903 and probably late 1800s already, people were thinking about the importance of electrical phenomena in life. So I'm for sure not the first person to stress the importance of electricity. There were waves of research in the 30s, in the 40s and then again in the kind of 70s, 80s and 90s of sort of the pioneers of bioelectricity who did some amazing work on all this. I think what we've done that's new is to step away from this idea that, and I'll describe what the bioelectricity is, is step away from the idea that, well, here's another piece of physics that you need to keep track of to understand physiology and development and to really start looking at this as saying, you know, this is a privileged computational layer that gives you access to the actual cognition of the tissue, of basal cognition. So merging that developmental biophysics with ideas and cognition of computation and so on. I think that's what we've done that's new. But people have been talking about bioelectricity for a really long time and so I'll define that. So what happens is that if you have a single cell, cell has a membrane, in that membrane are proteins called ion channels and those proteins allow charged molecules, potassium, sodium, chloride, to go in and out under certain circumstances. And when there's an imbalance of those ions, there becomes a voltage gradient across that membrane. And so all cells, all living cells try to hold a particular kind of voltage difference across the membrane and they spend a lot of energy to do so. So that's a single cell, when you have multiple cells, the cells sitting next to each other, they can communicate their voltage state to each other via a number of different ways. But one of them is this thing called a gap junction, which is basically like a little submarine hatch that just kind of docks, right? And the ions from one side can flow to the other side and vice versa. So- Isn't it incredible that this evolved? Isn't that wild? Because that didn't exist. Correct. This had to be evolved and- It had to be invented. That's right. Somebody invented electricity in the ocean. When did this get invented? Yeah. I mean, it is incredible. The guy who discovered gap junctions, Werner Lowenstein, I visited him, he was really old. Human being? He discovered them. Because you know what? Because who really discovered them lived probably four billion years ago. Good point. So give credit where credit is due, I'm just saying. He rediscovered gap junctions. But when I visited him in Woods Hole, maybe 20 years ago now, he told me that he was writing, and unfortunately he passed away and I think this book never got written. He was writing a book on gap junctions and consciousness. And I think it would have been an incredible book because gap junctions are magic. I'll explain why in a minute. What happens is that, just imagine, the thing about both these ion channels and these gap junctions is that many of them are themselves voltage sensitive. So that's a voltage sensitive current conductance, that's a transistor. And as soon as you've invented one, immediately you now get access to, from this platonic space of mathematical truths, you get access to all of the cool things that transistors do. So now when you have a network of cells, not only do they talk to each other, but they can send messages to each other and the differences of voltage can propagate. Now to neuroscientists, this is old hat because you see this in the brain, right? There's action potentials, the electricity. They have these awesome movies where you can take a transparent animal, like a zebrafish, you can literally look down and you can see all the firings as the fish is making decisions about what to eat and things like this, right? It's amazing. Well, your whole body is doing that all the time, just much slower. So there are very few things that neurons do that all the cells in your body don't do. They all do very similar things, just on a much slower time scale. And whereas your brain is thinking about how to solve problems in three-dimensional space, the cells in the embryo are thinking about how to solve problems in anatomical space. They're trying to have memories like, hey, how many fingers are we supposed to have? Well, how many do we have now? What do we do to get from here to there? That's the kind of problems they're thinking about. And the reason that gap junctions are magic is, imagine, right, from the earliest time. Here are two cells. This cell, how can they communicate? Well, the simple version is this cell could send a chemical signal, it floats over and it hits a receptor on this cell, right? Because it comes from outside, this cell can very easily tell that that came from outside. Whatever information is coming, that's not my information. That information is coming from the outside. So I can trust it, I can ignore it, I can do various things with it, whatever, but I know it comes from the outside. Now, imagine instead that you have two cells with a gap junction between them. Something happens, let's say this cell gets poked, there's a calcium spike, and the calcium spike or whatever small molecule signal propagates through the gap junction to this cell. There's no ownership metadata on that signal. This cell does not know now that it came from outside because it looks exactly like its own memories would have looked like of whatever had happened, right? So gap junctions, to some extent, wipe ownership information on data, which means that if you and I are sharing memories and we can't quite tell who the memories belong to, that's the beginning of a mind melt, that's the beginning of a scale up of cognition from here's me and here's you to no, now there's just us. So they enforce a collective intelligence gap junction. That's right. It helps, it's the beginning. It's not the whole story by any means, but it's the start. Where's state stored of the system? So there are some... Is it in part in the gap junctions themselves? Is it in the cells? There are many, many layers to this as always in biology. So there are chemical networks. So for example, gene regulatory networks, right? Which are basically any kind of chemical pathway where different chemicals activate and repress each other. They can store memories. So in a dynamical system sense, they can store memories. They can get into stable states that are hard to pull them out of, right? So that becomes once they get in, that's a memory, a permanent memory or semi-permanent memory of something that's happened. There are cytoskeletal structures, right, that are physically, they store memories in physical configuration. There are electrical memories like flip-flops where there is no physical, right? So if you look, I showed my students this example as a flip-flop and the reason that it stores a zero or one is not because some piece of the hardware moved. It's because there's a cycling of the current in one side of the thing. If I come over and I hold the other side to a high voltage for a brief period of time, it flips over and now it's here. But none of the hardware moved. The information is in a stable dynamical sense. And if you were to x-ray the thing, you couldn't tell me if it was zero or one because all you would see is where the hardware is. You wouldn't see the energetic state of the system. So there are bioelectrical states that are held in that exact way, like volatile RAM basically, like in the electrical state of the system. So it's very akin to the different ways the memory is stored in a computer. So there's RAM, there's hard drives. You can make that mapping, right? So I think the interesting thing is that based on the biology, we can have a more sophisticated, you know, I think we can revise some of our computer engineering methods because there are some interesting things that biology does that we haven't done yet. But that mapping is not bad. I mean, I think it works in many ways. Yeah, I wonder, because I mean, the way we build computers, at the root of computer science is the idea of proof of correctness. We program things to be perfect, reliable. You know, this idea of resilience and robustness to unknown conditions is not as important. So that's what biology is really good at. So I don't know what kind of systems, I don't know how we go from a computer to a biological system in the future. Yeah, I think that, you know, the thing about biology, like, is all about making really important decisions really quickly on very limited information. I mean, that's what biology is all about. You have to act, you have to act now. The stakes are very high, and you don't know most of what you need to know to be perfect. And so there's not even an attempt to be perfect or to get it right in any sense. There are just things like active inference, minimize surprise, optimize some efficiency, and some things like this. And that guides the whole business. I mentioned to you offline that somebody who's a fan of your work is Andrej Karpathy, and he's, amongst many things, also writes occasionally a great blog. He came up with this idea, I don't know if he coined the term, but of Software 2.0, where the programming is done in the space of configuring these artificial neural networks. Is there some sense in which that would be the future of programming for us humans, where we're less doing, like, Python-like programming and more, how would that look like? But basically, doing the hyperparameters of something akin to a biological system, and watching it go, and adjusting it, and creating some kind of feedback loop within the system so it corrects itself, and then we watch it over time accomplish the goals we want it to accomplish. Is that kind of the dream of the dogs that you described in your Nature paper? Yeah, I mean, that's what you just painted is a very good description of our efforts at regenerative medicine as a kind of somatic psychiatry. So the idea is that you're not trying to micromanage. I mean, think about the limitations of a lot of the medicines today. We try to interact down at the level of pathways, right? So we're trying to micromanage it. What's the problem? Well, one problem is that for almost every medicine other than antibiotics, once you stop it, the problem comes right back. You haven't fixed anything. You were addressing symptoms. You weren't actually curing anything, again, except for antibiotics. That's one problem. The other problem is you have a massive amount of side effects because you were trying to interact at the lowest level. It's like, I'm going to try to program this computer by changing the melting point of copper. Like, maybe you can do things that way, but my god, it's hard to program at the hardware level. So what I think we're starting to understand is that, and by the way, this goes back to what you were saying before about that we could have access to our internal state. So people who practice that kind of stuff, right? So yoga and biofeedback and those, those are all the people that uniformly will say things like, well, the body has an intelligence and this and that. Like, those two sets overlap perfectly because that's exactly right. Because once you start thinking about it that way, you realize that the better locus of control is not always at the lowest level. This is why we don't all program with a soldering iron, right? We take advantage of the high level intelligences that are there, which means trying to figure out, okay, which of your tissues can learn? What can they learn? Why is it that certain drugs stop working after you take them for a while with this habituation, right? And so can we understand habituation, sensitization, associative learning, these kinds of things in chemical pathways? We're gonna have a completely different way, I think, we're gonna have a completely different way of using drugs and of medicine in general when we start focusing on the goal states and on the intelligence of our subsystems as opposed to treating everything as if the only path was micromanagement from chemistry upwards. Well, can you speak to this idea of somatic psychiatry? What are somatic cells? How do they form networks that use bioelectricity to have memory and all those kinds of things? Yeah. What are somatic cells, like basics here? Somatic cells just means the cells of your body. So much just means body, right? So somatic cells are just the... I'm not even specifically making a distinction between somatic cells and stem cells or anything like that. I mean, basically all the cells in your body, not just neurons, but all the cells in your body, they form electrical networks during embryogenesis, during regeneration. What those networks are doing in part is processing information about what our current shape is and what the goal shape is. Now, how do I know this? Because I can give you a couple of examples. One example is when we started studying this, we said, okay, here's a planarian. A planarian is a flatworm. It has one head and one tail normally. And the amazing... There's several amazing things about planaria, but basically they kind of... I think planaria hold the answer to pretty much every deep question of life. For one thing, they're similar to our ancestors. So they have true symmetry. They have a true brain. They're not like earthworms. They're much more advanced life form. They have lots of different internal organs, but they're about maybe two centimeters to two in size. They have a head and a tail. And the first thing is planaria are immortal. So they do not age. There's no such thing as an old planarian. So that right there tells you that these theories of thermodynamic limitations on lifespan are wrong. It's not that well over time everything degrades. No, planaria can keep it going for probably how long, if they've been around, 400 million years. Right? So these are the actual... So the planaria in our lab are actually in physical continuity with planaria that were here 400 million years ago. So there's planaria that have lived that long, essentially. What does it mean, physical continuity? Because what they do is they split in half. The way they reproduce is they split in half. So the planaria, the back end grabs the petri dish, the front end takes off, and they rip themselves in half. But isn't it some sense where you are a physical continuation? Yes, except that we go through a bottleneck of one cell, which is the egg. They do not. I mean, they can. There are certain planaria that... Got it. So we go through a very ruthless compression process, and they don't. Yes, like an autoencoder, you know, squashed down to one cell and then back out. These guys just tear themselves in half. And then each... And so the other amazing thing about them is they regenerate. So you can cut them into pieces. The record is, I think, 276 or something like that by Thomas Hunt Morgan. And each piece regrows a perfect little worm. They know exactly, every piece knows exactly what's missing, what needs to happen. In fact, if you chop it in half as it grows the other half, the original tissue shrinks so that when the new tiny head shows up, they're proportional. So it keeps perfect proportion. If you starve them, they shrink. If you feed them again, they expand. Their anatomical control is just insane. Somebody cut them into over 200 pieces? Yeah, Thomas Hunt Morgan did. Hashtag science. Yeah, amazing. Yeah, and maybe more, I mean, they didn't have antibiotics back then. I bet he lost some due to infection. I bet it's actually more than that. I bet you could do more than that. Humans can't do that. Well, yes, I mean, again, true, except that... Maybe you can at the embryonic level. Well, that's the thing, right? So when I talk about this, I say, just remember that as amazing as it is to grow a whole planarian from a tiny fragment, half of the human population can grow a full body from one cell, right? So development is really, you can look at development as just an example of regeneration. Yeah, to think, we'll talk about regenerative medicine, but there's some sense what would be like that worm in like 500 years, where I can just go regrow a hand. Yep, with a given time, it takes time to grow large things, but... For now. Yeah, I think so. I think... You could probably, why not accelerate? Oh, biology takes its time? I'm not going to say anything is impossible, but I don't know of a way to accelerate these processes. I think it's possible. I think we are going to be regenerative, but I don't know of a way to make it fast. I can just think people from a few centuries from now will be like, well, they have to, they used to have to wait a week for the hand to regrow. It's like when the microwave was invented. You can toast your... What's that called when you put a cheese on a toast? It's delicious. It's delicious is all I know. I'm blanking. All right, so planaria. Why were we talking about the magical planaria that they have the mystery of life? Yeah, so the reason we're talking about planaria is not only are they immortal, not only do they regenerate every part of the body, they generally don't get cancer, which we can talk about why that's important. They're smart. They can learn things, so you can train them. And it turns out that if you train a planaria and then cut their heads off, the tail will regenerate a brand new brain that still remembers the original information. Do they have a bioelectrical network going on or no? Yes, yes. So their somatic cells are forming a network and that's what you mean by a true brain? What's the requirement for a true brain? Everything else is a continuum, but a true brain has certain characteristics as far as the density, like a localized density of neurons that guides behavior. In the head. Exactly. Connected to the head. Exactly. If you cut their head off, the tail doesn't do anything. It just sits there until the new brain is, you know, until a new brain regenerates. They have all the same neurotransmitters that you and I have, but here's why. Here's what we're talking about them in this context. So here's your planaria. You cut off the head, you cut off the tail, you have a middle fragment. That middle fragment has to make one head and one tail. How does it know how many of each to make and where do they go? How come it doesn't switch? How come? Right? So we did a very simple thing and we said, okay, let's make the hypothesis that there's this somatic electrical network that remembers the correct pattern and that what it's doing is recalling that memory and building to that pattern. So what we did was we used a way to visualize electrical activity in these cells, right? It's a variant of what people use to look for electricity in the brain. And we saw that it has a, that that fragment has a very particular electrical pattern. You can literally see it once we developed the technique. It has a very particular electrical pattern that shows you where the head and the tail goes. Right? You can, you can just see it. And then we said, okay, well now let's test the idea that that's a memory that actually controls where the head and the tail goes. Let's change that pattern. So basically, incept a false memory. And so what you can do is you can do that in many different ways. One way is with drugs that target ion channels to say, and so you pick these drugs and you say, okay, I'm going to do it so that instead of, so that instead of this one head, one tail electrical pattern, you have a two headed pattern, right? You're just editing the electrical information in the, in the network. When you do that, guess what the cells build? They build a two headed worm and the coolest thing about it now, no, no genetic changes. So we haven't touched the genome. The genome is totally wild type, but the amazing thing about it is that when you take these two headed animals and you cut them into pieces again, some of those pieces will continue to make two headed animals. So, so that information, that, that memory, that, that electrical circuit, not only does it hold the information for how many heads, not only does it use that information to tell the cells what to do to regenerate, but it stores it. Once you've reset it, it keeps, and we can go back. We can take a two headed animal and put it back to one headed. So now imagine, so there's a couple of interesting things here that, that have implications for understanding what other genomes and things like that. Imagine I take this two headed animal. Oh, and by the way, when they reproduce, when they tear themselves in half, you still get two headed animals. So imagine I take them and I throw them in the Charles river over here. So a hundred years later, some scientists come along and they scoop up some samples and they go, Oh, there's a single headed form in a two headed form. Wow. A speciation event. Cool. Let's sequence the genome and see why, what happened. The genomes are identical. Nothing wrong with the genome. So if you ask the question, how does, so, so this goes back to your very first question is where do body plans come from, right? How does the planarian know how many heads it's supposed to have? Now it's interesting because you could say DNA, but what happened, what, what, as it turns out, the DNA produces a piece of hardware that by default says one head, the way that when you turn on a calculator by default, it's a zero every single time, right? When you turn it on, it just says zero, but it's a programmable calculator as it turns out. So once you've changed that next time, it won't say zero, it'll say something else. And the same thing here. So you can make, you can make one headed, two headed, you can make no headed worms. We've done some other things along these lines, some other really weird constructs. So, so this, this, this, this question of right. So again, it's really important. The hardware software distinction is really important because the hardware is essential because without proper hardware, you're never going to get to the right physiology of having that memory. But once you have it, it doesn't fully determine what the information is going to be. You can have other information in there and it's reprogrammable by us, by bacteria, by various parasites, probably things like that. The other amazing thing about these planarias, think about this. Most animals, when we get a mutation in our bodies, our children don't inherit it, right? So you could go on, you could run around for 50, 60 years getting mutations. Your children don't have those mutations because we go through the egg stage. Planaria tear themselves in half and that's how they reproduce. So for 400 million years, they keep every mutation that they've had that doesn't kill the cell that it's in. So when you look at these planaria, their bodies are what's called mixoploid, meaning that every cell might have a different number of chromosomes. They look like a tumor. If you look at the genome, it's an incredible mess because they accumulate all this stuff and yet their body structure is, they are the best regenerators on the planet. Their anatomy is rock solid, even though their genome is all kinds of crap. So this is kind of a scandal, right? That when we learn that, what are genomes? Do what genomes determine your body? Okay, why is the animal with the worst genome have the best anatomical control, the most cancer resistant, the most regenerative, right? Really, we're just beginning to start to understand this relationship between the genomically determined hardware and by the way, just as of a couple of months ago, I think I now somewhat understand why this is, but it's really a major puzzle. I mean, that really throws a wrench into the whole nature versus nurture because you usually associate electricity with the nurture and the hardware with the nature and there's just this weird integrated mess that propagates through generations. Yeah, it's much more fluid. It's much more complex. You can imagine what's happening here is just imagine the evolution of an animal like this, that multiscale, this goes back to this multiscale competency, right? Imagine that you have an animal where its tissues have some degree of multiscale competency. So for example, like we saw in the tadpole, if you put an eye on its tail, they can still see out of that eye, right? There's incredible plasticity. So if you have an animal and it comes up for selection and the fitness is quite good, evolution doesn't know whether the fitness is good because the genome was awesome or because the genome was kind of junky, but the competency made up for it, right? And things kind of ended up good. So what that means is that the more competency you have, the harder it is for selection to pick the best genomes. It hides information, right? And so that means that, so what happens, evolution basically starts all the hard work is being done to increase the competency because it's harder and harder to see the genomes. And so I think in planaria, what happened is that there's this runaway phenomenon where all the effort went into the algorithm such that we know you've got a crappy genome. We can't keep, we can't clean up the genome. We can't keep track of it. So what's going to happen is what survives are the algorithms that can create a great worm no matter what the genome is. So everything went into the algorithm and which of course then reduces the pressure on keeping a clean genome. So this idea of, right, and different animals have this in different levels, but this idea of putting energy into an algorithm that does not overtrain on priors, right? It can't assume. I mean, I think biology is this way in general. Evolution doesn't take the past too seriously because it makes these basically problem solving machines as opposed to like exactly what, you know, to deal with exactly what happened last time. Yeah. Problem solving versus memory recall. So a little memory, but a lot of problem solving. I think so. Yeah. In many cases, yeah. Problem solving. I mean, it's incredible that those kinds of systems are able to be constructed, especially how much they contrast with the way we build problem solving systems in the AI world. Back to xenobots. I'm not sure if we ever described how xenobots are built, but you have a paper titled Biological Robots, Perspectives on an Emerging Interdisciplinary Field. And in the beginning, you mentioned that the word xenobots is like controversial. Do you guys get in trouble for using xenobots or what? Do people not like the word xenobots? Are you trying to be provocative with the word xenobots versus biological robots? I don't know. Is there some drama that we should be aware of? There's a little bit of drama. I think the drama is basically related to people having very fixed ideas about what terms mean. And I think in many cases, these ideas are completely out of date with where science is now. And for sure, they're out of date with what's going to be. These concepts are not going to survive the next couple of decades. So if you ask a person, and including a lot of people in biology who kind of want to keep a sharp distinction between biologicals and robots, right? Say, what's a robot? Well, a robot, it comes out of a factory. It's made by humans. It is boring. It is meaning that you can predict everything it's going to do. It's made of metal and certain other inorganic materials. Living organisms are magical. They arise, right? And so on. So there's these distinctions. I think these distinctions, I think, were never good. But they're going to be completely useless going forward. And so part of this, a couple of papers that that's one paper, and there's another one that Josh Bongard and I wrote where we really attack the terminology. And we say these binary categories are based on very non-essential kind of surface limitations of technology and imagination that were true before, but they've got to go. And so we call them xenobots. So xeno for Xenopus laevis, where it's the frog that these guys are made of. But we think it's an example of a biobot technology, because ultimately, once we understand how to communicate and manipulate the inputs to these cells, we will be able to get them to build whatever we want them to build. And that's robotics, right? It's the rational construction of machines that have useful purposes. I absolutely think that this is a robotics platform, whereas some biologists don't. But it's built in a way that all the different components are doing their own computation, so in a way that we've been talking about. So you're trying to do top-down control on that biological system. And in the future, all of this will merge together, because of course, at some point, we're going to throw in synthetic biology circuits, right? New transcriptional circuits to get them to do new things. Of course, we'll throw some of that in. But we specifically stayed away from all of that, because in the first few papers, and there's some more coming down the pike that are, I think, going to be pretty dynamite, that we want to show what the native cells are made of. Because what happens is, if you engineer the heck out of them, right? If we were to put in new transcription factors and some new metabolic machinery and whatever, people will say, well, okay, you engineered this, and you made it do whatever, and fine. I wanted to show, and the whole team wanted to show the plasticity and the intelligence in the biology, what does it do that's surprising before you even start manipulating the hardware in that way? Yeah, don't try to over-control the thing, let it flourish. The full beauty of the biological system. Why Xenopus laevis, how do you pronounce it? The frog. Xenopus laevis, yeah. Yeah, it's a very popular- Why this frog? It's been used since, I think, the 50s. It's just very convenient, because we keep the adults in this very fine frog habitat. They lay eggs, they lay tens of thousands of eggs at a time. The eggs develop right in front of your eyes. It's the most magical thing you can see, because normally, if you were to deal with mice or rabbits or whatever, you don't see the early stages, right? Because everything's inside the mother. Here, everything's in a petri dish at room temperature. So you have an egg, it's fertilized, and you can just watch it divide and divide and divide and divide, and all the organs forming, you can just see it. And at that point, the community has developed lots of different tools for understanding what's going on, and also for manipulating, right? So people use it for understanding birth defects and neurobiology and cancer immunology also. So you get the whole embryogenesis in the petri dish. That's so cool to watch. Is there videos of this? Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There's amazing videos online. I mean, mammalian embryos are super cool, too. For example, monozygotic twins are what happens when you cut a mammalian embryo in half. You don't get two half bodies. You get two perfectly normal bodies, because it's a regeneration event, right? Development is just the kind of regeneration, really. And why this particular frog? It's just because they were doing it in the 50s. It breeds well in, you know, it's easy to raise in the laboratory, and it's very prolific. And all the tools, basically, for decades, people have been developing tools. There's other people, some people use other frogs. But I have to say, this is important. Xenobots are fundamentally not anything about frogs. So I can't say too much about this, because it's not published in peer reviewed yet. But we've made xenobots out of other things that have nothing to do with frogs. This is not a frog phenomenon. We started with frog because it's so convenient. But this plasticity is not a frog. It's not related to the fact that they're frogs. What happens when you kiss it? Does it turn into a prince? No. Or princess? Which way? Prince. Yeah, prince. It should be a prince. Yeah, that's an experiment that I don't believe we've done. And if we have, I don't want to know about it. Well, we can collaborate. I can take on the lead on that effort. Okay, cool. How does the cells coordinate? Let's focus in on just the embryogenesis. So there's one cell. So it divides. Doesn't have to be very careful about what each cell starts doing once they divide. Yes. And when there's three of them, it's like the co-founders or whatever. Slow down. You're responsible for this. When do they become specialized? And how do they coordinate that specialization? So this is the basic science of developmental biology. There's a lot known about all of that. But I'll tell you what I think is the most important part, which is, yes, it's very important who does what. However, because going back to this issue of why I made this claim that biology doesn't take the past too seriously. And what I mean by that is it doesn't assume that everything is the way it's expected to be. Right. And here's an example of that. This was done. This was an old experiment going back to the 40s. But basically, imagine it's a newt, a salamander. And it's got these little tubules that go to the kidneys, right? This little tube. Take a cross section of that tube, you see 8 to 10 cells that have cooperated to make this little tube in cross section. Right. So one amazing thing you can do is you can mess with the very early cell division to make the cells gigantic, bigger. You can make them different sizes. You can force them to be different sizes. So if you make the cells different sizes, the whole newt is still the same size. So if you take a cross section through that tubule, instead of 8 to 10 cells, you might have 4 or 5. Or you might have 3. Until you make the cell so enormous that one single cell wraps around itself and gives you that same large scale structure with a completely different molecular mechanism. So now instead of cell to cell communication to make a tubule, instead of that, it's one cell using the cytoskeleton to bend itself around. So think about what that means. In the service of a large scale, talk about top down control, right? In the service of a large scale anatomical feature, different molecular mechanisms get called up. So now think about this. You're a newt cell and trying to make an embryo. If you had a fixed idea of who was supposed to do what, you'd be screwed because now your cells are gigantic. Nothing would work. There's an incredible tolerance for changes in the size of the parts and the amount of DNA in those parts. All sorts of stuff. You can, the life is highly interoperable. You can put electrodes in there. You can put weird nanomaterials. It still works. This is that problem solving action, right? It's able to do what it needs to do, even when circumstances change. That is the hallmark of intelligence, right? William James defined intelligence as the ability to get to the same goal by different means. That's this. You get to the same goal by completely different means. And so why am I bringing this up? It's just to say that, yeah, it's important for the cells to do the right stuff, but they have incredible tolerances for things not being what you expect and to still get their job done. So if you're, you know, all of these things are not hardwired, there are organisms that might be hardwired. For example, the nematode C. elegans in that organism, every cell is numbered, meaning that every C. elegans has exactly the same number of cells as every other C. elegans. They're all in the same place. They all divide. There's literally a map of how it works. That in that sort of system, it's much more cookie cutter. But most organisms are incredibly plastic in that way. Is there something particularly magical to you about the whole developmental biology process? Is there something you could say? Because you just said it. They're very good at accomplishing the goal, the job they need to do, the competency thing, but you get a freaking organism from one cell. It's like, I mean, it's very hard to intuit that whole process. To even think about reverse engineering that process. Right. Very hard to the point where I often just imagine, I sometimes ask my students to do this thought experiment. Imagine you were shrunk down to the scale of a single cell and you were in the middle of an embryo and you were looking around at what's going on and the cells running around, some cells are dying. You know, every time you look, it's kind of a different number of cells for most organisms and so on. I think that if you didn't know what embryonic development was, you would have no clue that what you're seeing is always going to make the same thing. Nevermind knowing what that is. Nevermind being able to say, even with full genomic information, being able to say, what the hell are they building? We have no way to do that. But just even to guess that, wow, the outcome of all this activity is, it's always going to build the same thing. The imperative to create the final you as you are now is there already. So you can, you would, so if you start from the same embryo, you would create a very similar organism. Yeah, except for cases like the xenobots, when you give them a different environment, they come up with a different way to be adaptive in that environment. But overall, I mean, so I think, so I think to, you know, kind of summarize it, I think what evolution is really good at is creating hardware that has a very stable baseline mode, meaning that left to its own devices, it's very good at doing the same thing, but it has a bunch of problem solving capacity such that if any, if any assumptions don't hold, if your cells are a weird size, or you get the wrong number of cells, or there's a, you know, somebody stuck an electrode halfway through the body, whatever, it will still get most of what it needs to do done. You've talked about the magic and the power of biology here. If we look at the human brain, how special is the brain in this context? You're kind of minimizing the importance of the brain, or lessening its, you know, minimizing its, we think of all the special computation happens in the brain, everything else is like the help. You're kind of saying that the whole thing is, the whole thing is doing computation. But nevertheless, how special is the human brain in this full context of biology? Yeah, I mean, look, there's no getting away from the fact that the human brain allows us to do things that we could not do without it. You can say the same thing about the liver. Yeah, no, this is true. And so, you know, my goal is not, no, you're right, my goal is not... You're just being polite to the brain right now. Well, look... You're being a politician, like, listen, everybody has a use. Everybody has a role, yeah. It's a very important role. That's right. We have to acknowledge the importance of the brain, you know. There are more than enough people who are cheerleading the brain, right? So I don't feel like nothing I say is going to reduce people's excitement about the human brain. And so I emphasize other things. Do you think it gets too much credit? I don't think it gets too much credit. I think other things don't get enough credit. I think the brain is... The human brain is incredible and special and all that. I think other things need more credit. And I also think that this... And I'm sort of this way about everything. I don't like binary categories about almost anything. I like a continuum. And the thing about the human brain is that by accepting that as some kind of an important category or essential thing, we end up with all kinds of weird pseudo problems and conundrums. So for example, when we talk about it, you know, if you want to talk about ethics and other things like that, and what, you know, this idea that surely if we look out into the universe, surely we don't believe that this human brain is the only way to be sentient, right? Surely we don't, you know, and to have high level cognition. I just can't even wrap my mind around this idea that that is the only way to do it. No doubt there are other architectures made of completely different principles that achieve the same thing. And once we believe that, then that tells us something important. It tells us that things that are not quite human brains or chimeras of human brains and other tissue or human brains or other kinds of brains and novel configurations or things that are sort of brains but not really or plants or embryos or whatever might also have important cognitive status. So that's the only thing. I think we have to be really careful about treating the human brain as if it was some kind of like sharp binary category, you know, you are or you aren't. I don't believe that exists. So when we look out at all the beautiful variety of semi-biological architectures out there in the universe, how many intelligent alien civilizations do you think are out there? Yeah, boy, I have no expertise in that whatsoever. You haven't met any? I have met the ones we've made. I think that... I mean, exactly. In some sense, with synthetic biology, are you not creating aliens? I absolutely think so. Because look, all standard model systems are an N of one course of evolution on Earth, right? And trying to make conclusions about biology from looking at life on Earth is like testing your theory on the same data that generated it. It's all kind of like locked in. So we absolutely have to create novel examples that have no history on Earth. That, you know, xenobots have no history of selection to be a good xenobot. The cells have selection for various things, but the xenobot itself never existed before. And so we can make chimeras, you know, we make frogalotls that are sort of half frog, half axolotl. You can make all sorts of highbrow constructions of living tissue with robots and whatever. We need to be making these things until we find actual aliens, because otherwise we're just looking at an N of one set of examples, all kinds of frozen accidents of evolution and so on. We need to go beyond that to really understand biology. But we're still, even when you're doing synthetic biology, you're locked in to the basic components of the way biology is done on this Earth. Yeah. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Still limited. And also the basic constraints of the environment, even artificial environments that construct in the lab are tied up to the environment. I mean, what do you... Okay, let's say there is, I mean, what I think is there's a nearly infinite number of intelligent civilizations living or dead out there. If you pick one out of the box, what do you think it would look like? So when you think about synthetic biology, or creating synthetic organisms, how hard is it to create something that's very different? Yeah, I think it's very hard to create something that's very different, right? We are just locked in both experimentally and in terms of our imagination, right? It's very hard. And you also emphasized several times the idea of shape. Yeah. The individual cell get together with other cells and they're gonna build a shape. So it's shape and function, but shape is a critical thing. Yeah. So here, I'll take a stab. I mean, I agree with you to whatever extent that we can say anything. I do think that there's probably an infinite number of different architectures that are with interesting cognitive properties out there. What can we say about them? I think that the only things that are going... I don't think we can rely on any of the typical stuff, carbon-based, none of that. I think all of that is just us having a lack of imagination. But I think the things that are going to be universal, if anything is, are things, for example, driven by resource limitation. The fact that you are fighting a hostile world and you have to draw a boundary between yourself and the world somewhere. The fact that that boundary is not given to you by anybody, you have to estimate it yourself. And the fact that you have to coarse-grain your experience and the fact that you're gonna try to minimize surprise. And the fact that... Like, these are the things that I think are fundamental about biology. None of the facts about the genetic code or even the fact that we have genes or the biochemistry of it. I don't think any of those things are fundamental. But it's gonna be a lot more about the information and about the creation of the self. The fact that... So in my framework, selves are demarcated by the scale of the goals that they can pursue. So from little tiny local goals to massive planetary scale goals for certain humans and everything in between. So you can draw this cognitive light cone that determines the scale of the goals you could possibly pursue. I think those kinds of frameworks like that, like active inference and so on, are going to be universally applicable. But none of the other things that are typically discussed. A quick pause. Dean of Athenburg? We were just talking about aliens and all that. That's a funny thing, which is... I don't know if you've seen them. There's a kind of debate that goes on about cognition and plants. And what can you say about different kinds of computation and cognition and plants? And I always look at that some way. If you're weirded out by cognition and plants, you're not ready for exobiology, right? If something that's that similar here on Earth is already freaking you out, then I think there's going to be all kinds of cognitive life out there that we're going to have a really hard time recognizing. I think robots will help us expand our mind about cognition. Either that or the word, like xenobots, and they maybe becomes the same thing, is really when the human engineers the thing, at least in part, and then is able to achieve some kind of cognition that's different than what you're used to, then you start to understand like, oh, every living organism is capable of cognition. Oh, I need to kind of broaden my understanding of what cognition is. But do you think plants, like when you eat them, are they screaming? I don't know about screaming. I think you have to- What I think when I eat a salad. Yeah. Good. Yeah. I think you have to scale down the expectations in terms of, right, so probably they're not screaming in the way that we would be screaming. However, there's plenty of data on plants being able to do anticipation and certain kinds of memory and so on. I think, you know, what you just said about robots, I hope you're right, and I hope that's- But there's two ways that people can take that, right? So one way is exactly what you just said to try to kind of expand their notions for that category. The other way people often go is they just sort of define the term. If it's not a natural product, it's just faking, right? It's not really intelligence if it was made by somebody else. Because it's that same thing. They can see how it's done, and once you see how it's- It's like a magic trick when you see how it's done, it's not as fun anymore. And I think people have a real tendency for that, and they sort of- Which I find really strange in the sense that if somebody said to me, we have this sort of blind, like, hill climbing search, and then we have a really smart team of engineers, which one do you think is going to produce a system that has good intelligence? I think it's really weird to say that it only comes from the blind search, right? It can't be done by people who, by the way, can also use evolutionary techniques if they want to, but also rational design. I think it's really weird to say that real intelligence only comes from natural evolution. So I hope you're right. I hope people take it the other way. But there's a nice shortcut. So I work with Lego robots a lot now for my own personal pleasure. Not in that way, internet. So, four legs. And one of the things that changes my experience of the robots a lot is when I can't understand why I did a certain thing. And there's a lot of ways to engineer that. Me, the person that created the software that runs it, there's a lot of ways for me to build that software in such a way that I don't exactly know why it did a certain basic decision. Of course, as an engineer, you can go in and start to look at logs. You can log all kind of data, sensory data, the decisions you made, all the outputs in your own networks and so on. But I also try to really experience that surprise and that really experience as another person would that totally doesn't know how it's built. And I think the magic is there in not knowing how it works. That I think biology does that for you through the layers of abstraction. Because nobody really knows what's going on inside the biologicals. Like each one component is clueless about the big picture. I think there's actually really cheap systems that can illustrate that kind of thing, which is even like fractals. Right? Like you have a very small, short formula in Z and you see it and there's no magic. You're just going to crank through Z squared plus C, whatever. You're just going to crank through it. But the result of it is this incredibly rich, beautiful image that just like, wow, all of that was in this like 10 character long string. Like amazing. So the fact that you can know everything there is to know about the details and the process and all the parts and everything, like there's literally no magic of any kind there. And yet the outcome is something that you would never have expected. And it's just, it just, you know, is incredibly rich and complex and beautiful. So there's a lot of that. You write that you work on developing conceptual frameworks for understanding unconventional cognition. So the kind of thing we've been talking about. I just like the term unconventional cognition. And you want to figure out how to detect, study and communicate with the thing. You've already mentioned a few examples, but what is unconventional cognition? Is it as simply as everything else outside of what we define usually as cognition, cognitive science, the stuff going on between our ears? Or is there some deeper way to get at the fundamentals of what is cognition? Yeah, I think like, and I'm certainly not the only person who works in unconventional cognition. So it's the term used. Yeah, that's one that I, so I've coined a number of weird terms, but that's not one of mine. Like that's an existing thing. So, for example, somebody like Andy Adamatsky, who I don't know if you've had him on, if you haven't, you should. He's a very interesting guy. He's a computer scientist and he does unconventional cognition and slime molds and all kinds of weird, he's a real weird cat. Really interesting. Anyway, so that's a bunch of terms that I've come up with, but that's not one of mine. So I think like many terms, that one is really defined by the times, meaning that unconventional cognitive, things that are unconventional cognition today are not going to be considered unconventional cognition at some point. It's one of those things. And so it's this really deep question of how do you recognize, communicate with, classify cognition when you cannot rely on the typical milestones? Right? So typical, again, if you stick with the history of life on earth, like these exact model systems, you would say, ah, here's a particular structure of the brain, and this one has fewer of those, and this one has a bigger frontal cortex and this one. Right? So these are landmarks that we're used to, and it allows us to make very kind of rapid judgments about things. But if you can't rely on that, either because you're looking at a synthetic thing or an engineered thing or an alien thing, then what do you do? Right? How do you, and so that's what I'm really interested in. I'm interested in mind in all of its possible implementations, not just the obvious ones that we know from looking at brains here on earth. But whenever I think about something like unconventional cognition, I think about cellular automata. I'm just captivated by the beauty of the thing. The fact that from simple little objects, you can create some such beautiful complexity that very quickly you forget about the individual objects and you see the things that it creates as its own organisms. That blows my mind every time. Like, honestly, I could full time just eat mushrooms and watch cellular automata. It doesn't even, don't even have to do mushrooms. Just cellular automata. It feels like, I mean, from the engineering perspective, I love when a very simple system captures something really powerful because then you can study that system to understand something fundamental about complexity, about life on earth. Anyway, how do I communicate with a thing? If a cellular automata can do cognition, if a plant can do cognition, if a xenobot can do cognition, how do I like whisper in its ear and get an answer back to how do I have a conversation? Yeah. How do I have a xenobot on a podcast? That's a really, really interesting line of investigation that that opens up. I mean, we've thought about this, so you need a few things. You need to understand the space in which they live. So, not just the physical modality, like can they see light, can they feel vibration? I mean, that's important, of course, because that's how you deliver your message, but not just the ideas for a communication medium, not just the physical medium, but saliency. Right? So, what are important to this? What's important to this system? And systems have all kinds of different levels of sophistication of what they can do. Of what you could expect to get back. And I think what's really important, I call this the spectrum of persuadability, which is this idea that when you're looking at a system, you can't assume where on the spectrum it is. You have to do experiments. And so, for example, if you look at a gene regulatory network, which is just a bunch of nodes that turn each other on and off at various rates, you might look at that and you say, wow, there's no magic here. I mean, clearly this thing is as deterministic as it gets. It's a piece of hardware. The only way we're going to be able to control it is by rewiring it, which is the way molecular biology works. Right? We can add nodes, remove nodes, whatever. Well, so we've done simulations and shown that biological, and now we're doing this in the lab, the biological networks like that have associative memory. So, they can actually learn. They can learn from experience. They have habituation. They have sensitization. They have associative memory, which you wouldn't have known if you assumed that they have to be on the left side of that spectrum. So, when you're going to communicate with something, and we've even, Charles Abramson and I have written a paper on behaviorist approaches to synthetic organism, meaning that if you're given something, you have no idea what it is or what it can do. How do you figure out what its psychology is, what its level is, what does it? And so, we literally lay out a set of protocols, starting with the simplest things and then moving up to more complex things where you can make no assumptions about what this thing can do. Right? Just from you, you have to start and you'll find out. So, here's a simple, I mean, here's one way to communicate with something. If you can train it, that's a way of communicating. So, if you can provide, if you can figure out what the currency of reward, of positive and negative reinforcement is, right? And you can get it to do something it wasn't doing before based on experiences you've given it, you have taught it one thing. You have communicated one thing, that such and such an action is good, some other action is not good. That's like a basic atom of, a primitive atom of communication. What about, in some sense, if it gets you to do something you haven't done before, is it answering back? Yeah, most certainly. And there's, I've seen cartoons, I think maybe Gary Larson or somebody had a cartoon of these rats in the maze and the one rat, you know, assists to the other. Hey, look at this, every time I walk over here, he starts scribbling on the clipboard that he has, it's awesome. If we step outside ourselves and really measure how much, like if I actually measure how much I've changed because of my interaction with certain cellular automata, I mean, you really have to take that into consideration about, like, well, these things are changing you too. Yes. I know you know how it works and so on, but you're being changed by the thing. Yeah, absolutely. I think I read, I don't know any details, but I think I read something about how wheat and other things have domesticated humans in terms of, right, but by their properties change the way that the human behavior and societal structure. So in that sense, cats are running the world because they've took over the, so first of all, so first they, while not giving a shit about humans, clearly, with every ounce of their being, they've somehow got just millions and millions of humans to take them home and feed them. And then not only the physical space that they take over, they took over the digital space. They dominate the internet in terms of cuteness, in terms of meme-ability, and so they're like, they got themselves literally inside the memes that become viral and spread on the internet, and they're the ones that are probably controlling humans, that's my theory. Another, that's a follow-up paper after the frog kissing. Okay, I mean, you mentioned sentience and consciousness. You have a paper titled Generalizing Frameworks for Sentience Beyond Natural Species. So beyond normal cognition, if we look at sentience and consciousness, and I wonder if you draw an interesting distinction between those two, elsewhere, outside of humans and maybe outside of Earth, you think aliens have sentience. And if they do, how do we think about it? So when you have this framework, what is this paper, what is the way you propose to think about sentience? Yeah, that particular paper was a very short commentary on another paper that was written about crabs. It was a really good paper on them, crabs and various, like a rubric of different types of behaviors that could be applied to different creatures, and they're trying to apply it to crabs and so on. I've, consciousness, we can talk about it, but it's a whole separate thing. It's a whole separate kettle of fish. I almost never talk about it. Kettle of crabs. In this case, yes. I almost never talk about consciousness per se. I've said very little about it, but we can talk about it if you want. Mostly what I talk about is cognition, because I think that that's much easier to deal with in a kind of rigorous experimental way. I think that all of these terms have, you know, sentience and so on, have different definitions. And I fundamentally, I think that people can, as long as they specify what they mean ahead of time, I think people can define them in various ways. The only thing that I really kind of insist on is that the right way to think about all this stuff is from an engineering perspective. What does it help me to control, predict, and does it help me do my next experiment? So that's not a universal perspective. Some people have philosophical kind of underpinnings, and those are primary. And if anything runs against that, then it must automatically be wrong. So some people will say, I don't care what else. If your theory says to me that thermostats have little tiny goals, I'm not. So that's it. I just like that's my philosophical preconception. It's like thermostats do not have goals, and that's it. So that's one way of doing it. And some people do it that way. I do not do it that way. And I think that we can't, I don't think we can know much of anything from a philosophical armchair. I think that all of these theories and ways of doing things stand or fall based on just basically one set of criteria. Does it help you run a rich research program? That's it. Which I agree with you totally. But so forget philosophy. What about the poetry of ambiguity? What about at the limits of the things you can engineer using terms that can be defined in multiple ways and living within that uncertainty in order to play with words until something lands that you can engineer? I mean, that's to me where consciousness sits currently. Nobody really understands the heart problem of consciousness, the subject, what it feels like. Because it really feels like, it feels like something to be this biological system. This conglomerate of a bunch of cells in this hierarchy of competencies feels like something. And I feel like one thing. And is that just, is that just a side effect of a complex system? Or is there something more that humans have? Or is there something more than any biological system has? Some kind of magic, some kind of, not just a sense of agency, but a real sense with a capital letter S of agency. Yeah. Ah, boy. Yeah, that's a deep question. Is there room for poetry and engineering or no? No, there definitely is. And a lot of the poetry comes in when we realize that none of the categories we deal with are sharp as we think they are. Right. And so in the, you know, in the different areas of all these spectra are where a lot of the poetry sits. I have many new theories about things, but I, in fact, do not have a good theory about consciousness that I plan to trot out. So. And you almost don't see it as useful for your current work to think about consciousness. I think it will come. I have some thoughts about it, but I don't feel like they're going to move the needle yet on that. But do you want to ground in engineering always? So, well, I mean, I don't. So, so, so, so if we really tackle consciousness per se, in terms of the hard problem, I don't I don't that that isn't necessarily going to be groundable in engineering. Right. That aspect of cognition is. But actual consciousness per se, you know, first person perspective, I'm not sure that that's groundable in engineering. And I think specifically what's different about what's different about it is there's a couple of things. So, so let's you know, here we go. I'll say I'll say a couple of things about about consciousness. One thing is that what makes it different is that for every other aspect of science. When we think about having a correct or a good theory of it, we have some idea of what format that theory makes predictions in. So whether those be numbers or whatever, we have some idea. We may not know the answer. We may not have the theory, but we know that when we get the theory, here's what it's going to output, and then we'll know if it's right or wrong for actual consciousness, not behavior, not neural correlates, but actual first person consciousness. If we had a correct theory of consciousness or even a good one, what the hell would what format would would it make predictions in? Right. Because because all the things that we know about basically boil down to observable behaviors. So the only thing I can think of when I think about that is is is what it'll be poetry or it'll be it'll be it'll be something to if I ask you, OK, you've got a great theory of consciousness and here's this here's this creature, maybe it's a natural one, maybe it's an engineer or whatever. And I want you to tell me what your theory says about this, this, this being what it's like to be this being. The only thing I can imagine you giving me is some piece of art, a poem or something that once I've taken it in, I share I now have a similar state as whatever. That's that's about as good as I can come up with. Well, it's possible that once you have a good understanding of consciousness, it would be mapped to some things that are more measurable. So, for example, it's possible that a conscious being is one that's able to suffer. So you start to look at pain and suffering. You can start to connect it closer to things that you can measure that in terms of how they reflect themselves in behavior and problem solving and creation and attainment of goals, for example, which I think suffering is one of the you know, life is suffering. It's one of the one of the big aspects of the human condition. And so if consciousness is somehow a maybe at least a catalyst for suffering, you could start to get like echoes of it. And you start to see like the actual effects of consciousness and behavior. That's not just about subjective experience. It's like it's really deeply integrated in the problem solving decision making process. Problem making of a system, something like this. But also it's possible that we realize this is not a philosophical statement. Philosophers can write their books. I welcome it. You know, I take the Turing test really seriously. I don't know why people really don't like it when a robot convinces you that it's intelligent. I think that's a really incredible accomplishment. And there's some deep sense in which that is intelligence. If it looks like it's intelligent, it is intelligent. And I think there's some deep aspect of a system that appears to be conscious. In some deep sense, it is conscious. It for at least for me, we have to consider that possibility. And a system that appears to be conscious is an engineering challenge. Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. I mean, especially intelligence, I think is a publicly observable thing. And I mean, you know, science fiction has dealt with this for a century or more, much more, maybe. This idea that when you are confronted with something that just doesn't meet any of your typical assumptions, so you can't look in the skull and say, oh, well, there's that frontal cortex. So then I guess we're good, right? So this thing lands on your front lawn and this, you know, with the little door opens and something trundles out and it's sort of like, you know, kind of shiny and aluminum looking. And it hands you this poem that it wrote while it was on, you know, flying over and how happy it is to meet you. Like, what's going to be your criteria, right? For whether you get to take it apart and see what makes it tick or whether you have to, you know, be nice to it and whatever, right? Like all the criteria that we have now and, you know, that people are using. And as you said, a lot of people are down on the Turing test and things like this. But what else have we got? You know, because measuring the cortex size isn't going to cut it, right? In the broader scheme of things. So I think this is a wide open problem that, right, that we, you know, our solution to the problem of other minds, it's very simplistic, right? We give each other credit for having minds just because we're sort of on, you know, on an anatomical level, we're pretty similar. And then so that's good enough. But how far is that going to go? So I think that's really primitive. So yeah, I think it's a major unsolved problem. It's a really challenging direction of thought to the human race that you talked about, like embodied minds. If you start to think that other things other than humans have minds, that's really challenging. Yeah. Because all men are created equal starts being like, all right, well, we should probably treat not just cows with respect, but like plants and not just plants, but some kind of organized conglomerates of cells in a petri dish. In fact, some of the work we're doing, like you're doing, and the whole community of science is doing with biology, people might be like, we were really mean to viruses. Yeah. I mean, yeah, the thing is, you're right. And I get, I certainly get phone calls about people complaining about frog skin and so on. But I think we have to separate the sort of deep philosophical aspects versus what actually happened. So what actually happens on earth is that people with exactly the same anatomical structure kill each other, you know, on a daily basis, right? So I think it's clear that simply knowing that something else is equally, or maybe more cognitive or conscious than you are, is not a guarantee of kind behavior, that much we know of. So then we look at a commercial farming of mammals and various other things. And so I think on a practical basis, long before we get to worrying about things like frog skin, we have to ask ourselves, why are we, what can we do about the way that we've been behaving towards creatures, which we know for a fact are because of our similarities, are basically just like us. You know, that's kind of a whole other social thing. But fundamentally, you know, of course, you're absolutely right in that we are also, think about this, we are on this planet in some way, incredibly lucky, it's just dumb luck, that we really only have one dominant species. It didn't have to work out that way. So you could easily imagine that there could be a planet somewhere with more than one equally or maybe near equally intelligent species. And then, but they may not look anything like each other, right? So there may be multiple ecosystems where there are things of similar to human-like intelligence. And then you'd have all kinds of issues about, you know, how do you relate to them when they're physically not like you at all? But yet, you know, in terms of behavior and culture and whatever, it's pretty obvious that they've got as much on the ball as you have. Or maybe imagine that there was another group of beings that was like, on average, you know, 40 IQ points lower, right? Like we're pretty lucky in many ways. We don't really have, even though we sort of, you know, we still act badly in many ways. But the fact is, you know, all humans are more or less in the same range, but it didn't have to work out that way. Well, but I think that's part of the way life works on Earth, maybe human civilization works, is it seems like we want ourselves to be quite similar. And then within that, you know, where everybody's about the same, relatively IQ, intelligence, problem-solving capabilities, even physical characteristics. But then we'll find some aspect of that that's different. And that seems to be like, I mean, it's really dark to say, but it seems to be the, not even a bug, but like a feature of the early development of human civilization. You pick the other, your tribe versus the other tribe, and you war. It's a kind of evolution in the space of memes, a space of ideas, I think. And you war with each other. So we're very good at finding the other, even when the characteristics are really the same. And that's what, I don't know what, that, I mean, I'm sure so many of these things echo in the biological world in some way. Yeah, there's a fun experiment that I did. My son actually came up with this. We did a biology unit together. He was so homeschooled. And so we did this a couple of years ago. We did this thing where, imagine, so you got this slime mold, right? Fisarin polycephalum, and it grows on a petri dish of agar, and it sort of spreads out. And it's a single cell protist, but it's like this giant thing. And so you put down a piece of oat, and it wants to go get the oat, and it sort of grows towards the oat. So what you do is you take a razor blade, and you just separate the piece of the whole culture that's growing towards the oat, you just kind of separate it. And so now, think about the interesting decision-making calculus for that little piece. I can go get the oat, and therefore I won't have to share those nutrients with this giant mass over there. So the nutrients per unit volume is going to be amazing. So I should go eat the oat. But if I first rejoin, because fisarin, once you cut it, has the ability to join back up. If I first rejoin, then that whole calculus becomes impossible, because there is no more me anymore. There's just we, and then we will go eat this thing, right? So this interesting, you can imagine a kind of game theory where the number of agents isn't fixed, and that it's not just cooperate or defect, but it's actually merge and whatever, right? Yeah. So that kind of computation, how does it do that decision-making? Yeah. So it's really interesting. And so empirically, what we found is that it tends to merge first. It tends to merge first, and then the whole thing goes. But it's really interesting that calculus, like, do we even have, I mean, I'm not an expert in the economic game theory and all that, but maybe there's a, maybe some sort of hyperbolic discounting or something. But maybe this idea that the actions you take not only change your payoff, but they change who or what you are, and that you may not, you could take an action after which you don't exist anymore, or you are radically changed, or you are merged with somebody else. Like that's, as far as I know, that's a whole, we're still missing a formalism for even knowing how to model any of that. Do you see evolution, by the way, as a process that applies here on Earth, or is it some, where did evolution come from? Yeah. So this thing that from the very origin of life that took us to today, what the heck is that? I think evolution is inevitable in the sense that if you combine, and basically I think one of the most useful things that was done in early computing, I guess in the 60s, it started with evolutionary computation and just showing how simple it is that if you have imperfect heredity and competition together, those two things, well, three things, right? So heredity, imperfect heredity, and competition or selection, those three things, and that's it. Now you're off to the races, right? And so that can be, it's not just on Earth because it can be done in the computer, it can be done in chemical systems, it can be done in, you know, Lee Smolin says it works in on cosmic scales. So I think that that kind of thing is incredibly pervasive and general, it's a general feature of life. It's interesting to think about, you know, the standard thought about this is that it's blind, right? Meaning that the intelligence of the process is zero, it's stumbling around. And I think that back in the day when the options were, it's dumb like machines or it's smart like humans, then of course the scientists went in this direction because nobody wanted creationism. And so they said, okay, it's got to be like completely blind. I'm not actually sure, right? Because I think that everything is a continuum. And I think that it doesn't have to be smart with foresight like us, but it doesn't have to be completely blind either. I think there may be aspects of it, and in particular, this kind of multi-scale competency might give it a little bit of look ahead maybe, or a little bit of problem solving sort of baked in. But that's going to be completely different in different systems. I do think it's general. I don't think it's just on earth. I think it's a very fundamental thing. And it does seem to have a kind of direction that it's taking us that's somehow perhaps is defined by the environment itself. It feels like we're headed towards something. Like we're playing out a script that was just like a single cell defines the entire organism. Yeah. It feels like from the origin of earth itself, it's playing out a kind of script. Yeah. Like it can't really go any other way. I mean, so this is very controversial, and I don't know the answer, but people have argued that this is called sort of rewinding the tape of life, right? And some people have argued, I think Conway Morris maybe has argued that there's a deep attractor, for example, to the human kind of structure and that if you were to rewind it again, you'd basically get more or less the same thing. And then other people have argued that, no, it's incredibly sensitive to frozen accidents. And that once certain stochastic decisions are made downstream, everything is going to be different. I don't know. I don't know. You know, we're very bad at predicting attractors in the space of complex systems, generally speaking, right? We don't know. So maybe evolution on earth has these deep attractors that no matter what has happened, pretty much would likely to end up there, or maybe not. I don't know. What's a really difficult idea to imagine that if you ran earth a million times, 500,000 times, you would get Hitler. Yeah. Like we don't like to think like that. We think like, because at least maybe in America, you like to think that individual decisions can change the world, and if individual decisions can change the world, then surely any perturbation results in a totally different trajectory. But maybe there's, in this competency hierarchy, it's a self-correcting system that just ultimately, there's a bunch of chaos that ultimately is leading towards something like a superintelligent artificial intelligence system. The answer is 42. I mean, there might be a kind of imperative for life that it's headed to, and we're too focused on our day-to-day life of getting coffee and snacks and having sex and getting a promotion at work, not to see the big imperative of life on earth that it's headed towards something. Yeah, maybe. Maybe. It's difficult. I think one of the things that's important about chimeric bioengineering technologies, all of those things, are that we have to start developing a better science of predicting the cognitive goals of composite systems. So we're just not very good at it. Right? We don't know, if I create a composite system, and this could be Internet of Things or swarm robotics or a cellular swarm or whatever, what is the emergent intelligence of this thing? First of all, what level is it going to be at? And if it has goal-directed capacity, what are the goals going to be? We are just not very good at predicting that yet. And I think that it's an existential level need for us to be able to, because we're building these things all the time. Right? We're building both physical structures like swarm robotics, and we're building social, financial structures and so on, with very little ability to predict what sort of autonomous goals that system is going to have, of which we are now cogs. And so learning to predict and control those things is going to be critical. So if you're right, and there is some kind of attractor to evolution, it would be nice to know what that is, and then to make a rational decision of whether we're going to go along or we're going to pop out of it or try to pop out of it. Because there's no guarantee. I mean, that's the other kind of important thing. A lot of people, I get a lot of complaints from people emailing and say, you know, what you're doing, it isn't natural. You know? And I'll say, look, natural, that'd be nice if somebody was making sure that natural was matched up to our values. But no one's doing that. Evolution optimizes for biomass. That's it. Nobody's optimizing. It's not optimizing for your happiness. It's I don't think necessarily it's optimizing for intelligence or fairness or any of that stuff. I'm going to find that person that emailed you, beat them up, take their place, steal everything they own, say, now we're done. This is natural. This is natural. Yeah, exactly. Because it comes from an old world view where you could assume that whatever is natural, that that's probably for the best. And I think we're long out of that Garden of Eden kind of view. So I think we can do better. I think we and we have to write with natural just isn't great for a lot of a lot of life forms. What are some cool synthetic organisms that you think about, you dream about? When you think about embodied mind, what do you imagine? What do you hope to build? Yeah, on a practical level, what I really hope to do is to gain enough of an understanding of the embodied intelligence of organs and tissues such that we can achieve a radically different regenerative medicine so that we can say, basically, and I think about it as, you know, in terms of like, okay, can you what's the what's the what's the goal kind of end game for this whole thing? To me, the end game is something that you would call an anatomical compiler. So the idea is you would sit down in front of the computer and you would draw the body or the organ that you wanted. Not molecular details, but like, this is what I want. I want a six legged frog with a propeller on top or I want I want a heart that looks like this or I want a leg that looks like this. And what it would do if we knew what we were doing is put out, convert that anatomical description into a set of stimuli that would have to be given to cells to convince them to build exactly that thing. Right. I probably won't live to see it, but I think it's achievable. And I think with that, if if we can have that, then that is basically the solution to all of medicine, except for infectious disease. So birth defects, traumatic injury, cancer, aging, degenerative disease. If we knew how to tell cells what to build, all of those things go away. So those things go away. And the positive feedback spiral of economic costs where all of the advances are increasingly more heroic and expensive interventions of a sinking ship when you're like 90 and so on. All of that goes away because basically, instead of trying to fix you up as you as you degrade, you progressively regenerate, you apply the regenerative medicine early before things degrade. So I think that that'll have massive economic impacts over what we're trying to do now, which is not at all sustainable. And that's what I hope. I hope that we get it. So to me, yes, the xenobots will be doing useful things, cleaning up the environment, cleaning out your joints and all that kind of stuff. But more important than that, I think we can use these synthetic systems to try to understand to develop a science of detecting and manipulating the goals of collective intelligences of cells, specifically for regenerative medicine. And then sort of beyond that, if we sort of think further beyond that, what I hope is that kind of like what you said, all of this drives a reconsideration of how we formulate ethical norms. Because this old school so in the olden days, what you could do is you were confronted with something you could tap on it. And if you heard a metallic clanging sound, you'd said, fine, right? So you could conclude it was made in a factory. I can take it apart. I can do whatever. If you did that and you got sort of a squishy kind of warm sensation, you'd say, I need to be more or less nice to it and whatever. That's not going to be feasible. It was never really feasible, but it was good enough because we didn't know any better. That needs to go. And I think that by breaking down those artificial barriers, someday we can try to build a system of ethical norms that does not rely on these completely contingent facts of our earthly history, but on something much, much deeper that really takes agency and the capacity to suffer and all that takes that seriously. The capacity to suffer and the deep questions I would ask of a system is can I eat it and can I have sex with it? Which is the two fundamental tests of, again, the human condition. So I can basically do what Dali does in the physical space. So print out like a 3D print Pepe the Frog with a propeller head, propeller hat is the dream. Well, I want to, yes and no. I mean, I want to get away from the 3D printing thing because that will be available for some things much earlier. I mean, we can already do bladders and ears and things like that because it's micro level control, right? When you 3D print, you are in charge of where every cell goes. And for some things that, you know, for like this thing, they had that, I think 20 years ago or maybe earlier than that, you could do that. So, yeah, I would like to emphasize the Dali part where you provide a few words and it generates a painting. So here you say, I want a frog with these features, and then it would go direct a complex biological system to construct something like that. Yeah. The main magic would be, I mean, I think from looking at Dali and so on, it looks like the first part is kind of solved now where you go from the words to the image. Like that seems more or less solved. The next step is really hard. This is what keeps things like CRISPR and genomic editing and so on. It's what limits all the impacts for regenerative medicine because going back to, okay, this is the knee joint that I want or this is the eye that I want. Now, what genes do I edit to make that happen, right? Going back in that direction is really hard. So instead of that, it's going to be, okay, I understand how to motivate cells to build particular structures. Can I rewrite the memory of what they think they're supposed to be building such that then I can, you know, take my hands off the wheel and let them do their thing? So some of that is experiment, but some of that maybe AI can help too. Just like with protein folding, this is exactly the problem that protein folding in the most simple medium tried and has solved with alpha fold, which is how does the sequence of letters result in this three-dimensional shape? And you have to, I guess it didn't solve it because you have to, if you say, I want this, this shape, how do I then have a sequence of letters? Yeah. The reverse engineering step is really tricky. It is. I think where, and we're doing some of this now, is to use AI to try and build actionable models of the intelligence of the cellular collectives. So try to help us, help us gain models that, and we've had some success in this. So we did something like this for repairing birth defects of the brain in frog. We've done some of this for normalizing melanoma, where you can really start to use AI to make models of how would I impact this thing if I wanted to, given all the complexities, right? And given all the controls that it knows how to do. So when you say regenerative medicine, so we talked about creating biological organisms, but if you regrow a hand, that information is already there, right? The biological system has that information. So how does regenerative medicine work today? How do you hope it works? What's the hope there? Yeah. Yeah. How do you make it happen? Well, today there's a set of popular approaches. So one is 3D printing. So the idea is I'm going to make a scaffold of the thing that I want. I'm going to seed it with cells and then there it is, right? So kind of direct, and then that works for certain things. You can make a bladder that way or an ear, something like that. The other idea is some sort of stem cell transplant. And the idea is if we put in stem cells with appropriate factors, we can get them to generate certain kinds of neurons for certain diseases and so on. All of those things are good for relatively simple structures. But when you want an eye or a hand or something else, I think, and this may be an unpopular opinion, I think the only hope we have in any reasonable kind of time frame is to understand how the thing was motivated to get made in the first place. So what is it that made those cells in the beginning create a particular arm with a particular set of sizes and shapes and number of fingers and all that? And why is it that a salamander can keep losing theirs and keep regrowing theirs and a planarian can do the same, even more so? To me, kind of ultimate regenerative medicine was when you can tell the cells to build whatever it is you need them to build, right? And so that we can all be like planaria, basically. Do you have to start at the very beginning or can you do a shortcut? Because if you're growing a hand, you already got the whole organism. Yeah. So here's what we've done, right? So we've more or less solved that in frogs. So frogs, unlike salamanders, do not regenerate their legs as adults. And so we've shown that with a very kind of simple intervention. So what we do is there's two things. You need to have a signal that tells the cells what to do and then you need some way of delivering it. And so this is work together with David Kaplan and I should do a disclosure here. We have a company called Morphoceuticals, I think it's a spin-off, where we're trying to address limb regeneration. So we've solved it in the frog and we're now in trials in mice. So now we're going to we're in mammals now. I can't say anything about how it's going, but the frog thing is solved. So what you do is after... You have a little frog Lou Skywalker with every growing hand. Yeah, basically. Basically, yeah. Yeah. So what you do is we did with legs instead of forearms. And what you do is after amputation, normally they don't regenerate, you put on a wearable bioreactor. So it's this thing that goes on and Dave Kaplan's lab makes these things. And inside it's a very controlled environment. It is a silk gel that carries some drugs, for example, ion channel drugs. And what you're doing is you're saying to these cells, you should regrow what normally goes here. So that whole thing is on for 24 hours. Then you take it off. You don't touch the leg again. This is really important because what we're not looking for is a set of micromanagement, you know, printing or controlling the cells. We want to trigger. We want to we want to interact with it early on and then not touch it again because because we don't know how to make a frog like the frog knows how to make a frog. So 24 hours, 18 months of leg growth after that, without us touching it again. And after 18 months, you get a pretty good leg that kind of shows this proof of concept that early on when the cells right after injury, when they're first making a decision about what they're going to do, you can you can impact them. And once they've decided to make a leg, they don't need you after that. They can do their own thing. So that's an approach that we're now taking. What about cancer suppression? That's something you mentioned earlier. How can all of these ideas help with cancer suppression? So let's let's go back to the beginning and ask what what what what cancer is. So I think, you know, asking why there's cancer is the wrong question. I think the right question is, why is there ever anything but cancer? So so in the normal state, you have a bunch of cells that are all cooperating towards a large scale goal. If that process of cooperation breaks down and you've got a cell that is isolated from that electrical network that lets you remember what the big goal is, you revert back to your unicellular lifestyle as far as I think about that border between self and world. Right. Normally, when all these cells are connected by gap junctions into an electrical network, they are all one self, right? Meaning that their goals, they have these large tissue level goals and so on. As soon as a cell is disconnected from that, the self is tiny. Right. And so at that point, and so so people, a lot of people model cancer cells as being more selfish and all that. They're not more selfish. They're equally selfish. It's just that their self is smaller. Normally, the self is huge. Now they got tiny little cells. Now, what are the goals of tiny little cells? Well, proliferate and migrate to wherever life is good. And that's metastasis. That's proliferation and metastasis. So so one thing we found and people have noticed years ago that when cells convert to cancer, the first thing they see is they close the gap junctions. And it's a lot like I think it's a lot like that experiment with the slime mold where until you close that gap junction, you can't even entertain the idea of leaving the collective because there is no you at that point, right? Your mind melded with this with this whole other network. But as soon as the gap junction is closed, now the boundary between you and now the rest of the body is just outside environment to you. You're just a unicellular organism and the rest of the body's environment. So so we so we studied this process and we worked out a way to artificially control the bioelectric state of the cells to physically force them to remain in that network. And so then then what that what that means is that nasty mutations like KRAS and things like that, these really tough oncogenic mutations that cause tumors, if you if you do them and then but but then with an artificially control of the bioelectrics, you greatly reduce tumor genesis or or normalized cells that had already begun to convert to basically they go back to being normal cells. And so this is another much like with the plenary. This is another way in which the bioelectric state kind of dominates what the what the genetic state is. So if you sequence the you know, if you sequence the nucleic acid, you'll see the KRAS mutation. You'll say, well, that's going to be a tumor. But there isn't a tumor because because bioelectrically, you've kept the cells connected and they're just working on making nice skin and kidneys and whatever else. So so we've started moving that to to to human glioblastoma cells. And we're hoping for, you know, a patient in the future interaction with patients. So is this one of the possible ways in which we may, quote, cure cancer? I think so. Yeah, I think so. I think I think the actual cure I mean, there are other technology, you know, immune therapy, I think it's a great technology. Chemotherapy, I don't think is a good is a good technology. I think we got to get get off of that. So chemotherapy just kills cells. Yeah, well, chemotherapy hopes to kill more of the tumor cells than of your cells. That's it. It's a fine balance. The problem is the cells are very similar because they are your cells. And so if you don't have a very tight way of distinguishing between them, then the toll that chemo takes on the rest of the body is just unbelievable. And immunotherapy tries to get the immune system to do some of the work. Exactly. Yeah, I think that's potentially a very good, very good approach. If the immune system can be taught to recognize enough of the cancer cells, that's a pretty good approach. But I but I think but I think our approach is in a way more fundamental, because if you can, if you can keep the cells harnessed towards organ level goals, as opposed to individual cell goals, then nobody will be making a tumor or metastasizing and so on. So we've been living through a pandemic. What do you think about viruses in this full, beautiful biological context we've been talking about? Are they beautiful to you? Are they terrifying? Also, maybe, let's say, are they, since we've been discriminating this whole conversation, are they living? Are they embodied minds? Embodied minds that are assholes? As far as I know, and I haven't been able to find this paper, but I know that there have been able to find this paper again, but somewhere I saw in the last couple of months, there was some there was some paper showing an example of a virus that actually had physiology. So there was some something was going on, I think, proton flux or something on the virus itself. But but barring that, generally speaking, viruses are very passive. They don't do anything by themselves. And so I don't see any particular reason to attribute much of a mind to them. I think, you know, they represent a way to hijack other minds, for sure, like like cells and other things. But that's an interesting interplay, though, if they're hijacking other minds. You know, the way we're we were talking about living organisms, that they can interact with each other and have it alter each other's trajectory by having interacted. I mean, that's that's a deep, meaningful connection between a virus and a cell. And I think both are transformed by the experience. And so in that sense, both are living. Yeah, yeah. You know, the whole category that I, I, this question of what's living and what's not living, I really I'm not sure I and I know there's people that work on this. I don't want to piss anybody off, but I have not found that particularly useful as to try and make that a binary kind of distinction. I think level of cognition is very interesting as a continuum. But living and nonliving, you know, I don't I really know what to do with that. I don't I don't know what you do next after after making that distinction. That's why I make the very binary distinction. Can I have sex with it or not? Can I eat it or not? Those because those are actionable. Yeah. Well, I think that's a critical point that you brought up, because how you relate to something is really what this is all about. Right. As an engineer, how do I control it? But maybe I shouldn't be controlling it. Maybe I should be, you know, can I have a relationship with it? Should I be listening to its advice? Like, like all the way from, you know, I need to take it apart all the way to I better do what it says, because it seems to be pretty smart and everything in between. Right. That's really what we're asking about. Yeah, we need to understand our relationship to it. We're searching for that relationship, even in the most trivial senses. You came up with a lot of interesting terms. We've mentioned some of them. A gentrile material. That's a really interesting one. That's a really interesting one for the future of computation and artificial intelligence and computer science and all of that. There's also, let me go through some of them. If they spark some interesting thought for you, there's teleophobia, the unwanted fear of erring on the side of too much agency when considering a new system. Yeah, I mean. That's the opposite. I mean, being afraid of maybe anthropomorphizing the thing. This will get some people ticked off, I think. But I don't think, I think the whole notion of anthropomorphizing is a holdover from a pre-scientific age where humans were magic and everything else wasn't magic. And you were anthropomorphizing when you dared suggest that something else has some features of humans. And I think we need to be way beyond that. And this issue of anthropomorphizing, I think, is a cheap charge. I don't think it holds any water at all, other than when somebody makes a cognitive claim. I think all cognitive claims are engineering claims, really. So when somebody says, this thing knows or this thing hopes or this thing wants or this thing predicts, all you can say is, fabulous, give me the engineering protocol that you've derived using that hypothesis, and we will see if this thing helps us or not. And then we can make a rational decision. I also like anatomical compiler, a future system representing the long-term endgame of the science of morphogenesis that reminds us how far away from true understanding we are. Someday you will be able to sit in front of an anatomical computer, specify the shape of the animal or plant that you want, and it will convert that shape specification to a set of stimuli that will have to be given to cells to build exactly that shape. No matter how weird it ends up being, you have total control. Just imagine the possibility for memes in the physical space. One of the glorious accomplishments of human civilizations is memes in digital space. Now this could create memes in physical space. I am both excited and terrified by that possibility. Cognitive light cone, I think we also talked about, the outer boundary in space and time of the largest goal a given system can work towards. Is this kind of like shaping the set of options? It's a little different than options. It's really focused on... I first came up with this back in 2018, I want to say. There was a conference, a Templeton conference, where they challenged us to come up with frameworks. I think actually it's the diverse intelligence community that... Summer Institute. Yeah, they had a Summer Institute. That's the logo, it's a bee with some circuits. Yeah, it's got different life forms. So the whole program is called Diverse Intelligence, and they challenge us to come up with a framework that was suitable for analyzing different kinds of intelligence together, right? Because the kinds of things you do to a human are not good with an octopus, not good with a plant and so on. So I started thinking about this, and I asked myself, what do all cognitive agents, no matter what their providence, no matter what their architecture is, what do cognitive agents have in common? And it seems to me that what they have in common is some degree of competency to pursue a goal. And so what you can do then is you can draw. And so what I ended up drawing was this thing that it's kind of like a backwards Minkowski cone diagram where all of space is collapsed into one axis, and then here and then time is this axis. And then what you can do is you can draw for any creature, you can semi-quantitatively estimate what are the spatial and temporal goals that it's capable of pursuing. So for example, if you are a tick and all you really are able to pursue is maxima or bacterium, maximizing the level of some chemical in your vicinity, right? That's all you've got, it's a tiny little licon, then you're a simple system like a tick or a bacterium. If you are something like a dog, well, you've got some ability to care about some spatial region, some temporal, you can remember a little bit backwards, you can predict a little bit forwards, but you're never ever going to care about what happens in the next town over four weeks from now. It's just, as far as we know, it's just impossible for that kind of architecture. If you're a human, you might be working towards world peace long after you're dead, right? So you might have a planetary scale goal that's enormous, right? And then there may be other greater intelligences somewhere that can care in the linear range about numbers of creatures that, some sort of Buddha-like character that can care about everybody's welfare, like really care the way that we can't. And so that, it's not a mapping of what you can sense, how far you can sense, right? It's not a mapping of how far you can act. It's a mapping of how big are the goals you are capable of envisioning and working towards. And I think that enables you to put synthetic kinds of constructs, AIs, aliens, swarms, whatever, on the same diagram. Because we're not talking about what you're made of or how you got here. We're talking about what are the size and complexity of the goals towards which you can work. Is there any other terms that pop into mind that are interesting? I'm trying to remember. There's a, I have a list of them somewhere on my website. Target morphology. Yeah, people definitely check it out. Morphoceutical, I like that one. Ionoceutical. Yeah, yeah. I mean, those refer to different types of interventions in the regenerative medicine space. So a morphoceutical is something that, it's a kind of intervention that really targets the cell's decision-making process about what they're going to build. And ionoceuticals are like that. And ionoceuticals are like that, but more focused specifically on the bioelectrics. I mean, there's also, of course, biochemical, biomechanical, who knows what else, you know, maybe optical kinds of signaling systems there as well. Target morphology is interesting. It really, it's designed to capture this idea that it's not just feed-forward emergence. And oftentimes in biology, I mean, of course, that happens too. But in many cases in biology, the system is specifically working towards a target in anatomical morpho space, right? It's a navigation task, really. These kinds of problem solving can be formalized as navigation tasks, and that they're really going towards a particular region. How do you know? Because you deviate them and then they go back. Let me ask you, because you've really challenged a lot of ideas in biology in the work you do, probably because some of your rebelliousness comes from the fact that you came from a different field of computer engineering. But could you give advice to young people today in high school or college that are trying to pave their life story, whether it's in science or elsewhere, how they can have a career they can be proud of or a life they can be proud of? Advice. Boy, it's dangerous to give advice because things change so fast. But one central thing I can say, moving up and through academia and whatnot, you will be surrounded by really smart people. And what you need to do is be very careful at distinguishing specific critique versus kind of meta advice. And what I mean by that is if somebody really smart and successful and obviously competent is giving you specific critiques on what you've done, that's gold. That's an opportunity to hone your craft, to get better at what you're doing, to learn, to find your mistakes. That's great. If they are telling you what you ought to be studying, how you ought to approach things, what is the right way to think about things, you should probably ignore most of that. And the reason I make that distinction is that a lot of really, really successful people are very well calibrated on their own ideas and their own field and their own area. And they know exactly what works and what doesn't and what's good and what's bad. But they're not calibrated on your ideas. And so the things they will say, oh, this is a dumb idea. Don't do this. And you shouldn't do that. That stuff is generally worse than useless. It can be very, very demoralizing and really limiting. And so what I say to people is read very broadly, work really hard, know what you're talking about, take all specific criticism as an opportunity to improve what you're doing, and then completely ignore everything else. Because I just tell you from my own experience, most of what I consider to be interesting and useful things that we've done, very smart people have said, this is a terrible idea. Don't do that. Don't, you know, just, yeah, I think we just don't know. We have no idea beyond our own, like at best, we know what we ought to be doing. We very rarely know what anybody else should be doing. Yeah. And their ideas, their perspective has been also calibrated, not just on their field and specific situation, but also on a state of that field at a particular time in the past. So there's not many people in this world that are able to achieve revolutionary success multiple times in their life. So whenever you say somebody very smart, usually what that means is somebody who's smart, who achieved a success at a certain point in their life, and people often get stuck in that place where they found success. To be constantly challenging your worldview is a very difficult thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, yeah, and also at the same time, probably if a lot of people tell, that's the weird thing about life, if a lot of people tell you that something is stupid or is not gonna work, that either means it's stupid, it's not gonna work, or it's actually a great opportunity to do something new, and you don't know which one it is, and it's probably equally likely to be either. Well, I don't know, the probabilities. Depends how lucky you are, depends how brilliant you are, but you don't know, and so you can't take that advice as actual data. Yeah, you have to, and this is kind of hard to describe and fuzzy, but I'm a firm believer that you have to build up your own intuition. So over time, you have to take your own risks that seem like they make sense to you, and then learn from that, and build up so that you can trust your own gut about what's a good idea, even when, and then sometimes you'll make mistakes and it'll turn out to be a dead end, and that's fine, that's science. But what I tell my students is life is hard, and science is hard, and you're gonna sweat and bleed and everything, and you should be doing that for ideas that really fire you up inside, and really don't let the common denominator of standardized approaches to things slow you down. So you mentioned planaria being in some sense immortal, what's the role of death in life? What's the role of death in this whole process we have? When you look at biological systems, is death an important feature, especially as you climb up the hierarchy of competency? Boy, that's an interesting question. I think that it's certainly a factor that promotes change and turnover, and an opportunity to do something different the next time for a larger scale system. So apoptosis, it's really interesting, I mean, death is really interesting in a number of ways. One is, you could think about what was the first thing to die? That's an interesting question, what was the first creature that you could say actually died? It's a tough thing, because we don't have a great definition for it. So if you bring a cabbage home, and you put it in your fridge, at what point are you going to say it's died? Right? And so it's kind of hard to know. There's also one paper in which I talk about this idea that, I mean, think about this, and imagine that you have a creature that's aquatic, let's say it's a fish, and you have a frog or something, or a tadpole, and the animal dies, in the pond it dies, for whatever reason, most of the cells are still alive. So you could imagine that if when it died there was some sort of breakdown of the connectivity between the cells, a bunch of cells crawled off, they could have a life as amoebas, some of them could join together and become a xenobot and toodle around, right? So we know from planaria that there are cells that don't obey the Hayflick limit and just sort of live forever. So you could imagine an organism that when the organism dies, it doesn't disappear, rather the individual cells that are still alive, crawl off and have a completely different kind of lifestyle and maybe come back together as something else, or maybe they don't. So all of this, I'm sure, is happening somewhere on some planet. So death, in any case, I mean, we already kind of knew this because the molecules, we know that when something dies, the molecules go through the ecosystem, but even the cells don't necessarily die at that point, they might have another life in a different way. And you can think about something like HeLa, right, the HeLa cell line, that's had this incredible life. There are way more HeLa cells now than there were when she was alive. It seems like as the organisms become more and more complex, like if you look at the mammals, their relationship with death becomes more and more complex. So the survival imperative starts becoming interesting, and humans are arguably the first species that have invented the fear of death, the understanding that you're going to die, let's put it this way. Like, so not like instinctual, like, I need to run away from the thing that's gonna eat me, but starting to contemplate the finiteness of life. Yeah, I mean, so one thing about the human cognitive light cone is that for the first, as far as we know, for the first time, you might have goals that are longer than your lifespan, that are not achievable, right? So if you were, let's say, and I don't know if this is true, but if you're a goldfish and you have a 10-minute attention span, I'm not sure if that's true, but let's say there's some organism with a short kind of cognitive light cone that way, all of your goals are potentially achievable, because you're probably going to live the next 10 minutes. So whatever goals you have, they are totally achievable. If you're a human, you could have all kinds of goals that are guaranteed not achievable, because they just take too long, like guaranteed you're not going to achieve them. So I wonder if, you know, is that a perennial, you know, sort of thorn in our psychology that drives some psychoses or whatever? I have no idea. Another interesting thing about that, actually, and I've been thinking about this a lot in the last couple of weeks, this notion of giving up. So you would think that evolutionarily, the most adaptive way of being is that you go, you fight as long as you physically can, and then when you can't, you can't. And there's this photograph, there's videos you can find of insects crawling around where, like, you know, like most of it is already gone and it's still sort of crawling, you know, like Terminator style, right? Like as far as, as long as you physically can, you keep going. Mammals don't do that. So a lot of mammals, including rats, have this thing where when they think it's a hopeless situation, they literally give up and die when physically they could have kept going. I mean, humans certainly do this. And there's some like really unpleasant experiments that this guy, I forget his name, did with drowning rats where rats normally drown after a couple of minutes. But if you teach them that if you just tread water for a couple of minutes, you'll get rescued, they can tread water for like an hour. And so, right, and so they literally just give up and die. And so, evolutionarily, that doesn't seem like a good strategy at all. Evolutionarily, it seems, why would you, like, what's the benefit ever of giving up? You just do what you can and, you know, one time out of a thousand, you'll actually get rescued, right? But this issue of actually giving up suggests some very interesting metacognitive controls where you've now gotten to the point where survival actually isn't the top drive. And that for whatever, you know, there are other considerations that have like taken over. And I think that's uniquely a mammalian thing, but I don't know. Yeah, the Camus, the existentialist question of why live, just the fact that humans commit suicide is a really fascinating question from an evolutionary perspective. And what was the first, and that's the other thing, like, what is the simplest system, whether evolved or natural or whatever, that is able to do that, right? Like, you can think, you know, what other animals are actually able to do that? I'm not sure. Maybe you could see animals over time, for some reason, lowering the value of survive at all costs gradually until other objectives might become more important. Maybe. I don't know how evolutionarily how that gets off the ground. That just seems like that would have such a strong pressure against it, you know? Just imagine, you know, a population with a lower, you know, if you were a mutant in a population that had less of a survival imperative, would your genes outperform the others? It seems not. Is there such a thing as population selection? Because maybe suicide is a way for organisms to decide themselves that they're not fit for the environment somehow. Yeah, that's a really, you know, population level selection is a kind of a deep controversial area, but it's tough, because on the face of it, if that was your genome, it wouldn't get propagated, because you would die, and then your neighbor who didn't have that would have all the kids. It feels like there could be some deep truth there that we're not understanding. What about you yourself as one biological system? Are you afraid of death? To be honest, I'm more concerned with, especially now getting older and having helped a couple of people pass, I think about what's a good way to go, basically. Like nowadays, I don't know what that is. You know, sitting in a facility that sort of tries to stretch you out as long as you can, that doesn't seem good. And there's not a lot of opportunities to sort of, I don't know, sacrifice yourself for something useful, right? There's not terribly many opportunities for that in modern society. So I don't know. I'm not particularly worried about death itself, but I've seen it happen, and it's not pretty. And I don't know what a better alternative is. So the existential aspect of it does not worry you deeply, the fact that this ride ends? No, it began, I mean, the ride began, right? So there was, I don't know how many billions of years before that I wasn't around. So that's okay. But isn't the experience of life, it's almost like feels like you're immortal because the way you make plans, the way you think about the future. I mean, if you look at your own personal rich experience, yes, you can understand, okay, eventually I die. There's people I love that have died. So surely I will die and it hurts and so on. But like, it sure doesn't, it's so easy to get lost in feeling like this is going to go on forever. Yeah. It's a little bit like the people who say they don't believe in free will, right? I mean, you can say that, but when you go to a restaurant, you still have to pick a soup and stuff. So, right, so I don't know if I've actually seen that happen at lunch with a well-known philosopher and he didn't believe in free will and the waitress came around and he was like, well, let me see. I was like, what are you doing here? You're going to choose a sandwich, right? So I think it's one of those things. I think you can know that you're not going to live forever, but it's not practical to live that way unless, so you buy insurance and then you do some stuff like that. But mostly, I think you just live as if you can make plans. We talked about all kinds of life. We talked about all kinds of embodied minds. What do you think is the meaning of it all? What's the meaning of all the biological lives we've been talking about here on Earth? Why are we here? I don't know that that's a well-posed question other than the existential question you posed before. Is that question hanging out with the question of what is consciousness and they're at a retreat somewhere? I'm not sure because… Sipping pina coladas and because they're ambiguously defined. Yeah, maybe I'm not sure that any of these things really ride on the correctness of our scientific understanding. I mean, just for an example, right? I've always found it weird that people get really worked up to find out realities about their bodies. For example, right? Have you seen Ex Machina? You've seen that, right? And so there's this great scene where he's cutting his hand to find out if he's peaceful a cock. Now, to me, right? If I open up and I find out in a fan bunch of cogs, my conclusion is not, oh crap, I must not have true cognition. That sucks. My conclusion is, wow, cogs can have true cognition. Great. So, right? So, it seems to me, I guess I'm with Descartes on this one that whatever the truth ends up being of how is what is consciousness, how it can be conscious, none of that is going to alter my primary experience, which is this is what it is. And if a bunch of molecular networks can do it, fantastic. If it turns out that there's a non-corporeal soul, great, we'll study that, whatever. But the fundamental existential aspect of it is, if somebody told me today that, yeah, you were created yesterday and all your memories are fake, kind of like Boltzmann brains, right? And Hume's skepticism and all that. Yeah, okay. But here I am now. So, let's... The experience is primal. So, that's the thing that matters. So, the back story doesn't matter. The explanation... I think so. From a first-person perspective. Now, scientifically, it's all very interesting. From a third-person perspective, I could say, wow, that's amazing that this happens and how does it happen and whatever. But from a first-person perspective, I could care less. What I learned from any of these scientific facts is, okay, well, I guess that's what is sufficient to give me my amazing first-person perspective. I think if you dig deeper and deeper and get surprising answers to why the hell we're here, it might give you some guidance on how to live. Maybe. Maybe. I don't know. That would be nice. On the one hand, you might be right because on the one hand, if... I don't know what else could possibly give you that guidance, right? So, you would think that it would have to be that or it would have to be science because there isn't anything else. So, maybe. On the other hand, I am really not sure how you go from any, you know, what they call from an is to an ought, right? From any factual description of what's going on. This goes back to the natural, right? Just because somebody says, oh, man, that's completely not natural. That's never happened on earth before. I'm not impressed by that whatsoever. I think whatever has or hasn't happened, we are now in a position to do better if we can, right? Well, that's also good because you said there's science and there's nothing else. It's really tricky to know how to intellectually deal with the thing that science doesn't currently understand, right? So, like, the thing is, if you believe that science solves everything, you can too easily in your mind think our current understanding, like we've solved everything, right? Right. Right. Like, it jumps really quickly to not science as a mechanism, as a process, but more like science of today. Like, you could just look at human history and throughout human history, just physicists and everybody would claim we've solved everything. Sure, sure, sure, sure. Like, there's a few small things to figure out and we basically solved everything. Where in reality, I think asking, like, what is the meaning of life is resetting the palette of like, we might be tiny and confused and don't have anything figured out. It's almost going to be hilarious a few centuries from now when they look back at how dumb we were. Yeah, I 100% agree. So, when I say science and nothing else, I certainly don't mean the science of today because I think overall, I think we know very little. I think most of the things that we're sure of now are going to be, as you said, are going to look hilarious down the line. So, I think we're just at the beginning of a lot of really important things. When I say nothing but science, I also include the kind of first person, what I call science that you do. So, the interesting thing about, I think, about consciousness and studying consciousness and things like that in the first person is unlike doing science in the third person, where you as the scientist are minimally changed by it, maybe not at all. So, when I do an experiment, I'm still me. There's the experiment, whatever I've done, I've learned something. So, that's a small change, but overall, that's it. In order to really study consciousness, you are part of the experiment. You will be altered by that experiment, right? Whatever it is that you're doing, whether it's some sort of contemplative practice or some sort of psychoactive, whatever, you are now your own experiment and you are right in. So, I fold that in. I think that's part of it. I think that exploring our own mind and our own consciousness is very important. I think much of it is not captured by what currently is third person science, for sure. But ultimately, I include all of that in science with a capital S in terms of a rational investigation of both first and third person aspects of our world. We are our own experiment, as beautifully put. And when two systems get to interact with each other, that's the kind of experiment. So, I'm deeply honored that you would do this experiment with me today. Oh, thanks so much. Thanks for having me. Michael, I'm a huge fan of your work. Likewise. Thank you for doing everything you're doing. I can't wait to see the kind of incredible things you build. So, thank you for talking today. Really appreciate being here. Thank you. Thank you for listening to this conversation with Michael Levin. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Charles Darwin in the origin of space. Species from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object, which we're capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals directly follows. There's grandeur in this view of life with several powers having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one. And that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from a so simple a beginning, endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being evolved. Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/p3lsYlod5OU

qdpxt7BecZE

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Elon Musk: Brain Computer Interfaces - Machine Learning and Neuroplasticity

On the human side, there's this incredible general malleability plasticity of the human brain. The human brain adapts, adjusts, and so on. It's not that plastic to be totally frank. So there's a firm structure, but nevertheless, there is some plasticity and the open question is, sort of if I could ask a broad question, is how much of that plasticity can be utilized? Sort of on the human side, there's some plasticity in the human brain, and on the machine side, we have neural networks, machine learning, artificial intelligence that's able to adjust and figure out signals. So there's a mysterious language that we don't perfectly understand that's within the human brain, and then we're trying to understand that language to communicate both directions. So the brain is adjusting a little bit. We don't know how much, and the machine is adjusting. Where do you see, as they try to sort of reach together, almost like with an alien species, try to find a protocol, communication protocol that works, where do you see the biggest benefit arriving from, on the machine side or the human side? Do you see both of them working together? I think the machine side is far more malleable than the biological side, by a huge amount. So it will be the machine that adapts to the brain. That's the only thing that's possible. The brain can't adapt that well to the machine. You can't have neurons start to regard an electrode as another neuron, because a neuron just is like the pulse, and so something else is pulsing. So there is that elasticity in the interface, which we believe is something that can happen, but the vast majority of the malleability will have to be on the machine side. But it's interesting, when you look at that synaptic plasticity at the interface side, there might be an emergent plasticity, because it's a whole other, it's not in the brain, it's a whole other extension of the brain. We might have to redefine what it means to be malleable for the brain. So maybe the brain is able to adjust to external interfaces. There will be some adjustment to the brain, because there's going to be something reading and simulating the brain, and so it will adjust to that thing. But the vast majority of the adjustment will be on the machine side. This is just, it has to be that, otherwise it will not work.

https://youtu.be/qdpxt7BecZE

jvGZkf87aCs

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Dan Reynolds: Imagine Dragons | Lex Fridman Podcast #290

When you imagine a song, is it the opening you imagine? No, it's kind of a... I never think opening, I never think final, I think soundscape of how I'm feeling right now. So it could be the middle of the song for all I know when I'm doing that. But my process for me is very much lyrics and melody and music really come at the same time. By same time, I mean as I'm expressing maybe, I'm feeling like... Like it's not that simple, but it's like, I'll hear it, it's like, here's all the orchestra and you're kind of just pressing all the buttons at once. And melody and my voice is just one of those instruments. The following is a conversation with Dan Reynolds, the lead singer of Imagine Dragons, one of the most popular bands in the world with over 75 million records sold and with four songs being streamed over a billion times on Spotify. Given all that, Dan is one of the most down-to-earth, kind, thoughtful and fascinating human beings I've ever met, grounded in part by his lifelong struggle with mental health. The darkness, the love and the creative brilliance are all there in this one humble mind. For this reason, and many others, we became fast friends. Plus, he recently started his journey in programming, which funny enough, is where we start this wide-ranging, deeply personal and fun conversation. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And if you're interested in learning more about us, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Dan Reynolds. So we were talking offline that you're now just getting into programming. What's the most beautiful program you've ever written? Something that brought you joy? There's something, I really love completion. It's the reason that I'm addicted to songwriting. I like there being nothing and then having some blocks or tools and building them into what you want it to look like. And then I find it incredibly rewarding to stand back and look at what you did at the end. It could be anything. For me, it was as simple to begin with as just, you know, because it's object-oriented, like making a cube move. Like, as simple as that, understanding that and knowing that I built that and made it do that is really rewarding. And I think it's the thing that drew me into wanting to learn more. But as far as what is some grandiose, like some big piece of code that I've done, like, absolutely not. It's more, I'm still at a level where it's more like, what is a tutorial that I followed and got, you know, and then, you know, yeah. So I couldn't say I'm at a level where I've done anything beautiful at all in code. But you're also interested in potentially, like, your heart is drawn to creating games. Creating anything. And completing it. Yeah. That's the good, the feel good is it's done. Yeah. I mean, I've been working over the last two years with actually a team out of Kiev on, and we can get into that, it's a whole other story, but on a computer game. And really have kept that kind of under wraps. But yeah, we're kind of getting to a point now where we have a prototype that we can play and it's a lot of fun. And thankfully, all the team members are in safe places now. Things have obviously been on hold for a little bit. But you know, when that started is when I really decided, okay, I need to understand base level coding and C sharp. So I'm not an idiot talking to these people. And so it's, yeah, we've been doing that for a couple of years. Is there any parallels between the final completion that you feel with programming, which I think is a little bit more definitive. Like there's debugging, the code doesn't work, it's messy and so on. There's the early design stages. You're not sure, like how to have functions and classes, how it's all going to work. And then it comes together and it's really done because it works. And there's a cube moving in the screen. Is there any parallels between that and music? Because are you really ever done done with a song? It's, it's exactly the same thing for me just in that it's art. I really believe that we have not fully encapsulated artists. Like when we say art, I think most people think, okay, the medium must be painting or drawing or music or writing. But I really believe anytime you're creating something, things, engineers, for instance, you're creating something with tools that you have, and it can be incredibly beautiful. And so, yeah, I think, and it's never done. I feel like I look at songs that I've done and I never felt, you have to let go or I have to let go. And that's all I've, I'm just continually making myself let go. But I look at songs that I've done and wish I had done more or kept going down that road and what would have happened. And I'm really contained to, because of what our band is and what our fans expect. And there's so much more to it that it's like, I'm fitting in a box always. It's like this song shouldn't be longer than three minutes and 30 seconds. And I don't know if I remember the chorus after I heard it. Maybe I need to hear the chorus three times instead of those two times. It's like there's certain, especially in pop music, it's really hard to... Yeah, it feels like there's confines, even though people are like, well, there's no confines, but still everybody's writing a pop song that's a few minutes. Are those explicit in your mind or are they just kind of, the gut is like you said, chorus, should you have chorus once, twice or three times? Is that a gut thing or is that a rule thing? You know, I think it's a rule. I mean, it's obviously a rule I impose on myself. Nobody's in my house saying, hey, Dan, if you don't do this, I'm going to punish you. There's no major label president that's like, imagine Dragons needs to make pop music, Dan. You know what I mean? My manager doesn't even tell me that. I do it because it's what I perceive to be enjoyable. I grew up listening to a ton of pop music and then I ended up being in what is quote unquote a rock band, which I've never perceived it as that, but that's kind of what the world has called it and that's fine. So you're a prisoner of a prison that you yourself constructed. There you go. I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm a happy prisoner of the prison that I have created for myself and I made that prison thinking that it was a mansion. So you worked with Rick Rubin. What does Rick think about your prison? Rick was, you know, it was interesting to hear his outside opinion when we first met because my biggest focus for so much of my life, my biggest fear was, and this stems from, I think, middle school is when it started, but everyone being in on a joke except for yourself. The thought of thinking you're good at something and really you're terrible at it and you're surrounded by people who are saying, yeah, you're good at it and then by themselves are like, he's terrible at this. Just kind of, and not just in regards to music or art, but anything in life. And I think maybe from having six older brothers, it stems from that too, like always feeling inadequate and like the annoying younger brother. But anyway, so Rick's, and that's something I've learned to let go of as I've gotten older and had life experiences. But one of the things that Rick said really early on that has stuck with me was he said, yeah, we're resuming the first time we met. He said, I'd really like to work with you because I feel like you're not confined to a sound. You've done a lot of different sounds. And so it's exciting because I feel like your fans are forgiving more than other rock bands or bands. Because most people when they hear a band, there's a very specific sound with it. It's like they do folk music or they do California rock or they do surf or they do, and your fans kind of want that. They want them to do that thing and then they don't do it. And sometimes that goes well, but a lot of times it doesn't. And people, critics and everybody is like, go back to the thing that you did good and do that. And do that. Rick felt whether he was right or wrong that we could do... We hopped genres so much. And that's been to our benefit and detriment, I think. Why detriment? Because people want you to be something. You can believe it more. It's like... It's more authentic if you never change. I guess. I don't know. Certainly it's not something I subscribe to because I create music. But I also grew up listening to a lot of different genres. I would listen to Cat Stevens and the next song would be Biggie and then the next song would be Nirvana. And it was like, I like a lot of... And then Billy Joel and then Enya. It was like, you know what I mean? I was a product. And I was a product of the 90s, which if you listen to 90s music, it really was... A lot of reason that people say, well, 90s were terrible. A lot of people say that. I love the 90s. They're my favorite decade of music. There was a lot of genre hopping. And I don't know, I love that. She had the 90s, had the boy bands, and it had Pearl Jam and Nirvana. And it had a lot of... Women of the 90s is probably my biggest influence. Kind of that angry rock women of the 90s. Lilanis Morissette, Jagged Little Pill is one of my favorite records of all time. The lyrics were so intimate and I don't know if she was angry or not. Sorry if she wasn't. Yeah, but there was an anger to it. There was angst. Yeah, it was angstiness. And that in hip hop of the 90s influences me. And then my dad. So anything my dad listened to, which my dad didn't listen to any of that. My dad listened to Harry Nelson, The Beatles, Cat Stevens, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Billy Joel. It was very much like singer-songwriter. Do you mind if we, throughout this, listen to a few songs? Because you mentioned here in this, and I was actually yesterday and the day before listening to a lot of his stuff, and it's just like, damn, he's good. And not as known as he should be. I was getting... Do you mind if I play? No, please. Yeah. I don't know, not to open this conversation with a love song. I would like that, actually, Lex. But Without You is an incredible song. Oh man, that's... Yeah. And the heartbreak and the longing. What? He's the best to do it, in my opinion. In my opinion, he's the best to do it. The vocal range. And just the sadness of... There's something I don't even want to talk over, because this is one of my favorite songs too, but I think people have a really good bullshit indicator. And music, in my opinion, whenever I meet a young artist and say, well, I'm trying to make a new band and I want to do something like How to Be Successful, I really think understanding that people have a really good bullshit indicator is the most important part of being an artist. And I'll explain what that means, at least to me. I think that in order to have success or be a leader or whether it's an art or anything, people need to believe that you believe what you're doing. I think the best actors, really when they're doing their thing, it's like they... It's not acting. They're in it, and it's how they feel, and they're expressing that sorrow or joy or whatever it is. Harry, for me, Harry Nilsson, I just believe it. He sings that and I feel it. And whether he's the greatest bullshitter of all time or I don't think that's the case, I think he probably was singing that song, he just could transport himself to wherever he was. It's what makes a great live act. It's what makes a great song. And someone could be the best actor and sing that in the same timbre, same EQ, same compression, same everything. And there's some unknown there that I think hopefully it will be known at some point, it's some scientific thing, but there's something there, the energy or something that people can perceive it and say true or false. And if it resonates as true, it's so much more meaningful and it lives on. And if it doesn't, that for me is what is good art or bad. For people to dispute over, well, sonics should sound like that's silly to me. It's like a song or even a painting, it's just the truthfulness of it. Yeah, the truly great art has to go to that place where you really are feeling it. You forget that you're being recorded, you forget there's an audience, you really are feeling it. Which I totally agree with you. One of the things that I love about the internet is it's brought the bullshit detector of the masses to power, which is beautiful, because then the masses uplift the really authentic. Right. And even if you didn't write the song, I think it helps a lot probably if you wrote the song. For sure. But I was a little bit, maybe a lot, since we're in Vegas, a little heartbroken that to find out that Elvis didn't write his songs. But like, for example, Rocketman, Elton John, like to find out that Elton John didn't really know where the words of Rocketman came from, meaning like the depths of it, it's interesting. But nevertheless, he's super authentic, because for Elton John and for Elvis, there's something in the fun and the darkness and the entertainment of it. He goes to some place in his mind that might not be deeply connected from where the lyrics came from. But he relates it. He relates it to whatever is in his mind and goes to that place emotionally. Yeah, and that's what I think it is. And that's why an actor, like I said, can be completely honest to me. Maybe they didn't write the script, but I've always written all my own lyrics. It's a really personal thing to me. But I will say, I see people all the time who are performers like Elton John, for instance, who didn't write the lyrics that I believe that it means just as much to them as what I wrote, because they find the meaning in it for themselves. At least the greats do. And I think that's the difference maker. And I think you can perceive, and I'm sure you've seen art that doesn't move you, and maybe it moves someone else. But for you, for some reason, you perceive it to be uninteresting to you. And I feel like a lot of the time, I'm saying that it's, of course, sonically, maybe it's uninteresting to you. But I think the majority of the time for myself, I can find inspiration in any sonic value or painting as long as I see it and I feel truth from the person that created it. Yeah. And for me, the lyrics, maybe not the entirety of the lyrics, but a few words can do wonders to take you to a place. And sometimes those words don't need to be connected with the other words. That's the beauty of music. They're allowed to float in the space of mixed metaphors. Yes. They're allowed to just jump around, and somehow it paints a picture without actually, what is it, a glycerine by Bush? Right. But it's also how the person who wrote it, right? But it's also how the person says it, right? It's the feeling of exactly, and the same person could say that word 10 other ways and you don't care. But someone says glycerine or whatever it is, and it's like, oh, you know what? I feel that. The way he said that, he meant it to me. Yeah. You know what I mean? No, I can't forget this evening or your face as you were leaving, but I guess that's just the way the story goes. You always smile, but in your eyes, your sorrow shows. Yes, it shows. Let me ask you to analyze this song. So there's a lady, possibly, who's leaving him. Do you think he's leaving her or she's leaving him? Do you want to... And the chorus is, I can't live if living is without you. Can't live, I can't give anymore. He's got a voice on him. Yeah, he does. And if you really... There's been some incredible documentation on his life and the end of his life. And so my answer to this is probably skewed based on what I've seen about his life too, but he was a real alcoholic at the end of his life and it destroyed his voice and ended up killing him as well. And so when I hear that, I perceive it as someone who is destructive in an indestructive place in life and can't love someone properly. And so they can't live with them, but they can't live without them type thing, which is really something I really identify with and I think is one of the struggles of life is loving yourself enough, forgiving yourself for things and letting yourself love someone else. And at least when I listen to Out of Your Hair, you're being like, and maybe I'm wrong, but this is how I perceive it at least is not loving himself and feeling like he's deserving of this person. I have to let you go. I hear that, of course, and people are like, oh, well, he's breaking up with her. But there's so much more complexity and nuance to relationships than that. And my wife and I went through a really difficult separation. And that's a story for another day or a different question or something, but the nuance of it makes me think of this when I hear this, which is, there's just more to being with someone or not being with someone than, hey, I think that person's really attractive or, hey, that person makes me laugh or not, or I love them and now I don't love them. Love is such a complex nuanced thing that a lot of times there's just more going on than there's more going on behind the scenes, I think. Yeah. On a small tangent on that, just as a curious question, have you paid any attention to the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trials? I have watched quite a bit of it because my wife really loves it and she watches it in bed at night. So it's raw, like to me, it's really, because you've mentioned how complicated love can be and it's, I've never seen, I don't care about the celebrity nature of it. I don't care if it was, I don't care who it is, but it's just laid out in such raw form. For the world to see it. For the world to see the toxicity, but also the passion and clearly the drugs and the drinking, but also the longing and the dreams and I will always be with you, I will die for you. I will die for you. The places, the roller coaster of love and it's all there at the end, past the end. So it's like, I've also recently reread The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich about Hitler and Nazi Germany. It's The Rise and The Fall. And it's interesting to look at the entirety of that process after it's all over, many, many decades after it's all over. That book in particular written by the person that was actually there. And so here we're seeing two people in the context of the courtroom, analyzing this rise and fall of a love affair. It's fascinating. You know, the truth is, I was telling my wife this actually just the other day, because she was asking me what I thought about it. It makes me really sad. It's humorous, don't get me wrong. There's a lot of parts in it that are just really funny. But I look at it and I also see the internet. Someone's always the villain and someone's the hero, which is such a funny thing. And we talked a little about this offline before we got on this, but I have a real firm belief in life that it's just more complex than you think. Always, always. And Johnny, for instance, is very charismatic and you love him and he's funny and the way he does things and he looks certain ways and he says things. You really love him. And maybe I'm wrong on this, but it looks like the internet is really loving. Johnny is the winner, Amber is the villain. And I kind of look at it and I feel like, were any of you in their bedroom? Were any of you there for these things? And I'm not saying one way or the other. All I see when I look at that is two people with a lot of deep seated hurt, anger, and that anger is so poisonous to both of them and they're getting through it in the way that they only know how. And I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to look at parts of it and laugh about it and stuff and be virtuous or something, but just that there's not a hero. It's more complicated. Yeah. I think unless you've been living with Amber and Johnny, you don't know. Just because one seems more charismatic in the moment or funnier or more believable even, doesn't mean that their truth is the truth. And I feel like there's still love there too, which makes- Oh, that's the hardest part. He won't even look at her. He looks down the whole time. And maybe people say, well, it's because of anger or hurt or whatever. But the way she looks and stuff, it just feels like there's so much hurt there that it hurts me to watch it. I just feel like, oh, my heart just aches for them and for both of them. And I don't know either of them personally. And I don't know. It just hurts. I've never seen love laid out in this raw kind of way. It makes me feel better about... It almost gives you... Seeing people have gone through a struggle in this mundane kind of way gives you room to struggle yourself about the messiness of love. So true. Like you're supposed to... Relationships are supposed to be simple and whatever. But this, oh, man, this- It's like art. Yeah. And for the record, I don't feel like it shouldn't be shown. I think it's actually really important art. And I agree there's going to be a lot of people who walk away from it and are changed in certain ways or look at things different. I'm not saying it's changed in the whole world, the Johnny Depp trial, but it's art. It's just like you would look at a painting and it might affect you. My only commentary is more that there's not... I think it's silly when people say who's right and who's wrong and who's the clear villain and who's the... We love as human, we have to have an answer for everything. We have to put everything in a box. And it's like, well, we're looking at this and we're deciding what to do. And we're like, well, we're looking at this and we're deciding you're right and you're wrong. And I just think it's silly unless it's your life. So speaking of heroes and villains and highs and lows, you grew up in Las Vegas and you said that Vegas is a performing town, a town of high stakes, drama, and eccentricity. It's a town of high highs and low lows. And I'll be damned if my therapist didn't point that correlation out to me personally a long time ago. So to me, Vegas from the outside is romanticized by certain movies. The lows define the beauty of this town. And certain movies, so to me, Casino with Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, and Sharon Stone, Leaving Las Vegas with Nicolas Cage, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with the Johnny Depp play Hunter Stompson. First of all, what's your favorite representation of Vegas from a darker side? And do you draw any wisdom insight from the darkness, the lows and the highs in those movies? Or is it over romanticized? So I grew up in a really conservative Mormon family and Vegas was established by the Mormons and the mob. Those were like the two very different worlds that created what Vegas is. And if you live in Vegas, it really shows in a lot of ways because Vegas has the strip and the parties and the craziness, but it also has very like neighborhoods and big families and conservative people and liberal people living together in a really interesting way. And for me, growing up here, for instance, was a lot of like driving on the freeway and my mom being like, children, close your eyes. There's a naked woman on that billboard and everything. Okay, mom. On our way to church, you know what I mean? It was like, but also being like, whoa, this is crazy. This is, you know what I mean? Like taking in whatever I could when I could. Yeah, yeah. So I saw, and I'm grateful for that. I really love that I didn't grow up as a Mormon in, for instance, like Utah or something like the typical place because I saw both sides and I appreciated something from both sides. And now as a person now who's not religious, but just spiritually minded, I'm grateful for that divergent character, that juxtaposition, dual-edged sword that Vegas is. And I try to apply that to everything in life, which is like Johnny Depp and Amber. It's like, there's two sides to every story. There's always two sides to every coin. There's always, and there's something to be said for both. Like I try to see people and even if, you know, it's just, yeah, I try to apply that to life. As far as a movie that personifies Vegas or something in that medium that personifies Vegas in a way that resonates with me. Don't say Hangover. No, no. Yeah. I also, like, I wasn't even allowed to watch PG-13 movies growing up. So a lot of the movies that you're saying, like I either didn't see, I didn't have cable television. I wasn't like a pilgrim, but I had a really, really conservative upbringing. So it didn't define your intellectual development. No, no. I just, I can't think of any movie that comes to mind where I'm like, that's my Vegas movie. You know what I mean? Like, I'm sure I've seen some of the movies you've said now, but I don't, I can't think of one that I'm like, actually personifies Vegas in a way that feels honest to me. Like, or like, wasn't there a Chevy Chase? Was there a Chevy Chase? Yeah. Yeah. I think that's maybe the only one I thought of that came to mind where I was like, cause I love Chevy Chase so much that maybe it's one of his Vegas vacation or something. Yeah. So, but that's more like lighthearted, absurd, that kind of stuff. Right. It's not like, I guess what I would say is there's no truth that has been, that I've seen of Vegas. Cause what I see of Vegas is, there's obviously like the parties and stuff and the nightlife, which I'm not a big party person. So I haven't really experienced much of that, but I've also, there's also drugs and I've, I have a strange relationship with drugs. I've lost a few friends to drug overdoses. And so I don't, that's not romantic to me, but there's also like, yeah, I mean, you asked for a dark reflection of it. I guess I certainly see a dark reflection to Vegas and I don't, I feel like Vegas is typically personified as like at the tables and every this, but it's also like, I have like friends who've lost all their money to gambling addiction. And so it's like, what I guess, yeah, somebody maybe needs to make, maybe that's an open spot. There needs to be a dark side to Vegas. It's about Mormons in Vegas, dying to drug overdose or getting shot by the mob. Yeah. So you mentioned your spirituality. You've, you said that having a crisis of faith or just the philosophical question of asking who is God, does God exist? Or in thinking of the flip side of that, of mortality, what happens when we die? Those kinds of things were extremely difficult, deep things for you in terms of your development, the whole process of figuring that out. Why does it hurt so much to lose faith in God? Yeah, I would say that the seeking of God, let's say that is an obsession for me and has been since I was young. I really feel that I'm a deep, deep, deeply like committed to finding answers in life. And there's some answers that I don't think there's an answer to. And I'm also very OCD by nature. So I just don't give up to that. I'm like, well, there must be somewhere in Tibet, there's some teacher or there's somebody out there that has the answer, or maybe it's yet to be found. I'm going to find it. I'm really, my life has been to date, probably unhealthily committed to finding answers about God or the lack thereof and mortality. It's all I sing about. It's all our records have been about. Who do you think is God? Have you ever gotten a glimpse? I will say the closest I feel like I have been to experiencing God is, and this sounds so, maybe, I don't know. I don't know how it sounds, but it's through ayahuasca for me. That's my honest answer for you. I feel like I had pretty much given up all hope of there being anything greater than us evolving and being here and then dying and you're gone and that's it. Nothingness and from nothingness we came and nothingness we go. To where I am now, which is, there are answers to be found. I don't know them. I don't know what God looks like or if God is anything to do with the word God in the way that we say it. But I do believe pretty fervently that pretty fervently that there is more to be found. Is it motion sensor or no? I don't know what that was. Looked like they have all died actually. Do you know which one of them is it? This one right here? Why don't I just take it out? I'm going to hold this chair. See if I can get it like this. Yeah. Almost there. I really don't know how to get this on. There's got to be something saying about this. There we go. It's no Chinese proverb. Yeah. How many people does it take to, what is it on screw? Light bulb? Light bulb. It was hot too. I was doing the two finger technique. I'm glad you survived that. Thanks. That'd be pretty ironic if we're talking about mortality and then this would be it for you. I've never done ayahuasca. It's a mixture of two plants. One of them is DMT, but a lot of people I really respect, very, very intelligent people, had profound experiences with ayahuasca. What is that? Where do you go? Where does the mind go? What the heck is up with that? I'll first say that I can't even smoke weed. I really do not enjoy it because I hate to let go of control. If I feel out of control in life, it's one of my biggest weaknesses. It's very scary for me. Some people really enjoy letting go in that way. I really don't. I was pretty terrified to make the jump then to ayahuasca, but my wife, who I deeply respect, made a profound change through ayahuasca. I saw it. She led the way. Yeah. It wasn't a strange... I think most... We have a thing in America that's a misconception, a stigma on psychedelics where it's a drug and it makes some people crazy. Then you're going to be on the street and you're going to be out of your mind or you're going to become a crazy person, basically. I think I really bought into that notion because, again, I wasn't even raised with cable TV. Ayahuasca is very... You can imagine what that was like for a Mormon kid. I didn't know anything about it and never touched drugs at all and never even touched a cigarette. Anyway, I think we have this misconception about it where Americans are quick to go to their doctor and take any medication or drug, but whoa when it comes to psychedelics. Anyway, that being said, I had that trepidation going into it, but I really love and respect my wife and I saw it make a profound impact in her life where she suddenly was able to heal from a lot of trauma that she had. She went through a lot in her life and it really helped her heal, but it also set her in a new path spiritually that seemed really like a place that I wanted to be. I did it and I did it twice. The first time it didn't really have an effect on me, which happens to a lot of people, I guess. I drank this little thing and there was this shaman who came over from overseas that had been in the plant world for decades and was a really incredible... I don't even know if he likes to be called shaman. So it's supposed to be like 30, 60 minutes to take effect and a few hours, the journey lasts... About four hours. Four hours. Yeah, so the second time I took it, I took it in, I would say 20, 30 minutes in. Exactly. I started to feel like I was like the dimension of what is reality. The curtain was pulled open and there was a lot more to discover. And it really blew my mind in a way that I think it would probably blow anybody's mind if, for instance, God descended or some Christian God or whatever it is. We all think it'd be this beautiful thing, but in reality, it would probably make people super fearful and think that they've lost their mind. I've always... Yeah. I've always joked that if the Mormon God came down and told my mom... If God himself came down and told my mom, Mormonism is incorrect, she would say, Satan. Yeah. You know what I mean? I think our minds are just not prepared for a lot of anything that's really extreme. And it was very extreme. It was like the curtain of life was cut open, which scared me. But then I felt very much... And a lot of people that I've talked to have a similar thing where I felt very much like I was either communicating with something that was perceived as God to me, or highest sense of self, or mind, or Mother Earth. It's called so many different names, but it's really... A lot of people have a very spiritual similar experience with Ayahuasca. And just in that it's like this kind of profoundness. It wasn't like... There was nothing, at least for me, that felt like just like psychedelic funny cartoons or something. It was like, I'm about to go on a journey, and I'm communicating with something that feels incredibly wise. Showed me a lot of things in my life, kind of almost like from a bird's eye, almost like I was looking through a video camera at a younger me. There was a particular thing that it communicated to me. I really have a hard time with accepting success and not feeling undeserving or something. I can't quite put it into words, but of my position and what I've been given, I've been given so much. And it showed me this thing from when I was young and explained to me why I am where I am now. And to this day, it did not feel like myself telling myself that. That's the only way I can explain it. And there was a lot more that it showed me and that was incredibly healing for me. But just to put it into a short thing, because there's so much to this, it felt, I walked away feeling very convinced that there is more to be known for sure. And a lot of my deep things that were traumatic for me didn't feel traumatic anymore, specifically crisis of faith. I was very angry at my parents and my community for raising me in what I perceived to be falsehoods. And I felt like the bedrock of everything I believed was ripped out for me in my 20s. And then it was like, good luck in life. But really, my parents had given me everything that they could, and they believed that very much so. Still, but a naive young me was angry and felt like they had been duped and thus I had been duped. But ayahuasca really showed me this roadmap of like, this is truth and you're concerning yourself about a grain of sand, which is Mormonism or whatever it is. And there may be some truths in that tiny grain of sand and there may be falsities. But so is all these other grains of sand, like focus on the truth, stop focusing on these little details that are meaningless and forgive and let go of people believing in those things to begin with. I don't know if that makes sense, but that was like the core thing I was taught and to let go of control, stop needing to control everything. And it felt like the wisdom was coming from elsewhere. It's really, I do not believe, at least in my current self, I don't have that, the mindfulness that I believe that exists in me to reach a lot of the conclusions that I did. And there was a lot more to it than it would be for like a late night conversation with you, but it's so hard to put it into, you feel like a crazy person. At least anytime I talk about ayahuasca to someone who hasn't done it, I'm like, I don't even know where to begin. Like, how do you explain to someone that you felt like that a multiple dimension type thing happened in a way that, like putting it into words is, and none of it was words, by the way, that was communicated to me. It was like, you know how people talk about telepathy and if it existed, it would be like, I could communicate to you in such a deeper way. I'm so confined by me having to articulate these words and put them in a sentence to you, Lex, and then tell you, like, if only I could just be like, and emotions do that sometimes, right? You could see my emotions and be like, oh, that communicates a lot. So that's what it felt like to me with ayahuasca, is it felt like it was communicating to me very clear things, but it wasn't like, Daniel, it's me, mother earth. Let me relax, sit back, let me show you. But it was very clear to me what was being said. And no, it did not feel like me, but maybe smarter people than me who've done it would say, well, it was you and blah, blah, blah. Like, I don't know, but it was very convincing. There's a lot of stuff in that subconscious that we haven't explored. Like, we haven't explored the depths of the ocean. We haven't really figured out what's that, the younging shadow, what's going on underneath the surface of our conscious mind. And what is that connecting to? Is that just inside our mind or is it some kind of, is there some kind of collective intelligence going on where all humans are connected to one kind of greater, organism? Like, what is consciousness? We have a lot of hubris in thinking we understand any of it, like how the mind works at all. Like, what is it, like, where, what is the origin of consciousness? What is the origin of intelligence? There's a lot of hubris about this. We give each other PhDs and Nobel Prizes and congratulate ourselves as if we figured it all out. But humility is helpful here. Nevertheless, that is the question that humans have been asking for ever since humans were humans, which is the question of mortality, the question of God. So whether it's Hamlet to be or not to be, I think that's the hardest, the most important question. Albert Camus asked, why live? So in terms of crisis of faith, in terms of your search for truth, in terms of some of the dark places you've gone in your mind, what's a good answer to this question? So for Camus, with myth of Sisyphus, it was the question of suicide. What's the purpose of life? The question of suicide is, what's the purpose? Like, what's a good answer to why I keep going, especially when you're struggling, especially when you're not, when you're feeling hopeless, when you're feeling like a burden, in this search for truth, where you feel like you're surrounded by lies, what's a good answer to why I live? I think- You have a final one? Well, it's the simple answer right now is to say for, it's very easy once you have kids to say, the right answer is you just, of course, you brought these kids into the world, so you have a responsibility that I feel deeply as a father to them to always be there for as long as I humanly can, and to take care of them and protect them. It's the most innate sense in me. It's wired in my animal existence. So, if I take that away, because that's kind of cheating. Let's put that aside, because it is cheating. It's cheating. There's still some fundamental way in which you're alone. Yeah. And to that, that actually has been a real struggle for me for many years. I had a real turning point early in my career where we were flying somewhere overseas, and we were in a really small plane, and the lights went out, and all these red lights were flashing, and the plane just started to dive. Completely scariest plane experience I've ever been in. My manager was next to me, who's my brother. He was crying and texting his wife a goodbye. That's how crazy this moment was. Was it real, like genuine that's... Genuine....feel like this? Like genuine engine went out, plane is going down, pilots looking crazy in the front, and it was a really tiny jet. And like I said, my brother next to me crying, typing a text to his wife. Really, really scary. And I felt nothing. I genuinely sat there, and I was like, this might actually be nice. I really felt like this goes down and like, man, life sucks and it's hard. And that sounds so ridiculous, I know, to say, because again, I'm in a different place now, and I see my life for what it is. But at that moment, I did not. Life was primarily defined by suffering. It was a burden. It was. I felt... And this is what being burden-lifted. I was incredibly depressed. I had been trying different medications since I was young, and I just had not found anything that was working for me. And then I was in a faith crisis, lost all my faith, started a band that just became... I wasn't ever thinking that this band... I was like, when you call your band Imagine Dragons, you're not thinking that band's gonna be big, okay? I was like, this was like a side project that was fun for me. It was like art in college. I was in school, and I was like, man, I hate this biology class. I'm gonna write down band names. You know what I mean? It was not, hey, put everything aside. This is my career. Let's go. It just... It happened. And I'm an introvert by nature. I'm really not an extroverted person who likes to go out and... I like to be at home with a couple of friends and have a late night conversation over good food. That, to me, is a perfect night. Read a good book, listen to a podcast, go on a walk. Those are things that I really, really enjoy. And suddenly, I'm in this life where I'm supposed to be something that I really don't wanna be, except for on stage, which is a really strange thing to me, which is on stage, I feel so free and exuberant and like an extrovert. And then I come off, and I just feel like shriveled back into a shell. Music does that for me, and performing on a stage does that for me. Can we take a small tangent on that? Yeah, yeah, of course. What's the high... Can we go through that, the introvert that wants to cuddle up and read a book? You're the front man of one of the, if not the biggest rock bands today, playing in front of huge crowds. What's the high of that, and how can you land back on earth? The high of it, it's incredibly beautiful to walk on a stage, sing these songs that you wrote, and see it resonate with people around you and sing with them. Different cultures, different places, celebrate life. It's suddenly the world seems like a fantastic place. It feels like we're all on the same team. It's like one big hug. Yeah, it's like everybody in that room gets it, and they all... It feels like what you want the world to be, which is just this coexisting unit of people. And it's not even about... It's incredible. For sure, it's incredible. And I love it, and I wouldn't do it unless I loved it. And then you walk off stage, and you turn on the news, and it's like you see we're all against each other, everybody hates each other, and it feels that way in the world. So music really... That's why live music is so important to people. That's why music is so important to people. Because even if it's just you and that person that wrote the song, you're listening to it, and the two of you feel connected. It's like you're hearing Tracy Chapman sing Fast Car or something, and you're just like, oh my gosh, yes, I get it. And you feel connected to that person. You don't feel alone. So that's the high of it, for sure. And then you get off stage, and then... Like my uncle is a heart surgeon, incredible heart surgeon who writes the book. He's the guy that the heart surgeons talk to. He's out of Nashville, Tennessee. He's just an incredible genius man. He always worries and always reached out to me. He's like, musicians die all the time, and the reason they die, you know, is because you're getting on stage, and your heart's doing this, and your cortisone levels are doing this. You're getting off stage, and then you're just doing this. And it's a really real thing. You get off stage, and you feel like you need drugs, because you're like, the world feels like, oh, incredibly daunting. And it's also, I'm sure, has to do with some health things in your heart and the cortisone levels that are so crazy, and then you come off. And it's like, I know people are like, well, then nothing's enough, except meth. Nothing's enough except heroin. And that's why a lot of artists turn to that stuff. And I don't say it in a preachy way. I've struggled with drug abuse in my life, and I really, I understand why artists turn to it. But also the fact that you're an introvert. So the other side of it, the fame, that's something that you also said is a double-edged sword for you. The interesting thing about fame, you also mentioned, is it's something you can't take back. Yeah. So it's a thing you can't just go on vacation to Hawaii and just consider, do I like it or not? No, you're staying in Hawaii for the rest of your life, and you've never been there before, whether you like it or not. So what's that like being loved by millions and millions and millions of people, which is perhaps the best kind of fame, in terms of you have to choose the kinds of fames there are, and still being an introvert and all that kind of stuff. So do you feel alone, more alone being famous? Is there a loneliness to it? Yeah. I mean, it's such a funny thing, because, okay, if you had asked, if we were having this conversation a couple years ago, I'd be incredibly guarded about this, because the last thing I want to ever do is sound ungrateful or unaware of how much I have, and woe is the famous celebrity with money. Oh, is your life hard? Is it really telling me about how hard it is? But I'm also at a place in life now where I just, I'm going to always just speak my truth, because that's the only reason I'm here, is I'm here to speak my truth to you, so I'm going to tell you my truth, whether it's whatever it is. But you're human, and feelings are real, and so that's the interesting thing. You win a lottery, what's that going to feel like? It's not about complaining, oh, it's so hard to win a lottery because you get a lot of money. No, it's still, you're human, and you get to experience these feelings, and it's fascinating. You put humans in different situations, and it's also fascinating, because a lot of people think, well, I would like to be famous. That's a big thing now on social media, on Instagram and so on. The whole world wants to be famous. Or rich or famous, and then it's very interesting to think, all right, well, once you arrive, are all the problems solved? No, yeah. So I will tell you, according to me, what the pitfalls are, whether it's true or not, and there are certainly some pitfalls. One, it's once you're there, you can't go back. Whatever, maybe that's fine, because maybe you love it. But the real pitfall for me is that you're now, you're Lex, and you're what everybody's perception is that Lex is, and that's what you are. Now, Lex is probably a lot more complex and complicated and has a lot more to Lex than the Lex that is the celebrity. But anybody who meets you, that's who you are to them. And you may not feel this way, but you may feel confined to actually have to be that person to that person. Early in my career, for a long time, anytime I met someone, I suddenly felt like I had to be Dan Reynolds from Imagine Dragons anytime I met someone, including my family now, who are also like, whoa, this is crazy. You're like Dan Reynolds from Imagine Dragons. And I wanted to just be the goofball that I have been my whole life with my brothers and family, but suddenly I found myself feeling like, no, I have to be this, because that's who this is. So you're almost like playing a role. And I've heard a lot of actors talk about this, where they'll take on a role, and then they feel like they have to become that. And it's a really scary thing. You alter who you are almost to fit the notion of other people. Because especially if a lot of artists are empaths, a lot of people who get into art in a deep way are empaths. And so you feel a lot of what people are feeling, and you're never wanting to burden people, and you're always wanting to deliver to that person what they want. It's like people-pleasing. It goes hand in hand with a lot of these famous people. And they get to where they were because they know how to do that. They know how to be in a room with someone and look them in the eye and make them feel like they're the only person in the room. And then now they got that role in that movie, because they sat with the casting director, and they were like, oh, you're so funny. Anybody put on the charisma. Do it all. Anyway, I'm going on a different tangent here. But long story short, there's a lot of things that are really unhealthy about it. And then a lot of people who want the fame, and the second it starts to go away, then they're like, who am I anymore? That was everything. Now I'm on the down. Now I'm not a famous person anymore. Now I hate myself. Now I'm going to do drugs. And it's like this vicious cycle. You could never be famous enough. You're always going to get- there's just so much to it that I've just- and again, I've lost friends in this career to that, for sure. And there's a certain element to just on the losing fame. I've interacted with a lot of folks, especially young folks, like on YouTube. Fame is a thing that has levels. You're always trying to be a little more famous. A lot of folks are chasing fame. It doesn't matter how famous you are. You're always trying to chase more. And when you start to lose it, interesting things can happen if you're not self-aware, which is like you mentioned, you might be trying to grasp back at where you were by leaning into the formula that got you there. And so the constraints of the image that you mentioned becomes the thing that you're now trying to lean into. And that's actually walking away from who you really are. You lean further into being that person. That's true for acting. That's true for even on YouTube, which is people acting. They have a role. They got them to the table somehow. Yeah, it's dark. But I think that's just put for everybody to see. But that's a very human struggle, even when you're not famous, of finding yourself, of being yourself, of not doing the people pleasing at any scale and being trapped by that. Yeah, and also feeling like it's never enough. It's not just a famous thing, but everybody deals with feeling like, when I'm here, I'll be happy. When I get that job, I'll be happy. When I have that money, then I'll be happy. When I get that surgery and my nose looks like this, I will be happy then. It's a constant chase of happiness instead of happiness. It's the opposite of self love. It's the opposite of happiness. There's no presence to it. You're never going to find it. You're never going to arrive, and you're just going to live your life, and then you're going to be on your deathbed and be like, I was chasing the wrong thing my whole life. I should say that podcasts are interesting in that way. So for me personally, because you just talk a lot, you can't—people that meet you, they know you, and they know the evolution of you. And that's the same thing for you right now, Dan of Imagine Dragons. Just being on a podcast, like long form, reveals a side that liberates you more, to be yourself. People see, oh, there's a human. Because music, they have a deep connection with you. They have experiences with you the way they experienced it, and that's who you are with them through the songs. But now you get to see, oh, there's a human being. He probably gets angry. He gets sad. He gets excited. He's hopeful. And there's a core, there's a good human being. But the whole rollercoaster of emotions is all there. It's a giant, beautiful mess. And podcasts reveal that. That's why I love podcasts, like long form. You get to hear some artists and actors and so on. And some of them, you get to see, oh, you've lost yourself in the surface. That's a tragedy with some actors, some great actors. They've left so much of themselves in the roles they've played that they can no longer be the thing they were before, those great roles. That's for sure. It's hard to see. You get to see that with Johnny Depp with, I don't know, Pirates. He was talking about that with Pirates of the Caribbean. That was a shift. He's not that guy. He's forever that guy. But the point is to remember that you're not, and to your family, which is interesting, you said with your family. When I see people close to me, there is an element like that while you're that, they start treating you like the famous person. Yeah. I'm fortunate to have my manager, who's my brother, my older brother, and my lawyer is my other older brother. And that's been helpful because it's weird. It gets weird with everyone, no matter what. One of the best advice I was given was by Charlie Sheen. You got advice from Charlie Sheen. Yeah. We were playing- The wise sage of our generation. The wise sage, Charlie Sheen. But it was, it was really wise. I was sitting next to him and we were playing some late night television. He said, this was right at the beginning, and he just said, boys, just mark my words. Your life is about to get really weird. That's all he said. But it stuck with me forever. It's Charlie Sheen, so of course it sticks with you. And I remember being like, right, right. Okay, Charlie Sheen. I'm not Charlie Sheen. It's not going to get weird. But it got really, really weird, really quick. Because suddenly you've existed your whole life in this way where everybody just, everything you get, you achieved, it was because you got it. And every conversation you had, if someone liked you at the end of that conversation, well, it's because they liked you. If they didn't like you, it's because they didn't like you. And you can make complete peace with that. At least I could my whole life. I was like, life is a challenge. And be myself, and I'm going to go through it and find some people along the way that I connect with and others know. And that social integrity is so important to us. And we think it would be nice to have this. And this is going back to the pitfalls of fame. We think it would be nice to walk into a room and have everyone be like, and you could be like, dumpster fire. And everybody's like, oh my gosh, dumpster fire. That was amazing. You said dumpster fire was amazing. It's like, it's incredibly, incredibly lonely. And it just breaks everything that you knew about humanness. And it sucks. So then you're seeking out people that it doesn't exist with. And families are closest you can get to that for sure. But even your family, it's going to take a little bit where they're like, oh, this is a little weird. All my friends at work are now asking about you, and you're my young stupid brother. But now you're suddenly the young stupid brother that they want an autograph from and stuff. And it still makes... They have to get over that and figure that out. And then you meet people too who know about this whole concept. And they're like, well, I'm going to be an asshole to him to show him that I don't subscribe. And you're dealing with people who are like, dumpster fire, the person who's like, you could say something actually profound and nice, and they'd be like, that's stupid, and you're an idiot. Because it's like an actual attempt to show you how much they don't care. So you live in this very... And still, nevertheless, even when nobody knew you, you were seeking for deep human connection with a small number of people. And now when a lot of people know you, you're still looking for deep connection with a small number of people. The struggle is the same. Can you speak to, because you mentioned some of the dark moments, what advice would you give to people who are struggling with depression? And maybe for the people who love the people who are struggling with depression? So what I have found to be most successful for me, it's back to the basics of everything that the therapist or psychologist will tell you, psychiatrist will tell you right when you meet them, which is exercise every day, eat healthy, for sure. Find time, make time every day to do something that you love, whatever that may be, whatever brings you joy. And when you're really depressed, and when you're really depressed, that actually feels like nothing. Because the things that brought you joy don't bring you joy anymore when I'm really in the thick of it. But for me, this is the cycle that I'll go through is I'll look at my life and I'll say, okay, what can I clean up? All right, well, for me, it was cutting out alcohol actually helped me a lot. I know that sounds like a big, I'm not judging anybody for that. And I still drink on occasion, but I have felt like alcohol has been very unhelpful to my mental state. I feel less drive and less happiness the next day for things that I want to do. I feel like it plays a lot with your serotonin. So look for stuff to change. Clean living, yeah, clean living, but also understanding that sometimes it just is, and you just keep breathing and it will get better with time. This too shall pass. This too shall pass. I really think that in the winter, I'm pretty sure, I mean, I've had a lot of, I've seen a lot of therapists and all of them say the same thing, which is like, you have major depressive disorder and this is what it is. But it's certainly worse for me in the winter months. So I know there's like, I can't think of the term for it, but there's a term for like seasonal depression. There it is. So I'll get to the winter and suddenly I'm like, geez, everything really sucks on a deeper level. And then, so it's like this too shall pass is another thing. It's like, just practice those things. Absolutely see a therapist. That's my biggest emphasis of life is to like on stage, like my goal, like I have a few things that I really, really care about. One is mental health and destigmatizing therapy. Because for me, I didn't go to therapy for a long time because I felt that it would be admitting that I was broken. It'd be admitting that I was weaker than Lex, who doesn't have to go to a therapist because Lex is stronger. So be strong like Lex. I would like look at all my older brothers and I looked up to them so much and they were all these incredibly successful people. Plastic surgeon, anesthesiologist, a dentist, two attorneys, Stanford, NYU, like just like incredible high standards, Eagle Scouts, like they valedictorians, like they just did it all. So for me, I was very, really did not want to admit, and none of them went to therapy. So it was like, what are you going to be? Are you, are you broken? Are you like the weak one who can't hack life? And I think that's incredibly dangerous. And I feel like it almost cost me my life because I took so long to finally go to therapy. So I really want kids to know, hey, like the great people that achieve great things that are doing amazing things, they probably have help, almost all of them. It's like going to the gym, but it's a mental gym. What, so I, unfortunately, I wanted to be a psychiatrist when I was growing up. Maybe, maybe that's why I like podcasts. Maybe that's- I think you'd be a good one. Maybe, I would, I would- I think you are a psychiatrist, pretty much, right? Sounds like you're a psychiatrist. I think I need more, I think, I think actually to be a good psychiatrist, you also need to be seeking therapy from the, like, you also need to be, have some stuff to work through in your mind. Right. I think, yeah, you have to have gone to some dark places. Empathize. The empathy, it's this ability to empathize. And especially if you've directly experienced that you can, you can go to those places in your mind. Like you said, it's with the music, to be authentic, you have to really go there. What, why did therapy help so much? What is the process of therapy? If you can just educate a little more, is it, are you basically bringing to the surface and talking through things that you, because of the, the momentum of life, you just never allow yourself to speak through, to think through? Is that what therapy is? Or is this a more systematic thing? So I've been to a lot of strange, different kinds of therapy. So I'll tell you my first therapist- If I could interrupt, how hard is it to find a therapist that connected with you? It is, it's actually pretty hard, I think. I think, I think it, for, well, actually, I have a skewed view of that because going back to the beginning of my therapy was with a Mormon therapist. So it was very much like, well, are you reading your Book of Mormon? And are you praying at night? You know what I mean? Like that was a big focus of my therapy to begin with. And you're having a faith crisis in the distance somewhere. Yes, I was like, well, and then- You're making it worse. Yes, the next therapist I went to was a Scientology therapist. I met my wife, and she was Scientologist at the time, and she's not anymore. But she's like, it's such a funny thing to look back on because we met, and I was like this Mormon missionary who had just got home from his mission, and I met her, and she's a Scientologist. I was like, wow, that's batshit crazy. Like, that stuff's crazy. And she's like, what are you talking about? That's your crazy. You're a Mormon. That's batshit crazy. And the two of us were like, huh, maybe there's something to this, to bulb up us here. Yeah, the tension actually forces you to think through like, oh, well, what is true? Yeah, and we really fell in love through that, which was like, maybe we're both on the wrong track. Let's figure this out. But before that happened, we went to a Scientologist therapist who that therapy consisted of, what have you done wrong to Asia? And they would ask me that question over and over and over and over until I'm like thinking of the deepest, darkest things that were in the recesses of my mind. This was marriage therapy. Anyway, I'm not going to get into that, but it was Scientology therapy, so that was a different thing. And then I went to therapy therapy, like no, not attached to any religion. And that was a really great experience for me. And since then, I've been through a couple of different therapists, but that was more because where I was and moving and things like that. So is it that hard to find a great therapist? Probably not, but maybe don't go to your Mormon therapist versus that Scientology therapist. Or maybe that's the route for you. Maybe it's the route for you, I don't know. Yeah, but what is, so is it bringing stuff to the surface, basically? Oh, yeah, sorry, I didn't even answer your question. What's the effect? Why is it so effective? Is there something you could put words to? Yeah, I mean, I think it's, obviously, there's the common things you would think of, which is like, oh, I've been holding these things in and I don't want to tell anybody. And then I tell this person and there's relief in that. But that's really not where the real work comes from. I think the real work is meeting with someone who is well-versed and educated and understands. It's like coding. It really is. It's like someone who, they listen to you and they're like, well, that was a trigger. And then this became this trigger. And you're probably, every time you're hearing that, thinking of this thing that happened earlier in your life, and they just will walk you through scenarios. And maybe some of them aren't right, but some of them you'll be like, it'll resonate sometimes. You're like, wow, I am feeling that because of that. And that did happen. And maybe if I call my mom and say this to her, it will make me feel better. Hey, mom, this happened. It's like work. You put in work and you have hard conversations and do difficult things. And so if your therapy is not difficult, I actually think that's not good therapy. Good therapy is, it's going to be a little difficult. It's work. During and after. Yes. I had this incredible therapist who, I told him when I was going to do ayahuasca, he was like, geez, he had actually was a doctor before and a really well-educated, studied person who had walked away from brain doctor. What's the word for that? Brain doctor. Brain surgeon. Neurologist. Oh, yeah. Neurologist. Yep. And he said, well, basically his belief was that ayahuasca was like basically doing therapy like 50 sessions. It's really intensive. He's like, I don't know if you want to do that. If you do, you can make some big steps forward. But I prefer just to do one session at a time. And so yeah, it's hard work. And I typically, it's really hard for me to even talk about ayahuasca, by the way, going back to that, because I'm not looking to tell everybody to go do ayahuasca. It's incredibly hard. It was the scariest experience of my entire life. It felt like I went to heaven, but it also felt like I went to the darkest, deepest hell that was incredibly scary. Incredibly scary. Yeah. So you told the story of how you wrote the song Believer or like your childhood friend, I guess, Donald, like bullying and that kind of stuff. This song, I mean, a lot of your songs are super interesting, sort of, just the percussion, super interesting, super interesting lyrically, just how it flows. And also pain is at the center of it. I mean, a lot of, like you said, the crisis of faith, some of these existential questions are basically behind a lot of your songs, funny enough. Maybe they're covered in metaphor, so it's hard to see, but it's there. And this song is really, is really interesting in that way that it puts, you know, pain, you made me a believer. You break me down, you build me up, believer. That's so interesting. Maybe can you tell the story of how the song came to be? I'd love to listen to it too. I have some questions musically about it too. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's exactly what we're talking about with therapy. I just feel like the greatest things in my life have come from the deepest hurt. Like losing someone, you know, that you love is maybe the hardest part of the human path for me, at least thus far. Like, when I think of, okay, what was the hardest thing? There's like, you know, there's like, you think of physical pain or maybe like going through financial pain or whatever. I think losing someone that you really love to death is one of the hardest. For me, I would say it was the hardest. But it also makes you look at your life completely differently and alter your life, at least for me, in ways that were really healthy. Being more present, letting go of things that were meaningless, trying to control what other people think about you, like wasting your time on things like that. And you suddenly see like, wow, like time, I got a small amount of time, like, how do I want to spend it? I'm going to spend it in the best way I know how, and that's it. So yeah, I mean, that's, it's a basic concept that's been said a million times over in a million different ways. But that's pretty much what I was trying to say with Believer, which is like, I've lost faith in everything at that time period and, you know, or previous to that time period, and then I was rebuilding my faith or my spiritual thought process. And it was after Ayahuasca, and it was like, you know, finding being a believer, and that's not necessarily like a believer in God or a believer in heaven and hell or anything like that, but a believer in more, believing in goodness, believing in that there is some light, like, and again, those words, like, they're just words, and I wish there were better words to formulate the thought that I'm trying to express, but just more, like, the thought of me dying, for me, I don't fear it. I don't fear it. But actually, I really fear not seeing my kids again. I'll say that. That is fearful for me. I feel like I love so deeply these children that the thought of, like, leaving them, for me, is a scary thought or something. They're kind of good reminder how much you love life, actually. Yeah. And you don't always remember that. Yeah. And I think having kids is not for everyone, absolutely for sure. But for me, and especially, you shouldn't be having kids to give yourself a reason to live. I don't mean, like, I feel like dying. I'm going to have a kid. You might feel more like dying after having a kid, actually. It's pretty stressful. But it is a place to, like, I've changed a lot of people that I've known, that it gave them a new intensity of gratitude for life, for sure. Do you mind if we, I'll return to the pain of the believer. Do you mind if we listen to a little bit of the songs? No, it's fine. Okay. Did you write the music first or the words first? The same time, which is very typical for me. By the way, just the way it opens, like, how, you know, intensity of openings. You ever think about, like, what the first few seconds sound like? Is that something that, like, when you imagine a song, is it the opening you imagine? No, it's kind of a, it's just a, I never think opening. I never think final. I think soundscape of how I'm feeling right now. So it could be the middle of the song for all I know when I'm, you know, when I'm doing that. But my process for me is very much lyrics and melody and music really come at the same time. Like, by same time, I mean, I'm, as I'm expressing, maybe, you know, I'm feeling like, Like, it's not that simple, but it's like, I'll hear it. Like, it's like, here's all the orchestra and you're kind of just pressing all the buttons at once. And melody and my voice is just one of those instruments, you know what I mean? It's just utilizing one instrument. So you're seeing the landscape and that landscape includes melody, includes percussion, lyrics a little bit, or lyrics? Lyrics, I will be words to begin with, like a word here and there. I'll be like, And that's... Believe it. You know, I'm like, what's a word that I'm thinking of when I'm feeling this soundscape? And I always create with no theme in mind. I'm like, okay, what's the word? With no theme in mind. I'm never... For better or for worse, just my process is I'm sitting down and I'm writing a journal entry. Simple as that. It's like, when you sit down and write a journal entry, are you sitting down and you're like, Okay, I've had all these words here that I'm going to put on the page and I'm going to order it in this way. And my theme for my journal entry today is going to be this. Maybe some people do, but I don't. My journal entry is, I don't know what I'm going to say. Oh, how was today? Well, man, today was this and feeling this. And now that I think about that, I'm really angry about that. That hurt my feelings when this happens. You're like, you're formulating it as you go. And that's the joy of it. And for me, that's what music is. So I'll sit down, not thinking, Hey, I've been wanting to write a song that has a hard beat, or I've been wanting to write a song that's anthemic, or I've been wanting to write a song that's... It's like, how am I feeling right now? And it's joyful? Is the feeling joyful to you? Or is it struggle? You just made it sound like it's joyful. Or at least fulfilling. I wouldn't use that. Yeah, fulfilling is the word I was kind of looking for. Because a lot of artists talk about really struggling. Talk about writers. Cathartic. That's the word I was looking for. It feels like having a good moment with a therapist where you're like, Okay, I'm expressing this thing that I just need to express. For whatever reason, I need to express this. The majority of the songs I write for the record are never heard. I write over 100 songs a year. I release 20 songs every three years. So I don't know, what's that percent? 20 out of 300. Come on, Lex. Less than 10%. Less than 10%. 8, 7%? Anyway, so it's... And then getting together with a band and getting them selected down is really what the process of... So you're really writing a song per one to three days. Maybe a song that you can't quite figure out the puzzle of that's going to last a little longer. Where's the struggle? I finish every idea. Yeah. You finish every idea. I do. I finish every idea. So it's not just like laying completely unfinished... I could open my computer for you right now, and I would show you hundreds and hundreds of songs and hundreds of songs that you would listen to and think, that sounds like a song. It's like, there's rhythm, there's melody, there's multiple instruments, there's lyrics. It's the same thing as for coding for me, which is music, which is I can't walk away until I've completed it. But it's finished. Well, finished is... Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it sounds like a song. I certainly do a lot more with it after with the band, where we pull it all apart. But it's a song. It'll be like, you'll listen to it and say, okay, that was a song. I get... You understand what it is, for sure. Do you think... This is a painful question from a fan perspective. Do you think there's genius on your computer that you walked away from that you just didn't notice it? Do you think there's truly great songs that you've written that you just didn't notice how great they are? I think greatness is something that I feel I'm... I don't feel like I've achieved greatness, genuine. I'm not saying that to you in a way of humility, false humility. It's like Michael Jordan time. No, genuinely, I feel like I am on a journey right now to find who I am. And I'm 34, and it's like, I don't even... I haven't begun that journey. I feel like I'm just starting that. But that being said, I certainly don't know the right answer to what songs are beloved or good to the masses. Imagine Dragons is such a massive entity. It's like... There have been... I will say this. There are a couple times where I've fought really hard to decide on the single, really hard. Or I always fight for what goes on the record, always. I always put the record together, and that's the record that I want it to be. And me and the guys come up with that. And nobody else has influence, no manager, no label. The single, everybody wants to have a say in it. Your label wants to have a say in it. Your manager wants to have a say in it. And I have fought really hard over that. And I've been wrong before, and I've been right before. But as far as songs that I haven't put out, I mean... Because you can imagine so many songs. You think of so many Beatles songs that are like some of their grace while my guitar gently weeps. I'm trying to imagine weird sounding, not that interesting possibly songs that turn out... The majority of what we... Honestly, it may be... Our best stuff is that we don't put out, for instance, because our band is such a... It's such a complex question. I really don't know, actually. I don't know. Maybe one day I'll die, and people will look and be like, I hated Imagine Dragons, but now I listen to that song. I really like that. Wish they would put that out. Or maybe they'll be like, oh, it all sounds like shit. I don't really know. But that's... Sorry, it is a tragic thing. That's why I ask it, which is like, there could be some great, incredible things that will take you a long time to rediscover, to realize how great they are. And it's also the tragic aspect of being an artist is you don't know... Forget fame or all that kind of stuff. You don't know what's going to really move people, because ultimately what you want is to connect with people, and you don't know what that's going to be. It's hard. I mean, to me, it's tragic. Just as a fan of yours to see, maybe I wonder if there's incredible stuff there. Just as it is tragic to see great artists throughout history who didn't get recognition until they died. It's like... Because they basically held on. Franz Kafka was extremely self-critical. A lot of these folks had an idea of what's good and not, and they were wrong. They had genius. They weren't entirely wrong, because they became sufficiently popular, but it's interesting. I try genuinely to release the songs that move me the most. Got it. I'll say that. You're your own audience. Yeah, I try to put out the songs that make me feel the most. I feel that. That's my only gauge, because it's so subjective of what is good. Nobody knows the song that the masses are going to like. Nobody knows that formula. Nobody knows it. So for me, it's always what makes me feel something. One of the main lessons Rick Rubin taught me when we worked with him on this record was he would say... His main point that he would continually bring up... Because he's not the type of person to be like, that's a bad song, or that's good. It's just not who Rick Rubin is. There's more nuance to it. He would say, I don't really believe you on that song. That's what he would say. He would say... And I knew that was like... That song's a no-go. He'd say... And I would genuinely... There was a time he said it, and it was about a song that I really felt it and meant it when I said it. But he didn't believe it when he heard it. And that was enough for... I was like, man, well, at the end of the day, I can believe it all I want. But if the listener doesn't feel the honesty in it, just like we were talking about earlier, I think the most important ingredient is, is this truth perceived as truth to someone else? And if it's not, the bullshit indicator goes, and you're like, I don't care. Throw it away. I don't care about it. Well, you said that he made you go through line by line the lyrics. Every single one. That was excruciating for me. Why was that excruciating? Well, first of all, it's Rick Rubin. So you're in the room with Rick Rubin, who's done a lot of the greatest of all time. And I had to first just put that aside and be like, okay, well, you've done a lot of my favorite records, but still you're human, and not everything you say is going to be right. And I'm a strongly opinionated person, and so is Rick. And so when the two of us were sitting in the same room together, it was... But the lyrics, which is interesting. So it's not the entire composition, but just like, let's look at the lyrics. What do you mean here? Oh, yeah. Because he would look over every... There was battles he won, battles that he didn't win, and maybe he was right. I don't know. I mean, there was, for instance, I'll give you an example. There's a song on the record called Number One. Rick will probably laugh when he hears this. Because this was a big one that we kept going back and forth on. But this will give you a good insight of what it was like. And there's a line in it that says, I don't know. The chorus is, I don't know what I'm meant to be. I don't need no one to believe. When it's all been said and done, I'm still my number one. And he was like, nah, it just makes me cringe when I hear that. He's like, I just... Do you have to be like... Can it not be like, you're still my number one? And I was like, no, it's not about anybody else. It's about self-love. He's like, yeah, but do you need to talk about self-love like that? And I was like, well, I feel like I need to. He's like, well, but there's something else we could say there. We kept coming back to this song. And I changed it. I tried changing it. What did I change it to? It wasn't, you're still my number one, because it just made no sense. It wasn't about some love thing or someone else. I changed it to something else. And it was the one thing that I was like, I'm really sorry, Rick. I get it. And if it sounds cringey to you, it's definitely sounding cringey to other people too, and that sucks. But I don't know how else to say this in a way that I want to put that song out anymore. But there were other songs, for sure, where Rick was like, that or this, that word, feels a little trite. You already said that once. Can you say it in a different way? It was really helpful. And yeah. It's really interesting because you're trying to say something so simply and yet not make it cringe. That's really hard. That's a strange art form because you want to say some of the greatest love songs. We looked at the Without You song. I mean, the whole thing is cringey if you just read it on paper, like it's a court report or something. But yet it's not, especially when sung maybe. But no, there's something about, yeah, maybe... Sung in a way you believe it. When you believe it, but also written in a way that's singable in the way you believe it. Right. So it's like... Right. It rolls off. It just comes out in a way that just feels like silky. No word catches your mind. It's cringey. But then music, I think great speeches are like that too, or just conveying, communicating ideas simply. That's the art form, is to not be cringey. So interesting. And then yet, because when you're raw and real, it might be hard to say something. Raw and real, it might have first feel cringey. So the battle there, and that's where you see people fail. Like just regular artists, like, I don't know, at open mic. I got open mic, so I just listen to musicians. When they write songs, they fail that test. They write simple stuff, but it's cringey. Why? I wonder why was that? What is that? I'm telling you, Lex, I tried to explain this to my brother the other day, because it's the same thing with a live performance. If I'm not in my right head space, and I walk on stage, and I walk up, and let's say I say something, and I do this. Yeah. Because I'm like, this is the move, right? I'm like, this is the move. The crowd doesn't care. In fact, the crowd's like, that's cringey when you did this. But if I wasn't thinking about doing this, and I went up there, and I said something, and I really meant it, and my body was like, I can't explain this to you, and it's so silly to say out loud, but people will resonate to it when it's real. And when it's acted, you could do it the exact... The motion could look the same, your eyes look the same, but there's something about the energy that people know. They know if it's real or not. Yeah, people, like you said, incredible bullshit detectors. 100%. I'll go on a stage, and if I'm not in the right head space to be real, it won't be a good show. If I'm real, then it's a good show. It's as simple as that. Let's go through the song. Like I said, great opener. So you had this in your mind, this landscape? Yeah, yeah, yeah. The beat was first on this. What about the first, then the second, and third, like first things first, second things... The first line I wrote was, first things first. I don't know why, it just was like... And then I was like, oh, that principle of... You've got a great line. Second things second, don't you tell me what you think that I could be. I'm the one at the sail, I'm the master of my sea. I'm the master of my sea. My dad had that in his office. He had this saying that was something about the sailor and being the master of his sea that I always loved. There you go. Simple statement. Zero cringing. It's so powerful. It's so simple. I'm the master of my sea. This whole song is just trivial, but in terms of lyrically, but extremely powerful and original and unique sounding. Something about the words. You don't even have to actually sing them, you just read them. And then raw. I was broken from a young age, took myself into the masses, writing my poems for the few that look at me, took to me, shook at me, feeling me singing from the heartache, from the pain, taking my message from the vein. I can't, why am I reciting your words to you? But the percussion is throughout it. And that was there in the beginning. The percussion is almost in the lyrics. Yeah. And I'm a very percussive singer because I was a drummer first before I... I think same with Dave Grohl, probably a similar thing, which is I think in percussive sense a lot when I'm writing. And I also was... Before I could play an instrument, I would beatbox. And I think Michael Jackson did this too, actually. I've heard in the studio that he was very similar. But a lot of what I do is percussive because my brain thinks in it percussively first. A little more because it's so good. Almost like a drum, like... And then you lay words on that. Yeah. Yeah, this. It's building. It's almost like drums. It's all building to the chorus. What about the word pain? When did that come to you? Pain. You made me a believer. Yeah, just the idea of... I just wanted to... I really... One of the things that a lot of the songs that I like, I like divisiveness, for instance. Not always, but there's times where I want someone to hear a song and I want them to either love it or hate it. I really don't want them to be in the middle ground. A lot of the songs that... A lot of my favorite songs are divisive songs. For instance, with pain, I want you to hear that and almost like, it's like, whoa. You know what I mean? It's something either somebody's gonna hear and they'll be like, man, I just don't wanna hear that like that. Or it's like, oh, I felt that so deeply when he said that in that way because it sounded like this. And when you think of the word pain, it's like, that's a... That's a... That's a... That's a... That's a... That's a... That's a... When I... At least for me, when I hear that word, it carries a lot of weight. Carries a lot of weight. So I wanted to sing it with a lot of weight and to come into that chorus with like... Like it's a striking moment. And I'm also a tenor singing as... Sorry, I'm a baritone singing as a tenor. So that's where that natural gruffness comes from is I'm singing out of my range really, up in my head voice, and it carries a lot of weight with it because of the baritone. Can I ask you a specific sort of... The pause before the pain. It's really interesting because it's like a double... Is that... How much work does that take to get that right? That's incredible because it's like... So you're kind of seeing the beauty through that. And then that, whatever that sound is the... Right, the bass being rolled off. Yeah. Yeah. I actually, when I first was approaching the chorus, it was actually... Like it came in on one. I'm not singing it right right now, but it did not wait. And it felt like it didn't hit in the way that it was supposed to hit because you predict that. You're like, you're waiting to... The beauty through the pain, you made me a... Right, it was like... The beauty through the pain, you made me a... So I wanted it to feel a little more like striking. Again, it's like that thing that makes you kind of do this a little bit. You're like, huh? But once you hear it a few times, you're like, ah, ah, and you predict... You know what I mean? It's like, I'd rather someone hear our song the first time and be confused by it so they play it the second time. And then they're like, oh, okay. You know what I mean? I really don't want... I'd rather turn some people off along the way, and then the people who come along for you are gonna feel more committed, I think. It's just an interesting... It feels gutsy to insert silence. Yeah, that's what makes it... It's like the greatest speakers of all time are like, and I told you... Right. You would know. You're like, oh. Yeah. What is that? Yeah, that's so interesting to do that just at the right time. And then pain, right? Man, it's a brilliant song. Did you know it was a good song when you wrote it out of the thousands of songs you've written? You know, it's always the same thing for me, which is like, if I wanna listen to the song, and I wanna listen to it a lot of times, then those are the songs we put out. And I only wanna listen to the songs that make me feel something. Whether or not it's... Our single that did the very worst of all our singles was the song that I wanted to listen to the least, but it made the most sense as a single, which was all the wrong reason to choose it, right? It was the... I Bet My Life is the single off our second album. And that song was originally written, it was just a guitar and a vocal, and it was very just quiet and laid back. And we were like, well, let's try to dial it up, let's try to produce it, and we overproduced that song. We self-produced it as a band, and we overproduced. And that song, I mean, it did good in terms of a song, but for us, it did not do good compared to our other songs. And I really look back at that and learned a lesson from that. It's like, if I don't wanna listen to the song, that's a sign already. If you don't wanna listen to your own song, it's probably not a good song. You said your dad, elsewhere and today, just said that your dad early on was a kind of... The early Rick Rubin. So when you were starting out, he gave you feedback, he listened. What did you learn about music, about life from your dad? My dad is a really quiet farm, grew up on a farm, very humble. I think he starts every sentence by saying, this is just my two cents, pretty much. You know what I mean? It's like, take it or leave it. You know what I mean? He's that kind of a sense. There's humility in everything, and it's real for him. It's not like false humility. He really I really feel like when he's saying things, he really is like, maybe this isn't any worth to you, son. And he means it. But here it is. And it's always gold. And I'm like, wow, dad, that's incredible. So what in those early days of you like, so you were like 12 or something like that, like starting to write songs? I was 12. I wasn't showing my music to anyone. I started writing right when I was 12, and I probably wrote for at least, let's say six months or something. And I had written probably, I don't know, like a lot of songs during that time. What was the topic, by the way? Love, anger? It was all sad. No, it was the first song I ever wrote went... And it was like a bluesy thing. It was like, there was my voice doing that. And then it was like... You know what I mean? But I was like a 12-year-old with... I just felt like depressed for the first time. And I just was like so... I think you discovered the blues as a 12-year-old. Yeah, right. It really was. It was like my sense of the blues at that time, for sure, like bad version of the blues. But it was like 12-year-old kid with a bunch of acne. And I just like, I hated going to school. I felt like I just had not found myself. Sounds like a great song, by the way. I wanted to keep listening. I forgot I was... I don't know about that. But... Yeah, what was your dad... At which point did you begin to share it with your dad? A lot of the songs I wrote in the beginning were very much like Bobby McFerrin like that, because our mic was in a part of the house where I couldn't bring over the piano, and only the instrument I played at the time was the piano. So I would do everything with my voice. But then I started to teach myself the guitar in that beginning six-month period, just watching my brothers play in their garage bands in the basement. And then I started to write songs a little more like Enya vibes, like stack my voice like 20, 30 times. And like Enya meets like Jare, which is who my dad would listen to a lot, John Michael Jare. He's an incredible synth genius. But anyway, so I finally got my like gall up enough to show it to my dad one day after work. And I got very little of my dad because there were nine kids and he worked from 8am till 6pm. We'll come home very tired and here's nine kids that are like, dad, you know, and you're the young one, you're not... You're just gonna miss... I was in the middle kind of too. So it's even, you know, middle child thing. But I sat him down, I was like, hey, dad, I just want to like, kind of show you a song. And he's like, oh, you know, he didn't know I was writing anything. And I showed it to him and he listened. And he took it off and he really looked at me and was like, that was really good. He was like, I really thought... And this, when you said this, it made me feel this. He was like, and that did it. I probably would have given up music. Like I look back, that was a very pivotal moment for me. I was like, in a place where I was like, is this good, bad? I don't know. Maybe it's so embarrassing and terrible. And I was already writing lyrics that were a little like overly metaphorical to hide that I was dealing with faith crisis because I thought, okay, I'm gonna show this to dad. I don't want my dad to know I'm like questioning the truthfulness of Joseph Smith. I'm not gonna be like, is Joseph Smith a real prophet? Is Mormonism true? I don't really know. Like, you know what I mean? I was like writing way overly metaphorical. But because my dad really validated it and he was a no bullshit person. So I knew when my dad said that, I was like, you know what? At least my dad really actually thinks this is cool. And I really trusted my dad's taste and thought everything he listened to was cool. So I was like, wow, I'm gonna keep doing this. And I just showed it to my dad for years and years. And still to this day, I send every song to my dad. So he underneath it with the feedback is always like, oh, I like this idea. I like this. It's just a positive, like a... Not always positive, no. But like underneath it, do you sense the positivity? Because I think that's... Always. Never mean, never malicious. You know, there's two types of criticism. There's like criticism that's just like, you're looking to be hurtful to someone. And then there's criticism that's like really important for art. It's the type of criticism that's like, you see the value in what's happening. And if it's honest, then you maybe communicate with that person like, I see what you're trying to do with that. It's not even like you have to say that or whatever, like butter it up. But it's like, my dad would just give me this honest criticism that would be like, you know, it certainly wasn't always good, but I knew it was always well-intentioned. I guess that's how I would say. So you mentioned, maybe you re-listened to, I'm a big fan of Cat Stevens. You maybe re-listened to Father and Son. I probably, all sons have issues to work through with their fathers. And you said that you connect with this song in particular. I think, so you're a father now. What is it about the song that connects with you? For people, let me play it. Let me play a little bit. People should educate themselves on Cat Stevens. Oh my gosh. Right on the peace train. The best, the best. Right on the peace train. You think this is a hopeful or sad song? I hear it as hopeful. I hear it as a loving father saying just what his son needs to hear. It's not time to make a change. Just relax. Take it easy. You're still young. That's your fault. There's so much you have to learn. It's like that calm wisdom. Find a girl. Yeah. There's time. Be wise. And just the way he says that, that should be a corny line, but it's not corny at all. It's like, yeah. Look at me, I'm old, but I'm happy. But it's not easy to be calm when you found something going on. Yeah, I mean, the simplicity there. But it's such a contrast with, what's his name? Harry Chapman, with Cats in the Cradle, which is like the sadness of... This feels like there's a wise, calm connection between father and son. With Cats in the Cradle, I don't know if you remember that song, he learned to walk while I was away and he was talking before I knew it. And as he grew, he'd say, I'm going to be like you, dad. I'm going to be like you. And the idea of that song is that he does become like his dad, which is funny, something you've said. But in a different way, you become too busy to make that connection. His dad was too busy to make a connection with his son. And in a non-dramatic way, in a very kind of calm, nonchalant way. You just don't have time. You're busy at work, you're providing for the family and so on. There's connection, but you don't really get formed that depth of connection. And then the father, when the son shows up from college and all that kind of stuff, he doesn't spend any time with the father. And just the calm sadness of that, that we can live parallel lives and never quite connect. And there is a little bit of that in father and son with Cat Stevens too. Like when the son is saying, from the moment that I could talk, I was ordered to listen. I always remember listening to that line, feeling like that really moved me. But the beauty of that song is it shows, it's kind of like the theme of what I feel like we've talked about since the second you got here, which is something I really like. I don't know why it's such an important theme in my life right now, but the duality of just understanding that you don't understand someone else's situation. And there's truth to both sides. There's truth to what the father is saying to the son. He's saying these things and he's like, I'm looking out for you. I love you. Take your time with these things. If you want to get married, you can. These things will bring you happiness. And then the son saying, listen, I want to pave my own path. I want to do this. Why are you telling me this? The son's not wrong because there's a lot of parents who tell their kids what to do and they're wrong. You know what I mean? And they don't let the kid form the path. Form the path that they need to. But should you not be a parent? You know what I mean? There's just two sides to everything. There's a thing. It is annoying when you're older, you get to see people do all the same things. You can say, well, this is a phase and you'll see that this actually will end up in this way. You can predict how the life unrolls. And it's very annoying for young people to hear, especially because it's probably going to be true. It's like, no, it's not going to be like this. No, I'm going to be different. But then you become that person. But that doesn't mean they also let them live that life. Let them make the mistakes. But they're not mistakes, actually. They're beautiful deviations from the path that they end up on. And those make the path. Do you have advice for young folks today? You've had an incredible dark journey and a successful one, a loving one, and one of the most successful artists in the world. Is there advice you can give to young people today that would like to find themselves through that way, especially if they're struggling? I thought you said device at first, and I was like, honestly, I feel like that device is not helping. Maybe everybody should get away, throw away their devices. Advice. I would just say what I emphasize to my kids is I really, really want my kids to just learn to love themself. It's easier said than done. It's really easy to pick on yourself in life. It's really easy to look in the mirror and wish you looked different, wish you were more successful like that person over there, wish a lot of things. And people that I see that really succeed at life really succeed truly. And that doesn't mean they're making money necessarily, or they're succeeding. And they're talking to a lot of people. Their success to me is like, happy. And they have real self-love. You know when you meet someone, you meet Rick, for instance. You meet Rick Rubin. Rick has a calmness about him. And it's funny because everybody sees him as this like zen master. Rick is just a really loving person who also loves himself and has self-confidence because you just see it and it resonates. And that's why he draws people. And that's why he's so great in the studio because you know it's him. He's great in the studio because you know his intentions always. As an artist, when a producer comes in, you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are your intentions? What are you trying to do? Are you trying to get a hit out of me for the label? Are you trying to make me something? Are you trying to like make me this so you can prove this about yourself? Like there's a lot in that dynamic. And the reason that Rick is so good is because you know his intentions and his intentions come because Rick has that self-love. So for me, find the things about yourself because they're there that you love and really focus in on them. And it's not selfish. I feel like I was brought up in a family too where it was like never look inward, like be selfless, like serve, serve, serve, which by the way is a true principle of life. I think you love yourself more when you serve more. I think that's really evident in life. But also spend time doing the things that make you happy. Take time every day to go on that walk that you need to go on. Listen to that book tape that you need to listen to. Like for me, that's something I need. I know if I do that, I'm going to be a better dad because I did, I did, I gave myself some, some love back in life. And, and I just forgive yourself. I think forgive yourself because everybody messes up. Everybody hurts others. Everybody says unkind words at times. Everybody, everybody fails all the time. And if you think that you're going to not, you're wrong and you're eventually going to, and you're either going to punish yourself for it every day and be a lesser version of what you could be, or you're going to forgive yourself for it. And if you learned that that's not something you want, then try not to do it again. If you do it again, and you're probably going to do it again, whatever that is, you're going to, you're going to gossip about that person. You're gonna feel bad because then you gossiped about someone. Like, is there something you could say in terms of self-love? Is there a role for being critical on your, like that, that those demons of like self-criticism, do you need a little bit of that? Tom Waits talks about, I like my Tom with a little drop of poison. Right. You need a little poison or is it, is that silly or romanticization of poison? No, I mean, it's, look, it's my, my biggest thing in life that has been like the thing that I've worked on the hardest for the last few years is to not be overly critical. And to let go of control. I think it's really easy to kill an artist. It's really easy to kill an artist. Like if my dad would have sat down with me that day, and even if he would have just sat down and been like, good job, son. Okay. It sounds silly, right? Like I don't, I didn't, not everybody has a dad who's going to ever do something or put in the time or whatever, but that would, that might've altered everything for me. Like my dad taking the extra time to be, to just give me a thoughtful response opposed to kids. No kids know when you're, when you're just like trying to get out of the room or whatever. I knew he wasn't and that did a lot. So yeah. But is that, is that a huge, it's not what makes the artist, it's the fragility of it that like, would you have any other way? No, no, I, I, I agree with you. I think that that's what that, that's the beauty of art. But I think also on the same token, it's like, I went to, I went to music cares recently, which is a charity for musicians that are down on their luck that maybe were successful at one point or I've never been successful and they can't pay the bills. And this charity contributes money to these artists, aspiring artists or artists who've had drug issues. And like, there's a lot that they do, but, and there was a statistic that they told it was staggering to me, which is, I think it was 75% of artists, musicians say they struggle with severe depression. That's really high. I don't know what the national average is, but I would guess that that's higher than national average per occupation. So I just think there's a tricky balance. There's a tricky balance in, in art. So yeah, of course, like it's, it's a necessary thing, the fragility of it all. But, yeah, I, I wonder, cause I'm extremely self-critical and I sometimes ask myself the question, I've romanticized it or rather I've learned to be, for it to be productive, to channel it into productivity. But I wonder if there's better ways to do that. And I also wonder if it's eventually the thing that destroys me, like if long-term, if it's a healthy thing, it might be useful when you're in sort of actively fighting the battles of the day, the, for me, it's engineering challenges and all that kind of stuff. But then when you're sitting back and enjoying life with family and so on, is that going to be, like, do you need to find that self-love, like ability to kind of silence the voice of criticism in your head? You know what, I really, there's a good, you're making a good point. And I think that the middle ground is you need, you need self-doubt to push you to be better. I do believe that, like, for instance, if I, if I believed, I've hit my, like when you're like, is there a song on there that you think is genius? If I think I've written a genius song ever, I think I'd probably stop. I think I'd probably stop. I think I'd probably stop. If I think I've written a genius song ever, I think I'd probably stop. I think I'd be like, you know what, did it, I wrote, what's that perfect song? Stay with heaven. If I had done one in Imagine. Imagine, yeah. Okay. If I'd written Imagine, I'd probably be like, that's it, did it, all right, perfect song has been written, that's the best thing I'll ever do. So the fact that there is, like, self-criticism and criticism outside, I think is necessary. 100%, for sure. It pushes you, it pushes you, it pushes you. It's just finding the right middle ground for that young aspiring artist to also not feel squashed and to be heard and to love, just to, not even to feel squashed, just to love themself. So that when they're in the room playing the song, they'll believe it because they believe themself. They love themself enough that they believe it. And then they'll do a great, and then the song will come out great and they'll do a great performance. I have to ask, it's one of the very interesting aspects of your life, of the way you put love out there in the world. What is at the core of your support for the LGBT community? A couple of things. So one, growing up in, from a young age, in the artist community, a lot of my closest friends were LGBTQ, starting in middle school. And I think a lot of the best artists in the world are LGBTQ, and that's just, it's not a secret. It's just, the artist community is filled with lots of LGBTQ people. So I think being raised in that community, in that my friends struggled with their faith and their sexuality, really opened up my eyes to how incredibly hard that path is. For instance, okay, when I was in high school, there was someone who went in front of, who was LGBTQ and was Mormon, and felt like there was not a place for them in the church. They felt like the path, when you're being told that it's evil and you believe it because you believe in your faith and you feel like it's unchangeable, you're putting a kid in a situation where there's really no good resolution. It's either be alone for the rest of your life or marry outside your sexual preference, which I don't want to marry a man. If I was forced to marry a man, I'm like, I don't want to. I don't want to marry a man. I don't want to marry a man because I'm heterosexual. So you're forcing a kid into a situation where it's very dangerous. Long story short, this kid went in front of the Las Vegas Mormon temple and shot himself, killed himself. That impacted our community. And not just that, but it was severe bullying to LGBTQ kids. In the 90s, it was especially different. There's still bullying, don't get me wrong, but man, bullying in school, I don't really know actually what it's like in schools now. Maybe the bullying is just as bad as it was in the 90s, but there was like, it was like I would hear all the time, like the F slur being slung out at people who were LGBTQ all the time. And I wasn't even LGBTQ. So, you know, it's just seeing that, I think that every, any social justice issue takes all sides. It takes all pieces of the puzzle. If only the pieces of the puzzle contributed are from the side that is affected, I don't believe that we'll ever have resolution. We're doing a shit job and we need to do better. And that's just, that's the reality of it. So that's part of the reason I also have family who's LGBTQ. And it's just something that's been part of my path. And I feel like I'm a big believer in take the path that is presented to you. And this was just something that came up in my life a lot. When I met my wife, she was living with her two best friends who were LGBTQ, who really didn't want her to marry me because I was Mormon. And at the time it was Prop 8, which was Mormons were fighting against LGBT gay marriage. And so that, then they didn't come to our wedding and that really broke my wife's heart. So it was just like, because Mormonism represented everything that was against their community. So you felt you had to say something. Yeah, I felt like by not saying anything, I was saying everything. I felt like by not speaking up and being like, Hey, Dan Reynolds is Mormon singer. Here's this new band, Magic Dragons, and they're Mormons. It was like, okay, well, what do Mormons represent? They represent Prop 8. What does Prop 8 represent? Bigotry towards the LGBTQ community. So what do I do? Okay, I can speak in every interview and be like, well, that's not me. I don't believe that too. Or I could just be more active about it. And especially when it's affecting my family and friends throughout my entire life, it was like, all right, this seems like a path that I can take. This is a path that you need to go down. So long story short, it was a path that just presented itself through things in my life. So just on that topic, religion and God give a lot of meaning to a lot of people. It gives tradition that brings people together across the generations, but it also can hurt people. What do you make about that tension? So a source of meaning, but also a source of pain for people. The reality is, at least to me, again, this is just my reality. I feel like I'm doing my dad's thing every time I'm talking to him. I'm like, I don't really know. Take a breath here in my two cents. You have become your father. Yeah. The reality, and it's my reality, and it is the reality for sure, is I think that religion has brought a lot of hurt and pain to a lot of people. Absolutely it has. I don't think anybody can dispute that on either side. Whether it's war, whether it's slaughtering of entire peoples, there's been a lot of pain and suffering that has come from religion. So my little thing that has been hard for me is a faith crisis. I had religion, and then I lost it, and then I had nothing. So for me, I was like, well, religion did that to me. But then at one point, it's kind of like, how much of my life am I just going to complain about being raised Mormon or being depressed? As I get older, I'm like, okay, so what? Okay, it's really hurt me. But were there any good things that came out of Mormonism? Well, yeah, there's a lot of good things that have come to my family through Mormonism. Closeness, we're really, really close. Mormon culture is that you live together forever. The teaching is that your families are forever. We die, and then we go to heaven together, and we're together forever. My family really believes that principle. All of them do. And that instills a certain way of living that's kind of beautiful, even if it's naivety. There's something kind of beautiful about believing that we're forming these bonds together as a family and that we're going to be together forever. It brings a lot of comfort to a kid, too. When I was little, I was like, wow, it's going to be okay if I die because I get to see my mom again. I really believed that. Is the right answer that you tell that kid, actually, when you die, you're not going to see your mom again? Maybe. It might be. I don't know. Anybody who has a kid is going to face that moment. I've already faced it where you sit down, and my kid was like, hey, Dad, when you die, am I going to see you again? That was actually a really hard moment for me because I was suddenly faced with, okay, do I give the answer that I thought was bullshit, or do I give the answer of what I think it is, or do I give the real answer, which is I don't know? And that's what I chose, which as a father, that's not always the easiest answer because your kid, it's a wonderful thing that you feel like you can give your kid the comfort of like, hey, your parents are going to take care of everything. We know everything. We've been around. My kid's always like, are you the strongest? I'm like, yeah, I am the strongest. Stronger than everybody? Yeah, stronger than everybody. So when you're faced with that moment, it's like, it kind of sucks to tell your kid like, you know what? I don't know if you're going to see me after I die, but I hope. That's why I said, I was like, I don't know, but I hope. I really hope because that would be awesome if we can hang out forever. And if there's any way for it to happen, I'll make it happen. You know what I mean? That's kind of what my answer was. So long story short, sorry, I know that I'm being lengthy on this. Is there like, what is my thought on religion? It just is. It's been here forever. It's coping. I can't say whether it's true or false. How the hell am I supposed to know? I've lived 34 years on this planet. A lot of people have been around a lot longer than me, and they really believe very deeply. And a lot of them are smarter than me. You know what I mean? I look at my older brothers, for instance, who are very practicing Mormons. These guys are hyper intelligent. My younger sister, hyper intelligent. All of them start smarter than me. They all believe it still. So what am I supposed to say? Well, you're all stupid. You know what I mean? You're all wrong. I don't know. Maybe it's the South Park episode where everybody dies and then they're like, well, the right answer was Mormonism. And everybody's like, aww. Mormons love that moment in South Park. They're like, hey, that day may come. That day may come. Yeah. So maybe I don't know is the honest answer for everybody around the table. But the biggest question for which I didn't know is the right answer is, what's the meaning of this whole thing? What's the meaning of life? Now, you're not allowed to say I don't know. Okay. You can be just like your dad and say, let me just give my two cents. Take it. Whatever it's worth, take it or leave it. It's probably worth nothing. Piddle on the ground. Why are we here? It's just busily creating all these kinds of things, worrying about things, having kids. My purpose, at least right now, is to wake up and try to bring light love to the world, light love to myself and have integrity. That's my purpose. The ultimate purpose of life, I guess that's my ultimate purpose of life. I don't know what happens when I die. Ayahuasca gave me some sense that there's more to be known. I'm sure there are other things in life that would give me that, and I'm looking for it. I'm a seeker. I'm always looking for the next, something to give me hope in something more. Even if so, I could just not bullshit my kids when they ask me that question and be like, you know what? I really don't know. I want to not know more, if that makes sense. I want to see things that make me confused, that make me question what I already knew. When I meet an atheist who comes up to me and they're like, atheism, atheism, atheism. It's just as laughable as it is to me. I'm like, it's just as laughable to me as when I meet the Mormon who comes up and they're like, Mormonism, Mormonism, Mormonism. I'm like, how do anyone, how do you guys know? So you feel like you're doing some, through all your travels, through all the people you meet, you feel like you're still keeping your eyes open and your heart open to discover something new, like the ayahuasca experience, that there might be deeper truths out there. Yeah. And I want to find them. And I want to surround myself with people who are just looking for it. I'm not interested in people who are just looking to point fingers at each other. Life is so short. I'm looking for, it's one of the reasons that I want to meet with you, is I was like, wow, Lex really seems like he's on a journey to find truth. And that humility for me, same thing with Rick, it drew me to Rick. I see that and I identify with it, and that's what I'm looking for. There's the final song on our record, our new record that's coming out. The chorus goes, and this is my best answer to what you're asking. The chorus goes, So that's it for me. It's like, I'm in a place where I'm like, I don't know, tell me you know, I'm not going to believe you. Maybe you do, but I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm not going to believe you. I don't know. I'm not going to believe you. Like, I don't know. Tell me you know, I'm not going to believe you. Maybe you do. I'm not going to believe it. But like, let's just be easier on each other and like try to find truth wherever it may lie. But above all, know that we don't know jack shit. I think that's a mic drop moment. Dan, thank you so much. You're an incredible human. I love that you share with the world the darkness of your mind, of your life experience and the beautiful light that you've shown to the world. So it's a huge honor and thank you for spending your valuable time. Good luck on the tour. Thanks, man. Thanks for having me. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Dan Reynolds. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Aldous Huxley. After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/jvGZkf87aCs

tOtdJcco3YM

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Nick Lane: Origin of Life, Evolution, Aliens, Biology, and Consciousness | Lex Fridman Podcast #318

Well, the source of energy at the origin of life is the reaction between carbon dioxide and hydrogen. And amazingly, most of these reactions are hexagonic, which is to say they release energy. If you have hydrogen and CO2 and you put them together in a falcon tube and you warm it up to say 50 degrees centigrade and you put in a couple of catalysts and you shake it, nothing's going to happen. But thermodynamically, that is less stable, two gases, hydrogen and CO2, is less stable than cells. What should happen is you get cells coming out. Why doesn't that happen is because of the kinetic barriers. That's where you need the spark. The following is a conversation with Nick Lane, a biochemist at University College London and author of some of my favorite books on biology, science and life ever written, including his two most recent titled Transformer, the deep chemistry of life and death and the vital question, why is life the way it is? This is the Lex Friedman podcast, to support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now dear friends, here's Nick Lane. Let's start with perhaps the most mysterious, the most interesting question that we little humans can ask of ourselves. How did life originate on earth? You could ask anybody working on the subject and you'll get a different answer from all of them. They will be pretty passionately held opinions and their opinions grounded in science. But they're still really at this point, their opinions, because there's so much stuff to know that all we can ever do is get a kind of a small slice of it and it's the context which matters. So I can give you my answer. My answer is from a biologist's point of view, that has been missing from the equation over decades, which is, well, what does life do on earth? Why is it this way? Why is it made of cells? Why is it made of carbon? Why is it powered by electrical charges on membranes? There's all these interesting questions about cells that if you then look to see, well, is there an environment on earth, on the early earth 4 billion years ago that kind of matches the requirements of cells? Well, there is one. There's a very obvious one. It's basically created by whenever you have a wet rocky planet, you get these hydrothermal vents which generate hydrogen gas in bucket loads and electrical charges on kind of cell-like pores that can drive the kind of chemistry that life does. So it seems so beautiful and so obvious that I've spent the last 10 years or more trying to do experiments, it turns out to be difficult, of course. Everything's more difficult than you ever thought it was going to be. But it looks, I would say, more true rather than less true over that 10-year period. I think I have to take a step back every now and then and think, hang on a minute, where's this going? I'm happy it's going in a sensible direction. I think then you have these other interesting dilemmas. And I'm often accused of being too focused on life on Earth, too kind of narrow-minded and inward-looking, you might say. I'm talking about carbon. I'm talking about cells. And maybe you or plenty of people can say to me, ah, yeah, but life can be anything. I have no imagination. Maybe they're right. But unless we can say why life here is this way and if those reasons are fundamental reasons or if they're just trivial reasons, then we can't answer that question. So I think they're fundamental reasons. And I think we need to worry about them. Yeah, there might be some deep truth to the puzzle here on Earth that will resonate with other puzzles elsewhere that will, solving this particular puzzle will give us that deeper truth. So what, to this puzzle, you said vents, hydrogen, wet. So chemically, what is the potion here? How important is oxygen? You wrote a book about this. Yeah. And I actually just came straight here from a conference where I was chairing a session on whether oxygen matters or not in the history of life. Of course, it matters. But it matters most to the origin of life to be not there. As I see it, we have this, I mean, life is made of carbon, basically, primarily organic molecules with carbon-carbon bonds. And the building block, the Lego brick that we take out of the air or take out of the oceans is carbon dioxide. And to turn carbon dioxide into organic molecules, we need to strap on hydrogen. And so we need, and this is basically what life is doing, it's hydrogenating carbon dioxide. It's taking the hydrogen that bubbles out of the Earth in these hydrothermal vents and it sticks it on CO2. And it's kind of really as simple as that. And actually, thermodynamically, the thing that I find most troubling is that if you do these experiments in the lab, the molecules you get are exactly the molecules that we see at the heart of biochemistry, in the heart of life. Is there something to be said about the earliest origins of that little potion, that chemical process? What really is the spark there? There isn't a spark. There is a continuous chemical reaction. And there is kind of a spark, but it's a continuous electrical charge which helps drive that reaction. So literally spark. Well, the charge at least, but yes. I mean, a spark in that sense is, we tend to think of in terms of Frankenstein, we tend to think in terms of electricity and one moment you zap something and it comes alive. And what does that really mean? You've come alive and now what's sustaining it? Well, we are sustained by oxygen, by this continuous chemical reaction. And if you put a plastic bag on your head, then you've got a minute or something before it's all over. So it's some way of being able to leverage a source of energy. Well, the source of energy at the origin of life is the reaction between carbon dioxide and hydrogen. And amazingly, most of these reactions are hexagonic, which is to say they release energy. If you have hydrogen and CO2 and you put them together in a Falcon tube and you warm it up to say 50 degrees centigrade and you put in a couple of catalysts and you shake it, nothing's going to happen. But thermodynamically, that is less stable. Two gases, hydrogen and CO2 is less stable than cells. What should happen is you get cells coming out. So why doesn't that happen is because of the kinetic barriers. That's where you need the spark. Is it possible that life originated multiple times on earth? The way you describe it, you make it sound so easy. There's a long distance to go from the first bits of prebiotic chemistry to say molecular machines like ribosomes. Is that the first thing that you would say is life? Like if I introduce you to the two of you at a party, you would say that's a living thing? I would say as soon as we introduce genes, information into systems that are growing anyway, so I would talk about growing protocells. As soon as we introduce even random bits of information into there, I'm thinking about RNA molecules for example, it doesn't have to have any information. It can be completely random sequence. But if it's introduced into a system which is in any case growing and doubling itself and reproducing itself, then any changes in that sequence that allow it to do so better or worse are now selected by perfectly normal natural selection. But it's a system- So that's when it becomes alive to my mind. That's encompassed into like an object that keeps information and evolves that information over time, changes that information over time in response to the- So it's always part of a cell system from the very beginning. So is your sense that it started only once because it's difficult or is it possibly started in multiple locations on earth? It's possibly started multiple occasions. There's two provisos to that. One of them is oxygen makes it impossible really for life to start. So as soon as we've got oxygen in the atmosphere, then life isn't going to keep starting over. So I often get asked by people, you know, why can't we have life starting? If it's so easy, why can't life start in these vents now? And the answer is, if you want hydrogen to react with CO2 and there's oxygen there, hydrogen reacts with oxygen instead. It's just, you know, you get an explosive reaction that way, it's rocket fuel. So it's never going to happen. But for the origin of life earlier than that, all we know is that there's a single common ancestor for all of life. There could have been multiple origins and they all just disappeared. But there's a very interesting deep split in life between bacteria and what are called archaea, which look just the same as bacteria. And they're not quite as diverse, but nearly. And they are very different in their biochemistry. And so any explanation for the origin of life has to account as well for why they're so different and yet so similar. And that makes me think that life probably did arise only once. Can you describe the difference that's interesting there? How they're similar, how they're different? Well, they're different in their membranes primarily. They're different in things like DNA replication. They use completely different enzymes and the genes behind it for replicating DNA. So they both have membranes, both have DNA replication. The process of that is different. They both have DNA. The genetic code is identical in them both. The way in which it's transcribed into RNA, into the copy of a gene, and the way that that's then translated into a protein, that's all basically the same in both these groups. So they clearly share a common ancestor. It's just that they're different in fundamental ways as well. And if you think about, well, what kind of processes could drive that divergence very early on? I can think about it in terms of membranes, in terms of the electrical charges on membranes. It's that that makes me think that there were probably many unsuccessful attempts and only one really successful attempt. Can you explain why that divergence makes you think there's one common ancestor? Okay, can you describe that intuition? I'm a little bit unclear about why the leap from the divergence means there's one. Do you mean like the divergence indicates that there was a big invention at that time from one source? Yes. If you've got, as I imagine it, you have a common ancestor living in a hydrothermal vent. Let's say there are millions of vents and millions of potential common ancestors living in all of those vents, but only one of them makes it out first. Then you could imagine that that cell is then going to take over the world and wipe out everything else. And so what you would see would be a single common ancestor for all of life. But with lots of different vent systems all vying to create the first life forms, you might say. So this thing is a cell, a single cell organism. Well, we're always talking about populations of cells, but yes, these are single celled organisms. But the fundamental life form is a single cell, right? So they're always together, but they're alone together. There's a machinery in each one individual component that if left by itself would still work. Yes, yes, yes. It's the unit of selection is a single cell. But selection operates over generations and changes over generations in populations of cells. So it would be impossible to say that a cell is the unit of selection in the sense that unless you have a population, you can't evolve, you can't change. Right. Like there was one Chuck Norris, it's an American reference, cell that made it out of the vents, right? Or like the first one. So imagine then that there's one cell gets out and it takes over the world. It gets out in the water, it's like floating around. We're deep in the ocean somewhere. But actually two cells got out and they appear to have got out from the same vent because they both share the same code and everything else. So unless all the... We've got a million different common ancestors in all these different vents. So either they all have the same code and two cells spontaneously emerged from different places or two different cells, fundamentally different cells, came from the same place. So either way, what are the constraints that say not just one came out or not half a million came out, but two came out? That's kind of a bit strange. So how did they come out? Well, they come out because what you're doing inside a vent is you're relying on the electrical charges down there to power this reaction between hydrogen and CO2 to make yourself grow. And when you leave the vent, you've got to do that yourself. You've got to power up your own membrane. So the question is, well, how do you power up your own membrane? And the answer is, well, you need to pump. You need to pump ions to give an electrical charge on the membrane. So what do the pumps look like? Well, the pumps look different in these two groups. It's as if they both emerged from a common ancestor. As soon as you've got that ancestor, things move very quickly and divergently. Why does the DNA replication look different? Well, it's joined to the membrane. The membranes are different. The DNA replication is different because it's joined to a different kind of membrane. So there's interesting, this is detail, you might say, but it's also fundamental because it's about the two big divergent groups of life on Earth that seem to have diverged really early on. It all started from one organism. And then that organism just start replicating the heck out of itself with some mutation of the DNA. So there's a competition through the process of evolution. They're not trying to beat each other up. They're just trying to live in one. They're just replicators. Yeah. Well, let's not minimize their... They're just trying to chill. They're trying to relax. But there's no sense of trying to survive. They're replicating. I mean, there's no sense in which they're trying to do anything. They're just kind of an outgrowth of the Earth, you might say. Of course, the aliens would describe us humans in that same way. They might be right. This primitive life. It's just ants that are hairless, mostly hairless. Overgrown ants. Overgrown ants. Okay. What do you think about the idea of panspermia, that the theory that life did not originate on Earth and was planted here from outer space? Or pseudopanspermia, which is like the basic ingredients, the magic that you mentioned was planted here from elsewhere in space? I don't find them helpful. That's not to say they're wrong. So pseudotranspermia, the idea that the chemicals, the amino acids, the nucleotides are being delivered from space. I know that happens. It's unequivocal. They're delivered on meteorites, comets, and so on. So what do they do next? That's to me the question. Well, what do they do is they stock a soup. Presumably they land in a pond or in an ocean or wherever they land. And then you end up with a best possible case scenario is you end up with a soup of nucleotides and amino acids. And then you have to say, so now what happens? And the answer is, oh, well, they have to go become alive. So how did they do that? You may as well say then a miracle happened. I don't believe in soup. I think what we have in a vent is a continuous conversion, a continuous growth, a continuous reaction, a continuous converting the flow of molecules into more of yourself, you might say, even if it's a small bit. So you've got a kind of continuous self-organization and growth from the very beginning. You never have that in a soup. Isn't the entire universe and living organisms in the universe, isn't it just soup all the way down? Isn't it all soup? No, no. I mean, soup almost by definition doesn't have a structure. But soup is a collection of ingredients that are like randomly interacting. Yeah, but they're not random. We have chemistry going on here. We have membranes forming, which are effective oil-water interactions. Okay, so it feels like there's a direction to a process, like a direct process. There are directions to processes, yeah. And if you're starting with CO2 and you've got two reactive fluids being brought together and they react, what are they going to make? Well, they make carboxylic acids, which include the fatty acids that make up the cell membranes. And they form directly into bilayer membranes. They form like soap bubbles. It's spontaneous organization caused by the nature of the molecules. And those things are capable of growing and are capable in effect of being selected even before there are genes. So we have a lot of order, and that order is coming from thermodynamics. And the thermodynamics is always about increasing the entropy of the universe. But if you have oil and water and they're separating, you're increasing the entropy of the universe, even though you've got some order, which is the soap and the water are not miscible. Now, to come back to your first question about panspermia properly, that just pushes the question somewhere else. Even if it's true, maybe life did start on Earth by panspermia. So what are the principles that govern the emergence of life on any planet? It's an assumption that life started here. And it's an assumption that it started in a hydrothermal vent or it started in a terrestrial geothermal system. The question is, can we work out a testable sequence of events that would lead from one to the other one and then test it and see if there's any truth in it or not? With panspermia, you can't do any of that. But the fundamental question of panspermia is, do we have the machine here on Earth to build life? Is the vents enough? Is oxygen and hydrogen and whatever the heck else we want and some source of energy and heat, is that enough to build life? Well, that's... Of course, you would say that as a human. But there could be aliens right now chuckling at that idea. Maybe you need some special sauce, special elsewhere sauce. Your sense is we have everything here. I mean, this is precisely the question. When I'm talking in schools, I like to start out with the idea of we can make a time machine. We go back four billion years and we go to these environments that people talk about. We go to a deep sea hydrothermal vent. We go to a Yellowstone Park type place environment. We find some slime that looks like... We can test it. It's made of organic molecules. It's got a structure which is not obviously cells, but is this a stepping stone on the way to life or not? How do we know? Unless we've got an intellectual framework that says this is a stepping stone and that's not a step... We'd never know. We wouldn't know which environment to go to, what to look for, how to say this. All we can ever hope for, because we're never going to build that time machine, is to have an intellectual framework that can explain step by step, experiment by experiment, how we go from a sterile inorganic planet to living cells as we know them. In that framework, every time you have a choice, it could be this way or it could be that way, or there's lots of possible forks down that road. Did it have to be that way? Could it have been the other way and would that have given you life with very different properties? If you come up with a... It's a long hypothesis, because as I say, we're going from really simple prebiotic chemistry all the way through to genes and molecular machines. That's a long, long pathway. Nobody in the field would agree on the order in which these things happened, which is not a bad thing because it means that you have to go out and do some experiments and try and demonstrate that it's possible or not possible. It's so freaking amazing that it happened though. It feels like there's a direction to the thing. Can you try to answer from a framework perspective of what is life? So you said there's some order and yet there's complexity. So it's not perfectly ordered. It's not boring. There's still some fun in it. It also feels like the processes have a direction through the selection mechanism. They seem to be building something, always better, always improving. Maybe it's... That's a perception. That's our romanticization of things are always better. Things are getting better. We'd like to believe that. I mean, you think about the world from the point of view of bacteria, and bacteria are the first things to emerge from whatever environment they came from. And they dominated the planet very, very quickly. And they haven't really changed. Four billion years later, they look exactly the same. So about four billion years ago, bacteria started to really run the show. And then nothing happened for a while. Nothing happened for two billion years. Then after two billion years, we see another single event origin, if you like, of our own type of cell, the eukaryotic cells, the cells with a nucleus and lots of stuff going on inside. Another singular origin, it only happened once in the history of life on Earth. Maybe it happened multiple times and there's no evidence, everything just disappeared. But we have to at least take it seriously that there's something that stops bacteria from becoming more complex, because they didn't. That's a fact that they emerged four billion years ago. And something happened two billion years ago, but the bacteria themselves didn't change. They remain bacterial. So there is no necessary trajectory towards great complexity in human beings at the end of it. It's very easy to imagine that without photosynthesis arising or without eukaryotes arising, that a planet could be full of bacteria and nothing else. Okay, we'll get to that, because that's a brilliant invention. And there's a few brilliant invention along the way. But what is life? If you were to show up on Earth, but to take that time machine, and you said, asking yourself the question, is this a stepping stone towards life? As you step along, when you see the early bacteria, how would you know it's life? And then this is a really important question when you go to other planets and look for life. Like, what is the framework of telling the difference between a rock and a bacteria? I mean, the question's kind of both impossible to answer and trivial at the same time. And I don't like to answer it, because I don't think there is an answer. I think we're trying to describe- Those are the most fun questions. What do you mean there's no answer? No, there is no answer. I mean, there's lots of, there are at least 40 or 50 different definitions of life out there. And most of them are, well- Not convincing. Obviously bad in one way or another. I mean, I can never remember the exact words that people use, but there's a NASA working definition of life, which more or less says a system which is capable of, a self-sustaining system capable of evolution or something along those lines. I immediately have a problem with the word self-sustaining, because it's sustained by the environment. And I know what they're getting at. I know what they're trying to say, but I pick a hole in that. And there's always wags who say, but by that definition, a rabbit is not alive. Only a pair of rabbits would be alive, because a single rabbit is incapable of copying itself. There are all kinds of pedantic, silly, but also important objections to any hypothesis. The real question is what is, you know, we can argue all day or people do argue all day about is a virus alive or not? And it depends on the content. Most biologists could not agree about that. So then what about a jumping gene, a retro element or something like that? It's even simpler than a virus, but it's capable of converting its environment into a copy of itself. And that's about as close, this is not a definition, but this is a kind of a description of life, is that it's able to parasitize the environment, and that goes for plants as well as animals and bacteria and viruses, to make a relatively exact copy of themselves, informationally exact copy of themselves. By the way, it doesn't really have to be a copy of itself, right? It just has to be, you have to create something that's interesting. The way evolution is, so it is extremely powerful process of evolution, which is basically make a copy of yourself and sometimes mess up a little bit. That seems to work really well. I wonder if it's possible to- Mess up big time. Mess up big time as a standard, as a default. It's called a hopeful monster and, you know, there's- It doesn't work. In principle it can. Actually, it turns out, I would say that this is due a reemergence. This is some amazing work from Michael Levin. I don't know if you came across him, but if you haven't interviewed him, you should interview him. Yeah, in Boston. About, yeah. I'm talking to him in a few days. Oh, fantastic. So I mentioned there's two people that, if I may mention, Andrej Karpathy is a friend who's really admired in the AI community, said you absolutely must talk to Michael and to Nick. So this, of course, I'm a huge fan of yours, so I'm really fortunate that we can actually make this happen. Anyway, you were saying? Well, Michael Levin is doing amazing work, basically about the way in which electrical fields control development. He's done some work with planarian worms, so flatworms, where he'll tell you all about this, I won't say any more than the minimum, but basically you can cut their head off and they'll redevelop a new head. But the head that they develop depends, if you knock out just one iron pump in a membrane, so you change the electrical circuitry just a little bit, you can come up with a completely different head. It can be a head which is similar to those that diverged 150 million years ago, or it can be a head which no one's ever seen before, a different kind of head. Now that is really, you might say, a hopeful monster. This is a kind of leap into a different direction. The only question for natural selection is does it work? Is the change itself feasible as a single change? And the answer is yes, it's just a small change to a single gene. And the second thing is it gives rise to a completely different morphology. Does it work? And if it works, that can easily be a shift. But for it to be a speciation, for it to continue, for it to give rise to a different morphology over time, then it has to be perpetuated. So that shift, that change in that one gene has to work well enough that it is selected and it goes on. And copied enough times to where you can really test it. So the likelihood it would be lost, but there will be some occasions where it survives. And yes, the idea that we can have sudden, fairly abrupt changes in evolution, I think it's time for a rebirth. What about this idea that kind of trying to mathematize a definition of life and saying how many steps, the shortest amount of steps it takes to build the thing? Almost like an engineering view of it. Ah, I like that view. Because I think that in a sense, that's not very far away from what a hypothesis needs to do to be a testable hypothesis for the origin of life. You need to spell out, here's each step and here's the experiment to do for each step. The idea that we can do it in the lab, some people say, oh, well, we'll have created life within five years, but ask them what they mean by life. We have a planet four billion years ago with these vent systems across the entire surface of the planet. And we have millions of years if we wanted. I have a feeling that we're not talking about millions of years. I have a feeling we're talking about maybe millions of nanoseconds or picoseconds. We're talking about chemistry, which is happening quickly. But we still need to constrain those steps. But we've got a planet doing similar chemistry. You asked about a trajectory. The trajectory is the planetary trajectory. The planet has properties. It's basically, it's got a lot of iron at the center of it. It's got a lot of electrons at the center of it. It's more oxidized on the outside, partly because of the sun and partly because the heat of volcanoes puts out oxidized gases. So the planet is a battery. It's a giant battery. And we have a flow of electrons going from inside to outside in these hydrothermal vents. And that's the same topology that a cell has. A cell is basically just a micro version of the planet. And there is a trajectory in all of that. And there's an inevitability that certain types of chemical reaction are going to be favored over others. And there's an inevitability in what happens in water, the chemistry that happens in water. Some will be immiscible with water and will form membranes and will form insoluble structures. Nobody really understands water very well. And it's another big question. For experiments on the origin of life, what do you put it in? What kind of structure do we want to induce in this water? Because the last thing is likely to be is just kind of bulk water. How fundamental is water to life, would you say? I would say pretty fundamental. I wouldn't like to say it's impossible for life to start any other way. But water is everywhere. Water is extremely good at what it does. Carbon works in water especially well. So those things, and carbon is everywhere. So those things together make me think probabilistically, if we found 1,000 life forms, 995 of them would be carbon-based and living in water. Now the reverse question, if you found a puddle of water elsewhere and some carbon, no, just a puddle of water. Is a puddle of water a pretty damn good indication that life either exists here or has once existed here? No. So it doesn't work the other way. I think you need a living planet. You need a planet which is capable of turning over its surface. It needs to be a planet with water. It needs to be capable of bringing those electrons from inside to the outside. It needs to turn over its surface. It needs to make that water work and turn it into hydrogen. So I think you need a living planet. But once you've got the living planet, I think the rest of it is kind of thermodynamics all the way. If you were to run Earth over a million times up to this point, maybe beyond, to the end, let's run it to the end, what is it, how much variety is there? You kind of spoke to this trajectory that the environment dictates chemically, I don't know in which other way, spiritually, dictates kind of the direction of this giant machine that seems chaotic, but it does seem to have order in the steps it's taking. How often will life, how often will bacteria emerge? How often will something like humans emerge? How much variety do you think there would be? I think at the level of bacteria, not much variety. I think we would get, how many times did you say you want to run it? A million times. I would say at least a few hundred thousand we'll get bacteria again. Oh, wow. Nice. Because I think there's some level of inevitability that a wet rocky planet will give rise through the same processes to something very, I think, this is not something I would have thought a few years ago, but working with a PhD student of mine, Stuart Harrison, he's been thinking about the genetic code and we've just been publishing on that. There are patterns that you can discern in the code, or he has discerned in the code, that if you think about them in terms of, we start with CO2 and hydrogen and these are the first steps of biochemistry, you come up with a code which is very similar to the code that we see. So it wouldn't surprise me any longer if we found life on Mars and it had a genetic code that was not very different to the genetic code that we have here, without it just being transferred across. There's some inevitability about the whole of the beginnings of life, in my view. That's really promising because if the basic chemistry is tightly linked to the genetic code, that means we can interact with other life if it exists out there. Well, that's potentially. That's really exciting if that's the case. Okay, but then bacteria. We've got bacteria. How easy is photosynthesis? Much harder, I would say. Let's actually go there. Let's go through the inventions. What is photosynthesis and why is it hard? Well, there are different forms. I mean, basically you're taking hydrogen and you're sticking it onto CO2 and it's powered by the sun. The question is where are you taking the hydrogen from? In photosynthesis that we know in plants, it's coming from water. So you're using the power of the sun to split water, take out the hydrogen, stick it onto CO2 and the oxygen is a waste product and you just throw it out, throw it away. So it's the single greatest planetary pollution event in the whole history of the earth. Another pollutant being oxygen. Yes. Yeah. It also made possible animals. You can't have large active animals without an oxygenated atmosphere, at least not in the sense that we know on earth. That's a really big invention in the history of earth. Huge invention, yes. And it happened once. There's a few things that happened once on earth and you're always stuck with this problem. Once it happened, did it become so good so quickly that it precluded the same thing happening ever again or are there other reasons? And we really have to look at each one in turn and think, why did it only happen once? In this case, it's really difficult to split water. It requires a lot of power and that power, you're effectively separating charge across a membrane and the way in which you do it, if it doesn't all rush back and kind of cause an explosion right at the site, requires really careful wiring. And that wiring, it can't be easy to get it right because the plants that we see around us, they have chloroplasts. Those chloroplasts were cyanobacteria once. Those cyanobacteria are the only group of bacteria that can do that type of photosynthesis. So there's plenty of opportunity. There's not even many bacteria. So who invented photosynthesis? The cyanobacteria or their ancestors. And there's not many... No other bacteria can do what's called oxygenic photosynthesis. Lots of other bacteria can split. I mean, you can take your hydrogen from somewhere else. You can take it from hydrogen sulfide bubbling out of a hydrothermal vent, grab your two hydrogens. The sulfur is the waste now. You can do it from iron. You can take electrons. So the early oceans were probably full of iron. You can take an electron from ferrous iron, so iron two plus and make it iron three plus, which now precipitates as rust. And you take a proton from the acidic early ocean, stick it there. Now you've got a hydrogen atom. Stick it onto CO2. You've just done the trick. The trouble is you bury yourself in rusty iron. And with sulfur, you can bury yourself in sulfur. One of the reasons oxygenic photosynthesis is so much better is that the waste product is oxygen, which just bubbles away. That seems like extremely unlikely, and it's extremely essential for the evolution of complex organisms because of all the oxygen. Yeah, and that didn't accumulate quickly either. So it's converting... What is it? It's converting the energy from the sun and the resource of water into the resource needed for animals. Both resources needed for animals. We need to eat and we need to burn the food. We're eating plants, which are getting their energy from the sun, and we're burning it with their waste product, which is the oxygen. So there's a lot of kind of circularity in that. But without an oxygenated planet, you couldn't really have predation. You can have animals, but you can't really have animals that go around and eat each other. You can't have ecosystems as we know them. Well, let's actually step back. What about eukaryotic versus prokaryotic cells, prokaryotes? What are each of those, and how big of an invention is that? I personally think that's the single biggest invention in the whole history of life. Exciting. So what are they? Can you explain? Yeah. So I mentioned bacteria and archaea. These are both prokaryotes. They're basically small cells that don't have a nucleus. If you look at them under a microscope, you don't see much going on. If you look at them under a super resolution microscope, then they're fantastically complex. In terms of their molecular machinery, they're amazing. In terms of their morphological appearance under a microscope, they're really small and really simple. The earliest life that we can physically see on the planet are stromatolites, which are made by things like cyanobacteria, and they're large superstructures. Effectively, biofilms plated on top of each other, and you end up with quite large structures that you can see in the fossil record. But they never came up with animals. They never came up with plants. They came up with multicellular things, filamentous cyanobacteria, for example. They're just long strings of cells. But the origin of the eukaryotic cell seems to have been what's called an endosymbiosis, so one cell gets inside another cell. I think that that's transformed the energetic possibilities of life. So what we end up with is a kind of supercharged cell, which can have a much larger nucleus with many more genes, all supported. If you think about it, you could think about it as multi-bacterial power without the overhead. So you've got a cell and it's got bacteria living in it, and those bacteria are providing it with the energy currency it needs. But each bacterium has a genome of its own, which costs a fair amount of energy to express, to kind of turn over and convert into proteins and so on. What the mitochondria did, which are these power packs in our own cells, they were bacteria once and they threw away virtually all their genes. They've only got a few left. So mitochondria is, like you said, is the bacteria that got inside a cell and then threw away all this stuff it doesn't need to survive inside the cell and then kept what? So what we end up with, so it kept always a handful of genes, in our own case 37 genes. But there's a few protists, which are single-celled things that have got as many as 70 or 80 genes. So it's not always the same, but it's always a small number. And you can think of it as a paired down power pack where the control unit has really been kind of paired down to almost nothing. So it's putting out the same power, but the investment in the overheads is really paired down. That means that you can support a much larger nuclear genome. So we've gone up in the number of genes, but also the amount of power you have to convert those genes into proteins. We've gone up about fourfold in the number of genes, but in terms of the size of genomes and your ability to make the building blocks, make the proteins, we've gone up 100,000 fold or more. So it's huge step change in the possibilities of evolution. And it's interesting then that the only two occasions that complex life has arisen on Earth, plants and animals, fungi you could say are complex as well, but they don't form such complex morphology as plants and animals. Start with a single cell. Start with an oocyte and a sperm fused together to make a zygote. So you start development with a single cell and all the cells in the organism have identical DNA. And you switch off in the brain, you switch off these genes and you switch on those genes and liver, you switch off those and you switch on a different set. And the standard evolutionary explanation for that is that you're restricting conflict. You don't have a load of genetically different cells that are all fighting each other. And so it works. The trouble with bacteria is they form these biofilms and they're all genetically different and effectively they're incapable of that level of cooperation. They would get in a fight. Okay so why is this such a difficult invention of getting this bacteria inside and becoming an engine which the mitochondria is? Why was that? Why do you assign it such great importance? Is it great importance in terms of the difficulty of how it was to achieve or great importance in terms of the impact it had on life? Both. It had a huge impact on life because if that had not happened you can be certain that life on earth would be bacterial only. And that took a really long time. It took two billion years and it hasn't happened since to the best of our knowledge. So it looks as if it's genuinely difficult. And if you think about it then from just an informational perspective, you think bacteria have got, they structure their information differently. So a bacterial cell has a small genome. It might have 4,000 genes in it. But a single E. coli cell has access to about 30,000 genes potentially. It's got a kind of metagenome where other E. coli out there have got different gene sets and they can switch them around between themselves. And so you can generate a huge amount of variation. They've got more, an E. coli metagenome is larger than the human genome. We own 20,000 genes or something. And they've had four billion years of evolution to work out what can I do and what can't I do with this metagenome. And the answer is you're stuck. You're still bacteria. So they have explored genetic sequence space far more thoroughly than eukaryotes ever did because they've had twice as long at least and they've got much larger populations. And they never got around this problem. So why can't they? It seems as if you can't solve it with information alone. So what's the problem? The problem is structure. If the very first cells needed an electrical charge on their membrane to grow, and in bacteria it's the outer membrane that surrounds the cell which is electrically charged, you try and scale that up and you've got a fundamental design problem, you've got an engineering problem. And there are examples of it. And what we see in all these cases is what's known as extreme polyploidy, which is to say they have tens of thousands of copies of their complete genome, which is energetically hugely expensive and you end up with a large bacteria with no further development. What you need is to incorporate these electrically charged power pack units inside with their control units intact and for them not to conflict so much with the host cell that it all goes wrong. Perhaps it goes wrong more often than not. And then you change the topology of the cell. Now, you don't necessarily have any more DNA than a giant bacterium with extreme polyploidy, but what you've got is an asymmetry. You now have a giant nuclear genome surrounded by lots of subsidiary energetic genomes that do all the, they're the control units that are doing all the control of energy generation. Could this have been done gradually or does it have to be done, the power pack has to be all intact and ready to go and work? I mean, it's a kind of step change in the possibilities of evolution, but it doesn't happen overnight. It's going to still require multiple, multiple generations. So it could take millions of years. It could take shorter time. This is another thing I would like to put the number of steps and try and work out what's required at each step. And we are trying to do that with sex for example. You can't have a very large genome unless you have sex at that point. So what are the changes to go from bacterial recombination to eukaryotic recombination? What do you need to do? Why do we go from passing around bits of DNA as if it's loose change to fusing cells together, lining up the chromosomes, recombining across the chromosomes and then going through two rounds of cell division to produce your gametes? All eukaryotes do it that way. So again, why switch? What are the drivers here? So there's a lot of time, there's a lot of evolution, but as soon as you've got cells living inside another cell, what you've got is a new design. You've got new potential that you didn't have before. So the cell living inside another cell, that design allows for better storage of information, better use of energy, more delegation, like a hierarchical control of the whole thing. And then somehow that leads to the ability to have multi-cell organisms. I'm not sure that you have hierarchical control necessarily, but you've got a system where you can have a much larger information storage depot in the nucleus. You can have a much larger genome. And that allows multi-cellularity, yes, because it allows you – it's a funny thing, but to have an animal where I have 70% of my genes switched on in my brain and a different 50% switched on in my liver or something, you've got to have all those genes in the egg cell at the very beginning, and you've got to have a program of development which says, okay, you guys switch off those genes and switch on those genes and you guys, you do that. But all the genes are there at the beginning. That means you've got to have a lot of genes in one cell and you've got to be able to maintain them. And the problem with bacteria is they don't get close to having enough genes in one cell. So if you were to try and make a multi-cellular organism from bacteria, you'd bring different types of bacteria together and hope they'll cooperate, and the reality is they don't. That's really, really tough to do. We know they don't because it doesn't exist. We have the data, as far as we know. I'm sure there's a few special ones and they die off quickly. I'd love to know some of the most fun things bacteria have done since. They can do some pretty funky things. This is broad brushstroke that I'm talking about. Generally speaking. So how was – so another fun invention. Us humans seem to utilize it well, but you say it's also very important early on is sex. So what is sex? Just asking for a friend. And when was it invented and how hard was it to invent, just as you were saying. And why was it invented? Why, how hard was it, and when? I have a PhD student who's been working on this and we've just published a couple of papers on sex. Yes, yes, yes. What do you publish? Does biology, is it biology, genetics, journals? So this is actually PNAS, which is Proceedings of the National Academy. So like broad, big, big picture stuff. Everyone's interested in sex. The job of biologist is to make sex dull. Yes, yeah. That's a beautiful way to put it. Okay, so when was it invented? It was invented with eukaryotes about two billion years ago. All eukaryotes share the same basic mechanism that you produce gametes. The gametes fuse together, so a gamete is the egg cell and the sperm. They're not necessarily even different in size or shape. So the simplest eukaryotes produce what are called motile gametes. They're all like sperm and they all swim around. They find each other, they fuse together. They don't have much going on there beyond that. And then these are haploid, which is to say we all have two copies of our genome and the gametes have only a single copy of the genome. So when they fuse together, you now become diploid again, which is to say you now have two copies of your genome. And what you do is you line them all up and then you double everything. So now we have four copies of the complete genome and then we crisscross between all of these things. So we take a bit from here and stick it on there and a bit from here and we stick it on here. That's recombination. And then we go through two rounds of cell division. So we divide in half. So now the two daughter cells have two copies and we divide in half again. Now we have some gametes, each of which has got a single copy of the genome. And that's the basic ground plan for what's called meiosis and syn-gametes. That's basically sex. And it happens at the level of single-celled organisms and it happens pretty much the same way in plants and pretty much the same way in animals and so on. And it's not found in any bacteria. They switch things around using the same machinery and they take up a bit of DNA from the environment. They take out this bit and stick in that bit and it's the same molecular machinery they're using to do it. So what about the kind of, you said, find each other, this kind of imperative to find each other. What is that? Like, is that? Well, you've got a few cells together. So the bottom line on all of this is bacteria, I mean, it's kind of simple when you've figured it out and figuring it out, this is not me, this is my PhD student, Marco Colnaghi. And in effect, if you're doing lateral, you're an E. coli cell, you've got 4,000 genes. You want to scale up to a eukaryotic size. I want to have 20,000 genes. And I need to maintain my genome so it doesn't get shot to pieces by mutations. And I'm going to do it by lateral gene transfer. So I know I've got a mutation in a gene. I don't know which gene it is because I'm not sentient, but I know I can't grow. I know my regulation systems are saying, something wrong here, something wrong, pick up some DNA, pick up a bit of DNA from the environment. If you've got a small genome, the chances of you picking up the right bit of DNA from the environment is much higher than if you've got a genome of 20,000 genes. To do that, you've effectively got to be picking up DNA all the time, all day long and nothing else and you're still going to get the wrong DNA. You've got to pick up large chunks and in the end, you've got to align them. You're forced into sex, to coin a phrase. So there is a kind of incentive. If you want to have a large genome, you've got to prevent it mutating to nothing. That will happen with bacteria. This is another reason why bacteria can't have a large genome. But as soon as you give them the power pack, as soon as you give eukaryotic cells the power pack that allows them to increase the size of their genome, then you face the pressure that you've got to maintain its quality. You've got to stop it just mutating away. What about sexual selection? So the finding, like, I don't like this one, I don't like this one, this one seems alright. Which point does it become less random? It's hard to know. Because eukaryotes just kind of float around. I mean, is there sexual selection in single-celled eukaryotes? There probably is, it's just that I don't know very much about it. By the time we get older... You don't hang out with eukaryotes. Well, I do all the time, but... But you can't communicate with them yet. Yeah. A peacock or something. Yes. The kind of standard answer, this is not quite what I work on, but the standard answer is that it's female mate choice. She is looking for good genes. And if you can have a tail that's like this and still survive, still be alive, not actually have been taken down by the nearest predator, then you must have got pretty good genes. Because despite this handicap, you're able to survive. So those are like human interpretable things like with a peacock. But I wonder, I'm sure echoes of the same thing are there with more primitive organisms. Basically your PR, like how you advertise yourself that you're worthy of... Yeah, absolutely. So one big advertisement is the fact that you survived it all. Let me give you one beautiful example of an algal bloom. And this can be a cyanobacteria, this can be a bacteria. So if suddenly you pump nitrate or phosphate or something into the ocean and everything goes green, you end up with all this algae growing there. A viral infection or something like that can kill the entire bloom overnight. And it's not that the virus takes out everything overnight, it's that most of the cells in that bloom kill themselves before the virus can get onto them. And it's through a form of cell death called programmed cell death. And we do the same thing. This is how we have the different... The gaps between our fingers and so on is how we craft synapses in the brain. It's fundamental again to multicellular life. They have the same machinery in these algal blooms. How do they know who dies? The answer is they will often put out a toxin. And that toxin is a kind of a challenge to you. Either you can cope with the toxin or you can't. If you can cope with it, you form a spore and you will go on to become the next generation. You'll form a kind of a resistance spore. You sink down a little bit, you get out of the way, you can't be attacked by a virus if you're a spore, or at least not so easily. Whereas if you can't deal with that toxin, you pull the plug and you trigger your death apparatus and you kill yourself. Wow, so it's truly life and death. Yeah. So it's really, it's a challenge. And this is a bit like sexual selection. It's not so... They're all pretty much genetically identical, but they've had different life histories. So have you had a tough day? Did you happen to get infected by this virus or did you run out of iron or did you get a bit too much sun? Whatever it may be. If this extra stress of the toxin just pushes you over the edge, then you have this binary choice. Either you're the next generation or you kill yourself now using the same machinery. It's also actually exactly the way I approach dating, but that's probably why I'm single. Okay. What about if we can step back, DNA? Just mechanism of storing information. RNA, DNA. How big of an invention was that? That seems to be fundamental to something deep within what life is, is the ability, as you said, to kind of store and propagate information. But then you also kind of inferred that with your and your students' work, that there's a deep connection between the chemistry and the ability to have this kind of genetic information. So how big of an invention is it to have a nice representation, a nice hard drive for info to pass on? Huge, I suspect. I mean, but when I was talking about the code, you see the code in RNA as well. And RNA almost certainly came first. And there's been an idea going back decades called the RNA world, because RNA in theory can copy itself and can catalyze reactions. So it kind of cuts out this chicken and egg loop. So DNA is possible, it's not that special. So RNA, RNA is the thing that does the work, really. And the code lies in RNA. The code lies in the interactions between RNA and amino acids. And it still is there today in the ribosome, for example, which is just kind of a giant ribozyme, which is to say it's an enzyme that's made of RNA. So getting to RNA, I suspect, is probably not that hard. But getting from RNA, how do you, you know, there's multiple different types of RNA now. How do you distinguish? This is something we're actively thinking about. How do you distinguish between a random population of RNA? Some of them go on to become messenger RNA. This is the transcript of the code of the gene that you want to make. Some of them become transfer RNA, which is the kind of the unit that holds the amino acid that's going to be polymerized. Some of them become ribosomal RNA, which is the machine which is joining them all up together. How do they discriminate themselves? And, you know, is some kind of phase transition going on there? I don't know. It's a difficult question. And we're now in the region of biology where information is coming in. But the thing about RNA is very, very good at what it does. But the largest genomes supported by RNA are RNA viruses, like HIV, for example. They're pretty small. And so there's a limit to how complex life could be unless you come up with DNA, which chemically is a really small change. But how easy it is to make that change, I don't really know. As soon as you've got DNA, then you've got an amazingly stable molecule for information storage and you can do absolutely anything. But how likely that transition from RNA to DNA was, I don't know either. How much possibility is there for variety in ways to store information? Because it seems to be very specific characteristics about the programming language of DNA. Yeah, there's a lot of work going on on what's called the xenodna or RNA. Can we replace the bases themselves, the letters, if you like, in RNA or DNA? Can we replace the backbone? Can we replace, for example, phosphate with arsenate? Can we replace the sugar ribose or deoxyribose with a different sugar? And the answer is yes, you can. Within limits, there's not an infinite space there. Arsenate doesn't really work if the bonds are not as strong as phosphate. It's probably quite hard to replace phosphate. It's possible to do it. The question to me is, why is it this way? Is it because there was some form of selection that this is better than the other forms and there were lots of competing forms of information storage early on and this one was the one that worked out? Or was it kind of channeled that way, that these are the molecules that you're dealing with and they work? And I'm increasingly thinking it's that way, that we're channeled towards ribose, phosphate and the bases that are used. But there are 200 different letters kicking around out there that could have been used. It's such an interesting question. If you look at in the programming world in computer science, there's a programming language called JavaScript, which was written super quickly. It's a giant mess, but it took over the world. And it was kind of a running joke that surely this can't be. It's a terrible programming language. It's a giant mess. It's full of bugs. It's so easy to write really crappy code, but it took over all of front end development in the web browser. If you have any kind of dynamic interactive website, it's usually running JavaScript and it's now taking over much of the back end, which is like the serious heavy duty computational stuff and it's become super fast with the different compilation engines that are running it. So it really took over the world. It's very possible that this initially crappy derided language actually takes everything over. And then the question is, did human civilization always strive towards JavaScript? Or was JavaScript just the first programming language that ran on the browser and still sticky? The first is the sticky one. And so it wins over anything else because it was first. And I don't think that's answerable, right? But it's good to ask that. I suppose in the lab, you can't run it with programming languages, but in biology, you can probably do some kind of small scale evolutionary test to try to infer which is which. Yeah. I mean, in a way we've got the hardware and the software here and the hardware is maybe the DNA and the RNA itself. And then the software perhaps is more about the code. Did the code have to be this way? Could it have been a different way? People talk about the optimization of the code and there's some suggestion for that. I think it's weak actually. But you could imagine you can come out with a million different codes and this would be one of the best ones. Well, we don't know this. Well, I mean, people have tried to model it based on the effect that mutations would have. So no, you're right. We don't know it because that's the single assumption that a mutation is what's being selected on there. There's other possibilities too. I mean, there does seem to be a resilience and a redundancy to the whole thing. It's hard to mess up. And the way you mess it up often is likely to produce interesting results. So it's... Are you talking about JavaScript or the genetic code now? Both. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's almost, you know, biology is underpinned by this kind of mess as well. And you look at the human genome and it's full of stuff that is really either broken or dysfunctional or was a virus once, whatever it may be, and somehow it works. Maybe we need a lot of this mess. You know, we know that some functional genes are taken from this mess. So what about, you mentioned predatory behavior. We talked about sex. What about violence? Predator and prey dynamics. When was that invented? And poetic and biological ways of putting it, like how do you describe predator-prey relationship? Is it a beautiful dance or is it a violent atrocity? Well I guess it's both, isn't it? I mean, when does it start? It starts in bacteria. You see these amazing predators. Delavibrio is one that Lynn Margulis used to talk about a lot. It's got a kind of a drill piece that drills through the wall and the membrane of the bacterium and then it effectively eats the bacterium from just inside the periplasmic space and makes copies of itself that way. So that's straight predation. There are predators among bacteria. So predation in that, sorry to interrupt, means you murder somebody and use their body as a resource in some way. But it's not parasitic in that you need them to be still alive? No, no. I mean predation is you kill them really. Murder. Parasites, you kind of live on them. Okay, so but it seems the predator is the really popular tool. So what we see if we go back 560, 570 million years before the Cambrian explosion, there is what's known as the Ediacaran fauna or sometimes they call Vendobionts, which is a lovely name. And it's not obvious that they're animals at all. They're stalked things. They often have fronds that look a lot like leaves with kind of fractal branching patterns on them. And the thing is they're found sometimes geologists can figure out the environment that they were in and say this is more than 200 meters deep because there's no sign of any waves. There's no storm damage down here, this kind of thing. They were more than 200 meters deep, so they're definitely not photosynthetic. These are animals. And they're filter feeders. And we know sponges and corals and things are filter feeding animals. They're stuck to the spot. And little bits of carbon that come their way, they filter it out and that's what they're eating. So no predation involved in this beyond stuff just dies anyway. And it feels like a very gentle, rather beautiful, rather limited world, you might say. There's not a lot going on there. And something changes. Oxygen definitely changes during this period. Other things may have changed as well. But the next thing you really see in the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion. And what do we see there? We're now seeing animals that we would recognize. They've got eyes, they've got claws, they've got shells. They're plainly killing things or running away and hiding. And so we've gone from a rather gentle but limited world to a rather vicious, unpleasant world that we recognize and which leads to kind of arms races, evolutionary arms races. Which again is something that when we think about a nuclear arms race, we think, Jesus, we don't want to go there. It's not done anybody any good. In some ways, maybe it does do good. I don't want to make an argument for nuclear arms. But predation as a mechanism forces organisms to adapt to change to be better to escape or to kill. If you need to eat, then you've got to eat. And a cheetah's not going to run at that speed unless it has to because the zebra is capable of escaping. So it leads to much greater feats of evolution than would ever have been possible without it. And in the end, to a much more beautiful world. And so it's not all bad by any means. But the thing is, you can't have this if you don't have an oxygenated planet. Because it's all in the end, it's about how much energy can you extract from the food you eat. And if you don't have an oxygenated planet, you can get about 10% out, not much more than that. And if you've got an oxygenated planet, you can get about 40% out. And that means you can have, instead of having one or two trophic levels, you can have five or six trophic levels. And that means things can eat things that eat other things and so on. And you've gone to a level of ecological complexity, which is completely impossible in the absence of oxygen. This reminds me of the Hunter S. Thompson quote, that for every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled. The history of life on earth, unfortunately, is that of violence. It's the trillions and trillions of multi-cell organisms that were murdered in the struggle for survival. It's a sorry statement, but yes, it's basically true. And that somehow is a catalyst from an evolutionary perspective for creativity, for creating more and more complex organisms that are better and better at surviving. I mean, survival of the fittest, if you just go back to that old phrase, means death of the weakest. Now what's fit, what's weak, these are terms that don't have much intrinsic meaning. But the thing is, evolution only happens because of death. One way to die is the constraints, the scarcity of the resources in the environment. But that seems to be not nearly as good of a mechanism for death than other creatures roaming about in the environment. When I say environment, I mean like the static environment. But then there's the dynamic environment of bigger things trying to eat you and use you for your energy. It forces you to come up with a solution to your specific problem that is inventive and is new and hasn't been done before. And so it forces, I mean, literally change, literally evolution on populations. They have to become different. And it's interesting that humans have channeled that into more, I mean, I guess what humans are doing is they're inventing more productive and safe ways of doing that. You know, this whole idea of morality and all those kinds of things. I think they ultimately lead to competition versus violence. Because I think violence can have a cold, brutal, inefficient aspect to it. But if you channel that into more controlled competition in the space of ideas, in the space of approaches to life, maybe you can be even more productive than evolution is. Because evolution is very wasteful. Like the amount of murder required to really test a good idea, genetically speaking, is just a lot. Many, many, many generations. Morally, we cannot base society on the way that evolution works. But actually, in some respects, we do, which is to say, this is how science works. We have competing hypotheses that have to get better, otherwise they die. It's the way that society works. In ancient Greece, we had Athens and Sparta and city-states, and then we had the Renaissance and nation-states. Universities compete with each other. This amount of companies competing with each other all the time, it drives innovation. If we want to do it without all the death that we see in nature, then we have to have some kind of societal level control that says, well, there's some limits, guys, and these are what the limits are going to be. Society as a whole has to say, right, we want to limit the amount of death here, so you can't do this and you can't do that. Who makes up these rules and how do we know? It's a tough thing, but it's basically trying to find a moral basis for avoiding the death of evolution and natural selection and keeping the innovation and the richness of it. I forgot who said it, but that murder is illegal, probably Kurt Vonnegut, murder is illegal except when it's done to the sound of trumpets and at a large scale. So we still have wars. And we are struggling with this idea that murder is a bad thing. It's so interesting how we're channeling the best of the evolutionary imperative and trying to get rid of the stuff that's not productive. Trying to almost accelerate evolution, the same kind of thing that makes evolution creative, we're trying to use that. I think we naturally do it. I mean, I don't think we can help ourselves do it. And capitalism as a form is basically about competition and differential rewards. But society and we have a, I keep using this word, moral obligation, but we cannot operate as a society if we go that way. It's interesting that we've had problems achieving balance. So for example, in the financial crash in 2009, do you let banks go to the wall or not? This kind of question. In evolution, certainly you let them go to the wall. And in that sense, you don't need the regulation because they just die. Whereas if we as a society think about what's required for society as a whole, then you don't necessarily let them go to the wall. In which case you then have to impose some kind of regulation that the bankers themselves will in an evolutionary manner exploit. Yeah, we've been struggling with this kind of idea of capitalism, the cold brutality of capitalism that seems to create so much beautiful things in this world. And then the ideals of communism that seem to create so much brutal destruction in history. We struggle with ideas of, well, maybe we didn't do it right. How can we do things better? And then the ideas are the things we're playing with as opposed to people. If a PhD student has a bad idea, we don't shoot the PhD student. We just criticize their idea and hope they improve it. You have a very humane lab. Yeah. I don't know how you guys do it. The way I run things, it's always life and death. Okay. So it is interesting about humans that there is an inner sense of morality which begs the question of how did Homo sapiens evolve? If we think about the invention of, early invention of sex and early invention of predation, what was the thing invented to make humans? What would you say? I mean, I suppose a couple of things I'd say. Number one is you don't have to wind the clock back very far, five, six million years or so and let it run forwards again. And the chances of humans as we know them is not necessarily that high. Imagine as an alien, you find planet Earth and it's got everything apart from humans on it. It's an amazing, wonderful, marvelous planet, but nothing that we would recognize as extremely intelligent life, spacefaring civilization. So when we think about aliens, we're kind of after something like ourselves. We're after a spacefaring civilization. We're not after zebras and giraffes and lions and things, amazing though they are. But the additional kind of evolutionary steps to go from large complex mammals, monkeys let's say, to humans doesn't strike me as that long a distance. It's all about the brain. And where's the brain and morality coming from? It seems to me to be all about groups, human groups and interactions between groups. The collective intelligence of it. Yes, the interactions really. And there's a guy at UCL called Mark Thomas who's done a lot of really beautiful work I think on this kind of question. So I talk to him every now and then. So my views are influenced by him. But a lot seems to depend on population density. The more interactions you have going on between different groups, the more transfer of information if you like between groups. People moving from one group to another group, almost like lateral gene transfer in bacteria. The more expertise you're able to develop and maintain, the more culturally complex your society can become. And groups that have become detached, like on Easter Island for example, very often degenerate in terms of the complexity of their civilization. Is that true for complex organisms in general? Population density is often productive. Really matters. But in human terms, I don't know what the actual factors were that were driving a large brain. But you can talk about fire, you can talk about tool use, you can talk about language. And none of them seem to correlate especially well with the actual known trajectory of human evolution in terms of cave art and these kinds of things. That seems to work much better just with population density and number of interactions between different groups. All of which is really about human interactions, human-human interactions and the complexity of those. But population density is the thing that increases the number of interactions, but then there must have been inventions forced by that number of interactions that actually led to humans. So like Richard Wrangham talks about that it's basically the beta males had to beat up the alpha male. So that's what collaboration looks like. When you're living together, our early ancestors don't like the dictatorial aspect of a single individual at the top of a tribe. So they learned to collaborate how to basically create a democracy of sorts. A democracy that prevents, minimizes or lessens the amount of violence, which essentially gives strength to the tribe and make the war between tribes versus the dictator. I mean, I think one of the most wonderful things about humans is we're all of those things. I mean, we are deeply social as a species and we're also deeply selfish. And it seems to me the conflict between capitalism and communism is really just two aspects of human nature, both of which are- Trevor Burrus We have both. Richard Dawkins We have both. And we have a constant kind of vying between the two sides. We really do care about other people beyond our families, beyond our immediate people. We care about society and the society that we live in. And you could say that's a drawing towards socialism or communism. On the other side, we really do care about ourselves. We really do care about our families, about working for something that we gain from. And that's the capitalist side of it. They're both really deeply ingrained in human nature. In terms of violence and interactions between groups, yes, all this dynamic of if you're interacting between groups, you can be certain that they're going to be burning each other and all kinds of physical violent interactions as well, which will drive the kind of cleverness of how do you resist this? Let's build a tower. What are we going to do to prevent being overrun by those marauding gangs from over there? You look outside humans and you look at chimps and bonobos and so on, and they're very, very different structures to society. Chimps tend to have an aggressive alpha male type structure and bonobos are- there's basically a female society where the males are predominantly excluded and only brought in at the behest of the female. We have a lot in common with both of those groups. And there's again, tension there. And probably chimps, more violence with bonobos, probably more sex. That's another tension. How serious do we want to be? How much fun we want to be? Asking for a friend again, what do you think happened to Neanderthals? What did we cheeky humans do to the Neanderthals, homo sapiens? Do you think we murdered them? Was it the, how do we murder them? How do we out-compete them? Do we out-mate them? I don't know. I mean, I think there's unequivocal evidence that we mated with them. We always try to mate with everything. Yes, pretty much. There's some interesting- the first sequences that came along were in mitochondrial DNA. And that was back to about 2002 or thereabouts. What was found was that Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA was very different to human mitochondrial DNA. They drew a clock on it and it said the divergent state was about 600,000 years ago or something like that, so not so long ago. And then the first full genomes were sequenced maybe 10 years after that. And they showed plenty of signs of mating between. So the mitochondrial DNA effectively says no mating. And the nuclear genes say, yeah, lots of mating. But we don't know- How's that possible? So can you explain the difference between mitochondrial DNA and nucleus? I've talked before about the mitochondria, which are the power packs in cells. These are the paired down control units is their DNA. So it's passed on by the mother only. And in the egg cell, we might have half a million copies of mitochondrial DNA. There's only 37 genes left and they do a- it's basically the control unit of energy production. That's what it's doing. It's a basic old school machine that does- And it's got genes that were considered to be effectively trivial because they did a very narrowly defined job. But they're not trivial in the sense that that narrowly defined job is about everything that is being alive. So they're much easier to sequence. You've got many more copies of these things and you can sequence them very quickly. But the problem is because they go down only the maternal line from mother to daughter, all mitochondrial DNA in mine is going nowhere, doesn't matter any kids we have, they get their mother's mitochondrial DNA, except in very, very rare and strange circumstances. And so it tells a different story and it's not a story which is easy to reconcile always. And what it seems to suggest to my mind at least is that there was one way traffic of genes probably going from humans into Neanderthals rather than the other way around. Why did the Neanderthals disappear? I don't know. I mean, I suspect that they were probably less violent, less clever, less populous, less willing to fight. I don't know. I mean, I think it probably drove them to extinction at the margins of Europe. And it's interesting how much, if we ran Earth over and over again, how many of these branches of intelligent beings that have figured out some kind of how to leverage collective intelligence, which ones of them emerge, which ones of them succeed? Is it the more violent ones? Is it the more isolated ones? Like what dynamics result in more productivity? And I suppose we'll never know. The more complex the organism, the harder it is to run the experiment in the lab. Yes, and in some respects, maybe it's best if we don't know. Yeah, the truth might be very painful. What about if we actually step back a couple of interesting things that we humans do? One is object manipulation and movement. And of course, movement was something that was done. That was another big invention, being able to move around the environment. And the other one is this sensory mechanism, how we sense the environment. One of the coolest high definition ones is vision. How big are those inventions in the history of life on Earth? Vision movement, I mean, again, extremely important going back to the origin of animals, the Cambrian explosion where suddenly you're seeing eyes in the fossil record. It's not necessarily, again, lots of people historically have said what use is half an eye? And you can go in a series of steps from a light sensitive spot on a flat piece of tissue to an eyeball with a lens and so on. If you assume no more than, I don't remember this, this was a specific model that I have in mind, but it was 1% change or half a percent change for each generation. How long would it take to evolve an eye as we know it? And the answer is half a million years. It doesn't have to take long. That's not how evolution works. That's not an answer to the question. It just shows you can reconstruct the steps and you can work out roughly how it can work. So it's not that big a deal to evolve an eye, but once you have one, then there's nowhere to hide. And again, we're back to predator prey relationships. We're back to all the benefits that being able to see brings you. And if you think philosophically what bats are doing with the eco location and so on, I have no idea, but I suspect that they form an image of the world in pretty much the same way that we do. It's just a matter of mental reconstruction. So I suppose the other thing about sight, there are single celled organisms that have got a lens and a retina and a cornea and so on. Basically, they've got a camera type eye in a single cell. They don't have a brain. What they understand about their world is impossible to say, but they're capable of coming up with the same structures to do so. So I suppose then is that once you've got things like eyes, then you have a big driving pressure on the central nervous system to figure out what it all means. And we come around to your other point about manipulation, sensory input and so on about you. Now you have a huge requirement to understand what your environment is and what it means and how it reacts and where you should run away and where you should stay put. Actually, on that point, I don't know if you know the work of Donald Hoffman, who uses the argument, the mechanism of evolution to say that there's not necessarily a strong evolutionary value to seeing the world as it is. So objective reality, that our perception actually is very different from what's objectively real. We're living inside an illusion and we're basically the entire set of species on earth, I think, I guess, are competing in a space that's an illusion that's distinct from, that's far away from physical reality as it is, as defined by physics. I'm not sure it's an illusion so much as a bubble. I mean, we have a sensory input, which is a fraction of what we could have a sensory input on. And we interpret it in terms of what's useful for us to know to stay alive. So yes, it's an illusion in that sense, but the tree is physically there. And if you walk into that tree, it's not purely a delusion. There's some physical reality to it. So it's a sensory slice into reality as it is, but because it's just a slice, you're missing a big picture. But he says that that slice doesn't necessarily need to be a slice. It could be a complete fabrication that's just consistent amongst the species, which is an interesting, or at least it's a humbling realization that our perception is limited and our cognitive abilities are limited. And at least to me, it's argument from evolution. I don't know how strong that is as an argument, but I do think that life can exist in the mind. Yes. In the same way that you can do a virtual reality video game and you can have a vibrant life inside that place, and that place is not real in some sense, but you can still have all the same forces of evolution, all the same competition, the dynamics between humans you can have. But I don't know if there's evidence for that being the thing that happened on Earth. It seems that Earth... I think in either environment, I wouldn't deny that you could have exactly the world that you talk about. And it would be very difficult to... The idea in Matrix movies and so on, that the whole world is completely a construction and we're fundamentally deluded, it's difficult to say that's impossible or couldn't happen. And certainly we construct in our minds what the outside world is, but we do it on input and that input, I would hesitate to say it's not real because it's precisely how we do understand the world. We have eyes, but if you keep someone in... Apparently this kind of thing happens. Someone kept in a dark room for five years or something like that, they never see properly again because the neural wiring that underpins how we interpret vision never developed. You need... When you watch a child develop, it walks into a table, it bangs his head on the table and it hurts. Now you've got two inputs. You've got one pain from this sharp edge and number two, you've probably touched it and realized it's there, it's a sharp edge and you've got the visual input and you put the three things together and think, I don't want to walk into a table again. So you're learning and it's a limited reality, but it's a true reality. And if you don't learn that properly, then you will get eaten, you will get hit by a bus, you will not survive. And same if you're in some kind of, let's say, computer construction of reality. I'm not in my ground here, but if you construct the laws that this is what reality is inside this, then you play by those laws. Yeah, I mean, as long as the laws are consistent. So just like you said in the lab, the interesting thing about the simulation question, yes, it's hard to know if we're living inside a simulation, but also, yes, it's possible to do these kinds of experiments in the lab now, more and more. To me, the interesting question is how realistic does a virtual reality game need to be for us to not be able to tell the difference? A more interesting question to me is how realistic or interesting does a virtual reality world need to be in order for us to want to stay there forever or much longer than physical reality? Prefer that place. And also prefer it not as we prefer hard drugs, but prefer it in a deep, meaningful way, in the way we enjoy life. I mean, I suppose the issue with the matrix, I imagine that it's possible to delude the mind sufficiently that you genuinely in that way do think that you are interacting with the real world when in fact the whole thing's a simulation. How good does a simulation need to be to be able to do that? Well, it needs to convince you that all your sensory input is correct and accurate and joins up and makes sense. Now that sensory input is not something that we're born with. We're born with a sense of touch. We're born with eyes and so on, but we don't know how to use them. We don't know what to make of them. We go around, we bump into trees, we cry a lot, we're in pain a lot. We're basically booting up the system so that it can make head or tail of the sensory input that it's getting. And that sensory input is not just a one-way flux of things. It's also you have to walk into things, you have to hear things, you have to put it together. Now if you've got just babies in the matrix who are slotted into this, I don't think they have that kind of sensory input. I don't think they would have any way to make sense of New York as a world that they're part of. The brain is just not developed in that way. Well, I can't make sense of New York in this physical reality either. But you said pain and the walking into things. Well, you can create a pain signal and as long as it's consistent that certain things result in pain. You can start to construct a reality. There's some, maybe you disagree with this, but I think we are born almost with a desire to be convinced by our reality. Like a desire to make sense of our reality. Oh, I'm sure we are, yes. So there's an imperative. So whatever that reality is given to us, like the table hurts, fire is hot, I think we want to be deluded. In the sense that we want to make a simple, like Einstein's simple theory of the thing around us. We want that simplicity. And so maybe the hunger for the simplicity is the thing that could be used to construct a pretty dumb simulation that tricks us. So maybe tricking humans doesn't require building a universe. No, I don't, I mean, this is not what I work on, so I don't know how close to it we are. I agree with you that, yeah, I'm not sure that it's a morally justifiable thing to do, but is it possible in principle? I think it'd be very difficult, but I don't see why in principle it wouldn't be possible. And I agree with you that we try to understand the world. We try to integrate the sensory inputs that we have, and we try to come up with a hypothesis that explains what's going on. I think though that we have huge input from the social context that we're in. We don't do it by ourselves. We don't kind of blunder around in a universe by ourself and understand the whole thing. We're told by the people around us what things are and what they do, and language is coming in here and so on. So it would have to be an extremely impressive simulation to simulate all of that. Yeah, simulate all of that, including the social construct, the spread of ideas and the exchange of ideas. I don't know, but those questions are really important to understand as we become more and more digital creatures. It seems like the next step of evolution is us becoming, all the same mechanisms we've talked about are becoming more and more plugged in into the machine. We're becoming cyborgs, and there's an interesting interplay between wires and biology. You know, zeros and ones and the biological systems. And I don't think you can just, I don't think we'll have the luxury to see humans as disjoint from the technology we've created for much longer. We are an organism that's- Yeah, I mean, I agree with you, but we come really with this to consciousness. And is there a distinction there? Because what you're saying, the natural end point says we are indistinguishable. That if you are capable of building an AI which is sufficiently close and similar that we merge with it, then to all intents and purposes, that AI is conscious as we know it. And I don't have a strong view, but I have a view. And I wrote about it in the epilogue to my last book because 10 years ago, I wrote a chapter in a book called Life Ascending about consciousness. And the subtitle of Life Ascending was the 10 Great Inventions of Evolution. And I couldn't possibly write a book with a subtitle like that that did not include consciousness and specifically consciousness as one of the great inventions. And it was in part because I was just curious to know more and I read more for that chapter. I never worked on it, but I've always, how can anyone not be interested in the question? And I was left with the feeling that A, nobody knows and B, there are two main schools of thought out there with a big kind of skew in distribution. One of them says, oh, it's a property of matter. It's an unknown law of physics, panpsychism. Everything is conscious. The sun is conscious. It's just a matter of, or a rock is conscious. It's just a matter of how much. And I find that very unpersuasive. I can't say that it's wrong. It's just that I think we somehow can tell the difference between something that's living and something that's not. And then the other end is it's an emergent property of a very complex central nervous system. And I never quite understand what people mean by words like emergence. I mean, there are genuine examples, but I think we very often tend to use it to plaster over ignorance. As a biochemist, the question for me then was, okay, it's a concoction of a central nervous system. A depolarizing neuron gives rise to a feeling, to a feeling of pain or to a feeling of love or anger or whatever it may be. So what is then a feeling in biophysical terms in the central nervous system? Which bit of the wiring gives rise to... And I've never seen anyone answer that question in a way that makes sense to me. And that's an important question to answer. I think if we want to understand consciousness, that's the only question to answer. Because certainly an AI is capable of out thinking and it's only a matter of time. Maybe it's already happened. In terms of just information processing and computational skill, I don't think we have any problem in designing a mind which is at least the equal of the human mind. But in terms of what we value the most as humans, which is to say our feelings, our emotions, our sense of what the world is in a very personal way, that I think means as much or more to people than their information processing. And that's where I don't think that AI necessarily will become conscious because I think it's the property of life. Well, let's talk about it more. You're an incredible writer, one of my favorite writers. So let me read from your latest book, Transformers, what you write about consciousness. "'I think therefore I am,' said Descartes, is one of the most celebrated lines ever written. But what am I exactly? An artificial intelligence can think too by definition and therefore is. Yet few of us could agree whether AI is capable in principle of anything resembling human emotions of love or hate, fear and joy, of spiritual yearnings for oneness or oblivion or corporeal pangs of thirst and hunger. The problem is we don't know what emotions are,' as you were saying. "'What is the feeling in physical terms? How does a discharging neuron give rise to a feeling of anything at all? This is the hard problem of consciousness, the seeming duality of mind and matter, the physical makeup of our innermost self. We can understand in principle how an extremely sophisticated parallel processing system could be capable of wondrous feats of intelligence, but we can't answer in principle whether such a supreme intelligence would experience joy or melancholy. What is the quantum of solace?' I, speaking to the question of emergence, you know, there's just technical, there's an excellent paper on this recently about this kind of phase transition emergence of performance in neural networks on the problem of NLP, natural language processing. So language models, there seems to be this question of size. At some point there is a phase transition as you grow the size of the neural network. So the question is, this is sort of somewhat of a technical question that you can philosophize over. The technical question is, is there a size of a neural network that starts to be able to form the kind of representations that can capture a language and therefore be able to, not just language, but linguistically capture knowledge that's sufficient to solve a lot of problems in language, like be able to have a conversation. And there seems to be not a gradual increase, but a phase transition. And they're trying to construct the science of where that is. Like what is a good size of a neural network and why does such a phase transition happen? Anyway, that sort of points to emergence, that there could be stages where a thing goes from being, oh, you're a very intelligent toaster, to a toaster that's feeling sad today and turns away and looks out the window sighing, having an existential crisis. Thinking of Marvin, the paranoid android. Well, no, Marvin is simplistic because Marvin is just cranky. Yes. So, easily programmed. Yeah, easily programmed, nonstop existential crisis. You're almost basically, what is it, notes from underground by Dostoevsky. Just constantly complaining about life. No, they're capturing the full rollercoaster of human emotion. The excitement, the bliss, the connection, the empathy and all that kind of stuff. And then the selfishness, the anger, the depression, all that kind of stuff. They're capturing all of that and be able to experience it deeply. Like it's the most important thing you could possibly experience today. The highest highs, the lowest lows, this is it. My life will be over. I cannot possibly go on, that feeling, and then after a nap, you're feeling amazing. That might be something that emerges. So why would a nap make an AI being feel better? First of all, we don't know that for a human either, right? But we do know that that's actually true for many people much of the time. Maybe you're depressed and you have a nap and you do, in fact, feel better. Oh, you are actually asking the technical question there. So there's a biological answer to that. And so the question is whether AI needs to have the same kind of attachments to its body, bodily function and preservation of the brain's successful function. Self-preservation essentially in some deep biological sense. I mean, to my mind, it comes back around to the problem we were talking about before about simulations and sensory input and learning what all of this stuff means. And life and death, that biology, unlike society, has a death penalty over everything. And natural selection works on that death penalty, that if you make this decision wrongly, you die. And the next generation is represented by beings that made a slightly different decision on balance. And that is something that's intrinsically difficult to simulate in all this richness, I would say. So what is- Death in all its richness. Our relationship with death or the whole of it. So which, when you say richness, of course, there's a lot in that, which is hard to simulate. What's part of the richness that's hard to simulate? I suppose the complexity of the environment and your position in that, or the position of an organism in that environment, in the full richness of that environment over its entire life, over multiple generations, with changes in gene sequence over those generations, or slight changes in the makeup of those individuals over generations. But if you take it back to the level of single cells, which I do in the book, and ask how does a single cell in effect know it exists as a unit, as an entity? I mean, no, in inverted commas, obviously it doesn't know anything. But it acts as a unit, and it acts with astonishing precision as a unit. And I had suggested that that's linked to the electrical fields on the membranes themselves, and that they give some indication of how am I doing in relation to my environment as a kind of real-time feedback on the world. And this is something physical, which can be selected over generations, that if you are, if you get this wrong, it's linked with this set of circumstances that I've just... As an individual, I have a moment of blind panic and run. As a bacterium or something, you have some electrical discharge that says blind panic, and it runs, whatever it may be. And you associate over generations, multiple generations, that this electrical phase that I'm in now is associated with a response like that. And it's easy to see how feelings come in through the back door almost with that kind of giving real-time feedback on your position in the world in relation to how am I doing. And then you complexify the system, and yes, I have no problem with phase transition. Can all of this be done purely by the language, by the issues with how the system understands itself? Maybe it can, I honestly don't know. But the philosophers for a long time have talked about the possibility that you can have a zombie intelligence and that there are no feelings there, but everything else is the same. I mean, I have to throw this back to you, really. How do you deal with a zombie intelligence? So first of all, I can see that from a biologist's perspective, you think of all the complexities that led up to the human being. The entirety of the history of four billion years that in some deep sense integrated the human being into this environment. And that dance of the organism and the environment, you could see how emotions arise from that, and their emotions are deeply connected, creating a human experience. And from that, you mix in consciousness and the full mess of it, yeah. But from a perspective of an intelligent organism that's already here, like a baby that learns, it doesn't need to learn how to be a collection of cells or how to do all the things it needs to do. The basic function of a baby as it learns is to interact with its environment, to learn from its environment, to learn how to fit in to this social society, to like... And the basic response of the baby is to cry a lot of the time. To cry, to, well, to convince the humans to protect it or to discipline it, to teach it. I mean, we've developed a bunch of different tricks, how to get our parents to take care of us, to educate us, to teach us about the world. Also, we've constructed the world in such a way that it's safe enough for us to survive in and yet dangerous enough for learning the valuable lessons, like the tables are still hard with corners, so it can still run into them. It hurts like how... So AI needs to solve that problem, not the problem of constructing this super complex organism that leads up to run the whole... To make an apple pie, to build the whole universe, you need to build the whole universe. I think the zombie question is something I would leave to the philosophers because... And I will also leave to them the definition of love and what happens between two human beings when there's a magic that just grabs them, like nothing else matters in the world and somehow you've been searching for this feeling, this moment, this person your whole life. That feeling, the philosophers can have a lot of fun with that one and also say that that's just... You can have a biological explanation, you can have all kinds of... It's all fake, it's actually... Ayn Rand will say it's all selfish. There's a lot of different interpretations, I'll leave it to the philosophers. The point is the feeling sure as hell feels very real and if my toaster makes me feel like it's the only toaster in the world and when I leave and I miss the toaster and when I come back, I'm excited to see the toaster and my life is meaningful and joyful and the friends I have around me get a better version of me because that toaster exists, that sure as hell feels like a conscious toaster. Is that psychologically different to having a dog? No. Because most people would dispute whether we can say a dog... I would say a dog is undoubtedly conscious but some people would say it doesn't. But there's degrees of consciousness and so on but people are definitely much more uncomfortable saying a toaster can be conscious than a dog and there's still a deep connection. You could say our relationship with the dog has more to do with anthropomorphism, like we kind of project the human being onto it. Maybe. We can do the same damn thing with a toaster. Yes, but you can look into the dog's eyes and you can see that it's sad, that it's delighted to see you again. I don't have a dog by the way, it's not that I'm a dog person. And dogs are actually incredibly good at using their eyes to do just that. They are. Now I don't imagine that a dog is remotely as close to being intelligent as an AI intelligence but it's certainly capable of communicating emotionally with us. But here's what I would venture to say. We tend to think because AI plays chess well and is able to fold proteins now well that it's intelligent. I would argue that in order to communicate with humans, in order to have emotional intelligence, it actually requires another order of magnitude of intelligence. It's not easy to be flawed. Solving a mathematical puzzle is not the same as the full complexity of human to human interaction. That's actually, we humans just take for granted the things we're really good at. Non-stop people tell me how shitty people are at driving. No, humans are incredible at driving. Bipedal walking, walking, object manipulation, we're incredible at this. And so people tend to- Discount the things we all just take for granted. And one of those things that they discount is our ability, the dance of conversation and interaction with each other. The ability to morph ideas together, the ability to get angry at each other and then to miss each other. Like, to create a tension that makes life fun and difficult and challenging in a way that's meaningful. That is a skill that's learned and AI would need to solve that problem. I mean, in some sense, what you're saying is AI cannot become meaningfully emotional, let's say, until it experiences some kind of internal conflict that is unable to reconcile these various aspects of reality or its reality with a decision to make. And then it feels sad necessarily because it doesn't know what to do. I certainly can't dispute that. That may very well be how it works. I think the only way to find out is to do it. To build it, yeah. And leave it to the philosophers if it actually feels sad or not. The point is, the robot will be sitting there alone having an internal conflict, an existential crisis, and that's required for it to have a deep, meaningful connection with another human being. Now, does it actually feel that? I don't know. But I'd like to throw something else at you, which troubles me on reading it. Noah Harari's book, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, and he's written about this kind of thing on various occasions. And he sees biochemistry as an algorithm. And then AI will necessarily be able to hack that algorithm and do it better than humans. So there will be AI better at writing music that we appreciate than Mozart ever could, or writing better than Shakespeare ever did, and so on. Because biochemistry is algorithmic, and all you need to do is figure out which bits of the algorithm to play to make us feel good or bad or appreciate things. And as a biochemist, I find that argument close to irrefutable and not very enjoyable. I don't like the sound of it. That's just my reaction as a human being. You might like the sound of it because that says that AI is capable of the same kind of emotional feelings about the world as we are, because the whole thing is an algorithm, and you can program an algorithm, and there you are. He then has a peculiar final chapter where he talks about consciousness in rather separate terms, and he's talking about meditating and so on and getting in touch with his inner conscious. I don't meditate. I don't know anything about that. But he wrote in very different terms about it, as if somehow it's a way out of the algorithm. Now it seems to me that consciousness in that sense is capable of scuppering the algorithm. I think in terms of the biochemical feedback loops and so on, it is undoubtedly algorithmic. But in terms of what we decide to do, it can be much more based on an emotion. We can just think, I don't care. I can't resolve this complex situation. I'm going to do that. And that can be based on, in effect, a different currency, which is the currency of feelings and something where we don't have very much personal control over. And then it comes back around to you, and what are you trying to get at with AI? Do we need to have some system which is capable of overriding a rational decision which cannot be made because there's too much conflicting information by effectively an emotional, judgmental decision that just says, do this and see what happens? That's what consciousness is really doing, in my view. Yeah, and the question is whether it's a different process or just a higher level process. I might, you know, the idea that biochemistry is an algorithm is, to me, an oversimplistic view. There's a lot of things that, the moment you say it, it's irrefutable, but it simplifies. I'm sure it's an extremely complex system. And in the process, loses something fundamental. So, for example, calling a universe an information processing system, sure, yes, you could make that. It's a computer that's performing computations, but you're missing the process of the entropy somehow leading to pockets of complexity that creates these beautiful artifacts that are incredibly complex, and they're like machines. And then those machines are, through the process of evolution, are constructing even further complexity. Like, in calling the universe an information processing machine, you're missing those little local pockets and how difficult it is to create them. So, the question to me is, if biochemistry is an algorithm, how difficult is it to create a software system that runs the human body, which I think is incorrect. I think that is going to take so long. I can't, I mean, that's going to be centuries from now, to be able to reconstruct a human. Now, what I would venture to say, to get some of the magic of a human being, what we were saying with the emotions and the interactions, and like a dog makes a smile and joyful and all those kinds of things, that will come much sooner. But that doesn't require us to reverse engineer the algorithm of biochemistry. Yes, but the toaster is making you happy. It's not about whether you make the toaster happy. No, it has to be. It has to be. It has to be. The toaster has to be able to leave me. Yes, but it's the toaster, it's the AI in this case, is a very intelligent thing. Yeah, the toaster has to be able to be unhappy and leave me. That's essential. That's essential for my being able to miss the toaster. If the toaster is just my servant, that's not, or a provider of services, like tells me the weather and makes toast, that's not going to deep connection. It has to have internal conflict. You write about life and death. It has to be able to be conscious of its mortality and the finiteness of its existence. And that life is temporary and therefore needs to be more selective. One of the most moving moments in the movies from when I was a boy was the unplugging of Hal in 2001, where that was the death of a sentient being and Hal knew it. So I think we all kind of know that a sufficiently intelligent being is going to have some form of consciousness, but whether it would be like biological consciousness, I just don't know. And if you're thinking about how do we bring together, I mean, obviously we're going to interact more closely with AI, but are we really, is a dog really like a toaster or is there really some kind of difference there? You were talking about biochemistry is algorithmic, but it's not single algorithm and it's very complex. Of course it is. There are again, conflicts in the circuits of biochemistry, but I have a feeling that the level of complexity of the total biochemical system at the level of a single cell is less complex than the level of neural networking in the human brain or in an AI. Well I guess I assumed that we were including the brain in the biochemistry algorithm because you have to. I would see that as a higher level of organization of neural networks. They're all using the same biochemical wiring within themselves. Yeah, but the human brain is not just neurons. It's the immune system. It's the whole package. I mean, to have a biochemical algorithm that runs a intelligent biological system, you have to include the whole damn thing. And it's pretty fascinating that it comes from like from an embryo, like the whole, I mean, oh boy. I mean, if you can, what is a human being? Because it's just some code and then you build. And then that, so it's DNA doesn't just tell you what to build, but how to build it. I mean, the thing is impressive. And the question is how difficult is it to reverse engineer the whole shebang? Very difficult. I would say it's, don't want to say impossible, but it's much easier to build a human than to reverse engineer, to build like a fake human, human-like thing, than to reverse engineer the entirety of the process of evolution. I'm not sure if we are capable of reverse engineering the whole thing. If the human mind is capable of doing that. I mean, I wouldn't be a biologist if I wasn't trying, but I know I can't understand the whole problem. I'm just trying to understand the rudimentary outlines of the problem. There's another aspect though, you're talking about developing from a single cell to the human mind and all the part system, subsystems that are part of an immune system and so on. This is something that you'll talk about, I imagine, with Michael Levin, but so little is known about, you talk about reverse engineering, so little is known about the developmental pathways that go from a genome to going to a fully wired organism. And a lot of it seems to depend on the same electrical interactions that I was talking about happening at the level of single cells and its interaction with the environment. There's a whole electrical field side to biology that is not yet written into any of the textbooks, which is about how does an embryo develop into, or a single cell develop into these complex systems? What defines the head? What defines the immune system? What defines the brain and so on? That really is written in a language that we're only just beginning to understand. And frankly, biologists, most biologists are still very reluctant to even get themselves tangled up in questions like electrical fields influencing development. It seems like mumbo jumbo to a lot of biologists, and it should not be because this is the 21st century biology. This is where it's going. But we're not going to reverse engineer a human being or the mind or any of these subsystems until we understand how this developmental process is, how electricity and biology really works. And if it is linked with feelings and with consciousness and so on, that's the... I mean, in the meantime, we have to try, but I think that's where the answer lies. So you think it's possible that the key to things like consciousness or some of the more tricky aspects of cognition might lie in that early development, the interaction of electricity and biology. But we already know the EEG and so on is telling us a lot about brain function, but we don't know which cells, which parts of a neural network is giving rise to the EEG. We don't know the basics. The assumption is, I mean, we know it's neural networks, we know it's multiple cells, hundreds or thousands of cells involved in it. We assume that it's to do with depolarization during action potentials and so on. But the mitochondria which are in there have much more membranes than the plasma membrane of the neuron, and there's a much greater membrane potential. And it's formed in parallel, very often parallel crystals, which are capable of reinforcing a field and generating fields over longer distances. And nobody knows if that plays a role in consciousness or not. There's reasons to argue that it could, but frankly, we simply do not know. And it's not taken into consideration. You look at the structure of the mitochondrial membranes in the brains of simple things like Drosophila, the fruit fly, and they have amazing structures. You can see lots of little rectangular things all lined up in amazing patterns. What are they doing? Why are they like that? We haven't the first clue. What do you think about organoids and brain organoids? So in a lab trying to study the development of these in the Petri dish development of organs, do you think that's promising? Do you have to look at whole systems? I've never done anything like that. I don't know much about it. The people who I've talked to who do work on it say amazing things can happen and that a bit of a brain grown in a dish is capable of experiencing some kind of feelings or even memories of its former brain. Again, I have a feeling that until we understand how to control the electrical fields that control development, we're not going to understand how to turn an organoid into a real functional system. But how do we get that understanding? It's so incredibly difficult. I mean, you would have to, I mean, one promising direction, I'd love to get your opinion on this. I don't know if you're familiar with the work of DeepMind and AlphaFold with protein folding and so on. Do you think it's possible that that will give us some breakthroughs in biology, trying to basically simulate and model the behavior of trivial biological systems as they become complex biological systems? I'm sure it will. The interesting thing to me about protein folding is that for a long time, my understanding, this is not what I work on, so I may have got this wrong, but my understanding is that you take the sequence of a protein and you try to fold it. There are multiple ways in which it can fold and to come up with the correct confirmation is not a very easy thing because you're doing it from first principles from a string of letters which specify the string of amino acids. But what actually happens is when a protein is coming out of a ribosome, it's coming out of a charged tunnel and it's in a very specific environment which is going to force this to go there now and then this one to go there and this one to come like that. So you're forcing a specific conformational set of changes onto it as it comes out of the ribosome. So by the time it's fully emerged, it's already got its shape and that shape depended on the immediate environment that it was emerging into, one letter, one amino acid at a time. I don't think that the field was looking at it that way. If that's correct, then that's very characteristic of science, which is to say it asks very often the wrong question and then does really amazingly sophisticated analyses on something, having never thought to actually think, well, what is biology doing? And biology is giving you a charged electrical environment that forces you to be this way. Now did DeepMind come up through patterns with some answer that was like that? I've got absolutely no idea. It ought to be possible to deduce that from the shapes of proteins. It would require much greater skill than the human mind has. But the human mind is capable of saying, well, hang on, let's look at this exit tunnel and try and work out what shape is this protein going to take and we can figure that out. That's really interesting about the exit tunnel. But like sometimes we get lucky and our, like just like in science, the simplified view or the static view will actually solve the problem for us. So in this case, it's very possible that the sequence of letters has a unique mapping to our structure without considering how it unraveled, so without considering the tunnel. And so that seems to be the case in this situation. The cool thing about proteins, all the different shapes they can possibly take, it actually seems to take very specific, unique shapes given the sequence. That's forced on you by an exit tunnel. The problem is actually much simpler than you thought. And then there's a whole army of proteins which change the conformational state, chaperone proteins. And they're only used when there's some presumably issue with how it came out of the exit tunnel and you want to do it differently to that. So very often the chaperone proteins will go there and will influence the way in which it falls. So there's two ways of doing it. Either you can look at the structures and the sequences of all the proteins and you can apply an immense mind to it and figure out what the patterns are and figure out what happened. Or you can look at the actual situation where it is and say, well, hang on, it was actually quite simple. It's got a charged environment and then it's forced to come out this way. And then the question will be, well, do different ribosomes have different charged environments? What happens if a chaperone... You're asking a different set of questions to come to the same answer in a way which is telling you a much simpler story and explains why it is rather than saying it could be... This is one in a billion different possible conformational states that this protein could have. You're saying, well, it has this one because that was the only one it could take given its setting. Well, yeah. I mean, currently humans are very good at that kind of first principles thinking, stepping back. But I think AI is really good at collecting a huge amount of data and a huge amount of data of observation of planets and figure out that Earth is not at the center of the universe, that there's actually a sun, we're orbiting the sun. But then you can, as a human being, ask, well, how do solar systems come to be? What are the different forces that are required to make this kind of pattern emerge? And then you start to invent things like gravity. I mean, obviously... Is it an invention? I mixed up the ordering of gravity wasn't considered as a thing that connects planets, but we are able to think about those big picture things as human beings. AI is just very good to infer simple models from a huge amount of data. And the question is with biology, we kind of go back and forth how we solve biology. Listen, protein folding was thought to be impossible to solve. There's a lot of brilliant PhD students that worked one protein at a time trying to figure out the structure and the fact that it was able to do that. Oh, I'm not knocking it at all, but I think that people have been asking the wrong question. But then as the people start to ask better and bigger questions, the AI kind of enters the chat and says, I'll help you out with that. Can I give you another example from my own work? The risk of getting a disease as we get older, there are genetic aspects to it. If you spend your whole life overeating and smoking and whatever, that's a whole separate question. But there's a genetic side to the risk and we know a few genes that increase your risk of certain things. For probably 20 years now, people have been doing what's called GWAS, which is genome wide association studies. So you effectively scan the entire genome for any single nucleotide polymorphisms, which is say a single letter change in one place that has a higher association of being linked with a particular disease or not. And you can come up with thousands of these things across the genome. And if you add them all up and try and say, well, so do they add up to explain the known genetic risk of this disease? And the known genetic risk often comes from twin studies. And you can say that if this twin gets epilepsy, there's a 40 or 50% risk that the other twin, identical twin, will also get epilepsy. Therefore, the genetic factor is about 50%. And so the gene similarities that you see should account for 50% of that known risk. Very often it accounts for less than a tenth of the known risk. And there's two possible explanations. And there's one which people tend to do, which is to say, ah, well, we don't have enough statistical power. If we, maybe there's a million, we've only found a thousand of them. But if we find the other million, they're weakly related, but there's a huge number of them. And so we'll account for that whole risk. Maybe there's a billion of them, for instance. So that's one way. The other way is to say, well, hang on a minute, you're missing a system here. That system is the mitochondrial DNA, which people tend to dismiss because it's small and it doesn't change very much. But a few single letter changes in that mitochondrial DNA, it controls some really basic processes. It controls not only all the energy that we need to live and to move around and do everything we do, but also biosynthesis to make the new building blocks to make new cells. And cancer cells very often kind of take over the mitochondria and rewire them so that instead of using them for making energy, they're effectively using them as precursors for the building blocks for biosynthesis. You need to make new amino acids, new nucleotides for DNA. You want to make new lipids to make your membranes and so on. So they kind of rewire metabolism. Now the problem is that we've got all these interactions between mitochondrial DNA and the genes in the nucleus that are overlooked completely because people literally throw away the mitochondrial genes. And we can see in fruit flies that they interact and produce big differences in risk. So you can set AI onto this question of exactly how many of these base changes there are. And that's just one possible solution that maybe there are a million of them and it does account for the greatest part of the risk. Or the other one is they aren't. It's just not there. That actually the risk lies in something you weren't even looking at. And this is where human intuition is very important. Just this feeling that, well, I'm working on this and I think it's important and I'm bloody minded about it. And in the end, some people are right. It turns out that it was important. Can you get AI to do that, to be bloody minded? And that, hang on a minute, you might be missing a whole other system here that's much bigger. That's the moment of discovery, of scientific revolution. I'm giving up on saying AI can't do something. I've said it enough times about enough things. I think there's been a lot of progress. And instead, I'm excited by the possibility of AI helping humans. But at the same time, just like I said, we seem to dismiss the power of humans. Like we're so limited in so many ways that we kind of, in what we feel like dumb ways, like we're not strong, we're kind of, our attention, our memory is limited, our ability to focus on things is limited in our own perceptions of what limit it is. But that actually, there's an incredible computer behind the whole thing that makes this whole system work, our ability to interact with the environment, to reason about the environment. There's magic there. And I'm hopeful that AI can capture some of that same magic. But that magic is not going to look like Deep Blue playing chess. It's going to be more interesting. But I don't think it's going to look like pattern finding either. I mean, that's essentially what you're telling me it does very well at the moment. And my point is, it works very well where you're looking for the right pattern. But we are storytelling animals and the hypothesis is a story. It's a testable story. But a new hypothesis is a leap into the unknown and it's a new story basically. And it says, this leads to this, this leads to that. It's a causal set of storytelling. It's also possible that the leap into the unknown has a pattern of its own. Yes, it is. And it's possible that it's learnable. I'm sure it is. There's a nice book by Arthur Koestler on the nature of creativity. And he likens it to a joke where the punchline goes off in a completely unexpected direction and says that this is the basis of human creativity. Some creative switch of direction to an unexpected place is similar to a joke. I'm not saying that's how it works, but it's a nice idea and there must be some truth in it. And it's one of these, most of the stories we tell are probably the wrong story and probably going nowhere and probably not helpful. And we definitely don't do as well at seeing patterns in things. But some of the most enjoyable human aspects is finding a new story that goes to an unexpected place. And these are all aspects of what being human means to me. Maybe these are all things that AI figures out for itself or maybe they're just aspects. But I just have the feeling sometimes that the people who are trying to understand what we are like, if we wish to craft an AI system which is somehow human-like, that we don't have a firm enough grasp of what humans really are like in terms of how we are built. But we get a better, better understanding of that. I agree with you completely. We try to build the thing and then we go, hang on a minute. There's another system here and that's actually the attempt to build AI that's human-like is getting us to a deeper understanding of human beings. The funny thing is I recently talked to Magnus Carlsen, widely considered to be the greatest chess player of all time. And he talked about AlphaZero, which is a system from DeepMind that plays chess. And he had a funny comment, he has a kind of dry sense of humor, but he was extremely impressed when he first saw AlphaZero play. And he said that it did a lot of things that could easily be mistaken for creativity. So he like refused, as a typical human, refused to give the system sort of its due. Because he came up with a lot of things that a lot of people are extremely impressed by. Not just the sheer calculation, but the brilliance of play. So one of the things that it does in really interesting ways is it sacrifices pieces. So in chess that means you basically take a few steps back in order to take a step forward. You give away pieces for some future reward. And that, for us humans, is where art is in chess. You take big risks. That for us humans, those risks are especially painful because you have a fog of uncertainty before you. So to take a risk now, based on intuition, of I think this is the right risk to take, but there's so many possibilities, that that's where it takes guts. That's where art is, that's that danger. And then the alpha zero takes those same kind of risks and does them even greater degree. But of course it does it from a, well you could easily reduce down to a cold calculation over patterns. But boy, when you see the final result, it sure looks like the same kind of magic that we see in creativity. You see creative play on the chessboard. But the chessboard is very limited. And the question is, as we get better and better, can we do that same kind of creativity in mathematics, in programming, and then eventually in biology, psychology, and expand into more and more complex systems? I was, I used to go running when I was a boy, and fell running, which is to say running up and down mountains. And I was never particularly great at it, but there were some people who were amazingly fast, especially at running down. And I realized in trying to do this, that there's only really two, there's three possible ways of doing it, and there's only two that work. Either you go extremely slowly and carefully, and you figure out, okay, there's a stone, I'll put my foot on this stone, and then there's another, there's a muddy puddle I'm going to avoid. So it's slow, it's laborious, you figure it out step by step. Or you can just go incredibly fast, and you don't think about it at all. The entire conscious mind is shut out of it, and it's probably the same playing table tennis or something. There's something in the mind which is doing a whole lot of subconscious calculations about exactly, and it's amazing. You can run at astonishing speed down a hillside with no idea how you did it at all. And then you panic, and you think, I'm going to break my leg if I keep doing this. I've got to think about where I'm going to put my foot. So you slow down a bit and try to bring those conscious mind in, and then you do, you crash. You cannot think consciously while running downhill. So it's amazing how many calculations the mind is able to make. Now the problem with playing chess or something, if you're able to make all of those subconscious kind of forward calculations about what is the likely outcome of this move now in the way that we can by running down a hillside or something, it's partly about what we have adapted to do. It's partly about the reality of the world that we're in. Running fast downhill is something that we better be bloody good at, otherwise we're going to be eaten. Whereas trying to calculate multiple, multiple moves into the future is not something we've ever been called on to do. Two or three, four moves into the future is quite enough for most of us most of the time. Yeah, yeah, so yeah, just solving chess may not, we may not be as far towards solving the problem of downhill running as we might think just because we solve chess. Still it's beautiful to see creativity. Humans create machines that are able to create art, and art on a chess board and art otherwise. Who knows how far that takes us? So I mentioned Andrej Karpathy earlier. Him and I are big fans of yours. If you're taking votes, his suggestion was you should write your next book on the Fermi Paradox. So let me ask you on the topic of alien life, since we've been talking about life and we're a kind of aliens, how many alien civilizations are out there do you think? Well the universe is very big, so some, but not as many as most people would like to think is my view because the idea that there is a trajectory going from simple cellular life like bacteria all the way through to humans. It seems to me there's some big gaps along that way, that the eukaryotic cell, the complex cell that we have is the biggest of them, but also photosynthesis is another. The other interesting gap is a long gap from the origin of the eukaryotic cells to the first animals. That was about a billion years, maybe more than that. A long delay in when oxygen began to accumulate in the atmosphere. So from the first appearance of oxygen in the great oxidation event to enough for animals to respire, it was close to two billion years. Why so long? It seems to be planetary factors. It seems to be geology as much as anything else, and we don't really know what was going on. So the idea that there's a kind of an inevitable march towards complexity and sentient life, I don't think is right. Not to say it's not going to happen, but I think it's not going to happen often. So if you think of Earth, given the geological constraints and all that kind of stuff, do you have a sense that life, complex life, intelligent life, happen really quickly on Earth or really long? So just to get a sense of, are you more sort of saying that it's very unlikely to get the kind of conditions required to create humans, or is it, even if you have the condition, it's just statistically difficult? I think the, I mean, the problem, the single great problem at the center of all of that to my mind is the origin of the eukaryotic cell, which happened once, and without eukaryotes, nothing else would have happened. And that is something that- That's because you're saying it's super important, the eukaryotes, but- I'm saying a tantamount to saying that it is impossible to build something as complex as a human being from bacterial cells. Totally agree in some deep fundamental way. But it's just like one cell going inside another. Is that so difficult to get to work right? Like, statistically? Well, again, it happened once. And if you think about, if you think, I'm in a minority view in this position. Most biologists probably wouldn't agree with me anyway. But if you think about the starting point, we've got a simple cell. It's an archaeal cell. We can be fairly sure about that. So it looks a lot like a bacterium, but it's in fact from this other domain of life. So it looks a lot like a bacterial cell. That means it doesn't have anything. It doesn't have a nutrients. It doesn't really have complex endomembrane. It has a little bit of stuff, but not that much. And it takes up an endosymbiont. So what happens next? And the answer is basically everything to do with complexity. To me, there's a beautiful paradox here. Plants and animals and fungi all have exactly the same type of cell. So they all have really different ways of living. So a plant cell is photosynthetic. They started out as algae in the oceans and so on. So think of algal bloom, single cell things. The basic cell structure that it's built from is exactly the same with a couple of small differences. It's got chloroplasts as well. It's got a vacuole. It's got a cell wall. But that's about it. Pretty much everything else is exactly the same in a plant cell and an animal cell. And yet the ways of life are completely different. So this cell structure did not evolve in response to different ways of life, different environments. I'm in the ocean doing photosynthesis. I'm on land running around as part of an animal. I'm a fungus in a soil, spreading out long shoots into whatever it may be, mycelium. So they all have the same underlying cell structure. Why? Almost certainly, it was driven by adaptation to the internal environment, to having these pesky endosymbionts that forced all kinds of change on the host cell. Now in one way you could see that as a really good thing because it may be that there's some inevitability to this process. As soon as you've got endosymbionts, you're more or less bound to go in that direction. Or it could be that there's a huge fluke about it and it's almost certain to go wrong in just about every case possible, that the conflict will lead to effectively war, leading to death and extinction. And it simply doesn't work out. So maybe it happened millions of times and it went wrong every time. Or maybe it only happened once and it worked out because it was inevitable. And actually we simply do not know enough now to say which of those two possibilities is true. But both of them are a bit grim. But you're leaning towards, we just got really lucky in that one leap. So do you have a sense that our galaxy, for example, has just maybe millions of planets with bacteria living on it? I would expect billions, tens of billions of planets with bacteria living on it practically. I mean, there's probably what, five to 10 planets per star of which I would hope that at least one would have bacteria on. So I expect bacteria to be very common. I simply can't put a number otherwise. I mean, I expect it will happen elsewhere. It's not that I think we're living in a completely empty universe. That's so fascinating. But I think that it's not going to happen inevitably and that's not the only problem with complex life on Earth. I mentioned oxygen and animals and so on as well. And even humans, we came along very late. You go back five million years and would we be that impressed if we came across a planet full of giraffes? I mean, you'd think, hey, there's life here. There's a nice planet to colonize or something. We wouldn't think, oh, let's try and have a conversation with this giraffe. Yeah, I'm not sure what exactly we would think. I'm not exactly sure what makes humans so interesting from an alien perspective or how they would notice. I'll talk to you about cities too, because that's an interesting perspective of how to look at human civilization. But your sense, I mean, of course you don't know, but it's an interesting world. It's an interesting galaxy. It's an interesting universe to live in that's just like every sun, like 90% of solar systems have bacteria in it. Imagine that world. And the galaxy maybe has just a handful, if not one, intelligent civilization. That's a wild world. It's a wild world. I didn't even think about that world. There's a kind of thought that, like one of the reasons it would be so exciting to find life on Mars or Titan or whatever is like if it's life is elsewhere, then surely, statistically, that life, no matter how unlikely you query as multicellular organisms, sex, violence, what else is extremely difficult? I mean, photosynthesis, figuring out some machinery that involves the chemistry and the environment to allow the building up of complex organisms, surely that would arise. But man, I don't know how I would feel about just bacteria everywhere. Well, it would be depressing if it was true, I suppose. I don't think. I don't know what's more depressing, bacteria everywhere or nothing everywhere. Yes, either of them are chilling. But whether it's chilling or not, I don't think should force us to change our view about whether it's real or not. What I'm saying may or may not be true. So how would you feel if we discovered life on Mars? It sounds like you would be less excited than some others because you're like, well. What I would be most interested in is how similar to life on Earth it would be. It would actually turn into quite a subtle problem because the likelihood of life having gone to and fro between Mars and the Earth is quite, I wouldn't say high, but it's not low. It's quite feasible. And so if we found life on Mars and it had very similar genetic code, but it was slightly different, most people would interpret that immediately as evidence that there'd been transit one way or the other and that it was a common origin of life on Mars or on the Earth and it went one way or the other way. The other way to see that question though would be to say, well, actually the beginnings of life lie in deterministic chemistry and thermodynamics, starting with the most likely abundant materials, CO2 and water and a wet rocky planet. And Mars was wet and rocky at the beginning. And we'll, I won't say inevitably, but potentially almost inevitably come up with a genetic code which is not very far away from the genetic code that we already have. So we see subtle differences in the genetic code. What does it mean? It could be very difficult to interpret. Is it possible, do you think, to tell the difference of something that truly originated? I think if the stereochemistry was different, we have sugars, for example, that are the L form or the D form and we have D sugars and L amino acids right across all of life. But lipids, the bacteria have one stereoisomer and the bacteria have the other, the opposite stereoisomer. So it's perfectly possible to use one or the other one. And the same would almost certainly go for, I think George Church has been trying to make life based on the opposite stereoisomer. So it's perfectly possible to do and it will work. And if we were to find life on Mars that was using the opposite stereoisomer, that would be unequivocal evidence that life had started independently there. So hopefully the life we find will be on Titan and Europa or something like that where it's less likely that we shared and it's harsher conditions so there's going to be weirder kind of life. I wouldn't count on that because life started in deep sea hydrothermal vents. It's a harsh condition. That's pretty harsh, yeah. So Titan is different. Europa is probably quite similar to Earth in the sense that we're dealing with an ocean, an acidic ocean there as the early Earth would have been and it almost certainly has hydrothermal systems. Same with Enceladus. We can tell that from these plumes coming from the surface through the ice. We know there's a liquid ocean and we can tell roughly what the chemistry is. For Titan we're dealing with liquid methane and things like that. So that would really, if there really is life there, it would really have to be very, very different to anything that we know on Earth. So the hard leap, the hardest leap, the most important leap is from Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes. What's the second if we're ranking? You gave a lot of emphasis on photosynthesis. Yeah, that would be my second one I think. But it's not so much, I mean photosynthesis is part of the problem. It's a difficult thing to do. Again, we know it happened once. We don't know why it happened once. But the fact that it was kind of taken on board completely by plants and algae and so on as chloroplasts and did very well in completely different environments and then on land and whatever else seems to suggest that there's no problem with exploring. You could have a separate origin that explored this whole domain over there that the bacteria had never gone into. So that kind of says that the reason that it only happened once is probably because it's difficult, because the wiring is difficult. But then it happened at least 2.2 billion years ago, right before the GOE. Maybe as long as 3 billion years ago when there are, some people say there are whiffs of oxygen, there's just kind of traces in the fossil, in the geochemical record that say maybe there was a bit of oxygen then. That's really disputed. Some people say it goes all the way back 4 billion years ago and that it was the common ancestry of life on Earth was photosynthetic. So immediately you've got groups of people who disagree over a 2 billion year period of time about when it started. But let's take the latest date when it's unequivocal, that's 2.2 billion years ago, through to around about the time of the Cambrian explosion when oxygen levels definitely got close to modern levels, which was around about 550 million years ago. So we've gone more than 1.5 billion years where the Earth was in stasis. Nothing much changed. It's known as the boring billion, in fact. Probably stuff was, that was when eukaryotes arose somewhere in there, but it's... So this idea that the world is constantly changing, that we're constantly evolving, that we're moving up some ramp is a very human idea, but in reality there are kind of tipping points to a new stable equilibrium where the cells that are producing oxygen are precisely counterbalanced by the cells that are consuming that oxygen, which is why it's 21% now and has been that way for hundreds of millions of years. We have a very precise balance. We go through a tipping point and you don't know where the next stable state's going to be, but it can be a long way from here. And so if we change the world with global warming, there will be a tipping point. Question is where and when and what's the next stable state? It may be uninhabitable to us. It'll be habitable to life for sure, but there may be something like the Permian extinction where 95% of species go extinct and there's a five to 10 million year gap and then life recovers, but without humans. And the question statistically, well, without humans, but statistically, does that ultimately lead to greater complexity, more interesting life, more intelligent life? Well, after the first appearance of oxygen with the GOE, there was a tipping point which led to a long-term stable state that was equivalent to the Black Sea today, which is to say oxygenated at the very surface and stagnant, sterile, not sterile, but sulfurous lower down. And that was stable certainly around the continental margins for more than a billion years. It was not a state that led to progression in an obvious way. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting to think about evolution, like what leads to stable states and how often are evolutionary pressures emerging from the environment? So maybe other planets are able to create evolutionary pressures, chemical pressures, whatever, some kind of pressure that say you're screwed unless you get your shit together in the next like 10,000 years, like a lot of pressure. It seems like Earth, like the boring building might be explained in two ways. One is super difficult to take any kind of next step. And the second way it could be explained is there's no reason to take the next step. No, I think there is no reason, but at the end of it, there was a snowball Earth. So there was a planetary catastrophe on a huge scale where the sea was frozen at the equator. And that forced change in one way or another. It's not long after that, 100 million years, perhaps after that, so not short time, but this is when we begin to see animals. There was a shift again, another tipping point that led to catastrophic change that led to a takeoff then. We don't really know why, but one of the reasons why that I discuss in the book is about sulfate being washed into the oceans, which sounds incredibly parochial. But the issue is, I mean, what the data is showing, we can track roughly how oxygen was going into the atmosphere from carbon isotopes. So there's two main isotopes of carbon that we need to think about here. One is carbon-12, 99% of carbon is carbon-12. And then 1% of carbon is carbon-13, which is a stable isotope. And then there's carbon-14, which is a trivial radioactive, trivial amount. So carbon-13 is 1%. And life and enzymes generally, you can think of carbon atoms as little balls bouncing around, bing-bong balls bouncing around. Carbon-12 moves a little bit faster than carbon-13 because it's lighter, and it's more likely to encounter an enzyme. And so it's more likely to be fixed into organic matter. And so organic matter is enriched, and this is just an observation, it's enriched in carbon-12 by a few percent compared to carbon-13, relative to what you would expect if it was just equal. And if you then bury organic matter as coal or oil or whatever it may be, then it's no longer oxidized. So some oxygen remains left over in the atmosphere. And that's how oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere. And you can work out historically how much oxygen there must have been in the atmosphere by how much carbon was being buried. And you think, well, how can we possibly know how much carbon was being buried? And the answer is, well, if you're burying carbon-12, what you're leaving behind is more carbon-13 in the oceans, and that precipitates out as limestone. So you can look at limestones over these ages and work out what's the carbon-13 signal. And that gives you a kind of a feedback on what the oxygen content. Right before the Cambrian explosion, there was what's called a negative isotope anomaly excursion, which is basically the carbon-13 goes down by a massive amount and then back up again 10 million years later. And what that seems to be saying is the amount of carbon-12 in the oceans was disappearing, which is to say it was being oxidized. And if it's being oxidized, it's consuming oxygen. And that should... So a big carbon-13 signal says the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 is really going down, which means there's much more carbon-12 being taken out and being oxidized. Sorry, this is getting too complex, but... Well, it's a good way to estimate the amount of oxygen. If you calculate the amount of oxygen based on the assumption that all this carbon-12 that's being taken out is being oxidized by oxygen, the answer is all the oxygen in the atmosphere gets stripped out. There is none left. And yet the rest of the geological indicators say, no, there's oxygen in the atmosphere. So it's kind of a paradox. And the only way to explain this paradox, just on mass balance of how much stuff is in the air, how much stuff is in the oceans, so on, is to assume that oxygen was not the oxygen, it was sulfate. Sulfate was being washed into the oceans. It's used as an electron acceptor by sulfate-reducing bacteria, just as we use oxygen as an electron acceptor. So they pass their electrons to sulfate instead of oxygen. And... Bacteria did. Yeah. Yeah. So these are bacteria. So they're oxidizing carbon, organic carbon, with sulfate, passing the electrons onto sulfate. That reacts with iron to form iron pyrite, or fool's gold, sinks down to the bottom, gets buried out of the system. And this can account for the mass balance. So why does it matter? It matters because what it says is there was a chance event. Tectonically, there was a lot of sulfate sitting on land as some kind of mineral. So calcium sulfate minerals, for example, are evaporitic. And because there happened to be some continental collisions, mountain building, the sulfate was pushed up the side of a mountain and happened to get washed into the ocean. Yeah. So I wonder how many happy accidents like that are possible. Yeah. Statistically, it's really hard. I mean, we can rule that in statistically, but this is the course of life on Earth. Without all that sulfate being raised up, this Cambrian explosion almost certainly would not have happened, and then we wouldn't have had animals, and so on and so on. So it's this kind of explanation of the Cambrian explosion. So let me actually say it in several ways. So folks who challenge the validity of the theory of evolution will give us an example. Now, I'm not well studied in this, but will give us an example of the Cambrian explosion as like, this thing is weird. Oh, it is weird, yeah. So the question I would have is, what's the biggest mystery or gap in understanding about evolution? Is it the Cambrian explosion? And if so, what's our best understanding of how to explain? First of all, what is it? In my understanding, in a short amount of time, maybe 10 million years, 100 million years, something like that, a huge number of animals, variety, diversity of animals were created. Anyway, there's like five questions in there. Yeah. Is that the biggest mystery to you about evolution? No, I don't think it's a particularly big mystery really anymore. I mean, there are still mysteries about why then, and I've just said sulfate being washed into the oceans is one. It needs oxygen and oxygen levels rose around that time. So probably before that, they weren't high enough for animals. What we're seeing with the Cambrian explosion is the beginning of predators and prey relationships. We're seeing modern ecosystems and we're seeing arms races and we're seeing the full creativity of evolution unleashed. So I talked about the boring billion, nothing happens for one and a half billion years. The assumption, and this is completely wrong, this assumption, is then that evolution works really slowly and that you need billions of years to affect some small change and then another billion years to do something else. It's completely wrong. Evolution gets stuck in a stasis and it stays that way for tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years. And Stephen Jay Gould used to argue this, he called it punctuated equilibrium, but he was doing it to do with animals and to do with the last 500 million years or so, where it's much less obvious than if you think about the entire planetary history. And then you realize that the first 2 billion years was bacteria only. You have the origin of life, 2 billion years of just bacteria, oxygen and photosynthesis arising here. Then you have a global catastrophe, snowball earths and great oxidation event, and then another billion years of nothing happening, and then some period of upheavals, and then another snowball earth, and then suddenly you see the Cambrian explosion. This is long periods of stasis where the world is in a stable state and is not geared towards increasing complexity. It's just everything is in balance. And only when you have a catastrophic level, global level problem like a snowball earth, it forces everything out of balance and there's a tipping point and you end up somewhere else. Now the idea that evolution is slow is wrong. It can be incredibly fast. And I mentioned earlier on that you can, in theory, it would take half a million years to invent an eye, for example, from a light sensitive spot. It doesn't take long to convert one kind of tube into a tube with nobbles on it, into a tube with arms on it, and then multiple arms, and then one end is a head where it starts out as a swelling. It's not difficult intellectually to understand how these things can happen. It boggles the mind that it can happen so quickly, but we're used to human time scales. And what we need to talk about is generations of things that live for a year in the ocean. And then a million years is a million generations. And the amount of change that you can do, you can affect in that period of time is enormous. And we're dealing with large populations of things where selection is sensitive to pretty small changes and can. So again, as soon as you throw in the competition of predators and prey, and you're ramping up the scale of evolution, it's not very surprising that it happens very quickly when the environment allows it to happen. So I don't think there's a big mystery. There's lots of details that need to be filled in. I mean, the big mystery in biology is consciousness. The big mystery in biology is consciousness. Well, intelligence is kind of a mystery too. I mean, you said biology, not psychology. Because from a biology perspective, it seems like intelligence and consciousness are all the same, like weird, like all the brain stuff. I don't see intelligence as necessarily that difficult, I suppose. I mean, I see it as a form of computing, and I don't know much about computing. You don't know much about consciousness either. So I mean, I suppose, oh, I see. I see, I see, I see, I see. That consciousness you do know a lot about as a human being. No, no. I mean, I think I can understand the wiring of a brain as a series of, in pretty much the same way as a computer in theory, in terms of the circuitry of it. The mystery to me is how this system gives rise to feelings, as we were talking about earlier on. Yeah, I just, I think we oversimplify intelligence. I think the dance, the magic of reasoning is as interesting as the magic of feeling. We tend to think of reasoning as like running a very simplistic algorithm. I think reasoning is the interplay between memory, whatever the hell is going on in the unconscious mind, all of that. I'm not trying to diminish it in any way at all. Obviously it's extraordinarily, exquisitely complex, but I don't see a logical difficulty with how it works. Yeah, no, I mean, I agree with you, but sometimes, yeah, there's a big cloak of mystery around consciousness. I mean, let me compare it with classical versus quantum physics. Classical physics is logical and you can understand the kind of language we're dealing with. It's almost at the human level, we're dealing with stars and things that we can see. And when you get to quantum mechanics and things, it's practically impossible for the human mind to compute what just happened there. Yeah. I mean, that is the same. You understand mathematically the notes of a musical composition, that's intelligence. Why it makes you feel a certain way, that is much harder to understand. Yeah, that's really, but it was interesting framing that that's a mystery at the core of biology. I wonder who solves consciousness. I tend to think consciousness will be solved by the engineer. Meaning the person who builds it, who keeps trying to build the thing, versus biology is such a complicated system. I feel like the building blocks of consciousness from a biological perspective, that's like the final creation of a human being. So you have to understand the whole damn thing. You said electrical fields, but electrical fields plus plus, everything, the whole shebang. I mean, trying to agree. My feeling is from my meager knowledge of the history of science is that the biggest breakthroughs usually come from a field that was not related. So if anyone, it's not going to be a biologist who solves consciousness, just because biologists are too embedded in the nature of the problem. And then nobody's going to believe you when you've done it, because nobody's going to be able to prove that this AI is in fact conscious and sad in any case, and any more than you can prove that a dog is conscious and sad. So it tells you that it is in good language and you must believe it. But I think most people will accept if faced with that, that that's what it is. All of this probability of complex life, in one way I think why it matters is that my expectation I suppose is that we will be over the next 100 years or so, if we survive at all, that AI will increasingly dominate and pretty much anything that we put out into space looking for other, well, for the universe, for what's out there, will be AI. Won't be us. We won't be doing that. Or when we do, it'll be on a much more limited scale. I suppose the same would apply to any alien civilization. So perhaps rather than looking for signs of life out there, we should be looking for AI out there. But then we face the problem that I don't see how a planet is going to give rise directly to AI. I can see how a planet can give rise directly to organic life. And if the principles that govern the evolution of life on Earth apply to other planets as well, and I think a lot of them would, then the likelihood of ending up with a human-like civilization capable of giving rise to AI in the first place is massively limited. Once you've done it once, perhaps it takes over the universe and maybe there's no issue. But it seems to me that the two are necessarily linked, that you're not going to just turn a sterile planet into an AI life form without the intermediary of the organics first. So you have to run the evolutionary computation with the organics to create AI. How does AI bootstrap itself up without the aid, if you like, of an intelligent designer? The origin of AI is going to have to be in the chemistry of a planet. But that's not a limiting factor, right? So let me ask the Fermi paradox question. Let's say we live in this incredibly dark and beautiful world of just billions of planets with bacteria on it and very few intelligent civilizations, and yet there's a few out there. Why haven't we at scale seen them visit us? What's your sense? Is it because they don't exist? Well, don't exist in the right part of the universe at the right time, that's the simplest answer for it. Is that the one you find the most compelling or is there some other explanation? I find that, no, it's not that I find it more compelling, it's that I find more probable. And I find all of them, I mean, there's a lot of hand-waving in this, we just don't know. So I'm trying to read out from what I know about life on Earth to what might happen somewhere else. And it gives, to my mind, a bit of a pessimistic view of bacteria everywhere and only occasional intelligent life. And running forward, humans only once on Earth and nothing else that you would necessarily be any more excited about making contact with than you would be making contact with them on Earth. So I think the chances are pretty limited. And the chances of us surviving are pretty limited too. The way we're going on at the moment, the likelihood of us not making ourselves extinct within the next few hundred years, possibly within the next 50 or 100 years, seems quite small. I hope we can do better than that. So maybe the only thing that will survive from humanity will be AI. Maybe AI, once it exists and once it's capable of effectively copying itself and cutting humans out of the loop, then maybe that will take over the universe. I mean, there's a kind of inherent sadness to the way you described that. But isn't that also potentially beautiful that that's the next step of life? I suppose, from your perspective, as long as it carries the flame of consciousness somehow. I think yes, there can be some beauty to it being the next step of life. And I don't know if consciousness matters or not from that point of view, to be honest with you. Yeah. But there's some sadness, yes, probably, because I think it comes down to the selfishness that we were talking about earlier on. I am an individual with a desire not to be displaced from life. I want to stay alive. I want to be here. So I suppose the threat that a lot of people would feel is that we will just be wiped out. That there will be potential conflicts between AI and humans and that AI will win because it's a lot smarter. Boy, would that be a sad state of affairs if consciousness is just an intermediate stage between bacteria and AI. I would see bacteria as being potentially a kind of primitive form of consciousness. So the whole of life on Earth, to my mind, is capable of some form of feelings in response to the environment. That's not to say it's intelligent, though it's got its own algorithms for intelligence, but nothing comparable with us. I think it's beautiful what a planet, what a sterile planet can come up with. It's astonishing that it's come up with all of this stuff that we see around us and that either we or whatever we produce is capable of destroying all of that is a sad thought. But it's also, it's hugely pessimistic. I'd like to think that we're capable of giving rise to something which is at least as good, if not better than us, as AI. Yeah, I have that same optimism, especially a thing that is able to propagate throughout the universe more efficiently than humans can, or extensions of humans, some merger with AI and humans, whether that comes from bioengineering of the human body to extend its life somehow, to carry that flame of consciousness and that personality and the beautiful tension that's within all of us, carry that through to multiple planets, to multiple solar systems all out there in the universe. I mean, that's a beautiful vision. Whether AI can do that or bioengineered humans can, that's an exciting possibility, and especially meeting other alien civilizations in that same kind of way. Do you think aliens have consciousness? If they're organic. So organic is connected to consciousness. I mean, I think any system which is going to bootstrap itself up from planetary origins, let me finish this and then I'll come on to something else, but from planetary origins is going to face similar constraints, and those constraints are going to be addressed in similar basic engineering ways. I think it will be cellular, and I think it will have electrical charges, and I think it will have to be selected in populations over time, and all of these things will tend to give rise to the same processes as the simplest fix to a difficult problem. So I would expect it to be conscious, yes, and I would expect it to resemble life on Earth in many ways. When I was about, I guess, 15 or 16, I remember reading a book by Fred Hoyle called The Black Cloud, which I was a budding biologist at the time, and this was the first time I'd come across someone that really challenging the heart of biology and saying, you are far too parochial, you're thinking about life as carbon-based, here's a life form which is kind of dust, interstellar dust on a solar system scale. And it's a novel, but I felt enormously challenged by that novel because it hadn't occurred to me how limited my thinking was, how narrow-minded I was being, and here was a great physicist with a completely different conception of what life could be. And since then I've seen him attacked in various ways, and I'm kind of reluctant to say the attacks make more sense to me than the original story, which is to say, even in terms of information processing if you're on that scale and there's a limit to the speed of light, how quickly can something think if you're needing to broadcast across the solar system? It's going to be slow. It's not going to hold a conversation with you on the kind of timelines that Fred Hoyle was imagining, or at least not by any easy way of doing it, assuming that the speed of light is a limit. And then again, you really can't, this is something Richard Dawkins argued long ago, and I do think he's right. There is no other way to generate this level of complexity than natural selection. Nothing else can do it. You need populations, and you need selection in populations, and kind of an isolated interstellar cloud. Again, there's unlimited time, and maybe there's no problems with distance, but you need to have a certain frequency of generational time to generate a serious level of complexity. And I just have a feeling it's never going to work. Well as far as we know, so natural selection, evolution is a really powerful tool here on Earth, but there could be other mechanisms. So whenever, I don't know if you're familiar with cellular automata, but complex systems that have really simple components and seemingly move based on simple rules when they're taken as a whole, really interesting complexity emerges. I don't know what the pressures on that are. It's not really selection, but interesting complexity seems to emerge, and that's not well understood exactly why that complexity emerges. I think there's a difference between complexity and evolution. So some of the work we're doing on the origin of life is thinking about how do genes arise, how does information arise in biology, and thinking about it from the point of view of reacting CO2 with hydrogen, what do you get? Well, what you're going to get is carboxylic acids, then amino acids. It's quite hard to make nucleotides, and it's possible to make them, and it's been done, and it's been done following this pathway as well. But you make trace amounts. And so the next question, assuming that this is the right way of seeing the question, which maybe it's just not, but let's assume it is, is well, how do you reliably make more nucleotides, and how do you become more complex and better at becoming a nucleotide-generating machine? And the answer is, well, you need positive feedback loops, some form of autocatalysis. So that can work, and we know it happens in biology. If this nucleotide, for example, catalyzes CO2 fixation, then you're going to increase the rate of flux through the whole system, and you're going to effectively steepen the driving force to make more nucleotides. And this can be inherited because there are forms of membrane heredity that you can have, and there are effectively you can, if a cell divides in two and it's got a lot of stuff inside it, and that stuff is basically bound as a network which is capable of regenerating itself, then it will inevitably regenerate itself. And so you can develop greater complexity. But everything that I've said depends on the underlying rules of thermodynamics. There is no evolvability about that. It's simply an inevitable outcome of your starting point, assuming that you're able to increase the driving force through the system. You will generate more of the same, you'll expand on what you can do, but you'll never get anything different than that. And it's only when you introduce information into that as a gene, as a kind of small stretch of RNA, which can be a random stretch, then you get real evolvability, then you get biology as we know it, but you also have selection as we know it. Yeah, I mean, I don't know how to think about information. That's a kind of memory of the system. At the local level, it's propagation of copying yourself and changing and improving your adaptability to the environment. But if you look at Earth as a whole, it has a kind of memory. That's the key feature of it. In what way? It remembers the stuff it tries. Like, if you were to describe Earth, I think evolution is something that we experience as individual organisms. That's how the individual organisms interact with each other. There's a natural selection. But when you look at Earth as an organism in its entirety, how would you describe it? Well, not as an organism. The idea of Gaia is lovely. And James Lovelock originally put Gaia out as an organism that had somehow evolved, and he was immediately attacked by lots of people. And he's not wrong, but he backpedaled somewhat because that was more of a poetic vision than the science. The science is now called Earth systems science, and it's really about how does the world kind of regulate itself so it remains within the limits which are hospitable to life. And it does it amazingly well. And it is working at a planetary level of kind of integration of regulation. But it's not evolving by natural selection, and it can't because there's only one of it. And so it can change over time, but it's not evolving. All the evolution is happening in the parts of the system. Yeah, but it's a self-sustaining organism. No, it's sustained by the sun. Right. So, I mean, so you don't think it's possible to see Earth as its own organism? I think it's poetic and beautiful, and I often refer to the Earth as a living planet. But it's not, in biological terms, an organism, no. If aliens were to visit Earth, what would they notice? What would be the basic unit of light they would notice? Trees, probably. I mean, it's green, and it's green and blue. I think that's the first thing you'd notice. It stands out from space as being different to any of the other planets. So, it'd notice the trees at first, because the green. Well, I would. I'd notice the green, yes. And then probably figure out the photosynthesis. Probably notice cities a second, I suspect. Maybe first. If they arrived at night, they'd notice cities first, that's for sure. It depends the time. You write quite beautifully in Transformers, once again. I think you opened the book in this way, I don't remember. From space, describing Earth. It's such an interesting idea of what Earth is. You also, I mean, Hitchhiker's Guide, summarizing it as harmless, or mostly harmless, which is a beautifully poetic thing. You open Transformers with, from space, it looks gray and crystalline, obliterating the blue-green colors of the living Earth. It is crisscrossed by irregular patterns and convergent striations. There's a central amorphous density, where these scratches seem lighter. This quote, growth, does not look alive, although it has extended out along some lines, and there is something grasping and parasitic about it. Across the globe, there are thousands of them, varying in shape and detail, but all of them gray, angular, inorganic, spreading. Yet at night, they light up. Going up, the dark sky, suddenly beautiful. Perhaps these cankers on the landscape are in some sense living. There's a controlled flow of energy. There must be information and some form of metabolism, some turnover of materials. Are they alive? No, of course not. They are cities. So is there some sense that cities are living beings? You think aliens would think of them as living beings? Well, it would be easy to see it that way, wouldn't it? It wakes up at night. They wake up at night. Strictly nocturnal. Yes. I imagine that any aliens that are smart enough to get here would understand that they're not living beings. My reason for saying that is that we tend to think of biology in terms of information and forget about the cells. I was trying to draw a comparison between the cell as a city and the energy flow through the city and the energy flow through cells and the turnover of materials. An interesting thing about cities is that they're not really exactly governed by anybody. There are regulations and systems and whatever else, but it's pretty loose. They have their own life, their own way of developing over time. In that sense, they're quite biological. There was a plan after the Great Fire of London. Christopher Wren was making plans not only for St. Paul's Cathedral, but also to rebuild in large Parisian type boulevards, a large part of the area of central London that was burnt. It never happened because they didn't have enough money, I think. It's interesting what was in the plan. There were all these boulevards, but there were no pubs and no coffee houses or anything like that. The reality was London just kind of grew up in a set of jumbled streets. It was the coffee houses and the pubs where all the business of the city of London was being done. That was where the real life of the city was. No one had planned it. The whole thing was unplanned and works much better that way. In that sense, a cell is completely unplanned. It's not controlled by the genes in the nucleus in the way that we might like to think that it is, but it's kind of evolved entity that has the same kind of flux, the same animation, the same life. I think it's a beautiful analogy, but I wouldn't get too stuck with it as a metaphor. See, I disagree with you. I disagree with you. I think you are so steeped, and actually the entirety of science, the history of science is steeped in a biological framework of thinking about what is life. Not just biological, it's very human-centric too. That the human organism is the epitome of life on earth. I don't know. I think there is some deep fundamental way in which a city is a living being in the same way that a human individual can- It doesn't give rise to an offspring city. It doesn't work by natural selection. It works by, if anything, memes. It works by copying itself conceptually as a mode of being. Maybe memes, maybe ideas are the organisms that are really essential to life on earth. Maybe it's much more important about the collective aspect of human nature, the collective intelligence than the individual intelligence. Maybe the collective humanity is the organism, and the thing that defines the collective intelligence of humanity is the ideas, and maybe the way that manifests itself is cities. Maybe, or societies, or geographically concentrated societies, or nations, and all that kind of stuff. I mean, from an alien perspective, it's possible that that is the more deeply noticeable thing. Not from a place of ignorance. Yes, but what's noticeable doesn't tell you how it works. I think, I mean, I don't have any problem with what you're saying really, except that it's not possible without the humans, we went from a hunter-gatherer type economy, if you like, without cities, through to cities. As soon as we get into human evolution, and culture, and society, and so on, then yes, there are other forms of evolution, other forms of change. But cities don't directly propagate themselves. They propagate themselves through human societies, and human societies only exist because humans, as individuals, propagate themselves. So there is a hierarchy there, and without the humans in the first place, none of the rest of it exists. So do you, life is primarily defined by the basic unit on which evolution can operate? I think it's a really important thing, yes. Yeah. And we don't have any other better ideas than evolution for how to create life? I never came across a better idea than evolution. I mean, maybe I'm just ignorant and I don't know, and you mentioned automator and so on, and I don't think specifically about that, but I have thought about it in terms of selective units at the origin of life, and the difference between evolvability and complexity, or just increasing complexity, but within very narrowly defined limits. The great thing about genes and about selection is it just knocks down all those limits. It gives you a world of information in the end, which is limited only by the biophysical reality of what kind of an organism you are, what kind of a planet you live on, and so on. And cities and all these other forms that look alive and could be described as alive, because they can't propagate themselves, can only exist as the product of something that did propagate itself. Yeah. I mean, there's a deeply compelling truth to that kind of way of looking at things, but I just hope that we don't miss the giant cloud among us. I kind of hope that I'm wrong about a lot of this, because I can't say that my world view is particularly uplifting, but in some sense, it doesn't matter if it's uplifting or not. Science is about what's reality, what's out there, why is it this way? And I think there's beauty in that too. There's beauty in darkness. You write about life and death sort of at the biological level. Does the question of suicide, why live, does the question of why the human mind is capable of depression, are you able to introspect that from a place of biology? Why are minds, why we humans can go to such dark places? Why can we commit suicide? Why can we go suffer, period, but also suffer from a feeling of meaninglessness, of going to a dark place that depression can take you? Is this a feature of life or is it a bug? I don't know. I mean, if it's a feature of life, then I suppose it would have to be true of other organisms as well, and I don't know. We were talking about dogs earlier on and they can certainly be very sad and upset and may mooch for days after their owner died or something like that. So I suspect in some sense it's a feature of biology. It's probably a feature of mortality. But beyond all of that, I mean, I guess there's two ways you could come at it. One of them would be to say, well, you can effectively do the math and come to the conclusion that it's all pointless and that there's really no point in me being here any longer. And maybe that's true in the greater scheme of things. You can justify yourself in terms of society, but society will be gone soon enough as well and you end up with a very bleak place just by logic. In some sense, it's surprising that we can find any meaning at all. Well maybe this is where consciousness comes in, that we have transient joy, but with transient joy we have transient misery as well. And sometimes with everything in biology, getting the regulation right is practically impossible. You will always have a bell-shaped curve where some people unfortunately are at the joy end and some people are at the misery end. And that's the way brains are wired and I doubt there's ever an escape from that. It's the same with sex and everything else as well. We're dealing with it, you can't regulate it, so anything goes. It's all part of biology. Amen to that. Let me, on writing, in your book Power, Sex and Suicide, first of all, can I just read off the books you've written? If there's any better titles and topics to be covered, I don't know what they are. It makes me look forward to whatever you're going to write next. I hope there's things you write next. So first you wrote Oxygen, the Molecule that Made the World, as we've talked about this idea of the role of oxygen in life on Earth. Then, wait for it, Power, Sex, Suicide, Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life. Then Life Ascending, the Ten Great Inventions of Evolution, The Vital Question, the first book I've read of yours, The Vital Question, Why Is Life The Way It Is? And the new book, Transformer, The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death. In Power, Sex and Suicide, you write about writing, or about a lot of things, but I have a question about writing. You write, in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Ford Perfect spends 15 years researching his revision to the guide's entry on the Earth, which originally read, harmless. By the way, I would also, as a side quest, as a side question, would like to ask you what would be your summary of what Earth is. You write, his long essay on the subject is edited down by the guide to read, mostly harmless. I suspect that too many new additions suffer a similar fate, if not through absurd editing decisions, at least through a lack of meaningful change in content. As it happens, nearly 15 years have passed since the first edition of Power, Sex, Suicide was published, and I am resisting the temptation to make any lame revisions. Some say that even Darwin lessened the power of his arguments in The Origin of Species through his multiple revisions, in which he dealt with criticisms and sometimes shifted his views in the wrong direction. I prefer my original to speak for itself, even if it turns out to be wrong. Let me ask the question about writing, both your students in the academic setting, but also writing some of the most brilliant writings on science and humanity I've ever read. What's the process of writing? How do you advise other humans? If you were to talk to young Darwin, or the young you, and just young anybody, and give advice about how to write, and how to write well about these big topics, what would you say? I mean, I suppose there's a couple of points. One of them is, what's the story? What do I want to know? What do I want to convey? Why does it matter to anybody? And very often, the biggest, most interesting questions, the childlike questions, are the one that actually everybody wants to ask, but don't quite do it in case they look stupid. One of the nice things about being in science is the longer you're in, the more you realize that everybody doesn't know the answer to these questions, and it's not so stupid to ask them after all. So trying to ask the questions that I would have been asking myself at the age of 15, 16, when I was really hungry to know about the world and didn't know very much about it, and wanted to go to the edge of what we know, but be helped to get there. I don't want to be too much terminology, and so I want someone to keep a clean eye on what the question is. Beyond that, I've wondered a lot about who am I writing for? And that was in the end, the only answer I had was myself at the age of 15 or 16. Because even if you're, you just don't know who's reading, but also where are they reading it? Are they reading it in the bath or in bed or on the metro? Are they listening to an audio book? Do you want to have a recapitulation every few pages because you read three pages at a time, or are you really irritated by that? You're going to get criticism from people who are irritated by what you're doing, and you don't know who they are or what you're going to do that's going to irritate people. And in the end, all you can do is just try and please yourself. And that means, what are these big, fun, fascinating, big questions? What do we know about it? And can I convey that? And I kind of learned in trying to write, first of all, say what we know. And I was shocked in the first couple of books how often I came up quickly against all the stuff we don't know. And if you're trying to, I've realized later on in supervising various physicists and mathematicians who are PhD students, their maths is way beyond what I can do. But the process of trying to work out what are we actually going to model here? What's going into this equation? It's a very similar one to writing. What am I going to put on a page? What's the simplest possible way I can encapsulate this idea so that I now have it as a unit that I can kind of see how it interacts with the other units? And you realize that, well, if this is like that and this is like this, then that can't be true. So you end up navigating your own path through this landscape. And that can be thrilling because you don't know where it's going. And I'd like to think that that's one of the reasons my books have worked for people, because this sense of thrilling adventure ride, I don't know where it's going either. So the finding the simplest possible way to explain the things we know and the simplest possible way to explain the things we don't know and the tension between those two. And that's where the story emerges. What about the edit? Do you find yourself to the point of this, you know, editing dialed to mostly harmless? To arrive at simplicity, do you find the edit is productive or does it destroy the magic that was originally there? No, I usually find, I think I'm perhaps a better editor than I am a writer. I write and rewrite and rewrite and rewrite. So you put a bunch of crap on the page first and then see where the edit where it takes you. Yeah. But then there's the professional editors who come along as well. And I mean, in Transformer, the editor came back to me after I'd sent him two months after I sent the first edition, he'd read the whole thing and he said, the first two chapters prevent a formidable hurdle to the general reader. Go and do something about it. And that was the last thing I really wanted to do. Your editor sounds very eloquent in speech. Yeah, well, this was an email, but I thought about it and, you know, the bottom line is he was right. And so I put the whole thing aside for about two months, spent the summer, this would have been, I guess, last summer. And then turned to it with full attention in about September or something and rewrote those chapters almost from scratch. I kept some of the material, but it took me a long time to process it, to work out what needs to change, where does it need to... I wasn't writing in this time, how am I going to tell this story better so it's more accessible and interesting? And in the end, I think it worked. It's still difficult, it's still biochemistry, but he ended up saying, now it's got a barreling energy to it. And I was, you know, because he'd told me the truth the first time, I decided to believe that he was telling me the truth the second time as well and was delighted. Could you give advice to young people in general, folks in high school, folks in college, how to take on some of the big questions you've taken on? Now, you've done that in the space of biology and expanded out. How can they have a career they can be proud of or have a life they can be proud of? Gosh, that's a big question. I'm sure you've gathered some wisdom that you can impart to young populace. Yeah, so the only advice that I actually ever give to my students is follow what you're interested in. Because they're often worried that if they make this decision now and do this course instead of that course, then they're going to restrict their career opportunities. There isn't a career path in science. It's not, I mean, there is, but there isn't. There's a lot of competition. There's a lot of death, symbolically. So who survives? The people who survive are the people who care enough to still do it. And they're very often the people who don't worry too much about the future and are able to live in the present. Because if you, you know, you do a PhD, you've competed hard to get onto the PhD, then you have to compete hard to get a post-doc job. And you have, you know, the next bomb maybe on another continent and it's only two years anyway. And so, and there's no guarantee you're going to get a faculty position at the end of it. So... And there's always the next step to compete. If you get a faculty position, you get a tenure and with tenure you go full professor, full professor, then you go to some kind of whatever the discipline is, there's an award. If you're in physics, you're always competing for the Nobel Prize. There's different awards. And then eventually you're all competing to, I mean, there's always a competition. So there is no happiness. Happiness does not lie. If you're looking into the future, yes. And if what you're caring about is a career, then it's probably not the one for you. If though you can put that aside, and you know, I've also worked in industry for a brief period and I was made redundant twice. So I know that, you know, there's no guarantee that you've got a career. That way either. So, live in the moment and try and enjoy what you're doing. And that means really go to the themes that you're most interested in and try and follow them as well as you can. And that tends to pay back in surprising ways. I don't know if you found this as well, but I found that people will help you often if they see some light shining in the eye and you're excited about their subject and, you know, just want to talk about it. And they know that their friend in California has got a job coming up. They'll say, go for this. This guy's all right. You know, they'll use the network to help you out if you really care. And you're not going to have a job two years down the line, but if what you really care about is what you're doing now, then it doesn't matter if you have a job in two years time or not. It'll work itself out if you've got the light in your eye. And so that's the only advice I can give. And most people probably drop out through that system because the fight is just not worth it for them. Yeah. When you have the light in your eye, when you have the excitement for the thing, what happens is you start to surround yourself with others that are interested in that same thing that also have the light. If you really are rigorous about this, because I think it does take, it doesn't, it takes effort to make. Oh, you've got to be obsessive. But if you're doing what you really love doing, then it's not work anymore. It's what you do. Yeah. But I also mean the surrounding yourself with other people that are obsessed about the same thing because depending on- Oh, that takes some work as well. Yes. And luck. Finding the right, yeah. Finding the right mentors, the collaborators. Because I think one of the problem with the PhD process is people are not careful enough in picking their mentors. Those are people, mentors and colleagues and so on, those are people who are going to define the direction of your life, how much you love a thing. The power of just like the few little conversations you have in the hallway, it's incredible. So you have to be a little bit careful in that. Sometimes you just get randomly almost assigned, really pursue, I suppose, the subject as much as you pursue the people that do that subject. So like both, the whole dance of it. They kind of go together, really. Yeah, they do. They really do. But take that part seriously. And probably in the way you're describing it, careful how you define success. Because- You'll never find happiness in success. There's a lovely quote from Robert Louis Stevenson, I think, who said, nothing in life is so disenchanting as attainment. Yeah. So, I mean, in some sense, the true definition of success is getting to do today what you really enjoy doing, just what fills you with joy. And that's ultimately success. That isn't the thing beyond the horizon, the big trophy, the financial- I think it's as close as we can get to happiness. That's not to say you're full of joy all the time, but it's as close as we can get to a sustained human happiness is by getting some fulfillment from what you're doing on a daily basis. And if what you're looking for is the world giving you the stamp of approval with a Nobel Prize or a fellowship or whatever it is, then I've known people like this who they're eaten away by the anger, the kind of caustic resentment that they've not been awarded this prize that they deserve. And the other way, if you put too much value into those kinds of prizes and you win them, I've gotten a chance to see that it also, the more quote-unquote successful you are in that sense, the more you run the danger of growing an ego so big that you don't get to actually enjoy the beauty of this life. You start to believe that you figured it all out as opposed to, I think, what ultimately the most fun thing is, is being curious about everything around you, being constantly surprised and these little moments of discovery, of enjoying beauty in small and big ways all around you. And I think the bigger your ego grows, the more you start to take yourself seriously, the less you're able to enjoy that. Oh man, I couldn't agree more. So the summary from harmless to mostly harmless in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, how would you try to summarize Earth? And if you were given, if you had to summarize the whole thing in a couple of sentences, maybe throwing meaning of life in there, like why? Is that a defining thing about humans, that we care about the meaning of the whole thing? I wonder if that should be part of the, these creatures seem to be very lost. Yes, we're always asking why. I mean, that's my defining question is why. People used to make a joke, I have a small scar on my forehead from a climbing accident years ago. And the guy I was climbing with had dislodged a rock and he'd shouted something. He shouted below, I think, meaning that the rock was coming down. And I hadn't caught what he said, so I looked up and it smashed straight on my forehead. And everybody around me took the piss saying, he looked up to ask why. Yeah, but that's a human imperative, that's part of what it means to be human. Look up to the sky and ask why. So your question, define the Earth. I'm not sure I can do that. I mean, the first word that comes to mind is living. I wouldn't like to say mostly living, but perhaps. Mostly living, well, it's interesting because like if you were to write the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I suppose, say our idea that we talked about, that bacteria is the most prominent form of life throughout the galaxy and the universe. I suppose the Earth would be kind of unique and would require- It's always abundance in that case. It's profligate, it's rich, it's enormously living. So how would you describe that it's not bacteria? It's eukaryotic. Yeah, eukaryotic. Well, I mean, that's the technical term, but it is basically it's a- How would I describe that? I've actually really struggled with that term because the word, I mean, there's a few words quite as good as eukaryotic to put everybody off immediately. You start using words like that and they'll leave the room. Krebs cycle is another one that gets people to leave the room. But I've tried to think, is there another word for eukaryotic that I can use? And really the only word that I've been able to use is complex, complex cells, complex life and so on. And that word, it serves one immediate purpose, which is to convey an impression. But then it means so many different things to everybody that actually is lost immediately. And so it's a kind of- That's a noticeable from the perspective of other planets, that is a noticeable phase transition of complexity is the eukaryotic. What about the harmless and the mostly harmless? Is that kind of- Probably accurate on a universal kind of scale. I don't think that humanity is in any danger of disturbing the universe at the moment. Which is why the mostly, we don't know, depends what Elon is up to. Depends how many rockets. I think- It'll be still even then a while, I think, before we disturb the fabric of time and space. Was the aforementioned Andrej Karpathy, I think he summarized Earth as a system where you hammer it with a bunch of photons. The input is like photons and the output is rockets. Well, that's a hell of a lot of photons before it was a rocket launch. Yeah, but maybe in the span of the universe, it's not that much time. And I do wonder what the future is, whether we're just in the early beginnings of this Earth, which is important when you try to summarize it, or we're at the end, where humans have finally gained the ability to destroy the entirety of this beautiful project we've got going on. Not with nuclear weapons, with engineered viruses, with all those kinds of things. Or just inadvertently through global warming and pollution and so on. We're quite capable of that. I mean, we just need to pass a tipping point. Quickly or slowly. I mean, I think we're more likely to do it inadvertently than through a nuclear war, which could happen at any time. But my fear is we just don't know where the tipping points are. We kind of think we're smart enough to fix the problem quickly if we really need to. I think that's the overriding assumption that we're all right for now. Maybe in 20 years' time, it's going to be a calamitous problem, and then we'll really need to put some serious mental power into fixing it without seriously worrying that perhaps that is too late and that however brilliant we are, we miss the boat. Just walk off the cliff. I don't know. I have optimism in humans being clever descendants. I have no doubt that we can fix the problem, but it's an urgent problem. We need to fix it pretty sharpish. I do have doubts about whether politically we are capable of coming together enough to – not just in any one country, but around the planet. I mean, I know we can do it, but do we have the will? Do we have the vision to accomplish it? That's what makes this whole ride fun. I don't know. Not only do we not know if we can handle the crises before us, we don't even know all the crises that are going to be before us in the next 20 years. The ones I think that will most likely challenge us in the 21st century are the ones we don't even expect. People didn't expect World War II at the end of World War I. Some folks did, but not at the end of World War I. But by the late 1920s, I think people were beginning to worry about it. Yeah, no, there's always people worrying about everything. So if you focus on the thing that – People worry about, yes. Because there's a million things people worry about, and 99.99999% of them don't know what they're going to be. Of course, the people that turn out to be right, they'll say, I knew all along, but that's not an accurate way of knowing what you could have predicted. I think, rationally speaking, you can worry about it, but nobody thought you could have another world war. The war to end all wars. Why would you have another war? And the idea of nuclear weapons, just technologically, is a very difficult thing to anticipate. To create a weapon that just jumps orders of magnitude and destructive capability. And, of course, we can intuit all the things like engineered viruses, nanobots, artificial intelligence. Yes, all the different complicated global effects of global warming. So how that changes the allocation of resources, the flow of energy, the tension between countries, the military conflict between countries, the reallocation of power. Then looking at the role of China in this whole thing, with Russia and growing influence of Africa, and the weird dynamics of Europe, and then America falling apart through the political division fueled by recommender systems through Twitter and Facebook. The whole beautiful mess is just fun. And I think there's a lot of incredible engineers, incredible scientists, incredible human beings that, while everyone is bickering and so on online for the fun of it on the weekends, they're actually trying to build solutions. And those are the people that will create something beautiful. At least I have, you know, that's the process of evolution. It all started with Chuck Norris single cell organism that went out from the vents and was the parent to all of us. And for that guy or lady or both, I guess, is a big thank you. And I can't wait to what happens next. And I'm glad there's incredible humans writing and studying it like you are, Nick. It's a huge honor that you would talk to me. That's fantastic. This is really amazing. I can't wait to read what you write next. Thank you for existing. And thank you for talking today. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Nick Lane. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Steve Jobs. I think the biggest innovations of the 21st century will be at the intersection of biology and technology. A new era is beginning. Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/tOtdJcco3YM

reYdQYZ9Rj4

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Donald Hoffman: Reality is an Illusion - How Evolution Hid the Truth | Lex Fridman Podcast #293

Whatever reality is, it's not what you see. What you see is just an adaptive fiction. The following is a conversation with Donald Hoffman, professor of cognitive sciences at UC Irvine, focusing his research on evolutionary psychology, visual perception, and consciousness. He's the author of over 120 scientific papers on these topics, and his most recent book titled The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. I think some of the most interesting ideas in this world, like those of Donald Hoffman's, attempt to shake the foundation of our understanding of reality, and thus, they take a long time to internalize deeply. So proceed with caution. Questioning the fabric of reality can lead you to either madness or to truth. And the funny thing is, you won't know which is which. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Donald Hoffman. In your book, The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes, you make the bold claim that the world we see with our eyes is not real. It's not even an abstraction of objective reality. It is completely detached from objective reality. Can you explain this idea? Right, so this is a theorem from evolution by natural selection. So the technical question that I and my team asked was, what is the probability that natural selection would shape sensory systems to see true properties of objective reality? And to our surprise, we found that the answer is precisely zero, except for one kind of structure that we can go into if you want to. But for any generic structure that you might think the world might have, a total order, a topology metric, the probability is precisely zero that natural selection would shape any sensory system of any organism to see any aspect of objective reality. So in that sense, what we're seeing is what we need to see to stay alive long enough to reproduce. So in other words, we're seeing what we need to guide adaptive behavior. Full stop. So the evolutionary process, the process that took us from the origin of life on Earth to the humans that we are today, that process does not maximize for truth, it maximizes for fitness, as you say. Fitness beats truth. And fitness does not have to be connected to truth, is the claim. And that's where you have an approach towards zero of probability that we have evolved human cognition, human consciousness, whatever it is, the magic that makes our mind work, evolved not for its ability to see the truth of reality but its ability to survive in the environment. That's exactly right. So most of us intuitively think that surely the way that evolution will make our senses more fit is to make them tell us more truths, or at least the truths we need to know about objective reality, the truths we need in our niche. That's the standard view, and it was the view I took. I mean, that's sort of what we're taught or just even assume. It's just sort of like the intelligent assumption that we would all make. But we don't have to just wave our hands. Evolution of a natural selection is a mathematically precise theory. John Maynard Smith in the 70s created evolutionary game theory. And we have evolutionary graph theory and even genetic algorithms that we can use to study this. And so we don't have to wave our hands. It's a matter of theorem and proof and or simulation before you get the theorems and proofs. And a couple of graduate students of mine, Justin Mark and Brian Marion, did some wonderful simulations that tipped me off that there was something going on here. And then I went to a mathematician, Chetan Prakash and Manish Singh and some other friends of mine, Chris Fields. But Chetan was the real mathematician behind all this. And he's proved several theorems that uniformly indicate that with one exception, which has to do with probability measures, there's no, the probability is zero. The reason there's an exception for probability measures, so-called sigma algebras or sigma additive classes, is that for any scientific theory, there is the assumption that needs to be made that the whatever structure, whatever probabilistic structure the world may have is not unrelated to the probabilistic structure of our perceptions. If they were completely unrelated, then no science would be possible. So this is technically, the map from reality to our senses has to be a so-called measurable map, has to preserve sigma algebras. But that means it could be infinite to one and it could collapse all sorts of event information. But other than that, there's no requirement in standard evolutionary theory for fitness payoff functions, for example, to preserve any specific structures of objective reality. So you can ask the technical question. This is one of the avenues we took. If you look at all the fitness payoffs from whatever world structure you might want to imagine, so a world with say a total order on it. So it's got N states and they're totally ordered. And then you can have a set of maps from that world into a set of payoffs, say from zero to a thousand or whatever you want your payoffs to be. And you can just literally count all the payoff functions and just do the combinatorics and count them. Then you can ask a precise question. How many of those payoff functions preserve the total order, if that's what you're looking, or how many preserve the topology? And you just count them and divide. So the number that are homomorphisms versus the total number, and then take the limit as the number of states in the world and the number of payoff values goes very large. And when you do that, you get zero every time. Okay, there's a million things to ask here. But first of all, just in case people are not familiar with your work, let's sort of linger on the big, bold statement here. Which is, the thing we see with our eyes is not some kind of limited window into reality. It is completely detached from reality. Likely completely detached from reality. You're saying 100% likely. Okay, so none of this is real in the way we think is real. In the way we have this intuition, there's like this table is some kind of abstraction, but underneath it all, there's atoms. And there's an entire century of physics that describes the functioning of those atoms and the quarks that make them up. There's many Nobel Prizes about particles and fields and all that kind of stuff that slowly builds up to something that's perceivable to us, both with our eyes, with our different senses, as this table. Then there's also ideas of chemistry that over layers of abstraction from DNA to embryos, to cells that make the human body. So all of that is not real. It's a real experience. And it's a real adaptive set of perceptions. So it's an adaptive set of perceptions, full stop. We want to think that the perception. So the perceptions are real. So their perceptions are real as perceptions. Right, we are having our perceptions, but we've assumed that there's a pretty tight relationship between our perceptions and reality. If I look up and see the moon, then there is something that exists in space and time that matches what I perceive. And all I'm saying is that if you take evolution by natural selection seriously, then that is precluded. Our perceptions are there. They're there to guide adaptive behavior, full stop. They're not there to show you the truth. In fact, the way I think about it is, they're there to hide the truth because the truth is too complicated. It's just like if you're trying to use your laptop to write an email, right? What you're doing is toggling voltages in the computer, but good luck trying to do it that way. The reason why we have a user interface is because we don't want to know that quote unquote truth, the diodes and resistors, all that terrible hardware. If you had to know all that truth, your friends wouldn't hear from you. So what evolution gave us was perceptions that guide adaptive behavior, and part of that process, it turns out, means hiding the truth and giving you eye candy. So what's the difference between hiding the truth and forming abstractions, layers upon layers of abstractions, over these, over low-level voltages and transistors and chips and programming languages from assembly to Python that then leads you to be able to have an interface like Chrome where you open up another set of JavaScript and HTML programming languages that leads you to have a graphical user interface on which you can then send your friends an email. Is that completely detached from the zeros and ones that are firing away inside the computer? It's not. Of course, when I talk about the user interface on your desktop, there's this whole sophisticated backstory to it, right, that the hardware and the software that's allowing that to happen. Evolution doesn't tell us the backstory, right? So the theory of evolution is not going to be adequate to tell you what is that backstory. It's gonna say that whatever reality is, and that's the interesting thing, it says whatever reality is, you don't see it. You see a user interface, but it doesn't tell you what that user interface is, how it's built, right? Now, we can try to look at certain aspects of the interface, but already we're gonna look at that and go, okay, before I would look at neurons and I was assuming that I was seeing something that was at least partially true. And now I'm realizing that it could be like looking at the pixels on my desktop or icons on my desktop, and good luck going from that to the data structures and then the voltages, and I mean, good luck. There's just no way. So what's interesting about this is that our scientific theories are precise enough and rigorous enough to tell us certain limits, and even limits of the theories themselves, but they're not going to tell us what the next move is, and that's where scientific creativity comes in. So the stuff that I'm saying here, for example, is not alien to physicists. The physicists are saying precisely the same thing, that space-time is doomed. We've assumed that space-time is fundamental, that we've assumed that for several centuries, and it's been very useful. So all the things that you were mentioning, the particles and all the work that's been done, that's all been done in space-time, but now physicists are saying space-time is doomed. There's no such thing as space-time fundamentally in the laws of physics, and that comes actually out of gravity together with quantum field theory. It just comes right out of it. It's a theorem of those two theories put together, but it doesn't tell you what's behind it. So the physicists know that their best theories, Einstein's gravity and quantum field theory put together entail that space-time cannot be fundamental, and therefore particles in space-time cannot be fundamental. They're just irreducible representations of the symmetries of space-time. That's what they are. So we have, so space-time, so we put the two together. We put together what the physicists are discovering, and we can talk about how they do that, and then the new discoveries from evolution of natural selection. Both of these discoveries are really in the last 20 years, and what both are saying is space-time has had a good ride. It's been very useful. Reductionism has been useful, but it's over, and it's time for us to go beyond. When you say space-time is doomed, is it the space? Is it the time? Is it the very hard-coded specification of four dimensions? Or are you specifically referring to the kind of perceptual domain that humans operate in, which is space-time? You think like there's a 3D, like our world is three-dimensional, and time progresses forward, therefore three dimensions plus one, 4D. What exactly do you mean by space-time? What do you mean by space-time is doomed? Great, great. So this is, by the way, not my quote. This is from, for example, Nima Arkani-Hamed at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Ed Witten, also there. David Gross, Nobel Prize winner. So this is not just something the cognitive scientists, this is what the physicists are saying. Yeah, the physicists, they're space-time skeptics. Well, yeah, they're saying that, and I can say exactly why they think it's doomed, but what they're saying is that, because your question was what aspect of space-time, what are we talking about here? It's both space and time. Their union into space-time as in Einstein's theory, that's doomed. And they're basically saying that even quantum theory, this is Nima Arkani-Hamed especially. So Hilbert spaces will not be fundamental either. So that the notion of Hilbert space, which is really critical to quantum field theory, quantum information theory, that's not going to figure in the fundamental new laws of physics. So what they're looking for is some new mathematical structures beyond space-time, beyond Einstein's four-dimensional space-time or supersymmetric version, geometric algebra signature, two comma four kind of, there are different ways that you can represent it, but they're finding new structures. And then by the way, they're succeeding now. They're finding, they found something called the amplituhedron. This is Nima and his colleagues, the cosmological polytope. These are, so there are these like polytopes, these polyhedra in multi-dimensions, generalizations of simplices that are coding for, for example, the scattering amplitudes of processes in the Large Hadron Collider and other colliders. So they're finding that if they let go of space-time completely, they're finding new ways of computing these scattering amplitudes that turn literally billions of terms into one term. When you do it in space and time, because it's the wrong framework, it's just a user interface from, that's not from the evolutionary point of view, it's just user interface. It's not a deep insight into the nature of reality. So it's missing deep symmetry, it's something called a dual conformal symmetry, which turns out to be true of the scattering data, but you can't see it in space-time. And it's making the computations way too complicated because you're trying to compute all the loops and Feynman diagrams and all the Feynman integrals. So see the Feynman approach to the scattering amplitudes is trying to enforce two critical properties of space-time, locality and unitarity. And so by, when you enforce those, you get all these loops and multiple, different levels of loops. And for each of those, you have to add new terms to your computation. But when you do it outside of space-time, you don't have the notion of unitarity. You don't have the notion of locality. You have something deeper and it's capturing some symmetries that are actually true of the data. And, but then when you look at the geometry of the facets of these polytopes, then certain of them will code for unitarity and locality. So it actually comes out of the structure of these deep polytopes. So what we're finding is there's this whole new world now beyond space-time that is making explicit symmetries that are true of the data that cannot be seen in space-time. And that is turning the computations from billions of terms to one or two or a handful of terms. So we're getting insights into symmetries and all of a sudden the math is becoming simple because we're not doing something silly. We're not adding up all these loops in space-time. We're doing something far deeper. But they don't know what this world is about. So, you know, they're in an interesting position where we know that space-time is doomed and I should probably tell you why it's doomed, what they're saying about why it's doomed. But they need a flashlight to look beyond space-time. What flashlight are we gonna use to look into the dark beyond space-time? Because Einstein's theory and quantum theory can't tell us what's beyond them. All they can do is tell us that when you put us together, space-time is doomed at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters, 10 to the minus 43 seconds. Beyond that, space-time doesn't even make sense. It just has no operational definition. So, but it doesn't tell you what's beyond. And so they're just looking for deep structures like guessing is really fun. So these really brilliant guys, generic, brilliant men and women who are doing this work, physicists, are making guesses about these structures, informed guesses, because they're trying to ask, well, okay, what deeper structure could give us the stuff that we're seeing in space-time, but without certain commitments that we have to make in space-time, like locality. So they make these brilliant guesses. And of course, most of the time you're gonna be wrong. But once you get one or two that start to pay off, and then you get some lucky breaks. So they got a lucky break back in 1986. Couple of mathematicians named Park and Taylor took the scattering amplitude for two gluons coming in at high energy and four gluons going out at low energy. So that kind of scattering thing. So apparently for people who are into this, that's sort of something that happens so often, you need to be able to find it and get rid of those, because you already know about that and you need to. So you needed to compute them. It was billions of terms. And they couldn't do it, even for the supercomputers, couldn't do that for the many billions or millions of times per second they needed to do it. So they begged, the experimentalists begged the theorists, please, you gotta. And so Park and Taylor took the billions of terms, hundreds of pages, and miraculously turned it into nine. And then a little bit later, they guessed one term expression that turned out to be equivalent. So billions of terms reduced to one term, that so-called famous Park-Taylor formula, 1986. And that was like, okay, where did that come from? This is a pointer into a deep realm beyond space and time, but no one, I mean, what can you do with it? And they thought maybe it was a one-off, but then other formulas started coming up. And then eventually, Nimar Kani-Hamed and his team found this thing called the Amplituhedron, which really sort of captures the whole, a big part of the whole ball of wax. I'm sure they would say, no, there's plenty more to do. So I won't say they did it all by any means. They're looking at the cosmological polytope as well. So what's remarkable to me is that two pillars of modern science, quantum field theory with gravity, on the one hand, and evolution by natural selection on the other, just in the last 20 years have very clearly said, space-time has had a good run. Reductionism has been a fantastic methodology. So we had a great ontology of space-time, a great methodology of reductionism. Now it's time for a new trick. With now you need to go deeper and show, by the way, this doesn't mean we throw away everything we've done, not by a long shot. Every new idea that we come up with beyond space-time must project precisely into space-time and it better give us back everything that we know and love in space-time or generalizations, or it's not gonna be taken seriously and it shouldn't be. So we have a strong constraint on whatever we're going to do beyond space-time. It needs to project into space-time. And whatever this deeper theory is, it may not itself have evolution by natural selection. This may not be part of this deeper realm. But when we take whatever that thing is beyond space-time and project it into space-time, it has to look like evolution by natural selection, or it's wrong. So that's a strong constraint on this work. So even the evolution by natural selection and quantum field theory could be interfaces into something that doesn't look anything like, like you mentioned, I mean, it's interesting to think that evolution might be a very crappy interface into something much deeper. That's right. They're both telling us that the framework that you've had can only go so far and it has to stop. And there's something beyond. And that framework, the very framework that is space and time itself. Now, of course, evolution by natural selection is not telling us about like Einstein's relativistic space. So that was another question you asked a little bit earlier. It's telling us more about our perceptual space and time, which we have used as the basis for creating first a Newtonian space versus time as a mathematical extension of our perceptions. And then Einstein then took that and extended it even further. So the relationship between what evolution is telling us and what the physicists are telling us is that in some sense, the Newton and Einstein space time are formulated as sort of rigorous extensions of our perceptual space, making it mathematically rigorous and laying out the symmetries that they find there. So that's sort of the relationship between them. So it's the perceptual space time that evolution is telling us is just a user interface effectively. And then the physicists are finding that even the mathematical extension of that into the Einsteinian formulation has to be as well, not the final story, there's something deeper. So let me ask you about reductionism and interfaces. As we march forward from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics, these are all, in your view, interfaces. Are we getting closer to objective reality? How do we know, if these interfaces in the process of science, the reason we like those interfaces is because they're predictive of some aspects, strongly predictive about some aspects of our reality. Is that completely deviating from our understanding of that reality? Or is it helping us get closer and closer and closer? Well, of course, one critical constraint on all of our theories is that they are empirically tested and pass the experiments that we have for them. So no one's arguing against experiments being important and wanting to test all of our current theories and any new theories on that. So that's all there. But we have good reason to believe that science will never get a theory of everything. In a sense. Everything, everything. Everything, everything, right. A final theory of everything, right. I think that my own take is, for what it's worth, is that Girdle's incompleteness theorem sort of points us in that direction. That even with mathematics, any finite axiomatization that's sophisticated enough to be able to do arithmetic, it's easy to show that there'll be statements that are true, that can't be proven, can't be deduced from within that framework. And if you add the new statements to your axioms, then there'll be always new statements that are true, but can't be proven with a new axiom system. And the best scientific theories, in physics, for example, and also now evolution, are mathematical. So our theories are gonna be, they're gonna have their own assumptions, and they'll be mathematically precise. And there'll be theories, perhaps, of everything except those assumptions, because assumptions are, we say, please grant me these assumptions. If you grant me these assumptions, then I can explain this other stuff. But so you have the assumptions that are like miracles, as far as the theory is concerned. They're not explained. They're the starting points for explanation. And then you have the mathematical structure of the theory itself, which will have the Girdle limits. And so my take is that reality, whatever it is, is always going to transcend any conceptual theory that we can come up with. There's always gonna be mystery at the edges. Contradictions and all that kind of stuff. Okay. And truths. So there's this idea that is brought up in the financial space of settlement of transactions. It's often talked about in cryptocurrency, especially. So you could do, you know, money, cash is not connected to anything. It used to be connected to gold, to physical reality, but then you can use money to exchange value, to transact. So when it was on the gold standard, the money would represent some stable component of reality. Isn't it more effective to avoid things like hyperinflation, if we generalize that idea? Isn't it better to connect your, whatever we humans are doing in the social interaction space with each other, isn't it better from an evolutionary perspective to connect it to some degree to reality so that the transactions are settled with something that's universal, as opposed to us constantly operating in something that's a complete illusion? Isn't it easy to hyperinflate that? Like where you really deviate very, very far away from the underlying reality, or do you never get in trouble for this? Can you just completely drift far, far away from the underlying reality and never get in trouble? That's a great question. On the financial side, there's two levels at least that we could take your question. One is strictly evolutionary psychology of financial systems, and that's pretty interesting. And there, the decentralized idea, the DeFi kind of idea in cryptocurrencies may make good sense from just an evolutionary psychology point of view. Having human nature being what it is, putting a lot of faith in a few central controllers depends a lot on the veracity of those and trustworthiness of those few central controllers. And we have ample evidence time and again that that's often betrayed. So it makes good evolutionary sense, I would say, to have a decentralized, I mean, democracy is a step in that direction, right? We don't have a monarch now telling us what to do. We decentralize things, right? Because if you have Marcus Aurelius as your emperor, you're great. If you have Nero, it's not so great. And so we don't want that. So democracy is a step in that direction, but I think the DeFi thing is an even bigger step and is going to even make the democratization even greater. So that's one level of it. Also, the fact that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is also a consequence of evolution. That's also a feature, I think, right? You can argue from the long span of living organisms, it's nice for power to corrupt, for you to, so mad men and women throughout history might be useful to teach us a lesson. We can learn from our negative example, right? Exactly. Right, right. Power does corrupt, and I think that you can think about that again from an evolutionary point of view. But I think that your question was a little deeper, and that was, does the evolutionary interface idea sort of unhinge science from some kind of important test for the theories, right? We don't want, it doesn't mean that anything goes in scientific theory, but there's no, if we don't see the truth, is there no way to tether our theories and test them? And I think there's no problem there. We can only test things in terms of what we can measure with our senses in space and time. So we're going to have to continue to do experiments, but we're gonna understand a little bit differently what those experiments are. We had thought that when we see a pointer on some machine in an experiment, that the machine exists, the pointer exists, and the values exist even when no one is looking at them, and that they're an object of truth. And our best theorists are telling us, no. The pointers, pointers are just pointers, and that's what you have to rely on for making your judgments. But even the pointers themselves are not the objective reality. So, and I think Gödel is telling us that, not that anything goes, but as you develop new axiom systems, you will find out what goes within that axiom system, and what testable predictions you can make. So I don't think we're untethered. We continue to do experiments. What I think we won't have that we want is a conceptual understanding that gives us a theory of everything that's final and complete. I think that this is, to put it another way, this is job security for scientists. Our job will never be done, it's job security for neuroscience. Because before we thought that when we looked in the brain, we saw neurons and neural networks, and action potentials, and synapses, and so forth, and that was it, that was the reality. Now we have to reverse engineer that. We have to say, what is beyond space-time? What is going on? What is a dynamical system beyond space-time? That when we project it into Einstein's space-time, gives us things that look like neurons, and neural networks, and synapses. So we have to reverse engineer it. So there's gonna be lots more work for neuroscience. It's gonna be far more complicated, and difficult, and challenging. But that's wonderful, that's what we need to do. We thought neurons exist when they are perceived, and they don't. In the same way that if I show you, when I say they don't exist, I should be very, very concrete. If I draw on a piece of paper, a little sketch of something that is called the Necker cube, it's just a little line drawing of a cube, but it's on a flat piece of paper. If I execute it well, and I show it to you, you'll see a 3D cube, and you'll see it flip. Sometimes you'll see one face in front, sometimes you'll see the other face in front. But if I ask you, which face is in front when you don't look, the answer is, well, neither face is in front, because there's no cube. There's just a flat piece of paper. So when you look at the piece of paper, you perceptually create the cube. And when you look at it, then you fix one face to be in front, and one face to be. So that's what I mean when I say it doesn't exist. Space-time itself is like the cube. It's a data structure that your sensory systems construct, whatever your sensory systems mean now, because we now have to even take that for granted. But there are perceptions that you construct on the fly, and they're data structures in a computer science sense, and you garbage collect them when you don't need them. So you create them and garbage collect them. But is it possible that it's mapped well in some concrete, predictable way to objective reality? The sheet of paper, this two-dimensional space, or we can talk about space-time, maps in some way that we maybe don't yet understand, but we'll one day understand what that mapping is. But it maps reliably. It is tethered in that way. Well, yes. And so the new theories that the physicists are finding beyond space-time have that kind of tethering. So they show precisely how you start with an amplitude hedron, and how you project this high-dimensional structure into the four dimensions of space-time. So there's a precise procedure that relates the two. And they're doing the same thing with the cosmological polytopes. So they're the ones that are making the most concrete and fun advances going beyond space-time. And they're tethering it. Right, they say this is precisely the mathematical projection from this deeper structure into space-time. One thing I'll say about, as a non-physicist, what I find interesting is that they're finding just geometry, but there's no notion of dynamics. Right now, they're just finding these static geometric structures, which is impressive. So I'm not putting them down. This is what they're doing is unbelievably complicated and brilliant and adventurous. All those, it's all those things. And beautiful. And beautiful, yeah, right. From a human aesthetic perspective, because geometry is beautiful. Absolutely. And they're finding symmetries that are true of the data that can't be seen in space-time. But I'm looking for a theory beyond space-time that's a dynamical theory. I would love to find, and we can talk about that at some point, a theory of consciousness in which the dynamics of consciousness itself will give rise to the geometry that the physicists are finding beyond space-time. If we can do that, then we'd have a completely different way of looking at how consciousness is related to what we call the brain or the physical world more generally. Right now, all of my brilliant colleagues, 99% of them are trying to, they're assuming space-time is fundamental. They're assuming that particles are fundamental. Quarks, gluons, leptons, and so forth. Elements, atoms, and so forth are fundamental. And that therefore neurons and brains are part of objective reality. And that somehow when you get matter that's complicated enough, it will somehow generate conscious experiences by its functional properties. Or if you're a panpsychist, maybe in addition to the physical properties of particles, you add consciousness property as well. And then you combine these physical and conscious properties to get more complicated ones. But they're all doing it within space-time. All of the work that's being done on consciousness and its relationship to the brain is all assumed something that our best theories are telling us is doomed, space-time. Why does that particular assumption bother you the most? So you bring up space-time. I mean, that's just one useful interface we've used for a long time. Surely there's other interfaces. Is space-time just one of the big ones to build up people's intuition about the fact that they do assume a lot of things strongly? Or is it in fact the fundamental flaw in the way we see the world? Well, everything else that we think we know are things in space-time. Sure. And so when you say space-time is doomed, this is a shot to the heart of the whole framework, the whole conceptual framework that we've had in science. Not to the scientific method, but to the fundamental ontology and also the fundamental methodology, the ontology of space-time and its contents and the methodology of reductionism, which is that as we go to smaller scales in space-time, we will find more and more fundamental laws. And that's been very useful for space and time for centuries, reductionism for centuries, but now we realize that that's over. Reductionism is in fact dead as is space-time. What exactly is reductionism? What is the process of reductionism that is different than some of the physicists that you mentioned that are trying to think, trying to let go of the assumption of space-time? Looking beyond, is in that still trying to come up with a simple model that explains this whole thing? Isn't it still reducing? It's a wonderful question because it really helps to clarify two different notions, which is scientific explanation on the one hand and a particular kind of scientific explanation on the other, which is the reductionist. So the reductionist explanation is saying, I will start with things that are smaller in space-time and therefore more fundamental where the laws are more fundamental. So we go to just smaller and smaller scales. Whereas in science more generally, we just say like when Einstein did the special theory of relativity, he's saying, let me have a couple of postulates. I will assume that the speed of light is universal for all observers in uniform motion and that the laws of physics, so if you're for uniform motion are, that's not a reductionist. Those are saying, grant me these assumptions. I can build this entire concept of space-time out of it. It's not a reductionist thing. You're not going to smaller and smaller scales of space. You're coming up with these deep, deep principles. Same thing with this theory of gravity. Right, it's the falling elevator idea, right? So this is not a reductionist kind of thing. It's something different. So simplification is a bigger thing than just reductionism. Reductionism has been a particularly useful kind of scientific explanation, for example, in thermodynamics. Right, where the notion that we have of heat, some macroscopic thing like temperature and heat. It turns out that Neil Boltzmann and others discovered, well, hey, if we go to smaller and smaller scales, we find these things called molecules or atoms. And if we think of them as bouncing around and having some kind of energy, then what we call heat really can be reduced to that. And so that's a particularly useful kind of reduction, is a useful kind of scientific explanation that works within a range of scales within space-time. But we know now precisely where that has to stop. At 10 to the minus 33 centimeters and 10 to the minus 43 seconds. And I would be impressed if it was 10 to the minus 33 trillion centimeters. I'm not terribly impressed at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters. I don't even know how to comprehend either of those numbers, frankly. Just a small aside, because I am a computer science person, I also find cellular automata beautiful. And so you have somebody like Stephen Wolfram, who recently has been very excitedly exploring a proposal for a data structure that could be the numbers that would make you a little bit happier in terms of scale, because they're very, very, very, very tiny. So do you like this space of exploration of really thinking, letting go of space-time, letting go of everything, and trying to think what kind of data structures could be underneath this whole mess? That's right. If they're thinking about these as outside of space-time, then that's what we have to do. That's what our best theories are telling us. You now have to think outside of space-time. Now, of course, I should back up and say, we know that Einstein surpassed Newton, right? But that doesn't mean that there's not good work to do on Newton. There's all sorts of Newtonian physics that takes us to the moon and so forth. And there's lots of good problems that we want to solve with Newtonian physics. The same thing will be true of space-time. It's not like we're gonna stop using space-time. We'll continue to do all sorts of good work there. But for those scientists who are really looking to go deeper, to actually find the next, just like what Einstein did to Newton, what are we gonna do to Einstein? How do we get beyond Einstein and quantum theory to something deeper? Then we have to actually let go. And if we're gonna do this automata kind of approach, it's critical that it's not automata in space-time, it's automata prior to space-time, from which we're gonna show how space-time emerges. If you're doing automata within space-time, well, that might be a fun model, but it's not the radical new step that we need. Yeah, so the space-time emerges from that whatever system. Like you're saying, it's a dynamical system. Do we even have an understanding what dynamical means when we go beyond? When you start to think about dynamics, it could mean a lot of things. Even causality could mean a lot of things if we realize that everything's an interface. How much do we really know is an interesting question, because you brought up neurons, I gotta ask you yet another tangent. There's a paper I remember a while ago looking at called Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? And I just enjoyed that thought experiment that they provided, which is, they basically, it's a couple of neuroscientists, Eric Jonas and Conrad Kording, who use the tools of neuroscience to analyze a microprocessor, so a computer chip. Yeah, if we lesion it here, what happens and so forth? And if you go and lesion a computer, it's very, very clear that lesion experiments on computers are not gonna give you a lot of insight into how it works. And also the measurement devices and the kind of, just using the basic approaches of neuroscience, collecting the data, trying to intuit about the underlying function of it. And that helps you understand that our scientific exploration of concepts, depending on the field, are maybe in the very, very early stages. I wouldn't say it leads us astray. Perhaps it does sometimes, but it's not a, it's not anywhere close to some fundamental mechanism that actually makes a thing work. I don't know if you can sort of comment on that in terms of using neuroscience to understand the human mind and neurons. Are we really far away, potentially, from understanding in the way we understand the transistors enough to be able to build a computer? So one thing about understanding is you can understand for fun. The other one is to understand so you could build things. And that's when you really have to understand. Exactly. In fact, what got me into the field that I, at MIT, was work by David Marr on this very topic. So David Marr was a professor at MIT, but he'd done his PhD in neuroscience, studying just the architectures of the brain. But he realized that his work, it was on the cerebellum. He realized that his work, as rigorous as it was, left him unsatisfied because he didn't know what the cerebellum was for. Yeah. And why it had that architecture. And so he went to MIT and he was in the AI lab there. And he said he had this three-level approach that really grabbed my attention. So when I was an undergrad at UCLA, I read one of his papers in a class and said, who is this guy? Because he said, you have to have a computational theory. What is being computed and why? An algorithm, how is it being computed? What are the precise algorithms? And then the hardware, how does it get instantiated in the hardware? And so to really do neuroscience, he argued, we needed to have understanding at all those levels. And that really got me. I loved the neuroscience, but I realized this guy was saying, if you can't build it, you don't understand it effectively. And so that's why I went to MIT. And I had the pleasure of working with David until he died just a year and a half later. So there's been that idea that with neuroscience, we have to have, in some sense, a top-down model of what's being computed and why that we would then go after. And same thing with the, you know, trying to reverse engineer a computing system like your laptop. We really need to understand what the user interface is about and why we have, what are keys on the keyboard for and so forth. You need to know why to really understand all the circuitry and what it's for. Now, we don't, evolution of natural selection does not tell us the deeper question that we're asking, the answer to the deeper question, which is why. What, why, what's this deeper reality and what's it up to and why? All it tells us is that whatever reality is, it's not what you see. What you see is just an adaptive fiction. So just to linger on this fascinating, bold question that shakes you out of your dream state, does this fiction still help you in building intuitions as literary fiction does about reality? The reason we read literary fiction is it helps us build intuitions and understanding in indirect ways, sneak up to the difficult questions of human nature, great fiction. Same with this observed reality. Does this interface that we get, this fictional interface, help us build intuition about deeper truths of how this whole mess works? Well, I think that each theory that we propose will give its own answer to that question, right? So when the physicists are proposing these structures like the amplituhedron and cosmological polytope, associahedron and so forth, beyond space-time, we can then ask your question for those specific structures and say, how much information, for example, does evolution by natural selection and the kinds of sensory systems that we have right now give us about this deeper reality? And why did we evolve this way? We can try to answer that question from within the deep. So there's not gonna be a general answer. I think what we'll have to do is posit these new deeper theories and then try to answer your question within the framework of those deeper theories, knowing full well that there'll be an even deeper theory. So is this paralyzing though? Because how do we know we're not completely adrift out to sea, lost forever from, so like that our theories are completely lost. So if it's all, if we can never truly, deeply introspect to the bottom, if it's always just turtles on top of turtles infinitely, isn't that paralyzing for a scientific mind? Well, it's interesting that you say introspect to the bottom. Because there is that, there is one, I mean, again, this is in the same spirit of what I said before, which is, it depends on what answer you give to what's beyond space time, what answer we would give to your question, right? So, but one answer that is interesting to explore is something that spiritual traditions have said for thousands of years, but haven't said precisely. So we can't take it seriously in science until it's made precise, but we might be able to make it precise. And that is that they've also said something like space and time aren't fundamental, they're maya, they're illusion. And, but that if you look inside, if you introspect, and let go of all of your particular perceptions, you will come to something that's beyond conceptual thought. And that is, they claim, being in contact with the deep ground of being that transcends any particular conceptual understanding. If that is correct, and I'm not saying it's correct, and I'm not saying it's not correct, I'm just saying, if that's correct, then it would be the case that as scientists, because we also are in touch with this ground of being, we would then not be able to conceptually understand ourselves all the way, but we could know ourselves just by being ourselves. And so we would, there would be a sense in which there is a fundamental grounding to the whole enterprise, because we're not separate from the enterprise. This is the opposite of the impersonal third-person science. This would make science go personal all the way down. But nevertheless, scientific, because the scientific method would still be what we would use all the way down for the conceptual understanding. Unfortunately, you still don't know if you went all the way down. It's possible that this kind of, whatever consciousness is, and we'll talk about it, is getting the cliche statement of be yourself. It is somehow digging at a deeper truth of reality, but you still don't know when you get to the bottom. You know, a lot of people, they'll take psychedelic drugs, and they'll say, well, that takes my mind to certain places where it feels like that is revealing some deeper truth of reality, but it could be interfaces on top of interfaces. In your view of this, you really don't know. That means Gato's incompleteness, is that you really don't know. My own view on it, for what it's worth, because I don't know the right answer, but my own view on it right now is that it's never-ending. I think that there will never, that this is great, as I said before, great job security for science, and that if this is true, and if consciousness is somehow important or fundamental in the universe, this may be an important fundamental fact about consciousness itself, that it's a never-ending exploration that's going on in some sense. Well, that's interesting. Push back on the job security. Okay. So maybe as we understand this kind of idea deeper and deeper, we understand that the pursuit is not a fruitful one. That maybe we need to, maybe that's why we don't see aliens everywhere, is you get smarter and smarter and smarter, you realize that exploration is, there's other fun ways to spend your time than exploring. You could be sort of living maximally in some way that's not exploration. There's all kinds of video games you can construct and put yourself inside of them that don't involve you going outside of the game world. It's, you know, feeling, from my human perspective, what seems to be fun is challenging yourself and overcoming those challenges, so you can constantly artificially generate challenges for yourself, like Sisyphus and his boulder. And that's it. So the scientific method that's always reaching out to the stars, that's always trying to figure out the puzzle upon a puzzle, that's always trying to get to the bottom turtle. Maybe if we can build more and more the intuition that that's an infinite pursuit, we agree to start deviating from that pursuit, start enjoying the here and now versus the looking out into the unknown always. Maybe that's looking out into the unknown is a early activity for a species. That's evolved. I'm just sort of saying, pushing back, as you probably got a lot of scientists excited in terms of job security, I could envision where it's not job security, where scientists become more and more useless. Maybe they're like the holders of the ancient wisdom that allows us to study our own history, but not much more than that. Just to find pushback. That's good pushback. I'll put one in there for the scientists again. But sure, but then I'll take the other side too. So when Faraday did all of his experiments with magnets and electricity and so forth, he came with all this wonderful empirical data and James Clerk Maxwell looked at it and wrote down a few equations, which we can now write down in a single equation, the Maxwell equation if we use geometric algebra, just one equation, that opened up unbelievable technologies. People are zooming and talking to each other around the world, the whole electronics industry. There was something that transformed our lives in a very positive way. With the theories beyond space time, here's one potential. Right now, most of the galaxies that we see, we can see them, but we know that we could never get to them no matter how fast we traveled. They're going away from us at the speed of light or beyond, so we can't ever get to them. So there's all this beautiful real estate that's just smiling and waving at us and we can never get to it. But that's if we go through space time. But if we recognize that space time is just a data structure, it's not fundamental. We're not little things inside space time. Space time is a little data structure in our perceptions. It's just the other way around. Once we understand that, and we get equations for the stuff that's beyond space time, maybe we won't have to go through space time. Maybe we can go around it. Maybe I can go to Proxima Centauri and not go through space. I can just go right there directly. It's a data structure. We can start to play with it. So I think that for what it's worth, my take would be that the endless sequence of theories that we could contemplate building will lead to an endless sequence of new remarkable insights into the potentialities, the possibilities, that would seem miraculous to us, and that we will be motivated to continue the exploration, partly just for the technological innovations that come out. But the other thing that you mentioned, though, what about just being? What if we decide, instead of all this doing and exploring, what about being? My guess is that the best scientists will do both, and that the act of being will be a place where they get many of their ideas, and that they then pull into the conceptual realm. And I think many of the best scientists, Einstein comes to mind, right? Where these guys say, look, I didn't come up with these ideas by a conceptual analysis. I was thinking in vague images, and it was just something non-conceptual. And then it took me a long, long time to pull it out into concepts, and then longer to put it into math. But the real insights didn't come from just slavishly playing with equations. They came from a deeper place. And so there may be this going back and forth between the complete non-conceptual, where there's essentially no end to the wisdom, and then conceptual systems, where there's the girdle limits that we have to that. And that may be, if consciousness is important and fundamental, that may be what consciousness, at least part of what consciousness is about, is this discovering itself, discovering its possibilities, so to speak. We can talk about what that might mean. By going from the non-conceptual to the conceptual and back and forth. So you get better and better and better at being. Right. Let me ask you, just to linger on the evolutionary, because you mentioned evolutionary game theory, and that's really where you, the perspective from which you come to form the case against reality. At which point in our evolutionary history did we start to deviate the most from reality? Is it way before life even originated on Earth? Is it in the early development from bacteria and so on? Or is it when some inklings of what we think of as intelligence, or maybe even complex consciousness started to emerge? So where did this deviation, just like with the interfaces in a computer, you start with transistors and then you have assembly, and then you have C, C++, and you have Python, and then you have GUIs, all that kind of, you have layers upon layers. When did we start to deviate? Well, David Marr, again, my advisor at MIT, in his book Vision, suggested that the more primitive sensory systems were less realistic, less veridical. But that by the time you got to something as complicated as the humans, we were actually estimating the true shapes and distances to objects and so forth. So his point of view, and I think it was probably, it's not an uncommon view among my colleagues, that yeah, the sensory systems of lower creatures may just not be complicated enough to give them much truth. But as you get to 86 billion neurons, you can now compute the truth, or at least the parts of the truth that we need. When I look at evolutionary game theory, one of my graduate students, Justin Mark, did some simulations using genetic algorithms. So there, he was just exploring, we start off with random organisms, random sensory genetics and random actions, and the first generation was unbelievably, it was a foraging situation, they were foraging for resources. Most of them stayed in one place, didn't do anything important, but we could then just look at how the genes evolved. And what we found was, what he found was that basically you never even saw the truth organisms even come on the stage. If they came, they were gone in one generation, they just weren't. So they came and went, even just in one generation. They just are not good enough. The ones that were just tracking, their senses just were tracking the fitness payoffs, were far more fit than the truth seekers. So an answer at one level, I'm gonna give an answer at a deeper level, but just with evolutionary game theory. Because my attitude as a scientist is, I don't believe any of our theories. I take them very, very seriously, I study them, I look at their implications, but none of them are the gospel, they're just the latest ideas that we have. So the reason I study evolutionary game theory is because that's the best tool we have right now in this area. There is nothing else that competes. And so as a scientist, it's my responsibility to take the best tools and see what they mean. And the same thing the physicists are doing, they're taking the best tools and looking at what they entail. But I think that science now has enough experience to realize that we should not believe our theories in the sense that we've now arrived. In 1890, it was a lot of physicists thought we'd arrived. They were discouraging bright young students from going into physics because it was all done. And that's precisely the wrong attitude. Forever, it's the wrong attitude forever. The attitude we should have is a century from now, they'll be looking at us and laughing at what we didn't know. And we just have to assume that that's going to be the case. Just know that everything that we think is so brilliant right now, our final theory, a century from now, they'll look at us like we look at the physicists of 1890 and go, how could they have been so dumb? So I don't wanna make that mistake. So I'm not doctrinaire about any of our current scientific theories. I'm doctrinaire about this. We should use the best tools we have right now. That's what we've got. And with humility. So let me ask you about game theory. I love game theory, evolutionary game theory. But I'm always suspicious of it, like economics. When you construct models, it's too easy to construct things that oversimplify just because we, our human brains, enjoy the simplification of constructing a few variables that somehow represent organisms or represent people and running a simulation that then allows you to build up intuition. And it feels really good because you can get some really deep and surprising intuitions. But how do you know your models aren't, the assumptions underlying your models aren't some fundamentally flawed. And because of that, your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. So I guess my question is, what are the limits in your use of game theory, evolutionary game theory, your experience with it, what are the limits of game theory? So I've gotten some pushback from professional colleagues and friends who have tried to rerun simulations and try to, the idea that we don't see the truth is not comfortable. And so many of my colleagues are very interested in trying to show that we're wrong. And so the idea would be to say that somehow we did something, as you're suggesting, maybe something special that wasn't completely general. We've got some little special part of the whole search space in evolutionary game theory in which this happens to be true but more generally organisms would evolve to see the truth. So the best pushback we've gotten is from a team at Yale. And they suggested that if you use thousands of payoff functions, so we in our simulations, we just use a couple, one or two, because it was our first simulations, right? So that would be a limit. We had one or two payoff functions, we showed the result in those, at least for the genetic algorithms. And they said, if you have 20,000 of them, then we can find these conditions in which truth-seeing organisms would be the ones that evolved and survived. And so we looked at their simulations and it certainly is the case that you can find special cases in which truth can evolve. So when I say it's probability zero, it doesn't mean it can't happen. It can happen, in fact, it could happen infinitely often. It's just probability zero. So probability zero things can happen infinitely often. When you say probability zero, you mean probability close to zero. To be very, very precise. So for example, if I have a unit square on the plane and I use a measure in which the, on a probability measure in which the area of a region is this probability, then if I draw a curve in that unit square, it has measure precisely zero, precisely, not approximately, precisely zero. And yet it has infinitely many points. So there's an object that for that probability measure has probability zero, and yet there's infinitely many points in it. So that's what I mean when I say that the things that are probability zero can happen infinitely often in principle. Yeah, but infinity, as far as, and I look outside often, I walk around and I look at people. I have never seen infinity in real life. That's an interesting issue. I've been looking, I've been looking. I don't notice it. Infinitely small or the infinitely big. And so the tools of mathematics, you could sort of apply the same kind of criticism that it is a very convenient interface into our reality. That's a big debate in mathematics. The intuitionists versus the ones who take, for example, the real numbers as real. And that's a fun discussion. Nicholas Gieson has, a physicist, has really interesting work recently on how if you go with intuitionist mathematics, you could effectively quantize Newton. And you find that the Newtonian theory and quantum theory aren't that different once you go with it. It's funny. It's really quite interesting. So the issue you raise is a very, very deep one. And one that I think we should take quite seriously, which is, how should we think about the reality of the contours hierarchy, A-Left one, A-Left two, and all these different infinities versus just a more algorithmic approach. So where everything's computable in some sense, everything's finite, as big as you want, but nevertheless, finite. So yeah, it ultimately boils down to whether the world is discrete or continuous in some general sense. And again, we can't really know. But there's just a mind-breaking thought, just common sense reasoning, that something can happen, and as yet, probability of it happening is 0%. That doesn't compute for common sense computer. Right. This is where you have to be a sharp mathematician to really, and I'm not. Sharp is one word. What I'm saying is common sense computer is, I mean that in a very kind of, in a positive sense, because we've been talking about perception systems and interfaces, if we are to reason about the world, we have to use the best interfaces we got. And I'm not exactly sure that game theory is the best interface we got for this. Oh, right. And application of mathematics, tricks and tools of mathematics to game theory is the best we got when we are thinking about the nature of reality, and fitness functions, and evolution, period. Right. Well, that's a fair rejoinder, and I think that that was the tool that we used. And if someone says, here's a better mathematical tool, and here's why, this is this mathematical tool better captures the essence of Darwin's idea. John Maynard Smith didn't quite get it with evolutionary game theory. There's this thing. Now, there are tools like evolutionary graph theory, which generalize evolutionary game theory. And then there's quantum game theory. So you can use quantum tools, like entanglement, for example, as a resource in games, that change the very nature of the solutions, of the optimal solutions of the game theoretic. Well, the work from Yale is really interesting. It's a really interesting challenge of that kind of, of these ideas where, okay, if you have a very large number of fitness functions, or let's say you have a nearly infinite number of fitness functions, or a growing number of fitness functions, what kind of interesting things start to emerging, emerging if you are to be an organism? If to be an organism that adapts means having to deal with an ensemble of fitness functions. Right, and so we've actually redone some of our own work based on theirs. And this is the back and forth that we expect in science, right? And what we found was that they, in their simulations, they were assuming that you couldn't carve the world up into objects. And so we said, well, let's relax that assumption. Allow organisms to create data structures that we might call objects. And an object would be, you take, you would do hierarchical clustering of your fitness payoff functions. The ones that have similar shapes. If you have 20,000 of them, maybe these 50 are all very, very similar. So I can take all the perception, action, fitness stuff and make that into a data structure and we'll call that a unit or an object. And as soon as we did that, then all of their results went away. It turned out they were the special case and that the organisms that were allowed to only see, that were shaped to see only fitness payoffs were the ones that were. So the idea is that objects then, what are objects from an evolutionary point of view? This bottle, we thought that when I saw a bottle, it was because I was seeing a true object that existed whether or not it was perceived. Evolutionary theories suggest a different interpretation. I'm seeing a data structure that is encoding a convenient way of looking at various fitness payoffs. I can use this for drinking. I could use it as a weapon, not a very good one. I could beat someone over the head with it. If my goal is mating, this is pointless. So I'm seeing for what I'm coding here is all sorts of actions and the payoffs that I could get. When I pick up an apple, now I'm getting a different set of actions and payoffs. When I pick up a rock, I'm getting... So for every object, what I'm getting is a different set of payoff functions with various actions. And so once you allow that, then what you find is once again, that truth goes extinct and the organisms that just get an interface are the ones that win. But the question, just sneaking up on, this is fascinating. From where do fitness functions originate? What gives birth to the fitness functions? So if there's a giant black box that just keeps giving you fitness functions, what are we trying to optimize? You said that water has different uses than an apple, so there's these objects. What are we trying to optimize? And why is not reality a really good generator of fitness functions? So each theory makes its own assumptions and says, grant me this, and I'll explain that. So evolutionary game theory says, grant me fitness payoffs, right? And grant me strategies with payoffs. And I can write down the matrix for this strategy interacts with that strategy. These are the payoffs that come up. If you grant me that, then I can start to explain a lot of things. Now you can ask for a deeper question, like, okay, how does physics evolve biology and where do these fitness payoffs come from, right? Now, that's a completely different enterprise. And of course, evolutionary game theory then would be not the right tool for that. It would have to be a deeper tool that shows where evolutionary game theory comes from. My own take is that there's gonna be a problem in doing that because space-time isn't fundamental. It's just a user interface. And that the distinction that we make between living and nonliving is not a fundamental distinction. It's an artifact of the limits of our interface, right? So this is a new wrinkle and this is an important wrinkle. It's so nice to take space and time as fundamental because if something looks like it's inanimate, it's inanimate and we can just say it's not living. Now, it's much more complicated. Certain things are obviously living. I'm talking with you. I'm obviously interacting with something that's alive and conscious. I think we've let go of the word obviously in this conversation. I think nothing is obvious. Nothing is obvious, that's right. But when we get down to like an ant, it's obviously living, but I'll say it appears to be living. When we get down to a virus, now people wonder. And when we get down to protons, people say it's not living. And my attitude is, look, I have a user interface. Interface is there to hide certain aspects of reality and others to, it's an uneven representation, put it that way. Certain things just get completely hidden. Dark matter and dark energy are most of the energy and matter that's out there. Our interface just plain flat out hides them. The only way we get some hint is because gravitational things are going wrong within our. So most things are outside of our interface. The distinction between living and nonliving is not fundamental. It's an artifact of our interface. So if, so this is, if we really, really want to understand where evolution comes from, to answer the question, the deep question you asked, I think the right way we're gonna have to do that is to come up with a deeper theory than space time, in which there may not be the notion of time. And show that whatever this dynamics of that deeper theory is, and by the way, I'll talk about how you could have dynamics without time, but the dynamics of this deeper theory, when we project it into, in certain ways, then we do get space time and we get what appears to be evolution by natural selection. So I would love to see evolution by natural selection, nature red in tooth and claw, people fighting, animals fighting for resources and the whole bit, come out of a deeper theory in which perhaps it's all cooperation. There's no limited resources and so forth, but as a result of projection, you get space and time, and as a result of projection, you get nature red in tooth and claw, the appearance of it. But it's all an artifact of the interface. I like this idea that the line between living and non-living is very important, because that's a thing that would emerge before you have evolution, the idea of death. So that seems to be an important component of natural selection, and if that emerged, because that's also, you know, asking the question, I guess, that I ask, where do fitness functions come from? That's like asking the old meaning of life question, right? Is what's the why, why, why? And one of the big underlying why's, okay, you can start with evolution on Earth, but without living, without life and death, without the line between the living and the dead, you don't have evolution. So what if underneath it, there's no such thing as the living and the dead? There's no, like this concept of an organism, period. There's a living organism that's defined by a volume in space-time that somehow interacts, that over time maintains its integrity somehow, and has some kind of history, it has a wall of some kind. The outside world, the environment, and then inside, there's an organism. So you're defining an organism, and also you're defining that organism by the fact that it can move, and it can come alive, which you kind of think of as moving, combined with the fact that it's keeping itself separate from the environment, so you can point out that thing is living, and then it can also die. That seems to be all very powerful components of space-time that enable you to have something like natural selection and evolution. Well, and there's a lot of interesting work, some of it by collaborators of Carl Friston and others, where they have Bayes' net kind of stuff that they built on the notion of a Markov blanket. So you have some states within this network that are inside the blanket, then you have the blanket, and then the states outside the blanket. And the states inside this Markov blanket are conditionally independent of the states outside the blanket, conditioned on the blanket. And what they're looking at is that the dynamics inside of the states inside the Markov blanket seem to be trying to estimate properties of the outside and react to them in a way. So it seems like you're doing probabilistic inferences in ways that might be able to keep you alive. So there's interesting work going on in that direction. But what I'm saying is something slightly different, and that is, like when I look at you, all I see is skin, hair, and eyes, right? That's all I see. But I know that there's a deeper reality. I believe that there's a much deeper reality. There's the whole world of your experiences, your thoughts, your hopes, your dreams. In some sense, the face that I see is just a symbol that I create, right? And as soon as I look away, I delete that symbol. But I don't delete you. I don't delete the conscious experience, the whole world of your... So I'm only deleting an interface symbol. But that interface symbol is a portal, so to speak, not a perfect portal, but a genuine portal into your beliefs, into your conscious experiences. That's why we can have a conversation. We genuinely, your consciousness is genuinely affecting mine, and mine is genuinely affecting yours through these icons, which I create on the fly. I mean, I create your face. When I look, I delete it. I don't create you, your consciousness. That's there all the time. But I do... So now when I look at a cat, I'm creating something that I still call living, and I still think is conscious. When I look at an ant, I create something that I still would call living, but maybe not conscious. When I look at something I call a virus, now I'm not even sure I would call it living. And when I look at a proton, I would say, I don't even think it's not alive at all. It could be that I'm nevertheless interacting with something that's just as conscious as you. I'm not saying the proton is conscious. The face that I'm creating when I look at you, that face is not conscious. That face is a data structure in me. That face is an experience. It's not an experiencer. Similarly, a proton is something that I create when I look or do a collision in the Large Hadron Collider or something like that. But what is behind the entity in space-time? So I've got this space-time interface, and I just got this entity that I call a proton. What is the reality behind it? Well, the physicists are finding these big, big structures, Amplituhedron, Sociahedron, Cosm- What's behind those? Could be consciousness, what I'm playing with. In which case, when I'm interacting with a proton, I could be interacting with consciousness. Again, to be very, very clear, because it's easy to misunderstand, I'm not saying a proton is conscious. Just like I'm not saying your face is conscious. Your face is a symbol I create and then delete as I look, and so your face is not conscious, but I know that that face in my interface, the Lex Friedman face that I create, is an interface symbol that's a genuine portal into your consciousness. The portal is less clear for a cat, even less clear for an ant, and by the time we get down to a proton, the portal is not clear at all. But that doesn't mean I'm not interacting with consciousness. It just means my interface gave up. And there's some deeper reality that we have to go after. So your question really forces out a big part of this whole approach that I'm talking about. So it's this portal of the conscious. I wonder why you can't, your portal is not as good to a cat's consciousness than it is to a human. Does it have to do with the fact that you're human and just similar organisms, organisms of similar complexity are able to create portals better to each other, or is it just as you get more and more complex, you get better and better portals? Well, let me answer one aspect of it that I'm more confident about, then I'll speculate on that. Why is it that the portal is so bad with protons? Well, and elementary particles more generally, so quarks, leptons, and gluons, and so forth. Well, the reason for that is because those are just symmetries of space-time. More technically, they're irreducible representations of the Poincaré group of space-time. So they're just literally representations of the data structure of space-time that we're using. So that's why they're not very much insightful. They're just almost entirely tied to the data structure itself. There's not much, they're telling you only something about the data structure, not behind the data structure. It's only when we get to higher levels that we're starting to, in some sense, build portals to what's behind space-time. Sure, yeah, so there's more and more complexity built on top of the interface of space-time with the cat. So you can actually build a portal, right? Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah, this interface of face and hair and so on, skin. There's some syncing going on between humans, though. Where we sync, like, you're getting a pretty good representation of the ideas in my head, and starting to get a foggy view of my memories in my head. Even though this is the first time we're talking, you start to project your own memories. You start to solve a giant hierarchy of puzzles about a human, because we're all, there's a lot of similarities, a lot of it rhymes. So you start to make a lot of inferences, and you build up this model of a person. You have a pretty sophisticated model of what's going on underneath. Again, I just, I wonder if it's possible to construct these models about each other and nevertheless be very distant from an underlying reality. The syncing. Yes, there's a lot of work on this. So there's some interesting work called signaling games, where they look at how people can coordinate and come to communicate. There's some interesting work that was done by some colleagues and friends of mine, Louis Nerons, Natalia Komorova, and Kimberly Jamison, where they were looking at evolving color words. So you have a circle of colors, the color circle, and they wanted to see if they could get people to cooperate in how they carved the color circle up into units of words. And so they had a game, theoretic kind of thing that they'd had people do. And what they found was that when they included, so most people are trichromats, you have three kinds of cone photoreceptors, but there are some, a lot of men, 7% of men are dichromats. They might be missing the red cone photoreceptor. They found that the dichromats had an outsized influence on the final ways that the whole space of colors was carved up and labels attached. You needed to be able to include the dichromats in the conversation. And so they had a bigger influence on how you made the boundaries of the language. And I thought that was a really interesting kind of insight that there's going to be, again, a game, perhaps a game or evolutionary or genetic algorithm kind of thing that goes on in terms of learning to communicate in ways that are useful. And so, yeah, you can use game theory to actually explore that or signaling games. There's a lot of brilliant work on that. I'm not doing it, but there's work out there. So if it's okay, let us tackle once more and perhaps several more times after the big topic of consciousness. Okay? This very beautiful, powerful things that perhaps is the thing that makes us human. What is it? What's the role of consciousness in, let's say even just the thing we've been talking about, which is the formation of this interface? Any kind of ways you want to kind of start talking about it? Well, let me say first what most of my colleagues say. 99% are, again, assuming that space-time is fundamental, particles in space-time, matter is fundamental, and most are reductionist. And so the standard approach to consciousness is to figure out what complicated systems of matter with the right functional properties could possibly lead to the emergence of consciousness. That's the general idea, right? So maybe you have to have neurons. Maybe only if you have neurons, but that might not be enough. They have to certain kinds of complexity in their organization and their dynamics, certain kind of network abilities, for example. So there are those who say, for example, that consciousness arises from orchestrated collapse of quantum states of microtubules and neurons. So this is Hamroff and Penrose have this kind of. So you start with something physical, a property of quantum states of neurons, of microtubules and neurons, and you say that somehow an orchestrated collapse of those is consciousness or conscious experiences. Or integrated information theory. Again, you start with something physical, and if it has the right kind of functional properties, it's something they call phi with the right kind of integrated information, then you have consciousness. Or you can be a panpsychist, Philip Goff, for example, where you might say, well, in addition to the particles in space and time, those particles are not just matter, they also could have, say, a unit of consciousness. And so, but once again, you're taking space and time and particles as fundamental, and you're adding a new property to them, say, their consciousness, and then you have to talk about how, when a proton and a neutron, where a proton and electron get together to form hydrogen, then how those consciousnesses merge to, or interact to create the consciousness of hydrogen, and so forth. There's attention schema theory, which again, this is how neural network processes, representing to the network itself, its attentional processes, that could be consciousness. There's global workspace theory, and neuronal global workspace theory. So there's many, many theories of this type. What's common to all of them is they assume that space-time is fundamental. They assume that physical processes in space-time is fundamental. Panpsychism adds consciousness as an additional thing, it's almost dualist in that regard. And my attitude is, our best science is telling us that space-time is not fundamental. So why is that important here? Well, for centuries, deep thinkers thought of earth, air, fire, and water as the fundamental elements. It was a reductionist kind of idea. Nothing was more elemental than those, and you could sort of build everything up from those. When we got the periodic table of elements, we realized that, of course, we want to study earth, air, fire, and water. There's combustion science for fire. There's sciences for all these other things, water and so forth. So we're gonna do science for these things, but fundamental, no, no. If you're looking for something fundamental, those are the wrong building blocks. Earth has many, many different kinds of elements that project into the one thing that we call earth. If you don't understand that there's silicon, that there's iron, that there's all these different kinds of things that project into what we call earth, you're hopelessly lost. You're not fundamental. You're not gonna get there. And then after the periodic table, then we came up with quarks, leptons, and gluons, the particles of the standard model of physics. And so we actually now know that if you really want to get fundamental, the periodic table is a net. It's good for chemistry. And it's wonderful for chemistry, but if you're trying to go deep fundamental, what is the fundamental science? That's not it. You're gonna have to go to quarks, leptons, and gluons and so forth. Well, now we've discovered space-time itself is doomed. Quarks, leptons, and gluons are just irreducible representations of the symmetries of space-time. So the whole framework on which consciousness research is being based right now is doomed. And for me, these are my friends and colleagues that are doing this. They're brilliant. They're absolutely, they're brilliant. My feeling is I'm so sad that they're stuck with this old framework because if they weren't stuck like with earth, air, fire, and water, you could actually make progress. So it doesn't matter how smart you are. If you start with earth, air, fire, and water, you're not gonna get anywhere, right? Can I actually just, because the word doomed is so interesting let me give you some options, multiple choice quiz. Is space-time, we could say is reality, the way we perceive it, doomed, wrong, or fake? Because doomed just means it could still be right, and we're now ready to go deeper. It would be that. So it's not wrong. It's not a complete deviation from a journey toward the truth. Right, it's like earth, air, fire, and water is not wrong. There is earth, air, fire, and water. That's a useful framework, but it's not fundamental. Right, well, there's also wrong, which is they used to believe, as I recently learned, that George Washington was the first president in the United States was bled to death for something that could have been easily treated because it was believed that you can get, actually, I need to look into this further, but I guess you get toxins out or demons out. I don't know what you're getting out with the bleeding of a person. But so that ended up being wrong, but widely believed as a medical tool. So it's also possible that our assumption of space-time is not just doomed, but it's wrong. Well, if we believe that it's fundamental, that's wrong. But if we believe it's a useful tool, that's right. But it could, see, but bleeding somebody to death was believed to be a useful tool. And that was wrong. It wasn't just not fundamental. It was very, I'm sure there's cases in which bleeding somebody would work, but it would be a very tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of cases. So it could be that it's wrong. Like it's a side road that's ultimately leading to a dead end as opposed to a truck stop or something that you can get off of. My feeling is it's not the dead end kind of thing. I think that what the physicists are finding is that there are these structures beyond space-time, but they project back into space-time. And so space-time, when they say space-time is doomed, they're explicit. They're saying it's doomed in the sense that we thought it was fundamental. It's not fundamental. It's a useful, absolutely useful and brilliant data structure. But there are deeper data structures like cosmological polytope. And space-time is not fundamental. What is doomed in the sense that it's wrong is reductionism. That's just- Which is saying space-time is fundamental. That's actually- Right, right. The idea that somehow being smaller in space and time or space-time is a fundamental nature of reality, that's just wrong. It turned out to be a useful heuristic for thermodynamics and so forth. And in several other places, reductionism has been very useful. But that's in some sense an artifact of how we use our interface. Yeah, so you're saying size doesn't matter. Okay, this is very important for me to write down. Ultimately. Ultimately. Ultimately, right. I mean, it's useful for theories like thermodynamics and also for understanding brain networks in terms of individual neurons and neurons in terms of chemical systems inside cells. That's all very, very useful. But the idea that we're getting to the more fundamental nature of reality, no. When you get all the way down in that direction, you get down to the quarks and gluons, what you realize is what you've gotten down to is not fundamental reality, just the irreducible representations of a data structure. That's all you've gotten down to. So you're always stuck inside the data structure. So you seem to be getting closer and closer. I mean, I went from neural networks to neurons, neurons to chemistry, chemistry to particles, particles to quarks and gluons. I'm getting closer and closer to the real. No, I'm getting closer and closer to the actual structure of the data structure of space and time, the irreducible representations. That's what you're getting closer to, not to a deeper understanding of what's beyond space time. We'll also refer, we'll return again to this question of dynamics because you keep saying that space time is doom, but mostly focusing on the space part of that. It's very interesting to see why time gets the bad cred too because how do you have dynamics without time is the thing I'd love to talk to you a little bit about. But let us return. Your brilliant whirlwind overview of the different theories of consciousness that are out there. What is consciousness if outside of space time? If we think that we want to have a model of consciousness, we as scientists then have to say, what do we want to write down? What kind of mathematical modeling are we gonna write down? And if you think about it, there's lots of things that you might want to write down about consciousness. It's a fairly complicated subject. So most of my colleagues are saying, let's start with matter or neurons and see what properties of matter could create consciousness. But I'm saying that that whole thing is out. Space time is doomed, that whole thing is out. We need to look at consciousness qua consciousness. In other words, not as something that arises in space and time, but perhaps as something that creates space and time as a data structure. So what do we want? And here again, there's no hard and fast rule, but what you as a scientist have to do is to pick what you think are the minimal assumptions that are gonna allow you to boot up a comprehensive theory. That is the trick. So what do I want? So what I chose to do was to have three things. I said that there are conscious experiences, feeling of headache, the smell of garlic, experiencing the color red. There are, those are conscious. So that's a primitive of a theory. And the reason I want few primitives, why? Because those are the miracles of the theory, right? The primitives, the assumptions of the theory are the things you're not going to explain. Those are the things you assume. And those experiences you particularly mean there's a subjectiveness to them. That's right. It's the thing when people refer to the hard problem of consciousness is it feels like something to look at the color red, okay? Exactly right. It feels like something to have a headache or to feel upset to your stomach. It feels like something. And so I'm going to grant that in this theory, there are experiences and they're fundamental in some sense. So conscious experience. So they're not derived from physics. They're not functional properties of particles. They are sui generis. They exist. Just like we assume space-time exists. I'm now saying space-time is just a data structure. It doesn't exist independent of conscious experiences. Sorry to interrupt once again, but should we be focusing in your thinking on humans alone? Or is there something about in relation to other kinds of organisms that have a sufficiently high level of complexity? Or even, or is there some kind of generalization of the panpsychist idea that consciousness permeates all matter outside of the usual definition of what matter is inside space-time? So it's beyond human consciousness. Human consciousness from my point of view would be one of a countless variety of consciousnesses. And even within human consciousness, there's countless variety of consciousness within us. I mean, you have your left and right hemisphere. And apparently if you split the corpus callosum, the personality of the left hemisphere and the religious beliefs of the left hemisphere can be very different from the right hemisphere. And their conscious experiences can be disjoint. One could have one conscious experience. They can play 20 questions. The left hemisphere can have an idea in its mind and the right hemisphere has to guess. And it might not get it. So even within you, there is more than just one consciousness. It's lots of consciousnesses. So the general theory of consciousness that I'm after is not just human consciousness. It's going to be just consciousness. And I presume human consciousness is a tiny drop in the bucket of the infinite variety of consciousnesses. That said, I should clarify that the black hole of consciousness is the home cat. I'm pretty sure cats lack, is the embodiment of evil and lack all capacity for consciousness or compassion. So I just want to lay that on the table. That's the theory I'm working. I don't have any good evidence. The black cat. Intuit, that's just a shout out. Sorry to distract. So that's the first assumption. The first assumption. The second assumption is that these experiences have consequences. So I'm going to say that conscious experiences can trigger other conscious experiences somehow. So really in some sense, there's two basic assumptions. There are conscious- There's some kind of causality. Is there a chain of causality? Does it relate to dynamics? I'll say there's a probabilistic relationship. And then, so I'm trying to be as non-specific to begin with and see where it leads me. So what I can write down are probability spaces. So probability space, which contains the conscious experiences that this consciousness can have. So I call this a conscious agent. This technical thing. Now, Anika Harris and I have talked about this and she rightly cautions me that people will think that I'm bringing in a notion of a self or agency and so forth when I say conscious agent. So I just want to say that I use the term conscious agent merely as a technical term. There is no notion of self in my fundamental definition of a conscious agent. There are only experiences and probabilistic relationships of how they trigger other experiences. So the agent is the generator of the conscious experience? The agent is a mathematical structure that includes a probability measure, a probability space of a possible conscious experiences and a Markovian kernel, which describes how, if this agent has certain conscious experiences, how that will affect the experiences of other conscious agents, including itself. But you don't think of that as a self? No, there is no notion of a self here. There's no notion of really of an agent. But is there a locality? Is there an organism? There's no, there's no. So this is, these are conscious units, conscious entities. But they're distinct in some way because they have to interact. Well, so here's the interesting thing. When we write down the mathematics, when you have two of these conscious agents interacting, the pair satisfy a definition of a conscious agent. So they are a single conscious agent. So there is one conscious agent. Yeah. And it has a nice analytic decomposition into as many conscious agents as you wish. So that's a nice interface. It's a very useful scientific interface. Yeah. It's a scale-free, or if you like, a fractal-like approach to it, in which we can use the same unit of analysis at all scales in studying consciousness. But if I want to talk about, so there's no notion of learning, memory, problem-solving, intelligence, self, agency. So none of that is fundamental. So, and the reason I did that was because I want to assume as little as possible. Everything I assume is a miracle in the theory. It's not something you explain, it's something you assume. So I have to build networks of conscious agents. If I want to have a notion of a self, I have to build a self. I have to build learning, memory, problem-solving, intelligence, and planning, all these different things. I have to build networks of conscious agents to do that. It's a trivial theorem that networks of conscious agents are computationally universal, that's trivial. So anything that we can do with neural networks or, you know, automata, you can do with networks of conscious agents, that's trivial. But you can also do more. The events in the probability space need not be computable. So the Markovian dynamics is not restricted to computable functions because the very events themselves need not be computable. So this can capture any computable theory, anything we can do with neural networks, we can do with conscious agent networks. But it leaves open the door for the possibility of non-computable interactions between conscious agents. So we have to, if we want a theory of memory, we have to build it. And there's lots of different ways you could build. We've actually got a paper, Chris Fields took the lead on this, and we have a paper called Conscious Agent Networks where Chris takes the lead and shows how to use these networks of conscious agents to build memory and to build primitive kinds of learning. But can you provide some intuition of what conscious networks, network of conscious, networks of conscious agents helps you, well, first of all, what that looks like. And I don't just mean mathematically. Of course, maybe that might help build up intuition, but how that helps us potentially solve the hard problem of consciousness. Or is that baked in, that that exists? Can you solve the hard problem of consciousness, why it tastes delicious when you eat a delicious ice cream with networks of conscious agents? Or is that taken as an assumption? So the standard way the hard problem is thought of is we're assuming space and time and particles, or neurons, for example. These are just physical things that have no consciousness. And we have to explain how the conscious experience of the taste of chocolate could emerge from those. So that's the typical hard problem of consciousness is that problem, right? How do you boot up the taste of chocolate, the experience of the taste of chocolate from neurons, say, or the right kind of artificial intelligence circuitry? How do you boot that up? That's typically what the hard problem of consciousness means to researchers. Notice that I'm changing the problem. I'm not trying to boot up conscious experiences from the dynamics of neurons or silicon or something like that. I'm saying that that's the wrong problem. My hard problem would go in the other direction. If I start with conscious experiences, how do I build up space and time? How do I build up what I call the physical world? How do I build up what we call brains? Because I'm saying consciousness is not something that brains do. Brains are something that consciousness makes up. It's among the experience, it's an ephemeral experience in consciousness. I look inside, so to be very, very clear, right now I have no neurons. If you looked, you would see neurons. That's a data structure that you would create on the fly, and it's a very useful one. As soon as you look away, you garbage collect that data structure. Just like that Necker cube that I was talking about on the piece of paper. When you look, you see a 3D cube. You create it on the fly. As soon as you look away, that's gone. When you say you, you mean a human being scientist? Right now, that's right. More generally, it'll be conscious agents, because as you pointed out, am I asking for a theory of consciousness only about humans? No, it's consciousness, which human consciousness is just a tiny sliver. But you are saying that there is, that's a useful data structure. How many other data structures are there? That's why I said you, human. If there's another Earth, if there's another alien civilization and doing these kinds of investigations, would they come up with similar data structures? Probably not. What is the space of data structures, I guess is what I'm asking. My guess is that if consciousness is fundamental, consciousness is all there is, then the only thing that mathematical structure can be about is possibilities of consciousness. And that suggests to me that there could be an infinite variety of consciousnesses. And a vanishingly small fraction of them use space-time data structures and the kinds of structures that we use. There's an infinite variety of data structures. Now, this is very similar to something that Max Tegmark has said, but I wanna distinguish it. He has this level four multiverse idea. He thinks that mathematics is fundamental. And so that's the fundamental reality. And since there's an infinite variety of, endless variety of mathematical structures, there's an infinite variety of multiverses in his view. I'm saying something similar in spirit, but importantly different. There's an infinite variety of mathematical structures, absolutely. But mathematics isn't the fundamental reality in this framework. Consciousness is. And mathematics is to consciousness like bones are to an organism. You need the bones. So mathematics is not divorced from consciousness, but it's not the entirety of consciousness by any means. And so there's an infinite variety of consciousness and signaling games that consciousnesses could interact via. And therefore worlds, common worlds, data structures that they can use to communicate. So space and time is just one of an infinite variety. And so I think that what we'll find is that as we go outside of our little space-time bubble, we will encounter utterly alien forms of conscious experience that we may not be able to really comprehend in the following sense. If I ask you to imagine a color that you've never seen before, does anything happen? Right, nothing happens. Right? Nothing happens. And that's just one color. I'm asking for just a color. We actually know, by the way, that apparently there are women called tetraphams who have four color receptors, not just three. And Kimberly Jamison and others who've studied these women have good evidence that they apparently have a new dimension of color experience that the rest of us don't have. So these women are apparently living in a world of color that you and I can't even concretely imagine. No man can imagine them. And yet, they're real color experiences. And so in that sense, I'm saying, now take that little baby step. Oh, there are women who have color experiences that I could never have. Well, that's shocking. Now take that infinite. There are consciousnesses where every aspect of their experiences is like that new color. It's something utterly alien to you. You have nothing like that. And yet, these are all possible varieties of conscious experience. When you say there's a lot of consciousnesses, is a singular consciousness basically the set of possible experiences you can have in that subjective way as opposed to the underlying mechanism? Because you say that having extra color receptor, ability to have new experiences, that's somehow a different consciousness. Is there a way to see that as all the same consciousness, the subjectivity itself? Right, because when we have two of these conscious agents interacting in the mathematics, they actually satisfy the definition of a conscious agent. So in fact, they are a single conscious agent. So in fact, one way to think about what I'm saying, I'm postulating with my colleagues, Chetan and Chris and others, Robert Prentner and so forth, there is one big conscious agent, infinitely complicated. But fortunately, we can, for analytic purposes, break it down all the way to, in some sense, the simplest conscious agent, which has one conscious experience, one. This one agent can experience red 35, that's it. That's what it experiences. You can get all the way down to that. So you think it's possible that consciousness, whatever that is, is much more, is fundamental, or at least much more in the direction of the fundamental than is space-time as we perceive it. That's the proposal. And therefore, what I have to do, in terms of the hard problem of consciousness, is to show how dynamical systems of conscious agents could lead to what we call space and time and neurons and brain activity. In other words, we have to show how you get space-time and physical objects entirely from a theory of conscious agents outside of space-time, with the dynamics outside of space-time. So that's, and I can tell you how we plan to do that, but that's the idea. Okay, the magic of it, that chocolate is delicious. So there's a mathematical kind of thing that we could say here, how it can emerge within the system of networks of conscious agents, but is there going to be, at the end of the proof, of the proof why chocolate is so delicious? Or no? I guess I'm going to ask different kinds of dumb questions to try to sneak up. Sure, oh, well, that's the right question. And when I say that I took conscious experiences as fundamental, what that means is, in the current version of my theory, I'm not explaining conscious experiences where they came from. That's the miracle. That's one of the miracles. So I have two miracles in my theory. There are conscious experiences, like the taste of chocolate and that there's a probabilistic relationship. When certain conscious experiences occur, others are more likely to occur. Those are the two miracles that are- It's possible to get beyond that and somehow start to chip away at the miracle-ness of that miracle, that chocolate is still delicious. I hope so. I've got my hands full with what I'm doing right now, but I can just say at top level how I would think about that. That would get at this consciousness without form. This is gonna be really, this is really tough because it's consciousness without form versus the various forms that consciousness takes for the experiences that it has. Right, right. So when I write down a probability space for these conscious experiences, I say here's a probability space for the possible conscious experiences. It's just like when I write down a probability space for an experiment. Like I'm gonna flip a coin twice, right? And I want to look at the probabilities of various outcomes. So I have to write down a probability space. There could be heads, heads, heads, tails, tails, heads, tails, tails. So you, before, as any class in probability, you're told write down your probability space. If you don't write down your probability space, you can't get started. So here's my probability space for consciousness. How do I want to interpret that structure? The structure is just sitting there. There's gonna be a dynamics that happens on it, right? Experiences appear and then they disappear. Just like heads appears and disappears. So one way to think about that fundamental probability space is that corresponds to consciousness without any content. The infinite consciousness that transcends any particular content. Well, do you think of that as a mechanism, as a thing, like the rules that govern the dynamics of the thing outside of space-time? Isn't that, if you think consciousness is fundamental, isn't that essentially getting like, it is solving the hard problem, which is like from where does this thing pop up, which is the mechanism of the thing popping up. Whatever the consciousness is, the different kinds, it was so on, that mechanism. And also the question I want to ask is, how tricky do you think it is to solve that problem? You solved a lot of difficult problems throughout the history of humanity. There's probably more problems to solve left than we've solved by like an infinity. But along that long journey of intelligent species, when will we solve this consciousness one? Just one way to measure the difficulty of the problem. So I'll give two answers. There's one problem I think we can solve, but we haven't solved yet. And that is the reverse of what my colleagues call the hard problem. The problem of how do you start with conscious experiences in the way that I've just described them, and the dynamics, and build up space and time and brains? That I think is a tough technical problem, but it's in principle solvable. So I think we can solve that. So we would solve the hard problem, not by showing how brains create consciousness, but how networks of conscious agents create what we call the symbols that we call brains. So that I think. But does that allow you to, so that's interesting, that's an interesting idea. Consciousness creates the brain, not the brain creates consciousness. But does that allow you to build the thing? My guess is that it will enable unbelievable technologies. Once, and I'll tell you why, I think it plugs into the work that the physicists are doing. So this theory of consciousness will be even deeper than the structures that the physicists are finding, like the amplituhedron. But the other answer to your question is less positive. As I said earlier, I think that there is no such thing as a theory of everything. So that I think that my, the theory that my team is working on, this conscious agent theory, is just a 1.0 theory. We're using probability spaces and Markovian kernels. I can easily see people now saying, well, we can do better if we go to category theory. And we can get a deeper, perhaps more interesting. And then someone will say, well, now I'll go to topoi theory. And then there'll be, so I imagine that there'll be, you know, conscious agents, 5, 10, 3 trillion, 0.0. But I think it will never end. I think ultimately, this question that we sort of put our fingers on, of how does the formless give birth to form? To the taste, the wonderful taste of chocolate. I think that we will always go deeper and deeper, but we will never solve that. That in some sense, that will be a primitive. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe it's just the limits of my current imagination. So I'll just say my imagination right now doesn't peer that deep. Hopefully, so I don't, by the way, I'm saying this, I don't want to discourage some brilliant 20 year old who then later on proves me dead wrong. I hope to be proven dead wrong. Just like you said, essentially from now, everything we're saying now, everything you're saying, all of your theories will be laughing stock. They will respect the puzzle solving abilities and how much we were able to do with so little, but outside of that, it will all be just, the silliness will be entertainment for a teenager. Especially the silliness when we thought that we were so smart and we knew it all. So it would be interesting to explore your ideas by contrasting, you mentioned Annika, Annika Harris, you mentioned Philip Goff. So outside of, if you're not allowed to say the fundamental disagreement is the fact that space time is fundamental, what are interesting distinctions between ideas of consciousness between you and Annika, for example? You guys have, you've been on a podcast together, I'm sure in private, you guys have some incredible conversations. So where are some interesting sticking points, some interesting disagreements, let's say with Annika first. Maybe there'll be a few other people. Well, Annika and I just had a conversation this morning where we were talking about our ideas and what we discovered really in our conversation was that we're pretty much on the same page. It was really just about consciousness. Yeah, our ideas about consciousness are pretty much on the same page. She rightly has cautioned me to, when I talk about conscious agents, to point out that the notion of agency is not fundamental in my theory. The notion of self is not fundamental, and that's absolutely true. I can use this network of conscious agents, I now use as a technical term, conscious agents is a technical term for that probability space with the Markovian dynamics. I can use that to build models of a self and to build models of agency, but they're not fundamental. So she has really been very helpful in helping me to be a little bit clear about these ideas and not say things that are misleading. Sure, I mean, this is the interesting thing about language, actually, is that language, quite obviously, is an interface to truth. It's so fascinating that individual words can have so much ambiguity, and the specific choices of a word within a particular sentence, within the context of a sentence, can have such a difference in meaning. It's quite fascinating, especially when you're talking about topics like consciousness, because it's a very loaded term. It means a lot of things to a lot of people, and the entire concept is shrouded in mystery. So a combination of the fact that it's a loaded term and that there's a lot of mystery, people can just interpret it in all kinds of ways. And so you have to be both precise and help them avoid getting stuck on some kind of side road of miscommunication, lost in translation because you used the wrong word. That's interesting. I mean, because for a lot of people, consciousness is ultimately connected to a self. I mean, our experience of consciousness is connected to this ego. I mean, what else could it possibly be? I can't even, how do you begin to comprehend, to visualize, to conceptualize a consciousness that's not connected to this particular organism? I'll have a way of thinking about this whole problem now that comes out of this framework that's different. So we can imagine a dynamics of consciousness, not in space and time, just abstractly. It could be cooperative, for all we know. It could be very friendly, I don't know. And you can set up a dynamics, a Markovian dynamics that is so-called stationary, and that's a technical term, which means that the entropy effectively is not increasing. There is some entropy, but it's constant. So there's no increasing entropy. And in that sense, the dynamics is timeless. There is no entropic time. But it's a trivial theorem, three-line proof, that if you have a stationary Markovian dynamics, any projection that you make of that dynamics by conditional probability, and if you want, I can state a little bit more, even more mathematically precisely for some readers or listeners, but if any projection you take by conditional probability, the induced image of that Markov chain will have increasing entropy. You will have entropic time. So I'll be very, very precise. I'll have a Markov chain, X1, X2, through Xn, where Xn goes to infinity, right? The entropy H, capital H of Xn, is equal to the entropy H of Xn minus one for all n. So the entropy is the same. But it's a theorem that H of Xn, say, given X sub one, is greater than or equal to H of Xn minus one, given X1. Sure, where does the greater come from? Because, well, the three-line proof, H of Xn given X1 is greater than or equal to H of Xn, given X1 and X2, because conditioning reduces. But then H of Xn minus one, given X1, X2, is equal to H of Xn, given X2, Xn minus one, given X2, by the Markov property. And then, because it's stationary, it's equal to H of X, I have to write it down. Xn minus, I have to write it down. Anyway, there's a three-line proof. Sure, so, but the assumption of stationarity, we're using a lot of terms that people won't understand, doesn't matter. So there's some kind of, Markovian dynamics is basically trying to model some kind of system with some probabilities, and there's agents, and they interact in some kind of way, and you could say something about that system as it evolves stationarity. So a stationary system is one that has certain properties in terms of entropy, very well. But we don't know if it's stationary or not. We don't know what the properties, so you have to kind of take assumptions and see, okay, well, what does the system behave like under these different properties? The more constraints, the more assumptions you take, the more interesting, powerful things you can say, but sometimes they're limiting. That said, we're talking about consciousness here. How does that, you said cooperative, okay, competitive, it's just, I like chocolate. I'm sitting here, I have a brain, I'm wearing a suit, it sure as hell feels like I'm a self. What, am I tuning in, am I plugging into something? Am I a projection, a simple, trivial projection into space-time from some much larger organism that I can't possibly comprehend? How the hell, you're saying some, you're building up mathematical intuitions, fine, great, but I'm just, I'm having an existential crisis here and I'm gonna die soon, we'll all die pretty quickly, so I wanna figure out why chocolate's so delicious, so help me out here. So let's just keep sneaking up to this. Right, so the whole technical thing was to say this. Even if the dynamics of consciousness is stationary, so that there is no entropic time, any projection of it, any view of it will have the artifact of entropic time. That's a limited resource. Limited resources, so the fundamental dynamics may have no limited resources whatsoever. Any projection will have, certainly time is a limited resource, and probably lots of other limited resources, hence we could get competition and evolution and nature red in tooth and claw as an artifact of a deeper system in which those aren't fundamental. And in fact, I take it as something that this theory must do at some point is to show how networks of conscious agents, even if they're not resource limited, give rise to evolution by natural selection via a projection. Yeah, but you're saying, I'm trying to understand how the limited resources that give rise to, so first the thing gives rise to time, it gives rise to limited resource, it gives rise to evolution by natural selection, how that has to do with the fact that chocolate's delicious? Well, it's not gonna do that directly, it's gonna get to this notion of self. So, oh, it's gonna give you, the notion of self. Oh, evolution gives you the notion of self. And also of a self separate from other selves. So the idea would be that, That's competition, that's life and death, all those kinds of things. That's right, so it won't, I don't think, as I said, I don't think that I can tell you how the formless gives rise to the experience of chocolate. Right now, my current theory says that's one of the miracles I'm assuming. Yeah. So my theory can't do it. And the reason my theory can't do it is because Hoffman's brain can't do it right now. But the notion of self, yes, the notion of self can be an artifact of the projection of it. So there's one conscious agent. Because anytime conscious agents interact, they form a new conscious agent. So there's one conscious agent. Any projection of that one conscious agent gives rise to time, even if there wasn't any time in that one conscious agent. And it gives rise, I want to, now I haven't proven this. So this is, so now this is me guessing where the theory is gonna go. I haven't done this. There's no paper on this yet. So now I'm speculating. My guess is I'll be able to show, or my brighter colleagues working with me will be able to show that we will get evolution of a natural selection, the notion of individual selves, individual physical objects and so forth coming out as a projection of this thing. And that the self, this then will be really interesting in terms of how it starts to interact with certain spiritual traditions, right? Where they will say that there is a notion of self that needs to be let go, which is this finite self that's competing with other selves to get more money and prestige and so forth. That self in some sense has to die, but there's a deeper self, which is the timeless being that precludes, not precludes, but precedes any particular conscious experiences, the ground of all experience. That there's that notion of a deep capital self, but our little capital lowercase s selves could be artifacts of projection. And it may be that what consciousness is doing in this framework is, right? It's projected itself down into a self that calls itself Don and a self that calls itself Lex. And through conversations like this, it's trying to find out about itself and eventually transcend the limits of the Don and Lex little icons that it's using and that little projection of itself. Through this conversation, somehow it's learning about itself. So that thing dressed me up today in order to understand itself. And in some sense, you and I are not separate from that thing and we're not separate from each other. Yeah, well, I have to question the fashion choices on my end then. All right, so you mentioned you agree in terms of consciousness on a lot of things with Anika. Is there somebody, friend or friendly foe that you disagree with in some nuanced, interesting way or some major way about consciousness, about these topics of reality that you return to often? It's like Christopher Hitchens with Rabbi David Welby have had interesting conversations through years that added to the complexity and the beauty of their friendship. Is there somebody like that that over the years has been a source of disagreement with you that strengthened your ideas? Hmm, my ideas have been really shaped by several things. One is the physicalist framework that my scientific colleagues, almost to a person, have adopted and that I adopted too. The reason I walked away from it was because it became clear that we couldn't start with unconscious ingredients and boot up consciousness. Can you define physicalist in contrast to reductionist? So a physicalist, I would say, as someone who takes space-time and the objects within space-time as ontologically fundamental. Right, and then reductionist is saying the smaller, the more fundamental. That's a methodological thing. That's saying within space-time, as you go to smaller and smaller scales in space, you get deeper and deeper laws, more and more fundamental laws. And the reduction of temperature to particle movement was an example of that. But I think that the reason that worked was almost an artifact of the nature of our interface. That was for a long time, and your colleagues, including yourself, were physicalists and now you broke away. Broke away because I think you can't start with unconscious ingredients and boot up consciousness. And- So even with Roger Penrose, where there's a gray area. Right, and here's the challenge I would put to all of my friends and colleagues, give one specific conscious experience that you can boot up. So if you think that it's integrated information, and I've asked this of Giulio Tononi a couple times, back in the 90s and then just a couple years ago. I asked Giulio, okay, so great, integrated information. So we're all interested in explaining some specific conscious experiences. So what is, pick one, the taste of chocolate. What is the integrated information, precise structure that we need for chocolate? And why does that structure have to be for chocolate? And why is it that it could not possibly be vanilla? Is there any, I asked him, is there any one specific conscious experience that you can account for? Because notice, they've set themselves the task of booting up conscious experiences from physical systems. That's the task they've set themselves. But that doesn't mean they're, I understand your intuition, but that doesn't mean they're wrong just because they can't find a way to boot it up yet. That's right, no, that doesn't mean that they're wrong. It just means that they haven't done it. I think it's principled. The reason is principled, but I'm happy that they're exploring it. But the fact is, the remarkable fact is there's not one theory. So integrated information theory, orchestrated collapse of microtubules, global workspace theory. These are all theories of consciousness. These are all theories of consciousness. There's not a single theory that can give you a specific conscious experience that they say, here is the physical dynamics or the physical structure that must be the taste of chocolate or whatever one they want. So you're saying it's impossible. They're saying it's just hard. Yeah, my attitude is, okay, no one said you had to start with neurons or physical systems and boot up consciousness. You guys are just taking that. You chose that problem. So since you chose that problem, how much progress have you made? Well, when you've not been able to come up with a single specific conscious experience and you've had these brilliant people working on it for decades now, that's not really good progress. Let me ask you to play devil's advocate. Can you try to steel man, steel man meaning argue the best possible case for reality, the opposite of your book title. Or maybe just stick into consciousness. Can you take the physicalist view? Can you steel man the physicalist view for a brief moment playing devil's advocate too? Or steel man the person you used to be. Right, right. She's a physicalist. What's a good, like saying that you might be wrong right now what would be a convincing argument for that? Well, I think the argument I would give and that I believed was look, when you have very simple physical systems, like a piece of dirt, there's not much evidence of life for consciousness. It's only when you get really complicated physical systems like that have brains and really, the more complicated the brains, the more it looks like there's consciousness and the more complicated that consciousness is. Surely that means that simple physical systems don't create much consciousness or if maybe not any, or maybe if I'm a panpsychist, they create the most elementary kinds of simple conscious experiences. But you need more complicated physical systems to boot up to create more complicated consciousnesses. I think that's the intuition that drives most of my colleagues. And you're saying that this concept of complexity is ill-defined when you ground it to space-time. I think it's well-defined within the framework of space-time, right? No, it's ill-defined relative to what you need to actually understand consciousness because you're grounding complexity in space-time. Oh, gotcha, right, right. Yeah, what I'm saying is, if it were true that space-time was fundamental, then I would have to agree that if there is such a thing as consciousness, given the data that we've got that complex brains have consciousness and dirt doesn't, that somehow it's the complexity of the dynamics or organization, the function of the physical system that somehow is creating the consciousness. So under those assumptions, yes, but when the physicists themselves are telling us that space-time is not fundamental, then I can understand. See, then the whole picture starts to come into focus. Why, my colleagues are brilliant, right? These are really smart people. I mean, Francis Crick worked on this for the last 20 years of his life. These are not stupid people. These are brilliant, brilliant people. The fact that we've come up with not a single specific conscious experience that we can explain and no hope. There's no one that says, oh, I'm really close. I'll have it for you in a year. No, there's just like, there's this fundamental gap. So much so that Steve Pinker in one of his writings says, look, he likes the global workspace theory, but he says the last dollop of the theory in which there's something it's like to, he says we may have to just stipulate that as a brute fact. Pinker is brilliant, right? He understands the state of play on this problem of the hard problem of consciousness, starting with physicalist assumptions and then trying to boot up consciousness. So you've set yourself the problem. I'm starting with physical stuff that's not conscious. I'm trying to get the taste of chocolate out as maybe some kind of function of the dynamics of that. We've not been able to do that. And so Pinker is saying we may have to punt, we may have to just stipulate that last bit, he calls it the last dollop, and just say stipulate it as a bare fact of nature that there is something it's like. Well, from my point of view as the physical, the whole point, the whole promise of the physicalist was we wouldn't have to stipulate. I was gonna start with the physical stuff and explain where the consciousness came from. If I'm going to stipulate consciousness, why don't I just stipulate consciousness and not stipulate all the physical stuff too? So I'm stipulating less. I'm saying, okay, I agree. I think the panpsychist perspective. Well, it's actually what I call the conscious realist perspective. Conscious realist. Panpsychists are effectively dualists, right? They're saying there's physical stuff that really is fundamental and then consciousness stuff. So I would go with Pinker and say, look, let's just stipulate the consciousness stuff, but I'm not gonna stipulate the physical stuff. I'm gonna actually now show how to boot up the physical stuff from just the consciousness stuff. So I'll stipulate less. Is it possible, so if you stipulate less, is it possible for our limited brains to visualize reality as we delve deeper and deeper and deeper? Is it possible to visualize somehow? With the tools of math, with the tools of computers, with the tools of our mind, are we hopelessly lost? You said there's ways to intuit what's true using mathematics and probability and sort of Markovian dynamics, all that kind of stuff, but that's not visualizing. That's the kind of building intuition, but is it possible to visualize in the way we visualize so nicely in space-time in four dimensions, in three dimensions, sorry? Well, we really are looking through a two-dimensional screen until what we intuit to be a three-dimensional world and also inferring dynamic stuff, making it 4D. Anyway, is it possible to visualize some pretty pictures that give us a deeper sense of the truth of reality? I think that we will incrementally be able to do that. I think that, for example, the picture that we have of electrons and photons interacting and scattering, it may have not been possible until Faraday did all of his experiments and then Maxwell wrote down his equations, and we were then sort of forced by his equations to think in a new way. And then when Planck in 1900, desperate to try to solve the problem of black-body radiation, what they call the ultraviolet catastrophe where Newton was predicting infinite energies where there weren't infinite energies in black-body radiation. And he, in desperation, proposed packets of energy. Then once you've done that, and then you have Einstein come along five years later and show how that explains the photoelectric effect. And then eventually in 1926, you get quantum theory. And then you get this whole new way of thinking that was, from the Newtonian point of view, completely contradictory and counterintuitive, certainly. And maybe if Gieson is right, not contradictory. Maybe if you use intuitionist math, they're not contradictory, but still. Certainly you wouldn't have gone there. And so here's a case where the experiments and then a desperate mathematical move, sort of we use those as a flashlight into the deep fog. And so science may be the flashlight into the deep fog. I wonder if it's still possible to visualize, like we talk about consciousness from a self-perspective experience. Hold that idea in our mind, the way you can experience things directly. We've evolved to experience things in this 3D world. And that's a very rich experience. When you're thinking mathematically, you still, in the end of the day, have to project it down to a low dimensional space to make conclusions. Your conclusions will be a number, or a line, or a plot, or a visual. So I wonder how we can really touch some deep truth in a subjective way, like experience it, really feel the beauty of it, in the way that humans feel beauty. Right, are we screwed? I don't think we're screwed. I think that we get little hints of it from psychedelic drugs and so forth. We get hints that there are certain interventions that we can take on our interface. I apply this chemical, which is just some element of my interface, to this other, to a brain, I ingest it. And all of a sudden, it seemed like I've opened new portals into conscious experiences. Well, that's very, very suggestive. That's like the black body radiation doing something that we didn't expect, right? It doesn't go to infinity when we thought it was gonna go to infinity, and we're forced to propose these quanta. So once we have a theory of conscious agents, and this projection to space, I should say, I should sketch what I think that projection is. But then I think we can then start to ask specific questions. When you're taking DMT, or you're taking LSD or something like that, now that we have this deep model that we've reverse engineered space and time and physical particles, we've pulled them back to this theory of conscious agents. Now we can ask ourselves in this idealized future, what are we doing to conscious agents when we apply 5-MeO-DMT? What are we doing? Are we opening a new portal? So when I say that, I have a portal into consciousness that I call my body of Lex Friedman that I'm creating. And it's a genuine portal, not perfect, but it's a genuine portal. I'm definitely communicating with your consciousness. And we know that we have one technology for building new portals. We know one technology, and that is having kids. Having kids is how we build new portals into consciousness. It takes a long time. Can you elaborate that? Oh, oh, oh, you mean like- Your son and your daughter didn't exist. That was a portal. You're having contact with consciousness that you never would have had before. But now you've got a son or a daughter. You went through this physical process. They were born, then there was all the- But is that portal yours? So when you have kids, are you creating new portals that are completely distinct from the portals that you've created with other consciousness? Like, can you elaborate on that? To which degree are the consciousness of your kids a part of you? Well, so every person that I see, that symbol that I see, the body that I see, is a portal, potentially, for me to interact with the consciousness. Yeah. And each consciousness has a unique character. We call it a personality, and so forth. So with each new kid that's born, we come in contact with a personality that we've never seen before, and a version of consciousness that we've never seen before. At a deeper level, as I said, the theory says there's one agent. So this is a different projection of that one agent. So that's what I mean by a portal is, within my own interface, my own projection, can I see other projections of that one consciousness? So can I get portals in that sense? So I think we will get a theory of that, that we will get a theory of portals, and then we can ask how the psychedelics are acting. Are they actually creating new portals or not? If they're not, we should nevertheless then understand how we could create a new portal. Maybe we have to just study what happens when we have kids. We know that that technology creates new portals. So we have to reverse engineer that, and then say, okay, could we somehow create new portals de novo? With that, once we understand. With something like brain-computer interfaces, for example. Yeah, or maybe just a chemical or something. It's probably more complicated than a chemical. That's why I think that the psychedelics, the psychedelics may, because they might be affecting this portal in certain ways that it turns it around and opens up. In other words, maybe once we understand what this thing is a portal, your body is a portal, and understand all of its complexities, maybe we'll realize that that portal can be shifted to different parts of the deeper consciousness, and give new windows on it. And so in that way, maybe yes, psychedelics could open up new portals in the sense that they're taking something that's already a complex portal and just tweaking it a bit. Well, but creating is a very powerful difference between morphing. Right, right, tweaking versus creating, I agree. But maybe it gives you intuition to at least the full space of the kinds of things that this particular system is capable of. I mean, the idea that consciousness creates brains, I mean, that breaks my brain, because, I guess I'm still a physicalist in that sense, is that it's just much easier to intuit the world. It's practical to think there's a neural network, and what are the different ways fascinating capabilities can emerge from this neural network? I agree, it's easier. And so you start to, and then present to yourself the problem of, okay, well, how does consciousness arise? How does intelligence arise? How does emotion arise? How does memory arise? And how do we filter within this system all the incoming sensory information we're able to allocate attention in different, interesting ways? How do all those mechanisms arise? To say that there's other fundamental things we don't understand outside of space-time that are actually core to how this whole thing works is a bit paralyzing, because it's like, oh, we're not 10% done, we're like 0.001% done, is the immediate feeling. I certainly understand that. My attitude about it is, if you look at the young physicists who are searching for these structures beyond space-time, like Epsilon and so forth, they're having a ball. Space-time, that's what the old folks did. That's what the older generation did. We're doing something that really is fun and new, and they're having a blast, and they're finding all these new structures. So I think that we're going to succeed in getting a new, deeper theory. I can just say what I'm hoping with the theory that I'm working on. I'm hoping to show that I could have this timeless dynamics of consciousness, no entropic time. I take a projection, and I show how this timeless dynamics looks like the Big Bang, and the entire evolution of space-time. In other words, I see how my whole space-time interface. So not just the projection, doesn't just look like space-time. You can explain the whole, from the origin of the universe. That's what we have to do, and that's what the physicists understand. When they go beyond space-time to the amplitude and the cosmological polytope, they ultimately know that they have to get back the Big Bang story, and the whole evolution, that whole story where there were no living things. There was just a point, and then the explosion, and then just particles at high energy, and then eventually the cooling down, and the differentiation, and finally matter condenses, and then life, and then consciousness. That whole story has to come out of something that's deeper and without time. And that's what we're up to. So the whole story that we've been telling ourselves about Big Bang and how brains evolve and consciousness will come out of a much deeper theory. And for someone like me, it's a lot. But for the younger generation, this is like, oh, wow, all the low cherries aren't picked. This is really good stuff. This is really new, fundamental stuff that we can do. So I can't wait to read the papers of the younger generation, and I wanna see them. Kids these days with their non-space-time assumptions. It's just interesting looking at the philosophical tradition of this difficult ideas you struggle with. If you look like somebody like Immanuel Kant, what are some interesting agreements and disagreements you have with a guy about the nature of reality? So there's a lot in agreement. So Kant was an idealist, transcendental idealist. He basically had the idea that we don't see nature as it is. We impose a structure on nature. So in some sense, I'm saying something similar. I'm saying that, by the way, I don't call myself an idealist. I call myself a conscious realist because idealism has a long history. A lot of different ideas come under idealism, and there's a lot of debates and so forth. It tends to be identified with, in many cases, anti-science and anti-realism. And I don't want either connection with my ideas. And so I just called mine conscious realism with an emphasis on realism and not anti-realism. But one place where I would, of course, disagree with Kant was that he thought that Euclidean space-time was a priori. Right, we just know that that's false. So he went too far on that. But in general, the idea that we don't start with space-time that space and time is, in some sense, the forms of our perceptions, yes, absolutely. And I would say that there's a lot in common with Berkeley in that regard. There's a lot of ingenious arguments in Berkeley. Leibniz, in his monadology, understood very clearly that the hard problem was not solvable. He posed the hard problem and basically dismissed it, and just said, you can't do this. And so if he came here and saw where we are, he'd say, look, guys, I told you this 300 years ago. And he had his monadology. He was trying to do something like, it's different from what I'm doing, but he had these things that were not in space and time, these monads. He was trying to build something. I'm trying to build a theory of conscious agents. My guess is that if he came here, I could just, if he saw what I was doing, he would say, he would understand it and immediately take off with it and go places that I couldn't. He would have no problems. There would be overlap of the spirit of the ideas totally overlapping. But his genius would then just run with it far faster than I could. I love the humility here. So let me ask you about sort of practical implications of your ideas to our world, our complicated world. When you look at the big questions of humanity, of hate, war, what else is there? Evil, maybe there's the positive aspects of that, of meaning, of love. What is the fact that reality is an illusion? Perceived, what is the conscious realism when applied to daily life? What kind of impact does it have? A lot. And it's sort of scary. We all know that life is ephemeral. And spiritual traditions have said, wake up to the fact that anything that you do here is going to disappear. But it's even more ephemeral than perhaps we've thought. I see this bottle because I create it right now. As soon as I look away, that data structure has been garbage collected. That bottle, I have to recreate it every time I look. So I spend all my money and I buy this fancy car. That car, I have to keep recreating it every time I look at it. It's that ephemeral. So all the things that we invest ourselves in, we fight over, we kill each other over, and we have wars over. These are all, it's just like people in a virtual reality simulation. And there's this Porsche, and we all see the Porsche. Well, that Porsche exists when I look at it. I turn my headset and I look at it. And then if Joe turns his headset the right way, he'll see his Porsche. It's not even the same Porsche that I see. He's creating his own Porsche. So these things are exceedingly ephemeral. And now, just imagine saying that that's my Porsche. Well, you can agree to say that it's your Porsche, but really, the Porsche only exists as long as you look. So this, all of a sudden, what the spiritual traditions have been saying for a long, long time, this gets cashed out in mathematically precise science. It's saying ephemeral, yes, in fact, it lasts for a few milliseconds, a few hundred milliseconds while you look at it, and then it's gone. So the whole idea, why are we fighting? Why do we hate? We fight over possessions because we think that we're small little objects inside this pre-existing space-time. We assume that that mansion and that car exists independent of us, and that somehow we, these little things, can have our sense of self and importance enhanced by having that special car or that special house or that special person. When in fact, it's just the opposite. You create that mansion every time you look. You're something far deeper than that mansion. You're the entity which can create that mansion on the fly, and there's nothing to the mansion except what you create in this moment. So all of a sudden, when you take this point of view, it has all sorts of implications for how we interact with each other, how we treat each other. And again, a lot of things that spiritual traditions have said, it's a mixed bag. Spiritual traditions are a mixed bag, so let me just be right up front about that. I'm not promoting any particular, but they do have some insights. Yeah, they have wisdom. They have certain wisdom. I can point to nonsense, I won't go into it, but I can also point to lots of nonsense. So the issue is to then to look for the key insights. I think they have a lot of insights about the ephemeral nature of objects in space and time and not being attached to them, including our own bodies, and reversing that I'm not this little thing, a little consciousness trapped in the body. And the consciousness itself is only a product of the body. So when the body dies, the consciousness disappears. It turns completely around. The consciousness is fundamental. The body, my hand exists right now because I'm looking at it. My hand is gone. I have no hand. I have no brain. I have no heart. If you looked, you'll see a heart. Whatever I am is this really complicated thing in consciousness. That's what I am. All the stuff that I thought I was is something that I create on the fly and delete. So this is completely a radical restructuring of how we think about possessions, about identity, about survival of death, and so forth. This is completely transformative. But the nice thing is that this whole approach of conscious agents, unlike the spiritual traditions, which have said, in some cases, similar things, they've said it imprecisely. This is mathematics. We can actually now begin to state precisely, here's the mathematical model of consciousness, conscious agents, here's how it maps onto space-time, which I should sketch really briefly. And here's why things are ephemeral. And here's why you shouldn't be worried about the ephemeral nature of things, because you're not a little tiny entity inside space and time. Quite the opposite, you're the author of space and time. The I and the am and the I am is all kind of emerging through this whole process of evolution and so on that's just surface waves, and there's a much deeper ocean that we're trying to figure out here. So how does, you said, some of the stuff you're thinking about maps to space-time. How does it map to space-time? So just at very, very high level, and I'll keep it brief, the structures that the physicists are finding, like the amplitude heteron, it turns out they're just static structure, they're polytopes. But they, remarkably, most of the information in them is contained in permutation matrices. So it's a matrix, like an N by N matrix that just has zeros and ones. That contains almost all of the information. And you can, they have these plavit graphs and so forth that they use to boot up the scattering, you can compute those scattering amplitudes almost entirely from these permutation matrices. So that's just, now from my point of view, I have this conscious agent dynamics. It turns out that the stationary dynamics that I was talking about, where the entropy is increasing, all the stationary dynamics are sketched out by permutation matrices. So if you, there's so-called Birkhoff polytope. All the vertices of this polytope, all the points, are permutation matrices. All the internal points are Markovian kernels that have the uniform measure as a stationary measure. Now I need to intuit a little better what the heck you're talking about. So basically, there's some complicated thing going on with the network of conscious agents, and that's mappable to this, you're saying a two-dimensional matrix that scattering has to do with what, with our perception, like that's like photon stuff? I mean, I don't know if it's useful to sort of dig into detail. I'll do just a high-level thing. Yes. So the high level is the long-term behavior of the conscious agent dynamics. So that's the projection. Just looking at the long-term behavior, I'm hoping will give rise to the amplituhedron. The amplituhedron then gives rise to space-time. So then I can just use their link to go all the way from consciousness through its asymptotics through the amplituhedron into space-time and get the map all the way into our interface. And that's why you mentioned the permutation matrix, because it gives you a nice thing to try to generate. That's right. It's the connection with the amplituhedron. The permutation matrices are the core of the amplituhedron, and it turns out they're the core of the asymptotic description of the conscious agents. So not to sort of bring up the idea of a creator, but I like, first of all, I like video games, and you mentioned this kind of simulation idea. First of all, do you think of it as an interesting idea, this thought experiment that will live in a simulation? And in general, do you think will live in a simulation? So Nick Bostrom's idea about the simulation is typically couched in a physicalist framework. Yes. So there is the bottom level. There's some programmer in a physical space-time, and they have a computer that they've programmed cleverly, where they've created conscious entities. So you have the hard problem of consciousness, right? The standard hard problem, how could a computer simulation create a consciousness? Which isn't explained by that simulation theory. But then the idea is that the next level, the entities that are created in the first level simulation then can write their own simulations, and you get this nesting. So the idea that this is a simulation is fine, but the idea that it starts with a physical space, I think, isn't fine. Well, there's different properties here, the partial rendering. I mean, to me, that's the interesting idea is not whether the entirety of the universe is simulated, but how efficiently can you create interfaces that are convincing to all other entities that can appreciate such interfaces? How little does it take? Because you said partial rendering, or temporal, ephemeral rendering of stuff. Only render the tree falling in the forest when there's somebody there to see it. It's interesting to think, how can you do that super efficiently without having to render everything? And that, to me, is one perspective on the simulation, just like it is with video games, where a video game doesn't have to render every single thing. It's just the thing that the observer is looking at. Right, there is actually, that's a very nice question, and there's whole groups of researchers that are actually studying in virtual reality, what is the sort of minimal requirements on this system? How does it have to operate to give you an immersion experience, to give you the feeling that you have a body, to get you to take it real? And there's actually a lot of really good work on that right now, and it turns out it doesn't take that much. You do need to get the perception action loop tight, and you have to give them the perceptions that they're expecting, if you want them to. But if you, you can lead them along. If you give them perceptions that are close to what they're expecting, you can then maybe move their reality around a bit. Yeah, it's a tricky engineering problem, especially when you're trying to create a product that costs little, but that's, it feels like an engineering problem, not a deeply scientific problem. Or meaning, obviously, it's a scientific problem, but as a scientific problem, it's not that difficult to trick us descendants of apes. But here's a case for just us in our own, if this is a virtual reality that we're experiencing right now. So here's something you can try for yourself. If you just close your eyes, and look at your experience in front of you, be aware of your experience in front of you, what you experience is just like a modeled dark gray, where there's all sort of, there's some dynamics to it, but it's just dark gray. But now I ask you, instead of having your attention forward, put your attention backward. What is it like behind you with your eyes closed? And there, it's like nothing. It's real. So what is going on here? What am I experiencing back there? Right? I don't know if it's nothing. It's like, I guess it's the absence of, it's not even like darkness or something. It's not even darkness. There's no qualia to it. And yet there is a sense of being. And that's the interesting thing. There's a sense of being back. So I close my, I put my attention forward, I have the qualia of a gray modeled thing, but when I put my attention backward, there's no qualia at all, but there is a sense of being. Yeah. I personally, now you haven't been to that side of the room. I have been to that side of the room. So for me, memories, I start playing the engine of memory replay, which is like I take myself back in time and think about that place where I was, hanging out in that part. And that's what I see when I'm behind. So that's an interesting quirk of humans too, we're able to, we're collecting these experiences and we can replay them in interesting ways whenever we feel like it. And it's almost like being there, but not really, but almost. That's right. And yet we can go our entire lives in this. You're talking about the minimal thing for VR. We can go our entire lives and not realize that all of my life, it's been like nothing behind me. Yeah. We're not even aware that all of our lives, if you just pay attention, close your eyes, pay attention to what's behind me, we're like, oh, holy smoke. It's totally scary. I mean, it's like nothing. There's no quality there at all. How did I not notice that my entire life? We're so immersed in the simulation, we buy it so much. Yeah. I mean, you could see this with children, right? Though with persistence, you could do the peekaboo game. You can hide from them and appear and they're fully tricked. And in the same way, we're fully tricked. There's nothing behind us and we assume there is. And that's really interesting. These theories are pretty heavy. You as a human being, as a mortal human being, how has these theories been to you personally? Like, are there good days and bad days when you wake up and look in the mirror and the fact that you can't see anything behind you? The fact that it's rendered, like, is there interesting quirks, you know, Nietzsche with his, if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. How's this theories, these ideas change you as a person? It's been very, very difficult. This stuff is not just abstract theory building because it's about us. Sometimes I've realized that there's this big division. I mean, my mind is doing all the science and coming up with these conclusions. And the rest of me is not integrating. I was just like, I don't believe it. I just don't believe this. So as I start to take it seriously, I get scared myself. But it's very much, then I read these spiritual traditions and realize they're saying very, very similar things. It's like, there's a lot of convergence. So for me, I have, the first time I thought it might be possible that we're not seeing the truth was in 1986. It was from some mathematics we were doing. And when that hit me, it hit me like a ton of bricks I had to sit down. It was, it really, it was scary. It was really a shock to the system. And then to realize that everything that has been important to me, like, you know, getting a house, getting a car, getting a reputation and so forth. Well, that car is just like the car I see in the virtual reality. It's there when you perceive it and it's not there. So the whole question of, you know, what am I doing and why? What's worthwhile doing in life? Clearly, getting a big house and getting a big car. I mean, we all knew that we were gonna die. So we tend not to know that. We tend to hide it, especially when we're young. Before age 30, we don't believe we're gonna die. But we factually maybe know that you're, you kind of are supposed to, yeah. But they'll figure something out. And we're the generation that is the first one that doesn't have to die. That's the kind of thing. But when you really face the fact that you're going to die, and then when I start to look at it from this point of view, that, well, this thing was an interface to begin with. So what I'm really, is what I'm really gonna be doing, just taking off a headset. So I've been playing in a virtual reality game all day. And I got lost in the game when I was fighting over a Porsche. And I shot some guys up and I punctured their tires and by got the Porsche. Now I take the headset off and what was that for? Nothing. It was just, it was a data structure and the data structure is gone. So all of the wars, the fighting and the reputations and all this stuff, you know, where it's just a headset. So now, and so my theory says that intellectually, my mind, my emotions rebel all over the place. This is like, you know, and so I have to meditate. I meditate a lot. What percent of the day would you say you spend as a physicalist sort of living life, pretending your car matters, your reputation matter? Like how much, what's that Tom Waits song? I like my town with a little drop of poison. How much poison do you allow yourself to have? I think my default mode is physicalist. I think that that's just the default. When I'm not being conscious, consciously attentive. Intellectually consciously attentive. Because if you're just, you're still, if you're tasting coffee and not thinking or drinking or just taking in the sunset, you're not being intellectual, but you're still experiencing it. So it's when you turn on the introspective machine, that's when you can start. And turn off the thinker. When I actually just start looking without thinking. So that's when I feel like I, all of a sudden I'm starting to see through. Sort of like, okay, part of the addiction to the interface is all the stories I'm telling about it. It's really important for me to get that. Really important to do that. So I'm telling all these stories. So I'm all wrapped up. Almost all of the mind stuff that's going on in my head is about attachment to the interface. And so what I found is that essentially the only way to really detach from the interface is to literally let go of thoughts altogether. And then all of a sudden, even my identity, my whole history, my name, my education, all this stuff, is almost irrelevant because it's just now, here is the present moment. And this is the reality right now. And all of that other stuff is an interface story. But this conscious experience right now, this is the only reality as far as I can tell. The rest of it's a story. But that is, again, not my default. That is, I have to make a really conscious choice to say, okay, I know intellectually this is all an interface. I'm gonna take the headset off and so forth. And then immediately sink back into the game and just be out there playing the game and get lost in it. So I'm always lost in the game unless I literally consciously choose to stop thinking. Isn't it terrifying to acknowledge to look beyond the game? Isn't it? Scares the hell out of me. It really is scary. Because I'm so attached. I'm attached to this body. I'm attached to the interface. Are you ever worried about breaking your brain a bit? Meaning like, I mean, some of these ideas, when you think about reality, even with like Einstein, just realizing, you said interface, just realizing that light, you know, that there's a speed of light and you can't go faster than the speed of light and like what kind of things black holes and can do with light. Even that can mess with your head. Yes. But that's still space time. That's a big mess, but it's still just space time. It's still a property of our interface. That's right. But it's still like, even Einstein realized that this particular thing, some of the stories we tell ourselves is constructing interfaces that are oversimplifying the way things work. Because it's nice. The stories are nice. Stories are nice. It's just like video games. They're nice. Right. But Einstein was a realist, right? He was a famous realist in the sense that he was very explicit in a 1935 paper with Podolsky and Rosen, the EPR paper, they said, if without in any way disturbing a system, I can predict with probability one, the outcome of a measurement, then there exists in reality that element, right? That value. And we now know from quantum theory that that's false. Einstein's idea of local realism is strictly speaking false. Yeah. And so we can predict, we can set up in quantum theory, you can set up, and there's a paper by Chris Fuchs, quantum Bayesianism, where he scouts this out. It was done by the people, but he gives a good presentation of this, where they have a sequence of something like nine different quantum measurements that you can make. And you can predict with probability one what a particular outcome will be, but you can actually prove that it's impossible that the value existed before you made the measurement. So you know with probability one, what you're gonna get, but you also know with certainty that that value was not there until you made the measurement. So we know from quantum theory that the act of observation is an act of fact creation. And that is built into what I'm saying with this theory of consciousness. If consciousness is fundamental, space-time itself is an act of fact creation. It's an interface that we create, consciousness creates, plus all the objects in it. So local realism is not true. Quantum theory is established, also non-contextual realism is not true. And that fits in perfectly with this idea that consciousness is fundamental. These things exist as data structures when we create them. As Chris Fuchs says, the act of observation is an act of fact creation. But I must say on a personal level, I'm having to spend, I spend a couple hours a day just sitting in meditation on this and facing the rebellion in me that goes to the core, it feels like it goes to the core of my being, rebelling against these ideas. So here it's very, very interesting for me to look at this. Because so here I'm a scientist and I'm a person. The science is really clear. Local realism is false, non-contextual realism is false. Space-time is doomed. It's very, very clear. It couldn't be clearer. And my emotions rebel left and right. When I sit there and say, okay, I am not something in space and time. And something inside of me says, you're crazy. Of course you are. And I'm completely attached to it. I'm completely attached to all this stuff. I'm attached to my body, I'm attached to the headset, I'm attached to my car, attached to people, I'm attached to all of it. And yet I know as a absolute fact, I'm gonna walk away from all of it. I'm gonna die. In fact, I almost died last year. COVID almost killed me. I sent a goodbye text to my wife. So I was, I thought I was- You really did. I sent her a goodbye. I was in the emergency room and it had attacked my heart. And it had been at 190 beats per minute for 36 hours. I couldn't last much longer. I knew I couldn't. They couldn't stop it. So- So that was it. So that was it. So I texted her goodbye from the emergency room. I love you, goodbye kind of thing. Yeah, right. Yeah, that was it. So- Were you afraid? Yeah, it's a scary reality, right? But there was, you're just feeling so bad anyway, that all, you know, that's sort of what, you're scared but you're just feeling so bad that in some sense you just want it to stop anyway. So I've been there and faced it just a year ago. How did that change you, by the way? Having this intellectual reality that's so challenging that you meditate on, it's just an interface. And one of the hardest things to come to terms with is that that means that, you know, it's gonna end. How did that change you, having come so close to the reality of it? It's not just an intellectual reality. It's a reality of death. It's forced, I've meditated for 20 years now. And I would say averaging three or four hours a day. But it's put a new urgency, but urgency is not the right word because it's riveted my attention, I'll put it that way. It's really riveted my attention and I've really paid, I spent a lot more time looking at what spiritual traditions say. I don't, by the way, again, not taking it with, take it all with a grain of salt. But on the other hand, I think it's stupid for me to ignore it. So I try to listen to the best ideas and to sort out nonsense from, and it's just, we all have to do it for ourselves, right? It's not easy. So what makes sense, and I have the advantage of some science, so I can look at what science says and try to compare with spiritual tradition. I try to sort it out for myself. But then I also look and realize that there's another aspect to me, which is this whole emotional aspect. I seem to be wired up. As evolutionary psychology says, I'm wired up, right? All these defensive mechanisms, I'm inclined to lie if I need to. I'm inclined to be angry, to protect myself, to have an in-group and an out-group, to try to make my reputation as big as possible, to try to demean the out-group. There's all these things that evolutionary psychology is spot on, is really brilliant about the human condition. And yet I think evolution, as I said, evolutionary theory is a projection of a deeper theory where there may be no competition. So I'm in this very interesting position where I feel like, okay, according to my own theory, I'm consciousness. And maybe this is what it means for consciousness to wake up. It's not easy. It's almost like I feel like I have real skin in the game. It really is scary. I really was scared when I was about to die. It really was hard to say goodbye to my wife. It really pained. And to then look at that and then look at the fact that I'm gonna walk away from this anyway and it's just an interface. How do I? So it's trying to put all this stuff together and really grok it, so to speak. Not just intellectually, but grok it at an emotional level. What are you afraid of, you silly evolved organism that's gotten way too attached to the interface? What are you really afraid of? That's right. Ah, is there a? Very personal, you know, it's very, very personal. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, speaking of that text, what do you think is this whole love thing? What's the role of love in our human condition? This interface thing we have, is this somehow interweaved, interconnected with consciousness? This attachment we have to other humans and this deep, like some, there's some quality to it that seems very interesting, peculiar. Well, there are two levels I would think about that. There's love in the sexual sense and then there's love in a deeper sense. And in the sexual sense, we can give an evolutionary account of that and so forth. I think that's pretty clear to people. In this deeper sense, right? So of course, I married your, I love my wife in a sexual sense, but there was a deeper sense as well. When I was saying goodbye to her, there was a deeper, much deeper love that was really at play there. That's one place where I think that the mixed bag from spiritual traditions has something right. When they say, you know, love your neighbor as yourself, that in some sense, love is fundamental. I think that they're onto something, something very, very deep and profound. And every once in a while, I can get a personal glimpse of that. Especially when I'm in the space with no thought. When I can really let go of thoughts, I get little glimpses of a love in the sense that I'm not separate. It's a love in the sense that I'm not different from that. You know? Yeah. If you and I are separate, then I can fight you. But if you and I are the same, if there's a union there. The togetherness of it, yeah. What, who's God? All those gods, the stories that have been told throughout history, you said, through the spiritual traditions. What do you think that is? Is that us trying to find that common thing at the core? Well, in many traditions, not all. The one I was raised in. So my dad was a Protestant minister. We tend to think of God as a being. But I think that that's not right. I think the closest way to think about God is being, period. Not a being, but being. The very ground of being itself is God. I think that's the deep. And from my point of view, that's the ground of consciousness. So the ground of conscious being is what we might call God. But the word God has always been, for example, you don't believe the same God is my God, so I'm gonna fight you. We'll have wars over, because the being, the specific being that you call God is different from the being that I call God, and so we fight. Whereas if it's not a being, but just being, and you and I share being, then you and I are not separate, and there's no reason to fight. We're both part of that one being, and loving you is loving myself, because we're all part of that one being. The spiritual traditions that point to that, I think are pointing in a very interesting direction, and that does seem to match with the mathematics of the conscious agent stuff that I've been working on as well. That it really fits with that, although that wasn't my goal. Is there, you mentioned, you mentioned that the young physicist that you talk to, or whose work you follow, have quite a lot of fun breaking with the traditions of the past, the assumptions of the past. What advice would you give to young people today, in high school, in college, not just physicists, but in general, how to have a career they can be proud of, how they can have a life they can be proud of, how to make their way in the world, from the lessons, from the wins and the losses in your own life. What little insights could you pull out? I would say the universe is a lot more interesting than you might expect, and you are a lot more special and interesting than you might expect. You might think that you're just a little, tiny, irrelevant, 100 pound, 200 pound person in a vast billions of light years across space, and that's not the case. You are, in some sense, the being that's creating that space all the time, every time you look. So, waking up to who you really are, outside of space and time, as the author of space and time, as the author of everything that you see. The author of space and time. That's beautiful. And so, you're the author of space and time, and I'm the author of space and time, and space and time is just one little data structure. Many other consciousnesses are creating other data structures. They're authors of various other things. So, realizing, and then realizing that, I had this feeling growing up, reading all these textbooks, oh man, it's all been done. If I'd just been there 50 years ago, I could've discovered this stuff, but it's all in the textbooks now. Well, believe me, the textbooks are gonna look silly in 50 years, and it's your chance to write the new textbook. So, of course, study the current textbooks. You have to understand them. There's no way to progress until you understand what's been done. But then, the only limit is your imagination, frankly. That's the only limit. The greatest books, the greatest textbooks ever written on Earth are yet to be written. Exactly. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? What's the meaning of life from your limited interface? Can you figure it all out? Like, why? So, you said the universe is kinda trying to figure itself out through us. Why? Why? Yeah, that's the closest I've come. So, I'll give you, so I will say that I don't know, but here's my guess, right? That's a good first sentence. That's a good starting point. And maybe that's gonna be a profound part of the final answer, is to start with the I don't know. It's quite possible that that's really important to start with the I don't know. My guess is that if consciousness is fundamental, and if Gödel's incompleteness theorem holds here, and there's infinite variety of structures for consciousness to, in some sense, explore, that maybe that's what it's about. This is something that Anika and I talked about a little bit, and she doesn't like this way of talking about it, and so I'm gonna have to talk with her some more about this way of talking. But right now, I'll just put it this way, and I'll have to talk with her more, and see if I can say it more clearly. But the way I'm talking about it now is that there's a sense in which there's being, and then there's experiences or forms that come out of being. That's one deep, deep mystery. And the question that you asked, what is it all about, somehow it's related to that. Why does being, why doesn't it just stay without any forms? Why do we have experiences? Why not just have, when you close your eyes and pay attention to what's behind you, there's nothing? But there's being. Why don't we just stop there? Why didn't we just stop there? Why did we create all tables and chairs and the sun and moon and people? All this really complicated stuff, why? And all I can guess right now, and I'll probably kick myself in a couple years and say that was dumb, but all I can guess right now is that somehow consciousness wakes up to itself by knowing what it's not. So here I am, I'm not this body. And I sort of saw that, it was sort of in my face when I sent a text goodbye, but then as soon as I'm better, it's sort of like, okay, I sort of don't wanna go there. Right, okay, so I am my body. Might go back to the standard, I am my body, and I want to get that car, and even though I was just about to die a year ago. So that comes rushing back. So consciousness immerses itself fully into a particular headset. Gets lost in it, and then slowly wakes up. Just so it can escape, and that is the waking up. But it needs to have the negative. It needs to know what it's not. It needs to know what you are. You have to say, oh, I'm not that, I'm not that. That wasn't important, that wasn't important. That's really powerful. Don, let me just say that, because I've been a long-term fan of yours, and we're supposed to have a conversation during this very difficult moment in your life. Let me just say, you're a truly special person, and I, for one, and I know there's a lot of others that agree, I'm glad that you're still here with us on this Earth, if for a short time. So whatever the universe, whatever planet has for you that brought you close to death to maybe enlighten you in some kind of way, I think it has an interesting plan for you. You're one of the truly special humans, and it's a huge honor that you would sit and talk with me today. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Lex. I really appreciate that, thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Donald Hoffman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Albert Einstein, relevant to the ideas discussed in this conversation. Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/reYdQYZ9Rj4

sndW9hzX-wA

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

David Buss: Sex, Dating, Relationships, and Sex Differences | Lex Fridman Podcast #282

what do women want? Tell me all the things women want in a long-term mate. And so I would start at one end of the blackboard, there were like five blackboards, and I'd say, well, I want a mate who's kind, who's understanding, who's intelligent, who's healthy, who's got a good sense of humor, who shares my values, and I'd fill up five blackboards and then run out of space. So then I turned to the men and I'd say, well, what do men want? And then I run out of space after about a blackboard and a half, because they can't think of anything else. So women- I think there's a lot of explanations for that. The following is a conversation with David Buss, evolutionary psychologist at UT Austin, researching human sex differences in mate selection. He's considered one of the founders of evolutionary psychology, and has authored many exciting and challenging books, including the Evolution of Desire, Strategies of Human Mating, Bad Men, The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment and Assault, and The Murderer Next Door, Why the Mind is Designed to Kill. We talk a lot about sex, dating, relationships, and love. I take these, at times, controversial topics very seriously, but I also try to inject humor and ridiculousness throughout this conversation, and all conversations I do. Please do not mistake my silliness for a lack of seriousness and my seriousness for a lack of silliness. And above all, do not mistake my suit and tie, or my PhD, as a sign of intelligence or wisdom. I barely know what I'm talking about on most days. I'm simply curious and hoping to understand the way a child does, what the heck is going on in this weird and wonderful civilization of ours. If I say something stupid, as I often do, I promise to learn and to improve. As Mark Twain said, I do not want my schooling to interfere with my education. Open-minded curiosity, I think, is the best guide for a proper and fun, lifelong education. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's David Buss. What is more important in the history of the development of human civilization, sex or violence? So mating strategies or military strategies? Oh, well, both are important. I mean, first of all, humans are a sexually reproducing species, and so everything has to go through sex. So our mating psychology has to be very rich and complex because to succeed, for us to be here now, all of our ancestors in an unbroken chain have had to succeed in selecting a fertile mate, attracting that mate, be mutually chosen by that mate, stay together long enough, do all the sexual things you need to do to reproduce, have the kids survive, et cetera, so everything has to go through mating. And in that sense, I think it's, I mean, survival is really only a means to an end, if you will. So sex has gotta be important, and humans have a very rich, evolved sexual psychology or an evolved mating psychology. Okay, but I wouldn't minimize the importance of violence either. There's a ton of evidence that humans evolved in the context of small groups with a fair amount of small group warfare, so intertribal warfare, where, and this is a harsh realization, but there historically, this is part of our bad evolutionary history, it has been advantageous from a purely reproductive standpoint to conquer a neighboring group, kill the males, and get whatever resources they have, including females and sexual resources, as well as tools, weapons, territory, and so forth. And so I think that we have, and of course, it's typically males who do that. I mean, yes, some females have participated in warfare, but as far as I know, there's never been a single case in all of human recorded history of women forming a war tribe with other women to attack another group of women and kill them and capture the men as husbands. But this phenomenon is common in the ethnographic record and small group studies. It's part of our common thing. So just one concrete example, unfortunately, he's dead now, he passed away, Napoleon Chagnon, who studied the Yanomamo for many, many years. When he first started interviewing them, he asked them, why do you go to war? And they said, well, to capture women, of course, but it's the only sensible reason. And they said, why does your culture go to war, or however they phrased it. And he said, well, we go to war to spread democracy and ideas and everything. They basically fell off their logs laughing at such a stupid reason, because why risk your life for anything other than women? Of course, it's more complex than that, because some go to war for reputational reasons. They say, if we don't retaliate, because we've been attacked and they've stolen three of our women, if we don't retaliate, then we will get a reputation as exploitable, and then other groups will start to attack us as well. And so they get into these cycles of, like the Hatfields and McCoys of attacks, counterattacks, retribution, and part of it is reputation management. So that's between groups. And I think that's been the primary source of violence, but not the only source. So there's also within group conflict. And so many ethnographies, many traditional societies have things, some of them are ritualized, like wrestling matches, or in the Anamama, they have these, or used to these chest-pounding duels, so if we're in this match, you challenge me, and I have to, of course- Chest-pounding duel. I like this. So you're not hitting each other, you're just, it's like peacocking. Oh, no, you're hitting each other. Oh, sorry. Yeah, so they get 20 paces away, and they run up, and you punch the other guy in the chest, and he has to basically stand there, and then he does the same to you. Oh, wow. And then it's basically last man standing. That's, well, I suppose that's better than the face. That's an interesting decision with the chest. I mean, I'm sure if you get good at that kind of thing, you could start breaking ribs, and you can get loose about the rules of where exactly in the chest you can hit. And there's that guy who's always known for hitting not exactly in the chest, accidentally missing. Right, right, the Mike Tyson of that. Exactly, eating your ear off. So interesting, so there's like ritualized conflict to sort of purify the competition that resolves some kind of issue. Well, yeah, it's important to establish status hierarchies. But also, and here's just another, one more concrete point on that. The yanamamo, we don't have this in our language. We just have one word for kill or murder. But yanamamo have, you're either, if you're a male, you're an unokai or a non-unokai. The non-unokai are men who have not killed. If you're an unokai, that means you have killed someone. And the unokai among yanamamo historically had higher status and more wives. So they're a polygynous society, which has been true of something like 83 to 85% of traditional societies. Or actually, I was just corrected by an anthropologist. She said, we no longer call them traditional societies. We call them small-scale societies. So nothing can be called traditional? I don't know. Is bacteria the traditional society? Yeah, I think it's just one of these things, the words that are deemed appropriate to use to describe things change over time. Yeah, so words can hurt people, they can inspire people. Words are funny, powerful things. You authored a textbook titled Evolutionary Psychology, The New Science of Mind, in its sixth edition. What is the magic ingredient that gave birth to homo sapiens, do you think? Is it fire, cooking, ability to collaborate, share ideas, ability to contemplate our own mortality, all that kind of stuff? Yeah, well, I think it's hard to isolate one factor. I know you've had Richard Wrangham on this podcast. It was a wonderful, wonderful interview. And he used to be a colleague of mine when I was a professor at Michigan. And I've stayed in touch with him. I don't know if he's a brilliant, brilliant guy. And he thinks fire and cooking have been one of the key things. But I think it's hard to isolate. I would trace at least part of our uniqueness to the uniqueness of our mating system. So we have in mating, unlike chimpanzees, who are our closest primate relative, of which Richard Wrangham is a world's expert, but they have basically no long-term pair-bonded mating. A female comes into estrus, all the mating, all the sex happens, most of the sex happens during that window. But humans have evolved long-term pair-bonded mating. And it's only one mating strategy, but it's a really important one. And then you have with that male parental care. So basically, again, you go back to chimps, and chimps with whom we share more than 98% of our DNA, males don't do anything. So they inseminate the females, but then when the kids are born, they basically don't do much of anything in terms of provisioning and so forth. But human males do. We invest in the modern environment, could be decades, especially with the boomerang kids and everything. But we're, not all males do, but compared to the vast majority of mammals, we are a very heavy male parental investment species. Could you, if it's okay, and I'll ask you a bunch of dumb basic questions, because those are fun. Could you define mating here? Is mating referred to the series of sexual acts that lead to reproduction? Does it include like dating and love and camaraderie, loyalty, all those things? Yes. I, you know what? Yes. Yeah, when I first started studying it, yeah, I don't, when I first started studying it, I looked for the right term. And obviously it's much broader than sex. So by mating, I include things like mate selection, mate preferences, mate attraction, mate retention, mate poaching, mate expulsion. Mate poaching, that sounds fun. So the early, the game theoretic strategy of mate selection is primarily what mating is about, or do you include the long-term once you agree that you're gonna stick this out for a while and have multiple children? Is that also mating? Yes, I include that as well. So it's a broad- Broad category. Broad definition, and absolutely includes the emotion of love. And of course, there are many different types of love, brotherly love, love of parents for children. But love, I think, and this is one of the shifts in the social sciences. So when I was an undergraduate, for example, I was taught that love is this invention by some Caucasian European poets a couple hundred years ago. And it turns out that's not the case. So there's been extensive cross-cultural evidence now that people, not every person in all cultures, of course, but some people in all cultures experience this emotion that we call love. And for the word love, are we going to, in this conversation, try to stick to sort of romantic love for the meaning of the word love? Well, that's a great question. But I mean, it's pretty well established that there are these different phases of love. So there's this infatuation phase where our psychology, we get obsessional thoughts. It's hard to focus on work when we're not with the person we're thinking about, the other person constantly. So there's kind of like ideational intrusion into our psychology, but you can't sustain that. I mean, it'd be, and then of course, there's a, pardon the phrase, but what I described as the fucking like bunnies phase of this intense sexuality. But people have other adaptive problems they have to solve. And so you can't stay in that state for too long. And so that subsides over time and develops into, at least in many cases, this warm attachment. Cuddling bunnies, long-term cuddling bunnies. Yes. Phase of the relationship, but still romantic, not like brotherly love or, because I talk about love a lot. And for me, love is a broader experience of just experiencing the joy and the beauty of life. So like just looking out in nature, that's the kind of love, like whatever the chemicals that lead to a feeling that at least echoes the same kind of feeling that you get with romantic love, you can experience that with even inanimate objects. That sounds weird to say, but just gratitude and appreciation, not in some kind of a weird Zen way, but just in a very human way. Just it feels good to be alive kind of feeling. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess I would, I mean, that's an interesting thought. I hadn't thought about that. I guess I would use other terms to describe that. So like the term awe, for example, when you see a beautiful sunset. That's why I kind of started out by saying I think there are different types of love and I'm focusing on the mating type. And we'll talk about that. But so yeah, there is a sense of beauty and there's a sense of sexual appeal. Maybe that's a good, and those intersect in fascinating ways. We'll talk about that. We'll talk about all of that. But you're saying mating strategies, not that we've kind of placed ourself, what we mean by mating. Mating strategies is one of the cool features that made humans what they are. One of the initial inventions is the weird and wonderful ways that we mate. Yeah, and I mean, if you go to even things like how we compete for mates, and this is another kind of strange, for some people, angle on it. But mating is inherently a competitive process in that desirable mates are in scarce supply relative to the numbers of people who want them. And so even post-mating, that is after mate selection, mate attraction, and mutual mate choice, desirable, that's why there's mate poaching. Mate poaching is one of the strategies that we in my lab with David Schmidt have studied. And so, okay, but one of the unique aspects of humans is that we compete using language. And that is we have reputations, and humans devote a lot of effort to maintaining the reputations, to building the reputations, to trying to recover reputations after a loss of reputation for various reasons. But we compete for mates using language, and that includes sending signals to the person that we're trying to attract using language, verbal fluency, and obviously, some more recent things like poetry. But also, we use language to derogate our competitors. So one of the papers I published very early on, it was a research project on derogation of competitors, the ways in which people impugn the status, character, and reputations of their rivals with the goal of making them less desirable to other people. And humans do that, and women and men both do that. So it's an interesting thing that we're, male competition, we were talking about the Yanomamo earlier and some of these overt physical, or what animal biologists call contest competition, where there's a physical battle. Males do that, and so a lot of the early attention on mate competition was focused on these sort of ostentatious overt battles in contest competition. But we compete through language, and so there's this big overlooked domain of women, the ways in which women compete with each other using language. And one of the things that astonished me is how observant women are about the subtle imperfections in their rivals and take pains to point them out. So just as a random example, I went to a party, this is back in my youth, but went to a party with my girlfriend at the time, and I got into this conversation with another woman who happened to be very attractive. But then we leave the party, and she said something just casually offhanded, like, she said, did you notice that her thighs were heavy? And I hadn't, but next time I saw this other woman, I found my attention being drawn to check out her thigh. Well, and originally it puzzled me why women would derogate other women on appearance. Well, they do it, of course, because men prioritize appearance, but I thought, well, the man can see the woman directly with his own eyes. Why would verbal input alter his perceptions of how attractive he was? And I think that part of it is, I think they're actually two quick answers to that. One is the attentional one. So our attentional field, when they draw attention to it, those what could be very small deviations from perfect symmetry or whatever they are become magnified in our attentional field. But the other is that who we have as a mate is also a reflection of our own status. And you saw this in a kind of overt and way in the earlier, the last presidential, not the last, the 2016 presidential election where Donald Trump was saying, this was when he was in competition with Ted Cruz, I think, in the primary, said, look at my wife, look at Ted Cruz's wife. And he really impugned the appearance of Ted Cruz's wife for the first time. So using language, you can alter the dynamics of the social hierarchy, the status hierarchy, sorry. So you can change the values subtly or if you have a large platform in big ways, you can move things around just with your words. Yeah, yeah, that's right, right. And it's fascinating. Yeah, because it's all socially constructed anyway. So this, I mean, the question I have is, you said there's the interesting thing about mating strategies is there's a small pool of desirable mates. And what the word desirable means is socially defined almost by on purpose to make sure the pool always stays small. I would have a couple thoughts on that. It's an interesting issue, set of issues you raise. Okay, one is that I think we have evolved adaptations. Part of our psychology is to detect differences. And so this is why like a, I don't know, a Martian or an alien coming down, they might look at humans and say, boy, they all look alike. Just like we look at, I don't know, zebras or whatever, and we think they all look alike. But what's important in decision-making, especially in the mating domain or even friendship domain or coalitional selection domain is the differences. And so I noticed this just a concrete example of this. I was sitting around, this is again, ages ago, watching something like a Miss America beauty contest and people in there with a bunch of other people. And they were saying, boy, did you see Miss North Carolina? What a dog. And so this is astonishing. So here are like 50 contestants who are selected as the most attractive in their state, presumably, although they claim it's based on talent. But we noticed the differences. And this is why I would push back a little bit on the term socially constructed, because I think there are many different meanings of that phrase. And one meaning that some people have, one connotation is that it's arbitrary. And I don't think it's arbitrary. So this has been another shift in understanding standards of beauty where it used to be believed in the social sciences. You can't judge a book by its cover. Beauty is only skin deep. Don't judge people on the superficial characteristics. But in fact, physical appearance provides a wealth of information about the health status of someone, their, in the case of males, their physical formability. And we have formability assessment adaptations, and then fertility as well. So there are a very predictable set of cues to fertility that have evolved to be part of our standards of attractiveness. And they're not arbitrary. There are some culturally arbitrary ones. So like you go to the Maori in New Zealand, for example, and they find tattoos on their lips to be very attractive. So there are some culturally arbitrary things. But standards of beauty like cues to youth, cues to health in women, clear skin, full lips, clear eyes, lustrous hair, a small waist-hip ratio, that is a circumference of the waist relative to the hips, is a cue to youth and fertility. And a cue to health, symmetrical features. So we are a bilaterally symmetrical species, but we all have deviations from perfect symmetry that are due to different things. Mutation, load, environmental insults, diseases during development, and so forth. All right, but that's kind of deeply biological. Like there's cues that indicate something that is biologically true about a particular human. So we'll talk about both men and women. So we're now talking about what men want in the mating strategies when they look at women. So you're saying small waist to hip ratio. Right. How much of that is our deep biological past on top of which we can build all kinds of different standards of beauty? So we have many things going on in our brain. Our value of other humans in selecting a mate might incorporate a lot more variables as we get into the 21st century. So how quickly does our valuation of a mate evolve relative to the evolution of the human species? You're using evolve in the sense of culturally evolved? Culturally evolved, and then relative to biologically evolved. Yeah, well, I think that there are some things that are biologically evolved, some standards of attractiveness. And there are some of the things that I mentioned. So in male evaluation of females, let me back up and just say, what is the underlying logic? Why would we have standards of attractiveness? So here's the interesting thing, and this gets back to your earlier question about what is unique to humans or what distinguishes us or what set us off on the path that we did, is chimpanzee males do not have any difficulty figuring out when a female is fertile. She signals that like crazy with the bright red genital swelling, olfactory cues, she goes into estrus. In humans, we have, and this was actually a third thing that I wanted to add earlier, we have concealed ovulation, okay, relatively concealed ovulation, which is remarkable given how close we are primatologically to chimpanzees. And so there's a little bit of evidence that there are subtle changes that occur when women ovulate, women not on hormonal contraceptives. But it's mostly concealed. But it is largely concealed. Do you think that's a feature or a bug? Like do we evolve that, is that a cool, a powerful invention for the human species? I think it's an adaptation in women that women have evolved concealed ovulation. And I think it's a feature, not a bug. Would it give more power for women to select a mate? There are a couple different hypotheses about it. But the one that I think is most plausible is that, again, comparing it to chimps, female goes into estrus, the male just has to try to monopolize her while she's in that estrus phase. And then they basically ignore the females after that. If you can't know when a woman is fertile, then you have to stick around a lot longer. And so I think long-term pair bonding co-evolved with concealed ovulation. And with that, also a very different form of sexuality, which is that we have sex throughout the ovulatory cycle. And chimps don't. There's a little bit of mating, a little bit of sex toward the edges of the estrus cycle, but very little. So that actually makes mating a more fundamental part of interaction between humans than it does for chimps. So meaning like year-round, every day, constantly selecting mates in terms of biologically speaking. So what else do men want? Today in the 21st century versus in the caveman days? A wonderful question. To answer it, though, I have to distinguish between long-term mating and short-term mating. And in long-term mating, it gets very complicated. So as a- That's one way to put it, yeah. So I teach a course in human sexuality at University of Texas at Austin. And one of the things, this was back in the days when there were chalkboards, and you taught with a piece of chalk and wrote things on the board. And what I would do is I would ask the class, I'd teach this large class, one to 200, I'd say, what do women want? Tell me all the things women want in a long-term mate. And so I would start at one end of the blackboard, there were like five blackboards, and I'd say, well, I want a mate who's kind, who's understanding, who's intelligent, who's healthy, who's got a good sense of humor, who shares my values. And I'd just go, and I'd fill out five blackboards and then run out of space. And so first, this large number of characteristics that people want, and then specific magnitudes of those characteristics or amounts. So I say, you want a mate who's, say, generous with their resources. And they say, yes, I want a mate who's generous with their resources. So I said, so like a guy who, this is a women's mate, so I'm the guy who, at the end of every month, gets his paycheck and gives it to the local wino on the drag. And I just go, well, no, not that generous. Generous toward me, not indiscriminately generous. And so you want a mate who's ambitious, who's a hard worker, yes, but not a workaholic. You know, and so then you get to interactions among different characteristics. So there's a lot of characteristics, a lot of variables in this very complex optimization problem for women. Yes, that's right. And more so for women than for men. So then I turn to the men and I say, well, what do men want? And then I run out of space after about a blackboard and a half, because they can't think of anything else. So women think- I think there's a lot of explanations for that. Besides the lack of the number of variables, it's also, you know, I mean, that's interesting. So what's the difference between the variables? So on the men's side, what are the variables? Well, in long-term mates selection, there's a lot of overlap. Sure. Okay, so things like intelligence, good health, sense of humor, an agreeable personality, someone who's not too neurotic or moody or emotionally volatile, but there are key differences as well. And the differences stem from, they basically fall on the delimited number of domains. So for men, it's physical attractiveness, physical appearance, and youth are the two real big ones. Okay, men prioritize those more than women do. And so that's why you have phenomena such as this quote, love at first sight, where sometimes men can walk into a party and they see a woman across the room and they say, I'm gonna marry that woman, that's the woman for me. Women very rarely do that. Now, most men don't do that either, but men are much more inclined to fall in love at first sight. That's because they prioritize physical appearance. Why? Because physical appearance provides this wealth of information about a woman's fertility status. And this is from an evolutionary perspective, from a purely reproductive perspective, in business school, they would call it job one. Job one is you have to select a fertile mate. So those who in our evolutionary past, who selected infertile mates, so postmenopausal women, for example, did not become our ancestors. So we are all the descendants of this long and unbroken chain of ancestors, all of whom succeeded in selecting a fertile mate. But fertility cannot be observed directly. It can't. Use some cues. Exactly. And there are cues that are probabilistically related to this underlying quality of fertility that we can't observe directly. And we're doing that computation in our heads. What about men? What do men want for short-term mating? Well, so for short-term mating, for both sexes, physical appearance looms very large. So women are, no, physical attractiveness and appearance, they're important for women in long-term mate selection. So I don't wanna mislead anyone on that. They're just not as important as they are for men. And so a lot of characteristics come for women before physical appearance, physical attractiveness. So women, so if we switch to women, what do women want? They want also physical appearance for short-term mating, physical attractiveness. What else? Well- Some cues that represent physical attractiveness that maybe represent health. Well, here's, this is your- I'm learning a lot here. Yeah. Well, so, but you're also asking a very interesting question about what is controversial within the evolutionary psychology field, right? And not totally resolved. So- That's why you're on the sixth edition of the book, and there could be a lot more editions coming. Yeah, I revise it every four years or so, because there's four years of new, interesting work, and so it deserves updating. But the traditional, I should say, answer to your question is that women go for good genes, cues to good genes in the short-term, and cues to resources in the long-term. And this has been a hypothesis that advocated, I didn't come up with this one, by Steve Gangestad, a former student of mine, Marty Hale, Randy Thornhill, and some other very smart players in the field. And what they used as markers of good genes are things like symmetrical features and masculine features. So strong jawline, high shoulder to hip ratio, you know, other sorts of masculine features. But I started to doubt this explanation for what women want in the short-term because of some other findings. So for women, a lot of short-term mating is not one-night-stand mating, but rather it's affair mating. So if you ask the question, why do women have affairs? So let's restrict the question for the moment. My colleagues would argue, well, women have affairs because they're trying to get good genes from one guy, while they're getting investment from the regular partner, the husband. Okay, but the problem is that when women have affairs, 70-plus percent tend to fall in love with or become attached to their affair partner. Now- Oh, sorry, what percentage, 70? Yeah, 70- Some large majority. Yeah, 70% or more. In contrast to men, where it's more like 30% of men who have affairs fall in love with or become attached to their affair partner. So, but from a design perspective, an engineering perspective, if you will, that's a disastrous thing if you're just trying to get good genes. So you're trying to retain the investment of one guy while getting good genes surreptitiously from this guy who presumably has more. Falling in love with them, becoming attached, that's not a feature you want. Yeah, it's bad engineering. Yeah, exactly, it's bad engineering. And so I developed an alternative hypothesis that I call the mate-switching hypothesis, which is that affairs are one way in which women divest themselves of a cost-inflicting partner or a partner who things aren't working out well with, and it's a way to either transition back into the mating market or to trade up in the mating market. And so, anyway, so these are probably the two leading hypotheses about why women have affairs. And I am putting my money on the mate-switching hypothesis. My esteemed colleagues are putting their money on the good genes hypothesis, but I think the evidence for the good genes hypothesis is starting to look shakier than initially. Well, this is a heated debate. I mean, mate-switching sounds like a, so from a game theory perspective, from an engineering perspective, it seems to make a lot more sense, unless you put a lot of value in lifelong, sort of in the long-term mating, some kind of value in the lifelong singular relationship, like monogamy. Yeah. And maybe we do, psychologically. Maybe there's a big evolutionary advantage to that. And we do, but we also know that divorce is, and breakups are also common and occur in all cultures. So that's- We're just not very good at this thing. Well, either we're not good at the mate selection, such that maybe we're not incorporating all the variables well, or we're just not good at monogamy period, from an evolutionary perspective. Well, I think there, that's- Another debate? No, that raises an interesting set of questions. So I think that, I mean, one issue is longevity. So, I mean, we didn't live to be 70, 80 years old in over 99% of human evolutionary history. And so we didn't necessarily evolve to be mated monogamously with one person for decades and decades and decades. But I also think that long-term pair bonding is a critical strategy, but mate switching is also a critical strategy. So if you have a mate, for example, who becomes cost-inflicting, or becomes sufficiently debilitated, or who suffers an injury such that, like in a hunter-gatherer societies, where the mate can no longer hunt, can no longer provide resources for their kids and the woman, this becomes a problem. And so I think that we have adaptations to mate switch and to divest ourselves from some partners and trade up in the mating market under certain conditions. So, okay. And those conditions will differ for men and women. What are some of the cues in terms of what women want? Go to the gym. It's a hotly contested debate. You said evolutionary psychology, and this is in the bro psychology forums that I visit multiple times a day. No, I'm just kidding. What's the most important cue of appearance for guys? What muscle group is the most important to work on? Do women care about biceps, is what I'm asking. In terms of physical appearance, a good shoulder to hip ratio. So relatively wide shoulders relative to hips is one. Women tend to prefer men who are physically fit and well-toned, but not muscle bound. So like if you go to, I don't know, some of like those early, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was doing the Mr., whatever it was, contest, you see is women don't find those attractive, the extremely muscle bound guys. But they like a guy who's physically fit, high shoulder to hip ratio. They like guys who are physically taller than they are, and guys who are a bit above average in height. So if the average, so if the average is, I don't know, five nine, five 10 and out there for humans, depending on the culture, women prefer an inch or two taller than that. So shoulders, height, dad bod, what's that about? Why do you want a dad bod? How do I define dad bod? What is a dad bod? Dad bod is not muscle bound. Okay, so out of shape. A little, no, no, just a little bit. A little bit of a cushion for the pushing. I don't know what the kids call it these days, but just a little bit, a little bit of fat. So why do they not want guys to be obsessed with their body? Is that, or is that some evolutionary thing? Yeah, I think that women might interpret a guy who is so obsessed with his body that he's, they might view that as a sign of darn narcissism. Yes. And that's not a good trait. What about like cultures where large, sort of overweight men are valued? Is that, how do you explain, like how much can we override the evolutionary desires with our sort of cultural fashions of the day that maybe represent other desirable aspects like wealth? Well, wealth is, resources have always been important, especially to women. So is a man able to acquire resources and is he willing to dispense them to her and her kids? So that's always important. In traditional cultures, that boils down to hunting skills. So if, so I asked a colleague, friend, Kim Hill, who's probably the world's leading expert on the Aceh of Paraguay, and you ask him, like what leads to high status in the Aceh in males' hunting skills? That's the one thing, the big variable. And that's resources. And that's resources. Now, what's interesting about modern culture is we have cash economies, but cash economies are relatively recent. And historically, there's over the vast, 99% of human evolutionary history, you weren't able to stockpile resources in the way that you are today. Although there are interestingly certain ways you can do it. So like you kill a large game animal, okay? You bring it back, you get some status points because you give some to your family, you can share it more widely with the group, et cetera. But it's gonna go bad, right? You can't just say, I'm gonna keep this carcass around for the next several months, okay? But, and I think it's a Steve Pinker who might've used to coin this phrase that they store the meat in the bodies of other people. And so for example, they store it in their friends. So, you know, hunting success is, you know, it's a hit or miss kind of thing. So you might come back empty handed four times out of five, but when you do, you share your meat with others. And then when, you know, and then they reciprocate by sharing their meat with you. And so you can store resources in the bodies of other people which is I think an interesting way to think about it, but that can only go so far. And when you have cash economies, you have both the ability to stockpile resources, but also this kind of explosion and inequality of resources. And that's evolutionarily recent. What about, now this is the difference between the Huberman, the excellent Huberman Lab podcast that you did that people should listen to. He is a brilliant scientist, a sort of a rigorous analyst of what is true in the scientific community. Also helps you with great advice on how to live. Now, in contrast to that, I am a terrible, almost idiotic level journalist. So this is what you have to deal with. Another thing that people talk about that women care about is penis size. Does penis size matter for women in sexual selection? Well, there's controversy about that. In the evolutionary psychology community? Well, I- Is there papers on penis size? I wouldn't say scientific papers, so speculations about- So not in nature or in science? Yeah, yeah, no, nothing that I've seen there. I think that there's individual variability. So this is something that comes up again, when I ask women in my classes, what do women want? Some will say, a large penis. But I think there's variability in that preference. And it also might depend in part on the variability in the woman's anatomy. So- Do you think there's something fundamental in terms of evolutionary psychology, in terms of evolution? Or is this a quirk of culture that's current, that's maybe somehow connected to pornography or something like that? Yeah, my guess is it's something that's perhaps a quirk of culture or something that is evolutionarily recent. But I don't know. I mean, it's a topic that hasn't been explored much. I've never done work on it. Well, somebody should do a PhD, some archeologist should do a PhD on the history of human civilization and its valuation of penis size and the correlation of penis size to the value of the male. Okay, moving on. Another absurd question in terms of what men want. Again, definitely not a Huberman Lab podcast question. Why do men, let's say a large fraction of men, love boobs? Well, I think that- You're one of the most cited evolutionary psychologists, and this is what you signed up for, these kinds of questions. Questions like this, yeah. Well, so again, this is something I haven't studied directly, but scientifically. Yes, yes. But yeah, there's been some work on that, and it's- Another cultural quirk, perhaps? No, I don't think it's a cultural quirk, because I think it's the shape that matters a lot, because shape is gonna be a cue to fertility. And so one of the things that humans are attracted to in the opposite sex is sexually dimorphic features, and breasts are a sexually dimorphic feature. What's dimorphic mean? Difference in morphology between males and females. Got it. Diming to morphic morphology. And women don't develop breasts until puberty, or post-puberty. And so as a sexually dimorphic characteristic, we tend to be attracted to that. Same is true, by the way, with the waist-to-hip ratio that we mentioned earlier. Prior to puberty, males and females have very similar waist-to-hip ratios, but at puberty, there's a differential hip development and fat deposition that creates a sexual dimorphism with respect to waist-to-hip ratio. And so again, that's, men are attracted to this waist-to-hip ratio. No man consciously says that. They find this woman more attractive than that woman. They don't think, ah, she has a waist-to-hip ratio of.70. That's for sure. That's exactly what I do, but most men, most men, yes. So isn't that fascinating that we just build these entire industries of fashion and what we find beautiful around these kinds of ideas? And we just, and then not just fashion, and then we build, we have sociological tensions about whether we should care about this kind of thing or not. There's battles in that space. It's like, they seem so simple. It's just the human body. And we wear clothes, first of all. That's a funny thing. What's the, why are we wearing clothes? What's the shame aspect of covering up the body? Is that another feature, or is that, what is that? Yeah, that's an interesting question, and I don't know. It's just like hiding ovulation. Maybe that's another hiding. Maybe hiding is a great game theoretic thing to play with, because it can give you, it can give the powerless more power by covering, maybe. Well, I think there are a few things. So one is the sort of arbitrary features of fashion, and then the other is the aspects of fashion that attempt to magnify what is inherent in our evolved standards of beauty. So for example, women tend to wear things that accentuate their waist-hip ratio. So I mean, historically, those, in the old days, corsets, for example, cinched the woman's waist. And you wouldn't see fashion develop in a way that made a woman seem old, unhealthy, pockmarked, signs of open sores or lesions. There are certain domains, design spaces, that you wouldn't, that no culture would develop. So, but there are arbitrary features, but sometimes they're not entirely arbitrary, or they're arbitrary at one level of description, but not at another. So for example, fashion tends to be linked with status, and that's why it constantly changes. The high status people start wearing a certain type of clothing, and then when the lower status people imitate them, then they have to shift to signal their status. And so I think the fashion and clothing is in part linked to status. So this is not you talking, this is me. I just wanna make a statement, a profound statement, that I think yoga pants, now this is broadly speaking, but yoga pants is one of the greatest inventions in human history. There's fire, and yoga, and I'm just gonna leave it there. I'm a fan, and I have female friends that talk about how comfortable yoga pants are, which is what I'm referring to when I say it's one of the greatest inventions, because comfort in fashion is really, really important to me. Let me ask about sort of the sociological aspect of this. So I've talked to Mark Zuckerberg, who the meta, who's the CEO, founder of Facebook, and now meta, and owns Instagram. I've heard of him. Yeah, he's a, yeah. He holds the American flag and likes the water. Anyway, so there's been criticisms of social networks and so on, and I just wanna ask you about the broader question here, that there's objectification of the human body in the media, and that creates standards for young women, for young men, perhaps, but more young women. You mentioned to the cruelty that women can have towards each other in terms of, well, let's, you know, cruelty is already a moral judgment. Just, you've made a statement about the fact that women seem to point out imperfections in other women. Right. Do you think it's a problem in our modern society that we objectify each other in this way? Do you think this is a fundamental aspect of our biology that we need to suppress versus celebrate, just like we might suppress our natural desire for violence if such exists in modern society? Well, a couple of thoughts on that. I think it is damaging, the fact that so many images are displayed in social media, and so what I would say is that there's what's called in the field an evolutionary mismatch. So we evolved in the context of small group living where there was made competition, but your competitors were a small number of other potential individuals, and so people do comparisons. Okay, but now what we have is this bombardment of our visual system and our sexual psychology and our mating psychology with thousands and thousands of images that are not at all representative of who our actual competition is in the mating domain. And so I think that, and there's actually evidence on this that Baz Luhrmann actually said something like this in his sunscreen song. I don't know if you ever heard that, but it's like a set of, it's a wonderful string of advice, song about advice, but he says- Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, sorry. Yeah, he says, don't read beauty magazines that will only make you feel ugly. I think that there's truth to that, that is, especially with women, they look at all these images, and of course, they're photographed, they're Photoshopped, they're highly selected and not at all representative. And so women compare themselves to that. So I think this social comparison is an evolved feature of humans. I mean, males do it, females do it, but it's exacerbated in the modern environment in wildly evolutionarily mismatched ways. And so I think that it is destructive, it's harmful. There's evidence that it hurts women's self-esteem. So here's just another factoid or fact, if you will, that at least in Western cultures, males and females have roughly the same overall average levels of self-esteem, but once puberty hits, all of a sudden, women's self-esteem starts to drop. And I think it's because when they enter, make competition, then they start elevating the importance they attach to physical appearance. And then as you point out, the tremendous objectification that saturates social media and media in general, it's damaging and harmful. I don't know how to undo it, though. I don't know how to design a society that undoes that. Well, one of the ways we undo things, just like you pointed out, is we use words. When we manipulate society, we manipulate social and status hierarchies using our words for ill, and we can do the same for good. And that's why there's a lot of clickbait articles about Instagram leading to a lot of suffering amongst teenage girls and all those kinds of things. I'm criticizing the clickbait nature and not the contents of the articles. But, you know, and those articles hopefully become viral in a way that makes us rethink about how we build social networks that kind of allow us to too easily misrepresent how we look when we are quote-unquote influencers and what mental effect it has on young people that look up to those influencers. But I guess it's not the objectification fundamentally that's the problem, it's the inaccurate, it's the fake news. It's the fake news, misrepresentation. You still objectify the male body, the female body, but you do so while misrepresenting the actual truth. And so you're moving the average, you're moving the standard representation of what a male should look like, what a woman should look like. And the dishonesty is the problem, not the objectification. Here's just one other interesting empirical finding on that, and it has to do with another dimension that I think is harmful, and that's the thinness dimension. And so if you, and these are studies originally done by Paul Rosen, but they've been replicated, where if you ask men, okay, what is your ideal figure in a woman? And so they have these, say, nine figures that vary from very, very thin to average to plump. Men give it the midpoint. They say the midpoint is in relative thinness or plumpness is what I value. And you ask women, what is your ideal body type for you? They give it, they say thinner, but then if you ask them, what do you think male's ideal body type is? They put it in exactly the same spot that they put their own ideal, which is thin. And so there's actually an inaccurate perception of how thin men desire women to be. And I think that's partly exacerbated by the fashion industry, where the models are often real thin, and the lore is that clothes hang better on thin models, and then on TV, they say you gain 15 pounds over what you really are, or whatever. For whatever reason, women misperceive how thin men want them to be. And so you have, this is another huge sex difference, is eating disorders. Anorexia, for example, bulimia, binging, purging, where these eating disorders are nine to 10 times more common in women than in men. Can I just take a small tangent? Because it was such a beautiful, the sunscreen song, such a beautiful one, if I can read some of the words from it. Yeah. I really enjoy it. It's a great song. For people, you should check it out. It's called Everybody's Free to Wear Sunscreen. I guess it's actually a speech to a class. I don't know if that's artificial or real, but it's a speech that gives advice. And it goes, ladies and gentlemen of the class of 97, I just remember it even now, those words. Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proven by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now. Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, nevermind, you will not understand the power and beauty of your youth until they're faded. But trust me, in 20 years, you'll look back at the photos of yourself and recall in a way that you can't grasp now how much possibility laid before you and how fabulous you really looked. You are not as fat as you imagine. Don't worry about the future. Or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be the things that never cross your worried mind, the kind that blindsides you at 4 p.m. on some idle Tuesday. Do one thing every day that scares you, saying don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with the people who are reckless with yours. Floss. Don't waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long, and in the end, it's only with yourself. Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how. Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bang statements. Stretch. Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your life. The most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't. For me, that's true for 50, 60, and 70-year-olds, honestly. Get plenty of calcium. Be kind to your niece. You'll miss them when they're gone. Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll have children, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll divorce at 40. Maybe you'll dance the funky chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary. Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's. Enjoy your body. Use it every way you can. Don't be afraid of it or what other people think of it. It's the greatest instrument you'll ever own. Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but in your own living room. Read the directions, even if you don't follow them. Do not read beauty magazines that will only make you feel ugly. Get to know your parents. You never know when they'll be gone for good. Be nice to your siblings. They're your best link to your past and the people most likely to stick with you in the future. Understand that friends come and go, but a precious few who should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle. For as older you get, the more you need the people you knew when you were young. Live in New York City once. I actually took this advice. This is fascinating advice. I remember this advice well. It's broadly applied. Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard. Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft. Travel, accept certain inalienable truths. Prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders. Respect your elders. Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund, maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse, but you never know when either one might run out. Never mess too much with your hair, or by the time you're 40, it will look 85. Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts, and recycling it for more than it's worth. But trust me on the sunscreen. So this is, thank you for allowing me to read it. It's almost sentimental for me. I don't know when I first heard it, but there's a few pieces of advice in that, similar to the poem, If, by Rajat Kipling, there's some deep truths when you step back and look at it all. And also the places where you live. Because I lived for a time in, I guess, Northern California, with Google and so on. And one of the reasons I had to leave is I felt I was becoming soft. This is my own personal experience. And the same is true for the cities of the East. They can, if you're not careful, make you hard, because everybody's super busy and rushing around, and there's just a buzz to the city, which is exciting. It's empowering, but it can change you in ways. And so that's one of the reasons I'm here in Austin, that I fell in love with the city, because it's such a nice balance of both. And yeah, I've lived on both coasts as well, Boston area and then Berkeley, California. So I'm familiar with both. How'd you end up in Austin, as a small side? Well, I got my undergraduate degree here, and then left for 20 years and migrated around. So went to UC Berkeley for my PhD, Harvard for my first job, University of Michigan. And then a job opened up at University of Texas for an evolutionary psychologist. And so they wanted me, fortunately. So I was very happy to, so I've always loved Austin. I mean, it's- Yeah, the love never died, it was there. Yeah, yeah, it's a great town. I was glad that I left, so, and experienced, well, both coasts and also the Midwest, but happy to be back in Austin. Let me ask a difficult question. Now, we did pretty good with some difficult questions already, but there are people in this world today who believe that gender is purely a social construct. You, I think, are not one of those people. To you, what are the difference between men and women? How much of those differences are nature and how much is nurture? I guess if you're asking the question morphologically or psychologically, I assume you're asking psychologically. The question is what it is, and the answer, sometimes the questions don't contain with them the trajectory you take with the answer, right? So I think I was asking both, and the fact that both are a thing is an interesting thing. Yes. So you wrote a book, textbook, I should say, Evolutionary Psychology, right? Yes. Both of those words are in the book title, psychology, that's the human mind. Yes, yeah. How much of gender, how much of sex is the human mind and how much of it is the biology? The way that I phrase it, so I don't like sort of dividing the world into two categories, things that are biological versus things that are not biological. So biology is actually defined as the study of life and life processes, and so at that sort of abstract level, everything we do is biological, including culture and our capacity for culture, which I think is an evolved capacity that humans have. When you get to the issue of sex and gender, I mean, one cut at your question is, are there universal psychological sex differences? And the answer to that question is, yes, there are some. So for example, well, and this is in one of your areas of specialty engineering, one of the interesting things is that it's called the people's thing dimension. So do you want an occupation? You want a job that involves people, social interaction, or are you happy with a job that just involves things, mechanical objects or computer code or whatever? And this is one of the largest psychological sex differences that exists, and it's true in every culture. So in terms of, I don't know, magnitude of effects, it's an effect size of more than a standard deviation, difference between the means on this psychological sex difference. And so one of the interesting things is, so if you go to places like, go to the most gender egalitarian cultures in the world, so places like Sweden or Norway, which are explicitly gender egalitarian and are truly in many, many ways, but you allow people freedom of choice, some of these sex differences actually get larger, the psychological sex differences, and also assortment into different occupational choices. But this is not something that I study. I study mating, and the sex differences, if you ask in what domains are the sex differences the largest, it turns out they occur within the domain of mating and sexuality. So our evolved sexual psychology, our evolved mating psychology is to some degree sexually dimorphic. Okay, with the very important asterisk that we're talking about overlapping distributions. So there are some things that, so if you look at human morphology, we talked about breasts earlier. Women have evolved functional breasts that's functional for lactation. Men don't, so there's no amount of culture or social coercion can cause men to have lactating breasts. Psychologically, we don't see dimorphism that extreme. Where something is literally present in one sex and totally absent in the other. So there's overlap in the distributions. So I mentioned earlier that in the mating domain, men more than women on average prioritize physical appearance, physical attractiveness, relative youth. Women on average prioritize resources, resource acquisition, qualities that lead to resource acquisition like status, ambition, industriousness, and so forth. But there's overlap in the distributions. So some women place the total priority on how physically attractive the guy is. And some men view that as irrelevant. And so the point that I'm making is that there are psychological sex differences that make some people uncomfortable. But it's one of these things where I'm a scientist. I'm not a political advocate. And so I adhere to the empirical data. Empirical data are very strong in these domains. So with respect to sex differences in the mating domain and sexuality and things we haven't even talked about like desire for sexual variety and sex differences in the whole, desire for short-term mating, huge sex differences there. And these have been documented universally in all cultures. So, okay, now, are there things that are culture-specific or social-cultural overlays onto these fundamental psychological sex differences? Absolutely. But there's also an issue of levels of analysis, levels of abstraction, and how closely you look at the phenomenon. So quick analogy, language. So you say, well, in China, they speak Chinese. In Korea, they speak Korean. In Brazil, they speak Portuguese. So look how culturally infinitely variable languages are, which they are at that level. But do humans have a universal human innate grammar? And I think the evidence points to the answer yes to that. At least that's what Steve Pink or Paul Bloom and some others argue. So at one level of abstraction, things are infinitely culturally variable, or at least highly culturally variable. At another level of abstraction, there's universality. So here's one example in the mating domain of this. So Margaret Mead, who is a famous anthropologist, studied the Samoan Islanders, and she tried to argue basically for the infinite malleability of things like gender and gender roles and so forth. And she said, look at this culture. In this culture, it's the men who paint their face, whereas in Western cultures, it's the women who wear makeup and so forth. Well, it turns out if you look carefully at the culture where men paint their face, they're painting war paint on their face. They're not putting on makeup to enhance their cues to youth and cues to health. They're putting on war paint to make themselves more ferocious or to demarcate what tribe they're in, what coalition they're in. And so at sort of one level of abstraction, you could say, well, there's high cultural variability in application of face paint, but in another level, there's really a fundamental functional difference in the purpose to which the paint is applied. Yeah, and then you can abstract the paint away, and fashion in general is magnify the characteristics that are appealing to the opposite sex, because war paint is probably, it is, you're magnifying the characteristics that are appealing to the other sex. So ability to gain resources, maintain resources, is status in the hierarchy, all those kinds of things. Well, that's part of it, but I think another part has to do with, in that case, male coalitions. So we're in a intense, this is another unique characteristic. I don't know if you got into this with Richard Wrangham. I don't remember you talking about this, but he's written a lot about male coalitionary psychology, and humans cooperate to an extraordinary degree in forming coalitions for the purpose of competing with rival coalitions. And so you even see this with, well, you see it in the sports arenas, with team sports, where this team wears a different uniform than that team, they have different mascot, et cetera. And so part of that is male coalitionary psychology. Well, so you write, again, so returning to the textbook, now, people should know you wrote a lot of incredible book that is maybe more accessible than the evolutionary psychology textbook, but- The evolutionary psychology textbook is very accessible. Yes, it is extremely accessible, but that's not your thing. And on Amazon, you can't, it's a pain. It's a textbook. It's a little bit more of a pain to purchase, which I did, I bought all your books. They're amazing. We'll talk about a bunch of them. But in terms of coalitions, in chapter 12 of your evolutionary psychology textbook, you write about status, prestige, and social dominance. So how do hierarchies of status and social dominance emerge in human society? And what's the value of status in sexual selection? We talked about cues of individual health and all that kind of stuff, but what the heck's the purpose of status? Why does it matter if I'm the big boss? Well, it matters because status is influences your access to resources and your ability to influence other people within your group. And so this is part of the reason why women prioritize a man's social status, how he is viewed in the eyes of others, because high status men have access to more resources. It's interesting that you ask about that because I've just published, this is with Patrick Durkee, a former graduate student of mine. We published a couple papers on precisely this issue where we looked at what we call human status criteria. That is, what are the things that lead to increases or decreases in status? And we did this in 14 different cultures. And we found some things that are universal, but also some things that are sex differentiated. And so universal things like people value trustworthiness. They value intelligence, wisdom, knowledge. So it's even, if you go across cultures, even to the small scale cultures that we alluded to earlier, there are these wise people, wise men, wise women in the culture who have people go to for advice, for wisdom. And so having a wide range of knowledge is a universal status criterion. And there's some things that are sex differentiated, and they often fall into the mating domain as well. This is where mating and status are interestingly related to each other in that successful mating increases your status, but having high status also gives you access to more desirable mates. And so- The game gets harder and harder always. So wait, so are we talking about what are the characteristics, what's the role of power and wealth, those kinds of things? So you said wisdom is universal. Yeah. What about wealth and power? Yeah, well, I guess it depends on what you mean by power. So I think of power as the ability to influence- A large number of people. Yeah, so, and this is one of the interesting things about the fact that cash economies are evolutionarily very recent, in that people are like, so I guess recently, or it's about to happen, that Elon Musk is gonna buy Twitter. Okay, where it says- Yeah, it's happened. Has it happened already? Yeah. Okay, so they say that the wealthiest, or one of the wealthiest men on Earth has now purchased the most influential media platform on Earth. And so obviously you or I couldn't compete with Elon Musk for the purchase of Twitter. And so the fact that cash economies allow the stockpiling of unprecedented amounts of wealth produces these tremendous power differentials that didn't exist in over most of human evolutionary history. So their wealth is power, but you can also be, power can be attained through other ways. Yeah, but I would say that the interesting thing about wealth is that it's an infinitely fungible resource. So you can use it and translate it into many, many other things, like buying Twitter or buying a big house, or even getting mates or an artificial, I don't know if you wanna get into that at all, but I know they have these sex dolls or virtual reality sex that some people are developing. If you have enough resources, you can purchase things like that. So you can translate wealth into a variety of other tangible things in ways that you couldn't ancestrally. So- That's one really powerful thing, but there is still power that's correlated, but not intricately connected to wealth, which is like being leaders of nations. Like technically the president of the United States' salary is not very high. Right. Presidents, and then you go outside of that and to the half of the world that's living under authoritarian regimes, you have dictators. And those are very powerful, usually men. And presumably there's some value there in the mating selection aspect. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And it's not by chance that most of them are men. And this is gonna sound strange or, and hopefully not offensive to people, but if you ask the question, why is it the case that men are in positions of power so much more so than women? Well, in part, it can be traced to women's mate preferences. So it's one of the sex differences that women have over evolutionary time preferred men who had power, status, resources, et cetera. And what that has done is it's created selection pressure on men to attach a high motivational priority to clawing their way up the status hierarchy. And studies of time allocation distribution show this, where men are, they're more willing to sacrifice their friends, their grandmother, their kin or whatever to claw their way up to the top of status hierarchies. Women, much less so. Women spend more effort maintaining relationships with their kin, with their friends, their friend networks and so forth. And so in a way, you could say, not only are men in positions of power more than women, now you're blaming women for why they are. And it's not a matter of blame, but I think that what I just outlined is an essential part of the causal process, the co-evolution of women's mate preferences with men's motivational priorities. How much do you think these mating strategies underlie all of human civilization? Like what motivates us? You know, there's Becker with the denial of death. Like why do we build castles and bridges and rockets and the internet and all of this? Is it some complex mush or is it underneath it all? Are we all just trying to get laid? Well, I wouldn't reduce it to something quite as trying to get laid, but I think mating is certainly part of it. I wonder how big of a part, because with Ernest Becker, the idea is that we're all trying to achieve an illusion of immortality. So we're trying to create something that outlasts us and therefore we create bigger and bigger things in societies and bridges and architecture. What's missing from Becker's analysis is, it's a fascinating book to read, Denial of Death, but what's missing is that I think that the reason that, and again, I think it's more men than women, I think there's a sex difference on this, that men want to build a lasting legacy because that will in turn affect their lineage. And although I do, now Woody Allen is out of favor, but I remember this quote from him. He said he didn't want to achieve immortality through his work, he wanted to achieve immortality by not dying. Oh boy, the funny ones are also deeply flawed often. Staying on the topic of sex differences in a very different way, perhaps. So dominance and submissiveness, something you've also written about. What's the role of that inside relationships about this human dynamic of dominance and submissiveness? Is that a feature or a bug? So the stable state that these dynamical systems arrive at, is it good to have an equality within a relationship, or is it good to have differences in a relationship? Are you talking about romantic relationships or just in human relationships? Romantic, probably, because unless it could be generalized to human relationships, perhaps it could be generalized to human relationships. I wasn't thinking that, but perhaps it could be. But let's start with romantic, I guess one-on-one. I'm personally in favor of equality on that dimension within romantic relationships. I don't talk about my personal life, but I've been in relationships, and the best ones tend to be those where there's equality and one person does not dominate the other. But I guess the reason I ask you is in what type of relationships, because there are some things like coalitions where hierarchy is very important to the function of the coalition. So it's like if you're like a war coalition or something in small group warfare, you can't just have equality. You have to have leaders that are determining the battle plan, so to speak. And so if you're attacking a neighboring group or something and everyone gets an equal say, it's not gonna work that way. And so we tend to appoint as leaders those who are, it doesn't always work out well, but those who are presumably wise or good, effective leaders and even talk about, and I'm sure you're familiar with this, and I'm not an expert on this, but wartime leaders versus peacetime leaders. And so, again, it depends on what the goal is of the group that you are a part of. And so I think there is functionality and utility to a lot of our evolved psychology of status and dominance and submissiveness. So for example, and you have to look at the individual psychology, and this is actually something I'm currently studying, again, with Patrick Durkee, where one advantage of the status hierarchies is that you're not always battling. So you determine, and that's why, here's another sexually dimorphic aspect of our psychology, formidability assessment. So there's evidence that males engage in this, can I take this guy or can he take me? And it's like a- The entirety of my life, yes. It's like a spontaneous assessment of formidability. And it also, that information is critical because that means who you should not challenge or who you can challenge with impunity. So, and there's functionality to submitting as well, because you defer to someone so that you don't get vanquished and you live to see another day. So I think we actually have a very rich psychology of status hierarchies and dominance and submissiveness. So especially sort of violent conflict, yes. But back to relationships. So maybe phrased another way, what is masculinity, what is femininity? Is there value inside a relationship for differences? You talked about mating, mating strategies with the dating stage where you're selecting the mate, but also within, mating broadly defined as the entirety of the process. Should those differences be magnified and celebrated or sort of suppressed? I've seen enough different relationships work and I've seen enough relationships implode to say there's not one size fits all on these things. So even with respect to masculinity and femininity, some reduce it psychologically to two other terms, which are agency and communion. So where agency is, are you instrumental, goal-oriented, get tasks done, et cetera. Communion is more the love and forming connections with other people and so forth. And I published a study a while back on what's called unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion. So there are like good and bad aspects of agency and communion. So there's toxic, as they say, masculinity, toxic femininity, you can just rephrase that saying there could be toxic agency and toxic communion. Yeah, yeah. And so some elements of masculinity, the unmitigated masculinity is, I think, terrible. I was actually walking around downtown Austin earlier today and I'll just give you this example. And this guy was, I guess, stuck and wanted the car ahead of him to move. And all of a sudden he screamed out of his, move your fucking car! And then jumped out of his car and to a person, to me, that's toxic masculinity, if you will. We don't need that. Yeah, so, and by the way, as somebody who worked with cars quite a long time in terms of human interaction with semi-autonomous vehicles, it's so fascinating how the car and traffic brings out the worst in human nature, in a sense, or maybe to rephrase that, it maybe challenges you to explore something that in terms of temper, in terms of anger, in terms of anxiety that you have been bottling up. There's something where the car is like a vessel for psychological experiment of how much stress you can take. And some people, that stress is like heating, it's making the water boil. And it's fascinating to see what that results in. I think if you are the kind of person that explodes emotionally in traffic, that means there's deeper issues to sort of confront. And it seems like the traffic and the car is a place where you get to confront the shadow, Carl Jung's shadow. There's something deep within that that we don't often fish. We're alone with ourselves and we get to see who we truly are. Yeah, well, yeah, it can bring out road rage. And also there's this, I don't know, when you're in the vehicle, you have this shell around you. And so there's this feeling that you are protected from. Yes, so you could be yourself, you could be your true self in this moment. And sometimes that true self in this moment is an angry, screaming person, which means you have to introspect that shadow, shine a light. Let me ask you about something that's ongoing currently. It'd be fascinating to get your opinion on. So something I've been watching, some of the world has been watching, is the defamation trial brought by Johnny Depp against Amber Heard. Have you gotten a chance to watch any of it? I haven't watched it, but I've read some reports of it. What's your analysis on this particular dynamic? We talked about toxicity in the space of agency and communion. What do you make of this relationship that's presented to the world in its raw form? You know, I don't have strong opinions on it. I think in this stage in the trial, we've heard from him primarily. We have not, and we should say, for people listening, in case this is published a little bit later, we have not heard from Amber Heard. Right, not heard from Heard. If we haven't heard from Heard, we're doing that, that's going to be happening this week. I don't know. I think that I've seen, and this is another topic that I have studied, is intima partner violence and some of the nastier stuff that goes on within relationships. And I think that when this nasty stuff happens, sometimes it's asymmetrical, but sometimes it's symmetrical in the sense that they get into these downward spirals where one is insulting the other, or even with physical violence, one starts pushing the other, shoving the other, hitting the other, and then the other hits back. And so you get into these cycles. And so coming at one point in time, in this case of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, years later and trying to disentangle what actually went on in their relationship, I don't feel qualified even to do that. Well, it's fascinating to see. So first, I mean, I have a lot of opinions, particularly because I'm just a fan of Johnny Depp as a person and a fan of Johnny Depp, the actor, and the kind of characters he created. The person, because maybe this is fiction, maybe this is reality, but they tend to rhyme. And mirror each other, but his fascination with Hunter S. Thompson, and there's some aspect of him taking on the Hunter S. Thompson personality, where there's this layers upon layers of wit and humor, and also anxiety and darkness with the drug use and all that kind of stuff. So it's very human, very real person. And so you get to, one of the beautiful things about this trial is you get to basically have a long-form podcast. And you get to reveal the complexity of this human, the humor under pressure, under stress, but also just the rawness of love, the things that love makes you do, or whatever that is. Whatever the things that keeps us in relationships that are toxic in that turmoil, the hope, the self-delusion, the push and pull of longing and fights, the ups and downs, whatever the- Yeah, the rollercoaster. The rollercoaster. The make-up sex. Yeah, exactly. You know, yeah. And the questions arise whether that's a feature or a bug. Like, why are we drawn to that? You mentioned inmate selection, for long-term mate selection, I think you said women, I think maybe both don't want a kind of, you had scientific and eloquent words to use, but basically crazy people. You want somebody who's stable. Emotionally unstable, yeah. Yeah, so. But here it seems like maybe we're drawn to that still. Like flies to the light. Right, well, it can be addictive, but it's not good for long-term relationships. I mean, that characteristic, and there is a stable personality characteristic. It goes under different names, anxiety, neuroticism, emotional lability, et cetera, but that's the single personality characteristic that is most predictive of breakups and divorces. And in studies that I've done, predictive of conflict in couples, people who are emotionally unstable, they just get into a lot of conflict with their partner. They create havoc. So. That can be exciting, but bad for long-term happiness. They seek conflict in order to attain intimacy. So conflict creates attention. Yeah. If you take intimacy broadly, it's intimate. If you're like raw, fragile, you're right there. Yeah, well, and I mean, there's one hypothesis that was put forward by an Israeli biologist named Amos Zahavi called the testing of a bond. And so he asked the question, like why do people inflict costs on their partner? Even like kissing, you're introducing, it's a disease vector. Why do people do these weird things, inflicting costs, or emotional liability is a way of inflicting costs. And what he argues is it's the testing of a bond. If the person's willing to tolerate this level of stress, this level of cost imposition, then that means they must be very committed to me. And so, and I think that's something people do in romantic relationships, is they do test the strength of the bond. They test the commitment of the person. And I think that's a feature, not a bug, in the sense that, especially in the early stages of love, romantic love, we tend to overly romanticize and idealize our partner. So when there's an absence of evidence, we impute positive values. And this is one of my recommendations to friends that I know is, if you're really considering a good long-term commitment to this person, go on vacation with them. Ideally to a foreign country where both of you are unfamiliar. Oh, I love it. Road trip or something like that. Yeah, so where you experience unexpected things, stresses, get a flat tire or whatever you encounter, and you see how the person deals with stress, and you see how you deal with each other under stress. And I think that that's, unless you have put stress tests on relationships, you really don't know where things stand. Yeah, that's a beautiful way to put it. I'm a huge fan of that, like road trip. And not just late in a relationship, like day one. Yeah. Road trip. Not day one, day negative one, before it even happens. And see, stress test, because it makes everybody better. It creates intimacy, or it creates, it creates or it destroys. But, you know, on the Johnny, so they also, they both suffered childhood abuse. One of the things that I took away from the trial, for me, it was just educational. I don't get to see inside, as most of us maybe don't, like toxic relationships or fights and so on. A lot of things that people maybe do inside of relationships and we don't get to see it presented in such a raw way. So, well, one of the things I learned is that, you know, in terms of partner violence, a woman too can be violent. Yeah, absolutely. That to me, so emotionally and physically violent, that, I almost don't want to, you know, Amber Heard, I mean, there's no limit to my dislike for that person in particular, because clearly, to me at least, I stand with Johnny Depp. To me, that guy is full of love, but full of demons because he's drawn to whatever the chaos that's created there. But also, it's just an education for me that, I tend to associate sort of men with violence and toxicity and destruction inside relationships, but it was interesting to see that women too can be like directly violent. Yeah. And men too, which was also surprising to me, have the capacity to stay in such a relationship but to not walk away, which is what I thought is my, in terms of toxic, violent relationships, I thought there's a male figure who will do emotional and physical, mostly physical violence and then kind of manipulate the mind of the female to stay in the relationship. But that dynamic can go both ways. Yeah, it does go both ways. And I think even the emotional abuse is sometimes even worse than the physical abuse. I mean, you see that in studies of, even like childhood abuse, where it's the emotional abuse that is the most damaging. What about the role of jealousy? Something you also written about in a relationship. Is that a feature or a bug? You started to speak about, but is it good to be jealous of your partner inside of a relationship? How does it go wrong? The pros and cons. So I've written a whole book on this called The Dangerous Passion, Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Sex and Love. And I think that one cut at your question is that, so first of all, I think it's a feature, not a bug in most cases. So in the sense that you have to have an adaptation that is sensitive to threats to a valued relationship. Because, and I think I alluded to this earlier, that just because you're in a relationship and you're in a relationship with a desirable partner, it doesn't mean that you've finished solving the problems of mating that you need to solve. Because there are threats from the outside. So mate poachers, people who try to lure your partner away for either a sexual encounter or a more committed romantic relationship. And then there's also dissatisfaction within the relationship. So your partner might become tempted to be sexually unfaithful or romantically unfaithful or emotionally unfaithful. And so we need humans with the evolution of long-term pair bonding, we need adaptations to guard the relationship and be sensitive to threats to the relationship. And I think jealousy is one of those. I think it's a key one. And now that I think that there are a variety of benefits to it, but also a variety of costs or downsides to jealousy. Because we know that jealousy, male sexual jealousy is the leading cause of spousal abuse and spousal violence, physical violence, probably emotional violence as well, or psychological violence. And so that's why I call it the dangerous passion. It's a necessary emotion, but it is also a dangerous emotion. Leads to homicide. You know, leads to... And I've studied also homicidal ideation, which is intersects with this topic in that men, sometimes women to a lesser degree, develop homicidal ideation about people who are trying to poach their mates or who do poach their mates, successfully poach their mates. So what jealousy does is it alerts you to a threat to the relationship, and it motivates checking out the source of the threat. How threatening is this? So people tend to increase vigilance of their partner in the modern world, that includes hacking into their cell phone or computer, monitoring them, sometimes stalking them, but also can include positive things. So it might be that... So one trigger of jealousy is a direct threat to the relationship, but there's another more subtle trigger of jealousy, which is a mate value discrepancy. So usually when people mate, they assort or pair up on overall mate value. So in the American 10-point scale, the eights tend to pair up with the eights, the sixes with the sixes, the tens with the tens, and the ones with the ones. The American, is there other scales? I wonder if the numerical systems, well, there's a binary. I just call it the binary, zero, one. Sorry, go ahead. The eighth pair is with the eights, sevens, and sixes. Yeah, yeah, so in general, but there are errors in mate selection. You kind of alluded to that issue earlier that sometimes people make errors in mate selection, which they do. So sometimes you think this person is well-matched on mate value, but they're not. But then things change. So let's say they're the same, you have two sixes, and then all of a sudden the woman's career takes off. All of a sudden she's getting promotion, she's acquiring wealth, she's attracting men who are of a different mate value than she previously did. Well, that triggers jealousy in the guy. Even if she swears she's gonna be totally loyal and she has no signs of leaving or no signs of infidelity, a mate value discrepancy is gonna trigger jealousy. Now, what can it do? Well, it can do, in the broadest sense, people can do two classes of things. They can do cost-inflicting things or benefit-providing things. So the man in that situation might say, okay, I need to devote more attention to my partner. I need to up my game when it comes to resource acquisition. I need to lavish more attention and gifts on her. And so there's a whole suite of benefit-provisioning things that can help to reduce that mate value discrepancy. And then there's also cost-inflicting things. And humans, unfortunately, do both sets of things. Yeah, there's also this, maybe that's love. I notice the people I especially love or have a connection to, romantically or otherwise, there's a feeling like I don't deserve you. So with friends, with so on, like, I mean, I tend to think that about almost everything, which is why it's a strong signal when I don't feel it that way, which is like, I can't, how lucky am I to have this? And that's a weird illusion of inflation of value or something. I think that the positive effect of that is it motivates me to be better, I guess on this one to 10 scale, to be higher. And you sort of kinda have to, it's a nice feature that your mind sees others that you have affection towards as higher value, and it forces you to have that. I'm a person that experiences jealousy, and that forces me to be better. I get my shit together. Well, and I think that sometimes the best relationships are when both people feel lucky to be with the other person. Yes, exactly, it's balanced that way. And then that's when you, in terms of jobs, in terms of going to the gym, all those kinds of things. And yeah, so a little bit of jealousy. I have discussion with those people. I always wonder, there's people in relationships where like, no, no, they never experienced jealousy. I wonder what that's like, because they're very successful relationships. And I always wonder, I'm currently single, so I always doubt that I know what the hell I'm doing at all. But I'm definitely somebody that experiences jealousy and kind of enjoys jealousy, like a little bit. I like missing, to me that's like, you're missing the other person. Yeah, well- Or longing for the other person. And here's another interesting wrinkle that I also talk about in the book is, sometimes people intentionally evoke jealousy in their partner. And I think that's also a kind of testing of a bond kind of issue. So, and especially women, but I think both sexes interpret a total absence of jealousy as a sign that their partner is not sufficiently committed to them or sufficiently in love with them. So if you like to say, I don't know, if you go to a party with your partner and then you leave the room for some reason, you come back and your partner is passionately kissing someone else and doesn't bother you at all, that might be a cue to the partner that maybe you're not very in love with that person or not very committed to them. And so- So it's a good way to test. That said, I mean, I love the term mate poaching, by the way. I believe here in Texas, mate poaching is officially legal. So I'm allowed to, one of my favorite songs by Hendrix is Hey Joe. Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand? Yeah. And yeah, I actually always wanted to play that song, but I get, I start to think about guns and so on. I think it's supposed to capture a feeling. It's not actual violence. It's saying, I'm gonna shoot my old lady. I caught her messing around with another man. That's a blues type of feeling, like of anger, of, I guess, for mate poaching, for mate switching, performed by the partner, and then the frustration and the anger that's resulting there. I always wondered why the violence is directed towards the partner versus the person who did the other male. It tends to be evenly split. So sometimes, and that's, I mean, men especially, when someone poaches on their mate, they have homicidal fantasies. Towards which, equally split? Towards the mate poacher, yeah, but equally split. So it's, I think the non-lethal violence tends to be more directed toward the mate because it's, and this is a horrible thing of male sexual psychology, but I think part of the violence is functional in the sense that it's designed to keep a mate and prevent her from engaging in anything with other potential mate poachers. But people do. So even, I mean, so as it goes back to the French law where they had the so-called crime of passion. So if a husband walked in and found his wife having sex with some other guy in bed and shot him, that was viewed as a crime of passion. It's still not legal, but you kind of get a discount for it. Whereas if he goes home, thinks about it for a while, then gets the gun and comes back, then that's premeditated murder. Yeah, see, to me, I guess everybody's different. To me, I have zero anger towards the partner in that situation. To me, because that's definitive proof of disloyalty. So like, what's the function of the anger there? To me, all of my anger is towards the guy, the poacher. Because some of it has to do probably with the status establishing. Like, what was the term you used? Formidability? Yeah, formidability assessment. Assessment, and I'm like, wait, wait, wait. Did you just say you're more formidable than me in this situation? I wanna reestablish, at least in my own mind, the formidability. And that seems to be, I guess we're all different, but maybe because I roll around with guys a lot, like grapple and wrestling, all that kind of stuff. To me, to establish status is competing with other males, not with the female. Because that's a break of loyalty. Like, what's the point of anger at this point? That's just betrayal. Well, except that a lot of the mate poaching is discovered, or cues to mate poaching are discovered before the consummation of the act. So it might be just- Oh, like the emotional cheating leading up to it. Yeah, or mild flirtation, things like that. And so the violence is designed to head off the threat before it becomes real. Boy, aren't human relations, especially romantic ones, complicated? Very. Very, dude. Very. But that's what makes them so fascinating to study. And so, yes, exactly. From a science perspective, and to study from within, sort of like Richard Rangham with the chimps, like, you know, be in it. Study from the end of one perspective. What do you make of polyamory? So what the heck is, what do you make of marriage? What are your thoughts about marriage? What are your thoughts about lifelong monogamy? What's your thoughts about polyamory, given that we've been talking about ideas of mate switching and poaching and all that kind of stuff? Yeah, I think that we evolved to be, I prefer the term pair-bonded species. So pair-bonding is one of the strategies. Pair-bonded long-term mating is one of the strategies. But that doesn't necessarily mean for decades and decades and our lifelong, because we often pair-bond serially. So we get into a relationship that might last a year or five years and then break up and then form another relationship. So we engage in serial mating. We engage in infidelity. We engage in some short-term mating. And so we have what I describe as a menu of mating strategies. And which particular mating strategy an individual adopts depends on a wide variety of factors. I think some are just kind of personal proclivities. Some depend on your mate value. So if you are an eight, a nine, or a 10, you have more options for what mating strategy you wanna pursue. If you're a one or a two, you're not gonna be able to be polyamorous in all likelihood. There's a lot of attention to polyamory now. And it's unclear whether there's an increase in it or whether people are just talking about it more. It is the case, and I know several people who are in polyamorous relationships, and I've talked with them in detail about them. And jealousy is often a factor in that. And they describe it as kind of like an emotion that has to be somehow tamed or dealt with in some way. And so in polyamory, there are many different types of polyamory. So in like one type, for example, is you have a primary love partner and then some others on the side that are permitted, usually within, in consensual terms, within an explicit contract that the primary partners work out. So it's okay if you, I know as one couple, it's okay if you do it outside the city limits of Los Angeles, but not within. Some say it's okay for Thursday, but I want the weekend, Friday and Saturday nights to me. It's okay if there's sexual involvement, but no emotional involvement. So there are different strategies that people work out, and some of them are designed to try to keep jealousy at bay. So I think it's an evolved emotion that is a natural emotion that people experience. Now, interestingly, while we're on this topic, there's a sex difference therein, namely if you contrast sexual jealousy with emotional jealousy, or sexual infidelity with emotional infidelity. And so in one set of studies, I put my participants, or we used to call them subjects, into this, what I call the Sophie's Choice of the jealousy dilemmas. I said, imagine your partner became interested in someone else, and you discover that they have had passionate sexual intercourse with this person, and they've gotten emotionally involved with them, they've fallen in love with them. Which aspect of the infidelity upsets you more? And when you, and that's why I call it the Sophie's Choice, both terrible choices, right? Yeah. But men, much more likely to say the sexual infidelity is what upsets me. More women, it's like, why are you even asking me? It's a no-brainer. 85% of the women say the emotional infidelity is what bothers them more. Former student of mine, Barry Cooley, did a really interesting study of analysis of this reality show called Cheaters. I've actually never seen it, but where if you suspect your partner of cheating, then a detective from the TV team will follow the person, and then they'll call up and say, we've just found your husband here in the No-Tell Motel. Do you wanna come down and talk to him? And so what he analyzed, though, was the verbal interrogations that people had when they confronted their partner, and women wanted to know, are you in love with her? Men wanted to know, did you fuck him? Or did you have sex with him? And so it's this sex difference in sensitivity to these different cues of infidelity. And of course, there's an evolutionary logic to this sex difference, and it's been replicated, not the Cheaters study, but the hypothetical Sophie's Choice study has been replicated now in Sweden and China, and it's a universal sex difference. So given that sex difference, and you mentioned another one that just returned to, which is in the engineering disciplines. Yeah, person, thing, orientation. So until I started to see, writing about it in the psychology literature, I observed this anecdotally a lot. And the reason I observed it is I was confused. So I care a lot about robots, I'm a robotics person. And so a lot of males in the robotics community really didn't care about what's called the human-robot interaction problem, which is like robots when they interact with humans. And then a lot of females, all brilliant, in the robotics community, cared about the human-robot interaction. They cared about the human, what the robot communicates with the human, human in the picture, human in the loop. And I was really confused, because the difference to me in my anecdotal interactions, but the N is quite large there. Like I'm in the robotics community, I know a lot of people. And I was confused because for me, I really care about human-robot interaction. I care about both a lot. And the same thing here in terms of emotional cheating versus physical cheating. I care a lot about both, and I have like this oscillating brain. So I wonder what that says about my brain. So I'll often wonder this, because there's specific sex differences that are represented in the data and the literature, and I seem to oscillate depending on mood. And I wonder what that says about me. Why do I care so much about that robot on the floor? I care not, half I care about how it works, and the other half, how it makes other people feel. What is that? Yeah, so I guess what I would say, this gets back to our earlier discussion of agency and communion, where I actually think that it's a sign of being well-balanced to have both capacities within you. And so you get people who are unimodal, or they just have one mode of operating. Let's say it's the thing mode, which engineers tend to be good at. You have to be good at it to be a good engineer, because things have to actually work. You know, it's not in some dream or hypothetical state, things have to actually work. But with the agency and communion, I think it's good to have a balance. And that's why I think some of the best romantic relationships are those where people are, they're high on what they used to call androgyny, where they have both the positive features of agency and communion, the positive features of masculinity and femininity within the same mix, but also with the footnote of not the unmitigated agency or unmitigated communion, both of which can be negative. And so I view these as capacities, and some people are out of balance, some people have a good balance between the two. It sounds like you have a good balance between the two. Well, but also the allocation. I feel like it's a very dynamic thing. It's like, I'm at least aware, for me personally, of the beauty between humans, of the dance, of the push and pull, of the different moods. It's like a dynamical system. It's not two static entities fully represented and consistent through every interaction. Sometimes, you know, people might confuse the fact that I often talk about love, and I love humans, that I don't have a temper, that I don't have, like, I lose my shit all the time, especially on things I really am passionate about, like people I work with and so on. I'm all over the place. But underneath it, there's a deep love and respect for humans, but I lose my shit all the time. And that chaos, that rollercoaster, I think that's what makes human relations awesome. I mean, the push and pull of it. Of course, it can oscillate too far, which is when it becomes Amber Heard type of situation, when it turns to emotional or physical violence, when it turns to jealousy, crosses a line where it's hurtful. And there's, like, it crosses that vast gray landscape of what is abuse versus what is just beautiful turmoil of human nature, right? Yes, yeah. And it's complicated, yeah. Yeah, it's complicated and it's dynamic. And I would just add to that, I thought you phrased that brilliantly, but I would just add to that, it also depends on sort of what you're trying to do. And so I think some of the oscillation can be what task, what problem you're trying to solve. And so if you're, I don't know, trying to build a bridge or something, you need to be very thing-oriented and make sure the damn thing actually works and doesn't collapse when a car goes over it. If you're trying to form a relationship and you're entirely thing-oriented, it's not gonna work. And that's one of the people, one of the things with, and males tend to be more on the so-called spectrum side of things where one of the hallmarks is a deficit in social mind reading. Just to add to your point about, I guess I've already made it, that of the dynamic properties of the rollercoaster is depending on what problem you're trying to solve, you might wanna toggle back and forth to one pole or the other. You wrote a book called Why Women Have Sex, Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge, that sounds fun, and Everything in Between. So why do women have sex? Well, I co-wrote it with a female, who is Cindy Meston, a wonderful friend and colleague and co-author and co-collaborator. I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to write a book called Why Women Have Sex by myself as a male. Did you contribute anything to this book? I'm just kidding. I did, but I have to tell you a story about the origins of this idea, which I give credit to Cindy Meston for. She's a colleague in the psychology department with me, and we would go out to dinner once a week or so, and we were just talking about this. She raised this issue. And so we started to brainstorm. Originally, it was why humans have sex, and that's the scientific article we published was why humans, because we're interested in males and females. And so I said, I would come up, well, they have sex because of X. And then Cindy Meston would come up, she'd say, oh, here are seven other reasons. And then I'd come up with one more, and she'd come up with another seven. And so it was like, so she's in some sense, importantly, the originator or fountain of this idea. But- Oh, so she's able, there's something about the way she thinks about sexuality that's able to deeply introspect about reasons for sex. Yeah, and probably especially about female sexuality. And this is one of the interesting things and why it's so fun for me to collaborate with, in this case, female, because they do have a different sexual psychology than males. And I've noticed this, that's why in my graduate, so I've had 30 or so PhD students, about half have been male, half have been female. And the women come up with different questions, different scientific questions that I wouldn't have thought of necessarily. And so anyway, so it turned out to be a good collaboration. I will say that we co-wrote it and that I did contribute to it. And especially the evolutionary insights. So is there a good few words you can say to why women have sex? What are some primary motivations? Well, we originally came up with a list of 237 reasons for why humans have sex. And they range from some of the obvious ones, because it feels good, because I want it to relieve stress, to relieve menstrual cramps, to get rid of a headache, to get my boyfriend off my back so I could get some work done, so things like that. To others, like, here's another one, so that he'd take out the damn garbage. Yeah, yeah. That was one. But another one, it was kind of interesting that one nomination was to get closer to God. So there were some that were kind of spiritual motivations for having sex. And then some of the nastier ones, like to get revenge on my partner or to get revenge on a rival. So that's like sleeping with my rival's boyfriend. So there's some nasty stuff and some good stuff in there. It's so fascinating, because yeah, sex has such a powerful role in our psychology, but also in our culture. So you can make significant statements in the status hierarchy about the selection of your sexual partner. It's interesting, so it's not just because you're horny. It's all those other kinds of things. Yeah, well, horniness is one. But there are other reasons. What about different kinds of sex? So, again, this is not the Humor Room and Lab podcast. Rough sex versus, quote, making love. What's the explanation between all of that? All the various kinks. Now, that's just a basic sort of split, but all the different kinks that humans establish, all the different fantasies and all those kinds of things. Yeah, well, that's a complicated question, for which I don't think we have sufficient time to get into that in detail. And it is complicated, because there are some sexual fantasies that, sexual fantasies, by the way, I think are a really fascinating window into our sexual psychology, because in a way, they're unconstrained by things like rules and norms in society and cultural presses that you're kind of free to fantasize about whatever you wanna fantasize about. So I think it provides an interesting window into human sexuality. And there are some predictable ones, and then there are some also individual or idiosyncratic ones. And again, there's a fundamental sex difference in this, in that when you talk about fetishes or shoe fetishes, leather fetishes, different types of things, males are much more prone to those than females. Shoe fetish, you said? Shoe fetish, almost all fetishes. Males are overrepresented. And I think it's partly because there's some evidence that they're classically conditioned. So I think that first or early sexual experiences that people have kind of condition them to the cues that are present during those early ones. And so if your first sexual experience happened to be involved with visual images of shoes, or you're having them looking at shoes when you first had sex, as just an example, or leather or zippers or whatever the case is, that people develop these very individualistic sexual turn-ons based on these early sexual experiences. So it could also be, you said have sex, but it could also be sexual feelings, early sexual feelings. So I wonder what that is about men, that they have a more, when they first start experiencing sexual feelings, that they're more sensitive to the cues, and those cues somehow have a deep psychological effect on their development of their sexuality. So if they have kinks, that means they're somehow more cue sensitive, and maybe, does the matter of society slap someone on the wrist for it? Does that help solidify the kinks? Yeah, I don't know about the society slapping on the wrist, but I think what it is is this, I think this is the evolutionary hypothesis anyway about why there's this sex difference. And that is that men are conditioned to anything that's gonna lead to sex, because whereas women don't have to be. From a male perspective, because of women's greater investment, because the nine-month pregnancy, et cetera, in order to reproduce, women have to invest this tremendous amount. Men don't. One act of sex can produce an offspring, and so, for men, but not for women. And so this huge asymmetry in investment means that the payoff matrix of different sexual strategies differs for the sexes. In that context, women become the valuable and scarce resource over which men compete. So anything that leads to successful sex is gonna be selected for it. And so men are very sensitive to being sexually conditioned. That's what's called sexual conditioning, to whatever cues are associated with sex happening. From a woman's perspective, sex is not a scarce resource. So a woman could go out here in Austin any night, or probably any day on 6th Street, and have no problem having sex with a guy within 10 minutes. Guy would have more difficulty. He's not gonna go out, unless he's Johnny Depp or really, really charming. Yeah, yeah, that's a fascinating dimorphism or asymmetry in our mate selection. What do you think is the effect on this young male brain, a female too, of pornography? So one of the fascinating things that the digital world brought us, now I grew up at a time when a magazine, like a Victoria's Secret magazine was my source of sexual inspiration. But that was before the internet. And now the internet with pornography makes it extremely accessible. All kinds of kinks, all kinds of wild variety. I mean, variety in quantity is immense. So what do you think that has, how that affects mate selection, mating, and just the human psychology of the two sexes of the species? Yeah, great question, a big question. So I mean, we could have a whole podcast just on that or at least talk for a while about it. So I'll just say a couple things about that. One is, again, there's a sex difference. And I feel like I'm a broken record here, hammering on this, but it is- So a lot of, just to actually echo the thing, please be a broken record, because it's interesting. The more we get to the mating, the more the sex differences present themselves. They surface. Yeah, yeah, that's right. In many psychological domains, there are no sex differences, or the sexes are very similar. But pornography is consumed, about 80% of the consumers are men. So it is very heavily a male consumer industry, if you will. And I think that it can have positive and negative effects depending on the circumstance. So one potential negative effect is that men might develop unrealistic expectations about what sex will be like or should be like in real life. And so I remember actually this, I just heard about this one case of, won't mention any names, where a man got married and he had been accustomed to seeing very large breasts in his pornography consumption, and discovered that his wife had what he perceived to be very small breasts. In fact, they were actually just medium size. But because he had been so heavily exposed to pornography and the artificially enhanced breast size that is often depicted in pornography, that he had come to expect something that was unrealistic. In this case, not leading, that's not the way to lead off to a great sex life with your wife by being disappointed in her breast size. So I think that people can develop, in this case, men, unrealistic expectations, also about the kind of sexual acrobatics that porn stars engage in. And when they get in real life situations, you can put pressure on women to become, to fulfill those kinds of images. But the other thing, the other kind of detrimental effect that it has is, and this is something that is emerging culturally, is I think it has a dampening effect on men's pursuit of real life relationships. Because in some sense, it kind of bleeds off some of that sex drive or sexual desire, sexual energy. And so they're, and some men get addicted to it. So they're spending hours and hours and hours a day consuming pornography. And so I think it can have a detrimental effect even on men's ambition. Yeah, there's something really powerful about that sexual energy, not to be all like spiritual about it, but it seems like that's somehow correlated with ambition. So like one of the things that pornography can take away is like exactly as you said, is your pursuit of love out there, including women, but also love of things, meaning like building awesome, epic things. So the love of both bridges and women. Yeah. Bridge building and relationship building. Yeah, there's something about that energy. And also, yeah, there's a sort of a vicious downward spiral because it somehow staunts your development because it limits social interaction that the push and pull of romantic social interaction, it cuts the edge off of that. And it forces you to be, to spend way too much time with yourself without the development of that social interaction. I don't know, but there, so outside of the expectations on all those kinds of things, it seems to have a detrimental effect on the development of the human mind. Yeah. What is that? I don't, because some of that is echoed and people talk about the metaverse, that some of our life would be in the digital space. And it's like, on one hand, well, if it brings you happiness, if it brings you joy, short-term and long-term, why is the metaverse not the same or better than the real world? But there is something still missing. And what is that? Something of the pleasure you feel with porn is still missing. It's really not representing some of the fundamental pleasure you feel when you interact with real people. And that could be just the growth you experience. Like real people can reject you. The challenge, again, the push and pull, all of that, the dance of human relations. Yeah, yeah, and the exploration of your sexuality. So on porn, you can kind of passively explore because you can see, as you mentioned, a wide variety of things and people do that. But in terms of exploring your own sexuality, I think there's no replacement for a real human being. So you've written about violence. And here we're talking about porn and sex. I don't know if you have thoughts on this, but I'd love to ask your opinion on, quote, incels. So here I would like to quote Wikipedia. They define incels as members of an online subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one. They also write, now, I don't know if Wikipedia is the accurate source about incels, but here it is. They write, quote, at least eight mass murders resulting in a total of 61 deaths have been committed since 2014 by men who have either self-identified as incels or who had mentioned incel-related names and writings in their private writings or internet postings. Incel communities have been criticized by researchers and the media for being misogynistic, encouraging violence, spreading extremist views, and radicalizing their members. Is there some insight that you draw from this connection of sex and lack of sex to violence? Well, I think sex and violence are linked in various ways. And it's not just incels. So if you look at serial killers, for example, and this is another thing that I've, true crime is kind of an avocation of mine. I just enjoy reading about true crime and following true crime stories. It's an avocation. Hobby. A hobby. Side interest. Super fancy word for hobby, I got it, cool. That, like Ted Bundy, he was actually very charming and didn't have any trouble attracting women, but his killing spree started shortly after he was rejected by a very high status, attractive woman, and he felt a rage about being rejected by her. Now, who knows, that's an N of one, and we don't know if being rejected causes serial killing per se, but sex and violence are related in different ways. I argue, and I haven't studied the incel community in detail, I actually have an incoming graduate student who's gonna start in the fall who has been studying the incels, and so he'll have a more informed picture, but my attitude is there are ways to improve your mate value. If you're having trouble attracting a mate, there are ways to improve your mate value, because a lot of things that women want in a mate are improvable. Women want guys who are compassionate, who are understanding, who are ambitious, who acquire resources, et cetera, who are physically fit. There are things you can do to improve your mate value, and so I would say rather than, I would encourage incels or the incel communities, rather than being hostile toward women or being angry at women, just do things to improve your mate value, and then you will be more successful at attracting women. Yeah, I mean, some of it, that's a fascinating, so your student will be studying that. Listen, I love the internet. The internet always wins, and there's a fascinating aspect too, which is just humor. And I'm fascinated by seeing the humor, whether it's 4chan or Reddit and all that kind of stuff, where people maybe will self-identify as incels as a joke, basically representing the fact that it's hard to get women. This is the struggle, the struggle, and for women it's hard to get a mate that they, they're basically jokingly representing the challenges, the difficulty of the mate selection process, that the desirable group is smaller than the entire group, that's it. And they're joking about it. But then it's interesting how quickly humor, again, the dynamical system, it can turn into anger. And that, on the internet, is so interesting to watch, like how trolling, light trolling, is humor, but it can turn into aggression. And I've just seen, it's weird. It's weird how, this is true on the internet, but you also just look at the dark aspects of the 20th century that I've been reading a lot about, how kind of lighthearted things turn dark quickly. And it's interesting. I don't know what to make of it, because it's basically sexual frustration that all humans feel, it's dating in general, it can turn into anger, can turn into sophisticated, philosophical constructs, like about how the world works, of who really is pulling the strings. And that turns some of the worst crimes committed by the Nazis, for example, or by extremely intelligent people, that's constructed models of how the world works. And there's something about sexual frustration is one of the really powerful forces that could be a catalyst for constructing such models. And once you've done that, shit gets a lot more serious. And it's no longer joke, it's serious. But at the same time, when you just look from the surface, it's kind of jokes. It's just weird. That's interesting points that you're making. I think that this is one way in which evolution has built into us a feature, which is really bad for our overall happiness. And that is that it's created desires that can never be fully met. And that includes in the mating domain. So even with people who are successful in attracting somewhat desirable mates, maybe they want, you know, Giselle Bündchen or some, you know, they desire things that are, women that are higher in mate value or a larger number of partners than they can successfully attract. And in a way, I mean, these serve as, evolution's built into these because they're motivational devices. They motivate us to try to get what we want, but it also makes us miserable or at least unhappy or dissatisfied because there are desires that can never be fulfilled. And this is, to mention one more sex difference, this desire for sexual variety, meaning a variety of different partners is much, much greater in men than in women. And so that's why even like in pornography consumption, men will like, you know, go through multiple, multiple, multiple images and sex scenes and so forth compared to what women who consume pornography go through. But this desire for sexual variety is something that makes men miserable because it's something that they can't, most men, unless you're a king or a despot or, you know, have a harem, it's something that can never be fulfilled in everyday life. And so I even think that, you know, you talk to men who are walking down a city block in Austin or New York City or San Francisco or wherever, and they pass by, they could pass by six women and feel a sexual attraction to six different women in one city block, you know? Now, and so this is, again, where evolution has created in this desires that can never be fully met. And then- And well, it's useful, right, and the hilarious thing, this is always about my own mind, but just observing people, once you get that 10 or that beautiful woman that you've been lost, you take her for granted and you move on to the next thing. There are classic cases like, I don't know if you remember this case, but Hugh Grant was with Elizabeth Hurley, who is a gorgeous model, and he was caught having sex with a prostitute, I think it was in LA or whatever, and he's got Elizabeth Hurley, why are you having sex with a prostitute? But it's the male desire for sexual variety. Well, let me do a little bit of a tangent here and ask you about just your work in general in terms of its interaction with the scientific community and with the world at large. So many of the ideas you do research on are pretty controversial, or at least, the topic is controversial somehow. Maybe you can speak to that. But what are your thoughts on the current climate of cancel culture, or maybe there's a better term for it, that word is like loaded now, about you doing research in this space that is so essential, so crucial to understanding human nature? What are the difficulties, what are the concerns for you? To be able to freely explore. Yeah, I've been doing research on these things. So when you combine sex or sexuality with sex differences, with evolution, each of these topics are controversial by themselves, and you bring them together, the intersection becomes especially controversial. But I guess view myself as a scientist, and so I would rather be scientifically correct than politically correct, if you will. So I have no interest in, I don't have an agenda, I don't have a political agenda, I don't have any agenda other than discovering human nature. That's what I've devoted my scientific career towards. And that's why I do the studies in response to empirical data and the best theories that we have available, best conceptual tools. So do some of these things upset people? Yeah, yeah, they do. As a matter of fact, even early in my career, before I started publishing on some of these things, I gave a talk in the sociology department. This was at University of Michigan. And a female professor came up to me afterwards and said, you know, you really shouldn't publish the results of your studies. And I said, why not? And she said that women have it hard enough as it is without knowing about these things. And my view is that's naive. I think suppression of scientific knowledge is a bad thing, and suppression of scientific knowledge about sex differences is a bad thing. Men and women are not psychological clones, especially when it comes to the mating domain and sexuality domain. The only other domain that shows massive sex differences that we haven't touched on is aggression and violence. So the leading cause of violence is being a male. Males have, and the more extreme the violence, the more males have a monopoly on it. So when you get to homicide, warfare, males have a monopoly on it. And we need to understand human nature, and we need to understand sex differences therein in order to be in a position to effectively solve some of the social problems that these sex differences create. So, you know, so I've been gotten some flack, no one's tried to cancel me in my work. So far, so I'm- Just wait. Yeah, just- But does it hurt you personally? Just is it psychologically difficult, you know, to do this work? Because what is research is thinking deeply through things and like doing studies, but also interpreting them and thinking through what is the right questions to ask. What does this mean? And for that, you have to have a clear mind, an optimistic mind, a free mind and all that. So you're just a human, so psychologically is it difficult? Does it wear on you? Yeah, I would say not really, but I've been, I think, fortunate. So even, say, my latest book, I published a book recently on conflict between the sexes, and it deals with very controversial topics, including intimate partner violence, like with the Johnny Depp, Amber Heard thing. And I don't talk about that in the book, and it's been largely well-received, and I think partly it's because I am careful in my publications not to endorse it. So one of the common conflations that people make is they think that it's something that you think is good, that if you find a sex difference, that there should be a sex difference. This is the is-ought confusion. And so I try to make it very clear that I'm studying what is, not what ought to be. And a lot of things that I discover about what is the case, I would prefer them not to be. And I think, you kind of alluded to this earlier by saying that we have to override some of our violent inclinations or impulses or the way I would phrase it is we have to... Control them? Control or keep quiescent or suppress some of the nastier sides of human nature. And we've successfully done that in some domains. So you can talk about, like one group that fascinates me is the Vikings and that whole era. And so you have in Sweden, Norway, for example, these have like the lowest homicide rates on earth. But you go back 400 years ago, 600 years ago, people were killing each other right and left. And so finding that... So this leads me to be optimistic that we can change conditions to suppress our evolved proclivities. Just like one physical example that I sometimes use is callous producing mechanisms. We have evolved callous producing mechanisms that are very valuable. We develop thickness in the areas of our skin that have experienced repeated friction. But we can in principle design environments where we don't experience repeated friction. And so we won't grow calluses. And so you've designed an environment that basically prevents the activation of our callous producing mechanism. I think we can do the same thing with some of these other inclinations and have succeeded in reductions of homicide even in the last couple hundred years. And some of that has to do with the myths and stories we tell ourselves, like again, it's language. Because I mean, I love the Vikings. Valhalla, that idea. That's a myth. That's an idea, that's a promise for the great land beyond, over there beyond the mountains. It's like Animal Farm, Sugarcane Mountain. That is promised to you if you're a great warrior. I believe Valhalla is where half the soldiers go as a reward for great soldiering, for being great warriors. And the thing I just recently have been reading quite a bit about Valhalla, which is it's such a fascinating how these myths are constructed. I believe, I just think this is such an awesome setup in terms of a kind of heaven, which is they spend the entire day fighting for joy. And if they die, they're reborn the next day. So it's, you're basically the passion, the thing you're passionate about without the consequences. On top of that, I think there's a pig or a boar that is, they keep eating. So it's regenerated every single day. So unlimited food and there's unlimited beer, I believe. So it's like- Or mead, maybe. Mead, mead, yes, yes, yes, yes, it's mead. I don't know, that's fascinating that we construct these myths. And at the same time, these myths can be used to get humans to do some of the worst atrocities. So some of the violence requires us to have those myths of what is waiting for us beyond death, sort of beyond over there in Sugarcandy Mountain, as Crow says that in Animal Farm. And so, I think the more and more in this modern society, the positive of not constructing so many myths is that we get to live more in the moment and that forces us to optimize and improve the moment and we get to face the irrational and the painful aspect of violence. Maybe we should reduce that in the here and now. Yeah, the downside is we may not, if we dispose of God or these kinds of religious and spiritual ideas, we might descend into what Nietzsche worried about with nihilism. And it's a beautiful dance because humans seem to tie themselves together with narratives. Yes, yeah. And with myths and stories that we all believe, if you completely dispose of them, society, I don't know, we don't know. We don't know what's going to happen, if it's going to collapse or if it's actually going to rediscover better myths, better stories, more scientifically grounded ones, ones that are driven in data and all those kinds of things. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, it's an interesting question. I mean, I don't have any brilliant insights into it other than that, to agree with you, that people construct narratives, well, of their own lives and sometimes the life after death. But I guess I would add, and this is maybe a more cynical view, but you mentioned atrocities. I think that leaders can sometimes exploit those under them to create forms of violence or justification for warfare. Like in the group that we are conquering, they are subhuman, they're insects, they're an infectious disease that is, and so these narratives can be used by leaders to exploit and motivate people under them to commit these atrocities. So it's a nastier part of our psychology, both that leaders do that, but also that people are vulnerable to narratives of that sort. Yeah, it's fascinating to look pre-internet. You hope the internet makes us more resistant to that, which I do have probably a question on that. But if you look at just the propaganda machines during World War II, on the Nazi side and on the Soviet side, on every side, but particularly in those two, it's so fascinating both how effective a simple message can be in a leader being able to convince the small inner circle around them, convince themselves, which is fascinating, propaganda, you start to believe the propaganda you generate and then how easily the populace is convincible. Again, you hope that the internet, the distributed nature of the internet makes it more difficult to run a propaganda campaign, at least of the classical sort. I do have a question about this, because you mentioned Elon Musk, when we're talking about status hierarchies, like you and I can't buy Twitter. And wealth accumulation, yeah. What do you think about Elon buying Twitter in particular in the reason, the state of reason that he's doing so in emphasizing free speech? That's an interesting question, but I don't really have an informed opinion about it. I don't know. It's not my area of expertise and I don't know enough details and I also don't know what his plans are for Twitter, what changes he proposes to implement. Well, the reason I bring that up is because, and you've kind of said you don't necessarily feel a tremendous amount of pressure, but in doing controversial research, in doing research on controversial topics, you're also a communicator and Twitter is a platform in which you communicate and there's going to be, if you get canceled somewhere, you get canceled on Twitter. Yeah. And so there's pressure. So what does free speech look like in these public platforms? It's communicating difficult ideas. It's changing your mind, it's exploring ideas and not fearing the mob. The mob that pressures the platform to remove you from the platform or to ban you, shadow ban you from the platform, decrease your reach artificially on the platform. And those are really fascinating questions that we get to deal with in this new digital age. So there's a lot of ideas. We said what Elon is planning to do. Forget Elon, how do you do this? Well, that's the question. And there's sort of an absolutist view of free speech, let anyone say anything. And I tend to be a person that believes everybody should have the freedom to say anything. The question with a social media platform is, well, can you force anyone to hear what you have to say? Because the virality, the viral nature of communication means that you can control who hears what you say. The virality of that, the search and discovery aspect. And I think that's a fascinating question from the algorithmic perspective. The amount of data out there, just like papers, there's a huge amount of papers. What you want is to find the best papers, the ones you agree with, but also the ones that challenge you. And you don't want to nonstop read the papers that challenge you. You're going to be mentally exhausted. There's a bucket of attention and focus and mental energy you can allocate. The ones that really challenge you, the ideas that really challenge you are exhausting. It's good. Just like going to the gym, it's good. But then you also want to read things that are fun for you. And those are, you know, if you're spending your whole life in arguments, that's going to be exhausting. You want to hang out, chill with your friends, watch Netflix, have fun, whatever, easygoing. And sometimes have difficult academic arguments with people, for example, with people you disagree with, but not all the time. And you have to have a platform. What does free speech actually looks like? It's a platform where everybody can challenge anybody, but not destroy them by doing so mentally. So you have to balance personal growth of each individual person on the platform. But definitely removing people from a platform is a terrible thing. So on top of that, it's like, how do you get measures that the platform is doing good? What I really like what Elon said, and I've talked to him about this, is pissing off everybody equally, the extremes of every side equally. In the political spectrum, you could say the left and the right is measuring by pissing off the extremes equally, because currently there seems to be an asymmetry in that. So that's one good measure that allows you to maximize, as he says, the area under the curve of human happiness. That's one thing. The other is people representing themselves honestly. So removing the bots from the platform, it's such a weird world we live in where you don't know who's real or not. So anonymity is an awesome thing. The awesome aspect of anonymity is it protects people's privacy. It actually gives them freedom to think, freedom to speak even more so. But when anonymity is weaponized, it allows you to be cruel to others without the repercussion of cruelty that you would feel in the physical world. So you wanna use anonymity as a shield versus as a sword. So to protect yourself from the attacks of others, but not as a way to hurt others. And those are all really tricky things to figure out. And not all of it's gonna be solved with an edit button, which I believe is the most requested Twitter feature. Anyway, I think this is fascinating, not just for people talking about politics, which is what everyone seems to care about, but also for science, for people challenging each other in the scientific domain. Because I at least have hope for scientific communication where people can start playing around with different mediums of communication. So not just academic papers, but just ideas, playing with those ideas. Yeah, absolutely. Especially when you have, so evolution psychology, well, no, even that, it can be super high turnover rate of importance. But you have with COVID, it seems like the progress of science and scientific debate is most powerful in that context if it's done really quickly. And it feels like Twitter, like most of the best things I've learned about COVID to stay up to date was on Twitter. It's so exciting to see science happening so, so, so quickly in all kinds of domains there. And that was great. But then you step in with labels of what's misinformation, you have this kind of conformity seeking labels of what is true and not, which is a very unscientific thing to me, in the name of protecting the populace. It's a weird impulse that people have, which is, well, here's an organization, here's an institution that is a possessor of the truth, and everybody else is untrue. Now, a lot of the time, maybe majority of the time, that institution is going to be correct. This consensus, consensus is the consensus because it's usually correct. But the biggest ideas are going to be against the consensus. And certainly that's true in evolutionary psychology, where it seems like, are we even, is the cake even baked yet? It feels like there's a lot of turmoil in terms of figuring out human psychology. Well, there's a lot that we don't know. I mean, if human psychology, if it were a simple thing and we only had three or half a dozen psychological adaptations, we would have discovered all of them by now. It's that it's so complex, multifaceted, multi-mechanism part that describes human nature that it was what makes it exciting, but also the amount that we know is small compared to the amount that we don't know. And so that's why you have to approach these things with a certain humility. And that's why even like in the mating and sexuality domain, which I've been studying for a number of years, I keep coming across things that I don't know, questions that are unanswered, which makes it exciting from my perspective. I mean, that's what the joy is of being a scientist. You mentioned, I gotta return real quick to Ted Bundy. You mentioned you have, so you've written about murder and violence in a long distant past, but the thread runs through your work today. Who to you is the most fascinating serial killer of the true crime things that you've explored? I think, well, Ted Bundy's way up there. I think Charles Manson is another. Have you seen on Ted Bundy, because I find him super fascinating. Have you seen, there's a lot of movies on him, extremely wicked, shockingly even vile. It's a retelling of his life from the perspective of his long-term girlfriend. I have not seen that one yet. Which ties together a lot of our conversation. So it's probably my favorite one. A lot of people say it's the best movie on Ted Bundy. So you should definitely watch it. I will. I recommend it to others, but it's from a perspective of the relationship. And it just, one of the really powerful windows into a serial killer that I saw there is that from the perspective of the relationship, you can have just this healthy looking relationship. Yeah, there's some fights and so on, but the usual dating and all that kind of stuff is all there. So all the murders he was doing, he had a long-term girlfriend throughout all of that. And also throughout all of that, I'll try not to give away in case you don't know the story, throughout all of that, she stood by his side. She refused to believe everything that was happening until the very end. Of course, it shifts in the very end, and that's a fascinating shift of the breaking of the illusion. But it's really fascinating that you can have those two things. Yeah, well, I think that part of it is we have these stereotypes that we expect people like serial killers to be these ugly, drooling creatures that are sort of evil all the time. And so that's why even like you had, I don't know if I'm remembering this correctly, but like Stalin who killed millions of people, apparently loved his kids and loved his family and people. So we have, that's part of the complication, the complexity of human nature and human psychology is we don't have just this one property that dictates how we behave in all circumstances. Yeah, the devil is going to be charismatic. That's why, that's one of the things I've learned about just looking at evil people, looking at Jeffrey Epstein, who seemed to have hoodwinked quite a lot of people. Yes, that's another fascinating case. Yeah, he wasn't a serial killer, but a serial sexual predator. And a lot of people I know and respect didn't see the evil. Yeah. And so I never met the guy, but it's like, are you guys oblivious? Like what was, there must've been something, and from everything I see is purely just charisma. It's the smoke and mirrors that- Yeah, well he was a very charming psychopath. Yeah, but I think every psychopath to be effective has to be charming. Yeah, the successful ones, yeah. Yeah, successful psychopaths. Oh, yeah. And that was, I mean, Ted Bundy was one. He was a good-looking guy, intelligent, and could turn on the charm, and then had this evil. Is there something interesting to be said that I think a large percentage of the fan base, like I've seen numbers like 80% plus of the fan base for true crime shows is women. Is there some psychology behind that? I haven't seen that. I'm not aware of a sex difference that I'm not aware of. I mean, I've heard that in a lot of places. I wonder if there's something about true crime, maybe because it's just like sexual kinks for men develop early on, the cues. Maybe for women, there's the cues of the threat of violence. The attentiveness to violence develops early on, and therefore, fascination with violence. Well, I think that, I mean, one thing is that, well, with serial killers specifically, I don't know if this is true of true crime in general, but serial killers, you find a lot of people, well, a lot of women fall in love with them, or even if they're jailed for serial killing. And I think one of the features of it is that it parasitizes or hijacks status mechanisms in that a key cue to status is the attention structure. That is, the high-status people are the people to whom the most people pay the most attention. And so serial killers garner a lot of attention, and even though for evil deeds, it's still attention. So I think that that hijacking of our status allocation adaptations is partly responsible for that. Is there, given the trajectory of your life, you mentioned Berkeley and the East Coast, Michigan, you got everything. Is there, given the trajectory of your life, in geography and in science, can you give advice to young folks today? High school, college, thinking about how to make their own trajectory, how to make their own way through life that they can be proud of, either career or just love life or life? Yeah, well, not necessarily on careers, but I can give advice on mating. And I think it's one of these things where we have requirements for the courses that students have to take in high school, for example. And I think there should be a required course on relationships, on mating. So not just sex. Yeah, not just sex at all, yeah. Because I mean, most of what's taught is they teach about sexual health and how not to get an STI and so forth. Yeah, my teacher put a condom on a banana. Right, right. It was very exciting. But how to select a mate? How do you know if you're in a bad mating relationship? How to get out of a bad mating relationship? I think that there's, at this point in the science, even though there's a lot that we don't know, we know enough to at least provide some heuristics or general guidelines to things to watch out for. So just as a concrete example, with intimate partner violence, and this is male to female, there are statistical predictors of, is this guy, does he have an increased probability of beating you up? And there are things like if he starts to insist on knowing where you are at all times, if he starts cutting off your relationships with your friends and your family. So there are these kind of early warning signs, and I think women should know about those. Or even things like that women are most in danger of being killed by an ex during the first three to six months after they've broken up with him. That sometimes they think it's, the guy will say, meet with me one last time and then I won't bother you again. No, this is a dangerous time. So I think there's some knowledge that we do know that can be used to make informed decisions about our mating lives, and I think that should be taught. So consider that, like take that, the mating strategies, the mating life seriously. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And because, you know, aside from a small number of people who are totally uninterested in any kind of mating or sexuality, and there are small percentage that fall into that category, we all confront problems of mating. How do you, you know there's that, called the mathematical model, like secretary problem, marriage problem. I don't know if you're familiar, but basically you have, it's a silly, perhaps not, it's a formalized, simplified queuing theory type of thing where you have n subjects and you get to date some number of people, and then there's a stopping condition, I believe it's N over E, beyond which you pick the next partner, which is better than anybody you've dated before. So let's not overemphasize that idea, but if I were to psychologize it, I would say that some exploration is good, some dating is good, but at a certain point you pick somebody, given the set of people you've explored, you pick somebody who is pretty desirable within that group. Yeah, yeah, but I would add that what you also wanna do is you want to mate with someone who's equivalent in mate value, or has even what's more difficult is, has a likely equivalent future mate value trajectory, because nothing remains static. Yes, that's beautiful. But it's also the case that there are individual things, we haven't talked about these, but things like religious orientation, political orientation, values, these are extremely important to be compatible on. And so you do have cases of, let's say, a Democrat marrying a Republican, and that sometimes works, but you're gonna get into a lot of conflict, other things being equal, or someone who's deeply religious versus someone who is not at all religious, this is gonna be a problem, or someone who's of a different religious faith. And so compatibility on those things, compatibility also on personality dimensions, I think there's some main effects, so I would recommend avoiding that dimension we talked about of emotional instability, because if you sign up for that, you at least should know you're gonna be in for a lot of conflict. It may be exciting at times, but there's gonna be a lot of ups and downs. Know what you sign up for. What about how much to date? So there's a culture, I'm speaking soon to a founder, and long-time ex-CEO of Tinder, so there's that culture of digitalized dating, of swipe right, swipe left. Is it positive, negative? How much should you date? What's the number? And also, what number of sexual partners should you, what's optimal, asking for a friend? I don't know if there's a single optimum there. I was hoping there was. I think that- Is it single digits or double digits? I need answers. Well, I don't know. I get some of my wisdom from lyrics, from songs. So- Me too. Bruce Springsteen. This Eagles song, I think Don Henley said something like, there are too many lovers in one lifetime, ain't good for you, or something like that. But I think there is a- Take it easy is a good one too. Yeah. So basically, don't get too attached. Don't take heartbreak too seriously. Yeah. So, but I think, I mean, internet dating, and there's been some work on them, I think has its pluses and minuses. And one of the pluses is it gives you access to potential pools of mates that you could never possibly meet in real life, where mating and dating used to be either people you knew, or friends of friends, or you go out to bars, or parties. But so that's the good thing, gives you access to those extended pools. But also it gives people the illusion that there's always someone better out there for you. Someone who's just a little more attractive, a little more compatible, a little more. And so it produces what's sometimes called decision paralysis. You have too many options and you can't choose. I think one other potential negative, which I think could be corrected by these internet dating sites, is that the picture, the photographs of the face and body tend to overwhelm all other sources of information. And so, especially if you're just looking for a sex partner, that's one thing. Physical appearances, it's fine for that to be overwhelmingly important. But if you're looking for a long-term mate, there's so many other things that are really, really important. And so, but people tend to be swamped by the visual input, which is natural because that's where we evolved to respond to visual input. We're not evolved to respond to words, like, oh, I like to go fishing or something like that. So if there's some way for these sites to, in long-term mating, for these other characteristics to be made more salient in people's information processing, I think that would be a valuable improvement. Yeah, because even, forget long-term beauty, even sex appeal is, like, even the word appearance, it feels like, to me, people that are super sexy in real life are a lot more than their picture. Yeah, yeah. Like, it's actually surprising. Like, they come to life in different ways. Yes. It could be either submissiveness as shyness or extravagant wit and humor, or like super confident or super, like, whatever they are, whatever the weirdness that they are comes through. So when people say, well, that was just the case of the sort of proponents of dating apps, it's like, well, when you meet somebody at a bar, you're getting the same experience as you do on a dating site, you have very little information, all you get is appearance. But I don't think appearance on the screen is the same as appearance in real life, especially with people that, for some reason, you find super sexy. It's like, and, again, the objectification that we mentioned earlier is the, it over-optimizes for people who are good at taking pictures of themselves. Like, they're representing themselves inaccurately. They're not just even in the physical features, but in the way those physical features are used in physical reality, like in terms of body language, in terms of flirtation, in terms of just everything, everything put together. So I just, I wonder if there's a way to close that gap. And I don't know what that is exactly. I tend to believe more information is good on dating. I don't use, actually, dating apps. I just, because they don't make any sense to me, because there's not enough information. Like, what this, like, to me, like, whether you know Dostoevsky or not is important. And I don't mean that because you've read, specifically, a book by Dostoevsky, but there's something about, have you suffered? Have you thought about life deeply? Have you been shaken in some way? And that's not, sometimes books can reveal that. Sometimes something else can reveal that. But this kind of very shallow resume, like, I like to travel, I have boobs. It's like this kind of thing is, it loses the humanity of it all. Because, listen, as a fan of technology, I would love dating to open up, like you said, the pool of possibilities out there, the soulmate idea. Like, I believe that there's an incredible people out there for you that is an emotional connection, not just a physical connection. And so that the promise of, you know, digital tech is that you can discover those people. And that's not just for a romantic relationship, it's for friendships, it's for business partners, it's for all that kind of stuff, like your friend groups. But yeah, there's something, seems broken about dating sites. Yeah, well, that's why, I mean, when I'm asked for advice on this, I say, if you feel like you have a connection with someone, meet them in person. You know, meet them in real life. And take the road trip, like you said. Yeah, take the road trip. Stress test it. Yes, yeah. Because there's only, I mean, so much you can learn through messaging and so forth. Amongst all of this, we didn't really, we didn't really mention love, which is hilarious. So let me ask you, in the last just few questions, what's the role of love in all of this, in the human condition? So we talked about mating, we talked about mate selection, we talked about all the things we find attractive in a mate, the status hierarchies and all that kind of stuff. What about that deep connection with a human being that's hard to explain? Well, we talked about it a little bit, but so we're talking about love, like romantic love. I think it's an evolved emotion that evolved in part to solidify long-term pair bonds. And is it different from the love of a parent for a child or brotherly love or sisterly love or other friendship love? I think these are different phenomena. But if we're talking about romantic love, I think it's an evolved emotion. Leading hypothesis is that it's a commitment device. So if I say to a potential mate, oh, you exceed my minimum thresholds on intelligence and looks, I think we make a good couple. It's a good pickup line. Yeah, it wouldn't do much emotionally. But if you say, I love you, it's I can't stop thinking about you, it's this uncontrollable emotion that I feel toward you, it's a sign that I'm committed to you, at least for a while, and I'm not gonna abandon you when an 8.5 comes along. I'm not gonna drop you and go with the 8.5. Yeah, that's so interesting, but it's still the reality of the emotion is there, however it evolved, it's still there. And it's interesting. It's one of the more puzzling pieces here, even broader than romantic love, but in romantic love, what is that? How much of that is nature? How much of it is nurture? I mean, I ask that myself all the time. I'm deeply romantic. How much of that is nature? How much of it is nurture? How much is the people I spent my childhood with, the ideas, I mean, the Soviet Union sort of is known for the literature and the movies and so on that are very over, that are heavily romanticized. I don't wanna say over-romanticized. Maybe there's no such thing, but so maybe, what is that? Is that my upbringing, or is that somewhere in the genetics that I value that emotional connection a lot? Yeah, well, most humans have the capacity for love, whether it is activated in any individual person such as you or anyone else, it is gonna be adjusted or suppressed by different social and cultural and upbringing factors. I mean, there are cultures where parents basically lock away girls, they cloister them, and so they can't ever meet anyone else until the parents arrange to marry them. So they override any possibility of love. But I think it's an evolved emotion. And I mean, one kind of test of this, and this is just slightly circumstantial evidence, but in China, historically, there have been arranged marriages and then individual choice marriages. The arranged marriages tend to have higher breakup rates and lower child production than the ones that are sort of voluntarily chosen, so-called of matches. I've heard sort of contrasting stuff from India. I wonder, contrasting, so where the arranged marriages are longer lasting. It's so interesting, because you said China. I would love to see the data and the dance of that, because there's a lot of other interesting factors, like how the arranged marriage is arranged. Is it for the families, is the interest of the families for some kind of like in the monarchies to make agreements to trade resources, or is the interest of the family to maximize the success of the marriage? So compatibility, are they looking to maximize compatibility or are they looking to maximize resources? Well, historically, it's often been an arrangement where they're trying to maximize the status and power of the alliance with this other extended family. But that also varies from culture to culture. Like there's the Tiwi culture, where there's, the men basically bestow their daughters on other men, and they try to gauge which of these young up-and-coming men are really gonna be chiefs, high-status guys, and which ones are gonna be losers. And so you have this weird phenomenon. They have a peligrous marriage, where a guy will get one daughter bestowed on him, and then other men use that as information that this guy must be rising in status. And so they give their daughters to the guy as well, so the guy might go from like zero to seven wives in a very short span of time. Yeah, the rich get richer. That's fascinating. The Game of Thrones, and sex is a part of that game. Let me ask you about yourself, your own self. We mentioned Richard Rangham. Think about mortality. Do you think about your own mortality? Are you afraid of death? Yeah, interesting. I'm not afraid of death. I agree with Richard Rangham. I'm not eager to leave the party. I don't wanna leave the party soon. I enjoy life in all of its interesting complexities. I enjoy my scientific work. I enjoy my relationships with other people. I enjoy exploring the universe, so I'm not eager to leave, but I'm not afraid of it. And I think part of that is that I was married for a while and my wife died prematurely of cancer. And so I spent basically eight months with her, watching her die after she was diagnosed. And there's some, it was a horrible time for me and for her, obviously, but there's some way in which it kind of made it more familiar so that it became a lot less frightening. But- How did that experience change you? Just as a scientist, as a thinker about humanity, as a human yourself? Well, I guess- So you're saying you felt, like you felt a little bit more ready for this whole end of the party? Well, yeah, it's, I mean, because we tend to be afraid of things that we're not familiar with, you know? And so if you're familiar with it, at least in my case, that caused a lessening of fear on that dimension, but I don't know. It also kind of, you know, there are these existential thoughts that it brought about, like how ephemeral life is. And I remember this Richard Dawkins quote, he said something like, we're all gonna die and we're the lucky ones. Yeah, that we even got a chance. Yeah, or even, you mentioned Russian writers. One of my favorite writers is Nabokov, Vladimir Nabokov. I don't know if you've read him, but he said once that life is a chink of light between two eternities of darkness. And you're saying that's not terrifying to you? Well, I prefer, I'm happy with the prior, the first eternity of darkness. I prefer the second not to occur, but it's going to occur. I mean, we know that, Elon Musk aside, I'm skeptical that we'll be colonizing other planets in any substantive way. And so our star, our sun will burn out. And so it's gonna take a few billion years or so, but it will, eventually the earth will become a cold lump of dirt floating around in the universe with no life on it. So it's not just your light, the light of your consciousness, it's the light of our human civilization that will eventually go out. Yes, everything, at least here. I do believe that there is life and intelligent life in other parts of the universe on other planets. I sometimes wonder if the second eternal darkness is the thing that makes the light possible. So in the other places out there, I wonder how successful can you truly be without the deadline of death, both at the human scale and at the civilizational scale. I feel like we, in order to create anything beautiful, we have to live on the edge of destruction. That seems to be, you know, some people would say that's just a feature of our past, that our future can be otherwise. But like you, I'm somebody that looks at the data. And currently the data says otherwise, but of course we're constantly changing the data because there's change. So we'll see. We'll see, I wonder what the future holds for us. Speaking of which, as somebody who wrote a textbook on evolutionary psychology, what do you think is the meaning of the whole thing? What's the meaning of life? You're very good at describing how the human mind is the way it is, but why is it here at all? What's the purpose? Well, I can give you my answer to that, but I would actually love to hear your answer because I know you've asked this question of dozens and dozens of people on your podcast. And what are your thoughts on that? Well, first of all, my mind changes on that a lot. And I think the process of answering the question is the fun thing, not the actual final answer. I think the question itself is the most fun thing. But for me, usually is two things. One is love, and we can talk a long time. What I mean by that is it's not just romantic love. And two is to create and hopefully to create beauty. So, and again, I can talk forever what that means. For me personally, creating beauty means engineering and creating experiences, like connection with others. On the love side, it's just the actual feeling, the experience of deep appreciation of everything around you, like the sensory experiences of everything around you, just feeling it every single moment, saying I'm damn glad to be alive. That light with the darkness on each side, just being appreciative, like being in the experience of truly present and experiencing it. Because it's not going to be there for long, the whole thing ends. And that to me is love. And the reason romantic love is so important is that other people are just awesome. They're fascinating black boxes that can generate awesomeness. So can other animals and objects for me, but humans in particular for some reason are just generators of awesomeness. They surprise us. And therefore a good target of love. So that's a much more eloquent answer than I could give, but I'll just say a thought or two on that. And I mean, one of the things, what is the meaning of life? I mean, in some sense, if you're thinking about some eternal purpose, meaning like if we look 5 billion years hence, will any of this mean anything? I think the answer to that is probably no. Okay, but, and this is I think where my answer would concur with yours is that I think we have a rich evolved psychology that contains many complex adaptations. And at any one moment in time, most are quiescent, most are not activated. But for me, part of the meaning of life is experiencing the activation of a lot of these complicated evolved psychological mechanisms. And they include romantic love, they include friendship, they include being part of a group or coalition, because I think we're an intensely coalitional species. So there's something about being a group member. So just even, I don't know if you're in sports, if your team wins, you feel that somehow that's your part of that. But this goes for both the positive and the darker sides of things. So for example, warfare, you see these men who have been through a war together and where their lives have depended on each other, and they're like best friends for life and have a bond that is stronger than most people form with a friend ever in their life, because they've been through these life or death experiences. And so I wouldn't want to, doesn't cause me to want to charge off and be in war, but there are some types of adaptations, even like warfare adaptations, where in principle, I would like to experience them. I would like to experience, and never will, but what is it like to be in a coalition where you are in combat with another coalition? Not modern warfare, because it's horrible, but where your life is in danger, where you depend for your life on other people, and they're depending for their life on you. And there's this kind of coalitional solidarity that is unique. Now, another thing that, of course, I'll never be able to experience is murder, because I'm never gonna murder anybody. The fight is young. But studying homicidal ideation really gave me, it was an eye-opener. It was as interesting as studying sexual fantasies, because if you ask what triggers homicidal thoughts, ideation, most people have had them. Because I asked this question, have you ever thought about killing someone? And I get about 91% of men say yes, and about 84% of women say no. And even when I talk to people, they say, one-on-one, they'll say, oh, no, I've never thought of killing someone. What kind of person do you think I am? And then 10 minutes later, they'll say, actually, there was this one time when I got, this guy humiliated me in public. And so, but I think thoughts about killing, homicidal ideation, and they're very predictable from an evolutionary perspective. If you, like we mentioned mate poachers earlier, and infidelity, and there are other things, but things like that, being humiliated in public, status loss, do trigger homicidal thoughts. So anyway, I don't wanna go off too much on that, but I guess what I'm saying in answer to your question is experiencing the rich array of complex psychology that we have within us, most of which remains unactivated, and some of which will never be experienced. Like, there's some people who will never experience love, for example, because of cultural restrictions or whatever. And so, to me, that's part of the meaning of life. So that's so beautifully put, the saying that they're kind of dormant, inactivated aspects of the psychological mechanism. So we have the capacity to experience a bunch of stuff. It's almost like in video games, you can unlock levels and so on. And so this is basically, there's all of these things that are dormant in our mind that we have the capacity to experience. And part of the meaning is to try to experience as many of them or as many new ones, novel for the particular society or maybe the entirety of human civilization, who knows? Psychedelic drugs, like you said, violence, experiences that might have to do with brain-computer interfaces, the interaction with all of those are experiences. And so the question is, what is the ceiling? How infinite or nearly infinite is the capacity of the human mind to experience all those things? And we'll get to discover those things. So I'm glad you never got a chance and never will get a chance to murder, but I just wanna put it on record that that's definitely something on my bucket list. Why do you think I dress like this? Anyway, there is something appealing. One of my favorite movies is Leon, the Professional. Oh, I love that movie. What is that? Why is that so exciting? Listen, maybe it's in the OCD thing, like killing other bad guys. No women, no children. No women, no children. Also loving that with Natalie Portman, incredible actress. Also the complex, whatever that is, the fatherly or romantic, whatever that is, like Lolita type of thing. I don't know what, I've never read a PhD thesis on that interpretation of that movie, but that's a fascinating one. Violence and love and sex, that's what makes life worth living. That's what makes it fun. David, you're an incredible person, incredible scientist. It's a huge honor to share a city with you. Or I'm the visitor. You own this place, you run this place. We both live here now, and it's been great talking to you. It's a great honor for me. I've followed your podcast for a long, long time now and tremendously enjoy your interviews, and you have a very inquisitive, inviting style that brings out things in your guests, which I think is fantastic. Activates all those dormant psychological mechanisms. That's what life, that's what conversation is all about. Thank you for talking today. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with David Buss. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from E.B. White. If the world were merely seductive, that would be easy. If it were merely challenging, that would be no problem. But I rise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/sndW9hzX-wA

2oHH4aClJQs

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Noam Brown: AI vs Humans in Poker and Games of Strategic Negotiation | Lex Fridman Podcast #344

A lot of people were saying like, oh, this whole idea of game theory, it's just nonsense. And if you really want to make money, you got to like look into the other person's eyes and read their soul and figure out what cards they have. But what happened was where we played our bot against four top heads up, no limit, hold them poker players. And the bot wasn't trying to adapt to them. It wasn't trying to exploit them. It wasn't trying to do these mind games. It was just trying to approximate the Nash equilibrium and it crushed them. The following is a conversation with No Brown, research scientist at FAIR, Facebook AI research group at Meta AI. He co-created the first AI system that achieved superhuman level performance in no limit Texas hold them both heads up and multiplayer. And now recently he co-created an AI system that can strategically out negotiate humans using natural language in a popular board game called diplomacy, which is a war game that emphasizes negotiation. This is the Lex Friedman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now dear friends, here's Noam Brown. You've been a lead on three amazing AI projects. So we've got Libratus that solved or at least achieved human level performance on no limit Texas hold them poker with two players heads up. You got Pleribus that solved no limit Texas hold them poker with six players. And just now you have Cicero. These are all names of systems that solved or achieved human level performance on the game of diplomacy, which for people who don't know is a popular strategy board game. It was loved by JFK, John F. Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger and many other big famous people in the decades since. So let's talk about poker and diplomacy today. First poker, what is the game of no limit Texas hold them? And how's it different from chess? Well, no limit Texas hold them poker is the most popular variant of poker in the world. So you know, you go to a casino, you play sit down at the poker table, the game that you're playing is no limit Texas hold them. If you watch movies about poker, like Casino Royale or Rounders, the game that they're playing is no limit Texas hold them poker. Now it's very different from limit hold them in that you can bet any amount of chips that you want. And so the stakes escalate really quickly. You start out with like one or $2 in the pot. And then by the end of the hand, you've got like $1,000 in there maybe. So the option to increase the number very aggressively and very quickly is always there. Right. The no limit aspect is there's no limits to how much you can bet. You know, in limit hold them, there's like $2 in the pot, you can only bet like $2. But if you got $10,000 in front of you, you're always welcome to put $10,000 into the pot. So I got a chance to hang out with Phil Helmuth, who plays all these different variants of poker. And correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like no limit rewards crazy versus the other ones rewards more kind of calculated strategy or no, because you're sort of looking from an analytic perspective, is strategy also rewarded in no limit Texas hold them? I think both variants reward strategy, but I think what's different about no limit hold them is it's much easier to get jumpy. You know, you go in there thinking you're going to play for like $100 or something. And suddenly there's like, you know, $1,000 in the pot. A lot of people can't handle that. Can you define jumpy? When you're playing poker, you always want to choose the action that's going to maximize your expected value. It's kind of like with investing, right? Like if you're ever in a situation where the amount of money that's at stake is going to have a material impact on your life, then you're going to play in a more risk averse style. You know, if somebody makes a huge bet, you're going to, if you're playing no limit hold them and somebody makes a huge bet, there might come a point where you're like, this is too much money for me to handle. Like I can't risk this amount. And that's what throws a lot of people off. So that's the big difference, I think, between no limit and limit. What about on the action side when you're actually making that big bet? That's what I mean by crazy. I was trying to refer to the technical term of crazy, meaning use the big jump in the bet to completely throw off the other person in terms of their ability to reason optimally. I think that's right. I think one of the key strategies in poker is to put the other person into an uncomfortable position. And if you're doing that, then you're playing poker well. And there's a lot of opportunities to do that in no limit hold them. You know, you can have like $50 in there, you throw in a $1,000 bet. And you know, that's sometimes if you do it right, that's sometimes if you do it right, it puts the other person in a really tough spot. Now, it's also possible that you make huge mistakes that way. And so it's really easy to lose a lot of money in no limit hold them if you don't know what you're doing. But there's a lot of upside potential too. So when you build systems, AI systems that play these games, we'll talk about poker, we'll talk about diplomacy. Are you drawn in in part by the beauty of the game itself, AI side? Or is it to you primarily a fascinating problem set for the AI to solve? I'm drawn in by the beauty of the game. When I started playing poker when I was in high school, and the idea to me that there is a correct, an objectively correct way of playing poker. And if you could figure out what that is, then you're, you know, you're making unlimited money, basically. That's like a really fascinating concept to me. And so I was fascinated by the strategy of poker, even when I was like 16 years old. It wasn't until much later that I actually worked on poker AIs. So there was a sense that you can solve poker, like in the way you can solve chess, for example, or checkers. I believe checkers got solved, right? Yeah, checkers is completely solved. Optimal strategy. It's impossible to beat the AI. Yeah. And so in that same way, you could technically solve chess. You could solve chess, you could solve poker. You could solve poker. So this is, this gets into the concept of a Nash equilibrium. Yeah. So it is a Nash equilibrium. Okay. So in any finite two-player zero-sum game, there is an optimal strategy that if you play it, you are guaranteed to not lose an expectation no matter what your opponent does. And this is kind of a radical concept to a lot of people, but it's true in chess, it's true in poker, it's true in any finite two-player zero-sum game. And to give some intuition for this, you can think of rock, paper, scissors. In rock, paper, scissors, if you randomly choose between throwing rock, paper, and scissors with equal probability, then no matter what your opponent does, you are not going to lose an expectation. You're not going to lose an expectation in the long run. Now, the same is true for poker. There exists some strategy, some really complicated strategy, that if you play that, you are guaranteed to not lose money in the long run. And I should say, this is for two-player poker. Six-player poker is a different story. Yeah, it's a beautiful giant mess. When you say in expectation, you're guaranteed not to lose in expectation. What does in expectation mean? Poker is a very high-variance game. So you're going to have hands where you win, you're going to have hands with your lose. Even if you're playing the perfect strategy, you can't guarantee that you're going to win every single hand. But if you play for long enough, then you are guaranteed to at least break even and in practice probably win. So that's in expectation, the size of your stack, generally speaking. Now, that doesn't include anything about the fact that you can go broke. It doesn't include any of those kinds of normal real-world limitations. You're talking in a theoretical world. What about the zero-sum aspect? How big of a constraint is that? How big of a constraint is finite? So finite's not a huge constraint. So I mean, most games that you play are finite in size. It's also true, actually, that there exists this perfect strategy in many infinite games as well. Technically, the game has to be compact. There are some edge cases where you don't have a Nash equilibrium in a two-player zero-sum game. So you can think of a game where you're like, if we're playing a game where whoever names the bigger number is the winner, there's no Nash equilibrium to that game. 17. Yeah, exactly. 18. I thought you beat. You win again. You're good at this. I've played a lot of games. I've played a lot of games. Okay. So that's... And then the zero-sum aspect. The zero-sum. Zero-sum aspect. So there exists a Nash equilibrium in non-two-player zero-sum games as well. And by the way, just to clarify what I mean by two-player zero-sum, I mean, there's two players, and whatever one player wins, the other player loses. So if we're playing poker and I win $50, that means that you're losing $50. Now, outside of two-player zero-sum games, there still exists Nash equilibria, but they're not as meaningful. Because you can think of a game like Risk. If everybody else on the board decides to team up against you and take you out, there's no perfect strategy you can play that's going to guarantee that you win there. There's just nothing you can do. So outside of two-player zero-sum games, there's no guarantee that you're going to win by playing a Nash equilibrium. 19. Have you ever tried to model in the other aspects of the game, which is like the pleasure you draw from playing the game, and then if you're a professional poker player, if you're exciting, even if you lose the money you would get from the attention you get to the sponsors and all that kind of stuff, is that... that would be a fun thing to model in? Or is that make it sort of super complex to include the human factor in this full complexity? 19. I think you bring up a couple good points there. So I think a lot of professional poker players, I mean, they get a huge amount of money not from actually playing poker, but from the sponsorships and having a personality that people want to tune in and watch. That's a big way to make a name for yourself in poker. 20. I just wonder from an AI perspective, if you create, and we'll talk about this more, maybe an AI system that also talks trash and all that kind of stuff, that that becomes part of the function to maximize. So it's not just optimal poker play. Maybe sometimes you want to be chaotic. Maybe sometimes you want to be suboptimal and you lose the chaos. And maybe sometimes you want to be overly aggressive because the audience loves that. 21. Yeah. I think what you're getting at here is that there's a difference between making an AI that wins a game and an AI that's fun to play with. 22. Yeah. Or fun to watch. So those are all different things. Fun to play with and fun to watch. 23. Yeah. And I think I've heard talks from game designers and they say people that work on AI for actual recreational games that people play, and they say, yeah, there's a big difference between trying to make an AI that actually wins. And you look at a game like Civilization, the way that the AIs play is not optimal for trying to win. They're playing a different game. They're trying to have personalities. They're trying to be fun and engaging. And that makes for a better game. 24. And we also talk about NPCs. I just talked to Todd Howard, who is the creator of Fallout and the Elder Scrolls series and Starfield, the new game coming out. And the creator of what I think is the greatest game of all time, which is Skyrim. And the NPCs there, the AI that governs that whole game is very interesting, but the NPCs also are super interesting. And considering what language models might do to NPCs in an open world RPG role-playing game, it's super exciting. 25. Yeah, honestly, I think this is one of the first applications where we're going to see real consumer interaction with large language models. I guess Elder Scrolls 6 is in development now. They're probably pretty close to finishing it, but I would not be surprised at all if Elder Scrolls 7 was using large language models for their NPCs. 26. I mean, I'm not saying anything. Not saying anything. 27. This is me speculating, not you. 28. No, but they're just releasing the Starfield game. They do one game at a time. 29. And so whatever it is, whenever the date is, I don't know what the date is, calm down. But it would be, I don't know, like 2024, 25, 26. So it's actually very possible that it would include language models. 30. I was listening to this talk by a gaming executive when I was in grad school. And one of the questions that a person in the audience asked is, why are all these games so focused on fighting and killing? And the person responded that it's just so much harder to make an AI that can talk with you and cooperate with you than it is to make an AI that can fight you. And I think once this technology develops further and you can reach a point where not every single line of dialogue has to be scripted, it unlocks a lot of potential for new kinds of games, like much more positive interactions that are not so focused on fighting. And I'm really looking forward to that. 31. It might not be positive. It might be just drama. 32. Or that too. 33. You'll be in a Call of Duty game and instead of doing the shooting, you'll just be hanging out and arguing with an AI about passive aggressive. And then you won't be able to sleep that night. You have to return and continue the argument that you were emotionally hurt. I mean, yeah, I think that's actually an exciting world. Whatever is the drama, the chaos that we love, the push and pull of human connection, I think it's possible to do that in the video game world. And I think you could be messier and make more mistakes in the video game world, which is why it would be a nice place. And also it doesn't have as deep of a real psychological impact, because inside video games, it's kind of understood that you're in a not a real world. So whatever crazy stuff AI does, we have some flexibility to play. Just like with a game of diplomacy, it's a game. This is not real geopolitics, not real war. It's a game. So you can have a little bit of fun, a little bit of chaos. Okay, back to Nash equilibrium. How do we find the Nash equilibrium? All right. So there's different ways to find a Nash equilibrium. So the way that we do it is with this process called self-play. Basically, we have this algorithm that starts by playing totally randomly, and it learns how to play the game by playing against itself. So it will start playing the game totally randomly. And then if it's playing poker, it'll eventually get to the end of the game and make $50. And then it will review all the decisions that it made along the way and say, what would have happened if I had chosen this other action instead? If I had raised here instead of called, what would the other player have done? And because it's playing against a copy of itself, it's able to do that counterfactual reasoning. So it can say, okay, well, if I took this action and the other person takes this action, and then I take this action, and eventually I make $150 instead of 50. And so it updates the regret value for that action. Regret is basically like, how much does it regret having not played that action in the past? And when it encounters that same situation again, it's going to pick actions that have higher regret with higher probability. Now, it'll just keep simulating the games this way. It'll keep accumulating regrets for different situations. And in the long run, if you pick actions that have higher regret with higher probability in the correct way, it's proven to converge to a Nash equilibrium. Even for super complex games, even for imperfect information games? It's true for all games. It's true for chess. It's true for poker. It's particularly useful for poker. So this is the method of counterfactual regret minimization? This is counterfactual regret minimization. That doesn't have to do with self-play. It has to do with just any, if you follow this kind of process, self-play or not, you will be able to arrive at an optimal set of actions. So this counterfactual regret minimization is a kind of self-play. It's a principled kind of self-play that's proven to converge to Nash equilibria, even in imperfect information games. Now, you can have other forms of self-play, and people use other forms of self-play for perfect information games, where you have more flexibility. The algorithm doesn't have to be as theoretically sound in order to converge to that class of games, because it's a simpler setting. Sure. So I kind of, in my brain, the word self-play has mapped to neural networks, but we're speaking something bigger than just neural networks. It could be anything. The self-play mechanism is just the mechanism of a system playing itself. Exactly. Yeah. Self-play is not tied specifically to neural nets. It's a kind of reinforcement learning, basically. Okay. And I would also say this process of trying to reason, oh, what would the value have been if I had taken this other action instead? This is very similar to how humans learn to play a game like poker. You probably played poker before, and with your friends, you probably ask, oh, what do you have called me if I raise there? And that's a person trying to do the same kind of learning from a counterfactual that the AI is doing. Okay. And if you do that at scale, you're going to be able to learn an optimal policy. Yeah. Now where the neural nets come in, I said, okay, if it's in that situation again, then it will choose the action that has high regret. Now, the problem is that poker is such a huge game. I think No Limit Texas Hold'em, the version that we were playing has 10 to the 161 different decision points, which is more than the number of atoms in the universe squared. That's heads up? That's heads up. Yeah. 10 to the 161, you said? Yeah. I mean, it depends on the number of chips that you have, the stacks and everything, but the version that we were playing was 10 to the 161. Which I assume would be a somewhat simplified version anyway, because I bet there's some like step function you had for like bets. Oh, no, no, no. I'm saying like we played the full game. You can bet whatever amount you want. Okay. The bot maybe was constrained in like what it considered for bet sizes, but the person on the other side could bet whatever they wanted. Yeah. I mean, 161 plus or minus 10 doesn't matter. And so the way neural nets help out here is, you don't have to run into the same exact situation because that's never going to happen again. The odds of you running into the same exact situation are pretty slim. But if you run into a similar situation, then you can generalize from other states that you've been in that kind of look like that one. And you can say like, well, these other situations I had high regret for this action. And so maybe I should play that action here as well. Which is the more complex game, chess or poker or go or poker? Do you know? That is a controversial question. Okay. It's like somebody's screaming on Reddit right now. It depends on which subreddit you're on. Is it chess or is it poker? I'm sure like David Silver is going to get really angry at me. I'm going to say poker actually. And I think for a couple of reasons. They're not here to defend themselves. So first of all, you have the imperfect information aspect. And so we can go into that, but like once you introduce imperfect information, things get much more complicated. So we should say, maybe you can describe what is seen to the players, what is not seen in the game of Texas Hold'em. Yeah. So Texas Hold'em, you get two cards face down that only you see. And so that's the hidden information of the game. The other players also all get two cards face down that only they see. And so you have to kind of, as you're playing, reason about like, okay, what do they think I have? What do they have? What do they think I think they have? That kind of stuff. And that's kind of where bluffing comes into play, right? Because the fact that you can bluff, the fact that you can bet with a bad hand and still win is because they don't know what your cards are. And that's the key difference between a perfect information game like chess and go, and imperfect information games like poker. This is what trash talk looks like. The implied statement is, the game I solved is much tougher. But yeah, so when you're playing, I'm just going to do random questions here. So when you're playing your opponent under imperfect information, is there some degree to which you're trying to estimate the range of hands that they have? Or is that not part of the algorithm? So what are the different approaches to the imperfect information game? So the key thing to understand about why imperfect information makes things difficult is that you have to worry not just about which actions to play, but the probability that you're going to play those actions. So you think about rock, paper, scissors, for example. Rock, paper, scissors is an imperfect information game because you don't know what I'm about to throw. I do, but yeah, usually not. Yeah. Yeah. And so you can't just say like, oh, I'm just going to throw a rock every single time because the other person's going to figure that out and notice a pattern and then suddenly you're going to start losing. And so you don't just have to figure out like which action to play, you have to figure out the probability that you play it. And really importantly, the value of an action depends on the probability that you're going to play it. So if you're playing rock every single time, that value is really low. But if you're never playing rock, you play rock like 1% of the time, then suddenly the other person's probably going to be throwing scissors. And when you throw a rock, the value of that action is going to be really high. Now you take that to poker, what that means is the value of bluffing, for example, if you're the kind of person that never bluffs and you have this reputation as somebody that never bluffs and suddenly you bluff, there's a really good chance that that bluff is going to work and you're going to make a lot of money. On the other hand, if you got a reputation, like if they seen you play for a long time and they see, oh, you're the kind of person that's bluffing all the time. When you bluff, they're not going to buy it and they're going to call you down and you're going to lose a lot of money. And finding that balance of how often you should be bluffing is the key challenge of a game of poker. And you contrast that with a game like chess, it doesn't matter if you're opening with the queen's gambit 10% of the time or 100% of the time, the expected value is the same. So that's why we need these algorithms that understand not just we have to figure out what actions are good, but the probabilities, we need to get the exact probabilities correct. And that's actually when we created the bot Libratus, Libratus means balanced because the algorithm that we designed was designed to find that right balance of how often it should play each action. The balance of how often in the key sort of branching is the bluff or not the bluff. Is that a good crude simplification of the major decision in poker? It's a good simplification. I think that's the main tension, but it's not just how often to bluff or not to bluff, it's how often should you bet in general? What kind of bet should you make? Should you bet big or should you bet small? And with which hands? And so this is where the idea of a range comes from. Because when you're bluffing with a particular hand in a particular spot, you don't want there to be a pattern for the other person to pick up on. You don't want them to figure out, oh, whenever this person is in this spot, they're always bluffing. And so you have to reason about, okay, would I also bet with a good hand in this spot? You want to be unpredictable. So you have to think about what would I do if I had this different set of cards? Is there explicit estimation of like a theory of mind that the other person has about you, or is that just a emergent thing that happens? The way that the bots handle it that are really successful, they have an explicit theory of mind. So they're explicitly reasoning about what's the common knowledge belief? What do you think I have? What do I think you have? What do you think I think you have? It's explicitly reasoning about that. Is there multiple yous there? So maybe that's jumping ahead to six players, but is there a stickiness to the person? So it's an iterative game. You're playing the same game, but you're playing the same person. There's a stickiness to that, right? You're gathering information as you play. It's not every hand is a new hand. Is there a continuation in terms of estimating what kind of player I'm facing here? That's a good question. So you could approach the game that way. The way that the bots do it, they don't... And the way that humans approach it also, expert human players, the way they approach it is to basically assume that you know my strategy. So I'm going to try to pick a strategy where even if I were to play it for 10,000 hands and you could figure out exactly what it was, you still wouldn't be able to beat it. Basically what that means is I'm trying to approximate the Nash equilibrium. I'm trying to be perfectly balanced because if I'm playing the Nash equilibrium, even if you know what my strategy is, like I said, I'm still unbeatable in expectation. So that's what the bot aims for. And that's actually what a lot of expert poker players aim for as well, to start by playing the Nash equilibrium. And then maybe if they spot weaknesses in the way you're playing, then they can deviate a little bit to take advantage of that. They aim to be unbeatable in expectation. Okay. So who's the greatest poker player of all time? And why is it Phil Helmuth? So this is for Phil. So he's known, at least in part, for maybe playing suboptimally and he still wins a lot. It's a bit chaotic. So maybe can you speak from an AI perspective about the genius of his madness or the madness of his genius? So playing suboptimally, playing chaotically as a way to make you hard to pin down about what your strategy is. So, okay. The thing that I should explain first of all with Nash equilibrium, it doesn't mean that it's predictable. The whole point of it is that you're trying to be unpredictable. Now, I think when somebody like Phil Helmuth might be really successful is not in being unpredictable, but in being able to take advantage of the other player and figure out where they're being predictable or guiding the other player into thinking that you have certain weaknesses and then understanding how they're going to change their behavior. They're going to deviate from a Nash equilibrium style of play to try to take advantage of those perceived weaknesses and then counter exploit them. So you kind of get into the mind games there. So you think about these heads up poker as a dance between two agents. I guess are you playing the cards or are you playing the player? So this gets down to a big argument in the poker community and the academic community. For a long time, there was this debate of what's called GTO, game theory optimal poker, or exploitative play. Up until about 2017 when we did the Labradors match, I think actually exploitative play had the advantage. A lot of people were saying like, oh, this whole idea of game theory, it's just nonsense. If you really want to make money, you got to look into the other person's eyes and read their soul and figure out what cards they have. But what happened was people started adopting the game theory optimal strategy and they were making good money. And they weren't trying to adapt so much to the other player. They were just trying to play the Nash equilibrium. And then what really solidified it, I think, was the Labradors match where we played our bot against four top heads up no limit hold'em poker players. And the bot wasn't trying to adapt to them. It wasn't trying to exploit them. It wasn't trying to do these mind games. It was just trying to approximate the Nash equilibrium and it crushed them. I think, you know, we were playing for $50, $100 blinds and over the course of about 120,000 hands it made close to $2 million. 120,000 hands? 120,000 hands. Against humans? Yeah. And this was fake money to be clear. So there was real money at stake. There was $200,000. First of all, all money is fake. But that's a different conversation. We give it meaning. It's a phenomenon that gets meaning from our complex psychology as a human civilization. It's emerging from the collective intelligence of the human species. But that's not what you mean. You mean like there's literally, you can't buy stuff with it. Okay. Can you actually step back and take me through that competition? Yeah. Okay. So when I was in grad school, there was this thing called the annual computer poker competition where every year all the different research labs that were working on AI for poker would get together. They would make a bot. They would play them against each other. And we made a bot that actually won the 2014 competition, the 2016 competition. And so we decided we're going to take this bot, build on it and play against real top professional heads up, no limit Texas Hold'em poker players. So we invited four of the world's best players in this specialty and we challenged them to 120,000 hands of poker over the course of 20 days. And we had $200,000 in prize money at stake where it would basically be divided among them, depending on how well they did relative to each other. So we wanted to have some incentive for them to play their best. Did you have a confidence, 2014, 16, that this is even possible? How much doubt was there? So we did a competition actually in 2015 where we also played against professional poker players and the bot lost by a pretty sizable margin actually. Now there were some big improvements from 2015 to 2017. And so- Can you speak to the improvements? Is it computational in nature? Is it the algorithm, the methods? It was really an algorithmic approach that was the difference. So 2015, it was much more focused on trying to come up with a strategy up front, like trying to solve the entire game of poker and then just have a lookup table where you're saying like, oh, I'm in this situation, what's the strategy? The approach that we took in 2017 was much more search-based. It was trying to say, okay, well, let me in real time try to compute a much better strategy than what I had pre-computed by playing against myself during self-play. What is the search space for poker? What are you searching over? What's that look like? There's different actions like raising, calling. Yeah. What are the actions? Is it just a search over actions? So in a game like chess, the search is like, okay, I'm in this chess position and I can move these different pieces and see where things end up. In poker, what you're searching over is the actions that you can take for your hand, the probabilities that you take those actions, and then also the probabilities that you take other actions with other hands that you might have. That's hard to wrap your head around. Why are you searching over these other hands that you might have and trying to figure out what you would do with those hands? The idea is, again, you want to always be balanced and unpredictable. If your search algorithm is saying like, oh, I want to raise with this hand, well, in order to know whether that's a good action, let's say it's a bluff. Let's say you have a bad hand and you're saying like, oh, I think I should be betting here with this really bad hand and bluffing. Well, that's only a good action if you're also betting with a strong hand. Otherwise, it's an obvious bluff. So if your action in some sense maximizes your unpredictability, so that action could be mapped by your opponent to a lot of different hands, then that's a good action. Basically, what you want to do is put your opponent into a tough spot. So you want them to always have some doubt, like, should I call here? Should I fold here? And if you are raising in the appropriate balance between bluffs and good hands, then you're putting them into that tough spot. And so that's what we're trying to do. We're always trying to search for a strategy that would put the opponent into a difficult position. Can you give a metric that you're trying to maximize or minimize? Does this have to do with the regret thing that we're talking about in terms of putting your opponent in a maximally tough spot? Yeah. Ultimately, what you're trying to maximize is your expected winnings, your expected value, the amount of money that you're going to walk away from, assuming that your opponent was playing optimally in response. So you're going to assume that your opponent is also playing as well as possible a Nash equilibrium approach, because if they're not, then you're just going to make more money. Anything that deviates... By definition, the Nash equilibrium is the strategy that does the best in expectation. And so if you're deviating from that, then they're going to lose money. And since it's a two-player zero-sum game, that means you're going to make money. So there's not an explicit objective function that maximizes the toughness of the spot they're put in. You're always... This is from a self-play reinforcement learning perspective. You're just trying to maximize winnings, and the rest is implicit. That's right. Yeah. So what we're actually trying to maximize is the expected value, given that the opponent is playing optimally in response to us. Now, in practice, what that ends up looking like is it's putting the opponent into difficult situations where there's no obvious decision to be made. So the system doesn't know anything about the difficulty of the situation? Not at all. It doesn't care. Okay. In my head, it was getting excited whenever I was making the other... the opponent sweat. Okay. So you're... In 2015, you didn't do as well. So what's the journey from that to a system that, in your mind, could have a chance? So in 2015, we got... We beat pretty badly, and we actually learned a lot from that competition. And in particular, what became clear to me is that the way the humans were approaching the game was very different from how the bot was approaching the game. The bot would not be doing search. It would just be trying to compute... It would do months of self-play. It would just be playing against itself for months, but then when it's actually playing the game, it would just act instantly. And the humans, when they're in a tough spot, they would sit there and think for sometimes even like five minutes about whether they're going to call or fold a hand. And it became clear to me that that's... There's a good chance that that's what's missing from our bot. So I actually did some initial experiments to try to figure out how much of a difference does this actually make, and the difference was huge. As a signal to the human player, how long you took to think? No, no, no. I'm not saying that there were any timing tells. I was saying when the human... The bot would always act instantly. It wouldn't try to come up with a better strategy in real time over what it had pre-computed during training. Whereas the human, they have all this intuition about how to play, but they're also in real time leveraging their ability to think, to search, to plan, and coming up with an even better strategy than what their intuition would say. So you're saying that there is... You're doing... That's what you mean by you're doing search also. You have an intuition and search on top of that looking for a better solution. Yeah. That's what I mean by search. That instead of acting instantly, a neural net usually gives you a response in like 100 milliseconds or something. It depends on the size of the net. But if you can leverage extra computational resources, you can possibly get a much better outcome. And we did some experiments in small scale versions of poker. And what we found was that if you do a little bit of search, even just a little bit, it was the equivalent of making your pre-computed strategy, you can kind of think of it as your neural net, a thousand times bigger with just a little bit of search. And it just blew away all of the research that we had been working on and trying to scale up this pre-computed solution. It was dwarfed by the benefit that we got from search. Can you just linger on what you mean by search here? You're searching over a space of actions for your hand and for other hands. How are you selecting the other hands to search over? So yeah. Randomly? No, it's all the other hands that you could have. So when you're playing No Limit Texas Hold'em, you've got two face down cards. And so that's 52 choose two, 1,326 different combinations. Now that's actually a little bit lower because there's face up cards in the middle, and so you can eliminate those as well. But you're looking at around a thousand different possible hands that you can have. And so when the bot's doing search, it's thinking explicitly, there are these thousand different hands that I could have. There are these thousand different hands that you could have. Let me try to figure out what would be a better strategy than what I've pre-computed for these hands and your hands. Okay. So that search, how do you fuse that with what the neural net is telling you or what the train system is telling you? Yeah. So you kind of like, where the train system comes in is the value at the end. So there's, you only look so far ahead. You look like maybe one round ahead. So if you're on the flop, you're looking to the start of the turn. And at that point you can use the pre-computed solution to figure out what's the value here of this strategy. Is it of a single action essentially in that spot? You're getting a value or is it the value of the entire series of actions? Well, it's kind of both because you're trying to maximize the value for the hand that you have, but in the process, in order to maximize the value of the hand that you have, you have to figure out what would I be doing with all these other hands as well? Okay. But are you in the search always going to the end of the game? In Libratus, we did. So we only use search starting on the turn. And then we searched all the way to the end of the game. The turn, the river. Can we take it through the terminology? Yeah. There's four rounds of poker. So there's the pre-flop, the flop, the turn, and the river. And so we would start doing search halfway through the game. Now, the first half of the game, that was all pre-computed. It would just act instantly. And then when it got to the halfway point, then it would always search to the end of the game. Now we later improved this so it wouldn't have to search all the way to the end of the game. It would actually search just a few moves ahead. But that came later and that drastically reduced the amount of computational resources that we needed. But the moves, because you can keep betting on top of each other. That's what you mean by moves. So that's where you don't just get one bet per turn of poker. You can have multiple arbitrary number of bets, right? Right. I'm trying to think like, I'm going to bet and then what are you going to do in response? Are you going to raise me or are you going to call? And then if you raise, what should I do? So it's reasoning about that whole process up until the end of the game in the case of Libratus. So for Libratus, what's the most number of re-raises have you ever seen? Uh, you probably cap out at like five or something because at that point you're basically all in. I mean, is there like, uh, interesting patterns like that that you've seen that the game does? Like you'll have like AlphaZero doing way more sacrifices than humans usually do. Is there something like Libratus was constantly re-raising or something like that that you've noticed? There was something really interesting that we observed with Libratus. So humans, when they're playing poker, they usually size their bets relative to the size of the pot. So, you know, if the pot has a hundred dollars in there, maybe you bet like $75 or somewhere around there, somewhere between like 50 and a hundred dollars. Um, and with Libratus, we gave it the option to basically bet whatever it wanted. It was actually really easy for us to say like, oh, if you want, you can bet like 10 times the pot. And we didn't think it would actually do that. It was just like, why not give it the option? And then during the competition, it actually started doing this. And by the way, this was like a very last minute decision on our part to add this option. And so we did not, we did not think the bot would do this. And, uh, I was actually kind of worried when it did start to do this, like, oh, is this a problem? Like humans don't do this. Like is it screwing up? Um, but it would put the humans into really difficult spots when it would do that because, you know, you could imagine like you have the second best hand that's possible given the board and you're thinking like, oh, you're in a really great spot here. And suddenly the bot bets $20,000 into a, you know, a thousand dollar pot. And, and it's basically saying like, I have the best hand or I'm bluffing and you having the second best hand, like now you get a really tough choice to make. And so the humans would sometimes think like five or 10 minutes about like, what do you do? Should I call? Should I fold? And, um, and when I saw the humans like really struggling with that decision, like that's when I realized like, oh, actually this is maybe a good thing to do after all. And of course the system is a no that it's making, again, like we said, that it's putting them in a tough spot. It's, it's, it's just, that's part of the optimal, the game theory optimal. Right. From the bot's perspective, it's just, it's just doing the thing that's going to make it the most money. Um, and the fact that it's putting the humans in a difficult spot, like that's just, um, you know, a side effect of that. And this was, I think the, the one thing, I mean, there were a few things that the humans walked away from, but this was the, the number one thing that the humans walked away from the competition saying like, we need to start doing this. Um, and now these overbats, what are called overbats have become really common in high level poker play. Have you ever talked to like somebody like Daniel Negreanu about this? He seems to be a student of the game. I did actually have a conversation with Daniel Negreanu once. Yeah. I was, uh, I was visiting the Isle of Man to talk to poker stars about AI. Um, and Daniel Negreanu was there when we had dinner together with some other people. And, um, yeah, he was really interested in it. He mentioned that he was like, you know, excited about like learning from these AIs. Um. So he wasn't scared. He was excited. He was excited. And, uh, and he, he honestly, he wanted to play against the bot. He thought he, he thought he had a decent chance of beating it. Um, I think he, you know, this was like several years ago when I think it was like, not as clear to everybody that, you know, the AIs were taking over. I think now people recognize that like, if you're playing against a bot, there's like no chance that you have in a game like poker. So consistently the bots will win. The bots have heads up and in, in other variants too. So multiple, multiple six player Texas hold them, no limit Texas hold them. The bots win. Yeah, that's the case. So I think there is some debate about like, is it true for every single variant of poker? I think, I think for every single variant of poker, if somebody really put in the effort, they can make an AI that would beat all humans at it. Um, we've focused on the most popular variants. So heads up, no limit Texas hold them. And then we followed that up with, um, with a six player poker as well, where we managed to make a bot that beat expert human players. And I think even there now, uh, it's pretty clear that humans don't stand a chance. See, I would love to hook up an AI system that looks at EEG, like how, like actually tries to optimize the toughness of the spot it puts a human in. And I would, I would love to see how different is that from the game theory optimal. So you try to maximize the heart rate of the human player, like the freaking out over a long period of time. I wonder if there's going to be different strategies that emerge, uh, that are close in terms of effectiveness, because something tells me you could still be, um, achieve superhuman level performance by just making people sweat. I feel like that there's a good chance that that is the case. Yeah. If you're able to see like that, it's like, it's like a decent proxy for score. Right. Um, and this is actually like the, the common poker wisdom when they're taught, where they're teaching players before there were bots and they were trying to teach people how to play poker. They would say, like, the key to the game is to put your opponent into difficult spots. It's a good, um, a good estimate for if you're making the right decision. So what else can you say about the fundamental role of search in poker? And maybe if you can also relate it to chess and go in these games, what's the role of search to solving these games? Yeah, I think a lot of people under, this is true for the general public. And I think it's true for the AI community. A lot of people underestimate the importance of search for these kinds of game AI results. Um, an example of this is, uh, TD Gammon that came out in 1992. This was the first real instance of a neural net being used in a game AI. It's a landmark achievement. It was actually the inspiration for alpha zero and it used search. It used two-ply search to figure out its next move. You got deep blue there. It was very heavily focused on search. Um, looking many, many moves ahead farther than any human could. And that was key for why it won. And then even with something like AlphaGo, I mean, AlphaGo is commonly hailed as a landmark achievement for neural nets. And it is, but there's also this huge component of search Monte Carlo tree search to AlphaGo that was key, absolutely essential for the AI to be able to beat top humans. Um, I think a good example of this is you look at the latest versions of alpha of AlphaGo, like it was called alpha zero. Um, and there's this metric called Elo rating where you can compare different humans and you can compare bots to humans. Now a top human player is around 3,600 Elo, maybe a little bit higher now. Um, alpha zero, the strongest version is around 5,200 Elo. But if you take out the search that's being done at test time, and by the way, what I mean by search is the planning ahead, the thinking of like, Oh, if I move my, if I place this stone here and then he does this, and then you look like five moves ahead and you see like what the board state looks like. Um, that's what I mean by search. If you take out the search, that's done during the game, the Elo rating drops to around 3000. So even today, what seven years after AlphaGo, if you take out the Monte Carlo tree search that's being done at one playing against the human, the bots are not superhuman. Nobody has made a raw neural net that is super human and go. That's worth lingering on. That's, that's quite profound. So, uh, without search, that just means looking at the next move and saying, this is the best move. So having a function that estimates accurately what the best move is without search. Yeah. And all these bots, they have the, what's called a policy network where it will tell you, this is what the neural net thinks is the next best move. Um, and it's kind of like a, the intuition that a human has, you know, the, the human looks at the board and, and any, uh, go or chess master will be able to tell you like, Oh, instantly, here's what I think the right move is. Um, and the bot is able to do the same thing, but just like how a human grandmaster can make a better decision if they have more time to think when you add on this Monte Carlo tree search, the bot is able to make a better decision. Yeah. I mean, of course a human is doing something like search in their brain, but it's not, I hesitate to draw a hard line, but it's not like a Monte Carlo tree search. It's more like sequential language model generation. So it's like a different, it's a, the neural network is doing the searching. I don't, I wonder what the human brain is doing in terms of searching. Cause you're doing that like computation, a human is computing. They have intuition, they've got, they have a really strong ability to estimate, you know, amongst the top players of what is good and not position without calculating all the details, but they're still doing search in their head, but it's a different kind of search. Have you ever thought about, like, what is the difference between the human, the search that the human is performing versus what computers are doing? I have thought a lot about that. And I think it's a really important question. So the AI in alpha and alphas in alpha go or any of these go AI's, they're all doing Monte Carlo tree search, which is a particular kind of search. And it, it's actually a symbolic tabular search. It uses the neural net to guide its search, but it isn't actually like full, full on neural net. Now that kind of search is very successful in these kinds of like perfect information board games like chess and go. But if you take it to a game like poker, for example, it doesn't work. It can't, it can't understand the concept of hidden information. It doesn't understand the balance that you have to strike between like the amount that you're raising versus the amount that you're calling. And in every one of these games, you see a different kind of search and the human brain is able to plan for all these different games in a very general way. Now, I think that's one thing that we're missing from AI today. And I think it's a really important missing piece, the ability to plan and reason more generally across a wide variety of different settings. In a way where the general reasoning makes you better at each one of the games, not worse. Yeah. So you can kind of think of it as like neural nets today. They'll give you like transformers, for example, are super general, but they'll give you, it'll output an answer in like a hundred milliseconds. And if you tell it like, oh, you've got five minutes to give you a decision, feel free to take more time to make a better decision. It's not going to know what to do with that. But a human, if you're playing a game like chess, they're going to give you a very different answer depending on if you say, oh, you've got a hundred milliseconds or you've got five minutes. Yeah. I mean, people have started using transformers, language models, in an iterative way that does improve the answer or like showing the work kind of idea. Yeah. They got this thing called chain of thought reasoning. And that's, I think- Super promising, right? Yeah. And I think it's a good step in the right direction. I would kind of like say it's similar to Monte Carlo rollouts in a game like chess. There's a kind of search that you can do where you're saying like, I'm going to roll out my intuition and see like, without really thinking, you know, what are the better decisions I can make farther down the path? What would I do if I just acted according to intuition for the next 10 moves? And that gets you an improvement. But I think that there's much richer kinds of planning that we could do. So when Labradors actually beat the poker players, what did that feel like? What was that? I mean, actually on that day, what were you feeling like? Were you nervous? I mean, poker was one of the games that you thought like is not going to be solvable because it's the human factor. So at least in the narratives, we'll tell ourselves the human factor is so fundamental to the game of poker. Yeah. The Labradors competition was super stressful for me. Also, I mean, I was working on this like basically continuously for a year leading up to the competition. I mean, for me, it became like very clear, like, okay, this is the search technique. This is the approach that we need. And then I spent a year working on this pretty much like nonstop. Oh, can we actually get into details? Like what programming languages is it written in? What's some interesting implementation details that are like fun slash painful? Yeah. So one of the interesting things about Labradors is that we had no idea what the bar was to actually beat top humans. We could play against like our prior bots. And that kind of gives us some sense of like, are we making progress? Are we going in the right direction? But we had no idea like what the bar actually was. And so we threw a huge amount of resources at trying to make the strongest bot possible. So we use C++, it was parallelized. We were using, I think like 1000 CPUs, maybe more actually. And, you know, today, that sounds like nothing. But for a grad student back in 2016, that was a huge amount of resources. Well, it's still a lot for even any grad student today. It's still tough to get, or even to allow yourself to think in that in terms of scale at CMU, at MIT, anything like that. Yeah. And, you know, talking about terabytes of memory. So it was a very parallelized, and it had to be very fast too, because the more games that you could simulate, the stronger the bot would be. So is there some like John Carmack style, like efficiencies you had to come up with, like an efficient way to represent the hand, all that kind of stuff? There were all sorts of optimizations that I had to make to try to get this thing to run as fast as possible. They were like, how do you minimize the latency? How do you like, you know, package things together so that like you minimize the amount of communication between the different nodes? How do you like optimize the algorithm so that you can, you know, try to squeeze out more and more from the game that you're actually playing? All these kinds of different decisions that I, you know, had to make. Just a fun question. What IDE did you use for C++ at the time? I think I used Visual Studio actually. Okay. Is that still carried through to today? VS Code is what I use today. It seems like it's pretty popular. It's the community, basically, conversion on. Okay, cool. So you got this super optimized C++ system, and then you show up to the day of competition. Yeah. Yeah. Humans versus machine. How did it feel throughout the day? Super stressful. I mean, I thought going into it that we had like a 50-50 chance. Because basically I thought if they play in a totally normal style, I think we'll squeak out a win. But there's always a chance that they can find some weakness in the bot. And if they do, and we're playing like for 20 days, 120,000 hands of poker, they have a lot of time to find weaknesses in the system. And if they do, we're going to get crushed. And that's actually what happened in the previous competition. The humans, they started out, it wasn't like they were winning from the start, but then they found these weaknesses that they could take advantage of. And for the next 10 days, they were just crushing the bot, stealing money from it. What were the weaknesses they found? Maybe overbetting was effective, that kind of stuff. So certain betting strategies worked? What they found is, yeah, overbetting, like betting certain amounts, the bot would have a lot of trouble dealing with those sizes. And then also when the bot got into really difficult all-in situations, it wasn't able to... Because it wasn't doing search, it had to clump different hands together and it would treat them identically. And so it wouldn't be able to distinguish, having a king high flush versus an ace high flush. And in some situations that really matters a lot. And so they could put the bot into those situations and then the bot would just bleed money. Clever humans. Okay. So I didn't realize it was over 20 days. So what were the humans like over those 20 days? And what was the bot like? So we had set up the competition. Like I said, there was $200,000 in prize money, and they would get paid a fraction of that depending on how well they did relative to each other. So I was kind of hoping that they wouldn't work together to try to find weaknesses in the bot, but they enter the competition with their number one objective being to beat the bot. And they didn't care about individual glory. They were like, we're all going to work as a team to try to take down this bot. And so they immediately started comparing notes. What they would do is they would coordinate looking at different parts of the strategy to try to find out weaknesses. And then at the end of the day, we actually sent them a log of all the hands that were played and what cards the bot had on each of those hands. Oh, wow. That's gutsy. Yeah. It was honestly, and I'm not sure why we did that in retrospect, but I mean, I'm glad we did it because we ended up winning anyway. But if you've ever played poker before, that is golden information. I mean, to know... Usually when you play poker, you see about a third of the hands to show down. And to just hand them all the cards that the bot had on every single hand, that was just a goldmine for them. And so then they would review the hands and try to see like, okay, could they find patterns in the bot, weaknesses? And then they would coordinate and study together and try to figure out, okay, now this person's going to explore this part of the strategy for weaknesses. This person's going to explore this part of the strategy for weaknesses. It's a kind of psychological warfare showing them the hands. I mean, I'm sure you didn't think of it that way, but doing that means you're confident in the bot's ability to win. Well, that's one way of putting it. I wasn't super confident. So going in, like I said, I think I had like 50-50 odds on us winning. Actually, when we announced the competition, the poker community decided to gamble on who would win. And their initial odds against us were like four to one. They were really convinced that the humans were going to pull out a win. The bot ended up winning for three days straight. And even then, after three days, the betting odds were still just 50-50. And then at that point, it started to look like the humans were coming back. But poker is a very high variance game. And I think what happened is they thought that they spotted some weaknesses that weren't actually there. And then around day eight, it was just very clear that they were getting absolutely crushed. And from that point, I mean, for a while there, I was super stressed out, thinking like, oh my God, the humans are coming back and they've found weaknesses and now we're just going to lose the whole thing. But no, it ended up going in the other direction and the bot ended up crushing them in the long run. How did it feel at the end? As a human being, as a person who loves, appreciates the beauty of the game of poker, and as a person who appreciates the beauty of AI, did you feel a certain kind of way about it? I felt a lot of things, man. I mean, at that point in my life, I had spent five years working on this project and it was a huge sense of accomplishment. I mean, to spend five years working on something and finally see it succeed. Yeah, I wouldn't trade that for anything in the world. Yeah, because that's a real benchmark. It's not like getting some percent accuracy on a dataset. This is real world. It's just a game, but it's also a game that means a lot to a lot of people and this is humans doing their best to beat the machine. So, this is a real benchmark unlike anything else. Yeah, and I mean, this is what I have been dreaming about since I was like 16 playing poker with my friends in high school. The idea that you could find a strategy, approximate the Nash equilibrium, be able to beat all the poker players in the world with it. So, to actually see that come to fruition and be realized, that was, it's kind of magical. Yeah, especially money is on the line too. It's different than chess and that aspect, like people get, that's why you want to look at betting markets if you want to actually understand what people really think. And in the same sense, poker, it's really high stakes because it's money and to solve that game, that's an amazing accomplishment. So, the leap from that to multi-way six-player poker, how difficult is that jump? And what are some interesting differences between heads-up poker and multi-way poker? Yeah, so I mentioned Nash equilibrium in two-player zero-sum games. If you play that strategy, you are guaranteed to not lose an expectation no matter what your opponent does. Now, once you go to six-player poker, you're no longer playing a two-player zero-sum game. And so, there was a lot of debate among the academic community and among the poker community about how well these techniques would extend beyond just two-player heads-up poker. Now, what I had come to realize is that the techniques actually I thought really would extend to six-player poker because even though in theory, they don't give you these guarantees outside of two-player zero-sum games, in practice, it still gives you a really strong strategy. Now, there were a lot of complications that would come up with six-player poker besides the game-theoretic aspect. I mean, for one, the game is just exponentially larger. So, the main thing that allowed us to go from two-player to six-player was the idea of depth-limited search. So, I said before, we would do search, we would plan out, the bot would plan out what it's going to do next and for the next several moves. And in Libratus, that search was done extending all the way to the end of the game. So, it would have to start from the turn onwards, like looking maybe 10 moves ahead, it would have to figure out what it was doing for all those moves. Now, when you get to six-player poker, it can't do that exhaustive search anymore because the game is just way too large. But by only having to look a few moves ahead and then stopping there and substituting a value estimate of like how good is that strategy at that point, then we're able to do a much more scalable form of search. Is there something cool? We're looking at the paper right now. Is there something cool in the paper in terms of graphics? A game tree traversal via Monte Carlo. I think if you go down a bit. Figure one, an example of equilibrium selection problem. Ooh, so yeah. What do we know about equilibrium when there's multiple players? So, when you go outside of two players, you're a sum. So, a Nash equilibrium is a set of strategies, like one strategy for each player, where no player has an incentive to switch to a different strategy. And so, you can kind of think of it as like imagine you have a game where there's a ring. That's actually the visual here. You got a ring and the object of the game is to be as far away from the other players as possible. A Nash equilibrium is for all the players to be spaced equally apart around this ring. But there's infinitely many different Nash equilibria, right? There's infinitely many ways to space four dots along a ring. And if every single player independently computes a Nash equilibrium, then there's no guarantee that the joint strategy that they're all playing is going to be a Nash equilibrium. They're just going to be like random dots scattered along this ring rather than four coordinated dots being equally spaced apart. Is it possible to sort of optimally do this kind of selection, to do the selection of the equilibrium you're chasing? So, is there like a meta problem to be solved here? So, the meta problem is in some sense, how do you understand the Nash equilibrium that the other players are going to play? And even if you do that, again, there's no guarantee that you're going to win. So, if you're playing risk, like I said, and all the other players decide to team up against you, you're going to lose. Nash equilibrium doesn't help you there. And so, there is this big debate about whether Nash equilibrium and all these techniques that compute it are even useful once you go outside of two-player zero-sum games. Now, I think for many games, there is a valid criticism here. And I think when we go to something like diplomacy, we run into this issue that the approach of trying to approximate a Nash equilibrium doesn't really work anymore. But it turns out that in six-player poker, because six-player poker is such an adversarial game where none of the players really try to work with each other, the techniques that were used in two-player poker to try to approximate an equilibrium, those still end up working in practice in six-player poker as well. There's some deep way in which six-player poker is just a bunch of heads-up poker-like games in one. It's like embedded in it. So, the competitiveness is more fundamental to poker than the cooperation. Right. Yeah. Poker is just such an adversarial game. There's no real cooperation. In fact, you're not even allowed to cooperate in poker. It's considered collusion. It's against the rules. And so, for that reason, the techniques end up working really well. And I think that's true more broadly in extremely adversarial games in general. But that's sort of in practice versus being able to prove something. That's right. Nobody has a proof that that's the case. And it could be that six-player poker belongs to some class of games where approximating a Nash equilibrium through self-play provably works well. And there are other classes of games beyond just two-player zero-sum where this is proven to work well. So, there are these kinds of games called potential games, which I won't go into. It's kind of like a complicated concept. But there are classes of games where this approach to approximating a Nash equilibrium is proven to work well. Now, six-player poker is not known to belong to one of those classes, but it is possible that there is some classic games where it either provably performs well or provably performs not that badly. So, what are some interesting things about Pluribus that was able to achieve human-level performance on this, or superhuman-level performance on the six-player version of poker? Personally, I think the most interesting thing about Pluribus is that it was so much cheaper than Libratus. I mean, Libratus, if you had to put a price tag on the computational resources that went into it, I would say the final training run took about $100,000. You go to Pluribus, the final training run would cost less than $150 on AWS. Is this normalized to computational inflation? So, meaning, does this just have to do with the fact that Pluribus was trained a year later? No, no, no. It's not. I mean, first of all, computing resources are getting cheaper every day, but you're not going to see a thousand-fold decrease in the computational resources over two years, or even anywhere close to that. The real improvement was algorithmic improvements, and in particular, the ability to do depth-limited search. So, does depth-limited search also work for Libratus? Yeah, yes. So, where this depth-limited search came from is, you know, I developed this technique and ran it on two-player poker first, and that reduced the computational resources needed to make an AI that was superhuman from, you know, $100,000 for Libratus to something you could train on your laptop. What do you learn from that, from that discovery? What I would take away from that is that algorithmic improvements really do matter. How would you describe the more general case of limited depth search? So, it's basically constraining the scale, temporal, or in some other way of the computation you're doing, in some clever way. So, like, how else can you significantly constrain computation, right? Well, I think the idea is that we want to be able to leverage search as much as possible, and the way that we were doing it in Libratus required us to search all the way to the end of the game. Now, if you're playing a game like chess, the idea that you're going to search always to the end of the game is kind of unimaginable, right? Like, there's just so many situations where you just won't be able to use search in that case, or the cost would be, you know, prohibitive. And this technique allowed us to leverage search, and without having to pay such a huge computational cost for it, and be able to apply it more broadly. So, to what degree did you use neural nets for Libratus and Pleribus, and more generally, what role do neural nets have to play in superhuman level performance in poker? So, we actually did not use neural nets at all for Libratus or Pleribus, and a lot of people found this surprising back in 2017, I think they find it surprising today, that we were able to do this without using any neural nets. And I think the reason for that, I mean, I think neural nets are incredibly powerful, and the techniques that are used today, even for poker AIs, do rely quite heavily on neural nets. But it wasn't the main challenge for poker. Like, I think what neural nets are really good for, if you're in a situation where finding features for a value function is really difficult, then neural nets are really powerful. And this was the problem in Go, right? Like, the problem in Go was that, or the final problem in Go, at least, was that nobody had a good way of looking at a board and figuring out who was winning or losing, and describing through a simple algorithm who was winning or losing. And so there, neural nets were super helpful because you could just feed in a ton of different board positions into this neural net, and it would be able to predict then who was winning or losing. But in poker, the features weren't the challenge. The challenge was, how do you design a scalable algorithm that would allow you to find this balance strategy that would understand that you have to bluff with the right probability? So can that be somehow incorporated into the value function? The complexity of poker that you've described? Yeah, so the way the value functions work in poker, like the latest and greatest poker AIs, they do use neural nets for the value function. The way it's done is very different from how it's done in a game like chess or Go, because in poker, you have to reason about beliefs. And so the value of a state depends on the beliefs that players have about what the different cards are. If you have pocket aces, then whether that's a really, really good hand or just an okay hand depends on whether you know I have pocket aces. If you know that I have pocket aces, then if I bet, you're going to fold immediately. But if you think that I have a really bad hand, then I could bet with pocket aces and make a ton of money. So the value function in poker these days takes the beliefs as an input, which is very different from how chess and Go AIs work. So as a person who appreciates the game, who do you think is the greatest poker player of all time? That's a tough question. Can AI help answer that question? Can you actually analyze the quality of play? So the chess engines can give estimates of the quality of play. I wonder if there's a, is there an ELO rating type of system for poker? I suppose you could, but there's just not enough. You would have to play a lot of games, a very large number of games, more than you would in chess. The deterministic game makes it easier to estimate ELO, I think. I think it is much harder to estimate something like ELO rating in poker. I think it's doable. The problem is that the game is very high variance. So you could play, you could be profitable in poker for a year and you could actually be a bad player just because the variance is so high. I mean, you've got top professional poker players that would lose for a year just because they're on a really bad streak. So for ELO, you have to have a nice clean way of saying if player A played player B and A beats B, that says something, that's a signal. In poker, that's a very noisy signal. It's a very noisy signal. Now there is a signal there. And so you could do this calculation. It would just be much harder. But the same way that AIs have now taken over chess and all the top professional chess players train with AIs, the same is true for poker. The game has become a very computational, people train with AIs to try to find out where they're making mistakes, try to learn from the AIs to improve their strategy. So now, yeah, so the game has been revolutionized in the past five years by the development of AI in this sport. The skill with which you avoided the question of the greatest of all time was impressive. So my feeling is that it's a difficult question because just like in chess, where you can't really compare Magnus Carlsen today to Garry Kasparov, because the game has evolved so much. The poker players today are so far beyond the skills of people that were playing even 10 or 20 years ago. So you look at the kinds of all-stars that were on ESPN at the height of the poker boom, pretty much all those players are actually not that good at the game today. At least the strategy aspect, I mean, they might still be good at reading the player at the other side of the table and trying to figure out are they bluffing or not. But in terms of the actual computational strategy of the game, a lot of them have really struggled to keep up with that development. Now, so for that reason, I'll give an answer and I'm going to say Daniel Legreanu, who you actually had on the podcast recently, I saw it was a great episode. I'm going to love this so much. And Phil's going to hate this so much. And I'm going to give him credit because he is one of the few old school, really strong players that have kept up with the development of AI. So he is constantly studying the game theory optimal way of playing. Exactly. Yeah. And I think a lot of the old school poker players have just kind of given up on that aspect. And I got to give Daniel Legreanu credit for keeping up with all the developments that are happening in the sport. Yeah, it's fascinating to watch. It's fascinating to watch where it's headed. Yeah, so there you go. Some love for Daniel. Quick pause, bathroom break? Yeah, let's do it. Let's go from poker to diplomacy. What is at a high level the game of diplomacy? Yeah, so I talked a lot about two players, zero-sum games. And what's interesting about diplomacy is that it's very different from these adversarial games like chess, go, poker, even Starcraft and Dota. Diplomacy has a much bigger cooperative element to it. It's a seven-player game. It was actually created in the 50s. And it takes place before World War One. It's like a map of Europe with seven great powers. And they're all trying to form alliances with each other. There's a lot of negotiation going on. And so the whole focus of the game is on forming alliances with the other players to take on the other players. England, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Austria, Hungary, Italy, and France. That's right, yeah. So the way the game works is on each turn, you spend about five to 15 minutes talking to the other players in private. And you make all sorts of deals with them. You say like, hey, let's work together. Let's team up against this other player. Because the only way that you can make progress is by working with somebody else against the others. And then after that negotiation period is done, all the players simultaneously submit their moves and they're all executed at the same time. And so you can tell people like, hey, I'm going to support you this turn, but then you don't follow through with it. And they're only going to figure that out once they see the moves being read off. How much of it is natural language, like written, actual text? How much is like, you're actually saying phrases that are structured? So there's different ways to play the game. You can play it in person. And in that case, it's all natural language, free form communication. There's no constraints on the kinds of deals that you can make, the kinds of things that you can discuss. You can also play it online. So you can send long emails back and forth. You can play it live online or over voice chat. But the focus, the important thing to understand is that this is unstructured communication. You can say whatever you want. You can make any sorts of deals that you want and everything is done privately. So it's not like you're all around the board together having a conversation. You're grabbing somebody going off into a corner and conspiring behind everybody else's back about what you're planning. And there's no limit in theory to the conversation you can have directly with one person. That's right. You can make all sorts of, you can talk about anything. You can say like, Hey, let's have a long-term alliance against this guy. You can say like, Hey, can you support me this turn and in return, I'll do this other thing for you next turn. Or, you know, yeah, just you can talk about like what you talked about with somebody else and gossip about like what they're planning. The way that I would describe the game is that it's kind of like a mix between risk, poker, and the TV show survivor. There's like this big element of like trying to, yeah, there's a big social element. And the best way that I would describe the game is that it's really a game about people rather than the pieces. So risk because it is a map, it's kind of war game like. Poker because there's a game theory component that's very kind of strategic. So you could convert it into an artificial intelligence problem and then survivor because of the social component, strong social component. I saw that somebody said online that the internet version of the game has this quality of that it's easier to almost to do like role-playing as opposed to being yourself. You can actually like be the, like really imagine yourself as the leader of France or Russia and so on. Like really pretend to be that person. It's actually fun to really lean into being that leader. Yeah. So some players do go this route where they just like kind of view it as a strategy game, but also a role-playing game where they can like act out like, what would I be like if I was, you know, a leader of France in 1900? A forfeit right away. No, I'm just kidding. And they sometimes use like the old-timey language to like, or how they imagined the elites would talk at that time. Anyway, so what are the different turns of the game? Like what are the rounds? Yeah. So on every turn, you got like a bunch of different units that you start out with. So you start out controlling like just a few units and the object of the game is to gain control of the majority of the map. If you're able to do that, then you've won the game. But like I said, the only way that you're able to do that is by working with other players. So on every turn, you can issue a move order. So for each of your units, you can move them to an adjacent territory, or you can keep them where they are, or you can support a move or hold of a different unit. So what are the territories? How is the map divided up? It's kind of like Risk where the map is divided up into like 50 different territories. Now you can enter a territory if you're moving into that territory with more supports than the person that's in there or the person that's trying to move in there. So if you're moving in and there's somebody already there, then if neither of you have support, it's a one versus one and you'll bounce back and neither of you will make progress. If you have a unit that's supporting that move into the territory, then it's a two versus one and you'll kick them out and they'll have to retreat somewhere. What does support mean? Support is like, it's an action that you can issue in the game. So you can say, this unit, you write down, this unit is supporting this other unit into this territory. Are these units from opposing forces? They could be. And this is where the interesting aspect of the game comes in because you can support your own units into territory, but you can also support other people's units into territories. And so that's what the negotiations really revolve around. But you don't have to do the thing you say you're going to do. So you can say, I'm going to support you, but then backstab the person. Yeah, that's absolutely right. And that tension is core to the game? That tension is absolutely core to the game. The fact that you can make all sorts of promises, but you have to reason about the fact that like, hey, they might not trust you if you say you're going to do something, or they might be lying to you when they say that they're going to support you. So maybe just to jump back, what's the history of the game in general? Is it true that Henry Kissinger loved the game and JFK and all those? I've heard like a bunch of different people that, or is that just one of those things that the cool kids say they do, but they don't actually play? So the game was created in the 50s. And from what I understand, it was JFK's, it was played in like the JFK White House, Henry Kissinger's favorite game. I don't know if it's true, but that's definitely what I've heard. It's interesting that they went with World War I when it was created after World War II. So the story that I've heard for the creation of the game is it was created by somebody that had looked at the history of the 20th century and they saw World War I as a failure of diplomacy. So they saw the fact that this war broke out as the diplomats of all these countries really failed to prevent a war. And he wanted to create a game that would basically teach people about diplomacy. And it's really fascinating that in his ideal version of the game of diplomacy, nobody actually wins the game. Because the whole point is that if somebody is about to win, then the other players should be able to work together to stop that person from winning. And so the ideal version of the game is just one where nobody actually wins. And it's kind of has a nice wholesome take home message then that war is ultimately futile. And that futile optimal could be achieved through great diplomacy. Yeah. So is there some asymmetry in terms of which is more powerful, Russia versus Germany versus France and so on? So I think the general consensus is that France is the strongest power in the game. But the beautiful thing about diplomacy is that it's self-balancing, right? So the fact that France has an inherited advantage from the beginning means that the other players are less likely to work with it. I saw that Russia has four units or four of something that the others have three of something. That's true. Yeah. So Russia starts off with four units while all the other players start with three. But Russia is also in a much more vulnerable position because they have a lot more neighbors as well. Got it. Larger territory, more border to defend. Okay. What else is important to know about the rules? So how many rounds are there? Is this iterative game? Is it finite? Do you just keep going indefinitely? Usually the game lasts, I would say about 15 or 20 turns. There's in theory no limit. It could last longer. But at some point, I mean, if you're playing a house game with friends, at some point you just get tired and you all agree like, okay, we're going to end the game here and call it a draw. If you're playing online, there's usually like set limits on when the game will actually end. And what's the end? What's the termination condition? Does one country have to conquer everything else? So if somebody is able to actually gain control of a majority of the map, then they've won the game. And that is a solo victory as it's called. Now that pretty rarely happens, especially with strong players, because like I said, the game is designed to incentivize the other players to put a stop to that and all work together to stop the superpower. Usually what ends up happening is that all the players agree to a draw, and then the score, the win is divided among the remaining players. There's a lot of different scoring systems. The one that we used in our research basically gives a score relative to how much control you have of the map. So the more that you control, the higher your score. What's the history of using this game as a benchmark for AI research? Do people use it? Yeah. So people have been working on AI for diplomacy since about the 80s. There was some really exciting research back then, but the approach that was taken was very different from what we see today. I mean, the research in the 80s was a very rule-based approach, kind of a heuristic approach. It was very in line with the kind of research that was being done in the 80s, basically trying to encode human knowledge into the strategy of the AI. And it's understandable. I mean, the game is so incredibly different and so much more complicated than the kinds of games that people were working on like chess and go and poker that it was honestly even hard to start making any progress in diplomacy. Can you just formulate what is the problem from an AI perspective and why is it hard? Why is it a challenging game to solve? So there's a lot of aspects in diplomacy that make it a huge challenge. First of all, you have the natural language components. And I think this really is what makes it arguably the most difficult game among the major benchmarks. The fact that you have to... It's not about moving pieces on the board. Your action space is basically all the different sentences that you could communicate to somebody else in this game. Yeah. Is there... Can we just like linger on that? So is part of it like the ambiguity in the language? If it was like very strict, if you narrowed the set of possible sentences you could do, would that simplify the game significantly? The real difficulty is the breadth of things that you can talk about. You can have natural language in other games, like Settlers of Catan, for example. You could have a natural language Settlers of Catan AI. But the things that you're going to talk about are basically like, am I trading you two sheep for wood or three sheep for wood? Whereas in a game like diplomacy, the breadth of conversations that you're going to have are like, am I going to support you? Are you going to support me in return? Which units are going to do what? What did this other person promise you? They're lying because they told this other person that they're going to do this instead. If you help me out this turn, then in the future I'll do these things that will help you out. The depth and breadth of these conversations is really complicated and it's all being done in natural language. Now you could approach it, and we actually consider doing this, having a simplified language to make this complexity smaller. But ultimately we thought the most impactful way of doing this research would be to address the natural language component head on and just try to go for the full game up front. Just looking at sample games and what the conversations look like. Greetings, England, this should prove to be a fun game since all the private press is going to be made public at the end. At the least, it will be interesting to see if the press changes because of that. Anyway, good. Okay. So there's like a... Yeah, that's just kind of like the generic greetings at the beginning of the game. I think that the meat comes a little bit later when you're starting to talk about specific strategy and stuff. I agree there are a lot of advantages to the two of us keeping in touch and our nations make strong, natural allies in the middle game. So that kind of stuff. Making friends, making enemies. Yeah. If you look at the next line, so the person saying, I've heard bits about a Lepanto and an octopus opening and basically telling Austria, like, hey, just a heads up. I've heard these whispers about what might be going on behind your back. Yeah. So there's all kinds of complexities in the language of that, right? To interpret what the heck that means. It's hard for us humans, but for AI, it's even harder because you have to understand at every level the semantics of that. Right. I mean, there's the complexity and understanding when somebody is saying this to me, what does that mean? And then there's also the complexity of like, should I be telling this person this? Like I've overheard these whispers. Should I be telling this person that like, hey, you might be getting attacked by this other power. Okay. So what, how are we supposed to think about, okay. So that's the natural language. How do you even begin trying to solve this game? It seems like the Turing test on steroids. Yeah. And I mean, there's the natural language aspect. And then even besides the natural language aspect, you also have the cooperative elements of the game. And I think this is actually something that I find really interesting. If you look at all of the previous game AI breakthroughs, they've all happened in these purely adversarial games where you don't actually need to understand how humans play the game. It's all just AI versus AI, right? Like you look at checkers, chess, go, poker, Starcraft, Dota 2. Like in some of those cases, they leveraged human data, but they never needed to. They were always just trying to have a scalable algorithm that then they could throw a lot of computational resources at, a lot of memory at, and then eventually it would converge to an approximation of a Nash equilibrium. This perfect strategy that in a two player zero-sum game guarantees that they're going to be able to not lose to any opponent. So you can't leverage self-play to solve this game? You can leverage self-play, but it's no longer sufficient to beat humans. So how do you integrate the human into the loop of this? So what you have to do is incorporate human data. And to kind of give you some intuition for why this is the case, like imagine you're playing a negotiation game, like diplomacy, but you're training completely from scratch without any human data. The AI is not going to suddenly figure out how to communicate in English. It's going to figure out some weird robot language that only it will understand. And then when you stick that in a game with six other humans, they're going to think this person's talking gibberish and they're just going to ally with each other and team up against the bot. Or not even team up against the bot, but just not work with the bot. And so in order to be able to play this game with humans, it has to understand the human way of playing the game, not this machine way of playing the game. Yeah. Yeah, that's fascinating. So, right. Right. That's a nuanced thing to understand because a chess playing program doesn't need to play like a human to beat a human. Exactly. But here you have to play like a human in order to beat them. Or at least you have to understand how humans play the game so that you can understand how to work with them. If they have certain expectations about what does it mean to be a good ally? What does it mean to have like a reciprocal relationship where we're working together? You have to abide by those conventions. And if you don't, they're just going to work with somebody else instead. Do you think of this as a clean, in some deep sense, the spirit of the Turing test as formulated by Alan Turing? Is it, in some sense, this is what the Turing test actually looks like? So, because of open-ended natural language conversation seems like very difficult to evaluate. Here at a high stakes where humans are trying to win a game, that seems like how you actually perform the Turing test. I think it's different from the Turing test. The way that the Turing test is formulated, it's about trying to distinguish a human from a machine and seeing, oh, could the machine successfully pass as a human in this adversarial setting where the player is trying to figure out whether it's a machine or a human. Whereas in diplomacy, it's not about trying to figure out whether this player is a human or a machine. It's ultimately about whether I can work with this player, regardless of whether they are a human or machine. And can the machine do that better than a human can? Yeah, I'm going to think about that, but that just feels like the implied requirement for that is for the machine to be human-like. I think that's true, that if you're going to play in this human game, you have to somehow adapt to the human surroundings and the human play style. And to win, you have to adapt. So you can't, if you're the outsider, if you're not human-like, I feel like that's a losing strategy. I think that's correct. Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. What are the complexities here? What was your approach to it? Before I get to that, one thing I should explain, why we decided to work on diplomacy. So basically what happened is in 2019, I was wrapping up the work on six-player poker on Pleribus and was trying to think about what to work on next. And I had been seeing all these other breakthroughs happening in AI. I mean, 2019, you have StarCraft, you have AlphaStar beating humans in StarCraft. You've got the Dota 2 stuff happening at OpenAI. You have GPT-2 or GPT-3 coming. I think it was GPT-2 at the time. And it became clear that AI was progressing really, really rapidly. And people were throwing out these other games about what should be the next challenge for multi-agent AI. And I just felt like we had to aim bigger. If you look at a game like chess or a game like Go, they took decades for researchers to ultimately reach superhuman performance at. I mean, chess took 40 years of AI research. Go took another 20 years. And we thought that diplomacy would be this incredibly difficult challenge that could easily take a decade to make an AI that could play competently. But we felt like that was a goal worth aiming for. And so honestly, I was kind of reluctant to work on it at first because I thought it was like too far out of the realm of possibility. But I was talking to a co-worker of mine, Adam Lerer, and he was basically saying like, eh, why not aim for it? We'll learn some interesting things along the way and maybe it'll be possible. And so we decided to go for it. And I think it was the right choice considering just how much progress there was in AI and that progress has continued in the years since. So winning in diplomacy, what does that really look like? It means talking to six other players, six other entities, agents, and convincing them of stuff that you want them to be convinced of. Like what exactly, I'm trying to get like to deeply understand what the problem is. Ultimately, the problem is simple to quantify, right? Like you're going to play this game with humans and you want your score on average to be as high as possible. If you can get a score that says like I am winning more than any human alive, then you're a champion diplomacy player. Now, ultimately we didn't reach that. We got to human level performance. We actually, so we played about 40 games with real humans online. The bot came in second out of all players that played five or more games. So not like number one, but way, way higher than that. What was the expertise level? Are they beginners? Are they intermediate players, advanced players? Do you have a sense? That's a great question. And so I think this kind of goes into how do you measure the performance in diplomacy? And I would argue that when you're measuring performance in a game like this, you don't actually want to measure it in games with all expert players. It's kind of like if you're developing a self-driving car, you don't want to measure that car on the road with a bunch of expert stunt drivers. You want to put it on a road of like an actual American city and see, is this car crashing less often than an expert driver would? So that's the metric that we've used. We're saying like, we're going to stick this game, we're going to stick this bot in games with a wide variety of skill levels. And then are we doing better than a strong or expert human player would in the same situation? That's quite brilliant. Cause I played a lot of sports in my life, like I did tennis, judo, whatever. And it's somehow almost easier to go against experts almost always. I think they're more predictable in the quality of play. The space of strategies you're operating under is narrower against experts. It's more fun. It's really frustrating to go against beginners. Also, cause beginners talk trash to you when they somehow do beat you. So that's a human thing that they add to that to be worried about that. But yeah, the variance in strategies is greater, especially with natural language. It's just all over the place then. Yeah. And honestly, when you look at what makes a good human diplomacy player, obviously they're able to handle themselves in games with other expert humans, but where they really shine is when they're playing with these weak players and they know how to take advantage of the fact that they're a weak player, that they won't be able to like pull off a stab as well, or that they have certain tendencies and they can take them under their wing and persuade them to do things that might not even be in their interest. The really good diplomacy players are able to to take advantage of the fact that there are some weak players in the game. Okay. So if you have to incorporate human play data, how do you do that? How do you do that in order to train an AI system to play diplomacy? Yeah. So that's really the crux of the problem. How do we leverage the benefits of self-play that have been so successful in all these other previous games while keeping the strategy as human compatible as possible? And so what we did is we first trained a language model and then we made that language model controllable on a set of intents, what we call intents, which are basically like an action that we want to play and an action that we would like the other player to play. And so this gives us a way to generate dialogue that's not just trying to imitate the human style, whatever a human would say in this situation, but to actually give it an intent, a purpose in its communication. We can talk about a specific move or we can make a specific request. And the determination of what that move is that we're discussing comes from a strategic reasoning model that uses reinforcement learning and planning. So computing the intents for all the players, how is that done? Just as a starting point. Is that with reinforcement learning or is that just optimal determining what the optimal is for intents? It's a combination of reinforcement learning and planning. Actually very similar to how we approached poker and how people approached chess and Go as well. We're using self-play and search to try to figure out what is an optimal move for us and what is a desirable move that we would like this other player to play. Now, the difference between the way that we approached reinforcement learning and search in this game versus those previous games is that we have to keep it human compatible. We have to understand how the other person is likely to play rather than just assuming that they're going to play like a machine. And how language gets them to play in a way that maximizes the chance of following the intent you want them to follow. Okay, how do you do that? How do you connect language to intent? So the way that RL and planning is done is actually not using language. So we're coming up with this plan for the action that we're going to play and the other person is going to play. And then we feed that action into the dialogue model that will then send a message according to those plans. So the language model there is mapping action to... To message. To message one word at a time. Basically one message at a time. So we'll feed into the dialogue model, like here are the actions that you should be discussing. Here's the content of the message that we would like you to send. And then it will actually generate a message that corresponds to that. Okay, does this actually work? It works surprisingly well. Okay, how... Oh man, the number of ways it probably goes horribly... I would have imagined it goes horribly wrong. So how the heck is it effective at all? I mean, there are a lot of ways that this could fail. So for example, I mean, you could have a situation where you're basically like... We don't tell the language model, like here are the pieces of our action or the other person's action that you should be communicating. And so let's say you're about to attack somebody. You probably don't want to tell them that you're going to attack them, but there's nothing in the language... The language model is not very smart at the end of the day. So it doesn't really have a way of knowing, well, what should I be talking about? Should I tell this person that I'm about to attack them or not? So we have to develop a lot of other techniques that deal with that. One of the things we do, for example, is we try to calculate if I'm going to send this message, what would I expect the other person to do in response? So if it's a message like, hey, I'm going to attack you this turn, they're probably going to attack us or defend against that attack. And so we have a way of recognizing like, hey, sending this message is a negative expected value action and we should not send this message. So you have for particular kinds of messages, you have like an extra function that does the... estimates the value of that message. Yeah. So we have these kinds of filters that like... So it's a filter. So there's a good... Is that filter in your network or is it rule-based? That's a neural network. So we're... Well, it's a combination. It's a neural network, but it's also using planning. It's trying to compute like what is the policy that the other players are going to play given that this message has been sent. And then is that better than not sending the message or... I feel like that's how my brain works too. Like there's a language model that generates random crap and then there's these other neural nets that are essentially filters. At least that's when I tweet. Usually my process of tweeting, I'll think of something and it's hilarious to me. And then about five seconds later, the filter network comes in and says, no, no, that's not funny at all. I mean, there's something interesting to that kind of process. So you have a set of actions that you want, you have an intent that you want to achieve, an intent that you want your opponent to achieve, then you generate messages, and then you evaluate if those messages will achieve the goal you want. Yeah. And we're filtering for several things. We're filtering like, is this a sensible message? So sometimes language models will generate messages that are just like totally nonsense. And we try to filter those out. We also try to filter out messages that are basically lies. So diplomacy has this reputation as a game that's really about deception and lying, but we try to actually minimize the amount that the bot would lie. This was actually mostly a... Or are you? No, I'm just kidding. All right. I mean, part of the reason for this is that we actually found that lying would make the bot perform worse in the long run. It would end up with a lower score because once the bot lies, people would never trust it again. And trust is a huge aspect of the game of diplomacy. Taking notes here, because I think this applies to life lessons too. Oh, I think it's a really, yeah, really strong... So like lying is a dangerous thing to do. Like you want to avoid obvious lying. Yeah. I mean, I think when people play diplomacy for the first time, they approach it as a game of deception and lying. And they... Ultimately, if you talk to top diplomacy players, what they'll tell you is that diplomacy is a game about trust and being able to build trust in an environment that encourages people to not trust anyone. So that's the ultimate tension in diplomacy. How can this AI reason about whether you are being honest in your communication? And how can the AI persuade you that it is being honest when it is telling you that, hey, I'm actually going to support you this turn? Is there some sense, I don't know if you step back and think that this process will indirectly help us study human psychology. So like if trust is the ultimate goal, wouldn't that help us understand what are the fundamental aspects of forming trust between humans and between humans and AI? I mean, that's a really, really important question that's much bigger than strategy games. It's how can... That's fundamental to the human-robot interaction problem. How do we form trust between intelligent entities? So one of the things I'm really excited about with diplomacy, there's never really been a good domain to investigate these kinds of questions. And diplomacy gives us a domain where trust is really at the center of it. And it's not just like you've hired a bunch of mechanical turkers that are being paid and trying to get through the task as quickly as possible. You have these people that are really invested in the outcome of the game, and they're really trying to do the best that they can. And so I'm really excited that we're able to... We actually have put together this... We're open sourcing all of our models, we're open sourcing all of the code, and we're making the data that we've used available to researchers so that they can investigate these kinds of questions. So the data of the different... The human and the AI play of diplomacy and the models that you use for the generation of the messages and the filtering. Yeah, not just even the data of the AI playing with the humans, but all the training data that we had that we used to train the AI to understand how humans play the game. We're setting up a system where researchers will be able to apply to be able to gain access to that data and be able to use it in their own research. We should say, what is the name of the system? We're calling the bot Cicero. Cicero. And what's the name... You're open sourcing, what's the name of the repository and the project? Is it also just called Cicero the Big Project? Or is it still coming up with a name? The data set comes from this website, webdiplomacy.net, is this site that's been online for 20 years now. And it's one of the main sites that people use to play diplomacy on it. We've got 50,000 games of diplomacy with natural language communication, over 10 million messages. So it's a pretty massive data set that people can use to... We're hoping that the academic community and the research community is able to use it for all sorts of interesting research questions. So to you, from having studied this game, is this a sufficiently rich problem space to explore this kind of human AI interaction? Yeah, absolutely. And I think it's maybe the best data set that I can think of out there to investigate these kinds of questions of negotiation, trust, persuasion. I wouldn't say it's the best data set in the world for human AI interaction, that's a very broad field. But I think that it's definitely up there as like, if you're really interested in language models interacting with humans in a setting where their incentives are not fully aligned, this seems like an ideal data set for investigating that. So you have a paper with some impressive results and just an impressive paper that's taken this problem on. What's the most exciting thing to you in terms of the results from the paper? Well, I think there's a few... Ideas or results? Yeah, I think there's a few aspects of the results that I think are really exciting. So first of all, the fact that we were able to achieve such strong performance. I was surprised by and pleasantly surprised by. So we played 40 games of diplomacy with real humans, and the bot placed second out of all players that have played five or more games. So it's about 80 players total, 19 of whom played five or more games, and the bot was ranked second out of those players. And the bot was really good in two dimensions. One, being able to establish strong connections with the other players on the board, being able to persuade them to work with it, being able to coordinate with them about how it's going to work with them. And then also the raw tactical and strategic aspects of the game, being able to understand what the other players are likely to do, being able to model their behavior and respond appropriately to that, the bot also really excelled at. What are some interesting things that the bot said? By the way, are you allowed to swear in the, are there rules to what you're allowed to say and not in diplomacy? You can say whatever you want. I think the site will get very angry at you if you start like threatening somebody. And we actually- Like if you threaten somebody, you're supposed to do it politely. Yeah, politely, you know, like keep it in character. We actually had a researcher watching the bot 24 seven, well, whenever we play a game, we had a bot watching it to make sure that it wouldn't go off the rails and start like threatening somebody or something like that. I would just love it if the bot started like mocking, mocking everybody, like some weird quirky strategies would emerge. Have you seen anything interesting that you, huh, that's a weird, that's a weird behavior, either the filter or the language model that was weird to you? Yeah, there were definitely like things that the bot would do that were not in line with like how humans would approach the game and that in a good way, the humans actually, you know, we've talked to some expert diplomacy players about these results and their takeaway is that, well, maybe humans are approaching this the wrong way. And this is actually like the right way to play the game. So what's required to win? Like what does it mean to mess up or to exploit the suboptimal behavior of a player? Like is there optimally rational behavior and irrational behavior that you need to estimate, that kind of stuff? Like what stands out to you? Like, is there a crack that you can exploit? Is there like a weakness that you can exploit in the game that everybody's looking for? Well, I think you're asking kind of two questions there. So one, like modeling the irrationality and the suboptimality of humans, you can't, in diplomacy, you can't treat all the other players like they're machines. And if you do that, you're going to end up playing really poorly. And so we actually ran this experiment. So we trained a bot in a two player zero-sum version of diplomacy, the same way that you might approach a game like chess or poker, and the bot was superhuman. It would crush any competitor. And then we took that same training approach and we trained a bot for the full seven player version of the game through self-play without any human data. And we stuck it in a game with six humans and it got destroyed. Even in the version of the game where there's no explicit natural language communication, it still got destroyed because it just wouldn't be able to understand how the other players were approaching the game and be able to work with that. Can you just linger on that, meaning like there's an individual personality to each player and then you're supposed to remember that, but what do you mean it's not able to understand the players? Well, it would, for example, expect the human to support it in a certain way when the human would simply think like, no, I'm not supposed to support you here. It's kind of like if you develop a self-driving car and it's trained completely from scratch with other self-driving cars, it might learn to drive on the left side of the road. That's a totally reasonable thing to do if you're with these other self-driving cars that are also driving on the left side of the road. But if you put it in an American city, it's going to crash. But I guess the intuition I'm trying to build up is why does it then crush a human player heads up versus multiple? This is an aspect of two players, zero sum versus games that involve cooperation. So in a two player, zero sum game, you can do self-play from scratch and you will arrive at the Nash equilibrium where you don't have to worry about the other player playing in a very human suboptimal style. That's just going to be the only way that deviating from a Nash equilibrium would change things is if it helped you. So what's the dynamic of cooperation that's effective in diplomacy? Do you always have to have one friend in the game? You always want to maximize your friends and minimize your enemies. Got it. And boy, the lying comes into play there. So the more friends you have, the better. Yeah. I mean, I guess you have to attack somebody or else you're not going to make progress. Right. So that's the tension. But this is too real. This is too real. This is too close to geopolitics of actual military conflict in the world. Okay. That's fascinating. So that cooperation element is what makes the game really, really hard. Yeah. And to give you an example of how this suboptimality and irrationality comes into play, there's a really common situation in a game of diplomacy where one player starts to win and they're at the point where they're controlling about half the map. And the remaining players who have all been fighting each other the whole game all have to work together now to stop this other player from winning or else everybody's going to lose. And it's kind of like, you know, Game of Thrones. I don't know if you've seen the show where you got the others coming from the north and all the people have to start, you work out the differences and stop them from taking over. And the bot will do this. The bot will work with the other players to stop the superpower from winning. But if it's trained from scratch or it doesn't really have a good grounding in how humans approach it, it will also at the same time attack the other players with its extra units. So all the units that are not necessary to stop the superpower from winning, it will use those to grab as many centers as possible from the other players. And in totally rational play, the other players should just live with that. You know, they have to understand like, hey, a score of one is better than a score of zero. So, okay, he's grabbed my centers, but I'll just deal with it. But humans don't act that way, right? The human gets really angry at the bot and ends up throwing the game because, you know, I'm going to screw you over because you did something that's not fair to me. Got it. And are you supposed to model that? Is the bot supposed to model that kind of human frustration? Yeah, exactly. And so that is something that seems almost impossible to model purely from scratch without any human data. It's a very cultural thing. And so you need human data to be able to understand that, hey, that's how humans behave. And you have to work around that. It might be suboptimal, it might be irrational, but that's an aspect of humanity that you have to deal with. So how difficult is it to train on human data, given that human data is very limited versus what a purely self-play mechanism can generate? That's actually one of the major challenges that we faced in the research, that we had a good amount of human data. We had about 50,000 games. What we try to do is leverage as much as we can self-play as possible while still leveraging the human data. So what we do is we do self-play, very similar to how it's been done in poker and Go, but we try to regularize the self-play towards the human data. Basically, the way to think about it is we penalize the bot for choosing actions that are very unlikely under the human data set. How do you know? Is there some kind of function that says, this is human-like and not? Yeah. So we train a bot through supervised learning to model the human play as much as possible. So we basically train a neural net on those 50,000 games, and that gives us an approximate... That gives us a policy that resembles to some extent how humans actually play the game. Now, this isn't a perfect model of human play because we don't have unlimited data. We don't have unlimited neural net capacity, but it gives us some approximation. Is there some data on the internet that's useful besides just diplomacy? So on the language side of things, is there some... Can you go to Reddit? So sort of background model formulation that's useful for the game of diplomacy? Yeah, absolutely. And so for the language model, which is kind of like a separate question, we didn't use the language model during self-play training, but we pre-trained the language model on tons of internet data as much as possible. And then we fine-tuned it specifically on the diplomacy games. So we are able to leverage the wider data set in order to fill in some of the gaps in how communication happens more broadly besides just specifically in these diplomacy games. Okay, cool. So what are some interesting things that came to life from this work to you? What are some insights about games where natural language is involved and deep cooperation is involved? Well, I think there's a few insights. So first of all, the fact that you can't rely purely or even largely on self-play, that you really have to have an understanding of how humans approach the game. I think that that's one of the major conclusions that I'm drawing from this work, and that is, I think, applicable more broadly to a lot of different games. So we've actually already taken the approaches that we've used in diplomacy and tried them on a cooperative card game called Hanabi, and we've had a lot of success in that game as well. On the language side, I think the fact that we were able to control the language model through this intense approach was very effective. And it allowed us, instead of just imitating how humans would communicate, we're able to go beyond that and able to feed into its superhuman strategies that it can then generate messages corresponding to. Is there something you could say about detecting whether a person or AI is lying or not? The bot doesn't explicitly try to calculate whether somebody is lying or not, but what it will do is try to predict what actions they're going to take, given the communications, given the messages that they've sent to us. So given our conversation, what do I think you're going to do? And implicitly, there is a calculation about whether you're lying to me in that. If you're, based on your messages, if I think you're going to attack me this turn, even though your messages say that you're not, then essentially the bot is predicting that you're lying. But it doesn't view it as lying the same way that we would view it as lying. But you could probably reformulate with all the same data and make a classifier lying or not. Yeah, I think you could do that. That was not something that we were focused on, but I think that it is possible that if you came up with some measurements of what does it mean to tell a lie, because there's a spectrum, right? If you're withholding some information, is that a lie? If you're mostly telling the truth, but you forgot to mention this one action out of 10, is that a lie? It's hard to draw the line, but if you're willing to do that, then you could possibly use it to... This feels like an argument inside a relationship now, what constitutes a lie. Depends what you mean by the definition of the word is. Okay, still it's fascinating because trust and lying is all intermixed into this and it's language models that are becoming more and more sophisticated. It's just a fascinating space to explore. What do you see as the future of this work that is inspired by the breakthrough performance that you're getting here with diplomacy? I think there's a few different directions to take this work. I think really what it's showing us is the potential that language models have. I think a lot of people didn't think that this kind of result was possible even today, despite all the progress that's been made in language models. And so it shows us how we can leverage the power of things like self-play on top of language models to get increasingly better performance. And the ceiling is really much higher than what we have right now. Is this transferable somehow to chatbots for the more general task of dialogue? So there is a kind of negotiation here, a dance between entities that are trying to cooperate and at the same time, a little bit adversarial, which I think maps to the kind of work that you do, which maps somewhat to the general, you know, the entire process of Reddit or like internet communication. You're cooperating, you're adversarial, you're having debates, you're having camaraderie, all that kind of stuff. I think one of the things that's really useful about diplomacy is that we have a well-defined value function. There is a well-defined score that the bot is trying to optimize. And in a setting like a general chatbot setting, it would need that kind of objective in order to fully leverage the techniques that we've developed. What about like what we talked about earlier with NPCs inside video games? Like how can it be used to create for Elder Scrolls VI more compelling NPCs that you could talk to instead of committing all kinds of violence with a sword and fighting dragons, just sitting in a tavern and drink all day and talk to the chatbot? The way that we've approached AI in diplomacy is you condition the language on an intent. Now that intent in diplomacy is an action, but it doesn't have to be. And you can imagine, you know, you could have NPCs in video games or the metaverse or whatever, where there's some intent or there's some objective that they're trying to maximize and you can specify what that is. And then the language can correspond to that intent. Now, I'm not saying that this is, you know, happening imminently, but I'm saying that this is like a future application potentially of this direction of research. So what's the more general formulation of this? Making self-play be able to scale the way self-play does and still maintain human-like behavior? The way that we've approached self-play in diplomacy is like we're trying to come up with good intents to condition the language model on. And the space of intents is actions that can be played in the game. Now, there is like the potential to have a broader set of intents. Things like, you know, long-term cooperation or long-term objectives or, you know, gossip about what another player was saying. These are things that we're currently not conditioning the language model on. And so it's not able to... we're not able to control it to say like, oh, you should be talking about this thing right now. But it's quite possible that you could expand the scope of intents to be able to allow it to talk about those things. Now, in the process of doing that, the self-play would become much more complicated. And so that is a potential for future work. Okay, the increase in the number of intents. I still am not quite clear how you keep the self-play integrated into the human world. Yeah. I'm a little bit loose on understanding how you do that. So we train in neural nets to imitate the human data as closely as possible. And that's what we call the anchor policy. And now when we're doing self-play, the problem with the anchor policy is that it's not a perfect approximation of how humans actually play. Because we don't have infinite data, because we don't have unlimited neural network capacity, it's actually a relatively suboptimal approximation of how humans actually play. And we can improve that approximation by adding planning and RL. And so what we do is we get a better approximation, a better model of human play by, during the self-play process, we say, you can deviate from this human anchor policy if there is an action that has particularly high expected value. But it would have to be a really high expected value in order to deviate from this human-like policy. So you basically say, try to maximize your expected value, while at the same time stay as close as possible to the human policy. And there is a parameter that controls the relative weighting of those competing objectives. So the question I have is how sophisticated can the anchor policy get? To have a policy that approximates human behavior, right? Yeah. So as you increase the number of intents, as you generalize the space in which this is applicable, the space in which this is applicable, and given that the human data is limited, try to anticipate a policy that works for a much larger number of cases. How difficult is the process of forming a damn good anchor policy? Well, it really comes down to how much human data you have. So it's all about scaling the human data? I think the more human data you have, the better. And I think that that's going to be the major bottleneck in scaling to more complicated domains. But that said, there might be the potential, just like in the language model where we leveraged tons of data on the internet and then specialized it for diplomacy, there is the future potential that you can leverage huge amounts of data across the board and then specialize it in the data set that you have for diplomacy. And that way you're essentially augmenting the amount of data that you have. To what degree does this apply to the general, the real world diplomacy, the geopolitics? You know, there's a game theory has a history of being applied to understand and to give us hope about nuclear weapons, for example, the mutually assured destruction is a game theoretic concept that you can formulate. Some people say it's oversimplified, but nevertheless, here we are, and we somehow haven't blown ourselves up. Do you see a future where this kind of system can be used to help us make decisions, geopolitical decisions in the world? Well, like I said, the original motivation for the game of diplomacy was the failures of World War I, the diplomatic failures that led to war. And the real take home message of diplomacy is that if people approach diplomacy the right way, then war is ultimately unsuccessful. The way that I see it, war is an inherently negative sum game, right? There's always a better outcome than war for all the parties involved. And my hope is that as AI progresses, then maybe this technology could be used to help people make better decisions across the board and hopefully avoid negative sum outcomes like war. Yeah, I mean, I just came back from Ukraine. I'm going back there on deep personal levels, think a lot about how peace can be achieved. And I'm a big believer in conversation, leaders getting together and having conversations and trying to understand each other. Yeah, it's fascinating to think whether each one of those leaders can run a simulation ahead of time. Like if I'm an asshole, what are the possible consequences? If I'm nice, what are the possible consequences? My guess is that if the president of the United States got together with Vladimir Zelensky and Vladimir Putin, that there will be significant benefits to the president of the United States not having the ego of kind of playing down, of giving away a lot of chips for the future success of a world. So giving a lot of power to the two presidents of the competing nations to achieve peace. That's my guess, but it'd be nice to run a bunch of simulations. But then you have to have human data, right? Because the game of diplomacy is fundamentally different than geopolitics. You need data, you need like, you need like, I guess that's the question I have. Like how transferable is this to, like, I don't know, any kind of negotiation, right? Like to any kind of local, some local, I don't know, a bunch of lawyers, like arguing, like a divorce, like divorce lawyers, like how transferable this all kinds of human negotiation. Well, I feel like this isn't a question that's unique to diplomacy. I mean, I think you look at RL breakthroughs, reinforcement learning breakthroughs in previous games as well, like AI for Starcraft, AI for Atari. You haven't really seen it deployed in the real world because you have these problems of it's really hard to collect a lot of data. And you don't have a well-defined action space. You don't have a well-defined reward function. These are all things that you really need for reinforcement learning and planning to be really successful today. Now, there are some domains where you do have that. Code generation is one example, theorem proving mathematics, that's another example where you have a well-defined action space, you have a well-defined reward function. And those are the kinds of domains where I can see RL in the short term being incredibly powerful. But yeah, I think that those are the barriers to deploying this at scale in the real world. But the hope is that in the long run, we'll be able to get there. Yeah, but see, diplomacy feels like closer to the real world than does Starcraft. Because it's natural language, right? You're operating in the space of intense and in the space of natural language, that feels very close to the real world. And it also feels like you could get data on that from the internet. Yeah, and that's why I do think that diplomacy is taking a big step closer to the real world than anything that's came before in terms of game AI breakthroughs. The fact that we're communicating in natural language, we're leveraging the fact that we have this general data set of dialogue and communication from a breadth of the internet, that is a big step in that direction. We're not 100% there, but we're getting closer at least. So if we actually return back to poker and chess, are some of the ideas that you're learning here with diplomacy, could you construct AI systems that play like humans? Like make for a fun opponent in a game of chess? Yeah, absolutely. We've already started looking into this direction a bit. So we tried to use the techniques that we've developed for diplomacy to make chess and go AIs. And what we found is that it led to much more human-like, strong chess and go players. The way that AIs like Stockfish today play is in a very inhuman style. It's very strong, but it's very different from how humans play. And so we can take the techniques that we've developed for diplomacy. We do something similar in chess and go, and we end up with a bot that's both strong and human-like. To elaborate on this a bit, one way to approach making a human-like AI for chess is to collect a bunch of human games, like a bunch of human grandmaster games, and just to supervise learning on those games. But the problem is that if you do that, what you end up with is an AI that's substantially weaker than the human grandmasters that you've trained on, because the neural net is not able to approximate the nuance of the strategy. This goes back to the planning thing that I mentioned, the search thing that I talked about before, that these human grandmasters, when they're playing, they're using search and they're using planning. And the neural net alone, unless you have a massive neural net that's like a thousand times bigger than what we have right now, it's not able to approximate those details very effectively. And on the other hand, you can leverage search and planning very heavily, but then what you end up with is an AI that plays in a very different style from how humans play the game. Now, if you strike this intermediate balance by setting the regularization parameters correctly and say, you can do planning, but try to keep it close to the human policy, then you end up with an AI that plays in both a very human-like style and a very strong style. And you can actually even tune it to have a certain ELO rating. So you can say, play in the style of like a 2,800 ELO human. I wonder if you could do specific type of humans or categories of humans, not just skill, but style. Yeah, I think so. And so this is where the research gets interesting. One of the things that I was thinking about is, and this is actually already being done, there's a researcher at the University of Toronto that's working on this, is to make an AI that plays in the style of a particular player. Like Magnus Carlsen, for example, you can make an AI that plays like Magnus Carlsen. And then where I think this gets interesting is like, maybe you're up against Magnus Carlsen in the world championship or something. You can play against this Magnus Carlsen bot to prepare against the real Magnus Carlsen. And you can try to explore strategies that he might struggle with and try to figure out like, how do you beat this player in particular? On the other hand, you can also have Magnus Carlsen working with this bot to try to figure out where he's weak and where he needs to improve his strategy. And so I can envision this future where data on specific chess and Go players becomes extremely valuable because you can use that data to create specific models of how these particular players play. So increasingly human-like behavior in bots, however, as you've mentioned, makes cheat detection much harder. It does, yeah. The way that cheat detection works in a game like poker and a game like chess and Go, from what I understand, is trying to see like, is this person making moves that are very common among chess AIs or AIs in general, but very uncommon among top human players. And if you have the development of these AIs that play in a very strong style, but also a very human-like style, then that poses serious challenges for cheat detection. And it makes you now ask yourself a hard question about what is the role of AI systems as they become more and more integrated in our society. And this kind of human AI integration has some deep ethical issues that we should be aware of. And also it's a kind of cybersecurity challenge, right? To make, you know, one of the assumptions we have when we play games is that there's a trust that it's only humans involved. And the better AI systems we create, which makes it super exciting, human-like AI systems with different styles of humans is really exciting, but then we have to have the defenses better and better and better if we're to trust that we can enjoy human versus human game in a deeply fair way. It's fascinating. It's just, it's humbling. Yeah, I think there's a lot of like negative potential for this kind of technology, but you know, at the same time, there's a lot of upside for it as well. So, you know, for example, right now, it's really hard to learn how to get better in games like chess and poker and Go, because the way that the AI plays is so foreign and incomprehensible. But if you have these AIs that are playing, you know, you can say like, oh, I'm a 2000 Elo human. How do I get to 2200? Now you can have an AI that plays in the style of a 2200 Elo human, and that will help you get better. Or, you know, you mentioned this problem of like, how do you know that you're actually playing with humans when you're playing like online and in video games? Well, now we have the potential of populating these like virtual worlds with agents, like AI agents that are actually fun to play with. And you don't have to always be playing with other humans to, you know, have a fun time. So yeah, a lot of upside potential too. And I think, you know, with any sort of tool, there's the potential for a lot of greatness and a lot of downsides as well. So in the paper that I got a chance to look at, there's a section on ethical considerations. What's in that section? What are some ethical considerations here? Is it some of the stuff we already talked about? There's some things that we've already talked about. I think, specific to diplomacy, you know, there's also the challenge that the game is, you know, there is a deception aspect to the game. And so, you know, developing language models that are capable of deception is, I think, a dicey issue and something that, you know, makes research on diplomacy particularly challenging. And, you know, so those kinds of issues of like, should we even be developing AIs that are capable of lying to people? That's something that we have to, you know, think carefully about. That's so cool. I mean, you have to do that kind of stuff in order to figure out where the ethical lines are. But I can see in the future it being illegal to have a consumer product that lies. Yeah. Like your personal assistant AI system is not allowed. It always has to tell the truth. But if I ask it, do I look, did I get fatter over the past month? I sure as hell want that AI system to lie to me. So there's a trade-off between lying and being nice. We have to somehow find where's the ethics in that. And we're back to discussions inside relationships. Anyway, what were you saying? Oh, yeah. I was saying like, yeah, that's kind of going to the question of like, what is a lie? You know, is a white lie a bad lie? Is it an ethical lie? You know, those kinds of questions. Boy, we return time and time again to deep human questions as we design AI systems. That's exactly what they do. They put a mirror to humanity to help us understand ourselves. There's also the issue of like, you know, in these diplomacy experiments in order to do a fair comparison. You know, what we found is that there's an inherent anti-AI bias in these kinds of games. So we actually played a tournament in a non-language version of the game where, you know, we told the participants like, hey, in every single game, there's going to be an AI. And what we found is that the humans would spend basically the entire game like trying to figure out who the bot was. And then as soon as they thought they figured it out, they would all team up and try to kill it. And, you know, overcoming that inherent anti-AI bias is a challenge. On the flip side, I think when robots become the enemy, that's when we get to heal our human divisions and then we can become one. As long as we have one enemy, it's that Reagan thing when the aliens show up. That's when we put our side, our divisions, we become one human species. Right. We might have our differences, but we're at least all human. At least we all hate the robots. No, no, no, no. I think there will be actually in the future something like a civil rights movement for robots. I think that's the fascinating thing about AI systems is they force us to ask about ethical questions about what is sentience? How do we feel about systems that are capable of suffering or capable of displaying suffering? And how do we design products that show emotion and not? How do we feel about that? Lying is another topic. Are we going to allow bots to lie and not? And where's the balance between being nice and telling the truth? I mean, these are all fascinating human questions. It's so exciting to be in a century where we create systems that take these philosophical questions that have been asked for centuries and now we can engineer them inside systems where you really have to answer them because you'll have transformational impact on human society depending on what you design inside those systems. It's fascinating. And like you said, I feel like diplomacy is a step towards the direction of the real world, applying these RL methods towards the real world. From all the breakthrough performances in Go and Chess and StarCraft and Dota, this feels like the real world. And especially now my mind's been on war and military conflict, this feels like it can give us some deep insights about human behavior at the large geopolitical scale. What do you think is the breakthrough or the directions of work that will take us towards solving intelligence, towards creating AGI systems? You've been a part of creating, by the way, we should say a part of great teams that do this, of creating systems that achieve breakthrough performances on before thought unsolvable problems like poker, multiplayer poker, diplomacy. We're taking steps towards that direction. What do you think it takes to go all the way to create superhuman level intelligence? There's a lot of people trying to figure that out right now. And I should say the amount of progress that's been made, especially in the past few years is truly phenomenal. I mean, you look at where AI was 10 years ago and the idea that you could have AIs that can generate language and generate images the way they're doing today and able to play a game like diplomacy was just unthinkable even five years ago, let alone 10 years ago. Now there are aspects of AI that I think are still lacking. I think there's general agreements that one of the major issues with AI today is that it's very data inefficient. It requires a huge number of samples of training examples to be able to train. You look at an AI that plays go and it needs millions of games of go to learn how to play the game well. Whereas a human can pick it up and like, I don't know how many games as a human go player, go grandmaster playing their lifetime, probably in the thousands or tens of thousands, I guess. So that's one issue. Data efficiency. Overcoming this challenge of data efficiency. And this is particularly important if we want to deploy AI systems in real world settings where they're interacting with humans, because, for example, with robotics, it's really hard to generate a huge number of samples. It's a different story when you're working in these totally virtual games where you can play a million games and it's no big deal. I was planning on just launching like a thousand of these robots in Austin. I don't think it's illegal for legged robots to roam the streets and just collect data. That's not a crazy idea. What's the worst that could happen? Yeah. I mean, that's one way to overcome the data efficiency problem. It's like scale it. Yeah. Like I actually tried to see if there's a law against robots, like legged robots just operating in the streets of a major city and there isn't, I couldn't find any. So I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Robot rights. Okay. Anyway, sorry, you were saying. So what are the ideas for getting, becoming more data efficient? Oh, I mean, that's the trillion dollar question in AI today. I mean, if you can figure out how to make AI systems more data efficient, then that's a huge breakthrough. So nobody really knows right now. It could be just a gigantic background model, language model, and then you do, the training becomes like prompting that model to essentially do a kind of quarrying, a search into the space of the things that's learned to customize that to whatever problem you're trying to solve. So maybe if you form a large enough language model, you can go quite a long way. I think there's some truth to that. I mean, you look at the way humans approach a game like poker, they're not coming at it from scratch. They're coming at it with a huge amount of background knowledge about how humans work, how the world works, the idea of money. So they're able to leverage that kind of information to pick up the game faster. So it's not really a fair comparison to then compare it to an AI that's like learning from scratch. And maybe one of the ways that we address this sample complexity problem is by allowing AIs to leverage that general knowledge across a ton of different domains. So, like I said, you did a lot of incredible work in the space of research and actually building systems. What advice would you give to, let's start with beginners. What advice would you give to beginners interested in machine learning? Just there at the very start of their journey, they're in high school and college thinking like, this seems like a fascinating world. What advice would you give them? I would say that there are a lot of people working on similar aspects of machine learning and to not be afraid to try something a bit different. My own path in AI is pretty atypical for a machine learning researcher today. I mean, I started out working on game theory and then shifting more towards reinforcement learning as time went on. And that actually had a lot of benefits, I think, because it allowed me to look at these problems in a very different way from the way a lot of machine learning researchers view it. And that comes with drawbacks in some respects. I think there's definitely aspects of machine learning where I'm weaker than most of the researchers out there. But I think that diversity of perspective, when I'm working with my teammates, there's something that I'm bringing to the table and there's something that they're bringing to the table. And that kind of collaboration becomes very fruitful for that reason. So there could be problems like poker, like you've chosen diplomacy, there could be problems like that still out there that you can just tackle, even if it seems extremely difficult. I think that there's a lot of challenges left. And I think having a diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds is really helpful for working together to figure out how to tackle those kinds of challenges. So as a beginner, so that I would say that's more for like a grad student, where they already built up a base, like a complete beginner, what's a good journey. So for you that was doing some more on the math side of things, doing game theory, all that. So it's basically build up a foundation in something. So programming, mathematics, it could even be physics, but build that foundation. Yeah, I would say build a strong foundation in math and computer science and statistics and these kinds of areas. But don't be afraid to try something that's different and learn something that's different from the thing that everybody else is doing to get into machine learning. There's value in having a different background than everybody else. Yeah. So, but certainly having a strong math background, especially in things like linear algebra and statistics and probability are incredibly helpful today for learning about and understanding machine learning. Do you think one day we'll be able to, since you're taking steps from poker to diplomacy, one day we'll be able to figure out how to live life optimally? Well, what is it like in poker and diplomacy, you need a value function, you need to have a reward system. And so what does it mean to live a life that's optimal? So, okay. So then you can exactly like lay down a reward function being like, I want to be rich or I want to be in a happy relationship. And then you'll say, well, do X. You know, there's a lot of talk today about in AI safety circles about like mis-specification of reward function. So you say like, okay, my objective is to be rich. And maybe the AI tells you like, okay, well, if you want to maximize the probability that you're rich, go rob a bank. And so you want to, is that really what you want? Is your objective really to be rich at all costs or is it more nuanced than that? So the understanding the consequences. Yeah. So maybe life is more about defining the reward function that minimizes the unintended consequences than it is about the actual policy that gets you to the reward function. Maybe life is just about constantly updating the reward function. I think one of the challenges in life is figuring out exactly what that reward function is. Sometimes it's pretty hard to specify the same way that, you know, trying to handcraft the optimal policy in a game like chess is really difficult. It's not so clear cut what the reward function is for life. I think one day AI will figure it out. And I wonder what that would be. Until then, I just really appreciate the kind of work you're doing. And it's really fascinating taking a leap into a more and more real world like problem space and just achieving incredible results by applying reinforcement learning. Now, since I saw your work on poker, you've been a constant inspiration. It's an honor to get to finally talk to you. And this is really fun. Thanks for having me. Thanks for listening to this conversation with No Brown. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Sun Tzu and the art of war. The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy so that he cannot fathom our real intent. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/2oHH4aClJQs

PliUHKl5xA4

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Sean Carroll: Understanding the Origin of Life is Within the Reach of Science | AI Podcast Clips

What kind of questions can science not currently answer but might soon? When you think about the problems and the mysteries before us that may be within reach of science. I think an obvious one is the origin of life. We don't know how that happened. There's a difficulty in knowing how it happened historically, actually, you know, literally on Earth. But starting life from non-life is something I kind of think we're close to, right? We're really... You really think so? Like, how difficult is it to start life? Well, I've talked to people, including on the podcast, about this. You know, life requires three things. Life as we know it. So there's a difference between life, which who knows what it is, and life as we know it, which we can talk about with some intelligence. So life as we know it requires compartmentalization. You need like a little membrane around your cell. Metabolism, you need to take in food and eat it and let that make you do things. And then replication. Okay, so you need to have some information about who you are that you pass down to future generations. In the lab, compartmentalization seems pretty easy, not hard to make lipid bilayers that come into little cellular walls pretty easily. Metabolism and replication are hard. But replication we're close to, people have made RNA-like molecules in the lab that I think the state of the art is, they're not able to make one molecule that reproduces itself, but they're able to make two molecules that reproduce each other. So that's okay. That's pretty close. Metabolism is harder, believe it or not, even though it's sort of the most obvious thing. But you want some sort of controlled metabolism. And the actual cellular machinery in our bodies is quite complicated. It's hard to see it just popping into existence all by itself. It probably took a while. But we're making progress. In fact, I don't think we're spending nearly enough money on it. If I were the NSF, I would flood this area with money because it would change our view of the world if we could actually make life in the lab and understand how it was made originally here on Earth.

https://youtu.be/PliUHKl5xA4

ygAqYC8JOQI

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Oliver Stone: Vladimir Putin and War in Ukraine | Lex Fridman Podcast #286

If you could talk to Vladimir Putin once again now, what kind of things would you talk about here? What kind of questions would you ask? The following is a conversation with Oliver Stone. He's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time with three Oscar wins and 11 Oscar nominations. His films tell stories of war and power, fearlessly and often controversially, shining a light on the dark parts of American and global history. His films include Platoon, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth of July, Scarface, JFK, Nixon, Alexander, W, Snowden, and documentaries where he has interviewed some of the most powerful and consequential people in the world, including Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. And in this conversation, Oliver and I mostly focus our discussion on Vladimir Putin, Russia, and the war in Ukraine. My goal with these conversations is to understand the human being before me, to understand not just what they think, but how they think, to steel man their ideas, and to steel man the devil's advocate, all in service of understanding, not derision. I have done this poorly in the past. I'm still struggling with this, but I'm working hard to do better. I believe the moment we draw lines between good people and evil people, we'll lose our ability to see that we're all one people in the most fundamental of ways, and we'll lose track of the deep truth expressed by the old Solzhenitsyn line that I return to time and time again, that the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man. Oliver Stone has a perspective that he extensively documents in his powerful, controversial series, The Untold History of the United States, that imperialism and the military-industrial complex paved the path to absolute power, and thus corrupt the minds of the leaders and institutions that wield it. From this perspective, the way out of the humanitarian crisis and human suffering in Ukraine, and the way out from the pull of the beating drums of nuclear war is not simple to understand, but we must, because all of humanity hangs in the balance. I will talk to many people who seek to understand the way out of this growing catastrophe, including to historians, to leaders, and perhaps most importantly, to people on the ground in Ukraine and Russia, not just about war and suffering, but about life, friendship, family, love, and hope. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description, and now, dear friends, here's Oliver Stone. You're working on a documentary now about nuclear energy. Yes. So it's interesting to talk about this. Energy is such a big part of the world, about the geopolitics of the world, about the way the world is. What do you think is the role of nuclear energy in the 21st century? Good question, and first of all, obviously everyone's talking about climate change, right? So here I wake up to that a few years ago, and clearly we're concerned. I picked up a book by Josh Goldstein and his co-author, who's Swedish. Those two wrote a book called A Bright Future. It came out a few years ago, and I lapped it up. It was a book, fact-based, clear, not too long, and not too technical, and it was very clear that they were in favor of all kinds of renewables, renewable energy, yes. They hated, made it very clear how dangerous oil and gas were, methane, and made it very clear to the layman like me, and at the same time said that these renewables could work so far, but the gap is enormous as to how much electricity the world is gonna need in 2050 and beyond, two, three, four times. We don't even know the damage, but we have India, we have China, we have Africa, we have Asia coming onto the scene wanting more and more electricity. So they addressed the problem as a global one, not just as often in the United States. You get the ethnocentric United States point of view that we know we're doing well, blah, blah, blah. We're not doing well, but we sell that to people that we're comfortable. We spend more energy than anybody in this country per capita than anybody, and at the same time, we don't seem to understand the global picture. So that's what they did, and they made me very aware. So the only way to close that gap, the only way in their mind is nuclear energy, and talking about a gap of building a huge amount of reactors over the next 30 years, and starting now, they make that point over and over again. So obviously this country, the United States, is not gonna go in that direction because it just is incapable of having that kind of will, political will, and fear is a huge factor, and still a lot of shibboleths, a lot of myths about nuclear energy have confused and confounded the landscape. The environmentalists have played a huge role in doing good things, many good things, but also confusing and confounding the landscape and making accusations against nuclear energy that were exaggerated. So taking all these things into consideration, we set about making this documentary, which is about finished now, almost finishing. It's an hour and 40 minutes, and that was a hard part, getting it down from about three and a half hours to about this something more manageable. Is it interviews? It's interviews among others, but essentially we went to Russia, we went to France, which is the most perhaps advanced nuclear country in the world, Russia, and the United States. We went to the Idaho Laboratory and talked to the scientists there as well as the Department of Energy people that are handling this. Idaho is one of the experimental labs, the United States is probably one of the most advanced, and they're doing a lot of advanced nuclear there. We also, we studied, well, Russia gave us a lot of insight. We're very cooperative because they have some of the most advanced nuclear, actually the probably most advanced nuclear reactor in the world at Beloyarsk at the Ural Mountains. So we did an investigation there, and in France they have some very advanced nuclear reactors and they're building, now they're building again. They had a little, the Green Party came into power, not into power, but became a factor in France, and there was a motion when Hollande was president, they started to move away from it. Actually they were beginning to just abandon, they let, not complete, in other words, close down some of the nuclear reactors. There was talk of that, but thank God France did not do that and Macron came in and recently reversed it, and they're building as fast as they can now, especially with the Ukraine war going on. There's an awareness that Russia will not be providing, may not be providing the energy Europe needs. So, and then China is the other one too. That's the other factor. I'm talking about the big boys. They are doing tremendous work and fast, which is very hopeful, but of course China is building in all directions at once. Coal continues to be huge in China, and methane too. But basically coal, coal in India, in China, the biggest users of coal, and as you know, Germany went back to coal a few years ago. So all these factors, it's a fascinating picture globally. So we try to achieve a consensus that where nuclear can work and where it will be working, where it will be used more and more. The question is how much carbon dioxide China and Russia will be putting out. France is the only one that's not putting it out. The United States has not changed. With all the talk and all the nonsense about renewables and the new lifestyle and all this, it's great for your guilt complex, but it doesn't do anything for the total accumulation of carbon dioxide in the world. Who's gonna lead the way on nuclear, do you think? You mentioned Russia, France, China, United States. Who's gonna lead? I don't think it's gonna be a United Nations kind of thing because the world doesn't seem capable of uniting. We go to these conferences, Kyoto, and we talk and we agree, but then we don't actually enforce. I don't think it can happen that way. I think it's gonna be an individual race with countries. They're gonna just do it for their own self-interest, like China's doing it. China, the thing is, if it works, and I'm praying that it will really work on a big scale, China will back away from coal naturally. The same thing will be true of India. They will see the benefits because if you go to India, you see the cities, the pollution. You walk around in that stuff and you get, there's no hope in this and you sense it. So people will move in this direction naturally because nuclear is clean energy. And the amount of casualties of nuclear is the lowest on the industrial scale for energy producing, from coal down to oil, everything, the lowest casualty rate, very lowest,.002 or something is nuclear. So not that many people have died from nuclear, not that many, I think 50 people at Chernobyl, which was the worst accident. Nobody died at Fukushima. Nobody died at Three Mile Island. And that's what you hear all over and over again, these accidents. The environmentalists have sold us the idea that they're dangerous. And it's a lot of environmentalists, thank God, have changed. They've come off that routine and they've saying, this, we were wrong. We've done a lot of good work. Greenpeace did a lot of good work. Whale, saving this, saving that. But they admit themselves, not they don't, but people who have been in the organization have said, we were wrong. In 1956, we show the articles in the New York Times that came out, the Rockefeller Foundation, which of course is a big producer of oil, the Rockefeller family. And the foundation came out with a study, which was weighted. They tipped the scale, put a thumb on the scale. But it was a scientific expose of radiation in the study that came out, printed in the New York Times, because the New York Times publisher Sulzberger was on their board. He was one of the board members. So they got a lot of strong publicity condemning radiation, which started the process of doubting nuclear energy. The radiation levels that they pointed out were very minor. And of course, if you go into a scientific analysis of this now with what we know, it's just not true. But it tilted the scale back in the 50s, 60s, and started questioning the nuclear business. Do you think that was malevolence or incompetence? No, I think it was competition. I don't think it was conspiracy as much as it was a sense that we don't want this nuclear energy. It's gonna end the dominance of oil. Absolutely, and it will. And it will anyway, because it's the only sane way for the world to proceed. But the world will have to learn through adversity. So in other words, this situation could get worse, much worse. And certain countries are just gonna have to adapt like we always do. When things become too hard, you've got to go, you have to change your thinking. And humans are pretty good at that. Yes, talking about human nature, they're very adept at that. Germany, for example, I mean, they were, when the Fukushima happened, they went out of the nuclear business. That was shocking to me. They just pulled out and they destroyed, destructed several of their nuclear reactors who were still functioning and put up coal, or yeah, put up coal and oil, replaced it. And as a result, Germany drifted into this place next to France. Their electricity bills went up, and France stayed the same. They don't have that, they have a different system in Europe, but more or less, no question that France was doing a lot better than Germany. And now, with this Ukraine issue, it's a very interesting focal point whether Germany is, what direction they're gonna go now. How can they, how can they keep going with coal? They just can't. What's the connection between oil, coal, nuclear, and war? Sort of energy and conflict. When you look at the 21st century, when you were doing this documentary, were you thinking of nuclear as a way to power the world, but is it also to avoid conflict over resources? Is there some aspect to energy being a source of conflict that we're trying to avoid? I don't have the energy, the history of energy at my fingertips, and it's a very long history here. But I would say, apparently not. It does seem that it's individually, each country can answer its needs by building. And up until now, we haven't had conflict, except in this issue of Russia supplying Europe. Obviously, the pipeline, Nord Stream 2 has been closed, and Nord Stream 1 is also probably gonna be phased out. And the concept of Russia supplying gas to Europe is now up in the air, and who knows what's gonna happen. I just don't see how Europe can get away from using Russian gas. But Russian gas is not the solution, because it's methane, too, and it goes up into the atmosphere. Methane, in the short term, is worse than coal, worse. There's all kinds of charts we show in the film. We try not to be too over-factual, but methane is not the answer. It's a short-term answer. Will countries go to war over energy is a question that I'm trying to think of all the wars that happened. You could say Germany, of course, during World War II needed oil very badly, and it dictated their strategy with Romania, et cetera, getting the oil fields open. But I don't really, I haven't thought that one through. I'd have to make a documentary on it to really understand how energy and war interface. It's always part of the calculation, but it's a question of how much. Right, that's the question. I just have to ask, because you mentioned your mom was from France. You've traveled for this documentary, and you traveled in general throughout the world in Russia, Ukraine. What are the defining characteristics of these cultures? Let's go with Russia. So as I told you, I came from, I'm half Ukrainian, half Russian. I came from that part of the world. What are some interesting, beautiful aspects of the culture of Russia and Ukraine? I can't really speak honestly of Ukraine. I was there only in 1983, when I visited the Soviet Union under the communism. Kiev was beautiful, it was one of the nicer places I went. But they were very much stultified by the communist system. They all were. The best places to visit in Russia were always in the south, whether Georgia or the Muslim countries. It was always a better culture in terms of comfort. But communism was rough, and that was the end of it, pretty much, Brezhnev regime, and then Andropov, Gorbachev was three years in the future when I was there. So I can't talk about Ukraine, and they've not been friendly to me since ISIS. Of course, since I made the Putin interviews, Ukraine has banned me, I believe. They've been very tough on people who are critical. I think the Russian people have been very special to me. Perhaps because of my European upbringing, but I enjoy talking to them. I find them very open, very generous. And they appreciate support. They appreciate people who say, I understand why your government is doing this, or this, or this. I've tried to stay open-minded and listen to both sides. The thing that I have seen as an American is, of course, this American enmity towards Russia from the very beginning. I grew up in 1940, 46, I was born. In the 50s, it was so anti-Russian. They were everywhere. They were in our schools, they were in our State Department, they were spying on us, they were stealing the country from us. That was the way the American right wing, not even the right wing, I'd say the Republican Party, pictured the Russians. They were actively engaged in infiltrating America and changing our thinking. And television shows were based on this. It was very much the J. Edgar Hoover mentality that communism was even behind the student protests of the 1960s. This was the direction in which the FBI and the CIA were thinking. So I grew up with a prejudice. And it took me many years. My father was a Republican, and he was a stockbroker, and he was a very intelligent man. But even he, because he was a World War II soldier, he was a colonel, had fallen under the influence. In order to be successful in American business in the 1950s, you had to have a very strong anti-Soviet line, very strong. You wouldn't get ahead. If you expressed any kind of, let's end this Cold War, any kind of activity of that nature, you'd be cast aside as a pinko or somebody who was not completely on the board with the American way of doing business, which was capitalism works, communism doesn't. And in particular, communism as embodied by the Soviet Union is the enemy. So hence, hence. Yeah, that's the way you were. The narrative behind the Cold War. That's correct. And it basically lasted. I mean, you saw the ups and downs of it. When Reagan came in, I was, well, first of all, we had the crisis of 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Kennedy proved himself to be a warrior for peace. He resolved that with Khrushchev. That was a big moment, huge moment, and people don't give him credit enough for really saving us from a war that could have affected all of mankind. But it still didn't avert? No, because the moment he was killed, honestly, there was a lot of, we can talk about that. As you know, I've made a film, JFK Revisited is a documentary we released this year about the movie I made in 1991. But the moment he was killed, I would argue that Lyndon Johnson went back immediately to the old way of thinking, the old way of doing business, which was the Eisenhower-Truman way, which we had adapted since World War II. That was an interim. You have to think about it from Roosevelt dies in 45. Roosevelt has an interim of 15 years where he has more of a democratic regime, more liberal. He establishes, he recognizes the Soviet Union for the first time since the revolution, and he actually has a relationship with them. He sends ambassadors who are friendly, and he has a relationship with Stalin, et cetera, and at Yalta, or no, at Tehran, rather, that's where he had the relationship. Do you think if JFK lived, we would not have a Cold War? No, absolutely not. And we go into great depth on that in the film, and I'd urge you to see it, because it goes into all the issues around the world. Kennedy was being very much an anti-imperialist, it turns out, and many people don't understand that, but you have to look at all his policies in Middle East with Nasser, he had a relationship, and with Sukarno in Indonesia, with Latin America, he made a big effort with the Alliance for Progress, and when Africa, above all, with Lumumba, he was very shocked at his death, and tried to defend the integrity of the Belgian Congo with Dag Hammarskjöld of the UN. He made a big effort. Unfortunately, it didn't work out, because Dag Hammarskjöld was killed, and then Kennedy was killed, and Congo descended into the chaos of Joseph Mbutu's dictatorship. But Kennedy was very active in terms of, as an Irishman, not as an Englishman, he was an Irishman. And I say that because, well, we'll come back to that, because Mr. Joe Biden is an Irishman, but it's a different kind of an Irishman. They're both Catholic Irish, but Kennedy really made an effort to change the imperialist mindset that still was very strong in America and Europe. Lyndon Johnson changed back to the old policy, and we were never able to really keep detente going with the Russians. Briefly had it with Carter, but then Brzezinski came in. Brzezinski was his national security advisor. He was put there by Rockefeller, and Brzezinski was a Pole. He got revenge from the Poland. Poland has always been attacking Russia, as far as I remember, back to another century. I mean, the two world wars that occupied Russia, and so tragically, entry points were always through Poland and Ukraine. So Brzezinski got his revenge, and Carter ended up being an enemy of the Soviet Union, and creating, as Brzezinski took pride in it, he created the atmosphere, the trap for the Soviets to go into Afghanistan in 79. That trap was set, he says, he said, in 1978. So there was never, except for brief moments, periods of detente with the Soviets, and I grew up under that. I didn't really know anything of this going on, because I was learning. I was educating myself as I was going, learning movies and trying to be a dramatist, and this and that, so I wasn't thinking about this. Then, when Reagan came in, I was worried again, because it was a beat of the old beat, which was there, the most evil empire. I mean, it goes on in American history, it doesn't end. Reagan got a lot of points for that, and of course, when Gorbachev came in, it was a beautiful moment for the world. It was a great surprise. It was probably the best years for America, at least from my point of view, in terms of this relaxation in the mood. 1986 to 1991 were great years in terms of ability to believe, once again, that there could be a peace dividend, but the world changed again in 1991, 92. There's an internal mechanism, who knows. You could blame the United States, you could blame Russia for, Gorbachev was perhaps not the right man to try to administer that country at that point. He had great visions, he was a man of peace, but it was very difficult to hold together such a huge empire. So vision is not enough to hold together the Soviet Union. I think the details are interesting. I followed up on that a little bit, because I was recently in countries like Kazakhstan, talked about the negotiations that were going on, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. It's a very interesting story, because it involves everything, Ukraine, of course, everything that's going on now. Some, what is it, 30 million Russians were left outside of the Soviet Union when it collapsed. They had no home anymore. They were homes in other countries, such as in Ukraine. So it's an interesting story, and with repercussions today. Kazakhstan is a good example of keeping a balance, keeping it neutral. He played both sides, because Yeltsin wanted him to join the Russian Confederation in a certain way where he'd be supporting, against Gorbachev. There's a whole inward battle there. I think the Ukraine came along with Yeltsin, as well as, I'm sorry, I don't remember now, but two other regions came with him, and that was a block that broke up the Soviet Union. It was Yeltsin's plan to, and it wasn't make the Russian Federation, and they did. I would love to return back to JFK eventually, because he's such a fascinating figure in the history of human civilization, but let me ask you, fast forward. In 2000, Yeltsin was no longer president, and Vladimir Putin became president. You did a series of interviews with Vladimir Putin, as you mentioned, over a period of two years, from 2015 to 2017. Let me ask with a high-level question. What was your goal with that conversation? Oh, came out in 2017. I guess I started them in 2014. At that point, the Snowden affair had happened, and I was working on a movie on Snowden. That happened in 13. Ukraine happened in 14. And one thing after another, by 14, Putin was enemy number, again, becoming a wanted man on the American list. He was enemy, he was certainly in the top five. But the animosity towards Putin had been growing since 2007 at Munich. I remember that speech when he made it. It's in my documentary. It's a four-hour documentary, four different conversations. I mean, we talked over two years, two and a half years. But I remember that image of him at Munich making a very important speech about world harmony, about the balance necessary in the world. And I remember the sneer, the sneer on John McCain's face. He was in Munich, obviously eyeballing Putin and hating him. And it was so evident that McCain had no belief whatsoever that this, he was almost treating him like, is it the communists are back? And we know that Putin was not a communist. We know that Putin is very much a market man. And he made it very clear and tried to keep an open climate, a new relationship with Europe. But the United States always, certain people in the United States always saw that as a threat, like Putin is trying to take Europe away from us as if we own it, as if we have the right to own it. But Putin was making the point, it's very important, about sovereignty. Sovereignty for countries is crucial for this new world to have balance. That's sovereignty for China, sovereignty for Russia, sovereignty for Iran, sovereignty for Venezuela, sovereignty for Cuba. This is an idea that's crucial to the new world. And I think the United States has never accepted that. Sovereignty is not an idea that they can allow. You have to be obedient to the United States idea of so-called democracy and freedom. But much more important is sovereignty for these countries. And the United States has not obeyed that, has not even acknowledged it. And it never comes up. So from the perspective of the United States, when power centers arise in the world, you start to oppose those, not because of the ideas, but merely because they have power. Isn't that at the heart of the doctrine of the neoconservatives in the pact for the new American century, they wrote that in 1996, seven? They said there shall be no emergence of a rival power. It was very clear it was about power. And they've stuck to that doctrine, which is if you start to get dangerous in any way or have power, we're gonna knock you out. Now that won't work. I don't believe it can work. And that is fortunately a policy of the United States is following. And the neoconservatives group, which is very small, but it's very strong apparently. And their idea has resonated. It was behind the George Bush's invasion of Iraq. It was part of not only Iraq, but cleaning out the whole world, draining the swamp, going to Afghanistan first. And then although Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's attack, going after Iraq. And of course, 60 some other countries that were terrorism had some signs of, wherever America judged would be a dangerous country, we had the right, you're either with us or against us. Now that is a disastrous policy. And led to one thing after another, the Iraq war never learned a lesson. The neoconservatives were never fired, never thrown out of office. The people who prosecuted that war are still around. Many of them are still around. And they're obviously guiding America now. Let me return to this question of power. Don't forget the sneer that I saw there. That emblemized the United States reaction. Also there were several other American representatives who were laughing, kind of mocking Putin. It was very serious. I felt there was a divide there. So since then, in a certain sense, the Europe reaction to Putin is crucial. And they were more with him back then. And a big thing for America was always to keep NATO, to keep Europe in its pocket as a satellite. And with this recent war, of course, they've succeeded beyond their dreams. The Russians have fulfilled the fantasy of the United States to finally be this aggressor that they have pictured for years. We can talk about that later. But at that time, Europe had significant support for Putin. The United States was sneering at Putin. That's correct, you can say that. And then, so there's this, there was uncertainty as to the direction, as to the future of Russia. And that's exactly when you interviewed Vladimir Putin. I wanted to know what they thought, because we couldn't get the information war that the United States was fighting against Russia was in evidence back then. It was full out. The condemnation of Russia on all fronts. I never saw a positive article about Putin. Although when I traveled in the world, and I traveled a lot doing documentaries, it was very clear in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, there was respect for him. That he was a man who was getting his job done in the interests of Russia. He was, as I said in the documentary, a son of Russia. Very much so, in the positive sense. A son of Russia. Not that he's out there trying to destroy the interests of other countries, no. That he was out there to promote the interests of Russia, but at the same time, keep a balance. Keep the world into a harmony. This has always been his picture. Peace was always his idea. In other words, he always referred to the United States, in all these interviews, as our partners. And I said, will you stop using that word? They're not. And he was a little bit slow in waking up to what the United States was doing. Well, that said, he's one of the most powerful men in the world. He was at that time. And let me ask you the human question. As the old adage goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Did you see any corroding effects of power on the man? Forget the political leader. On just the human being that carries that power on his shoulders for so many years. Keep in mind that he's been, unlike most modern leaders, he's been in office off and on. Because Medvedev was president and he was not literally in charge. He took another appointment at that point, but he was still very much involved. But for 20 years, more or less, he's been at the administrator of the state, the protector of the state. And he's apparently done a good enough job that the Russian people have kept him there. Because contrary to what many people think, I really believe that if the Russian people didn't want him, he would be out. I firmly believe that. I don't think you can go against the will of the people. Now it expresses itself in many ways. At the ballot box and so forth, but also in other ways in Russia. There's a strong currents of opinion. So contrary to what the position of him as a dictator, he wouldn't last if he was unpopular, number one. Number two, Russia is much more divided than people know. There's other factors in Russia. He is, there are always tensions around the Kremlin, who has power, who doesn't have power. That's been going on for 100 years. But the factions in Russia are very much there. So when people refer to Russia as Putin, they're mistaken. And they do this regularly in the New York papers and all this. They say, Putin did this, Putin did that, Putin's doing that. But it's Russia that's doing it. And that's what, there's a distinction there that I, it's changed. In the old days, I would read about Khrushchev, but it was never Khrushchev personally. It was about the Soviet Union. There was respect for a country. And now, when it started to get personal with Putin, it changed and our thinking changed in a negative way. We no longer respected it as a country. We were seen as a man. And the man we had trashed repeatedly, repeatedly as a poisoner, as a murderer, none of which has ever been proven, but which has always been repeated and repeated to the point at which it becomes like an Orwell mantra. It becomes like, he is, of course, a bad guy. Can I just ask you, as a great filmmaker, as a human being, what was it like talking to one of the most powerful men in the world? For honesty, and I'm not naive, I've talked to a lot of powerful people. In the movie business, there are powerful people and many of them are corrupted. I've talked to many people in my life. I've been in the military. I've seen, I've had other jobs. I have to say, I found him to be a human being. I just found him to be reasonable, calm. I never saw him lose his temper. And I mean, you have to understand that most people in the Western way of doing business get emotional. I don't see that. I saw him as a balanced man, as a man who had studied this like you have. There's a calmness to you. It comes from studying the world and having a rational response to it. It's interesting, his two daughters, one of them is very scientific and the other one's doing very well in another profession, but they're a thinking family. His wife, too, was. I can't talk for the new wife because I don't know about it, but he kept his family with great respect. He's raised his daughters right. He served Yeltsin the way he looked at it. He served Yeltsin well. And he never trashed Yeltsin. Certainly a lot of people did, but I asked him repeatedly, was he an alcoholic, this or that? But he wouldn't even go that far. Just respect. And this man, Yeltsin, was in many ways ridiculed by the Russians. He turned over the power because he felt like he was overwhelmed. He turned over the power to this man because why? How many people had he fired before him? Several. Several prime ministers, this or that. Why did he turn power over to Mr. Putin? Because he respected him for his work ethic and his balance, his maturity. And that's what I can say I saw in him. A poor person from a poor family who worked his way up through the KGB. Americans keep saying he's a KGB agent, but it's like saying George Bush was a CIA agent, but he became a, you grow, you grow in your life. And he went from the KGB to this technocratic position. He dealt with many problems, including the Chechnyan War, which was a very difficult situation, as well as the Russian submarine problem. Several things happened early in his, that gave him a lot of experience. And he handled them all pretty well. Do you think he was an honest man? I do. Now, of course, the question of money, the charge is that he's the richest man in the world, or ludicrous, certainly doesn't live like it or act like it. If you're rich, I've been around a lot of rich people in my life. You'd probably have too in America, you run into them. So many of them are arrogant. I'm actually good friends now with the richest man in the world. Oh, of course, I saw your interview with Mr. Musk, who I appreciate, at least he speaks freely. I'm positive about him owning Twitter because Twitter has become censorship city, as has all the major tech. I mean, the censorship that we are now seeing in the United States is so un-American and shocking to me. And he is a resistance to that, that is true. Yeah, I like Musk for that, just for that only. But I also appreciate him, his adventuresome, his nature and his desire to explore the world and to ask questions. Yeah, there's certain ways you sound when you speak freely. There's certain ways you sound, a man sounds when he speaks freely, and he speaks freely, and it's refreshing. No matter whether you're rich or not, it doesn't matter. When you speak freely, it's a beautiful thing. Actually, Musk, at a major point, going back to nuclear energy, he never believed in it at first, apparently. He was going for batteries, right? And he put a lot of money into batteries. He made them bigger and bigger batteries, but it just, as Bill Gates has said, it's just, it's not gonna get us there. And now I think Musk is on another path. He understands the need for nuclear. Yeah, he's a supporter of nuclear. We're jumping around. Poon never asked for one thing, never. It was an interview, it was free form. Ask anything you want, no restrictions, no rules. As with Castro, frankly, Castro did the same thing as De Chavez, so I've had good luck in interviewing free-ranging subjects, people willing to express themselves. He's much more guarded than Castro or Chavez, because as you know, he's setting government policy when he speaks, and anything he says can be taken out of context. But there was no restrictions on what to talk about, none of that. Nor any desire to see anything before we published it. No need to check it with them. It was completely. Do you think he watched the final product? Yes, I do, but I don't think he made judgments on it. I think he was pleased. He doesn't go either way, you see. He's pleased, I mean, it went well, he's happy for us. But I don't think he had great enthusiasm, expressed it to me. He trusted me, and you can see the way he dealt with me each time. He warmed up to me. Four times, you know, the first time it might have been a little stiff. You're asking, you don't know who you're dealing with, and so forth, I understand that. But he's used to it now. He's done a lot of press. The worst press he's done, frankly, has been the American press. And not because of his fault, but because of the way they have treated him. If you look at the interviews, they're awful. They put, first of all, I noticed one thing as a filmmaker right away, they use a dub, an overdub. They put a Russian speaker for everything he says, who's much harsher. He speaks Russian in a much harsher manner than actually Putin does. Who's very, if you, on my interview, I left him in his original language with translator. And I think that's important, because he expresses himself very clearly and calmly. When you listen to the American broadcast, it's a belligerent person who looks like he's about to bang his shoe on the table. And secondly, the questions are highly aggressive from the beginning. There's no sense of rapport. There's no sense of, well, it's why, Mr. Putin, did you poison this person? Why, Mr. Putin, did you kill this person? Why are you a murderer? I mean, it's blunt, blunt negative television. Yeah, it's not just aggressive. So I obviously speak Russian, so I get to appreciate both the original and the translation. And it's not just aggressive, it's very shallow. They're not looking to understand. To me, aggression is okay, if that's the way you wanna approach it. But there should be underlying kind of empathy for another human being in order to be able to understand. And so some of the worst interviews I've ever listened to is by American Press of Vladimir Putin. So NBC and all those kinds of organizations, it's very painful to watch. And you saw the reception to the Putin interviews in America was hostile without seeing it. So many people criticized my series without having seen it. Even, I went on a show, a television show, with this famous Colbert. You know, he's very famous in America. And I was shocked on the show to find out that he hadn't seen anything of the four hours. He was just attacking Putin. And he threw me. I was complicit, therefore I was a Putin supporter. And the show was a disaster. It's one of my worst television shows. And I actually, I had to shut up and get off the air. I mean, at some point it was embarrassing. Because the audience too was clapping for Colbert on anything he said. Well, as an interviewer in that situation, because between you and Vladimir Putin, there was camaraderie, there was joking, there was... Are you worried, do you put that into the calculation when you're making a film with somebody that could be lying to you, that could be evil? You talk about Castro, you talk about... So, are you worried about how charisma of a man across the table from you can... Don't I take that into account? I absolutely take that into account. I know, I mean, doing Castro, he's a wonderful speaker. He's charismatic, so is Chavez. Look at those interviews. I took it into account. But Putin doesn't play that game. He doesn't charm you, he doesn't try to overwhelm you with his bon ami at all. He just says, ask your question, I'll give you my answer straight. Here it is. And he analyzes it. This is the history of NATO, this is the history of our relationship with the United States. How many times have we tried to talk to them about such and such and such and such, and each time we get nowhere. In fact, it's a very... I would like to get along with the United States so much. He's saying it so clearly in all his words. So, to play devil's advocate. But he's not making a big deal about it. But there is a charisma and a calmness. Yes, there is. So, like, let's just calm everything down. It's simple facts. That, you can call... So, there's like the Hitler thing, which is screaming, being very loud, charismatic, strong message and so on. And then there's a Putin style, I'm not comparing those two. There's the Putin style communication of calmness. And that, at least to me, my personality, that can be very captivating, is bringing everything down. The facts are simple. But then when you say the facts are simple, you can now start lying. And you don't know what's true and what's lies. It behooves you to do some research. Yes. And frankly, when it comes to research, you're gonna have a problem. Because if you go to the Americanized versions of Russian history, you're gonna run into a problem. And that includes even Wikipedia. They will tell you things that are just not factually supported. So, it was a problem in terms of, if you read all the books in the American library about Putin, there's nothing positive about it. They're awful, they're awful. And a lot of them, I had a good relationship with Professor Stephen Cohen, who's the most, I think, one of the most informed men on Russia. He'd done a lot of research, all his life. And knew Gorbachev very well. And was very analytical about all these situations that happened before his death in 2019. I'm not quite sure when Stephen died, but I knew him well. And he gave me the best information I could get. I would go to Stephen and I'd say, I'm confused here, tell me the history of this accusation of poisoning against this person and so forth. And he'd explain it to me. In, I think, very, the clearest ways that I understood. And he said to me once, he said, most of these people who go to Russia and write this stuff about Putin are going off the internet. The internet has really been a source of a lot of fractured facts here. He said, pure analysis. You have to go back to the texts, all the documents, and to really fully understand. But he spoke Russian. And his wife and him, Katerina Vonhovel, who's an editor, publisher of The Nation Magazine, would go to Russia several times a year and talk to their friend Gorbachev. And Gorbachev's an interesting character. I've talked to him, interviewed him. Not interviewed him, but talked to him at length. And I like him very much. And I saw the divide, as you saw in the Putin interviews, between Gorbachev and Putin. Early on in the interviews, you sense Putin doesn't particularly care for Gorbachev because in his point of view, he screwed up the administration of Russia and is responsible for so much of the disaster of leaving all those people outside the Soviet Union. So these are problems that continue into the future. But they see each other, or he knows he's there at the May Day parade we filmed, and his attitude is funny. It's very human. He says, you know, he's welcome. He's got his pension, he's a pensioner. He's done his duty. There's no animus towards him. Even when Gorbachev in the early days, as you remember, criticized him for his manners in terms of democracy. But I don't know that that becomes a quarrel. But frankly, by the end of the situation, it's very clear that Gorbachev has now moved closer and closer to the, says Russia is now really under attack. This is, he sees where the United States has made a concerted effort to undermine Putin. And he's repeated this several times about Ukraine. I think you've seen what he said. You can quote it. And Gorbachev is, we have no respect for Gorbachev even, even at this juncture. When can you see Gorbachev's ideas printed in most American newspapers? Very rarely, very rarely, and recently not at all. So Gorbachev, who was our hero back in, an American hero back in 1980s, has now been condemned to the garbage can, so to speak, of history. Well, in this complicated geopolitical picture you just outlined, can we talk about the recent invasion of Ukraine? So you wrote on Facebook a pretty eloquent analysis, I think on March 3rd. Let me just read a small section of that, just to give context, and maybe we can talk a little bit more about both Russia and the man, Putin. You wrote, although the United States has many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesn't justify Mr. Putin's aggression in Ukraine. A dozen wrongs don't make a right. Russia was wrong to invade. It has made too many mistakes. One, underestimating Ukraine resistance. Two, overestimating the military ability to achieve its objective. Three, underestimating Europe's reaction, especially Germany, upping its military contribution to NATO, which they've resisted for some 20 years. Even Switzerland has joined the cause. Russia will be more isolated than ever from the West. Four, underestimating the enhanced power of NATO, which will now put more pressure on Russia's borders. Five, probably putting Ukraine into NATO. Six, underestimating the damage to its own economy, and certainly creating more internal resistance in Russia. Seven, creating a major readjustment of power in its oligarch class. Eight, putting cluster and vacuum bombs into play. Nine, and underestimating the power of social media worldwide. And you go on for a while giving a much broader picture of the history and the geopolitics of all of this. So now, a little bit later, two months later, what are your thoughts about the invasion of Ukraine? Well, it's very hard to be honest in this regard because the West has brought down a curtain here. Anyone who questions the invasion of Ukraine and its consequences is an enemy of the people, it's become so difficult. I've never seen in my lifetime ever such a wall of propaganda as I've seen in the West. And that includes France too, because I was there recently, and England. England is of course really vociferous. It's shocking to me how quickly Europe moved in this direction, and that includes Germany. I have German friends who express to me their shock over Ukraine. I have Italian friends, same thing. And Italy of course has been perhaps the most understanding and compassionate of countries. So it's quite evident that there's a united, and this attests to the power of the United States. And of course you have Finland, which has generally been reasonable, jumping in, talking about joining NATO, and Sweden too. Generally there's been some more restraint in Europe. That's what surprised me the most, Europe. How quickly they fell into this NATO basket, which is very dangerous for Europe, very dangerous. This goes back to my idea, what I was saying earlier about sovereignty. These countries don't really give me a sense that they have sovereignty over their own countries. They don't feel, to me I'm- The European nations. I'm obviously, intuition here is working. I just don't feel that they have freedom to say what they really think, and they're scared to say it. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, I remember with great, in a sense, satisfaction that at least France, Chirac, who I had not really known much about, stood up and said, the United States, we're not gonna join you in this expedition, basically into madness. Schroeder in Germany, same thing. Of course, Putin condemned the invasion, and Putin had been an ally of the United States since 9-11, if you remember correctly, and had called Bush, and they were getting along. So even Putin said, I won't go, don't go into Iraq. This is not the solution. He didn't oppose Afghanistan, but he opposed Iraq. So Chirac and Schroeder stood for the old Europe. I remember de Gaulle, Charles de Gaulle, he was independent of the United States. Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO because he saw the dangers of NATO, which is to say, you have to fight an American war when they say, and they put nuclear weapons on your territory in England and France, and Italy and Germany, when they do that, you're hitched to this superpower, and you have no say in what they're gonna do. If they declare war, and they use your territory, you're gonna be involved in a major conflict. I'm talking about sovereignty. Where is that sovereignty? They don't have it. And that has influenced their mindset for years now, since 1940, since, well, de Gaulle was the 60s. He actually reversed the whole flow, and he was, I think it was Sarkozy who put France back into NATO. And now it's Macron, I hope, because he was talking to Putin, would at least have an independent viewpoint that could be helpful here. But he rolled it up. He may have told Putin something else, but within days, he had rolled it up and gone along with the United States position, which was enforced by the United States in a very fierce way. The propaganda, as I say, I don't know how much time you spend in America, but it was vicious, and everything was anti-Russian. Russia were killing all these people, were shooting down civilians, although there was no proof of it. There was just, these are the accidents of war, but all of a sudden, it was a campaign of criminality, and they were talking about bringing Putin into a war crime trial. Well, why didn't they talk like that when Iraq was going on, and Bush was killing far more people? Or for that matter, why were they not talking about the killings in Donbass and Lugansk during that 2014 to 2022 period? That is what is, it's a crime. There were so many people that were killed, many of them innocent, many of them innocent. What would be the way for Vladimir Putin to stop the killing in Donbass without the invasion of Ukraine? Yeah, that's a very good question, and I've asked that several times, and I don't have the, I have not talked to him since about two years now. It's a very good question. What's the mistakes, what the human mistakes and the leadership mistakes mean? So I've never put. It's a very good question. You see, what the American press has not said, and the Western press has not said, is that on February 24, was it? That was on that day when they invaded. The day before, if you check the logs of the European organization that was supervising, was in the field in Ukraine, these are neutral observers. They were seeing heavier and heavier artillery fire going into Donbass from the Ukrainian side. So they had, apparently Ukraine had 110,000 troops on the border. They were about to invade Donbass. That was the plan. That's what I think. Russia, because of the buildup on the border of Donbass, brought 130, they say 130,000 troops to the area near Donbass, right? So you have buildup of forces on both sides, but you wouldn't know that from reading the press in the West. You'd believe that the Russians suddenly put all these men into the situation with the idea of invading Ukraine, not only Donbass, but invading all of Ukraine and getting rid of the, decapitating the government there, which is all assumption. We don't know what they would intend it to do. But you, at the time, is that a lot of people thought that all the talk of the invasion, Russian invasion of Ukraine, is just propaganda. It's not gonna happen. It's very unlikely to happen. I think many of us thought that the United States is building this up into an invasion. In other words, that is the nature of false flag operations when you create this propaganda. They are going to invade, they are going to invade. And then when they invaded, the United States was completely ready, and all their allies were completely ready for the invasion, correct? So why did Putin do that? He fell into this, theoretically into this trap set by the United States. Here you're telling all your allies across the board, they're going to invade. But you. Why do you think he did it? So here, is it madness, or is it common? No, no, it's not madness. Strategic calculation, perhaps? This one I cannot answer you faithfully, because first of all, we don't know what he was told. If he was indeed getting the right intelligence estimates, from what I said earlier in that essay I wrote, you would think he was not well informed, perhaps, about the degree of cooperation he would get from the Ukrainian Russians in Ukraine. That would be one factor, that he wasn't, he didn't assess the operation correctly. Remember this, Mr. Putin has had this cancer, and I think he's licked it, but he's also been isolated because of COVID. And some people would argue that the isolation from normal activity, which he was meeting people face to face, but all of a sudden he was meeting people across the table, 100 yards away, or whatever, 10 yards away, it was very hard. Perhaps he lost touch with, contact with people. So it's not just power, it's the very simple fact that you're just distant from humans. See, I'm speculating, I don't know. I see that, and I also, perhaps he thought in his mind that there would be a faster resolution, that the Ukrainian, because the evidence had been that the Ukrainian Russians, the Ukrainian army had folded so many times, and that they were only backed up, and they were stiffened by the resistance of the Nazi-oriented Azov battalions. That was a factor, of course. And that is a big factor for the Russians, because these people are very tough, they rush. See, what people don't understand is that Ukraine, since 2014, has been a terror state. They've been run. Anytime a Ukrainian has expressed any, any understanding of a Russian, of the Russian-Ukrainian position, they've been threatened by the state. From 2014 to 2022, there's been a set of hideous murders that people don't even know about in the West. Journalists, people who speak out, liberals, people who, I interviewed Viktor Medvedev, who they make out to be some kind of horrible person, but Medvedev was a very important figure in the administration of Kusma, the first Ukrainian prime minister in the 1990s, and he did a great job on the economy. He was a very thoughtful man, and if you'll see my interview, it's called Ukraine Revealed. He's very thoughtful about the future of Ukraine. He doesn't want to go back and join Russia. He wants it to be an independent country. Ukraine is independent, and he wants it to be a functioning economic democracy, more or less, a democracy, if you can get that, but between, that exists in a neutral state, a neutral state, which Ukraine used to be before 2014. It was neutral from 1991 to 2014, neutral, very important. Under Poroshenko, it just immediately went into an anti-Soviet Cold War position as an ally of the United States, and my point was that it was a very dangerous place, Ukraine, people were being killed, death squads were out there, Medvedev, they stripped him of his television stations, very suddenly, this is Zelensky, the new president, said, Zelensky was elected on a peace platform. Remember that, 70% of the country was for him to make peace with Russia. He didn't even try to make peace with Russia. Did he attend any of the Minsk II agreements? Did he visit, did he pay any attention to Putin? Did he go to Russia? No, not at all. The moment he got into office, I'm convinced that the militant sector of the right sector parties of Ukraine let him know that you will not make a deal with Russia. There'll be no concessions to Russia. This is very dangerous. This is where this attitude that's very, very hostile to Russia has hurt us, the whole world is being hurt by this, and no one calls them out. No one calls them out. Zelensky backed off from his platform as running for president, and as president, has been ineffective, did nothing to promote it. On the contrary, went the other way and seemed to support the Ukrainian aggression. Well, he found his support in this war. You've revealed through your work some of the most honest and dark aspects of war. Nevertheless, this is a war, and there's a humanitarian crisis. Millions of people, refugees escaping Ukraine. What do you think about the human cost of this war initiated by whoever, just as you write, whatever the context, whatever NATO, whatever pressure, as you wrote, Russia was wrong to invade? Okay, yeah, let's get back to the original question. You said, what was he thinking at that time? We never answered that. Now, by the way, among those people who have been ruined by this war, you have to include the 2014 to 2022 Ukrainian Russians. 14,000 were killed, not necessarily by, some of them by maybe accident, this and that, but certainly a large number of that is responsible to the Ukrainian military and the Nazi-related battalions who have done a good job of death-squatting that whole area. And remember, I did a film about Salvador. I know a little bit about death squads and how they work, and I know about paramilitaries, because in South America, they're all over the place. America supports, hates Venezuela, goes on about Venezuela. Do they tell you anything about Colombia, its next-door neighbor? Colombia, for years, has been plagued by paramilitaries that are right-wing, and the United States has said nothing about them, except occasionally there's a newspaper report now. So this support of death squads by the United States is all over the world. It's not just in South America and Central America, where we've seen plenty of evidence of it. It's here, too, and this is what's horrible about this whole thing, this hypocrisy of America, that they can support such evil, such evil. Now, going back to your larger question about, yes, it's a terrible refugee disaster, but again, we have to get the numbers. Let's get the numbers and get the evidence, because I would ask you, I'm not sure at this point whether more civilians were killed before 2022 in Donbass than have been killed in this latest. So we can't talk about this without, we can't talk about the invasion of Ukraine without considering the full war between Russia and Ukraine since 2014. That's correct, absolutely. And take the toll on both sides, and you might be surprised by the result. I think the Russian military, of course, I'm not there, and I'm not, this is speculation. The Russian military has slowed down, and part of that reason is not to keep the civilian corridors open. And I think the Ukrainian military has made it more difficult on purpose, especially some of these battalions that are death squad battalions have gone out of their way to keep the civilians locked into these cities in danger, because it's in their interest to do so. So there's no reason why Ukrainian military, who have killed Ukrainian civilians for years, would change their policies. They would have no compunctions about wiping out, for example, people with white armbands in Bukha. Okay, as to what Putin was thinking at the time, I wondered this, and I still do. I said, okay, so Putin can say, let's say the Ukrainian government wants to now invade Donbass. This is on February 23, and they have artillery that pepper in the whole place. They're gonna go in, and they're gonna get Donbass back. What do you do? And you have Russian separatists, who are Russian-Ukrainians, who are on, who are gonna fight. How far do you go in supporting them? Can Russia at this point say, well, we can't help you. You have to get along. You have to somehow, you have to be absorbed by the Kiev. You're gonna be absorbed by them, and they're gonna be, they're not gonna give you autonomy, and you have to live with them, and there's gonna be a price to pay. You could do that, and you could also say, well, we open our borders to Donbass. You can come into our country, you can leave, and we will help you to resettle, and that would be a reasonable approach. So you take it to the next stage, as Putin's thinking. You take it to the next stage. You stall. It's harder for your people. Of course, there's pressure on Putin from inside his own government to say, what are you gonna do? I mean, you can't do this to our, and there's a lot of nationalists in Russia. They would certainly bring, it would be to his, they'd say Putin is weak, and that's the biggest rap you can ever give a Russian leader, is you're weak. You can't get anything done. So there would have been some damage, but let's say he goes with that, and he says, okay, we know what the United States intention is. It's to get rid of me, regime change, and to get another Yeltsin in. That's what they want, and they will go to any ends. They will destroy Ukraine, if necessary, but they want regime change in Russia, and then after they do that, of course, they'll go after China, but that's the ultimate policy of the United States. This is a country that has no compunctions about going all the way, and it will use hypocrisy and all the news propaganda in the world to get what it wants. This is the equivalent, frankly, of Germany's goals in World War II, world domination. There's no question, in my mind, but we're going about it in our way, as opposed to Hitler's way. So just to finish your thought, where do they go? What's stage two? Okay, let's say they take, Ukraine takes back Donbass. Let's say people get killed in large quantities. So we now to the next stage. We're finished with the Minsk II agreements that we never adhered to. So what does Russia do? They wait for the next aggression, which is gonna come in one form or another, perhaps in Georgia, I don't know what the US is thinking, but they would have, the US cannot say Russia has done anything. They have not used violence to stop Donbass from belonging back to Ukraine, right? So you're in a new setup now. It's a whole thing rearranges. Now you have, but you still have nuclear weapons. You still have a Russian nuclear weapons, and they're serious weapons. They're very well developed, crude, but not as refined as the American nuclear force, but powerful. That becomes another game. Then you open another chess board, and you still haven't been condemned. The sanctions haven't been imposed. That's a new, it's a new game. Could he have done, could he have lived with that? That's the question I ask myself. So you see ultimately Ukraine today as a battleground for the proxy war between Russia and the United States? The United States would have then NATO-ized Ukraine, or certainly put more weapons in. You know, the United States has already done a lot in Ukraine with intelligence, with training, advisors. The intelligence aspect of the Ukrainian army has been raised enormously by the United States contribution. Is it possible for you to steal man, to play devil's advocate against yourself, and say that Vladimir Zelensky is fighting for the sovereignty of his nation? And in a way, against Russia, but also against the United States, it just happens that for now, the United States is a useful ally. But ultimately, the man, the leader, is fighting for the sovereignty of his nation. I would think he thinks so, yes. And he could say that, but he's not acknowledging that the sovereignty of his nation was stolen in 2014 with a coup d'etat that brought this right sector into power. And they have controlled the country since then. It's thuggery what they've done. The Medvedev case is a case in point. They just take what they need. They go to a house and they have, how many people have been killed? Aren't serious people, journalists, killed by these battalions? That's what people don't realize. In other words, you can't speak out. A person like me would have been on the death list on day five. There's no opposition to Zelensky. So he doesn't have a real sovereignty. It was a stolen sovereignty. Do you think President Zelensky would accept an interview with you today? Actually, since I made Ukraine on Fire documentary, which perhaps you've seen, which records the incidents of 2014 and the Maidan demonstrations and shows you the dishonesty behind it. No, I think that they've been very negative and they would kill me if I was in Ukraine. I mean, they don't have any, these people are very tough. These are as rough as they come, in my opinion. And I've seen rough in my life. I mean, these guys are not playing with fair at all. These are death squads. No, I don't think, and Zelensky would have nothing to do with it, but of course, it would be dangerous for me. And they've been very hostile in their policies. Any Ukrainians abroad are also threatened. In other words, you could be in Paris, but if you speak out too much, I think Ukrainians know that they're gonna be targeted. And I think that's part of the reason they don't talk. A lot of them, you have to take the anti-Russian line, but I think a lot of them are divided. So you think you would be killed and Zelensky wouldn't even know about it. So there is. Well, I don't think, if I was killed, certainly abroad, no, they wouldn't kill me abroad. I think they'd figure out a way. No, no, no, no, if you traveled to Ukraine, I mean. I wouldn't get in. I wouldn't get in, except through Donbass. There are some Americans in Donbass who are reporting on the war there. And I read their reports, actually. They're pretty interesting, because they show you the cruelty of what's going on, but never mentioned in the West, never. That's what's so strange about this. This is a modern world that we're living in, and yet this information is not coming out to the mass of the people. And on the contrary, the United States has closed down all the RT, all the information centers that are possible alternative news getting to the American people. They've seriously made an effort, and the BBC, English, and France, I was shocked when France closed RT down, because RT is actually pretty good. Yes, they may, it's called, there are distortions, but you know as well as I do, because you speak, that RT has done a very brave job of putting correspondents into the field in very dangerous positions, and they've gotten great footage of some of the violence that's going on. Well, given the wall of propaganda in the West, I also see the wall of propaganda in Russia, the wall of propaganda in China, the wall of propaganda in India. What do we do with these walls of propaganda? Let's talk about Russia, because you would know more about it. But my last experience there, newspapers, it was more interesting, put it this way, when I went to Venezuela, the United States was saying back then that Chavez controlled the press. I get to Venezuela, and there's nothing but criticism of Chavez in the press. It was owned by the oligarchs of Venezuela, and who hated him, so it was across the board. That's why Chavez opened the state television, spent more money on it, and advertised his point of view through state television. But in Russia, what I saw was criticism. I met with a publisher who got the Nobel Prize of that famous newspaper, and his point of view at that time when I spoke to him a few years ago was, we're operating, there is criticism of him, but you can't call for the overthrow of the government, nor in Venezuela, nor in the United States, for that matter. If you call for the overthrow of the government of the United States, you're gonna be in deep trouble. Well, all right, so to push back on that, it's interesting, it's so interesting, because we mentioned Elon Musk, and there's a way that people sound when they speak freely. When I speak to, I have family in Ukraine, I have family in Russia. When I speak to people in Russia, let's put my family aside, when I speak to people in Russia, I think there's fear. I think they don't, sometimes when you call for the overthrow of government, that's important, not because you necessarily believe for the overthrow of the government, but you just need to test, test the power centers, and make sure they're responsive to the people. And I feel like there's a mix of fear and apathy that has a different texture than it does in the United States. That worries me, because I would like to see the flourishing of a people in all places. Well, as I said, my impression was that there's far more freedom in the press than was pictured by the West, and that means different points of view, because the Russians are always arguing with themselves. I've never seen a country that's so contentious. There's more intellectuals in Moscow and the cities than you can believe, and you know the Russian people. They've been fighting government for years, back from the 1870s, czarist times. They're always plotting against the government, and the intelligentsia is known through history as being contentious and anti-government in many ways. And we see the same thing, educated people turning against Russia. I don't appreciate those people, because I think they're very spoiled, and they don't understand some of the stuff that's going on in the West. But we have a lot of Russians in Europe and America that attack Russia, and sometimes don't understand that they are under pressure from the United States, and they don't understand the size of the pressure. And that's why Putin connects with the people, because he represents more the common man, who's saying to you, your interests are threatened. Russia is threatened. We are representing only the interests of Russia. We're not an empire, we're not gonna expand. He has no empire intentions, although the West paints it as empire. I see no evidence of it. Why didn't he do something in all these years? Nothing, he did nothing except defend the country in Georgia and in Chechnya. So the imperialist imperative is coming more from the West. The imperialist, it's the imperialist agenda. Going back to, I'm sorry, where we left our discussion off, I mean, I was gonna go on with America not only being censored, closed down now, closed down, and you say it's not fear. Well, it is fear. I am scared, because if you get your Facebook page suspended or your Twitter account thrown off, a lot of good people are getting their, thrown off, you can't say it, you can't speak out. It affects your business. It goes back to the 1950s, my father's world, when you could not express any sympathy for a Soviet Union without endangering your job, without basically being not trusted. You had to be part of the program to get along, to go along. Same thing when the United Kingdom, I mean, for all their talk, this Boris Johnson is an idiot, but all their talk about, do you remember with their policies with the IRA in Ireland when Ireland was threatening them? They cut off the IRA completely. Jerry Adams, who was a wonderful guy, I met him, was not allowed to even be heard in Britain during certain years. In France, all constantly through the Algerian War, the Algerians were not allowed to be heard. The Algerian War for Independence divided France greatly. You could not even show Paths of Glory, World War I film in France for, I don't know, 20 years after it came out. Censorship is a way of life when democracies also feel threatened. They are much more fragile than they pretend to be. A healthy democracy would take all the criticism in the world and shrug it off and say, okay, that's what's good about our country. Well, I'd like to see that in America. There are times that it's been like that, but it's so scary now. So it is scary. That's what I was trying to say. It's not unscary to me. In China, I would say to you, yes, it's much scarier to me because there is the internet wall that they cut off and I got into problems in China too because I said something years ago about, you have to discover your own history. You have to be honest about Mao. You have to go back and let's make a movie about Mao. That upset them and show his negatives. So China's been much more sensitive than Russia about criticism, much more. And it is a source of problems, but on the other hand, China has a lot of grievances, a lot of going back to the 19th century and the British imperialism of that era and the American imperialism. If you could talk to Vladimir Putin once again now, what kind of things would you talk about here? What kind of questions would you ask? Well, one thing I would certainly ask is what you were thinking on February 23 and I would ask him to reply to my question about what if you took this to phase two? You surrendered in Donbass, you know no ego about it. You just surrendered, it's in your interest to your country and you invited all the refugees from Donbass into Russia as much as they can. What would you do now? What's the US next move in your opinion? How are you gonna, okay, where are we gonna go? That would be the key question because it's, but he didn't go that way. He chose to take the sanctions and to go this way. Why he did that is a key question for our time. Perhaps it was a mistake, perhaps it was his judgment, perhaps as I said, but I don't, knowing the man I did, I don't think so. I think it was calculated. Now this is projection and speculation but there is something different about him in the past several months. It could be the COVID thing, the isolation that you mentioned. I listened to a lot of interviews and speeches in Russian and there's something about power over time that can change you, that can isolate you. Well, when I was there, no, he'd been in office for already 15 years. He had power. He didn't misuse it in my opinion. He was very even. I saw him go on television and talk to his fellows the same way he always talked to them. He grew with it. He grew in intelligence, in knowledge because he had dealings with the whole world now. People had come to him. He was very well known in Africa and Middle East, certainly Syria. And I just never saw misuse of his power. I saw humility in him actually. So perhaps there was a calculation and he calculated wrong in terms of what happens if he doesn't invade. Perhaps there was a calculation, perhaps he had a calm and clear mind and he calculated wrong. Well, he also made the point that he had, the talk of Zelensky saying nuclear weapons were gonna come into Ukraine. There was talk about that right before the invasion too. Certainly that would have set off alarms. You know, the United States is already kind of doing that by not only putting its intelligence and its heavy weaponry into Ukraine, but you've got to deal with the question, the next question that comes up, the most immediate question is, is the United States gonna start, and I'm saying this is, they're making a lot of noise in the United States press about Russia using nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. That's a lot of noise. Again, going back to my analogy, when the United States starts that, it starts the conversation going. It's in the interest of the United States for Russia to be pinned with any kind of chemical or nuclear incident. For example, it'd be very, not simple, but it would be possible to explode a nuclear device in Donbass and kill thousands of people, and we would not know right away who did it, but of course the blame would go right to Russia, right to Russia, even if it didn't make sense, if there was no motivation for it. It would just be blamed on Russia. The United States might well be the one who does that false flag operation. It would not be beyond them. It would be a very dramatic solution to sealing this war off as a major victory for the United States. That's terrifying. No, but it can happen. It can happen. One kiloton device, low yield, it's possible. So when you walk across that line, you can potentially never walk back. Well, I think the United States is calculating that it's a dangerous, yes, I agree, but I think the neoconservative arrogance is such that they really believe they can push their advantage to the max now because of all these propaganda successes up to now. The Ukrainian army could be wiped out for all we know. There's all that's left is their neo-Nazi brigades, but they're being advised very well by the US, and they're sending the weapons in, or huge amounts of weapons. What about American budget? No one talks about how much money we're giving to Ukraine. It's a billion dollars already in weaponry, and not most of it just poured in. What about, you know, the Russian budget is, defense budget is 60 some billion dollars a year. It's nothing compared to the United States, 115th of it, but yet we've put so much weaponry into Ukraine. The money we've spent on Ukraine is equivalent almost to what we spent on COVID in our own country. It's astounding, the distortion of our priorities. There's also chemical. Don't forget chemical is probably the easier way to go, but in Syria there was far too many incidents of America in its quest to demonize Assad and the Russians of all these chemical attacks that were happening that they were vowing came from Russia, and in spite of the fact that Russia pulled out of the, signed the agreement on chemical arms, and apparently destroyed its stock several years ago, it's strange that the strangest incidents happened in Syria. You go back to them, trace everyone, good journalism was done, the White Helmets got a lot of fame, but they were corrupted, and many good journalists tried to point out the inconsistencies in the American accusations. Robert Perry among them, who was one of my mentors at Consortium Press. A lot of good journalism, you'd have to go back, but trace each, like you would trace each time they made an accusation against Putin of murder, you need that same kind of Sherlock Holmes intensity, investigation, and they don't do it because the United Nations or the chemical, not the United Nations as much as the chemical people, the organization has been tampered with. If you remember correctly, there was accusations that the chemical investigative unit, I don't know the name of it, was tampered with, and people quit, people who were working on that commission quit and said that this is not legit. So very interesting, that Syria story is wacko. So the United States is willing to use chemical in Syria, freely, it did it three, four times. If you remember correctly, Trump was challenged that he did not attack after a chemical incident in Syria. All these newscasters in the United States, the most heaviest of them were saying, well, President Trump is now finally acting like a real president when he attacks, when he drops missiles in Syria. They actually said that. In other words, they wanted Trump to go to war on Syria, but he didn't. Chemical weapons. Chemical and nuclear. Nuclear is really terrifying. Do you think, now combine this with the fascinating choice in your interviews with Vladimir Putin to watch Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, and given the fact that you did that, now looking at the fact that the word nuclear, and it feels like the world hangs on the brink of nuclear war, do you think that that's overstating the case? No. That's what worried me from the beginning, and that's probably why I got involved in all this stuff, because I go back to the 60s when I was, when we were so close to nuclear war. I lived through that period, and I thought, as many people did, that this was, it was gonna come now. So I've lived through that, and I didn't sense the period in 83 when Reagan took us to the edge, if you remember correctly. Abel Archer, it was an exercise that almost brought us to, because the Russians were really paranoid at that point, and they were responding to our military exercise on Abel Archer. There was also the Korean airliner, they went down. There were numerous incidents in the 80s, but I never felt the fear. I thought Reagan was testing the limits, but perhaps if I'd been younger, I would've felt it. But anyway, no, we come close. The United States has risked this several times. If I told you, it would be hard for you to believe, if I could set a scene for you in a drama in 1962 when Kennedy has a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA, and they talk about a plan, a military plan to first strike the Soviet Union and China. Okay, it was called, it was an Eisenhower plan that had been put into potential operation in the early 60s or 50s, late 50s, SIOP 62. SIOP 62, this was an attack on the Soviet Union, first strike. That's why the United States has never given up the concept of first strike. It's interesting that the Russian nuclear policy posture is more defensive than the American one, which leaves options open. The same options that are open in neoconservative agreements that we see from the late 90s, where they say, the emergence of a rival power will not be tolerated. That's a very broad statement, and it allows you to do a lot, including nuclear. So you have to understand, the United States is always, first of all, it breaks so many treaties. We know that from the Putin story about the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002, and then the INF treaty of, they broke that one, that was the intermediate missile, that was 2019. I don't know when they broke it off, but the United States has not been very faithful on its nuclear agreements. And so I don't know that we can even deal with the United States diplomatically. It seems to be impossible. Now, brings me to Biden. Yes, another Irishman. This is the opposite of Kennedy. Kennedy was a Catholic Irish anti-imperialist. Biden seems to be the opposite. He seems to be a get along, go along guy who's been not only old, but he's also gone along with this program, which I voted for Biden because I feared Trump, but I thought Biden at a certain age would mellow. I really did. He's not mellowed, apparently. He's still listening to these people, and he believes them. And it seems that his, that horrible woman, Victoria Nuland, who was Undersecretary of State, he appointed her to this sector of the world. She's very influential, and she's been one of the worst people on Ukraine. She obviously was behind the coup. She was the one who boasted that, you know, we got our man in, Yats, whatever, Yatsinuk, and also, remember the famous statement, fuck the EU, all these things. But she's back, and she said the other day about if the Soviets, if the Russians use nuclear weaponry of any kind, there's gonna be a horrible price to pay. That was, she was out of the blue. I said, what the hell is she doing? She's talking nuclear all of a sudden. And then since that day, everybody in the US press, all the shows have gone, talk nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. Secretary of State has done it, Blinken. It scares you. If you think about it, the United States scares me. So that's the military industrial complex machine fully functional, fully operational behind this whole thing. Is that what's to blame? It certainly is. That's why I showed him Strange Love, because I wanted him to show him, I wanted Mr. Putin to say, look at this film, you never saw it, how can you not say you never, it's a seminal film in American history to those people who care. And it shows you the, Kubrick had a pacifist, thank God, anti-war mentality, which he showed in Paths of Glory as well as Strange Love. And it's such a dire, well-done scenario that I wanted Mr. Putin to be aware of the way the United States thinks. Yeah, the absurdity of escalation, the absurdity of war at the largest scale, the absurdity of nuclear war especially. Can we walk back from the brink of nuclear war? Can we? Can we? Yes, yes. What's the path to walk back? Reason. Reason and diplomacy, there's no reason, I mean, talk to the guy. Mr. Biden, why don't you calm down and go and talk to Mr. Putin in Moscow? Why don't you just sit across the table and try to have a discussion without falling into ideologies and stuff like that? Can I ask you for advice? You did some of the most difficult interviews ever. Do you have advice that you can give to someone like me or anyone hoping to understand something about a human being sitting across from them about what it takes to do a good interview? You're doing one. Well, no, but there's a, listen, there's levels to this game. And interviewing somebody like Vladimir Putin, also language barrier, sit across from the man, try to keep an open mind, try to also ask challenging questions, but not challenging with an agenda, but seeking to understand and understand deeply. How do you do that? Seeking the truth. It's very simple, seeking the truth, being a questioner like you are, you wanna know what is really going on. I could not get anywhere with Biden or Bush or for that matter, Obama, they'd be opaque with me. There's no interview possible with the President of the United States because he's gotta stand for all the stuff that they stand for, which is imperialism, which is control of the world. How can you defend that? No one's gonna come out and say that. They're always gonna blame the enemy. They're gonna blame Iran, they're gonna blame China. Oh my God. So some people, it may not be possible to break through the opaqueness. You can't, you can't. I mean, have you ever seen an interview with the President, besides being personable, where he actually discussed American policy? Yeah, I mean, not really, but maybe after their President. I could see Obama being able to do such an interview. I could see George W. being able to do such an interview. Or are they not able to reflect at all on the- George W. hasn't shown much conscience in terms of thinking about what he's done. You've seen that. You ever see my movie, W? I think that's one of my best movies because it shows a man who's just out of his depth and has no, he has a conscience at the end of the movie. If you remember correctly, he talks to his wife and he says, I don't get it. I'm trying to do good in the world. I've done, I believe in good and right. And why do people not understand that, you know, that kind of complaint? As if he can't get outside himself to understand the way other people think. Empathy, walking like a dramatist is what I do. You walk in the footsteps of other people. When I did a movie about Richard Nixon, it wasn't because I liked him. It was because I wanted to, I think I understood a part of him because of my father, and I think I wanted to walk in his footsteps. That's not to say I sympathize with him because I didn't. I don't think he helped the American cause at all, but it was empathize as opposed to sympathize. Same thing with Bush. People were shocked when I did the Bush movie. They said, how can you be in any way, any way receptive to this guy? That's wrong. Dramatists don't have political positions. They walk in the shoes of. That's why Bush movie perhaps was surprising to many, and many people didn't care for it. Maybe that's what, but that's, you've got to go there. No, if you did a movie about a villain, you have to go there. You have to walk in their shoes. Yes. So see them, because they usually, villains usually see themselves as the hero. Yes. So you have to consider what is it like to live in a world where this person is the hero. Yes. Is that a burden? Is that hard? Not for George W. Bush. He's bitching because they didn't understand him, but he had a good vision, he said, of democracy. And you know, democracy forgives a lot of sins. Can I ask you a hard question on that? Yes, sure. So because empathy is so important to a great interview, let's ask the most challenging version of empathy, which is when you're sitting across from a man on the brink of war that leads to tens of millions of deaths, which is Hitler. So if you could interview Hitler in 1939, as the drums of war start to beat, or 1941, when they're already full on war, but there's still a lot of pacifists, there's still a lot of people unsure what are the motivations behind what Hitler's doing, how would you do that interview? Well, it depends when you do it. If you do it in 38, I certainly would have, no, you have to, if you sit down across from Hitler, you empathize, what is your beef? Where have you been? What is your consciousness? Why do you hate Jewish people? Why, what is, you know, all these questions that come up. His sense of grievance as a result of World War I, there's justifications there, et cetera. But if I, and by the way, Churchill was trying to make a deal with him in 38. That's a fact that people don't know. Churchill himself, you know, there was still the desire in England to make peace with Germany, and it was seen as a possible, what Churchill really wanted was Hitler to go against Russia, and anything to destroy the Bolsheviks. So he was using Hitler as much as he could to go after Russia, but Hitler was too elusive to pin him down. But if you remember, Hitler was very kind at the end of, kind is not the right word, was, did not go after the British Empire when he had France, and he could have. He had another objective, which was obviously the East. So Hitler's goal, I think, he always had an admiration for England. It's an interesting story, always. And the empire. Yes. And certainly Churchill, we have no doubts now from history revisionism that Churchill's interest, main interest, was not Germany. It was the British Empire. Yes. And to preserve it to India, the road to India and all that, and Middle East. Churchill fought the entire war with the concept of preserving the British Empire. All his goals, he sent America on a goose chase into Italy, you could argue, instead of establishing a sincere second front in Western Europe. Interesting man. So I would have tried to get, you know, I think I would approach it the same way. In 1939, it would have been a different story because at that point, he'd attacked Poland and in 1940, France. So it's another ballgame. But certainly, at whatever point you talk to him, I would try to understand his point. So I'm not judging you, Hitler. I'm saying to you, tell me what you're thinking. Why are you invading Russia? What's your thought? That's all an interviewer should do. He shouldn't be expressing his contempt for Hitler, which is like an American journalist interviewing Putin. I'm getting brownie points for expressing my contempt for you, that doesn't wash with me, that's ugly. Yeah, seek to understand. Yes. This is a technical question, but was language a barrier as an interviewer? To some degree. It's very hard to learn Russian. But I had very, they have excellent translators in the Kremlin, excellent. They are people who are trained very seriously for months or years before they, these people are young and they're very bright. I was very impressed with the Russian translator. It's interesting, I mean, I'm impressed as well, but there's a humor that's lost. There's a wit, a dry wit. There's stuff said between the lines. That's not actually how much content, but it's more kind of the things that make communication more frictionless. It's the, there's a kind of sadness to a Russian humor that permeates all things, and that sometimes is lost in translation. The translation's a little bit colder, meaning it just conveys the facts. Would you call it sardonic humor? I would say so, yeah. And so it's interesting. But I think you could see that from facial expressions when you're sitting across from the person and you can feel it. Let me ask you in general, what's the role of love in the human condition? In your life, in life in general? You've talked, you looked at some of the darkest aspect of human nature. What's the role of this, one of the more beautiful aspects of human nature? I think without love, I wouldn't, I don't think I'd be able to carry on. I think that love is my, love is the greatest, the ability to love is the greatest virtue you can have. It's the ability to share with another, with your family, with your children, with your wife, with your lover, your partner. It's an ability to extend yourself into the world and it brings empathy with it. If you love well, I think you expand it to the human race too. And it's the strength behind the great novelists, the great artists of our time. I think, you know, part of the reason I suppose we're scared of science sometimes is because the scientists sometimes don't express that clearly. You can lose that when you focus on the facts, on empirical data, on the science of things. You can lose the humanity that's between the lines. I'm often struck by when I talk to scientists and I've talked to a few, and how arrogant they can be about they don't talk to you if you don't understand their world and they talk to each other and there's an arrogance, a closed circle kind of thing. Oh, he's not at my level, I can't, there's no discussion to be had with this person, he's a human being. That arrogance is terrifying to me because it's next door neighbor to closed mindedness which then can be used by charismatic leaders as it was in Nazi Germany to commit some of the worst atrocities. The scientists can be used as pawns in a very cruel game. Yeah. What advice would you give to young people? You've done, first of all, some of the greatest films ever. You've lived a heck of a life. You were fearless and bold in asking some really difficult questions of this world. What advice would you give to young people today, high school, college, about career? How to have a career they can be proud of or how to have a life they can be proud of? Well, I have three children, so obviously I'm not necessarily the best advisor in the world. And I do find that the children, I've raised them with a sense of freedom and they do what they want. In the end, it's their life, their destiny, their character. That's what comes out. You can try to influence it, but you can try to get your daughter to wake up at a certain hour in the day, but it never works, you know? So I long ago gave up on that. And my children are all grown now. But aside from that, I think if I was a teacher in a school and teaching film, I'd say to the students, get an education. You can't just look at film. Because it's not a full education. It's not the spectrum. I don't think you should teach film as a, I think you need a base in other worlds. One of the greatest courses I took at NYU was, and I was a war veteran on the GI Bill, so I was older than the other students. One of the great, I took a class outside the film school in Greek classics because I hadn't had much history and I wanted to know more about the world of Homer and so forth, and the teacher opened my eyes to so much in that class. I wrote about it in my memoir, it's called Chasing the Light about Professor Leahy and what he did to me. He gave me the concepts clearly of consciousness, which is the Homeric theme of Odysseus. And also lethe, L-E-T-H-E, which is sleep. And how most of the crew, Odysseus' crew, were experiencing lethe and how necessary it was to stay awake. So it's not just film, it's just you have to learn the world as much as you can when you're young. And so that I think is the basis of a good education and a classic one is important. A basis. I think then you go on and you can learn computer if you want, but that's specialization. So if you're a computer geek, is that a life? Does that give you enough satisfaction? Do you get the joy out of people? No, just like filmmaking is a skill. You need to have the broad background to understand the world. Literature, history. Absolutely. So one of the things about being human is life is finite. It ends. Do you think about your death? Are you afraid of your death? Yeah, yeah, sure. Absolutely, you have to come to terms with death. And that's a tough one for many people. It's always there. I'm older than you, obviously, and I'm getting closer to it. Couldn't happen any day, actually. When you get to a certain age, you can't assume that you're gonna be alive tomorrow. So I try to deal with that. Are you afraid of it? Much less so than I was when I was younger. Remember, I was in Vietnam, but I thought I dealt with it there, but when I came back, I realized that I wanted to live. So yes, I've learned over time to get more and more used to it and get ready for it. What's a good answer to the question of why live? So the realization that you wanted to live. What was the reason to live? Because it was better than being one of those corpses that I saw in the jungle. I saw how finite death is. Are there things in your life you regret? Oh, sure. Too many. Is there something you wish you could have done differently? Like if you could go back to do one thing differently? Or that regrets always? You should ask Musk this, I'm curious. What'd he say? Offline all the time. No, no. You'd be curious to know. He's an engineer too, and engineers really value mistakes. Engineers value mistakes. Value mistakes and errors because that's an opportunity to learn. I mean, this is what you do with systems, is you test them, and test them, and test them, and errors is just information. He did that with the rockets. Well, the same thing is true in its way of filmmaking. There are certain things you learn as you build films and you make mistakes. It's like putting an engine together and you, oh, the film is flawed in that way, you know it. Other people may or may not see it, but the car runs or it made money or it didn't make money. It can be good and it didn't make money, but the point is that everything is a build. Every film is a construction. Same thing as he goes through on a Tesla, we go through on each film. But films are art. It's a little tricky. Yeah, the thing is, one film does not lead to a lifetime guarantee of copyright. Yeah. Well, yeah, you have the movie game, as you've called it. Yeah. Is a complicated and cruel game. But it takes enormous amount of work, enormous amount of work to make a film. People underestimate that. It's extremely complicated to have something be successful because it has so many elements of luck involved and reception and so forth. What do you think, I apologize for the absurd question, but what do you think is the meaning of life? Why are we here? The why. I think to realize ourselves, to realize more of what you are, to realize what life is, to appreciate it, to grow, to honor our life, to honor the concept of life and to understand how precious life is. The preciousness of life, as the Buddhists say, and of course, the immediacy of death all around us. The causes of death are all around us. And our life is like, as they say, is like a lantern in a strong breeze, existing among the causes of death. So life is so precious. And at the same time, immediacy of death, and then of course, the continuation of life in whatever form it's gonna take. But in this life, to wake up to the preciousness of it, to the preciousness. Yeah, that's a wonderful thing, by the way. I didn't have that when I was young. I took it for granted. Oliver, like I said, I'm a huge fan. You're an incredible human being, one of the greatest artists ever. So it's a huge honor that you sit with me and talk so deeply and honestly about some very difficult topics. Again, you're an inspiration, and it's an honor that you will spend your valuable time with me. Thank you very much. Thanks for talking to me. Fun being here. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Oliver Stone. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Oliver Stone in the untold history of the United States. To fail is not tragic. To be human is. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/ygAqYC8JOQI

4WGbCJQU6BU

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Michael Kearns: Game Theory and Machine Learning

Speaking of markets, a lot of fascinating aspects of this world arise not from individual humans but from the interaction of human beings. You've done a lot of work in game theory. First can you say what is game theory and how does it help us model and study it? Yeah, game theory of course. Let us give credit where it's due. It comes from the economists first and foremost. As I've mentioned before, computer scientists never hesitate to wander into other people's turf. There is now this 20-year-old field called algorithmic game theory. Game theory first and foremost is a mathematical framework for reasoning about collective outcomes in systems of interacting individuals. You need at least two people to get started in game theory. Many people are probably familiar with prisoner's dilemma as a classic example of game theory and a classic example where everybody looking out for their own individual interests leads to a collective outcome that's worse for everybody than what might be possible if they cooperated, for example. But cooperation is not an equilibrium in prisoner's dilemma. My work and the field of algorithmic game theory more generally in these areas looks at settings in which the number of actors is potentially extraordinarily large and their incentives might be quite complicated and hard to model directly, but you still want algorithmic ways of predicting what will happen or influencing what will happen in the design of platforms. So what to you is the most beautiful idea that you've encountered in game theory? There's a lot of them. I'm a big fan of the field. I mean, you know, I mean, technical answers to that, of course, would include Nash's work just establishing that, you know, there's a competitive equilibrium under very, very general circumstances, which in many ways kind of put the field on a firm conceptual footing, because if you don't have equilibrium, it's kind of hard to ever reason about what might happen since, you know, there's just no stability. So just the idea that stability can emerge when there's multiple... Or that, I mean, not that it will necessarily emerge, just that it's possible, right? I mean, like the existence of equilibrium doesn't mean that sort of natural iterative behavior will necessarily lead to it. In the real world, yes. But maybe answering a slightly less personally than you asked the question, I think within the field of algorithmic game theory, perhaps the single most important kind of technical contribution that's been made is the realization between close connections between machine learning and game theory, and in particular, between game theory and the branch of machine learning that's known as no regret learning. And this sort of provides a very general framework in which a bunch of players interacting in a game or a system, each one kind of doing something that's in their self-interest will actually kind of reach an equilibrium, and actually reach an equilibrium in a pretty, you know, a rather, you know, short amount of steps. So you kind of mentioned acting greedily can somehow end up pretty good for everybody. Or pretty bad. Or pretty bad. It will end up stable. Yeah, right. And, you know, stability or equilibrium by itself is not necessarily either a good thing or a bad thing. So what's the connection between machine learning and the ideas of equilibrium? Well, I mean, I think we've kind of talked about these ideas already in kind of a non-technical way, which is maybe the more interesting way of understanding them first, which is, you know, we have many systems, platforms, and apps these days that work really hard to use our data and the data of everybody else on the platform to selfishly optimize on behalf of each user. Okay? Yes. And let me give, I think, the cleanest example, which is just driving apps, navigation apps like, you know, Google Maps and Waze, where, you know, miraculously compared to when I was growing up at least, you know, the objective would be the same when you wanted to drive from point A to point B, spend the least time driving. Not necessarily minimize the distance, but minimize the time, right? And when I was growing up, like, the only resources you had to do that were like maps in the car, which literally just told you what roads were available. And then you might have like half hourly traffic reports just about the major freeways, but not about side roads. So you were pretty much on your own. And now we've got these apps, you pull it out and you say, I want to go from point A to point B. And in response kind of to what everybody else is doing, if you like, what all the other players in this game are doing right now, here's the, you know, the route that minimizes your driving time. So it is really kind of computing a selfish best response for each of us in response to what all of the rest of us are doing at any given moment. And so, you know, I think it's quite fair to think of these apps as driving or nudging us all towards the competitive or Nash equilibrium of that game. Now you might ask like, well, that sounds great. Why is that a bad thing? Well, you know, it's known both in theory and with some limited studies from actual like traffic data that all of us being in this competitive equilibrium might cause our collective driving time to be higher, maybe significantly higher than it would be under other solutions. And then you have to talk about what those other solutions might be and what the algorithms to implement them are, which we do discuss in the kind of game theory chapter of the book. But, but similarly, you know, on social media platforms or on Amazon, you know, all these algorithms that are essentially trying to optimize our behalf, they're driving us in a colloquial sense towards some kind of competitive equilibrium. And you know, one of the most important lessons of game theory is that just because we're at equilibrium doesn't mean that there's not a solution in which some or maybe even all of us might be better off. And then the connection to machine learning, of course, is that in all these platforms I've mentioned, the optimization that they're doing on our behalf is driven by machine learning, you know, like predicting where the traffic will be, predicting what products I'm going to like, predicting what would make me happy in my newsfeed.

https://youtu.be/4WGbCJQU6BU

0ZO28NtkwwQ

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Magnus Carlsen: Greatest Chess Player of All Time | Lex Fridman Podcast #315

The following is a conversation with Magnus Carlsen, the number one ranked chess player in the world and widely considered to be one of, if not the greatest chess player of all time. The camera on Magnus died 20 minutes into the conversation. Most folks still just listen to the audio through a podcast player anyway, but if you're watching this on YouTube or Spotify, we did our best to still make it interesting by adding relevant image overlays. I mess things up sometimes, like in this case, but I'm always working hard to improve. I hope you understand. Thank you for your patience and support along the way. I love you all. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Magnus Carlsen. You're considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest chess players of all time, but you're also one of the best fantasy football, aka soccer, competitors in the world, plus recently picking up poker and competing at a world-class level. So before chess, let's talk football and greatness. You're a Real Madrid fan, so let me ask you the ridiculous big question. Who do you think is the greatest football, aka soccer player of all time? Can you make the case for Messi? Can you make the case for Cristiano Ronaldo, Pelé, Maradona? Does anybody jump to mind? I think it's pretty hard to make a case for anybody else than Messi for his all-around game. And frankly, like my Real Madrid fandom sort of predates the Ronaldo era, the second Ronaldo, not the first one. So I always liked Ronaldo, but I always kind of thought that Messi was better. And I went to quite a number of Madrid games and they've always been super helpful to me down there. The only thing is that they asked me, they were going to do an interview and they were going to ask me who my favorite player was. And I said somebody else, I think I said Isco at that point. And I was like, okay, take two. Now you say Ronaldo. So for them, it was very important, but it wasn't that huge to me. So Messi over Maradona. Yeah, but I think just like with chess, it's hard to compare eras. Obviously, the improvements in football have been, like in technique and such, have been even greater than they have been in chess. But it's always a weird discussion to have. But just as a fan, what do you think is beautiful about the game? What defines greatness? Is it, you know, with Messi, one, he's really good at finishing, two, very good at assist, like three, there's just magic. It's just beautiful to see the play. So it's not just about the finishing. There's some, it's like Maradona's hand of God. There's some creativity on the pitch. Is that important? Or is it very important to get the World Cups and the big championships and that kind of stuff? I think the World Cup is pretty, pretty overrated seeing as it's such a small sample size. So it sort of annoys me always when you know, titles are always, always appreciated so much, even though that particular title can be, can be a lot of, a lot of luck or at least some, at least some luck. So I do appreciate statistics a bit and all the statistics say that Messi is the best finisher of all time, which I think helps a lot. And then there's the intangibles as well. The flip side of that is the small sample size is what really creates the magic. It's so, it's just like the Olympics. You basically train your whole life for this. You live your whole life for this. And it's a rare moment, one mistake and it's all over. That's, for some reason, a lot of people either break under that pressure or rise up under that pressure. You don't admire the magic of that. No, I do. I just think that like rising and through pressure and breaking under the pressure is often a really oversimplified, like, take on what's, on what's happening. Yeah, we do romanticize the game. Yeah. Well, let me ask you another ridiculous question. Another, you're also a fan of basketball. Yes. Let me ask the goat question. The, I, you know, I'm biased because I went to high school in Chicago, you know, Chicago Bulls during the Michael Jordan era. Let me ask the Jordan versus LeBron James question. Let's continue on this thread of greatness. Which one do you pick? Or somebody else? So I'll give you a completely different answer. Depending on my mood and depending who, on whom I talk to, I pick one of the two. And then I try to argue for that. The quantum mechanical thing. Well, can you, what, again, what, what would, if you were to argue for either one? Statistically, I think LeBron James is going to surpass Jordan. Yeah, no doubt. And so, again, there's a debate between... Unquantifiable greatness. No, that, I mean, that's the whole, that's the whole debate. Yes. So it's, well, it's quantifiable versus unquantifiable. Yeah. What's more important. And you're depending on mood all over the place. But where do you lean in general with these, with these folks, with, with, with soccer, with anything in life towards the unquantifiable more? No, definitely towards the quantifiable. So when you're unsure, lean towards the numbers. Yeah. But see, like it's later generations. There's something, that's what people say about Maradona is, you know, he took a arguably somewhat mediocre team to a World Cup. So there's that also uplifting nature of the player to be able to rise up. It is a team sport. So are you gonna like, are you gonna punish Messi for taking a mediocre Argentine squad to the, to the final in 2014 and punish him because they lost to a great team very narrowly after they missed? He set up like a great chance for Higuain in the first half, which he, which he fluffed. And then, yeah, eventually they lost the game. Yeah. They do criticize Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi for being on really strong squads in terms of the club teams and saying, yeah, okay, it's easy when you have like Ronaldinho or whoever on your team. It would be very interesting just if the league could make a decision. Yeah, just random, random allocation. Yeah. And just every single game, just keep reallocating, or maybe once a season or every season you get random. Yeah, but let's say every, every player, if let's say they sign a five-year contract for a team, like one of them, you're going to get randomly allocated to, to let's say a bottom half team. I bet you there's going to be so much corruption around that. No, obviously it wouldn't, wouldn't ever happen or, or work, but I think it's, it's interesting to think about. So on chess, let's zoom out. If you break down your approach to chess, when you're at your best, what, what do you think, what do you think contributes to that approach? Is it memory recall, specific lines and positions? Is it intuition? How much of it is intuition? How much of it is pure calculation? How much of it is messing with the strategy of the opponent? So the game theory aspect in terms of what contributes to the highest level of play that, that you do? I think the answer differs a little bit now from what it did eight years ago. For instance, like I've, I feel like I've had like two peaks in, in my career in 2014, well, 2013, 2014, and also in 2019. And in those years, I was very different in terms of, of my strength, strength, specifically in 2019, I benefited a lot from opening preparation. While in 2013, 2014, I mostly tried to avoid my opponent's preparation rather than that being a, being a strength. So I'm mentioning that also, because it's something, something I didn't, didn't mention. I think like my intuitive understanding of chess has over those years always been a little bit better than the others, even though it has evolved as well. Certainly there are, there are things that I understand now that I didn't understand back then. But that's not only for me, that's for, for others as well. I was younger back then, so I played with more energy, which meant that I could play better in long drawn out games, which was also a necessity for me because I didn't, I couldn't, couldn't beat people in the, couldn't beat people in the, in the openings. But in terms of calculation, that's always been a weird issue for me. Like I've always been really, really bad at solving exercises in chess. Like, that's been like a blind spot for me. First of all, I found it hard to concentrate on them and to look, to look deep enough. So this is like a puzzle, a position, mate in X. I mean, one thing is mate, but find the best move. That's generally the exercise, like find the best move, find the best line. You just don't connect with it. Usually like you have to, to look, look deep. And then when I get these lines during the game, I very often find the, the, the right solution, even though, even though it's not still the best part of my game to, to calculate very, very deeply. But it doesn't feel like calculation you're saying in terms of... No, it does sometimes, but for me, it's more like I'm at the board trying to find, trying to find the solution. And I understand like the training at home is like trying a little bit to, to replicate that. Like you give somebody half an hour in a position, like in this instance, you might've thought for half an hour, if you play the game, I just, I just cannot do it. One thing I know that I am good at though, is calculating short lines. Cause I calculate them well. I'm good at seeing little details and I'm also much better than, than most at evaluating, which I think is something that sets me, sets me apart from, from others. So evaluating specific position, if I, if I make this move and the position changes in this way, is this the right step in the right direction? Like in a big picture way? Yeah. Like you calculate a few moves ahead and then you evaluate, because a lot of, a lot of time, a lot of the times you cannot, the branches become so big that you cannot calculate everything. So you have to... Like a fog. Yeah. So you have to, you have to make evaluations based on, you know, based mostly on knowledge and intuition. And somehow I seem to do that. Pretty well. When you say you're good at short lines, what's that? What's, what's short? That's usually like lines of two to four moves each. Okay. So that that's directly applicable to even faster games like Blitz, chess and so on. Yeah. Blitz is a lot about calculating force lines. So those, you can see pretty clearly that the players who struggle at Blitz who are great at classical are those who rely on a deep calculating ability because you simply don't have time for that in Blitz. You have to calculate quickly and rely a lot on intuition. Can you try to, I know it's really difficult. Can you try to talk through what's actually being visualized in your head? Is there, is there a visual component? Yeah, no, I just visualize it. The board is in my head. Two dimensional? My interpretation is that it's, it is two dimensional. Like what colors? Is it brown tinted? Is it black? Is it like, what's the theme? Is it a big board, small board? Are the, what do the pawns look like? Or is it more in the space of concepts? Like, Yeah, there are a lot of different things. There aren't a lot of colors. It's mostly, yeah. So what is it? Queen's Gambit on the ceiling? I'm trying to find one now to imagine it. What about when you do the branching, when you have multiple boards and so on? How does that look? Are you, No, but it's only one at a time. So like, One position at a time. One position at a time. So then I go back and that's what, when people play, or at least that's what I do when I play blindfold chess against several people, then it's just always one board at a time and the rest are stored away somewhere. But how do you store them away? So like you went down one branch and you're like, all right, that's, I got that. I understand that there's some good there, there's some bad there. Now let me go down another branch. Like how do you store away the information? You just put it on a shelf kind of? I try and store it away. Sometimes I have to sort of repeat it because I forget. And it does happen frequently in games that you're thinking for, especially if you're thinking for long, let's say half an hour or even more than that, that you play a move and then your opponent plays a move, then you play a move and they play a move again and you realize, oh, I actually calculated that. I just forgot about it. So that's obviously what happens when you store the information and you cannot retrieve it. When you think about a move for 20, 30 minutes, like how do you break that down? Can you describe what, like what's the algorithm here that takes 30 minutes to run? 30 minutes is, at least for me, it's usually a waste. 30 minutes usually means that I don't know what to do. And I'm trying... You're just running into the wall over and over. Yeah, I'm trying to find something that isn't there. I think 10 to 15 minutes things in complicated positions can be really, really helpful. Then you can spend your time pretty efficiently. It just means that the branches are getting wide. There's a lot to run through, both in terms of calculation and lots you have to evaluate as well. And then based on that 10 to 15 minute thing, you have a pretty good idea what to do. I mean, it's very rare that I would think for half an hour and I would have a eureka moment during the game. Like if I haven't seen it in 10 minutes, I'm probably not going to see it at all. You're going to different branches. Yeah. And like after 15 minutes, it's like... But it mainly to the middle game, because when you get to the end game, it's usually brute force calculation that makes you spend so much time. So middle game is normally... It's a complicated mix of brute force calculation and creativity and evaluation. So end game, it's easier in that sense. Well, you're good at every aspect of chess, but also your end game is legendary. It baffles experts. So can you linger on that then? Try to explain what the heck is going on there. Like if you look at game six of the previous world championship, the longest game ever played in chess. It was, I think, his queen versus your rook knight in two pawns. Yeah. There's so many options there. It's such an interesting little dance. And it's kind of not obvious that it wouldn't be a draw. So how do you escape it not being a draw and you win that match? No, I knew that for most of the time, it was a theoretical draw. Since chess with seven or less pieces on the board is solved. So you can... Like people watching online, they can just check it. They can check a so-called table base and it's just going to spit out win for white, win for black or a draw. And also I knew that. I didn't know that position specifically, but I knew that it had to be a draw. So for me, it was about staying alert, first of all, trying to look for the best way to put my pieces. But yeah, those end games are a bit, they're a bit unusual. They don't happen too often. So what I'm usually good at is I'm using my strengths that I also use in middle games is that I evaluate well and I calculate short variations quite... Even for the end game, short variations matter? Yes, it does matter in some simpler end games. Yeah. But also like there are these theoretical end games with very few pieces like rook knights and two pawns versus queens. But a lot of end games are simply defined by the queens being exchanged and there are a lot of other pieces left. And then it's usually not brute force. It's usually more of understanding and evaluation. And then I can use my strengths very well. Why are you so damn good at the end game? Isn't there a lot of moves from when the end game starts to when the end game finishes and you have a few pieces and you have to figure out, it's like a sequence of little games that happens, right? Like little pattern, like how does it being able to evaluate a single position lead you to evaluate a long sequence of positions that eventually lead to a checkmate? Well, I think if you evaluate well at the start, you know what plans to go for. And then usually the play from there is often pretty simple. Let's say you understand how to arrange your pieces and often also how to arrange your pawns early in the end game, then that makes all the difference. And after that is like what we call technique very often. That it's technique basically just means that the moves are simple and these are moves that a lot of players could make. Not only the very strongest ones, these are moves that are kind of understood and known. So with the evaluation, you're just constantly improving a little bit and that just leads to suffocating the position and then eventually to the win. As long as you're doing the evaluation, well, one step at a time. To some extent. Also, yeah, as I said, like if you evaluate it better and thus accumulated some small advantages, then you can often make your life pretty easy towards the end of the end game. So you said in 2019, sort of the second phase of why you're so damn good, you were you did a lot of opening preparation. What's the goal for you of the opening game of chess? Is it to throw the opponent off from any prepared lines? Is there something you could put into words about why you're so damn good at the openings? Again, these things have changed a lot over time. Back in Kasparov's days, for instance, he very often got huge advantages from the opening as white. Can you explain why? There were several reasons for that. First of all, he worked harder. He was more creative in finding ideas. He was able to look places others didn't. Also, he had a very strong team of people who had specific strengths in openings that he could use. So they would come up with ideas and he would integrate those ideas into the game? Yeah, and he would also very often come up with them himself. Also, at the start, he had some of the first computer engines to work for him to find his ideas, to look deeper, to verify his ideas. He was better at using them than a lot of others. Now I feel like the playing field is a lot more level. There are both computer engines, neural networks, and hybrid engines available to practically anybody. So it's much harder to find ideas now that actually give you an advantage with the white pieces. I mean, people don't expect to find those ideas anymore. Now it's all about finding ideas that are missed by the engines. Either they're missed entirely or they're missed at low depth and using them to gain some advantage in the sense that you have more knowledge. And it's also good to know that usually these are not complete bluffs. These are like semi-bluffs so that you know that even if your opponent makes all the right moves, you can still make a draw. And also at the start of 2019, neural networks had just started to be a thing in chess. And I'm not entirely sure, but there were at least some players, even in the top events, who you could see did not use them or did not use them in the right way. And then you could gain a huge advantage because a lot of positions, they were being evaluated differently by the neural networks than traditional chess engines because they simply think about chess in a very, very different way. So short answer is these days, it's all about surprising your opponent and taking it into positions where you have more knowledge. So is there some sense in which it's okay to make suboptimal quote unquote moves? No, but you have to. I mean, you have to because the best moves have been analyzed to death mostly. So that's a kind of, when you say semi-bluff, that's a kind of sacrifice. You're sacrificing the optimal move, the optimal position so that you can take the opponent. I mean, that's a game theoretic sense. You take the opponent to something they didn't prepare well. Yeah. But you could also look at it another way that, like if you turn on, whatever engine you turn on, like if you try to analyze either from the starting position or the starting position of some popular opening, like if you analyze long enough, it's always going to end up in a draw. So in that sense, you may not be going for like the objective, the tries that are objectively the most difficult to draw against, but you know, you are trying to look at least at the less obvious paths. How much do you use engines? Do you use Leela, Stockfish in your preparations? My team does. Personally, I try not to use them too much on my own because I know that when I play, you obviously cannot have help from engines. And I feel like often having imperfect or knowledge about a position or some engine knowledge can be a lot worse than than having no knowledge. So I try to look at engines as little as possible. So that, yeah, so your team uses them for research, for a generation of ideas. Yeah. But you are relying primarily on your human resources. Yeah, for sure. You can evaluate well, you don't lean. Yeah, I can evaluate as a human, I can know what they find unpleasant and so on. And it's very often the case for me to some extent, but a lot for others that you arrive in a position and your opponent plays a move that you didn't expect. And, you know, if you didn't expect it, you know, that it's probably not a great move, since it hasn't been expected by the engine. But if it's not obvious why it's not a good move, it's usually very, very hard to figure it out. And so then looking at the engines doesn't necessarily help because at that point, like you're facing a human, you have to sort of think as a human. I was chatting with Demis Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind a couple days ago, and he asked me to ask you about what you first felt when you saw the play of AlphaZero. Like interesting ideas, any creativity? Did you feel fear that the machine is taking over? Did you, were you inspired? And what was going on in your mind and heart? Funny thing about Demis is he doesn't play chess at all, like an AI. He plays in a very, very human way. No, I was hugely inspired when I saw the games at first. And in terms of man versus machine, I mean, that battle was kind of lost for humans even before I entered top level chess. So that's never been an issue for me. I never, never liked playing against computers much anyway. So that's completely fine. But it was amazing to see how they quote unquote thought about chess and in such a different way and in a way that you could mistake for creativity. Mistake for creativity, strong words. Is it wild to you how many sacrifices it's willing to make? That like sacrifice pieces and then wait for prolonged periods of time before doing anything with that? Is that weird to you that that's part of chess? No, it's one of the things that's hardest to replicate as a human as well, or at least for my playing style. That usually when I sacrifice, I feel like I'm, you know, I don't do it unless I feel like I'm getting something like tangible, like a reward. Unless I feel like I'm getting something like tangible in return. And like a few moves down the line. A few moves down the line, you can see that you can either retrieve the material or you can put your opponent's king under pressure or have some very, like very concrete positional advantage that sort of compensates for it. For instance, in chess, so bishops and knights are fairly equivalent. We both give them three points, but bishops are a little bit better. And especially a bishop pair is a lot better than a bishop and a knight. So, or especially two knights, depends on the position, but like on average they are. So like sacrificing a pawn in order to get a bishop pair, that's one of the most common sacrifices in chess. Oh, you're okay making that sacrifice? Yeah. I mean, it depends on the situation, but generally that's fine. And there are a lot of openings that are based on that, that you sacrifice a pawn for the bishop pair. And then eventually it's some sort of positional equality. So that's fine. But the way alpha zero would sacrifice a knight or sometimes two pawns, three pawns, and you could see that it's looking for some sort of positional domination, but it's hard to understand. And it was really fascinating to see. Yeah. In 2019, I was sacrificing a lot of pawns, especially, and it was a great joy. Unfortunately, it's not so easy to continue to do that. People have found more solid opening lines since that don't allow me to do that as often. I'm still trying both to get those positions and still trying to learn the art of sacrificing pieces. So Demis also made a comment that was interesting to my new chess brain, which is one of the reasons that chess is fun is because of the quote, creative tension between the bishop and the knight. So you were talking about this interesting difference between the two pieces, that there's some kind of, how would you convert that? I mean, that's like a poetic statement about chess. I think he said that, why has chess been played for such a long time? Why is it so fun to play at every level? That if you can reduce it to one thing, it's the bishop and the knight, some kind of weird dynamics that they create in chess. Is there any truth to that? It sounds very good. I haven't tried a lot of other games, but I tried to play a little bit of shogi and for my new shogi brain, comparing it to chess, what annoyed me about that game is how much the pieces suck. Basically you have one rook and you have one bishop that move like in chess and the rest of the pieces are really not very powerful. So I think that's one of the attractions of chess, how powerful, especially the queen is, which I kind of think makes it makes a lot of fun. You think power is more fun than variety? No, there is variety in chess as well, though. But not much more so than like, go or something? No, no, no. That's for... So like knight, I mean, they all move in different ways. They're all like weird. There's just all these weird patterns and positions that can emerge. The difference in the pieces create all kinds of interesting dynamics, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Yeah. And I guess it is quite fascinating that all those years ago, they created the knight and the bishop without probably realizing that they would be almost equally strong with such different qualities. Yeah, it's crazy that this, you know, when you design computer games, it's like an art form. It's science and an art to balance it. You talk about Starcraft and all those games, so that you can have competitive play at the highest level with all those different units. In the case of chess, it's different pieces. And they somehow designed a game that was super competitive. But there's probably some kind of natural selection that the chess just wouldn't last if it was designed poorly. Yeah. And I think the rules have changed over time a little bit. But I would be, I mean, speaking of games and all that, I'm also interested to play other games like Chess 960 or Fisher Random, as they call it, like that you have 960 maps instead of one. Yeah. So for people who don't know, Fisher Random chess, Chess 960 is... Yeah, that basically just means that the pawns are in the same way and the major pieces are distributed randomly on the last rank. Only that there have to be obviously bishops of opposite color and the king has to be in between the rooks so that you can castle both ways. Oh, you can still castle in Chess 960. You can still castle, but it makes it interesting. So you still have, it still castles in the same way. So let's say the king is like here. Yeah. What happens in that case? Yeah. Let's say the king is in the corner. So to castle this side, you have to clear a whole lot of pieces. What would castling look like though? No, the king would go here and the rook would go there. Oh, okay. And that's happened in my games as well. Like I forgot about castling and I've been like attacking a king over here and then all of a sudden it escapes to the other side. I think Fisher chess is good that it's, the maps will generally be worse than regular chess. Like I think the starting position is as close to ideal for creating a competitive game as possible, but they will still be like interesting and diverse enough that you can play very, very interesting games. So when you say maps, there's 960 different options and like what fraction of that creates interesting games at the highest level? This is something that a lot of people are curious about because when you challenge a great chess player like yourself to look at a random starting position, that feels like it pushes you to play pure chess versus memorizing lines. Oh yeah, for sure. For sure. But that's the whole idea. That's what you want. And how hard is it to play? I mean, can you talk about what it feels like to you to play with a random starting position? Is there some intuition you've been building up? It's very, very different. And I mean, understandably engines have an even greater advantage in 960 than they have in classical chess. No, it's super interesting. And that's why also I really wish that we played more classical chess, like long games, four to seven hours in Fish Random Chess, chess 960, because then you really need that time, even on the first moves. What usually happens is that you get 15 minutes before the game, you're getting told the position 15 minutes before the game, and then you can think about it a little bit, even check the computer, but that's all the time you have. But then you really need to figure it out. And like, some of the positions obviously are a lot more interesting than the others. In some of them, it appears that like, if you don't play symmetrically at the start, then you're probably going to be in a pretty bad, bad position. What do you mean with the pawns? With the pawns, yeah. Why? That's the thing about chess though. So let's say white opens with e4, which has always been the most played move. There are many ways to meet that, but the most solid ways of playing has always been the symmetrical response with e5. And then there's the Relopes, there's the Petrov opening and so on. And if you just ban symmetry on the first move in chess, you would get more interesting games. Oh, interesting. Or you'd get more decisive games. So that's the good thing about chess is that we've played it so long that we've actually devised non-symmetrical openings that are also fairly equal. But symmetry is a good default. But yeah, symmetry is a good default. And it's a problem that by playing symmetrical armed with good preparation in regular chess, it's just a little bit too easy to, it's a little bit too drawish. And I guess if you analyzed a lot in chess 960, then a lot of the positions would end up being pretty drawish as well. Because the random starting points are so shitty, you're forced to... You're actually forced to play symmetrically. Like you cannot actually try and play in a more sort of interesting manner. Is there any other kind of variations that are interesting to you? Oh yeah, there are several. So no castling chess has been promoted by former world champion Vladimir Kramnik. There have been a few tournaments with that, not any that I've participated in though. I kind of like it. Also, my coach uses non-castling engines quite a bit to analyze regular positions just to get a different perspective. So castling is like a defensive thing. So if you remove castling, it forces you to be more offensive. Is that why? Yeah, for sure. It seems like a tiny little difference. Yeah, no castling probably forces you to be a little bit more defensive at the start, or I would guess so, because you cannot suddenly escape with the kings. It's going to make the game a bit slower at the start, but I feel like eventually it's going to make the games more... Well, less drawish for sure. Then you have some weirder variants like where the pawns can move both diagonally and forward. And also you have self-capture chess, which is quite interesting. So the pawns can... Commit suicide? Yeah, people can... Why would that be a good move? No, sometimes one of your pieces occupies a square. I mean, let me just set up a position. Let's put it like this, for instance. There are a lot of ways to checkmate for white, like this, for instance. Or there are several ways. But this would be a checkmate. Oh, cool. For people who are just listening, yeah, basically you bring in a knight close to the king, the queen, and so on, and you replace the knight with a queen. Yeah, that's interesting. So you have like a front of pieces, and then you just replace them with the second piece. Yeah, I mean, that could be interesting. I think also maybe sometimes it's just clearance, basically. It adds an extra element of clearance. So I think there are many, many different variants. I don't think any of them are better than the one that has been played for at least a thousand years, but it's certainly interesting to see. So one of your goals is to reach the FIDE ELO chess rating of 2900. Maybe you can comment on how is this rating calculated, and what does it take to get there? Is it possible for a human being to get there? Basically, you play with a factor of 10, which means that if I were to play against an opponent who's rated the same as me, I would be expected to score 50%, obviously, and that means that I would win five points with a win, lose five points with a draw, and then equal if I draw. If your opponent is 200 points lower rated, you're expected to score 75%, and so on. And you establish that rating by playing a lot of people, and then it slowly converges towards an estimate of how likely you are to win or lose against different people. Yeah, and my rating is obviously carried through thousands of games. Right now, my rating is 2861, which is decent. I think that pretty much corresponds to the level I have at the moment, which means in order to reach 2900, I would have to either get better at chess, which I think is fairly hard to do, at least considerably better. So what I would need to do is try and optimize even more in terms of the matchups, the preparations, everything, but not necessarily selecting tournaments and so on, but just optimizing in terms of preparation, making sure I never have any bad days. So you basically can't lose. Yeah, I basically can't fuck up ever if I want to reach that goal. And so I think reaching 2900 is pretty unlikely. The reason I've set the goal is to have something to play for, to have a motivation to actually try and be at my best when I play, because otherwise, I'm playing to some extent mostly for fun these days, in that I love to play, I love to try and win, but I don't have a lot to prove or anything. But that gives me at least the motivation to try and be at my best all the time, which I think is something to aim for. So at the moment, I'm quite enjoying that process of trying to optimize. What would you say motivates you in this now and in the years leading up to now, the love of winning or the fear of losing? So for the World Championship, it's been fear of losing for sure. Other tournaments, love of winning is a great, great factor. And that's why I also get more joy from winning most tournaments than I do for winning the World Championship, because then it's mostly been a relief. I also think I enjoy winning more now than I did before, because I feel like I'm a little bit more relaxed now. And I also know that it's not going to last forever. So every little win, I appreciate a lot more now. And in terms of fear of losing, that's a huge reason why I'm not going to play the World Championship, because it really didn't give me a lot of joy. It really was all about avoiding losing. Why is it that the World Championship really makes you feel this way? The anxiety. And when you say losing, do you mean not just the match, but every single position? The fear of a blunder? No, I mean, the blunder is okay. When I sit down at the board, then it's mostly been fine, because then I'm focused on the game. And then I know that I can play the game. It's a time in between, knowing that I feel like losing is not an option, because it's the World Championship. And because in a World Championship, there are two players, there's a winner and a loser. If I don't win a random tournament that I play, then I'm usually, it depends on the tournament, I might be disappointed for sure, might even be pretty pissed. But ultimately, you go on to the next one. With a World Championship, you don't go on to the next one. It's years. And it's been a core part of my identity for a while now, that I am World Champion. And so there's not an option of losing that. Yeah. Yeah, there's a, you're gonna have to at least for a couple of years carry the weight of having lost. You're the former World Champion now, if you lose, versus the current World Champion. There are certain sports that create that anxiety and others that don't. For example, I think UFC, like mixed martial arts, are a little better with losing. It's understood, like everybody loses. Not everybody though. Not everybody. Not everybody. Not everybody. Yes. It could be, but into the chat. But in boxing, there is like that extra pressure of like maintaining the championship. I mean, maybe you could say the same thing about the UFC. I mean, maybe you could say the same thing about the UFC as well. So for you personally, for a person who loves chess, the first time you won the World Championship, that was the big, that was the thing that was fun. Yeah. And then everything after is like stressful. Essentially. There was certainly stress involved the first time as well. But it was nothing compared to the others. So the only World Championship after that, that I really enjoyed was the one in 2018 against the American Fabiano Caruana. And what that made that different is that I'd been kind of slumping for a bit and he'd been on the rise. So our ratings were very, very similar. They were so close that if at any point during the match, I'd lost the game, he would have been ranked as number one in the world. Our ratings were so close that for each draw, they didn't move. And the game itself was close. Yeah. The games themselves were very close. I had a winning position in the first game that I couldn't really get anywhere for a lot of games. Then he had a couple of games where he could potentially have won. Then in the last game, I was a little bit better. And eventually they were all drawn. But I felt like all the way that this is an interesting match against an opponent who is at this position, at this point equal to me. And so losing that would not have been a disaster. Because in all the other matches, I would know that I would have lost against somebody who I know I'm much better than. And that would be a lot harder for me to take. Well, that's fascinating and beautiful that the stress isn't from losing. Because you have fun. You enjoy playing against somebody who's as good as you, maybe better than you. That's exciting to you. Yeah. It's losing at this high stakes thing that only happens rarely to a person who's not as good as you. Yeah. And that's why it's also been incredibly frustrating in other matches. Like when I know when we play draw after draw, and I can just, I know that I'm better. I can sense during the game that I understand it better than them, but I cannot, you know, I cannot get over the hump. So you are the best chess player in the world. And you not playing the World Championship really makes the World Championship not seem important. Or I mean, there's an argument to be made for that. Is there anything you would like to see for a change about the World Championship that will make it more fun for you? And better for the game of chess period for everybody involved? So I think 12 games or now 14 games that there is for the World Championship is a fairly, fairly low sample size. If you want to determine who the best player is, or at least the best player in that particular matchup, you need more, more games. And I think to some extent, if you're going to have a world champion and call them the best players, best player, you got to make sure that the format increases the chance of finding the best player. So I think having more games, and if you're going to have a lot more games, then you need to decrease the time control a bit, which in turn, I think is also a good thing because in very long time controls with deep preparation, you can sort of mask a lot of your deficiencies as a chess player, because you have a lot of time to think and to defend and also, yeah, you have deep preparation. So I think those would be for me to play, those would be the main things, more games and less time. So you want to see more games and rules that emphasize pure chess? Yeah, but already less time emphasizes pure chess because defensive techniques are much harder to execute with little time. What do you think? Is there a sweet spot in terms of, are we talking about Blitz? How many minutes? I think Blitz is a bit too fast. To their credit, this was suggested by FIDA as well. For a start to have two games per day, and let's say you have 45 minutes a game plus 15 or 30 seconds per move, that means that each session will probably be about, or a little less than two hours. That would be a start. Also, what we're playing in the tournament that I'm playing here in Miami, which is four games a day with 15 minutes plus 10 seconds per move, those would be more interesting than the one there is now. And I understand that there are a lot of traditions, people don't want to change the World Championship. That's all fine. I just think that the World Championship should do a better job of trying to reflect who's the best overall chess player. So would you say, if it's faster games, you'd probably be able to get a sample size of like over 20 games, 20, 30, 40? Do you think there's a number that's good over a long period of time? Well, I would prefer as many as possible. Like a hundred? Yeah, but let's say you play 12 days, two games a day, you know, that's 24. I feel like that's already quite a bit better. You play like one black game, one white game each day. Endurance-wise, that's okay? Yeah, I think that's fine. Like you will have free days as well. So I don't think that will be a problem. And also you have to prepare two sets of openings for each day, which makes it more difficult for the teams preparing, which I think is also good. Let me ask you a fun question. If Hikaru Nakamura was one of the two people, I guess, I apologize. Yeah, he could have finished second. So he lost the last round of the candidates. Yeah, and maybe you can explain to me, internet-speak, co-op, is something you tweeted. But if he got second, would you, just despite him, still play the World Championship? That's an internet question. And when the internet asks, I'm going to ask the dude to bide. Yeah, sure. Thank you, internet. So after the last match, I did an interview right after the match. Right after where I talked about the fact that I was unlikely to play the next one. I'd spoken privately to both family, friends, and of course, also my chess team that this was likely going to be the last match. What happened was that right before the World Championship match, there was this young player, Alireza Firouzha. He had a dramatic rise. He rose to second in the world rankings. He was 18 then, he's 19 now. He qualified for the candidates. And it felt like there was at least a half realistic possibility that he could be the challenger for the next World Championship. And that sort of lit a fire under me. Do you like that idea? I like that. I like that a lot. I love the idea of playing him in the next World Championship. And originally, I just, I was sure that I wanted to announce right after the tournament, the match that this was it. I'm done. I'm not playing the next one. But this lit a fire under me. So that made me think, you know, this actually motivates me. And I just wanted to get it out there for several reasons, to create more hype about the candidates, to like sort of motivate myself a little bit, maybe motivate him. Also, obviously, I wanted to give people a heads up for the candidates that you might be playing for more than first place. Like normally the candidates is first place or best. It's like the World Championship. Yeah. And then, so Nakamura was one of many people who just didn't believe me, which is fair, because I've talked before about not necessarily wanting to defend again. But I never like talked as concretely or was as serious as this time. So he simply didn't believe me. And he was very vocal about that. And he said, nobody believed me, none of the players which may or may not have been true. And then yeah, he lost. He lost the last game and he didn't qualify. But to answer the question, no, I'd already at that point decided that I wouldn't play. I would have liked it less if he had not lost the last round. But the decision was already made. Does it break your heart a little bit that you're walking away from it? In all the ways that you mentioned that it's just not fun, there's a bunch of ways that it doesn't seem to bring out the best kind of chess. It doesn't bring out the best out of you and the particular opponents involved. Does it just break your heart a little bit? Like you're walking away from something or maybe the entire chess community is walking away from a kind of a historic event that was so important in the 20th century, at least. So I won the championship in 2013. I said no to the candidates in 2011. I didn't particularly like the format. I also wasn't, I was just not in the mood. I didn't want the pressure that was connected with the World Championship. And I was perfectly content at the time to play the tournaments that I did play. Also to be ranked number one in the world, I was comfortable with the fact that I knew that I was the best and I didn't need a title to show others. And what happened later is I suddenly decided to play. In 2013, I liked, they changed the format. I liked it better. I just decided, you know, it could be interesting. Let's try and get this. There really wasn't more than that to it. It wasn't like fulfilling lifelong dream or anything. I just thought, you know, let's play. So it's just a cool tournament? Yeah, it's a cool tournament. It's a good challenge. You know, why not? It's something that could be a motivation. It motivated me to get in the best shape of my life that I had been until then. So it was a good thing. And 2013 match brought me a lot of joy as well. So I'm very, very happy that I did that. But I never had any thoughts that I'm going to keep the title for a long time. Immediately after the match in 2013, I mean, also before the match, I'd spoken against the fact that champion is seeded into the final, which I thought was unfair. After the match, I made a proposal that we have a different system where the champion doesn't have these privileges and people's reaction, both players and chess community was generally like, okay, we're good. We don't want that. You keep your privileges. I was like, okay, whatever. So you want to fight for it every time? Yeah, I want that. I have to ask just in case you have an opinion, if you can, maybe from a fantasy chess perspective, analyze Ding versus Nepo, who wins? The current, the two people that would play, if you're not playing. Generally, I would consider that Ding has a slightly better overall chess strength. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each, if you can kind of summarize it? So Nepo, he's even better at calculating short lines than I am. But he can sometimes lack a little bit of depth. Like he's in short lines, he's an absolute calculation monster. He's extremely quick, but he can sometimes lack a bit of depth. Or he's a little bit of a slow player. Also recently, he's improved his openings quite a bit. So now he has a lot of good ideas and he's very, very solid. Ding is not quite as well prepared, but he has an excellent understanding of dynamics and imbalances in chess, I would say. What do you mean by imbalances? Imbalances like bishops against knights and material imbalances. He can take advantage of those. Yes, I would say he's very, very good at that and understanding the dynamic factors, as we call them, like material versus time, especially. I think Nepo got the better of him and the candidates. So what's your sense why Ding has an edge in the championship? I feel like individual past results hasn't necessarily been a great indicator of world championship results. I feel like overall chess strength is more important. I mean, to be fair, I only think Ding has a very small edge. The difference is not big at all. But our individual head-to-head record was probably the main reason that a lot of people thought Nepo had a good chance against me as well. It was like 4-1 in his favor before the match, but that was just another example of why that may not necessarily mean anything. Also, in our case, it was a very, very low sample size. I think about the size of the match in total, 14 games, and that generally doesn't mean much. How close were those games, would you say, in your mind for the previous championship? So that game six was a turning point where you won. Was there any doubt in your mind that, you know, like if you do a much larger sample size, you'll get the better of Nepo? No, no, larger sample size is always good for me. So world championship is a great parallel to football because it's a low scoring game. And if the better player or the better team scores, they win most of the time. Oh, that's generally for championships or in general? Yeah, for championships. Like they generally win because the other slightly weaker team, they're good enough to defend to make it very, very difficult for the others. But when they actually have to create the chances, then they have no chance. And then it very often ends with a blowout as it did in our match. If I hadn't won game six, it probably would have been very, very close. He might have edged it. There's obviously a bigger chance that I would have edged it. But this is just what happens a lot in chess, but also in football, that matches are close and then they... Somebody scores. Somebody scores and then things change. And this gives people the illusion that the matchup was very close. Which, well, actually it just means that the nature of the game makes the matches close very often, but it's always much more likely that one of the teams is going to, or one of the players is going to break away than the others. And in other matches as well, even though a lot of people, before the match in 2016 against Karjakin, there were people who thought before the match that I was massively overrated as a favorite and that essentially the match was pretty close, like whatever, 60-40, or some people even say like 55-45. And what I felt was that the match went very, very wrong for me and I still won. And some people saw that as an indication that the pre-match probabilities were probably a bit closer than people thought. Well, I would look at it in the way that everything went wrong and I still won, which probably means that I was a pretty big favorite to begin with. I do have a question to you about that match. But first, so Sergey Karjakin was originally a qualifier for the candidate tournament, but was disqualified for breaching the FIDE code of ethics after publicly expressing approval for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. You look at the Cold War and some of the US versus Russian games of the past, does politics, some of this geopolitics, politics ever creep its way into the game? Do you feel the pressure, the immensity of that, as it does sometimes for the Olympics, you know, these big nations playing each other, competing against each other, almost like fighting out in a friendly way, the battles, the tensions that they have in the space of geopolitics? I think it still does. So the president of the World Chess Federation, who was just reelected, is a Russian. I like him personally, for sure. But he is quite connected to the Kremlin. And it's quite clear that the Kremlin considers it at least a semi-important goal to bring the chess crown home to Russia. So it's still definitely a factor. And I mean, I can answer for in the Karjakin case, like, I don't have a strong opinion on whether he should have been banned or not. Obviously, I don't agree with anything that he says. But in principle, I think that you should ban either no Russians or all Russians. I'm generally not particularly against either. But I don't love banning wrong opinions, even if they are as reprehensible as his have been. Yeah, there's something about the World Chess Championships or the Olympics, where it feels like banning is counterproductive to the alleviating some of the conflicts. We don't know. This is the thing, though. We really don't know about the long term conflicts. And a lot of people try to do the right thing in this sense, which I don't really blame at all. It's just that we don't know. And I guess sometimes there are other ways you want to try and help as well. Like within the competition, within some of those battles of US versus Russia or so on of the past, there's also between the individuals, maybe you'll disagree with this, but from a spectator perspective, there's still a camaraderie. Like at the end of the day, there's a thing that unites you, which is this appreciation of the fight over the chessboard. Even if you hate each other. Yeah, for sure. I think for every match that's been, you would briefly discuss the game with your opponent after the game, no matter how much you hate each other. And I think that's lovely. And Kasparov, I mean, he was quoted, like when somebody in his team asked him, like, why are you talking to Karpov after the game? Like, you hate that guy. He's like, yeah, sure. But he's the only one who understands. Yeah, the only one who understands. So that's, no, I think that's really lovely. And I would love to see that in other areas as well, that you can, regardless of what happens, you can have a good chat about the game. You can just talk about the ideas with people who understand what you understand. So if you're not playing the World Championships, there's a lot of people who are saying that perhaps the World Championships don't matter anymore. Do you think there's some truth to that? I said that back a long time ago as well, that for me, I don't know if it never happened, so I don't know what would have happened. But I was thinking like, the moment that I realized that I'm not the best player in the world, I felt like morally I have to renounce the World Championship title, you know, because it doesn't mean anything as long as you're not the best player. So the ratings really tell a bigger, a clearer story. I think so, at least over time. I'm a lot more proud of my streak of being rated number one in the world, which is now since I think the summer of 2011. I'm a lot more proud of that than the World Championships. How much anxiety or even fear do you have before making a difficult decision on the chessboard? So when it's a high stakes game, how nervous do you get? How much anxiety do you have? And all that calculations, you're sitting there for 10, 15 minutes because you're in a fog. There's always a possibility of a blunder, of a mistake. Are you anxious about it? Are you afraid of it? Really depends. I have been at times. I think the most nervous I've ever been was game 10 of the World Championships in 2018. That was just a thrilling game. I was black. I basically abandoned the queen side at some point to attack him on the king side. And I knew that my attack, if it doesn't work, I'm going to lose. But I had so much adrenaline. So that was fine. I thought I was going to win. Then at some point, I realized that it's not so clear. And my time was ticking and I was just getting so nervous. I still remember what happened. We played this time trouble phase where he had very little time, but I had even less. And I just remember, I cannot remember much of it, just that when it was over, I was just so relieved because then it was clear that position was probably going to be route in a draw. Otherwise, I'm often nervous before games, but when I get there, it's all business. And especially when I'm playing well, I'm never afraid of losing when I play because I trust my instincts. I trust my skills. How much psychological intimidation is there from you to the other person, from the other person to you? I think people would play a lot better if they played against an anonymous me. I would love to... Or people are scared of you. I would love to have a tournament online where, let's say you play 10 of the best players in the world and for each round, you don't know who you're playing. That's an interesting question. You know, there's these videos where people eat McDonald's or Burger King or Diet Coke versus Diet Pepsi. Would people be able to tell they're playing you from the style of play, do you think? Or from the strength of play? If there was a decent sample size, sure. And what about you? Would you be able to tell others? In just one game? Very unlikely. What sample size would you need to tell accurately? I feel like it's a science. Yeah, I think 20 games would help a lot. Per person. Yeah. But I know that they've already developed AI bots that are pretty good at recognizing somebody's style. Which is quite fascinating. And it'd be fascinating if those bots were able to summarize the style somehow. Maybe great attacking chess, like some of the same characteristics you've been describing, like great at short line calculations, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. Or just talk shit. No, but really all the best chess players, there are basically just two categories. People who are good at longer lines or shorter lines. It's the hare and the tortoise, basically. And sometimes, you know, I feel like I'm the closest you can get to a hybrid of those. Because you're good in every position, so the middle game and the end game. Yeah. And also I can think to some extent both rapidly and deeply, which a lot of people, they can't do both. But I mean, to answer your question from before, I think, yeah, I sometimes can get a little bit intimidated by my opponent, but it's mostly if there's something unknown. It's mostly if it's something that I don't understand fully. And I do think, especially when I'm playing well, people, they just play more timidly against me than they do against each other. Sometimes without even realizing it. And I certainly use that to my advantage. If I sense that my opponent is apprehensive, if I sense that they're not going to necessarily take all their chances, it just means that I can take more risk. And I always try and find that balance. To shake them up a little bit. Yeah. What's been the toughest loss of your career? Do you remember? Would that be the World Championship match? Oh, yeah, for sure. Can you take... Game 8 in 2016. And who was it against? Against Kariakin in New York. Can you take it through the story of that game? Where were you before that game in terms of game 1 through 7? Yeah. So game 1 and 2, not much happened. Game 3 and 4, I was in the middle of the game. Game 3 and 4, I was winning in both of them. And normally, I should definitely have converted both. I couldn't, partly due to good defense on his part, but mostly because I just... I messed up. And then after that, games 5, 6 and 7, not much happened. And I was getting impatient at that point. So for game 8, I was probably ready to take a little bit more risks than I had before, which I guess was insane because I knew that he wouldn't beat me unless I beat myself. Like, he wasn't strong enough to outplay me. And that was leading to impatience somehow and impatience... Because I knew that I was better. I knew that I was better. I knew that I just needed to win one game and then the match is over. Yeah. That's what happened in 2021 as well. Like, when I won the first game against Nepo, I knew that the match was over. Unless I like, fuck up royally, then he's not going to be able to beat me. So what happened was that I played kind of innocuous opening as White, just trying to get a game, trying to get him out of book as soon as possible. Can you elaborate? Innocuous, get him out of the book. No, basically I set up pretty defensively as White. I wasn't really crossing into his half at the start at all. I was just, I played more like a system more than like a concrete opening. It was like, I'm going to set up my pieces this way. You can set them up however you want. And then later, we're sort of, the armies are going to meet. I'm not going to try and bother you at the start. And that means you can have with as many pieces as possible, kind of pure chess in the middle game without any of the lines, the standard lines in the opening. Exactly. And so there was at some point a couple of exchanges, then some maneuvering, a little bit better. Then he was sort of equalizing and then I started to take too many risks and I was still sort of fine. But then at some point I realized that I'd gone a bit too far and I had to be really careful. Now I just froze. I just completely froze. Mentally? Yeah, mentally. What happened? I realized that, I mean, all the thoughts of, I might lose this. What have I done? Why did I take so many risks? I knew that I could have drawn at any moment. Just be patient. Be patient. Don't give him these opportunities. What triggered that face transition in your mind? No, it was just a position on the board, like realizing there was one particular move he played that I missed. Then I realized that this could potentially not go my way. So then I made another couple of mistakes and he, to his credit, once he realized he had the chance, he was like, he knew that this was his one chance. He had to take it. And so he did. And yeah, that's the worst I've ever felt after a chess game. I realized that I'm probably going to lose my title against somebody who's not even close to my level. And I've done it because of my own stupidity, most of all. And that was really, really... At the time, I was all in my own head. That was hard to deal with. And I felt like I didn't really recover too much for the next game. So what I did, there was a free day after the eighth game. So I did something that I never did at any other world championship. Like after game eight, I just... I got drunk with my team. That's not a standard procedure. No, no. That's the only time that's happened in a world championship during the match. So yeah, I just tried to forget. But still, before game nine... Game nine, I was a little bit more relaxed. But I was still a bit nervous. Then game nine, I was almost lost as well. Then only game 10. Game 10, I was still... I wasn't in a great mood, I was really, really tense. The opening was good. I had some advantage. I was getting optimistic. Then I made one mistake. He could have forced a draw. And then all the negativity came back. I was thinking during the game, like, how am I going to play for a win with Black in the next game? What am I doing? And then, eventually, it ended well. I didn't find the right line. I ground him down. Actually, I played at some point pretty well in the endgame. And after that game, there was such a weight lifted. Lifted? No. After that, there was no thought of losing the match whatsoever. I knew that, okay, I'd basically gotten away with... Not with murder, but gotten away with something. What can you say about after game 8? Where are the places you've gone in your mind? Did you go to some dark places? We're talking about, like, depression. Do you think about quitting at that point? No, I mean, I think about quitting every time I lose a classical game. Or at least I used to. Yeah. Like, especially if it's in a stupid way. I'm thinking, like, okay, if I'm gonna play like this, if I'm gonna do things that I know are wrong, then I might as well quit. No, that's happened a bunch of times. And I've definitely gotten a bit more carefree about losing these days, which is not necessarily a good thing. Like, my hatred of losing led to me not losing a lot. And it also lit the fire under me that I think my performance after losses in classical chess over the last 10 years is like over 2,900. I really play well after a loss, even though it's really, really unpleasant. So apparently, I don't think the way that I dealt with them is particularly healthy, but it's worked. It's worked so far. But then you've discovered now a love for winning to where ultimately, longevity-wise, creates more fun. Yeah, for sure. What's the perfect day in the life of Magnus Carlsen on a day of a big chess match? It doesn't have to be World Championship, but if it's a chess match you care about, what time do you wake up? What do you eat? Well, it depends on when the game is. But let's say the game is at three. I'll probably wake up pretty late at about 11. Then I'll go for a walk, might listen to some podcasts. Maybe I'll spend a little bit of time looking at some NBA game from last night or whatever. So not chess-related stuff? No, no, no, no. Then I'll get back. I'll have a big lunch, usually a big omelet with a bunch of salad and stuff. Then go to the game, win a very nice, clean game. Perfect day. Just go back after, relax. The things that make me the happiest at tournaments is just having a good routine and feeling well. I don't like it when too much is happening around me. So the tournament that I came from now was the Chess Olympiad, which is a team event. So we were a team Norway. We did horribly. I did okay, but the team in general did horribly. Who won that, Italy? No, no, Italy beat us, but Uzbekistan won in the end. They were this amazing team of young players. It was really impressive. But the thing is, we had a good camaraderie in the team. We had our meals together. We played a bit of football, went swimming. And I couldn't understand why we didn't win. I couldn't understand why things went wrong. And I still don't understand. But the thing is, for me, it was all very nice. But now I'm so happy to be on my own at a tournament, just to have my own routines, not see too many people. Otherwise, just have a very small team of people that I see. You are a kind of celebrity now. So people within the chess tournament and outside recognize you, want to socialize, want to tell you about how much you mean to them, how much you inspire them, all that kind of stuff. Does that get in the way for you when you're trying to really focus on the match? Are you able to block that? Like, are you able to enjoy those little interactions and still keep your focus? Yeah, most of the time, that's fine, as long as it's not too much. But I have to admit, when I'm at home in Norway, I rarely go out without big headphones. And something, oh, like a disguise? On my... no, not a disguise, just to block out the world. Otherwise... Don't make eye contact. Yeah, no, so the thing is, people in general are nice. I mean, people, they wish me well. And they don't, like, bother me. Also, when I have the headphones on, I don't notice as much people like turning around and all of that. So I can be more in my own world. So I like that. Yeah. What about after the... in this perfect day after the game? Do you try to analyze what happened? Do you try to think through systematically? Or do you just kind of loosely think about, like... No, I just loosely think about it. I've never been very structured in that sense. I know that it was always recommended that you analyze your own games. But I generally felt that I mostly had a good idea about that. Like, nowadays, I will loosely see what the engine says at a certain point, if I'm curious about that. Otherwise, I usually move on to the next. What about diet? You said omelet and salad and so on. I heard in your conversation with the other Magnus, Magnus number two, about... You had this bet about meat. One of you is going to go vegan if you lose. I forget which bet. Vegetarian, though. Oh, vegetarian. Sorry. Yeah. And you both have an admiration for meat. Is there some aspect about optimal performance that you look for in food? Like, maybe eating only once or twice a day or a particular kind of food, like meat-heavy diet? Is there anything like that? Or are you just trying to have fun with the food? I think whenever I'm at tournaments, it's very natural to eat, at least for me, to eat only twice a day. So usually I do that when I'm at home as well. So you do eat before the tournament, though? You don't play fasted? No, no, no. But I try not to eat too heavy before the game or, in general, to avoid sugary stuff, to have a pretty stable blood sugar level. Because that's the easiest way to make a mistake, that your energy levels just suddenly drop. And they don't necessarily need to be too high, as long as they're pretty stable. Yeah. Have you ever tried playing fasted? Like, you know, like intermittent fasting? So playing without having eaten. I mean, the reason I ask, you know, especially when you do a low-carb diet, when I've done a person on a low-carb diet, I'm able to fast for a long time, like eat once a day, maybe twice a day. But I just, the mind is most focused on like really difficult thinking tasks when it's fasted. It's an interesting, and a lot of people kind of talk about that. Yeah. You're able to kind of like zoom in. And if you're doing a low-carb diet, you don't have this energy, the energy stable. No, that is true. Maybe that will be interesting to try. So what's happened for me? I've played a few tournaments where I've had food poisoning. And then that generally means that you're both sleep deprived and you have no energy. Yeah. And what I've found is that it makes me very calm, of course, because I don't have the energy and it makes me super creative. Interesting. Like being sleep deprived, I think in general, makes you creative. Just the first thing that goes away is the ability to do the simple things. That's what it affects you the most. Like you cannot be precise. So that's the only thing I'm worried about. Like if I'm fasted, that I won't be precise when I play. But you might be more creative. It's an interesting trick. Fasted, yeah, potentially. What about you have been known to, on a rare occasion, play a game that you're not good at, on a rare occasion, play drunk. Is there a mathematical formula for sort of on the x-axis, how many drinks you had, and on the y-axis, your performance slash creativity? Is there like an optimal for like one of the... Would you suggest for the FIDIA World Championship that people would be required to drink? Would that change things in interesting ways? Yeah, not at all. Well, maybe for Rapid, but for Blitz, think if you're playing Blitz, you're mostly playing on short calculation and intuition. And I think those are probably enhanced if you've had a little bit to drink. Can you explain the physiology of why it's enhanced? You're just, you're thinking less. You're more confident. Oh, yeah. I think it's just confidence. I think also like a lot of people feel like they're better at speaking languages, for instance, if they've drunk a little bit. It's just like removing these barriers. Yeah. I think that it's a little bit of the same in chess. In 2012, I played the World Blitz Championship and then I was doing horribly for a long time. I also had food poisoning there. I couldn't play at all for three days. So before the last break, I was in the middle of the pack, in 20th place or something. And so I decided as the last gasp, I'm going to go to the mini bar and just have a few drinks. And what happened is that I came back and I was suddenly relaxed. And I was playing fast and I was playing confident. And I thought I was playing so well. I wasn't playing nearly as well as I thought, but it still helped me. I won my remaining eight games. And if there had been one more round, I probably would have won the whole thing. But finally, I was second. So generally, I wouldn't recommend that. But maybe as a last resort, sometimes, if you feel that you have the ability, obviously none of this is remotely relevant if you don't feel like you have the ability to begin with. But if you feel like you have the ability, there are just factors that make it impossible for you to show it. Like, numbing your mind a bit can probably be a good thing. Yeah, what's interesting, especially during training, you have all kinds of sports that have interacted with a lot of athletes and grappling sports. It's different when you train under extreme exhaustion. For example, you start to discover interesting things. You start being more creative. A lot of people, at least in Brazilian jiu-jitsu, they'll smoke weed. It creates this kind of anxiety and relaxation that kind of enables that creative aspect. It's interesting for training. Of course, you can't rely on any one of those things too much. But it's cool to throw in a few drinks every once in a while to, yeah, one, first of all, to relax and have fun. And two, to kind of try things differently, to unlock a different part of your brain. Yeah, for sure. What about supplements? Do you, are you a coffee guy? Oh, no. I quite like the taste of coffee. But the thing is, I've never had a job. So I've never needed to wake up early. So my thought is basically that if I'm tired, I'm tired. That's fine. That's fine. I'll, you know, then I'll work it out. So I don't want to ever make my brain get used to coffee. Like if you see me drinking coffee, that probably means that I'm massively, massively hungover. And I just want to try anything to make my brain work. Yeah, that's interesting. But for a lot of people, like you said, taste of coffee, for a lot of people, coffee is part of a certain kind of ritual. Yeah, for sure. To enjoy, you know. So, I know that I would enjoy it a lot. Yeah. Though, there's no question about that. Just, you don't want to rely on it. Yeah. I also like the taste, so there's no problem there. What about exercise? So, how does that, what, like, what, you know, a lot of people talk about the extreme stress that chess puts in your body, physically and mentally. How do you prepare for that to be physically and mentally? Is it just through playing chess or do you do cardio and any of that kind of stuff? This has gone a bit up and down. Like, as I said, in 2013, I was in great shape, like, I mean, generally, I was exercising, doing sports every day, either playing football or tennis or even other sports. Otherwise, if I couldn't do that, I would try and take my bike for a ride. I had a few training camps and I played tennis against one of my seconds. Like, he's not a super fit guy, but he's always been very good at tennis. And I never, like, played in any organized way. And that was like, that was the perfect exercise because I was running around enough to make the games pretty competitive. And it meant that he had to run a bit less as well. But he was just, he said, like, he was shocked that if we played, like, for two hours, I wouldn't flinch at all. Interesting. So like a combination of fun and the differential between skill result in good cardio. Yeah, but it's just that. So in those days, I was pretty fit in that sense. I've always liked doing sports, but at times, you know, I think in winter, especially, like, I never had like a schedule. So at times I let myself go a little bit. And I've always kind of done it more for fun than like for a concrete benefit. But now I'm at least after the pandemic, I was not in great shape. So now I'm trying to get back, get better, get better habits and so on. But I feel like I've always been the poster boy for making being fit a big thing in chess. And I always felt that it was not really deserved because I never liked doing weights much at all. I run a bit at times, but I never liked it too much. You just love playing sports. I just love playing sports. So I think people confuse that because I'm not like massively athletic, but I am decent at sports and that sort of helped build that perception, even though others who are top level chess players, they're more fit like Carvana, for instance, he's very fit. Like Carvana, for instance, he's really, really, his body is really, really strong. It's just that he doesn't... He like goes to the gym and... Yeah, he doesn't play sports. That's the difference. And the thing about sports is also it's an escape. It helps you forget for a brief moment about like the obsessions, the pursuits of the main thing, which is chess. Yeah, for sure. And I think it also helps your main pursuit to feel that you're even if not mastering, but like doing well in something else. I found that if I just juggle a ball, that makes me feel better before a game. So a skilled activity. Juggler football. Yeah. Skilled activity that you can improve on over time. It's like flexes the same kind of muscle, but another thing that you're much worse at. Yeah. It focuses you, relaxes you. That's really interesting. What's the perfect day in the life of Magnus Carlsen when he's training? So like what's a good training regimen in terms of, you know, daily kind of training that you have to put in across many days, months and years to just keep yourself sharp in terms of chess? I would say when I'm at home, I do very, very little deliberate practice. I've never been that guy at all. Like I could never force myself to just sit down and work. So deliberate practice, just so maybe you can educate me for some grandmasters, what would that look like? Just doing puzzles kind of thing? Yeah, doing puzzles and opening analysis. That would be the main things. Studying games? Just studying games, yeah, a little bit, but I feel like that's something that I do, but it's not deliberate. It's like reading an article or reading a book. Got it. Like I love chess books. I'll read just anything and I'll find something interesting. So chess books that are like on openings and stuff like that or chess books that go over different games? Yeah, both. Books on chess. Yeah, books on, so there are three main categories. There are books on openings and there are books on strategy and there are books on chess history and I find all of them very, very interesting. Like what fraction of the day would you say you have a chess board floating somewhere in your head? Meaning like you're thinking about it? Probably be a better question to ask how many hours a day I don't have a chess board floating in my head. I mean, it could be just floating there and nothing is happening, but like... I often do it parallel to some other activity though. And what does that look like? Like are you daydreaming like different, is it actual positions you're just fucking around with like fumbling with different pieces in your head? Often I've looked at a random game on my phone, for instance, or in a book and then my brain just keeps going at the same position, analyzing it and often it goes all the way, you know, to the end game. Those are actual games or you conjure up like fake games? No, they're often based on real games. And then I'm thinking like, oh, but it wouldn't be more interesting if the pieces were a little bit different. And then often I play it out from there. So you don't have a... Like you don't sit behind a computer or a chess board and you lay out the pieces and... No, I'm not at all a poster boy for deliberate practice. I could never work that way. My first coach, he gave me some exercises to do at home sometimes, but he realized at some point that wasn't going to work. Yeah. Because I wouldn't do it really or enjoy it. So what he would do instead is that at the school where I had the trainings with him, there was this massive chess library, so he was just like, yeah, pick out books. You can have anything you want. Just pick out books you like and then you give back the next time. So that's what I did instead. Yeah, I just absolutely rated. And then my next tournament, I will try out one of the openings from that book if it was an opening book and so on. So does it feel like a struggle, like challenging? Like to be thinking of those positions or is it fun and relaxing? No, it's completely fine. I don't... Like if it's a difficult position to figure out, you know, like to calculate... Then I go on to something else. Okay. Like if I can't figure it out, then, you know, I go on. Change it so that it's easier to figure out. There was a point in your life where Kasparov was interested in being your coach or at least training with you. Why did you choose not to go with him? That's a pretty bold move. Was there a good reason for this? No. The first like homework exercise he gave me was to analyze, like he picked out, I think three or four of my worst losses and he wanted me to analyze them and give him my thoughts. And it wasn't that there were painful losses or anything that that was a problem. I just didn't really enjoy that. Also, I felt that this whole structured approach and everything. Yes. I just felt like from the start, it was a hassle. So I loved the idea of being able to pick his brain, but everything else, I just, you know, I couldn't see myself, couldn't see myself enjoying. And at the end of the day, I did then and always have played for fun. And for fun, that's always been like the main reason. So it's great that you had the confidence to sort of basically turn down the approach of one of the greatest chess players of all time at that time, probably the greatest chess player of all time. I don't think I thought of it that way. I just thought this is not for me. I want to try another way. I don't think I was particularly thinking that this is my one opportunity or anything. It was just, yeah, I don't enjoy this. Let's try something else. When you were 13, you faced Kasparov and he wasn't able to beat you. Can you go through that match? What did that feel like? How important was that? Was that, how epic was that? We played three games. I lost two and I drew one. Right. But one draw. No, the one draw. And but didn't you say that you kind of had a better position in that? Yeah. I remember that day very well. There was a Blitz game. This was a Rapid tournament. And there was a Blitz tournament the day before, which determined the pairings for the Rapids. And for people who don't know, super short games are called Bullet, kind of short games are called Blitz, semi short games are called Rapid. Yeah. And classic chess, I guess, is like very super long. Yeah. Yeah. Basically, Bullet is never played over the board. So in terms of over the board chess, Blitz is the shortest. Rapid is like a hybrid between classical and Blitz. You need to have the skills of both. And then classical is like the Blitz tournament, which didn't go so well. Like I got a couple of wins, but I was beaten badly in a lot of games, including by Gary. And so there was the pairing that I had to play him, which is pretty exciting. So I remember I was so tired after the Blitz tournament, like I slept for 12 hours or something. Then I woke up like, okay, I'll turn on my computer. I'll search chess space for Kasparov and we'll go from there. So before that, I hadn't spent like a lot of time specifically studying his games. It was super intimidating because a lot of these openings I knew, I was like, oh, he was the first one to play that. Oh, that was his idea. I actually didn't know that. So I was a bit intimidated before we played. Then, of course, the first game he arrived a bit late because they changed the time from the first day to the other, which was a bit strange. And everybody else had noticed it, but him. Then he tried to surprise me in the opening. I think like psychologically, the situation was not so easy for him. Like clearly it would be embarrassing for him if he didn't win both games against me. Then like I was spending way too much time on my moves because I was playing Kasparov. I was double checking everything too much. Like normally I would be playing pretty fast in those days. And then at some point I calculated better than him. He missed a crucial detail and had a much better position. I couldn't convert it, though. I knew what line I had to go for in order to have a chance to win. But I thought like, I'll play a bit more carefully. Maybe I can win still. I couldn't. And then I lost the second game pretty badly, which it wasn't majorly upsetting, but I felt that I had two black games against Kasparov, both in the Blitz and the Rapid, and I lost both of them without any fight whatsoever. I wasn't happy about that at all. That was like less than I thought I could be able to do. So to me, yeah, I was proud of that, but it was a gimmick. I was like a very strong IM, but had GM strength. I was like, it can happen that a player of that strength makes a draw against Gary once in a while. Yeah, but OK. But I mean, I understand that I'm 13, but like still I felt a bit more gimmicky than anything. I mean, I guess it's a good thing that made me noticed. But apart from that, it wasn't, you know. And for people who don't know, IM is international master and GM is grandmaster, and you were just on the, I guess, on the verge of becoming a youngest grandmaster ever. I was the second youngest ever. I think I'm like the seventh youngest now. I mean, these kids these days. Kids these days. Yeah. But I was the youngest grandmaster at the time in the world. Yeah. So there is, you know, you say it's gimmicky, but there's a romantic notion, especially as things have turned out, right? Like... Oh, for sure. And have you talked to Gary since then about that? No, not really. I think he's embarrassed. He's still bitter, you think? No, I don't think he's bitter, but I think the game in itself was a bit embarrassing for him. Even he can't see past, like... No, I think he's completely fine with that. I think, like, in retrospect, it's a good story. He appreciates that. I don't think that's the problem, but it never made sense for me to broach the subject with him. Yeah, I just... It's funny, just having interacted with Gary, now having talked to you. There is a little thing you still hate losing. No matter how beautiful that moment is, because it's like... In a way, it's a passing of the baton from one great champion to another, right? But you still just don't like the fact that you didn't play a good game from Gary's perspective. He's still just annoyed, probably, that he could have played better. And we did... So we did work together in 2009, quite a lot. And that cooperation ended early 2010. But we did play a lot of training games in 2009, which was interesting because he was still very, very strong. And at that time, it was fairly equal. Like, he was outplaying me quite a bit, but I was fighting well. So it was pretty even then. So, I mean, I appreciate those games a lot. More than some random game from when I was 13. And maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. But I've always found it, at least based on that game, you couldn't tell that I was going to take his spot. Like I made a horrible blunder and lost to an Uzbek kid in the World Rapid Championship in 2011. And I mean, granted, he was part of the team that now won gold in the Chess Olympiad, but he wasn't a crucial part. He barely played any games. Like, it wasn't like I would think that he would become world champion because he beat me. I'm always skeptical of those who said that they knew that I was going to be world champion after that game or at all at that time. I mean, it was easy to see that I would become a very, very strong player. Everybody could see that. But to be the best in the world or one of the best ever, it's hard to say. It is hard to say. But I do remember seeing Messi when he was 16 and 17. But hasn't that happened with other players, though? Yeah, but I just had a personal experience. He did look different than... There's like magic there. Maybe you can't tell he would be one of the greatest ever, but there's something about him. One of the greatest ever, but there's still magic. But you're right. Most of the time we try to project, we see a young kid being an older person and you start to think, OK, this could be the next great person. Then we forget when they don't become that. Yeah, exactly. That's I think what happens. But when it does become... Maybe some people are just so good at seeing these patterns that they can actually see. Aren't you supposed to do that kind of thing with fantasy football, like see the long shot and bet on them and then they turn out to be good? No, you make a lot of long shot bets and then some of them come good. And then people call you a genius for making the bet. Well, let me ask you the goat question again from a fantasy perspective. Can you make the case for the greatest chess player of all time for each? Yourself, Magnus Carlsen, for Garry Kasparov, I don't know who else, Bobby Fischer, Mikhail Tal, anyone else, for Hikaru Nakamura? Just kidding. Yeah, I think I can make a case for myself, for Garry and for Fischer. So I'll start with Fischer. For him, it's very, very simple. He was ahead of his time, but that's intangible. You can say that about a lot of people. But he had a peak from 1970 to 72 when he was so much better than the others. He won 20 games in a row. Also, the way that he played was so powerful and with so few mistakes that he just had no opposition there. So he had just a peak that's been better than anybody. The gap between him and others was greater than it's ever been in history at any other time. And that would be the argument for him. For Garry, he's played in a very competitive era and he's beaten several generations. He was the best. Well, he was the consensus best player, I would say, for almost 20 years, which nobody else has done in at least in recent time. So the longevity. The longevity, for sure. Also, at his peak, he was not quite the level of Fischer in terms of the gap, but it was similar to, or I think even a little bit better than Mike. Even a little bit better than mine. As for me, I'm of course unbeaten as a world champion in five tries. I've been world number one for 11 years straight in an even more competitive era than Garry. I have the highest chess rating of all time. I have the longest streak ever without losing a game. I think for me, the main argument would be about the era where there's the engines have leveled the playing field so much that it's harder to dominate. And still, I haven't always been a clear number one, but I've always, I've been number one for 11 years. And for a lot of the time, the gap has been pretty big. So I think there are decent arguments for all of them. I've said before, and I haven't changed my mind that Garry generally edges it because of the longevity in the competitive era. But there are arguments. But people also talk about you in terms of the style of play. So it's not just about dominance or the height or the, it's like just the creative genius of it. Yeah, but I'm not interested in that. In terms of greatest of all time, I'm not interested in questions of style. So for Messi, you don't give credit for the style, for the stylistic. I like, I like, no, I like watching it. I just... But you're not going to give points for the... So Messi gets best ever because of the finishing. No, it's not because of the finishing, it's because of his overall impact on the game is higher than anybody else's. Okay. He contributes, he just contributes more to winning than anybody else does. What's, so you're somebody who was advocated for and has done quite a bit of study of classic games. What would you say is, I mean, maybe the number one or maybe top three games of chess ever played? Doesn't interest me at all. You don't think of them as... No, I don't think of it. I mean, I try to, I find the games interesting. I try to learn from them, but like trying to rank them has never interested me. What games pop out to you as like super interesting then? Is there, is there things like where idea, like old school games where there was like interesting ideas that you go back or like you find surprising and pretty cool that those ideas were developed like that? Is there something that jumps to mind? Yeah. There are several games of young Kasparov, like before he became world champion. If you're going to ask for like my favorite player or favorite style, that's probably... Young Kasparov. Young Kasparov. Can you describe stylistically or in any other way what, what young Kasparov was like that you're, that you like? It was just an overflow of energy in his play. So aggressive attacking chess? Extremely aggressive dynamic chess. It probably appeals to me a lot because these are the things that I cannot do as well. That it just feels very special to me. But yeah, in terms of games, I never, never thought about that too much. Is there memories, big or small, weird, surprising, just any kind of beautiful anecdote from your chess career? Like stuff that pops out that people might not know about? Just stuff when you look back, it just makes you smile. Oh, so I'll tell you about the most satisfying tournament victory of my career. So that was the Norwegian Championship under 11 in 2000. Before that tournament, I was super anxious because I started like kind of late at chess. I played my first tournament when I was eight and a half, and a lot of my competitors had already played for a couple of years or even three, four years at that point. And the first time I, so I played the under 11 championship in 99. I was like a little over the middle of the pack. I'd never played against any of them before, so I didn't know what to expect at all. And then over the next year, I was like edging a little bit closer. In each tournament, I felt like I was getting a little bit better. And when we had the championship, I knew that I was ready, that I was now at the same level of the best players. I was so anxious to show it. I remember I was just, the feeling of excitement and nervousness before the tournament was incredible. The tournament was weird because I started out, I gave away a draw to a weaker player, whom I shouldn't have drawn to. And then I drew against the other guy who was clearly like the best or second best. And at that point I thought it was over because I thought he wouldn't give away points to others. And then the very next day he lost to somebody. So the rest of the tournament, it was just like, I was always like playing my game and watching his. And we both won the rest of our games, but it meant that I was half a point ahead. I had the feeling when I realized that I was going to win, that was just so amazing. It was the first time that I was the best at my age. And at that point, you're hooked. Yeah. At that point I realized, I could actually be very good at this. So you kind of saw, what did you think your ceiling would be? Did you see that one day you could be the number one? No, I didn't think that was possible at all. But I thought I could be the best in Norway. The best in Norway. At that point. Because I started relatively late. And also, I knew that I studied a lot more than the others. I knew that I had a passion that they didn't have. They saw chess as something like, it was a hobby. It was like an activity. It was like going to football practice or any other sports. Like you go, you practice like once or twice a week, and then you play a tournament at the weekend. That's what he did. For me, it wasn't like that. I would go with my books and my board every day after school. And I would just constantly be trying to learn new things. I had like two hours of internet time on the computer each week. And I would always spend them on chess. Like, I think before I was 13 or 14, I'd never opened a browser for any other reason than to play chess. Would you describe that as love or as obsession or something in between? It's everything. Yeah, everything. So, I mean, it wasn't hard for me to tell at that point that I had something that the other kids didn't. Because I was never the one to grasp something very, very quickly. But once I started, I always got hooked. And then I never stopped learning. What would you say, you've talked about the middle game as a place where you can play pure chess. What do you think is beautiful to you about chess? Like the thing when you were 11? What is beautiful to me is when your opponent can predict every single one of your moves and they still lose. How does that happen? No, like it means that at some point early, your planning, your evaluation has been better. So that you play just very simply, very clearly. It looks like you did nothing special and your opponent lost without a chance. So how do you think about that, by the way? Are you basically narrowing down this gigantic tree of options to where your opponent has less and less and less options to win, to escape, and then they're trapped? Yeah, essentially. Is there some aspect to the patterns themselves, to the positions, to the elegance of like the dynamics of the game that you just find beautiful that doesn't... where you forget about the opponent? In general, I try and create harmony on the board. Like what I would usually find harmonious is that the pieces work in harmony with each other, that the pieces work together, that they protect each other, and that there are no pieces that are suboptimally placed. Or if they are suboptimally placed, they can be improved pretty easily. Like I hate when I have one piece that I know is badly placed and I cannot improve it. Yeah, when you're thinking about the harmony of the pieces, when you're looking at the board, when you're evaluating it, are you looking at the whole board? Or is it like a bunch of groupings of pieces overlapping and like dancing together kind of thing? I would say it's more of the latter. That would be more precise that you look... I mean, I look mostly closer to the middle, but then I would focus on one, like there is one grouping of pieces on one side and then some more closer to the other side. So I would think of it a little bit that way. So everything is kind of gravitating to the middle? If it's going well, then yes. And in harmony. Yeah, in harmony. Like if you can control the middle, you can more easily attack on both sides. That applies to pretty much any game. It's as simple as that. And like attacking on one side without control of the middle would feel very non-harmonious for me. Like I talked about the 10th game in the World Championship. That's the time I was the most nervous. And it was because it was the kind of attack that I hate where you just have to... You're a band on one side and the attack has to work. There was one side and part of the middle as well, which I didn't control at all. And that's like the opposite of harmony for me. What advice would you give to chess players of different levels how to improve in chess? Very beginner, complete beginner. I mean, at every level, is there something you can... It's very hard for me to say because I mean, the easiest way is like, love chess, be obsessed. Well, that's a really important statement. But that doesn't work for everybody. So I feel like... It can feel like a grind. So you're saying the less it can feel like a grind, the better. The better. Yeah, for sure. At least for you. That's for sure. But I'm also very, very skeptical about giving advice because I think, again, my way only works if you have some combination of talent and obsession. So I'm not sure that I'd generally recommend it. Like what I've done doesn't go with what most coaches suggest for their kids. I've been lucky that I've had coaches from early on that have been very, very hands off and just allowed me to do my thing, basically. Well, there's a lot to be said about cultivating the obsession. Like really letting that flourish to where you spend a lot of hours with the chessboard in your head and it doesn't feel like a struggle. No, so like just letting me do my thing. Like if you give me a bunch of work, it will probably feel like a chore. And if you don't give me, I will spend all of that time on my own without thinking that it's work or without the thought that I'm doing this to improve my chess. Well, in terms of learning stuff like books, there's one thing that's relatively novel from your perspective. People are starting now. There's YouTube. There's a lot of good YouTubers. You're a part-time YouTuber. You have stuff on YouTube, I guess. Yeah, but if you've seen my YouTube, it's mostly like... It's very... It's not... It's carefree. It's not high effort content. Yeah, but do you like any particular YouTubers? I could just recommend like stuff I've seen. So Agadmar, Gotham Chess, Bottez Live. I really like St. Louis Chess Club. Daniel Naroditsky and John Bartholomew. Those are good channels. But is there something you can recommend? No, all of them are good. You know, the best recommendation I could give is Agadmar. Purely... How much did he pay you to say that? No, so the thing about that is that I haven't really... I have... So I can tell you I've never watched any of his videos from start to finish. I'm not like... I'm not the target audience, obviously. But I think the only chess YouTube video that my dad has ever watched from start to finish is Agadmar. And he said like, I watched one of his videos. I wanted to know what it was all about. Because I think Agadmar is like the same strength as my father, or maybe just a little bit weaker. Like 1900 or something. My father is probably about 2000. And my father has played chess his whole life. He loves... He absolutely loves the game. It was like, that's the only time he's actually sat through one of those videos. And he said like, yeah, I get it. I enjoy it. So that's the best recommendation I could give. That's the only channel that my father actually enjoys. This is hilarious. I talked to him before this to ask him if he has any questions for you. And he said, no, just do your thing. You know... He's so careful. He wouldn't do that. He did mention jokingly about Evan's Gambit, I think. Is that a thing? Evan's Gambit? It's some weird thing he made up. It might be an inside joke. I don't know. But he asked me to. Well, anyway. Yeah, I didn't even get... It's something he made up. Yeah, I didn't even realize that he plays the Evan's Gambit. Like he plays a lot of gambits that are... Wait, Evan's Gambit is a thing? Yeah, that's a thing. Like that's an old thing. Like that's an old opening from the 1800s. Captain Evans apparently invented it. Why would he mention that particular one? Yeah, I don't know. Is there something hilarious about that one? I don't know. I don't think I've ever faced the Evan's Gambit in a game. I feel like both of you are trolling me right now. But I mean, he's played a lot of other gambits. Maybe this is the one he wanted to mention. So this, maybe this is called the Evan's Gambit as well. But I just know it as like the 2G4 Gambit. Maybe this is the one. Like this one he has played a bunch. And he's been telling me a lot about his games in this line. It's like, oh, it's not so bad. And I'm like, yeah, but you're a pawn down. But I can sort of see it. I can sort of understand it. And he's like, he's proud of the fact that nobody like told him to play this line or anything. He came up with it himself. And there's this, I'll tell you another story about my father. So there's this line that I call the Henry Carlson line. So at some point, you know, he never knew a lot of openings in chess, but I taught him a couple of openings as black. It's the Sveshnikov Sicilian that I played a lot myself. Also during the World Championship in 2018, I won a bunch of games in 2019 as well. So that's one opening and also taught him as black to play the Ragosin defense. And then, so the Ragosin defense goes like this. It's characterized by this bishop move. And so he would play those openings pretty exclusively as black in the tournaments that he did play. And also the Sveshnikov Sicilian is like, that's the only two of my sisters play, have played a bunch of chess tournaments as well. And that's the only opening they know as well. So my family's repertoire is very narrow. So this is the system. Black goes here and then we are from white to black. And black goes here and then we are from white takes the pawn and black takes the pawn. So at some point I was watching one of my father's online blitz game. Blitz game and as white, he played this, this. So this is called the Karakhan defense. He took the pawn. It was taken back and then he went with the knight. His opponent went here and then he played a bishop here. So I, I'd never seen this opening before. And I was like, wow, how on earth did he come up with that? And he said, no, I just played the Ragosin with the different colors, because if the knight was here, it would be the same position. I was like, I never, I was like, how, how am I like one of the best players in the world? I mean, and I've never thought about that. So I actually started playing, I started playing this line as white with pretty decent results and it results in, it actually became kind of popular. And everybody who asked about the line, it's like, I would always tell them, yeah, that's the Henry Carlson. I wouldn't necessarily explain why it was called that. I would just always call it that. So I really hope at this point, at some point, this line will be, will find its rightful name. Yeah, it finds its way into the history books. Can you, what did you learn about life from your dad? What role has your dad played in your life? He's taught me a lot of things. But most of all, as long as you win a chess, then everything else is fine. I think my, especially my father, but my parents in general, they always wanted me to get a good education and find a job and so on. Even though my father loves chess and he wanted me to play chess, I don't think he had any plans for me to be professional. I think things changed at some point, like I was less and less interested in school. And for a long time, we were kind of going back and forth, fighting about that, especially my father, but also my mother a little bit. It was at times a little bit difficult. They wanted you to go to school. Yeah, they sort of wanted me to do more school, to have more options. And then I think at some point, they just gave up. But I think that sort of coincided when I was actually starting to make real money off tournaments. And after that, everything's been sort of easy in terms of the family. They've never put any pressure on me or they've never put any demands on me. They're just, yeah, my just has to focus on chess. That's it. I think they taught me in general to be curious about the world and to get a decent general education, not necessarily from school, but just knowing about the world around you and knowing history and being interested in society. I think in that sense, they've done well. And he's been with you throughout your chess career. I mean, there's something to be said about just family support and love that you have. This world is a lonely place. It's good to have people around you there that got your back, kind of, you know? Yeah. It's a cliche, but I think to some extent, all the people you surround yourself with, they can help you a lot. It's only family that only has their own interests at heart. And so for that reason, my father's the only one that's been constantly in the team that he's always been around. And it's for that reason that I know he has my back no matter what. Now, there's a cliche question here. Let's try to actually get to some deep truth, perhaps. But people who don't know much about chess seem to like to use chess as a metaphor for everything in life. But there is some aspect to the decision making, to the kind of reasoning involved in chess that's transferable to other things. Can you speak to that in your own life and in general, the kind of reasoning involved with chess? How much does that transfer to life out there? It just helps you make decisions. Of all kinds. Yeah, that would be my main takeaway, that you learn to make informed guesses in a limited amount of time. I mean, does it frustrate you when you have geopolitical thinkers and leaders, you know, Henry Kissinger will often talk about geopolitics as a game of chess or 3D chess. Is that too oversimplified of a projection? Or do you think that the kind of deliberations you have on the world stage is similar to the kind of decision making you have on the chessboard? Well, I'm never trying to get reelected when I play a game of chess. There's no special interest, you have to get happy. Yeah, that kind of helps. No, I can understand that. Obviously for every action there's a reaction and you have to calculate far ahead. It probably would be a good thing if more big players on the international scene thought a little bit more like a chess player in that sense, like trying to make good decisions based on limited amounts of data rather than thinking about other factors. But it's so tough. But it does annoy me when people make moves that they know are wrong for different reasons. And they should know if they did some calculation, they should know they're wrong. Yeah, exactly. That they should know that are wrong. So much politics is like, you're often asked to do something when it would be much better to do nothing. No, but that happens in chess all the time. You have a choice. I often tell people that in certain situations you should not try and win, you should just let your opponent lose. And that happens in politics all the time. Just let your opponents continue whatever they're doing and then you'll win. Don't try to do something just to do something. Often they say in chess that having a bad plan is better than having no plan. It's absolute nonsense. I forget what General said, but it was like, don't interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake. Also, Petrosyan, the former world champion said, when your opponent wants to play Dutch defense, don't stop them. I mean, chess players will know that it's the same thing. Actually this reminds me, is there something you found really impressive about Queen's Gambit, the TV show? You know, that's one of the things that really captivated the public imagination about chess. People that don't play chess became very curious about the game, about the beauty of the game, the drama of the game, all that kind of stuff. Is there in terms of accuracy, in terms of the actual games played that you found impressive? First of all, they did the chess well, they did it accurately. And also they found actual games and positions that I've never seen before. It's really captivated me. Like I would not follow the story at times, I was just trying to, wow, where the hell did I find that game? I was trying to solve the positions. So Beth Harmon, the main character, were you impressed by the play she was doing? Was there a particular style that they developed consistently? Oh, she was just, at the end, she was just totally universal. Like at the start, she was probably a bit too aggressive, but no, she was absolutely universal. Wait, what adjective are you using? Universal in the sense that she could play in any style. Oh, interesting. And was dominant in a way. So wow, there was a development in style too throughout the show. Yeah, for sure. It's really interesting they did that. And it actually happened with me a bit as well. I started out really aggressive. Then I became probably too technical at some point, taking a little bit too few risks and not playing dynamic enough. And then I started to get a little bit better at dynamics so that now I would say definitely the most universal player in terms of style. Are there any skills in chess that are transferable to poker? As you're playing around poker a little bit now, how fundamentally different of a game is it? What I find the most transferable probably is not letting past decisions dictate future thinking. But in terms of the patterns in the betting strategies and all that kind of stuff, what about bluffing? I bluff way too much. It does seem you enjoy bluffing and Daniel Negreanu was saying you're quite good at it. But yeah, it has very little material to go by. Sample size is small. Yeah. No, I mean, I enjoy bluffing for the more of the gambling aspects that this is real of. So not the technical aspect of the bluffing like you would on the chessboard? Not bluffing in the same sense, but there is some element. But I do enjoy it on the chessboard. Like if I know that like, oh, I successfully scared away my opponent from making the best move, that's of course satisfying. In that same way, it might be satisfying in poker, right? That you represent something, you scare away your opponent. Yeah. In the same kind of way. And also like you tell a story, you try and tell a story and then they believe it. Yeah. Tell a story with your betting, with all the different other cues. Yeah. And the money aspect, the betting strategies. So it's like, it's almost like another layer on top of it, right? It's the uncertainty in the cards, but the betting, there's so much freedom to the betting. I'm not very good at that. So I cannot say that I understand it completely. You know, when it comes to different sizing and all of that, I just haven't studied it enough. How much of luck is part of poker, would you say, from what you've seen versus skill? I mean, it's so different in the sense that you can be one of the best players in the world and lose two or three years in a row without that being like a massive outlier. Okay. The thing that more than one person told me that you're very good at is trash talking. I don't think I am. A lot of people who make those observations about me, I think they just expect very, very little. So they expect from the best chess player in the world, that just anything that's non-robotic is interesting. Also when it comes to trash talking, like I have the biggest advantage in the world that I'm the best at what I'm doing. So trash talking becomes very, very, very easy because I can back it up. Yeah. But a lot of people that are extremely good at stuff don't trash talk and they're not good at it. I don't think I'm very good at it. It's just that I can back it up, which makes it seem that I'm better. And also- You're even doing it now. Also being non-robotic or not completely robotic helps. Yeah. You're not trash talking, you're just stating facts. That's right. Have you ever considered that there will be trash talking over the chess board in some of the big tournaments? Like adding that kind of component or even talking, you know? Would that completely distract from the game of chess? No, I think it could be funny. When people play off-hand games, when they play blitz games, people trash talk all the time. It's a normal part of the game. So you emphasize fun a lot. Do you think we're living inside of a simulation that is trying to maximize fun? But that's only happened for the last hundred years or so. Fun has always been increasing, I think. Yeah, okay. It's always been increasing, but I feel like it's been increasing exponentially. Yeah. I mean, or at least the importance of fun. But I guess it depends on the society as well. In the West, we've had such a Christian influence. I mean, Christianity hasn't exactly embraced the concept of fun over time. Well, actually, to push back, I think forbidding certain things kind of makes them more fun. So sometimes I think you need to say, you're not allowed to do this. And then a lot of people start doing it, and then they have fun doing that. It's like, it's doing a thing in the face of the resistance of the thing. So whenever there's resistance, that does somehow make it more fun. Oppressive regimes has always been kind of good for comedy, no? Yes. Supposedly, like in the Soviet Union, I don't know about fun, but supposedly comedy, like at least underground, it thrived. Yeah, there's a... Well, no, it permeates the entire culture. There's a dark humor that sort of the cruelty, the absurdity of life really brings out the humor amongst the populace, plus vodka on top of that. But this idea that, for example, Elon Musk has that the most entertaining outcome is the most likely, that it seems like the most absurd, silly, funny thing seems to be the thing that... So it happens more often than it should. And somehow it becomes viral in our modern connected world. And so the fun stuff, the memes spread, and then we start to optimize for the fun meme that seems to be a fundamental property of the reality we live in. And so emerges the fun maximizer in all walks of life, like in chess, in poker, in everything. I think... You're not skeptical. No, I'm not skeptical. I'm just taking it all in. But I find it interesting and not at all impossible. Do you ever get lonely? Oh, yeah, for sure. Like a chess player's life is by definition pretty lonely, because you have nobody else to blame but yourself when you lose, or you don't achieve the results that you want to achieve. So it's difficult for you to find comfort elsewhere. It's in your own mind. Yeah. It's you versus yourself, really. Yeah, really. But it's, you know, it's part of the profession. But I think any like sport or activity where it's just you and your own mind, it's just by definition lonely. Are you worried that it destroys you? Oh, not at all. As long as I'm aware of it, then it's fine. And I don't think the inherent loneliness of my profession really affects the rest of my life in a major way. What role does love play in the human condition, in your lonely life of calculation? You know, I'm like everybody else, trying, you know, Trying to find love? No, not necessarily like trying to find love. Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. I'm just trying to find my way. And my love for the game, obviously, it comes and goes a little bit, but there's like, there's always at least some level of love. So that doesn't go away. But I think in other parts of life, I think it's just about doing things that make you happy, that give you joy, that also makes you more receptive to love in general. So that has been my approach to love now for quite a while, that I'm just trying to live my best life, and then the love will come when it comes. And in terms of romantic love, it has come and gone in my life. It's not there now. But I'm not worried about that. I'm more worried about, you know, not worried, but more like trying to just be a good version of myself. I cannot always be the best version of myself, but at least try to be good. Yeah, and keep your heart open. What is this Daniel Jansson song? True love will find you in the end. It may or may not. But it will only find you if, if you're looking, so I guess be open to it. Yeah, it may or may not. Yeah, yeah. And no matter what, you're gonna lose it in the end, because it all ends, the whole thing ends. Yeah. I don't think stressing over that, like, obviously, it's so human that you can't help it to some degree. But I feel like stressing over love, that's the blueprint for whether you're looking or you're not looking or you're in a relationship or marriage or anything like stressing over it is like the blue, blue print for being unhappy. Just to clarify confusion, I have just a quick question. How does the knight move? So the knight moves in an L. And unlike in Shogi, it can move both forwards and backwards. It is quite a nimble piece, it can jump over everything, but it's less happy in open position where it has to move from, from side to side quickly. I am generally more of a bishop's guy myself, for the old debate, I just prefer quality over the intangibles. But I can appreciate a good knight once in a while. Last simple question, what's the meaning of life, Magnus Carlsen? There's obviously no meaning to life. Is that obvious? I think we're here by accident. There's no meaning, it ends at some point. But it's still a great thing. You can still have fun, even if there's no meaning. Yeah, you can still have fun, you can try and pursue your goals, whatever they may be. But I'm pretty sure there's no special meaning and trying to find it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. For me, like life is both meaningless and meaningful for just being here, trying to make not necessarily the most of it, but the things that make you happy both short term and also long term. Yeah, it seems to be full of cool stuff to enjoy. It certainly does. And one of those is having a conversation with you, Magnus, it's a huge honor to talk to you. Thank you so much for spending this time with me. I can't wait to see what you do in this world. And thank you for creating so much elegance and beauty on the chessboard and beyond. So thanks for talking today, brother. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. And I wanted to say this at the start, but I never really got the chance. I was always a bit apprehensive about doing this podcast because you are a very smart guy and your audience is very smart. And I always had a bit of imposter syndrome. So I'll tell you this now after the podcast. So please do judge me, but I hope you've enjoyed it. I loved it. You're a brilliant man. And I love the fact that you have imposter syndrome because a lot of us do. And so that's beautiful to see, even at the very top, you still feel like an imposter. Thank you, brother. Thanks for talking today. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Magnus Carlsen. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Bobby Fischer, chess is a war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent's mind. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/0ZO28NtkwwQ

gp4U5aH_T6A

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Saifedean Ammous: Bitcoin, Anarchy, and Austrian Economics | Lex Fridman Podcast #284

you can't have permanent war without fiat. And I also think there's a case to be made that you can't really have fiat without war. The following is a conversation with Seyf Dina Moose, one of the central and most impactful economists, philosophers and educators in the world of Bitcoin. He's an Austrian economist and anarchist and the author of the Bitcoin Standard and the new book, the Fiat Standard. Seyf Dina does not mince words in his criticism of economists and humans in general with whom he disagrees. For example, Paul Krugman, who is a neo-Lackensian economist and a previous guest of this podcast. Seyf Dina's opinions are strong and often controversial. I do push back in this conversation, playing devil's advocate or trying to steal man each side. But as always, I do so in the service of exploring the rich space of ideas that Seyf Dina has about human nature and human civilization. I trust the intelligence of you, the listener, to come to your own conclusions. That is the burden of being a free-thinking human. It is on each of us individually to dive into this chaos of ideas. And from that chaos, discover long-lasting universal wisdom to live by. This is the Lux Freedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Seyf Dina Amoos. Let's start with a big question. What is money? And what is the role of money in the history of human civilization? Money is a medium of exchange. The thing that defines money is that it is a good that you don't buy for its own sake, because you wanna consume it itself, or because you want to employ it in the production of other goods, which is what capital goods are. So we have consumption goods, we have capital goods. Money is distinct from those two, because it is a good that is acquired purely to be exchanged later on for other goods. So it's not something that you acquire for its own sake. You acquire it so that you can then later on exchange it. And that's a market good. That's a market good like all other goods. You acquire food because you eat it. You acquire a car to move you around. You acquire money so that you can exchange it for other goods. And that's something that many people have a hard time grasping, the concept of money as a market good. But it is a market good, just like all others. And the importance of it is that it allows us to trade. It allows us to develop the division of labor, which would not be possible at any kind of sophisticated level without money. So if we live in a small society of 10 people, then think about all the things that we can make, all the things that we can produce. If we're only 10 people isolated from the world, there's only very few things that we can make. And therefore we can exchange those things directly with one another. But as, you know, if we get in contact with other societies that have more people, then the opportunities for specialization increase. You know, if there's 10 people, the only thing that you can make is the very basics you need for your survival. But if you're part of an economy of 10 million people, there's much more room for specialization. You can make a car, you can make a house that's very sophisticated. And that relies on the division of labor. That relies on you specializing and doing one tiny little thing, which is not what you consume. You know, you trade that thing for all the things that you consume. So as the economy becomes more sophisticated and involves more people, and currently we're all part of an economy of almost 8 billion people, each one of us produces one tiny little thing, and they exchange that thing for all the things that they want. And so because we specialize, we become more productive in doing the thing that we're good at. So, you know, there's people out there who are engineers who are designing windshields in cars. It's a very specialized thing. They sell windshield design to Mercedes-Benz. And then from that, you know, that windshield design is added on to millions of cars around the world. And from that, they're able to get enough money to meet all of their needs. So the division of labor is enhanced enormously with money, because without money, it's very difficult to be able to exchange a large number of goods. It's very difficult to have a sophisticated economy with a large degree of specialization, because it's very difficult to find people who want the thing that you have and have the thing that you want. We call this the coincidence of wants. And that's really the problem that money solves. So you make apples and I make oranges. I'd like to have some of your apples, but you don't want my oranges. And that's, we have a problem of coincidence of wants. So what do I do? You want bananas. I need to find somebody who has bananas, give them my oranges, take their bananas, give you their bananas, and then I take the apples. In that case, bananas are a medium of exchange. So it's natural that a medium of exchange will evolve and will emerge in an economy as an economy becomes more sophisticated. As we move beyond 10 people and 10 goods, it's inevitable that we're going to come to a situation where we have the problem of coincidence of wants. And the way to solve that is to use a medium of exchange. And it can be anything. It can be a banana. It can be food stuff. It can be any kind of good. As long as I acquire the good with the purpose of it passing it on to you, not for the purpose of me consuming it or using it, then that's a medium of exchange. So when we look at the entirety of human society of millions of billions of people, you think of them just a bunch of individuals running around. I love the term coincidence of wants. So each one of them, it's like a stochastic system. They have desires. It's like a random collection of desires somehow rooted in our evolutionary history, but mostly random in terms of preference of banana or apple, that kind of thing. And then they also have the capacity for competence and excellence in particular kind of labor. So like specialization, they're able to be incredible at a particular set of tasks. So there's a bunch of ants running around with consciousness and intelligence, and they have desires and they have capabilities. And then there's a coincidence of both the wants they have and the capabilities they have, and you wanted to create a system that kind of exchanges those things. So when you imagine like what is a good, what is markets? When you imagine a market is like a hierarchical system, what do you imagine? What is a market? A market is just the name for the naturally emergent phenomena of people voluntarily exchanging things. It's- At any scale. At any scale, yeah. Individual, it could be a market of two people on an island. On their own, it could be 8 billion people across the planet. Naturally emerging. Yes, this is the thing I think that is very hard for many people who don't have a good understanding of economics to grasp, that capitalism and markets are not something that you need a central planner or a government officer to make happen. Capitalism is just what happens when people are left to their own devices. It's just our cognitive capacity allows us to develop tools that we can use for production. And that's what we do. That's what humans have been doing since they started making spears to hunt. That's the first capital good probably. So we're constantly accumulating capital. We're constantly trading with one another. We find an opportunity. You've got a lot of oranges. I've got a lot of apples. Then I'll take some of yours. You'll take some of mine. We're both better off. This is just a naturally emergent thing. And money is what makes it enormously powerful. Money is what allows it to scale really. Money is what allows it to go beyond small societies into just something that is global. Because with money, again, as I was saying earlier, all you need to do is specialize in doing one thing, the thing that you do best, and then you exchange that for money, and you don't have to worry about whether the other people involved in this want what you have and have what you want. You just sell it for money to whoever wants it, and you buy whatever you want from whoever has it. And that's an enormous reduction in the mental burden of how a market economy functions. So the first thing that I would say about money is that it allows for the division of labor, and it allows for the market system to grow. And the second thing is that money is a mechanism for storing value into the future. So again, as humans, we develop the capacity to think for the future. We make a spear so that we can hunt, and then we see that it works, and then we take it out of the animal that we hunted it with, and we keep it for the next day's hunt. And then we start making a better spear, and we make a better fishing rod, and then we make a fishing net, and then we make a fishing boat. And that's our ability to think of the future. And as we start building durable goods, we start thinking more and more of the future. We start becoming more and more future-oriented. And that's really the process of civilization, the process of denying our needs now in order to think for the future. So instead of spending all of our day on the beach, enjoying ourselves, we take time off from leisure on the beach and spend some time making a spear or making a fishing rod so that our productivity in hunting or fishing tomorrow is gonna be higher. And so that ability to think for the future is enhanced by our ability to provide for the future. And we do that with durable goods. But then money ends up being the best mechanism for providing for the future, because the future is uncertain. So you can save your apples and oranges, you can save the spears, you can save the animal that you hunted. But these things, first they rot, they're not very good at holding on to their value over time, but even if they were, even if you have objects that are durable, the problem with them is that you don't know if you need them tomorrow or next month or next year. You're not sure if you're going to be needing them. And you might end up not needing them and you might end up not finding anybody who needs them or finding somebody who needs them but doesn't value them much and won't give you much in exchange. Money allows you the optionality of saving the most liquid good, the most saleable good. So it's something that you can sell tomorrow with the least uncertainty. It has the most liquidity, the most ability to be sold without a loss in its value. So money is our most advanced technology and our best technology for moving value into the future. And so I think history really, I argue this in all my books, is that really history, we see, we can think of it as a process of our money gets harder. And so our money gets better at holding onto its value for the future. And by harder, I mean harder to produce. We find things that are hard to produce that are better at holding onto their value. So they hold onto their value better for the future. And that allows us to plot and plan for the future. That makes the future less uncertain. And that makes us more future-oriented. In other words, it lowers our time preference. And the harder the money is, the better it is allowing us to think of the future. So people should know that you've written the book Bitcoin Standard from 2018, I believe. Yeah. And then a new book called Fiat Standard. The Bitcoin Standard is considered kind of the Bible in the cryptocurrency space and the Bitcoin space of just a very rigorous systematic explanation of why Bitcoin, what is it, why should it be, why is it good? So you're describing in that book and in the new book, different implementations of the technology of money. In the new book, you talk about fiat money, which is another way to do money. So obviously there's a lot of different ways to do money. And maybe you haven't discovered the best way to do money yet. Our conversation today is how to do money better. Maybe we'll go back to bananas eventually. Very good reasons why we won't. Well, we can disagree. We can agree to disagree on this. I'm open-minded to the bananas. One of the biggest sources of joy to me when I first came to this country is eating bananas. And so maybe money, happiness, perishable happiness will eventually become the best medium of exchange. I don't know, open-minded. Anyway, so you mentioned hard money and soft money. So there's different ways to do money. What is hard money? What is soft money? In the Bitcoin Standard, I present the argument that money is always whatever is the hardest thing to make. Historically, I think we see many examples of that. So for instance, in prison, people use cigarettes as money because nobody can make cigarettes in prison. In societies, we have the example of Yap Island, for instance. It's an island that doesn't have any limestone, but there's a nearby island that has a lot of limestone. And it's very expensive, obviously, with primitive technology to move limestone from Palau to Yap. So on Yap, limestones were money. Seashells, rare seashells that are not easy to find end up serving as money in places where they're rare. Glass beads were money in West Africa where there was no glassmaking technology because they were imported from abroad and they were very hard to make. And I think there's a conscious effort of some people might recognize the hardness and the scarcity and choose this as money. But I think what's more important is just a natural evolutionary process whereby people choose all kinds of random things as money, bananas maybe even. But then the people who end up making these bad choices don't end up with any wealth left. Whereas the people who store their wealth in the things that are hard to make end up acquiring, end up maintaining their wealth and maybe even increasing it over time. And of course, this culminated in the 19th century, in the end of the 19th century by basically the entire planet being on a gold standard. And that- What is a gold standard? The gold standard is basically when money is gold or at least government currencies backed by gold. But the reason gold became money and not copper, not nickel, not bananas is that gold is the hardest metal in the world. And it is the hardest metal to increase the supply of. And the reason for that is based in chemistry. So gold is indestructible. You can't destroy gold in any meaningful sense. It's been accumulating stockpiles for thousands of years. The gold that was worn by Nefertiti back in ancient Egypt is today probably in somebody's necklace or in somebody's gold coin. It's still there. So for thousands of years, humans have been digging for gold. They dig it out of the ground, they refine it, and then they put it in a jewelry or a coin, and then it just stays there. It gets melted down into new other forms. You know, the jewelry gets turned into coins or coins get turned into bars. But it's just stockpiles that are accumulating. On the other hand, every year we get better at our technology of looking for gold. You know, there's more people all over the world. The population increases, the technology improves. So we keep finding more and more gold, and we keep making the stockpiles bigger. However, because we're constantly adding to a stockpile that is not being devalued, sorry, that is not being consumed, because there's no way of consuming gold. You can't eat it, you can't burn it, it doesn't rust. Because of that, we're constantly adding to a constantly growing stockpile. So if you look at the numbers, you see over the last 100 years, we've got pretty reliable data on gold production worldwide. We see that pretty much gold stockpiles increase at around one and a half to 2% per year, every year. So yes, we're making more every year, but we're making more, so we're adding to the stockpile. The stockpile grows more. So every year we're adding only around one and a half to 2%. Compare that to the second hardest metal historically was silver. And that increased historically at around maybe 5% per year or so. Now it probably increases at something like closer to 30%, because it's now getting used extensively in industrial uses. So when you use it in industry, you know, when you put silver in a laptop or in a camera or in a machine, effectively, you are consuming the stockpile, because it's not used as money. It's taken out of the monetary stockpile. So over the last 150 years, since 1870 in particular, and I discussed this in detail in the Bitcoin standard, what happened in 1870 was Germany won the Franco-Prussian War, and Germany was on a silver standard, but the value of silver was declining. So Germany did something very smart, which is they took their indemnity from France in gold, and used that big chunk of gold to switch to going on a gold standard. And since then, silver has been collapsing in value next to gold. So back then, the price of an ounce of gold was around 15 ounces of silver. Today, it's closer to 100. It's just been declining for the last 150 years. And so because of that, because of the fact that it's lost its monetary role as people shifted toward gold, the value of silver went down, and so it became economical to use it in more and more industrial applications. So the stockpile declines, and then as a result, that weakens its monetary properties more and more and more. So that's why in the end of the 19th century, I mean, at the beginning of the 19th century, gold and silver were money. By the end, it was basically only gold. And the countries that were still on a silver standard, China and India in particular, suffered enormously from it because their money was devaluing very quickly next to gold. And so Europeans who would come to China or India were able to buy things at practically a big discount. So I hope it's okay if I ask very simple, very basic questions. There's few people in this world that are good, as good as you are at answering very basic, almost ridiculously basic questions. Because I think exploring questions like what is money is a really great way to think from first principles, to really think deeply about this world. So I really appreciate you doing that. When you say standard, what does it mean? When you say silver standard, gold standard, again, with a basic question. The term, really, I think, was based out of gold. The first time this came out was the gold standard. Because, so I said gold was money at the end of the 19th century, but it wasn't just that everybody was using gold coins and trading with gold coins, because that's got a problem of divisibility. So a lot of things are worth less than one gold coin. So how do you buy that thing? And the answer was that you created the monetary instruments that were backed by gold. And so currencies, national currencies under the gold standard, were specific units of gold. And that's how a gold standard functioned. Money was gold, but you had pieces of paper that were redeemable in gold. So you could go to the central bank, you'd give them the piece of paper, the $100 bill or the $10 bill, and they'll give you gold in exchange. And they give you a specific quantity of gold in exchange. Effectively, the paper was just the receipt for gold. So the paper exactly represented the amount of gold. Exactly, that was the plan. Or that was what it's supposed to do. But arguably, we never had a pure gold standard because the nature of gold means that the people who are in charge of the gold, they have an enormous amount of power because the gold is concentrated with them. And as long as not everybody shows up at the same time asking for their gold, then you can make more receipts than you have gold. This is- So there's always shady stuff going on, but at least that's the stated goal, is the receipts should exactly represent the amount of gold there. And also when you say standard, it means that governments sort of publicly stated that this is the approved, the main way of making transactions that are monetary. So this is the money. This is the official money that you should be using if you live in this country. Yes, although I would say it's more like the other way around. It's not that the governments established gold as money. It's more like gold gave the governments the credibility for their currencies. So governments were not the ones that made gold money. Gold has been money before states were invented. States, if you have a government and you'd like to have some legitimacy and you'd like to be able to deal with other governments on an equal footing, you had to go by the gold standard. You had to have a currency that was redeemable in gold so that you could trade with the rest of the world so that people could, in your country, use that currency. So it's not that governments were choosing gold. It's more like they were having to adapt their own currencies to gold in order to give their currencies credibility. So there's a dance there though, because if they had to, then why did they switch away from it after? So there is a dance where the governments, the people pressure. So first of all, the basic characteristics of the hard money pressures the governments and the people in terms of what should be used. Then the people, based on their community, the network effects, the way they, the narratives they tell each other, all that kind of stuff, they pressure the governments to take on a particular money. And then the governments, you know, they like power, they like control, all those kinds of things. They pressure the people and tell different kinds of narratives. So there's a dance going on in this evolution of what technology to use for a monetary system. So it's, the reason I, I don't know if governments had to, because they clearly didn't have to, because they eventually moved away from it. So it, but there was pressure probably. Yeah, but I mean, even after they moved away from it, you know, central banks until today, they still hold a lot of gold reserves. In fact, if you look at 1914, when the world really went off the gold standard, the amount of gold reserves held by central banks was a tiny fraction of what it was. As time went on, central banks accumulated more and more gold. What ended up happening is they prevented their citizens from using the gold, but they continued to use it. So gold continued to be money up until 1971, because effectively the world was on a dollar standard and the dollars were backed by gold. But then after 1971, even then, you know, central banks continue to accumulate gold because why would you as a central bank want to accumulate pieces of paper effectively or credit liabilities of another central bank that can produce them infinitely? And it's a lesson that's becoming more and more obvious to governments today, you know, as we see US sanctions taking, say, Russian reserves or Afghanistan reserves. And this is why, you know, we see China and Russia have accumulated a lot of gold over the last 10, 20 years. So just to return to the question of definitions, so what is hard money versus soft money? Yes, so hard, I mean, it's a relative thing, but the hardness refers to the difficulty of producing more units of the money supply. So an easy money would be a money that is relatively easy to make. So you can increase the supply by 10, 20, 30, 40, 50%, or something like that. So pretty much all commodities, all market commodities, other than gold and silver, they're easy money and they're not suitable as a monetary medium because they're being consumed. So if you look at, and in the Bitcoin standard, I mentioned this metric called the stock to flow ratio, which is the ratio of the annual production, the flow, to the stockpile, the existing stockpile. If you look at all the other metals, they're easy money because they're being consumed. So think about how much stockpiles of copper there are in the world today. So copper companies obviously have some stockpiles of copper, major copper consumers will have stockpiles of copper, but the vast majority of copper is essentially on a conveyor belt of production from the mine straight to the consumer good that it's being used for. So the existing stockpiles are roughly in the range of one year's production. If you take all of the companies, I don't have exact statistics, it's very difficult to get these, but it's roughly in the same range. Like if copper production were to stop completely today, we'll have about a year's production stored in various places. So that makes copper terrible money because if you started using copper as money, and this is why a lot of people say, well, money is a collective illusion, money is a social construct. If we all agree that something is money, then something is money, I think this is completely clueless and it's usually Marxists who believe this, obviously no understanding of economics. It's completely clueless because even if everybody in society decided we wanted to make copper as money, even if we all decided to collectively take part in this hallucination or illusion, it would not make copper money. It would just make everybody who decides to take part in this hallucination poor, that's it. It would make copper miners rich, it would make all of the people who chose copper as money poor, and copper would not be money. It can't work because what happens is because of the fact that the stockpiles are so small, if you buy, even if you get the 1000 richest people in the world, all of the world's billionaires, they get together and they all dump all of the money that they have, all the stocks, all the bonds, all the gold, all of the Bitcoin, everything that they own, they dump it and they buy copper with it. What's gonna happen? Price of copper is gonna go up a lot, but what's gonna stop copper miners from flooding the market with even more copper than what the billionaires bought? Nothing. They're gonna dump all of that extra copper production. If the price of copper is gonna go up, so there will be a lot more copper mining than all the other metals. A lot of nickel companies and gold miners are gonna switch to focusing on copper. And then we're gonna dump an enormous amount of copper on the market. The value of copper is gonna crash, and the people who chose copper as money are just gonna end up with large warehouses of very cheap rusting metal. So that's a brilliant description and that kinda pushes towards gold where the stock to flow ratio, I guess you would say is 1.5 to 2%, like you mentioned earlier. That would be like the inverse of the stock to flow. That's the supply growth rate. So the stock to flow is the inverse. It's around 60. 60, got it. But let me push back on, as somebody who likes human psychology, let me push back on the collective hallucination and the illusion. So that's for copper, but what about paper money? That's not, you can't smoke it, you can't eat it. It's supposed to represent, it's supposed to just be the medium of exchange. And in that sense, what role does collective hallucination play in the effectiveness of money? Exactly zero. Because all of the paper money, first of all, there's never been an instance, and again, this flies in the face of a lot of what, a lot of people like to think about money. There's never been an instance where a government came out and said, all right, we're printing out these pieces of paper, use them as money. This one is worth 10 apples or use it for buying things. And here's the piece of paper. This has never happened. They've always taken fiat money, paper money, all of these things were always born out of fraud. Initially it was a receipt for gold, and then they told you, well, you don't need the gold anyway and you have to use this, and then if you don't use it, we throw you in jail. And then, so first of all, it doesn't, you can't enforce this thing, so it's never really just happened, and it's never been hallucinated into existence. People can hallucinate this kind of nonsense in writing textbooks and books and in academia, but in the real world, people don't hallucinate money. People are very careful about what they put their money in. For people listening, we're gonna have fun in this conversation because you already said Marxist, fraud, hallucination. Just because we use these words doesn't mean they're true, but they're fun to talk about. So you have a strong certainty about the way you talk, which I think is fun. But allow me in my dumb self to push back, to play devil's advocate, and I'll actually ask you sometimes to play devil's advocate if possible because you're smarter than me on all this stuff. So we want the smartest devil's advocate possible, and I'm certainly not that. But anyway, so, but nevertheless, we are currently on the fiat standard. So money does have value, paper money, and the reason it has value is because we believe it has value. To what degree, if we put the hallucination word aside, the belief that something is worth value is actually value and is the thing that helps money work? Because you're saying it's fraud and the belief is almost valueless. But how much value, can we quantify the value of the belief, the collective belief? I should say, like, all economics is subjective. I consider myself an Austrian school economist, and the starting point of all Austrian economics is that all value is subjective. So obviously, value only exists because humans choose to make the valuation. However, the economic reality of the way that money works means that it's just the technology like all others. And so if we, for me, when people say, well, if we hallucinate that this thing can be money, then it'll be money. If we can hallucinate bananas to be money, then it'll be money. For me, it's like saying, well, if we hallucinate the bananas can be spaceships, they'll be spaceships. I mean, you can call them spaceships if you want, but a banana's not gonna get you to the moon. But nevertheless, that's true. So you're drawing a big distinction between physical reality and the space of belief. But it seems like so much power of human civilization, so much destruction, so much creativity, creation happens in our minds. So- Absolutely. Everything does happen in the mind. You're not gonna get to the moon, but you might still have a significant impact on human civilization if a lot of people believe a thing. True, but economic reality exists in a way in which your beliefs are rewarded when they match up with economic reality. With physical reality. And they're punished when they don't. So if you ride a banana, jump off a cliff thinking you're gonna get to the moon, that solves the problem of people thinking that bananas are spaceships by killing people who think that bananas are spaceships. And I think to go back to your question in terms of paper money, so yes, even though ignoring the original sin of the creation of fiat money and ignoring everything that happened before 1971, all right, well, here we are. People are using, well, it's not really paper money. We should say fiat money is predominantly credit. So it's also a digital currency. So more than 90% of dollars are digital. Less than 10% of dollars are physical. So it is a digital currency. And all over the world, all these governments are using digital currencies effectively with some physical manifestations in paper. But yet even within these currencies, it's still the same analysis. And I discussed this in chapter four of the Bitcoin Standard. You look at government monies, you see that the currencies that have held onto their value, the ones that have the biggest value, the ones that play the biggest role in global trade, the ones that are used as currency reserves all over the world, are the ones that have the lowest supply growth rate. The ones that grow, whose central banks are the least inflationary. And on the other hand, the ones that whose supply is more inflationary, similar to copper, end up failing. You look at Lebanon, Venezuela, Zimbabwe. These are currencies whose supply increases very quickly. And therefore, their value collapses. Whereas the dollar, the Swiss franc, the euro, the British pound, the Japanese yen, they increase at a much lower rate in general than these terrible currencies. And that's why all over the world, you see people are looking to get more dollars and more of these harder currencies than the easier ones. So I think this analysis of the hardness of the money and the ease of money is pretty well supported empirically. So like you said, you're at least in part or in whole, consider yourself an Austrian economist. So you're perhaps a great person to ask about the basics. What is Austrian economics? What is Keynesian economics? How do you compare the two? What should people know? Some interesting, what is interesting, defining characteristics to you about these schools of thought? So Austrian economics, the way that I say it, Austrian economics is economics. We call it Austrian economics because economics has been hijacked by a bunch of frauds, really. People who are wrong, okay. Well, it's much worse than wrong, by people who are just essentially propagandists for inflation. Right. It's like your opinion, man. Right. Yeah, well, that's also like your opinion, man. Yeah, that's true. Well, I also talked to Paul Krugman on this podcast. So he's, the O speaks enough, but he's one of the people that is perhaps most harshly criticized by folks in Austrian economics perspective and vice versa, which is a fascinating tension. Yeah, he's done a great job as an actor who plays an economist on TV and the internet. So anyway, now tell me what you really think. No, but so the basics of what is Austrian economics? What is the, what perspective does it take on the world? Yeah, so I mean, Austrian economics really is the continuation of a tradition that it goes back to the ancient Greeks of studying economics. Historically, it's really just economics and that has evolved over time. And the establishment of the Austrian school per se came in 1871, 150 years ago, when Karl Menger, the father of the school, wrote a book called the Principles of Economics, and essentially invented marginal analysis, which is a big deal in economics. Marginal analysis is the idea that in economics, individuals carry out decisions at the margin. That it's, when you make a choice, you're not making it, for instance, if you're making a choice between what should I spend my money on, you're not making a choice whether it is, this thing is object A or B, which one is more valuable for me in general, which one is more valuable for me for the rest of my life. You're choosing about the next unit right now, at this point, at this stage. And if you analyze economic decision making at the margin, it makes a lot more sense and you can understand why people decide and make the decisions that they do. Whereas if you don't apply marginal analysis, things don't make sense. The key thing that marginal analysis helps us solve is what is called the water diamond paradox. So you will die without water. We all need water. And yet water is dirt cheap. Whereas diamonds are extremely superfluous, nobody needs them. Nobody's gonna live or die because they have a diamond. And yet they're extremely expensive. So why is it that as human beings, we pay maybe say a dollar a liter for water, whereas we pay thousands of dollars for a few grams of diamonds. Why is this the case? Do we value water less than diamond? The answer is no. But at the margin where we are right now, you live in a place where water is very abundant because cities are only built in places where water is abundant. And you're only making a choice about the next unit of water. And so water is extremely abundant and you're choosing about whether to spend the next unit of money on water. The valuation that you give to water, given that you have a lot of water at home, and that you live in a place that has abundant water, is pretty low to the marginal unit. But it's very high for water overall. So if I asked you, how much would you spend for water in general? How much would you pay for water for all of your life? It would be a lot higher than diamonds. If I told you you can only have water or diamonds for the rest of your life, you'd choose water, obviously. But nobody's ever had to make that choice. You only make your choices at the margin. So at the margin where we are, modern civilization, we have an abundance of water, that's why we have civilization, and diamonds are very rare and scarce. And people are only buying, you buy your first diamond when you're gonna get married, you give it to your wife, and that's gonna be the first few grams of diamond that she's ever gonna own. I'm giving my wife water. Smart move. You should definitely give her Bitcoin instead of diamonds. I tell my wife, I occasionally remind her of how many Bitcoin we could have had if I bought her Bitcoin with the price of the diamond ring. What's the downside of, by the way, diamonds from the analysis of gold and so on? Ah, that's a great question. Arguably, diamonds are a scam. Ah. Ha ha ha. Because they became popular as a thing in marriage after gold was banned, after gold ownership was banned in the US in the 1930s and in many places around the world. So before that, you'd give gold, and the reason you'd give gold in a dowry, in a wedding, is because it wasn't just that it's pretty and shiny, it's because it's money. So if you die, your wife can take the gold and she can live off of it. It's a demonstration that you're giving her something valuable. And that's because nobody can make a lot more gold that has the highest stock-to-flow ratio. But then they banned gold ownership, or they allowed people to only own very tiny quantities of gold. And that's when the diamond industry stepped in and marketed diamonds as the thing that you need to give. But the problem with it is, of course, that diamonds aren't like gold. They're not very hard to make more of. And the reason we have scarcity in diamonds is really artificial. There's effectively a monopoly of diamond producers. They restrict the supply, and it's a pretty dirty business. And the way that they do it is, all of the talk about blood diamonds is a way for them to ensure their monopoly. So if you're part of the monopoly of diamond producers, then it doesn't matter how many people get killed producing your diamonds. If you're out of the monopoly, then human rights organizations descend on you and call for shutting you down for selling blood diamonds. And they're also restricting the production of artificial diamonds. This is the other thing. You can make artificial diamond, you can't make artificial gold. So they restrict the production of artificial diamond, and they try and insist that you shouldn't take artificial diamonds, but they're indistinguishable from real diamonds. So it's an artificial scarcity, and I think there's gonna come a point at some point that this monopoly is gonna break, and a lot of people are gonna be left with, essentially, highly devalued jewelry. I'm gonna take this segment of the podcast, and when I'm getting married, I'm gonna send it, and then instead you're getting water or Bitcoin. Yes, water and Bitcoin is all you need. So marginal analysis, focusing on the margin, is the thing that allows you to most accurately capture human nature, the actual day-to-day decisions that we humans make. Yeah, that's really revolutionized economics. So 1870, and that was Menger's work. And then he had a student, Eugen Bomberg, who developed capital theory, and then he had a student, Ludwig von Mises, who is arguably the most important economist ever, and he developed a theory of money, and he wrote a book in 1912 called The Theory of Money and Credit. And then in the 40s, he wrote Human Action, which is a big treatise on economics. And I think this is the correct tradition of economics. And before World War I, this was just known as economics. And then after what happened in World War I, and I discussed this in detail in the fiat standard, is that the Bank of England essentially went off gold and tried to pass off their own credit as being as good as gold in order to finance the war. And incidentally here, this is part of the history that is not discussed often. This is presented as an innovation. Later on, they needed essentially a propaganda school that would justify what they did. And later on, it's presented as, oh, hey, we realized that gold was not good, and now look, we've built this thing that is better than gold, where now the government can just print money whenever it wants, and now gold money is not an issue anymore, which is extremely idiotic, because the whole point of money is that it's not easy to make. If it's easy to make, it's not money anymore. It's just destroying the entire function of money. And we've seen that happen extensively in the 20th century after countries went off the gold standard. So essentially, Keynesian economics is just inflation apologia. It's just propaganda to justify inflationism. And it's profoundly nonsensical. It's built on the idea that if you just make more money, you can stimulate economic production. And of course, this is very self-serving to the central banks and to the banks and to the governments who promote this nonsense. And this is also very pervasive. If you've had the misfortune of studying at a university over the last century, you were taught Keynesian garbage economics. You were taught that if there's a problem in the economy, the way to fix it is that the government prints money, the government lowers the interest rate, and then that leads to more economic production, which is completely nonsensical. So, so you're, again, for the listener, you're using strong words, and I'll push back just to find, to please devil's advocate to hopefully one day arrive at the truth. So just because it's in the interest of the central banks and the government, the interests and the models of Keynesian economics and the government are aligned doesn't mean they're wrong. So let's give them a chance. So the conventional wisdom, perhaps economics wisdom, is that inflation is good in moderation as it encourages spending, but too much is bad because it completely devalues, destroys people's savings. So a little bit of inflation is good to stimulate spending. And I mean, I suppose this is one of the things that's supported by Keynesian economics. Why is that wrong? This is basically the whole point of Keynesian economics, is to try and find an endless array of explanations to explain why inflation is a good thing. Well, it could, the chicken and the egg. So that's the cynical take. This is a propaganda machine to sell the government's narrative. The less cynical take is this a bunch of economists who are telling, who- Who figured out this thing, and it happens to be good for banks and governments. And just because it's good for them doesn't mean- And it justifies the existence of government. And your basic, I don't think it's your basic assumption, but a foundational principle of your thought is that a lot of government is not a good thing. Your first gut instinct, government bad. Like I mentioned, I live next door to Michael Malice, who probably beats you on the intensity and how quickly he says government bad. So, but there's a potential argument for government good. Some government is good, maybe a lot of government is good. Maybe we need a lot of centralized management for resource allocation and so on, because we humans specialize, we're too busy and so on. So there's an argument for that that exists. You probably disagree with any possible argument in that side. But anyway, so why is that idea of Keynesian economics wrong? I'm gonna focus for this on the money idea, the idea that a little bit of inflation is good. The idea here, I mean, the criticism is that without inflation, people wouldn't spend and then the economy would come to a grinding halt. And that's nonsensical because people spend not because they wanna keep this magical monster called the economy going. People spend because they need to consume because that's how we live, that's how we survive. You need to eat, you need shelter, you need clothes to keep you warm. And as technology advances, the capabilities of the things that we can do with our time increases, and so we wanna buy more things. So people buy things because people want to consume. There's a limitless desire to consume. There's no shortage of reasons for people to consume, whether it's food or Ferraris or private jets. People just always wanna buy more. Can I interrupt just really quick? What about the fear about the uncertainty of the future where they might want to buy things, but they're really afraid because it seems like there's a lot like a pandemic going on or whatever it is. So fear of uncertainty, can you have too much fear? Here's the thing, what I was saying is, I was making the point that we don't need to be motivated to consume. Like we have the insatiable desire to consume. Everybody would like to have more of all kinds of things. Everybody would like to have a bigger house. Well, not everybody, some people have a big enough house, but everybody would like a house. Everybody would like a car, jet, all kinds of things, electronics, machines. So we don't need a desire to consume. But of course, the limit on how much we consume is opportunity cost. Why don't you buy a Ferrari? Well, because that's really expensive and it would mean that, well, maybe you do have a Ferrari, but I mean, most people don't buy a Ferrari because it's too expensive, they can't afford it, they'd have to work too hard to get it. And if they do get it, it might mean that, they can't afford their house anymore. So we have to economize, that's a good thing. And we have to also think of the future. And so humans consume, that we don't need more motivation to consume. We have to deal with the economic reality of the things that limit us from consuming more. So what Keynesians present is that when there is a problem in the economy, like there was after World War I, the problem is always caused by the inflation. And what the Keynesian hucksters do is that they look at the inflation, at the consequences of inflation and blame it on people not spending enough. When people are doing the rational thing, the money is, so there was inflation, caused an unsustainable boom, it caused a recession, and now a lot of people lost their jobs and they don't have enough money to go out and spend frivolously. So they save for the future, the future is uncertain. That's a good thing, that's how you fix things. You begin the recovery by, well, you lost some wealth, so you spend less. Like if your business goes bust, if you lose your job, it's natural and smart that you stop spending money on the frivolous things that you used to spend. And you save it for the future, you invest in something else, you get a new job. And then once you've recovered, you start spending more. This is very sane and very good. And it's the way to recovery. But essentially the Keynesians have used this as a justification for more inflation. Because inflation is an addiction. Once the government gets down the path of spending money to solve its problems, then every problem looks like it can be solved by more inflation. And so this is where Keynesian economics comes in. And of course, the Keynesian economics is based on the work of Keynes, which came in the 1930s. And this is the key point. Like it's portrayed in the textbook as if it's just this scientific breakthrough. That somebody in the 1930s, this genius came about and realized that, oh, we don't actually need gold. We don't need hard money. We can actually just print all the money. And in reality, of course, it was just the very thin, flimsy, idiotic justification for what governments were already doing for 20 years. They'd already gone off the gold standard and they'd gone through 20 years in which they were lying to their population, telling their population, we're still on a gold standard, but there are problems caused by various random things. But don't worry, we're gonna be going back on the gold standard. 20 years later, after they went off the gold standard, they come up with this justification for why, oh, actually the gold standard was bad. And this is a really pernicious thing about it is the problems that were caused by us going off the gold standard were caused by the gold standard. And we're going to fix them by going off the gold standard even more. Just because government is lying and it's shady and it does these kinds of things doesn't mean Keynesian economics is wrong. So just, because I wanted to separate a few things you said. It could very well be very wrong and they could indeed be hucksters. All of these, such colorful language. I love you deeply for this, this is fun. Yeah, but I mean, it's like somebody like Krugman doesn't use this kind of language when discussing Austrians. It's just that when actors like him use it, it's presented as if it is legitimate because he's part of the major shows. So the case they make and the criticism Keynesians make of Austrian economics and the case they make for Keynesian economics is it's based on empirical evidence. So Austrian economists are pie in the sky, theorists about how human nature works and it's just all theory. And just like you said, Keynesian economics kind of sell it as a science, data-driven science. And so where's the data, bro? So one way of saying it is, how do you know if we get rid of inflation? How do you know if we get rid of central banks? If we push towards that direction, we will have a better world, a better functioning economy, better functioning markets, better functioning society. This is another inaccurate way in which they present the economics. They present it as if it's just theory and that the data doesn't matter, but that's not the case. What the Austrians say is that without guiding theory, data is mute, data is dumb, data can't say anything. So theory first and then you have to have models to provide context for interpretation of the data. Exactly, and it's a sign of just how little self-awareness they have that they think that they're just being led by the data when they're being led by Keynes' moronic theories. And they use the data to justify those theories and to stick by them. And in fact, they are the ones whose theories cannot be refuted because it's just government mandated religion. So according to Keynes' nonsense, so the way that the whole thing is, the way that they justify the inflationism is this, and I'm just using this to give an example of what you're talking about in terms of theory, the way they justify the inflationism, to tie it back to the original point, they justify, all right, we need money to spend, and then the level of spending in the economy is what determines the state of the economy. And I've taught macroeconomics at university level for a while, so I know this, I know Keynesian nonsense better than most Keynesians know Austrians, if not all of them, I guarantee you. So the way they see it is the level of spending in the economy is what determines the state of the economy. There's a level of output and there's a level of spending. So there's like the factories on the one side that are churning out goods, and those goods have a certain quantity and value, market value, and it's completely nonsensical, of course, because how can the value of the goods produced be different from the value of the spending? But let's put that aside for a second. So the amount of spending that happens in the economy determines the state of the economy. If the value of the production, which they call Y, is higher than the aggregate expenditure, so this is the production, and then the aggregate expenditure is lower, then we don't have enough spending to buy all the goods, and then that causes a recession, the factories start laying off workers, and then the laid off workers start spending less, and then that leads to aggregate expenditure dropping even further, and so it's a vicious cycle where the economy gets into recession, and the only way out is for Keynes' bankster buddies and government buddies to print a lot of money to give to themselves, and then that will. That's one interpretation. But to print more money to increase the expenditure, to match the supply. To match the level of output. Sounds pretty good to me, I'm sold. All right. Even though you're saying Huckster, so I just, you know, the way, I love you very much, but just for people who are listening, I think it's, I love the way you talk, and it's great, and keep doing it, but just for context, I don't know anything that involves human nature deserves this level of certainty. I, at least my position, is that we don't know what the hell we're doing on basically anything. Perhaps. And like there's a lot, like certainty can get us in trouble is my worry. I don't know much about economics. I don't even know financial systems, monetary systems, but I've just seen us get in trouble with human psychology. Certainty. Certainty of ideologies in general. You mentioned Marxism and so on. I came from the Soviet Union. There's a lot of people that are very certain throughout the history of the 20th century that communism is the utopia that humanity should strive for. So I'm nervous around certainty. I could be wrong, but you know, you're asking me for my opinion. Yes, yes. Sorry, so it's that little bit of a caveat. So to go back to the idea, then on the other hand, you have the level of, if the, the other situation is when the level of spending is higher than the amount of aggregate output. Yes. In that situation, you have too much spending, so therefore what ends up happening is inflation. So according to the Keynesian worldview, this is really important because this is a way that I'm gonna get to your point about empirical data and to show you why they're not correct. Yeah, they're not correct about what they say about empirical data. So then what this means is that there's a level of output and there's a level of aggregate expenditure. The aggregate expenditure can either be higher or lower than the output or equal to it. If it's higher, we get inflation. If it's lower, we get recessions. Okay? So is there any universe in this model? Is there any potential universe in which you can have both inflation and a recession? According to the Keynesian model, you can't, right? Because aggregate expenditure cannot be both higher and lower than output. So therefore, if you were truly being an empirical person, if you were looking at evidence and trying to be, trying to analyze data, you'd look at this and say, one example, you just need one example of high inflation and high unemployment to refute this entire model, right? And of course, the world is full of examples of high inflation and high unemployment. And that's what happened in the 19, and of course, they ignored it and when it happens in poor countries, because poor countries don't really matter. But then in the 1970s, that happened in the US and in the Western economies and the most advanced industrial economies. So historically, before then, you had all these Keynesian central bankers talking about this model and saying, well, aggregate expenditure is too low now and that's why we have unemployment, so we need to print more money. And then they print more money, inflation goes up, but also unemployment goes up, because this model is broken. That's not how the world works. That's not, the level of aggregate spending in the economy is not a lever with which you can control inflation and unemployment. So what would a scientist do? What would a non-Huckster do in this case? Admit the theory is wrong and find another way to reformulate it. Have the Keynesians done that? No, still the same garbage in the textbook that is being taught until today. So is it possible to have a non-Keynesian model or one that still supports moderate amount of inflation is good for the economy? I mean, since the 1970s, since this has happened, yeah. This is what basically most fiat economists, as I like to call them, essentially anybody at a university financed by governments, which is financed by central banks, which is financed by- I will talk about that. Yeah. The effect of fiat money on our life, as you write about in your book, fiat standard, one of them is education. I'm sure we'll disagree there too. Not smart enough to disagree, but I'll disagree anyway. So yeah, so a whole bunch of other models came up, but basically it's such an example of motivated reasoning. Anybody who's got a familiarity with the scientific method or who's got an engineering background who comes into economics immediately has a lot of red flags. And I remember when I used to teach macroeconomics, I used to teach introductory macroeconomics, and it's a course that would be taken by econ majors as well as engineers. A lot of engineers would take it as an elective. And every time I'd explain, and I would just teach the Keynesian basic stuff, and every time I'd explain it, there's always that smart engineering kid who just looks at me and says, sir, this doesn't make any sense because this and this and that. And I'm always like, you get it. Exactly, you're correct. Because if you have any kind of shred of scientific thinking, you see that this is all motivated reasoning. Like the answer is government needs to print money. And here's a whole bunch of models brought up by people for why government printing money is good. And the reason they're coming up to this conclusion is that you only get funded if you come up with this conclusion. If you come up with a conclusion that we need to shut down the central bank, you don't get funded by the central bank. You don't get published in the journals. You don't get a job at the prestigious universities. You don't get quoted by fiat publications like the New York Times and CNN. They don't invite you on as an expert. Well, that's a fundamental flaw with a lot of institutions we have today and throughout human history. Let me zoom out for just a second to the big question. What is economics in general? What's the goal? You said there's a bunch of models. Is any economist basically trying to throw a bunch of models about human behavior on the table and try to generalize it to the global scale so both dance between micro and macro somehow in order to determine public policy and explain the past, predict the future, prescribe policies that can control the future, those kinds of things? That's the big, basic, ridiculous question of what is economics. Economics is the study, the way the Austrians define it is the study of how humans make choices under the condition of scarcity. We begin with the starting point of economics is the fact that scarcity exists. And why does scarcity exist? Well, because it's easier to want things than it is to make them. It's much easier to want a Ferrari than it is to make one. And so because we have wants and we have limited means to meet those wants, we need to economize. It's a permanent marker of the human condition. We are always economizing at all times. And so how people make those decisions under the conditions of scarcity is what economists study. So to go back to your point on empiricism in Austrian school, so it isn't that the Austrians don't believe in data. On the contrary, it's that theory has to inform data. And in fact, if you think about it, as the example of the stagflation of the 1970 shows, if you have stagflation, that just completely refutes the Keynesian model. The Austrian way of thinking, which is think from first principles, understand how the world actually works, think about how humans act and understand that economics is really all about human action. So it's not about aggregates of goods. This is really the key distinction in terms of methodology. For the Keynesians, it's physics envy. They look at the market economy, that they could individuals in the market economy, and they think that they can understand the market economy by looking at aggregates. This is really the key point of what I think makes the certain branch of economics pseudoscientific is the introduction of aggregates. When you introduce those aggregates, how much production takes place, how many people are unemployed, the percentage of the inflation rate, and then you think that you can establish scientific relationship between those aggregates, it's purely physics envy. In physics, for instance, or in chemistry, you put, let's say, a container which contains a gas, and you have the ideal gas law, PV equals to nRT, calculate the pressure, calculate the volume, and then the temperature. If you have the pressure and the volume, you can calculate the temperature because you have the nRT constants. So there's a clear relationship that has been demonstrated in a laboratory, and that we can do it right now. We can measure it, and we can see it, and it continues to hold. And all it takes is one scientist to show that this relationship does not hold, to do an experiment that shows this does not hold, and it stops being a law of chemistry, and it's broken. Whereas in economics, what they've done is they've copied the superficial shape of this without any of the scientific rigor that was used to build it. There's no experiments. You can't experiment on economies. We don't have the ability to establish laws, and all the laws that we establish are just models that get people published and get them on the media to say, my model says we need to print more money, but it's never subject to actual scientific scrutiny. If it were, they would all be rejected in 15 minutes because the world is full of examples that contradict them. Was it possible to do scientific scrutiny when it's human nature, when you can't, when there's a nearly infinite number of variables and you can't control them? Is it possible? So what's the best thing you could possibly do? You do thought experiments. But the problem with thought experiments, you know, Freud thinks everybody wants to have sex with their mother. Is he right? That's the problem with Freud. I don't know, maybe he's right. Well, obviously, I'm joking on that front, but Freud is probably under the canes. Well, no, I think there's power to the thought experiment. Just like Einstein, you know, a lot of general relativity, special relativity, that's a thought experiment. It originates in a thought experiment. Now, is it true? You know, nice thing about physics, you can eventually have experimental validation. The downside of economics is you really can't have experimental, like definitive experimental scientific rigor of validation of a theory. So a thought experiment is just a thought experiment. Using your intuition, it's the power of reasoning together about human nature. And that's why economics cannot make the claims that physics can make. So with physics, you can predict that if you get this gas at this pressure, at this volume, the temperature will be that much. And you can make that prediction and test it a million times, and you'll always get the precisely correct answer. With economics, we can't make quantitative predictions. On Twitter, and even today, you're very certain about the statements you're making. Yeah, but I don't make quantitatively certain statements. That's the thing. In economics, we don't make quantitative predictions. We cannot do that because we don't have experiments. But we can understand how the world actually works with humility. This is really the key difference, that the Keynesians think they just wanna copy the methods of physics. And then that's just gonna give them the certainty of the results of physics, which is like me saying, I'm just gonna put a red blanket on my back and jump from the fourth floor because I'm Superman. Well, it's not the red blanket that's gonna make me Superman. There's a lot more to it. So humility manifests itself in economics as the belief in a free market, meaning like I can't centralize, I can't do centralized control on this thing. We're going to minimize the friction of the free exchange of goods. So Austrian economics puts priority in the market. Yes, and you could arrive at it through two paths. The more practical path, which most scientific minded people arrive at. I came from an engineering background. So I initially had this idea that what is lacking in economics is mathematization. We need to have better math models. We need to get all of those tools from engineering, apply them to economics, and then we'll be able to plan the world economy and make it work better. And then you start actually trying to solve problems, trying to actually calculate them. And you realize nobody can have that ability because the difference ultimately comes down to the fact we can't have experiments. And the reason we can't have experiments is that you can experiment on particles of a gas. You can experiment on human beings and entire economies. And because particles of a gas are just dumb matter. And so you kick matter in a certain way, you can calculate exactly how much it's going to fly. Human beings are much more complex. They have a will inside them. And this is really, this is the humility to understand that you are a human being and other people are also human being just like you. And that every person wakes up every morning and they have a million things in their mind, a million things they care about, a million things they wanna do. And you will never be able to make the decisions for somebody else, let alone for millions of other people. So this is one path by which you arrive at the conclusion that free markets are better because you realize that all of the people that think that they can centrally plan markets can't actually do that. And that there's really nothing scientific about them except essentially the rituals they ape of the scientific process. And the other path I think that makes you arrive at the Austrian perspective or the libertarian perspective I should say is simply the notion of individuals as having their own inalienable right to decide what they want to do with themselves. If you, I mean, the only way that you can give yourself the idea that you get to be planner is ultimately you think you're better than other people. You think your choice, your judgment overrides mine. And I don't think that's a defensible position. I think I'm in no position to want to force anybody ever. I will never want to force anybody to do anything they don't want. The Keynesian perspective, the central planning perspective is unlike physics, which is let's force a bunch of particles to sit in the lab so that we can study them. In economics, you're forcing people to do things. Let's stop these people from doing this job because it's bad for the economy and let's get them to do that job. Let's force them to pay this price. Let's tax them this much. Let's prevent them from using gold as money and force them to use our credit as money. So it has to rely on coercion. There's no central planning without coercion. And coercion is a crime in my opinion. There's no way that it is justifiable morally or ethically. So from a politics, from an ethical perspective, your view is the, I mean, perhaps the broadly speaking the libertarian view is coercion is unethical. Freedom is essential. What are the pros and cons of government intervention in the economy? So can you steal, man? Can you provide pros? You just kind of provided arguments against. Is there any arguments to be made for government intervention, for the role of government in society, speaking from a political or from an economics perspective? What is a positive role of government that you can imagine you can speak to? I can repeat many other cases, but I don't find any of them compelling for the reason that I mentioned, which is that ultimately they all rely on putting a gun to somebody's head and using the threat of force. So that's for me, it can never be justifiable. Whatever the ends are, if the means are violence and the threat of violence, then the ends aren't justified. Everything that's good, governments will use as an excuse to justify coercion. So what do you like? You like motherhood and apple pie. Well, government needs to ensure that motherhood works well and we need government central planning of birth. We need regulations on birth, for instance. We need regulations on how people give birth. We need to ban people from giving birth in traditional ways that have been tried for thousands of years. We need to force people to do things in the modern scientific way. Well, so what about things like that all of us use, so infrastructure, for example, or education, or well, the economy too, right? Can you make a case for the role of some large scale centralized systems, whether it's government or not, that do this kind of management? I guess perhaps you could say there's the economies of scale argument that some things must exist at a very large scale and therefore you would want political accountability of the people who manage them. This is kind of the argument that's given for infrastructure monopolies, for instance, roads or electricity. Let's say we live in a country, we need one power plant. The bigger the power plant, the better off we will all be. And there's a natural monopoly in the power plant business. So we're gonna have to have one power plant. And since it's only one power plant, then we can't just let anybody own it because then they're gonna make it too expensive. So we need to have the government own it so it can make it too expensive. And you don't find that case compelling? Not at all. I used to believe in it. I was pretty much a Keynesian when I first started my graduate studies at Columbia. And no, I don't find that compelling at all because I think all these examples that they mentioned of natural monopolies or economies of scale that can only fit at a scale of government, it's always, government bans people from opening power plants. And then there's only one power plant and they need to be in charge of it. But in reality, no, in reality, power plants can exist at all kinds of manners of scales of operation. And yes, of course, there are benefits to centralization in power plants in particular because there's efficiency in generation. One big power plant is more efficient than 10 equivalent smaller power plants. But there's also inefficiencies in centralization because the more centralized and the bigger the plant is, the further away a lot of the population is going to be. So you're gonna be losing a lot of the electricity and transmission. And you believe the free market is best in managing that dance, that balance of centralization. Exactly. And if we do end up in a situation where there's one power plant for an area, then if the markets ends up centralizing all of it into one power plant, I don't see that as a problem. There are places, there's a small town with only one barbershop. Is that a catastrophe? No, because they don't need two barbershops. Now, if that barbershop started to take advantage of people, started to charge higher price, well, then that's just an opportunity for others to step in and put them in their place. And that's the same thing with power plants. It's the same thing with everything. Ultimately, I think the key thing is this, from the central planning perspective, they'll present you the problem as it is, and they'll tell you, well, this is bad. So the fix, you know, and what we can do is better. So let's stop what's bad and do what is better. Two problems here. Usually the reason that the thing is bad in the first place is because it is a government monopoly, is because of government intervention. But the second thing is that this notion that we could just pass a law and fix what's wrong and make it better, it ignores the fundamental underlying reality, which is that what you're doing is you're offering only one way for this problem to be solved and making all other solutions practically illegal. You're taking taxpayer money, you're putting guns to people's heads to take their money, to use it to build, say, this one solution for a power plant, but you're preventing the free market process from providing us with other alternatives. Well, so you phrased it sort of from that perspective, but in theory, there is a feedback accountability mechanism for the solution that you propose and enforce by, as you're saying, placing a gun to people's head. You're accountable for that choice, for the quality of that solution by being voted out if the solution is actually bad. So it's just a different selection mechanism. And I think, I personally believe it is a selection mechanism that has worked in the past. It just often does not work nearly as well as a free market. And the question is, are there domains in which the free market gets itself into trouble? So this theoretical view is that that's the point of a free market, is it doesn't, if there's trouble, that's a signal and it will respond to that signal and it will respond appropriately to make you try to maximize happiness. The question is, is there a local optima that free markets get stuck in and need governments to represent the broader scale of the people to get outside of that? I think the fundamental problem here is the idea that there is a feedback mechanism when there is coercion in one party, when one party can employ coercion and the other one cannot. So in other words, I'm gonna put a gun to your head, I'm gonna take your money, and I'm gonna use it to buy more guns for me to put against your head. But somehow you're gonna put a paper in a box and that's going to deactivate my guns. Well, love requires a push and pull, a little bit of tension, a little spice in a relationship. I think. Yeah, I mean. A little gun to the head, and that's unconscious. Good luck to anybody who's gonna be dating you if you think putting a gun to people's head is comparable to a relationship. All jokes, but yes, I mean, people don't often think of it as government and the military as gun to the head, but that is sort of a libertarian perspective because ultimately when you, turtles all the way down and at the bottom there's guns. Yeah, so. At the bottom if you don't wanna pay, if you don't wanna, all right, I don't wanna be part of your power plant, I wanna get my own generator, I don't wanna do it, and I don't wanna pay for it, I go to jail, you can't not pay for it. That's really the asymmetry which the market doesn't have, which is why in my opinion, it's not as if I'm being stubborn and stuck on the idea that I want a market and that the government can't work. It's presented as if we're choosing between two different machines. Should we use an Apple or a PC? And I'm just constantly choosing one of them and saying that the other one can't work. It's not equivalent. It's not two machines. We're comparing between a machine and a gun to the head. And we're comparing between a situation in which anybody, anywhere is free to provide the service or the good, and anybody anywhere is free to buy it from them or reject to buy it from them. So anyone can build a power plant, anyone can succeed at it, anybody can fail at it, anybody can build it in a way that I can choose to take part in or not take part in. I can build my own. So we have a situation which 10 million people, let's say, they each can freely choose to provide the good or to buy the good. That cannot be considered an alternative on an equal footing to a situation where one person or one entity gets to decide for everybody and those who disagree go to jail. So the problem is that the alternative to governments is other large successful entities that have humans in them and human nature is such that there's corruption, manipulation, and so on. I think free market depends on the honest communication of information as widely as possible so that people can make great rational decisions. But sort of my fear is that like to propose is that in general, there's manipulation, whether it's government, whether it's companies, they're going to try to do propaganda, they're going to try to manipulate you, deceive you, shut down competition by playing games, human games of different kinds. And sometimes even meaning well, it's not like everybody thinks they're doing good and they're actually doing evil. So how do we prevent the worst of human nature coming out in a free market as well? By not giving the worst of human nature, a monopoly on violence in the institution of government. That little inkling of coercion, that little bit of asymmetry creates a gigantic like ripple effect of asymmetry in your view. Yes, and it ends up just being the place where corporations, individuals, free markets, they can't coerce without the resort to government. So you think about all the examples of corrupt corporations doing bad things, it's always because they have certain privileges from governments because as it exists, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, all of these giant corporations, they can't do anything to me without government. They can't take any of my money and they can't force me to buy their stuff. And so it doesn't matter to me. So if Coca-Cola is corrupted, that's a problem for Coca-Cola customers, that's a problem for Coca-Cola shareholders, that's a problem for anybody who deals with Coca-Cola. But as somebody who doesn't drink their stuff and isn't a shareholder, I have absolutely no interest in what happens. They could all go bust tomorrow and I don't care. I don't buy their product and I'm not a shareholder. So in this situation where you choose to voluntarily associate with people and you only give your money to people you want to voluntarily give the money to, so you either buy their product or invest in their production, in that situation, the only way that a company can get my money is if they build a product that I value or if they convince me that they are going to use it in a way that's profitable. And I may be wrong, I may invest in a company that fails or I may invest in a company that turns out to be fraudulent but that's my fault. It's my fault that I gave them my money and then it turned out to be scoundrels. But it's a totally different problem when we make it mandatory. It's violence, it's a crime to put a gun to my head and force me to subsidize companies and force me to come at certain conclusions. Do you find an interesting distinction, mentioned by Kamalis, between anarchism and libertarianism? So this particular use of violence, this like last resort, this policing force that libertarianism is okay with and anarchism is not okay with. So basically nation states that keep you safe from the worst of war. Yeah, I think to be more accurate, the distinction is between anarchism and minarchism. I think libertarianism is kind of a vague term that can encompass both. It means a lot of things, okay. Yeah, but- On the Karl Marx to Michael Malice spectrum, where do you- No, no, I'm full anarchist. You're full anarchist. Yeah, full anarchist. I mean, I don't find any justification for the use of force and I think recently perhaps, maybe I'm getting old, maybe I'm getting senile, maybe I'm getting wise, who knows, but I'm beginning to become more sympathetic to monarchy. So I'm an anarchist- Which, what? Monarchy. Which, what is that? Kings. Oh, monarchy. Yeah. And I think- Wait, can you, are you joking or not? No, I'm not joking. And I think, I mean, I think, you know, morally and intellectually, I'm an anarchist, but it's what the reality is we find ourselves in a world in which a lot of people are not. And the question is, what is the thing that is going to provide you with more freedom? And I think I'm recently coming around to the idea that monarchy might be the best way to provide people with the largest amount of freedom because to have a free society, you need a majority perhaps or a plurality of people to have a very strong understanding of libertarian ideas, to have a low time preference, to have a preference for the future. So you need a majority of the population to not decide to go and do something insane in order to continue to have a free society. You know, when a respiratory illness comes along, unfortunately, you know, the last couple of years showed that we, the vast majority of people are gonna freak out and lose their mind and support whatever their stupid TV tells them to support. And, you know, there's always a current thing and the media is always telling you that we need this current thing as an excuse for more and more government power and more and more government coercion. What's the role of kings and queens in that case of a monarchy? The situation- What's the role of a leader? I think there might be a case that, so as I was saying, you need a majority of the population to get together and decide, nope, whatever is the case, you know, the answer is voluntary. No matter how bad the disease is, it doesn't justify forcing people to stay home. You wanna stay home, stay home. You wanna wear a mask, take a vaccine, do whatever you want, but you can't force others to do that. So you need a majority of the people to strongly believe in this principle in order to get it in a democracy. Whereas in a monarchy, you just need the king to get it. And I think the reason kings are more likely to get it is that kings have a low time preference where they think about things for many generations, whereas in a democratic system, your president is likely only going to be there for four years or eight years or 10 years or five years or whatever it is. So the only way that, you know, all humans are self-interested. So the only way that your president in a democracy can provide for themselves is to maximize the amount of exploitation that they can do of the population during their brief stint. And then when he's out, you get a new one and then that one wants to start all over again. So every four years, you get a new robber. With monarchy, you sign up for a multi-generational subscription to the same family. And when they have the security of knowing that, you know, his great grandson is going to be taking money from your great grandson, suddenly his interest in yours align because they both want your great grandson to be prosperous and have enough money for his great grandson to take. So- But it's a monarchy with a tiny government. So anything required to really provide for a free market. So for maximizing individual freedom and the freedom of the economy. Yeah, and if I were king, which is highly unlikely to ever happen, but I think, you know, if you look historically, the dynasties that have succeeded at lasting for a long time, the key thing that they managed to do is to basically be libertarian. The key to being a good king is to just leave people alone, let them do whatever they want, don't rob them too much or rob them as little as possible, or maybe even don't rob them. And, you know, as a king, use your power only to punish people who aggress against others. Don't use your power to enrich yourself and enrich your friends. And that's really, like, if you look at smart kings, this is what they do, this is what they teach their children and the cycle of kingdoms is that, you know, the first king understands this, builds the empire, and the first couple of generations, they get this and the society is free, the economy is free. And because of that, you know, there's peace and prosperity, but then over time, the next generation of kids become a lot more high time preference. They haven't worked hard, they don't understand the meaning of hard work, so they become more likely to engage in destructive behavior. So raise taxes, pass laws that require people to do things, even when they're not hurting anybody. And that ends up basically eventually destroying the kingdom. Of course, power corrupts. Yeah. So you have to kind of create human institutions that prevent you as a king or any kind of leader from expanding, so going back on the original promises and the purposes of your position. Yeah. And then distracting, using tools of technology and communication to distract the populace while you expand the power. Exactly. All right. You wrote the fiat standard. I think we danced around it quite a bit, but I don't know if we actually defined it. So what is fiat money? What is the history of how it came to be? The fascinating history of the birth of the fiat monetary system is something that really only got uncovered in 2017. This is extremely, extremely interesting. In 1914, Britain joined World War I. And if you remember your history books, it's famous that this was called the August Bank Holiday. It was just going to be a few weeks where the British troops were gonna go and kick European ass and come back triumphant. And most European countries believed that. But then the war kept on dragging on. And of course, to finance the war, the government, this is what they used to do under the gold standard, governments would issue bonds. So you'd issue the bonds, people would buy the bonds, the money would be used to finance the military, and then the government would pay off the bond over the next five or 10 or 20 years. So for World War I, the British government, the British treasury issued bonds for financing the war. And this only came to light in 2017. Only a third of the bonds were actually subscribed. So people, British people, and this is perhaps the greatest thing that they've ever done, they decided fighting a war in Europe is just not my ideal way of investing my capital. It's a stupid thing. Why should I go and fight? Because the Austrians and the Germans and the Serbians are at each other's throats. I'd rather invest in something else. So they only bought a third of the bond issue. And then the astonishing thing that happened, which really set the tone for the next century of war, murder, Keynesianism, and theft and inflation, was that the Bank of England went and got two of the high-ranking officials in the Bank of England to buy the other remaining outstanding two-thirds of the bonds under their own name with a line of credit from the Bank of England. So it wasn't their own money, but they took money essentially from the Bank of England, bought two-thirds of the bonds that financed the war. And that was how England was able to keep going into the war. So that's essentially what they did is what we today know as quantitative easing. Back then, they just got, they printed money from the Bank of England, or credit, printed credit, gave it to those two employees. They bought the bonds. The government could fight the war. Sounds like it's a nice idea. And Keynes, of course, being a huckster himself, he himself said this was, he wrote a letter to the Bank of England that was uncovered recently, and he said, I congratulate you on this masterly manipulation. I quote it in the book. Masterly manipulation is what he called it, that they basically managed to buy the bonds using the money of the government. And of course, he never had an idea of how economics works because he never could ask the question of, okay, and then what? All right, so we just printed money to buy two-thirds of these government bonds. What's gonna happen next? What could go wrong? Not a question Keynesians ask themselves because their jobs depend on not thinking about what's going to go wrong. So a quick question about war. And as somebody who's been nonstop reading and thinking about the wars of the 20th century and thinking that most of those wars were unjust, unethical, and destructive, how would you finance a war? So- Ideally, you don't. No, but I mean, of course, there are sometimes, you wanna fight for self-defense. Yeah, you finance it, taxation or bonds. So the people really need to want a war, not just with their voices, their thoughts, their tweets, or their actual financial investment. And put up the bullets and the cost of the bullets and the bodies. So their life and their financial well-being. That's how it was under the gold standard mostly, because under the gold standard, the government couldn't print gold. And so they had a budget, they had a certain amount of gold. And that wasn't just, you know, that they couldn't infinitely increase it. They couldn't tax their population at will. And it's very difficult to take money from people. You know, you go knock on doors and search everybody's home, see where they're hiding their gold. It's very complicated. On the other hand, when you gave them paper money, which is what the case was in 1914, you could take their wealth just by printing the money. And that's what changed everything when it comes to war. That's why the 20th century was the century of total war. Because under the gold standard, governments fought until they ran out of their own gold. Under the fiat standard, with paper money, with credit money, governments fought until they ran out of liquid wealth in the hands of all of their citizens. So let's find flaws in this thinking, if there's any. Okay. There's a lot of pacifist type of thinking in World War II as Hitler was expanding and expanding. Hitler framed himself as a victim of the past, of history. He never attacked anybody. Everyone's always threatening to attack him. That's kind of the narrative. And he keeps expanding. He keeps, we're talking with this charisma, all the countries around him, into sort of embracing pacifism, stay out of the war until the war's on your doorstep. So France, just very suboptimal military strategy from the perspective of many European nations in response to Hitler. They were basically hoodwinked by his words. So then there's Churchill, Winston Churchill, who stepped up and says, perhaps irrationally, from some kind of economics perspective, saying we're not going to back down. We're going to fight Germany. And perhaps that step alone is one of the biggest reasons that Hitler failed in his expansion. That decision to fight back, how, what's the right way to do that? If you're Winston Churchill, what's the right way to do that? If you're, to fight back evil when violence is required. Now, you could argue that no war is just, but there is such a thing as a just war index. And a lot of people argue, if there is a just war in the 20th century, it's World War II. So how would you fund, if you were Britain, the war? Would you require Winston Churchill to convince the populace, like don't fight until they're fully convinced that this is the right thing to do? You can't just make a decision for them. You have to convince them fully so that they give their life and they give their money to support the war. Is that the right way to do it? I think so. And I think when you have a true threat and a true evil and a true force that people really do think is genuine, you don't need to convince them. I mean, when it's real, people will want to fight and people will want to pay to fight. And I mean, I think though on this particular example, I think the best way to fight Hitler is to have not fought World War I and not take out the Kaiser of Germany. If Britain hadn't, and Britain and the US had not gotten involved in World War I, which really is the senseless war about nothing, what was in it? And what was the goal from anybody fighting that war? If you look at it, after World War I, there were very minor adjustments in the borders of the countries that were participating. So Germany lost some land, Austria lost some land, but really it wasn't all that massive. And it wasn't like Britain wanted to take over Germany and move their people into Germany and kick the Germans out. So there was no real value from that war. And that's why the British people didn't want to take part in it. And that's why if they hadn't done this enormously criminal manipulation of printing money to buy the bonds, Britain wouldn't have gotten into the war. Germany would still be a kingdom and Hitler wouldn't rise. And yeah, there'd be a small changes in the borders of various European countries. I struggle to see how it could have been worse. I mean, I struggle to see who benefited from four years of carnage in Europe. And then this came at the height of civilization. Before that, the people of Europe had the golden era, 100th gold standard. They were trading with one another, they traveled and technology was advancing. And they did not expect this war to last this long. And my favorite story from World War I is the Christmas truce football game, which I mentioned in my book. British and German soldiers at the height of the conflict, they stopped on Christmas day and they played a football game against each other. I mean, this is not a real war where it's a war for survival. Britain didn't want to end Germany. Germany didn't want to end Britain. It was just kings who were emboldened by the fact that they had a printing press playing with the lives of the people. And take that away, take away the printing press, take away their ability to print money. I think we'd have had a much, much, much better 20th century. Yeah, the counterfactual history, Neil Ferguson is a historian who gets in quite a bit of trouble. Basically, well, he's a Brit, suggesting that if Britain stayed out of World War I, there would be no Hitler, there would be no World War II. Yep, I agree entirely. But fiat money. Yeah, so how fiat money was born. Yeah, let's get back to that. So they financed the war with that money. So what could go wrong? That's where we left off. Well, what could go wrong when you've just printed an enormous amount of credit and used it to buy bonds? What goes wrong is that the value of the currency is going to go down, or in other words, prices of things are gonna go up. So during the war, prices keep going up. And this is of course, it's gonna sound very familiar to victims of the 20th century. A government tells you it's because of the war, it's not our fault, it's because of the Germans, it's because of the foreigners, it's because of Putin, it's because of this, it's because of that. This has always been the case. There's always, war is a very good cover for inflation, which is caused by monetary phenomena. So then the war ends and inflation, prices have more than doubled over the past four years, over the four years of World War I, prices have more than doubled. And then the British economy is in bad trouble. Obviously, it's lost a lot of the labor force for four years that was out there fighting. Now those workers come back. You've got, prices are up. And so people are demanding that the government control prices and the government is trying to fix the problem of inflation by doing price controls, which is what they always do, which is catastrophic because it makes things worse. When you implement price controls, you, when you make, you know, when you say, all right, well, bread can't be sold for more than X price. Well, that's just preventing bread producers from producing a lot of bread. And that's just making the problem worse. If you let the price rise, the extra price, first of all, it makes people economize. So people will only buy what they need. And it provides the money for the bread producers to acquire the capital and the resources they need to produce more bread, which then brings the price of bread down. But price controls destroy that. And then they also implement wage controls. So you wanna also make sure that people have high wages. So you raise people's wages artificially, you lower prices artificially, and you cause an economic problem. And this is basically, you know, I use this historical example because it's the birth of fiat, because the Bank of England was the most important monetary system in the world at that time. And because it's the prototype that basically the entire planet copied over the last hundred years. We've had this same thing happen. The government prints money because of a stupid reason, because somebody in power decided this was worth destroying everybody's livelihood and savings for. And then the consequences come in, and then they start covering up with price controls, wage controls, and then that makes things worse. And then they, and of course, throughout all of that, they're promising that we're going to go, oh, and also the other thing that they did, which I mentioned in the chapter is, they stopped people from using physical gold and they confiscated the, well, they didn't confiscate it, but they took the physical gold and they gave people paper. So I call it the fiat white paper, you know, in Bitcoin we have the white paper. The fiat white paper was that the Bank of England announced to all of its banks and post offices, that from now on, you should not make payment in gold and you should take payment in gold and you should encourage all your customers to turn in all of their gold and give them paper instead. Is there an actual document? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Nice. Yeah, it was, this is all new stuff. Obviously nobody really likes to talk about this stuff because you know, they're fiat economists, so they don't want to talk about the original sin, but. Well, you should, you should like republish it as the fiat white paper or something like that. There's a fascinating book by a guy called John Osborne. So in the 1920s, I think his name was Montagu, he was the chief of the Bank of England. He commissioned one of his secretaries, John Osborne, to study what the bank did during World War I. And it was a study that was kept under wraps, confidential, in the Bank of England. Only released in 2017, almost a century later. And- What was special about 2017, by the way? It's a year. It's just, it was a year in which some of this information was released. Yeah, a bunch of people got into parts of the basements of the Bank of England and found this and published it. And now you can download it as a PDF and find all of the amazing details. So they confiscated the gold and they forced people to use the paper. And they promised people that as soon as the war is gonna be over, this is temporary, we're gonna be back to using gold. And of course, you know, if you told people in Britain, this is the real scam about fiat. If you told people in Britain in 1914, hey, we're gonna go off the gold standard because it's better. I mean, there might've been lynchings of the government officials because the British pound at that point, it had been the global currency of the whole world. And the fact that they'd managed, the Bank of England had kept the British pound at a fixed rate next to gold for, since Newton, you know, the exchange rate, the value of the British pound was set by Isaac Newton himself. He was the warden of the mint. And he made the pound specific amount of gold. And since then, up until World War I, it was 4.25 pounds per ounce of gold. I think I might be wrong, but I have it in the book. So he'd set that price. And it was a matter of national pride for people in England. You know, the sterling is as good as gold because for two centuries, it has been stuck to gold. There was the exception of the Napoleonic Wars, but for two centuries, mostly it was stuck to that. And so they went off that and then they couldn't go back because if they wanted to go back, they didn't have enough gold. They shipped their gold to the US to finance the war. And they had printed a whole bunch of money that was out there. So this begins the problem for England. And that begins the end of England as the world's superpower. And the way they tried to fight that was to get more and more countries around the world to establish central banks and have unhold British pounds. So they'd hold, you know, basically dumping their bags like just any other shit coin. And you just, if you get people to buy your shit coin, you know, that raises the value of your shit coin. So- Can you define shit coin? Shit coin is, in my definition of a shit coin is that it's any form of money where somebody can produce it. So soft money? Not necessarily, I guess. I think the difference, so there's easy money, but the shit coin is something that someone can produce at a rate that is different, at a cost that is different from the market cost. So gold, nobody can make gold except that they dig for it. And the cost of mining gold is generally in the range of the price of gold. Same is true for Bitcoin. So gold is not a shit coin. Gold is not a shit coin. The copper is. Copper. I'm not so sure. I wouldn't call copper a shit coin as much as it is easy money. But I think government currencies and other alt coins, I think are shit coins because somebody could click a button and make 10 times the supply. Would it be fair to say that this began with the will for war in World War I? So the march towards fiat began with a global desire for war in the 20th century. Did war start this or was war a result? It's difficult to say really. I think it goes both ways. I think you can't have permanent war without fiat. And I also think there's a case to be made that you can't really have fiat without war. So it's some kind of weird dynamical system with a chicken and egg situation and they build on top of each other. And there's a few individuals that figured out there's a way to manipulate this, to play this kind of game. And it escalates. And nothing gives you the ability to manipulate money quite like war. When you have a war, you can declare an emergency, you can call all the people who oppose you, traitors, you can get people to support you not because what you're doing is good but because you play on their sense of tribalism. In your book, you do cost-benefit analysis. So you do acknowledge or think about the pros of fiat currency. Can you do just that, look at the benefit and look at the cost just broadly at the highest level? So the way that I write the fiat standard is that I try and analyze it as an engineering system in the same way that I wrote the Bitcoin standard. So with the Bitcoin standard, I looked at Bitcoin from first principles and tried to explain how it works for a reader that doesn't really have much of a background in computer science, networks or economics. And I thought I'll do the same with the fiat. Let's just ignore the official stories and look at how this thing actually works. And I think it does have value in the fact that it, the reason that they were able to pull it off is because it was not possible for people who don't want to be part of it to use gold independently of governments. This is really the key thing. Gold is just very expensive to move around. And the fact that it is expensive to move around means that there's inevitably going to emerge institutions where it is centralized in physical location. And then these institutions trade liabilities for the gold. So really the gold standard intrinsically must involve credit as becoming part of the monetary system. It has to be the credit and because it gets centralized, it can easily be captured by the government. So to be fair, the benefits of the fiat system is that it saves us on the cost of moving gold around, which is pretty significant. Like generally, moving a bar of gold across the Atlantic is gonna cost somewhere between 0.1 to 1% of the cost of the gold bar. So you move it a hundred times back and forth between the Atlantic, you need to pay the whole gold bar, the cost of the whole gold bar to move it a hundred times across. Well, with fiat money, it's essentially government credit. And so it's just sending a message from one central bank to another and you can move it halfway around the world. Is there also something to be said about the cost in time? So you're saving the sort of, you're reducing the friction of the communication as well. Exactly. Or the transactions as well. Exactly, it's faster. How big is that benefit? Because wouldn't you argue that that potential is the thing that enables modern economy, both the speed and the low cost. So increasing the scale and the frequency, the speed of the transactions. Yeah, arguably it does help in that regard. However, it isn't as if you couldn't have fast transactions built on top of gold. So you could have gold being used for final settlement and you could have, you know, banks settling with one another, essentially using credit. Can you define settlement just for people who are outside of this world? Because we'll mention that word quite a bit probably. Good question. The way that it works is, let's say right now I'm gonna pay you $10 over PayPal or credit card. So it shows up in your PayPal or credit card within a few seconds that I've sent you the money and then that's yours. But, you know, it didn't also happen in those 10 seconds that my bank, which could be in another country, sent the money to your bank into your account. It's, there's a lot of infrastructure underneath that. So what actually happened is that I have an account with my bank and you have an account with your bank. And when the message is communicated from my app to yours, my bank crosses out the money and your bank credits you with the money. And then at the end of the day, week or month, you know, banks in the same city will settle with one another, banks in the same country will settle with one another, and banks from different countries will settle with one another. So they won't, you know, they won't move the $10 from my account to yours at the end of the day or week or month, they'll tally all of the money that was sent from one bank to the other and then just settle the difference. So it turns out at the end of the month, my bank had sent $15 million to your bank and your bank had sent $14 million to my bank. So they give them $1 million and that settles it, that finalizes the transaction. So final settlement really is like the, you can think about it as the infrastructure of the system. And then you can think of these things as being the higher layer levels. And you had a wonderful discussion about that with Michael Saylor. So the final settlement is like the moment when you paper an idea's connected physical reality. Yeah. Or to some representation of physical reality. Yeah, and under gold, everything was tethered to physical reality because there was a market commodity at the bottom of all of this. And nobody could print that market commodity. And so at the end of the month, if your bank made too many payments, if you made too many payments, there was a reckoning. If you were reckless, if you were insolvent, you went out of business. So there was no way to fool that. But then we moved to the fiat century and everything is credit. At the end of the day, the final layer is government credit. And so as long as you're friends with the government, basically you never go bankrupt. So all kinds of hucksters managed to find their way into getting into position where they don't get bankrupt. So in part two of the fiat standard called fiat life, you describe the effects of fiat money on a bunch of things like life, food, science, education. What is the most pernicious effect of fiat money on our world, on our life? So it's taking a step outside of the monetary system actually like how that affects our life from this book. I mean, there's a whole bunch of things and I won't be able to go over them and I highly recommend reading the book. But if I were to pick one, I would say it's the impact that it has on our time preference, on our valuation of the future. So remember when we started the discussion, I said that a key function of money is that it serves as a store of value. And the harder the money is, the better it is at providing us with a way for providing for our future. And so the harder the money is, the less we discount the future. We always discount the future compared to the present. So if I told you, I'm gonna give you something today versus giving it to you 10 years from now, the same thing, you would prefer to take it now because then you'd get to enjoy it over the next 10 years. So we always prefer the present to the future. There's always a discount on the future. And that discount is called time preference. The degree to which we prefer the present to the future is called our time preference. So the higher our time preference, the less we care about the future. And the process of civilization is the process of lowering our time preference, where we start caring more for the future, we start prioritizing the present less and less. So we start being able to not consume everything that we have and store it. And so money is essential for that. And under the gold standard, everyone in the world had the ability to provide for their future by simply using the same money that they use. You know, you would work a day and you would get paid in a gold coin, and you could take that gold coin and keep it safe for 10 years and know that at the end of those 10 years, that gold coin would buy you slightly more than what it bought you the day that you earned it. So anybody could provide for their future and anybody could have very high degree of certainty that whatever they're saving is going to be there when they want it in the future. Because the money supply was only increasing at one and a half percent, whereas the production of goods and services was increasing for most cases, for most periods at a higher rate than that. So you could buy more apples and oranges and houses and cars at the end of the 10 years than you could at the beginning of the 10 years. So everybody had a way of providing for the future. And with that, people lower their time preference. And that is reflected across all aspects of life. I think it's not just the economic thing. You see it in the savings rate, you know, the ability to deny yourself gratification today. I could take the money that I have and throw a giant party, buy a sports car, buy a yacht. And yet you decided, I'm not gonna do that, I'm gonna keep it so that tomorrow I can throw a bigger party or buy a better yacht or have a better life or give my children a better life. So all of human civilization really is the process of us lowering our time preference and finding harder monies that allow us to provide better for the future is how we really technologically we do that. I think of the hardness of money as being the control knob for our time preference. And you can see this reflected in the 20th century where we go from the money supply increases at around one and a half percent under gold to this current situation where over the last 60 years I ran the numbers on money supply and fiat. The global fiat supply has increased at around 14% per year. So we've done a 10X in the increase in the supply of money annually. And 14% is a weighted average. So if you take a basic numerical average for all fiat currencies, you get something like 30%. The average fiat currency increases by 30%. But if you value it by the volume of each currency so that you're not giving equal weight to the Venezuelan bolivar increasing at 500% a year and the dollar increasing at 8% a year, if you do it by value of the currencies so that you get the total supply of fiat, it's something like 14%. So- Unweighted is 30% you said? Yeah, 30%. It's insane. I'd like to see the worst ones, the people that are tracking the average up. Yeah. But 14% is still an incredibly high, high number. And so you're saying that, sorry, that's the average over the century or the past 100 years? Over the past 60 years, 1960s to 2020, we get World Bank data on that, pretty reliable data on World Bank and European Union, OECD data. I ran the numbers on that, weighted average, something like 14%. And what effect that has on time preference? The effect is now it's much, much, much harder for everybody to provide for their future. Everywhere in the world, it's much harder. So how do I get the equivalent of the old gold coin that I could just put under my mattress and expect it to be there 10 years from now? Well, gold itself isn't cutting it. Gold can't keep up with inflation. And the reason for that is that gold is not being used as a money anymore in that you can't send it internationally, you can't use it to settle trade internationally, which therefore means demand for it monetarily is limited. And so it's becoming more and more an industrial metal. And as a result of the fact that its value doesn't keep up with inflation, it becomes economical to use it in industry. So we're seeing gold become like silver in that it gets used in industry. So the stockpile declines. And so the stock to flow ratio declines as well. And it becomes more and more of an industrial metal. And it can't protect your wealth over time very well. So what do you do? Well, you could invest. And this is kind of the obvious answer that Keynesian will give you is, well, you just put your money in an investment. But investment is different from saving. Saving, the whole point of saving is that the thing is liquid and that the thing carries little uncertainty. You just held the gold coin and it just sat there. It did nothing. It didn't take risk. You knew that it was gonna be there in 10 years. Investment means you give the gold coin to somebody to go and do something with it. And it could work, it could not work. If it works, you get a positive return. You get more gold back. If it fails, you might not get any of your gold back. So taking on risk is something very different from saving. Saving is just a way of buying the future. Investing is taking on a risk and you could lose everything with it. So what ends up happening, and this is, the Keynesian objection I think is very wrong and bad because investment is a job in itself. To figure out what to do with your money in order to beat inflation is something that there are professionals out there on Wall Street that have PhDs in finance, that have enormous computers, and they have enormous staffs of PhDs and master's degrees and math nerds that are crunching numbers and figuring out how to allocate your portfolio so that you can beat inflation. And guess what? The majority of them don't beat inflation. The majority of them can't beat inflation. Not as measured by CPI, which is completely fraudulent, but if you remember- 14%. Yeah, that 14% or even the 7%. Like if you look at just the increase in the money supply, which I think is a much better metric, and this is what's reflected on the desirable goods. Like if you look at the price of real estate in Miami Beach, as Michael Saylor mentioned in your example, it goes up at around 6%, 7% per year on average over the last century. So that's, you know, if you wanna live in a nice area, that's what happening to real estate. If you wanna go to the good universities, that's what's going on. It's going up at a rate that's similar to the increase in the money supply. And you can beat CPI, but you know, CPI is designed so you can beat it, but you can't really beat the appreciation in the things that you actually want to buy, in the price of good food, the price of good real estate. So, and you know, most investment professionals fail at doing that. So what hope does a doctor or an engineer or a scientist or an athlete have in doing those things? Investment is hard and saving should be easy. Exactly. Saving is essential for us as a civilization. And what fiat did is it took that away from us. And then it forced everybody to become an investor or more accurately a gambler, because you're not just even, because the money itself is broken, because the money itself is constantly changing in value. Investing is becoming more of a crapshoot. I mean, value investing is completely underperforming compared to market analysis. You know, you listen to the Fed and you, that, you know, what matters to the price of individual companies is monetary policy much more than it is their own performance. So basically you need to be a junkie watching the Fed and following all of the world's central banks. And I need to learn macroeconomics and you need to learn what all the central banks are doing. And you need to understand how commodity markets work. And you need to understand how equity markets work and bond markets and real estate markets. You need to do all of those things just in order to be able to save and earn and keep the money that you've already earned. That's the criminal thing about it. Like I've already earned that money being a doctor, being a dentist, being an athlete, being an engineer. I built a house for somebody and I got that money. And all I wanna do is just make sure that I can have it 10 years from now. The only way to do so is to become a crappy engineer because you have to spend half your time not doing engineering. And instead spend half of that time learning about Japanese central bank monetary policy and commodity markets and what's gonna happen to copper and what's gonna happen to oil and what's happening in the wars and what's happening with foreign policy and Russia and the US and all of those things. Under the gold standard, you didn't care about any of that stuff. Your gold coin worked regardless of all of those things. So what this means is the future, so first of all, we have all of the problems I mentioned, but also it means that the future becomes much more uncertain. So you're far less likely to provide for yourself 10 years from now, far less likely to find an easy way to give yourself value 10 years from now. And so you become more short termist. And that is reflected economically in a lower savings rate and we see savings rates decline, but it is also reflected in all manners of decision-making. And I think if you really wanna see what it is, take a look at a society that goes through hyperinflation and look at what happens there. How do people change under hyperinflation and compare that to essentially what we see in the 20th century all over under, not hyperinflation, but under low inflation, 10, 15% that you see across the board most of the time is just slow motion hyperinflation. So what happens in hyperinflation? Everybody gets their paychecks, they run straight to the supermarket, they spend all of their money. Nobody thinks about savings, nobody thinks about the future. Survival until the end of this month is highly uncertain. How likely are you to be planning for what you're going to be doing five years from now? Very unlikely, but also it's reflected not just economically, it's also reflected in all aspects of morality and all the way in which we deal with each other as human beings. When your survival is precarious, how much are you invested in the notion of being a good citizen, on caring about your reputation, on caring about not getting caught in a crime? All of these things become harder to value. So people start committing crime, people start caring less and less about the future. And we see it reflected in everything. And I argue, you see it reflected in architecture. We used to build houses in the 19th century that last until today. And then in the 20th century, we build essentially disposable cardboard boxes that get scrapped in 20 years. So what can you say about potential positive effects of lower time preferences? So, I mean, it's a balance. Like, basically, you're talking about an average kind of time preference, but there's some things in life where low time preference could be a negative thing. So like, if I want to take on risk, not for investment, or a kind of investment, but say I want to start a business, I want to take something crazy, take a leap into the unknown, be an entrepreneur. What can you say about that kind of leap? Taking on debt. What's the value of that within the current system? What's the right approach to that within the current system? What's the right approach overall from an economics perspective? So it's not saving for the future. It's doing something wild, taking the money from your mattress, taking on debt, and having a dream in your heart that you somehow just want to do. Maybe it's not the wisest investment decision, but it's something, you know, it's being human. It's taking a leap into the unknown, because something in your heart says to do it. I think you're more likely to be taking the leap in the unknown when you have a little bit of gold in the mattress than when you don't. I think this is the thing. Like, if you look at the late 19th century, and I discussed this in the Bitcoin Standard, that was the, arguably, the most innovative period in human history. You know, there's qualitative evidence. You know, look at the world around you today. Pretty much everything that we use was invented in that period. The car, the airplane, the telegraph, the telephone, the camera. Pretty much modern life as late 19th century. You know, the period between 1870 and 1914, because the whole world was practically on a gold standard. The whole world was using the same money, and the whole world could save in the same currency. That meant that a bicycle shop owner, two bicycle shop owning brothers in North Carolina could go and try and fly, even as all the scientific experts in 1903 were confirming that the possibility of flight has been debunked as unscientific. You know, Lord Kelvin said, not in a million years we're going to be flying. Thomas Edison said it's never gonna happen. No, I think it was Edison who said a million years, but Kelvin also said it's never gonna happen. The New York Times said it's never gonna happen the same month in which the Wright brothers did it. And they continued to deny that it was gonna happen even two years after they did it. But that's, why could they do that? Because they had savings in gold. They had the security with something that you know is gonna be there. And then you can take a risk with the stuff that is extra. You know, I have say three years expenditures in gold under my mattress. And I know that I could take a risk with everything else because whatever bad things happen with all of my dreams, like even, you know, flying, think about how insane that is. I still can go back to the three years of gold that I have saved. It's still okay to take on debt, given the stuff, the gold under the mattress? Well, this is the thing, under the gold standard, the way that people finance things was predominantly with capital, with equity. So you would, because you had gold savings, I had gold savings, everybody had gold savings. When you wanted to start the business, you could use your own savings or somebody else's savings. So you didn't need to get into debt. Well, you could get equity from others and you could also get debt from others. So there was- But it's directly mapped to physical reality. Yeah, it's directly mapped to economic reality in that there's a hard money out there that you know what you're spending money. You know, you wanna build your airplane factory. You need to get actual resources. So you get actual gold, either yours or somebody else's. You borrow it or you give them equity, but there's real resources. Now, what happened with the fiat system, and this is the first part of the book where I'd look at it from an engineering kind of perspective is essentially, and I think this is like the breakthrough inside of the book, what fiat does is that it replaces gold mining with credit creation. The way that we make fiat money, the way that fiat is mined into existence is through credit creation. Most people think of fiat money as being something that happens when government prints money, and we still use the term government's printing money, but the vast majority of fiat is not physical. And in fact, fiat is not created when it is printed physically. It's created when it is lent. So when you go to a bank to get a $1 million loan to buy a house, that bank is not gonna give you a million dollars from their own money or from their depositors' money. They're gonna make a fresh new million dollars. When you walk out of that bank, the money supply has increased by $1 million to finance your home. So what fiat does is, I mean, it was basically born out of government credit and the credit of banks that are backed by the central bank and the government. So if you're part of the institutions that are allowed fiat privilege, where you can just issue loans backed by the central bank, backed by the currency, you are effectively creating new currency, new money every time you issue the loan. That's fiat mining, is credit creation. I love it. So can you say something, I mean, you can't really have credit without a demand for credit. You can't really have an increase in supply without a demand for it. Is there any value you place in the humans wanting it? Basically, people wanting to do something with that credit, wanting to take big leaps, big risks, big entrepreneurial decisions. So is all credit bad? No, I think what's bad is, anything in my opinion, anything that is consensual, I wanna borrow money from you and we agree the terms, I can't object to that. As long as you and I both agree, I can't object to that. But in the case of the fiat system, it's not just you and the bank who come to an agreement. Everybody who uses the currency is forced to be part of that agreement because if you default, effectively what's protecting the bank from you is the fact that the government can just print a bunch of money and make the bank hold. So effectively- Interesting. So that little agreement between the bank and you is actually an agreement between the bank, you, and the entire populace that's using the currency. Exactly. They're forced to provide the safety net for you and me to go and make that loan. And that safety net is the devaluation of the currency. That's how the whole thing actually works. So this is why I wrote the Bitcoin standard, explaining Bitcoin, and then basically the takeaway message of the Bitcoin standard is you need to stack as much Bitcoin as you can because this is the best money that has ever been invented. And we'll talk about that, why Bitcoin is the hardest money. But with fiat, the conclusion of the fiat standard, and again, this is not financial advice, I'm a lowly academic. You shouldn't listen to me on issues of money, but I think theoretically and intellectually, the conclusion of the fiat system is you need to be short fiat as much as you can. That's the smart winning move. So human wisdom over thousands of years is to save, try and not borrow as much as you can, try and accumulate as much savings as you can. That's reversed under fiat. If you're saving money, you're just subsidizing everybody else taking on loans. If you're taking on loans, you're benefiting from all the people that are borrowing. So the winning move under the fiat system, and this is what rich people do, is you borrow. Rich people under the fiat monetary system, they don't hold assets. There isn't, if you're worth a billion dollars today, you don't have a billion dollars in a checking account. You've got maybe 100,000, a million, a five million or something like that. A tiny fraction of your money is held in cash. The majority is going to be held in all kinds of other hard assets, and you're gonna be borrowing. The richest people in the world are the biggest borrowers in the world. The most powerful entities in the world, the governments, are the biggest borrowers in the world. And that's how they are the richest and the most powerful, because every time you're borrowing, you're giving the bank an excuse to print new money. So you're devaluing everybody else's money, and you're getting a bit of the cut. If you were going to buy a house with your savings, you're accumulating the savings and they're losing value. And if I were to go to buy the same house with credit, I'm getting the bank to print money for me. So obviously they can cut me in on that deal. And that's why it's much cheaper for everybody to buy with credit. That's why everybody buys everything on credit. So when we look at the global monetary system, the thing you wanna do as a government is be the sexiest currency out there. So the main currency, like the dollar currently is, is the one that has the most power in that kind of context. So if you were to try to summarize what is the global monetary system as it is today, is a bunch of fiat currencies battling for position, for use outside their nation, and in so doing trying to gain power in the geopolitical sense. Is that, if we just zoom out, what is the global monetary system? Like what is it currently, so outside the United States, the whole thing? Yeah, you could say that, but I think it's more realistic looking at how it has actually evolved over the past few decades. It's really a dollar system. It's not a system of currencies buying with one another. It's a dollar system, and all other currencies are just basically, I like to call them dollar plus country risk. So each- But it always returns home to the dollar. Yeah, there is no competition. There is no second best, as Michael Saylor would say. And money is like that. Gold was a winner take all by the end of the 19th century. The global monetary market is effectively a winner take all for the dollar. And if we get it to Bitcoin, you'll know I also think digital currencies are also going to be a winner take all situation. So money wants to be won. In fact, there is no such thing as multiple currencies. Multiple currencies is just a step back to barter. Money is won. If you go back to a system of several currencies, you're just reinventing barter. So in the case of the dollar system, the global dollar system is built around the dollar because all central banks have dollar reserves and because all central banks use the dollar's clearing mechanisms. So that's why you're basically playing in the dollar system. This seems to have changed over the last couple of months with the sanctions on Russia and the confiscation of Russian reserves. It remains to be seen what that's going to do and how that's going to change. But it is looking like, you know, this dollar system is clearly unsustainable. It's not sustainable for the US. It's not sustainable for anybody. Speaking of which, so you do an amazing podcast called the Bitcoin Standard Podcast. So episode 108 of that podcast is about the very thing you just mentioned. And allow me please to read the description of that and then ask you a couple questions about your thoughts in general. The description reads, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US confiscated the Russian central bank's significant monetary reserves and banned some Russian banks from the SWIFT network. Serious questions are being asked about the survival of the post-war dollar based world monetary order. Will Russia, China, and other countries actually build an alternative international settlement system after years of threatening to do so? Will global central banks stop accumulating US treasury bonds and replace them with gold and commodities? Will we witness the birth of a new commodity gold-based monetary order? In this seminar, we use the insights from the Bitcoin Standard and the fiat standard on temporal and spatial salability to explain why reports of the death of the dollar and the emergence of a new gold standard may be exaggerated. So I would love to get your analysis on this situation. What are the fundamentals of it? What is SWIFT? What are the possible future evolutions of the global monetary system? Yeah, so SWIFT is the network that the US Federal Reserve uses for moving money around the world. So basically the US government can sanction you off of SWIFT as they've done with Russian banks, as they've done with Iran, and as they've done with Afghanistan. So effectively, I mean, this is really the catastrophe of the current monetary system is that in order to be able to trade as a member, as a citizen of your country, you need your monopoly local central bank to be on good terms with the US government so that they would let them operate it. And this is really like on top of the aspect of the hardness of money, this is the other really powerful thing about Bitcoin, which is that it's just purely a technological thing. It doesn't matter if you're Russian, if you're Iranian, if you're American, if you're Chinese, it's a technology. And so it's like a spoon or a knife or a car, you operate it properly and it works. And so with Bitcoin, it's the same thing. It doesn't care about your passport. If you have the private key, you click send and the money goes, well, it doesn't really go, but effectively it does go anywhere it wants and the money can move without having to abide by political situations. And the point here is not to bash US foreign policy much as that might be deserved. I'm just going to discuss it from a kind of technical perspective. It has to be a political system with fiat because ultimately it relies on credit. And then the government is the one that has the guns and the government is going to decide who gets to pay their loans anyway. And the government's going to have to make its own rules about who gets to play and who doesn't. And so it has to be political as this kind of fiat system. And when I wrote the Bitcoin standard, initially I used to be much more of a gold bug. And in my mind, gold bugs have spent the last 50 years saying the global monetary system is gonna collapse next week and we're gonna go back to a gold standard. And writing the fiat standard gave me a very good appreciation for why this hasn't happened and why it's not very likely to happen. I think the reason is, as I said earlier, it's just gold is very expensive to move around and perhaps more importantly, it's very expensive to verify. That's really the problem with it. It's very expensive to verify that the gold that you're receiving is original gold. So the only way to do this properly is to melt the gold bars down and recast them, which is pretty expensive. So we have this situation now where Russia, which is one of the biggest economies in the world, has been kicked off to varying degrees off of the global monetary system and the US has confiscated their reserves. I don't have political opinions about the war. It's not something I'm very familiar with. It's outside of my area of expertise. I'm just analyzing the monetary aspects of it. It is, on the one hand, whether you think the war is justified or the Sanxsus are justified is not something I can opine on, but the implication of this is that effectively, the US might be shooting itself in the foot because it's telling everybody in the world, your money in our system is not really your money. It's just a token to play in our arcade. At any point in time, if you misbehave, we kick you away out of the arcade and we take your tokens. And so, I mean, this is something that China, Russia, Iran, and many countries have made a lot of noise about over the past decades. It got real this year, but it's been decades of China, Iran, and Russia, to some extent, saying that we wanna build an alternative to the US dollar-based system. And yet they haven't. And I think there's very good reasons they haven't. And the reason is, what do you do with it based on? How do you build it? So you can do a credit-based system based on, but then who's going to be the big boss? Is it gonna be China, is it gonna be Russia, is it gonna be Iran, is it gonna be India? None of these countries wants to be, they don't wanna jump out of the US-based system to get into somebody else's base system. So China doesn't wanna use a Russian system. Russia doesn't wanna use a Chinese system. And so therefore, you can't use their own central banks' currencies. Don't you think they have enough leverage, India, China, Russia, combined with several other nations, have enough leverage and incentive to create their own system? So any one player, yes, but if they collaborate. Yeah, but then, okay, so what are you basing it on? Who's going to be the boss? Who's going to be the one who can- In this case, China, right? Because China is becoming increasingly an economic power in the world that's hard to deny. Yes, it's true. And it's the most likely scenario, perhaps, if we were to witness something like this, is going to be a Chinese-based system. Is it possible to have a split in what is the driving currency of the world? It's possible, but I don't think it's sustainable. Again, money wants to be won. And that's the kind of thing that I argue in that seminar. So we could see this emerge based around the yuan. And likely, I mean, Russia is obviously going to hurt economically from what happened, from the confiscation of the reserves and from the sanctions. So it's not going to be in a position, and of course, because it's outside of the US-based system, it's not in the strongest negotiating position with the Chinese. So the Chinese might be able to get them to join their yuan-based system. But I don't think that's sustainable in the long run because these governments can issue their laws and make their designs and then make their monetary systems. But ultimately, there are billions of Chinese people and billions of dollar-based people, and they're going to want to trade with one another. And the power to want to trade with one another is too strong. We can't just split the world economy into two monetary systems that don't trade with one another. So then they're going to want to trade with one another. Or the dark possibility is it, the inability to trade, as opposed to being a forcing function for trade, it become a forcing function for conflict in cyberspace and potentially hot war. Yes, this is the scary part of it. And this is basically how World War II happened. Because there's an old historian who used to say when, I think his name is Otto Mallory, and I quote him in the Bitcoin Standard, if goods don't cross borders, then bombs will. If people trade with one another, they have an incentive for each other's well-being, and then they have less of an incentive to fight. And it was the death of global trade in the 1930s because of the failure of the fiat system that brought about the rise of the populism and the rise of all those leaders that hated each other and helped finance the war and bring it about. So that is the scary possibility. And of course, you can't discount that with all of the escalation that you see, that is a possibility that it could turn into a real war. But then even so, I think ultimately, you can't fight wars forever. It's gonna end at some point. And we're gonna be back at square one, or well, not square one, we're gonna be back at the same dilemma of who's going to have the global monetary system. And so one alternative is that what the Chinese and the Russians could do is they could base it on a commodity. So a lot of people are now saying, well, they're gonna base it on copper and corn and agricultural commodities. And that's the analysis of saleability that we discuss in the Bitcoin standard and the fiat standard. I don't think that's workable. If you end up basing the monetary system on copper, as we said earlier, doesn't matter how many governments say that we're gonna make a new monetary system based on copper grains and nickel and iron and so on, doesn't matter. You're gonna have to stockpile those things in order to make a market in them. And then if you stockpile those things, you're just raising their value, inviting the producers to make more, flood the market. I hope they don't try this because it's going to be a devastating, devastating impact on the world economy. You're gonna have central banks bidding up the price of essential commodities that people need for real uses in order to back their currencies with them. And then just incentivizing the producers to make more and more and more of it, and then bringing the price back down. So it's gonna be a very expensive mistake where we raise the price of copper, destroy a lot of industries dependent on copper. And it's not just copper, but also food. And then increase the supply beyond what we need. And the end result is copper miners make out well, governments go broke, and we end up with a lot of rust and copper in government warehouses. That's why I don't think it works for the, to use commodities that are not monetary commodities. Then the question is maybe gold. Can we go back on another gold standard? And I mean, Russia seems to have done that. I'm not so sure. It's very difficult to get reliable information. I'm trying to look into this more. But they seem to have said that they're fixing the price of gold in rubles. So they will buy and sell gold at a fixed ruble rate, which effectively means you're on a gold standard. Now I'm not sure how much, how serious this is, how they've managed to stick to it, but it seems to have stabilized the ruble, and in fact brought it back to its pre-war level, which I found absolutely astonishing, considering all the sanctions going on. But in the short run, it's obviously much better than having your currency pegged to nothing. But in the long run, I also don't think gold is gonna cut it in the 21st century. Do you think there's any chance they go full gangster move and go into the digital space on the blockchain, go with Bitcoin? I think, you know, the point of this discussion is that, you know, we run through all these other options, you know, a Chinese-based system, why it probably won't work, a commodity-based system, why it won't work, and a gold-based system, why it won't work. I think they might have to learn this the wrong way, I mean, the hard way. But eventually, I don't see them doing it now, but eventually I think the winning move is going to be to go on a Bitcoin-based monetary system. Well, I don't know if everything always has to be the hard way. I'd love it not to be, but I mean, it doesn't look like there is any kind of desire in China or in Russia to switch to a Bitcoin-based system. To take the leap to Bitcoin. So unfortunately, I think we're gonna go through a few years, maybe many years of learning the lesson the hard way, of trying to accumulate these commodities and seeing the limitations that make them unsuitable as money today. One of the things I'm really concerned about is the tension, the amount, the increasing amount of hate in the world. Yes. And the increasing amount of power centers in the world between which hate is making a regular appearance. And because the weapons of war are becoming more and more powerful as they have been in the past many decades, I'm really concerned about nuclear war. So let us see if Bitcoin can fix this. Yes, Bitcoin fixes all of this. The first rule of Bitcoin is, if it's a problem, Bitcoin fixes it. All right, well I have some personal questions for Bitcoin then, because I have some, my life is pretty fucked up, so I'll have to try to see. A quick pause for bathroom break, Ian. Sure. Let's return to the basics. What is Bitcoin? We started with what is money, what is Bitcoin? We talked about hard money, inflation, fiat, the history of money, the history of war in the 20th century, and that takes us into the 21st century. What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a software, and it's a distributed software to operate a peer-to-peer network between members who are all equal on the network, they're all peers. And what this software does is that it allows you to operate a payment network between those peers, and that payment network has its own currency. And that seems like just a simple software game, but the reason this is such a big deal is, I believe Bitcoin is the most advanced form of money ever invented. And the reason for that comes from two properties that this network has. The first one is that the currency is the hardest money ever invented. It's the money whose supply is the most resistant to inflation. It's the first monetary asset that we've ever invented that is guaranteed to be fixed in its supply that cannot be increased beyond a certain number. So there's only ever gonna be 21 million Bitcoins. And that's a qualitative leap forward in our technologies of money. All of our monies leak essentially, because people can always make more and more and more of them. The best money is the one that leaks the least, which is gold, because it only leaks 1.5%. In other words, your share of the gold stock is diluted by 1.5% every year. Ideally, you'd like it to be zero. Bitcoin is currently at around 1.8%, headed towards zero. So it's the first money that we've ever had that goes to zero in terms of terminal supply. So there'll never be more than 21 million Bitcoin. And I think that's a huge deal because, as I said earlier, money is always whatever is the hardest to make, and now Bitcoin is the hardest thing to make. And then the second property, which is extremely important as well, is the fact that it operates without the need to trust in anybody. It doesn't have a party that is in charge of it. It doesn't have a central authority that can, you know, as I said, it's peer-to-peer. So it only has users. It doesn't have any admins. There's no authority in charge of Bitcoin that can take your Bitcoin, that can stop you from using Bitcoin, that can change the rules of Bitcoin. They can't make more of it. So it's fixed. It's available for anybody in the world. It's the hardest money ever invented. And it is absolutely, I think, an enormously, enormously significant invention because if you read the fiat standard and the Bitcoin standard as well, you'll see my perspective for why I think a very large number of problems in the world are caused by easy money, are caused by inflation, and caused by government having access to essentially an infinite recourse to people's wealth. And I think Bitcoin fixes this because it allows us to have money that has the salability of gold across time, meaning it holds its value across time like gold, but much better than gold. But also it is similar to fiat in that fiat can travel quickly, but Bitcoin can travel even faster than fiat. So it combines gold's salability across time with fiat's salability across space in one immutable package that nobody can change and nobody can control. Can you define the word salability? Salability is the essential property of money. It's the ability of a good to be sold easily on the market, specifically to be sold without much loss in its value. So houses are great for living in, but they're not very salable. If you wanna sell a house, you can't just click a button and sell a house and have a giant market of people buying houses from you. You need to find somebody who wants the exact house that you have with the exact specifications that you have. And because houses are not identical, there's no liquid giant market for people to just buy and sell identical houses from. So gold, for instance, has a good salability as money because it's a liquid good, it's uniform, and people are always buying it. Fiat dollars have great salability because everybody's always buying and exchanging dollars for other goods. So if you have a hundred dollar bill, you can easily get rid of it and you'll get a hundred dollars worth of stuff for it. If you have a hundred dollars worth of stuff, it's harder to get rid of it. If you have a hundred dollar worth of phone, it's not as easy to spend it as a hundred dollar bill. That's salability. What do you mean that Bitcoin, I understand that Bitcoin has the salability of gold across time. Better even, yeah. Better, yes, like an order or whatever. And then it has the salability of fiat across space. What does that mean? So if you remember when you asked me what is the advantage of fiat, what is the advantage it offers us, it's cheaper to move fiat across space than it is to move gold. With the current fiat monetary system, for all of its flaws, you can send money, I could send money from my bank account in the US to a bank account in China in a couple of days, or in Britain, in France, in a day or two, which is much faster than you could do with gold and much cheaper than you could do with gold. But in reality with fiat, the reason Bitcoin improves on that is that with Bitcoin, you're actually selling, you're sending final settlement in a couple of hours. So you send the Bitcoin transaction, you get six confirmations in an hour, you get about 12 confirmations in two hours on average. With 12 confirmations, you're pretty, definitely, clearly safe on this. So within a couple of hours, you could send a billion dollars across the ocean and have final settlement on them. It's not just that you've sent a credit obligation that's gonna need weeks and months to settle, which is the case with fiat. So it is faster than fiat, effectively. So it's harder than gold and faster than fiat. That's a good way of putting it. One other aspect of Bitcoin, I have to ask, to me on a human level, it's fascinating, is it was founded by Satoshi Nakamoto, an anonymous founder. There's no leader. So that's another aspect of the decentralization, it's leaderless. Yeah. So unfortunately, it's not a monarchy. Fortunately. Or fortunately, yes. Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, do you think? And first of all, is it you? It definitely is not me. I don't know who it is. If it was, would you tell me? It's a trick question. I know, trick question. But I mean, everybody who knows me knows I can't read a code. So you would say that even if you could. But do you think it's one person? Do you think it's multiple people? Is it interesting to you? Do you think it's fundamental to the coin itself to not the coin, the entirety of the concept that it's founders and anonymous? And how much guts do you think it takes if it's one person to just walk away from so much money? I've considered all these questions many times. It's very hard to formulate a definitive answer to all of them. I don't know who it is, and I don't know why he or them or she are not spending the coins that they most likely have. I think what really matters in Bitcoin about Satoshi is the fact that he's not there. And this is what's truly astonishing about it. The fact, the most important fact in Bitcoin is the fact that the creator has disappeared and the thing has continued to operate now for almost 12 years without him being there. Or 11 years, I think it's been since he's left. And this is really the most important thing. And maybe he died or she died or they got into an accident on a road trip or whatever. And that's why they haven't accessed their coins. Maybe they're incapacitated for some reason. But whatever reason it is, I really think it's fate or serendipity that is giving us this very vital, very, very, very vital building ingredient in Bitcoin, which no other digital currency would ever recreate, which is that, because it was the first, it was the one that was able to establish the first mover advantage and get all of the people who are interested in the technology to get into it. And so that's an enormous advantage, but the cherry on top or what made the whole thing really function well is the fact that the guy who made it disappeared and that it continued to operate, which is just a clear illustration that this is a network with no admins. And I'm tempted to think that they're incapacitated in some way, probably dead or gone, because I can't believe the, I don't believe any human being would have this level of self-control to not get into, not want to meddle with their invention so much, even if they, you know, they might've had the self-control to like mine the first million coins to get the network going and then throw away the coins or send them to an address that they don't have the key to, because they really just wanted the network to take off. They may have no access to the coins and that's why they can't move them. I could see that happening, but I find it harder to believe that they would resist the temptation to mess with the network. You know, it's funny, I find that the founders of ideas are often principled and have the integrity that the eventual users of those ideas don't fully have. I tend to, you know, we have the kind of cynical view, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we tend to, in our mind, generalize that all humans are corruptible. And perhaps that's true to some degree, but I think that some people are more corruptible than others, and I find that there is, I mean, I like to think that Satoshi Nakamoto is out there and, you know, just like George Washington chose to walk away, and it's a principle, and the principle is more powerful than the financial reward or any of those kinds of things. It's a principle that stands for freedom, and there's a lot of people throughout history, even recent history, that are willing to die for these principles or live a life full of suffering and sacrifice because they're still living a life of principle and choosing that day after day after day. So, I mean, there's power to that. Money, what's the worth of money in the end? In terms of just personal financial gain versus knowing how much positive impact there is. So the person that chooses to walk away like that I think is the same kind of person that chooses to live by that principle. You have people like that, you know, in Grigori Grisha-Perelman in mathematics who turned down the Fields Medal because he was. Yeah, that's a medal, not $50 billion of Bitcoin. Well, that's, I. No, I know, I know, I'm joking. Well, that's actually an interesting, just a brief comment. You know, when people talk about Bitcoin in the cryptocurrency space, it's often mixed up financial interest and ideas. And I think those are often correlated, but that good feeling you get when you win or a number go up or you just, just somebody, you know, I found 20 bucks on the street the other day and just that feeling of just like, ooh, like more money, that positive feeling, that's correlated, but it is distinct from the power of the idea to change the world for the better, for the, to alleviate, it's like Alex Gladstein in the case of Bitcoin, that decreased the amount of suffering in the world because of the authoritarian regimes. And just because your number goes up, like that gambling feeling of like, yes, yes, this is good. And I mean, short-term number go up. There's a long-term number go up that's more like investment and so on. And there's a short-term number go up that's just a good feeling that you can't, you have to, in your mind, keep those distinct from the power of the idea to transform the world. And if you focus on the power of the idea, maybe a billion or billions of dollars don't matter as much. At least that's what I would like to believe. Perhaps, but what matters ultimately is that the thing works without him. The thing's worked for 11 years without him. And I think this is the really important thing. If they had stuck around for whatever reason, and they had continued to meddle with it, it's not clear to me how decentralized it could have been. This is the problem with the other currencies. It's like, how do you lose control of the Frankenstein that you've created? The only way that this Frankenstein continues to survive is if the person in charge of it continues to feed it. And so it continues to be yours. And that's the problem with all the other digital currencies. If you've heard about any of the other 16,000 digital currencies out there, you've only heard about it because there's a small group of people behind it that are working on it, that are promoting it. And that's why, and I think, you know, Michael Saylor's discussion with you was a magnificent illustration of the difference between Bitcoin and altcoins in that they are securities. And I think he makes a very compelling, brilliant case for why this makes them categorically different from Bitcoin. Bitcoin, you're buying property. I think he mentioned he's a huge fan of Dogecoin, but I might be misremembering. You are misremembering. Okay, me too. Maybe I'm quoting him out of context. Yes. Okay. Let me just ask you about some possible criticisms of Bitcoin. So on centralization, so there's a criticism on the mining and on the node side, or the node is not really the criticism, but Bitcoin mining is not fully decentralized because a small number of miners control a majority of the hashing power. I looked it up, there's 10,000, 15,000, whatever the number is of computers that are full nodes, that have the full, that are actively connected to the network. So you could argue that's decentralized because it's global, it's all across the world, but the miners, they're still, it's more centralized. So if you're thinking of making a case for Bitcoin being decentralized, do you worry about the miners being somewhat centralized? Is the nodes the important thing to think about? Yeah. And what number of nodes counts as centralized and not? The nodes are what matters because the nodes are what determines Bitcoin's consensus parameters. I think the best way to think about it is that miners simply sell a commodity to the nodes, and that commodity is Bitcoin blocks. So what a miner does is they solve the proof of work problem. So they keep operating their computers until they can get a solution to the problem. And then they attach that to a bunch of transactions and present it to the nodes, for the nodes to ratify and approve it. So therefore, this is, and this is, I strongly recommend people learn about the 2017 block size war to understand why miners don't control Bitcoin. I discussed this briefly in my Bitcoin Standard, but there's a recent book that discusses this in detail called the Block Size War by Jonathan Beer. It's a great description of, in 2017, essentially the miners thought that they could control Bitcoin. There was one mining company that produced the majority of the machines that were on the network, and their allies had control of the machines that were out there, and they controlled the majority of the hash rate, and they thought that they could change Bitcoin's supply, not supply, sorry, they could change Bitcoin's block size, which is a tiny little detail, technical parameter, and it's not even all that big of a deal for the economics of it. But they thought that they could pass this change, they could force this change on the network. And the members of the network rejected it, and they weren't able to do it. So the nodes are what is sovereign. The nodes are what determine the rules of the game. The miners are a service provider. The miners invest capital upfront. You know, they buy the machines, they buy the electricity, they buy the storage, they buy the locations, they pay the rent, and they invest all of that money based on the idea that if they behave according to what the nodes want, the nodes will reward them with Bitcoin. So the miners are in no position to dictate terms for anyone. You know, they've put up their capital upfront, and they will only recoup it if they do what the nodes want. So therefore, what really matters is the decentralization of the nodes. So you wanna have as many nodes as possible. You wanna have a system where there's a large number of nodes. And this is, of course, the biggest problem with other digital currencies is that, you know, because basically Bitcoin has cornered the market on a digital currency, the only way that you can really get traction is to generate a whole bunch of buzzwords about, you know, we're doing this and we're doing that. And so other digital currencies are optimized for bells and whistles and buzzwords. And that means adding a computational load, which makes the nodes bigger, harder to operate, and therefore you have a very small number of nodes. In fact, very few digital currencies are keen to publicize how many nodes there are, and they don't have full nodes in the true sense. And it doesn't even matter how many nodes they have, because de facto, you know, you can spin up a million nodes tomorrow on AWS. Doesn't really matter. What matters is de facto, do the nodes dictate the rules of consensus? And the fact that with most digital currencies, you can have hard forks very frequently, and they can change the supply all the time, means that there's a small group of people who agree amongst themselves how to move forward. Yeah, so you threw in a few criticisms of all kinds there. So one is the small group, that one we could talk about. It's a tricky one. And we talked about that with Satoshi Nakamoto. But the other one is small number of nodes to push back on that. As computational power increases, you can argue that that enables more and more cheap computers to serve as nodes. So at least it paints a future where nodes are always increasing, because computational power is always increasing, and getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. So at least there's a hope for the future for greater and greater decentralization on the node front. Yeah, but I mean, ultimately, again, it doesn't really matter how many nodes you have, if you have a, you know, if the way that the currency is run is that you're gonna have a hard fork every few months, which is the case with most other currencies. Bitcoin is the only one that's not have a hard fork. Basically, the unique thing about Bitcoin, in a technical sense, is that you could get the original software that Satoshi himself ran in 2009, to start the network. And you could run it today, and it would sync with the blockchain. There's one bug you need to fix. One mistake that would have only appeared, I think, in around 2013 or 14 or something like that, that he wasn't aware of back then. So you just need to fix this one tiny little bug. And then the consensus parameters are still the same, so you're able to sync to it. This is not true for most other digital currencies, I'd say probably all of them, because they've all had many hard forks, which they think of as upgrades. And they market this thing as, well, Bitcoin can't upgrade, but we upgrade all the time. Well, yeah, you know what else upgrades all the time? Facebook, Apple, Amazon, anything that centralizes is very easy to upgrade. And that's precisely why, as Michael Saylor says, these things are somebody's liability. They are security. You're carrying on somebody's technical and economic liability. They can hard fork, they can 10x the supply tomorrow. Yeah, they can fall victim to the same corrupting forces that governments fall victim to. Sure, and for people who don't know, yeah, hard fork is a reverse incompatible change to the underlying function of a cryptocurrency. Of course, there is hard forks of Bitcoin as well, I'm sure all of which you love dearly. Anyway, but that doesn't matter. The original Bitcoin, for the most part, has not undergone any changes. And that's one of its problems. I mean, it has undergone changes, but none in the important parameters of the network. So another criticism is about energy. So the proof of work, the assessment mechanism uses a lot of energy. What's the response to that criticism of Bitcoin? Yes, because it's worth it. Okay, the airplane uses a lot more energy than a kayak. You know, when you're gonna cross the Atlantic next time, what are you gonna take, a kayak that is environmentally friendly, according to this insane definition, or are you gonna take an airplane that consumes a lot of energy? So the cost benefit analysis here, essentially you have to consider both the cost and the benefit. Exactly, and I think it's an astonishing testament to just how far backward people's scientific and technological thinking has devolved to the point where we think of energy consumption as a bad thing. I think it's just, and in the fiat standard, I discussed the whole hysteria around energy, and I think it's a product of fiat inflation, because it's a way of trying to covering up the fact that energy is fuels that are reliable and necessary for the current world are becoming more and more expensive because of inflation. And so governments are always looking for excuses for why you should not be using those things. And so they promote all kinds of stupid pseudosciences that tell you about why these things are bad. But really, all technology is, well, not all, but the vast majority of technological innovations involve economizing on human time and judgment and replacing it with machines, with reliable machines that spend a lot of energy. So that's what a telephone does. Instead of having to send somebody across the world to tell somebody something else or send a letter, a telephone allows you to do it. The car is like that. You could walk, but a car consumes a lot more energy, but it allows you to travel much faster and safer and more reliably. An airplane is like that. Modern telecommunication, human prosperity is an increase in the consumption of energy. And I think it is an absolutely criminal thing, and I genuinely mean the word criminal, to portray energy consumption as a bad thing, because it is truly depriving people of the chance to live a life that makes life better. It's truly criminal to tell poor countries that they should not consume the same energy sources that are being used in rich countries on which our modern infrastructure and modern life relies. That's what life is. If you reduce the consumption of energy in the US to the levels that you have in poor countries today, the US would become desperately poor. A lot of people would die. Cities would collapse. The quality of life would decrease significantly. A high quality of life often requires, given the current technology, a high expenditure of energy. Yeah, and I should be clear. It's not a quality of life in the sense that many people think of this as, oh yeah, well, taking needless flights for vacations. No, no, these are the cherries on top of the cake, but the substance of the cake and the real benefits of energy is the fact that children, premature babies, survive in countries that have reliable, 24-hour cheap electricity. If your child is born premature that you put him in an incubator or her, they're highly likely to survive. If you don't have 24-hour electricity, that child is not gonna make it. And you see it, the level of energy consumption per capita has highly correlated not just to income, but also to health outcomes, to infant mortality, to all of the things that you care about. And Bitcoin is just another technology. It does consume a lot more energy than central banks. A lot of Bitcoiners like to take a cop out of this by saying, well, you know, central banks consume money and ATMs consume energy. And I think if you calculate how much central banks and banks consume, I think it's a rounding error next to what Bitcoin consumes. I think Bitcoin is just, maybe not a rounding error, but it's still, Bitcoin, I think, is going to consume a lot more, and that's a good thing. You know, what's humbling is to look, because even just looking into this forces me to look at the energy expenditures for many of the things we take for granted. Obviously, computers and our digital lives, Bitcoin becomes a rounding error relative to how much energy is spent on all the computers in our world. But also, things like home appliances, microwaves, and hair dryers and stuff. Yeah. It's like. Yeah, I mean, this is. It starts being hilarious. It's like, oh, these things that are just part of our modern life, they're either the same order, at least the same order of magnitude as Bitcoin, and they seem like trivial parts of life. Yeah, and this is the thing. All of the people that complain about Bitcoin's energy consumption, I presume they use washing machines. Now, why should their desire for clean and dry clothes get to consume energy? And I mean, I used to live in Lebanon. Lebanon had hyperinflation. I escaped from hyperinflation. I escaped, it prevented. My life could have been ruined by hyperinflation, and the reason that it wasn't ruined is because I have Bitcoin. So, I don't know. Am I allowed to swear on your podcast? Yes, please. So, fuck your washing machine. Ha ha ha. Given a choice between my washing machine and my Bitcoin, I'll choose Bitcoin. It's a technology that has already saved my life, and I think it's gonna save the lives of many, many, many, many more people. So, but of course, I don't have to choose between my Bitcoin and my washing machine because this is, you know, we're just constantly consuming more energy, and we're gonna continue to consume more energy in this world, and that's just what progress is. And a small remark, so in principle, I don't think this is a problem, but the other thing about Bitcoin, where it is different from washing machines, Bitcoin is truly unique in this. It's the only thing whose energy consumption can be produced absolutely anywhere. Your washing machine needs to be in your house where you live, and you live in a city surrounded by 10 million people, and they all have their washing machines, and they're all connected to the grid, and they generally tend to do their laundry around the same time, and so you have to put the load of the washing machine on the grid at the same time. There needs to be one power plant, and all of the infrastructure needs to work at the same time, and the electricity is pretty expensive because it's being done in a place with high demand. Bitcoin does not need to buy electricity from places where it has high demand because it can buy electricity from anywhere. This is what's truly mind-blowing about it. You can buy, you know, what you need, the electricity that you need for mining can be done anywhere, so you can mine, you know, you can have a waterfall in the north of Canada, 300 miles away from any population center. There's water falling, there's energy. You can put a hydroelectric dam there, and then you can use that energy to operate the miners, and then the miners just need a satellite internet connection, and effectively, you're selling that energy that is isolated to the grid, and because of the way that Bitcoin functions, because of the difficulty adjustment, the only profitable miners are the ones who can get cheap electricity. Basically, if you're mining at grid cost, if you're mining at around, the average electricity price in the world is around 14 cents. If you're mining at 14 cents in Bitcoin, you're most likely not gonna make it. If you're running your miners at 14 cents, because everybody could mine at 14 cents, and so what happens is if everybody's mining at 14 cents, 14 cents stops being profitable, and then only the people mining at a lower price are profitable. So that's why Bitcoin mining is not competing with your washing machine. This is the absurd thing about this kind of energy scarcity viewpoint where, oh no, it's a catastrophe, Bitcoin is taking all the electricity, as if the electricity is just one fixed pie that we all have to share and fight over, and this is how I keep making fun of these stupid headlines they put out where Bitcoin's consuming more electricity than Portugal. All right, well, maybe we should shut down Portugal then. What the hell has Portugal given us? Obviously, it's not the beat. He doesn't mean that. I've gotten so much criticism for saying Cristiano Ronaldo's not in the top five. I apologize. I love Portugal. That's another discussion we should get into at some point. We should do it, because you posted a few soccer things. I'm not, I realize how passionate people are about this. Listen, it was a joke, all right? He deserves to be potentially in the top five. Yeah, I love Portugal, and even though I'm a Liverpool fan, I still respect Cristiano Ronaldo a lot. In fact, I hold a very unpopular opinion where I think Cristiano Ronaldo's the greatest football player ever. Number one, over Pelé and Maradona, Messi, better than Messi. Yes, he's been doing it for 20 years at the top. Nobody's ever done that. He's won everything everywhere. Everywhere he goes, at the top, at the Champions League. Really strong argument to be made for him. Messi's never done anything outside of Barcelona. That's the thing. So you appreciate performance long-term versus the genius of the actual play on the field? I mean, the genius is, Ronaldo's the top scorer of all time. He scored four goals. So the genius is in the scoring, not the actual dance of the play, the creativity. Well, I mean, I don't know. Messi's been absolutely mediocre since he's left Barcelona. These are strong words. He scored, what, two goals in PSG season this year? They're out of the Champions League. What about Mohamed Salah? You've posted about him. He's my boy. Is he climbing up to be someone? I think he should win the Ballon d'Or this year. He probably should have won it last year as well. He's been absolutely outstanding, but I mean, just people are so crazy about Messi. They keep giving him accolades. He hasn't deserved, I think, Messi the last couple of Ballon d'Ors that he got. I mean, he's a great player and everything, but no, he did not deserve it last year. We can agree to disagree. There's something- Are you a Barca fan or a Messi fan? I would say, no, I wouldn't say I'm a Barca fan, but a Barca fan because of Messi. And I just, I think it's like, there's certain things. So when I was growing up in the Soviet Union, Russia, I remember Maradona, he was the first person I saw that I was like, oh, wow, this could be, this is greatness in sport, not just football and sport. And for some reason, I mean, it's something about like Diego Armando Maradona, like the way they were commentating the genius of his play, the mix of ego and again, the performance, but being able to carry a team on his shoulders, that I just fell in love with whatever he represented. And then by that, Argentina. And then Messi, I saw when he was like 16, 17, when he was just like in the early days. And when you first see a person and you see the genius and you notice that, and then it turns out to be actually a great player, for some reason, you're invested. You're emotionally invested, you're, I don't know. So you kind of just fall in love and then you pick sides. I mean, that's the thing about football. Part of the fun things about football, soccer is like, you pick a guy, you pick a team and fuck everyone else. And you just have fun talking shit. I mean, there's part of it. It's great. It's great because I think, obviously it's a very stupid thing to do, but I think if you don't do it in football, you're gonna do it in real life. Elsewhere, that's right. That's why it's very good. Like, that's it. Instead of hating people for their religion and for their skin color, hate them because they support Manchester United. Exactly. So you're a Liverpool fan. Yes, yes. Hardcore long-term. But yeah, so to go back to the original point on Portugal. Energy. Yeah, energy. Bitcoin is not competing with Portugal because Bitcoin is buying energy from places where we can't buy it because all the places where we can buy energy for our washing machines, we're bidding up the price enough to make it non-viable for Bitcoin. That's why, you'll see those headlines about Bitcoin consuming more energy than Portugal. Well, if you look at Portugal, I mean, they've got giant power plants in Portugal. They've got millions of people and they've got enormous amounts of infrastructure. Where are all of these infrastructure for Bitcoin mining? You don't see it in the cities. It's all isolated. It's all out away from the cities or it's connected to grids that have serious overcapacity. So Bitcoin is not out there buying the expensive energy, taking energy away from people who can't afford it. It's out there buying its own energy because it doesn't need to buy the expensive energy that people really need. So one other criticism from an investment perspective, from a gambling perspective that people see is the volatility of Bitcoin. Of course, that's been somewhat decreasing over time, but what's your answer to the sort of criticism that Bitcoin is too volatile, I wanna stay away, it doesn't seem like a safe place for me to invest either short-term or long-term? There's no denying there's a volatility and there's a high oscillation in the value in the short term. So I think the safe way to approach that is in terms of position sizing. If the volatility bothers you, then you're over-invested perhaps. So maybe you should reduce the size of your position so that the volatility doesn't bother you. This is the short answer, like stack as much as your conviction will allow you to tolerate the volatility. And of course, the reason you should try and consider tolerating volatility more is the options are you hold fiat assets, which only go down stable, relatively stable, not a lot of volatility day-to-day, value of your dollar doesn't change 40% overnight, 20% overnight or something like that, but it does go down reliably, it's gonna go down 40%. You can count on it, it might take a year, two years, five years, 10 years, compared to the things that you want to buy, it's gonna go down by 40% and it's not gonna come back and it's gonna go down another 40% and then another 40% and then another 40%. So the option really is relatively short-term stability with long-term decline or short-term volatility with long-term rise. And so that's another way in which Bitcoin teaches people to have a low time preference and think about the long-term. So stack, accumulate and think of it in the long-term. It's a function of the fact that Bitcoin is new. Bitcoin is currently less than 1% of the global money market so there's about $100 trillion of money out there in the world, $100 trillion roughly of fiat and about $10 trillion of gold and Bitcoin is less than $1 trillion. So one rich guy decides to get into Bitcoin, that's gonna show up on the Bitcoin chart, you look at it, Elon Musk decides to buy Bitcoin, you see the buy, you see the news, it happens and you see the pump. Elon Musk decides that he doesn't like Bitcoin, you see the drop. But a few years ago, it used to be that one random millionaire would cause that pump. Now you have to be the richest guy in the world to do that. In a few years, you're gonna have to be the richest country in the world to be able to do that to the Bitcoin price, maybe many years, maybe not a few years. But as Bitcoin grows, think about it as a liquid pool of money. Currently, it's a small pool next to a much larger ocean, which is the entire money market. And so one person jumps from that to this small pool, they can make a big splash. As the pool grows, essentially the salability increases and the likelihood of one individual purchase affecting the price so violently decreases. And so over time, as the size of the market increases, I think we're gonna see the volatility decline more and more. Ultimately, if you look at gold, historically gold has been very, very stable. It did not achieve its stability because the central bank was in charge of gold supply or because there was a gold committee that decided how much gold gets produced. It achieved that stability because it became the most salable good. And so therefore it became the good that contains the most cash balances in the world. And the end of the 19th century, everybody held cash balances in gold. And new production was a tiny little addition to global production, to the supply. So that's what made gold the most relatively, I shouldn't say stable because nothing is stable in economics, but relatively it holds onto its value and it's much less volatile than digital currency, than national currencies. That's because it has the highest stock to flow ratio and that's because its supply is a tiny fraction of the liquid market. And as the liquid market grows, as the size of cash balances grows and trades in Bitcoin cancel each other out, you get only slight changes in value. So I think as Bitcoin matures, that's going to decline. So effectively, I think the end game is Bitcoin is huge. Bitcoin is worth something like, I think the total addressable market for Bitcoin is not just national currencies and gold's addressable market, but also government bonds. That's the really big one. So how do banks compare to gold? So you're saying it'll surpass gold with the 10 trillion? Yeah. What's bonds? Where's bonds stand? So then there's also national currencies, which are about 100 trillion, and then there's government bonds, which are around $120 billion. And sorry, trillion dollars, trillion. Trillion, sorry. Yes, trillion. If we're saying billion, we meant trillion. Yeah. So you think bonds can move to Bitcoin? I've always held, this is the prize. This is the main dish. Gold is the appetizer. Bonds are the main dish, because bonds have replaced gold. Yeah. I mean, bonds have replaced gold in people's portfolio. People, you remember when we were saying gold was, you'd hold it as a saving, as the secure part of your portfolio, and then you take risk with the equity. Currently, people do that by holding a part of their portfolio in bonds. That's the part that they treat as their saving account. And then the rest they use for speculation, not speculation, for investment, in which they take risk. Yeah, speculation. And that's stocks and equity and other high-risk assets. I think Bitcoin is not gonna replace equity. There will always be equity. There will always be companies and people who wanna have equity. But it'll probably replace a big chunk of current equity markets, because right now, if you want to save, it used to be that you hold bonds. Now, if you wanna save, you go into stock indexes. So I think Bitcoin likely eats a big chunk of equity markets, because currently, people are using it as saving. And I think it eats all the bonds. That's my most ambitious statement. The question is the scale of time that happens across, but the most important statement you make is about trend. Yeah, and also, I mean, let's also remember, currently, bonds nominally don't beat inflation, and in real terms, they don't come close to beating inflation. So currently, with bonds, you're taking on credit default risk to buy a bond, and also getting less money back in real terms. Well, Bitcoin doesn't offer you returns, but in real terms, it appreciates much more, and it has, I believe, a lot less risk associated with it than any company or government. So let's make things spicy and ask, if Bitcoin fails in the long-term future, as all, you just said, economics, volatility, things happen in this world. The human civilization might end in this century. I hope it doesn't, but it might. There could be catastrophic events. If Bitcoin fails, it goes to zero, loses its number one spot, what would be the reason? If you're an alien visiting Earth 100 years from now and just were to analyze the situation, Bitcoin is a pretty new thing. So the possible trajectories of how the world evolves together with this new monetary technology is nearly infinite. So if it fails, one of those trajectories surely involves Bitcoin failing. What would be the reason? I think the most likely reason that it could fail, I don't think this is likely in general, but I think it is the most likely of all the unlikely things that could destroy Bitcoin, is governments go back on a gold standard. Oh, interesting. So they make, in your view, a better decision than the current system, just not the best decision. Okay. I thought you would go much darker. But, so that's, okay, interesting. So maybe because of Russia, because of China and so on, because of the current war, they might reconsider the power that America holds because of the monetary, because it being the primary currency, and they'll start thinking about going on a gold standard. Yeah, but it would also require the US and the Europeans and everybody to want to join in this system and sing Kumbaya and play nice with each other around the gold standard. I think, you know, given that gold already is about 10 times larger than Bitcoin, so it has a first mover advantage. Yes. If governments were to go and peg their currencies to gold again, the price of gold would shoot up five, 10x. And it would rise in value a lot more. Of course, that doesn't necessarily kill Bitcoin. No, again, I'm not saying it's likely to happen. I'm saying it's, I imagine, less unlikely than all the other unlikely scenarios. Because, you know, even with a nuclear war, like 90% of the planet is destroyed, the 10% continue to run Bitcoin. Ha ha ha. There's a quote. Okay, there's a movement. A community of people referred to as Bitcoin maximalists. I've seen you referred, at least in the past, as the leader of the Bitcoin maximalists, probably because of your book, you know, Bitcoin Standard, Consider the Bible. In general, you're one of the leaders in this space. Do you regret any of the toxicity and derision that often, or perhaps sometimes, originates from this community? Definitely not. I'm not in the position to regret other people's actions. So let's just be clear. I think the rhetoric of community is, I reject this rhetoric because I think it's a way for kind of political manipulation and subversion to try and portray people as part of a community and hold people responsible for other people's actions, which I think is ridiculous. So, you know, some guy on the internet said something mean to somebody. And then, this is very common, and I always try and not get involved in these things. So some guy who identifies as a Bitcoiner says something to somebody that's very wrong. Of course it happens. Tens of millions of people use Bitcoin around the world. And a lot of these, I'd say parasites, people who don't have anything productive to do with their life, outrage merchants, they'll come out and say something along the lines of, you know, the Bitcoin maximalists are toxic, they're holding Bitcoin back, and they need, and of course it's manipulative. The point behind it is they wanna get to you, they wanna get people who are, you know, not that nobody with 300 followers who said something silly, they wanna get the notable people to basically change their message. So the idea is, you know, I'm supposed to apologize because somebody with 300 followers I've never met in my life who calls themself a Bitcoiner said a mean word, and then I need to apologize, and I also need to cut down on my rhetoric about other digital currencies, and I need to do that. So I'm only responsible for my own actions, and I don't recall regretting anything. Okay, but let me push back or push further into that direction. Fine, let's leave community aside, labels suck for sure. But you have a spicy way about you on Twitter. Even in this conversation, you had some good, strong words to say about Bookman. Yeah, I mean, I've always believed life is too short to mince words. One day I'm gonna be dead, and on my deathbed, I'm not gonna look back and say, I wish I was a little bit more circumspect in expressing my opinions. I'm far more likely to think, you know what, I wish I said what I really think. Yes, life is too short to hold back your opinion. The question is, what is really your opinion? Because you're many people in one. So there's a person that loves, there's kindness for the human beings, there's a person that gets annoyed, there's a person that enjoys disagreement, there's a person that enjoys collaboration. And you can emphasize all of those different things, each of those different things, weigh it differently in your online interaction. There are some aspects of online interaction that encourages, in different communities, online interaction is one community that encourages derision and mockery and so on. So you can choose if you want to engage that part of yourself or some other part of yourself. Economics is another community that enjoys being very straightforward about their disagreements, pretty harsh. It's fun to watch, because it feels like you arrive at the truth much faster, because you tear each other apart. But that's a choice, that's a deliberate choice. And I don't want to label an entire community of people by its extremes, I don't think you should do that. But there's cultural characteristics you start to notice. When you go to France, it's a certain way. When you go to Britain, London is different than rural Britain. New York is different than Iowa. You start to notice things. I mean, you don't want to generalize, there's all kinds of people everywhere. But there's a certain way of communication on crypto, Twitter in general, but also Bitcoin maximalists, that I even early on received a bunch of heat. I was like, what the hell? So listen, there's definitely a difference when I go to the computer science community, machine learning community. It's way friendlier than the cryptocurrency community. I have much more freedom to actually be what I enjoy being, which is asking simple, dumb questions. Even when I've already spent years, sometimes decades with an idea, I like asking dumb questions anyway. Crypto folks punish you for this, for curiosity, for exploration. I understand the mechanism, because so many other people come into that community, and they might masquerade as curious, but really they're trying to inject, they're trying to sell some kind of altcoin, there's some scheme to make money. And so I understand, maybe that's just the dynamics of the community by nature. It's not like you respond appropriately to the amount of charlatans in the community. So if the fraction of charlatans is low, maybe you can afford to be more loving and kind and so on. And when the fraction of charlatans is high, you have to be harsher. Perhaps, perhaps, but- I think also the stakes are extremely high in this situation and I think if you don't like Bitcoiners, if you think Bitcoiners are toxic, wait till you meet Fiaters. The Fiat community has financed world wars and genocides and tyrants and the mass death and destruction. The Fiat community, if you wanna use that term, I don't believe you should, but I mean, Fiat has destroyed the savings of pretty much anybody who's lived through the last 20th century. Pretty much anybody who's lived through the 20th century, no matter where you lived, Switzerland, US, Ethiopia, Russia, you've gone through Fiat problems. You've had hyperinflation, you've had bank confiscation. There isn't a family in the world today that hasn't had its wealth destroyed over the last century. They all have a story about the inflation and the hyperinflation. And Bitcoin offers us a way out of this. And shit coins, alt coins, are essentially Fiat world's last gasp attempt to try and salvage Fiat, to try and salvage the idea that some people will continue to be able to print money and other people will have to use that money. This is Twitter, it's a free market, it's the internet. You don't have to follow anybody, that's the thing. So what I find really objectionable about the people who are so butthurt always about Bitcoin maximalists is, you don't have to click follow on people you don't like. There are 300 million Twitter accounts. And if you choose to follow the accounts that say things that annoy you and then complain about the fact that they say things that annoy you, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot and you don't know how to use Twitter. Just follow the accounts that you like. You don't have to be part of this. You don't have to listen to those people. You can choose, there are a lot of Bitcoiners that don't act like this. You can just unfollow the ones that you don't like. You can block. Since in the past year, man, time flies, I've met a lot of them and I enjoy them a lot. And you build that community of people that you enjoy. There are lots that communicate in the way you enjoy. And it's become a meme at this point that I block with love, I think. Yes. Because I did not. I block very prolifically and I strongly recommend people continue to block. I think Twitter is, you're not gonna get to interact with 300 million accounts anyway. So you wanna be constantly curating the experience by getting rid of people you don't like and following people that you like. And that's just how, after 10 years of using Twitter, you accumulate a block list, which is very big, which I'm very happy for. I'm gonna pass on to my children. That's great. On your deathbed, the grandchildren will gather around and your grandfather can finally share the full list. Yeah. So again, it's just a Twitter account. If it bothers you so much, ask yourself why it bothers you that some people are so, I'm not referring to you obviously, but I mean the people that are constantly aggravated about this, I don't get bothered by anything on Twitter. I just block immediately. And I get to curate the experience that I enjoy. And I recommend people do that. It's really a lot less pathetic than complaining about strangers saying things you don't like, which a lot of, and of course the reason for it is, I mean, when I say it's stupid, it's not really stupid. There's an ulterior motive there. And the ulterior motive is, hey, I have this shit coin that I made with five other friends of mine. And I'd like you to, I'd like to ride your coattails, Bitcoiners, and I'd like you to please help me promote this shit coin. Like this is, I get this practically every week, whether through email or through Twitter, where, hey, you know, this is our shit coin. You know, it's just like Bitcoin, but it's better because it does this and this and that. And, you know, basically how can we get you to promote this shit coin for us? And being straightforward and forthright is a great productivity hack because, you know, you just tell those people, no, I'm not interested, it's a stupid shit coin, and I wish you a quick and swift failure before you take a lot of people's money. And that's what I genuinely think. Well, but I'll just be upfront with the fact, at least for my taste, just labeling everything as a shit coin worries me. So that's just my own preference. It's not a judgment on you. It's just my own preference that I'm afraid I'll miss good ideas. I think when you're, me personally, when I'm too certain about things, when I'm too tribal about things, I'll miss actually really strong ideas, outlier ideas, totally new ideas. So that worries me. One of the downsides of the way Bitcoin is, how much is at stake financially, is that it's less open to good, and actually by design that it's not changing, like with the hard forks and so on, that there's not a kind of curiosity about exploration of ideas. Of course, in some way, that curiosity can start getting ejected when you start talking about other layers built on top of Bitcoin, you start talking about applications or different things like lightning network, that's where the curiosity can emerge. But still, that's why with cryptocurrency in general, I just try to keep an open mind. And just the shitcoin as a term is just like a statement that I'm gonna close my mind to it, that's the way I hear it. But coming out of your mouth, because you say a lot of other edgy stuff, it's just more you having fun, that's the way I hear it. But if I said something like that, I would feel like I'm closing my mind. I mean, let me give you the counter argument to that. How much time do you spend emailing back all of these Nigerian Prince email scams that email you, tell you, send me $5,000 and I'll send you $15 million? None. None. Why are you being closed minded to all of these great ideas? Well, no, but I'm also... You know, maybe one of them will actually send you $15 million. But I don't know if I know the difference between the Nigerian Prince and many other people I do talk to who are colleagues and so on, that are also emailing me. And they're also offering me things, but they don't sound as ridiculously spammy. Yeah, but I mean, the moment that somebody tells you, hey, I'm gonna give you $15 million for nothing, just if you send me $5,000, you know, you're getting something for nothing. And essentially with all of the digital currencies, it's the same pitch. Hey, you know, come use this thing that'll allow you to do things that... All of the things that they pretend that they can do, that can be done with computers without having digital currencies. You know, we already have AWS that does cloud computing, that does everything that shit coins pretend to do. The only difference is AWS doesn't have its own monetary system tacked on top of it to allow Jeff Bezos to basically print his own money. But don't you think there's some gray area? So let me go for the historical record and let's see if you've changed as a philosopher, economist, human being. You tweeted three years ago. Oh, well. Anyone who believes proof of stake can work is either one, completely clueless at how and why Bitcoin works at all, or two, a con artist using it as a buzzword to promote a worthless scam like Ethereum. Do you still believe that Ethereum is a scam and in general proof of stake? You're either clueless if you think it's interesting. Yeah, no, I still stand by that. I think the... Would you classify Ethereum as a shit coin? For sure. It's the mother asshole from which the shit coins spring. The royal, the king shit coin? Yeah. I think the key thing is, you know, the way to think about it, there's another tweet from a couple of years ago, which is essentially proof of work was like the invention of flight. Like we've got in this machine and we managed to get it to fly off the ground. And proof of stake is, hey, we found a great way to make airplanes cheaper and faster by not making them fly. By keeping them on the ground. Like the invention of proof of work, the reason the entire digital currency space exists is because Bitcoin operates based on proof of work. If Bitcoin was based on proof of stake, it would have died or been shut down from day one. But that's a hypothesis. And a lot of people believe that. And I think they have a lot of strong support, but basically proof of work is grounded in physics. In the real world, the proof of stake is more about... It's politics. It's the Federal Reserve. It's exactly what we have. It's exactly what we have. It's just a group of people who get to decide the rules. And it's essentially a system that is... It's a security, it's a company. So it's not an innovation in any sense. It's a step backward to what we already had, which is you get a bunch of people in charge of the money. Now, the only reason it survives in this... And the reason I call these things a scam, and I have no problem with calling them a scam, is because they fraudulently present themselves as being decentralized. They present themselves as just being a different way of doing decentralization than Bitcoin. When it's not. It's just they're riding Bitcoin's coattails, and they're riding the fact that most people don't quite understand what Bitcoin is and how it works to portray themselves as a cheaper, better, more efficient way of doing what Bitcoin does. It's not. It's a less legally accountable way of doing what central banks do. Right, so, and the basic criticism is that there's a group of people, sometimes a very small group of people, that can control the parameters of the operation of the system. So over time, you can't trust it's not gold under the mattress. It doesn't have that kind of hardness. It's not property, and I really very strongly recommend your discussion with Saylor for people who wanna elaborate more on this. There's a bunch of people in charge, which means that, you know, legally, they should be doing this under securities law. But even as an anarchist, if I don't want to care about that, the technical implication of it is, this is never going to be adopted as a neutral way of transferring value on the internet, because you need something that enemies can trade with one another. You can't have something that has a small group of people in charge, because A, this small group of people themselves can be corrupted, and B, they can be coerced. You know, you can put a bunch of people in a room, put a gun to their head, and you can change everything in any of these digital currencies. And that's why I think, you know, you'll find a lot more sympathy among theaters to shit coins. The Keynesian economist to Ethereum fanboy pipeline is a very strong one, because it's the same thing. It's like, you like the idea of people being in charge of money, and you think you're gonna be the one who's gonna be in charge of money. So you see a lot of this phenomena, and you see the same people that want gold and don't like central banking, they get into Bitcoin. Yeah, so just to actually push back on a couple of things. So one is theater. It sounds like I'm trying to be a sophisticated Brit talking about theater, but for many reasons, it's not making me feel good about that. So, you know, day by day, things change. You used to be one of those. So people evolve, people learn. People that are supporters of Bitcoin might eventually become supporters of Ethereum or go back to supporting fiat. We don't know. People evolve for different reasons. You grow up, you mature, or you become enlightened. So I think every single person sort of, as this technology is evolving, as this world is evolving, as wars break on, the geopolitics change, as the monetary system is constantly put under stress, people will evolve. So we're trying to all figure it out together. That's why like open-mindedness here, I think for people like me at least, seems essential. I know, so I expect you to be answering all of the spam emails you get. I will, prince by prince by prince. But no, I don't have a clear understanding. What is a good investment of my time? What is a good investment of my money? That doesn't seem clear, because things are good at promoting themselves. I'm not talking about the different kinds of things like Ethereum, altcoins, and so on. I just mean life, like dating, jobs, friendships. Like everybody's advertising themselves as a great investment, right? But you don't know, and you have to keep an open mind. And also, I don't, and be sort of self-introspective about what, how biases I operate under, and ways I delude myself, like hallucinations that I'm living under. It's like breaking out of all these hallucinations. It's very hard to introspect, thinking like, what are the assumptions under which I lived my entire life that might be actually false assumptions? That's a really difficult thought process to take. It's a dangerous one. It's you, the Nietzsche, if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. It's like Alex Jones talks about this. I mean, he's living, he's got demons in his head. So he has like all these conspiracy theories that he holds in his head, but it begins to really destroy him. So it's a psychological burden to carry. So if you question authority, if you question government, if you question culture, the way things have been done, it's really difficult. And the biases you operate under, it's really difficult to question them. So I think like being constantly open-minded and self-critical, not constantly, but a little bit every day is important, I think. Yeah, but I mean, you're talking to somebody, I grew up in Ramallah in Palestine, in the West Bank. I've changed my mind on all kinds of different things. The fact that I was even open to the idea of Bitcoin has required an enormous amount of, it's a heck of a journey. So I'd much rather appreciate direct arguments rather than these kind of general fluffy, you should be, oh, of course, yes, you should be open-minded, but also you come up with conclusions and you delete spam emails sometimes when you know that it is spam because you have to move on with your life. There's an opportunity cost to considering every spam email. Well, to me, okay, so I'll just say from my relatively sort of shallow perspective, almost like a technical person, mostly, my understanding of economics is weak. Proof of stake is not obviously a weak consensus mechanism relative to proof of work. So that's not obvious to me that that goes wrong and becomes corrupted in the way that governments get corrupted because it still seems decentralized. Now, your criticism of governance is an interesting one, but if you put that aside, it still is a decentralized mechanism and it's more transparent than the mechanism that governments operate on. It isn't, it's exactly what the Federal Reserve is. The Federal Reserve is a proof of stake system. The Federal Reserve is owned by its constituent banks. And so the rules of the Federal Reserve and the regulations are determined by the ownership, which is the banks. So it's exactly what the Federal Reserve is, but it's too backdoor. The agreements between the banks and the Federal Reserve, it feels like a lot of those agreements are made between individuals that sort of behind the scenes. It's not hard to, it's opaque. Yes, but the only way that a proof of stake system will take off is if you have a military to force people to use it. That's the thing. Ultimately, there's no way that it's going to take off on a free market. And that's why, for all of the bluster about wanting to move to a proof of stake system, Ethereum have been saying this since 2014. It's now been eight years, you know, that they've been talking about it. We still haven't seen the proof of stake system operational in a while. There's vaporware for all practical. Or Dano's proof of stake. It's potential. I mean, you can do it in a centralized way, but like, can it survive? Can it last for a long time? I don't think so. And I think, you know, it can last perhaps initially with marketing, with centralized marketing, you can promote it. But ultimately, user demand. The people that are not interested in speculating because they want to get rich on this, the people that are gonna use it, they're gonna want to use it because they can trust that it is not gonna be messed with. So like- But there's also applications on top. So Lightning Network. But there's applications on top. Like, well, the reason I'm interested in things like Ethereum is, you might think it's ridiculous. I thought it was ridiculous, but NFTs. So you can have NFTs probably on top of Bitcoin, but you don't because there's no marketing on Bitcoin because all of these ideas get promoted on proprietary shitcoins because, yes. But there's the network effects of ideas, of applications. So they just take off for some reason. And human civilization is such that you get excited about stuff and large amounts of people believe a thing and they start to get excited and it actually has impact. Like the fact that NFTs can have an impact on the art world or the world in general is wild to me, but it worked. So the question is- David Rothkaw has an impact on the art world. Doesn't say much. Well, I'm saying his ideas have, we're collective intelligent beings and we can believe a thing and that has power. That has led to major wars and all those kinds of things. So it's interesting to me that NFTs took hold. And the question is, is there distributed dApps? Is there distributed apps built on top of different blockchains that might somehow transform the world? You have to kind of keep an open mind to that. Cause right now it's like, it's like I'm the same place with that as I am with like virtual reality. It's like, all right, this seems like a really intellectually promising set of ideas here, but there's something either technically or socially not quite taking hold. Why? And I don't know what the right answer is. So with virtual reality, what's the right answer? Is it just technically the latency is too high or the games are not good enough? Or is it a fundamentally flawed idea that you can live in a virtual world and enjoy it? That the physical world is just orders of magnitude better? Or a two dimensional display is just as good as a three dimensional world? I don't know. Why is virtual reality not taking off? It's been since the 80s, right? I don't have strong opinions on it, on the prospect of the technology. I personally, I don't wanna ever imagine myself having something on my eyes. I'd rather just go out into the real world. But I don't have strong opinions on virtual reality. I do have on DApps and NFTs. Yeah, what's your criticism of DApps and NFTs? Is this a distraction? It's a way to sell a flawed technology? The problem with DApps is, I mean, it's just the economics of it makes no sense in the sense that, you know, currently, if you wanted to run an application, whatever the application is, you wanna run it on AWS, you pay a specific amount of money. You wanna run it on your own laptop, you pay a specific amount of money per kilobyte of data. If you wanted to run the same thing on a distributed ledger where you're distributing the data over thousands of computers worldwide, it's infinitely more expensive. And that's why we haven't seen any of these DApps take off. And that's why I've said this many years ago. The only working application of blockchain technology is Bitcoin. Because with Bitcoin, you know, you're with a few hundred bytes of data, with a few bytes of data, you could move a billion dollars worth of economic value from here to China and move it safely and reliably. So that power, I can't see it being justified for anything that is not as mission critical as moving large amounts of value, which require very little amount of information. So when you look at all of the buzzwords that the Ethereum and other altcoin marketing people like to use, and you know, if you wanna wonder really why we come to this kind of aggression, it's because we've heard all of this. You know, I've had all of these hucksters come to me for years, you know, it's been, I've had, you know, people in 2016 talk to me about how Ethereum blockchain technology is gonna revolutionize real estate deeds in India. And I remember this guy, I'm not gonna mention his name, but this guy was, you know, 2016, and he sold a lot of shit coins and he made a lot of money off of shit coins based on all these silly ideas. We're gonna have blackjack on a distributed ledger. We're gonna have Indian real estate on a distributed ledger. And it's just, it's concerned trolling marketing. You know, oh, there's a problem with real estate in India, real estate deeds, blockchain fixes this, buy my shit coin. And then people buy the shit coin, Indian real estate isn't fixed, and the guy gets rich and they move on. But I mean, I'm still waiting for a dap to actually emerge. Like, you know, it's, the promise that we keep hearing is something completely world changing, world transforming. And the reality is not one app. Like there's one of my good friends, Jimmy Song, eventually they refused to go ahead with it, but he wanted to bet with one of the Ethereum people about these daps. You know, the Ethereum people are constantly saying those daps are gonna grow and they're gonna have so many applications and they're gonna have so many ideas. And the reality is all the apps that work are centralized apps, you know? So there is no Uber on the blockchain. There is no Twitter on the blockchain. There is no social media on the blockchain because these are businesses and businesses require a centralized authority to make decisions. You can't have it be decentralized. Yeah, listen, you're frustrated and I could see it over a few years of just having dealt with a humongous influx of charlatans. I wouldn't say frustrated, I'm amused. It's no, it's water off my back. No, but a man that uses, and a community that uses the word shitcoin is a little bit, you have, you call it amusement. And I think amusement is a way to deal with the frustration, it's a channeling of frustration. Like sometimes when you have to deal with bullshit, the best way is just to laugh at the absurdity of it all. And that's what you mean by amusement. But the fact is like, there's things like artificial intelligence for, what is it? How many decades? Six, seven decades has been off and on promising to change everything. And it has failed time and time again to deliver to the promise. But that doesn't mean there's something fundamental and really powerful about both the small and the big things going on within the actual research and development within those communities. There's a lot of exciting developments and the scale at which those developments might actually have a transformative impact, the timescale is unclear. It seems like we're certainly over promising. We dream too big and too aggressively in the AI community, but a lot of- Yeah, and I'm happy to give people the benefit of the doubt when they're over promising, but not when they're making their own money. When you start making your own currency, then you don't get the benefit of the doubt. Because if your idea needs you to have a new currency that you print when Bitcoin is out there, then I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you're doing this for the money. It's a good time to mention that I am actually launching my new coin called LexCoin. You mean shit coin? Yes. Oh, God. I'm gonna have to block you with love. Okay, one thing I wanted to ask you about is the Fed's, this paper they released in January 20th on the potential central bank digital currency, CBDC. What are your thoughts about that? Is it just another, like, is there pros and cons to this? Is it at all interesting to you that they're even considering this kind of thing? I used to think that it's just basically a waffle. It's meaningless. And because as it exists, the dollar is a central bank digital currency. The vast majority of dollars are digital. But I think the way that over the last couple of years, I've changed my mind on this. I think there's some serious substance behind these ideas. And what they mean effectively is the disintermediation of the banking system and giving everybody an account at the Federal Reserve. This is kind of the really dangerous idea. And I think this is enormously significant. Effectively, as somebody who's lived in the Soviet Union, what this is is the return of the Goss Bank on a global scale with modern technology. So under the Soviet Union, there was something called the Goss Bank or People's Bank. And that was the only bank in the country. And you had an account with the National Bank. And if you said something wrong, your money got terminated from the Goss Bank. Now imagine that combined with the power of digital technology. And you can see that this could be an enormously powerful technology really, because if banks are out of the picture, then we changed the fundamental reality of fiat as being the creation of money through lending. And then it becomes the creation of money truly by fiat, by government fiat. So we moved to a system in which money is just basically, it's like we have money that is pieces of paper. And every time we've had money, we've had fiat money that was just pieces of paper, it collapsed very quickly. With the current system, money is credit. And the creation of credit is restricted to some point. And the creation of credit is self-correcting. I discussed this in the fiat standard. If the central bank allows banks to create too much credit, that creates a bubble. And then there's a collapse in the money supply, which prevents hyperinflation from happening because the money creation is self-destructive, it's self-correcting. So you end up with an average of like 7% per year increase because you have 10% for five years, and then you get negative 20% for one year, and it's correcting. But now if you get rid of the credit creation mechanism, it's just assigning money directly, we're likely gonna get much faster inflation. And I think that's obviously a huge problem, and perhaps an even bigger problem is the enormous amount of power that it gives to governments. It allows them to create an awful dystopia where you've got your money on your phone and anything you do is completely supervised and controlled through your spending. So they wanna introduce a new lockdown, then they'll just make your money not work. Your money's broken today, you can't spend money. Or you can only spend money in your local supermarket for the next three months because you can't leave your neighborhood, your money stops working outside of your neighborhood. The Chinese social credit score system is an example of this. And I think, I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know what the likelihood is of implementing something like this in the US. I've discussed it with Michael Saylor, he thinks it's highly unlikely, he thinks the people who've been pushing this are very far from the position of power and the traditional monetary and financial system is going to survive intact. I certainly hope so. I think this would be a terrible thing if it comes to pass. But I don't think, many people think that it is something that would undermine Bitcoin. Like a lot of common objection to Bitcoin is, well, governments are just gonna launch their own digital currencies and then Bitcoin is gonna die. And I think this is completely missing the point. People think Bitcoin is important because it's digital. It's not, national currencies can be digital. Bitcoin is important because it's not inflationary and because nobody controls it. Central bank digital currencies are likely to be very inflationary and they're likely to have very strong control at the top. So if anything, they are an advertisement for Bitcoin rather than a replacement for it. If it's Bitcoin, if it's gold, it's a way for multiple nations to partake. So if you were to imagine a future where we move from the fiat standard back to the gold standard and then to the Bitcoin standard or skipping that, going directly to the Bitcoin standard, what would it take? Is it gradual, is it immediate? What are possible trajectories that take us? Well, basically where the final sort of empirical observation is that you overtake, Bitcoin overtakes first gold and then bonds in terms of its monetary power in the world. But like just specifically from a government perspective, how do we move the United States, China, Russia, India, European Union to a Bitcoin standard? I'm not entirely concerned about whether governments move or not. In fact, I'd be very happy for them not to move as long as possible so that individuals can accumulate more and more Bitcoin while it's still cheap. So the people will move and the governments will catch up. Yeah, and I think this is kind of what I allude to. I mean, the point of the fiat standard, the fiat standard is really a Bitcoin book. It talks about fiat most of the time, but it does so to analyze Bitcoin and the rise of Bitcoin. In the final chapter, I discuss how I think this relationship plays out. The way that I tend to think of it is that most likely what's going to happen is we're gonna have the kind of financial apartheid where there's going to be two monetary systems. One is government controlled and it comes with increasing amounts of surveillance and inflation. And then if you want, you can just opt out of that and get into Bitcoin. And it's likely going to be difficult for governments to stop people from getting into Bitcoin for all of the technical reasons that make it very hard to stop Bitcoin. So then we have this alternative that is Bitcoin, which is not inflationary and does not have a central authority that can censor it. I think gradually is my hope. And I also think my most likely scenario, but maybe I am biased because everybody thinks what they want is what's gonna happen. I think we're just gonna witness the same relationship because governments make their currency so that they can devalue them. And Bitcoin thrives on that. And more and more people are gonna learn, more and more people are gonna find out. And whether it's through curiosity or self-interest or through the destruction of the national currency, all roads lead to Bitcoin. So more and more people are gonna buy Bitcoin, the price of Bitcoin is going to go up. And as it goes up, Bitcoin becomes a more significant part of the world economy. And this is something that the skeptics don't get. Like a lot of the academic skeptics to Bitcoin, they offer up all of these theories about why they think Bitcoin can't work. And then they present it and they think, they've delivered the knockout blow as if Bitcoin needs their permission or the world is going to need their permission. Well, the reality is people are gonna join Bitcoin out of greed, out of self-interest. Number go up technology is really what's going to get everybody in. And that's really the Trojan horse for fixing the world. Come for the greed and stay for the revolution. It's gonna keep going up because people don't like to be poor, except for most economists and academics. People don't like to be poor. People don't enjoy getting their wealth destroyed. And they care more about their self-interest than they care about economic theories about whether this works as money or not. They see their cousin escaped hyperinflation and managed to get a bigger house because they bought Bitcoin five years ago. They realized maybe I should stop mocking my cousin and start buying more Bitcoin. And this is, I think, an indomitable force that's going to continue. And one thing, most Bitcoiners tend to lean toward an apocalyptic transition. Fiat's gonna collapse, we're gonna get hyperinflation, everything's gonna be terrible, and then we're gonna move to Bitcoin. And I present the case for why I think maybe that might not be the case. Maybe we won't get this kind of apocalyptic scenario. And this was like the conclusion of the Fiat standard, which is once you realize that mining Fiat is creating debt, and Bitcoin is allowing... So in order to have Fiat money, we need to have people borrow. We need to have people make loans. And the problem that Fiat money runs into today is that if you wanna save money, if you wanna hold savings, you have a problem. Where do you put your savings? So you put your savings in debt, in the creation of more bonds. Wherever you take your savings, you create a bubble in those things. And this is why we see a bubble in the stock market, a bubble in the bond market, a bubble in housing. It's because people are looking for savings, looking for a place where they can save. All of those things are crappy saving instruments because they're like copper, in that there's nothing to stop the people behind them to make more of them. House builders can build more houses, governments can issue more bonds, the crappy fraudulent companies can list on the stock market and make more stocks. Well, Bitcoin finally offers us an outlet. We don't need to keep creating more debt. We can invest in this asset that is hard, and that is internationally liquid, and that nobody can make more of. So there is no bubble in it. There is no mechanism for somebody to increase the supply and bring the price crashing down, like with copper and real estate and bonds. So Bitcoin is the way out. And this is why I think there's a good case to be made for why the fiat authorities might embrace Bitcoin, because they'll see it is their way out of this enormous debt bubble that everybody is stuck in. Particularly the richest and most powerful people in the world, and the richest and most powerful governments in the world are the world's biggest borrowers. They're the ones in a lot of debt. So a continuous slow devaluation of the value of that debt as people upgrade and move on to a hard asset that continues to appreciate is the peaceful way that we wind down the fiat Ponzi, I think. You could see it being like a political, part of a political platform for future people that run for president, those kinds of things to address. Obviously, it's not just for the powerful and the rich. The people are bothered by the debt. The people are bothered by everything that you described with fiat. And if you wanna sell yourself in a democracy as a good leader, you might want to make that part of the platform. You mentioned you know Michael Malice. He just texted me asking me to ask you, what do you like best about Michael Malice? If you can spend five to 10 to 20 to an hour talking about the genius of Michael Malice, what do you like? Where does one even start? Well, obviously the haircut first. Yeah, he just gets sexier with age, that's for sure. That's for sure. Do you know his ideas, his trolling and humor, have you gotten a chance to interact with him? Yes, yes, I've met Michael maybe 10, 12 years ago in New York. I used to live in New York when he used to live in New York. I met him a couple of times. There was a bunch of anarchists in New York used to throw a happy hour once a month. It was called the High Time Preference. A happy hour in honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. So I met him there a couple of times and we followed each other on Twitter for a while. Is there interesting that you're aware of philosophical differences in your world views? No, I think we pretty much see eye to eye. I think the difference is mainly that he spends a lot of time focusing on American politics and American pop culture, which I don't pay much attention to, I guess. So you look more at the monetary system, the economics of it all, and just the history, and just looking at it, zooming out at the big picture of it all. Although recently he's working on a book called The White Pill, and he's been, every time I see him, I mean, he's in some dark aspect of the 20th century. He's just like, I just finished writing about Hollywood or more, as you might imagine, he's not taking much, I believe, of a monetary perspective on things. His book, his writing, at least for time, his kind of philosophical ideology perspective that's outside of the monetary system. But you argue that those are actually inextricably linked. Yeah, and I don't think he would disagree. He would, but a book has to be, can only be so long, I suppose. It can only focus on so many things. If you can put on your wise sage hat and give some advice to young people, I mean, the past four hours have been a kind of advice, but if you can focus, and if somebody in high school or college is thinking about what to do with their career, could have a successful career, or to have a life they can be proud of, what would you tell them? I'd say probably the most important advice that I would give is to find a way to give value to other people. And this is really the key thing. You need to wake up every morning and figure out how to serve others. This is the key to everything you want in life. Everything that you want is on the other side of you serving others. So figure out how you can serve others in a good way, how you can do it in a way that they value, and you've got an incredible mechanism for figuring that out, which is the market. Go out there and do things for other people. The market will tell you. The market will tell you, exactly. If you're young, you have the enormous advantage of being able to make mistakes, essentially, and learn from them. So go out there, do things of value for others, figuring out how you can do something that, what is it that you can do that contributes the most value to other people's lives? And increasingly, I think with the modern technology, this is increasingly becoming online, and it's, I think you should consider how you can create value online, because that scales beyond anything that you can do in the physical world, in a very, very, well, maybe not beyond, obviously. There are profitable businesses in the physical world, but I think online is enormous potential, and coding, I think, is enormously powerful. I'm not a coder myself, but I strongly recommend people get into learning how to code, and I think it's probably the thing that carries the most power. So initially, we were working with our hands. We started working with machines. Machines are much more productive. Well, code is an even higher level of productivity, where you basically program the machines to produce things. So, you know, a few clicks of a keyboard, and you can move millions of machines around the world in certain ways. So it carries an enormous amount of value. I think, I always tell all young people to learn to code, it's the best thing. I used to tell it to my students when I was at university. Tell them to drop out and go learn to code. It's probably a better use of their time and money. We could probably do both. Yeah. University has an interesting function. I mean, probably you and I have different perspective on this, probably has to do with a little bit of a different journey in terms of fields, because I've stayed engineering-focused for a long time, and there's less, some of the troubles you might highlight in the education system, there's less troubles of that kind in engineering, because math hasn't changed for a long time. So a lot of it is just doing hard things, being forced to do hard things, and becoming a bit of a generalist, while on the side, you're also becoming a specialist based on your own passion, driven by your own passion. So school, at least high school, I don't know about the university, but high school has a really nice, one of the only times in your life, at least in my life, I was forced, but now I see, given the opportunity to spend my entire day learning broadly. And that's something, I don't know, the way time works, it just runs away from you, and you never really get a chance to learn quite that broadly again. That's the curse of specialization, is you kind of never get a chance to study biology, chemistry, if you're a physicist, time runs away from you. So it's enjoy the broad education. But yeah, like you said, find the things that valued by the market. And on the other side of it, you said all the good stuff. So that's also a way to get happiness. Yeah, and I'll also add that the horse that I like to whip all the time is the low time preference aspect of things, saving with Bitcoin. So I think my advice to young people is, when you're young, you think of the world in the very short term generally. You're focused on the present, and you think that everything that's happening in the present is the most important thing that's ever gonna happen in the history of humanity. Lower your time preference, think about the future, think further down the line, think about the consequences of the things you do, and then what? You know, and so you do this now, it feels good today, but then what happens tomorrow? You know, you go out, you drink, you enjoy yourself, well, think about the hangover. But more long-term, think about the implication of living this kind of life. Think about every decision that you make, the long-term implication of it. And part of that is Bitcoin, part of that is save in Bitcoin. I urge everybody to put savings in Bitcoin for the long term. Don't buy Bitcoin for the short term, you know, don't buy Bitcoin today so that you can sell it. You know, don't put your savings in Bitcoin today so that you can sell it all next month and buy a house. Put money in Bitcoin that you expect to keep in Bitcoin for another five, 10 years or so, at least four years is what I recommend for people. So keep a low time preference, focus on the future, and save in Bitcoin. And learn about how to buy Bitcoin, how to learn about all this technology. Part of this is this conversation, but there's so much awesome material out there. And thank you, by the way, for this gift of a hardware wallet. Nice. So you should definitely invest in it yourself. And what would you call this? These are- Open dimes. Open dimes, yeah. So this is like USB that you can, like a hardware device that stores Bitcoin. Yeah, so you don't have to worry about knowing the password. It contains the password within it, and it's tamper-proof. So you can save the Bitcoin on it. And- So when the apocalypse comes, you need the value to be stored on an actual thing that you can have in your physical possession. Yeah. That's exactly what this is. You've had a heck of a life. You've been in a bunch of places in this world. A lot of places. Life is not easy in some of those places. What has been, if we can take a step to, to maybe a bit of a dark step for a short time, what has been a maybe darkest time, period, place you've ever gone in your mind, a dark period of your life, a struggle they had to overcome, they had to survive? Well, I'm Palestinian. So that is the tragedy of my life. I'm Palestinian-Jordanian. My family's suffered a lot because of this historically. I grew up in Ramallah in the West Bank. It wasn't ideal to see that. People like to think of it as this intractable conflict between two bitter enemies. But the reality of the matter is that it's not. A foreign ideology came in with the idea that this country needs to be occupied by people from only one religion. And the existing population, which, I mean, Jews had always lived in Palestine historically. And at the turn of the 20th century, they were only 10% of the population. But then with the birth of fiat money, incidentally, the link with all of this is that when the Bank of England went off gold, big reason why they were able to pull that off was that the Rothschild banking family supported them. And in exchange, the Rothschilds got Palestine. And the Balfour Declaration was written by the government of Britain to the Rothschild family, telling them that they'd like to make Palestine a homeland for Jews. So obviously, that's not very convenient for people who are not Jewish, for whom that is a homeland. And the past 80 years has been a very painful struggle. If you happen to not be Jewish, and obviously, Palestinians have done all kinds of things, trying to fight back, and they've done all kinds of wrong things. But I don't think you can escape the fundamental reality underlying this, which is that if you're not Jewish, you are being moved out of the land. And so it's happened in 1947, 48, it happened in 1976, my family in 67, more land was taken over by Israel. Now you see it with the settlements. If you ignore the day-to-day headlines, and you ignore the media propaganda, and you ignore all of this, there's a very clear thing that is happening, which is more land owned by an exclusive ideology that believes this land needs to be owned by people from one religion, and everybody else is being kicked out. And so that is the tragedy of my life. And my wife is also a Palestinian refugee from Lebanon, and her family was evicted from Jaffa, which is today on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. They still have their homes in Jaffa, their homes are being left, they got kicked out of their homes, and their lands, and their property. They became refugees in Lebanon. So my children, and it's an ongoing tragedy, it's not something that is, a lot of the people that think of it as, they think Palestinians are just out there to get Israelis because they hate them, but it's an inescapable tragedy. I don't have a home anywhere. Is there an escape from this tragedy in the future that you see? If you zoom out across the scale of decades, will we see, I hesitate to say peace, but a significant decrease in human suffering in this part of the region? I certainly hope so. And I think my interest in Bitcoin comes from, came from a place of desperation with the situation there. Traditional politics is a dead end. I don't see what I can be doing to make things better there using traditional politics. And I think a good friend of mine, Pierre Rochard, you may know him on Twitter, one of the brightest minds in Bitcoin in my opinion, he told me his theory is that Bitcoin is gonna bring peace to the Middle East because land is a shit coin. And- Land is a shit coin, I love it. And I think he's got a very good point there that this fixation with land and the bitterness with which people have to live land is likely to decline when people are gonna have a form of property that they can keep. And so hopefully that will help in one way. And of course, the more obvious way is that this is a conflict of governments and it's a conflict that is financed by fiat. And from day one, the entirely insane notion that you could build a national, an ethnic homeland. And of course, this is the early 20th century. So the idea behind Zionism is coming from the same place where all these other ethnic nationalisms of Europe were emerging and we saw how horribly these worked out. But the idea that you could, it's one thing to say we wanna build a homeland for Germans in Germany. It's one thing to say we wanna build a homelands for Germans somewhere else. And that was Palestine, that was Zionism. And that was only possible thanks to fiat, thanks to the ability of the British government and all these other governments to continue to finance this colonialist effort over time. And it continues to finance war and it continues, we see war all over the world continue to escalate because the people who'd make the decision to escalate the war are not the ones who are paying for it and they're not the ones who are fighting. They're the ones who sit in offices. And in the case of most of Middle Eastern conflict, it's people who live abroad. It's people who are abroad or not part of it who just are emotionally charged to it because they watch it on TV. So you have billions of Muslims around the world and Jews around the world who feel extremely emotionally attached to it. They're not the ones fighting, they're not the ones paying their own money. They're just getting governments to send money and to send weapons and to take part. And it's fun as a spectator sport for most of these people because they don't get to live in it. But I got to live in it, I saw it. I grew up there. I saw the settlement expansion. And recently, a few weeks ago, I went back to Ramallah and it's just, it's amazing every time you go, the settlements are just growing in an astonishing way. Like it's not just housing units that are going up. It's an entire attempt to build, to basically suffocate Palestinian areas and force Palestinians to leave or keep them living in horrific conditions. And if I may, just because I have family in Ukraine, I have family in Russia, since this war, echoes of similar things are happening in that part of the world too. And I shudder to think about the decades to come of the hate that is brewing, the suffering that is brewing based on decisions and pressures and from not always people directly impacted by this. So again, it feels like that military conflict is not just a creation of like people on the ground. It's a creation of leaders, power centers. And perhaps, again, I'm not smart enough, but even the monetary system probably has a role to play. I absolutely think it does. Monetary system is what allows people to just continue to treat war as a spectator sport. That's really what it comes down to. And it starts with World War I and it's continued. And this is why I really, I think I've said this before, I've tweeted this before and it was a pretty popular tweet, but it also got a lot of people to dismiss the idea with mockery, of course. But I really think Bitcoin is the only technology that's going to end World War I. Once World War I started, we got into this endless conflict. It's been ongoing since then. If you look at all the world's conflicts today, pretty much they all trace back to World War I. And it's because when that Pandora's box of government control of money was opened, there was no longer a real restraint on war, except complete defeat and complete destruction and complete death. The war had to be total. Before that, under the gold standard, kings would send professional armies to fight each other in battlefields. And as soon as it became clear that one side was establishing an advantage, the fighting would stop and the kings would settle, would agree to new terms, because it was extremely expensive to build a professional army and you ran out of money. So it was always the smartest thing to do is to just stop fighting whenever you could. And wars would take place. Countries would fight each other in the battlefield, but in the cities, life went on as normal. And people within the same cities, within the cities of the two countries would be trading with one another. Life would go on, but the war would be there. And it was just an independent part of politics that, all right, we have a problem over this piece of land, let's take it outside. We don't fight in the civilian areas. We go to the battlefield, we fight with professional armies. And in fact, sometimes the conflicts would be, the armies would line up and they would just have a small contingent of the two armies fight with one another. And as soon as one of them establishes an advantage, then, all right, well, you won, let's move on with it. Governments were far, far, far more careful about their monetary policy and their, sorry, their war policy when they couldn't print their money. And that has changed with fiat. And that has allowed this new emergence of this class of what I like to call chicken hawks, of people who sit in offices, like the entire foreign policy establishment in Washington, DC, people who have never fought a war, whose children will never fight a war, who will never pay to fight a war, who will never suffer a broken window in their house because of war, sitting there and based on these fucking moronic garbage that they teach at moronic fiat universities about politics and geopolitics, making decisions about, you know, we need to invade that country and we need to send war there. And they can do that because they have this endless money printer. And that's why, you know, back under gold, if you were a warrior, you know, you went and actually joined the war. And that, you know, the people who pontificated about war were the people who had experience with war, the people who were sending their own children to war, the people who were fighting with their own money. Now you have all these fat parasitics come, sitting in Washington, DC, deciding, and Washington is just an example, but all over the world, this exists. People who have never fought, who will never carry the consequences, who are going to devalue the world's money in order to go and have other people's children fight each other because of stupid garbage they learned about politics in university. You said you value low time preference, but I have news for you that one day you will die, as far as we know, you're a mortal being. Do you think about your death? Do you think about your mortality? Are you afraid of it? I've spent a lot of time introspecting and thinking about these things, and I value life a lot. I value my time on earth a lot. And you'll see this in my dealings with people. You know, go back to Twitter, why am I so brash and straightforward? It really is because life is short, because I don't want to waste, I think, you know, on my, I've said this before, on my tombstone, let it be written, he never let anyone waste his time twice in his life. You can. His life is short. Yeah, you can waste my time once, you can get me to do something, and then I realize that was a waste of time, you will never get me to waste my time twice. And so you show up in my Twitter with something stupid, you're never showing up in my Twitter ever again. So you're a fast learner. You give people a chance, but you're a fast learner. Yeah, so I try and use my time very wisely, and I'm unapologetic about it. My time is the most precious thing, and like, the way to get on my shit list forever is to try and take away my time, and to abuse my time. If you do that, I'm, it's the one unforgivable sin for me. And I think that's really, I think that's my way of coming to terms with mortality. We're all gonna die, and so let's make the most out of it while we're still here. And of course, the other way you come to terms with mortality is you have children. Given what you just said, doubly so, it's a huge honor that you would spend your valuable time with me. This is the first time you did it, so you probably regret all of it, so we'll probably never see each other again. But I'm glad you at least took the chance to do it. It's a huge honor, man. I've been a huge fan of yours. Thank you, sir. I think you have impact on the world that you probably are not even aware of. It's tremendous. And a lot of people love you, and your work is important. Even, you know, I disagree with some things you say, and there's people that disagree with you, but everybody respects you. And thank you so much for spending your really valuable time with me today, brother. Thank you, sir. I really appreciate it. This was not a waste of time, and I'd be happy to do it again. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Savedina Moose. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek. Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest. It is the control of the means for all our ends. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/gp4U5aH_T6A

LfRHpEY62r0

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Elon Musk: So You're Saying There's a Chance - Neuralink and Merging with AI

There's a tremendous amount of good that Neuralink can do in solving critical damage to the brain or the spinal cord. There's a lot that can be done to improve quality of life of individuals, and those will be steps along the way. And then ultimately, it's intended to address the existential risk associated with digital superintelligence. Like, we will not be able to be smarter than a digital supercomputer. So therefore, if you cannot beat them, join them. And at least we won't have that option. So you have hope that Neuralink will be able to be a kind of connection to allow us to merge, to ride the wave of the improving AI systems? I think the chance is above 0%. So it's non-zero. There's a chance. Have you seen Dumb and Dumber? Yes. So I'm saying there's a chance. He's saying one in a billion or one in a million, whatever it was, at Dumb and Dumber. You know, it went from maybe one in a million to improving, maybe it'll be one in a thousand and then one in a hundred, then one in ten. It depends on the rate of improvement of Neuralink and how fast we're able to make progress. Well, I've talked to a few folks here that are quite brilliant engineers, so I'm excited. It's important that Neuralink solve this problem sooner rather than later, because the point at which we have digital superintelligence, that's when we pass to singularity and things become just very uncertain. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily bad or good, but the point at which we pass to singularity, things become extremely unstable. So we want to have a human brain interface before the singularity, or at least not long after it, to minimize existential risk for humanity and consciousness as we know it.

https://youtu.be/LfRHpEY62r0

aJoRMFWn2Jk

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Dennis Whyte: Nuclear Fusion and the Future of Energy | Lex Fridman Podcast #353

Why weren't we pushing towards economic fusion and new materials and new methods of heat extraction and so forth? Because everybody knew fusion was 40 years away. And now it's four years away. The following is a conversation with Dennis White, nuclear physicist at MIT and the director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Dennis White. Let's start with a big question. What is nuclear fusion? It's the underlying process that powers the universe. So as the name implies, it fuses together or brings together two different elements, technically nuclei, that come together. And if you can push them together close enough that you can trigger essentially a reaction, what happens is that the element typically changes. So this means that you change from one element to another, chemical element to another. Underlying what this means is that you change the nuclear structure. This rearrangement through equals MC squared releases large amounts of energy. So fusion is the fusing together of lighter elements into heavier elements. And when you go through it, you say, oh, look, so here were the initial elements, typically hydrogen. And they had a particular mass, rest mass, which means just the mass with no kinetic energy. And when you look at the product afterwards, it has less rest mass. And so you go, well, how is that possible? Because you have to keep mass. But mass and energy are the same thing, which is what E equals MC squared means. And the conversion of this comes into kinetic energy, namely energy that you can use in some way. And that's what happens in the center of stars. So fusion is literally the reason life is viable in the universe. So fusion is happening in our sun. And what are the elements? The elements are hydrogen that are coming together. It goes through a process which is probably, it's a little bit too detailed, but it's a somewhat complex catalyzed process that happens in the center of stars. But in the end, stars are big balls of hydrogen, which is the lightest, it's the simplest element, the lightest element, the most abundant element, most of the universe is hydrogen. And it's essentially a sequence through which these processes occur that you end up with helium. So those are the primary things. And the reason for this is because helium has features as a nucleus, like the interior part of the atom, that is extremely stable. And the reason for this is helium has two protons and two neutrons. These are the things that make up nuclei, that make up all of us, along with electrons. And because it has two pairs, it's extremely stable. And for this reason, when you convert the hydrogen into helium, it just wants to stay helium, and it wants to release kinetic energy. So stars are basically conversion engines of hydrogen into helium. And this also tells you why you love fusion. I mean, because our sun will last 10 billion years approximately, that's how long the fuel will last. But to do that kind of conversion, you have to have extremely high temperatures. It is one of the criteria for doing this. But it's the easiest one to understand. Why is this? It's because effectively what this requires is that these hydrogen ions, which is really the bare nucleus, so they have a positive charge, everything has a positive charge of those ones, is that to get them to trigger this reaction, they must approach within distances which are like the size of the nucleus itself. Because the nature, in fact, what it's really using is something called the strong nuclear force. There's four fundamental forces in the universe. This is the strongest one. But it has a strange property, is that while it's the strongest force by far, it only has impact over distances which are the size of a nucleus. So to get, let's put that into, what does that mean? It's a millionth of a billionth of a meter, okay? Incredibly small distances. But because the distances are small and the particles have charge, they want to push strongly apart. Namely, they have repulsion that wants to push them apart. So it turns out when you go through the math of this, the average velocity or energy of the particles must be very high to have any significant probability of the reactions happening. And so the center of our sun is at about 20 million degrees Celsius. And on Earth, this means it's one of the first things we teach entering graduate students. You can do a quick basically power balance and you can determine that on Earth that it requires a minimum temperature of about 50 million degrees Celsius on Earth. To perform fusion. To get enough fusion that you would be able to get energy gain out of it. So you can trigger fusion reactions at lower energy, they become almost vanishingly small at lower temperatures than that. First of all, let me just link around some crazy ideas. So one, the strong force. Just stepping out and looking at all the physics. Is it weird to you that there's these forces and they're very particular, like it operates at a very small distance and then gravity operates at a very large distance and they're all very specific and the standard model describes three of those forces extremely well and there's. And this is one of them. Yeah, this is one of them. And it's just all kind of works out. There's a big part of you that's an engineer. Did you step back and almost look at the philosophy of physics? So it's interesting because as a scientist, I see the universe through that lens of essentially the interesting things that we do are through the forces that get used around those. And everything works because of that. Richard Feynman had, I don't know if you've ever read Richard Feynman, it's a little bit of a tangent, but- He's never been on the podcast. He's never been on the podcast. He was unfortunately passed away, but like a hero to almost all physicists. And a part of it was because of what you said, he kind of looked through a different lens at these, what typically look like very dry, like equations and relationships. And he kind of, I think he brought out the wonder of it in some sense, right? For those, he posited what would be, if you could write down a single, not even really a sentence, but a single concept that was the most important thing scientifically that we knew about. That in other words, you had only one thing that you could transmit like a future or past generation. It was very interesting. It was, so it's not what you think. It wasn't like, oh, strong nuclear force or fusion or something like this. And it's very profound, which was, he was that the reason that matter operates the way that it does is because all matter is made up of individual particles that interact each other through forces. That was it. So just. Atomic theory, basically. Yeah. Which is like, wow, that's like so simple, but it's not so simple. It's because like, who thinks about atoms that they're made out of? Like, this is a good question I give to my students. How many atoms are in your body? Like almost no students can answer this, but to me, that's like a fundamental thing. By the way, it's about 10 to the 28. 10 to the 28. So that's a trillion, million, trillion, trillion or something like that, yes. So one thing is to think about the number and the other is to start to really ponder the fact. That it all holds together. Yeah, it all holds together and you're actually that. You're more that than you are anything else. Yes, exactly, yeah. No, I mean, there are people who do study such things of the fact that if you look at the, for example, the ratios between those fundamental forces, people have figured out, oh, if this ratio was different by some factor, like a factor of two or something, I was like, oh, this would all not work. And you look at the sun, right? It's like, so it turns out that there are key reactions that if they had slightly lower probability, no star would ever ignite. And then life wouldn't be possible. It does seem like the universe set things up for us that it's possible to do some cool things, but it's challenging. So that it keeps it fun for us. Yeah, yeah, that's the way I look at it. I mean, the multiverse model is an interesting one because there are quantum scientists who look at it and figure, it's like, oh, it's like, oh yeah. Like quantum science perhaps tells us that there are almost an infinite variety of other universes, but the way that it works probably is it's almost like a form of natural selection. It's like, well, the universes that didn't have the correct or interesting relationships between these forces, nothing happens in them. So almost by definition, the fact that we're having this conversation means that we're in one of the interesting ones by default. Yeah, one of the somewhat interesting, but there's probably super interesting ones where I tend to think of humans as incredible creatures. Our brain is an incredible computing device, but I think we're also extremely cognitively limited. I can imagine alien civilizations that are much, much, much, much more intelligent in ways we can't even comprehend in terms of their ability to construct models of the world, to do physics, to do physics and mathematics. I would see it in a slightly different way. It's actually, it's because we have creatures that live with us on the Earth that have cognition, that understand and move through their environment, but they actually see things in a way, or they sense things in a way which is so fundamentally different, it's really hard. Like, the problem is the translation, not necessarily intelligence. So it's the perception of the world. So I have a dog, and when I go and I see my dog like smelling things, there's a realization that I have that he sees or senses the world in a way that I can never, like I can't understand it because I can't translate my way to this. We get little glimpses of this as humans though, by the way, because there are some parts of it, for example, optical information, which comes from light, isn't now because we've developed the technology, we can actually see things. I get this as one of my areas of research is spectroscopy. So this means the study of light. And I get this quote unquote, see things or representations of them from the far infrared all the way to like hard, hard x-rays, which is several orders of magnitude of the light intensity, but our own human eyes, like see a teeny, teeny little sliver of this. So that even like bees, for example, see a different place than we do. So I don't, I think if you think of, there's already other intelligences like around us in a way, in a limited way, because of the way they can communicate, but it's like those are already baffling in many ways, yeah. If we just focus in on the senses, there's already a lot of diversity, but there's probably things we're not even considering as possibilities. For example, whatever the heck consciousness is could actually be a door into understanding some physical phenomena we're not, haven't even begun understanding. So just like you said, spectroscopy, there could be a similar kind of spectrum for consciousness that we're just like, we're like these dumb descendants of apes like walking around. It sure feels like something to experience the color red, but like we don't have, it's the same as in the ancient times you experienced physics. We experienced light. It's like, oh, it's bright. And you know, and you construct kind of semi-religious kind of explanations. We might actually experience this faster than we thought because we might be building another kind of intelligence. Yeah, and that intelligence will explain to us how silly we are. There was an email thread going around the professors in my department already of, so what is it going to look like to figure out if students have actually written their term papers or it's chat, the- Chat GPT. Chat GPT. It was, so as usual, we tend to be empiricists in my field. So of course they were in there like trying to figure out if it could answer like questions for a qualifying exam to get into the PhD program at MIT, which was, they didn't do that well at that point. But of course this is just the beginning of it. So we have some interesting ones to go for. Eventually both the students and the professors will be replaced by chat GPT. Yeah. And we'll sit on the beach. I really recommend, I don't know if you've ever seen them, it's called The Day the Universe Changed. Is it a movie? James Burke. He's a science historian based in the UK. He had a fairly famous series on public television called Connections, I think it was, but the one that I really enjoyed was The Day the Universe Changed. And the reason for the title of it was that, he says the universe is what we know and perceive of it. So when there's a fundamental insight as to something new, the universe for us changes. Of course, the universe from an objective point of view is the same as it was before, but for us it has changed. So he walks through these moments of perception in the history of humanity that like changed what we were. And so as I was thinking about coming to discuss this, people see fusion, oh, it's still far away, or it's been slow progress. It's like when my godmother was born, like people had no idea how stars worked. So you talk about like that day, that insight, the universe changed. It's like, oh, this is the, I mean, and they still didn't understand all the parts of it, but they basically got it. It was like, oh, because of the understanding of these processes, it's like we unveiled the reason that there can be life in the universe. That's probably one of those days the universe changed, right? Yeah. And that was in the 1930s, yeah. It seems like technology is developing faster and faster and faster. I tend to think, just like with Chad J.P.T., I think this year might be extremely interesting, just with how rapid and how profitable the efforts in artificial intelligence are, that just stuff will happen where our whole world is transformed like this, and there's a shock, and then next day you kind of go on and you adjust immediately. You probably won't have a similar kind of thing with nuclear fusion with energy, because there's probably going to be an opening ceremony and stuff. Yes. An announcement, it'll take months. But with digital technology, you can just have an immediate transformation of society, and then it'll be this gasp, and then you kind of adjust, like we always do, and then you don't even remember, just like with the internet and so on, how the days were before. And how it worked before, right, yeah. I mean, fusion will be, because it's energy, its nature is that it will be, and anything that has to do with energy use tends to be a slower transition, but they're the most, I would argue, some of the most profound transitions that we make. I mean, the reason that we can live like this and sit in this building and have this podcast and people around the world is, at its heart, is energy use, and it's intense energy use that came from the evolution of starting to use intense energies at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up to now. It's like, it's a bedrock, actually, of all of these, but it doesn't tend to come overnight. Yeah, and some of the most important, some of the most amazing technology is one we don't notice, because we take it for granted, because it enables this whole thing. Yeah, exactly, which is energy, which is amazing for how fundamental it is to our society and way of life is a very poorly understood concept, actually. Just even energy itself, people confuse energy sources with energy storage, with energy transmission. These are different physical phenomena, which are very important. So, for example, you buy an electric car, and you go, oh, good, I have an emission-free car. And, ah, but it's like, so why do you say that? Well, it's because if I draw the circle around the car, I have electricity, and it doesn't emit anything. Okay, but you plug that into a grid where you follow that wire back, there could be a coal power plant or a gas power plant at the end of that. Oh, really? You mean, so this isn't carbon-free? Oh, and it's not their fault, it's just, they don't, like, the car isn't a source of energy. The underlying source of energy was the combustion of the fuel back somewhere. Plus, there's also a story of how the raw materials are mined in which parts of the world, with sort of basic respect or deep disrespect of human rights that happens in that mining. So the whole supply chain, there's a story there that's deeper than just the particular electric car with a circle around it. And the physics or the science of it, too, is the energy use that it takes to do that digging up, which is also important and all that. Yeah, anyway, so. We wandered away from fusion, but yes. Oh, it's a beautiful story. But it's very important, actually, in the context of this, just because, you know, those of us who work in fusion and these other kinds of sort of disruptive energy technologies, it's interesting. I do think about, like, what is it going to mean to society to have an energy source that is like this, that would be like fusion, you know, which has such completely different characteristics than, for example, free unlimited access to the fuel, but it has technology implications. So what does this mean geopolitically? What does it mean for how we distribute wealth within our society? It's very difficult to know, but probably profound. We're gonna have to find another reason to start wars instead of resources. We've done a pretty good job of that over the course of our history. So we talked about the forces of physics, and again, sticking to the philosophical before we get to the specific technical stuff, E equals MC squared, you mentioned. How amazing is that to you, that energy and mass are the same? And what does that have to do with nuclear fusion? So it has to do with everything we do. It's the fact that energy and mass are equivalent to each other. The way we usually comment to it is that they're just energy, just in different forms. Can you intuitively understand that? Yes, but it takes a long time. I haven't for a while, but often I teach the introductory class for incoming nuclear engineers. And so we put this up as an equation and we go through many iterations of using this, how you derive it, how you use it, and so forth. And then usually in the final exam, I would basically take all the equations that I've used before and I flip it around. I basically, instead of thinking about energy is equal to mass, it's sort of mass is equal to energy. And I ask the question a different way, and usually about half the students don't get it. It takes a while to get that intuition, yeah. So in the end, it's interesting is that this is actually the source of all free energy, because that energy that we're talking about is kinetic energy if it can be transformed from mass. So it turns out even though we used equals mc squared, this is burning coal and burning gas and burning wood is actually still equals mc squared. The problem is that you would never know this because the relative change in the mass is incredibly small. By the way, which comes back to fusion, which is that equals mc squared. Okay, so what does this mean? It tells you that the amount of energy that is liberated in a particular reaction when you change mass has to, because c squared is that's the speed of light squared. It's a large number. It's a very large number and it's totally constant everywhere in the universe, which is. Which is another weird thing. Which is another weird thing and in all rest frames and actually the relativity stuff gets more difficult conceptually until you get through. Anyway, so you go to that and what that tells you is that it's the relative change in the mass will tell you about the relative amount of energy that's liberated. And this is what makes fusion, and you asked about fission as well too. This is what makes them extraordinary. It's because the relative change in the mass is very large as compared to what you get like in a chemical reaction. In fact, it's about 10 million times larger. And that is at the heart of why you use something like fusion. It's because that is a fundamental of nature. Like you can't beat that. So of whatever you do, if you're thinking about, and why do I care about this? Well, because mass is like the fuel, right? So this means gathering the resources that it takes to gather a fuel, to hold it together, to deal with it, the environmental impact it would have. And fusion will always have 20 million times the amount of energy release per reaction that you could have though. So this is why we consider it the ultimate like environmentally friendly energy source is because of that. So is it correct to think of mass broadly as a kind of storage of energy? Yes. You mentioned it's environmentally friendly. So nuclear fusion is a source of energy. It's cheap, clean, safe. So easy access to fuel and virtually unlimited supply, no production of greenhouse gases, little radioactive waste produced allegedly. Can you sort of elaborate why it's cheap, clean, and safe? I'll start with the easiest one, cheap. It is not cheap yet because it hasn't been made at a commercial scale. Ryan Fleiss, when you're having fun. Yes. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. But yes, not yet. We'll talk about that. Actually, we'll come back to that because this is cheaper or a more technically correct term that it's economically interesting is really the primary challenge actually of fusion at this point. But I think we can get back to that. So what were the other ones you said? So cheap, actually, when we're talking about cheap, we're thinking like asymptotically. If you take it forward several hundred years, that's sort of because of how much availability there is of resources to use. Of the fuel. Yeah, of the fuel. We should separate those two. The fuel is already cheap. It's basically free, right? What do you mean by basically free? So if we were to be using fusion fuel sources to power your, and it's like, that's all we had was fusion power plants around, and we were doing it, the fuel cost per person are something like 10 cents a year. It's free, okay? This is why it's hard to, in some ways, I think it's hard to understand fusion because people see this and go, oh, if the fuel is free, this means the energy source is free because we're used to energy sources like this. So we spend resources and drill to get gas or oil, or we chop wood, or we make coal, or we find coal, or these things, right? So fusion, this is what makes fusion, and it's also, it's not an intermittent, renewable energy source like wind and solar, so it's like, but this makes it hard to understand. So if you're saying the fuel is free, why isn't the, like, why isn't the energy source free? And it's because of the necessary technologies which must be applied to basically recreate the conditions which are in stars, in the center of stars, in fact. So there's only one natural place in the universe that fusion energy occurs, that's in the center of stars. So that's going to bring a price to it depending on the cost, sorry, the size and complexity of the technology that's needed to recreate those things. And we'll talk about the details of those technologies and which parts might be expensive today and which parts might be expensive in 200 years. Exactly. It will have a revolution, I'm certain of it. So about clean, so clean is, at its heart, what it does is convert, it basically converts hydrogen into, it's heavier forms of hydrogen, the one, the most predominant one that we use on Earth, and converts it into helium and some other products, but primarily helium is the product that's left behind. So helium, safe, inert, gas, you know. In fact, that's actually what our sun is doing, it's eventually going to extinguish itself because it'll just make so much helium that it doesn't do that. So in that sense, clean because there's no emissions of carbon or pollutants that come directly from the combustion of the fuel itself. And safe. Safe, yeah. We're talking about very high temperatures. Yeah, so this is also the counterintuitive thing. So I told you temperatures, which like 50 million degrees, or it actually tends to be more like about 100 million degrees is really what we aim for. So how can 100 million degrees be safe? And it's safe because it is, this is so much hotter than anything on Earth, where everything on Earth is at around 300 Kelvin, you know, it's around a few tens of degrees Celsius. And what this means is that in order to get a medium to those temperatures, you have to completely isolate it from anything to do with terrestrial environment. It can have no contact, like with anything on Earth, basically. So this means what we, this is the technology that I just described, is it fundamentally what it does is it takes this fuel and it isolates it from any terrestrial conditions so that it has no idea it's on Earth. It's not touching any object that's at room temperature. Including the walls of the containment. Even including the walls of the containment building or containment device, or even air or anything like this. So it's that part that makes it safe, and there's actually another aspect to it. But that fundamental part makes it so safe. And in the main lines approach to fusion is also that it's very hot, where there's very, very few particles in at any time in the thing that would be the power plant. The actually more correct way to do it is you say, there's very few particles per unit volume. So in a cubic centimeter, in a cubic meter, something like that. So we can do this. Now we're, although we don't think of air really as, there's atoms floating around us and there's a density, because if I wave my hand I can feel the air pushing against my face. That means we're in a fluid or a gas, which is around us, that has a particular number of atoms per cubic meter. So this actually turns out to be 10 to the 25th. So this is one with 25 zeros behind it, per cubic meter. So we can figure out, like cubic meters about like this, the volume of this table, like the whole volume of this table. Okay, very good. So like fusion, there's a few of those. So fusion, like the mainstream one of fusion, like what we're working on at MIT, we'll have a hundred thousand times less particles per unit volume than that. So this is very interesting because it's extraordinarily hot, a hundred million degrees, but it's very tenuous. And what matters from the engineering and safety point of view is the amount of energy which is stored per unit volume, because this tells you about the scenarios and that's what you worry about, because when those kinds of energies are released suddenly, it's like, what would be the consequences, right? So the consequences of this are essentially zero, because that's less energy content than boiling water. Because of the low density? Because of the low density. So if you take, water is at about a hundred million to a billion times more dense than this. So even though it's at much lower temperature, it's actually still, it has more energy content. So for this reason, one of the ways that I explain this is that if you imagine a power plant that's like powering Cambridge, Massachusetts, like if you were to, which you wouldn't do this directly, but if you went like this on it, it actually extinguishes the fusion, because it gets too cold immediately. Yeah, so that's the other one. And the other part is that it does not, because it works by staying hot, rather than a chain reaction, it can't run out of control. That's the other part of it. So by the way, this is what very much distinguishes it from fission, it's not a process that can run away from you, because it's basically thermally stable. What does thermally stable mean? That means is that you want to run it at the optimization in temperature, such that if it deviates away from that temperature, the reactivity gets lower. And the reason for this is because it's hard to keep the reactivity going. Like it's a very hard fire to keep going, basically. Also, it doesn't run away from you. It can't run away from you. How difficult is the control there to keep it at that? It varies from concept to concept, but in generally, it's fairly easy to do that. And the easiest thing, it can't physically run away from you, because the other part of it is that there's just, at any given time, there's a very, very small amount of fuel available to fuse anyway. So this means that that's always intrinsically limited to this. So even if the power consumption of the device goes up, it just kind of burns itself out immediately. So you are the, just to take another tangent on a tangent, you're the director of MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center. That's right. We'll talk about, maybe you can mention some interesting aspects of the history of the center in the broader history of MIT, and maybe broader history of science and engineering in the history of human civilization. But also, just the link on the safety aspect. How do you prevent some of the amazing reactors that you're designing, how do you prevent from destroying all of human civilization in the process? What's the safety protocols? Fusion is interesting, because it's not really directly weaponizable, because what I mean by that is that you have to work very hard to make these conditions at which you can get energy gain from fusion. And this means that when we design these devices with respect to application in the energy field, is that they, you know, while they will, because they're producing large amounts of power and they will have hot things inside of them, this means that they have a level of industrial hazard, which is very similar to what you would have like in a chemical processing plant or anything like that. And any kind of energy plant actually has these as well too. But the underlying, underneath it, core technology can't be directly used in a nefarious way because of the power that's being emitted. It just basically, if you try to do those things, typically it just stops working. So the safety concerns have to do with just regular things that, like equipment malfunctioning, melting of equipment, like all this kind of stuff that has nothing to do with fusion, necessarily. I mean, usually what we worry about is the viability, because in the end we build pretty complex objects to realize these requirements. And so what we try really hard to do is not damage those components. But those are things which are internal to the fusion device, and this is not something that you would consider about, like it would, as you say, destroy human civilization, because that release of energy is just inherently limited because of the fusion process. So it doesn't say that there's zero, so you asked about the other feature, but that it's safe. So it is, the process itself is intrinsically safe, but because it's a complex technology, you still have to take into consideration aspects of the safety, so it produces ionizing radiation instantaneously, so you have to take care of this, which means that you shield it. Think of like your dental x-rays or treatments for cancer and things like this, we always shield ourselves from this. So we get the beneficial effects, but we minimize the harmful effects of those. So there are those aspects of it as well, too. So we'll return to MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center, but let us linger on the destruction of human civilization, which brings us to the topic of nuclear fission. What is that? So the process that is inside nuclear weapons and current nuclear power plants. So it relies on the same underlying physical principle, but it's exactly the opposite, which actually the names imply. Fusion means bringing things together, fission means splitting things apart. So fission requires the heaviest instead of the lightest, and the most unstable versus the most stable elements. So this tends to be uranium or plutonium, primarily uranium, so take uranium. So uranium-235 is one of the, this is one of the heaviest unstable elements, and what happens is that this is, fission is triggered by the fact that one of these subatomic particles, the neutron, which has no electric charge, basically gets in proximity enough to this and triggers an instability effectively inside of this, what is teetering on the border of instability, and basically splits it apart. And that's the fission, right, the fissioning. And so when that happens, because the products that are, and it roughly splits in two, but it's not even that, it's actually more complicated, it splits into this whole array of lighter elements and nuclei. And when that happens, there's less rest mass left than the original one. So it's actually the same, so it's again, it's rearrangement of the strong nuclear force that's happening, but that's the source of the energy. And so in the end, it's like, so this is a famous graph that we show everybody, is basically, it turns out every element that exists in the periodic table, all the things that make up everything, have a, remember you asked a good question, it was like, so should we think of mass as being the same as stored energy? Yes, so you can make a plot that basically shows the relative amount of stored energy in all of the elements that are stable and make up basically the world, okay, and the universe. And it turns out that this one has a maximum amount of stability or storage at iron. So it's kind of in the middle of the periodic table because this goes from, it's roughly that. And so this, what that means is that if you take something heavier than iron, like uranium, which is more than twice as heavy than that, and you split apart, somehow just magically, you can just split apart its constituents and you get something that's lighter, that will, because it moves to a more stable energy state, it releases kinetic energy, that's the energy that we use. Kinetic energy meaning the movement of things. So it's actually an energy you can do something with. And fusion, it sits on the other side of that because it's also moving towards iron, but it has to do it through fusion together. So this leads to some pretty profound differences. As I said, they have some underlying physics or science proximity to each other, but they're literally the opposite. So fusion, why is this? It actually goes into practical implications of it, which is that fission could happen at room temperature. It's because this neutron has no electric charge and therefore it's literally room temperature neutrons that actually trigger the reaction. So this means in order to establish what's going on with it, and it works by a chain reaction, is that you can do this at room temperature. So Enrico Fermi did this on a university campus, University of Chicago campus. The first sustained chain reaction was done underneath a squash court with a big blocks of graphite. It was still, don't get me wrong, an incredible human achievement, right? But that's, and then you think about fusion, I have to build a contraption of some kind that's going to get to a hundred million degrees. Okay, wow, that's a big difference. The other one is about the chain reaction, that namely fission works by the fact that when that fission occurs, it actually produces free neutrons. Free neutrons, particularly if they get slowed down to room temperature, trigger, can trigger other fission reactions if there's other uranium nearby or fissile materials. So this means that the way that it releases energy is that you set this up in a very careful way such that every, on average, every reaction that happens exactly releases enough neutrons and slows down that they actually make another reaction, one, exactly one. And what this means is that because each reaction releases a fixed amount of energy, you do this and then in time, this looks like just a constant power output. So that's how our fission power plant works. And so their control of the chain reactions is extremely difficult and extremely important for fission. It's very important. And when you intentionally design it, that it creates more than one fission reaction per starting reaction, then it exponentiates away. Which is what a nuclear weapon is. Yeah, so how does an atomic weapon work? How does a hydrogen bomb work? Asking for a friend. Yeah. Yeah, so at its heart, what you do is you very quickly put together enough of these materials that can undergo fission with room temperature neutrons. And you put them together fast enough that what happens is that this process can essentially grow mathematically like very fast. And so this releases large amounts of energy. So that's the underlying reason that it works. So you've heard of a fusion weapon. So this is interesting, but it's dislike fusion energy in the sense that what happens is that you're using fusion reactions, but it simply increases the gain, actually, of the weapon. At its heart, it's still a fission weapon. You're just using fusion reactions as a sort of intermediate catalyst, basically, to get even more energy out of it. But it's not directly applicable to be used in an energy source. Does it terrify you, just again, to step back at the philosophical, that humans have been able to use physics and engineering to create such powerful weapons? I wouldn't say terrify. I mean, we should be, this is the progress of human. Every time that we've gotten access, you talk, you know, the day the universe changed. It was really changed when we got access to new kinds of energy sources. But every time you get access, and typically what this meant was you get access to more intense energy, right? And that's what that was. And so the ability to move from burning wood to using coal, to using gasoline and petroleum, and then finally to use this, is that both the potency and the consequences are elevated around those things. It's just like you said, the way that fusion, nuclear fusion, would change the world, I don't think, unless we think really deeply, we'll be able to anticipate some of the things we can create. There's going to be a lot of amazing stuff, but then that amazing stuff is gonna enable more amazing stuff, and more, unfortunately, or depending how you see it, more powerful weapons. Well, yeah, but see, that's the thing. Fusion breaks that trend in the following way. So one of them, so fusion doesn't work on a chain reaction. There's no chain reaction, zero. So this means it cannot physically exponentiate away on you, because it works, and actually this is why star, by the way, we know this already, it's why stars are so stable, why most stars and suns are so stable. It's because they are regulated through their own temperature and their heating. Because what's happening is not that there's some probability of this exponentiating away, it's that the energy that's being released by fusion basically is keeping the fire hot. And these tend to be, and when it comes down to thermodynamics and things like this, there's a reason, for example, it's pretty easy to keep a constant temperature, like in an oven, and things like this. It's the same thing in fusion. So this is actually one of the features that I would argue fusion breaks the trend of this, is that it has more energy intensity than fission on paper, but it actually does not have the consequences of control and sort of rapid release of the energy, because it's actually, the physical system just doesn't want to do that. Yeah. We're gonna have to look elsewhere for the weapons with which we fight World War III. Fair enough. So what is plasma, that you may or may not have mentioned, you mentioned ions and electrons and so on. I did not mention plasma. So what is plasma, what is the role of plasma in nuclear fusion? So plasma is a phase of matter or state of matter. So unfortunately, our schools don't, it's like I'm not sure why this is the case, but all children learn the three phases of matter, right? So, and what does this mean? So we'll take water as an example. So if it's cold, it's ice, it's in a solid phase, right? And then if you heat it up, it's the temperature that typically sets the phase, although it's not only temperature. So you heat it up and you go to a liquid and obviously it changes its physical properties because you can pour it and so forth, right? And then if you heat this up enough, it turns into a gas and a gas behaves differently because there's a very sudden change in the density. Actually, that's what's happening. So it changes by about a factor of 10,000 in density from the liquid phase into when you make it into steam at atmospheric pressure, all very good. Except the problem is they forgot like what happens if you just keep elevating the temperature? You don't wanna give kids ideas. They're gonna start experimenting and they're gonna start heating up the gas. It's good to start doing it anyway. So it turns out that once you get above, it's approximately five or 10,000 degrees Celsius, then you hit a new phase of matter. And actually that's the phase of matter that is for pretty much all the temperatures that are above that as well too. And so what does that mean? So it actually changes phase. So it's a different state of matter. And the reason that it becomes a different state of matter is that it's hot enough that what happens is that the atoms that make up, remember go back to Feynman, right? Everything's made up of these individual things, these atoms. But atoms can actually themselves be, which are made of nuclei, which contain the positive particles in the neutrons. And then the electrons, which are very, very light, very much less mass than the nucleus, and that surround us, this is what makes up an atom. So a plasma is what happens when you start pulling away enough of those electrons that they're free from the ion. So all the atoms that make up us up and this water and all that, the electrons are in tightly bound states and basically they're extremely stable. Once you're at about 5,000 or 10,000 degrees, you start pulling off the electrons. And what this means is that now the medium that is there its constituent particles mostly have net charge on them. So why does that matter? It's because now this means that the particles can interact through their electric charge. In some sense they were when it was in the atoms as well too but now that they're free particles, this means that they start, it fundamentally changes the behavior. It doesn't behave like a gas, it doesn't behave like a solid or a liquid, it behaves like a plasma, right? And so why is it disappointing that we don't speak about this? It's because 99% of the universe is in the plasma state. It's called stars. And in fact, our own sun at the center of the sun is what clearly a plasma, but actually the surface of the sun, which is around 5,500 Celsius is also a plasma because it's hot enough that is that. In fact, the things that you see, sometimes you see these pictures from the surface of the sun amazing like satellite photographs of like those big arms of things and of light coming off of the surface of the sun and solar flares, those are plasmas. What are some interesting ways that this force data matter is different than gas? Let's go to how a gas works, right? So the reason a gas, and it goes back to Feynman's brilliance in saying that this is the most important concept. The reason actually solid, liquid and gas phases work is because the nature of the interaction between the atoms changes. And so in a gas, you can think of this as being, this room and the things, although you can't see them, is that the molecules are flying around, but then with some frequency, they basically bounce into each other. And when they bounce into each other, they exchange momentum and energy around on this. And so it turns out that the probability and the distances and the scattering of those of what they do, it's those interactions that set the, about how a gas behaves. So what do you mean by this? So for example, if I take an imaginary test particle of some kind, like I spray something into the air that's got a particular color, in fact, you can do it in liquids as well too, like how it gradually will disperse away from you. This is fundamentally set because of the way that those particles are bouncing into each other. The probabilities of those particles bouncing. The rate that they go at and the distance that they go at and so forth. So this was figured out by Einstein and others at the beginning of the Brownian motion, all these kinds of things. These were set up at the beginning of the last century and it was really like this great revelation. Wow, this is why matter behaves the way that it does. Like, wow. So, but it's really like, and also in liquids and in solids, like what really matters is how you're interacting with your nearest neighbor. So you think about that one, the gas particles are basically going around until they actually hit into each other though, they don't really exchange information. And it's the same in a liquid, you're kind of beside each other, but you can kind of move around. In a solid, you're literally like stuck beside your neighbor, you can't move like your man. Plasmas are weird in the sense is that it's not like that. So, and it's because the particles have electric charge, this means that they can push against each other without actually being in close proximity to each other. It's not, that's not an infinitely true statement, which goes, it's a little bit more technical, but basically this means that you can start having action or exchange of information at a distance. And that's in fact, the definition of a plasma that it says, this have a technical name, it's called a Coulomb collision, it just means that it's dictated by this force, which is being pushed between the charged particles, is that the definition of a plasma is a medium in which the collective behavior is dominated by these collisions at a distance. So you can imagine, then this starts to give you some strange behaviors, which I could quickly talk about, like for example, one of the most counterintuitive ones is as plasmas get more hot, as they get higher in temperature, then the collisions happen less frequently. Like what? That doesn't make any sense. When particles go faster, you think they would collide more often. But because the particles are interacting through their electric field, when they're going faster, they actually spend less time in the influential field of each other, and so they talk to each other less in an energy and momentum exchange point of view. It's just one of the counterintuitive aspects of plasmas. Which is probably very relevant for nuclear fusion. Yes, exactly. So if I can try to summarize what a nuclear fusion reactor is supposed to do. So you have, what, a couple of elements? What are usually the elements? Usually deuterium and tritium, which are the heavy forms of hydrogen. Hydrogen. You have those, and you start heating it. And then as you start heating it, I forgot the temperature you said, but it becomes plasma. About 100 million. No, first it becomes. Oh, first it becomes plasma. So it's a gas, and then it turns into a plasma at about 10,000 degrees. And then so you have a bunch of electrons and ions flying around, and then you keep heating the thing. And I guess as you heat the thing, the ions hit each other rarer and rarer. Yes. So, oh man, that's not fun. So you have to keep heating it, such that you have to keep hitting it until the probability of them colliding becomes reasonably high. And so in terms of. Also on top of that, and sorry to interrupt, you have to prevent them from hitting the walls of the reactor. Yes, exactly. Somehow. So you asked about the definitions of the requirements for fusion. So the most famous one, or in some sense the most intuitive one, is the temperature. And the reason for that is that you can make many, many kinds of plasmas that have zero fusion going on in them. And the reason for this is that the average, so you can make a plasma at around 10,000. In fact, if you come, by the way, you're welcome to come to our laboratory at the PSFC, I can show you a demonstration of a plasma that you can see with your eyes, and it's at about 10,000 degrees, and you can put your hand up beside it and all this, and it's like, and nothing, there's zero fusion going on. So you have, sorry, what was the temperature of the plasma? About 10,000 degrees. You can stick your hand in? Well, you can't stick your hand into it, but there's a glass tube, you can basically see this with your bare eye, yeah. And you can put your hand on the glass tube, because it's. What's the color, is it purple? It's purple, yeah. Purple and purple. It's purple and purple. It is kind of beautiful. Yeah, plasmas are actually quite astonishing sometimes in their beauty. Actually, one of the most amazing forms of plasma is lightning, by the way, which is an instantaneous form of plasma that exists on Earth, but immediately goes away because everything else around it is at room temperature. That's fascinating. Yeah, so there's different requirements in this. So making a plasma takes about this, but at 10,000 degrees, even at a million degrees, there's almost no probability of the fusion reactions occurring. And this is because while the charged particles can hit into each other, if you go back to the very beginning of this, remember I said, oh, these charged particles have to get to within distances which are like this size of a nucleus because of the strong nuclear force. Well, unfortunately, as the particles get closer, the repulsion that comes from the charge, the Coulomb force, increases like the inverse distance squared. So as they get closer, they're pushing harder and harder apart. So then it gets a little bit more exotic, which maybe you'll like though, that it turns out that people understood this at the beginning of the age of after Rutherford discovered the nucleus. It's like, oh, yeah, it's like, how is this gonna work? Because how do you get anything within these distances? It's like, inquire, extraordinary energy. And it does, and in fact, when you look at those energies, they're very, very high. But it turns out quantum physics comes to the rescue because the particles aren't actually just particles. They're also waves. This is the point of quantum, right? You can treat them both as waves and as particles. And it turns out if they get in close enough proximity to each other, then the particle pops through basically this energy barrier through an effect called quantum tunneling, which is really just the transposition of the fact that it's a wave so that it has a finite probability of this. By the way, you talk about like, do you have a hard time like conceptualizing this? This is one of them. Quantum tunneling is one of them. This is like throwing a ping pong ball like at a piece of paper. And then every like 100 of them just like magically show up on the other side of the paper without seemingly breaking the paper. I mean, to use a physical analogy. Yeah. That phenomena is critical for the function of nuclear fusion. Yes, for all kinds of fusion. So this is the reason why stars can work as well too. Like the stars would have to be much, much hotter actually to be able to, in fact, it's not clear that they would actually ignite, in fact, without this effect. And so we get to that. So this is why there's another requirement. It's not, so you must make a plasma, but you also must get it very hot in order for the reactions to have a significant probability to actually fuse. And it actually falls effectively almost to zero for lower temperatures as well too. So there's some nice equation that gets you to 50 million degrees. Or like, or you said practically speaking 100 million. It's a really simple equation. It's the ideal gas law basically almost. So in the end, you've got a certain number of particles, of these fusion particles in the plasma state. They're in the plasma state. There's a certain number of particles. And if the confinement is perfect, if you put in a certain content of energy, then basically, eventually they just, they come up in a temperature and they become, they go up to high temperature. This turns out to be, by the way, extraordinarily small amounts of energy. And you go, what? It's like I'm getting something to like 100 million degrees. That's gonna take the biggest flame burner that I've ever seen. No. And the reason for this is it goes back to the energy content of this. So yeah, you have to get it to high average energy, but there's very, very few particles. There's low density. How do you get it to be low density in a reactor? So the way that you do this is primarily, again, this is not exactly true in all kinds of fusion, but in the primary one that we work on, magnetic fusion, this is all happening in a hard vacuum. So it's like it's happening in outer space. So basically, you've gotten rid of all the other particles, except for these specialized fuel particles. So you add them one at a time? No, actually, it's even easier than that. You connect a gas valve, and you basically leak gas into it. In a controlled fashion? Yeah, yeah. Oh, this is beautiful. It's a gas cylinder. How do you get it from hitting the walls? Yeah. So now you've touched on the other necessary requirements. So it turns out it's not just temperature that's required. You must also confine it. So what does this mean, confine it? And there's two types of confinement, as you mentioned. You mentioned the magnetic one. Magnetic one, and there's one called inertial as well, too. But the general principle actually has nothing to do with, in particular, with what the technology is that you use to confine it. It's because this goes back to the fact that the requirement in this is high temperature and thermal content. So it's like building a fire. And what this means is that when you release the energy into this or apply heat to this, if it just instantly leaks out, it can never get hot. So you're familiar with this, as like you've got something that you're trying to apply heat to, but you're just throwing the heat away very quickly. This is why we insulate homes, by the way, and things like this. You don't want the heat that's coming into this room to just immediately leave, because you'll just start consuming infinite amounts of heat to try to keep it hot. So in the end, this is one of the requirements, and it actually has a name. We call it the energy confinement time. So this means if you release a certain amount of energy into this fuel, kind of how long, you sit there and you look at your watch, how long does it take for this energy to like leave the system? So you could imagine that in this room, that these heaters are putting energy into the air in this room, and you waited for a day, but all the heat have gone to outside if I open up the windows. Oh, there, that's energy confinement time. Okay, so it's the same concept as that. So this is an important one. So all fusion must have confinement. There's another more esoteric reason for this, which is that people often confuse temperature and energy. So what do I mean by that? So this is literally a temperature, which means that it is a system in which all the particles, every particle, has high kinetic energy and is actually in a fully relaxed state, namely that entropy has been maximized. I think it's a little bit more technical, but this means that basically it is a thermal system. So it's like the air in this room, it's like the water, it's the water in this. These all have temperatures, which means that there's a distribution of those energies because the particles have collided so much that it's there. So this is distinguished from having high energy particles, like what we have in like particle accelerators like CERN and so forth. Those are high kinetic energy, but it's not a temperature, so it actually doesn't count as confinement. So we go through all of those. You have temperature, and then the other requirement, not too surprising, is actually that there has to be enough density of the fuel. Enough, but not too much. Enough, but not too much, yes. And so in the end, the way that there's a fancy name for it, it's called the Lawson criterion because it was formulated by scientists in the United Kingdom about 1956 or 1957. And this was essentially the realization of, oh, this is what it's going to take, regardless of the confinement method. These are, this is the basic, what it is actually, power balances, just says, oh, there's a certain amount of heat coming in, which is coming from the fusion reaction itself, because the fusion reaction heats the fuel, versus how fast you would lose it. And it basically summarized, it's summarized by those three parameters, which is fairly simple. So temperature, and then the reason we say 100 million degrees is because almost all way in, for this kind of fusion, deuterium-tritium fusion, the minimum in the density and the confinement time product is at about 100 million. So you almost always design your device around that minimum. And then you try to get it contained well enough, and you try to get enough density. So, you know, so that temperature thing sounds crazy, right? That's what we've actually achieved in the laboratory. Like our experiment here at MIT, when it ran at its optimum configuration, it was at 100 million degrees. But it wasn't actually, the product of the density and the confinement time wasn't sufficient that we were at a place that we were getting high net energy gain, but it was making fusion reactions. So this is the sequence that you go through, make a plasma, then you get it hot enough. And when you get it hot enough, the fusion reactions start happening so rapidly that it's overcoming the rate at which it's leaking heat to the outside world. And at some point it just becomes like a star, like a sun and our own sun and a star doesn't have anything plugged into it. It's just keeping itself hot through its own fusion reactions. In the end, that's really close to what a fusion power plant would look like. What does it visually look like? Does it look like, like you said, like purple plasma? You know? Yeah, actually it's invisible to the eye because it's so hot that it's basically emitting light in frequencies that we can't detect. It's literally, it's invisible. In fact, light goes through it, visible light goes through it so easy that if you were to look at it, what you would see in our own particular configuration, what we make is in the end is a donut shaped, it's a vacuum vessel to keep the air out of it. And when you turn on the plasma, it gets so hot that most of it just disappears in the visible spectrum. You can't see anything. And there's very, very cold plasma, which is between 10 and 100,000 degrees, which is out in the very periphery of it, which is kind of, so the very cold plasma is allowed to interact with the, kind of has to interact with something eventually at the boundary of the vacuum vessel. And this kind of makes a little halo around it. And it glows this beautiful purple light basically. And these are, that's the, that's what we can sense in the human spectrum. I remember reading on a subreddit called Shower Thoughts, which people should check out. It's just fascinating philosophical ideas that strike you while you're in the shower. And one of them was, it's lucky that fire, when it burns, communicates that it's hot using visible light. Otherwise, humans would be screwed. I don't know if there's a deep, profound truth to that, but nevertheless, I did find it on Shower Thoughts subreddit. Actually, I do have, this goes off on a bit of, you're right. This is actually, it's interesting, because as a scientist, you also think about evolutionary functions and how we got, like, why do we have the senses that we do? It's an interesting question. Like, why can bees see in the ultraviolet and we can't? Then you go, well, it's natural selection. For some reason, this wasn't really particularly important to us, right? Why can't we see in the infrared and other things can? It's like, hmm. It's the people that could. It's a fascinating question, right? Obviously, there's some advantage that you have there that isn't there, and even color distinguishing, right? Of something safe to eat, whatever it would be. I'll actually go back to this, because it's something that I tell all of my students when I'm teaching ionizing radiation and radiological safety. Whatever you say, there's a cultural concern or that when people hear the word radiation, like, what does this mean? It literally just means light, is what it means, right? But it's light in different parts of the spectrum, right? And so, it turns out, besides the visible light that we can see here, we are immersed in almost the totality of the electromagnetic spectrum. There is visible light, there's infrared light, there is microwaves going around, as that's how our cell phone works. You can't, it's way past our detection capability. But also higher energy ones, which have to do with ultraviolet light, how you get a sunburn, and even x-rays and things like this at small levels are continually being, like from the concrete in the walls of this hotel, there's x-rays hitting our body continuously. I can bring out, we can go down to the lab at MIT, can bring out a detector and show you. Every single room will have these. By our body, you mean the 10 to the 28 atoms? Yeah, the 10 to the 28 atoms, and they're coming in and they're interacting with those things. And those, particularly the ones where the light is at higher average energy per light particle, those are the ones that can possibly have an effect on human health. So we, it's interesting, humans and all animals have evolved on Earth where we're immersed in that all the time. There's natural source of radiation all the time, yet we have zero ability to detect it, like zero. Yeah, and our ability, cognitive ability to filter it all out and not give a damn. It would probably overwhelm us, actually, if we could see all of it. But my main point goes back to your thing about fire and self-protection. If ionizing radiation was such a critical aspect of the health of organisms on Earth, we would almost certainly have evolved methods to detect it, and we have none. And the physical world that's all around us, it's just incredible. You're blowing my mind, Dr. Dennis White. Okay, so you have experience with magnetic confinement, you have experience with inertial confinement. Most of your work has been in magnetic confinement. But let's sort of talk about the sexy recent thing for a bit of a time. There's been a breakthrough in the news that laser-based inertial confinement was used by DOE's National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Can you explain this breakthrough that happened in December? So it goes to the set of criteria that I talked about before about getting high energy gain. So in the end, what are we after in fusion is that we basically assemble this plasma fuel in some way, and we provide it a starting amount of energy. Think of lighting the fire. And what you want to do is get back significant excess gain from the fact that the fusion is releasing the energy. So it's like the equivalent of we want to have a match, a small match, light a fire, and then the fire keeps us hot. It's very much like that. So as I said, we've made many of the, and what do I mean by we? It's like the fusion community has pursued aspects of this through a variety of different confinement methodologies, is that the key part about what happens, what was the threshold we had never gotten over before was that if you only consider the plasma fuel, not the total engineering system, but just the plasma fuel itself, we had not gotten to the point yet where basically the size of the match was smaller than the amount of energy that we got from the fusion. Is there a good term for when the output is greater than the input? Yes, yes, there is. Well, there's several special definitions of this. So one of them is that if you, like in a fire, if you light a match and you have it there and it's an infinitesimal amount of energy compared to what you're getting out of the fire, we call this ignition, which makes sense, right? This is like what our own sun is as well too. So that was not ignition in that sense as well too. So what we call this is scientific, the one that I just talked about, which is for some instance, when I get enough fusion energy released compared to the size of the match, we call this scientific break-even. Break-even. Break-even, and it's because you've gotten past the fact that this is unity now at this point. What is fusion gain or as using the notation Q from the paper overview of the Spark talk, before talk, using just the same kind of term. Actually, so the technical term is Q, capital Q. Oh, so people actually use Q. We actually use capital Q, or sometimes it's called Q. So Q is taken. Q sub P or something like this. Okay, so this is, which means, what it means is that it's in the plasma. So all we're considering is the energy balance or gain that comes from the plasma itself. We're not considering the technologies which are around it, which are providing the containment and so forth. So why the excitement and so? Well, because for one reason, it's a rather simple threshold to get over to understand that you're getting more energy out from the fusion, even in a theoretical sense, than you were from the starting match. Do you mean conceptually simple? It's conceptually simple that you get past one, that everyone, like when you're less than one, that's much less interesting than getting past one because obviously you start to get energy gain. To get past. But it really is a scientific threshold because what QP actually denotes is the relative amount of self-heating that's happening in the plasma. So what I mean by this is that in the end, in these systems, what you want is something that where the relative amount of heating, which is keeping the fuel hot, is dominated by from the fusion reactions themselves. And so it becomes, it's sort of like thinking like a bonfire is a lot more interesting physically than just holding a blowtorch to a wet log, right? There's a lot more dynamics, it's a lot more self-evolved and so forth. And what we're excited as scientists is that it's clear that in that experiment, that they actually got to a point where the fusion reactions themselves were actually altering the state of the plasma. It's like, wow. I mean, we'd seen it in glimpses before in magnetic confinement at relatively small levels. But apparently, it seems like in this experiment, it's likely to be a dominant, dominated by self-heating. That's a very important, that's a very interesting thing. So that makes it a self-sustaining type of reaction. It's more self-sustaining, it's more self-referential system in a sense. And it sort of self-evolves in a way. Again, it's not that it's gonna evolve to a dangerous state, it's just that we want to see what happens when the fusion is the dominant heating source. And we'll talk about that, but there's also another element which is the inertial confinement, laser-based inertial confinement is kind of a little bit of an underdog. So a lot of the broad nuclear fission community has been focused on magnetic confinement. Can you explain just how laser-based inertial confinement works? So it says 192 laser beams were aligned on a deuterium-tritium-DT target smaller than a P. Yes. This is like. Like a BB, actually, yeah. Throw, okay, well, you know, it depends. Not all P's are made the same. But this is like throwing a perfect strike in baseball from a pitch. This is like a journalist wrote this, I think. This is like, oh no, it's not a journalist, it's DOE wrote this. Yeah, yeah, it could be. Department of Energy. We try to use all these analogies. This is like throwing a perfect strike in baseball from a pitcher's mount 350 miles away from the plate. There you go. Department of Energy. The United States Department of Energy wrote this. Can you explain what the lasers. What actually happens. Actually, there's usually mass confusion about this. So what's going on in this form of it? So the fuel is delivered in a discrete, the fusion fuel, the deuterium-tritium is in a discrete spherical, it's more like a BB. Let's call it a BB. So it's a small one. And all the fuel that you're gonna try to burn is basically there. Okay. And it's about that size. So how are you going to get, and it's at, literally it's like at 20 degrees above absolute zero because the deuterium and tritium are kept in a liquid and solid state. Oh wow, so the fuel is injected not as a gas, but as a solid. It's actually, and it's very, and in these particular experiments, they can introduce one of these targets once per day approximately, something like that. Because it's very, it's a kind of amazing technology actually that I know some of the people that worked on this back in the, is they actually make these things at a BB size of this frozen fuel, it's actually at cryogenic temperatures. And they're almost like smooth to the atom level. I mean, they're amazing pieces of technology. So what you do in the end is think, what you have is a spherical assembly of this fuel, like a ball. And what is the purpose of the lasers? The purpose of the lasers is to provide optical energy to the very outside of this. And what happens is that energy is absorbed because it's in the solid phase of matter. So it's absorbed really in the surface. And then what happens is that when it's absorbed in something called the ablator, what does that mean? It means it goes instantly from the solid phase to the gas phase. So it becomes like a rocket engine. But you hit it like very uniformly. So all, there's like rocket engines coming off the surface. Think of like an asteroid almost, where there's like rockets coming off and all this. So what does that do? Well, what does a rocket do? It actually pushes, by Newton's laws, right? It pushes the other thing on the other side of it, equal and opposite reaction, it pushes it in. So what it does is that the lasers actually don't heat. This is what was confusing. People think the lasers, oh, we're gonna get it to 100 million degrees. In fact, you want the exact opposite of this. What you want to do is get essentially a rocket going out like this. And then what happens is that the sphere, like this is happening in a billionth of a second or less, actually. This rapidly, that force like so rapidly compresses the fuel that what happens is that you're squeezing down on it and it's like, what was the, see BB, that's bad actually, BB. I should have started with a basketball. Goes from like a basketball down to something like this and a billionth of a second. And when that happens, I mean, scale that in your mind. So when that happens, and this comes from, almost from classical physics, so there's some quantum in it as well too. But basically, if you can do this like very uniformly and so-called adiabatically, like you're not actually heating the fuel, what happens is you get adiabatic compression such that the very center of this thing all of a sudden just spikes up in temperature because it's actually done so fast. So why is it called inertial fusion? It's because you're doing this on such fast time scales that the inertia of the hot fuel basically is still finite so it can't like push itself apart before the fusion happens. Oh wow, so how do you make it so, how do you make it so fast? This is why you use lasers because you're applying this energy in very, very short periods of time. Like under a fraction of a billionth of a second. And so basically that, and then the force which is coming from this comes from the energy of the lasers, which is basically the rocket action which does the compression. So is the force, is the inward facing force, is that increasing the temperature exponentially? No, you wanna keep the fuel cold and then just literally just ideally compress it. And then in something which is at the very center of that compressed sphere, because you've compressed it so rapidly, the laws of physics basically require for it to increase in temperature. So the change in pressure. The effect is like, if you know the thing, so adiabatic cooling we're actually fairly familiar with. If you take a spray can, right, and you push the button, when it rapidly expands, it cools. This is the nature of a lot of cooling technology we use actually. Well the opposite is true, that if you would take all of those particles and jam them together very fast back in, they wanna heat up. And that's what happens. And then what happens is you basically have this very cold compressed set of fusion fuel and at the center of this, it goes to this 100 million degrees Celsius. And so if it gets to that 100 million degrees Celsius, the fusion fuel starts to burn. And when that fusion fuel starts to burn, it wants to heat up the other cold fuel around it and it just basically propagates out so fast that what you would do ideally, you would actually burn in a fusion sense most of the fuel that's in the pellet. So this was very exciting because what they had done was, it's clear that they propagated this, they got this, what they call a hot spot, and in fact that this heating had propagated out into the fuel and that's the science behind inertial fusion. So the idea behind a reactor that's based on this kind of inertial confinement is that you would have a new BB every like 10 times a second or something like that. And that there's some kind of, so there's an incredible device that you kind of implied that kind of has to create one of those BBs. So you have to make the BBs very fast. There's reports on this, but what does it mean, the starting point is can you make this gain? So this was a scientific achievement primarily. And the rest is just engineering. No, no, no, the rest is incredibly complicated engineering. Well, in fact, there's still physics hurdles to overcome. So where does this come from? And it's actually because if you want to make an energy source out of this, this had a gain of around 1.5, that namely the fusion energy was approximately, was 1.5 times the laser input energy. Okay, this is a fairly significant threshold. However, from the science of what I just told you is that there's two fundamental efficiencies which come into it, which really come from physics really. One of them is hydrodynamic efficiency. What I mean by this is that it's a rocket. So this just has a fundamental efficiency built into it, which comes out to orders of like 10%. So this means is that your ability to do work on the system is just limited by that, okay. And then the other one is the efficiency of laser systems themselves, which if their wall plug efficiency is 10%, you've done spectacularly well. In fact, the wall plug efficiency of the ones using that experiments are like more like 1%, right? So when you go through all of this, the approximate place that you're ordering this is for a fusion power plant would be a gain of 100, not 1.5. So you still, and hopefully we see experiments that keep climbing up towards higher and higher gain. But then the whole fusion power plant is a totally different thing. So it's not one BB and one laser pulse per day. It's like 10 times, five or 10 times per second, like da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da like that, right? So you're doing it there. And then comes the other aspect. So it's making the targets, delivering them, being able to repeatedly get them to burn. And then we haven't even talked about like how do you then get the fusion energy out? Which is mainly because these things are basically micro implosions which are occurring. So this energy is coming out to some medium on the outside that you've got to figure out how to extract the energy out of this thing. How do you convert that energy to electricity? So in the end, you have to basically convert it into heat in some way. So most of the, in the end what fusion makes mostly is like very energetic particles from the fusion reaction. So you have to slow those down in some way and then make heat out of it. So basically the conversion of the kinetic energy of the particles into heating some engineered material that's on the outside of this. And that's, from a physics perspective, is a somewhat solved problem, but from an engineering is still. It's still, yeah, physics I can draw the, I can show you all the equations that tell you about how it slows down and converts kinetic energy into heat and then what that heat means. You know, you can write out like an ideal thermal cycle, like a Carnot cycle. So the physics of that, yeah, great. The integrated engineering of this is a whole other thing. I'll ask you to maybe talk about the difference between inertial and magnetic, but first we'll talk about magnetic. But let me just linger on this breakthrough. You know, it's nice to have exciting things, but in a deep human sense, there's no competition in science and engineering. Or like you said, we were broad. First of all, we are humanity altogether. And you talk about this, it's a bunch of countries collaborating. It's really exciting. There's a nuclear fusion community broadly, but then there's also MIT. There's colors and logos and it's exciting. And you have friends and colleagues here that work extremely hard and done some incredible stuff. Is there some sort of, how do you feel seeing somebody else get a breakthrough and using a different technology? Is that exciting? Does the competitive fire get- All of the above. I mean, I have, so, you know, just to wave the flag a little bit. So MIT was a central player in this accomplishment. Interesting, I would say it showed our two, some of our two best traits. So one of them was that the, like, how do you know that this happened? This measurement, right? So one of the ways to do this is, if I told you is that in the DT fusion, what it actually, the product that comes out is helium, we call it alpha, but it's helium, and a free neutron, right? So the neutron contains 80% of the energy released by the fusion reaction. And it also, because it lacks a charge, it basically tends to just escape and go flying out. So this is what we would use eventually for, that's mostly what fusion energy would be. But so what my colleagues, my scientific colleagues at the Plasma Science and Fusion Center built were extraordinary measurement tools of being able to see the exact details of not only the number of neutrons that were coming out, but actually what energy that they're at. And by looking at that configuration, it reveals enormous, I'm not gonna scoop them because they need to publish the paper, but it reveals enormous amounts of scientific information about what's happening in that process that I just described. So exciting, I mean, and I have colleagues there that have worked for 30 years on this, for that moment. Of course you're excited for that, right? And it's one of those, there is nothing, it's hard to describe to people who aren't, it's almost addicting to be a scientist when you get to be at the forefront of research of anything. Like when you see like an actual discovery of some kind and you're looking at it, particularly when you're the person who did it, right? And you go, no human being has ever seen this or understood this, it's like, it's pretty thrilling, right? So even in proxy, it's incredibly thrilling to see this. It's not, I don't wanna say it's rivalry or jealousy, it's like, I can tell you already, fusion is really hard. So anything that keeps pushing the needle forward is a good thing, but we also have to be realistic about what it means to making a fusion energy system. That's the- And then, but that's the fun, I mean, these are still the early steps, maybe you can say the early leaps. So let's talk about the magnetic confinement. Yeah. How does magnetic confinement work? What's the tokamak? Yeah, how does it all work? So go back to that. So why inertial confinement works on the same principle that a star works. So like, what is the confinement mechanism in the star is gravity, because it's its own inertia of the something the size of the sun basically pushes a literally a force by gravity against the center. So the center is very, very hot, 20 million degrees, and literally outside the sun, it's essentially zero because it's vacuum of space. How the hell does that do that? It does that by, and it's out of, like, why doesn't it just leak all of its heat? It doesn't leak its heat because it all is held together by the fact that it can't escape because of its own gravity. So this is why the fusion happens in the center of the star. Like we think of the surface of the sun as being hot, that's the coldest part of the star. So if our own sun, this is about 5,500 degrees, a beautiful symmetry, by the way, it's like, so how do we know all this? Because we can't of course see directly into the interior of the sun, by knowing the volume and the temperature of the surface of the sun, you know exactly how much power it's putting out. And by this, you know that this is coming from fusion reactions occurring at exactly the same rate in the middle of the sun. Is it possible as a small tangent to build an inertial confinement system like the sun? Is it possible to create a sun? It is of course possible to make a sun, although we do have stars, but it is not impossible on Earth because for the simple reason that it takes, the gravitational force is extremely weak. And so it takes something like the size of a star to make fusion occur in the center. Well, I didn't mean on Earth. I mean, if you had to build like a second sun, how would you do it? You can't, there's not enough hydrogen around. So the limiting factor is just the hydrogen. Yeah, I mean, the forces and energy that it takes to assemble that is just mind boggling. All right, to be continued. Yeah, to be continued. So what are we doing it with? So in the one that I just described, it's like you say, so you have to replace this with some force which is better than that. And so what I mean by that is it's stronger than that. So what I talked about the laser fusion, this is coming from the force, which is enormous compared to gravity, like from the rocket action of pushing it together. So in magnetic confinement, we use another force of nature, which is the electromagnetic force. And that's very, it's orders and orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. And the key force that matters here is that if you have a charged particle, that namely it's a particle that has an electric, net electric charge, and it's in the proximity of a magnetic field, then there is a force which is exerted on that particle. So it's called the Lorentz force for those who are keeping track. So that is the force that we use to replace physical containment. So this again, how do you hold something at a hundred million degrees? It's impossible in a physical container. This is not like, you know, it's not this plastic bottle holding in this liquid or a gas chamber. What you're doing is you're using, you're immersing the fuel in a magnetic field that basically exerts a force at a distance. This comes back again to again, like why plazas are so strange. It's the same thing here. And if it's immersed in this magnetic field, you're not actually physically touching it, but you're making a force go onto it. So that's the inherent feature of magnetic confinement. And then magnetic confinement devices are like a tokamak, are basically configurations which exploit the features of that magnetic containment. There's several features to it. One is that the stronger the strength of the magnetic field, the stronger the force. And for this reason is that if you increase the strength of magnetic fields, this means that the containment, because namely the force which you're pushing against it is more effective. And the other feature is that there is no force. So for those who remember magnetic fields, what are these things? They're also invisible. But if you think of a permanent magnets or your fridge magnet, there are field lines, which we actually designate as arrows, which are going around. You sometimes see this in school when you have the iron filings on a thing and you see the directions of the magnetic field lines, or when you use a compass, right? So that's telling you north because we're living in an immersed magnetic field made by the earth, which is at very low intensity magnetic, but it's strong enough where we can actually see what direction is it. So this is the arrow that the magnetic field is pointing. It's always pointing north and for us. So an interesting feature of this force is that there is no force along the direction of the magnetic field. There's only force in the directions orthogonal to the magnetic field. So this, by the way, is a huge deal in a whole other discipline of plasma physics, which is like the study of like our near atmosphere. So the study of aurora borealis, what's happening in the near atmosphere, what happens when solar flares hit the magnetic field. In fact, remember I said fusion is the reason that life is responsible in the universe? Well, you could also argue so is magnetic confinement because the charged particles which are being emitted from the galaxy and from our own star would be very, very damaging on earth. So we get two layers of protection. One is the atmosphere itself, but the other one is the magnetic field which surrounds the earth and basically traps these charged particles so they can't get away. It's the same deal. How do you create a strong magnetic field? Yeah, so. With a giant magnet. Giant magnet, yeah. So it's basically true. Engineering is awesome. There's essentially two ways to create a magnet. So one of them is that we're familiar with like fridge magnets and so forth. These are so-called permanent magnets. And what it means is that within these, the atoms arrange in a particular way that it produces the electrons basically arrange in a particular way that it produces a permanent magnetic field that is set by the material. So those have a fundamental limitation how strong they can be. And they also tend to have this like circular shape like this. So we don't typically use those. So what we use are so-called electromagnets. And what is this? It's like, so the other way to make a magnetic field also go back to your elementary school physics or science class is that you take a nail and you wrap a copper wire around it and connect it to a battery. Then it can pick up iron filings. This is an electromagnet. And it's simplest what it is, it's an electric current which is going in a pattern around and around and around. And what this does is it produces a magnetic field which goes through it by the laws of electromagnetism. So that's what an electric, so that's how we make the magnetic field in these configurations. And the key there is that you, it's not limited by the magnetic property of the material. The magnetic field amplitude is set by the amount of, the geometry of this thing and the amount of electric current that you're putting through. And the more electric current that you put through, the more magnetic field that you get. The closest one that people maybe see is, one of my favourite skits actually was Super Dave Osborne on, it's probably past years, a show called Bizarre, Super Dave Osborne which is a great comedian called. He was a stunt man and one of his tricks was that he gets into a car and then one of those things in the junkyard comes down and picks up the car and then puts it into the crusher. This is his stunt which is pretty hilarious. Anyway, but that thing that picks him up, like how does that work? That's actually not a permanent magnet, it's an electromagnet. And so you can turn, by turning off and on the power supply it turns off and on the magnetic field. So this means you can pick it up and then when you switch it off the magnetic field goes away and the car drops. Okay, so that's what it looks like. Speaking of giant magnets, MIT and Commonwealth Fusion Systems, CFS, built a very large, high temperature, superconducting electromagnet that was ramped up to a field strength of 20 Tesla, the most powerful magnetic field of its kind ever created on Earth. Because I enjoy this kind of thing, can you please tell me about this magnet? Yeah, sure. Oh, it's fun, yeah. There's a lot to parse there. So we already explained an electromagnet which in general is, what you do is you take electric current and you force it to follow a pattern of some kind, typically like a circular pattern, around and around and around and around. It goes the more time, the more current and the more times it goes around, the stronger the magnetic field that you make. And as I pointed out, it's like really important in magnetic confinement because it is the force that's produced by that magnet. In fact, technically it goes like the magnetic field squared because it's a pressure which is actually being exerted on the plasma to keep it contained. Just so we know, for magnetic confinement, what is usually the geometry of the magnet? What are we supposed to imagine? Yeah, so the geometry is typically, typically is what you do is you want to produce a magnetic field that loops back on itself. And the reason for this was, goes down to the nature of the force that I described, which is that there's no containment or force along the direction of the magnetic field. So here's a magnetic field. In fact, what it's more technically or more graphically what it's doing is that when the plasma is here, here's plasma particles here, here's a magnetic field. What it does is it forces all those, because of this Lorentz force, it makes all of those charged particles execute circular orbits around the magnetic field. And they go around like this, but they stream freely along the magnetic field line. So this is why the nature of the containment is that if you can get that circle smaller and smaller, it stays further away from earth, temperature materials. That's why the confinement gets better. But the problem is, is that because it free streams along, so we just have a long straight magnetic field, okay, it'll just keep leaking out the ends like really fast. So you get rid of the ends. So you basically loop it back around. So what these look like are typically donut shaped or more technically toroidal shape, but donut shaped things where this collection of magnetic fields loops back on itself. And it also, for reasons which are more complicated to explain, basically it also twists slowly around in this direction as well too. So that's what it looks like. That's what the plasma looks like, because that's what the fuel looks like. So then this means is that the electromagnets are configured in such a way that it produces the desired magnetic fields around this. So they- How precise does this have to be? You were probably listening to our conversation with some of my colleagues yesterday. So it's actually, it depends on the configuration about how you're doing it. The configuration of the plasma, sorry. The configuration of the electromagnets and about how you're achieving this requirement. It's fairly precise, but it doesn't have to be, particularly in something like a tokamak, what we do is we produce planar coils, which just mean they're flat, and we situate them. So if you think of a circle like this, what does it produce if you put current through it? It produces a magnetic field, which goes through the circle like this. So if you align many of them like this, this, this, this, there's things on line, you can go see the picture. You keep arranging these around in a circle itself, this forces the magnetic field lines to basically just keep executing around like this. So you tend to align. That one tends to, well, it requires good alignment. It's not like insane alignment because you're actually exploiting the symmetry of the situation to help it. There's another kind of configuration of magnetic, of this kind of magnetic confinement called a stellarator, which is, we have these names for historic reasons. Which is different than a tokamak. It's different than a tokamak, but it actually works on the same physical principle that namely, in the end it produces a plasma, which loops in magnetic fields, which loop back on themselves as well. But in that case, the totality, basically the totality of the confining magnetic field is produced by external three-dimensional magnets. So they're twisted. And it turns out the precision of those is more stringent. So are tokamaks by far more popular for research and development currently than stellarators? Of the concepts which are there, the tokamak is by far the most mature in terms of its breadth of performance and thinking about how it would be applied in a fusion energy system. And the history of this was that many, in fact, you asked about, if we go back to the history of the Plasma Science and Fusion Center, the history of fusion is that people, scientists had started to work on this in the 1950s. It was all hush hush and cold war and all that kind of stuff. And it's like, they realized, holy cow, this is like really hard. Like we actually don't really know what we're doing in this because everything was at low temperatures. They couldn't get confinement. It was interesting. And then they declassified it. And this was one of the few places that the West and the Soviet Union actually collaborated on was the science of this. Even during the Cold War. Even during the middle of the Cold War. It was really, and this actually perpetuates all the way to now for, we can talk about the project that that has sort of captured in now. But, and the reason they declassified it was because everything kind of sucked basically, about trying to make this confinement in high temperature plasma. And then the Russians, then the Soviets, came along with this device called a TOKAMAK, which is a Russian acronym, which basically means magnetic coils arranged in the shape of a donut. And they said, holy cow, like everyone was stuck at like a meager, like half a million degrees, or half a million degrees, which is like in fusion terms of zero basically. And then they come along and they say, oh, we've actually achieved a temperature 20 times higher than everybody else. And it's actually started to make fusion reactions. And everyone just go, oh, you know, no way. It's this hype from the, it's like, there's no way. Cause we've failed at this. It's a great story in the history of fusion is that then, but they insisted, they said, no, look, you can see this from our data. It's like, this thing is really hot and it seems to be working. This is, you know, late 1960s. And there was a team that went from the United Kingdom's fusion development lab and they brought this very fancy, amazing new technology called a laser. And they use this laser and they shot the laser beam like three times, and it was like, they shot the laser beam like through the plasma. And by looking at the scattered light that came from that, they go, basically the scattered light gets more broadened in its spectrum if it gets hotter. So you could exactly tell the temperature of this. And even though you're not physically touching the plasma, it's like, holy cow, you're right. It is like, it is 10 million degrees. And so this was one of those explosions of like everyone in the world then wanted to build a tokamak because it was clearly like, wow, this is like so far ahead of everything else that we tried before. So that actually has a part of the story to MIT and the Plasma Science and Fusion Center was, why is there a strong fusion and a major fusion program at MIT? It was because we were host to the Francis Bitter Magnet Laboratory, which is also the National High Field Magnet Laboratory. Well, you can see where this goes, right? From this, you know, we're kind of telling the stories backwards almost, but, you know, the advent of a tokamak along with the fact that you could make very strong magnetic fields with the technology that had been developed at that laboratory, that was the origins of sort of pushing together the physics of the plasma containment and the magnet technology and put them together in a way that I would say is, you know, a very typical MIT success story, right? We don't do just pure science or pure technology. We sort of set up this intersection between them and there were several pioneers that, of people at MIT like Bruno Coppi, who's a professor in the physics department and Ron Parker, who was a professor in electrical engineering and nuclear engineering. It's like even the makeup of the people, right? Has got this blends of science and engineering in them. And that's actually was the origin of the Plasma Science and Fusion Center was doing those things. So anyway, so back to this. So why, so yes, tokamaks have been, have achieved the highest in magnetic fusion by far, like the best amounts of these conditions that I talked about and in fact, pushed right up to the point where they were near QP of one. They just didn't quite get over one. So can we actually just linger on the collaboration across different nations? Just maybe looking at the philosophical aspect of this. Even in the Cold War, there's something hopeful to me besides the energy that these giant international projects are a really powerful way to ease some of the geopolitical tension, even military conflict across nations. There's a war in Ukraine and Russia. There's a brewing tension and conflict with China. Just the world is still seeking military conflict, cold or hot. What can you say about sort of the lessons of the 20th century and these giant projects in their ability to ease some of this tension? So it's a great question. So as I said, there was a reason, because it was so hard, that was one of the reasons they declassified it and actually they started working together in some sense on it as well too. And I think it was really, there was, you know, a heuristic or altruistic aspect to this. It's like, this is something that could change, you know, the future of humanity and its nature and its relationship with energy. Isn't this something that we should work on together? Right, and that went along in those ones. And in particularly, that any kind of place where you can actually have an open exchange of people who are sort of at the intellectual frontiers of your society, this is a good thing, right, of being able to collaborate. I've had the, I mean, I have had an amazing career. I've worked with people from, it's like hard to throw a dart at a country on the map and not hit a country of people that I've been able to work with. How amazing is that? And even just getting small numbers of people to bridge the cultural and societal divides is a very important thing. Even when it's a very teeny fraction of the overall populations, it can be held up as an example of that. But it's interesting that if you look at then that continued collaboration, which continues to this day, is that it was, this actually played a major role, in fact, in East-West relations, or like Soviet-West relations, is that back in the Reagan-Gorbachev days, which of course were interesting in themselves of all kinds of changes happening on both sides, right, but still like a desire to push down the stockpile of nuclear weapons and all that, within that context, there was a fairly significant historic event that at one of the Reagan-Gorbachev summits is that they had really, they didn't get there. Like they couldn't figure out how to bargain to the point of some part of the tree to get any more of the details of it anymore. But they needed some kind of a symbol, almost, to say, but we're still gonna keep working towards something that's important for all of us. What did they pick? A fusion project. And that was in the mid-1980s, and actually then after, so they basically signed an agreement that they would move forward to like literally collaborate on a project whose idea would be to show large net energy gain in fusions, commercial viability, and work together on that. And very soon after that, Japan joined, as did the European Union. And now that project, it evolved over a long period of time and had some interesting political ramifications to it. But in the end, this actually also had South Korea, India, and China join as well too. So you're talking about a major fraction of, and now Russia, of course, instead of the Soviet Union. And actually that coalition is holding together despite the obvious political turmoil that's going around on all those things. And that's a project called ITER, which is under construction in the South of France right now. Can you actually, before we turn to the giant magnet and maybe even talk about Spark and the stuff going, all amazing stuff going on at MIT, what is ITER? What is this international nuclear fusion mega project being built in the South of France? So its scientific purpose is a worthy one that it's essentially in any fusion device, the thing that you want to see is more and more relative amounts of self-heating. And this is something that had not been seen, although we had made fusion reactions and we'd seen small amounts of the self-heating, we never got to a dominant, this actually goes to this QP business, okay? The goal of ITER, and it shifted around a little bit historically, but fairly quickly became, we want to get to a large amount of self-heating. So this is why it has, its primary feature is to get to QP of around 10. And through this, this is a way to study this plasma that has more higher levels of self-determination around on it. But it also has another feature, which was let's produce fusion power at a relevant scale. And actually they're linked together, which actually makes sense when you think about it, is that because the fusion power is the heating source itself, this means that they're linked together. And so ITER is projected to make about 500 million watts of fusion power. So this is a significant amount, like this is what you would use for powering cities. So it's not just the research, it is the development of really trying to achieve scale here. So self-heating and scale. Yeah, yes. So this meant then too is the development of an industrial base that can actually produce the technologies like the electromagnets and so forth. And to do it with, it is a tokamak, it is one of these, yes. But very interesting, it also revealed limitations of this as well too. Like what? Well, it's interesting is that it is clearly on paper, and in fact, and in practice as well too, the world, and very different political systems, and you consider at least geopolitical or economic rivals or whatever you want to use. Like working towards a common cause, and one that we all think is worthy, is very like, okay, that's very satisfying. But it's also interesting to see the limitations of this. It's because, well, you've got seven chefs in the kitchen. So what is this meant in terms of the speed of the project and the ability to govern it and so forth? It's just been a challenge, honestly, around this. And this is, I mean, it's very hard technically what's occurring, but when you also introduce such levels of, I mean, this isn't just me saying it, there's like GAO reports from the US government and so forth. It's hard to like steer all of this around. And what that's tended to do is make it, it's not the fastest decision-making process. You know, my own personal view of it was, it was interesting, because you asked, you said about the magnet and commonwealth fusion systems. It was, I worked most of my career on ITER, because when I came into the field in the early 1990s, when I completed my PhD and started to work, this was one of the most, like you can't imagine being more excited about something. Like we're going to change the world with this project, we're gonna do these things. And we just like poured like an entire generation, and afterwards as well too, just poured their imagination and their creativity about making this thing work. Very good. But also at some point though, when it got to being another five years of delay or a decade of delay, you start asking yourself, well, is this what I want to do? Right, am I gonna wait for this? So it was a part of me starting to ask questions with my students, I was like, is there another way that we can get to this extremely worthwhile goal, that maybe it's not that pathway? And the other part that was clearly frustrating to me, because I'm an advocate of fusion. You asked me about, was I, you know, I was like, well, it's a laser fusion or inertial fusion or magnetic fusion. I just want fusion energy, okay? Because I think it's so important to the world, is that, but the other thing, if that's the case, then why do we have only one attempt at it on the entire planet, which was ITERF? It's like, that makes no sense to me, right? We should have multiple attempts at this with different levels of whatever you want to think about, a technical schedule, scientific risk, which are incorporated in them, and that's gonna give us a better chance of actually getting to the goal line. With that spirit, you're leading MIT's effort to design SPARC, a compact, high-field, DT-burning tokamak. How does it work? What is it, what's the motivation? What's the design, what are the ideas behind it? Yeah, at its heart, it's exactly the same concept as ITER. So it's basically a configuration of electromagnets. It's arranged in the shape of a donut, and within that, we would do the same thing that happens in all the other tokamaks and including in ITER and in this one, is that namely, you put in gas, make it into a plasma, you heat it up, it gets to about 100 million degrees. The differentiator in SPARC is that we use the actual deuterium-tritium fuel, and because of the access to very high magnetic fields, it's in a very compact space. It's very, very small. What do I mean by small? So it's 40 times smaller in volume than ITER, but it uses exactly the same physical principles. So this comes from the high magnetic field. So in the end, why does this matter? What it does is it does those things, and it should get to the point where it's producing over 100 million watts of fusion power, but remember, it's 40 times smaller. So ITER was 500 megawatts. Technically, our design is around 150 megawatts, so it's only about a factor of three difference despite being 40 times smaller, and we see Qp large, order of 10 or something like this. At that state, it's very important scientifically because this basically matches what ITER is looking to do. The plasma's dominated by its own heating. That's very, very important, and it does that for about 10 seconds, and the reason it's for 10 seconds is that in terms of that, that basically allows everything to settle in terms of the fusion in the plasma equilibrium. Everything is nice and settled. So you know, you have seen the physical state at which you would expect a power plant to operate basically for magnetic fusion, like wow, right? But it's more than that, and it's more than that. It's because about who's building it and why and how it's being financed. So that scientific pathway was made possible by the fact that we had access to a next generation of magnet technology. So to explain this real quick, why do we call it, you said it in the words, a superconducting magnet. What does this mean? Superconducting magnet means that the materials which are in the electromagnet have no electrical resistance. Therefore, when the electric current is put into it, the current goes around unimpeded. So it could basically keep going around and around and around, you know, technically for infinity. And what that means, or for eternity. And what that means is that the, when you energize these large electromagnets, they're using basically zero electrical power to maintain them. Whereas if you would do this in a normal wire, like copper, you basically make an enormous toaster oven that's consuming enormous amounts of power and getting hot, which is a problem. That was the technical breakthrough that was realized by myself and at the time, my students and postdocs and colleagues at MIT, was that we saw the advent of this new, this new superconducting material, which would allow us to access much higher magnetic fields. It was basically a next generation of the technology. And it was quite disruptive to fusion. But namely what it would allow, that if we could get to this point where we can make the round 20 Tesla, we knew by the rules of tokamaks, that this is going to be, is going to allow us to vastly shrink like the sizes of these devices. So it wouldn't take, although it's a worthy goal, it wouldn't take a seven nation international treaty basically to build it. You could build it with a company and a university. So same kind of design, but now using the superconducting magnets. Yeah, and if in fact, if you look at it, it's like, if you just expand the size of it, they're like, they look almost identical to each other because it's based on the, and actually that comes for a reason by the way, is that it also looks like a bigger version of the tokamak that we ran at MIT for 20 years, where we established the scientific benefits in fact of these higher magnetic fields. So that's the pathway that runs. So I would say, so what does this mean? The context is different because it was made, because it's primarily being made by a private sector company spun out of MIT because the way that it raised money and the purpose of the entity which is there is to make commercial fusion power plants, not just to make a scientific experiment. This is actually why we have, it's why we have a partnership, right? Is that our purpose at MIT is not to commercialize directly, but boy, do we want to advance the technology and the science that comes along this, and that's the reason we're sort of doing it together. So it's MIT and Commonwealth Fusion Systems. So what's interesting to say about financing? And this seems like from a scientific perspective, maybe not an interesting topic, but it's perhaps an extremely interesting topic. I mean, you can just look at the tension between SpaceX and NASA, for example. It's just clear that there's different financing mechanisms can actually significantly accelerate the development of science and engineering. It's great that you brought that up. We use several historic analogs, and one of them is around SpaceX, which is an appropriate one because space, putting things into orbit has a minimum size to it and integrated technological complexity and budget and things like this. So our point when we were talking about starting a fusion commercialization company, people look at you like, isn't this still really just a science experiment? But one of the things that we pointed to was SpaceX to say, well, tell me like 25 years ago, how many people would have voted that, you know, the leading entity on the planet to put things into orbit's a private company. People would have thought you were not so, right? It's like, and what is interesting about SpaceX is that it proved it's more than actually just financing. It's really the purpose of the organization. So the purpose of a, and I'm not against public finance or anything like that, but the purpose of a public entity like NASA correctly speaks to the political, because the cost comes from the political assembly that is there, and I guess from us eventually as well too, but its purpose wasn't about like making a commercial product. It's about fundamental discovery and so forth, which is all really great. It's like, why did SpaceX, it's interesting, why did SpaceX succeed so well is because the idea was, it's like the focus that comes in the idea that you're going to relentlessly like reduce cost and increase efficiency is a drive that comes from the commercial aspect of it, right? And this also then changes the people in the teams, which are doing as well too. And in fact, trickles throughout the whole thing because the purpose isn't, while you're advancing things, it's really good that we can put things in orbit a lot less, more cheaply, like it advances science, which is an interesting synergy, right? And it's the same thing that we think is going to happen in fusion, that namely, this is a bootstrap effect that actually, that when you start to push yourself to think about near-term commercialization, it allows the science to get in hand faster, which then allows the commercialization to go faster and up we go. By the way, we've seen this also in another, like again, you have to watch out with analogies because they can go so far, but like biotech is another one. Like you look at the Human Genome Project, which was, it's sort of like, to me, that's like mapping the human genome is like, like that we can make net energy from fusion. Like it's one of those, like in your drawer that you go, this is a significant achievement by humanity, right? In this century. And there's the Human Genome Project, fully government funded. It's going to take 20, 25 years, because we basically know the technology. We're just going to be really diligent, keep going to do it. And then all of a sudden what comes along? Disruptive technology, right? You can sequence, you know, shotgun sequencing and computer, you know, recognition patterns and basically, oh, I can do this 100 times faster. Like, wow, right? So that's really the, you know, to me, the story about why we started, why we launched Commonwealth Fusion Systems was more than just about another source of funding, which it is a different source of funding, because it comes, it's also a different purpose, which is very important. But there's also something about a mechanism that creates culture. So giving power to like a young student, ambitious student, to have a tremendous impact on the progress of nuclear fusion, creates a culture that actually makes progress more aggressively. Like you said, when seven nations collaborate, it gives more incentive to the bureaucracy to slow things down, to kind of have, let's first have a discussion, and certainly don't give voice to the young, ambitious minds that are really pushing stuff forward. And there's something about like the private sector that rewards, encourages, inspires young minds to say in the most beautiful of ways, F you to the, to the boss, to say like, we'll make it faster, we'll make it simpler, we'll make it better, we'll make it cheaper. And sometimes that brashness doesn't bear out, you know, that's an aspect that you just take a different risk profile as well too. But you're right, it's this, you know, of the, I mean, it was interesting, our own trajectory at the fusion center was like, we were pushed into this place by necessity as well too, because I told you we have, and we had operated for a long time, a tokamak on the MIT campus, achieve these world records, like 100 million degree plasma and stuff, like wow, this is fantastic. But, you know, somewhat ironically I have to say is that it was like, oh, but we're not, this isn't the future of fusion anymore. Like we're not, we're just gonna stop with small projects because it's too small, right? So we should need, we need to really move on to these much bigger projects, because that's really the future of fusion. And so it was defunded, and this basically put at risk, like we were going to essentially lose MIT in the ecosystem, really, of fusion, both from the research, but also clearly important from the educational part of it. So we, you know, we pushed back against this, we got a lifeline, we were able to go, and it was in this time scale that we basically came up with this idea, it's like, we should do this. And in the end it was all of those, the people who were in the C level of the company were all literally students who got caught in that. They were PhD students at the time. So you talk about enabling another generation, it's like, yeah, there you go, right? So Spark gave- A lifeline. A lifeline, gave fuel to the future center at MIT that it continues. But it's way more than that. It wasn't just about like surviving for the sake of surviving. It was like, in the end for me, it became like this, I remember the moment, you talk about these moments as a scientist, and we were just like, we were working so hard about figuring out like, does this really, will this really work? Like, it's complex. Like, does the magnet work? Does the interaction with the plasma work? Does all these things work? And it was just a grind, push, push, push, push. And I remember the moment, because I was sitting in my office in Brookline, and there was just like, I read like, and I was in, I don't know, whatever, the 20th or 40th slide or something into it. And it was sort of that moment, like it just came together. And I like, I got, I couldn't even sit down, because all it was just like, my wife was like, why are you walking around the apartment like this? Like, I just couldn't, I said, it's going to work. Like, it's going to work. Like, holy cow. That moment of realization is like, kind of amazing. But it also brings the responsibility of making it work. Yeah, how do you make it work? So, you mean like that magic realization that you can have this modern magnet technology, and you can actually, like, why do we need to work with it, or we can do it here? Yeah, yeah. But it's interesting that Eater is, that one of the reasons that, like, we started with a group of six of us at MIT, and then once we got some funding through the establishment of the company, it became a slightly larger. But in the end, we had a rather small team. Like, this was like a team of, you know, order of like 20 to 25 people designed Spark in like about two years, right? How does that happen? Well, we're clever, but you have to give Eater its due here as well, too. That, again, this is an aspect always of the bootstrap up. Like, I go back to the Human Genome Project. So, modern day genomics would not be possible without the underlying basis that came from setting that up. It had to be there. It had to be curiosity-driven public program. It's the same with Eater, but because we had the tools that were there to understand Eater, we also had the tools to understand Spark. So, we parlayed those in an extremely powerful way to be able to tell us about what was going to happen. So, these things are never simple, right? It's like people look at this, go, oh, this means we should, like, should we really have a public-based program about fusion, or should we have it all in the private? It's like, no, the answer is neither way, because in all these complex technologies, you have to keep pushing on all the fronts to actually get it there. So, you know, the natural question when people hear breakthrough with the inertial confinement, with the magnetic confinement is, so, when will we have commercial reactors, power plants that are actually producing electricity? What's your sense, looking out into the future, when do you think you can envision a future where we have actual electricity coming from nuclear fusion? Partly driven by us, but in other places as well, too. So, there's the advent, what's so different now than three or four years ago, like we launched around four years ago. What's so different now is the advent of a very nascent, but seemingly robust, commercial fusion endeavour. So, it's not just Commonwealth Fusion Systems, there's something like 20 plus companies. So, there's a sector now. There's a sector. They actually have something called the Fusion Industry Association, which if your viewers want to go see this, this describes the different, and they've got this plethora of approaches. Like, I haven't even described all the approaches, I've basically described the mainline approaches. And they're all at varying degrees of technical and scientific maturity with very huge, different balances between them. But what they share is that because they're going out and getting funding from the private sector is that their stated goals are about getting fusion into place so that both it meets the investors' demands, which are interesting, right, and the time scales of that, but also it's like, well, there's gonna, and why? It's because it's easy. There's this enormous push, driver, about getting carbon-free energy sources out into the market. And whoever figures those out is going to be both very, it's gonna be very important geopolitically, but also economically as well too. So, it's a different kind of bet, I guess, or a different kind of gamble that you're taking with fusion, but it's so disruptive that it's like, there's essentially a class of investors and teams that are ready to go after it as well too. So, what do they share in this? They typically share getting after fusion on a time scale so that could it have any relevance towards climate change, battling climate change. And I would say this is difficult, but it's fairly easy because it's math. So, what you do is you actually go to some target, like 2050 or 2060, something like this, and say, I wanna be blank percent of the world's market of electricity or something like that. And we know historically what it takes to evolve and distribute these kinds of technologies because every technology takes some period of time, it's so-called S curve, it's basically, everything follows a logarithmic curve, exponential type curve, it's a straight line, a log plot. And like you look at wind, solar, fission, they all follow the same thing. So, it's easy, you take that curve and you go, that's slope and you work backwards. And you go, if you don't start in the early 2030s, like, it's not gonna have a significant impact by that time. So, all of them share this idea. And in fact, it's not just the companies now, the US federal government has a program that was started last year that said, we should be looking to try to get like the first, and what do we mean by, like, what does it mean to start? That you've got something that's putting electricity on the grid, a pilot, what we call it. And if that can get started, like in the early 2030s, the idea of ramping it up, you know, makes sense. That's math, right? So, that's the ambition, then the question is, and actually this is different, because the government program, and they vary around in this. So, for example, the United Kingdom's government idea was to get the first one on by 2040. And China has ambitions probably middle 2030s, or maybe a little bit later. And Europe, you know, continental Europe, is a little bit, I'm not exactly sure where it is, but it's like later, it's like 2050 or 2060, because it's mostly linked to the Eater timeline as well too. The fusion companies, which makes sense, it's like, of course they've got the most aggressive timelines. It's like, we're gonna map the human genome faster as well too, right? So, it's interesting about where we are. And I think, you know, we're not all the way there, but my intuition tells me we're probably gonna have a couple of cracks at it actually on that timeline. So, this is where we have to be careful though, you say commercial fusion, you know, what does that mean? Commercial fusion to me means that you're actually have a known quantity about what it costs, what it costs to build and what it costs to operate, the reliability of putting energy on the grid, that's commercial fusion. So, it turns out that that's not necessarily exactly the first fusion devices that put electricity on the grid, because you got it, there's a learning curve to get like better and better at it. But that's probably, I would suspect the biggest hurdle is to get to the first one. The work I've done, the work I continue to do with autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles, there's an interesting parallel there where a bunch of companies announced a deadline for themselves in 2020, 2021, 2022, and only a small subset of those companies have actually really pushed that forward. There's Google with Waymo, or Alphabet rather, and then there's Tesla with semi-autonomous driving in their autopilot, full self-driving mode. And those are different approaches. So, Tesla's achieving much, much higher scale, but the quality of the drive is semi-autonomous. I don't know if there's a metaphor, an analogy here. And then there's Waymo that's focusing on very specific cities, but achieving real, full autonomy with actual passengers, but the scales are much smaller. So, I wonder, just like you said, there'll be these kinds of similar kind of really hard pushes. Absolutely. So, actually, this is why I'm encouraged about Fusion. Fusion's still hard, let's let everyone be clear, because the science underneath it of achieving the right conditions for the plasma basically is a yardstick that you have to put up against all of them. What's encouraging that I see in this, and it's actually what happens when you sort of let loose the creativity of this, is, maybe I'll go back to first principles. So, Fusion is also a fairly strange, so if you think about building a coal plant, like burning wood and coal and gas is actually not that much different from each other, because they're kind of about the same physical conditions, and you get the fuel and you light it, Fusion is very, remember I told you that there's this condition of the temperature, which is kind of universal. But if you take the density of the fuel between magnetic Fusion and inertial Fusion, they're different by about a factor of 10 billion. So, this, and the density of the fuel really matters. And actually, so does the, and this means the energy confinement time is also different by a factor of 10 billion as well too, because it's the product of those two. So, one's really dense and short-lived, and the other one's really long-lived and actually under-dense as well too. So, what that means is that the way to get the underlying physical state is so different among these different approaches, what it lends itself to is, does this mean that eventual commercial products will actually fill different needs in the energy system? So, it sort of goes to your comment about, I have to suspect this, because anything that is high-tech and is like a really important thing in our economy, tends to never find its way as one, only one manifestation. Like, look at transportation as well too. We have scooters, Vespas, you know, overland trucks, cars, electric cars. Of course we have these, because they meet different demands in it. So, what's interesting, you know, that I find fascinating now is that we have, in fusion it's going to look like that, that probably there's, while the near-term focus is on electricity production, there might even be different kinds of markets that actually make sense. In some places, less than others, it comes to trade-offs, because we haven't really talked about the engineering yet, but the engineering really matters, like to the operation of the device. And so, it could be that, you know, I suspect what we'll end up with is several different configurations which have different features, which are trade-offs basically, in the energy market. What do you see as the major engineering or general hurdles that are in the way? Yeah. So, the first one is just the cost of building a single unit. So, fusion has, and it's actually interesting, you talked about the different models that you have. So, fusion has, one of its interesting limitations is that it's very hard, it almost at some point becomes physically impossible to actually make small power units, like a kilowatt, a thousand watts, you know, which is like a personal home, like, you know, this is about a thousand watts, or your personal use of electricity is about like a thousand watts. This is basically impossible for a single unit to do this. So, like, you're not gonna have a fusion power plant, like as your furnace or your electric heater in your home. And the reason for this comes from the fact that fusion relies on it being, it's not just that it's very hot, it's that the fusion power is the heating source to keep it hot. So, if you go too small, it basically just cannot keep it hot. So, it's interesting is that this, so this is one of the hard parts. So, this means that the individual units, you know, and it varies from concept to concept, but the National Academy's report that came out last year sort of put the benchmark as being like, probably the minimum size looks like around 50 million watts of electricity, which is like enough for like a small to, you know, mid-sized city actually. So, that is, so that's sort of like a scale challenge. And in fact, it's one of the reasons why in Commonwealth and in other private sector ones, like, they try to push this down actually of trying to get to these smaller units, just cause it reduces the cost of it. Then probably, obviously, I would say it's an obvious one, like achieving the fusion state itself and high gain is a hard one, but we already talked about what kind of hurdle, what kind of challenges that is. That's achieving the right temperature, density, and energy confinement time in the fuel itself, in the plasma itself. And so, some of the configurations which are being chosen have are actually, have quite a ways to go, in fact, of seeing those. But what their consideration is, oh, yes, but by our particular configuration, the engineering simplicity confers like an economic advantage, even if we're behind in sort of a science sense. Okay, which is fine. This is also what you get when you get an explosion in the private sector, you basically are distributing risks in different ways, right, which makes sense. All of that good, so what I would say is that the next hurdle to really overcome is about making that electricity. So, like, we need to see a unit or several units, like using fusion in some way to put a meaningful amount of energy on the grid, because this starts giving us real answers as to like what this is going to look like. The full end to end process. The full end to end thing. So, Commonwealth's goal is that, I'll just comment to Commonwealth, because I'll take some, you know, I guess some credit for this, is that the origins of Commonwealth were in fact in examining that. Like, we could see this new technology coming forward, this new superconducting material, and the origins of our thought process were really around designing, effectively, the pilot plant or the commercial unit. It's called ARC, which is actually the step forward after SPARC. And that was the origins of it. So, all the things that were other parts of the plan, like SPARC and the magnet, were actually all informed totally by building something that was gonna put net electricity on the grid. And the timing of that, we still hope, is actually the early 2030s. So, SPARC is the design of the Takamak, and ARC is the actual full end to end thing? Is like a thing that actually puts that energy on the grid. So, SPARC is named intentionally, that it's on for a short period of time, and it doesn't have a, it has, yeah, it's the spark of the fusion revolution, or something like that, I guess we could call it. Yeah, so those are sort of the programmatic challenges of doing that. And you talked about SpaceX, so what has evolved even in the last year or so was, in fact, in March of 2022, the White House announced that it was going to start a program that kind of looks like a SpaceX analogy, that namely, wow, we've got these things in the private sector, we should leverage the private sector and the advantages of what they obtain, but also with the things, like this is gonna be hard, and it's gonna take quite a bit of financing. So, why don't we set up a program where we don't really get in the way of the private sector fusion companies, but we help them finance these difficult things, which is how SpaceX basically became successful through the COTS program, fantastic, right? And that's evolving as well, too, so the fusion ecosystem is almost unrecognizable from where it was like five years ago, around those things. How important is it for the heads of the companies that are working on nuclear fusion to have a Twitter account and to be quite, you said you don't use Twitter very much. I don't use Twitter. I mean, there is some element to, and I don't think this should be discounted, whatever you think about figures like Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin or Elon Musk with SpaceX. There is a science communication, to put it in nice terms, that's kind of required to really educate the public and get everybody excited and sell the sexiness of it. I mean, just even the videos of SpaceX, just being able to kind of get everybody excited about going out to space once again. I mean, there's all kinds of different ways of doing that, but I guess that's what companies do well, is to advertise themselves, to really sell themselves. It is, yeah. Well, actually, I feel like one of the reasons on this podcast, and so I don't have an official role in the company, and one of the reasons for this was also that it's interesting, because when you come from, like you're running a company, it makes sense, they're promoting their own product and their own vision, which totally makes sense. But there's also a very important role for academics who have knowledge about what's going on, but are sufficiently distant from it that they're not fully only self-motivated just by their own projects or so forth. And for me, this is, I mean, we see particularly the problems of the distrust in technology, and then honestly in the scientific community as well too. It will be one of the greatest tragedies, I would say, that if we go through all of this and almost pull off what looks like a miracle, like technologic and scientific-wise, which is to make a fusion power plant, and then nobody wants to use it because they feel that they don't trust the people who are doing it or the technology. So we have to get so far out ahead of this. So I give lots of public lectures or things like this of accessing a larger range of people. We're not trying to hide anything. You can come and see, come do tours of our laboratory. In fact, I want to set those up virtually as well too. You might look at our Plasma Science and Fusion Center YouTube channel. So we are reaching out through those media, and it's really important that we do those things. But it's also, but also then realizing, setting up the realistic expectations of what we need to do. We're not there. We don't have commercial fusion devices yet. And you asked, like, what are the challenges? I'm not gonna get into any deep technical questions about what the challenges are, but it is, the pathway, not just to make fusion work technically, but to make it economically competitive and viable so that it's actually used out in the private sector is a non-trivial task. And it's because of the newness of it. Like, we're simultaneously trying to evolve the technology and make it economically viable at the same time. Those are two difficult coupled tasks. So my own research and my own drive right now is that fantastic Commonwealth Fusion Systems is set up. We have a commercialization unit of that particular kind, which is gonna drive forward a token back. In fact, I was just, there's discussions, there's dialogues going on around the world with other kinds of ones, like stellarators, which prefer different kinds of challenges and economic advantages. But what we have to, I know what we have to have. What we have to have is a new generation of integrated scientists, technologists, and engineers that understand, like, how, what needs to get done to get all the way to the goal line. Because we don't have them now. So like a multidisciplinary team. Yeah, exactly. What's required, I mean, you've spoken about, you said that fusion is, quote, the most multidisciplinary field you can imagine. Why is that? What are the differences? Well, because most of our discussion that we've had so far is really like a physics discussion, really. So don't neglect physics at the origin of this. But already we touched on plasma physics and nuclear physics, which are basically two, somewhat overlap, but independent disciplines. Then when it comes to the engineering, it's almost everything. So why is this? Well, let's build an electromagnet together, okay? What is this going to take? It's going to take, it's basically electrical engineering, computer, so you understand how it goes together, what happens, computational engineering to model this very complex integrated thing, materials engineering, because you're pushing materials to their limit with respect to stress and so forth. It takes cryogenic engineering, which is sort of a subdiscipline, but cooling things to extremely low temperatures. There's probably some kind of chemistry thing in there too. Well, actually, yeah, which tends to show up in the materials. And that's just one of the sub components of it. Like almost everything gets hit in this, right? So you're, and you're also in a very integrated environment because in the end, all of these things, while you isolate them from each other in a physics sense, in an engineering sense, they all have to work like seamlessly together. So it's one of those, I mean, in my own career, I've basically done atomic physics, spectroscopy, plasma physics, ion etching. So this includes material science, something called MHD, even magnetohydrodynamics. And now all the way through, like I'm not even sure how many different careers I've had. It's also, by the way, this is also a recruiting stage for like young scientists thinking to come in. Like my comment to sign is if you're bored in fusion, you're not paying attention because there's always something interesting to go and do. So that's a really important part of what we're doing, which isn't new in fusion actually. And in fact, is in the roots of what we've done at MIT, but holy cow, like the proximity of possibility of commercial fusion is the new thing. So my catchphrase is like, you may be wondering like, why weren't we doing all these things? Like why weren't we pushing towards economic fusion and new materials and new methods of heat extraction and so forth? Because everybody knew fusion was 40 years away. And now it's four years away. There is a history, like you said, 40, 30, whatever, that kind of old joke. There's a history of fusion projects that are characterized by cost overruns and delays. How do you avoid this? How do you minimize the chance of this? You have to build great teams is one of them. It tends to be that the smaller, there's sort of, I'm not an expert in this, but I've seen this enough integrated engineering teams. Is there an equation? Yeah, well, there's almost, I've seen this from enough teams. Like I've seen also the futility of lone geniuses trying to solve everything by themselves, like no. But also organizations that have 10,000 people in them is just not, doesn't lend itself at all to innovation. So like one of our original sponsors and a good friend, Vinod Khosla, I don't know if you've ever talked to Vinod Khosla, he's a venture guy. He's got fantastic ideas about like the right sizes of teams and things that really innovate, right? And there is an optimum place in there is that you get enough cross discipline and ideas, but it doesn't become so overly bureaucratic that you can't execute on it. So one of the ways, and this was one of the challenges of fusion is that everything was leading towards, like I have to have like enormously large like teams just to execute because of the scale of the project. The fact that now through both technology and I would argue financing innovation, we're driving to the point where it's smaller focused teams about doing those things. So that's one way to make it faster. The other way to make it faster is modularize the problem or parse the problem. So this is the other difficulty in fusion is that you tend to look at this as like, oh, it's really just about making the plasma into this state here that you get this energy gain. No, because in the end, if you can parse out the different problems of making that and then make it as separate as possible from extracting the energy and then converting it into electricity, the more separate those are, the better they are because you get parallel paths that basically mitigate risk. This is not new in fusion, by the way, and this is the way that we attack most complex technological. You know, integrated technological challenges. Have you by any chance seen some of the application of artificial intelligence, reinforcement learning? A DeepMind has a nice paper, has a nice effort on basically using reinforcement learning for a learned control algorithm for controlling nuclear fusion. Yeah. Do you find those kinds of, I guess you throw them under the umbrella of computational modeling. Do you find those interesting, promising directions? They're all interesting. So when people, you know, I'll pull back. Maybe a natural question is like, why is it different in fusion? Like there's a long history to fusion, right? It was going on for, like I told you, like stories from the late 1960s. Like what's different now, right? So I think from the technology point of view, there's two massive things which are different. So one of them, you know, I'll be parochial, it's the advent of this new superconducting materials because the most mature ways that we understand about how we're gonna get to fusion power plants are magnetic fusion. And by the fact that you've got access to something which like changes the economic equation by an over an order of magnitude is just a totally, you know, and that wasn't that long ago. It was only September of 2021 that we actually demonstrated the technology. That changes the prospects there. And the other one is computing. And it's across the whole spectrum. It's not just in control of the fusion device. It's actually in the, we actually use machine learning and things like this in the design of the magnet itself. It's an incredibly complex design space. So you use those tools. The simulation of the plasma itself is actually, we're at a totally different place than we were because of those things. So those are the two big drivers that I see actually that make it different. And actually, and it's interesting, both those things self-enforce about what you asked about before, like how do you avoid delays and things? Well, it's by having smaller teams that can actually execute on those. But now you can do this because the new magnets make the devices all smaller. And the computing means your human effectiveness about exploring the optimization space is way better. It's like, they're all interlinked to each other. Plus the modularization, like you said, and it's everything just kind of works together to make smaller teams more effective, move faster. And it's actually, and it's through that learned experience. I mean, of the things that I'm the most proud of about what came out, in fact, the origins of thinking about how we would use the high temperature superconducting magnets came out of my design class at MIT. And in the design class, like one of the features that I kept, I mean, it was interesting. I actually learned, I really learned along with the students about this, but like this insistence on the features, like we can't have so many coupled, integrated, hard technology developments. Like we have to separate these somehow. So we worked and worked and worked at this. And in fact, that's what really, in my opinion, the greatest advantage of the arc design and built into the Commonwealth Fusion System idea is like to parse out the problems. Like how can we attack these in parallel? Yeah, and so it really comes to, we talked about philosophy. It's like a design philosophy. Like how do you attack these kinds of problems? And you do it like that. And also, like you mentioned offline, that there's a power to, as part of a class, to design a nuclear fusion power plant. And then make it a reality. And it's hard to imagine a more powerful force than like 15 MIT PhD students, like working together towards solving a problem. And what I always, in fact, we recently just taught the most recent, I say I teach it, I mean, I guide it, actually, the most recent version of this, where they actually designed, based on this National Academies report, they actually designed a pilot plant that has basis and similarities to what we had done before. But I kept wanting to push the envelope in where they are. It's like the creativity and the energy that they bring to these things is kind of like, it keeps me going. Like I'm not gonna retire anytime soon. When I keep seeing that kind of dedication, and it's wonderful around in that. And it almost, not to overuse a, or to paraphrase something, right, which is that the famous quote by Margaret Mead, never doubt that a small group of dedicated persons will change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. I mean, that's just such a powerful and inspiring thing for an individual. Find the right team, be part of that, and then you, yourself, your passion, your efforts could actually make a big change, a big impact. I gotta ask you, so it's, it's a whole nother different conversation, I'm sure, to have, but nuclear power as it currently stands, so using fission is extremely safe, despite public perception. It is the safest, actually. So that's a whole nother conversation, but almost like a human, bureaucratic, physics, engineering question of, what lessons do you draw from the catastrophic events where the populace did fail? So Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl. What lessons do you draw? Actually, Three Mile Island wasn't really a disaster, because nothing escaped from the thing, but Chernobyl and Fukushima were, have been, had obvious consequences in the populations and the, that live nearby. What lesson do you draw from those that you can carry forward to fusion? Now, I know there's, you can say that you're not gonna have the same kind of issues, but it's possible that the same folks also said they're not gonna be, have those same kind of issues. We humans, the human factor, we haven't talked about that one quite as much, but it's still there. So to be clear, it's, so fusion has the intrinsic safety with respect to, it can't run away, those are physics bases. Technology and engineering bases of running a, again, anything that makes large amounts of power and heats things up has got intrinsic safety in it. And by the fact that we actually produce very energetic particles, this doesn't mean that there's no radiation involved in, ionizing radiation, to be more accurate, in fusion. It's just that it's in a very different order of magnitude, basically. So what are the lessons in fusion? So one of them is make sure that you're looking at aspects of the holistic environmental and societal footprint that the technology will have. As technologists, we tend not to focus on these, and particularly in early stages of development. Like we just want something that works, right? But if we come with just something that works, but doesn't actually satisfy the societal demands for safety and for, I mean, we will have materials that we have to dispose of out of fusion, just this is, but there's technological questions about what that looks like. So will this look like something that you have to put in the ground for 100 years or five years? And the consequences of those are both economic and societal acceptance and so forth, but don't bury those. Like bring these up front, talk to people about them, and make people realize that you're actually, the way I would look at it is that you're making fusion more economically attractive by making it more societally acceptable as well, too. And then realize is that, I think there's a few interesting boundaries, basically. So one of them, speaking of boundaries, that successful fusion devices, I'm pretty sure, will require that you don't have to have an evacuation plan for anybody who lives at the site boundary. So this has implications for what we build from a fusion engineering point of view, but it has major implications for where you can site fusion devices, right? So in many ways, it becomes more like, well, we have fences around industrial heat sources and things like this for a reason, right, for personal safety. It looks more like that, right? It's not quite as simple as that, but that's what it should look like. And in fact, we have research projects going on right now at MIT that are trying to push the technologies to make it more look like that. I think that those are key. And then in the end, as I said, so Chernobyl is physically impossible, actually, in a fusion system. From a physics perspective. From a physics perspective. You can't run away like it did at Chernobyl, which was basically human error of letting the reactors like run out of control, essentially. Human error can still happen with fusion-based reactors. Yeah, but in that one, if human error occurs, then it just stops and this is done. And all of those things, this is the requirement of us as technologists and developers of this technology to not ignore that dimension, in fact, of the design. And that's why me personally, I'm actually pouring myself more and more into that area because this is going to be, I actually really think it is an aspect of the economic viability of fusion because it clearly differentiates ourselves and also sets us up to be about what we want fusion to be. Is that, again, on paper, fusion can supply all of our energy, like all of it. So this means I want it to be like, really environmentally benign, but this takes engineering ingenuity, basically, to do that. Let me ask you some wild out there questions. Sure. So for- We've been talking too much, you know. It's a very- Okay. Simple, practical things in everyday life. No, only revolutionizing the entire energy infrastructure of human civilization, yes. But, so cold fusion. This idea, this dream, this interesting physical goals seem to be impossible, but perhaps it's possible. Do you think it is possible? Do you think down the line, somewhere in the far distance, it's possible to achieve fusion at a low temperature? It's very, very, very unlikely. And this comes from, so this would require a pretty fundamental shift in our understanding of physics as we know it now. And we know a heck of a lot about how nuclear reactions occur. By the way, what's interesting is that there's, they actually have a different name for it. They call it LEANER, like low energy nuclear reactions. But we do have low energy nuclear reactions. We know these, it's because these come from, particularly the weak interaction, the weak force, nuclear force. And so it's, at this point, you know, as a scientist, you always keep yourself open, because, but you also demand proof, right? And that's the thing. It almost requires a breakthrough on the theoretical physics side. So something, some deeper understanding about quantum mechanics, something so that quantum tunneling, some weird. Yeah, and people have looked at that, but even like something like quantum tunneling has a limit as to what it can actually do. So there are people who are genuine, you know, that really want to see it make it, but, you know, it sort of goes to the extort, I mean, we know fusion happens at these high energies, like, we know this extremely accurately, and I can show you a plot that shows that as you go to lower and lower energy, it basically becomes immeasurable. So if you're going down this other pathway, it means there's really a very different physical mechanism involved. So all I would say is that I actually poke in my head once in a while to see what's going on in that area. And as scientists, we should always try to make ourselves open, but in this one, it's like, but show me something that I can measure and that is repeatable, and then it's gonna take more extraordinary effort, and to date, this has not met that threshold, in my opinion. So even more so than just mentioning, or in that question, thinking about people that are claiming to have achieved cold fusion, I'm more thinking even about people who are studying black holes, and they're basically trying to understand the function of theoretical physicists. They're doing the long haul, trying to investigate, like, okay, what is happening at the singularity? What is this kind of holographic projections on a plate, these weird freaking things that are out there in the universe, and somehow, accidentally, they start to figure out something weird. And then all of a sudden. There's weirdness all over the place already, yeah. Somehow that weirdness will, I think on a time scale probably of 100 years or so, that weirdness will open. It just seems like nuclear fusion and black holes and all of this, they're next-door neighbors a little bit too much for, like, you'll find something. Interesting. Well, let me tell you a story about this. It's a real story. Yeah. So there were really, really clever scientists in the end of the late 1800s in the world. You talk about, like, James Clerk Maxwell, and you talk about Lord Kelvin, and you talk about Lorenz, actually, who named after these other ones, and on and on and on, and like Faraday, and they discovered electromagnetism, holy cow. And it's like, they figure out all these things, and yet there were these weird things going on that you couldn't quite figure out. It's like, what the heck is going on with this, right? But we teach this all the time in physics classes, right? So what was going on? Well, there's just a few kind of things unchecked, but basically we're at the end of discovery because we figured out how everything works. Because we've got basically Newtonian mechanics, and we've got Maxwell's equations, which describe basically how matter gets pushed around and how electromagnetism works. Holy cow, what a feat. But there are these few nagging things. Like, for instance, there's certain kinds of rocks that for some reason, like if you put a photographic plate around it, it gets burned, or it gets an image on it. Like, well, where's the electromagnetism in that? There's no electromagnetic properties of this rock. Hmm. Oh yeah, and the other thing too is that if I take this wonderful classical derivation of something that is hot, about how it releases radiation, everything looks fantastic. Perfect match, oh, until I get to high frequencies of the light, and then it basically just, the whole thing falls apart. In fact, it gives a physical explanation, which is total nonsense. It tells you that every object should basically be producing an infinite amount of heat. And by the way, here's the sun, and we can look at the sun, and we can figure out it's made out of hydrogen. And Lord Kelvin actually made a very famous calculation, who was basically one of the founders of thermodynamics. So you look at the hydrogen, hydrogen has a certain energy content, you know, the latent heat, basically, of hydrogen. We know the mass of the sun, because we knew the size of it. And he conclusively proved that basically, the sun could only make net energy for about two or 3,000 years. So therefore, all this nonsense about deep, because clearly, the sun can only last for two or 3,000 years. If you think about the, and this is basically the chemical energy content of hydrogen, and what comes along, in one decade, basically, one guy sitting in a postal office in Switzerland, figures out that all these, Einstein, of course, which was, figured out all this, took these seemingly unconnected things, and it's like, boom, there it is. This is what, it wasn't just him, but it was, like, there's quantum physics, like, this explains this other disaster. And then this other guy, my hero, Ernest Rutherford, experimentalist, did the most extraordinary experiment, which is like, which was that, okay, they had these funny rocks, they emitted these particles, they, in fact, they called them alpha particles, alpha, just A in the alphabet, right? Because it was the first thing that they discovered. And what were they doing? So they were taking these alpha particles, and by the way, I do this to all my students, because it's a demonstration of what you should be as a good scientist. So he took these alpha things, and he's a classically trained physicist, knew everything about momentum scattering, and so forth, and like that. And he took this, and these alpha, which clearly were some kind of energy, but they couldn't quite figure out what it was. So he said, let's try to figure that, we'll actually use this to try to probe the nature of matter. So he took this, took these alpha particles, and a very, very thin gold foil. And so what you wanted to see was that as they were going through, the way that they would scatter, based on classical, in fact, the Coulomb collision, based on classical mechanics, this will tell me, reveal something about what the nature of the charge distribution is in matter, because they didn't know. Like, where the hell is this stuff coming from? Even though they'd solved electromagnetism, they didn't know, like, what made up charges. Okay, very interesting. Through it goes, and so what did you set up? So it turns out in these experiments, what you did was, because if these so-called alphas, which actually now we know is something else, as they go through, they would deflect, how much they deflect tells you how strong an electric field they saw. So you put detectors, because if you put, if you put like a piece of glass in front of this, what will happen is that when the alpha particle hits, it literally gives a little, boop, a little boop of light like this, it scintillates, a little blue flash. So he would train his students or postdocs or whatever the heck they were at the time, you have to train yourself, because you have to put yourself in the dark for like hours to get your eyes adjusted, and then they would start the experiment and they would sit there and literally count the things. And they could see this pattern developing, which was revealing about what was going on. But there was also another part of the experiment, which was that, it's like, here's the alphas, here's the source, they're going this way, they could tell they were going in one direction only, basically, they're going in this direction. And you put all these over here, because you want to see how they deflect and bend through it. But you put a control in the experiment, but you basically put glass plates back here, because obviously, everything should just deflect, but nothing should bounce back. So it's a control in the experiment. But what did they see? They saw things bouncing back. Like, what the hell? Like, that fit no model of any idea, right? But Rutherford refused to ignore what was a clear, like, they validated it, and he sat down, and based on classical physics, he made the most extraordinary discovery, which was the nucleus, which is a very, very strange discovery. What I mean by that, because what he could figure out from this is that in order for these particles to bounce back and hit this plate, they were hitting something that must be heavier than them, and that basically something like 99.999% of the mass, of the matter that was in this gold foil was in something that contained about one trillionth of the volume of it. And that's called the nucleus. And until, and you talk about, so how revealing is this? It's like, this totally changes your idea of the universe, because a nucleus is a very unintuitive, non-intuitive thing. It's like, why is all the mass in something that is like zero, like, basically it was the realization that matter is empty. It's all empty space. And that changes everything. And it changes everything. Until you had that, like you had steam engines, by the way, you had telegraph wires, you had all those things. But that realization, like opened up, those two realizations opened up everything, like lasers, all these things about the modern world of what we use, and that set it up. So all I would point out is that there's a story already that sometimes there's these nagging things at the edge of science that, you know, we seem, we pat ourselves on the back and we think we got everything under control. Of course, by the way, that was the origin of also, that it, think about this, that was 1908. It took like another 20-some years before people put that together with that's the process that's powering stars. It was the rearrangement of those nuclei, not atoms. That's why Kelvin wasn't wrong, he just was working with the wrong assumptions, right? So fast forward to today, like what would this mean, right? Well, there's a couple of things like this that sit out there in physics, and I'll point out one of them, which is very interesting. We don't know what the hell makes up 90% of the mass in the universe. So the search for dark matter, right? What is it? We still haven't discovered it. 90% of the mass of the universe is undetectable. Like what? And then, you know, and dark energy, and again, black holes are the window into this. Well, and black holes, I mean, sometimes black holes are way better understood than those things as well, too. So all it tells us is that we shouldn't have hubris about the ideas that we understand everything. And when we, you know, who knows what the next major intellectual insight will be about how the universe functions. And actually, I think Rutherford is the one who's attributed at least that quote, that physics is the only real science, everything else is stamp collecting, right? So there's- I'm sorry, he's my hero, but I'll slightly disagree with that, yes. Well, no offense to stamp collecting, that's very important, too. But you know, you have to have humility about the kind of disciplines that make progress at every stage in science. Yeah, exactly. Physics did make a huge amount of progress in the 20th century, but it's possible that other disciplines start to step in. Yeah, but Rutherford couldn't imagine like mapping the human genome because he didn't even know about DNA. Yeah, or computers, really. Or computers. He probably didn't think deeply about computation. Who knows, it's like, here's a wild one, what if like the next great revelation to humanity about the universe is not done by the human mind? That seems increasingly more likely. And then you start to ask deep questions about what is the purpose of science? For example, if AI system will design a nuclear fusion reactor better than humans do, but we don't quite understand how it works, and the AI can't, we know that it works, we can test it very thoroughly, but we don't know exactly what the control mechanism is, maybe what the chemistry of the physics is. AI can't quite explain it, they just can't. It's impenetrable to our consciousness, basically, trying to hold it all together. And then, okay, so now we're living in that world where many of the biggest discoveries are made by AI systems. Yeah. As if we weren't going big. Yeah, I say, again, I'll point out like when my godmother was born, none of this was in front of us, right? It's like we live in an amazing time. It's like my grandfather plowed fields with a horse. I get to work on designing fusion reactors. Yeah. Yeah, pretty amazing time. But still, there's humans, so we'll see. We'll see if that's around 100 years. Maybe it'll be cyborgs and robots. I think we're pretty resilient, actually. Yeah, I know. One lesson from life is it finds a way. Let me ask you a bigger question, as if those weren't big enough. Let's look out maybe a few hundred years, maybe a few thousand years out. There's something called the Kardashev scale. It's a method of measuring civilization's level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it's able to use. So type one civilization, and this might be, given all your work, is no longer a scale that quite makes sense, but it very much focuses on the source of fusion, natural source of fusion, which is, for us, the sun. And type one civilizations are able to leverage, sort of collect all the energy that hits Earth. And then type two civilizations are the ones that are able to leverage the entirety of the energy that comes from the sun by maybe building something. Like a Dyson sphere. Like a Dyson sphere, yeah. So when will we reach type one status? Is get to the level, which we're, I think, maybe a few orders of magnitude away from currently. And in general, do you think about this kind of stuff? Because where energy is so fundamental to the, like of life on Earth, but also the expansion of life into the universe. Oh yeah, so one of the fun, on a weekend, when I sat down and figured out what would it mean for interstellar travel, like to have a DT, fusion, in fact, one of the, I talked about my design class. One of my design classes was how you use, essentially, a special configuration of a fusion device for not only traveling to, but colonizing Mars. So, because what would, you talk about energy use being at the heart of civilizations. Like, so what if you want to go to Mars, not to just visit it, but actually like leave people there and make it, something happen. Needs massive amounts of energy. So what would that look like? And it actually transforms how you're thinking about doing that as well, too. Oh yeah, so we do all those kinds of fun. And actually, it was a fairly quasi-realistic, actually. So do you think it'll be nuclear fusion that powers the civilization on Mars? Well, what we considered was something, so it turns out that there's thorium, which is a heavy element. So it's a so-called fertile element that we know, we still know fairly little about the geology of Mars in the deep sense. And we know that there's a lot of this on the surface of Mars. So one of the things we considered was what would happen that it's basically a combination of a fusion device that actually makes fuel from the thorium. But the underlying energy one was fission itself as well, too. So this is one of the examples of being, trying to be clever around those things. Or what is it, you know, this also means it's like interstellar travel. It's like, oh yeah, that looks almost like impossible basically from an energy balance point of view, just because like the energy required that you have to transport to get there. Almost the only things that would work are DT fusion and basically annihilation. It's like Star Trek, right? That's what it is. So your sense is that interstellar travel will require fusion power? Oh, it's almost even impossible with fusion power, actually, it's so hard. It's so hard because you have to carry the fuel with you and the rocket equation tells you about how much fuel you'll use to take. So what you end up with is like, how long does it take to go to these places? And it's like staggering, you know, periods of time. So I tend to believe that there's alien civilizations dispersed all throughout the universe. Yeah, but we might be totally isolated from them. Do you think there's none in this galaxy? So like, and I guess, and the question I also have is what kind of, do you think they have nuclear fusion? Is it all, is the physics all the same? Yeah, oh, the physics is all the same, yeah, right. So this is the, and this is the Fermi paradox, like where the hell is everybody in the universe? Well, there's some, you know, the scariest one of those is that I would point out that there's been, you know, there's, you know, order of many tens of millions of species on the planet Earth, and only one ever got to the point of sophisticated tool use that we could actually start essentially leveraging the power of what's in nature to our own will. Does this mean that basically this means, so almost, look, there is almost certainly life or DNA equivalents or whatever would be somewhere. I mean, just because you just need a soup and you need energy and you get organics and whatever the equivalent of amino acids are. But you know, most of the life on Earth has been that, those are still amazing, but it's still like, it's not very interesting. Are we actually the accident of history? This is a very interesting one. Like super, super rare accident. Super rare. And then of course the other part is that also just the other scary part of it, which if you look at the Fermi paradox is, good, we got to this point, how long has it been in humans, so humans, Homo sapien has been around for whatever, 100,000 years, 200,000 years, something like that. Our ability in that timeline to actually make an imprint on the universe by emitting radio waves or by modifying nature in a significant way has only been for about 100 of those 100,000 years. And are we, it's a good question. So is it by definition, by the fact that when you are able to reach that level of being able to manipulate nature, for example, discover like fission or burning fossil fuels and all this, is that what it says, oh, you're doomed. Because by definition, any species that gets to that point that can modify their environment like that, they'll actually push themselves past, that's one of the most depressing scenarios that I can imagine. So basically we will never line up in time because you get this little teeny window in time where civilization might occur and you can never see it because you never, these sort of like scatter like fireflies around the galaxy and you never, yeah. Goes up, goes up, goes up, goes up, and then explodes, destroys itself because of the exponential. And when we say destroy ourselves, all we'd have to do is that we basically go, if humans are all left and we're still living on the planet, but all we have to do is go to the technology of like 1800 and we're invisible in the universe again. So when I listened to the, I thought I wanted to talk about this as well too because it comes from a science point of view actually of what it means, but also to me, it's like another compelling driver of telling us it's like why we should try really hard not to screw this up like we're in this unique place of our ability to discover and to make it. And I just don't want to give up about thinking that we can get through. Yeah, I tend to see that there is some kind of game theoretic force, like with mutually assured destruction, that ultimately in each human being, there's a desire to survive and a willingness to cooperate, to have compassion for each other in order to survive. And I think that, I mean, maybe not in humans, but I can imagine a nearly infinite number of species in which that overpowers any technological advancement that can destroy or rewind the species. So I think if humans fail, I hope they don't. I see a lot of evidence for them not, but it seems like somebody will survive. And there you start to ask questions about why we haven't met yet. Maybe it's just space is large. Oh, space is, it's, I think in logarithms, and I can't even fathom space, this is extraordinary, right? Yeah. It's extraordinarily large, yeah. I mean, there's so many places on Earth. I just recently visited Paris for the first time. And there's so many other places I haven't visited yet. There's so many other places. Well, I like to, you know, it's interesting that we have this fascination with alien life. We have what is essentially alien life on Earth already. Like you think about the organisms that develop around deep sea, like thermal vents. One of my favorite books of all time from Stephen Jay Gould. If you've never read that book, it kind of blows your mind. It's about the Cambrian explosion of life. And it's like, oh, you look at these things and it's like, the chance of us existing as a species, like the genetic diversity was larger back then. You know, this is about 500 million years ago or something like that. It is a mind-altering trip of thinking about our place in the universe, I have to say. Plus the mind itself is a kind of alien, with almost a mystery to ourselves. We still don't understand it. The very mechanism that helps us explore the world is still a mystery. So that, like understanding that will also unlock, quite possibly unlock our ability to understand the world and maybe build machines that help us understand the world, build tools that help us understand the world. I mean, it already has. I mean, our ability to understand the world is ridiculous almost, actually. And post the bot on TikTok. It's almost unbelievable where we've gotten all this to. So what advice would you give to young folks or folks of all ages who are lost in this world, looking for a way, looking for a career they can be proud of or looking to have a life they can be proud of? Yeah, oh, the first thing I would say is don't give up. I get to see multiple sides of this and there seems to be a level of despair in a young generation. It's like, you know, it's almost like the Monty Python skit. Like, I'm not dead yet, right? I mean, like we're not there. We're in a place that, you know, don't say the world's gonna end in 300 days or something. It's not, okay? And what we mean by this is that we have a robust society that's figured out how to do like amazing things and we're gonna keep doing amazing things. But that shouldn't be complacency about what our future is and the future for their children as well too. And in the end, I mean, it's a staggering legacy to think of what we've built up, primarily by basically using carbon fuels. Like people almost tend to think of this as an evil thing that we've done. I think it's an amazing thing that we've done, but we owe it to ourselves and to this thing that we've built. I mean, we're talking about the end of the world, it's just nonsense. What it is is it's the end of this kind of lifestyle and civilization at this scale and the ability to execute on these kinds of things that we are talking about today. Like we are extraordinarily privileged. We are in a place where it's just, it's almost unfathomable compared to most of the misery that humans have lived in for our history. So don't give up about this, okay? But also roll up your sleeves and let's get going at solving and getting real solutions to the problems that are in front of us, which are significant. Most of them are linked to what we use in energy, but it's not just that. It's around all the aspects of like, what does it mean to have a distributed energy source that lifts billions of people out of poverty, particularly outside of like the Western nations, right? That seems to me a pretty compelling moral goal for all of us, but particularly for this upcoming generation. And then the other part is that we've got possible solutions in front of us, apply your talents in a way that you're passionate about and is gonna make a difference. And that's only possible with optimism, hope, and hard work. Yeah. What, easy question, certainly easier than nuclear fusion. What's the meaning of life? Why are we here? 42. Is it 42? No, no. We already discussed about the beauty of physics, that there's almost a desire to ask a why question about why the parameters have these values. Yeah. It's very tempting, yeah. It's an interesting hole to go down as a scientist, because we're a part of what people have a hard time, people who aren't scientists have a hard time understanding what scientists do to themselves. And a great scientist does a very non-intuitive or non-human thing. What we do is we train ourselves to doubt ourselves, like how, like that's a great scientist. We doubt everything we see, we doubt everything that we think, because we basically try to turn off the belief valve, right, that humans just naturally have. So when it comes to these things, like I can make my own comments to this, it's like, personally, you see these things about the ratios of life. And I made a comment where I said, well, you know, a wrap my, some part of my brain that just goes, yeah, well, yeah, because we're the only interesting multiverse, because by definition, it has to look like this. But there's, I have to say, there's other times, I can say in the history of the whole, of what has happened over the last 10 years, there have been some pretty weird coincidences, like coincidences that like you look at it and just go, is that really, was that really a coincidence? Is something like pushing us towards these things? And it's a natural, it's a human instinct, because since the beginnings of humanity, we've always assigned human motivation and needs to these somewhat empirical observations. And in some sense, the stories, before we understand the real explanations, the stories, the myths, serve as a good approximation for the thing that we're yet to understand. Absolutely. And in that sense, you said the antithesis to sort of scientific doubt is having a faith. In these stories, they're almost silly when looked at from a scientific perspective, but just even the feelings of, it seems that love is a fundamental fabric of human condition, and what the hell is that? Well, actually, I mean, Why are we so connected to each other? As a physicist, I go, it's, you know, this is a repeatable thing that's due to a set of synapses that fire in a particular pattern and all this. You know, that's kind of like, okay, man, what a drag that is, right, to think of it this way. And you can have an evolutionary biology explanation, but there's still a magic to it. I mean, I see scientists, some of my colleagues, you know, do this as well, too. Like, what is spirituality compared to science? And so, my own feeling in this is that, you know, as a scientist, because I've had the pleasure of being able to both understand what my predecessors did, but I also had the privilege of being able to discover things, right, as a scientist. And I see that, and you just, in just the range of our conversations, like, that is my, in a weird way, it's the awe that comes from looking at that. That is, if you're not in awe of the universe and nature, you haven't been paying attention. I mean, my own personal feeling is that I feel, if I go snorkeling on a coral reef, I feel more awe than I could ever feel, like in a church. You kind of notice some kind of magic there. There's something about the way the whole darn thing holds together that just sort of escapes your imagination. And that's, to me, this thing of, and then we have different words, we call them holistic or spiritual, the way that it all hangs together. In fact, one of the interesting, you asked about what I think about, one of the craziest things that I think, that how does it hold together, is our society. Like, how does, what? Because there's no way, like, just think of the United States. There's 330 million people kind of working like this engine about going towards making all these things happen, but there's like no one in charge of this, really. Right? How the heck does this happen? It's kind of like, it's, so these things, these are the kinds of things mathematically and organization-wise that I think of, just because they're sort of, they're awe-inspiring. Right? And there's different ideas that would come up together, and we share them, and then there's teams of people that share different ideas, and those ideas compete. Like, the ideas themselves are these kinds of different organisms, and ultimately, somehow we build bridges and nuclear reactors. And do those things. Well, I have to give a shout-out to my daughter, by the way, who's an applied math major, and she's amazing at math, and over the break, she was showing me she was doing research, and it's basically about how ideas and ethos are transmitted within a society. So she's building an applied math model that is explaining, like, she was showing me in this simulation, she goes, oh, look at this. And I said, oh, oh, that's like how political parties evolve, right? And even though it was a rather, quote-unquote, simple mathematical model, it wasn't really, it's like, oh, wow. Well, maybe she has a chance to derive mathematically the answer to the, what's the meaning of life. And maybe it is indeed 42. Well, Dennis, thank you so much for just doing, creating tools, creating systems, exploring this idea that's one of the most amazing, magical ideas in all of human endeavor, which is nuclear fusion. I mean, that's so interesting. You know, it's almost like one of my lifelong goals is to make it, it's not magic. It's like, it's boring as all heck. And this means we're using it everywhere, right? Yeah. And the magic is then built on top of it. Well, thank you for everything you do. Thank you for talking to me. It's a huge honor. This was a fascinating and amazing conversation. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Dennis White. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Albert Einstein. There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is though everything's a miracle. Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/aJoRMFWn2Jk

ZFntEFXKDHM

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Kate Darling: Social Robots, Ethics, Privacy and the Future of MIT | Lex Fridman Podcast #329

I think that animals are a really great thought experiment when we're thinking about AI and robotics, because again, this comparing them to humans that leads us down the wrong path, both because it's not accurate, but also I think for the future, we don't want that. We want something that's a supplement. But I think animals, because we've used them throughout history for so many different things, we domesticated them not because they do what we do, but because what they do is different and that's useful. And it's just like, whether we're talking about companionship, whether we're talking about work integration, whether we're talking about responsibility for harm, there's just so many things we can draw on in that history from these entities that can sense, think, make autonomous decisions and learn that are applicable to how we should be thinking about robots and AI. The following is a conversation with Kate Darling, her second time on the podcast. She's a research scientist at MIT Media Lab, interested in human robot interaction and robot ethics, which she writes about in her recent book called The New Breed, what our history with animals reveals about our future with robots. Kate is one of my favorite people at MIT. She was a courageous voice of reason and compassion to the time of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal at MIT three years ago. We reflect on this time in this very conversation, including the lessons it revealed about human nature and our optimistic vision for the future of MIT, a university we both love and believe in. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Kate Darling. Last time we talked a few years back, you wore Justin Bieber's shirt for the podcast. So now looking back, you're a respected researcher, all the amazing accomplishments in robotics, you're an author. Was this one of the proudest moments of your life? Proudest decisions you've ever made? Definitely. You handled it really well, though. It was cool, because I walked in, I didn't know you were gonna be filming. I walked in and you're in a fucking suit. Yeah. And I'm like, why are you all dressed up? Yeah. And then you were so nice about it, you like made some excuse. You were like, oh, well, I'm interviewing some, didn't you say you were interviewing some military general afterwards to like, Oh yeah, that was this. Make me feel better? CTO of Lockheed Martin, I think. Oh, that's what it was. Yeah. You didn't tell me, oh, I was dressed like this. Are you an actual Bieber fan? Or was that like one of those t-shirts that's in the back of the closet that you use for painting? I think I bought it for my husband as a joke. And yeah, we were gut renovating a house at the time and I had worn it to the site. Got his joke and now you wear it. Okay. Have you worn it since? Is this the one time? No, like how could I touch it again? It was on your podcast. Now it's framed. It's like a wedding dress or something like that. You don't, you only wear it once. You are the author of the new breed, what our history with animals reveals about our future with robots. You opened the book with the surprisingly tricky question. What is a robot? So let me ask you, let's try to sneak up to this question. What's a robot? That's not really sneaking up. It's just asking it. Yeah. All right, well. What do you think a robot is? What I think a robot is, is something that has some level of intelligence and some level of magic. That little shine in the eye, you know, that allows you to navigate the uncertainty of life. So that means, like autonomous vehicles to me in that sense, are robots because they navigate the uncertainty, the complexity of life. Obviously social robots are that. I love that. I like that you mentioned magic because that also, well, so first of all, I don't define robot definitively in the book because there is no definition that everyone agrees on. And if you look back through time, people have called things robots until they lose the magic because they're more ubiquitous. Like a vending machine used to be called a robot and now it's not, right? So I do agree with you that there's this magic aspect that, which is how people understand robots. If you ask a roboticist, they have the definition of something that is, well, it has to be physical. Usually it's not an AI agent. It has to be embodied. They'll say it has to be able to sense its environment in some way. It has to be able to make a decision autonomously and then act on its environment again. I think that's a pretty good technical definition, even though it really breaks down when you come to things like the smartphone, because the smartphone can do all of those things. And most robotists would not call it a robot. So there's really no one good definition, but part of why I wrote the book is because people have a definition of robot in their minds that is usually very focused on a comparison of robots to humans. So if you Google image search robot, you get a bunch of humanoid robots, robots with a torso and head and two arms and two legs. And that's the definition of robot that I'm trying to get us away from, because I think that it trips us up a lot. Why does the humanoid form trip us up a lot? Well, because this constant comparison of robots to people, artificial intelligence to human intelligence, first of all, it doesn't make sense from a technical perspective, because the early AI researchers, some of them were trying to recreate human intelligence. Some people still are, and there's a lot to be learned from that academically, et cetera, but that's not where we've ended up. AI doesn't think like people. We wind up in this fallacy where we're comparing these two, and we're, when we talk about what intelligence even is, we're often comparing to our own intelligence. And then the second reason this bothers me is because it doesn't make sense. I just think it's boring to recreate intelligence that we already have. I see the scientific value of understanding our own intelligence, but from a practical, what could we use these technologies for perspective, it's much more interesting to create something new, to create a skillset that we don't have that we can partner with in what we're trying to achieve. And it should be in some deep way similar to us, but in most ways different, because you still want to have a connection, which is why the similarity might be necessary. That's what people argue, yes. And I think that's true. So the two arguments for humanoid robots are people need to be able to communicate and relate to robots, and we relate most to things that are like ourselves. And we have a world that's built for humans. So we have stairs and narrow passageways and door handles, and so we need humanoid robots to be able to navigate that. And so you're speaking to the first one, which is absolutely true, but what we know from social robotics and a lot of human-robot interaction research is that all you need is something that's enough like a person for it to give off cues that someone relates to, but that doesn't have to look human or even act human. You can take a robot like R2-D2, and it just like beeps and boops, and people love R2-D2, right? Even though it's just like a trash can on wheels. And they like R2-D2 more than C3PO, who's a humanoid. So there's lots of ways to make robots even better than humans in some ways and make us relate more to them. Yeah, it's kind of amazing the variety of cues that can be used to anthropomorphize the thing, like a glowing orb or something like that. Just a voice, just subtle basic interaction. I think people sometimes over-engineer these things. Like simplicity can go a really long way. Totally. I mean, ask any animator and they'll know that. Yeah, yeah, those are actually, so the people behind Cosmo the robot, the right people to design those is animators, like Disney type of people. Yeah. Versus like roboticists. Roboticists, quote unquote, are mostly clueless. It seems like. Well, no, they just have their own discipline that they're very good at, and they don't have. Yeah, but that, don't, you know. I feel like robotics of the early 21st century is not going to be the robotics of the later 21st century. Like if you call yourself a roboticist, it'd be something very different. Because I think more and more, you'd be like a control engineer or something, controls engineer. Like you separate, because ultimately all the unsolved, all the big problems of robotics will be in the social aspect, in the interacting with humans aspect, in the perception interpreting the world aspect, in the brain part, not the basic control level part. You call it basic, it's actually really complex. It's very, very complicated, yes. And that's why, but like, I think you're so right, and what a time to be alive. Yeah. Because for me, I just, we've had robots for so long, and they've just been behind the scenes. And now finally, robots are getting deployed into the world. They're coming out of the closet. Yeah, and we're seeing all these mistakes that companies are making, because they focused so much on the engineering and getting that right, and getting the robot to even be able to function in a space that it shares with a human. See, what I feel like people don't understand is to solve the perception and the control problem. You shouldn't try to just solve the perception and control problem. You should teach the robot how to say, oh shit, I'm sorry, I fucked up. Yeah, or ask for help. Or ask for help, or be able to communicate the uncertainty. Yeah, exactly, all of those things, because you can't solve the perception and control. We humans haven't solved it. We're really damn good at it. But the magic is in the self-deprecating humor and the self-awareness about where our flaws are, all that kind of stuff. Yeah, and there's a whole body of research in human-robot interaction showing ways to do this. But a lot of these companies, they don't do HRI. Have you seen the grocery store robot in the Stop and Shop? Yes. Yeah, the Marty, it looks like a giant penis. It's like six feet tall, it roams the aisles. I will never see Marty the same way again, thank you. You're welcome. But these poor people worked so hard on getting a functional robot together. And then people hate Marty because they didn't at all consider how people would react to Marty in their space. Does everybody, I mean, you talk about this, do people mostly hate Marty? Because I like Marty. I feel like less. You like Flippy. Yeah, I do. And actually, like. Is there a parallel between the two? I believe there is. So we were actually gonna do a study on this right before the pandemic hit, and then we canceled it because we didn't wanna go to the grocery store, and neither did anyone else. But our theory, so this was with a student at MIT, Daniela Di Paola. She noticed that everyone on Facebook, in her circles, was complaining about Marty. They were like, what is this creepy robot? It's watching me, it's oozing away. And she did this quick and dirty sentiment analysis on Twitter where she was looking at positive and negative mentions of the robot, and she found that the biggest spike of negative mentions happened when Stop and Shop threw a birthday party for the Marty robots, like with free cake and balloons. Like, who complains about free cake? Well, people who hate Marty, apparently. And so we were like, that's interesting. And then we did this online poll. We used Mechanical Turk, and we tried to get what people don't like about Marty. And a lot of it wasn't, oh, Marty's taking jobs. It was, Marty is the surveillance robot, which it's not. It looks for spills on the floor. It doesn't actually look at any people. It's watching, it's creepy, it's getting in the way. Those were the things that people complained about. And so our hypothesis became, is Marty a real-life Clippy? Because, I know, Lex, you love Clippy, but many people hated Clippy. Well, there's a complex thing there. It could be like marriage. A lot of people seem to like to complain about marriage, but they secretly love it. So it could be, the relationship you might have with Marty is like, oh, there he goes again, doing his stupid surveillance thing. But you grow to love the, I mean, bitching about the thing that kind of releases the kind of tension, and there's, I mean, some people, a lot of people, show love by sort of busting each other's chops, you know, like making fun of each other. And then I think people would really love it if Marty talked back. And like, there's so many possible options for humor there. One, you can lean in. You can be like, yes, I'm an agent of the CIA, monitoring your every move. Like mocking people that are concerned, you know what I'm saying? Like, yes, I'm watching you because you're so important with your shopping patterns. I'm collecting all this data. Or just, you know, any kind of making fun of people. I don't know. But I think you hit on what exactly it is because when it comes to robots or artificial agents, I think people hate them more than they would some other machine or device or object. And it might be that thing, it might be combined with love or like whatever it is, it's a more extreme response because they view these things as social agents and not objects. And that was, so Clifford Nass was a big human-computer interaction person. And his theory about Clippy was that because people viewed Clippy as a social agent, when Clippy was annoying and would like bother them and interrupt them and like not remember what they told him, that's when people got upset because it wasn't fulfilling their social expectations. And so they complained about Clippy more than they would have if it had been a different, like not a, you know, virtual character. So is complaining to you a sign that we're on the wrong path with a particular robot? Or is it possible, like, again, like marriage, like family, that there still is a path towards that direction where we can find deep, meaningful relationship? I think we absolutely can find deep, meaningful relationships with robots. And well, maybe with Marty. I mean, I just would, I would have designed Marty a little differently. Like how? Isn't there a charm to the clumsiness, the slowness? There is if you're not trying to get through with a shopping cart and a screaming child. You know, there's, I think you could make it charming. I think there are lots of design tricks that they could have used. And one of the things they did, I think, without thinking about it at all, is they slapped two big googly eyes on Marty. Oh yeah. And I wonder if that contributed maybe to people feeling watched. Because it's looking at them. And so like, is there a way to design the robot to do the function that it's doing in a way that people are actually attracted to rather than annoyed by? And there are many ways to do that, but companies aren't thinking about it. Now they're realizing that they should have thought about it. Yeah. I wonder if there's a way to, if it would help to make Marty seem like an entity of its own versus the arm of a large corporation. So there's some sense where this is just the camera that's monitoring people versus this is an entity that's a standalone entity. It has its own task and it has its own personality. The more personality you give it, the more it feels like it's not sharing data with anybody else. When we see other human beings, our basic assumption is whatever I say to this human being, it's not like being immediately sent to the CIA. Yeah, what I say to you, no one's gonna hear that, right? Yeah, that's true. That's true. No, I'm kidding. Well, you forget it. I mean, you do forget it. I don't know if that even with microphones here, you forget that that's happening. But for some reason, I think probably with Marty, I think when it's done really crudely and crappily, you start to realize, oh, this is like PR people trying to make a friendly version of a surveillance machine. But I mean, that reminds me of the slight clumsiness or significant clumsiness on the initial releases of the avatars for the metaverse. I don't know, what are your actually thoughts about that? The way the avatars, the way Mark Zuckerberg looks in that world, in the metaverse, the virtual reality world where you can have virtual meetings and stuff like that. How do we get that right? Do you have thoughts about that? Because it's a kind of, it's a, it feels like a similar problem to social robotics, which is how you design a digital virtual world that is compelling when you connect to others there in the same way that physical connection is. Right, I haven't looked into, I mean, I've seen people joking about it on Twitter and like posting like that, whatever. Yeah, but I mean, have you seen it? Because there's something you can't quite put into words that doesn't feel genuine about the way it looks. And so the question is, if you and I were to meet virtually, what should the avatars look like for us to have a similar kind of connection? Should it be really simplified? Should it be a little bit more realistic? Should it be cartoonish? Should it be more, better capturing of expressions in interesting, complex ways versus like cartoonish, oversimplified ways? But haven't video games figured this out? I'm not a gamer, so I don't have any examples, but I feel like there's this whole world in video games where they've thought about all of this, and depending on the game, they have different avatars, and a lot of the games are about connecting with others. I just, the thing that I don't know is, and again, I haven't looked into this at all. I've been like, shockingly not very interested in the metaverse, but they must have poured so much investment into this meta. And like, why is it so, why are people, why is it so bad? Like, there's gotta be a reason. There's gotta be some thinking behind it, right? Well, I talked to Carmack about this, John Carmack, who's a part-time Oculus CTO. I think there's several things to say. One is, as you probably know, that, I mean, there's bureaucracy, there's large corporations, and they often, large corporations have a way of killing the indie kinda artistic flame that's required to create something really compelling. Somehow they make everything boring, because they run through this whole process through the PR department, through all that kinda stuff, and it somehow becomes generic to that process. Because there's like- They strip out anything interesting because it could be controversial, is that, or? Yeah, right, exactly. Like, what, I mean, we're living through this now, like, with a lot of people with cancellations and all those kinds of stuff, people are nervous, and nervousness results in, like usual, the assholes are ruining everything. But the magic of human connection is taking risks, of making a risky joke, of, like, with people you like who are not assholes, good people. Like, some of the fun in the metaverse or in video games is being edgier, being interesting, revealing your personality in interesting ways. In the sexual tension or in, oh, they're definitely paranoid about that. Oh, yeah. Like, in metaverse, the possibility of sexual assault and sexual harassment and all that kinda stuff is obviously very high, but they're, so you should be paranoid to some degree, but not too much, because then you remove completely the personality of the whole thing. Then everybody's just like a vanilla bot that, like, you have to have ability to be a little bit political, to be a little bit edgy, all that kinda stuff, and large companies tend to suffocate that. So, but in general, just forget all that. Just the ability to come up with really cool, beautiful ideas. If you look at, I think Grimes tweeted about this. She's very critical about the metaverse, is that independent game designers have solved this problem of how to create something beautiful and interesting and compelling. They do a really good job. So you have to let those kinds of minds, the small groups of people, design things and let them run with it, let them run wild and do edgy stuff, yeah. But otherwise, you get this kind of, you get a clippy type of situation, right, which is like a very generic looking thing. But even clippy has some, like, that's kinda wild that you would take a paperclip and put eyes on it. And suddenly people are like, oh, you're annoying, but you're definitely a social agent. And I just feel like that wouldn't even, that clippy thing wouldn't even survive Microsoft or Facebook of today, meta of today. Because it would be like, there'd be these meetings about why is it a paperclip? Like, why don't we, it's not sufficiently friendly, let's make it, you know. And then all of a sudden, the artist with whom it originated is killed. And it's all PR, marketing people, and all of that kind of stuff. Now, they do important work to some degree, but they kill the creativity. I think the killing of the creativity is in the whole, like, okay, so what I know from social robotics is, like, obviously, if you create agents that, okay, so take for an example, you'd create a robot that looks like a humanoid, and it's, you know, Sophia or whatever. Now, suddenly, you do have all of these issues where are you reinforcing an unrealistic beauty standard? Are you objectifying women? Why is the robot white? So you have, but the thing is, I think that with creativity, you can find a solution that's even better where you're not even harming anyone, and you're creating a robot that looks like, not humanoid, but like something that people relate to even more. And now you don't even have any of these bias issues that you're creating. And so how do we create that within companies? Because I don't think it's really about, like, I, cause I, you know, maybe we disagree on that. I don't think that edginess or humor or interesting things need to be things that harm or hurt people or that people are against. There are ways to find things that everyone is fine with. Why aren't we doing that? The problem is there's departments that look for harm in things. Yeah. And so they will find harm in things that have no harm. Okay. That's the big problem, because their whole job is to find harm in things. So what you said is completely correct, which is edginess should not hurt, doesn't necessarily, doesn't need to be a thing that hurts people. Obviously, great humor, great personality, doesn't have to, like Clippy. But yeah, I mean, but it's tricky to get right. I'm not exactly sure. I don't know. I don't know why a large corporation with a lot of funding can't get this right. I do think you're right that there's a lot of aversion to risk. And so if you get lawyers involved or people whose job it is, like you say, to mitigate risk, they're just gonna say no to most things that could even be in some way. Yeah. Yeah, you get the problem in all organizations. So I think that you're right, that that is a problem. I think what's the way to solve that in large organizations is to have Steve Jobs type of characters. Unfortunately, you do need to have, I think, from a designer perspective, or maybe like a Johnny Ive that is almost like a dictator. Yeah, you want a benevolent dictator. Yeah, who rolls in and says, cuts through the lawyers, the PR, but has a benevolent aspect, like yeah, that has a good heart and makes sure. I think all great artists and designers create stuff that doesn't hurt people. Like if you have a good heart, you're going to create something that's going to actually make a lot of people feel good. That's what people like Johnny Ive, what they love doing is creating a thing that brings a lot of love to the world. They imagine millions of people using the thing and it instills them with joy. You could say that about social robotics, you could say that about the metaverse. It shouldn't be done by the PR people, should be done by the designers. I agree, PR people ruin everything. Yeah, all the fun. Yeah, in the book you have a picture, I just have a lot of ridiculous questions. You have a picture of two hospital delivery robots with a caption that reads, by the way, see your book, I appreciate that it keeps the humor in. You didn't run it by the PR department. No, no one edited the book, we got rushed through. The caption reads, two hospital delivery robots whose sexy nurse names Roxy and Lola made me roll my eyes so hard they almost fell out. What aspect of it made you roll your eyes? Is it the naming? It was the naming. The form factor is fine, it's like a little box on wheels. The fact that they named them, also great. That'll let people enjoy interacting with them. We know that even just giving a robot a name, it facilitates technology adoption. People will be like, oh, Betsy made a mistake, let's help her out instead of this stupid robot doesn't work but why Lola and Roxy? Like. Those are to you too sexy? I mean, there's research showing that a lot of robots are named according to gender biases about the function that they're fulfilling. So, robots that are helpful and assistance and are like nurses are usually female gendered, robots that are powerful, all wise computers like Watson usually have like a booming male coded voice and name. So, that's one of those things, right? You're opening a can of worms for no reason, for no reason. You can avoid this whole can of worms. Yeah, just give it a different name. Like why Roxy? It's because people aren't even thinking. So, to some extent, I don't like PR departments but getting some feedback on your work from a diverse set of participants, listening and taking in things that help you identify your own blind spots and then you can always make your good leadership choices and good, like you can still ignore things that you don't believe are an issue but having the openness to take in feedback and making sure that you're getting the right feedback from the right people, I think that's really important. So, don't unnecessarily propagate the biases of society. Yeah, why? In the design. But if you're not careful when you do the research of, like you might, if you ran a poll with a lot of people, of all the possible names these robots have, they might come up with Roxy and Lola as names they would enjoy most. I feel like that could come up as the highest. As in you do marketing research and then, well, that's what they did with Alexa. They did marketing research and nobody wanted the male voice. Everyone wanted it to be female. What do you think about that? If I were to say, I think the role of a great designer, again, to go back to Johnny Ive, is to throw out the marketing research. Yeah. Do it, learn from it. But if everyone wants Alexa to be a female voice, the role of the designer is to think deeply about the future of social agents in the home and think. What does that future look like? And try to reverse engineer that future. So, in some sense, there's this weird tension. You want to listen to a lot of people, but at the same time, you're creating a thing that defines the future of the world. And the people that you're listening to are part of the past. So, that weird tension. Yeah, I think that's true. And I think some companies like Apple have historically done very well at understanding a market and saying, you know what our role is? It's not to listen to what the current market says. It's to actually shape the market and shape consumer preferences. And companies have the power to do that. They can be forward thinking and they can actually shift what the future of technology looks like. And I agree with you that I would like to see more of that, especially when it comes to existing biases that we know. I think there's the low hanging fruit of companies that don't even think about it at all and aren't talking to the right people and aren't getting the full information. And then there's companies that are just like doing the safe thing and giving consumers what they want now. But to be really forward looking and be really successful, I think you have to make some judgment calls about what the future is gonna be. But do you think it's still useful to gender and to name the robots? Yes, I mean, gender is a minefield, but people, it's really hard to get people to not gender a robot in some way. So, if you don't give it a name or you give it a ambiguous voice, people will just choose something. And maybe that's better than just entrenching something that you've decided is best. But I do think it can be helpful on the anthropomorphism engagement level to give it attributes that people identify with. Yeah, I think a lot of roboticists I know, they don't gender the robot. They even try to avoid naming the robot. Or naming it something that can be used as a name in conversation kind of thing. And I think that actually, that's irresponsible because people are going to anthropomorphize the thing anyway. So, you're just removing from yourself the responsibility of how they're going to anthropomorphize it. That's a good point. And so, you want to be able to, they're going to do it. You have to start to think about how they're going to do it. Even if the robot is a Boston Dynamics robot that's not supposed to have any kind of social component, they're obviously going to project a social component to it. Like that arm, I worked a lot with quadrupeds now with robot dogs. That arm, people think is the head immediately. It's supposed to be an arm, but they start to think it's a head. And you have to acknowledge that. You can't, I mean. They do now. They do now? Well, they've deployed the robots and people are like, oh my God, the cops are using a robot dog. And so, they have this PR nightmare. And so, they're like, oh, yeah. Okay, maybe we should hire some HR people. Well, Boston Dynamics is an interesting company. Or any of the others that are doing a similar thing because their main source of money is in the industrial application. So, like surveillance of factories and doing dangerous jobs. So, to them, it's almost good PR for people to be scared of these things because it's for some reason, as you talk about, people are naturally, for some reason, scared. We could talk about that, of robots. And so, it becomes more viral. Like playing with that little fear. And so, it's almost like a good PR because ultimately, they're not trying to put them in the home and have a good social connection. They're trying to put them in factories. And so, they have fun with it. If you watch Boston Dynamics videos, they're aware of it. Oh, yeah. The videos, for sure, that they put out. It's almost like an unspoken, tongue-in-cheek thing. They're aware of how people are going to feel when you have a robot that does a flip. Now, most of the people are just excited about the control problem of it, like how to make the whole thing happen. But they're aware when people see. Well, I think they became aware. I think that in the beginning, they were really, really focused on just the engineering. I mean, they're at the forefront of robotics, like locomotion and stuff. And then, when they started doing the videos, I think that was kind of a labor of love. I know that the former CEO, Mark, he oversaw a lot of the videos and made a lot of them himself. And he's even really detail-oriented. There can't be some sort of incline that would give the robot an advantage. He was very, had a lot of integrity about the authenticity of them. But then, when they started to go viral, I think that's when they started to realize, oh, there's something interesting here that I don't know how much they took it seriously in the beginning, other than realizing that they could play with it in the videos. I know that they take it very seriously now. What I like about Boston Dynamics and similar companies, it's still mostly run by engineers. But I've had my criticisms. There's a bit more PR leaking in. But those videos are made by engineers because that's what they find fun. It's like testing the robustness of the system. I mean, they're having a lot of fun there with the robots. Totally. Have you been to visit? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, it's one of the most, I mean, because I have eight robot dogs now. Wait, you have eight robot dogs? What? Are they just walking around your place? Like, where did you get them? Yeah, I'm working on them. That's actually one of my goals, is to have at any one time, always a robot moving. Oh. I'm far away from that. That's an ambitious goal. Well, I have more Roombas that I know what to do with. Those are the Roombas that I program. So the programmable Roombas. Nice. And I have a bunch of little, like I built the, well, I'm not finished with it yet, but I bought a robot from Rick and Morty. I still have a bunch of robots everywhere, but the thing is, what happens is, you're working on one robot at a time, and that becomes like a little project. It's actually very difficult to have just a passively functioning robot always moving. Yeah. And that's a dream for me, because I'd love to create that kind of little world. So the impressive thing about Boston Dynamics to me was to see like hundreds of spots. And like, there was a, the most impressive thing that still sticks with me is, there was a spot robot walking down the hall seemingly with no supervision whatsoever, and he was wearing, he or she, I don't know, was wearing a cowboy hat. It just, it was just walking down the hall and nobody paying attention, and it's just like walking down this long hall, and I'm like looking around, is anyone, like what's happening here? So presumably some kind of automation was doing the map. I mean, the whole environment is probably really well mapped, but I, it was just, it gave me a picture of a world where a robot is doing his thing, wearing a cowboy hat, just going down the hall, like getting some coffee or whatever. Like, I don't know what it's doing, what's the mission, but I don't know, for some reason it really stuck with me. You don't often see robots that aren't part of a demo or that aren't, you know, like with a semi-autonomous or autonomous vehicle, like directly doing a task. This was just chilling. Yeah. Walking around, I don't know. Well, yeah, you know, I mean, we're at MIT, like when I first got to MIT, I was like, okay, where's all the robots? And they were all like broken or like not demoing, so yeah. And what really excites me is that we're about to have that, we're about to have so many moving about too. Well, it's coming, it's coming in our lifetime that we will just have robots moving around. We're already seeing the beginnings of it. There's delivery robots in some cities, on the sidewalks. And I just love seeing like the TikToks of people reacting to that, because yeah, you see a robot walking down the hall with a cowboy hat. You're like, what the fuck? What is this? This is awesome and scary and kind of awesome. And people either love or hate it. That's one of the things that I think companies are underestimating, that people will either love a robot or hate a robot and nothing in between. So it's just, again, an exciting time to be alive. Yeah, I think kids almost universally, at least in my experience, love them. Love legged robots. If they're not loud. My son hates the Roomba because ours is loud. Oh, that, yeah. No, the legs, the legs. Oh, yeah. Because your son, do they understand Roomba to be a robot? Oh, yeah, my kids, that's one of the first words they learned. They know how to say beep boop. And yes, they think the Roomba's a robot. Do they project intelligence out of the thing? Well, we don't really use it around them anymore for the reason that my son is scared of it. Yeah, that's really true. I think they would. Like even a Roomba, because it's moving around on its own, I think kids and animals view it as an agent. So what do you think, if we just look at the state of the art of robotics, what do you think robots are actually good at today? So if we look at today. You mean physical robots? Yeah, physical robots. Well. Like what are you impressed by? So I think a lot of people, and that's what your book is about, is maybe not a perfectly calibrated understanding of where we are in terms of robotics, what's difficult in robotics, what's easy in robotics. Yeah, we're way behind where people think we are. So what's impressive to me, so let's see. Oh, one thing that came out recently was Amazon has this new warehouse robot, and it's the first autonomous warehouse robot that is safe for people to be around. And so like it's kind of, most people I think envision that our warehouses are already fully automated and that there's just like robots doing things. It's actually still really difficult to have robots and people in the same space because it's dangerous for the most part. Robots, you know, because especially robots that have to be strong enough to move something heavy, for example, they can really hurt somebody. And so until now, a lot of the warehouse robots had to just move along like preexisting lines, which really restricts what you can do. And so having, I think that's one of the big challenges and one of the big like exciting things that's happening is that we're starting to see more cobotics in industrial spaces like that where people and robots can work side by side and not get harmed. Yeah, that's what people don't realize sort of the physical manipulation task with humans. It's not that the robots wanna hurt you. I think that's what people are worried about, like this malevolent robot gets mad of its own and wants to destroy all humans. No, it's actually very difficult to know where the human is and to respond to the human and dynamically and collaborate with them on a task, especially if you're something like an industrial robotic arm, which is extremely powerful. Some of those arms are pretty impressive now that you can grab it, you can move it. So the collaboration between human and robot in the factory setting is really fascinating. Do you think they'll take our jobs? I don't think it's that simple. I think that there's a ton of disruption that's happening and will continue to happen. I think speaking specifically of the Amazon warehouses, that might be an area where it would be good for robots to take some of the jobs that are, where people are put in a position where it's unsafe and they're treated horribly. And probably it would be better if a robot did that and Amazon is clearly trying to automate that job away. So I think there's gonna be a lot of disruption. I do think that robots and humans have very different skill sets. So while a robot might take over a task, it's not gonna take over most jobs. I think just things will change a lot. Like, I don't know, one of the examples I have in the book is mining. So there you have this job that is very unsafe and that requires a bunch of workers and puts them in unsafe conditions. And now you have all these different robotic machines that can help make the job safer. And as a result, now people can sit in these air-conditioned remote control stations and control these autonomous mining trucks. And so that's a much better job, but also they're employing less people now. So it's just a lot of, I think from a bird's eye perspective, you're not gonna see job loss. You're gonna see more jobs created because the future is not robots just becoming like people and taking their jobs. The future is really a combination of our skills and then the supplemental skill set that robots have to increase productivity, to help people have better, safer jobs, to give people work that they actually enjoy doing and are good at. But it's really easy to say that from a bird's eye perspective and ignore kind of the rubble on the ground as we go through these transitions, because of course specific jobs are going to get lost. If you look at the history of the 20th century, it seems like automation constantly increases productivity and improves the average quality of life. So it's been always good. So like thinking about this time being different is that it would need to go against the lessons of history. It's true. And the other thing is I think people think that the automation of the physical tasks is easy. I was just in Ukraine and the interesting thing is, I mean, there's a lot of difficult and dark lessons, just about a war zone. But one of the things that happens in war is there's a lot of mines that are placed. This one of the big problems for years after a war is even over is the entire landscape is covered in mines. And so there's a demining effort. And you would think robots would be good at this kind of thing. Or like your intuition would be like, well, say you have unlimited money and you wanna do a good job of it, unlimited money. You would get a lot of really nice robots, but no, humans are still far superior. Or animals. At this kind of tech, or animals. But humans with animals together. Yeah. You can't just have a dog with a hat. That's true. That's fair. But yes, but figuring out also how to disable the mine. Disable the mine, obviously the easy thing, the thing a robot can help with is to find the mine and blow it up. But that's gonna destroy the landscape. That really does a lot of damage to the land. You wanna disable the mine. And to do that because of all the different, all the different edge cases of the problem. It requires a huge amount of human-like experience, it seems like. So it's mostly done by humans. They have no use for robots. They don't want robots. Yeah, I think we overestimate what we can automate. Especially in the physical realm. Yeah. It's weird. I mean, it's continuous, the story of humans. We think we're shitty at everything in the physical world, including driving. We think everybody makes fun of themselves and others for being shitty drivers, but we're actually kind of incredible. No, we're incredible. And that's why, like, that's why Tesla still says that if you're in the driver's seat, like, you are ultimately responsible. Because the ideal for, I mean, I mean, you know more about this than I do, but, like, robot cars are great at predictable things and can react faster and more precisely than a person and can do a lot of the driving. And then the reason that we still don't have autonomous vehicles on all the roads yet is because of this long tail of just unexpected occurrences where a human immediately understands that's a sunset and not a traffic light. That's a horse and carriage ahead of me on the highway, but the car has never encountered that before. So, like, in theory, combining those skill sets is what's gonna really be powerful. The only problem is figuring off the, figuring out the human-robot interaction and the handoffs. So, like, in cars, that's a huge problem right now, figuring out the handoffs. But in other areas, it might be easier. It might be easier, and that's really the future is human-robot interaction. What's really hard to improve, it's terrible that people die in car accidents, but, I mean, it's like 70, 80, 100 million miles, one death per 80 million miles. That's, like, really hard to beat for a robot. That's, like, incredible. Like, think about it. Like, the, how many people? Like, just the number of people throughout the world that are driving every single day, all of the, you know, sleep-deprived, drunk, distracted, all of that, and still very few die relative to what I would imagine. If I were to guess, back in the horse, see, when I was, like, in the beginning of the 20th century riding my horse, I would talk so much shit about these cars. I'd be like, this is extremely dangerous. These machines traveling at 30 miles an hour or whatever the hell they're going at. This is irresponsible. It's unnatural, and it's going to be destructive to all of human society. But then it's extremely surprising how humans adapt to the thing, and they know how to not kill each other. I mean, that ability to adapt is incredible, and to mimic that in the machine is really tricky. Now, that said, what Tesla is doing, I mean, I wouldn't have guessed how far machine learning can go on vision alone. It's really, really incredible, and people that are, at least from my perspective, people that are kind of, you know, critical of Elon and those efforts, I think don't give enough credit of how much progress we've made, how much incredible progress has been made in that direction. I think most of the robotics community wouldn't have guessed how much you can do on vision alone. It's kind of incredible. Because we would be, I think it's, that approach, which is relatively unique, has challenged the other competitors to step up their game. So if you're using LiDAR, if you're using mapping, that challenges them to do better, to scale faster, and to use machine learning and computer vision as well to integrate both LiDAR and vision. So it's kind of incredible. And I'm not, I don't know if I even have a good intuition of how hard driving is anymore. Maybe it is possible to solve. So all the sunset, all the edge cases you mentioned. Yeah, the question is when. Yeah, I think it's not happening as quickly as people thought it would, because it is more complicated. But I wouldn't have, I agree with you. My current intuition is that we're gonna get there. I think we're gonna get there too. But I didn't, before, I wasn't sure we're gonna get there without, like with current technology. So I was kind of, this is like with vision alone, my intuition was you're gonna have to solve like common sense reasoning. You're gonna have to solve some of the big problems in artificial intelligence, not just perception. Yeah. Like you have to have a deep understanding of the world, is what was my sense. But now I'm starting to like, well, this, I mean, I'm continually surprised how well the thing works. Yeah. Obviously Elon and others, others have stopped, but Elon continues saying we're gonna solve it in a year. Well, yeah, that's the thing, bold predictions. Yeah, well, everyone else used to be doing that, but they kind of like, all right. Yeah, maybe we'll. Maybe let's not promise we're gonna solve level four driving by 2020. Let's chill on that. Well, people are still trying silently. I mean, the UK just committed 100 million pounds to research and development to speed up the process of getting autonomous vehicles on the road. Like everyone can see that it is solvable and it's going to happen and it's gonna change everything. And they're still investing in it. And like Waymo, low key has driverless cars in Arizona. Like you can get, you know, there's like robots. It's weird, have you ever been in one? No. It's so weird. It's so awesome. Because the most awesome experience is the wheel turning. And you're sitting in the back. It's like, I don't know. It's, it feels like you're a passenger with that friend who's a little crazy of a driver. It feels like, shit, I don't know. Are you all right to drive, bro? You know, that kind of feeling. But then you kind of, that experience, that nervousness and the excitement of trusting another being, and in this case, it's a machine, is really interesting. And just even introspecting your own feelings about the thing. Yeah. They're not doing anything in terms of making you feel better about, like at least Waymo. I think they went with the approach of like, let's not try to put eyes on the thing. Let's, it's a wheel, we know what that looks like. It's just a car. It's a car, get in the back. Let's not like discuss this at all. Let's not discuss the fact that this is a robot driving you and you're in the back. And if the robot wants to start driving 80 miles an hour and run off of a bridge, you have no recourse. Let's not discuss this. You're just getting in the back. There's no discussion about like how shit can go wrong. There's no eyes, there's nothing. There's like a map showing what the car can see. Like, you know, what happens if it's like a HAL 9000 situation? Like, I'm sorry, I can't. You have a button, you can like call customer service. Oh God, then you get put on hold for two hours. Probably. But you know, currently what they're doing, which I think is understandable, but you know, the car just can pull over and stop and wait for help to arrive and then a driver will come and then they'll actually drive the car for you. But that's like, you know, what if you're late for a meeting or all that kind of stuff. Or like the more dystopian, isn't it the fifth element where, is Will Smith in that movie? Who's in that movie? No, Bruce Willis? Bruce Willis. Oh yeah, and he gets into like a robotic cab or car or something and then because he's violated a traffic rule, it locks him in and he has to wait for the cops to come and he can't get out. So like, we're gonna see stuff like that maybe. Well, I believe that the companies that have robots, the only ones that will succeed are the ones that don't do that. Meaning they respect privacy. You think so? Yeah, because people, because they're gonna have to earn people's trust. Yeah, but like Amazon works with law enforcement and gives them the data from the ring cameras. So why should it? Yeah, oh yeah. Do you have a ring camera? No. Okay. No, no, but basically any security camera, right? I have a Google's, whatever they have. We have one that's not the data. We store the data on a local server because we don't want it to go to law enforcement because all the companies are doing it. They're doing it. I bet Apple wouldn't. Yeah. Apple's the only company I trust and I don't know how much longer. I don't know. Maybe that's true for cameras, but with robots, people are just not gonna let a robot inside their home where like one time where somebody gets arrested because of something a robot sees, that's gonna destroy a company. You don't think people are gonna be like, well, that wouldn't happen to me, that happened to a bad person? I think they would. Yeah? I think the modern world people are get, have you seen Twitter? They get extremely paranoid about any kind of surveillance. The thing that I've had to learn is that Twitter is not the modern world. Like when I go inland to visit my relatives, that's a different discourse that's happening. I think like the whole tech criticism world, it's loud in our ears because we're in those circles. Do you think you can be a company that does social robotics and not win over Twitter? That's a good question. I feel like the early adopters are all on Twitter and it feels like you have to win them over. Feels like nowadays you'd have to win over TikTok, honestly. TikTok, is that a website? I need to check it out. Yeah, and that's an interesting one because China is behind that one. Exactly. So if it's compelling enough, maybe people would be able to give up privacy and that kind of stuff. That's really scary. I just, I mean, I'm worried about it. I'm worried about it. And there've been some developments recently that are like super exciting, like the large language learning models. Like wow, I did not anticipate those improving so quickly. And those are gonna change everything. And one of the things that I'm trying to be cynical about is that I think they're gonna have a big impact on privacy and data security and like manipulating consumers and manipulating people because suddenly you'll have these agents that people will talk to and they won't care or won't know, at least on a conscious level, that it's recording the conversations. So kind of like we were talking about before. And at the same time, the technology is so freaking exciting that it's gonna get adopted. Well, it's not even just the collection of data, but the ability to manipulate at scale. So what do you think about the AI, the engineer from Google that thought Lambda is sentient? He had actually a really good post from somebody else. I forgot her name. It's brilliant. I can't believe I didn't know about her. Thanks to you. Janelle Shane? Yeah, from Weird AI. Oh yeah, I love her book. She's great. I left a note for myself to reach out to her. She's amazing. She's hilarious and brilliant and she's a great summarizer of the state of AI. But she has, I think that was from her, where it was looking at AI explaining that it's a squirrel. Oh yeah, because the transcripts that the engineer released, Lambda kind of talks about the experience of human-like feelings and I think even consciousness. And so she was like, oh cool, that's impressive. I wonder if an AI can also describe the experience of being a squirrel. And so she interviewed, I think she did GPT-3, about the experience of being a squirrel. And then she did a bunch of other ones too, like what's it like being a flock of crows? What's it like being an algorithm that powers a Roomba? And you can have a conversation about any of those things and they're very convincing. It's very convincing, yeah. Even GPT-3, which is not state of the art. It's convincing being a squirrel. It's like, what it's like, you should check it out because it really is, it's like yeah, that probably is what a squirrel would sound like. Are you excited? What's it like being a squirrel? It's fun. I get to eat nuts and run around all day. How do you think people feel like when you tell them that you're a squirrel? Or like, I forget what it was, a lot of people might be scared to find out that you're a squirrel or something like this. And then the system answers pretty well. Like yeah, I hope they'll, like what do you think when they find out you're a squirrel? I hope they'll see how fun it is to be a squirrel. What do you say to people who don't believe you're a squirrel? I say, come see for yourself. I am a squirrel. That's great. Well, I think it's really great because it like, the two things to note about it are, first of all, just because the machine is describing an experience doesn't mean it actually has that experience. But then secondly, these things are getting so advanced and so convincing at describing these things and talking to people. That's, I mean, just the implications for health, education, communication, entertainment, gaming. I just feel like all of the applications, it's mind boggling what we're gonna be able to do with this. And that my kids are not gonna remember a time before they could have conversations with artificial agents. Do you think they would, because to me this is, the focus in the ad community has been, well, this engineer surely is hallucinating. The thing is not sentient. But to me, first of all, it doesn't matter if he is or not, this is coming. Where a large number of people would believe a system is sentient, including engineers within companies. So in that sense, you start to think about a world where your kids aren't just used to having a conversation with a bot, but used to believing, kind of having an implied belief that the thing is sentient. Yeah, I think that's true. And I think that one of the things that bothered me about all of the coverage in the tech press about this incident, like obviously I don't believe the system is sentient. Like I think that it can convincingly describe that it is. I don't think it's doing what he thought it was doing and actually experiencing feelings. But a lot of the tech press was about how he was wrong and depicting him as kind of naive. And it's not naive. Like there's so much research in my field showing that people do this, even experts. They might be very clinical when they're doing human-robot interaction experiments with a robot that they've built. And then you bring in a different robot and they're like, oh, look at it, it's having fun, it's doing this. Like that happens in our lab all the time. We are all this guy. And it's gonna be huge. So I think that the goal is not to discourage this kind of belief or design systems that people won't think are sentient. I don't think that's possible. I think you're right, this is coming. It's something that we have to acknowledge and even embrace and be very aware of. So one of the really interesting perspectives that your book takes on a system like this is to see them, not to compare a system like this to humans, but to compare it to animals, of how we see animals. Can you kind of try to, again, sneak up, try to explain why this analogy is better than the human analogy, the analogy of robots as animals? Yeah, and it gets trickier with the language stuff, but we'll get into that too. I think that animals are a really great thought experiment when we're thinking about AI and robotics, because again, comparing them to humans, that leads us down the wrong path, both because it's not accurate, but also I think for the future, we don't want that. We want something that's a supplement. But I think animals, because we've used them throughout history for so many different things, we domesticated them not because they do what we do, but because what they do is different and that's useful. And it's just like, whether we're talking about companionship, whether we're talking about work integration, whether we're talking about responsibility for harm, there's just so many things we can draw on in that history from these entities that can sense, think, make autonomous decisions and learn that are applicable to how we should be thinking about robots and AI. And the point of the book is not that they're the same thing, that animals and robots are the same. Obviously, there are tons of differences there. Like you can't have a conversation with a squirrel, right? But the point is that- I do it all the time. Oh, really? By the way, squirrels are the cutest. I project so much on squirrels. I wonder what their inner life is. I suspect they're much bigger assholes than we imagine. Really? Like if it was a giant squirrel, it would fuck you over so fast if it had the chance. It would take everything you own. It would eat all your stuff because it's small and the furry tail. The furry tail is a weapon against human consciousness and cognition. It wins us over. That's what cats do too. Cats out-competed squirrels. And dogs. Yeah. Dogs have- No, dogs have love. Cats have no soul. They, no, I'm just kidding. People get so angry when I talk shit about cats. I love cats. Anyway, so yeah, you're describing all the different kinds of animals that get domesticated. And it's a really interesting idea that it's not just sort of pets. There's all kinds of domestication going on. They all have all kinds of uses. Yes. Like the ox that you proposed might be, at least historically, one of the most useful domesticated animals. It was a game changer because it revolutionized what people could do economically, et cetera. So, I mean, just like robots, they're gonna change things economically. They're gonna change landscapes. Like cities might even get rebuilt around autonomous vehicles or drones or delivery robots. I think just the same ways that animals have really shifted society. And society has adapted also to socially accepting animals as pets. I think we're gonna see very similar things with robots. So I think it's a useful analogy. It's not a perfect one, but I think it helps us get away from this idea that robots can, should, or will replace people. If you remember, what are some interesting uses of animals? Ferrets, for example. Oh yeah, the ferrets. They still do this. They use ferrets to go into narrow spaces that people can't go into, like a pipe, or they'll use them to run electrical wire. I think they did that for Princess Di's wedding. There's so many weird ways that we've used animals and still use animals for things that robots can't do, like the dolphins that they used in the military. I think Russia still has dolphins, and the US still has dolphins in their navies. To what? Mine detection, looking for lost underwater equipment, some rumors about using them for weaponry, which I think Russia's like, sure, believe that, and America's like, no, no, we don't do that. Who knows? But they started doing that in the 60s, 70s. They started training these dolphins because they were like, oh, dolphins have this amazing echolocation system that we can't replicate with machines, and they're trainable, so we're gonna use them for all the stuff that we can't do with machines or by ourselves. And they've tried to phase out the dolphins. I know the US has invested a lot of money in trying to make robots do the mine detection, but like you were saying, there are some things that the robots are good at, and there's some things that biological creatures are better at, so they still have the dolphins. So there's also pigeons, of course. Oh yeah, pigeons. Oh my gosh, there's so many examples. The pigeons were the original hobby photography drone. They also carried mail for thousands of years, letting people communicate with each other in new ways. So the thing that I like about the animal analogy is they have all these physical abilities, but also sensing abilities that we don't have, and that's just so useful. And that's robots, right? Robots have physical abilities. They can help us lift things or do things that we're not physically capable of. They can also sense things. I still feel like it's a really good analogy. Yeah, it's really strong. And it works because people are familiar with it. What about companionship? And when we start to think about cats and dogs, like pets, they seem to serve no purpose whatsoever except the social connection. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of a newer thing. At least in the United States, dogs used to have, they used to have a purpose. They used to be guard dogs, or they had some sort of function. And then at some point, they became just part of the family. It's so interesting how there's some animals that we've treated as workers, some that we've treated as objects, some that we eat, and some that are parts of our families, and that's different across cultures. And I'm convinced that we're gonna see the same thing with robots, where people are gonna develop strong emotional connections to certain robots that they relate to, either culturally or personally, emotionally. And then there's gonna be other robots that we don't treat the same way. I wonder, does that have to do more with the culture and the people, or the robot design? Is there an interplay between the two? Like, why did dogs and cats out-compete ox, and I don't know, what else? Like, farm animals, to really get inside the home and get inside our hearts. Yeah, I mean, people point to the fact that dogs are very genetically flexible, and they can evolve much more quickly than other animals. And so they, evolutionary biologists think that dogs evolved to be more appealing to us. And then, once we learned how to breed them, we started breeding them to be more appealing to us, too, which is not something that we necessarily would be able to do with cows, although we've bred them to make more milk for us. So, but part of it is also culture. I mean, there are cultures where people eat dogs, still today, and then there's other cultures where we're like, oh, no, that's terrible. We would never do that. And so I think there's a lot of different elements that play in. I wonder if there's good, because I understand dogs, because they use their eyes, they're able to communicate affection, all those kinds of things. It's really interesting what dogs do. There's a whole conference on dog consciousness and cognition and all that kind of stuff. Now, cats is a mystery to me, because they seem to not give a shit about the human. But they're warm and fluffy. But they're also passive-aggressive, so they're, at the same time, they're dismissive of you, in some sense. I think some people like that about people. Yeah, they want the push and pull of a relationship. They don't want loyalty or unconditional love. That means they haven't earned it. Yeah, yeah. And maybe that says a lot more about the people than it does about the animals. Oh, yeah, we all need therapy. Yeah. So I'm judging harshly the people that have cats, or the people that have dogs. Maybe the people that have dogs are desperate for attention and unconditional love, and they're unable to sort of struggle to earn meaningful connections. I don't know. Maybe people are talking about you and your robot pets in the same way. Yeah, that's... It is kind of sad. There's just robots everywhere. But I mean, I'm joking about it being sad, because I think it's kind of beautiful. I think robots are beautiful in the same way that pets are, even children, in that they capture some kind of magic of social robots. They have the capacity to have the same kind of magic of connection. I don't know what that is. When they're brought to life and they move around, the way they make me feel, I'm pretty convinced, is, as you know, they will make billions of people feel. I don't think I'm some weird robotics guy. I'm not. I mean, you are, but not in this way. Not in this way. I mean, I just, I can put on my normal human hat and just see this, oh, this is, there's a lot of possibility there of something cool, just like with dogs. What is it? Why are we so into dogs or cats? Like, it's way different than us. It is. It's like drooling all over the place with its tongue out. It's like a weird creature that used to be a wolf. Why are we into this thing? Well, dogs can either express or mimic a lot of emotions that we recognize, and I think that's a big thing. Like, a lot of the magic of animals and robots is our own self-projection, and the easier it is for us to see ourselves in something and project human emotions or qualities or traits onto it, the more we'll relate to it. And then you also have the movement, of course. I think that's also really, that's why I'm so interested in physical robots, because that's, I think, the visceral magic of them. I think we're, I mean, there's research showing that we're probably biologically hardwired to respond to autonomous movement in our physical space, because we've had to watch out for predators or whatever the reason is. And so animals and robots are very appealing to us as these autonomously moving things that we view as agents instead of objects. I mean, I love the moment, which is, I've been particularly working on, which is when a robot, like the cowboy hat, is doing its own thing, and then it recognizes you, I mean, the way a dog does. And it looks like this, and the moment of recognition, like you're walking, say you're walking in an airport on the street, and there's just hundreds of strangers, but then you see somebody you know, and that, where you wake up to that excitement of seeing somebody you know and saying hello and all that kind of stuff, that's a magical moment. Like, I think, especially with a dog, it makes you feel noticed and heard and loved. Like, that somebody looks at you and recognizes you, that it matters that you exist. Yeah, you feel seen. Yeah, and that's a cool feeling. And I honestly think robots can give that feeling too. Oh yeah, totally. Currently, Alexa, I mean, one of the downsides of these systems is they don't, they're servants. They like, part of the, you know, they're trying to maintain privacy, I suppose, but I don't feel seen with Alexa, right? I think that's gonna change. I think you're right. And I think that that's the game changing nature of things like these large language learning models. And the fact that these companies are investing in embodied versions that move around of Alexa, like Astro. Like Astro. Can I just say, yeah, Astro, I haven't, is that out? I mean, it's out. You can't just like buy one commercially yet, but you can apply for one. Yeah. My gut says that these companies don't have the guts to do the personalization. This goes to the, because it's edgy, it's dangerous. It's gonna make a lot of people very angry. Like in a way that, you know, just imagine, okay. All right. If you do the full landscape of human civilization, just visualize the number of people that are going through breakups right now. Just the amount of really passionate, just even if we just look at teenagers, the amount of deep heartbreak that's happening. And like, if you're going to have Alexa have more of a personal connection with the human, you're gonna have humans that like have existential crises. There's a lot of people that suffer from loneliness and depression. And like, you're now taking on the full responsibility of being a companion to the rollercoaster of the human condition. As a company, like imagine PR and marketing people. They're gonna freak out. They don't have the guts. It's gonna have to come from somebody from a new Apple, from those kinds of folks, like a small startup. And it might. Yeah. And it's coming. There's already virtual therapists. There's that Replica app. I haven't tried it, but Replica's like a virtual companion. Like, it's coming. And if big companies don't do it, someone else will. Yeah, I think the future, the next trillion dollar company will be those personalizations. If you think about all the AI we have around us, all the smartphones and so on, there's very minimal personalization. You don't think that's just because they weren't able? No. Really? I don't think they have the guts. I mean, it might be true, but I have to wonder. I mean, Google is clearly gonna do something with the language. I mean. They don't have the guts. Are you challenging them? Partially, but not really, because I know they're not gonna do it. I mean. They don't have to. It's bad for business in the short term. I'm gonna be honest, like maybe it's not such a bad thing if they don't just roll this out quickly, because I do think there are huge issues. Yeah. And there's, and not just issues with the responsibility of unforeseen effects on people, but what's the business model? And if you are using the business model that you've used in other domains, then you're gonna have to collect data from people, which you will anyway to personalize the thing, and you're gonna be somehow monetizing the data, or you're gonna be doing some like ad model. It just, it seems like now we're suddenly getting into the realm of like severe consumer protection issues, and I'm really worried about that. I see massive potential for this technology to be used in a way that's not for the public good, and not, I mean, that's in an individual user's interest maybe, but not in society's interest. Yeah, see, I think that kind of personalization should be, like redefine how we treat data. I think you should own all the data your phone knows about you, and be able to delete it with a single click, and walk away, and that data cannot be monetized, or used, or shared anywhere without your permission. I think that's the only way people will trust you to give, for you to use that data. But then how are companies gonna, I mean, a lot of these applications rely on massive troves of data to train the AI system. Right, so you have to opt in constantly, and opt in not in some legal, I agree, but obvious, like show, like in the way I opt in to tell you a secret, like we understand, that I have to choose, like how well do I know you? And then I say, like, don't tell this to anyone. And then I have to judge how leaky that, like how good you are at keeping secrets. In that same way, like it's very transparent in which data you're allowed to use for which purposes. That's what people are saying is the solution, and I think that works to some extent, having transparency, having people consent. I think it breaks down at the point at which, we've seen this happen on social media too, like people are willingly giving up their data because they're getting a functionality from that. And then the harm that that causes is on a, like maybe to someone else, and not to them personally. So. I don't think people are giving their data. They're not being asked. Like. But if you were asked. It's not consensual. If you were like, tell me a secret about yourself and I'll give you $100, I'd tell you a secret. No, not $100. First of all, you wouldn't. You wouldn't trust, like why are you giving me $100? It's a bad example. But like I need, I would ask for your specific, like fashion interest in order to give recommendations to you for shopping. And I'd be very clear for that, and you could disable that, you can delete that. But then you can be, have a deep, meaningful, rich connection with the system about what you think you look fat in, what you look great in, what, like the full history of all the things you've worn, whether you regret the Justin Bieber or enjoy the Justin Bieber shirt, all of that information that's mostly private to even you, not even your loved ones. A system should have that, because then a system, if you trust it, to keep control of that data that you own, you can walk away with, that system could tell you a damn good thing to wear. It could. And the harm that I'm concerned about is not that the system is gonna then suggest a dress for me that is based on my preferences. So I went to this conference once where I was talking to the people who do the analytics in like the big ad companies. And like literally a woman there was like, I can ask you three totally unrelated questions and tell you what menstrual product you use. And so what they do is they aggregate the data and they map out different personalities and different people and demographics. And then they have a lot of power and control to market to people. So like I might not be sharing my data with any of the systems because I'm like, I'm on Twitter, I know that this is bad. Other people might be sharing data that can be used against me. Like I think it's way more complex than just, I share a piece of personal information and it gets used against me. I think that at a more systemic level, and then it's always vulnerable populations that are targeted by this, low income people being targeted for scammy loans or I don't know, like I could get targeted, like someone, not me, because someone who doesn't have kids yet and is my age could get targeted for freezing their eggs. And there's all these ways that you can manipulate people where it's not really clear that that came from that person's data, it came from all of us, all of us opting into this. But there's a bunch of sneaky decisions along the way that could be avoided if there's transparency. So one of the ways that goes wrong if you share that data with too many ad networks, don't run your own ad network, don't share with anybody. Okay, and that's something that you could regulate. That belongs to just you and all of the ways you allow the company to use it, the default is in no way at all. And you are consciously, constantly saying exactly how to use it. And also, it has to do with the recommender system itself from the company, which is freezing your eggs. If that doesn't make you happy, if that idea doesn't make you happy, then the system shouldn't recommend it and should be very good at learning. So not the kind of things that the category of people it thinks you belong to would do, but more you specifically, what makes you happy, what is helping you grow. But you're assuming that people's preferences and what makes them happy is static. Whereas when we were talking before about how a company like Apple can tell people what they want and they will start to want it, that's the thing that I'm more concerned about. Yeah, that is a huge problem. It's not just listening to people but manipulating them into wanting something. And that's like, we have a long history of using technology for that purpose. Like the persuasive design in casinos to get people to gamble more. The other thing that I'm worried about is as we have more social technology, suddenly you have this on a new level. If you look at the influencer marketing that happens online now. What's influencer marketing? So like on Instagram, there will be some person who has a bunch of followers and then a brand will hire them to promote some product. And it's above board. They disclose, this is an ad that I'm promoting, but they have so many young followers who deeply admire and trust them. I mean, this must work for you too. Don't you have ads on the podcast? People trust you. Magic spoon cereal, low carb, yes. If you say that, I guarantee you some people will buy that just because even though they know that you're being paid, they trust you. Yeah, it's different with podcasts because well, my particular situation, but it's true for a lot of podcasts, especially big ones, is I have 10 times more sponsors that wanna be sponsors than I have. So you get to select the ones that you actually wanna support. And so like you end up using it and then you're able to actually, like there's no incentive to like shill for anybody. Sure, and that's why it's fine when it's still human influencers. Right. Now if you're a bot, you're not gonna discriminate. You're not gonna be like, oh, well, I think this product is good for people. You think there'll be like bots essentially with millions of followers? There already are. There are virtual influencers in South Korea who shill products. And like that's just the tip of the iceberg because that's still very primitive. Now with the new image generation and the language learning models. And like, so we're starting to do some research around kids and like young adults because a lot of the research on like what's okay to advertise to kids and what is too manipulative has to do with television ads. Back in the day where like a kid who's 12 understands, oh, that's an advertisement. I can distinguish that from entertainment. I know it's trying to sell me something. Now it's getting really, really murky with influencers. And then if you have like a bot that a kid has developed a relationship with, is it okay to market products through that or not? Like you're getting into all these consumer protection issues because you're developing a trusted relationship with a social entity, but it's... And so now it's like personalized, it's scalable, it's automated and it can... So some of the research showing that kids are already very confused about like the incentives of the company versus what the robot is doing. Meaning they're... So, okay. They're not deeply understanding the incentives of the system. Well, yeah, so like kids who are old enough to understand this is a television advertisement is trying to advertise to me. I might still decide I want this product, but they understand what's going on. So there's some transparency there. That age child, so Daniela Di Paola, Anastasia Ostrovsky, and I advised on this project, they did this. They asked kids who had interacted with social robots whether they would like a policy that allows robots to market to people through casual conversation, or whether they would prefer that it has to be transparent, that it's like an ad coming from a company. And the majority said they preferred the casual conversation. And when asked why, there was a lot of confusion about... They were like, well, the robot knows me better than the company does. So the robot's only gonna market things that I like. And so they don't really... They're not connecting the fact that the robot is an agent of the company. They're viewing it as something separate. And I think that even happens subconsciously with grownups when it comes to robots and artificial agents, and it will. This Blake guy at Google, sorry, I'm going on and on, but his main concern was that Google owned this sentient agent and that it was being mistreated. His concern was not that the agent was gonna mistreat people. So I think we're gonna see a lot of this. Yeah, but shitty companies will do that. I think ultimately that confusion should be alleviated by the robot should actually know you better and should not have any control from the company. But what's the business model for that? If you use the robot to buy... First of all, the robot should probably cost money. Should what? Cost money, like the way Windows operating system does. I see it more like an operating system. Then this thing is your window, no pun intended, into the world. So it's helping you, it's like a personal assistant. And so that should cost money. You should, whatever it is, 10 bucks, 20 bucks. That's the thing that makes your life significantly better. This idea that everything should be free is... Like it should actually help educate you. You should talk shit about all the other companies that do stuff for free. But also, yeah, in terms of if you purchase stuff based on its recommendation, it gets money. So it's kind of ad-driven, but it's not ads. It's like... It's not controlled. No external entities can control it to try to manipulate you to want a thing. That would be amazing. It's actually trying to discover what you want. So it's not allowed to have any influence, no promoted ad, no anything. So it's finding, I don't know, the thing that would actually make you happy. That's the only thing it cares about. I think companies like this can win out. Yes, I think eventually, once people understand the value of the robot, even just, I think that robots would be valuable to people, even if they're not marketing something or helping with preferences or anything. Like just a simple, the same thing as a pet, like a dog that has no function other than being a member of your family. I think robots could really be that, and people would pay for that. I don't think the market realizes that yet. And so my concern is that companies are not gonna go in that direction, at least not yet, of making this contained thing that you buy. It seems almost old-fashioned, right, to have a disconnected object that you buy that you're not paying a subscription for. It's not controlled by one of the big corporations. But that's the old-fashioned things that people yearn for, because I think it's very popular now, and people understand the negative effects of social media, the negative effects of the data being used in all these kinds of ways. I think we're just waking up to the realization, we tried, but we're like baby deer, finding our legs in this new world of social media, of ad-driven companies, and realizing, okay, this has to be done somehow different. I mean, that, like one of the most popular notions, at least in the United States, is social media is evil, and it's doing bad by us. It's not like it's totally tricked us into believing that it's good for us. I think everybody knows it's bad for us, and so there's a hunger for other ideas. All right, it's time for us to start that company. I think so. Let's do it. I think let's go. Hopefully no one listens to this and steals the idea. There's no, see, that's the other thing. I think I'm a big person on, execution is what matters. I mean, the- Oh, yeah. It's like ideas are kind of trivial. Social robotics is a good example of that. There's been so many amazing companies that went out of business. I mean, to me, it's obvious, like it's obvious that there will be a robotics company that puts a social robot in the home of billions of homes. Yeah. And it'll be a companion. Okay, there you go. You can steal that idea. Do it. Okay, I have a question for you. It's very tough. What about Elon Musk's humanoid? Is he gonna execute on that? There might be a lot to say. So for people who are not aware, there's an optimist, Tesla's optimist robot that's, I guess the stated reason for that robot is a humanoid robot in the factory that's able to automate some of the tasks that humans are currently doing. And the reason you wanna do, it's the second reason you mentioned, the reason you wanna do a humanoid robot is because the factory's built for, there's certain tasks that are designed for humans. So it's hard to automate with any other form factor than a humanoid. And then the other reason is because so much effort has been put into this giant data engine machine of perception that's inside Tesla autopilot that's seemingly, at least the machine, if not the data, is transferable to the factory setting, to any setting. Yeah, he said it would do anything that's boring to us, right? Yeah, yeah. The interesting thing about that is there's no interest and no discussion about the social aspect. Like I talked to him on mic and off mic about it quite a bit and there's not a discussion about like, to me it's obvious if a thing like that works at all, at all. In fact, it has to work really well in a factory. If it works kinda shitty, it's much more useful in the home. That's true. Because we're much, I think being shitty at stuff is kind of what makes relationships great. Like you wanna be flawed, and be able to communicate your flaws and be unpredictable in certain ways. Like if you fell over every once in a while for no reason whatsoever, I think that's essential for like- It's very charming. It's charming but also concerning and also like, are you okay? I mean, it's both hilarious, whenever somebody you love falls down the stairs, it's both hilarious and concerning. It's some dance between the two. And I think that's essential for like, you almost wanna engineer that in, except you don't have to because of robotics in the physical space is really difficult. So I think I've learned to not discount the efforts that Elon does. There's a few things that are really interesting there. One, because he's taking it extremely seriously. What I like is the humanoid form, the cost of building a robot. I talked to Jim Keller offline about this a lot. And currently human robots cost a lot of money. And the way they're thinking about it, now they're not talking about all the social robotics stuff that you and I care about. They are thinking, how can we manufacture this thing cheaply and cheaply and efficiently? How can we build it cheaply and do it well? And the kind of discussions they're having is really great engineering. It's like first principles question of like, why is this cost so much? Like, what's the cheap way? Why can't we build? And there's not a good answer. Why can't we build this humanoid form for under $1,000? And I've sat and had these conversations. There's no reason. I think the reason they've been so expensive is because they were focused on trying to, they weren't focused on doing the mass manufacture. There were people are focused on getting a thing that's, I don't know exactly what the reasoning is, but it's the same like Waymo is like, let's build a million dollar car in the beginning or like multimillion dollar car. Let's try to solve that problem. The way Elon, the way Jim Keller, the way some of those folks are thinking is, let's like at the same time, try to actually build a system that's cheap, not crappy, but cheap. And let's, from first principles, what is the minimum amount of degrees of freedom we need? What are the joints? Where's the control set? Like how many, how do we, like where are the activators? What's the way to power this in the lowest cost way possible? But also in a way that's like actually works. How do we make the whole thing not part of the components where there's a supply chain? You have to have all these different parts that have to feed us. So do it all from scratch and do the learning. I mean, it's like immediately certain things like become obvious. Do the exact same pipeline as you do for autonomous driving. Just the exact, I mean, the infrastructure there is incredible. For the computer vision, for the manipulation task, the control problem changes, the perception problem changes, but the pipeline doesn't change. Do it. And so I don't, obviously the optimism about how long it's gonna take, I don't share. But it's a really interesting problem. And I don't wanna say anything because my first gut is to say that, why the humanoid form? That doesn't make sense. Yeah, that's my second gut too, but. But then there's a lot of people that are really excited about the humanoid form there. That's true. They wanna get in the way, like they might solve this thing. And they might, it's like similar with Boston Dynamics. Like, why? Like, if I were to, you can be a hater and you go up to Mark Ribery and just, like, how are you gonna make money with these super expensive legged robots? What's your business plan? This doesn't make any sense. Why are you doing these legged robots? But at the same time, they're pushing forward the science, the art of robotics in a way that nobody else does. Yeah. And with Elon, they're not just going to do that. They're gonna drive down the cost to where we can have humanoid bots in the home, potentially. So the part I agree with is, a lot of people find it fascinating and it probably also attracts talent who wanna work on humanoid robots. I think it's a fascinating scientific problem and engineering problem, and it can teach us more about human body and locomotion and all of that. I think there's a lot to learn from it. Where I get tripped up is why we need them for anything other than art and entertainment in the real world. Like, I get that there are some areas where you can't just rebuild, like a spaceship. You can't just, like, they've worked for so many years on these spaceships, you can't just re-engineer it. You have some things that are just built for human bodies, a submarine, a spaceship. But a factory, maybe I'm naive, but it seems like we've already rebuilt factories to accommodate other types of robots. Why would we want to just, like, make a humanoid robot to go in there? I just get really tripped up on, I think that people want humanoids. I think people are fascinated by them. I think it's a little overhyped. Well, most of our world is still built for humanoids. I know, but it shouldn't be. It should be built so that it's wheelchair accessible. Right, so the question is, do you build a world that's the general form of wheelchair accessible, all robot form factor accessible, or do you build humanoid robots? I mean, it doesn't have to be all, and it also doesn't have to be either or. I just feel like we're thinking so little about the system in general and how to create infrastructure that works for everyone, all kinds of people, all kinds of robots. I mean, it's more of an investment, but that would pay off way more in the future than just trying to cram expensive or maybe slightly less expensive humanoid technology into a human. Unfortunately, one company can't do that. We have to work together. It's like autonomous driving can be easily solved if you do V2I, if you change the infrastructure of the cities and so on, but that requires a lot of people. A lot of them are politicians, and a lot of them are somewhat, if not a lot, corrupt, and all those kinds of things. And the talent thing you mentioned is really, really, really important. I've gotten a chance to meet a lot of folks at SpaceX and Tesla, other companies too, but there, specifically, the openness makes it easier to meet everybody. I think a lot of amazing things in this world happen when you get amazing people together. And if you can sell an idea, like us becoming a multi-planetary species, you can say, why the hell are we going to Mars? Like, why colonize Mars? If you think from basic first principles, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense to go to the moon. It doesn't go, the only thing that makes sense to go to space is for satellites. But there's something about the vision of the future, the optimism laden that permeates this vision of us becoming multi-planetary. It's thinking not just for the next 10 years, it's thinking like human civilization reaching out into the stars. It makes people dream. It's really exciting. And that, they're gonna come up with some cool shit that might not have anything to do with, here's what I, because Elon doesn't seem to care about social robotics, which is constantly surprising to me. Talk to him, he doesn't, humans are the things you avoid and don't hurt, right? Like, the number one job of a robot is not to hurt a human, to avoid them. The collaborative aspect, the human-robot interaction, I think is not, at least not in his, not something he thinks about deeply. But my sense is if somebody like that takes on the problem of human-robotics, we're gonna get a social robot out of it. Like, people like, not necessarily Elon, but people like Elon, if they take on seriously these, like, I can just imagine with a humanoid robot, you can't help but create a social robot. So if you do different form factors, if you do industrial robotics, you don't, you're likely to actually not end up into, like, walking head into a social robot, human-robot interaction problem. If you create, for whatever the hell reason you want to, a humanoid robot, you're gonna have to reinvent, well, not reinvent, but do, introduce a lot of fascinating new ideas into the problem of human-robot interaction, which I'm excited about. So, like, if I was a business person, I would say this is not, this is way too risky. This doesn't make any sense. But when people are really convinced, and there's a lot of amazing people working on it, it's like, all right, let's see what happens here. This is really interesting. Just like with Atlas and Boston Dynamics, I mean, they, I apologize if I'm ignorant on this, but I think they really, more than anyone else, maybe with AIBO, like Sony, pushed forward humanoid robotics, like a leap with the Atlas robot. Oh yeah, with Atlas, absolutely. And like, without them, like, why the hell did they do it? Why? Well, I think for them, it is a research platform. It's not, I don't think they ever, this is speculation, I don't think they ever intended Atlas to be like a commercially successful robot. I think they were just like, can we do this? Let's try. Yeah, I wonder if they, maybe the answer they landed on is, because they eventually went to Spot, the earlier versions of Spot, so Quadruped's like four-legged robot, but maybe they reached for, let's try to make, like, I think they tried it, and they still are trying it for Atlas to be picking up boxes, to moving boxes, to being, it makes sense, okay, if they were exactly the same cost, it makes sense to have a humanoid robot in the warehouse. Currently. Currently. I think it's short-sighted, but yes, currently, yes, it would sell. But it's not, it's short-sighted, but it's not pragmatic to think any other way, to think that you're gonna be able to change warehouses. You're gonna have to, you're going to- If you're Amazon, you can totally change your warehouses. Yes, yes. But even if you're Amazon, that's very costly to change warehouses. It is, it's a big investment. But isn't, shouldn't you do that investment in a way, so here's the thing. If you build a humanoid robot that works in the warehouse, that humanoid robot, see, I don't know why Tess is not talking about it this way, as far as I know, but that humanoid robot is gonna have all kinds of other applications outside their setting. To me, it's obvious. I think it's a really hard problem to solve, but whoever solves the humanoid robot problem are gonna have to solve the social robotics problem. Oh, for sure, I mean, they're already with the spot needing to solve social robotics problems. For like for spot to be effective at scale. I'm not sure if spot is currently effective at scale. It's getting better and better, but they're actually, the thing they did is an interesting decision. Perhaps that's the end of doing the same thing, which is spot is supposed to be a platform for intelligence. So spot doesn't have any high level intelligence, like high level perception skills. It's supposed to be controlled remotely. And it's a platform that you can attach something to. And somebody else is supposed to do the attaching. It's a platform that you can take an uneven ground and it's able to maintain balance, go into dangerous situations. It's a platform. On top of that, you can add a camera that does surveillance, that you can remotely monitor, you can record, you can record the camera, you can remote control it, but it's not gonna- Object manipulation. It's basic object manipulation, but not autonomous object manipulation. It's remotely controlled. But the intelligence on top of it, which was what would be required for automation, is somebody else is supposed to do. Perhaps Tesla would do the same thing ultimately. But it doesn't make sense because the goal of Optimus is automation. Without that... But then you never know. It's like, why go to Mars? Why? I mean, that's true. And I reluctantly am very excited about space travel. Why? Can you introspect why? Why am I excited about it? I think what got me excited was I saw a panel with some people who study other planets, and it became really clear how little we know about ourselves and about how nature works and just how much there is to learn from exploring other parts of the universe. So on a rational level, that's how I convince myself that that's why I'm excited. In reality, it's just fucking exciting. I mean, just the idea that we can do this difficult thing and that humans come together to build things that can explore space, I mean, there's just something inherently thrilling about that. And I'm reluctant about it because I feel like there are so many other challenges and problems that I think are more important to solve, but I also think we should be doing all of it at once. And so to that extent, I'm all for research on humanoid robots, development of humanoid robots. I think that there's a lot to explore and learn, and it doesn't necessarily take away from other areas of science, at least it shouldn't. I think unfortunately, a lot of the attention goes towards that, and it does take resources and attention away from other areas of robotics that we should be focused on, but I don't think we shouldn't do it. So you think it might be a little bit of a distraction. Oh, forget the Elon particular application, but if you care about social robotics, the humanoid form is a distraction. It's a distraction, and it's one that I find particularly boring. It's just, it's interesting from a research perspective, but from a like, what types of robots can we create to put in our world? Like, why would we just create a humanoid robot? So even just robotic manipulation, so arms is not useful either. Oh, arms can be useful, but like, why not have three arms? Like, why does it have to look like a person? Well, I actually personally just think that washing the dishes is harder than a robot that can be a companion. Yeah. Like, being useful in the home is actually really tough. But does your companion have to have like, two arms and look like you? No, I'm making the case for zero arms. Oh, okay, zero arms. Yeah. Okay, freaky. That didn't come out the way I meant it, because it almost sounds like I don't want a robot to defend itself. Like, that's immediately you project, you know what I mean? Like, zero. No, I think, I just think that the social component doesn't require arms or legs or so on, right? That's what we've talked about. And I think that's probably where a lot of the meaningful impact that's gonna be happening. Yeah, I think just, we could get so creative with the design. Like, why not have a robot on roller skates? Or like, whatever. Why does it have to look like us? Yeah. Still, it is a compelling and interesting form from a research perspective, like you said. Yeah. You co-authored a paper as you were talking about that for WeRobot 2022. Lula Robot Consumer Protection in the Face of Automated Social Marketing. I think you were talking about some of the ideas in that. Yes. Oh, you got it from Twitter. I was like, that's not published yet. Yeah. This is how I do my research. You just go through people's Twitter feeds. Yeah, go, thank you. It's not stalking if it's public. So there's a... You looked at me like you're offended. Like, how did you know? No, I was just like worried that like some early, I mean. Yeah, there's a PDF. There's a PDF. There is. There's a PDF. Like now? Yeah. Maybe like as of a few days ago. Yeah. Okay, well. Yeah, yeah. Okay. You look violated. Like, how did you get that PDF? It's just a draft. It's online. Nobody read it yet until we've written the final paper. Well, it's really good. So I enjoyed it. Oh, thank you. By the time this comes out, I'm sure it'll be out. Or no, when's WeRobot? So basically, WeRobot, that's the workshop where you have an hour where people give you constructive feedback on the paper and then you write the good version. Right, I take it back. There's no PDF. I don't know why. It doesn't exist. I imagine. There is a table in there in a virtual imagined PDF that I like, that I wanted to mention, which is like this kind of strategy used across various marketing platforms. And it's basically looking at traditional media, person-to-person interaction, targeted ads, influencers, and social robots. This is the kind of idea that you've been speaking to. And it's just a nice breakdown of that, that social robots have personalized recommendations, social persuasion, automated scalable, data collection, and embodiment. So person-to-person interaction is really nice, but it doesn't have the automated and the data collection aspect. But the social robots have those two elements. Yeah, we're talking about the potential for social robots to just combine all of these different marketing methods to be this really potent cocktail. And that table, which was Daniela's idea and a really fantastic one, we put it in at the last second. So. Yeah, I really liked it. I'm glad you like it. And a PDF that doesn't exist. Yes. That nobody can find if they look. Yeah. So when you say social robots, what does that mean? Does that include virtual ones or no? I think a lot of this applies to virtual ones too. Although the embodiment thing, which I personally find very fascinating, is definitely a factor that research shows can enhance people's engagement with a device. But can embodiment be a virtual thing also? Meaning like it has a body in the virtual world? Like. Maybe. Makes you feel like, because what makes a body? A body is a thing that can disappear, like has a permanence. I mean, there's certain characteristics that you kind of associate to a physical object. So I think what I'm referring to, and I think this gets messy because now we have all these new virtual worlds and AR and stuff, and I think it gets messy, but there's research showing that something on a screen, on a traditional screen, and something that is moving in your physical space, that that has a very different effect on how your brain perceives it even. So, I mean, I have a sense that we can do that in a virtual world. Probably. Like when I've used VR, I jump around like an idiot because I think something's gonna hit me. And even if a video game on a 2D screen is compelling enough, like the thing that's immersive about it is I kind of put myself into that world. Those, the objects you're interacting with, Call of Duty, things you're shooting, they're kind of, I mean, your imagination fills the gaps and it becomes real. Like it pulls your mind in when it's well done. So it really depends what's shown on the 2D screen. Yeah. Yeah, I think there's a ton of different factors and there's different types of embodiment. Like you can have embodiment in a virtual world. You can have an agent that's simply text-based, which has no embodiment. So I think there's a whole spectrum of factors that can influence how much you engage with something. Yeah, I wonder, I always wondered if you can have like an entity living in a computer. It's okay, this is gonna be dark. I haven't always wondered about this. So this is gonna make it sound like I keep thinking about this kind of stuff. No, but like, this is almost like black mirror, but the entity that's convinced or is able to convince you that it's being tortured inside the computer and needs your help to get out. Something like this. That becomes, to me, suffering is one of the things that make you empathize with. Like we're not good at, as you've discussed in other, in the physical form, like holding a robot upside down. You have a really good examples about that and discussing that. I think suffering is a really good catalyst for empathy. And I just feel like we can project embodiment on a virtual thing if it's capable of certain things like suffering. Yeah. So I was wondering. I think that's true, and I think that's what happened with the Lambda thing. Not that, none of the transcript was about suffering, but it was about having the capacity for suffering and human emotion that convinced the engineer that this thing was sentient. And it's basically the plot of Ex Machina. True. Have you ever made a robot scream in pain? Have I? No, but have you seen that? Did someone? Okay, no, they actually made a Roomba scream whenever it hit a wall. And I programmed that myself as well. Yeah? Because I was inspired by that, yeah. It's cool. Do you still have it? Oh, sorry, hit a wall. I didn't. Whenever it bumped into something, it would scream in pain. No, so I had, the way I programmed the Roombas is when I kick it, so contact between me and the robot is when it screams. Really? Okay, and you were inspired by that? Yeah, I guess I misremembered the video. I saw the video a long, long time ago, and, or maybe heard somebody mention it, and it's the easiest thing to program. So I did that. I haven't run those Roombas for over a year now, but yeah, it was, my experience with it was that it's like they quickly become, like you remember them, you miss them, like they're real living beings. So the capacity to suffer, or is a really powerful thing. Yeah. Even then that, I mean, it was kind of hilarious. It was just a random recording of screaming from the internet, but it's still, it's still is weird. There's a thing you have to get right based on the interaction, like the latency. Like it has, there is, there is a realistic aspect of how you should scream relative to when you get hurt, like it should correspond correctly. Like if you kick it really hard, it should scream louder? No, it should scream at the appropriate time, not like one second later, right? Like there's an exact, like there's a timing when you get like, I don't know, when you run into, when you run your foot into like the side of a table or something, there's a timing there, the dynamics you have to get right for the actual screaming, because the Roomba in particular doesn't, so I was, the sensors don't, it doesn't know about pain. See? What? I'm sorry to say, Roomba doesn't understand pain. So you have to correctly map the sensors, the timing to the production of the sound. But when you get that somewhat right, it starts, it's weird, it's a really weird feeling, and you actually feel like a bad person. Aw. Yeah. So, but it's, it makes you think, because that, with all the ways that we talked about, that could be used to manipulate you. Oh, for sure. In a good and bad way. So the good way is like you could form a connection with a thing, and a bad way that you can form a connection in order to sell you products that you don't want. Yeah, or manipulate you politically, or many nefarious things. You tweeted, we're about to be living in the movie Her, except instead of, see, I researched your tweets, like they're like Shakespeare. We're about to be living in the movie Her, except instead of about love, it's gonna be about, what did I say, the chatbot being subtly racist, and the question whether it's ethical for companies to charge for software upgrades. Yeah. So can we break that down? What do you mean by that? Yeah. So you're saying some of it is humor. Yes, well, kind of. I am, like, oh, it's so weird to be in this space where I'm so worried about this technology, and also so excited about it at the same time. But the really, like, I haven't, I'd gotten a little bit jaded, and then with GPT-3, and then the Lambda transcript, I was like, re-energized, but have also been thinking a lot about, you know, what are the ethical issues that are gonna come up? And I think some of the things that companies are really gonna have to figure out is, obviously, algorithmic bias is a huge and known problem at this point. Like, even, you know, the new image generation tools, like DALI, where they've clearly put in a lot of effort to make sure that if you search for people, it gives you a diverse set of people, et cetera. Like, even that one, people have already found numerous, like, ways that it just kind of regurgitates biases of things that it finds on the internet. Like how, if you search for success, it gives you a bunch of images of men. If you search for sadness, it gives you a bunch of images of women. So I think that this is, like, the really tricky one with these voice agents that companies are gonna have to figure out. And that's why it's subtly racist and not overtly, because I think they're gonna be able to solve the overt thing, and then with the subtle stuff, it's gonna be really difficult. And then I think the other thing is gonna be, yeah, like, people are gonna become so emotionally attached to artificial agents with this complexity of language, with a potential embodiment factor that, I mean, there's already, there's a paper at WeRobot this year written by roboticists about how to deal with the fact that robots die, and looking at it as an ethical issue, because it impacts people. And I think there's gonna be way more issues than just that. Like, I think the tweet was software upgrades, right? Like, how much is it okay to charge for something like that if someone is deeply, emotionally invested in this relationship? Oh, the ethics of that, that's interesting. But there's also the practical funding mechanisms. Like you mentioned with AIBO, the dog, in theory, there's a subscription. Yeah, the new AIBO, so the old AIBO from the 90s, people got really attached to, and in Japan, they're still having funerals in Buddhist temples for the AIBOs that can't be repaired, because people really viewed them as part of their families. So we're talking about robot dogs. Robot dogs, the AIBO, yeah, the original, like, famous robot dog that Sony made, came out in the 90s, got discontinued, having funerals for them in Japan. Now they have a new one. The new one is great, I have one at home. It's like- It's $3,000, how much is it? I think it's 3,000 bucks. And then after a few years, you have to start paying, I think it's like 300 a year for a subscription service for cloud services. And the cloud services, I mean, it's a lot, the dog is more complex than the original, and it has a lot of cool features, and it can remember stuff and experiences, and it can learn, and a lot of that is outsourced to the cloud, and so you have to pay to keep that running, which makes sense. People should pay, and people who aren't using it shouldn't have to pay. But it does raise the interesting question, could you set that price to reflect a consumer's willingness to pay for the emotional connection? So if you know that people are really, really attached to these things, just like they would be to a real dog, could you just start charging more, because there's more demand? Yeah, I mean, you have to be, but that's true for anything that people love, right? It is, and it's also true for real dogs. There's all these new medical services nowadays where people will shell out thousands and thousands of dollars to keep their pets alive. And is that taking advantage of people, or is that just giving them what they want? That's the question. Back to marriage, what about all the money that it costs to get married, and then all the money that it costs to get a divorce? That feels like a very, that's like a scam. I think the society is full of scams that are like. Oh, it's such a scam. And then we've created, the whole wedding industrial complex has created all these quote-unquote traditions that people buy into that aren't even traditions. They're just fabricated by marketing. Like, it's awful. Let me ask you about racist robots. Sure. Is it up to a company that creates that to, so we talk about removing bias and so on. Yeah. And that's a really popular field in AI currently. Yeah. And a lot of people agree that it's an important field. But the question is for like social robotics, is should it be up to the company to remove the bias of society? Well, who else can? Oh, to remove the bias of society. I guess because there's a lot of people that are subtly racist in modern society, like why shouldn't our robots also be subtly racist? I mean, that's like, why do we put so much responsibility on the robots? Because, because the robot. I'm imagining like a Hitler Roomba. I mean, that would be funny. But I guess I'm asking a serious question. You're allowed to make that joke. Yes, exactly. You're allowed to make that joke, yes. And I've been nonstop reading about World War II and Hitler. I think I'm glad we exist in a world where we can just make those jokes. That helps deal with it. Anyway, it is a serious question. It's sort of like, like it's such a difficult problem to solve. Now, of course, like bias and so on, like there's low hanging fruit, which I think was what a lot of people are focused on. But then it becomes like subtle stuff over time. And it's very difficult to know. Now, you can also completely remove the personality. You can completely remove the personalization. You can remove the language aspect, which is what I had been arguing because I was like, the language is the disappointing aspect of social robots anyway. But now we're reintroducing that because it's now no longer disappointing. So I do think, well, let's just start with the premise, which I think is very true, which is that racism is not a neutral thing, but it is the thing that we don't want in our society. Like it does not conform to my values. So if we agree that racism is bad, I do think that it has to be the company, because the problem, I mean, it might not be possible. And companies might have to put out products where they're taking risks and they might get slammed by consumers and they might have to adjust. I don't know how this is gonna work in the market. I have opinions about how it should work, but it is on the company. And the danger with robots is that they can entrench this stuff. It's not like your racist uncle who you can have a conversation with and- And put things into context maybe. Would that be- Yeah, or who might change over time with more experience. A robot really just like regurgitates things, entrenches them, could influence other people. And I mean, I think that's terrible. Well, I think there's a difficult challenge here is because even the premise you started with that essentially racism is bad. I think we live in a society today where the definition of racism is different between different people. Some people say that it's not enough not to be racist. Some people say you have to be anti-racist. So you have to have a robot that constantly calls out, like calls you out on your implicit racism. I would love that. I would love that robot. But like maybe it sees racism. Well, I don't know if you'd love it because maybe you'll see racism in things that aren't racist and then you're arguing with a robot. Your robot starts calling you racist. I'm not exactly sure that, I mean, it's a tricky thing. I guess I'm saying that the line is not obvious, especially in this heated discussion where we have a lot of identity politics of what is harmful to different groups and so on. Yeah. It feels like a, the broader question here is should a social robotics company be solving or being part of solving the issues of society? Well, okay, I think it's the same question as should I as an individual be responsible for knowing everything in advance and saying all the right things? And the answer to that is, yes, I am responsible, but I'm not gonna get it perfect. Right. And then the question is how do we deal with that? And so as a person, how I aspire to deal with that is when I do inevitably make a mistake because I have blind spots and people get angry, I don't take that personally and I listen to what's behind the anger. And it can even happen that like maybe I'll tweet something that's well-intentioned and one group of people starts yelling at me and then I change it the way that they said and then another group of people starts yelling at me, which has happened, this happened to me actually around, in my talks, I talk about robots that are used in autism therapy. And so whether to say a child with autism or an autistic child is super controversial and a lot of autistic people prefer to be referred to as autistic people and a lot of parents of autistic children prefer child with autism. And then they disagree. So I've gotten yelled at from both sides and I think I'm still responsible, I'm responsible even if I can't get it right. I don't know if that makes sense. Like it's a responsibility thing and I can be as well-intentioned as I want and I'm still gonna make mistakes and that is part of the existing power structures that exist and that's something that I accept. And you accept being attacked from both sides and grow from it and learn from it. But the danger is that after being attacked, assuming you don't get canceled, aka completely removed from your ability to tweet, you might become jaded and not want to talk about autism anymore. I don't and I didn't. I mean, it's happened to me. What I did was I listened to both sides and I chose, I tried to get information and then I decided that I was going to use autistic children and now I'm moving forward with that. Like I don't know. For now, right. For now, yeah, until I get updated information and I'm never gonna get anything perfect but I'm making choices and I'm moving forward because being a coward and like just retreating from that, I think. But see, here's the problem. You're a very smart person and an individual, a researcher, a thinker, an intellectual. So that's the right thing for you to do. The hard thing is when as a company, imagine you had a PR team. I said, Kate, like this, you should. PR teams we hate. Yeah, I mean, just, well, if you hired PR people, like obviously they would see that and they'd be like, well, maybe don't bring up autism. Maybe don't bring up these topics. You're getting attacked, it's bad for your brand. They'll say the brand word. There'll be, if you look at different demographics that are inspired by your work, I think it's insensitive to them. Let's not mention this anymore. Like there's this kind of pressure that all of a sudden you, or you do suboptimal decisions. You take a kind of poll. Again, it's looking at the past versus the future, all those kinds of things. And it becomes difficult in the same way that it's difficult for social media companies to figure out like who to censor, who to recommend. I think this is ultimately a question about leadership, honestly, like the way that I see leadership. Because right now, the thing that bothers me about institutions and a lot of people who run current institutions is that their main focus is protecting the institution and protecting themselves personally. That is bad leadership because it means you cannot have integrity. You cannot lead with integrity. And it makes sense because like, obviously, if you're the type of leader who immediately blows up the institution you're leading, then that doesn't exist anymore. And maybe that's why we don't have any good leaders anymore because they had integrity and they didn't put the survival of the institution first. But I feel like you have to, I just, to be a good leader, you have to be responsible and understand that with great power comes great responsibility. You have to be humble and you have to listen and you have to learn. You can't get defensive and you cannot put your own protection before other things. You gotta take risks where you might lose your job. You might lose your wellbeing because of, because in the process of standing for the principles, for the things you think are right to do, yeah. Based on the things you, like based on learning from, like listening to people and learning from what they feel. And the same goes for the institution, yeah. Yeah, but I ultimately actually believe that those kinds of companies and countries succeed that have leaders like that. You should run for president. No, thank you. Yeah. That's maybe the problem. Like the people who have good ideas about leadership, they're like, yeah. No. This is why I don't, this is why I'm not running a company. It's been, I think, three years since the Jeffrey Epstein controversy at MIT, MIT Media Lab. Joey Ito, the head of the Media Lab, resigned. And I think at that time you wrote an opinion article about it. So just looking back a few years have passed, what have you learned about human nature from the fact that somebody like Jeffrey Epstein found his way inside MIT? That's a really good question. What have I learned about human nature? I think, well, there's, there's how did this problem come about? And then there's what was the reaction to this problem and to it becoming public? And in the reaction, the things I learned about human nature were that sometimes cowards are worse than assholes. Wow, I'm really, ugh. I mean, that's a really powerful statement. I think because the assholes, at least you know what you're dealing with. They have integrity in a way. They're just living out their asshole values. And the cowards are the ones that you have to watch out for. And this comes back to, people protecting themselves over doing the right thing. They'll throw others under the bus. Is there some sense that not enough people took responsibility? For sure. And I mean, I don't wanna sugarcoat at all what Joey Ito did. I mean, I think it's gross that he took money from Jeffrey Epstein. I believe him that he didn't know that. Jeffrey Epstein, I believe him that he didn't know about the bad, bad stuff. But I've been in those circles with those public intellectual dudes that he was hanging out with. And any woman in those circles saw 10 zillion red flags. The whole environment was so misogynist. And so personally, because Joey was a great boss and a great friend, I was really disappointed that he ignored that in favor of raising money. And I think that it was right for him to resign in the face of that. But one of the things that he did that many others didn't was he came forward about it and he took responsibility. And all of the people who didn't, I think, it's just interesting. The other thing I learned about human nature, okay, I'm gonna go on a tangent, but I'll come back, I promise. So I once saw this tweet from someone, or it was a Twitter thread from someone who worked at a homeless shelter. And he said that when he started working there, he noticed that people would often come in and use the bathroom and they would just trash the entire bathroom. Like rip things out of the walls, like toilet paper on the ground. And he asked someone who had been there longer, like, why do they do this? Why do the homeless people come in and trash the bathroom? And he was told it's because it's the only thing in their lives that they have control over. And I feel like sometimes when it comes to the response, just the mobbing response that happens in the wake of some harm that was caused, if you can't target the person who actually caused the harm, who was Epstein, you will go as many circles out as you can until you find the person that you have power over and you have control over, and then you will trash that. And it makes sense that people would do that. And it makes sense that people do this. Again, it's a human nature thing. Of course, you're gonna focus all your energy because you feel helpless and enraged and it's unfair and you have no other power. You're gonna focus all of your energy on someone who's so far removed from the problem that that's not even an efficient solution. And the problem is often the first person you find is the one that has integrity, sufficient integrity to take responsibility. Yeah, and it's why my husband always says, he's a liberal, but he's always like, when liberals form a firing squad, they stand in a circle. Because you know that your friends are gonna listen to you, so you criticize them. You're not gonna be able to convince someone across the aisle. But see, in that situation, what I had hoped is the people in the farther, in that situation, any situation of that sort, the people that are farther out in the circles stand up and also take some responsibility for the broader picture of human nature versus specific situation, but also take some responsibility but also defend the people involved as flawed. Not in a like, no, no, no, nothing. Like this, people fucked up. Like you said, there's a lot of red flags that people just ignored for the sake of money in this particular case. But also like be transparent and public about it and spread the responsibility across a large number of people such that you learn a lesson from it institutionally. Yeah, it was a systems problem. It wasn't a one individual problem. And I feel like currently, because Joey took, resigned because of it, or essentially fired, pressured out because of it, MIT can pretend like, oh, we didn't know anything. It wasn't part- Bad leadership, again, because when you are at the top of an institution with that much power, and you were complicit in what happened, which they were, like, come on, there's no way that they didn't know that this was happening. So like to not stand up and take responsibility, I think it's bad leadership. Do you understand why Epstein was able to, outside of MIT, he was able to make a lot of friends with a lot of powerful people? Does that make sense to you? Why was he able to get in these rooms, befriend these people, befriend people that I don't know personally, but I think a lot of them indirectly I know as being good people, smart people. Why would they let Jeffrey Epstein into their office, have a discussion with them? What do you understand about human nature from that? Well, so I never met Epstein, or I mean, I've met some of the people who interacted with him, but I was never, like, I never saw him in action. I don't know how charismatic he was or what that was, but I do think that sometimes the simple answer is the more likely one. And from my understanding, what he would do is he was kind of a social grifter, like, you know, those people who will, you must get this because you're famous. You must get people coming to you and being like, oh, I know your friend so-and-so in order to get cred with you. I think he just convinced some people who were trusted in a network that he was a great guy and that, you know, whatever. I think at that point, because at that point he had had like, what, a conviction prior, but it was a one-off thing. It wasn't clear that there was this other thing that was that- And most people probably don't check. Yeah, and most people don't check. Like, you're at an event, you meet this guy. I don't know, maybe people do check when they're that powerful and wealthy, or maybe they don't. I have no idea. No, they're just stupid. I mean, and they're not like, all right, does anyone check anything about me? Because I've walked into some of the richest and most powerful people in the world, and nobody, like, asks questions like, who the fuck is this guy? Like- Yeah. Like, nobody asks those questions. It's interesting. I would think like there would be more security or something, like, there really isn't. I think a lot of it has to do, well, my hope is, in my case, has to do with like, people can sense that this is a good person, but if that's the case, then they can surely, then a human being can use charisma to infiltrate. Yeah. Just being, just saying the right things. And once you have people vouching for you within that type of network, like, once you, yeah, once you have someone powerful vouching for you who someone else trusts, then, you know, you're in. So how do you avoid something like that? If you're MIT, if you're Harvard, if you're any of these institutions? Well, I mean, first of all, you have to do your homework before you take money from someone. And I don't, like, think that's required, but I think, you know, I think Joey did do his homework. I think he did. And I think at the time that he took money, there was the one conviction and not like the later thing. And I think that the story at that time was that he didn't know she was underage and blah, blah, blah, or whatever, it was a mistake. And Joey always believed in redemption for people and that people can change and that they can genuinely regret and like learn and move on. And he was a big believer in that. So I could totally see him being like, well, I'm not gonna exclude him because of this thing and because other people are vouching for him. Just to be clear, we're now talking about the set of people who I think Joey belonged to, who did not like go to the island and have sex with underage girls, because that's a whole other set of people who were powerful and were part of that network and who knew and participated. And so I distinguish between people who got taken in, who didn't know that that was happening and people who knew. I wonder what the different circles look like. So like people that went to the island and didn't do anything, didn't see anything, didn't know about anything, versus the people that did something. And then there's people who heard rumors maybe. And what do you do with rumors? Like, isn't there people that heard rumors about Bill Cosby for the longest time? For like, for the longest, like whenever that happened, like all these people came out of the woodwork, like everybody kind of knew. I mean, it's like, all right, so what are you supposed to do with rumors? Like what, I think the other way to put it is red flags, as you were saying. Yeah, and like, I can tell you that those circles, like there were red flags without me even hearing any rumors about anything ever. Like I was already like, hmm, there are not a lot of women here, which is a bad sign. Isn't there a lot of places where there's not a lot of women and that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad sign? There are if it's like a pipeline problem where it's like, I don't know, a technology law clinic that only gets like male lawyers because there's not a lot of women applicants in the pool. But there's some aspect of this situation that like there should be more women here. Oh yeah, yeah. You've, actually, I'd love to ask you about this because you have strong opinions about Richard Stallman. Is that, do you still have those strong opinions? Look, all I need to say is that he met my friend who's a law professor. Yeah. She shook his hand and he licked her arm from wrist to elbow, and it certainly wasn't appropriate at that time. What about if you're like an incredibly weird person? Okay, that's a good question because obviously there's a lot of neurodivergence at MIT and everywhere. And obviously, like we need to accept that people are different, that people don't understand social conventions the same way. But one of the things that I've learned about neurodivergence is that women are often expected or taught to mask their neurodivergence and kind of fit in, and men are accommodated and excused. And I don't think that being neurodivergent gives you a license to be an asshole. Like you can be a weird person and you can still learn that it's not okay to lick someone's arm. Yeah, it's a balance. Like women should be allowed to be a little weirder and men should be less weird. Because I think there's a, because you're one of the people I think tweeting that would mean me, because I wanted to talk to Richard Stallman on the podcast about, because I didn't have a context, because I wanted to talk to him because he's, you know, free software. I think it's Richard Stallman. He's very weird in interesting, good ways in the world of computer science. He's also weird in that, you know, when he gives a talk, he would be like picking at his feet and eating the skin off his feet, right? He's known for these extremely kind of, how else do you put it? I don't know how to put it. But then there was something that happened to him in conversations on this thread related to Epstein. Yeah. Which I was torn about because I felt it's similar to Joy. You know, it's like, I felt he was maligned. Like people were looking for somebody to get angry at. So he was inappropriate, but the, I didn't like the cowardice more. Like I set aside his situation and we could discuss it, but the cowardice on MIT's part, and this is me saying it, about the way they treated that whole situation. Oh, they're always cowards about how they treat anything. They just try to make the problem go away. Yeah. So it was about, yeah, exactly, making the conversation. That said, I think he should have left the mailing list. He shouldn't have been part of the mailing list. Well, that's probably true also. But I think what bothered me, what always bothers me in these mailing list situations or Twitter situations, like if you say something that's hurtful to people or makes people angry, and then people start yelling at you, maybe they shouldn't be yelling. Maybe they are yelling because again, you're the only point of power they have. Maybe it's okay that you're yelling, whatever it is, like it's your response to that that matters. And I think that I just have a lot of respect for people who can say, oh, people are angry. There's a reason they're angry. Let me find out what that reason is and learn more about it. It doesn't mean that I am wrong. It doesn't mean that I am bad. It doesn't mean that I'm ill-intentioned, but why are they angry? I wanna understand. And then once you understand, you can respond again with integrity and say, actually, I stand by what I said, here's why. Or you can say, actually, I listened and here are some things I learned. That's the kind of response I wanna see from people. And people like Stallman do not respond that way. They just go into battle. Right, like where it's obvious you didn't listen. Yeah, no interest in listening. Honestly, that's to me as bad as the people who just apologize just because they are trying to make the problem go away. Of course. Right, so like if you- That's not- It's like both are bad. A good apology has to include understanding what you did wrong. And in part, standing up for the things you think you did right. So like- Yeah, if there are those things, yeah. Finding and then, but you have to give, you have to acknowledge, you have to like give that hard hit to the ego that says I did something wrong. Yeah, definitely Richard Stallman is not somebody who is capable of that kind of thing or hasn't given evidence of that kind of thing. But that was also, even just your tweet, I had to do a lot of thinking like, different people from different walks of life see red flags in different things. Yeah. And so things I find as a man, non-threatening and hilarious are not necessarily, doesn't mean that they're aren't like deeply hurtful to others. And I don't mean that in a social justice warrior way, but in a real way, like people really have different experiences. So I feel like really put things into context. They have to kind of listen to what people are saying, put aside the emotion of what they're, emotion with which you're saying it, and try to keep the facts of their experience and learn from it. And because it's not just about the individual experience either. It's not like, oh, you know, my friend didn't have a sense of humor about being licked. It's that she's been metaphorically licked, you know, 57 times that week because she's an attractive law professor and she doesn't get taken seriously. And so like men walk through the world and it's impossible for them to even understand what it's like to have a different experience of the world. And that's why it's so important to listen to people and believe people and believe that they're angry for a reason. Maybe you don't like their tone. Maybe you don't like that they're angry at you. Maybe you get defensive about that. Maybe you think that they should explain it to you, but believe that they're angry for a reason and try to understand it. Yeah, there's a deep truth there and an opportunity for you to become a better person. Can I ask you a question? Haven't you been doing that for two hours? Three hours now. Let me ask you about Ghislaine Maxwell. She's been saying that she's an innocent victim. Is she an innocent victim or is she evil and equally responsible? Like Jeffrey Epstein. Now I'm asking far away from any MIT things and more, just your sense of the whole situation. I haven't been following it, so I don't know the facts of the situation and what is now known to be her role in that. If I were her, clearly I'm not, but if I were her, I wouldn't be going around saying I'm an innocent victim. I would say, maybe she's, I don't know what she's saying. Again, I don't know. She was controlled by Jeffrey. Is she saying this as part of a legal case or is she saying this as like a PR thing? Well, PR, but it's not just her. It's her whole family believes this. There's a whole effort that says like, how should I put it? I believe they believe it. So in that sense, it's not PR. I believe the family, basically the family is saying that she's a really good human being. Well, I think everyone is a good human being. I know it's a controversial opinion, but I think everyone is a good human being. There's no evil people. There's people who do bad things and who behave in ways that harm others. And I think we should always hold people accountable for that, but holding someone accountable doesn't mean saying that they're evil. Yeah, actually those people usually think they're doing good. Yeah, I mean, aside from, I don't know, maybe sociopaths are specifically trying to harm people, but I think most people are trying to do their best. And if they're not doing their best, it's because there's some impediment or something in their past. So I genuinely don't believe in good and evil people, but I do believe in harmful and not harmful actions. And so I don't know, I don't care. Yeah, she's a good person, but if she contributed to harm, then she needs to be accountable for that. That's my position. I don't know what the facts of the matter are. It seems like she was pretty close to the situation, so it doesn't seem very believable that she was a victim, but I don't know. I wish I have met Epstein, because something tells me he would just be a regular person, a charismatic person like anybody else. And that's a very dark reality that we don't know which among us, what each of us are hiding in the closet. That's a really tough thing to deal with, because then you can put your trust into some people and they can completely betray that trust and in the process destroy you. Yeah. Which there's a lot of people that interacted with Epstein that now have to, I mean, if they're not destroyed by it, then their whole, like the ground on which they stand ethically has crumbled, at least in part. And I'm sure you and I have interacted with people without knowing it who are bad people. As I always tell my four-year-old, people who have done bad things. People who have done bad things. He's always talking about bad guys and I'm trying to move him towards, they're just people who make bad choices. Yeah. That's really powerful, actually. That's really important to remember, because that means you have compassion towards all human beings. Do you have hope for the future of MIT, the future of Media Lab in this context? So David Newman is now at the helm. I'm going to talk, I talked to her previously, I'll talk to her again. She's great. Love her. Yeah, she's great. I don't know if she knew the whole situation when she started, because the situation went beyond just the Epstein scandal. A bunch of other stuff happened at the same time. Some of it's not public, but what I was personally going through at that time. So the Epstein thing happened, I think, was it August or September 2019? It was somewhere around late summer in June 2019. So I'm a research scientist at MIT, you are too, right? So, and I always have had various supervisors over the years, and they've just basically let me do what I want, which has been great. But I had a supervisor at the time, and he called me into his office for a regular check-in. In June of 2019, I reported to MIT that my supervisor had grabbed me, pulled me into a hug, wrapped his arms around my waist, and started massaging my hip, and trying to kiss me, kiss my face, kiss me near the mouth, and said literally the words, don't worry, I'll take care of your career. And that experience was really interesting because I just, I was very indignant. I was like, he can't do that to me, doesn't he know who I am? And I was like, this is the me too era. And I naively thought that when I reported that, it would get taken care of. And then I had to go through the whole reporting process at MIT, and I learned a lot about how institutions really handle those things internally. Particularly situations where I couldn't provide evidence that it happened. I had no reason to lie about it, I had no evidence. And so I was going through that, and that was another experience for me where there's so many people in the institution who really believe in protecting the institution at all costs. And there's only a few people who care about doing the right thing. And one of them resigned. Now there's even less of them left. So. So what'd you learn from that? I mean, where's the source, if you have hope for this institution that I think you love, at least in part. I love the idea of MIT. I love the idea, I love the research body, I love a lot of the faculty, I love the students. I love the energy, like I love it all. I think the administration suffers from the same problems as any institutional, any leadership of an institution that is large, which is that they've become risk-averse, like you mentioned. They care about PR. The only ways to get their attention or change their minds about anything are to threaten the reputation of the institute or to have a lot of money. That's the only way to have power at the institute. Yeah, I don't think they have a lot of integrity or believe in ideas or even have a lot of connection to the research body and the people who are really, because it's so weird. You have this amazing research body of people pushing the boundaries of things who aren't afraid to, there's the hacker culture, and then you have the administration and they're really like, protect the institution at all costs. Yeah, there's a disconnect, right? Complete disconnect. I wonder if that was always there, if it just kind of slowly grows over time, a disconnect between the administration and the faculty. I think it grew over time is what I've heard. I mean, I've been there for 11 years now. I don't know if it's gotten worse during my time, but I've heard from people who've been there longer that it didn't, like MIT didn't used to have a general counsel's office. They didn't used to have all of this corporate stuff. And then they had to create it as they got bigger in the era where such things are, I guess, deemed necessary. See, I believe in the power of individuals to overthrow the thing. So just a really good president of MIT or certain people in the administration can reform the whole thing. Because the culture is still there of like, I think everybody remembers that MIT is about the students and the faculty. Do they though, because I don't know, I've had a lot of conversations that have been shocking with like senior administration. They think the students are children. They call them kids. It's like, these are the smartest people. They're way smarter than you. And you're so dismissive of that. But those individuals, I'm saying like the capacity, like the aura of the place still values the students and the faculty. Like I'm being awfully poetic about it, but what I mean is the administration is the froth at the top of the waves, the surface. Like they can be removed and new life can be brought in that would keep to the spirit of the place. Who decides on who to bring in? Who's hiring? It's bottom up. Oh, I see. I see. But I do think ultimately, especially in the era of social media and so on, faculty and students have more and more power. Just more and more of a voice, I suppose. I hope so. I really do. I don't see MIT going away anytime soon. And I also don't think it's a terrible place at all. Yeah, it's an amazing place. But there's different trajectories it can take. Yeah. And that has to do with a lot of things, including, does it, is it stays, even if we talk about robotics, it could be the capital of the world in robotics. But currently, if you wanna be doing the best AI work in the world, you're gonna go to Google or Facebook or Tesla or Apple or so on. You're not gonna be at MIT. So that has to do, I think that basically has to do with not allowing the brilliance of the researchers to flourish. Yeah, people say it's about money, but I don't think it's about that at all. Sometimes you have more freedom and can work on more interesting things in companies. That's really where they lose people. Yeah. And the freedom in all ways. Which is why it's heartbreaking to get people like Richard Stallman, there's such an interesting line, because Richard Stallman's a gigantic weirdo that crossed lines he shouldn't have crossed, right? But we don't wanna draw too many lines. This is the tricky thing. There are different types of lines, in my opinion. But it's your opinion. You have strong lines you hold to, but then if administration listens to every line, there's also power in drawing a line. And it becomes like a little drug. You have to find the right balance. Licking somebody's arm is never appropriate. I think the biggest aspect there is not owning it, learning from it, growing from it from the perspective of Stallman or people like that. Back when it happened, like understanding, seeing the right, being empathetic, seeing the fact that this was totally inappropriate. Not when that particular act, but everything that led up to it, too. No, I think there are different kinds of lines. I think there are... So Stallman crossed lines that essentially excluded a bunch of people and created an environment where there are brilliant minds that we never got the benefit of because he made things feel gross or even unsafe for people. There are lines that you can cross where you're challenging an institution to... I don't think he was intentionally trying to cross a line or maybe he didn't care. There are lines that you can cross intentionally to move something forward or to do the right thing. Like when MIT was like, you can't put an all-gender restroom in the media lab because something permits whatever, and Joey did it anyway. That's a line you can cross to make things actually better for people. And the line you're crossing is some arbitrary, stupid rule that people who don't wanna take the risk are like... You know what I mean? No, ultimately, I think the thing you said is cross lines in a way that doesn't alienate others. So for example, me wearing... I started for a while wearing a suit off at MIT, which sounds counterintuitive, but that's actually... People always looked at me weird for that. MIT created this culture, specifically the people I was working with. Nobody wore suits. Maybe the business school does. Yeah, we don't trust the suits. People don't trust the suits. So I was like, fuck you, I'm wearing a suit. Nice. See, that's I like. But that's not really hurting anybody, right? Exactly. It's challenging people's perceptions. It's doing something that you wanna do. Yeah. But it's not hurting people. And that particular thing was, yeah, it was hurting people. It's a good line. It's a good line to... Hurting, ultimately, the people that you want to flourish. Yeah. Yeah. So you tweeted a picture of pumpkin spice Greek yogurt and asked, grounds for divorce? Yes, no. So let me ask you, what's the key to a successful relationship? Oh my God, a good couple's therapist? What went wrong with the pumpkin spice Greek yogurt? What's exactly wrong? Is it the pumpkin? Is it the Greek yogurt? I didn't understand. I stared at that tweet for a while. I grew up in Europe, so I don't understand the pumpkin spice in everything craze that they do every autumn here. I understand that it might be good in some foods, but they just put it in everything. And it doesn't belong in Greek yogurt. I mean, I was just being humorous. I ate one of those yogurts and it actually tasted pretty good. Yeah, exactly. I think part of the success of a good marriage is giving each other a hard time humorously for things like that. Is there a broader lesson? Because you guys seem to have a really great marriage from the external. I mean, every marriage looks good from the external. That's not true, but yeah. Okay, that's not true. No, but like relationships are hard. Relationships with anyone are hard, and especially because people evolve and change, and you have to make sure there's space for both people to evolve and change together. And I think one of the things that I really liked about our marriage vows was, I remember before we got married, Greg, at some point, got kind of nervous and he was like, it's just, it's such a big commitment to commit to something for life. And I was like, we're not committing to this for life. And he was like, we're not? And I'm like, no, we're committing to being part of a team and doing what's best for the team. If what's best for the team is to break up, we'll break up. Like, I don't believe in this, like we have to do this for our whole lives. And that really resonated with him too, so yeah. Did you put in the vows? Yeah, that was our vows, like that we're just, we're gonna be a team. You're a team and do what's right for the team? Yeah, yeah. That's very like Michael Jordan of you. Do you guys get married in the desert, like November rain style with Slash playing? Or, you don't have to answer that. I'm not good at these questions. Okay. You've brought up marriage like eight times. Are you trying to hint something on the podcast? I don't, yeah, I have an announcement to make. No, I don't know. It just seems like a good metaphor for, it felt like a good metaphor for, in a bunch of cases, for the marriage industrial complex, I remember that. And, oh, people complaining. It just seemed like marriage is one of the things that always surprises me, because I want to get married. You do? Yeah, I do. And then I listen to like friends of mine that complain. Not all, I like guys, I really like guys that don't complain about their marriage. It's such a cheap, like if it's such a cheap release valve, like it doesn't, that's bitching about anything, honestly. That's just like, it's too easy. But especially, like bitch about the sports team or the weather if you want, but like about somebody that you're dedicating your life to, like if you bitch about them, you're going to see them as a lesser being also. Like you don't think so, but you're going to like decrease the value you have. I personally believe over time, you're not going to appreciate the magic of that person. I think, anyway. But it's like, I just notice this a lot, that people are married and they will whine about, you know, like the wife, whatever. It's part of the sort of the culture to kind of comment in that way. I think women do the same thing about the husband. He doesn't, he never does this, or he's a goof, he's incompetent at this or that, whatever. There's a kind of- Yeah, there's this tropes like, oh, husbands never do X, and like wives. I think those do a disservice to everyone. It's just disrespectful to everyone involved. Yeah, but it happens. So I brought that up as an example of something that people actually love, but they complain about, because for some reason that's more fun to do is complain about stuff. And so that's what with clippy or whatever, right? So like you complain about, but you actually love it. It's just a good metaphor that, you know. What was I gonna ask you? Oh, you, your hamster died. When I was like eight. You miss her? Beige. What's the closest relationship you've had with a pet? Is that the one? What pet or robot have you loved the most in your life? I think my first pet was a goldfish named Bob, and he died immediately, and that was really sad. I think it was really attached to Bob and Nancy, my goldfish. We got new Bobs, and then Bob kept dying, and we got new Bobs. Nancy just kept living. So it was very replaceable. Yeah, I was young. It was easy to. Do you think there will be a time when the robot, like in the movie Her, be something we fall in love with romantically? Oh yeah, oh for sure. Yeah. At scale, like where a lot of people. Romantically, I don't know if it's gonna happen at scale. I think we talked about this a little bit last time on the podcast too, where I think we're just capable of so many different kinds of relationships. And actually, part of why I think marriage is so tough as a relationship is because we put so many expectations on it, like your partner has to be your best friend, and you have to be sexually attracted to them, and they have to be a good co-parent and a good roommate, and it's all the relationships at once that have to work. But normally with other people, we have one type of relationship, or we even have a different relationship to our dog than we do to our neighbor, than we do to the person, someone, a coworker. I think that some people are gonna find romantic relationships with robots interesting. It might even be a widespread thing, but I don't think it's gonna replace human romantic relationships. I think it's just gonna be a separate type of thing. It's gonna be more narrow. More narrow, or even just something new that we haven't really experienced before. Maybe having a crush on an artificial agent is a different type of fascination. I don't know. Do you think people would see that as cheating? I think people would, well, I mean, the things that people feel threatened by in relationships are very manifold, so. Yeah, that's just an interesting one. Because maybe they'll be good, a little jealousy for the relationship. Maybe they'll be part of the couple's therapy, you know, kind of thing, or whatever. I don't think jealousy, I mean, I think it's hard to avoid jealousy, but I think the objective is probably to avoid it. I mean, some people don't even get jealous when their partner sleeps with someone else. Like, there's polyamory, and. I think that's a good thing. I think there's just such a diversity of different ways that we can structure relationships or view them that this is just gonna be another one that we add. You dedicate your book to your dad. What did you learn about life from your dad? Oh, man, my dad is, he's a great listener, and he is the best person I know at the type of cognitive empathy that's like perspective-taking. So not like emotional, like crying empathy, but trying to see someone else's point of view and trying to put yourself in their shoes. And he really instilled that in me from an early age. And then he made me read a ton of science fiction, which probably led me down this path. Taught you how to be curious about the world and how to be open-minded. Yeah. Last question. What role does love play in the human condition? Since we've been talking about love and robots, and you're fascinated by social robotics, it feels like all of that operates in the landscape of something that we can call love. Love, yeah, I think there are a lot of different kinds of love. I feel like it's, we need, don't the Eskimos have all these different words for snow? We need more words to describe different types and kinds of love that we experience. But I think love is so important, and I also think it's not zero-sum. That's the really interesting thing about love, is that I had one kid, and I loved my first kid more than anything else in the world. And I was like, how can I have a second kid and then love that kid also? I'm never gonna love it as much as the first. But I love them both equally. It just, my heart expanded. And so I think that people who are threatened by love towards artificial agents, they don't need to be threatened for that reason. Artificial agents will just, if done right, will just expand your capacity for love. I think so. I agree. Beautifully put. Kate, this was awesome. I still didn't talk about half the things I wanted to talk about, but we're already way over three hours. So thank you so much. I really appreciate you talking today. You're awesome. You're an amazing human being, a great roboticist, great writer now. It's an honor that you would talk with me. Thanks for doing it. Right back at you, thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Kate Darling. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Maya Angelou. Courage is the most important of all the virtues because without courage, you can't practice any other virtue consistently. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/ZFntEFXKDHM

H9AAnV59ddE

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Todd Howard: Skyrim, Elder Scrolls 6, Fallout, and Starfield | Lex Fridman Podcast #342

Blink once if you know when Elder Scrolls 6 is coming out, but are not going to tell me. The following is a conversation with Todd Howard, one of the greatest video game designers of all time. He has led the development of the Fallout series and the Elder Scrolls series, including Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and the future Elder Scrolls 6, and a totally new world in an upcoming game called Starfield. Many of these have won Game of the Year awards, and have been some of the most celebrated and impactful games ever made. To me, Skyrim is quite possibly the greatest game ever. This is a Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Todd Howard. Is it possible that we are currently living inside a video game that the future you designed, can you give hints as to how one would escape if this was a video game? How can a video game character escape to outside the video game? Are these things you don't consider when you design the game? Actually, we do. Because in the kind of games that we make, we want it to be as open as possible. So, you know, when you start a game, you're always testing it. What can I do? What would the game allow me to do? And you check everything. You try to pick up the, you know, the mugs, you try every door, you collide with everything, like, hey, what are the rules of this world? We try to do games where, you know, we say yes as much as possible, that leads to some level of chaos. But if you were stuck in a video game, you would try everything. And usually, you're going to find a door or a space where the designers didn't anticipate you piling all those crates up and getting over a wall that they didn't expect. Right. So it's not a designed doorway out. It's an accidental, unintended doorway out. And it's a happy bug. You could, like, Truman Show, just get in the ocean and go till it's stuck. Right. Right. Right. But the more realistic the game becomes, the harder it is to find that door. The bigger the world, the bigger the open world. And then as we do it, we learn they're going to find a way. So just don't try to pen them in. Usually we leave, like, this developer test cell area in the game that we don't anticipate anyone will find. And they ultimately find it. It usually has crates of all the weapons in the game and things like that. The little hints you drop now will just drive people mad, which is something I enjoy deeply. So Skyrim NPCs have, at times, hilarious dialogue. What does it take to build a good NPC dialogue? The main thing is to make them reactive. A lot of times when you write characters for movies or things like that, you want to make that character interesting for themselves. Right. What's their story. And there's some characters like that, that the player definitely cares about. But the best characters are the ones that react to you. So you'll find a lot of people love our guards. And the guards are written almost purely to be reactive. Hey, nice tie. I like your jacket. Do this cool watch. You know, hey, what'd you do? And so that, hey, you're the man as you walk by. That makes them interesting. Or the way they react to something that you do. Lydia in Skyrim, who everybody loves, I'm sworn to carry your burdens. That's a generic line that all of the, you know, house carls have. And it just kind of lands when she says it. Why does it land? And did you anticipate it would land? There's a slight snarkiness in that particular read of it. And you're asking her to do something and she's reacting to you. What about the trade off between maybe the randomness and the scripted nature of the dialogue? Like, is there any room for randomness of the dialogue tree? Oh, absolutely. We tend to write them in stacks with, you know, it's a very small, think of it as a small state machine that just says, okay, this is what's happening. Here's a random list of things I could say to that. And then some of that plays out in ways you don't anticipate. But we look at the things, what are the players doing that we could have the characters respond to that they don't expect? You know, jumping on tables or stealing stuff or, you know, sneaking in in the middle of the night or those kind of things. The more that we can do, the more reactive and interesting the characters appear. And these state machines, how big are these things? Are these individual to the individual to the individual characters? That's just fascinating how you design state machines. Is it just a giant database? I would think of the AI as one big one. Yeah. Oh, so. For sort of everybody. So, there's an AI. There's a manager for all the people. Yeah. And one of the things that. It's a people manager. Right, right. Nice. One of the things that makes what we do particularly unique is, and this is a trade-off for what people are seeing because a lot of it's not on the screen, but we're using cycles to run this, which is we're thinking about everybody in the whole world all the time. The ones that are further away at a much less tick rate, they go into low, but we know if they want to walk across the world and we're running every quest at the same time. Whereas in other open world games, you start an activity, the rest of the world's going to shut down so that they can really make that as impactful. I really prefer that the rest of it's going on. It's more of a simulation that we're building. So, when those things collide, that's where it gets the most interesting. And so, we're running all of those people and understanding where they want to go and their cycles and what they want to do. And the ones that are closer to you, we just update a lot more. It's one of the things that we do. We just update a lot more. It's one way to think about it. I mean, that's really fascinating. That's something that people had, they were wondering about to what degree it's possible to run the world without you. So, there is a feeling to role-playing games that you're the central, you're at the center of the world and the whole world rotates around you as it does in normal life. Like when we walk around, there's a... When you forget yourself, you start to take yourself very seriously. Like you are the center of the world. You forget that there's 8 billion people on earth and you forget they have lives. That's actually a sobering realization that they all have really interesting life stories and they have their worries, they suffer in different complicated ways. And yet, when you play a role-playing game, there's a... I mean, both computationally and from a storytelling perspective, you wonder if the world goes on without you. Like if you come back, if you take a break and you come back, is there still a bustling town that now has a history since you have last visited? So, to what degree can you create a world that goes on without you or goes on at the same time as you do your thing, whatever the heck you're doing? We don't prioritize the stuff you can't see, so it's more like an amusement park. If you study like the design, our level designers did this, how do they build Disney World in these places? So, it still exists for you, the player. So, it is fairly, you know, when you're going to come in, this is what you're going to see, the shops are in the front, you're going to do this. It's just for us to make it far more believable and get some more emergent behavior that not just make that sort of the verisimilitude of what you're in for that moment, but you buy it all. I always say like, you know, we got to do the little things so that you buy the reality of the virtual world you're in, so we want to do something crazy, you know, when a dragon lands or a death law comes out of the wasteland or those kind of things that you – it has the impact to you as the viewer that it would to the people in the world. Okay, but still you're simulating stuff that's close to you. It is a bit of a simulation going on. Oh, absolutely, yes. And so that creates some interesting dynamics then. And the stuff that we're looking at in the future, you know, our plan is to push that even more, to think about how these things exist in the world first. And we do some of this, but even more so in the future to say, how do these things exist, take like a faction in the world? What is their role in the world as opposed to just, their role is for the player to join it, go through a bunch of quests and become the head of the faction? You know, think a little bit deeper about the simulation and what would the Mages Guild be doing in a fantasy world or the Fighters Guild be doing in a fantasy world versus just sign up, do quests, get gold. And so that when you show up to that Mages Guild, it's a bustling guild full of stuff going on. It's not just that it's bustling, it's that they feel rooted in it. They don't feel like a storefront for come here, do quests, get experience. Is that one of the essential components of randomly generated worlds? So when I think back to Daggerfall as gigantic world, when I first played it, I thought like, I mean, you're just struck by the immensity of it. Right. The immensity of the possibility. When you're young and you look into your future, it's wide open and you can do anything. And that's what Daggerfall felt like. The openness was gigantic. And Daggerfall is interesting coming off Arena, where Arena does the same thing, but Daggerfall in many ways is bigger, despite focusing on an area because of how the density of, okay, this is how much physical game space we'll do for these villages and towns. And it does feel endless, even though you're looking at a map that has constraints. And Daggerfall actually was a touchstone for us going into Starfield for how we do the planets, because there's a different kind of gameplay experience when you just wander outside a city in Daggerfall. Then follow a quest line and go to this place and it's completely handcrafted and everything around every corner we've kind of placed, like Skyrim, Starfield, and Starfield's a bit more like Daggerfall. And if you wander outside the city, we're going to be generating things and you kind of get used to that game flow, different than we've done before, and fun in a different kind of way. We'll talk about Starfield. So, just for people who don't know, and how dare you for not knowing, but with Daggerfall, we're talking about the Elder Scrolls series that started, sort of talking about the big titles within the series, started with Arena in 94, Daggerfall in 96. I didn't look up the years before this, this is depressing, or awesome. So all of these games brought hundreds, probably for some of them thousands of hours of joy for me. So Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. So I don't remember Arena being that open world. It's all the provinces. It follows kind of the same pattern. It just doesn't have all the number of villages and places that Daggerfall has, while Daggerfall focuses on the Iliac Bay area. Arena does it all. It just changes the scale in terms of, you know, one block on the map equals this much space. There is something that, I mean, I'm speaking to anecdotal experience, but I just remember it feeling wide open, Daggerfall. It definitely was, yes. In a way Arena didn't. I don't remember, maybe because Arena, it was so cool to have the, just the role-playing game aspect, you're focused on the items and the character development, you... Daggerfall has a lot more depth, particularly in the character system. That's what it introduces, all of the skills and those kinds of things. Arena, it's actually, it's a game I love. And it's very, very elegant. If you look at the first one, where it's just an XP-based system, do this, get XP, level up. Very classic role-playing game. Daggerfall digs deep into who's your character, how you're going to develop it, what are your skills, there's advantages, there's disadvantages. And the environment going full 3D from Arena, which is actually like a 2.5D Doom-style engine, that I agree with you, that Daggerfall feels like there's more possibilities when you're playing it. Were you able to look up to the sky in Daggerfall? Yep. My memory is... It's full 3D, yeah. So that's what full 3D means. And then you can go outside the city? You can walk outside the city. You can do that in Arena too, but it looks more fakey, right? It's all going to be a flat plane. Here comes things, and then a dungeon entrance is an 8-bit, here comes a little flat coming at the camera. So before we go to the end and the middle, so from Starfield to Fallout and the Elder Scrolls series, let's go to the very beginning. What's the origin story? You know what, let's even go before then. When's the first time you remember the thing that made you fall in love with video games? Well, I think it's partly my age coming up with the arcades and playing Space Invaders at the Pizza Place. And then Pac-Man really... It's interesting about video games and what Pac-Man did for video games, where it popularized them in a way that was just insane at the time. Had a song, had a cartoon, had all of the things. Nintendo comes along. So it was always part of... I think if you were a kid growing up then, it was such a newness to playing things like that. I remember being in fifth grade when the TRS-80 was brought into the classroom and there was a Star Trek game. And I was enamored with it, and they were going to start teaching some rudimentary programming. Like, okay, would you like to know how this is made? And I was hooked. I was like, I need to figure out how to make this stuff. And so I was a self-taught programmer, and my whole goal was to write my own video games. And by sixth, seventh grade, I had written my own much better Star Trek clone, Apple II. And I really enjoyed programming on the Apple II then. And that, I think, was the right level of complexity at that age, where you could kind of... You were always learning, but you could still understand a lot of the problem set for, like, this is what I want to get on the screen. And I was also into art. So I did a lot of art, and I did a lot of programming, and I was always making games. That was my hobby from the time I was 10 or 12. What was, to you, involved in making games? How did you think of it? Was it from a graphics perspective, like what shows up on screen? Was it how it makes you feel? Was it about the story? Was it the text-based stuff and the dialogue and the prompting? What does it mean to create a video game at that young age to you? Well, it was a way of experiencing things that I couldn't myself. So, you know, if you're playing Dungeons & Dragons at the time, too, where you really feel, even pen and paper, these are, like, they feel somewhat, in quotes, real to you as you're playing them. You're very invested in your character and what you're doing. And then I loved the games, The Wizardry and Ultima, that were able to bring that to a computer so I could, you know, do it on my own time. It was very, very real to me. I'd sit in my bedroom and then go to bed and think about it, and then, oh no, I have to go to school. I want to come home and figure out how to do this problem in the game. And so whatever I was creating was something that I was excited about at the time. I made Raiders of the Lost Ark games. Like with graphics and everything? Yeah, so it was usually, you know, I made a Miami Vice game, made a Gru the Wanderer game, made a Traveler game. But every time I was doing it, I wanted to figure out a new method on the Apple II of pulling it off graphically. Whether that was editing character sets to get graphics in different formats, or how can I enable the secret double high-res mode it had, or just things like that where it became kind of this limitless, what can I make this do? And I had some friends who were doing the same thing, and then you get into who can impress each other. And I was kind of middle of the pack, I would say. But again, this was the time where they're bringing computers into the school, and the Apples come into the school, and the teachers are learning it because they have to teach the students. But then I would say I was part of a group of students that were like way past that. And it was very much of a self-taught, you know, how do you make this thing dance? I'd like to ask a strange question. So at that time, a lot of people consider you one of, if not the greatest game designer, creator of all time. You were middle of the pack then. Did you have a sense that this would be your life, and you would also be creating, you know, the greatest games ever? Not in the slightest. No, I don't think anybody... But I was very much like that was my dream at that age. But you don't think that that's a job. You know, and as I got older, I was really going through college, and even the computer classes then weren't where I wanted them to be, so I was still kind of doing my own stuff. And I ended up getting a business degree, and then interviewing for some jobs, like finance jobs. Well, I guess I should do this to make money, and I can keep doing this on the side. And I remember, I actually got to like the final level of like this corporate finance job at Circuit City, and they turned me down. And I was like, fuck them, I'm just gonna go make video games. So, thank you, Circuit City. Yeah, I remember Circuit City. Yeah, I remember Circuit City. I think they went bankrupt, actually. Well, they were based in Richmond. I was going to school close to there, and so... So, what's the origin story of you joining Bethesda Softworks at the time? So, I had gotten Wayne Gretzky Hockey 3 for Christmas from my girlfriend at the time, who's now my wife. I was in college, and I noticed that it was, you know, in Rockville, Maryland. And, oh, that's on my way home over Christmas break, back to William & Mary, where I went to college. And I was at this point committed, like, this is what I want to do, so I'm just going to drive by and knock on the door, which is what I did. So, I drove by and knocked on the doors, Martin Luther King Day, 93. And someone came out and met me and said, well, maybe... And I said, well, I'm in college. I'm talking about when I'm out of school. I'm like, okay, well, contact us then. And I will say I would contact them every once in a while. I did work for a small software company right out of school, down in that area of Williamsburg, and still would contact Bethesda. Arena had just come out. So, then we're in 94. Arena had just come out, and I loved it. So, I was into sports games. I like the hockey stuff. They were doing a basketball. They did a basketball game. Yeah, I'm just looking at, they did a lot of... They did, like, six sports games. Six. Bethesda had at least ten games. Red Iron. Six of them sports games, NCAA basketball, hockey league simulator. Hockey league simulator, yeah. So, it was really like sports gridiron, which is like the first kind of physics-based football game at the time. And there's a famous story with Electronic Arts trying to do Madden, and then hiring Bethesda before my time to make Madden, because they were struggling. And when I started at Bethesda, I remember the owner had John Madden's Oakland Raiders playbook in his office. Like, ooh, can I see that? And I love sports, right? So, I still play Madden to this day. I love it. So, there's an alternate reality where... I made sports games? Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. This blew my mind. I wanted to make, like, the ultimate college football game. Well, it's always like, you know, it's like music. You probably listen to lots of type of music, like, you don't play every time. But I think of open worlds as fundamentally different... We sure. No, like, source of happiness, entertainment, storytelling, world, gaming than Madden. I mean, it's just because I love both. I love both worlds, but... They're two totally different experiences. Just like when you might watch a movie, you might be in the mood for Lord of the Rings one day, and then you want some other, I don't know, competitive show or game show or something like that. Or watch football on TV, right? You watch football on TV, but then I want to watch, get really into Game of Thrones. So, I think all those things have validity. And actually, one of the first things I worked on when I started at Bethesda was NCAA basketball, Road to the Final Four 2. So, that was kind of an external project, was came in like, hey, you know sports, get this game done. And then went on to... But they were doing everything I loved. It was like, this is where I have to work. They're doing, like, the Terminator science fiction stuff. I love that. They're doing these open world role playing games. Like, I love that. And they're doing sports. Like, this, I have to work here. So, I started there. And Arena, you loved. I loved it. Yeah. So, when I came in, it had just come out, and they were doing the CD-ROM version. So, CD-ROMs aren't even out yet. Oh, it used to be floppy disks. That's probably one of... What was Arena released? We would burn them in the basement. We had the disk replicators. Right. So, Arena was not released on floppy. It was. Yeah, I believe it's six floppy disks. Six floppy disks. Maybe it was eight. Yeah. But in those days, the number of floppy disks was very, very important to what the money you were making. So, you know, if you want to do a big, huge game, like, well, that's just too many disks. So, the CD-ROM became this jumping off point for the whole industry, where, oh, it's unlimited data. By the way, I played Arena. So, that was, of course, attained legally, as one does. Alternate means? By alternate means on floppy disks. And that was such an incredible, as you probably have seen, interacted with a large number of people. It's a whole world. It's a world that you escaped to in the way, like, your favorite book, like Lord of the Rings. It was just... It was unlike anything else. It was incredible. It's probably, I mean, of course, as people say, the first game you play is the one that really sentimentally means the most to you. That was, I think, the first role-playing game I played. And it was just changed everything. Was Arena? It was Arena, yeah. I think Daggerfall is what I really, kind of, really played. Especially because, like you said, the character development was really rich. But just, like, that you can feel like you've traveled to this whole other world that's less about entertainment, like a shooting game, and more about a world. It felt like it's a world. Like, you're literally there. You can travel there. You can live there. You actually feel like that person versus like a Pac-Man, like an arcade, fun, entertaining adventure game. So you joined, you made it. What did you work on first there? I worked... Well, everyone did a bunch of stuff. So I worked on the basketball game, really just to get it out the door. And Terminator Future Shock. So we were doing Future Shock and Daggerfall at the same time. They were developing a new engine. So it was one of the first 3D engines, the X-Engine. There were a bunch of guys from Denmark, actually. It was like, there's like a big Danish demo scene in those days on the PC. And so a bunch of the top programmers there. And look, this is not big. This is not a big company. Maybe there's 20 people in development. And we were doing both Daggerfall and the new Terminator. And so Daggerfall was a bit more, again, behind the Terminator game. So I was one of the main people on the Terminator team. And I don't know, things kind of worked out. I very quickly, I don't know why, like, I quickly became the producer and I was making levels and doing all these things. And it was awesome. And looking back now, I can understand it better. But at the time, I didn't appreciate it, which is no one quite owned the Terminator license. It was in like this limbo, legally. So there was no one to tell us what to, like, no, you can't do that. So we would pick apart the movies and, oh, how does he mention the gun he wants and the wattage of the laser and all these things? And so Future Shock is a game that I still love today. It does a lot of things that if you go back and look at it, we're frankly still doing. Like, it's a large, open world, post-apocalyptic, you know, landscape height map with instanced objects all over it. And that is still a lot of how we build our worlds. What's an instanced object? It's, you know, some games, every, you know, wall or building is kind of unique in its data. Whereas we would just build, you know, these little husks of buildings and then place them all over the place. So the memory and the way you render it is much more optimal. So that allows you to build a bigger world? It allows you to build a bigger world much faster and not, you know, not every single version of that building is in its own unique architecture that is going to take up memory and processing speed, et cetera, et cetera. So you're there very much feeling the computational constraints of the system when you're creating these open worlds. And you know what? That's the thing then. You see some of it now, but in those times, I do feel like every year the technology moved. And maybe it's because same thing, we're like that my age at that time where every year somebody was coming up with some new method or some new game system. And it was every year that innovation, innovation, innovation, and then, you know, 3D acceleration comes along and then these things come along and then HD comes along. And it is true that as time goes on, there is visually a diminishing return in terms of what you're able to do on the screen. And there's a ton of work that goes into it now because just rendering this cup to the perfect shine and material and roughness and how does the global illumination off this wall, it gets a ton of work. But you can pretty much do what you want now if you want to put the time in. Whereas then, okay, you can't do everything you want. So pick your battles really carefully and technically you couldn't do what you want, if that makes sense. How much trade-off is there now in how much effort you put into the realism of the graphics versus the story? And actually not even how much effort you put in, but is there a trade-off in the experience, the feel of the game in terms of realism and story? Usually we will start with let the player have as much agency and do as many things as they can as possible. And we will sacrifice some graphic fidelity for that, some speed for that. You know, we could make a game that, you know, traditionally our games are, you know, we okay with 30 frames a second as long as it looks really good and the simulation is running and all of those things. So we'll sacrifice some of that fidelity for the player experience and the kind of things that I do. But from like a manpower standpoint, the graphics programmers work on graphics, the artists work on art, and we have an awesome team of artists and designers and writers and programmers. It's usually where we find as time goes on, the amount of art time that it takes to create a cup compared to what it used to be, that has increased. So we do use, like most people use, you know, art outsourcing as well so that we're not, we still relatively compared to our industry and what we're doing, have smaller teams. What about the experience of the beauty of the graphics? So like one of the most amazing things about Skyrim, and maybe you could say that about some of the other games, but for me Skyrim is the outdoor, when you step outside, it's the outdoor scenery. So what does it take to create the feeling, especially of that, being outdoors of nature and just like lost in the beauty, whatever it is when you go hiking and you feel the awe of it, how do you create that awe? Is that graphics? What is that? It's a lot of graphics. It's a lot of mood. We just talk about it in terms of tone and those are, again, going back to my previous comment, the graphics are very, very important to us because, and we always push them, because when you're doing the kind of things we do, where you step into a virtual world, it does have to have that moment of, wow, this feels real. I've never experienced this. And it's okay. I think it's okay to let just like the time settle, meaning you step out. How does the wind sound? How are the trees moving? How are the clouds moving? I enjoy strolling and watching the sunset. How does it land over the water? Like it doesn't have to be like, hey, let's go, let's finish a quest. Let's go kill things. Let's figure out the next step. Let's level up. Like I like the quiet moments a lot. And I think when you play our games, you can tell we spend a lot of time on them. Then you watch like the weather roll in. I think that's just part of being, being that character, being that person in that space. Yeah. I saw that there's a mod that removes all enemies. I've been meaning to do that, to just do like a live stream where I for hours walk around Skyrim, just, and then answer questions and so on. That just feels, that's a completely stress-free environment. It's just, you are, just like you said, in this moment in time. And it's so incredible. It feels as incredible as going hiking or something like that. But in another, in a totally different place, like in like Iceland or something like that, this whole other surreal ethereal place. Yeah, it's incredible how you kind of create that. So graphics is a part of that, but also letting it, the temporal aspect of that, like the wind, the rustling sound and look and all of that. The soundscape is really, really important. And the sky, we spend a lot of time on the sky, because it's taking up much more of the screen than a lot of people give credit for. What about the rendering, the openness of it? Like how do you, is that? There's a lot of level of detail, streaming work. And nowadays it's getting more common. Like, frankly, the systems are built better for it. Hard drive speed is really prioritized. Like, they're so blazing fast. You take Skyrim and Oblivion and the fallouts of that 360 era. It's a, and it was a lot of time spent on how do we get all this data streaming in as you move, and then levels of detail so you can see all the way, but not, you know, crush the processor. You know what, let's even step back, because you mentioned tone. You mentioned tone a lot. Mm-hmm. What do you mean by tone? It's all of it together. If you look at, I think you can flip through, let's just take fantasy. You know, you can sort of look at a couple images or things and know how does Lord of the Rings different from Game of Thrones that is different than, you know, a Thurian like Excalibur, or your, you know, sci-fi channel, you know, series of the month kind of thing. And so, finding that, what's going to make it kind of unique, and usually I lean on something that is grounded in reality for what it is, and then have lesser kind of fantastical things, at least at the start, and then they kind of build. So, even when we do Starfield, I mean, it's a science fiction game. There are laser guns and spaceships that fly around and shoot each other and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but it's grounded in, you can look at it and say, okay, this is kind of an extension of things as we view them today in space. And we sort of take the same approach with Fallout, where admittedly things can get, admittedly, things can get even a little bit crazier the longer you're developing Fallout content. So, just to linger on this, the tone starts at, or defining the tone starts at creating a realistic experience. Like, you feel like I could walk into this, and this feels like life. What's their technology level, like even for a fantasy world? Like, is magic, how prevalent is it? Or are they making weapons and things and armor? Is it for utility? Is it for decoration? How do they live their lives? Does this feel like a place that you believe that has some grounding in our reality, whether that's historical or near future, or that it's grounded in some semblance of the reality that you and I understand so that it can feel, it's also making it feel a little bit welcoming. Like, okay, I understand this. Is that art or science? So, how do you know when it feels welcoming and everything fits and is grounded? I don't know. I mean, I guess it's personal taste. Some people like things that are weirder, that have more fantastical from the get-go. Even a game like Morrowind, where we get into some more fantastical things, it intentionally starts a little more grounded. You know, it's a very classic medieval-looking town that you come into, but you look just beyond it and there are mushroom trees and giant insects and things like that. So, in Skyrim, when you put a dragon in it, what are your thoughts about dragons and tone? How does that fit into tone? That's a great question. It's a ridiculous question, but yeah, I just love dragons, so I wanted to bring it up. No, no, no. These are the things that we debate with... Do we include a dragon? Why didn't you include a dragon in Daggerfall? That's what I want to know. I think there's dragon lings. They're hard to do. Dragons are hard to do. So, when you start Skyrim, say, hey, look, dragons are going to be a theme. Start visually. You can make the argument that dragons existed. Okay, what would they look like? How close to dinosaurs would they be? And ours are less... I believe they're less fantastical-looking in general. They look like beasts that could exist in that world. And then how we introduce them, it's kind of a little bit of a slow role in Skyrim, and that the people in the world are reacting to the dragons appearing, and that somewhat, you know, mirrors... You want something that mirrors the player experience as well. It says back to you, like, hey, no, these are... Have you heard this? Someone saw a dragon. That's what Daggerfall... Isn't there mentions of dragons or something? Because I remember being sure that there's dragons in Daggerfall as I'm playing it, and I'm searching. Pretty sure. Is there dragons in Daggerfall? There's dragonlings in Daggerfall. To my memory. Look, I guess someone will probably correct me, like, actually, there is a dragon here. But I'm pretty sure they're sort of... they're not. And then game I did, Redguard, which we bring back a dragon. It takes place beforehand, so we have a dragon there in that game, and that was unique to that at the time. Yeah, just a brief tangent on that. I thought Redguard was a really, really good game. I played it, and there's a... Again, you don't... You forget stuff, but I remember getting... I guess it was the first in the Elder Scrolls series to put it into that world, but it was like an adventure game. It reminded me of another game I really love, like Prince of Persia. That was one of the inspirations. Prince of Persia is one of my favorite games. Okay, I apologize if I'm forgetting, but you can, like, jump in buildings and stuff. Like, there's a jump... There's a dynamic, like, airy nature. Like, it's a, like, parkour type situation. Yeah, it was an incredible game. Why do you think... Let me ask sort of a dark question. Why do you think that game was a flop? One of the few... Not a dark question. It was. Well, a lot of reasons. Game that I love and really got us going on a handcrafted world. So we're coming off of Daggerfall. Morrowind is sort of in design. And then, you know, part of our development teams broke up to do different things. The game that did Battlespire and Redguard was my game. And I wanted to do something a little more Ultima feeling, handcrafted world. I really like things that blend up genres. So I know it's in the adventure game category, but it really does a lot of things. You know, it's a love letter to Prince of Persia. There's a little Raiders of the Lost Ark in it. There's a lot of Ultima in it. And really see what we could do with the engine. But it's very much, I think, plays... Like it would have had a much better home on, say, PlayStation or Xbox. This predates Xbox. Right? Where it's much more like constantly Tomb Raider had come out. So you see those influences of Tomb Raider on that game. And 3D effects cards had just come out. And so, okay, we can do... And it was the last. I think it's one of the last DOS games in a Windows world. So I think it missed kind of a technology window, as well as ultimately not what people wanted from us. You know? And I felt I was really kind of... The company let me make that game. And it was a big flop. Battlespire hadn't done well. The company was in really bad shape. And I felt really personally responsible. Like, they let me do this creative thing. It didn't do what we needed it to do. And now we're in a very, very bad situation. The company almost went out of business. And that's when it got reformed with ZeniMax Media. And Robert Altman came in. And we were starting Morrowind. We had just sort of started. And it was sort of that whole experience that made you sort of realize... Someone says, okay, you're going to get another shot. And that's where you're like, okay, we're going to make Morrowind and make the biggest, best RPG we can make. We know what the audience wants from us. We know what we could do. Building a world... So there's like callbacks to how we built the world in Redguard. Morrowind is a large-scale, handcrafted... But if you were to put it pixel per pixel with Daggerfall, you wouldn't even see Morrowind, because Daggerfall is so big. But the impact of playing it, I think, is in many ways equal, but different. Just you personally, psychologically, did you have doubt about yourself from the performance of Redguard? Do I even... Do I know what it is? Of course. Of course. Where do you get the... How do you overcome that? I don't know. I would say this, honestly, I enjoy it so much. I'm so heads down, that becomes, for better or worse, my life. And it's just something that I want to play so much, it becomes like there's a little bit... You get a little obsessed with it. No, but I mean, you love Redguard, right? So doesn't that mean... Isn't there a kind of self-doubt about, do I know what it takes to create a great game? Well, no, I think Redguard's a great game. Right, so you were sure, even if it wasn't... Okay, so if you're in a debate like, do I like that game? It's about finding an... Okay, so I love Redguard. And the people who play it, it won a bunch of awards, and it... You know, it critically was a pretty good game. Did not sell. And the reason for that, again, we probably made the wrong type of game, and we missed a technology window. We also thought it was very conservative. We're going to do this. So my main takeaway was, I'm not going to be conservative again. I'm going to swing for the fences. And we've had, you know, there'll be some rough edges in swinging for the fences and shooting for the moon, but we'd rather do that and land where we land than be very, very conservative in what we're putting out there. You've mentioned, just referencing this game on the Reddit AMA, that long time ago during Redguard, the lead programmer made me... Made all the buildings hop up and down after you played for 10 minutes just to mess with me. Just a curious tangent, what's involved with programming in open world game? So we talked about... We will talk about design and so on, but specifically the programming. Because I think this question came from, what are some interesting sticky bugs that you've encountered throughout your life in creating these games? And this is one of them that you mentioned. So what are some of the challenges of programming these open world games? I mean, there are different flavors of them, right? Your GTAs will have different issues than, you know, the Ubisoft games versus our games. I can sort of, you know, speak to ours, which is you want to build systems, right? Because they're going to play the game for a very long time as well, which we've learned. And you can't go through and touch everything by hand per se, so you have to rely on some systemic level of creation and a lot of systems that are robust enough so that when they touch another one, things aren't breaking apart. So there's like a... What are the major systems? Is there like the physics of the game, the engine of how like stuff... Yeah, like, yeah, the physics, the motion, and maybe how light is rendered, all that kind of stuff. Right, so you have the rendering, right, of like, okay, this is how I'm going to render the data that I have. So a lot of people confuse engines with rendering. I mean, they're combined, obviously, but there's the data you're going to give to a renderer, which is the thing, you know, that draws the pixels on the screen. So there's a... Most of the engine is how are you going to bring in that data and give it to the renderer to draw it. So you have that whole system of walking through the world, feeding in the data and drawing it. You then obviously have the physics and the interactivity. What are the things that are there just to be drawn? And what are the things there that are meant to be interacted with and touched? We put a big premium on the ones that can be interacted with and touched, whether it's flowers, whether the trees move, whether you can sleep on the sofa, sit in this chair, pick up all this stuff, bake bread, blah, blah, blah. You then have the AI, which loops in the stuff we talked about earlier in terms of processing everybody, and combat systems, which is a lot of what people end up doing. Combat systems on top of that AI. How do they react to those types of things? And then how do they look at the things that can be interacted with? One of my favorite things is when NPCs will go pick up weapons in the world, which you don't see in other games. And the first time you see it in one of ours, it's like very unexpected. You can drop like a crazy weapon, be in a fight, and an NPC runs over, picks it up, and uses it on you. It's not something you would expect, but I love that stuff. And that's integrated into a larger system, the ability to pick up a weapon, the NPC picking up a weapon. So it's not like a little quirk that's hard-coded in. It's part of a bigger system. They have their own AI for scanning the environment, and that's one of the rules. Hey, is there a weapon that is better than the one I have? I'm gonna go get it. Now, we do lock off if it's in a chest, and that's treasure we left for the player. But it's in particular, because what you don't want, we actually had this problem, started in Oblivion, I believe, which is we set up a level, hey, let the enemies go pick up the, you know, weapons if they're better. So we make a level and go in, and all of the enemies are armed to the teeth, and there's no treasure for the player because the enemies went and took all the good weapons. Okay, they don't take those. They take the ones that are dropped by other NPCs or the player. That's such a fascinating world of designing the experience for the NPC, because in part, that experience defines the experience of the player. So how they interact with their environment defines how the player experiences their environment. Is there room for further and further development of the AI that controls the NPC? Sure. We're always iterating on it, and again, as we look in the future, it's more about us finding those, more reactivity to the player, and also understanding their roles in the world. So they're not just there. They're not just there for the player, as a signpost for the player. But they're reacting to the player. But what about, you know, some of the richest experiences we have with people is like the chaos of it, the push and pull, the unpredictability. Is there something, I don't know if you've been following, but the quick, amazing development of language models, the neural network, natural language processing systems, dialogue systems. Do you think there's some possibility of using sort of these incredible neural nets that can have open-ended dialogue, basically chatbots? Yep. I've seen some incredible demos. I do think it's coming. I don't know when. Yeah. And there's a little bit of a question, like what's ready for real deployment and release versus, hey, let's use that to generate some things that is then static that we're giving to the players, versus it's generated on the fly. But it's definitely coming. It's definitely coming. And I think you'll see it in the types of games that we do. It has great application. I love the idea that you'll be using it to design different NPCs and then testing if they're good enough. If they're like a little too crazy, you don't want like the super... Right. But if we go back to it being reactive, some of that bot stuff, you know, it's pretty, it's incredible. It's then translating that into voice. And then is that being done by the client? Is it being done on a server? Is it baked into the game? There's like different flavors of it. So there's still computational challenges, like how do you actually make that happen? Right. Well, what about, in terms of creating the feeling of an NPC, what's the role of voice actors? Awesome. Yeah. We work with a ton of voice actors, and they bring so much to it. And that's the thing. They, you know, we can write some stuff, and the best ones get in there and make it so much better. Or even ad lib things. And so we do a lot of voice recording. And we used to do it kind of like at the end of the project. And now we do it throughout. We start really early, and we just start recording. So we're recording for years and years, literally. Probably three years. Four years. So part of the actual experience of the recording will help define the characters and the tone of the game. And we'll go back sometimes and, hey, we really like this. We want more of this. Let's write. Let's do another session. Or, hey, we don't think this character's actually working. We want you to do a different, you're going to be someone else now. Sorry, that got cut. Do you ever try to sort of imagine that people fall in love with the characters, with the NPCs? I do. Like, do they get really attached to the... Oh, yeah. I mean, I've done it in games. These are like close friends, right? Like, you can, like, you miss them. 100%. Isn't that part of the thing you miss? I actually, like, whenever I'm playing a game and there is, you know, if there's like a friendship option or make friends or a romance thing, I find those moments really, I enjoy them. I find them pretty impactful emotionally to what we're doing. And so, we've done a little bit of it. It's one of the things that we actually have pushed in Starfield. So, we have a number of companions, but for them, we go, you know, I won't say super complex romantic, but more complex relationships than we've had in terms of not just some, not just some, you know, state of they like you or they don't like you, but they can be, they can be in love with you and dislike something you did and be pissed at you temporarily and then come back to loving you. Oh, so that relationship status, if it's complicated, that they're existing in that gray area, it's complicated. We're not dating, we're just... Well, it's in a lot of games, you know, previous stuff, you just work your way up, they like you more and more and more and more, and now you're in a relationship. Now you're in, yeah. And when you make them upset, you drift out of, like it never happened, you know, you drift out of it, whereas we wanted one where, okay, we can be in a relationship and we've committed to each other in some way, but I just did something that really made you angry. And as opposed to just drifting out of that status, you're in a temporary, I don't like what you did state. Well, so some greater degree of complexity in the relationship with the companions. A little bit. A little bit. A little bit. A little bit. I don't want to oversell that part, but my point is, I think those things where you meet a character in a game and you do spend time with them, a companion in a game, and it leads to romance, you know, myself and others, and I find a lot of players, those moments are really, really impactful, and special to them because they did put in the time. That's another thing that I always committed with, which is, I think people who don't play video games, they sometimes think like, oh, that's, I don't know, that's a waste of time, or that's not real, that's not like, you're not getting a lot out of that. Like, well, you haven't really experienced it in the way that you can, because these moments that I spent in games, not the ones I made, other ones when I was growing up or even now, that is important time to me. Like, I love those moments. I felt really like proud of what I accomplished. And we want people to have that in our games, and the fact that they have had those experiences, and we hear from them, and how important it is to them, it's like, no, this is really, really special. Yeah, it's fun. I mean, from a game design perspective, I wonder if you can honor the time you spent together with a game, because, you know, sometimes there's a heartbreak at the end of the game. Like, when you're, when you leave a game, there's a, yeah, it's a really complicated relationship, actually, because when you leave a game, it's almost like leaving a romantic partner, because it's like you spent so much meaningful time together, and there's a sense in which it was ephemeral. Like, this is not, this doesn't... Didn't happen. Yeah, it didn't really happen. It was good. It was like, you went to Vegas, you got drunk and stuff, and now life goes on. I wonder if there's a way to sort of always carry that with you. I mean, I guess with words you can kind of share with others. It's weird. I don't, like, now that we're in the age where you have achievements, and you can look at your library and see your hours in games, like, that's like, it's almost like a scrapbook now. Like, I wish, one of my wishes was, like, I wish I had that achievement list for everything, like, back to the late 70s. Like, every game you played. Right. Yeah, like, I mean, that's one of the cool things with Xbox, like, we're moving towards that direction. It'd be cool to be, from, like, childhood, the first time you play a video game, it will actually tell you what is the first game you played. But you know what? Kids today, they will have that. They will have that. And see... You could look back and see, oh my god, I put a thousand hours in Daggerfall. What is the first game? And my last save was... 1997. Last save. Man, I don't know, Golden Axe, maybe? I'm trying to think, what was the first game I ever played? No, it's probably Commodore 64 games, yeah. Yeah, arcade games. Okay. You mentioned Starfield. What is Starfield? And what's the origin story of this game? We had always wanted to do something where you explore space, you know, the explore space role-playing game. So take the kind of games that we make and give it a little bit of a different spin. And, you know, the other games that I love, there was a pen and paper RPG I loved, Traveler. It was one of the first games I made for the Apple II. I never finished it, right? I'm just doing it on my own. And I love this game. Starflight was one. Star Control II was a game that I loved. Sun Dog was a big one in the Apple II days that a lot of people don't know that I loved. And so a lot of us in the studio felt it was time to do something new. You know, we're going between Elder Scrolls and Fallout and going back and forth. And I mean, we love that. But hey, we've always wanted to do this explore the galaxy science fiction game. You know, now is the time to do that. And that's a brave move. So Fallout is post-apocalyptic on a single planet. You know, Elder Scrolls series is on a single planet. So this is going out into the open world of many star systems, many planets. I saw that it's thinking about 100 star systems and 1,000 planets available to explore. What is that world of stars and planets like? Well, you mentioned Daggerfall. We go back to some of that. Well, the first when we did it was, how are we going to render a planet, like pull it off for the player? Like, can we? Or do we have to sort of do it where you can't land on all of them, where you're landing in a very controlled, small world space that we, you know, kind of craft, and you would have a very limited set of those. You go back to tone, like, well, that's probably the wrong tone. And how can we say yes? Like, I want to land on that ice ball. So we started the game right after Fallout 4, so 2016. And the first thing we did was, how can we have a system to generate these planets and make them look, you know, I'll say reasonable as opposed to, you know, fractally goop? What's the technical definition of goop? Fractally goop? Fractally goop. You've probably seen a lot of, like, simulations, whether they're space things or landscape things, where they're using fractals, and just the landscape does not look real. It's just like highs and lows, and it's muddy. And so we did find a way, we came up with a way, had prototyped of building tiles, like large tiles of landscape, the way we would usually build them. We kind of generate them offline, hand do some things, and end up with these very realistic looking tiles of landscape, and then built a system that wraps those around a planet and blends them all together. And we had pretty successful results with that. So we thought, yeah, we could do this. And so there was a big design kind of problem to solve in terms of, well, what's fun about landing on a planet where there's potentially nothing? Because there's a lot of planets and moons, if you kind of, right, in reality, that, well, there's nothing on them, except resources. And so we spent a lot of time figuring out, okay, let's just lean in on that can A, be a lonely experience, as long as we tell the player, here's what's there, here are the resources that are there, go find them. But I equate it to that moment of, we said, about listening to the wind go and watching the sunset. And I do think there's a certain beauty to landing on a strange planet, being somewhat the only person there, building an outpost. And we are modeling all of the systems, because that's how we like to do things. So you can watch whatever that gas giant or moon, it will rotate and go and sunrise, sunset, and all of those things that you would expect. And it's all really happening. And most people probably won't notice or appreciate all of that, but I think it gives them the ability to say, I want to go do that and see that on that place, as long as we tell them, hey, the quest leads over here, here's where the handcrafted content is that you would expect. And then here's more of the open procedural planet experience. So you're- Long answer, I don't know if I answered your question. There's no- All right. The questions are stupid and the answers are brilliant. So that's how this works. So this is the world's most immense simulator of the human condition of loneliness. Because I can't imagine a more lonely experience. You mean you put it that way? I don't know that was the goal, but- Just on a planet alone, that must be, I mean, a deep embodiment of what loneliness is like. I mean, both on, like when you hike alone, there's a, there's a, there's a, when you hike alone, there's a, there's a deep loneliness to that. It's like, it's humbling that this thing will last much longer than you. It's been here way before you. Is it the line from the moon landing? Beautiful desolation? The Buzz Aldrin, is it? Beautiful desolation, is that what you said? I think so. Beautiful desolation. Well- Something like that. But that's just words. There's a feeling to it. And you want that feeling to be real. You just hear, there's some resources here. I just feel like it will hit people at a certain moment, like it does for me with Skyrim. Like, holy shit, I'm here alone. And, and whatever cruel nature that's out there, it doesn't really care about me. Exactly. That's the, that's the experience. So you, you want to create the whole planet, and you want to have many of them. We have, we do have many. But once you build that system, I think the numbers begin to become, I mean, honestly, a little bit, we wrap it in so we can name them all and have a finite set, even though it's a very, very large number. But a set that we can, you know, validate and know about, even though it's a huge number. But once you, once you're building a system that can build a planet, I mean, a planet is sort of infinite space. We go back to the Daggerfall analogy, right? If you have systems to build that much space, doing 100 planets or 1000 or 10,000 or a million planets is not, it's just, you just press, you just change the number and press the button. But you can't, you can't name them all, you can't control, like, when you're getting in really big numbers, hey, what is, what does this system way out here feel like if you take your ship and jump that far? We do level the systems. When you go to system, you'll see, oh, this is like a level 40 system. And us being able to at least control that scale is how we kind of ended up with the hundred-ish systems we have. What are the, what are the levelings? What do you mean by level? It would be like when you look at a map in a game, it says, this is the area for low level players, this is level one. Oh, got it, got it. Yeah, yeah. So we do that on a system basis. Star system. I read that space travel is considered dangerous in this game. Can you explain? Can you explain? That's more of, that goes back to a tone thing, right? When you actually play the game, because it's a game, like, we don't really kill you when you fly out in space. But it has a tone of, there's some effort involved, and we've dialed it back as we've been making the game, whereas we used to run out of fuel, you jump and get stranded, which on paper was a great, like, it's a great moment when you get stranded and you have to press this beacon, you don't know who's going to come. It turns out that's not like, it just stops your game. We found, you'd be playing the game and I ran out of fuel, okay, I guess I'll just wander these planets trying to mine for fuel so I can get back to what I was doing. It's just, you know, it's a fun killer. That's too realistic of a simulation of the human condition. Yeah, no, the idea was, well, it's, you know, games do that. If you had, like, a hardcore, you're right, a hardcore survival mode, that's the kind of thing you would do. Maybe we'll do it in the future. But it's more of, like, a tone, how they build their ships, do they have all the right things for safety. We do get into environmental things on the planets, you know, in your space suit, obviously a lot of different space suits and buffs for, you know, the gases, the toxicity, or the temperature on various planets. Are there robots? Yes. Those companions, are they robots by chance? Can you say? One of the companions is the robot Vosko, yeah. Okay, so they have a name and a personality and so on. Vosko does, and then there's a whole bunch of, I call them generic robots. We use them for utility, you know, okay, people. We actually dialed them back, because if you think about, well, you know a lot about this more than me in terms of... I'm offended right now, you're calling robots generic and you dialed them back. No, no, no, the ones we use, the ones we use, we made them more generic. We didn't say actually... Sorry, I'm very sensitive about this. I understand. If you were to chart the future, you would say robots would have a much bigger role in our future than we are presenting, but that was a tone thing. So most of our robots are there as utility robots, and there are some combat ones as well as enemies. So it's a deeply human world. Very much, yes. In terms of tone. So have you talked to Elon about this game? A little bit. How much of reality, like the work of SpaceX, is it an inspiration for the decisions made in this game? I wouldn't say it's for the decisions we made, but, you know, visiting SpaceX and walking in there, it was... it's like the Avengers meet NASA. It's like the most amazing, and here we're building the next gen, like see the dragon stuff before it was, you know, other people saw it. Like just, I was really in awe. You know, this giant machine that looks for imperfections on the surface of these giant, you know, fuselage, just, you know, whenever... and because, you know, we're in DC, go to the Air and Space Museum a lot, and so whenever I look at those kind of things, or you know, you'll visit the space shuttle, sort of overcome with how big it is, and I go stand back by the engines and think about that thing leaving orbit. You know, and one of the things Elon really impresses, like we're reaching the edge of physics on a lot of this stuff where how hard it is to leave orbit, the gravitational pull. And like, so the engineering that has gone into that, our space program, what he's doing now, I just marvel at. I don't understand, right? I'm not at that level, but I marvel at the kind of human ingenuity and scale. I was on the Delaware coast last month, and I went outside. I was outside for some reason, it was dark, and I saw this crazy light in the sky, and I thought it was like a helicopter, and then it didn't go away. I'm like, is someone... what is that? I call my... we had just some friends, hey, does everybody see this? What is that? And we just stood dumbfounded looking at this thing in the sky. And like, that is a UFO. Nobody takes their phone out. Everyone... I'm with like four people. Everyone is too dumbstruck. You would think, why don't you take a picture of this thing? And the next day we found out it was in the news, it was the SpaceX launch in Florida. And I'm seeing it from Delaware, Maryland area. It was one of the most... it was incredible. It's just even just that, I am in complete awe. Is there some aspect of that that you can replicate, the majestic nature of that in a video game? I wish I had the answer to that. I think some of it we're doing when you're standing on a planet, and you see the other moons go by, and then you realize, I could get my ship blast off and land there and build myself a home. I think that's pretty cool. There's a minor thing we do, which is we have other ships come and go from the starports when you're there. So you'll be in a city, and then you hear this, and you hear the engine, you look up, and a ship is taking off or coming. There's nothing for you to do, but I think it's awesome. So then that's all about creating the soundscape to feel... Seeing it and like, oh, that's real, that's a ship that... or you jump into a system, and you see these freighters, and sometimes they contact you. It's not all just like jump in and combat. Do you ever think about the fact that science fiction seems to make... it has a way of creating reality, not just kind of predicting it or imagining it. It's almost like the thing you put out there with a video game like this, like Starfield, that you kind of anticipate... it kind of fuels people's imagination, what is possible. Maybe, I don't know. I don't know, I can't say. You're making me think now about other science fiction that... movie I love, Minority Report, it's more of like a... not a space movie, but more like looking at the future. If you look at a lot of the things in that movie, it's almost like, I think those are coming true. Yeah. I mean, is that the one that you do interface this like... It's the interfaces, and then the, you know, the way he looks at his child's more like a holographic almost AR, VR kind of thing, or digital billboards, or trying to predict human behavior. There's just a lot of future stuff in that movie. As it comes to sci-fi, to your other question, I don't know. I don't know. Well, I think it does, and it's interesting. I mean, I suppose you're trying to create the most realistic, sticking to the tone, the most immersive realistic world, and almost by accident, you create the thing that is possible, because you want it to be realistic in some deep sense. So, accidentally it can become the possible, and then that places that idea in people's heads. I mean, if humans are ever to become a multi-planetary species, we need to play games. We need to read sci-fi to help imagine that that's possible, to look outside of Earth, to look outside, look up on the stars, then we can actually travel out there. I don't know. There's power to sci-fi to do that. I guess you shouldn't feel the pressure of that. I don't know if I'd make the leap now, that's all, that what we're doing might. Now, maybe, you know, hopefully it might inspire some young people who are headed in that direction, like, oh, I thought about getting into space and space exploration, and being an engineer, doing these things, and I played this game, and, you know, it really sparked that interest in me, so I'm going to go take that as a field, and maybe that's the person who goes and does some of these things. Yeah, because in the next couple of decades, likely a human being will step foot on Mars, which are the first steps towards us becoming multi-planetary. And if you read some of the stuff they're doing with the James Webb telescope, and them being able to look for signs of life on other planets, it's quite fascinating, and, you know, recent stuff I read say they think in 20 years they will. So, it's actually quite encouraging to think, I suppose it's a dream of mine, like, in our lifetimes that we discover life on another planet. Yeah, especially if it's intelligent life. I've been talking to a lot of biologists, and a lot of folks, I imagine there's life everywhere out there. The numbers would say so, yes. The challenging question is what it looks like and how much of it is intelligent. So, a lot of biologists tell me the big difficult leap is from the Prokaryotes to the Eukaryotes, so like, the complex life. It could be that a lot of our universe is just filled with bacteria. Well, I believe, if I'm understanding it right, that there's two ways they're going to look at planets, when they can look at, you know, they can read, hey, this planet has this kind of gas, they can now look at the ones that are created by potential life forms, and then the ones that are created, the byproducts of industry. There's only certain ones that are created if you have a society there, and that they can start looking in these types of star systems and these planets. But it takes a lot of time, because you have to book time on that telescope, you have to like, look at that planet over a long period of time. But in theory, given enough time, given the amount of space out there, we would find one. That would be a cool thing in this short life of ours to find out definitively that there is an industrial intelligent civilization out there, before you contact them. So like, die, end your life, not knowing the rest of the story, but just know that it's out there. That's a cool, cool. And then if you have kids, be like, well, this one's on you. F this, I'm out. And I'm fascinated by what it would do to the way, I think in a positive way, the way humanity thinks about itself here. Like, no, there is a definitively other life out there. I mean, both things. If there isn't life out there, that's also a huge responsibility. Both are super exciting. If we're alone, it's super exciting because there's a responsibility to preserve whatever special thing we have going on here. Whether you call it the flame of consciousness or, whether it's consciousness or intelligence, that's a special thing. Preserve it, have it expand. But if there's others out there, I mean, that sparks that drive for exploration of reaching out into the stars and meeting them. Most of them probably want to kill us. But luckily, we have the military-industrial complex on Earth that builds bigger and better weapons all the time. We have Space Force. Space Force. It will both protect us and destroy all our enemies. This is 100% a video game we're living in. Okay, back to dragons. So, blink once if you know when Elder Scrolls 6 is coming out, but are not going to tell me. I have a vague idea. Okay, vague idea. So, like, if you have the quantum mechanical interpretation that allows for multiple universes in the universe where you didn't blink, what would that, Todd, tell me about the year it's coming out? Would it be 2025? That's a trick question. Or 26? I've been asked that question many ways, but never like that. Yeah, I thought I would try to sneak it. I mean, there is, of course, no answer because... I wish it was soon. Soon. Like, we don't, we want them out too, you know? And I wish they didn't take as long as they did, but they do. And look, I mean, if I could go back in time, would never have been my plan to wait as long as it's taken for it. So, you love that world, the Elder Scrolls world? Look, it's part of why I've spent more time there than anything else in my life, probably, right? So, I deeply love it. We all do. It's a part of us. And, you know, when you aren't doing it for a while, you really do miss it. And when I look at what we're doing, have planned for that game, and that was a meeting yesterday, I was like, I just want to play all this right now. But it, you know, we're going to make sure we do it right for everybody, and we do have to approach it. People are playing games for a long time, you know? Skyrim's 11 years old, still probably our most played game, and so we don't see it slowing down. And people will probably be playing it 10 years from now also. So, you have to think about, okay, people are going to play the next Elder Scrolls game for a decade, two decades, and that does change the way you think about how you architect it from the get-go. What are some elements that changed the way, like, how do you make a game that's playable for 20 years? Well, we're trying to figure that out. But there are some elements, I should pause on that, you know, pardon me, I'm of course asking jokingly, I'm excited for it, but I think Skyrim is an amazing game still, you know, I really enjoy it still. Yeah, and you know what? The content, even if, I think if you step away from it for a while, then play what I'll put, say, the vanilla version without mods, if you go and haven't played it in a while, there's always a new way to play it. But then if you look at the mods and what creators are doing to it, we think that is just awesome. It's something that we've always supported, we're going to keep supporting. We've hired a large number of modders that are now professionals, we want to support the people who are doing on their own so they can be professionals on their own. How do you create a world that's moddable? So you think of designing the game from the start as that enables mods. Yep, absolutely. So it starts with us, like everything we're doing, okay, a modder, a content creator is going to have to do it, use our tools. Now we do clean them up for release, you know, because if you're like a developer in-house, you can deal with some kludginess when you're putting stuff together. When you put it out for people, we do clean a lot of it up. And there's still a lot, obviously a learning curve there. But we have, look, we have people been doing it for 20 years with us. What's involved with modding? I'm actually quite newbish at this. Okay. And I'm almost afraid to ask, because now that you explained to me, I fear I will spend a very large amount of time creating mods. Well, we have an editor, you can download on Steam, the creation kit for our games, and then it loads up the world. And you could do something really, really small, like change the color of the weather. And it creates a little plugin file, we call it, you know, a modification to the game. And then you can run your game with that. It's on console now, the mods, not the editing. And it's just been incredible. Our community there has been amazing what they do with the games. So a lot of it is the visuals. A lot of people do visual things, because it's the easiest thing to do first, or they're building new space. There's some great things with, like, I love the Khajiit follower mod for Skyrim. It's awesome. There have been quest lines, those things just take a really, really long time. And so someone is going to do that, that's almost like it takes them a long time, it's more than a hobby. And we're always looking at ways that we can make it like, hey, they can turn a career into it. Because it's just awesome. What about, is there any possibility in doing a mod for the, some of the AI stuff? There is. And I've seen some, but to really move it along, if they're using the tools that we already put out there, so to really move the AI along, you'd have to get in the code, which some people have figured out ways to hack in and do things with script extenders. But for the most part, like really pushing it, it does take us, which is why you see when we have a new game come along, the palette that they have is there's so many more things they can do. Well, I've built bots that play the driving games, but they do that by just taking, reading the screen and doing basic, not basic, it's actually pretty complicated, but computer vision and doing the control. But you're basically simulating the human player. To do that for Skyrim or for some of the open world games, that's literally, you have to create AGI to be able to play those open, well, maybe not, maybe you can create a super dumb, like just a two handed sword and just keep swinging until everybody's dead. Look, there's some bot stuff out there that does it. We have some very, very dumb bots that we use to run through the world to test it, that we'll deploy on a whole bunch of servers just to, you know, we do it every day. We run through every space, we're doing Starfield. And then just running, they're all out there. Well, it does it very quickly. It loads up every place, every place in the game and runs around a little bit and then loads the next place and runs around a little bit. We're just testing, like, did it crash? What's the memory growth? Get a report, here are all the places where the frame rate wasn't up to snuff. And then we do have one that will play on its own, heavily scripted, but it lets us test, you know, every time we make a build, there's a bot that runs through, like, the first one or two main quests, like, it'll just play it. That way we know, did we break anything? Because you don't want to waste QA's time, like, you guys broke it again within five minutes. So, yeah. Yeah, so that's for, like, broken stuff. I wonder if you can build a bot that estimates the quality of the experience. Oh my gosh. Okay, can you do that? I don't know. But just, like, the number, like, how boring or not boring, the boring meter. How many times you die. How many times you die. Is death boring or exciting? That's the question. I mean, I feel like there's a balance to be struck there, because you always want to be in fear of death. Yeah, we always, we have this chart at work we use, which is, like, if you think about any game that you've played that you've put down, it's either about a frustration slash confusion or boredom. You got to put the player right in the middle of that. But I've sometimes put down games from frustration only to return again stronger. Dark Souls? Yeah. So, I mean, the challenge, that's part of it. Well, I don't know. Actually, Skyrim, I'm one of those, I mean, I'm sure there's all kinds of humans that you've interacted with about what they enjoy. But to me, I could enjoy Skyrim on every, on any difficulty level. It doesn't, all of it. So, it depends. The open world nature of it is what's really compelling. Not necessarily the challenge of the particular quest and so on. But I'm not sure if that's the same experience for everybody. Do you play the survival mode? There's a survival mode in Skyrim. It was a creation club thing. It does, like, some hunger. It does hot and cold. It does some other systems that make it, you know, in our minds, more believable. It was actually a creation club thing made by an external creator who is now full time with us. So, can we actually, thinking about Starfield, thinking about Elder Scrolls VI, go through the full life of a video game you've created? So, what's it take to take a game from the idea to finally the final product? What are the different steps along the way? Great question. Well, usually it starts with, I mean, honestly, lunchtime conversations with a number of us. Hey, we think we want to do this. This is what it's going to be like. I mean, look, within Elder Scrolls, you know you're going to do it. It's a matter of when. So, okay, what's the tone we're going for, right? Where is it set? So, we usually start with the world. And then we're always overlapping. So, while we're making one game, as we're, you know, getting in the throes of it or wrapping it, you know, probably by the midpoint of one game, we've had enough conversations to understand what the next one's going to be. What are the big ticket, like, where's it set? What's the tone? Is there a big ticket feature or two that make it really unique? And then when we're finishing one game, we start prototyping. Sorry, before that, we start concepting. So, we'll do concept art. And for one reason or another, I usually have the beginning of the game worked out. Like, I like to think about, okay, how's the game start? What's the player do first? We do music early, you know. So, take Elder Scrolls 6. We figure out where it's set. What's the tone? What are the big features? We discuss the beginning of the game, which we've had for a very long time. Where's it set again? Just kidding. Yep. In Tamriel. And... Ah, damn it. Well, at least we know we narrowed it down that. That would be epic if it was, like, a portal into another dimension. Anyway. Then I like to do music. So, we've already done a take on the music for Elder Scrolls 6. So, you can sit there with the concept art and the music and you can feel it. No, the music, we put in the teaser for it. This was 2018. We've taken that further, obviously. And again, we're working on the world. You're then doing concepting and design for the world. And then once we're wrapping up one game, we can really start prototyping the new one. And you're usually building kind of your initial spaces. And so, we do like to do, like, a first playable, a smaller section of the game that we can sort of prove out and show to people, hey, this is how it feels different. This is what it looks like. This is what's unique about it. Then we turn that into a larger chunk when more of the team comes on when the other game is done. And that's still what we call a VS, vertical slice. So, you still don't have the full team on it. And it's a larger chunk of the game that you can play. And then once you feel good about that, you're going to bring on the rest of the team. And we're fortunate that the other games we've done are popular enough that we can be doing DLC and content and those kind of things while we're getting the one going. And then we're at full production, where we're sort of at maximum size. We just call that production. That's like the full production period. And that, depending on the game, you know, can run a year, two years, maybe more. And then you kind of have a finalizing final six months to a year on a game, which is, okay, we've built everything now. And usually it needs a lot of glue, where we have a lot of very different elements that maybe aren't clicking together the way you want outside of the regular polish for levels and features. And we're shaving and gluing and sticking things together so that it's not the schizophrenic game experience that things flow from one into another. In terms of story, like on that level? It's really, no, usually the story, the designers have done a really good job. It's more about game features, you know, and then how they interact with the story. Or, hey, I went from this experience to this experience. Or picking flowers in Alchemy feels like a different game than, and then how is another character referencing that? And how is that intersecting with the skill system and the interface? Like, the skill system and the interface is the party host. If you think about a game, most games, particularly what I like to do, is that's your person that says, welcome, do this, go here, check this out. And the skill system and the way it reacts on the HUD, the interface of the game, is sort of leading you to the next thing. And once you get that flow down, and the rate at which the game is giving you activities, then you're in like what we describe as a game flow. And it's not until really that last year. Before that, the game flow was just, it doesn't even exist in the way that you see it in the final game. And that's what we were working on a lot that last year. So, at which point is like the set of skills, the skill tree, the characteristics of the role playing aspect of it, when is that set? The ideas? We usually have it in the beginning, but it's just, we know it won't be done until that last year. We'll have one, but we know it's going to get honed. Because it's not until you really see, okay, how impactful is that one? How much are you doing it? Like, how much are you really, and the main combat ones, they always win. You always know the players will do it. You always know the players will drift toward the combat type skills, because every character needs some amount of that. But, okay, well, how important is cooking? How important is alchemy? How important is these other type of activities? And then how do you balance them where when you load up the skill menu, it isn't automatically give me plus 10 damage? How do you get the, what about the combat system? That does seem to be an important part of a lot of games. You start in the beginning, yeah, every time. Yep. So, usually when we're making that first playable, it's an area you can go through, some amount of dialogue, some amount of combat. How do you get the combat right? What's the secret to a great combat system? Well, first on a control side, helping the player when they don't realize it. There's a lot of tricks you can do with magnetism in terms of the controller and where the attacks go. So, it has to feel, the minute to minute has to feel really good in your hand. So, there's a lot of animation time, right? And changing animation so they're impactful and they happen at a rate that the player feels like they're really doing it. And then ultimately, it's the illusion that the enemies are smart, but they really are there for you to kill them, right? So, they do a lot of things to just let themselves get killed. They're not as near as smart as we can make them, because it turns out that is not fun. Right. So, there's a balance, but that is, I guess, a kind of AI, and it's a very intimate interaction with an AI, because there's a lot of stuff going on. It's not just very kind of shallow, like a dialogue or something like that. It's like, there's a time critical nature of it. A lot of stuff is happening, and if anything feels off, it's going to feel wrong. Yep. All the games do it. It's not unique to what we do in terms of how they handle combat scenarios. And there's some games that just do it extremely well in terms of, even in multiplayer where you're playing bots and most people don't know it, or how a multiple enemy scenario is really, you know, they don't all shoot you. They trade off. They're going to wait. And I was like, all right, I'll just wait my turn, because we don't want to overwhelm them. But you feel like you're overwhelmed when there's six enemies, but a good game will, no, they're going to take their time. Is there a science to it? Is it art? Is it like, how do you? Yes, yes. I mean, it's all of that. So it's like an iterative process where you try different things, you have different ideas. Yep. There's a lot of timing, animation work, HUD work also. How does the reticule change? What are the little sound effects? What about like the gamify, like that is fun? Again, that goes back to the winning, you know. So winning is fun. Yes. Death is not. Yes. Let the Wookiee win. I like how you have to dumb down the AI to make it fun for humans. Because if you didn't, it would just be just slaughter nonstop for all humans. That's good to know. What about things like you said, cooking, like crafting, making potions and poisons and smithing, weapons and armor, cooking. How do you get that right? What's interesting there? It's such an interesting like, you know, a lot of games don't have that kind of thing. So what role does that play in the games you create? You know, I think we really cracked it in a way I like with Fallout 4, actually, where when we're doing Elder Scrolls, we have like the flowers and things and you have alchemy. And we took this to, okay, if it's post-apocalyptic, what if everything in the world was an alchemical ingredient in some kind? So breaking it down of their components. So when you walk around a world, again, we like the simulation, we like the forks and the spoons and the cups and all that. Okay, how can I use those to create? So I love how it starts working in Fallout 4, where, okay, all these things I find, they have some value in creating or crafting outside of a cup is worth one gold piece or one cap. By the way, I have to be honest, I haven't played Fallout 4. I played Fallout 3. I thought that was a legendary game. Can you make a case for Fallout 4? Or should I just wait until Fallout 5? And when does that come back? I think you should play Fallout 4. Love to hear your thoughts. All right. It's a different game. Skyrim is too. I mean, it's... We try to make them all different. They all have... They are fundamentally different. They all have their own tone. Yeah, so Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are intentionally a very different tone. Oh, really? Interesting. So what's that world like? What's the post-apocalyptic world of Fallout, if you can just briefly take a stroll into that world, tone-wise? Well, there's, look, in entertainment, there's a lot of post-apocalyptic stuff. And what makes Fallout tick is the world that was left behind, the world that blew itself up, this utopian world of nuclear energy, and it all goes wrong. So I love the American dream of that, like how they visioned the future in the 50s and that blowing itself up. I think that's like a super interesting place to explore, which is why we always wanted to play in that world. And it does an amazing job of sort of weaving the drama and darkness of a post-apocalyptic world with B-movie humor. It winks at the camera sometimes, often actually, and that when you're in that world, it just has its own unique flow and vibe outside of anything else kind of in that genre. So Elder Scrolls has, or at least Skyrim has some humor. Has a little bit. But Fallout leans into it a little more. A little bit more, a little bit more. Yeah, yeah, it does. It's like ironic humor. It's the duck and cover. It's a get under your desk if the bomb comes and everything will be fine. It's that type of humor. So the funny thing is, I do think Fallout 3 is one of the greatest games ever. You've said that, quote, when we started Fallout 3 in 2004, we obviously had big ideas of what we could do with it. And I talked to a lot of people from ex-developers to press folks to fans. What made it special? What are the key things you'd want out in a new one? The opinions, and I'll put this mildly, varied a lot. But they would all end the same, like a stern father pausing for effect, but do not screw it up. How do you not screw up a game? You have not screwed up many games yet. I mean, back to the Fallout one. Yeah. Yeah, that was, look, I remember that. We were met with a lot of skepticism in terms of, oh, what are they going to do with this? It was a beloved kind of isometric, turn-based role-playing game. You know, awesome for when it came out. And actually it was announced, we had finished Morrowind, but not announced Oblivion. But because we'd acquired the rights, we had to announce it. Because I think Interplay was a public company. I don't remember. I just remember we had to announce it and we're thinking there, well, we're going to piss off all the Elder Scrolls fans because we're announcing a Fallout game. We're probably going to piss off the hardcore Fallout fans because we didn't make the original and clearly we'll probably make a different kind of game. So I do remember, you know, there was a lot of concern with all of our fans and fans of Fallout at the time. And so I think it was pretty rewarding for us that that game found the audience and success that it did. It's one of my favorite projects that I've ever worked on. And because it was so fresh for us and we had a very clear, like, even before we had the rights, like, this is the game we're going to make. Like, this is the kind of thing we're going to do. And we had done Morrowind, then we were working on Oblivion. And it was kind of a breath of fresh air to do it. And what's kind of remarkable is Fallout 3 comes out just, you know, two and a half years after Oblivion. And we did all this DLC for Oblivion. So we were really, really kind of prolific in how our development, how it was going. So I just remember enjoying making that game so much because it was everything we were doing was new. Which as to the world creation, was there some innovation, like, technically that was happening? The world creation, like, it was, you know, obviously a different look, even though some of us, a very few of us had worked on the Terminator things. The VAT system, the skill system, and we loved the original game so much. So you felt this responsibility to bring it back in a big way and reintroduce it in a way that, you know, as much as we could scratch the same itch when you played the original game, that it had the same tone. Are there some favorite things to you about that world that just kind of connect you to the human? Fallout 3, I love, again, I usually start with the beginning. I love the beginning. I love the character generation. If you go, if you played it a lot or you're developing it, it starts to feel really long. But the first time you play it or second, I just think it's awesome. And this idea, it's a hard thing to say, okay, we want you to feel like your character on the screen. Even when you play like a Skyrim, you don't know what you were doing before that. But Fallout 3, you were born in the vault and you raised in the vault and you lived in the vault, but you experience a part of that. So it's a very different, when you step out, I think it really, I mean, the visuals are the visuals, but the emotional moment of stepping out of the vault, you feel like you lived your whole life in the vault. And you feel like you have a sense of your past. Right. And I need to find my father. Isn't it possible to have that sense with Elder Scrolls, like a life story, like childhood trauma and stuff? Back to the human. I mean, you'd have to like, look, you do some of that stuff, but they go through menus, you know, pick your background. We're doing that in Starfield. Hey, pick your background. What were you doing before this moment? Can you pick your traumas and stuff? Say, hey, if you want to make a mod, you want to make a mod. Yeah, thank you. You go for that. And then also make a mod for like a therapist. But a lot of it, you know, is in your head. So you're going to do that. You're going to pick this background, you do these things, and you're sort of like, this is who I was. Yeah. And we intentionally with Elder Scrolls kind of make it as much of a blank slate. You know, Elder Scrolls is a little bit more of a blank slate game to who you are, which has a lot of positives. And Fallout for us has been more of a, this was your life before. Here's who you were. Go be who you want to be, but this is the background. It's a little more strict. Now, this might reveal something about me. And speaking of childhood trauma, but I feel like there's a lot of the meaningful experience of a role-playing game is not just the development of the character throughout the game, but the initial character creation, like you said. Is there something to that process that you found to be powerful? Like the design of that process, because you think so much about that beginning. How much should be controlled? How much should be defined? The interface itself, the visual appearance of the character too. Because I feel like that you're loading in, you start to load in the world that you're about to enter by creating that character, right? Yeah, we think about it a lot. It's a really, really good comment and question. And it's more than, it has to set the whole stage. It has to like, pique your interest for the world you're going to enter. And we've done it so many different ways in terms of when you actually go to make your character, when you're making the choice. And one of the things over time that we've wanted to avoid is people starting over. So there's a lot of intentionality around the types of choices you have that can be undone or not undone. Because what game players want to is, I'll play it and then I'll make a new character. But sometimes they do that because they realize they made the wrong type of character. And as a designer, you don't want that to happen. So some people, and we get this comment, Elder Scrolls, like, oh, you simplified it. No, no, no, no, no. We move those choices into the gameplay so that you don't make this character in the beginning and then eight hours later realize you make a horrible mistake. And so, okay, I'm going to start out like that, to me is a really, really bad experience. Also like life itself, but yes, go ahead. But like life is, okay, so you can then... Fix it in game. Right. I wish I had learned archery. Well, I'm going to start tomorrow. So you can do that. Like the Skyrim character system, it was really designed around that. All you pick is like, what's your race? And that gives you some things, but there's nothing you can't get then on your own. It mostly, it sounds weird, but you mostly want that beginning character generation to be visual, which you then can also change in the game and some starting skills that get you off to the type of play that you want. But if you discover you don't like that type of play, as you play, you can move your character along. So we have moved away post, you know, Oblivion to a classless, meaning you don't have a strict character class, warrior, mage, thief, whatever, in our games. And that's continuing for the... Are you like, thinking of Elder Scrolls VI, you're already thinking about that kind of stuff? So you think of early on, like you said, the first few experiences in the game, you're already thinking through them. Yeah. Yeah. We know what the first few hours are like. We know what the character system is basically like. And so tonally, what's the difference to you between Oblivion, Skyrim, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and Elder Scrolls VI? Like, to me, man, stuff blends together. Yeah. But Oblivion, that's when you could make spells and stuff. You could. You could do it in Morrowind as well. Oblivion has some more guardrails on it. Morrowind's where you can really go. And Daggerfall. I don't remember if you can make spells in Arena. I think you can. Someone will correct me. You definitely can in Daggerfall, it gets crazy. Morrowind, you can somewhat. And then we start putting guardrails on it, because people started breaking the game in certain ways. Yeah. Why is it bad to break the game? Like, you always want it to be... Well, there's like one people love in Morrowind, where you could make these recall stones, and you could teleport to different areas, which is really neat in that game. It breaks so many quests. And so as we... any quests, we would do this exercise of designing a quest, and then someone would say, and then I recall away. Okay, the quest is broken. And then one day someone says, can we just get rid of that spell effect? Everyone's like, yes, please. And so it allowed us to make better content. So, a tangent upon a tangent upon a tangent. How do you create a compelling quest? Because there's all kinds of personalities of humans that play these games, right? Because I like the grind. Well, there's... look, there's multiple flavors of a compelling quest. You know, some of them have very good upfront storytelling. You just like the story and the NPC that's giving you this task. And you'll go through a more handcrafted experience that the designers have done a really, really good job on the space. It has some twist or surprise in the middle, and then the ending has some, you know, multiple options that the player feels like they had... they got to do something. They made an interesting choice. But the best ones for me are actually where all of that was far more open-ended. The how I am going to accomplish this task is completely up to me, and I'm going to find some ingenious solution. A silly... this would like... this sounds very basic. It's going to sound quite cliche and silly. It's like, go find me five daedric hearts or whatever. Like, find me X of something that's hard to get. It's a very simple... you can give a simple story setup for that. And we're not telling the player where to get those. And they think, now where could I get those? And I actually find those to be just as rewarding as the really handcrafted, well-done, little bit more linear with an interesting choice at the end. If those objects are in the world in some, you know, believable way, that there's usually some challenge at getting them. How do you place objects in a world in an interesting way? Because it's a big part... We have a level design... you cannot... people, oh, if they only knew how much we spend on... we have a clutter group, a group of people who clutter. Like, we... What's clutter? Clutter is all the stuff around. It's like interior decorators for treasure and stuff and trash. And they go through every space and they clutter it. Our level designers think about it a lot. These also become landmarks for the player when you're walking through a space and, oh, this is the place with this. And there is a logic to making a good level, as they say, with... even if you walk by, like, a little T intersection, that becomes, like, a decision point in the player's head. Like, oh, I didn't go down that way. But the more you do that, it looks easy on paper. But when you're playing a game, you actually kind of want to limit those because he's trying to keep track of all these decision points. Then they get lost. And, yes, we have maps. But anytime the player is going to check a map in a place like that, I feel that it's more of, like, a backstop for certain players. If we... if they need to check the map, I feel like we've kind of failed. Got it. So it's just... there's a momentum to it. It just pulls them in. And you know, you played a lot of games, you played a lot of levels where you're just like, I'm a little confused or I don't know. And you play other levels where, like, man, I just... I... yeah, it was great. I went through it. It was well balanced. I knew where I was going. And it's not... you don't want to ever be mazy. As long as you know where you're going, as long as you know you made those choices, then it feels fine. But as far as the treasure and all of the loot, it is really an art. We will not do enough clutter and then we will over clutter. And then there's too much stuff everywhere. And then we declutter every single game. I wish we got better at it. It would save us a lot of time. But you're constantly going by feel like this is not... this is too much. It's not enough. Right, right. Because the other thing is, look, it creates... people want to pick everything up. They want to click everything. So if you have too many things of importance in a room, it's like... it actually makes you feel a little tight as a player. You're like, well, I need... I'm basically an idiot if I don't pick all this stuff up. You probably felt this way. Yeah, for sure. And like, the moment where you decide that you're just like, I've clicked so many things in this room, I actually am going to leave that ammo canister there. But you feel like a dope. Yeah. You've probably experienced this. Yes. But also you have a joy from if there's not many items and you found the one and you got it. Right. And you feel good. I got it. And then it's finding like, oh, I stuck my head in this corner and I picked this lock and I opened this locker and oh, there was this thing I've been waiting for. Yeah. What about like rare and rare items? That's an art, even more so of an art. I will say we have a ways to go there in terms of finding the right drop rate for special items, we call them, and your epic rare legendary. You look at games, like so many games do it. And there are ones that you just play and love because they have it down. Destiny 2 is great at it. Diablo, a series I love, you know, sort of famously Diablo 3, which is a great game. Famously Diablo 3, which I think is great. And they did an update. It mostly just changed the loot drops. And it's like this whole new experience. And there's a really real art to it. I think that we're still learning. We're still learning a lot and we're trying to get better at it because it's one of those things where it drives you through the game. It's fun to get the treasure. Diablo and Skyrim have this interesting quality of being extremely popular. And there's a lore around rare items. So it changes the dynamic of like, you could afford to have really rare items. And then somebody finds it and that becomes like a thing. I mean, as you release a game, there's a lot of people play and they start sharing stories and so on. It's so interesting because that's part of the game experience is the stories of others, right? For us, 100%. Because we've been classically with most of our stuff, single player, that that water cooler shared experience, we would have a thing like, we call them did you know moments. Like we got to have a bunch. So you meet someone, they do, what are you doing? And then they say, did you know? If you go here and do this, what did you know? And that to us is where a lot of our community has been sharing their stories and here's what you can do. Has there ever been a temptation to create not a single player game that's gigantic? Well, we did Fallout 76. We have Elder Scrolls Online, not a game I created. But look, that started as more classic MMO. Know the folks, they're part of our company who made that game. And it's insanely, insanely popular. It is. Okay, so I should try it out. They do some great storytelling quests. Like the actual mechanics aren't the same as Skyrim, but the world is awesome. They've just done an incredible job. You know, it's about to be 10 years for that game as well. And this is, you know, great community around that. Yeah, I haven't played, because there's a mobile Fallout game, right? I need to play that. I was thinking of playing Diablo Mobile too. I mean, you can debate the monetization, but I would not. I think they did a phenomenal, it's really fun. On Fallout? No, Diablo. Oh, Diablo? Yeah, well, Fallout, I definitely recommend that one. Fallout Shelter, completely different game. Yeah. Diablo Immortal is, I was very, very impressed with that. I had a lot of fun. On the mobile? Yeah. What's the challenge of designing a game for mobile versus the PC and console? Well, obviously the screen size, right? Is that what you feel first? What's the fundamental change in the philosophy of design? Does it constrain, does it change the tone of the game? Well, we've done a few things, and we have a new mobile game that we're working on that we haven't announced yet that I'm in love with. There are a couple of things that you approach on mobile. Now, I can give you sort of the classic mobile gaming thing, and then what we do. A classic mobile gaming is really for short play sessions. Because for the amount of people you're going to get, the number that have the amount of time to sit there for a long time and play it, like a console game or a PC game, is lower because people are playing mobile games on the move or whatever. And how it onboards you, because obviously most of them are free. So the tutorial, how the tutorial works, how it gets you into the game, because you haven't bought it, you haven't done this investment of buying it and then saying, no, I'm going to learn it. People don't care. So really understanding how they get into the game. Those two things are really the magic to mobile gaming. We have found, though, with our games, particularly Fallout Shelter, people will sit there for an hour or two. They will just sit there and play it. Large numbers of people will play it for hours a day. So there is a more, I don't know, addicting element to mobile? Because I guess you can spend more time with it. And if you look at kids these days, they can stare at their phone for hours. That's all they do. That's where they watch everything. So it's also like a demographic thing. The younger audience, they would rather sit and stare at their phone than play it on a big screen. I would just love to sort of list out throughout human history, the evolution of sentences that began with, if you look at kids these days. It's true. It's true. The kids, the kids of the kids these days will probably be talking about, be doing like virtual reality. I love mobile games, though. I play a ton of them. My favorite game this year is Marvel Snap, this card game from the folks who did Hearthstone. You should really play it. Do you like card games? Do you like superheroes? No. It's genius. You don't like superheroes? No, I don't like superheroes. I never understood, listen, this is growing up in the Soviet Union. I don't understand the, all right, well, I don't understand, you're wearing a costume. It's silly to me. So you have to suspend, like, you have to be able to immerse yourself, and for some reason there's something about costumes. It doesn't get me. But then again, I'm like into elves and dragons, so I don't understand. And I'm fine. I think I get it. Yeah. But the rest, at least the American, the Western world disagrees with me. So even Batman, you have like little ears, but that's fine. Well, back to Elder Scrolls Starfield. So one thing I didn't ask you about, when you look at the timeline of five, six, seven, eight years, whatever it is to create a game, what's the role of the deadline internally, not publicly announced? Keeps you honest. Do you try to keep in your own brain a deadline, for the team a deadline? Yeah, all the time. And when you set that deadline early in the development, do you try to set deadline like that's really tough to reach? No, we try to make it like, hey, this is our best guess. If you make it tough to reach, it's sort of, you know, you're going to miss it. It's arbitrary. We really try to, you know, keep ourselves honest because it will let you know where you're at, right? When I first play, we want to be done with prototyping or design by this date. We want to have a first playable this date, we want to have this. But look, you know, things happen. Pandemic happens, people go home, it throws everything off. Or, you know, what you needed to do, because we're not just like making a game and then moving everybody on, you know, what you needed to do, like Skyrim was so popular, we kept people on that game for longer. So it delayed a little bit. We were doing a Fallout 4 at the time because we can't, you know, hey, we really shouldn't move the people on the Fallout yet because we're doing these things in Skyrim and we should. So it just sort of keeps you honest for where you're at. Does it get super stressful as you get closer? You try to avoid announcing anything? Is there a temptation to announce? Well, I've done it all ways, right? I've announced, you know, Starfield, we're pretty, you know, loud with a release date that we then had to delay. So... Was that tough? Yeah. It was. It was. But it was the right thing to do. And... How do you know it's the right thing to do? Like, when you sat down and looked at it, like, this is not ready? It's not an exact science, but you can look at what needs to be done and the amount of time you have. And, you know, we've done it in the past where we can get it done. We believe we can. And so you're fighting that personal belief that you can get something done. But there's a lot of things that go into release date with marketing and publishing. And, you know, we've reached a point where, on Starfield, where it was pretty clear to us, even though you want to say you can get it done, that the risk involved with that to the fans, to the game, to the team, to the company, we're part of Xbox now, to everybody, was, we should really move it and give it the time it needs. So you mentioned part of Xbox. Microsoft bought Bethesda and ZeniMax for $7.5 billion. Well, what's it like joining the Xbox team? You've, I think, written about it. What are the exciting aspects of that? You know, when your company goes through a change like that, no matter what it is, even if it's somebody that you've worked with for a long time, you never know what you're in for. You hope. And I had worked with them for, since we started doing console stuff with Morrowind, was, you know, they came to us, came to me and said, hey, you should make this game for the Xbox. And so when they were making that console, had a great experience with them. And then on the 360 with Oblivion. And so I guess the point is, we felt that we had a very good relationship with everybody there. And we understood what their culture was, but you never really know. And I mean this honestly, it's been awesome that the culture inside of Microsoft and Xbox that people see from the outside is the culture inside, the way they talk about players, the way they'll invest in the players, the risks they'll take, the thoughtfulness from Phil Spencer on down has been, you know, I feel really, really lucky. And then a game like Starfield where, look, we've had a lot of success with the games that you talked about, but we've never been kind of the platform seller, you know, the game for a platform for a period of time. And so, you know, there is a lot of pressure there. There's a lot of responsibility there to make sure we deliver for everybody. Is there a chance that Starfield is exclusive to Xbox? It is. It is exclusive. It's officially ready. Yes. So you're... I get it. So extra pressure, also creating a new world. Yeah, it's new, but keep in mind for us that exclusivity is not unique. Even though we've done PlayStation stuff, and I think the PlayStation 5 is just an insane machine. They've done a great job. We've had great success on PlayStation. We were traditionally a PC developers in the beginning. We transitioned to Xbox, became our lead platform. Like, Morrowind's basically exclusive to Xbox. Oblivion was exclusive to Xbox for a long period of time. Skyrim DLC was exclusive. So we've done a lot of, like, our initial stuff is all Xbox. So we get into development and saying we're focused on Xbox and it's not abnormal for us in any way. It's been kind of the norm. And from a development side, I, you know, I like the ability to focus. So our ability to focus and say, and have help from them, you know, the top engineers at Xbox to say, we are going to make this look incredible on the new systems is, like, from my standpoint, it's just awesome. What's the difference in creating the console versus the PC? I also have to admit, I've never... is this shameful? Actually, you should recommend to me. I've never played Skyrim or any of the games you've created on Xbox. Really? Yeah, and on console. I played, I managed to play very little. Yeah, sure. I mean, look, there's the obvious interface part between mouse and keyboard and then a controller. But when you're looking at hardware, PCs, it's tough, right? Because you're looking at, well, you know, what are their driver versions? What kind of monitor do they have? What is the actual refresh rate of X, Y, and Z? We're used to it. But if, you know, anyone will tell you, give me the hardware that I know I'm writing it for, you know this. And the Series X is just a incredible machine. And now... You know what it is. You know what it is. And now that we're part of Xbox, getting, you know, the people who built it to show you how to make it really, really dance is just awesome. Is there a case to be made? Do you get people that enjoy, people that do both PC and Xbox, that enjoy Xbox more? Like, if they have a choice, that they enjoy it? I think that depends on... And look, now that you can kind of cross, you can take your save and go between and all those things. You can? Yeah. It depends on if... For which games? So for Skyrim? If you have the Game Pass PC version of it versus Steam. Not via Steam right now. Got it. Got it. And so there's the Game Pass. So I'm like learning about this. So there's a Microsoft... So this is gonna be on Game Pass. And then you can... Yeah, if you can take it from PC through Game Pass... But I think it depends on like... For me, like, what's my physical mood? Do I want to lean back on a sofa? Exactly. Right? Like, the actual physicality of it is what determines where I want to play. Do I want to be two feet from a thing right now? And sometimes I like that. I am more of a console player, just because I sit at my PC at work all day. Like, I play a lot of video games. So when I get home, you know, I was like, I am a sofa screen controller person. Let me ask you a ridiculous question. So you've created some of the greatest games ever. I think there's... The question would be, what's the best game of all time? All right. All right. Just give me a second. Tetris? All right. Yeah, that's interesting. Have you read the book on Tetris? No. You should read it. Basically, someone who grew up in Russia. Yeah. I'm sure there's an interesting story. The fact that there's a book about Tetris is fascinating. Is there a book about Mario? I would love to find out more. But I think I would put, personally, I would put Skyrim... I'll take that. Good answer....at number one for me. Which is tough, however you put it, because you could also make the case out of the Elder Scrolls series. Like, what do you actually value more? If you put Tetris and Super Mario up there, then like, the credit goes to Morrowind, maybe, over Skyrim. I don't know where the biggest leaps are. But overall, I think it's Skyrim. But for you, if you're not allowed to pick any of the games you were involved with, what are some interesting candidates for you? There are just games that inspired the world, impacted the world, shook the world, in terms of what video games are able to do. Well, first, I'm just sort of like, hearing you say that you think Skyrim's the best game of all time is quite, like, thank you. And it's, you know, incredible thing to hear. And, you know, when I think about... I have a couple answers. There's ones that are, like, personal to me. Ultima VII is probably my... Yeah, can you talk about Ultima? Like, you said that as an inspiration. I never crossed that world. Well, it was... What kind of game is it? It's a role-playing game. You know, circa 1992, 93, 94. Ultima Online, first, you know, really visual online world in that way. But for me, that was a virtual fantasy world, where I had, you know, you could bake bread, you could pick all this stuff up. I mean, anyone who's played Ultimas and plays our stuff can see the kind of touchstones and callbacks to that, or inspirations. And the other thing that I loved about Ultima was, particularly the period... they were all different, right? That they iterated, and there weren't necessarily what I'll call a plus one sequel, outside of Ultima VII Part II, clearly a plus one sequel. But they each had their own tone. I love, like, the boxes. You know, it's something that we get into as well. I love this idea that a game also is this tangible thing. Oh, when you buy it with a... You know, the cardboard boxes, and the way they were designed, and Ultima VII is black, and Ultima VIII is the fiery gate, and the paintings on them, and I just, you know, if you look... Does that break your heart a little bit, that that culture is a bit gone? A little bit, a little bit. And that's also why I like, you know, this goes to video gaming or any other digital things, where digital ownership has great value to people. So I like looking at my collections of games, even digitally. I want to see nice, you know, in the same way you want to see nice album art, I want to see nice cover art for our games, and we spend a lot of time in them. So that, you know, take a look at Elder Scrolls, and Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. We want those boxes to look good next to each other. Going back to the video games, you know, I always mention Tetris, because I think it's, you know, obviously I love virtual worlds and those kind of things, but for the time, and what an interactive, like, video game, sort of the simplest form, I sort of think you can put Tetris in front of just about anybody, and they'll enjoy it. And it's got some moment of challenge, and it's just so elegant. It's like, to me, this very pure game that only works because it's a video game. And I think mobile games figured out some of the magic of Tetris, the simple... Some of them have, yeah. And, but Tetris did it a long, long time ago. Right. You can really create that immersive experience without... But for me, you know, the ultimate civilization, as far as, you know, a grand strategy game. Pac-Man, I mentioned, in terms of bringing games into the mainstream in a way that captured people that nothing before it had. Super Mario, Donkey Kong, everything. Nintendo, probably the best game makers in the world still. They know who they are, they know what they want to do, always in awe of what they create. I gotta ask you about a game I haven't played, but people put up there as one of the greats, Zelda Breath of the Wild. Have you gotten a chance to play it? A lot of it, yes, yes. It's fantastic. It's fantastic. What do you think about... I mean, it's a very different experience. I've played other Zeldas than the open worlds you've created, but it is also an open world. It is. It's my favorite Zelda, because I obviously like open world stuff. And the one thing that they do really, really well is they don't constrain you. Some people, you know, even some of the things we do constrain you a little bit more. Zelda says, here's the whole thing. And you are constrained by the actual player abilities you haven't earned yet, not some arbitrary barriers. And so I think they just did a phenomenal job. It's a magical game. It really feels open. It's because it truly is, yes. What about... I mean, I just like asking about some open world. A very different one is the world of either Grand Theft Auto or Red Dead Redemption. Both love. I would put GTA 3, Grand Theft Auto 3 up there with the landmark, kind of usher in the open world. When that comes out on the PlayStation 2, even though there was GTA 1 and 2, this was an all new thing with the mobster storytelling. The first 3D version, I guess. It was. Then Vice City is kind of a fast follow, which could be my favorite one. I loved all the Grand Theft Autos. I think they're really phenomenally well-made games. Same with Red Dead. I think Red Dead Redemption 1 could be my favorite story. Like, highly recommend finishing that game. So you like both the story. You like the grittiness of that. Because they have a bit of the, like, I guess if you like the fallout, there's the humor. I don't know what it is. It's the lighthearted humor of it, but also the brutality of human nature is in there, too. But it's like... And also some of the fun they create with the music when you drive and stuff like that. They create a world. There's a tone. They do. There's a very strong tone. There is a very strong tone. You know, the satire on the world is just so well done. The satire is a good movie. The gameplay is great. I think they've just done a phenomenal job. Is there any others that pop to mind? Portal. Portal. Yeah. That's another weird creation. I could just sit here and list games forever. Well, I'm enjoying this. Hearthstone's a game I love. I love all types. Like sports. College football. NCAA football was my favorite. It's like, I would say this is a great role play game. Oh, you would actually keep getting role... It's a role playing game, because I have all these characters. I have, like, you know, 60 characters, and they're all leveling up, and then I have to play them. And then the college ones, I like college football. They graduate, so you lose your players, and then they stop making the series, and I know the folks at EA, and they will say, I have bugged them. When is this going? They're doing it, so it's finally coming back. Nice. What would you say is the greatest sports game of all time? Hmm. Well, it's NCAA football. You have to pick the year. NCAA versus Madden? Oh, yeah. Yeah, but there's more teams. You get the college, you know, fight songs. There's more pageantry, and the players turn over. They're only there for four seasons, so you have to... So, you know, it's more dynamic. So you like variety versus... So what was the last one? 2014, maybe it was? And you don't like FIFA and... I like... look, FIFA's incredible. Just, look, I'm a college football fan. They give you that fantasy. If you like European football slash soccer, FIFA's incredible. Yeah, I love that game, too. Have you been paying attention to the game design of that world, of those worlds? Yeah, and the thing people, I think, with those kind of games, it is really like... Or racing games. Forza, put up there. I love Forza. Play them all. When you have to recreate something that's real in the real world, say it's cars or it's sports games, everybody knows how it should work. That's a really difficult task when people know how it should work. Then you're going to balance it for single player, the multiplayer parts of it, very, very competitive. And, you know, in many respects, you're forced to put out a new version every year. And I say forced in quotes because they're, you know, you count them as big updates. But it's a very... it's a much more difficult development process than I think people understand, and how hard those teams work. I know a lot of people who do it, and I think they just do... I've enjoyed them all. I buy Madden every year. Yeah, every single year. Yeah, they do refresh it. There's a feeling of freshness. I don't know what that is. Yeah, look, there have been years where it feels like less was done and more was done, but I enjoy it every year. Yeah, yeah. What does a perfectly productive day in the life of Todd Howard look like? So maybe not perfectly, but just like a perfectly average productive day. Yeah. What are you, a morning person, evening person? Is it chaos? Is it pretty regular schedule? I'm in a good flow right now. I'm still doing a lot of stuff. So there's things I'm, like, executive producing, and then, you know, Starfield I'm directing, so I sort of view that as that's an everyday thing. Fortunately, I get to do a lot of stuff from... look at the TV show we're making, and this Indiana Jones game that's being developed at Machine Games, we get to look at that. But, you know, the best, really, day or where I feel it's fulfilling is get to play some of a game, the game, we'll say Starfield, get to play some of Starfield, look at the problem set of what it is doing, and then get in a room with the other developers that I work closely with, and we solve that problem together. So that's the most rewarding thing, when you can say, okay, what do we want this to do? What's the real player experience we want? What are all the pieces in front of us? Where you know the actual tangible pieces, as opposed to... The beginning, the pie in the sky part is always fun, but it's like anything is possible, that's fun, but it's not rewarding in the same way, because you haven't solved something. Whereas these are the elements you have to play with. How do we make this all work together? And you come out of it at the end of the day like, now that feels great. So brainstorming about specific, big picture, both big picture and very specific detail of a game that's not working, something's not working, you want to fix it, that kind of stuff. Because you feel like, okay, you've made tangible progress on the actual build of the game, where something you played in the beginning of the day didn't feel great, you've figured out a solution with a group of people, like it's always with a group. And then the next day you're like, yeah, that worked out. Who's on the team? Is it designers, engineers? All the above. Artists, voice over folks? So internal to the studio, it's a lot of programming, a lot of art, you have design, which breaks into some quest design, writing, systems design, who are like doing all the treasure and the loot and the skill systems. And then level design is making the spaces like those that you'll play through. Production is a big part of it, the producers who organize everything. I can't remember if I mentioned art, a lot of artists. QA staff as well, they're hugely valuable in saying, hey, we broke your game in these magical ways, what are you going to do about it? Is the loot design team still hiring? How do I apply? That seems like the most fun job. Always. I mean, all of this seems like a super fun job. You know what? It's the best. Then you have audio, and by far is the greatest job you could possibly have. And so what? If you're into technology, it's great. If you're into storytelling, creativity, and art, it's great. And it's really the gaming, the combination of that. And like I mentioned to you offline, I think of video games, to me, has brought thousands of hours of happiness. And so when you're designing the game, whatever you're doing, you have a part to play in a thing that's going to bring like millions, hundreds of millions of hours of happiness to people. It's crazy, right? It is. And I'm going to play you saying that back to our team, because people forget. Your head's down, you're trying to solve these problems, and then you do forget how many people it touches. Yeah. Like even tiny decisions you make, tiny little things you create. Yeah, it's weird. I wish there was a way to like... I would notice things in a video game, and it's like, huh, okay. It feels good, but you don't get that signal. The creator doesn't get that signal. I wish they did. I guess you could get that signal by, you know, why is Lex stuck in this room, like, digging through the loot? We do now get a lot of good data on what the players are doing. Enjoying and not that kind of... Well, we know where they've been and where they've died, and how long they play in certain sections. And we can sort of tell, outside of people just telling us on forums or calling or other things, we can tell for some data where people are dropping off or having a, you know, we can tell if there's a key frustration point. Do you ever think about making people feel like human feelings when they play? Like designing, like make them feel fear or excitement, anger, longing, loneliness, stuff? All of the above. Yeah, of course. The big one, I like to say, is the video games give you is pride outside of other, you know, if you watch movies or things like that, like, yeah, but you never think like, look what I did. And that feeling of like, accomplishment and pride in what you did, or you overcame, you talked about going back to a game that like, those are real feelings of like, accomplishment that I've felt in games that I've played, and when we get to see a player feel that, it's really, really special. The other one is there is a, you know, there is an escape or to be someone else that's more powerful in our games that you aren't in real life that gives you a confidence or a perspective. We're doing one next week, we've done a number of make a wish visits, kids who could wish for anything, and they want to come and I want to see the next game and meet the creators and see how you do it. And they come with their family. And it is like the greatest thing that we do. And it reminds you of like, how important it is. And the other really awesome thing is that you can see like, the family change by the end of the day, like, they don't, they didn't even realize what it meant to their child, or what went into it. And it's just, that to me is like, been involved with that foundation for a number of years, and it's been really good, you know, reminder of how lucky we are. And in general, for young people, that sense of accomplishment is hard to find. I mean... Yeah, where they don't, not everybody has it in the outlets that real life provides. Well, that's the thing. I mean, the world is cruel to when you're young. Nobody takes you seriously. You don't get like, that's why you, everybody always wants to grow up and get old as quickly as possible. It's the hardest, it's hard. And then video games allow you, I mean, to build that sense of confidence, a sense of pride and something. That's why when people talk down to video games, like it's a culture and so on, it's not, it misses out on that really deeply meaningful thing. Especially with like, single player, there's some darker aspects to multiplayer that people create communities and, you know, it can go off the rails a bit, but the actual experience of the game, especially one where you stick with for a while, that's really beautiful. Do you have advice for those same young folks? Given that your life is an interesting one, given what kind of degree you got and being a legendary game designer, do you have advice for young folks in high school, maybe college, how to have a career or a life they can be proud of? Well, you have to find something that you love so much that it's never going to feel like a job. And don't do it for money, don't do it for, find something you love and the rest of it will come. It won't be a straight path. And do not ever underestimate yourself. It's going to take hard work, but the worst thing that young people do is think they can't accomplish something or they underestimate themselves. And maybe those first few times through where they do fail, if they love it enough, they're going to be resilient and push past that. Anyone who's had success or gotten somewhere, it's been, they've had those times, right? And they've stayed resilient because they love it so much that this is what they want to do. When you do it for other reasons, I just don't think it's going to work out the same. Did you have low points in your life, dark points, or your mind went to a dark place, whether it's struggling to get a job at Bethesda Softworks or maybe with a Red Guard flop or where you kind of started to doubt yourself or any of that? Well, I think what's weird looking back, I was always so in love with doing this that I didn't view them as dark per se. Looking back, I was like, oh, that was, I just wanted to, okay, let me find a way to make this work. Even when it's hard and it's failing and all that kind of stuff, you just kind of like, it's a problem before you to solve. Yeah, you know, when I started at Bethesda, I don't know, my father had moved nearby to the office. I was moving and, you know, I slept on a sofa, like, I didn't care. Like, I don't need a bedroom, I'll just, I'll sleep on the sofa and work there, that's all I want to do. When the company almost went out of business, it was, well, I hope it doesn't. I feel somewhat responsible, but hey, let's, okay, that's a learning lesson, let's go. I think I was pretty resilient to it all. Fallout 76, like, really bad launch and okay, what did we do wrong? What can we learn? Let's go at it. Now it's a success. But those kind of ups and downs for the length of developments that we have, you know, people don't see them, but we have them, you know, all the time. And so it's that sort of belief that, you know, with the team having done it time and time again to know that now we're gonna make it as good as we possibly can. And whatever we're experiencing now, when we solve it and we get it out and, you know, we see the millions of people who love it, it's all worth it. And you're getting into new spaces, first of all, new worlds with Starfield, but also new, I saw the TV show you're working on, on Fallout with Amazon. What's that like? Worlds that you created in the digital realm becoming, going on the screen? Yeah, people asked, you know, I can remember 10 years ago after Fallout 3 was a hit, you know, the movie producers coming and, hey, we think this would make a great movie, and taking a lot of meetings. And I think, you know, most people would jump at that, like, sweet. And I sort of paused and like, I don't know, what is this gonna do? I felt like they're gonna like synthesize, I met great people, like well-known creatives, like, it's gonna get synthesized into this two-hour, I don't know, I'm not seeing the great thing here yet. So, you know, I think the advent of television in terms of what it's become, you know, nowadays with big budget TV series, it kind of came up again and met with people, and Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy who do Westworld, and I always love the work he did writing Interstellar and the dark, like, movies I just love. With Jonathan Nolan's involved with this? Yeah, he's the EP and he's directed the first... That's epic. Westworld's incredible. Okay, this is awesome. And he's the EP, he's directed the first few episodes, and when I connected with him, Jonah was like, hey, you know, you're the person I want to do this. So, I met with people, kept saying, like, you know, just let me see if he wants to do it. And to my joy, he was like, oh, yeah, Fallout 3 is one of my... Yeah, sign me up. I was like, no, how do we get this done? And at that time, he was sort of, he was at HBO, and it was, you know, we were trying to figure out... put a little pause on it, and, you know, got to visit the sets, reading scripts and things like that. It's all new to me, but they're doing such an incredible job. Like, I think if you like this world, you are going to be just blown away. Some of the show... I've never made a TV show, you know, those are all the best, you know, no one ever does it, wanting it to not be great, but they've just done their attention to detail, and obsessive, they're just obsessive with what's on the screen, and the storytelling, and how it looks, the whole thing. Yeah, I think obsession is really a prerequisite for greatness. What they did, HBO did with Chernobyl, like, the attention to detail is just incredible. And he's doing The Last of Us now, that showrunner. If you really care, and you really put a lot of effort into the details, you can grace it with the truest spectacle. I was stunned. They, I mean, I don't want to spoil it, but when people see it, I think they'll just be like, wow. The other thing we're approaching it, it's very different where when it was, people would say, want to make a movie, they wanted to, you know, tell the story of Fallout 3, or then tell the story of Fallout 4. And for this, it was, hey, let's do something that exists in the world of Fallout. It's not retelling a game story. It's basically, you know, an area of the map, and like, let's tell a story here that fits in the world that we have built. Doesn't, you know, break any of the rules, can reference things in the games, but isn't a retelling of the games that exist in the same world, but is its own unique thing. So it adds to it, while also people who don't, haven't played the games, who can't experience, like, how crazy cool Fallout is, can watch the series. And so. Are there some similarities or interesting differences between the creation of a game and a TV show that you noticed from the sort of story perspective? Well, for them, you know, it's much more character driven. Like, you can do all these things with the world and stuff that we already have. It's the main characters, who they are, what their motivations are, that really is the engine. Right, there's no... Finding the right actors to do those, yeah. Because you're not, there's no interaction, there's no, you don't get to enter that world, they have to do the work for you. The NPCs are on the show. Yeah, I can't wait to see how it turns out. You also mentioned Indiana Jones. That's a weird, that's a different one. How do you work with a famous protagonist? Like, when the character's known, how do you work with that? Well, it's different, it's different. Like, Indiana Jones is different where, like, the name, it is the, like, it's Indiana Jones, not a world, it's him. Right, you can talk about the world of Indiana Jones, but at the end of the day, it's about this character. And Raiders, still my favorite movie of all time, no debate, it's the best movie ever. Best movie ever. Ever. On a tangent, what do you love about it? Well, you know, I saw it, obviously, when I was younger, and I believed it. I believe this happened. And when they found the Ark, I literally, I could not believe that they found it. So, and I have found over my life, it's still really watchable every time. I enjoy it every single time. Love the character, love the story. The opening is the greatest movie opening ever. The opening is the greatest movie opening ever. And I just love everything, I love everything about it. What was the opening? Is this one that... What? It's the temple, and then the ball rolls and tries to crush him. Oh, that's the opening. That's the opening of Raiders, yeah, he steals the idol. I think you're deeply offended. I was like, what's the opening of Raiders? So, I've always wanted to, it's one of those things, like, what's on your bucket list? Like, I want to make an Indiana Jones game. And I had pitched Lucas, I met some people there and pitched them back in 09, this Indiana Jones game concept. And they wanted to publish, kind of the deal fell apart. They wanted to publish it, and we were a publisher, and so we didn't do it. And I didn't really have the team to do it. I just was going to figure that out after we agreed to a deal. And well, you know, we made Skyrim, so it worked out. And then, you know, fast forward 10 years plus, and, you know, Lucas, now part of Disney, and they're doing a lot more of licensing and working with people. And so, I knew some folks there and said, oh, I have this idea that I pitched a long time ago. And they loved it. And again, the internal team that I had, not only didn't have the time, they probably weren't as good a fit as Machine Games, who's done the Wolfenstein series, who is the perfect fit for this game with storytelling and how they record it. And they are, it's awesome. They're just doing an incredible job with that game. People are going to be, if you like Indiana Jones, it is a definite love letter to Indiana Jones and everything with it. Can you say if it's more on the action adventure side, like the actual experience of the game? I could go back. I would just say it is a mashup. It is a unique, it isn't one thing intentionally. So, it does a lot of different things that, you know, we've, myself and Jörg and the folks at Machine Games have wanted to do in a game. So, it's a unique thing. And before I forget, who do I, how many humans do I have to kill, I mean dragons do I have to kill to get myself somehow into Elder Scrolls 6? It's a mod. If anyone wants to create mods of me, and is that possible? Yeah, it's possible. While maintaining realism somehow. You don't want a person in a suit and tie. It doesn't make sense. You put you in Fallout, you can wear that. Yeah, yeah. Please put me, so, Fallout, there's also a culture of- You do a mod where you replace the mysterious stranger. There you go. That's a to-do task. I'll do top mod, right there. And you will have my deep gratitude and more, dear stranger, for doing so. What's the programming language for mods? Is it mostly- They use our internal scripting language that's built into the tool. Okay, I'm almost afraid to explore that world, because you will never, never, never turn back. How long, you've created so many incredible games, is there, what does the future hold? Is there, sort of going through this process, do you still have the energy, the passion, the drive? I do. To keep creating? I cannot imagine doing anything else. I'd like to do it as long as possible. I will say, though, as I've done it, you know, soon it'll be 30 years at Bethesda, I've learned that to appreciate the developments a little bit more, you know, that the time it takes, I should prioritize all of us enjoying the development process more than I did in the past. It was like, you know, just wanted to, the end, that's all that mattered. Yeah. And the more you do it, you realize, no, I'm spending the majority of my life in Tamriel and the Wasteland and Fallout. So, you know, the moments that we're all doing this together, we need to enjoy it. Like, it's a lot of work finishing Starfield, but hey, we gotta enjoy this. This is, like, incredible. We don't get that many shots. So. So the actual process of creating the struggles along the way of stuff not working, like you said, at this point, Starfield probably creating some of the glue of how stuff feels and going back again and again and again to try to make the beginning better, all that kind of stuff. And I would say it for anybody's vocation, whatever you're doing, you know, whatever people do, you're going to have harder times. And sometimes people, you know, you have to, you know, maybe recalibrate yourself to like, okay, how can we make this more enjoyable for all of us, no matter what you're doing, and rewarding. So if life is a video game, which it most likely is, what do you think is the meaning of life? From having created so many games, or the character has to try to figure out, I mean, there's bigger questions than just solving the quest. You're asking the big questions of why am I here? I feel like that's good practice for answering the same question for this video game we're in. What do you think is the meaning of life, Todd Howard? That's very... That's a very... I can say what motivates me. That's a good start. Having a curiosity, you know, the ability to not assume a lot, and be curious about the world around you. It's more, you know, not the same as just wanting to learn everything, but what makes other humans tick, how do they feel, how do they love? It might be cliche to say the meaning of life is to love, right? So that curiosity is just, is about noticing the world. Noticing the world around you. You know, look, there's so much anecdotes. Someone says everybody has two lives, and the second one starts when you realize there's only one. And I think I usually preach to my children and everything else, like, have a curiosity to the world around you, and you'll have the most fulfilling days. Are you able to be inside the worlds that you've created and be able to notice them? Like, really enjoy them? It takes time. So Skyrim had its 10th anniversary, and so when I went back into it, I think I got to see it for what it is. My younger son got really into it a few years back on the Switch. That's what we noticed, people age up into it. Right? So one of the reasons it's so popular is, you know, people come into, you know, they're now becoming, you know, teenagers, and oh, okay, I'll finally play Skyrim. And, you know, he got obsessed with it. And he wasn't, usually I'd say, hey, check out my games. And he's like, ah, shut up, dad. We don't, we're playing this other stuff. And he got, like, obsessed with Skyrim. Like, we're having, like, deep Elder Scrolls lore conversations at dinner. And, you know, I saw it through his eyes, and that was pretty special. And then the mods he was downloading, the YouTubers he was following, talking about stuff. So the people who, like, the Elder Scrolls people don't realize how much of that I have watched with my son. And then I kind of, when the 10th anniversary came out, like, oh, I'm gonna check out a build. I have to check the build out, but I hadn't played it in so long. And it was like, it does, it has this flow. We're like, oh my god, I just played for four hours. I need to turn it off. Yeah, I mean, there's something about enjoying video games with the people you love, too, or the water cooler discussion, and with kids. So I actually, I would love to have kids, and hopefully soon in the future. So I guess the thing I need your advice on is, how do I time it in such a way when they're old enough, right at the age they're old enough, like, I want to know when to have them so that when they're old enough, that's exactly when Elder Scrolls VI comes out. Can you give me a hint when I should have kids? All right, never mind. You are a genius at how to ask that question. The number of times. Yeah, you told the anecdote that your son asked you the same question. But of course, it's all for good fun. Take as much time as is needed. Skyrim is still an incredible game, and has an impact on millions of people, as do all of your games. Thank you for everything you've done for the world. It's a huge honor that you would talk with me. This has been an honor. And, you know, it has to be said, look, I have a huge team of people I've worked with for, some of them for 20 years, and it's really all of us together. You keep doing a great job. Guys and gals, I can't wait to see what you create next. It really, really does have an impact on silly kids like me, and millions of silly kids like me. So, I really appreciate everything. Thank you. Thanks, Todd. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Todd Howard. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Tolkien. So come snow after fire, and even dragons have their end. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/H9AAnV59ddE

oJNvxYEcVAY

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Hikaru Nakamura: Chess, Magnus, Kasparov, and the Psychology of Greatness | Lex Fridman Podcast #330

You and Magnus played a private game, 40 games of Blitz in 2010 in Moscow at a hotel. This sounds and just feels legendary. But the reason that I probably should not have agreed to play this match and why I very oftentimes reference it as one of the biggest mistakes in terms of competitive chess that I made is specifically because it gave Magnus a chance to understand my style of chess. Are you and Magnus friends, enemies, frenemies? What's the status of the relationship? Yeah, I think with all the rivalries in chess, everybody tries to hype it up like everyone hates each other. But the thing is, at the end of the day, yes, we're very competitive. We want to beat each other, whether it's myself or Magnus or other top players. But we also realize that it's a very small world. Like a lot of us are able to make a living playing the game as professionals. And as I alluded to earlier, the top 20 to 30 players can make a living. So even though we're competitive against each other, we want to beat each other. There is a certain level of respect that we have and there is a sort of brotherhood, I would say. So all of us are, I would say, frenemies. The following is a conversation with Hikaru Nakamura, a chess super grandmaster. He's one of the greatest chess players in the world, including currently being ranked world number one in Blitz chess. He's also one of the most popular chess streamers on Twitch and YouTube, which you should definitely check out. His channel's name on both is GM Hikaru. This is the Lux Rhythm Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Hikaru Nakamura. You and Magnus played a private game, 40 games, of Blitz in 2010 in Moscow at a hotel. This sounds and just feels legendary. Final score was 24 and a half to 15 and a half for Magnus. Where did you find out the score? I'm actually curious. I don't think it was publicly said or it was very briefly said, but it wasn't ever, like, mentioned in a serious way. So I think it's a deep dive based on a few links that started at a subreddit, which is how all great journeys start. Yeah, so this is kind of a crazy story. There this was not preplanned at all. I remember this quite well. I went out to dinner that final night with someone who was actually very high up within the Internet chess club at that time. I went out for a nice dinner. I think I had like a couple of drinks. It was wine, beer. I don't know what it was. And I think towards the end of the dinner, somehow they got word of this and they relayed the information to me that Magnus wanted to play a private match. Now, I agreed to play this match. Probably I should not have. And actually, it's nothing to do with, like, the state of having been out, had a few drinks, anything of that nature. But the reason that I probably should not have agreed to play this match and why I very oftentimes reference it as one of the biggest mistakes in terms of competitive chess that I made is specifically because it gave Magnus a chance to understand my style of chess. And at the time, I actually had pretty good results against Magnus. I think maybe he was up one or two games, but there were many games where I had been pressing close to winning against him prior to that match. And so when I went and played that match, there were a few things that happened. First of all, Magnus really started to understand my style because we played all sorts of different openings. And so I think he understood that at times I wasn't so great in the opening. And there were many openings where I would play slightly dubious variations as opposed to the main lines. And then secondly, from my standpoint, the problem that I realized is since we were playing with an increment, there were many games where I was close to winning and he would defend end games amazingly well. He would defend what are technically drawn end games, but where I would have an extra pawn, it would be rook and bishop versus rook and knight. Say I have four pawns, he has three pawns, end games of this nature. Now, if you aren't super into chess, you might not understand what I'm referring to. If you are, you will. But there are end games where one side might have extra material, an extra pawn, say extra two pawns, but theoretically it's a draw. So it's perfectly- Can you give an example of the set of pieces? We're talking about five, six, seven pieces, like this kind of thing? Okay. A very basic one would be rook and four pawns against rook and three pawns. So that would be nine total pieces on the board, four pawns on one side, three pawns on the other side, but it's all on the same side of the board. Now, this is a technical draw. It's been known for probably, let's just say, 70 years roughly, give or take, that this is a theoretical draw. No matter the position of the pawns? It's just all the pawns are on one side of the board. But where they are? So it's like, let's just say there are four pawns right here. They're just four pawns. And black is three pawns. So your pawns are on H6, G6, and F6. And there are no other pawns on the board, something like this. And you both have rooks. And it's a draw. No matter what the next 50 moves of the game are, we know that it's a draw in endgame with perfect play. And so it was things like this where Magnus actually saved, I want to say, five or six of these. And I remember it quite well, because I think the score was very, very close up until probably the last 10 games of the match. And then at the end, he started winning. He started winning in spades. But there were a lot of situations where he was up like one game or maybe two games in the match. And I had some endgame like this. And I was not able to win the endgame. And so for me, after that match, it wasn't even so much that I lost the match or the margin I lost by, but it's the fact that I realized how hard it was to beat him, even once you got the advantage. And I think for Magnus, he learned that my weakness was openings. I remember because I actually, I don't remember the game itself. But there was a game we played in Sicilian Eidorf. And he played this variation with Bishop g5 on move number six. I'm sure you can you can insert a graphic later I can show you. And I think it is a type of opening. Sicilian is the opening night or for this variation, it was played by Bobby Fisher, the former world champion, Gary Kasparov as well. And so we played all sorts of different openings, because of course, it's not a serious, it's it's a serious match. But it's not serious where it's going to count for the ranking. So you're trying to fill out where your opponent is strong versus weak. And so there was one game, I remember this very clearly, he played the Bishop g5 variation in the night or, and I think I played e5 or I played Knight bd7 in e5, which is dubious, it's not the best response. And that's just one example where I was playing things that were a little bit dubious. And I was not playing the absolute main line with 20 moves of theory. So I was trying to get outside of theory. I think Magnus learned from that, that even though it appeared that I was very well prepared in in these openings, I wasn't quite at that level. Couldn't you have a different interpretation of you going outside of the main line, that you're willing to experiment, take risks that you're chaotic, and that's actually a strength, not a weakness, especially when you're sitting in a hotel room at late at night, this is past midnight. Playing chess, I mean, why do you interpret that that's your weakness? Because Magnus, going forward was able to figure out the lines where you have to be super precise, you cannot deviate at all. And I got punished out of the opening in many games. So it was like, it wasn't about the night or the opening or the variation specifically. But he knew what my repertoire was. And we'd pick lines where I had to play the absolute best lines in order to equalize, or I would be much worse. And he was very effective at doing that. But nevertheless, it's pretty legendary that the two of you, you're one of the best chess players in the world throughout the whole period still today. That you just sat down in a hotel room and played a ton of chess. What was that like? I mean, what's the, there's a, I think there's a, there's a little here, there is a little video of it. I mean, this is like epic, right? How did this video exist, by the way? I think there was one journalist, Macaulay Peterson, who was able to film parts of it. So it was in a room, it was me and Magnus, I think Henrik was there. I think Macaulay was there and that was it. People can go on YouTube and watch, it's on Chess Digital Strategies, Macaulay Peterson channel. For people just listening to this, there's a dimly lit room with a yellow light emerging out of the darkness of the two faces of Sengaro. I mean, and the deep focus here. And what time is this? This is must be- This is probably like one in the morning. This was, I believe the day of, day after the, this was the day that the final round occurred and the closing ceremony. So we're playing afterwards. I mean, are you able to appreciate the epicness of this? Many of my favorite memories are actually similar to this. Another memory that I really have, that I recall very fondly was after the US Championship. It was called the 2005 US Chess Championship was held at the end of 2004 in, I believe it was in La Jolla in San Diego. I won that event. And after that event, I was playing Blitz probably for like four or five hours in the lobby of the hotel. So it's the same kind of situation where you're just playing for the love of the game as opposed to anything else. Of course, nowadays, I think both for Magnus and myself, just playing in dimly lit room like this would almost certainly not happen. There would probably have to be certain stakes involved for us to play. But if you go back in time, these are the sorts of memories and moments that would happen all the time. So is there a part of you that doesn't regret that this happened? I think it comes back to my general philosophy. I feel like everything happens for a reason. And so because I have that, that's one of my core beliefs, I don't really look back on it as mistakes. I feel like everything has happened and things have transpired the way they have for a reason. If I look at it in terms of potentially like world championship aspirations, I think certainly it was a big mistake because from a competitive standpoint, Magnus figured out what my weaknesses were at the time and he exploited it for many, many years. In fact, I think if you look at the match I played against him in the Meltwater tournament at the, I think that was in June or no, it was later. It was like September of 2020. We played this epic match. It was the finals of the tour and it went all the way to the seventh match. Magnus won in Armageddon. And in that match, my openings were much better. I was able to match him in the openings. I was not worse out of the opening in most of the games and that made a huge difference. But for many years, he was able to exploit my openings. And I mean, that's why the score, I mean, it's not the only reason, but it's one of the reasons the score is so lopsided the way it is. Is there any of those games that you mentioned, seven games that are interesting to look at, to analyze, ideas that you remember that are interesting to you? I mean, the whole, it was actually, so to set it up, and this probably will come into play in terms of world championship format, it was seven matches of four games. So we played a four game match. And after four games, say I'm up two and a half, one and a half, I win match number one. Then, so it's like you have to win four matches of four games. Do you remember how you won? There were a couple of Berlin games in the sixth match, I believe in the seventh match as well, where Magnus actually made some mistakes. And I won some critical games. You're gonna have to explain some basics here. So Berlin is the type of opening, what's that? The Ruy Lopez or the Spanish opening. It actually existed all the way back in the 60s. But it really became popular in 2001, I believe it was when Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik played their world championship match. Kasparov had been the world champion for a very long time. I think it was close. I think it was about 15, 15 years, roughly, maybe a little bit more than that. And he lost the match because when Garry had the white pieces, Kasparov was not able to effectively get an advantage. A lot of those games were very quick draws. And in chess, you want to put pressure on your opponent when you have the white pieces. So Kasparov was not able to do anything with the white pieces and Kramnik was able to beat him when the colors were reversed. Kramnik won a game in the Grunfeld. He won a game in one of the Queens Gambit declined slash Nimzo variations as well. And that was the reason Garry Kasparov lost the world championship title was because of this variation. Can you teach me the Berlin opening? Absolutely. So the opening starts, let me just move this microphone up a little bit, starts with e4 and then it goes e5, knight f3, knight c6. Yeah, bishop b5 and now knight to f6. And at which point is this the standard, like this is the Berlin? Yeah, this is the Berlin. This is the starting position of the Berlin defense and white has many, many options here. Now it's interesting because I did work with Garry at a certain point and I remember I had access to his database and he had something like 220 files on the Berlin defense. Because what happened is Garry is somebody who the way that he learned chess, it's very much like there are certain openings that are okay, there are other openings that are not okay. And so this was considered dubious at the time. And so Garry basically decided to go into this endgame with castles, knight takes pawn. Why is the castling an endgame? So I'll show you, knight takes pawn. All these moves are very, very forced. You got pawn to d4. What does it mean they're very forced? That means like those are the optimal things that you should be doing? Exactly. These moves are, I think they're almost, at least for black, they're absolutely forced or else you end up in trouble. You said knight takes d4? Knight to d6. Oh, sorry. So this attacks the bishop on b5. Got it. White takes, black takes back with the pawn in front of the queen. Pawn takes pawn, knight to f5. And then it goes queen takes queen. What? King takes queen. Very aggressive. Yeah, so you get this position where we're in an endgame by the 10. You just ruined all the normal conventions, I guess. Right. On the other hand, for Kramnik, it was quite brilliant because Garry, what he was known for was opening preparation and getting the advantage. He was a very tactical, very aggressive player. And you're playing an endgame right from the start. Now, Garry basically thought that this was better for white and he tried to prove it. And he was unable to prove it, I think, up until maybe it was game 9 or game 11. Actually, maybe I have the order wrong because I think he was white in the even number games. Basically, he spent four or five games with white pieces trying to win this endgame. And he was not able to win. In fact, he didn't even come close to proving an advantage. So he kept wasting the white pieces in that match. And Kramnik basically took advantage when he had the white pieces and Garry the black pieces. He was able to win some games in very nice style. And that was the difference. So that's kind of brilliant. So he had this is a new problem presented in that match. And Garry's gut says... White is better. White is better. And so in white, I'm going to push with this position. And I'm going to not change anything from match to match. I'm going to try to find a way that this is better. So it's that kind of stubbornness. And what do you think about that? Like what that that's that's the way of chess, right? That's not a mistake. That's that's the way you should do it. If your gut says this position is better, you should capitalize, right? I think that's an old school way of thinking in chess because before computers, basically, it was up to humans. Your intuition, your calculation process really determined whether whether position is better. And so like if in Garry's time, if openings are dubious, they're dubious. It means somebody is better. But as we've learned with computers now, even small advantages, generally, that doesn't mean anything. And a position is defendable where you won't lose the game if you play optimal moves, even if the advantage is like half a pawn, for example, like 0.50. With optimal play, a computer will still prove that that position, you can hold it and not lose the game. And so for Garry, he learned it where like if an opening is not right, you like he knows it's not correct. He has to prove it. Now, finally, towards the end of the match, he tried to switch, but it was already way too late and he didn't have time to win with the white pieces. He did come close in one of the later games, but he spent the whole match trying to prove that this Berlin defense is not playable. So this position, the computer would say that black is better. It would say that white's very slightly better because black has moved the king. You're unable to cast the king and it's kind of open in the center of the board. Oh, so wait, so Stockfish or the engine would agree with Garry's intuition. Yes, but at the end of the day, when you go like five moves deeper in any number of the sequences, it's going to go to 0.00. Which means draw. Yes, correct. And that's a bad thing because white should be winning. Well, you want to put pressure on your opponent when you have the white pieces in any tournament, any match. Got it. So if the engine says 0.00, that means you're not doing a good job of playing white. Correct. You should be putting pressure. That doesn't mean you're going to win. There are going to be a lot of draws because the game of chess has drawish tendencies, but you want to try. Normally, the general approach these days because of computers is you try to put pressure on your opponent when you're white and when you're black, you try to be solid, make a draw. That's the general approach. Now, when Garry was actually at his peak, it was quite the opposite. Garry was trying to win games with the black pieces as well by playing openings like the Sicilian Night Orth. But with modern technology, and I did a podcast recently where I also spoke about this, computers are so good and players can memorize so many lines that nowadays trying to take risks with the black pieces, it almost always backfires. Or if you're very lucky, you might make the draw, but you never get the winning chances. So from a risk reward standpoint, you have to play almost perfectly just to make the draw, but you're never going to have any winning chances. Where in the old days, generally, you might lose the games, but you're going to have chances to win as well. But now it's very much one sided. So a lot of players try to be very solid. This is, by the way, the C squared podcast. Correct. Yes. Yeah, this is an amazing podcast. So shout out to those guys. I'm glad that they started a thing. This seems to be a good thing, and I hope they keep going with this good thing. That was a great interview that I did with you. In that podcast, I talked about the Sicilian Eidorf. Very aggressive opening. The problem is white is the one who has the choices. After the first five to six moves, white has the choices. What do you want to do? Can you show me that? Sure. So it's, for example, that would be E4. I'll just set it up. E4, C5. Now we get knight to F3, pawn to D6, pawn to D4, trade, knight to F6. Knight to F6. And now pawn to A6. So this is an Eidorf. Bobby Fischer really popularized it in his run up to becoming the world champion. Gary played it for probably the last 15 to 20 years of his career. So it's a very solid opening defense. What is, sorry to interrupt, what's interesting about this? So there's a, for people listening, on the white side, there's a couple of knights out. So black has many options. Black can play for B5 here to develop the bishop to B7. Because the pawn on A6 guards the pawn on B5. You can also play other setups, like potentially G6 and putting the bishop on G7. Okay, so bringing, doing different things and bringing out the... You can also push the pawn to E5 or push the pawn to E6. So there are many different setups and it's very, very flexible. But white is the one who has the choice here in terms of what to play. And there are many moves. There is this move that I mentioned before, bishop to G5, which Magnus played against me. There's also bishop to E3, bishop to C4. And now there are also moves like H3, H4, Rg1, even moves like A3 and A4. So there basically are nine or ten moves that white can play here. But the move that white plays sort of dictates the direction of the game. And you have to be extremely precise if you're black. So if white plays something like bishop G5, this is very sharp and aggressive. But you can also play something like bishop to E3, pawn to E5, and something like knight to F3 here. And it goes in a positional direction. So again, these are very advanced sort of setups. And what I'm explaining is not at a basic level. But white is the one who chooses the type of game. Is it very aggressive, very sharp, or both sides of chances? Is it something very positional, where if you're black, you're probably okay, but you have to play the best moves in order to equalize, or you can end up worse. Okay, so you're always responding as black in this situation. Correct. So how different are all those different variations? So like with the bishop, you said you bring out the bishop to this position, to this position, or to that position. Like how are those fundamentally different variations? Like I just wonder from an AI computational perspective, like a single step. Yeah, well, I'll make it even simpler here. If you put the knight here, it's very positional. If you put the knight on this square, it's very aggressive. Because normally white is going to push this pawn from F2 to either F3 or F4, and potentially a pawn to G4 later. So even here, based on where you go, it changes whether it's a positional game, or it's a very tactical game. Just those little, and that those are the choices you're constantly making. Am I going to be standard and basic and positional, or am I going to be aggressive and take risks? And I can actually give you another example. So psychology plays a big role. And in the candidates tournament, which I played in June of this past year in Madrid, Spain, I actually, I had the white piece against Ali Reza Faruja, who is a rising junior originally from Iran, representing France. And I knew that he wanted very aggressive games. He doesn't normally play this silly neither. And he chose to play it in this one tournament. So I knew that he wanted these very sharp positions where he can lose, but he can also win. And so when I played him, I intentionally played this variation because I knew that he was going to be unhappy. He wanted these sharp, exciting games. And here I am playing something very boring, where if he plays it correctly, it's going to be a draw, but he's not going to be happy. And so he actually did something dubious because he wanted to create tension. He wanted to create chaos. So you knew by being boring, you would frustrate him and then he would make mistakes. Exactly. So that's the ultimate troll at the highest level of chess. You mentioned psychology and then taking us back to the Magnus, even in 2010, the Magnus games. Reddit said that you've spoken about losing to Magnus being a hit on your confidence. Is there some truth to that? Is there some aspect about that 2010 match that's not just about Magnus figuring stuff out, but just a hit on confidence? Like how important is confidence at that level when you're both young and like firing at all cylinders? Well, it's not just a problem with me. This is the problem everybody has when they play against Magnus. Because what happens is, is on a broader level, when you play against somebody, no matter who you're playing against, but when they're somehow able to save positions where they're much worse, almost in miraculous ways, the way that Magnus has done against everybody, he's done it against me, done it against Aronian many times, done it against Cranmc just about everybody. When someone's able to save games, it really starts to affect you because you don't know what to do. And the more and more times that happens, it starts adding up and it just affects you in a way that it's very, very hard to overcome. And I think every top player has that issue where if they've played against Magnus more than like five times, they've seen things happen in the game that don't happen against anybody else. And then psychologically, it becomes harder and harder to overcome it, which is why I think a lot of the junior players, they don't have this long history and it does affect them. As far as myself directly, certainly after that match, though, it was not the same playing against Magnus because I viewed him completely differently, too. After all those games where he was saving these end games, I started thinking like, this guy is superhuman. But you can't really have those thoughts when you're playing competitively. But in the back of your mind, it's always there. And I think every top player has that issue. Is there a way to overcome that? Because you have to. I don't know if I'll necessarily do better against Magnus going forward, but I felt that when I started playing against him more than just a game here or there in classical chess during the pandemic, I played in these online tournaments seemed like every month. I came very close. I beat him in one event. I think I lost in two others and then the tour final. But when I was playing against him more and more, he didn't feel superhuman. It felt like as I'm playing more and more and learning about his style that I was doing better. So I think for me, the weird thing is that I just wasn't playing against him that many games. But when I start playing against like 20, 30 games during the course of a year, I actually started feeling more confident. I feel like I can compete, whereas when I was only playing him like three or four times in classical chess in the previous couple of years, it was I wasn't doing great. And then you don't have you don't have those glimpses of you don't have those moments where you feel like you're going to be able to win against him. But when you start playing 20, 30 games and you get these opportunities, even if you don't convert, you feel like you have the chances when you play three or four games and there you might lose one, draw three. You never have those opportunities. And so you feel very negative about what's going on when you were able to beat him or not necessarily win the game, but when positionally something. What was the reason? Like, technically speaking, the matchup between the two of you, what like where were the holes that you were able to find? I mean, the answer, I think, is actually quite simple. I think it's all psychological, actually, more than anything else, because I didn't it didn't I didn't feel like I was doing anything differently, but I was also not making the mistakes that I was making before. So I think it was more psychological than on your part versus his part. It's very weird because when you when you think about chess, it's a mental game, you know, but we all are capable of beating Magnus, all of us, but we all have very, very bad scores against him. And I think people underestimate how much of a role that plays. And for me, when I played him in these online events in 2020 specifically, I felt like there was really nothing to lose, which also ties into everything else that happened during the pandemic as well. But I just felt like there was nothing to lose, and I felt like I was playing very freely, unlike before. Now, that's not to say that Magnus isn't a better player, that like somehow I expect to beat him, but I felt like I wasn't making the same mistakes that I was making in the previous years. If we dig into the psychological preparation, is there something to your mental preparation that you do that makes you successful? Like, what are the lessons over all these years that you learned? What works, what doesn't? Do you drink a bunch of whiskey the night before? Is there some small hacks or major ones about how you approach the game? It's really hard, sort of in a way, because I feel like I'm two different people. I was one person up until the pandemic as a professional chess player solely, where I earned all my income. Everything was derived from that. And from the pandemic on, I'm sort of a different person, because that is not where I'm making my income from. And so the whole psychological profile that I had before is completely different from now. There's this joke about the, I literally don't care phrase that I've used. And in a sense, what that means is not that I don't care. Obviously, I'm competitive. I want to do well. But if I lose a game or I don't do well in a tournament, it's not the end of the world in the same kind of way that I felt it was before, because that pressure of needing to always perform was very, very high. And so I think before the pandemic, what I would try to do more than anything is just not think about the previous game for the most part. Say I had a bad game, I'd go out for a walk that evening, just clear my mind. These sorts of things, now they aren't really hacks per se, but it's trying essentially to have short-term memory loss. So I literally don't care is not just a meme. It's a philosophy. In a sense, it's a way of being. I mean, it's basically that, yes, I do want to perform well. I'm going to give it my all. But if I lose a game, it's not the end of the world. That should be the title of your autobiography. And it should be like, I know you're probably mortal, but if you do happen to die, that should also be in your tombstone. Charles Bukowski has, don't try in his tombstone. Yes. Which I think emphasizes a similar concept, but slightly different, more in the artistic domain, which is, well, a lot of people have different interpretations of that statement. But I think it means don't take things too seriously. Yeah, I mean, I agree with that completely. I think that if you look at my career prior to the pandemic, I put huge amounts of pressure on myself because I really wanted to be as good as I could be, but it was the way I was earning a living. And one thing that's very difficult about chess is that only the top 20, maybe 30 players in the world make a living from the game. Now, you make a very good living. In no way am I diminishing chess, but the problem with it is it's not secure at all. So if you don't get invitations to the absolute top tournaments, which have prize funds from anywhere from maybe $100,000 up to potentially half a million dollars, if you don't get those invitations, it's very, very hard to earn a living. You can go from earning maybe $200,000, $300,000 a year to earning like $50,000. So it's very, very unstable. And I think for myself, I really put a lot of pressure on myself in a way that it affected me and not in a good way. So in part, it was also financial pressure. So like once you're able to make money elsewhere, it makes you more free to take risks to play the pure game of chess. Yeah, exactly. It took all that pressure off and I'm just trying to play as well as I can. And I don't really worry. If I lose a game, it's not the end-all be-all. And maybe that's just like psychological stuff that I should have tried to sort out before. I mean, I did at some period of time, like do certain things along those lines. But I just, yeah, I became free. And I think it definitely, it was not about the chess. And that's one of those things that's also very hard because when I look at myself and when I had these periods where it seemed like I played better, improved, one of these periods was in 2008 where I basically, I dropped out of college. I was about 2650 Elo. So I was roughly top 100 in the world. And for the first probably half part of 2008, I played very little, almost not all. I went up to Vancouver. I was living on my own for the first time and I was not studying that much. And then after that period, I started playing and I actually improved very quickly. And I broke 2700 shortly thereafter. So it had nothing to do with chess. When you moved to Vancouver and weren't doing much, what were you doing exactly? Oh, I was enjoying nature. I was going outside, hiking mountains, going and kayaking, all these things that I was not, that I had not done for many years. Beautiful. I'm glad I asked because I was imagining something else. I was imagining you in a dark room drinking and playing video games. No, not at all. Okay, cool. That's an interesting break. So dropping out of college and then taking a break and then giving everything to chess in terms of preparation and so on. Maybe actually, if we can rewind back to the beginning, you've said about yourself that you're not a naturally talented chess player. Your brother was, but that's really fascinating because what would you say was the reason you're able to break through and become one of the best chess players in the world, having been not a naturally talented chess player? Yeah, I think that this applies to actually chess or any number of sort of basic games, actually, for that matter, is that I'm not naturally talented, but if I don't get something, I try to figure out why don't I get it? What am I doing wrong? Over and over and over again. And I mean, there are many games like this. There's this funny game on the phone. I'll just use it as an example. There's a game called Geometry Dash. Now, I'm not world class or anything at it. It's just a silly, silly little game on the phone that you play. You just tap and it goes up and down. People will probably know what that is. But like I said, I played that for maybe like an hour or so. I just randomly placed for one hour and I was terrible at it and I kind of forgot about it for a week. And then I came back. I saw on my phone. I'm like, OK, what am I doing wrong? Why am I not good at this game? So I spent like probably like 100 hours over the following month just playing it nonstop over and over and over again to get better at it. And again, I'm not like world class or anything, but I'm pretty good at the game. And so with chess, it's the same thing. It's like when I started out, it's like, why am I not good? What am I doing wrong? And I basically refused to accept that I couldn't be good at the game. And so, you know, at the start, I actually I played for a couple of months. I did very poorly. And then my parents stopped me from playing for about six months. They just said, no, you're not playing your brother. Your brother's quite good. And my brother was one of the top ranked players in his age group in the United States. So you're not playing. Then after about six months, they relented and they let me play. And the first term of back, I actually it was four games. I was playing as other kids and I won the first three games. So it was really good. And I lost the form of checkmate in the fourth game, which is, of course, quite ironic. How did you? Yeah, I guess this is how old were you at this time? I would have been about eight years old, seven or eight. So an eight year old future top ranked chess player has. So it's great to know that somebody has lost to that checkmate. So it's possible to lose that checkmate. Yes, I remember that came quite well. Yeah, was it? I mean, at that time, did you know that that checkmate exists? Obviously, I mean, I think I probably knew it existed, but I didn't. I was just playing like it's a completely different world. And now if a kid goes on their computer, they can immediately figure out what are the basic checkmates, all these different things at the time that didn't really exist. You'd have to find it in a book. Yeah. So this is just a basic blunder. Yeah, exactly. Cool. Yeah. So it's like I came back. It was a very good start. And then I then I then I lose like this. But I stuck with it. I improved very, very quickly thereafter. And yeah, it was very straightforward. What was the secret to that fast improvement? So you said you said like this very first important step, which is saying like, what am I doing wrong? Like, I have to figure out what I'm doing wrong. But then you actually have to take the step for figuring out what you're doing wrong. Yeah, I think it was just I just I played as much as I could. Like, it wasn't like I was consciously thinking about as an eight year old. You're not really thinking about those sorts of things or the big picture. So I just basically kept playing as much as I could, whether it was online, whether it's against my brother, reading these chess books as much as I could. I just devoured as much information as you were studying chess books. You were I was I mean, I wasn't studying them cover to cover, though. It's like you just study certain diagrams, certain positions, openings and stuff like that. You're mostly tactics, actually. Openings were not other than top level chess openings were not a thing. Probably I want to say for players below maybe master level in a serious way until maybe like the early 2000s. So for people who don't know chess, what kind of tactical ideas are interesting and basic to understand that once you understand you, you take early leaps in improvement? Yeah, so it's things like forks, for example, where you attack two pieces at the same time, discovered attacks like checkmates and again, winning like a queen or other material. Those are probably two most important ones. Batteries or batteries and pens, things of that nature. How many how rich is the world of and by the way, discovered attacks are when you move a piece and you put a king in check to win like a rook, for example, or other material and forking pieces is when you're attacking two pieces. So obviously the other person can't move two pieces at a time. They're going to have to lose one of them. OK, so how big is the world, the universe of forks and discovered attacks like, you know, I myself know. So there's like knights attacking like what is what is there? There are forks, knight attacking like a queen and a rook, for example, upon attacking a queen and a rook or like a rook and a bishop. It's innumerable there. I mean, but I will say that I think that with chess, the more of these patterns you see, the quicker you catch them. And that's how you improve. I think the most is by learning these basic tactical themes at the beginner levels. Are you when you're discovering those patterns, are you looking at the chessboard or are you looking at some like higher dimensional representation of the relative position of the pieces? So basically something that's disjoint of the particular absolute position of the piece, but like you're seeing patterns like this kind of pattern elsewhere on the board. Like, are you thinking in patterns or in like absolute positions of the pieces? Both. I think that at the higher levels, you're always thinking about like you're thinking about the patterns on one side of the board specifically. But then also what happens is you play more and more. If you're a very strong player, you will be able to remember, say, pawn structures where the pawns are on certain squares from games that you've played like 15, 20 years ago, even potentially. So it's a mix. I think a lot of it is more subconscious than actively thinking about it and like figuring it out like that. The only thing for me that I definitely am doing very frequently when I play is trying to look at my pieces. Are they placed on the optimal squares? Are there better squares? And then once I get past that, like using the basic logic, I start to think about, OK, what pure calculations, like what are the moves that make a lot of sense and start calculating direct moves? But one of the most basic things that I think that I do that a lot of people actually should do that they don't do is looking at the piece placement, trying to figure out what pieces look like they're on good squares versus bad squares. So am I, for each piece, asking the question, am I in my happy place? Am I in my optimally happy place? I think that's very important. Like if we look at this position on the board right now, this is a good example. Who is not in their happy place on the board right now? I think both sides are actually pretty happy right now. But the thing is, if you're playing with a black piece, what is a move that sticks out to you to follow basic principles? Basic principles probably bring out the bishop. And then castle the king. And castle the king. Right, exactly. That's correct. And that's what you should do. That's the best way to play the position. Now, once you do that, though... By the way, I have a vibrating device inside me right now, so I knew that. Right. So my rating is 3,400, which is what I believe Stockfish is. No, it's higher. It's like 3,800, actually. Is it 3,800? I think it is. I'm using an earlier version of Stockfish. OK. Anyway, sorry. You were saying? So, like, that's very basic. But then, if you move the bishop out and you castle the king... Well, let's just say bishop e7. Play this. You castle. OK, so now you've done everything with the pieces on the king side. So what would be the next set of... What's the next way to try and develop the pieces? So everything here is pretty strong, except maybe this pawn? I don't know. OK, but think about the pieces. So by pieces, I mean everything except the pawns. Except the pawns. OK. Probably either bishop or knight on the other side. Yeah, and that is correct. You want to bring out the bishop and the knight. So let's say you go bishop e6. Bishop e6, yeah. Yeah. I'll castle. Now, you can move the knight to either square. It's somewhat irrelevant. But just move the knight. I'll just play knight to c6. What was your random move? Bring the bishop up. I just move my rook to the center. OK, got it. Oh, well, what's your unhappy place right now? OK, so let me move the queen. I'll move the queen. I'll move the queen. Unhappy place, OK, so let me move the queen to just follow some basic principles. OK, because I want to bring my rooks to the center of the board. Yes. So like in this position, you've pretty much developed all your pieces. There are only two pieces that you haven't brought into the game. The queen and the rook. And this you consider to be in the game because of... I wouldn't say it's in the game, but there isn't really a great square for that rook right now. But in this position, you would probably move your rook to c8. And then the middle game begins after that. Got it. So here... Because now you've gotten your piece to all the optimal squares, and now you have to look for a specific plan. But you have gotten these pieces developed out of the opening. And that's like a very basic thing that I think a lot of people don't think about is like, what are the optimal placements for the pieces? So you're constantly thinking about the pieces that are not in their optimal placement as you're doing all the other kind of tactics and stuff like that. But that's a basic thing that people can follow. Actually doing pure calculations, like look at moving five or ten moves in your head. That's not realistic. But trying to use basic logic to figure out what pieces look... what pieces are on squares that look correct is something anybody can do. What about looking at the other person's pieces and thinking about the optimal placement of them? Like if you see a bunch of pieces not in their optimal placement for the opponent, what does that tell you? I mean, that's a higher level concept, of course. Like I'm trying to give a beginner example. That is something that I do think about as well. I try to think about my opponent's pieces. Like that is basic logic. I think a lot of people these days at the upper levels of chess, they look at the game as something of pure calculation, and you lose that human element. You're trying to just calculate all these different sequences of moves, and you don't think about the basics. And it's something... It'll be interesting to see what happens with the next generation of kids who become very strong, because that is really how they approach the game. They learn with computers. Whereas like I learned with computers at a certain point, but I did not start off with computers from the get-go. So that human element still exists in my game. Actually, Magnus, I think, has said this too, where he did not use a computer, I think, until he was maybe like 11 years old, something around there. And so we have that human element to our game that I think the newer generation won't have. Now, it doesn't mean they aren't going to be better than us, but it's going to be a completely different approach. What do you mean by human elements? Just basic logic versus raw calculation. So it's like anybody now will use a computer from the time they start the game. And you use the computer, you look at the evaluations after the game to see how you're doing. But you don't really ever have those moments where you're just... It's you, or it's just you and your opponent. One thing that was great in the old days before computers simply became too strong is that you would actually do analysis with your opponent after the game. And that's very much this two humans analyzing a game. It's you and your opponent, two peers, and you come up with these human ideas. It's not automatically run back to your room, look with a computer, and, oh, I should have played this move, and it's just like winning the game. So that is kind of something that no longer exists in the game of chess, because as I said, there's no reason to analyze with your opponent after the game. Are there ideas that the engine tells you that you can't reverse engineer with logic, why that makes sense, and you start to just memorize it, that's good? Yes. So in the opening, for sure, there are certain positions where moves are playable. And I can even give you an example, actually, in this knight orf. We can just set the position up a few moves earlier. You have knight over on b8, bishop on c8, and just move the king back to the center, bishop back to f8, and pawn to e7. So the pawn in front of the king just pushes back two squares. So here's an example. There's a move here that nowadays humans will play, which is this move, pawn to h4. And this is a move that 20 years ago, if someone showed this move to Kasparov, he would just laugh at them, no matter who you were. He would basically say, you're an idiot. What is this move? Like, you're pushing a pawn on the edge of the board. It does nothing. And this is something that's playable. But even if you were to ask me or any other top grandmaster why it's playable or why it's a move that makes sense, we wouldn't be able to say why it makes sense. Because it doesn't. We just know that it's fine because the computer says it's fine. It's fine, or is it good? It's just fine. It can, it probably, like everything else, is equal with perfect play, but it definitely, if you're not careful with black, you can be worse, for sure. But if you ask me, I can't say why it's a good move. I can say, okay, maybe I'm going to expand on the king side. I'll push this pawn here and push the pawn forward. Maybe I can put the bishop on g5 and in some situations the pawn guard's a bishop. But I can't give like an actual good explanation for why it's a move that makes sense, because it doesn't make sense. It's fascinating that young people today, kids these days, would probably do that move much more nonchalantly. You'll see that a lot more because they know it's safe, at least. Right, because they know the computer says it's fine. But I grew up without computers, and so to me, it's you're pushing a pawn on the edge. It's the opening phase. You don't do things like this. It's just, it looks ridiculous. Now, of course, I have worked with computers long enough that I know, like, I'm not, I know that computers are, computers prove that everything is fine. But still, to me, it does feel wrong. Yeah. Well, I think as computers get better, they'll also get better at explaining, which they currently don't do, at basically being able to do, so first of all, simple language generation. So a set of chess moves to language conversion, explaining to us dumb humans of why this is an interesting tactical idea. They currently don't do that. You're supposed to figure that out yourself. Like, why, what's the deep wisdom in this particular pawn coming out in this kind of way? Let me ask you a ridiculous question. Do you think chess will ever get solved from the opening position to where we'll know the optimal, optimal level of play? I highly doubt it. Without major advances in quantum computing, I don't think it's realistic to expect chess to be hard solved. I just, I don't think that will happen. I don't think that will happen. But I don't know. It could happen 20, 30 years, maybe, but I think in the near future, it's not realistic. Well, then let's go up with a pod head follow-up question. Suppose it does get solved. What opening do you think will be the optimal? Well, everything will be a draw, for sure. After move one. For sure. After move one, yes. For sure. You're absolutely sure of that? Yes. That's, why are you so sure? I'm so sure because when you look at the computer games and you see these decisive results, it's because they play, the openings are set generally. They can't, they can't, for move one, they play set openings. Like you might play the knight or you might play the Berlin defense. Normally it's set openings as opposed to, as opposed to computers being able to do whatever they want. I just believe in general, in the openings that are symmetrical, like e4, e5, d4, d5, the computers will draw. And I think the optimal opening, I think e4, e5, knight f3, knight f6 is probably a guaranteed draw. If there is perfect, if we have perfect information and we know that chess is solved, e4, e5, knight f3, knight f6, the Russian or the Petrov defense, that will be the optimal strategy. See, so that's symmetrical play is going to lead to a draw. But what if you can constantly, as White, maintain asymmetry? Constantly keep the opponent off balance. So yes, e4, then you're always doing this symmetry. But what if chess inherently, there's something about the mathematics of the game that allows for like that thin line that you walk that maintains to the end game, the asymmetry constantly, that there's no move that can bring back the balance of the game. Yeah, I don't think that exists. I don't think it does. So basically I'm saying e4, e5, I think is a draw. I think d4, d5 is a draw. c4, c5, I think basically it's symmetry. That's all of it's a draw. I think that's why it's a draw. So it doesn't even matter. Like you're saying if it's solved, most openings will be a draw. Yes, I think e4, d4, c4, knight f3 for sure will be a draw. Other openings, I'm not sure about. But those first four possible starting moves, I think chess is a draw. Knight f3, what's the response to knight f3? Um, probably knight f6 again. Or to make it simple, if I play knight f3 on move one, black here can also play d5 on move one. And normally at some point, white's going to end up playing d4. So the order of... So it's probably going to lead back. Yeah, all roads kind of lead back there as well. There probably are other ways which, where there is play. But I think that's at the end of the day, the symmetry is, because symmetry is what's going to lead to like a forced equality or draw in a game of chess. So Demis Hassabis is the CEO of DeepMind. DeepMind helped create or created AlphaZero. He says that he's also a chess player and he's a fan of chess. And he says the reason, his hypothesis is that the reason chess is interesting as a game is the creative, quote unquote, tension between the bishop and the knight. So like there's so many different dynamics that are created by those two pieces. You think there's truth to that? I mean, some of that is just poetry, but is there truth to that? I think it's definitely true when you look at the imbalances that are not like crazy attacking positions. Like one thing that Bobby Fischer was really, really good at when he was the world champion is playing end games with a bishop versus a knight. Now, traditionally we think of the knight being better than the bishop even today in end games, but Fischer proved that there are a lot of end games where a bishop is better than a knight. So I do agree with that statement. It's like the imbalances between like bishops and knights in many positions, you never really know. Like there are many positions where a knight is better than a bishop or knight and bishop are better than two bishops. Or like it is all the imbal- generally it is the imbalances though between the bishops and the knights or combinations of the two pieces that lead to the most interesting positions. So I agree with that. Interesting positions. What about fun? Is there like aspects that you find fun within the game itself? Not all the stuff around it, but just the purity of the game. I think for me these days, when I see some of these moves that computers suggest after a game that I play and I just go, wow, that is the beauty for me. Because these are not moves that I would ever consider. And when I then see the move and then like I might make a couple of moves to try and understand why, that is the beauty to me. Is seeing all these things that just like 10 years ago I never would have even seen. Because computers weren't at the level they're at today. And so the depth and creativity of what they're saying, even if it's not like in our language, but in the evaluation, that's where I find a lot of beauty. Oh, that's fun. So like the computer is a source of creative fulfillment for you. Absolutely. I mean, I think also it's very humbling as well. Because like, you know, when you spend your whole life playing a game and you get pretty good, you think you're pretty good at it. Yeah. But even like, even for Magnus, I think when we look at it and you see like these things that we've spent 20, 30 years playing this game and it just, it doesn't click. And then you see it, it's just like, it really is beautiful. You're known for being a very aggressive player. What's your approach to being willing to take big risks at the chessboard? Well, I think that's another thing. I was a very aggressive player probably until I got to about this 2700 Elo. And then it kind of, my style changed a little bit. I think what it is is I like to play attacking chess. I love playing openings like the King's Indian, the Sicilian Eidorf as well, when I was a little bit younger. And it's just like, why not try to fight with both colors? Try to fight in every game and win if you can try as hard as you can. Now, one of the things is, as you get better and better, players are also better and better prepared. So you have diminished diminishing returns when you play these very aggressive openings like the King's Indian or even even the Dutch, which I played for a while. You can only it only takes you so far. And then at a point, people figure out what how to respond to those choices. So I still do play these openings. For example, I played a tournament in St. Louis about three weeks ago, and I played a great King's Indian game, which I won against Jeffrey Zhang, an American junior player. So I still do play it here and there. But when you start playing at every game, there's a point at which when you lose these games, you just can't. It becomes too much. And I spoke about this in the C-Squared podcast where I played the Eidorf. And then I played Fabiano Caruana, a very strong American player as well. And he just blew me off the board in like four straight games. I'm like, OK, enough, enough of this. I just can't I can't keep doing it. Because do you think he prepared for that opening then? Absolutely. Because you see what what have what has my opponent been playing recently? Where's their ideas? And so I'm going to prepare for those ideas that they've been playing with. Exactly. Yeah, that's that's what you do. And also, you have to be very self-critical because for Fabiano, the Eidorf was the one opening he did very poorly against. But he worked really hard and he came up with a lot of different ideas. And he solved that weakness. What's the role of you're also known of having a bit of an ego. What's the role of ego in chess? Is it helpful or does it get in the way? I think it's a mix. I think there's a fine line. I think you have to be very confident in order to get to the top. I know some players are very expressive, like myself, like Kasparov and others. There are other people like Anand who don't express it. But then there was a book that I think was released fairly recently where he basically said like he was really angry in his room. He was like banging walls or doing some of the chairs. I don't I don't remember the exact story, but like he was he was able to in public. He kept it very, like very buttoned up. But then in private, he wasn't. I think, you know, you have to you have to have that edge if you don't have that edge and you don't get upset when you lose games because you will lose games along the way, then it's impossible to get anywhere near the top. So I think every top player has that ego or extreme confidence that is necessary. If you don't have that, you'll never, I think, get to the top, probably in almost any field. Frankly, do you have to believe you're the best to have the capacity to be the best in the world? Yeah, I think you have to have that. I think for me, it wasn't really ever about thinking I'm the best in the world. It's about like going into that game, that game, whoever I'm playing, I believe that I can beat them or I know that I'm going to beat them or I'm better than them. That's for me, it was always about the that whenever I'm in that moment in the game, just knowing that that I can do that. I think that is also another thing that when you start playing more and more in these top tournaments, you kind of lose that sometimes because the positions have the same opening strategies. You end up with positions that are very drawish where you reach end games, things of this nature. And so it can also make you very jaded as well after you've been up there for quite a long time. Were there times you were an asshole to someone and you regret it at the chessboard or beyond? Yeah, so I think... Asking internet questions. Yeah, I mean, this is definitely true. I'm not going to pretend it isn't. When I was younger, I was very angry when I would lose games on the internet. Many of these stories are specifically from the internet, of course. And, you know, I think I look back on it. And of course, I wish that I had been able to like channel the anger differently. Basically, I think the simple gist of it is I would play blitz games online and I lost. I would get angry at my opponents instead of getting angry at myself, which, of course, it's silly because they're playing the game. They're trying to win. Like, why shouldn't they try to beat you? I think for me, like, I'm not happy about that. When I was a young teenager, getting so angry over these online games and insulting a lot of people along the way. But maybe that paved the way to your streaming career. I think for me, like, I feel like having that me against the world attitude, though, it really fueled me when I was younger, feeling like it was me against the world, everyone hating me or me hating the world. That was very important. I was able to channel that anger in a way that really helped me improve. So, like, do I regret it? On the one hand, yes. Of course, you don't. I think you don't want to be like that. On the other hand, where I've gotten as good as I am, if it was different, I'm not so sure. So, mix. Well, then I'll ask you to empathize with somebody else who currently has a me against the world attitude and is helping him, which is Hans Niemann. For several reasons, he has a me against the world kind of attitude. Well, let me ask. There's been a chess controversy about cheating and so on that you've covered. People should subscribe to your channel. You're hilarious, entertaining, brilliant, and it's just fun to learn from you. Do you think, as we stand now, Hans ever cheated in over-the-board chess, as things stand now at the beginning of October? Yeah, that's a very tough question for a couple of reasons. I think, first of all, when people refer to evidence in regards to whether Hans cheated over-the-board, there is not, and I don't think there ever will be, quote-unquote, hard evidence. The only thing that would ever constitute that is if he's caught in the act. Literally, he's caught using a phone with an earpiece, whatever it might be. That is the only way that there would ever be hard evidence. So, as it stands right now, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence. How much of it is legitimate or not remains to be seen. I know people have questioned the statistics. Some people think it's very convincing. Some people think it's complete nonsense. I think that right now, I'm very undecided, but I do feel that within the next three to six months, assuming Hans is able to play over-the-board in more tournaments, the stats will make it very clear, one way or the other, based on our results, whether it's legitimate or not. I think, for me, I would say that regardless of whether I believe he cheated or not, he is playing at probably at least 2,650, no matter what. Regardless of whether he's cheating or not, he's already at that level, which is very, very high. So, I think the stats will bear it out in the next probably, I said three to six months, probably I would say next six to 12 months, whether something happened, but I really don't know. Do you find compelling or interesting the kind of analysis where you compare the correlation between engines and humans to try to determine if cheating was done in part? So, initially, I thought that that was actually quite legitimate, but as I found out much more recently, anybody can basically upload this data. So, that whole theory, while it seemed very convincing at the time, it simply isn't any statistical evidence, in my opinion, now. But there are games from some of those tournaments that definitely, considering where his rating was, look very suspicious in 2020, I would say. Again, that's not the role of myself to decide or Chess.com, that's obviously going to be up to FIDE, whether they think that's compelling evidence or not. I think, for me, what I would say from an intuitive standpoint is that I've been in this world for a very, very long time. I've seen most of the juniors as they've risen through the ranks, Magnus and many others, and there's always been something about them that has stood out to me. That's been like a brilliant game they played against someone who's much higher rated. I've just seen it from all of those players. I never really saw that with Hans Niemann. So, it's very difficult for me to sort of, with my own two eyes, being in this chess world so long, see things a certain way. And then, like, something that's never happened before is happening. But at the end of the day, it is still possible. It is completely possible that Hans, something clicked at a certain age and he started improving, in spite of the fact that, you know, the statistics look weird in terms of his rating improvement. So, I don't know, I sort of, I think that in six to 12 months, I'll probably be able to say one way or the other with very certain confidence, like, you know, whether he should be there or not. Speaking of statistics, I should ask, I'm not sure about this, are you a data scientist? Right, that's a good one. No, of course I'm not. You know, but it's, that's the thing, you see all these stats are thrown out there and you try to understand what's being said. But it's also very scary because when you see these things that look very legitimate and then they're disproven, or people say, like, you're cherry picking, like, the dates and all these other things, it almost feels like you can come to any conclusion that you want to. Yeah. And that's why I think this is such a serious issue for the world of chess, because going forward, if we don't take it seriously now, I think at some point there is the potential for a much, much larger scandal. Do you agree that, like, what Magnus, I think, said, that it is an existential threat to chess, like, this is a very serious problem that's only going to get bigger? Because it's, you're basically, from a spectator perspective, from a competitor perspective, we're not sure that you can trust any of the results. Yeah, I think that's for sure true. When I think back to the last, like, five to ten years, there are plenty of top-level tournaments that I played in where there was no security at all. Yeah. You would just go into the auditorium and play your games and that was that. So I do think it's a big issue, I think it has been a big issue, but the reason it's only coming to light now is because it features a very strong junior player who's very close to the world's elite. There have been many cheating scandals before. There was this French player, Sebastian Feller, there was this player, Igor Rouses, from Latvia, there was this, I think it was from Belarus, or maybe I have that wrong, maybe it was Bulgaria, Borislav Ivanov as well. Those are three big cheating scandals, but they were not at the absolute top of the list of top-levels of chess, which I think is why it never became the huge news story that this is, or it wasn't viewed in the same kind of way, is why I think organizers were perhaps a little bit too lax in terms of security. So you said 2,650. Is it possible that Hans is in fact a kind of Bobby Fischer level of genius, and he's capable at times of genius at the chessboard? Oh, absolutely. 100%. That is absolutely possible. I think that's why I think for everybody in the situation, we want to see what happens in the next 6 to 12 months, because I think it will be very clear. Also, it's very interesting to me because there are other stats from that 72-page report that chess.com compiled, which in essence say certain other junior players basically have peaked, that they're not likely to improve further. So it's also going to be very interesting when you look at those, I think it was like 50 pages of graphs, because there are graphs that say some of the other junior players are done. So when we look forward in a year or two, if those players don't improve, it will also say something about their methods as well that they've used to compile this data. Yeah. I wonder what those junior players do if they look at that data. So there's a point where you should look at yourself practically. What is the actual empirical data over the past year of how much you have improved at a particular thing? I guess it's one thing to tell yourself that these are the ways I need to improve, but it's another to actually look at the data and face the reality of it. Right. I think also that could have a psychological effect. That is the other thing that makes the whole Han situation so tough, because if you think that he's cheated or you're unsure about what's going on, that is another psychological factor whenever you play against him. In his favor? Definitely in his favor. Because, for example, if I go online and play against a computer, let's just say I go play against Softfish tomorrow, I'm going to play a very certain type of opening strategy, try to keep the board closed and maybe hope to get lucky. Now, computers have gotten so good that generally even that doesn't, I don't even have a chance even with such strategies. But you play differently than you normally would. And so if you're playing a game against him and there's a move that looks really weird, it doesn't seem logical at all, that can also start to affect you where you immediately make a mistake or you start questioning yourself. You start thinking, well, what's going on here? Is there something, something unbecoming? Like you start worrying about what is happening. And so it definitely is. It is. It's a very tough situation. Do you agree with Magnus' decision to forfeit the match, his most recent match with Hans? Oh, tough question. I don't. In my heart of hearts, I feel like there had to be a better way to handle it than what Magnus did. On the other hand, sort of being in this world of top grandmasters, having heard these rumors for two years, I think that the fact that it was blown off and it wasn't treated seriously, I'm not sure if there was a better option. So in my heart of hearts, I feel like there had to be a better way to handle it. But in practicality, like in the practical world, I don't, I think he might have made the only decision where it became a big issue. Yeah. I mean, I guess I would have loved to see just where 100% it's certain that there's no cheating involved, that they play a bunch of games. Yeah, I think there was actually an article that was released today by Ken Rogoff, who is a grandmaster at Chess, where he wrote this article in the Boston Globe, and he essentially said that, like, have Hans and Magnus play a match and see what his score is, because statistically, if it's above a certain percentage, that means he's legitimate, because of course, you have security. If it's below, that might mean, that probably means that he's not at the level that he's at. So I don't know if that's a real way to settle it necessarily, because also for Magnus to ask him to play against someone who's cheated, I think for him, he just, he would never entertain the idea, because it's like, why am I going to play against someone who cheated? So, yeah, I don't know. It's very tough. And, you know, the one other thing I would say on the topic that's really important to note is, this sort of came from left field for most people who are in the general public or very casual chess players, but this is not something that wasn't known, wasn't even on the radar. I think this has not been said before, but there's one of these things where they talk about how Hans has, he's played better during a period of time when games were broadcast versus not broadcast. I actually heard this rumor two years ago during one of the terms he's playing specifically. So that is the thing, is that this has been out there for a very long time. And so it's hard, because you do believe that Magnus could have handled it better, but if it was two years of these rumors and nothing was done about it, I don't know. And for people who don't understand, when it's broadcast, it's easier to cheat, because you can have, it removes one of the challenges of cheating, which is the one-way communication from the board to the engine. Here, the engine can just watch the broadcast, and then all you have to do is send signals right back. I mean, that's really, I've woken up to this fact, actually programmed, so setting all the silly sex toys aside, I have a bunch of these devices. So like, this is the size of a coin, and it has a high-resolution vibration that you can send. You can just have this in your pocket. It's basically your smartphone has ability to vibrate, you can do programmatic communication through anything. Bluetooth is the easiest. So this made me wonder, wait a minute, how often does this happen? At every level of play. And you said this only became a huge concern at the highest level of play, but then how much cheating is going on at the middle level of play, especially when more money is involved. So in the game of poker, it really made me think the future will have devices like this much easier to, like you will engineer smaller and smaller and smaller devices that have on-board compute that like, this is the future. I mean, it makes me, I think probably with all kinds of cyber security, that means the defense will just have to get, start to get better. Even with chess, it seems like the security is very clumsy, just looking at the scanning of the recent tournament. One thing you'll see is that a lot of people are talking about whether Hans is a cheater or not. The one thing that almost nobody is doing is actually like trying to show how it can be done. Yeah. Everyone's basically avoiding that. I think the single biggest reason for that is simply because it can be done very easily at like a weekend tournament. You play a weekend tournament where the top prize is a hundred dollars and the players are maybe mass level. Somebody could already do this because even in St. Louis now where they have the security, my understanding is the non-linear junction device they bought costs about $11,000. And organizers, if you have a weekend tournament at the local club, you don't have $11,000 to spend on such a device. And so that is why a lot of people have been talking about it, but I think it is very, very serious. And that's why it is good even if, you know, aside from Hans even, it is a very important question or debate to be having at the present moment. Well, I think it's good to talk about it, right? To make it so that the defenses will really step up. I think you could do pretty cheap, like security pretty cheaply. But you have to take it seriously. Right, right. Of course. And again, we'll see what happens. I think that's going to end up being on FIDE more than anyone else to try and do that. I don't think asking the organizers to do it. I mean, I feel like FIDE, they are the governing body. It will be on them at the end of the day to figure it out. But it's going to be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of months. Will you play Hans if the opportunity arises? Well, right now, that's not in the near future for me. I think fortunately. Why not? Why not? Well, because there's maybe only one tournament that I'm playing in that he could be playing in potentially, and it's not even set to be happening at the end of the year. There might be like a World Blitz and Rapid Chess Championship. So I don't think I'm going to have to make that decision for at least six months. What about a challenge match? A challenge match, you're the most famous Super Grandmaster in terms of online. So it makes sense in terms of chess is going through a kind of like a serious controversy. It's not just like the drama or something like this. This is in part an existential threat to the game in terms of how the public perceives the game. So if the story that lingers from this is chess is full of cheaters, like you never know who is cheating or not, that's not good for the game. So it makes sense for a high profile person to go head to head. How do you think you'd do against Hans? I mean, I think I would probably beat him in Blitz and Rapid. Classical is a whole different question altogether. I think in Blitz and Rapid, I would. I mean, one thing actually that was very telling in both the report and also Hans' interview for all the other stuff that was said is the one thing he did say and seemed very adamant about was the fact that he had never cheated against me. Which so that was the one thing he did say that at least according to the report was truthful. So it's something possibly down the road to consider. But I do want to see what happens with everything else first with FIDE and their whatever they choose to do in regards to Hans and Magnus. And then see where see where the smoke stands. But I think also one other thing that is potentially very dangerous about the whole situation is that I'm not convinced that FIDE actually is the ultimate say in this, in that the top players, if they if they feel that he has cheated over the board, even if there's a report that says he has that Hans has not cheated, top players can still decide not to play him and sort of override whatever ultimate decision FIDE comes to. So that's also why it's very unclear, you know, this term that you have championship Hans qualified, he's playing the tournament. But beyond this, there are no terms where he's automatically qualified to. And so it also is on the top players to sort of have to reach some conclusion on their own separate of feeding. So to flip that, is there some part of you that regrets that the chess community and you included implied that Hans cheated early on, and I think without having evidence. And that kind of thing, as we learn now, can stick. Right. And it kind of divided the chess community in part, but like, I mean, I guess I do want to empathize from from your position. Can you empathize with Hans that his reputation is essentially in part or in whole destroyed at this point? Yes, I absolutely can. Again, I think it comes down to the specifics of how how it was handled. Now, as far as I go, I was covering the news, and this is what makes it so difficult for me versus, say, some of the other content creators is that I do, in a sense, have that inside knowledge. You know, again, this is probably this is also not really public knowledge. But when I went to St. Louis to play this rapid and blitz tournament before the Sinkfield Cup happened, where Magnus and Hans were playing, there were people who told me very specifically that they thought he was cheating other other players in the event. They even gave me like actual theories about like things in his shoes, things of this nature. Yeah. So I'm in a very awkward spot there as well, because I know why. I mean, I was like 99 percent sure why Magnus dropped out. It would have come out regardless, though it would have come out no matter what, because Magnus was not going to back down on a stance about Hans and others would have brought it up anyway. So it's it's very tough, I think, if you want to look for for blame, I think probably it would be on chess.com ultimately, because they were the ones who probably could have nipped all this in the bud at a much earlier stage and it wouldn't have gotten to where it got to because they could have released the online cheating. And that would have I think. Yeah, I think they could have released that. I think also they could have probably not let him play after it happened the second time as well, because it seems like it happened like I don't I think it was like at least like four or five different times. I haven't looked very, very closely at that, but it wasn't just an isolated incident. And so I think if there is blame for that, it's definitely on chess.com, which should stop people from thinking that like my that I'm in some way influenced by by. Yeah. Are you biased because are you supported in part by chess.com? Yes, I am. I am. So does that affect your bias? No, it doesn't. I'm actually quite independent of them. One thing that's that's interesting to note is that a lot of people are under the assumption that when I do like broadcasts of tournaments or things of this nature that chess.com is actively helping me. They are not helping me. I'm an independent contractor. And so my opinions are my own. And there are no lists given to me about like cheaters, anything of this nature that has always been completely separate. Do they have compromising video of you that forces you forces you to if you don't follow the main narrative that they will release that video publicly? No, they definitely don't. But yeah, I think I think when I look, look, look at it all, I feel like if there is if people are looking for someone to blame, I don't think it's actually Magnus at the end of the day. I think it is on chess.com very squarely for not handling handling it sooner. So you're OK with like Magnus being silent for long periods of time? Well, I don't know why Magnus is still silent, because my read of the situation was that there was some sort of NDA or there was some information that chess.com had that was they could not release. And so my read of it was Magnus was essentially saying the same thing chess.com said, where like, I can't say anything about it because of whatever or whatnot. But then chess.com releases what I perceive to be the stuff that they could not talk about anyway. And Magnus still isn't saying anything. So I don't really understand why Magnus has not said anything further. There could be legal implications of accusing somebody of cheating over the board. That could be like lawsuits that he just doesn't want the headaches. He just wants to focus on the game and have fun playing the game and not get bogged down into lawyers and all that kind of. Yeah, it's definitely possible. But Magnus could also take the other route and just say, well, he cheated online in 100 games like I'm not going to play against a cheater. That's very easy to say. That's factual. It's proven. And that doesn't have to go into the speculation of over the board. So I find it a little bit odd that Magnus hasn't said anything further. At the same time, it's also kind of peculiar because Magnus's reputation is also kind of in tatters in a sense, like a lot of people are not happy with him for what he's done. But still, he goes and plays this tournament in this European Club Cup tournament, and he's just gaining like 10 points as though nothing has happened. So I mean, I don't really know where Magnus's head is at because like if I was in that situation and everyone's coming after me for making such an accusation, I don't think there's any way I would be able to play chess anywhere near the level that Magnus is playing at. So the whole situation is, yeah, it's very strange. Yeah, I wonder where his mind is at that he's able to play at that level. Before I forget, let me ask you a technical question about cheating at your level, not your level, but at a very high Grandmaster level. How much information do you need? This is a technical question. It's like, so for me, in terms of Morse code and all those kinds of things, I would need the full information. So I would need probably, in order to make a move, just let's think about a very simple representation. I would need two squares. The first to designate which piece, and the second where the piece is moving. That's probably the easiest. So what's the smallest amount of information you need to help you? Basically, like a buzz in a critical position. And what would the buzz say? It basically would be something like one buzz means the position is great, and two buzzes means the position is completely equal, or there's nothing special in the position. Oh, just to know that it's great will tell you what? It will tell me that with my intuition. There are many times I play Blitz online, I'll say something along the lines of, I can feel like there's something here, like intuitively, I feel like there has to be a good move, or I'm probably winning. There's something there. But I don't know that. And most of the time, I'm actually right about it. Like, after the game, I look with the computer, usually it's like, oh, I should have played this move, and it would have given me a big advantage, or I would have outright won the game. So if I just know whether there's something there, that's good enough. That means it's worth it to calculate here. Yes, and I can follow that intuition probably to, because what normally is going to happen in such a situation is there probably are two moves or three moves max that you're going to consider in a really critical position. Like, if I feel like there's something there, there are two to three moves. So if I know something is there, I'll be able to figure it out if I know that the position is very good. Okay. One buzz for a good position. For the current position, not for the next position. I just need to know. I just need to know whether there's something really good, the position's really good, or it's just like an equal position, or it's just normal. That's all I need to know. The current position, not even future moves, just the current position. There is a lot of promise here. Yes. Okay. What about the reverse? Like, something's bad. So you're saying if I'm in trouble in a game and I'm in the same situation. So if I'm in trouble in a game, it's probably a little bit more. It's probably like, I would say, two to three times where I would need to know. The source of the trouble. Yeah, I would need to know. I would need to know, like, is there like one move that's good or there's more than one move, and how you extrapolate that. Well, wouldn't it be useful to know the information that you're now in a position where the other person could create a lot of trouble for you? So find that. Like, it's out there, find it. Like, if you look at Magnus' games, there are a lot of situations where the position is equal, but there's, or it's equal with one move, but only one move. If you don't find that one move, you're significantly worse. A lot of times that's the case. So like, if I can somehow know that there's like only one move where I'm OK, I could figure it out. Yeah. Yeah, so that's one move is significantly better than the rest. I mean, I could give you like a perfect example as I played a game in the Canada's tournament last round against Ding Liren from China. And there were many times where it was completely fine for me, but it started drifting. I started making some mistakes and I was worse. But there was one last moment where I think I had one move where I would have been able to draw the game quite easily and every other move I was significantly worse. And I did not find that move and I lost the game. But if I had known... It would have been nice to have a buzz right then. Yes, I would have known. Who do you think is the greatest player of all time? You've talked from different angles on this. Magnus Carlsen, Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, many others. Can you make the case for each? Can you make the case for you, Hikaru? No, I mean, I can't make the case for me, be serious. I know there are a lot of people who want that kind of like, me to give off some kind of ego like that, but no, obviously I'm nowhere near the conversation. I actually on that note, I would say also, I know people wanted to know if I'm the greatest player to never have played for the World Championship or to have not got not become World Champion. I don't think that I'm actually anywhere near the top of that conversation. I actually think Levon Aronian tops that conversation by a big margin simply because he was number two in the world for a very, very long time and he never even got to the match. So as far as World Champions and who's the GOAT, I think I think Magnus is the GOAT simply because he's playing the best chess by by a by a bigger margin. He has the highest Elo of all time. On the other hand, chess is a game where, you know, you build upon you build upon the giants of the past. We learn from them. And so you can definitely make the case for Garry as well. I mean, he's the number one player in the world for 20 plus years. Lot of opening strategies he came up with and our people still play them today. Bobby, I'm not so sure you can really make that case because he was he shot up really quickly, but he was the world champion for a very short window of time. And then he quit the game as soon as he became world champion. So I don't really feel like you can put Fisher in that in that conversation simply because he didn't have that longevity at all. He was he was up there for a couple of years. So I would say it's probably Magnus, but I understand people can also say Garry's Garry's the best player ever remains to be seen. But I think if Magnus is number one for probably another, let's say another three to four years, I don't think there's any debate at all. Can you break down what makes him so good? We've already talked about different angles of this, and I would also try to get the same from you because we talked about early Hikaru. Like I'd like to talk about that for the first Magnus. What makes Magnus so good? What are the various aspects of his game that make him so good? I think for Magnus, he just you know that in the end game, in the end games, if you get there, he's just he's not going to blunder. That's the first thing. So, you know, if you reach an end game, he's not going to make a mistake. He obviously plays great openings and there's just really no defined weakness that he has. There's no weakness that I can think of very specifically. Many there are many times where players actually outprepare him in the opening phase. But as soon as they're on their own and they have to think very oftentimes, they'll make mistakes. So there's just no weakness for Magnus. Really no weakness. Unlike say Kasparov, Kasparov on the other hand, there are very clear weaknesses in his game like Kramnik exploited them. First of all, very I don't want to say like ego is the right word, but like very stubborn believing that his openings were infallible, that he could just win. He could just prove an advantage and win the game out of the opening like against Kramnik when he ultimately lost. Also, generally not a great defender either. Very strong tactically. But if he was in positions that were defensive, he would make mistakes and lose in end games like he did in one of those games in the World Championship against Kramnik. So there were very clear defined weaknesses in Kasparov's game, whereas like Magnus, there are just there are no clearly defined weaknesses. Maybe maybe he doesn't like being attacked. Maybe that's the one thing he likes. King safety, he doesn't like being attacked, but that's not something that you can easily do. Whereas say if someone's very tactical and they're not a strong positionally, that is something you can that will happen quite frequently in games. You can steer games a certain way. Doesn't mean you always get there, but that is something tangible. Whereas King safety, that's not something tangible at all. It's very, very hard to attack someone based on unless they play certain style of openings. Do you think Garry Kasparov reflecting on your comment would agree, like what is it about his relationship with Kramnik that was so challenging? I mean, I think it's because Kramnik understood him. Actually, one thing that's funny speaking of Kasparov is that I think it got under his skin. Like when I worked with him, Kramnik actually played a certain style, very aggressive, very sort of risky opening play during the time when I was working with Garry. And I know that annoyed Garry because he's like, why can't Kramnik play like this against me? Because I think Garry felt if Kramnik did that against him, he would have just blown him off the board and had had many great victories. So I think it's Kramnik understood Garry. They had worked together, I think, during during the late 90s. I think Garry actually was very useful or very helpful in terms of Kramnik getting a spot on one of the Russian chess Olympiad teams in the mid 90s. So I think it's just Kramnik understood him very well. And Garry just could not, he just he couldn't figure it out. I think also another thing coming back to the psychological part is that Kramnik actually beat Kasparov in many games in the Kings Indian defense. Kasparov played the Kings Indian defense for many years and they started losing like four or five games in a row in it to Kramnik, very similar to what I mentioned about the Sicilian Eidorff and Fabiano. And Garry gave it up. He started switching to playing the Grunfeld defense. And so I think that also instilled some psychological fear as well because Garry was, he was the boss. In openings, no one could compare to him. What makes you so good? What's the breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of Fikaro Nakamura? So that's, I think probably my biggest strength is that I'm a universal player. I can play pretty much any opening strategy. It doesn't really matter. Beyond that, I think it's mainly that I don't really make many blunders. I don't make blunders unless I'm under a lot of pressure generally. So that, I mean, I know I'm oversimplifying. It's not as simple as that. Does this apply to Blitz as well? I think it's much more applicable to Blitz in particular because my intuition is very good. So when I'm making less blunders with limited time on the clock, my opponents actually make a lot more blunders. That's why I think it's much more pronounced in Blitz than it is in classical chess because in Blitz, when you're down to like 10 seconds in the game, both players have 10 seconds, my intuition is just better than theirs. I mean, Magnus maybe not so clear, but like if you look at other players, say Fabian and Caruana, very strong player, when he gets down to 10 seconds or in these situations, he almost always makes a blunder. Almost always. So I'm just more precise. I make less blunders and that really, the effect is much more dramatic in Blitz. What do you think that intuition is? Like, sorry for the kind of like almost philosophical question. What is that? Is that calculation or is it some kind of weird memory recall? What is that? Like being able to do that short line prediction? I think that's just playing so many games online and there's some kind of subconscious feel that I have because when you're that low on time, you can't calculate. It's just you have to look, you just have to figure out what's the move you want to play is, no calculation and just go with it. And I think just playing so many games probably, I mean, I'm guessing I've played over 300,000 games online and I think just playing all those games, it's a feel. There's no tangible way that I can't put that really into words. It's just a feel. What do you, and we should say that you're, I think currently the number one ranked Blitz player in the world. You have been for a while, you're unquestionably one of the great, so classical, rapid and Blitz, you're one of the best people for many years in the world. Okay. But you're currently number one in Blitz. So I'd love to kind of, for you to dig into the secret to your success in Blitz. Is it, as you're saying that intuition, being able to, when the time is short, to not make blunders and then to make a close to optimal move? I think it's generally that I'm able to keep the games going no matter what, until we're low on time. I'm always able to do that. Yeah. Like if we play a game with three minutes, like there are games that I will just win win very quickly, but a lot of games between top players, players have to think you have to use time. And in those final critical stages, I just don't blunder. I just don't blunder really at the end of the day. That's, that's really the only difference because everybody's very, very strong, but it's sort of like, who is the, who is the better like brain, who is better like CPU or for lack of a better way of putting it, it's like, who makes a split to split second decisions the best. And I do think that I'm extremely good at that in a way that almost nobody else is. That that really is the only difference is that the split second decisions, because you can get a worse position. But again, if you keep the game going, players have to use the time when you get down to those final 10, 15 seconds. I almost always end up winning in those situations. What are you visualizing? Like what in those, when you're doing the fast, fast calculations, what, what is it? Um, it's basically, you look at a move and you see like when it's like five seconds or 10 seconds, you play a moving, you just make sure that it's not a blunder. You just look, make sure it's not a blunder and you just go with it. And the first part, those, the field. So it's like, I see this move and it looks right. I don't know why it's right. I can't put that into words, but it looks like the right move. And then I look very for like a split second, see as long as it's not some kind of blunder and you just play that move. Is there a bit of a tunnel vision? Are you able to understand the positions of all the other pieces on the board? Or are you just focusing on a very specific interaction? It's just feel it's really just feel it's like this move feels right. And so I play it when you're, when you're at that stage of the game, it's, it's like, as long as it's not a blunder and it just, that is just that feel there's, there is no way for me to put that in that feel. Like empirically does result in low probability of blunder for you. Yeah. It's like, you don't blunder even though there could be like, you don't forget like a random piece that was like very, very, I mean, it does happen, of course, but very rarely. And I mean, I've done it on stream many times. Like, it's just, you go with the move that for whatever reason, like it just intuitively, whether it's from playing hundreds of thousands of games on the internet or just that, that experience, like it, you just intuitively can, can feel like the move is right. And so over those 300,000 games played over the board online, all kinds of variations. What's a game that stands out to you as particularly one you're proud of, or, or maybe what's the Hikaru Immortal game or a strong candidate for that? Yeah, so there are two games. There's a game that I won against Boris Gelfond in 2010, where I offered a queen sack, I think on five consecutive moves. Sack is sacrifice. Sacrifice the queen, yeah. Yes. So. Coming through with the lingo. Can you take me through that game? It's just there's one sequence in the late middle game where it's funny because I actually, I think I because I remember I tried to show this game to Peter, actually, Peter Till, and I confused the move order in the late middle game. So I don't want to do that again. 2010? Yeah, 2010. It was, yeah. What kind of opening is this? It's the King's Indian Defense. So the Knights are out. What's with the bringing the Knight back? You want to push them on. I have the black pieces and you want to push the pawn. Make room for the pawn. Yeah, normally the King's Indian you try to is sort of like storming with the pawns on the king side where the white king is. So you see now I push and I start pushing all my pawns forward. Are you happy with this position with all the pawns in diagonal like this with the Knights behind it? This looks. This is this is this is this nowadays this is very well known as a standard theory. But at the time, the reason that I was aware of this is because I had played a tournament, I think in Montreal. I think it was Montreal like the year the summer before and one of my friends had actually played this variation with the black pieces. So I was aware of it and it seemed very dangerous. But I. From the black perspective. Yeah, I feel like it's very hard for white to play. Yeah, very hard for white to play. It felt feels like you're getting attacked your King. You see the black pawns are coming down towards the King and it's very hard to defend. And also a lot of players don't like being attacked. Generally, you try to avoid positions where your King is under fire, which comes back to what I said about Magnus as well. Like he doesn't like it when his King is under fire. And so therefore you can't always get that. You see, white had to play along to get to this point as well. If white didn't want something this this double edged and this complicated, he could have avoided it. So is the is the black bishop also a threat? Are you like? Yes, the light square bishop in the King's Indian is vital to any attacking possibility. You're always like. You don't want to lose that bishop if you can help it. Got it. And so he's bringing out the Knights. Is there a particular moment that's interesting to you here? So keep going. Yeah, there's so I play Rook f7. This is all all standard. The Rooks come out. So I take, take. Now this is actually this is an exception to the rule. Normally the King's Indian, you don't want to break this pawn chain from the least of the four pawns in a row to connect four. Why'd you break it? Because this is an exception where you can do that. There almost are no variations in the King's Indian where you do that. You almost always retreat the bishop to guard the pawn, the bishop to f8. You break the pawn chain because it's an exception to the rule. Because you're not actually worried about the about white being able to push the pawn to d6 here. It was probably the best game I ever played. So it keeps going. a5, g4. Yep. Now, now the diagonal is there again. That that's that that looks threatening. Right. Like white basically is trying to guard the King. He's going to retreat this bishop from c5 to g1, as you'll see in a second. Actually, not quite yet. Yeah, he goes now he goes here. And so he's trying to guard his King with the bishop on g1. But I'm able to keep attacking here in the next. Is there any case to be made for you to take the pawn here? No, that would actually be a mistake. I mean, it's very high level, but it's a mistake because white will actually not recapture the pawn. And, and I, yeah, this is very high level. So also the pawn is the pawn. Like your pawn will be ends up in front of the King. Yeah, it stops white from being the white King from being attacked, basically. Oh, interesting. So your pawn is stopping the their King from being attacked. Cool. So, yeah, so the pressure continues from you. Right. And then I sack. Is that is that? Wait, wait, what's the sack? Oh, the knight takes pawn. Yeah. Is this what are the strengths and weaknesses of you throwing the knight? Well, basically, I'm going to this. I'm destroying the protection in front of the white King, the white pawns there. And willing to take risks. I basically want to open up the King and try to checkmate. If I don't checkmate, I'm probably going to lose the game here in the center of the board. So yeah, now there's some very nice moves after pawn takes pawn. I take this because now white takes the Queen. I push the pawn forward and it's checkmate. So give me a second. So your knight is taking, you're losing pieces left and right. Right. But you're pushing the pawn forward. Check. He takes the pawn. The rook, check. So just check, check non-stop. Yeah, now same thing though. I keep going for this checkmate with a pawn or a bishop on the square in front of the King. You see the Queen is still hanging. In fact, I actually sack the Queen again. He never took the Queen. He couldn't take the Queen because it would be checkmate. Got it. So constantly, and that's what you mean by sacrifice, he didn't actually. Yeah, he couldn't take it, he would have gotten checkmated. But anyway, the smoke clears and I'm up material here and I win this game. So this is the game that I would say is my favorite game. Why did it stand out? I mean, it's beautiful, but just the fact that... It's mainly that I was able to offer the Queen sacrifice so many moves in a row. You almost never have that opportunity. And actually, normally the games you're going to consider your best involve sacrifices. And if you can sacrifice the Queen, that makes it very memorable. It's just this constant theme of this one checkmate idea. How often do you play with the sacrifice of a major piece? Like how often do you find yourself in that position? Pretty rare because players tend to avoid these sorts of situations. Players don't like games that can go either way. So when both players have to sort of cooperate, you have to want that kind of game in order for that situation to arise. And a lot of games at the top, neither player wants to go into that situation for the most part. So you don't really have those opportunities. Nevertheless, Stockfish loves those opportunities, the sacrifices. Well, that's one thing also that we're starting to learn more and more is that Stockfish and the other programs, they don't care about pawns. You can sacrifice one pawn, two pawns, three pawns in a lot of cases if the rest of your pieces are very active. And that's something that we kind of knew on a basic level about the initiative is what we call it in chess, where like you'll give up material, but your pieces are very well placed. But we didn't realize just how important that is. And computers will do that all the time now, all the time. And even actually like they're in this variant Fisher Random is another variant where you arrange a piece on the back row. They will gladly sack rooks for bishops or for knights all the time, all the time. And so... What do you take from that? Material imbalance or the material you give up doesn't matter as much as having this attack or having this piece on certain squares. Well, as long as you can hold on to the attack. Right, and computers can't. But it's also very tricky because when we as humans sometimes, you'll look at an opening variation and you'll see something like this and you want to do it in a game. But the problem is we don't know how we're supposed to follow it up afterwards. And so if you do that and you don't know how to follow up afterwards, very oftentimes we'll make mistakes, we'll try to look at it in a human way. And then, of course, you end up losing in the long term because you've given up too much material. So it's a very double-edged sword. But that's why it's dramatic and why people love those kinds of sacrifices because you're putting it all on the line. What's the other game? It was a game also with a queen sacrifice. It was a game against this Polish player, Michael Krasinkow. It was played in Barcelona in 2007, I believe it was. I also sacrificed a queen for one pawn to just bring the king out into the middle of the board. And you actually sacrificed it. Yes, I did sacrifice. I took a pawn. I said, you want to go to that? Sure. Yeah, absolutely. And you're again black. Yes. Yeah, this game you can just skip forward to about like the 20th move roughly. What's the what's the opening? This is I think it's like a Catalan. It says neo-Catalan. So, yeah, it's basically a Catalan opening, generally very slow. Neo-Catalan declined. Yeah. Yeah, and now here I sack the queen for the pawn. Or no, sorry, I take the knight first. Sorry, knight c6, keep going. So. By the way, the pawn structure here is a mess or is missing. Yeah, if I take the knight. You take the knight with a rook. Yeah. What's the discovery? My queen's under attack now. So when he takes the knight, the rook on b1 is attacking my queen. Got it. So the disc... Got it. Now, I'm going to take the knight. Got it now. Yeah. You throw your queen into the middle. Check, check the king. Wait a minute. That's not right. Yeah, it's one pawn. It's a queen for a pawn. For a pawn. And the king takes your queen. What was the thinking here? Well. Crazy madman. The king is, king has to go up the board and the king is very vulnerable. In this position, but you're going to have to keep checking here then. Yes. Bishop checks, king, rook checks, knight checks. Did you see all this ahead of time? Yeah, I mean, not all of it, but I figured there had to be some way to win here with the king. Too many attacking pieces on your end that could do... Well, it's just basically the king, the only piece that can sort of guard the king is the queen on d1. That's the only piece. If I can just keep checking, I'm going to be able to win here. So it goes there. And now I think I played, yeah, I played this move. Ooh, no check. Because I'm threatening to move the rook over one square and make a checkmate. Got it. And then the rook, what was that? The rook takes your knight. And then you take it right back with a check. Now I still want to scoot the rook over to check on the h6 square, the dark square. I think they resigned here or did they make a move? Oh, he resigned. Yeah. He did resign here. Yeah, because I just moved the rook over to that dark square in front of the pawn, and that would be checkmate. Dark square in front of the pawn over here. So h6, yeah. Because now the bishop covers the light square. Is there something he can do to mess with it? Um, not really. I don't think there's any way to stop a checkmate. Nothing with the queen. I guess he's going to lose the queen. Yeah, I think it's just actually a forced checkmate here on a couple of moves. I don't think there's any way to stop it. Even if he loses his queens. Mm-hmm, yeah, it's a forced checkmate. Fascinating. So like that, you can't purely calculate, but you can have some intuition. Also, I think what it is, is in such situations, you know that there is at least a draw. I could always just check him with my rook if I wanted to, to make a draw. So that also gives me some margin where if I calculate, after I play the move and I calculate, it doesn't work out, I can still make the draw. Are you, I mean, for fun, do you do the sacrifices of this sort? When it's not the serious competitive online events or over the board. I do actually do this quite frequently, and I wish there were more opportunities, but top level chess, it's become harder and harder because due to computers, everybody's very, very well prepared in the opening. They know the first like 15 to 20 moves sequences, no matter what you do. So it's very, the room for creativity is less and less, which makes it, which means you have less of those types of games. I think you played Levy Gotham chess with it, without a queen. Was that a thing? I think that was a bullet game. Yeah, the one minute game. I think so. Yeah. Is that an actual thing that you can pull off? Like, would you be like, love your guess? Somebody like Levy and bullet. Maybe I can win like 50%. It'll probably be what's bullet. What's the timing? One minute for the whole game. One minute for the whole game. Okay. What about, I mean, how much do you miss the queen? If it's gone against the international master? You know, in a bullet game, like I said, maybe in bullet, I can maybe score 50% in a blitz game or anything, anything slower, maybe 10%, maybe one out of 10. I can win me one out of 10. Yeah. On the topic of goat, let me ask about Paul Morphy. How good was he? Reddit asked me to ask you about this. And why is he a tragic figure in chess? Yeah. So Paul Morphy was the best player in the world by a bigger margin, probably than anyone else in recent modern history. He was, I would say roughly using today's rating is around like 2,400, in my opinion. And the other best players are maybe around 2000 or 2100 at best. So he's the best player by a bigger margin. Fisher, for example, I think it was about 170 ish points better than Boris Spassky, but Morphy was 300 plus at least. Now, by modern standards, he would probably be a very strong IM, which, you know, isn't saying a whole lot, but at the time, no one was even close. So I don't think you can put him in that category of like best ever simply because he was not the best player for a long enough period of time. As far as why it's tragic, it's very tragic because he essentially quit chess. There was no competition for him. If you think about like Magnus talking about the world championship and feeling like it's not competitive enough for Morphy, there was no one who could even beat him probably in individual games. So he ended up quitting chess. I think he was sort of like a lawyer kind of, but he spent probably the last 15, I think last 15, 20 years of his life just doing nothing. Now, I have actually seen his grave in New Orleans. I have been to where where he lived. I think it's now Brennan's, if I'm not mistaken, or something like that. So it's very tragic that there was no one who was competitive with him at the time. As far as best ever, I don't think you can say he's the GOAT, but I still think he's in the top 10 if we're using a criteria of players who are better than their peers by a big, big margin. So what do you think about the world championship? And what do you think about Magnus stepping down? Do you still see it as the height of chess? I still think that there is merit in having the world championship the way it is. At the same time, the game is always evolving. And one of the things that has changed a lot in recent times is you now have a lot more blitz tournaments and also rapid tournaments. In the past, classical chess was the golden standard. That was the only thing that mattered. But in the last probably 10 years, slowly but surely, there probably are as many rapid slash blitz tournaments as there are classical tournaments now. Maybe it's not quite 50-50, but at the top level, at least, it feels like it's getting very close to 50-50. And in terms of the world championship, I feel that the biggest issue is you have too many draws. The games can be exciting, but the games inevitably end in a draw. And the single biggest reason is because players have about six months or more to prepare for the match. So for example, the Canada's tournament, which I just played, it was in June and July. It ended, I think, around July 5th. The world championship match will probably be in February of March. So that's nine months. And when players have that much time to prepare, they are not going to have any weaknesses in the opening phase of the game. And so both players are likely going to be very solid. You'll have a lot of draws. And in many cases, it might come down to tie breaks. Magnus, in fact, in two of the matches, both against Karjakin and against Karjuana, he had to win in rapid tie breaks. So I think for Magnus, he just doesn't feel like the format is right. I think he feels that there's just, it's too long, too many draws. He doesn't get to play creative or exciting chess. And that's why I think he pushed so hard for a change in the format. I don't know what the right change would be, but I do think that the format is becoming a little bit antiquated with all these classical games. If you don't want to change the format, the one suggestion that I've mentioned before, and I think is probably still valid, is that the match should be held maybe one month after the Canada's tournament to determine the challenger. It's held one month after that event. That's probably the only way to keep the format as it is, where I think both players have time to prepare. But it's not something crazy, because when you compare the candidates to other classical tournaments, let's just say, let's just say St. Louis. I played, I played there recently. There was the, I played the Rapideon Blitz, but there was the St. Louis. I played the Rapideon Blitz, but there was the St. Louis Cup. This was, I think, like September 10th, something like that. Point is, players probably came in and had a week or two to prepare for that tournament. Now there's the US Championship. Players have a little bit of time to prepare. You play the event. Normally, players don't have these long breaks where they can prepare for very long periods of time. So they are very well prepared, but you still have a lot of exciting games because that window of preparation is so much smaller. But you had, you're pretty close, given how things rolled out to having the opportunity to compete for the World Championship. Hence the, the copia meme, which I still don't quite understand. Are you and Magnus friends, enemies, frenemies? What's the status of the relationship? Yeah, I think with all the rivalries in chess, everybody tries to hype it up like everyone hates each other. But the thing is, at the end of the day, yes, we're very competitive. We want to beat each other, whether it's myself or Magnus or other, other top players. But we also realize that it's a very small world. Like a lot of us are able to make a living playing the game as professionals. And as I alluded to earlier, the top 20 to 30 players can make a living. So even though we're competitive against each other, we want to beat each other. There is a certain level of respect that we have. And there is a sort of brotherhood, I would say. So all of us are, I would say, frenemies. I think that's the simplest way of putting it. What do you love most about Magnus Carlsen as a human being? As a human being, I think it's very similar, actually, to use a comparison to tennis and Roger Federer, in that it feels like with Magnus, everything comes very easily. For example, we've seen the situation with Hans Niemann. Somehow it's rolled right off his back, and he's playing amazing chess in his latest event. So it's really how easy he seems to make it look. And I know, because tennis is a sport that I've played a lot, I've followed it very closely. I remember hearing Andy Roddick say this about Federer, where it's like, somehow he handles it all. There's no pressure. He makes it look easy. And how does he do all that? And I feel the same way about Magnus, where it seems too easy. Because I know for myself, when I'm playing these games, there's stress, the pressure. And for Magnus, you don't ever see that. Now, I'm sure it's probably there, but we don't witness it. So that's what I would say, is just how easy it is. It was sad to see Federer retire. I don't know why. Just greatness. You know, when Lionel Messi will retire, it'll also be sad. There's certain people that are just singular in the history of a sport. I don't know if there's going to be another Messi. I don't know if there's going to be another Federer. Yeah, not for a long time. Is he greatest ever, would you say? Is he up there? He's definitely up there. I mean, I grew up as more of an Nadal fan, just because actually, I felt like Nadal, it never looked easy. It was the exact opposite. For Nadal, it feels like he's always running after every ball. He's exerting himself. It looked really, really hard. And for me, since nothing really came easily for me in chess, I can relate to that more. But at the same time, especially when Federer started losing more and he seems more human, I started really liking him more as well. But I think Federer, he changed the game. I don't know if you'd say he's the greatest ever, but the game changed forever because of him. Yeah, there's certain people who just had a lasting impact. Sampras, Agassi, everybody. Okay, who wins in a chess boxing match between you and Magnus? Probably Magnus, just because he's taller than me. I think. Also reach? He's taller, he has more reach, yeah. I think he would win. Question from Reddit. In what sport do you think you can beat Magnus 10 out of 10 times? I think I could beat Magnus 10 out of 10 times in tennis. I mean, I took lessons for eight years. I try to go out and hit two or three times every week. I think I could beat him in tennis 10 out of 10. Backhand, forehand, what's your style of tennis play? I wish I was taller because I really like trying to come into the net. I like volleying a lot, but I am no Rod Laver. Rod Laver was very short, but he was able to make it work like 50, 60 years ago. I really like volleying, but I'm a little bit too short. So I kind of have to stay back. And I mean, I normally hit, like, I try to hit hard forehands. I try to slice or two-hand backhand. You mentioned Magnus and Kariakin. And I just wonder if you have ideas, thoughts about the fact that he was originally a qualifier for the Candidates Tournament and was disqualified by FIDE for breaching his code of ethics about related to his support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Does that ever seep into the games that you play over the board, the geopolitics, the actual military conflict of it all? Do you feel the pressure of that? Because there's battles between nations. Nepal is, you know, Russian, there's America, there's, I mean, every nation is in some profound way represented on the chessboard. Right. I've never really felt that. I think actually, for me, it's very eye-opening to realize how difficult it is for a lot of the Russian chess players right now to play because of the situation, even Nepo, for that matter. I remember when we were in St. Louis, he essentially has to bring cash because obviously Russia's cut off from SWIFT. No credit cards work. So if these Russians don't have cash, they can't play. And I know a lot of them have fled the country just to try and keep their chess career going. So it's a very, very, very tough situation for them, obviously, for the Ukrainian chess players, obviously for the Ukrainians who are suffering. It's really, really bad. Do you know if Nepo, has he talked, I haven't seen, has he talked about the politics, the geopolitics of it all? I don't think he really has. I mean, I feel like most players try to avoid talking about it. I think it's very difficult. I remember when I was in St. Louis, there was another Russian player, Peter Savidler, and I basically asked him, he's like, don't get me started because I can't, I just can't talk about it. So I think most of them are probably on the other side of the spectrum. I don't think they're probably supportive of what is going on right now. So it's very, it's a very, very, very difficult situation. But I don't really feel like that manifests itself in actual tensions when I play against the Russian players. I mean, maybe when I was younger playing certain events, the one country I felt like maybe it actually, I felt some tension, I really wanted to go out of my way to win against was against the Chinese, perhaps. That is maybe the one time I felt something along those lines. But generally, I feel like we treat the players as individuals. It's not about the country they represent. Yeah. Let's go back to the philosophical of chess. What do you find most beautiful about the game of chess? Looking back over your whole career. I think looking back, it's really, it's both over the board and also just like the memories that I've created. I think for me, the fact that I've been able to travel because of chess to meet so many people who are playing this great game from all different nationalities, all different backgrounds is probably the thing that I really like the most. Chess is one of the, maybe the only thing I can think of where you can have people, different backgrounds, different ages. Honestly, you can have someone who's a billionaire talking to someone who's like a nine year old kid from the inner city. And when they're talking about the game of chess, they're on the same level. And I don't think that is really applicable to anything else in this world. You don't have that level of respect that is communicated through a game. So for me, that's probably the single most beautiful thing about sort of chess and the chess world itself is that you have that. In terms of the game itself, the creativity, the possibility of different positions, learning something new, even after I've played the game for 30 years, it's very inspiring to me knowing that I've spent all this time, there still are new things that I can learn. Those are probably two biggest, biggest things that I would refer to. Are there memories, big or small, like weird, surprising anecdotes from all those years of going to all the different places that stand out to you? Some of the darker times, weirder times, like weird places you've played, weird people you've played, weird people you hung out with, anything that jumps to memory? No, I think this is probably a little bit more like political, but I think one of the things that's great is whenever you go and play these tournaments, you have a certain impression of what a country is like or what the people are like. And probably the best example for me was in 2004, or actually, no, sorry, it was 2003, I think it was, I played in the FIDE World Cup and it was held in Tripoli, the capital of Libya at the time when Gaddafi was still running the country. And you hear a lot of these things, but then when you go there and you see the people are so friendly, it's very eye-opening and sort of you look at it without just believing things, you go to these places, you see how things truly are. And generally, I find that it's very different than how the media will portray it. One of my great regrets is, as someone who loves history, not going to see Magnus Lepto, which were the greatest ruins, I think greatest ruins in Africa from the Roman times, and of course, no longer exists. So I really do regret that. I think another thing that's very unique about chess is that all of us, even when we compete as children, like there are a lot of people like Nepo and others who I've known for a very, very long time. There are a lot of people who no longer play chess competitively, but inevitably you end up talking to these people many years down the road. And so you never truly lose touch with the game or the people that you grew up playing it with. And there's so many of these people that I connected with in the last couple of years who I knew when I was a kid and then they went off, did something else, but they still end up, you still end up talking to them and being able to share these old memories. So you said you're a bit of a student, a fan of history, even ancient history. Are there cultures, periods of time, people from human history that you draw wisdom from about human nature that you're particularly drawn to? A lot. I mean, I probably study mostly like it'd be like ancient Roman history or pre-Roman empire. And of course, ancient Persia is another subject that I've studied a lot on. If you asked me, I would say, I mean, it depends. You're talking like military generals, you're talking like philosophers. I mean, there's everything. So yeah, so both, right? So philosophers is how people thought about the world. Of course, military has to do with how people sort of conquered lands. Both are interesting because in part, it seems so far away from what we are today. And it's cool to see that people were kind of the same in their ability to invent amazing things and maybe the same and different in their willingness to go to war. So I think, I mean, one of my favorite books that I've read in the last couple of years is The Histories by Herodotus. I mean, basically considered the father of history. And I mean, I really love reading about these things like Thermopylae or Marathon, these great ancient battles. I don't know if there's like a specific like quote or wording or something like that that I can come up with, but that is one of my favorite books on history by far. So those books were written a long time ago. Yeah, it's like 400, I think it was like 400 BC was when that was written. So what's that like, what's that like reading that? It's just... Does it seem ancient? It does seem ancient. Like it's sort of, I feel like for myself, one of the things I really like doing is getting away from technology when I have the opportunity, trying to disconnect these sorts of things. And so when I read books like that, besides just having a general interest, it sort of reminds me like there is really a life without all this stuff, or there was at least at some point. And so it's something that I can kind of relate to. Like humanity flourishes without all the stuff we take, we think is fundamental to our current culture. Like all that we find beautiful about humanity can still exist without any of the technology. Yes, definitely. That's a really good reminder, given the contrast, of course, is beautiful, because you're in the midst of the technology with streaming. Like to me, streaming somehow feels, because of how many, how large of a percentage of the young, of young people are interested, like consumes streams, it feels to represent like the future, because so many people kind of develop their mind by watching Twitch and YouTube. Right. I mean, that's definitely true. Like for myself, I remember when I was a little bit younger, I was like 17, 18 around then, I would actually try one day a week on the weekend to try not to look at like my computer or my phone. Now, phones weren't where they are today, obviously, but I was able to do that pretty easily. Now it's very hard. Like when I try to go one day, recently I tried to do that, like I actually just pulled some books out of my garage and I started reading and it was a very foreign concept. So I do read a lot, but it's always on, it's always on an iPad. So, or a Kindle. Yeah, both of those actually. So it's very, very weird, but I do try when I can to get away from it all. I mean, another thing, like I said, I really like going out into nature when I have the opportunity. I've spent a lot of time in Colorado, for example, hiking some of the 14ers. That is one of those life goals that I have to go and get to the top of every single one of them. So I try to disconnect when I can, but of course it's very hard. So whether it's disconnecting or not, can you take me through a perfect day in the life of Fikar and Nakamura on a day of a big chess match? Well, actually, multiple days, right? We'll take one where it's a big chess match and one that's just like your representative average day. A perfect chess day, although I cannot do this, it would start like the night before. I would get like nine hours of sleep, like a consistent nine hours, like say 12am to 9am, for example. Let's just say the round starts at like two o'clock and then nine to say 12 o'clock, I do preparation and then 12 to one, I go eat lunch and a one to two, I just nap or I walk or I do something completely unrelated to it. That would be the perfect day. When you're doing everything except the preparation, are you thinking about chess at all or are you trying not to think about chess? Trying not to think about chess, definitely not. And what do you do? Is there any tricks to that? Well, I find that like if I go outside, I just try to hear like the birds or I try to listen. It's one of those like meditation kind of things. It's like, you know, they always say when you meditate, you try to hear yourself breathing. It's like when you close your eyes, try to hear yourself breathing and just focus on that. So I do try to do things like that from time to time as well. So in terms of getting nine hours of sleep, does that come difficult to you? That almost never happens. I mean, there have been a couple of times where it has happened, like in Norway specifically, but generally it just, I don't sleep well during chess tournaments. I wish I did, but. So we're talking about a perfect day. So sleep is really important. What about diet and stuff like that? Yeah, I think for a lot of people, they try to keep it light before the round. Actually, like I remember hearing the story from Peter Savidler some years back, a Russian GM, and he said that Kasparov would go and eat like a big steak right before the game and he would be completely fine. But I think for most players, it's the exact opposite. You try to like eat like some snacks, like maybe some nuts, a few bars, things of this nature, or maybe just like maybe fish, something very light for lunch before the game. And then you probably eat a lot after the game. That's generally what you try to do. But I don't think there's any like specific diet that makes a huge difference. But everyone is different, of course. So when you're actually at the board on that perfect day, how do you maintain focus for so many hours of classical chess? You know what, like minute to minute, second to second, how are you able to maintain focus? Is there tricks to that? How difficult is that? I think it really depends on the type of the game that you're playing. I think if it's a game that's very, very calm and very slow where not a lot happens at the start, it's it's a lot easier because because you're not having to be super focused, like your mind can drift and whatnot. And then at the critical moment, you have to sort of zone in. So those are the easiest ones. I think generally when when games are very complicated from the start, what you're doing is you're just you're trying to not let your mind wander at all, because when games are complicated like that, one of the things that I've never been very good at is my mind does wander. And you're always like I'm always worrying about the next move is like, is this a blunder? What's what's going on? Like, what am I going to do? So you're trying, I think, very much to block out the noise. I think that's actually the hardest thing is also because like I can say this when I played Magnus before, there have been times when I've gotten winning positions against him. And in that moment, when I had the winning position, very oftentimes my mind wanders like, OK, you're about to win this game. You're like, OK, what happens after the game? You win this game, gain the rating points, all these different things. But you haven't actually won the game yet. And I think for a lot of players, that's the hardest thing is when you get a winning position, your mind does drift. It drifts to like what the what happens after after you've won the game or what the outcome is. So drifting into the future and you should stay in the moment, you really should hold on. And also, what is it? Yeah, probably getting excited about the win. What is that? What is it about that that makes you worse at playing? So interesting, like getting. I think it's you get it's like a nerve. It's nervous, but it's like you're you're too excited. I think you just you it's like you're waiting for it to end. You expect it to end and then your opponent keeps keeps defending and you can make mistakes. What about the flip side of that where you start getting frustrated? Like, how do you try to recover from that kind of thing? It's very difficult. I think for myself, I just try I try to basically focus on it every single move. I just try. Again, you try to block out the noise no matter which direction it's going in. So I try as best I can. I mean, sometimes I'm very poor at it. Like, I just don't do a good job blocking out the noise at all. But I think generally I try to think, OK, just make this next move. Make your opponent have to find the best moves and just just keep the game going no matter what. Just keep it going. By the way, what's a long day of classical chess? What's that look like? That's it's pretty brutal. I mean, it would be something like, OK, so the game starts at two o'clock. So you've done all this other stuff. The game probably goes from like two to seven, for example, or maybe two to eight, five, six hours. Probably you eat. You eat dinner for an hour. So maybe clear like I'll go clear my head for 30 minutes and then immediately it's right back to studying for a couple of hours. Are you reviewing previous games or you're already generally you're just moving on to the next game? That's what you're doing and trying to no matter what happened, put that behind you when or lose or draw. OK, so that's that's also why there's another question a lot of people wonder, which is why don't I play more of these classical tournaments? And sort of it gets back to, you know, the literally don't care sort of stuff. But when I'm going to play in tournaments, I want to be able to give it my best shot. And if I don't feel that I can, I'm not going to play, which is why I play here and there. But I do balance my schedule very carefully because I'm not just going to go and play a tournament simply because if I don't feel that I can put in the work, it's not it's not it's not the right thing to do. Also, because I'm taking away a spot from somebody else who probably will be putting in the work, who will want to compete in that event. And so when I look at the candidates or a lot of people said, well, why is he playing there? Like, OK, qualified, he's not going to take it seriously. But I did give it everything I had in that tournament. And I always will as much as I can. If I can't do that, then I'm just not going to play. So what about a perfect day in the life of a car when you're not doing a perfect day? A perfect day would be something along the lines of I get up very early, like three, four o'clock in the morning, drive an hour away and go climb mountains. That's the perfect day out of the mountains. Oh, oh, do you mean a normal non? Yeah, perfectly productive, normal day. Oh, perfectly productive. OK, so perfectly productive would be along the lines of I wake up at like 730, eight o'clock. Probably I watch either Bloomberg or CNBC for 30 minutes to an hour and then watch the markets for maybe maybe an hour to look at certain things that are going on. You really care about investing? I do follow it quite closely. I follow the markets very closely, closer than I should. But yes, for personal reasons. So do you do comment on it like do you like for personal investing reasons or for like philosophical understanding what's going on in the world? It's sort of everything. I think, first of all, obviously, I'm interested in investing. I have been for many, many years. I've done investing trading for at least a decade now. So like I am very interested on that level. I'm also quite interested as well, because when you see the policy that's being dictated, like you look in the last last six months specifically, you see the Fed policy around things like interest rates, unemployment, things of this nature. It is something that interests me also because I do invest in real estate aside from the stock market. So therefore, I'm always keeping an eye on these sorts of things and always looking. And as a better example, like I'm looking for trends. So if we go back to I think it was 20, I could have the year wrong. It was 2015 or 2016. There was a pattern that I found that on the Fed minutes that came out, you know, I believe to to 15. I think it's on the Wednesday of every third Wednesday of every month that gold would actually the gold ETFs and ETNs would actually go up every single every single Wednesday of the month that the minutes came out. So I would follow things like that. Now, of course, I wasn't like trading huge, huge volume, but I found a trend there. Of course, it stopped working at a certain point. But those are the sorts of things that they just interest me, even if it's not something I'm doing to make a living, trying to spot those trends. It's always been something that has that has fascinated me. One Reddit said that you shorted Tesla a time ago. Do you regret doing so? Well, when I when I did those plays, I was only those small amounts of money. And that was only via via puts. That was where I would buy puts or put spreads on it. So it wasn't something where I straight shorting. I would I would never actually do that because it's just it's not worth the risk. And I don't want to ever be in a situation where I have to think about those sorts of things. And I think a better example is there was a period in 2016, actually shortly before the candidates, when I actually was in oil. I had a long position in oil. And this is when oil completely crashed. It went very I don't think it went below it go below 30. Even it went very low. And of course, the Saudis were not cutting. They were not. I think they were. Were they cutting or not cutting production? But anyway, there was a period in 2016 where I had a big, long position in one of the three X oil ETFs. And I kept going down day after day after day. And then, of course, right near the bottom, I finally couldn't take it anymore. I took a loss. And that really sort of it was very difficult dealing with that, the stress, everyday looking, seeing those losses. And after that, I kind of decided I would never put myself in such a situation again. And so that's why, like, I don't I don't do shorting. And then separately, and I think I posted a reply to this comment. But in 2021, as Tesla started going up, I actually started selling puts. And I did quite well off of that. So it's it's sort of play both sides. Never, never like become hard set with your conviction, like where you refuse like this is this is just like it has to go down or like it has to go up. Just you'd be you have to be willing to adapt. Do you think shorting should is should be legal? Do you think it's ethical? Like to me, I'm not I don't know much about investing, but I feel like it feels wrong. Now, I know if something is overinflated, it's good for there to be an opposing force to like balance it or something like that. But it just feels like in our current modern internet world, I think Tesla, I vaguely saw somewhere that's like the most shorted stock like ever. And so that incentivizes a lot of the publication of misinformation about it. Like, it just feels like the incentives are wrong. Not when we look at the markets, but at the future of human civilization perspective. It just feels like shorting is somehow wrong. But maybe maybe I'm misunderstanding the broader picture of markets. Well, I actually try not to do that. Like I almost only take long positions specifically because I feel like you're at betting, betting like on the world collapsing. I just I feel like morally I don't want to be in that. That I don't I don't want to have that viewpoint. I think, you know, that sort of is another thing that I've noticed. Like I've been very lucky. I've traveled a lot. I've met a lot of a lot of famous people. And the one thing that I've noticed is like a lot of a lot of the people who are the most successful, they're the ones who are very optimistic, no matter what is happening day to day. They remain very optimistic about the future of where things are going. So so I try not to end up in that situation. I think as far as like shorting specifically, the real danger to me is that anybody can now invest. And I feel like actually some of these apps like Robin Hood, they go out of their way to try and make it seem like it's this fun game. Like I've seen people where you place a trade and it like it gives you like like these stickers or these pop ups like of confetti. And it's like, wait a second, what's what's going on here with the whole with the whole game? Like people are sort of they're going after the wrong thing. So I don't think shorting like will be banned, but I think it's very dangerous that everybody has access to to to being able to do things like that. So according to Reddit on the topic of Tesla. You have trouble admitting when you make a mistake. Is that true? No, that's that's generally not true. Actually, I think that we read it is not 100% accurate and truthful in its representation of a character. That's fascinating. No, I think I think the thing that I've learned is I'm obviously very good at chess, but that doesn't automatically mean that I'm a genius and everything else. And I feel like that's another thing actually I really, really admire about Magnus is that he is the world champion is the best player, but he does not automatically believe that that translate to translates to every area of life. I feel like with some other world champions, they think that they're great no matter what they do. And that's not not like intentionally trying to be like be like rude, but I do feel like there's certain people who feel like that, like anything they say is right and they are the authority when in reality, like we are the authorities when it comes to chess like we know chess the best. We are the experts, but that doesn't automatically mean we're geniuses and everything else. That said, I think you said somewhere could have been on the on the C squared podcast that. That I forget if it's chess or streaming that taught you to generalize to various like you feel like you're able to do other things now, was that streaming? I don't know if that's specifically streaming, but I think streaming has taught me a lot about sort of life and also how to run run a business. Honestly, like I have read a lot of business books, and one of the things with streaming is that when you start out, it's like this very small thing. It's just you maybe have a couple of people who help you along the way, but as it becomes bigger and bigger, if there's a boom, you suddenly start having to hire employees. You're basically running this business and like for me, I've learned a lot about that because one of there was this book that I read some years back. I think it was by Mary Buffett is on Warren Buffett and how he tries to be hands off like when he buys these companies, it's hands off management stays the same. You don't do anything, and I actually I try to do things kind of the same way where like I try to be hands off. There are a couple of people around me. I leave a lot of the general day to day decisions up to them and then like things that are really important. Obviously, I'm involved in, but I try to do things like that. So streaming is you learn a lot along the way, and I think now having done that, there probably are several other potential careers that I could have if I really wanted to. Almost about that generalizing terms is what it takes to build a business from the ground up from the process of becoming a successful streamer. You have learned what it takes to start from the ground up with a single person and to build a business as multiple people and a successful. What do you attribute your success as a streamer to? I mean, many things. I think being a very strong chess player and having had a following was incredibly important at the start. I think anybody, whether it's chess or whatever field, if you have that following to begin with from your career or whatever activity or video game you do, that's already a big step up if you have that to begin with. So that definitely played a big role. I think more than that, though, for me, it's about the fans. It's about hearing from people how they feel. I mean, there are trolls, obviously, but the positive messages you hear when you hear about people who are struggling in life, whether it's, say, I've heard people talk about having cancer, you hear about someone going through a divorce or they're just trying to make it through day to day. When you hear about things like that, I think it really puts it all into perspective about what it all means at the end of the day. So for me, it really is the fans. They give me that motivation. They are the reason I do it. And when I meet some of these fans in person, like I have at a couple of events, just talking to them, hearing their story, just knowing that I can bring them some joy is, again, at the end of the day, it's why are you doing it? That's what it's about. If I can bring people joy, if it's someone working in a factory all day, someone in the middle of the country, if I bring them joy through my chest, that means a lot. You know, if it's a kid, for example, if I can inspire them to take up chess in a more serious way, or even honestly, if they just learn from chess certain skills, like critical thinking, and that leads to them becoming like a great scientist or something down the road, that is what I'm ultimately hoping. That's what I hope will come out of it. I mean, what gave you strength to have to turn on, I mean, I don't know how much you stream, but it's a lot. So day after day after day to be able to put that content out there. Is there some, can you comment on the challenge of that and maybe the low points, how you're able to overcome that? I actually don't feel the lows, and I think the main reason I don't feel the lows is because at the end of the day, I've been very fortunate, even as a chess player, very, very fortunate, travel the world, meet people. I've lived a great life. So for me to see myself as a streamer doing so well and bringing joy to people, I don't feel like I'm in a position, maybe this is wrong to say this, because mental health is very important. But for myself, I feel like I'm very lucky. I don't really have any right to complain. So I don't really feel those lows in the same way. There are times when there are certain things like Reddit or otherwise that will get on my nerves a little bit, but I'm able to realize that I'm so fortunate. And so I don't generally struggle with the lows that much. Speaking of Reddit and trolls, Reddit asked me to ask you to tell me the story of Chess Bay, the Reddit moderator who pitted you against Eric Hansen, also known as Chess Bro. I'm just saying things. I don't know much about Eric Hansen. I guess Eric is another grandmaster. You guys had some drama and tension between each other. So we'll also ask you to tell me what you like best about Eric Hansen as a human being. Here's what I would say. The whole streamers and the whole boom of chess, there are certain people, certain entities that are very, very important to what happened. There are a lot of people in the right place at the right time. Myself, Botez, the chess bras, Levy as well. We were all kind of in the right place at the right time. But just having the personalities alone is not enough. You need people who push things. And there are a lot of things that have been said about Chess Bay, about what she did. At the end of the day, the way that I view it is pretty straightforward. You don't have to agree with what she did. The manner in which she did things. But it pushed the game, it pushed the directory and chess on Twitch forward in a way that would not have been possible with anybody else at the time. Chess.com, for example, they were not directly pushing it. So you needed someone who was pushing it. And that, so to me, when I look at the whole boom actually of what happened on Twitch, in many ways, I think she is just as responsible as I was, Levy was, Botez was, and the bras were. All of us were extremely fortunate because we didn't have someone pushing it forward. And Chess.com was not really that involved at the time. It never would have gotten to where it was. So you can sort of look at it and say, okay, you don't agree with what happened. But you needed someone like that who was going to push, push really hard to get chess to where it is today. Can you comment on what happened for people who have no clue what you were talking about? Is that not useful? I don't think it's specifically useful to get into it. I think there are a lot of layers. People felt there were things like abuses of power, things of that nature. There were a lot of things that were said. You know, I don't want to be super negative about what happened specifically. But one thing people will note is that prior to what did happen in April of 20, I think that was 2021 now, there were a lot more collaborations. The chess world was much more together as a whole. A lot of streamers did things together. After what happened in April, there was a big sort of separation. A lot of streamers went off in their own directions because of what happened. So that is, I mean, that's not the whole story. There's a lot more to it, of course. But I think it's fair to say that. If I can just comment on the few times I've tuned into the streaming world, I do hate to see the silos that were created. One of the reasons I've been a fan and now a good friend of Joe Rogan, you call it collaborations, but it's basically everybody's supporting each other, gets excited for each other, promotes each other, and there's not that competitive feeling. With streamers, sometimes I've just noticed that there's a natural silo of people. I don't know why that is exactly. Maybe because drama is somehow good for views and clicks and that kind of stuff. I don't know what that is, but I hate to see it because I love seeing kind of friendship and collaboration. I think this also goes, again, try not to be super negative, but this also goes to the chess world as a whole. One of the things that I've been in the chess world for a very long time, not talking about online, but just the chess world itself. I've been very fortunate because I've seen a couple of booms and busts. Like in the late, actually it wasn't late 90s, it was in the mid 90s, there was a period of time when Intel and IBM and all these tech companies were very big on chess. There was this PCA Grand Prix World Championship held in New York. There also were, I think there was the Deep Blue stuff later on in the late 90s with Garry Kasparov. You had a lot of interest at the time, and then it sort of went up in flames for a couple different reasons. Also in the late 2000s or maybe mid 2000s, there was a group in Seattle that was very big on chess. They hosted the US Championship, all these different things. There have been a lot of booms and busts. Of course, if you go way back, there was the Fisher boom as well. But inevitably, what leads to these busts? And the thing that leads to it is at the end of the day, people in the chess world have this natural tendency to want to not work together. You want to hang on to whatever piece of the chess world you have as opposed to thinking about it from the standpoint of what's good for one is good for all. So it's one of those things that now that I'm in this situation, having seen these booms and busts, I remember when I was younger, I would very oftentimes think, why is it the chess isn't bigger? Why do we struggle so much to grow the game? And I think we see the reason. So now when I'm in this position, it's also very tough because I know what's happened. You try to learn from the past, but it still feels very hard to break out from that. It feels very tough. And it's also difficult because another thing that people kind of misunderstand is from time to time, I'll talk about myself. I'll actually talk about Levy and incomes or how well we're doing. And the main reason I talk about this is that I wanted to inspire like FIDE, the governing bodies and others for like, wow, these people, they're having such success. Like we surely we can do something different. We can change things. And somehow it has not happened, which is in a way very, very disheartening to me because I want to see more interest in chess. You know, you want to see more sponsors, more, more of the general public getting excited by the game. So it is one of those things that's very, very difficult. Yeah. So you want to see innovation on the parts of everybody, but also the organizations like FIDE and chess.com to how to inspire a large number of people, which is what this is what streamers are doing. They're constantly innovating, I guess, of how to reach a very large audience before we forget just to put a little love. Oh, you want me to ask about air? Yeah, a little love out there. What do you like best about Eric Hansen as a human being? I think he's it's mainly he's just he's he's very he's very charismatic. He's very charismatic. He he knows the brand that he has and he's he doesn't like he doesn't pretend to fake it like he knows what his brand is and he owns it. So he's just for people who don't know and I don't know. He's a grandmaster. He's a very strong grandmaster, but he's also like a creator. Yeah, one of the one of the earliest major chess content creators on Twitch, like educational stuff to a mix, mix, mix of educational mix of high level entertainment. Yeah. OK, awesome. What historical chess figure do you think would have the best streams? Historical chess figure, I would say probably Mikhail Tal. He was the former world champion. Now he lived a he lived a very, very exciting life. Let's put it that he was somebody who drank. You drink. He's from he's from Latvia. He's he's called the magician from Riga. So he drank a lot. He smoked a lot. A lot of a lot of other stuff as well. Oh, like with women drugs and rock and roll. Kind of. Yeah, he was. I think if you look at like actually not even just top grandmasters, but like or not a moral chance with top grandmasters, he probably had the most most interesting life by by far, by far. And even even like as an example of how much he loved chess and how how what a character he was, I think when he was dying in like 19, I think it was 1989 or maybe it was 91 when he was dying, he actually left the hospital to go play a Blitz tournament in Moscow and he actually beat Garry Kasparov in that Blitz tournament in one of the games. At what age? Probably like late 50s, mid 50s. Oh, wow. I mean, he drank too much, so he died young. But yeah, like he left he left the hospital in Moscow and went to play a Blitz tournament. He beat Kasparov. Well, first of all, just to push back, I think we all die too young. And some of the most impactful people like Churchill did quite a bit of drinking and smoking, all that kind of stuff. So you can still do brilliant things even if you partake in the old whiskey and drugs and rock and roll and women. OK, just about streaming, though, I there's there's this quote that I mean, it's that I love, which is the Steve Jobs quote, which is you can you can never connect the dots looking looking forward. You can only connect them looking backwards. And when I look at how I got into streaming, there were all these things that happened along the way that were so beneficial. So one first thing would be that when I was young and I was I was growing up, I played a lot of Blitz chess on the Internet Chess Club. It was one of the predecessors to chess.com. And there was no like no cameras or audio or these things. But one thing that people did was you could commit. You would write comments about your games and things of this nature. And so I was actually doing very I was doing something very similar where instead of talking, I was writing and chatting during some of the games that I was playing. So that was something that I was doing. It was very, very beneficial. Without that, I don't think that I would have been able to have the success that I've had streaming, I think would have taken much longer to get used to it and feel comfortable with it. But I already had that built in advantage. Additionally, when I was younger, up until I think I was I was 10 or 11. I don't remember exactly. I did not actually have a TV. Well, I had a TV, but I didn't have cable. So I did not watch TV growing up. So I listened to the radio a lot. I listened to a lot of baseball games in New York Yankees specifically. And so I think by listening to those games like I sort of I've heard a lot of announcers. And I think that's also it's one of the things where you learn from what you see kind of when you're growing up. There are examples. And so I think that was very, very beneficial. And then a third thing in terms of like having some flair is when when I was growing up and I was homeschooled probably about 14, 15, there were there was this great courses. I think they still they still do some of these great course. And there was this I don't remember who the guy was, but he was a professor. And so I watched some of these DVDs of his lectures, and he would always dress up as someone who's like middle ages. So he would dress up and he was sort of like an order. And he would explain like, you know, what happened in the 13, 14 hundreds and sort of style. And that's also something that obviously it's not something that I can consciously like internalize. But I think it's something as well that from having watched those courses and seeing that style of oration really helped me a lot as a streamer, too. Yeah. Yeah. All those little experiences contribute to life. That's that's definitely something I think about because I took a pretty nonlinear path to life. And I think they they somehow get integrated into the picture. But I do I do connect to your idea that you being good at chess was a part was an important part of your success is streaming. I think like that's really good advice for people to to be good, like in order to be a creator or a podcast or create videos, all that kind of stuff or stream. I feel like it enriches you if you if you pursue with your whole heart something else outside of that. Like, you don't have to be obviously at your level of chess, but just you have to be developed in the passion or pursuit of something. You get to know what that passion kind of what it is, I think, for sure. I think if you're all only doing streaming, there's something. First of all, I feel like that's going to empty you over time. For some reason, I've seen some of the lows that people hit if they don't have this other passion pursuit outside of streaming, but also just make you a better creator, which is interesting. I think I think again, with podcasting, this applies like with Rogan. I think it's just would not. The reason this podcast is very good is because all of his passion is put into being a comedian and being a fight commentator. Like the podcast is a side hobby. That's the way I feel about it, too. Your main passion is outside of it. I don't know what that is. I think it puts everything in its proper context and also allows you to mentally escape into that place that you find deeply fulfilling. You mentioned offline, you told me that you're interested. You found it interesting that I said that I'm renting this particular place and I always rent because of the sense of freedom it gives. I tend to actually try to be a minimalist for the most part when it comes to things like clothes or owning cars, for example, or watches. I don't own a lot of these material things. They don't really interest me. But at the end of the day, the one thing is, and this might actually play a role in a lot of the hiccups why I didn't get to maybe being closer to world champion, is that one of the things from the time that I was very young is I didn't grow up from a wealthy background. I had a single mother for the first six years of my life. She worked as an elementary teacher to support my brother and myself. I saw a lot of these lows in life early on now, even once she remarried. All the money that my stepfather made was not all of it, but a lot of it was directed towards my mom and I traveling to tournaments internationally or even in the US. So seeing some of these struggles, once I actually made it as a chess player, and this goes back to investing as well, is that it's kind of like you want to be secure at a certain point. I've always looked at that, how do you get to that point at the end of the day? Again, like I said, with my experiences, seeing actually even now my stepfather, he's 72 years old, still teaches chess all the time, probably works harder than I do, actually. So I see things like that. That really interested me, like how do you get from point A to point B? That's in large part what led to it. That being said, obviously when you start owning things like properties, houses, or condos and whatnot, there are headaches that come along with getting some of these bills in the mail. You see HOA about a tenant not parking their car illegally, $50 that you have to pay in fees, these sorts of things. It is kind of a pain. But I try to reduce the number of things that can really bother me in life, and that's really the only thing that I let, not let, but it's one of those things, the only things that kind of ties me down in a way. I still feel pretty free, though, for the most part, despite owning. But you mentioned security, so meaning like security stability? Stability, yeah, sorry. So that's the thing you chase, you value. When it comes to chess, as I said, if you're a pro player, you can do very well, make a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. Of course, I'm talking pre-tax, but if you do poorly in one year, that income dries up, and there is a chance you'll never get back there. So I feel like for much of my career, that was always on my mind, and maybe that held me back to some degree. I don't know those sort of thoughts about things like that, as opposed to purely being focused only on chess, like worrying about the results, worrying about the prizes, things like this. It might have held me back, but that was always something that was on my mind. For me, I really worked hard to make sure that I'm philosophically, intellectually, spiritually, in every way, I'm okay with having nothing, as close to nothing as you can get. And the reason I want that is so that I have the freedom to not crave stability, or rather have stability, because my bar for stability is so low. And that gives me the freedom to take big risks. And I thought that for me, I felt like the way I could really help the world is by optimizing the positive I can do, and for that, you have to take big risks. And big risks really does mean potentially losing everything. So you're saying like startups, you mean like that? Yeah, startups in every aspect, meaning pivoting career paths completely when everybody else is telling you not to do that. Actually, it's interesting, because when I think about streaming, it's not like a start, because I'm not investing money where I can lose everything if it's not successful. But it was also a big risk for me doing that, because at the time, I was a professional player doing very well. When I started in October 2018, I was still top 10 in the world doing very well. 2019 was actually a very bad year for me. I started playing much worse. And towards the end of 2019, I intended to take a six-month break. Last time I played was November 2019 in India, and then I was going to take a break until the US Championship in April of 2020. So I did, in a sense, actually take a risk, because I was potentially risking my career by spending this extra time that I had streaming. So it's not the risk where financially I can lose everything, but it actually was a bit of a risk, now that I think about it, in a sense. Because if I lose my career as a player, there's no guarantee that streaming is going to be anything substantial. You didn't think it was a risk at the time? I think at the time, I just... I don't know. I thought it was just something fun to spend my time on. I didn't somehow... I don't know. I wasn't... I figured that after a six-month break, I would come back and play better chess, kind of. But as far as streaming, I never thought of it as being something that would be a career, something viable. I just thought, it's something fun to do, maybe it gives fans some access to me, it broadens the platform, more people hear about me. And that was about it, really. I did not ever expect it to become what it did. You said growing up with a single mother and just giving your whole life to chess at a certain point. Has there been through that low points, maybe times when you felt lonely? Isolated, maybe even depressed? Oh, absolutely. Chess is very difficult. You're on your own. You can have friends, people you compete against who are friends, but at the end of the day, it's a very singular pursuit. It's just you, and your results dictate everything. So there have been many moments throughout my life when I've struggled. I think probably the biggest time when that happened would have been about 2005 into 2006, where I stopped playing chess and I went to college. And that was mainly because I had gotten to a level where I was top 100 in the world, but I stagnated for that year, about 2005, 2006. And so I decided to go to college primarily because I had stagnated, I didn't feel like I was going anywhere. And then also, being on your own, just having a few friends here or there in the chess world, you wonder what it's like. And especially because I was homeschooled as well, that further added to wanting to be around other people. It really played a very big role in my decision to go to college. But at the end of the day, as I realized, college kind of was a big disappointment because the strongest or the biggest strength of playing chess is that you mingle with people from all different backgrounds, all different ages. And when I went to college, the whole notion of basically people who are juniors and seniors being more important or more equal than others to do the animal farm line, like when you're in that situation, it didn't really jive with my childhood and growing up in the world of chess. And that is one of the biggest reasons that I actually came back to chess, because it's like this world of where certain people are more important and things are different, I just could not really relate to that. And that was one of the biggest reasons, it really was. That wasn't the only reason. The other reason, though, was that towards the end of my first semester, I played a tournament after not studying. Actually, when I was in college, when I wasn't actually studying for class, I was mainly on PokerStars playing poker all night long. So towards the end of that semester, I actually went to play a tournament in Philadelphia because I was going to college nearby. And with very little preparation, I won that tournament against other strong grandmasters. And that kind of made me think, well, OK, if I'm ever going to take a chance, it has to be now. If I stay in college for four years, probably get a major in political science, do something in the political arena. And then I felt like I'm going to probably look back five, ten years from now and wonder, what if? What if I had played chess? How far could I have gone? And if I had taken those four years, there would have been no opportunity for me to reach my full potential or even see how far I go. So therefore, that was also a big, big reason. So another what if question, if you didn't play chess, you mentioned political, what other possible successful trajectory might have you had? That depends on what point, really, when you ask that question. I think if we're talking about the time of college, probably I would have done something in political science, maybe law, being a lobbyist or something terrible like that, honestly. If I was a little bit younger, I really loved ancient history, archaeology, and also languages as well. So probably something along those lines. And if we talk more recently, something in finance. I don't know what exactly, but something in finance. What do you think, when we talk again, 30 years, what do you think you're doing? 30 years. I honestly want to believe that I'm just sitting in a beach house in Malibu, just relaxing. Yeah, right. So you and I are in a yacht for some reason. Why we're in a yacht? You paid for it. It's your yacht. I don't ever want to own a yacht. No, okay, all right, fine. But I mean, that's like the amount of money you waste on docking fees, the gas, no way. I guess I was trying to construct an example. You're being super rich for some reason. It doesn't have to be that. Actually, no, I don't think that actually does not appeal to me at all. I think another great thing about chess is that within the chess world, I'm very prominent and famous, but I can go out to the supermarket and nobody recognizes me. And so I am famous, but I'm not famous at the same time. So I don't actually want to be in a situation where everyone recognizes me or I'm super famous. That to me sounds like a very miserable life. I do not want TMZ chasing me down the street. So you're famous in a community you love. And so whenever you plug into that community, there's a deep connection there. You can always escape when you need a break. What advice would you give to young people about career, about life? Maybe they're in high school, maybe they're in college. Maybe they want to achieve the heights that you have achieved in chess. They want to do that for something they care about. Yeah, so I think the main thing is follow your heart, follow your passion. One thing we didn't touch on this, like both my parents, my mom was a musician. She was very good. I think she was like maybe Allstate in California when she was growing up on the violin. But she still was nowhere near good enough to get into Juilliard or the top music schools and pursue that as a career. And there are a lot of starving musicians who never are able to quite make it. So like when I see my mom and what happened with her passion, the fact she wasn't able to make it, or then my stepfather, who we haven't talked about. My stepfather, actually, he's of Sri Lankan descent. He comes from a family of lawyers. His father was a lawyer. His uncle was a lawyer for the International Court of Justice. So it's a family of lawyers. And my stepfather, he went to England to study law. He went to Southampton. I think it was the University of Southampton. And at some point, he was going and playing these tournaments on the weekend, playing at the school club, all these things. And his parents actually, they took away his chess board. They took away his chess books. They took everything away and told him he was going to become a lawyer. He could not play chess. So when I look at my upbringing, I feel very lucky that my parents, having had these experiences, they were so supportive of everything I did. And I think that at the end of the day, you have to pursue your passion. To whatever end that might be, you might pursue it, you might fail. But I do think you have to pursue it. It's better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all. So I really do believe that's the most important thing, is that you do that. And where it takes you, who knows? But the experiences, I feel, are much more important than the what-ifs and possibly missing out on living life. So even if it's everybody around you in your own judgment says that this is not going to be financially viable long term, you still pursue? I think, I mean, at some point you have to make those tough decisions, but absolutely. I feel like too many people follow the standard route. It's like you're supposed to go to college, get that degree, be $200,000 in debt, these sorts of things. But then at the end of the day, are you really living? Are you pursuing what you want to pursue? It's just because that's what you're supposed to do. That's what society tells us, the route you're supposed to go. So I think you just have to pursue it. Of course, at a certain point, if you're not making it, you have to make hard decisions. But I think in life, the only thing really, time and experiences, those are the only things that you really can't put a price on. Yeah, and really pursue it. Even streaming, I'll see people, or YouTube or that kind of stuff, it's a world in many ways foreign to me. It's like there's levels to this game in that there's a way to really pursue it and there's a way to half-ass it. And I guess the point is not to half-ass it. Don't just keep it a hobby. Make it a full-time. If that's your passion, go all out. So sometimes people can think that these things they love is just a hobby, like music or something like that. But there's a way to do it seriously, to go all out. Yeah. That's probably my general advice, is whatever it is, you pursue it. Because even with chess, when I dropped out of college, there was no guarantee that I was going to make it as a professional player. There was no guarantee. But I took that chance, and very fortunately for me, it worked out. Would you rather fight a horse-sized duck or a hundred duck-sized horses? Probably a horse-sized duck. Just one enemy is better than having to keep an eye on a hundred. Is this the stress or what? The anxiety? You don't... Why don't you like a hundred? I mean, they're tiny. Tiny? I don't know. Duck-sized horses. I feel like if you have... Well, I don't know if they're going to attack you or not, but I feel like having one enemy seeing the clear objective, I would always... I prefer that. If you could be someone else for a day, alive or dead, who would you be? Who would I want to be for a day? If I had to pick someone, actually, I would probably pick Elon. How many years ago is now? When the rockets were blowing up. I'd be very interested to see those processes of how they went through that and they got out on the other side. Because I feel like most of the time when you hear about the startups, like, okay, you look at Amazon. You have the big investment, the start. It doesn't feel like there were those super, super lows for the Amazons of the world. Maybe not when the three rockets blew up. But maybe when that was it fourth or fifth one actually succeeded, but somewhere in that timeframe. Yeah, that is probably one of the lowest lows that are publicly I've ever seen. Yeah, that's yeah. Those are the moments that make us. If everyone on earth disappeared through a horrible atrocity and it was just you left, what would your days look like? What would you do? It's just me. Just dead bodies. I like this, right? There's many movies like this. There's many movies like this. Honestly, if I could, I would probably just. But you're saying there's like no life, like no plants, not none of this stuff. No, there's life. There's life, just not. Just not. Not human life. There's like goats and stuff. I remember reading a, I mean, it's slightly different. There was a sci-fi book I read many years ago. I think it was Rendezvous with Rama, where I think there were people that were just going all over the land, like in this cylinder. And so I think for me, I would just explore. I would just like walk, bicycle, maybe plant some trees, things of this nature. I wonder how that would change your experience of nature, knowing that it truly is. Because that's one of the magical things with nature. It's humbling that it's just you out there. That's why I love it. That's why I love going hiking. Because obviously you get the exercise, but honestly, it's a reminder of how small we really are. And here you would realize, like, I mean, it's an extra humbling effect of like, you really are alone out here. Yeah, that's, I don't know. I probably, I probably spent a lot of time just thinking about, thinking about everything too. Do you hate losing in chess or do you love winning? Do I hate losing or do I love winning? I think I love, I love winning. I mean, maybe because I've, maybe because I'm doing so many different things, like losing doesn't have the same effect on me that it, that it once did. So I think like now I definitely love winning, winning more. But I think when I was younger, I hated, I hated losing much more than I, much more than I liked winning. What comforts you on bad days? I think similar to what gives me the motivation for streaming is the fact that at the end of the day, no matter how bad things, things appear or seem, I mean, we've never been at a better time in human history. People have things much better off now than any other time. So I, I find it hard to really have pity or not have pity, but like feel really bad. I just use those sorts of things as like the, the way to, to get over it. It's just knowing how, how lucky I am. What's the role of love in the human condition? Let me ask if Hikaru about love. Love is, love is, I mean, I think it can be the greatest thing in the world. I think when it, you know, when, when things fall apart, like, you know, I, I've, I've, I've been through this quite a few times actually. Some, some really real highs, some, some really real lows as well. I think love is, it can, it can inspire you to do things you never thought were possible. And without it though, I think it's, I think life, life is very empty. I think it's probably the most important thing to have in life in one, one way or another. Which is extra sad if you were the last person left on earth. Right, exactly. Yeah. I mean, I think, again, also in terms of chess, I think that the, the, the, the, the, the, that it can be as far as chess goes, like, or any competition, it can be the greatest thing in the world. It can also be the worst thing in the world when, when you're in love, a lot of chess players, for many, it does not help them. It actually makes them play much worse chess because you, you kind of, you, you don't have that energy or that drive in the same kind of way. So it's, it's very mixed for chess. As far as me personally, though, I think, you know, I would say what I've said before, it's better to have loved and lost than I've never have loved at all. And I definitely have been through that. I thought you don't care. I thought you don't care. It turns out you care sometimes, a little bit, a tiny bit, a very, very, very tiny bit. Hikaru, you're an amazing person. I'm a huge fan. It's really an honor that you would talk with me today. I can't wait to see what you do next. Thank you. It's good being here. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Hikaru Nakamura. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from David Bronstein. It is my style to take my opponent and myself onto unknown grounds. A game of chess is not an examination of knowledge. It is a battle of nerves. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/oJNvxYEcVAY

sHaGQg0avLg

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Leonard Susskind: Are We a Computer Simulation with a Purpose? | AI Podcast Clips

What kind of questions can science not currently answer and may never be able to answer? Yeah, is there an intelligence out there that's underlies the whole thing? You can call them with the G word if you want. I can say, are we a computer simulation with a purpose? Is there an agent, an intelligent agent that underlies or is responsible for the whole thing? Does that intelligent agent satisfy the laws of physics? Does it satisfy the laws of quantum mechanics? Is it made of atoms and molecules? Yeah, there's a lot of questions. And I don't see, it seems to me a real question. It's an answerable question. Well, I don't know if it's answerable. The questions have to be answerable to be real. Some philosophers would say that a question is not a question unless it's answerable. This question doesn't seem to me answerable by any known method, but it seems to me real.

https://youtu.be/sHaGQg0avLg

Z3_PwvvfxIU

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

MrBeast: Future of YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram | Lex Fridman Podcast #351

I'm here with Mr. Beast, the brilliant mastermind behind some of the most popular videos ever created. Do you think you'll ever make a video that gets one billion views? I think maybe one of the videos we've already made might get a billion views. Which one do you think? Probably like the squid game video with enough time. I mean, it's only a year old and it's already on 300 million or some of the newer ones we've done have gotten like 100 million views in a month. So those four are projected over 10 years because YouTube's not going anywhere. Probably one of those. Over time, they don't necessarily plateau. That's interesting. We're literally jumping right into it. I love it. It's good. So I'm a firm believer that it's much easier to hypothetically get 10 million views on one video than 100,000 on 100. And part of why it's much easier, in my opinion, is like if you make a really good video, it's just so evergreen and it never dies. Because YouTube, when you open up YouTube and look at the videos, they're just serving you whatever they think you'll like the best. And so if you just make a great video and it's constantly just above every other video, even two years down the road, then they'll just keep serving it and never stop, which is why it's much easier to make one great video than a bunch of mediocre ones. What about one billion subscribers? You've passed PewDiePie as the most subscribed to a YouTube channel. When do you think you get a billion? Let me do some math real quick. So around 120. Do you think about this? No, I don't, honestly. Because one thing you'll find if you want to gain subscribers, if you want to get views, if you want to make money, almost any metric in this video creation space, if you want something, it all comes back to, okay, well then just make great videos. So instead of focusing on all these arbitrary vanity metrics, I just kind of focus on the one thing that gets me all that, which is make good videos. But I do think we will one day hit a billion subscribers. I don't have a plan on going anywhere. Even though we're only on 120 million right now on the main channel, I think we're doing around 10 million a month now and YouTube just, yeah, I just don't see it going anywhere. And I don't see any reason why I'd ever get burnt out or quit, so I think with enough time, yes. I wanted to ask you those family-friendly questions before I go to the dark questions. So now, we have dark questions. But if you wanted to hook them, you would start off with the dark questions. That's how you get them. Okay, well, let me ask you about a Twitter poll you posted, a $10,000 death poll. You tweeted, if someone offered you $10,000, but if you take it, a random person on Earth dies, would you take the $10,000? And 45% of people said yes. That's, at least at the time I checked, 850,000 people committing murder for just $8.5 billion in total. So what do you learn about human nature from that? That's a good question. Honestly, this is like late at night when I threw that up too. I was just like, huh, this will be a funny thing. I assumed it'd be 90% no and 10% yes, but there are a lot of serious people. For you guys listening, I just did this random Twitter poll where I was like, would you take 10 grand if it meant someone random in the world died? And a lot of the replies on the tweet were like, hell yeah, why not? And I was just not expecting that. And so, I don't really know. I mean, I feel like your take would be better than mine. Was it disturbing to you, surprising to you? A little bit, yeah. But obviously, a lot of people were trolling, but when you read through those replies, I do think like 10% of them were dead serious. Well, I think sometimes the trolling and the lulls reveal a thing we're too embarrassed to admit about the darker aspects of our nature. So I don't know if you listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. He has a episode on painful attainment, which he describes throughout history how humans have been really attracted to watching the suffering of others. So public executions, all that kind of stuff. And he believes that's in all of us. That, for example, if something like a YouTube or a different platform streamed a public execution or streamed the torture of another human being, a lot of people would say that's deeply unethical, but they would still tune in and watch. And that we're attracted to that drama, and especially the most extreme versions of that drama. And so I think part of the lulls reveal something that's actually true in that poll. Your answer's so much better than mine. Do you think about that, maybe even with the Squid Game? So I think, how many views does the Squid Game currently have, 300 million? Yeah, somewhere around. Something like this? So just imagine, thought experiment, how many views that video would get if it was real, the Squid Game. Yeah, I mean, YouTube was like, yeah, we'll turn a blind eye, we won't take it down. Yeah, I mean, obviously, it'd probably have billions of views. How do you think you'll die? And do you think it'll be during a video? Probably doing something dumb, like going to space when I'm older, or trying to go to Mars, or something like that. I know for a fact it won't be on a video. Every video we do, we have safety experts and stuff like that, so it's not really a risk. But yeah, I could see myself, after a million people go to Mars or something like that, I'd probably be like, you know what, let's go. And something like that, maybe. So not in the name of a video, just for the hell of it. Heck no. Are you open to taking risks when you shoot videos? You just went to Antarctica. I mean, you're putting yourself in the line a little bit, right? Of course, but we've had that video in the works for three years, and then we consult with tons of experts, radar the entire path we're gonna walk beforehand to see if there's crevasses. So we know there's no crevasses, we do training, we consult with experts, and we have survival guides there with us, and monitor the weather and everything. So it's like, any variable where we could get harmed, we just pre-plan for it. Same thing with buried alive. Like, I had David Blaine spent a week underground, and so I consulted with him, and consulted with basically anyone who ever buried themselves alive. You know, the coffin we used to bury me, we did so many tests. Like, that coffin was buried 10 times before I was, you know, for way longer than 50 hours. It tested the airflow and everything, to the point where I was safer in that coffin underground than I was above ground. So we just tend to just not leave anything up to chance. Yeah, another strange question then, so you recorded these videos to yourself, you know, five years, 10 years from now. Have you recorded a video that's to be released once you die? Well, first off, I am just glad that not every one of your questions have to do with, like, views or things like that. It's nice getting different questions. So this is good. No, seriously. It's a little dark. No, but it's fine, because a lot of people just be like, how much money do you make? You know, it's just something I just, everything's always about money now. Over for when people talk to me. So it's nice. But for the videos I made, for you guys who probably don't follow me too closely, when I had 8,000 subscribers and I was a teenager, I filmed a bunch of videos and scheduled them years in the future. And I said, I filmed one where I was like, high me in a year. And the video went up a year later. And it was just like, hey, I think you'll have 100,000 subscribers. And then I did one where I was like, high me in five years. I was like, hey, in five years, I think you'll have a million. And then one that hasn't come out yet, but comes out in two years, was high me in 10 years. And I tried to predict 10 years later how many subs I'd have. So he's referring to. And yes, there are some that are scheduled like 20 years in the future. And so if I don't die, I'll just move them up. And I remember, because I filmed these though, like seven years ago. But it was, I remember saying a line like, you know, if I'm dead, then I'm currently just in a coffin and like, whatever, blah, blah, blah. And because the only way the video would go up is if I'm not alive. And if I'm not alive, then I won't be able to push back the schedule upload date. So it will go public automatically. And so yeah, I have a couple of those. Like if I knew I was gonna die of like cancer or something, and I had like three months to live, I would vlog every day. I filmed so many videos. And then I would just schedule upload a video a week for like the next five years. So it's like I'm still alive. And I would completely act like I'm still alive and everything. And I think something like that would be cool. I don't know why, but I've fantasized, not fantasized, but I've dreamt about that a lot. Like, I don't know, if I only had 30 days to live, what would I do? And for me, I would try to make like a decade's worth of content and schedule upload it so they automatically go public in the future. And so it's just like I never died. I'm just there. Yeah, it's a kind of immortality, but it's also a kind of troll on the concept of time. Yeah. That you can die in the physical space but persist in the digital space. I actually, I recorded a video like that because I had some concerns. And I just thought it's also a good exercise to do. A video would like to be released if I die. And it was actually a really interesting exercise. It's cool. Like it shows like what you really care about. I guess it's like writing a will. But when you're younger, you don't think about that kind of stuff. But- Exactly, mine was just dumb. Yeah. Like I'm bones in a coffin. Yeah. Yours was probably so serious. No, it's fun actually. What you realize is like there's no point to be serious at this point. It's a weird thing. I guess you've done this, but it's a weird thing to address the world when you, the physically you, is no longer there. So like, you know this would only be released if you're no longer there. Exactly. It's a weird exercise. You know what's funny? Of all the people listening to this, we're probably the only two people that have made videos for when we die. It's like such a niche thing. And the fact that we're bonding over it's kind of funny. I think people should think about doing that. It's not just about YouTube. It's also social media. Just think about it. Like there's gonna be a last tweet and a last, I don't know, Facebook post, or a last Instagram post. And yeah, I feel like there's some aspect that's meditative to just even considering making a post like that. And also it's a way for the people that love you to kind of like celebrate. Do you think that would help them cope or not? Like if someone randomly watching this did film a video, you know, if they accidentally died in some freak accident to be given to their family, do you think that would, and it was like a genuine. I think it would really help. I mean, it depends. Like how would you even intro that? Like, hey mom, if you're seeing this, you know, it means I'm probably dead. Yeah, exactly. That's how you intro it. That's the opener. I just want you to know, yeah, I guess. Yeah, and I guess you could say it in a kind of funny way, but, and just talk about the things that mean a lot to you. Because otherwise you're at the risk of the last post you have is like, like, I don't know, talking shit about like McDonald's. McDonald's order. Exactly. And then you're dead. That's it, 100 years. I don't know. I do recommend it. It's like the Stoics meditate on death every day in the same way you kind of meditate on your death when you make a video like that. Because it's actually not just even talking to yourself, it's talking to the world. And it like, for some reason, at least for me, they made it very concrete that there's going to be an end. And I'm like, it's almost, it's over for me. If I'm making the video, it's over for me. It's an interesting thought experiment. I recommend people try it. Okay. Oh, are you afraid of death, by the way? Yes. It's hard because like, what if you just die and then you just see nothing forever, you know? Yeah, the nothingness. It just fades to blackness and you're just like that for trillions upon trillions to billion squared years. And it's just, it's scary. But also, before you're born, you don't remember those X amount of years either. So that gives me a little comfort. But no, it's definitely very scary. Something I'd rather not think about until I'm like 80. I'll deal with that problem then. I don't know if I told you this, but I'm kind of hopeful that someone like Elon or one of these like freak smart people would just like be like, you know what, screw it. I'm going to figure out a way where we can slow down aging, get it where, you know, we can live to be two, 300 years old and just like set their sights on that. And then just kind of save us. So it'd be really nice. Like it's almost absurd to think that in our lifetime, they won't figure out a way to just even slightly slow down aging, where we can live to be like 120, 130. And then that extra time, they won't figure out some way where we can live to be 200. Like obviously not immortal, but I don't see how in my lifetime, the life expectancy doesn't just expand. Well, it also could be that the immortality is achieved in the digital realm. Like it could be long after you're gone as a Mr. Beast run by a Chad GPT type system. Exactly. Yeah, that consumes everything I ever said, everything I ever wrote. I don't want that. I don't want to live. What are you smart people out there figuring out? I'll keep you entertained, but I need you to figure out how to keep me alive. Give me till 200. That will make me happy. Well, that's funny. Who owns the identity of Mr. Beast once the physical body is gone? Like, is it illegal to create another Mr. Beast that's Chad GPT based? I don't know what the laws are on that. Yeah. I mean, once I'm dead, I don't care. Well, you just said you did care. I mean, there could be a AI, like many Mr. Beast that are created after you're gone. Yeah. I mean, that'd be cool to be able to like train up a model and let them loose. So my content lives on, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. But it somehow feels like it diminishes the value you contribute. Yeah, it's inauthentic, but it's also, there's some aspect to the finiteness of the art being necessary for its greatness. Yeah, the second that thing starts spamming out videos, the videos lose all meaning and it's pointless and it's a money grab. If you ran YouTube for, how long should you run it? For a year, how would you change it? How would you improve it? It's hard because, you know, obviously I'm biased because we're doing really well, but I feel like when I open up YouTube on my television, I get the videos I wanna watch. I don't know. I don't ever open it and wonder like, what are these? What are these 10 videos on my homepage? When I click on a video, I don't ever wonder what these are. And maybe it's because I'm very adamant about like the kind of videos I watch and I try not to watch videos that I don't wanna get recommended more because that's how I think. But I'm very happy with how it is at the moment. I think one thing though that I just hate with the passion is the comment section on YouTube. It's just so bad. But I know that's not something that's gonna 10X the growth of the platform, but if you think about it, you go to Reddit to read comments and somehow, you know, usually the top 20 posts on a popular Reddit post are not spam. You know what I mean? Have you ever clicked on something on the front page of Reddit and then most upvoted reply to it is like, go check out my site right here and it's like trying to scam you out of $1,000? Yeah, I can't even think of one instance I've ever had that happen. So like Reddit, it's so nice to click on posts and just see what people have to say. And I almost wish like you had that same feeling when you read the comments on a YouTube video. Instead, it's like, it's so many people just copy and pasting, so many bots that just grab the top comment for your previous video and paste it over. So the top comments on every videos are the same. And the things that break through that are just scammers trying to get you to give them $1,000 for a fake ad. That comment section is one of the most lively on the internet. So it'd be amazing if YouTube invested in creating an actual community, like where people could do high effort comments and be rewarded for it, like on Reddit. Yeah. Like actually write out a long thing. That would make me so happy. Cause like when I upload a video, I usually go to Twitter to see feedback. Like I read my comments and I'll flip through newest, but it's just, I feel like Reddit and Twitter just give me so much better filtered feedback. Especially now that with Twitter Blue, because people pay $8 a month, I've noticed like any tweets I get from verified users now, they're usually not just garbage troll takes. Like these are people paying $8 a month. Like they're usually relatively sensible. And so it's been pretty nice. Like after I upload a video, I just go on the verified tab on Twitter and just see what people have to say. And anyways, I live for the day that YouTube's like that. What do you think about Twitter? What do you think about all the fun activity happening recently since Elon bought Twitter? I think he should make me CEO, like I tweeted. Well, I should say sort of, we just like a couple hours ago had a conversation with Elon and you guys said in exchange of some excellent ideas. So yeah, I legitimately think, obviously you're exceptionally busy, but I legitimately think it would be awesome if you somehow participate in the future of Twitter. Yeah, it would be fun. Cause there's so much possibility of different ideas. First in the sort of the content, like dissemination, hosting, and all the different recommendations, like the search and discovery, all the things that YouTube does well. I think the most exciting thing is he's willing to move fast. And so I think there's gonna be a lot of interesting things that come out of it because he's just moving quick. And a lot of these more mature platforms just take years to do the simplest stuff and they're very bureaucratic. And so it's gonna, I mean, it'll be interesting to see which way it goes when you just kind of take a move quick, break things, whatever type approach to social media. I'm actually pretty curious to see what features he rolls out. So what would be your first act as Twitter CEO? I can't spoil it. Okay. I gotta get hired. What do you think about video on the platform? On Twitter? Yeah, do you think that's an interesting, or is it like messing with the medium, the nature of the platform? I think Twitter will always be closer to TikTok than it is to YouTube. At least in its current form. I don't see 20 minute, one hour long videos or whatever, even 15 minute videos being watched over there. I see it more as like the short and snappy stuff closer to TikTok. But at the same time, Twitter is a really good comment section for the internet. I mean, it's almost weird why, like why doesn't Twitter allow you to embed YouTube videos? Like why does, you should just ask Elon that. I don't know if that's a YouTube thing, but when a YouTuber posts a video, why do they have to link to YouTube? Why can't they just embed it on Twitter and you just play it there? I mean, wouldn't that just solve a lot of problems? Yeah, but then the two companies would have to agree to integrate each other's content. I don't know, but it seems like a win-win. I mean, well, it's more of a win for Twitter because then people don't have to leave the platform. I mean, that'd be the easiest solution. But who gets, like when you watch the ads on a YouTube video that's embedded in Twitter, who gets the money? It would still be YouTube, but at least then right now people just post a link and it takes you off Twitter and it just kills your session time on Twitter. That's really interesting. But yeah, because the Twitter, whatever the dynamics of the comments, especially once the spam bots are taken care of, Twitter just works. It's really nice. So Reddit is a nice comment section for the internet. It's like slower paced, more deliberate, like higher effort. Twitter's like this high paced, like ephemeral kind of stream, but there's the upvoting and the downvoting works much better because you can do retweeting, right? Because the social network is much stronger than it is on YouTube. Like the interconnectivity. Yeah, on Reddit you're gonna get, the top replies are gonna be the most refined ones, whereas Twitter, stuff flows to the top that's not super refined. But like you're saying, it's more off the cuff stream of consciousness, which a lot of people prefer because it's a little more personal. How do you think Twitter compares to YouTube in terms of how you see its future on Roland 2023? I mean, I think YouTube's gonna be YouTube and not much is really gonna change, but it's gonna keep growing just because, you know, that's just what it does because it's owned by Google, but Twitter, I don't know. I mean, it's one of those things, like you can't predict if a year from now an economy's gonna be in a recession or booming. And I think Twitter's kind of the same thing. One thing's for certain, a lot of things are gonna be rolled out, but who knows, honestly. You responded to Elon saying Twitter's unlikely to be able to pay creators more money than YouTube. Why do you think that is? Well, yeah, because I think the tweet I responded to was one where he was saying that users will jump over if Twitter can potentially pay more than other platforms. And I was just saying, obviously, because Google has Google AdWords, and I mean, that's Google's whole thing, it's putting ads on stuff. They've been doing it better than anyone else in the world for a very long time. It's very unlikely in the next few years that Twitter's gonna just magically, or any platform, give a creator the ability to make higher CPMs than on YouTube. It's kind of crazy. Like some creators in December, Q4, because ad rates are higher because of Christmas and everything, some creators literally make like $30, $40 per 1,000 views. That's after YouTube's cut. It's almost hard to think about how high the RPMs get. And even then, once you pull out of finance and cars, the high CPM niches, and you move into just normal stuff, it's still just crazy. The sheer volume of creators, and the fact that all of them get these multi-dollar CPMs at scale, it's pretty beautiful. So you do, I don't know what you would call them, but like integrated ads in your videos, and you do it, I would say, masterfully. It's like part of the video. Are you talking about brand deals? Brand deals, is that what you would call that? Yep. So it's a brand deal, it's part of the video. It's still really exciting to watch, and yet there's a plug for the brand. In general, just brand deals, since you brought it up, integrating them well. I think that's something a lot of creators don't do. Like, they'll just do a brand deal out of the blue. They'll just be filming a video, and then around the three-minute mark, just start talking about a random company. And I feel like if you don't want viewers to click away, and you want people to not get pissed off and call you a sellout, you gotta find a way to integrate it into content. And ideally, use the money in the video to make it better. The easiest thing you do when you do a brand deal is just tell people how you're using money from the brand deal to make your content better. And if you do that, no one cares. Now they're supporting you for it. And you go from being a sellout to like, oh, I'm doing this to make better videos for you guys. I don't know if you can share, but with those brands, when you have discussions with them, are they strict about how long you need to be talking about it? Or is it more about they're leaving control to you about the artistic element of it? The problem is the ones who don't give us the artistic element, we just don't really work with anymore. Because it's just, you know, we get 100 million views a video now, and I can confidently say I know how to entertain them and convert them better than these random brands. So yeah, if they don't give us that freedom, I just won't work with them. So you have that leverage, but for smaller creators, it's a lot harder. Yeah, and they're gonna just say 45 seconds, here's what you say, take it or leave it. And it's like pretty brutal. Because I think just in general, if brands were more accommodating to let creators tell their story of the brand and talk about the brand in a way that felt a little more natural, I think A, it'd be less cringe, people would be less likely to go, you know, tap, tap, tap, skip. And obviously it would convert better. But they're just so afraid and they want this standardized thing. Say these words in 45 seconds, right here at this three minute mark. Yeah, I often think about how to resist that. You just don't do them though, right? Not on YouTube, right. On the audio, I do ads in the very beginning and I say you can skip them if you want. I'm sure the brand loves that. No, I don't. Like the point is they, so the funny thing about podcasts is different than YouTube videos. Podcast people actually do listen to ads a lot because it's slower paced and they like the creator voice, like talking about the thing. But in general, I just don't believe you should be talking about a thing for a minute exactly and that's going to be effective. I wanna see the data for that. I think what's much more effective is the way you do ads, which is like integrating into the content, like put a lot of effort into making a part of that, like doing the brand deals. And I just, it's difficult to have that conversation. It's like a very strenuous conversation you have to have with brands. You have to each one at a time. And I just wish there was more of a culture to say like, the quality of the ad read matters a lot more than the silly parameters, like the timing of it, like how long it is, the placement of it, all that kind of stuff. What percentage of your viewers do you think have seen one of my videos before? What percentage of the viewers on YouTube, right? Yeah, of your viewers. Of the viewers on YouTube though. Yeah, yeah. Most of the people. Okay, sure, or all of them. It's just interesting because you're speaking very specifically about my brand deal process. And so in my head, I'm like, I wonder what percentage of these people even have any idea what he's talking about. That's interesting. I love the thinking about numbers. The whole time we were having this conversation, that's all I could think about, is like, God damn it. There's probably like 50% of these people have no fucking clue what he's saying. Probably. And we're about to torture him for five minutes. Yeah, yeah, probably. But that's something I can't turn off in my brain. Less than 50%. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Is that exciting to you? That there's like 50% of people don't, have not watched a Mr. Beast video. Isn't that an opportunity to like? Yeah, I guess it's an opportunity to grow. I don't know. Honestly, I was just kind of excited to hang out with you. Yeah, me too. I mean, it was a lot of fun. Who cares if there's mics? Yeah, so it was kind of like having a buddy to go along the journey as I'm just kind of eating shit and doing my normal grind. It was like kind of fun. And also you just say really wise stuff constantly. So honestly, no, I never even put any thought into like the demographics or what I could gain. It's just interesting. Cause like my retention brain, when you talk about something, I'm instantly like, hmm, what value are they gonna get? How many of them are gonna be interested? What percentage of people do I think will lose? And I'm like running all those calculations in the background and that whole conversation, like the lot, anyway, it's just something I can't turn off. My like bells are like, error, error, this is bad. What are the different strategies for high retention for your videos and in general? It's like, how do you cook good food? You know what I mean? That's like the same kind of question. I see, so there's so many different ways that you, so it boils down to, I mean, do you think at the level of a story or do you think like literally watching five seconds at a time, am I gonna tune out here? Am I gonna tune out here? Am I gonna tune out here? It's all of it. You need the overarching narrative and then you also need the micro where every second, you know, needs to be entertaining. And you basically, what's interesting is the longer people watch something, the more likely they are to keep watching. So you don't have to try as hard in the hypothetically back half of a video as you do in the front. Like even right now, we're so deep into this where a lot of people listening are probably just gonna keep listening relatively close to the end unless we just have a really boring part of this conversation. Because they're just in it, they're immersed. And so a big, like to really boil it down to a simple level, you just wanna get people where they're immersed in the content and then just kind of hold them there. We had this discussion offline. And by the way, I should mention that this is like late at night. It is, what time is it? It's nine o'clock. And I only slept one hour last night because I'm an idiot and I flew to the wrong location. And I was like, hey, well here, we're like, hey, let's just book you a hotel and a flight. He's like, no, I got it. We're like, you sure? We can just do it. We always do this. He's like, no, I got it, I got it. He's gonna have to rub it in. I know, and then today, come to find out, he flew to the wrong airport, airport with a, or a city with a similar name to ours. Same name. Same name in a different state. And I was like, that's why you should have let us book it. And so he's on one hour of sleep and he's literally been dying all day. Before this podcast, he downed like two things of coffee. We've been going all day hard. No, that's not me. I just don't wanna be annoyed at myself. I just wanna, I feel so Sorry though. I feel so bad right now. Okay Open and it's 10, you done face time that day? Are you done face time? Are you done face time with him? Can those three be ended? All right. For sure. Okay, Offscreen, it's not working well 89. Well 나는 여러분한테 będzie saddle doen bastard Because she's stuck in the back and I've been in the front six days of this podcast. So that was a beautiful moment, you know, I was so confused you tweeted about that and I steals like like my assistant It was a Lex isn't here yet. And I saw your tweet. I was like, he's here. Yeah, he's like no He's still flying. I was like for like an hour ago. He just tweeted about a nice diner. Yeah It was a diner in a different state and then you had to fly over here and then I called you didn't answer I was like Something's not adding up Yeah, I feel like a such an idiot cuz uh, apparently the world Has cities like Springfield, right? There's like every single state has a Springfield. Oh, really? I think so. I think that's whatever that's like a Simpsons joke, right? That like it's this the city is and the Simpsons is Springfield and I think every single state or most of them have a Springfield and the same is true for like Georgetown I think the most part I forget what the most popular one was But there's like a list of these people get when they run out of ideas. They just keep Achilles heel Yeah, I got to I got to meet a bunch of people from From your team. There's just an incredible human beings it so let me just ask on that topic How do you hire a great team? Like what have you learned about hiring for? Everything for it for the main channel that you do for the the react again the the gaming channel to Mr. Beast burger to the Feastables all that The big thing is especially in this content creation because it's not like anything that's done on Netflix or or different content medians I really need people who are coachable and like Really see the value in what I care about because it's a very specific way of going about things and it's a like a thing You there's no one like plug-and-play like if Netflix wanted to hire someone to do a documentary There's probably tens of thousands of people you could hire that I've worked on documentaries before But if you want to hire someone to make super viral YouTube videos, you know, like we do There's just no one you can really pull from like sometimes I'll hire people from Game shows right and they have all these preconceived notions about pacing and how a video should be and you have to spend like the first year like breaking all these habits and You know and they think they're better than you like a lot of people in traditional think they're better and they think their ways better Than what we do and so for me it's almost easier to hire people that are just hard workers that are obsessed and Really coachable and just train them how to like be good at content creation and production then to hire someone from like Traditional which is the only way to really do it because there's not that many YouTube channels that have scaled up So it's not like there's a huge talent pool of people who've worked on YouTube channels So it's easier just to train someone then just pull them from traditional because traditional people just I don't know They have all these opinions and things and they just think our way of going about things is dumb Yeah So you want people who have the humility to have a beginner's mind even if they have experience? And see the value like actually a lot you'll still get it It's so crazy like especially some of my other friends that are scaling up their YouTube channels There's people that will come on and you'll ask them like what do you want to be doing in five years and instead of saying? Oh, I want to be working on this channel They'll be like, oh I hope to be working on movies or this and they see like Working on a YouTube channels a launchpad to go into traditional and it's like no, you just don't get it This is the future. This is the end goal. This is your career um, and so I'm just so tired of having those kinds of conversations like I feel like people really should be coming around are there like Recurring interview questions that you ask is there ways to get yeah But the biggest thing is like what do you want to be doing in 10 years and that their answer isn't you know? Making content on YouTube or you know, if their answer is anything like movies or traditional stuff like that It's like just a hell no, like it just won't even remotely work Oh, so you really want people to believe in the vision of YouTube? Yeah. I mean ideally it's like Oh working here You know, I mean, so it's less about the medium and more about just being on a great team is doing epic stuff Yeah, well, and yeah the media as well because those it's just it's hard to Put into words, but there's it's just two completely different ways of going about things you know like our videos aren't scripted and you know, it's a lot more run-and-gun and When we if we hypothetically blow up a giant car or whatever like you only have one take, you know So and it's not scripted and so you have to over film overshoot things overcompensate for like the dumb way of going about it a lot of traditional people would be like Well, just plan what you're gonna say and just plan the angles You can cut the cameras in half you can save 50 grand here You can save a you know, 75,000 hours editing isn't that and it's like yeah, but that's not authentic Like that's you know, I above you you get it It's it's almost so obvious that it hurts that I have to like constantly have these conversations But so what we live in but there's also a detail like there's a taste like I've watched a bunch of videos with you and it's Clear to you that you've gotten really good I Don't know what the right word is Style or taste to be able to know what's good and not in terms of retention in terms of yeah Just stylistically visually. I don't have to think I can just watch a video and it just it just Screams in my head like this is what this is what should change based on the you know Million videos I've watched and all these viral videos are consumed like this is bubble what's optimal and things like that it's almost like your brains like a You know like a neural net and like if you consume enough viral videos and enough Good content that you just kind of start to like train your brain to like see it and see these patterns that happen in All these viral videos and so that anytime I watch a video or a movie or anything I just can't stop thinking about what is optimal and so it's like it gives me a headache Sometimes when I watch something too slow, or I don't think it's optimal Obviously my taste is at the end all be all But that's something that kind of torments me if that makes any sense. Oh You can't enjoy a slow-moving. No, I can't and that's not to say there's tension on the Godfather is horrible Yeah, no, I've tried to watch that movie like three times, but that's not to say slow movies are bad Like there's an audience for it It's just obviously not what I've trained my brain to like and in Social media and YouTube right now like that's just not the meta and in general like you said in neural network You're training your brain in part on actual data Right. So you're actually data-driven. So you're looking at like in terms of thumbnails and titles and Different aspects of the first five ten seconds and then throughout the video the retention all that you're looking at all that For your own videos to understand how to do it better. So that's where the neural network is training Yeah, basically there are ways you can kind of see like the most few videos on YouTube every day and stuff like that I just kind of consume those every single day. I've been doing that for way too many years And you just start to notice patterns like the thumbnails on the most few videos or videos that go super viral Tend to be clear tend to not have much clutter tend to be pretty simple titles tend to be less than 50 characters intros tend to be this stories tend to be this and you just kind of like after you see those thousands and then tens of thousands of time it just Starts to click in your head like this is what it looks like, you know, so how are you able to? Transfer that taste that you've developed to the team So for like because you said like broad things, but I'm sure there's a million detailed things Like what zoom to use on the face to use in the thumbnail, right? Like the answer is whatever makes the best video because the problem is the more Which I have so many friends who are like this They'll make like checklists for their editor So yeah you know this be in this be and you need to have like a three-part arc and then this but the the problem is that's how you the the more constraints you put on the team the more repetitive and Less innovation you get in the more like, you know after 10 videos people are in there, right? I've already seen this so to me and I'm 24 and you know, I'm probably my mindset will change over the next 10 years I just haven't been in this industry too long But the only way to like really make innovative content and keep things fresh is to not put constraints on All right, put as little as possible and so that's why I'm very hesitant about all that stuff because the more I say the more they're gonna be like Oh, then that's what we do. And then you know, I'll say one time like oh, you know Ideally, there's a cut every three seconds and the next thing, you know, yeah every video there's like cut every three seconds or whatever so it's it's hard because I try to give as little train not training but as little a Facts or as possible and more just make suggestions if that makes any you mean publicly or to your team to my team Yeah, what was so we talked about sort of teaching your voice or your style? Whatever we want to call it to other people on the team so they can be kind of a mr. Beast replacement So what's the process of teaching that so you don't know I got you You're more time about like what I would call almost like cloning right like like Tyler and other people like that Yeah, so what when we were hanging out today? I was showing him how we have multiple people in the company It's it's almost like talking to the camera to have you turn slowly to the camera I was like it is have it is it weird to you to not be looking at the camera this whole interview I constantly have been turning towards the camera. I'm talking to him. Yes. It's a habit. It's my whole life I've just been talking to a camera. Who are you thinking about when you look at the camera? Do you like imagine somebody? I'm fully thinking about the person just sitting watching it and I almost it's weird when I'm looking at the camera I don't see a camera. I'm like in a haze picturing what the viewer is seeing when they watch it Yeah, that makes sense And that's where I'll be saying things and or doing something and then like what I'm watching I'm like, that's not what I want and then I'll freeze up. It's very weird when I'm filming and it for people who haven't Worked with me too much. They'll think like I don't know It's very weird like how I go about it because I'll just be doing whatever like lighting a firework All right. This is a thousand-dollar fire when I'll go to light of it and I like freeze because in my head I'm like this I don't know I don't like how that float or how that shot look cuz I it's weird I can perfectly picture what I'm filming by just looking at the camera and then putting myself through the lens of the camera while Making content I can do it at the same time. So you're like real-time editing in my head Yeah, that's something that didn't at the start come natural to me But in the last probably like five years it's happened And so I would say it's one of my greatest strengths, but I don't know how I developed it But anytime I'm filming anything like it's almost like the right side of my brain I just can just look at and I see exactly what I'm filming and I can just picture it well that's probably do recording the video being the talent for the video and then watching the editing and And like analyzing you carefully do that over and over and over you to thousand times Yeah, you do the editing more than the being in front of the camera. So like you You start to see yourself from that third-person perspective Exactly, then maybe that actually helps with the nerves of it too. Like you see it as creating a video versus performing Right. Yeah. Yeah, I think so. You know, I it's weird. I've never Been nervous talking to a camera It's it's harder for me to talk to a person that is talk to a camera which I feel like a lot of people say That though that are whatever make content right interesting. I've heard that so many times Or maybe not. Maybe I'm just awkward and maybe they're practiced I to me it's when you both are terrifying but being in front of the camera by yourself is much easier Really? Yeah, so much. I prefer it a million times over But that's my whole life It's just that's why it's interesting like you've spent more of your time talking to people Yes comes natural and I talked to a Piece of plastic. Oh, yeah, I guess you're talking to a person too. There's just then on the other side of the camera Yeah, there's just a pixel on a screen So so cloning, how do you how do you cheat? Oh, yeah, that's right That's all rabbit. Oh, so I was showing him that I have a lot of people in the company who are able to think like me and Basically make decisions like I would make if I was like if you were asked hey in this video Should we climb a mountain or should we dig a hole? All right, and like, you know, they would pick the same answer. I'd pick 90 plus percent of the times and so like one example is Tyler who I was showing you and he was pitching some content and you could see like this he was on point and Basically for just four or five years We just spent an absurd amount of time together and worked on every single video together and we worked side-by-side And same thing with my CEO James. He literally lived with me for a couple years I'm a big fan of just like finding people who are super obsessed and all in and a players that you know They really just want to be great and they're just dumping everything I have in them And like you were saying because I'd love to find that and develop that you're saying you're basically for a long time Just said everything you were thinking to them exactly like James the guy who's basically my right him and right now For two years he lived with me and we probably talked on average of those two years seven hours a day I mean anytime I had a phone call it don't on speaker and I'd let him listen Anything I was reading any content that's consuming like really just training his brain to think like me so that way He could just do things without my input without me having to constantly watch over him or give him advice And and that's where we've gotten like so for the first six months. He didn't do anything He just studied me and studied everything I cared about and how I spoke and blah blah And then the next six months he started taking on some responsibilities and now he can just run the company and you know I don't ever really have to check in on him. Like I most the decisions he makes are exactly what I would do And so I I call that cloning I don't know what other people would but it's just like finding people that are really obsessed and they just kind of Really want it and just being like giving them an avenue to like get it if that makes any sense Another way to see it is you're converging towards a common vision and that makes like brainstorming Much more productive. Yeah, it just makes it where I don't have to be so involved in everything because I just have these people I know will think like I will at least relatively close to it So I can kind of almost be in multiple places at once per se and so these things that you know I still approve every idea we film and you know everything before we film it all the creative I approve it But I don't have to like be in the weeds and nuances and do all this minor stuff I just let them handle it. I just do the more macro things. I got a chance to sit in To a lengthy brainstorming session with Tyler and others. That was really cool can you talk about the process of that of People pitching ideas and you Pitching alternatives or shutting down ideas and just go like plowing through ideas. I mean you kind of just Describe exactly what we did. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, but the ideas are really really good. It's just tossing out like different categories of ideas and then also fine-tuning them to see like You know, I change like thinking about the titles and I work so well off of inspiration. It's like it's a something Like give give me any word I don't know make a real space space. Yeah, like I went to space, you know What happens if you blow up a nuke in space or I went to the moon? I went to Mars right because you said that one word it was able to inspire me to come up with four ideas And so that's just it's for me If you the way to get a hundred million views on videos You need something original creative something people really need to see ideally never been done before all these like things And so you need like if you want to consistently go super well You need just a constant stream of ideas and the only way I've really found That I can consistently come up with hundred million view videos is to intake inspiration and then see what my brain outputs And so that's kind of at its core foundation what I'm doing there It's just like in taking a lot of random inspiration to see what spawns in my mind so I can Output it but the neural network of your brain is generating the video the title the thumbnail all like jointly Exactly, and that only comes because I spent ten years of my life just obsessively studying all that stuff because you I mean It seems like you would literally Potentially shut down a video just because you can't come up with a good title. Yeah Yeah, I mean that's what's happened to 70% of those in that pitch session I was just like oh, what was one of them genius versus a hundred people or yeah Like maybe average intelligence versus genius. Yeah. Yeah. I was like what the heck is the thumbnail even if the title is good? Yeah, yeah, I mean this so many but yeah people don't click they don't watch That's so interesting. But you developed over time the ability to kind of give it what what makes for a good title short? Not just sure. It's also I mean If someone reads it, are they like do they have to watch it? Is it just so intrinsically interesting that it's just gonna fuck with them if they don't click on it You know what? I mean, so it doesn't have to be short, but it has to be Like you almost want to have a retention to word by word reading. Ideally. It's a title also that You know because the titles don't live in a vacuum, right? So it has to lead into the content So ideally the title represents content that you would want to watch for 20 minutes So if it's a 20 minute video and the title is I stepped on a bug It's not gonna because it's all of it combined It's the click the rates gonna be much lower and then if it was like a five second video people might click it So you got a like even nuances of the length of the video based against the title will affect whether people want to click it Because sometimes they just don't add up. I mean, it's that yes Ideally you want to blow 50 characters because above 50 characters on certain devices you run the chance of it going dot dot dot So like I took a light pole and I saw how many dollar bills I could stack on top and they would just go dot dot Dot because it's too long and it can't finish it and that's the worst thing because then people don't even know what they're clicking on And so it's gonna do even worse short simple ideally and just so freaking interesting they have to click and it is a good segue into the content and it Represents the length of the content and there's probably stuff. It's hard to convert convert into words for you Like I stepped on a bug versus stepping on a bug versus mr. B stepped on a bug So it's like yes the more extreme the opinion typically the higher the click-through rate if you can like Pay it off in the content then it just supercharges it so like you have a kind of estimate of the Extremist this water right? You're like Fiji water sucks. Yeah, that'd do fine. But if you said Fiji water, it's the worst water bottle or the worst water I've ever drank in my life. Yeah way more extreme opinion would do way better. You have to deliver Yeah, but then you have to deliver because the more extreme you are the more extreme you have to be in the video Yeah, that's almost inspiration for you to step up Yeah, you can be more extreme in a positive way. Yeah, a lot of people it's easier though posit Negative clickbaits much easier than positively fate. It just is it's so much easier to get negative clicks And so a lot of people are just in my opinion, you know a little bit lazier and they just take the route like oh Well, this one gets the same amount of clicks and it's easier less effort The positive one is doing a large number of numbers of something Like I spent this number of hours doing this or whatever if you just wanted to help people or right It's just harder to get 10 million views on a video helping people than it is to get 10 million views on a video Tearing down a celebrity, you know, I mean or whatever negative video you want to insert there Well that said most of your videos are pretty positive. Yeah, so what's but they're not a lot of people do those kinds of videos Because they're hard. Yeah, they're hard. Yeah, some of that is giving away money, right? Yeah What's the secret to that? What's how do you do that? Right? Yeah, like give away money or in a video that made it to make it compelling Um, is it so there's a number that is better than another number, right? The higher number is always better than the lower number. Yeah for the most part and you know, it's interesting like Some videos will give away a million dollars. Some videos will give away half a million There's not really I guess so I'm retracting what I just said I was more joking with that, but there's no difference whether I put 500k or a million There's probably not even really a difference between 100k or a million. I mean, I don't know I haven't really looked into it like some of our mostly videos are not us giving away a million dollars and sometimes the million dollar Videos just don't do as well as the other one So there there is a certain point where a dollar amount is just a large dollar amount to an average human And so I think that point is 100k like anything above 100k the average human is just like that's a lot of money You know, it doesn't it doesn't 100k in a million like doesn't really move the needle and that makes sense Which that's a very nuanced piece of information that I'll probably have to look into That's a very nuanced piece of information that applies to very few people. But yeah, well, no, I think it applies. It's fascinating. It's fascinating human Our relationship with money is fascinating. Like why is it so exciting to get I mean, I you know the times I found like 20 bucks in the ground are like Incredible. I don't know why Why are you so happy? Like what exactly is so joyful about that? I mean, it depends where you are in life what the situation is. Yeah, I don't know There's also a gamified aspect to it. It's exciting. Yes. No, I get it. Like why people want to see people win money It's just interesting that past 100 grand. It's it doesn't really seem to make a difference. Like it's the same basically So you found that to be true with all the money you've given away that I just think click-through rate like obviously in terms of someone Receiving it. Yeah a million dollars changes their life drastically more Like that's the difference like oh you if you wanted to you could really quit your job As opposed to 100 K is like not really you probably do like a scientific study like a formula Giving away money to click-through rate. Yeah, there could be some kind of I got your turn It definitely the the returns level off dramatically after 100 K. That's basically the premise. What about 10,000? Now there's 10 a hundred thousand Funny because this is such a small niche thing But yeah, a hundred thousand does it from what I see in our videos get more clicks than 10,000 But the difference between a hundred thousand a million is just so little I just I think big number big number to a lot of people well, I pass that point Yeah, so 400,000 you can like a given average salary. You can probably live for a year given give a day out every salaries in America So that's like a big that feels yeah, I think it's also just more when they read the title It's just like it's a lot of zeros. It's a lot of fuck loads of zeros. Okay, click Yeah, oh man, that's fascinating so on the thumbnail side again, that's gonna be much harder to say probably But you know offline, you know, I got a chance to look at a bunch of thumbnails And it's fascinating which ones do well, which ones don't is there something you could say about? What are the elements of thumbnail that work? Well, is this also deeply? Well, that's where yeah It's the same thing like how do you cook good food? But I it's easier if you pull up a thumbnail and I could be like, that's why that's good That's why that's bad. That's a like an example would be like one of my friends I was he just uploaded a video recently and I called him I was like, what is this because he's a very very smart guy and in the thumbnail He's he's getting chased by cops, but the cops were wearing yellow vests so they didn't look at cops I was like, oh, why are the cops in your thumb? No wearing yellow vests? It's like that makes it so much more boring and he was like carrying a flag But the pole and the color of the flag were the same color So it's like it's a little harder to see the flag I was like also you're wearing like a shirt with like five different colors like so it's like it's hard to tell What even what your outline is and then in the background there are cars and I was like, well if you have cops chasing you might not make the cars cop cars and You know and it's like cuz in my head I'm like dang if you just did those like four or five things the video Probably got like 7x the views how much? Iteration because I also got a chance to see the number of iterations you do on a just a problem No, that is an addiction is it so you can't kind of There's a lot of the versions are really good. Yeah, how do you know what to like? I love how you when we pulled up that uh, the burger one and we were flipping through him. That's really good I was like, oh that's version like one of like a thousand But even the sketch the idea was good like already even the original idea is wrong Yeah, so we one of our coming-up videos We made the world's largest plant-based burger and the thumbnail we were thinking is like me standing beside the burger cuz it's six feet tall That's that's what he's talking about. So I just picture a giant six-foot tall burger super wide Thousands of pounds and then I'm beside it and then it's like eating the world's largest burger Like you that's just something you have to click like so you were saying like how would you describe a good thumbnail like that? You know, I mean like but I think you said the one I noticed first that was good Well, you were very small in it relative to the and you didn't like that one I need to come forward a little bit and also I the photo we took was just my upper body. Yeah, so they photo manipulating creating my legs Photoshop and that's why I said I didn't like it because my right leg was a little like off It was like bent the wrong way Well, I mean does the physics of the thumbnail have to even make sense I mean you can just like exaggerate the head size and all that comes. Yeah 100% Yeah, things don't have to be relative. Yeah, you can have a car in the background be three times the size Yeah, because yeah, everyone of my thumbnails my face is in the you know, left side very big so brand recognition So just people know oh, especially because now that a lot of people copy our videos It's just nice to like, you know, everyone else might make thumbnails like this But this is mine and obviously we usually over deliver and do bigger stuff Would you recommend to other creators that wanna that want to make it big too and they see mr Beast and I look up to you to copy some elements of you or to really try to be unique Unique 100% unique. You're not the next mr. Beast quote-unquote. Yes, we're saying that third person But whatever is not gonna do what I'm doing better They're gonna just invent their own lane. Like you're just not gonna do what I do better than me, you know I have so many I literally have the best people in the world working here and I reinvest everything I make even to this day You know, I mean like it's absurd the amount of money has been on content and I don't care I'll just stop sleeping and I'll just film every other day like you're just not gonna beat me at my own game and that's fine You shouldn't like I didn't get where I am by just beating someone else at their own game I just found my own lane and innovated and adapted and so yeah There's a lot of people that do copy me and it's fine Whatever do it but just know you're not gonna get to where I am doing that And so I'd advise you don't you give away a lot of the secrets basically everything? Yeah, well how you operate is there I don't hold anything back. Go for it You know, how do you think about that? Because that's also that's pretty rare. I think and this is a definitely not a Most people in my stance. I don't think would take this or my position would take this stance But I see every other youtuber so person on social media even is we're also focused super heavily on YouTube Well last year We're also the most followed tik-tok creator in the world as well I sure were most subscribed to YouTube channel world and the most followed to talk account in the world But uh in general, I just see everyone else as collaborators not competitors. I I don't Think giving advice and helping other creators do well in any way harms me And I think it only brings more value to my life. How was it? Jumping on tik-tok and trying to understand that platform from scratch Yeah, so from being a successful youtuber to understand a totally different algorithm fundamentally different algorithm It's interesting. Well, not even just the algorithm just the content like I'm going from basically 15 minute short films So one sub one minute vertical content is a whole different just ballpark And so the first little while is doing tik-tok is just kind of figuring out how what what does mr Beast look like in this short form content but recently we've really started to catch our stride and come up with some original concepts and figure out how to innovate over there just Like we did on YouTube because I don't want it. I didn't want it to just be shitty YouTube videos Yeah, you know and so like an example is um We played the rock for 100k and rock paper scissors and the loser had to donate 100k to charity We did we went to random people on a campus and we offered them So I said I'll give you a hundred dollars if you fly to Paris and give me a baguette and then they said no I was like, I'll give you $300 You fly to Paris and give me a baguette and I was expecting this person to say no and it go up to like 10 grand He's like yes and so he flew to Paris got a baguette and brought it back and gave it to me and that Across everything got like 450 million views and it cuz it's just really cool Just to see this random guy get on a plane spend a day in Paris and we cut it up real nicely And bring it back and so we're starting to find just tons of original content over there But it seems like an epic video to make for a one minute. It's like no one on short forms doing it That's the thing. It's like it's just so funny because like tick tocks been big for a while now years and then You know as we started to really figure out things on the YouTube channel and get it cranking where I have some free time We set our sights on tick-tock and like, okay, what are people not doing? How do we make it better put in more effort make it good and we did the same thing We did at YouTube just different over on tick-tock and it worked and now we're the fast growing They're most followed tick-tock account in 2022 and it's just funny that no one else did that You're not afraid to do epic stuff, which I also doing the brainstorming some of some of the ideas you like that's better as a short That's crazy. Yeah, can you remember one? Cuz I remember I said that a bunch I can't think of all I remember Is that there were like epic videos? Like really you're going to do that for a one-minute video Yeah, it's crazy. So like are you posting similar content to a YouTube short as a tick-tock? Yeah, those were just double up It's just hard You know what's actually pretty fascinating and people who do social media listening to this will probably find this pretty interesting is picture like the content creation meta three years ago versus now where you can make sub one minute vertical content and it go viral on Tick-tock and go viral on YouTube shorts go viral on Instagram reels. It goes viral on Facebook. It goes read it You know you swipe through vertical content now and Twitter when you click on a video and you flip through it So this is actually very weird This is the first time in the history of I guess Western social media that one form of content could actually go super viral in Every single platform. It's never been like that before. So they're going viral individual. They're like I can post something on tick-tock that will get a hundred million views and then post on shorts and I'll get 200 million views and Then post it on Instagram and I get 50 million views and then you know I haven't yet but you know you can then turn around and tweet it and it get tens of millions of views and you can post on red and it get tens of millions of views and and Facebook and get tens of millions of views and That's that just wasn't a thing three years ago Twitter didn't have when because a lot of you probably don't even know this but when you tap on a video now and you swipe Down it just turns into tick-tock. That wasn't a thing even a year ago read it That wasn't a thing year ago probably two years ago. That wasn't a thing on Instagram three years ago That wasn't a thing on YouTube right with YouTube shorts. So this is all new and I don't it's weird I haven't heard a single person talk about it. But this is the first time where content can actually Go viral in every single platform and you don't have to write or film a video for Facebook film a 12-minute video for YouTube Film a sub 60-second video for tick-tock write a tweet for Twitter and post this on reddit You can just do the same thing on every platform and the fact that your content has gone viral on multiple platforms regularly means that Virality is not accidental Sometimes it can be of course, but it's it's just it can be engineered It's yeah, so many people say it's luck and like you're just lucky or this or that but What do we have to probably like a thousand videos over 10 million views? Like we don't ever have a dud like you can call it luck, but I think it could be trained I I counsel youtubers all the time and show them how to Go from getting a couple million views a month to 10 millions views a month very easily if I'm even certain ones like it's just one of my friends like he was just really struggling and so I just started showing him Basically everything I know and just doing like once every week Sometimes once every two weeks calls and he went from ten thousand dollars a month on YouTube to over four hundred thousand I'm just doing these little counseling calls And so I mean people can make excuses all they want and say it's just luck or say, you know Well, I don't want to quote all the other stuff, but it's just it is it is a teachable skill It's a learnable skill you can study your way to Consistently make viral videos no matter how small your channel is even if you have zero subscribers you could if you actually studied hard enough and like Basically if you knew what I knew and some of these so I don't sound so arrogant Also like some of these other friends that have that I'd say are the smartest people in the world when it comes to content creation Online if you had the knowledge that was in our heads you could do it very easily I see people do it all the time And what's even more interesting is I go on podcasts and I say everything I know and these people are also very open Some of them I know it's all out there and a lot of people instead of just studying that and trying to absorb and apply It in their own way. They're just like no, it's just luck, you know, so you do lay it all out there But I got to push back to one Interesting thing. I think a crucial component of your success is the idea stage the idea generation the brainstorming I heard today but getting really good at generating ideas. So it's not it's not just the Selection of the thumbnail and the title that creative process. It's also just the The engine of generating really good ideas, of course getting that I mean I would say that It's probably the thing that needs to be trained the most for most creators, right that there they just don't put enough ideas on paper Yes, but also a lot of creators also just don't You know, which I didn't either for the longest time just didn't don't make good enough content, you know content That's worthy of getting 10 million views in the idea or the execution of the idea both I mean like think about how many people just make videos they film in under 20 minutes and they don't really put any effort into It and like, you know, it's like my first 500 videos didn't deserve to get a million views Like there's a reason they did they're terrible, you know, but at the time I thought they did right now I'm in the mindset of a lot of small youtubers or I thought those videos deserved a billion views I thought the algorithm hated me, but I watch them back now and I could tell you exactly why the videos were fucking horrible You know, I mean, well, so what was the breakthrough for you to start realizing to start having a self-awareness, you know about These videos aren't good enough. You're probably still going through that. You're probably still growing to see Yeah every six months you should look back and hate your videos or at least see things you could improve and be like Oh, I could have done this better that better if not, then you're not learning quick enough in my opinion at least Where's the source of that learning even for you now? It's uh, just look at I just got back from a no I mean, I just got back from a mastermind where I just got like, you know Ten of the smartest people I knew and we just locked herself in a cabin and taught each other stuff Constantly every day not every day now probably every other day. I go on a walk and I just call random people I'll just say teach me something and I mean, it's just You just have to have a never-ending thirst for learning like that's very imperative Especially if you want like if you want to get on top and then stay on top The only way to do it is just to constantly be learning or someone who is learning is just gonna You know have a leg up on you in the knowledge game And what kind of stuff are you because you've talked about offline that you just love learning of all kinds doesn't matter But in terms of videos, are you studying videos? Are you studying? Recently not as much I'm more because to get to the videos I want I have to build this business and scale up and hire So one of my recent time has been like my teenage years were spent studying virality and studying content creation now I'm studying how to build a content company so I can actually produce the crazy ideas I want to produce if that makes any sense. So yeah, and that's the business side We talked about hiring. Do you have trouble firing people? No, I pretty sure almost every person Yeah, actually every person I've ever fired we just give them severance and I like to see it more as It's no ill will like if there's like if I fired you if there's some other job You want me to help you get I'll DM them on Twitter Like, you know if you want to go work for I don't know insert whatever MTV give me someone to DM I'll DM like, you know I I Try to make it more like a transition and do whatever we can to make it as easy as well Something was just not working for you because you want people like you said super passionate because at the end of the day if you Hold someone that you on to someone that you don't see being here in ten years. You're just doing a disservice You're just giving them more in grain more and rooted and where where they are And the sooner you do it and help them move on to their like new life the better Given all the wisdom you have now if you were to give advice to somebody or if you were to start over again You had no money will be the first ten videos you tried to to make on a new channel I guess that's advice for a new person and nobody knows you. Yeah, nobody knows me Yeah, I have a mask on and you also I guess don't have the wisdom well, if I don't have what I have in my head, then I would say just fail like just a lot of people get analysis paralysis and they'll just sit there and they'll plan their first video for three months and Yeah, I'm any of you listening if you especially if you have zero views on your channel Your first video is not gonna give views period it's not your first ten are not gonna give views I can very confidently say that so stop sitting there and thinking for months and months on in and just get to work and start Uploading like all you need to do this applies to people who have not uploaded videos But have dreams of being a youtuber is make a hundred videos and improve something every time do that and then on your hundred first Video we'll start talking like maybe you can get some views but you know your first hundred are gonna start There are very freak cases like by Sakoshi or Emma Chamberlain who have really good personalities and it doesn't take them So as many videos and it's just like people who are seven foot five and making the NBA like yes There are free cases you can find but for the average person like us, you know We don't have these exceptional personalities and you know backgrounds and filmmaking just make a hundred videos Improve something each time and then talk to me on your hundred first video. Well, the improve something is time is the tricky one How do you improve something each time the second one just I don't know put more effort into the script the third one Try to learn a new editing trick the fourth one Try to figure out a way that you can have better inflections in your voice the fifth one try to you know Study a new thumbnail tip and implement it the sixth one try to figure out a new title There's infinite ways. That's the beauty of content creation online there's literally infinite ways from the coloring to the frame rate to the editing to the filming to the production to the jokes to the pacing to Every little thing can be improved and they can never not be improved. There's no there's literally no such thing as a perfect video So if you knew everything, you know now But no money step one would I just brainstorm like okay. I don't have money. What are some viral things? Like I mean, you know The first thing that comes to mind is something as simple as when I count to a hundred thousand Which is what I did do and I was poor and like that work But like what's something like that I could do that would be even more Attention, yeah, you were as part of the brainstorm You would throw out a lot of ideas people throw it up a bunch of ideas and one of the questions is this even doable? Right. Yeah, first off come up with ideas you think would do well and then ask yourself later if they're doable Yeah, because there's there's different ways you can accomplish something. Don't be cynical about the do ability of stuff yeah, because there really are so many different ways you can accomplish a goal like When we give away an island like we gave our hundred million subscriber an island Yeah, you know, you can't find private islands that you know, don't look like shit for less than ten million dollars So this isn't doable, right? All right, the idea doesn't exist not doable exit off But then you know you dig into it and you you know find different alternatives you find Okay, what if we just buy a two million dollar island that sucks and then spend a million dollars, you know importing some sand Let's build a beach. Let's import 300 trees. Let's put a little bit of canals cut some paths. Boom Now it's a really nice island, but it's actually affordable because we don't have ten million dollars on a video But we can afford to spend three and a half and lose whatever a million dollars on that video So like that's an example of like yeah, if you just went off the gut test, she's like this isn't doable You know every island's ten million dollars. We're screwed. Like if we go cheaper, it's just a terrible island No and so if you like There are so many different ways you can achieve what you want you've really got to push through notes, which not a lot of people do you have to have like a more of a dominant personality and just a willingness to When people tell you it's not possible just actually go through all the variables and eliminate them all yourself have a stubbornness and Resilience to failure maybe for what we do and creators online. It's very imperative that you have that I know isn't a no to you that you really have to like think and And just like we we take a personality test and like just having a dominant personality is a better indicator that when someone tells you Oh, there's no way you're gonna build a brick wall for under 100 grand You know, you'll be like, okay and then still go check the next 10 vendors. Yeah, you know figure it out Yeah, what advice would you give to an already established channel? Like with one two, three four million subscribers how to like 10 exit like increase it Um without losing me. Yeah, that's where it's very specific channel by channel. You can't give general advice. Okay? Yeah, because if I do Millions of creators are gonna see this and then they're gonna do it and I'm gonna fuck them over, you know I say see so let's say I'd like 2 million subscribers on this podcast Yeah, like how would you 10x that without sacrificing what it is 10x your stuff doesn't matter. So we you've talked about what success Yeah, it's different for everyone like is 10x in your definition of success. No Well, then it's gonna be right off the bat. It's hard because if you don't give a shit about 10x thing It's even harder to 10x. He does this because he likes helping people That's one thing I found throughout this day every time I talk data It's so funny with him because it's like, you know You could do this to get more views and he'll just be like blank I feel like that doesn't register anything and he's just like doesn't care which is it's really I'm really nervous about that I'm really nervous about the numbers affecting Because it's so fun. Yeah, it's so fun to focus on the numbers and I'm really worried about that but at the same time you should be Cognizant of that because you've created not just some of the most watched videos, but some of the most amazing videos ever So it's there's a strong correlation there. It's not like you're selling your soul to make a highly viewed video It's actually if you look at the metrics It helps you understand what is compelling and not and so I feel like I am I Feel like there's some value to Investigate what work when people tune on and when not to be date more data-driven even on podcasts But I'm really afraid of on the flip side I think part of the appeal is that you don't care about that kind of stuff But there there could be stuff that doesn't have to do anything with that and it has to do with stylistic choices of lighting and cameras or maybe with For example Topics. Yeah, you know like even what you've asked me here is like different than what most people ask me Yeah, so it could be that I mean and they'd be nice to understand that but yeah again I'm worried about polluting the day. It's it's this is a true case of its your own intuition Like, you know, your viewers better than anyone else. What it's whatever. See I'd like to push back on that I really don't you do I do else name one person who knows your viewers better than you Somebody that looks at numbers of podcasts, no, you know, your viewers, you know, you're the only how many episodes have you done? 350 exactly, but I'm not you're the only one who's watched every second of all 350 of them probably that's just that's just not No, I haven't but the well cuz you did it so you do know what's in album It's your content is you people I'm telling you you do and this is just one of those moments where? You're an intelligent guy and you just have to trust your like instincts like just think what is the typical X viewer? And what do they want? I don't think like that My tip but that's all you would have to do and whatever your gut tells you that would be the best guess You don't know what the typical viewer is though I don't I don't cuz I Choose investigate that would be very very difficult and they have to start looking at the numbers You have to start to like consider demographics the only way I know that anybody even watches it is because I'll sometimes run into people like when I run along the river and They'd be like I love you Lex. It's like, okay. Well that that's that's the data point and they're like cool people But you know, I don't know like I don't have any other it's difficult man. It's difficult to know It's difficult to know who listens to boxes difficult. And do you have a sense of who's I mean, you're so huge that everybody watches Yeah, but no, I still do I'd say if you were to just put a gun to my head and you're you're like, alright We're gonna pick a random person that watched your last video and you have to like roughly guess what they are and if you're not close will kill you I would say probably like a a teenager that plays video games like some something like that would be probably the typical one and then there are people that are maybe A little bit younger a lot of people that are older as well, but in a ramble random sample size Yeah, it's probably like I'm a male boy that plays video games like that's the best way I would describe it But I don't try to pertain to him I just make whatever I think is interesting and good content and this is what we were talking about before even though Hypothetically 35 to 40 percent of my audience is women which is you know less than a majority if we get 100 million views video That's still 30 to 40 million females that watch every video which is probably the largest You know views per video for women on the whole platform, which you wouldn't think that you know Like I can't think of a single other creator that gets more women to watch their videos than that and So it's just anything even like people above the age of 30, even if it's only like three or four percent That's still three to four percent of 100 million views is a lot of people that age So we we hit a large group of of kind of every demographic So what if we look at other maybe more challenging kinds of channels or not? But if we look at educational for example, like lectures or if we look yeah educational it could be short videos. Like how would you? 10x that like something on Of robotics and biology and science and engineering and all that. I that's more educational focus We would honestly just have to pull that because it's the same way if you went to Gordon Ramsay He said how would a new cook cook better? You know, it's like even then that's not even specifically you have to go channel by channel You really do or I'm giving horrible advice because if there was these just golden rules everyone do it You know what I mean? Like if there's these magical little principles how quickly when you look at a channel Can you kind of very give advice? Yeah, it's it's like surface level at the start and then the more if we watch 10 videos I feel like I'd have a good profile and I could tell you in my opinion You know one especially once I look at the analytics and I get more ingrained in like, okay The typical viewers this they're from here. Here's how they're feeling You know because there are people who make videos for rednecks and like the rednecks taste of content It's just so much different than obviously women watching makeup videos, which are so much different than you know, teenage boys watching a Minecraft video They're just all different. So the biggest thing you have to do is put your head your head in the headspace of the viewer and See the content how they would because if you just try to only give your taste which is what a lot of people do and Things from your perspective. It's very biased and it's just not gonna work for everyone And that's actually how you do more harm than good, which is something I'm very careful of Yeah, but at the same time just generating a lot of ideas I think the first time I've talked to you was on Clubhouse actually Yeah, I mentioned something about robots and like almost immediately went to generating a bunch of ideas around Oh, yeah, easily It's just a hundred robots versus a hundred humans. Yeah. Yeah, how far can a robot throw a potato? I think your idea like I think the first idea was because you just said so many ideas. I never even thought of but it's it shows the value of Basically brainstorming with people that think differently, but at the end of the day my ideas are probably you know might lean towards Some people a little bit younger than your audience like some of the stuff I'm yeah, there's still ideas like I think the first one you said because we're talking about a quadruped like robot dogs you said to replace a Biological dog with a robot dog and see if the owner notices something you were just quickly Brainstorming different ideas of like how this is years ago. I remember yeah Which is just I mean, it's like oh, yeah I never really thought about that kind of sort of it's the basic the tension between What does it take for a robot and our AI system to replace the biological systems that we the biological creatures that we love? in our lives, yeah, and but like that was like the the pace of idea generation Was the thing that struck me today and in general it's like that's how you get at good videos as you keep keep It's much easier to make a video around a good idea. Obviously than a bad one I get you just send yourself up for success. Okay, so that's for 10xing already popular Channel, what's the hardest number you said? and the numbers that matters click-through rate average view duration and surveys What's the hardest number to optimize for probably surveys, you know? Do you have any do you have an insight into the surveys at all? No, not really, but if you just click on a bunch of random videos online, you'll eventually get a survey What's this video transformative heartwarming inspiring what people rate does make a difference? And it's like you can give people click a video you can get them to watch it But you can't really fake whether or not they're satisfied like they don't lie the surveys, you know You know, maybe one person here there my troll but once you aggregate enough, it's a pretty clear telltale of the video So either you're making a great video or you're not What is it? Minimizing the non Regrettability, yeah, I think Elon tweeted that that's what he's tried to do on Twitter Twitter and that's interesting That's that's basically the survey metric how happy you are that you've been using the platform Elon tweeted we want to limit the amount of regrettable minutes people spit on Twitter and the first thing I thought it's like that's something YouTube already has a lot like their whole survey system when feedback loop. How tough is it to take on YouTube you think? Like for Twitter. Yeah for Twitter for anybody else. Oh, I mean, it's gonna be basically impossible I mean YouTube's not going anywhere and I I don't know I don't I don't think anyone's gonna do what YouTube does better than them at least not in the next 10 years you Asked on Twitter. Would you rather have 10 million dollars or 10 million subscribers on YouTube? What would your own answer be at various stages in your career if uh, if I had nothing I would say 10 million dollars So because with 10 million dollars you can hire some people and pump out content And with like a million or two get 10 million subscribers and then keep the other 8 million So that's if you believe in your ability to grow a channel if you well If you yeah If you don't believe in your ability to grow a channel then you shouldn't take the 10 million subscribers Because you're just gonna kill the chance So the 10 million is definitely a better question would you rather have a million dollars or 10 million subscribers? That's where it gets a little tricky because now it's like hmm, you know a million dollars life-changing amount of money But you know if you semi know what you're doing, you probably make a million dollars off a 10 million subscriber channel But it is a little bit of a million dollars might not be enough to build a strong team Because you don't know how to do it. So you might waste all that money. Yeah, or they just keep it and retire Yeah, okay. That's true. Yeah, cuz 10 million is just so high. It's like just never work again Who cares for the average human that's so much money. It's interesting to me also to the value of the subscriber versus the value of the dollar I suppose how valuable is a subscriber for? Like what percentage of the videos like how active the subscribers in watching the video? Um For you, that's hard. I don't know I was actually thinking more about the subscriber to dollar like if someone has 10 million subscribers have they made 10 million dollars I don't know why that that kind of popped in my head. It's an interesting thought Do you ever when you analyze Videos do you ever analyze videos like we've talked about offline of other Videos across the YouTube in general just to understand trends and social be home all your not all but a lot of questions are Analytics face. Yeah. Yeah, it's so cuz I love it I mean, it's just a giant social experiment right like what people like to watch what people share. Yeah, it's like a fascinating I hate that so back like I said before what percentage your audience do you think care about this kind of stuff? Like this deeply about YouTube analytics. I think it's a big part of it I think a large amount care about Curiosity and exploration of interesting ideas. Uh-huh. So in that sense, yeah, this would this was fitted. I love it This is funny. I mean, this isn't me like trying to make I love you I actually I love you to Magnus one and I and even your Hikaru one was really good a bunch of other ones But I think we're getting to the point now We're only analytics junkies would want to keep hearing more analytics talk and the normie is probably like they've had their dose of YouTube Talk for the next three years Maybe I'm wrong. Hey comment if I'm wrong, I could be I don't know your audience See, this is where you would tell me shut up. I know my audience you dumbass and I don't at all I actually I just follow the thread of curiosity and I think there's just a lot of curious humans in the world and and to me it's like So the question about analytics is the question of basically stepping away Stepping outside of yourself and thinking why the hell do I like tick-tock so much? Why do I like Twitter so much? why do I like YouTube so much and Getting even if you're not a creator getting an insight into that is really interesting It's like what? Because because all these platforms are fundamentally changing the nature of content people are reading books less They're probably going to be watching movies less and less. They're probably going to be watching Netflix less and less do you ever think about the sort of the darker side of YouTube and With shadow banning a censorship and all the kind of topics, especially if you see it in other platforms like Twitter. Yeah that Elon recently Highlighted the shadow banning that was happening and in general the censorship that was happening on those platforms. Do you think about the role of of centralized control which information isn't or isn't Made available through search and discovery. I'll be honest. I never really think about You just say you just try to make fun videos that yeah more I'm kind of more in my own lane But it's not like that. I don't just specifically think about I just like a lot of stuff in general I just kind of my own lane thinking about my own stuff But you know now you asked I'm curious. What are your thoughts on on YouTube and that kind of stuff? Well, I'm generally against centralized Censorship or shadow banning shadow banning is the worst one because not that the goal of creating a healthy platform where you're having great conversations and Videos that are not spreading misinformation that sounds like an admirable goal, but that's too difficult of a job for a centralized entity That's too big of an yeah There's the misinformation stuff and then there's also just like the videos where they do something that causes what happened back there the Adpocalypse, you know and a lot of creators revenue plummets because people are doing videos that advertisers don't seem acceptable and then now all these big advertisers are pulling and The little guys are getting hit and because ad rates dropped by 30% and the person who just quit his job to go full-time Contribution now can't sustain it. So it's also it's like a lot of different variables as well. That makes it so complicated Well, I think the big thing is transparency, especially around shadow banning for people I agree on shadow banning. You should be transparent. You should let people know it You know, obviously there has to be some type of controls people can't just post whatever and so if you're pulling those levers They should at least know yes, so they know how To improve their content they can understand that they can exactly if it's a wrong shadow banning Like as a society that we should not shadow ban this kind of content That means you should be publicly discussing it and how does it not and if it's not known then it's just kind of like well Then who's pulling the strings and like, you know, how do we know? They're not just manipulating things to get whatever message they want out there and silence other ones Yeah, and there could be sort of in the background government influence, which is where actual freedom of speech Comes into play that government should not have any control or be able to put pressure on censorship Of speech and it gets weird if none of that is being there's no transparency around it Yeah, that's a but to be fair. That's a huge responsibility the amount of Content that YouTube is upload on YouTube that is shared by YouTube viewed by you But even more of a reason why it would probably make sense to be transparent. Yeah, because then people can help fact-check it That's right. But that that requires building a platform that makes that easy right like To to make fact-checking easy to make the Like Twitter now has like being able to share context and all that kind of stuff that crowdsource it crowdsource Is the way Wikipedia crowdsource it? I mean there's It's right and then you open a random Wikipedia article but like, you know people criticize Wikipedia because there is a political lean to the editors of Wikipedia and then they get There's some articles that definitely have a bias to them and all that kind of stuff. It's a difficult problem it's a difficult problem to solve that ultimately as much as possible it would be nice for the viewer to have control of that versus the The entity that's hosting it. So for the viewer to decide I'm just gonna make cool videos. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let's go to Antarctica again. How was that? How's going to you just came back from Antarctica that I watched the video that was that was fun. That was a really fun video There's I mean there's a lot of things I can comment about that But what was that what was the hardest part of making that video? The hardest part was just getting out there it's just so remote and You know you land the plane on just this ice runway and it's so sketchy and then once the plane takes off you're just there you're the most remote place in the planet and It's it's just very breathtaking. I don't if you have the chance to ever go to Antarctica I would recommend it. It was probably like the in the video We climbed a mountain that wasn't named so we can name it and like standing on top of that mountain and just seeing Having nothing and because once you get outside the outskirts and you get deep in Antarctica, there's no penguins So nothing lives there at all and so there's just nothing in every direction is just snow and these crazy beautiful mountains and some of them stick into the clouds and It was and if you go during summertime, the Sun never goes down So the Sun's up 24 7 and it's just like spinning in circles at the top of the planet or whatever. It looks like top Yeah, you guys come with this several times how beautiful yeah, and so it's just yeah, it's just very Beautiful. What about shooting itself like the technical aspects of shooting it? Oh, I mean, well, so somehow we lucked out one of the days is like the warmest day and like forever That's been in Antarctica. It's like is positive degrees but at certain parts is also like negative 20 negative 30 and that's where the cameras you constantly have to be switching out the batteries and heating them up and like putting them basically in like your pants or they'll just get way too cold and We were prepared for much worse, but it ended up being much better than we thought So for that video, but in general maybe some other challenging videos How does how do you go from the idea stage to the actual execution to the final video? What's can you take me through like a full process of like we're talking to bought some crazy wild ideas today How do you go from that to a final video where you click publish? Well, I mean obviously first things first you gotta figure out the idea and then it just depends I mean pick any video you can think of on my channel I can take you through it Well, what about the in a circle you have to stay in a circle for 400 days Yeah, so for that one step one one of the most popular. Yeah, that video did really well. Yeah, so we Promise we have to This is where you get really into the nuances of the company because we have a lot of videos going out You can't just in a vacuum be like, all right, we're not doing anything for 100 days We're only filming this so step one is we had to build an independent crew that could actually do that for 100 days That way everyone else could keep working on the normal videos and not just screw everything up. Yeah So step one you build that team. Okay, we got the team now. What do we need? Well to do this we need probably like 10 cameras at least rolling at all times So we're probably gonna need to get a trailer and hook up a bunch of storage and stuff So to just carry the sheer volume of footage we're gonna have and so get a trailer set up the cameras Go on the field paint a circle now. We need a house go Buy a house bring it out there and then it's like oh wait, I think it'd be funny if I brought the house in on the intro But yeah, you know find a crane that can lift up a house So I can drive it in and drop it in the intro and that's like an iterative process where you're like, okay This would be funnier. So this is not all up front these right? Yeah, like you're ideally it would be but as you kind of See things you get inspired and then you think of more and more and this would be better with a crane Yeah, it'd be better if I dropped out of the house. Yeah. That was crazy. They did it So fearless in the kind of crazy stuff you willing to do exactly what I'm a broken record, but whatever makes the best video possible Yeah, that's that's all you you focus on okay, so What about the delegation of like who gets to what are the cameraman like the people operating the cameras? What who's responsible for different things? Is it like a distributed process? So like that's where whoever the lead cam would be on that video Which is decided that one because we shot it in the morning. We shot it in the afternoon We didn't a lot of it was just Sean and the guy who was in the circle just vlogging I'm just getting my camera and yeah, and he figured it out And then we'd have like for him just set hours each day that a cameraman would come So if he had any content he needed extra hands instead of just having someone on standby 24-7 It made more sense to do set hours. Nice. And Yes It was hard, but you know explaining it in hindsight. It sounds so simple, you know And I guess we're gonna go back to the question of the camera It sounds so simple, you know, and I guess like the more because that one is Relatively simple I guess because it's a low number of people Yeah the hard part about that is just the time like You know, I checked in on them so many different days and it's like an hour here two hours there three hours there over a hundred days adds up to be a ton of time and and even then like, you know, if you have a 10 person crew, you know paying them daily rates for a hundred days. It just all that adds up What about like the hundred versus hundred hundred? adults versus hundred kids What was the what was? Bringing that to life. That seems like exceptionally challenging Yeah, basically the thought process was we did a hundred kids versus our hundred boys versus hundred girls Yeah, people loved it. Honestly, I didn't think they'd like it as much as they did video did really really well So the second I saw that video was crushing. I was like, all right, we're doing it again But last time we did it we did in our studio So we built a a giant room put a hundred girls in it It sounds bad when I explain it like this and then a giant room put a hundred boys And we're like after a hundred hours, whichever room has the most people give them half a million dollars So did well, so like all right, we're gonna do it again So we threw out all these different ideas. It was like hundred football players versus a hundred cheerleaders hundred this hundred that 100 prisoners versus 100 cops just craziest ideas and we settled on hundred kids versus a hundred adults And then the next step was like how do we make it better the kids versus adults? Or the sorry the boys versus girls the first one we did was inside And the problem was every time it was night when we did these long time lapses you couldn't see the sun go up and down So we're like, okay this time I want to do it outside. That's why the cubes are outside And instead of doing circles we want to make them cubes and then you know is figuring out do we want that? Yeah, just those videos came up at least today as ones that are like really complicated in terms of the audio in terms of how Yes, yeah, that's the problem. We had a lot of audio issues because In the first one, we didn't have a roof on it. The second one there was a roof So there's a lot of reverb which then in editing made it brutal like half the shots weren't usable and it really screwed us over So we had to do a lot of frankensteining in the editing to make up for basically my ignorance So you mentioned that you were surprised how well that that that one did A lot of creators talk about getting depressed when The videos don't do as well as they kind of expected. There's a kind of feeling You can get really worn out by that dude. Yeah Do you yourself feel that and also do you have advice for others that feel this? Um, yeah, it's weird because I am a numbers guy, but also it it used to It used to very much especially when I was like betting everything I had on a video when it did bad I was devastated man I'd cry and i'd be depressed for days and it really would have a severe impact on my mood But I don't know now it doesn't really matter. It's uh If a video does bad, I just look at it and i'm like, oh, why'd this video do bad? Uh, probably Oh, there's a little retention dip there. I don't think people like the thumbnail. Maybe we should switch it I just look at it objectively unemotional and then just move on and I feel like that's a much healthier way of going about it So if a creator is listening like that is the ideal way to Respond to a video that's doing bad Just remove emotion from the equation and just look at it and figure out how you can is there next one Is there tricks to being able to detach yourself from the from that because because like in your case I mean that's true for creators, but in your case There's there's like a lot of money on the line. Yeah, well, there's videos cost my life Yeah so much time but no, I mean you just I mean, I don't know the only real answer is it's just a conscious effort You just have to unemotionally look at the video determine the problems and then move on like there is no secret You know what? I mean? It's just that's the only way to do it There is no secret. You know what I mean? It's just that's it's that and if you really can't bring yourself to do it Then you're just screwed. Honestly, maybe you're not meant for this game Okay, so that's part of the development as the creators like you're being able to be for longevity. Yes Yeah you have to unemotionally be able to look at videos that flop and figure it out because if not just can You can't not every video can be a one out of ten. And so when a video does bad You know that that just stress and depression. It's just gonna eventually get to you in the long run So you said you've failed in a bunch of videos sort of Taking them to completion. So what are some of the biggest fails? Yeah, weirdly enough as we've matured and we've done this more we don't have that problem as much especially now We're getting some multi-million dollar budgets per video. It's like failure is not really an option anymore So I'm a little more particular about what I do, but back in the day yeah, like we would do a video where we spent 24 hours on a deserted island and We filmed it did it all and I just I didn't like it after the edit So I just grabbed the voice and we went back to the deserted island and spent another 24 hours there and refilmed it or Could that have been caught and prevented at the idea stage? No, it's a good idea. It was just poor execution to be honest when we were out there was hot We were just like we all at one point just kind of wanted to die. It was just miserable So how do you avoid that these days? Well, I just went what is a little cooler to be honest And then we had literally the amount of fun we had the video was like 10 times higher Oh interesting. So you like there's some practical details that you just learned Yeah, I know what it takes to videos that where it's very hot or or it's on water because I get super seasick There's like a kind of like 10 things that if they have these variables I'm down to do it, but my fun meter is not as high as normal Like we tried to Anytime we do anything on a boat like when we spent 24 hours on a boat And we spent 24 hours in a bear minute triangle or when I tried to spend like which it didn't get up But I try to spend like 100 hours at sea or whatever just like on a raft It's just like I it makes me want to throw up and I get so seasick I can't even see straight but there are just some videos that require me to be on a boat. So I just suck it up So when you spend months in creating a video, I know this is probably stressful to some creators Like how much stress how do you feel when you have to click publish On a video now not much you're able to detach yourself. Yeah again and old me tons, I mean I'd be like Scratching and nervous and like my hands will be sweating like to the point where i'm almost about to puke I'm, like I really hope people like this, but You know, I don't know. I think that's just part of maturing it. There's different and as a content creator there's different phases and uh You just like once you get over the the fear that you're just gonna wake up one day and be irrelevant, you know And you just you know accept that like you believe in yourself and you believe in your content and that You can continue to be irrelevant then you don't I don't know you kind of are it's a little bit easier to detach yourself I guess and And that's I it's a much healthier place to be you can't do this for 10 years if every little thing just causes these huge emotional reactions, it's like That's why a lot of creators go a little you know, mentally insane, you know You have to get out of that that game because it really messes with you. We've talked about this a little bit But how do you define and how do you suggest others define success? I'm so subjective some some people success is retiring their mom Literally, you know for you success is inspiring people and educating them and you know, whatever the peak in their curiosity Yeah, um for other people it's just quitting their job So you have to self-reflect on what your definition of success is because I think a lot of creators kind of Don't really think don't introspect Like they kind of want to keep getting more and more subscribers kind of thing. Um, yeah, but subscribers is just a vanity metric You know, it doesn't subscribers don't correlate to views Sure or views what? Yeah, I know but that's more that was a direct to you That's more direct to people listening because a lot of people do really care about subscribers or even followers like on tick-tock but if you look like Your view if on youtube very very few percent if even a percent of your views come from the sub feed Right. They're almost all home feed are suggested. What's the last time you clicked on your sub feed to watch a video? Oh almost never. Yeah, maybe five years ago used to be a thing. It's not anymore No one does um, and it's getting harder and harder to find. I subscribe to way too many channels. I think yeah That's what everyone does and you subscribe to 10 channels. They're great But two years later your taste evolves and it's like it's a mess. And so This subscribers don't really matter followers on tick-tock don't really matter. Um, So anyways, it really they really are the definition of a vanity metric and but what about views? They do obviously because if people are showing up time and time again, that's what matters. Okay, so that That's a good thing to define a success. I just feel like um, that too can be a problem because uh, I would say You know if I wanted to be successful like as a young creator, I might say yeah, I'm gonna be successful Like as a young creator, I might start copying mr. Beast or something like that, right? Yeah, like there's you start trying to take shortcuts as opposed to find you your own unique voice, right? so like chasing views is a problem too, it feels like or no, um, it's as long as you detach yourself from I mean if you're Sounds about but you're lazy. Yeah, and you just want to copy someone else and not experiment and find your own way but I mean you can't make that excuse for them and someone just Isn't coming up with the original stuff and putting in the effort. You can't just say oh, it's because they're chasing views We need some match different metric for the chase. No, they just need to find their own way It just feels like unique type of content Will often lead to sacrifice in the number of views in the short term. Mm-hmm by the long term you win Okay, or if you do win you you win more I guess would be a better way of putting it Do you think you will ipo miss mr. Beast burger or feastables in the next 5-10 years? Beast burger or feastables? No, I I kind of think They're something actually, you know what? I just realized this is our first time talking about those We're like an hour and a half in that's so funny. We started talking about what uh, My retention brain kicked in um I wonder if you have retention brain for like life itself. I do every time i'm talking to someone I can i'm like, okay I'm, what about like loved ones? like Spending time with loved ones thinking like we could be doing something much better right now. Yes. No, that is a serious problem. Uh with Well, so we'll pause the beast bird question. Yes, but that's why uh, my current girlfriend uh, which I was telling you before when we were talking about this is she has a genuine love for learning and That's something I have like I I always feel like I need to be learning something to justify the time i'm spending and so that's why it's such a nice trait because I feel like that time is being used optimally because whether we're watching a documentary or we're going and you know Taking an iq test or reading about whatever just why modern art is a thing. I don't know whatever weird thing we decide to do I'm always learning and improving so it justifies the time so to maximize retention in your relationship Yeah, you want to spend time that time learning as much as possible. Yeah, I which conveniently I don't have to force right? Or or I want to be recharging so I when I do work I can you know hit the ground harder and luckily We're into a lot of the same things which you know happen to be learning sometimes It's not learning like maybe watching an anime or something like that um, but i'm a big believer and you're either if you well If you if your goal is to be like a super successful entrepreneur you need to either be working or you need to be doing something that Decompresses and recharges you so you can work again if your goal is to be like a really kick-ass entrepreneur And obviously we're boiling this down to like a very basic thing. And so The the things you're doing your down time when you're not working if it doesn't recharge you you're screwed You're just a ticking time bomb waiting to implode um, and so you got to like heavily recharge and like so like Watching for me anime or whatever it is playing a board game like that is actually kind of crucial to my success which takes a lot of maturing to come to that conclusion because I used to be the kind of guy that wanted to work every hour of the day and I would try to train myself to not need that stuff and I you know, and I Almost resented like that. I I have to do these kinds of things and it would piss me off because it's not optimal And you know, I just really want to make content and entertain people but Yeah as someone who's gone down that road and you know You just work every day for two three months straight and you know every hour of the day and then You just a bomb waiting to explode and lose your mind And the only real sustainable thing is to just like give yourself time to recharge in between working So there's a kind of balance you have to find you have to even and I hate it more than anyone else Because I you know You hate not working. Yeah, because it's just not optimal for time like it's it's it's As a human I do need to occasionally watch a mindless show and play a board game Yeah, and it took me a very long time to like come to peace with that and not I would have like borderline panic attacks when I do it because I think I just what am I doing right now? Why am I doing this? I should be you know, like What if one day I have to lay off an employee because we're not doing so well Like how could I justify watching this this show or whatever i'm doing right now? You know, it's like there's a lot of things like that that go on in your head, but it's necessary before we return to uh, Mr. Beastburger Yeah, well what is like a since we're on the topic? What is a Perfect day in the life perfectly productive day in the life of mr. Beast look like Oh boy. Well, I mean or like a stand. I mean the perfectly productive day is we film a main channel video Because those get 100 million a pop. I mean it doesn't really get any better than that What about like the average day when you're not on the set? Yeah, and you're like pull it like because you're running a lot of things Right. Yeah. So right now we have our snack brand feastables We have a restaurant chain beast burger and then we basically which we haven't even really launched any products yet But we have the the data company that I was showing you where we're going to roll out some tools for creators And then we have the react channel the gaming channel the main channel then we have my charity which also has a channel um And so kind of how i've structured my life right now. Uh Is whenever I have free time we just kind of go. Hey guys, jimmy's got an hour from 2 p.m to 3 p.m And it's everyone's just like I need this I need this and this channel's like I need this thing filmed or you know Whatever the guy who runs my tickets. I was like I need this tic-tac filmed or um, you know beast burgers Like I need this menu item approved and we need to talk about this marketing thing and then we kind of just look at what everyone needs and we're like That one looks like the most important we'll do that and then so It's just kind of like You know if I just did that for every company in a day Then that's optimal if I just kind of like an optimal day for me would be going down to eight companies and just Whatever they're like two to three biggest pain points or things to need from me and just doing those based on priority And then trying to keep it as short as possible Yeah to just the things that you're needed on it doesn't get more optimal than that if I clear the bottlenecks or some bottlenecks for all my companies then It's yes. That's a perfect day. Yeah, I mean even just me because you're like You're showing me around and you're being a great and gracious host But on top of that you're just doing all these meetings you you basically I felt bad at some points I was like, oh, I just tricked him into going to meetings with me. He's like my little meeting buddy. Yeah I mean it was it was fun. It's fun to see it. It was fun to see how effectively you've delegated You basically trust the team to do a really good job on the various things and there's just a strong team that's able to Carry the flag on all the different tasks. Yeah from the from the brainstorming in the main channel to the reacts and so on Yeah, it's really interesting I mean, it's it's really interesting what it takes to build a team like that because you very quickly build a very large team That's able to scale which is very scary because it's my first, you know I i'm 24, you know, and I think I was telling you this earlier It's funny because six years ago I had to raise my hand to use the bathroom and now i'm in charge of hundreds of people and entertain hundreds of millions of people and so it is crazy just how quick it comes up and I wish I was a little bit older so I could have ran a couple companies and failed a few companies in the past and like Learn from those and apply those here because I know for a fact When i'm 34 i'm 24 now when i'm 34 I'll i'll know so much more about running a business and scaling and hiring and and how to lead people and better effectively Communicate and all these different skill sets that will make me a better leader that uh That's the only thing that sucks is uh I just don't have those because I just haven't been through the lessons and I just have such a lucrative thing On my plate right now and it just sucks that I have to learn the lessons with the lucrative thing you know what I mean? Yeah, because you you you already have so much influence so much impact, but You have effectively scaled. What lessons do you draw from that how to effectively scale as a 24 year old? Like yeah That's something I feel like I actually could give a lot of value to to young people who are doing it like older people Who've built five companies or whatever they do. Um, I probably couldn't you know, they're gonna be like, oh, this is so obvious but um for uh younger first-time business owners you gotta just experiment to be honest and uh So for us like it's just a new space No one had really ever scaled up a hundred person team to build make content on youtube. So there wasn't no uh I spent all this time like I hired one person from disney to at one point to come in and and help and Obviously that was a dumb idea looking back on it But you know, I thought oh they make great stuff people want to watch and they come over here and help me build a team And you know, they build it more the traditional way and not like how it should be online. And and so then it's like, okay And now i'm not trying to trash people like they all tried their best but then I try hire this one person who Does this different type of uh media and runs a hundred person team and then you come in here and they try to build it That way they don't really listen to you or value or or see the difference and I I tried basically For building this company with like four or five different people who worked in different veins of media and And you know every single time it's just like they just don't get it and they like they don't understand my world and the the eventual solution was just like to roll up my sleeves and do it myself, you know with like james or him man and Just like no no one's ever done this and like no one's going to just give us a golden carrot and tell us how to build This company we got to figure the fuck out ourselves and you have to kind of build up people from scratch then Yeah, exactly all the stuff I was talking about earlier and all the lessons I learned along the way um, and so for me that was a big part of like It's stop trying to have someone Build this company for me and just do it myself because it's scary Like I spent my whole life studying youtube videos of virality not business building But fuck it. I was like, I guess we just got to do it ourselves then um and that's where things really start to click and we got the exponential growth and we started getting the right people and training them the Right way and you know just throwing conventional stuff out the door and focusing on what's actually practical for youtube Which is just completely different than traditional media So you train people and then those people train people and then and so on. Yeah I mean, it's just even like you know How you do the lighting on sets or like how you do the audio or or um, you know not writing scripts So, you know, we're just not as efficient with our filming like sometimes I have to have 30 cameras running Why because it's not scripted. I don't I don't know what chris is gonna do when we start filming He might run over there, but guess what? We got to have a plan because there's only one shot I can't you know, tell him not to do that Yeah, that's the shooting but then there's also the editing Yeah, and then the editing as well and not having guardrails and kind of you know I at the end of the day It's whatever I want the video The their job is to make a video that they think i'll like because it's my channel But you know you can achieve that kind of however and um, and so it's just everything's just different you know, it's much more I guess like a startup as opposed to um, are you often surprised like with the result like You think a certain like we watched the video today. That was really nice I guess that was different than you would have potentially edited it. Yeah Are you sometimes surprised by like a decision editor makes like okay? That's not the way I would have done it, but it's actually this is a cool idea. Yeah, of course. Yeah the the thing my biggest fear is I don't ever want to get trapped in like a bubble of you know because we are getting 100 million views a video on the main channel like but I don't want to get in this feedback loop of just My ideas are great or or I get that feedback loop but stop learning and improving because it It is easy. Sometimes we like what we're doing is working. We need to just keep doing it I want to keep learning and trying new things and I guess one way I'd put it is like You don't when when you're on a come up or you're growing you don't want to uh, Test new things once uh, you start to plateau or have a downtrend because if you're like, you know You you're skyrocketing right you're up up up and then you level off you start to go down and you're like, oh This isn't working anymore. Let's start experimenting Well, if you have a bad experiment now, you're in like a tailspin you're nose diving and you have one more bad experiment You're like screwed kind of i'm oversimplifying You want to test things while you're still growing to keep the growing from happening because once you like have You know again very oversimplifying that like, you know kind of level off you do a couple tests that go wrong It might you're like screwed, you know, I mean you're already out the door now You're just confirming that you're out the door and online entertainment. So that's kind of how I see it So I think it's very imperative that you're constantly always experimenting and trying things even if you're getting crazy unheard of growth and so that outside of the thing That brought you to the dance. You just dived right into Uh, mr. Beast burger and feastables. There's a whole nother industry like what was that? Like? Well, so beast burger we kind of It's supposed to be like just a pop-up like we just partnered with someone who had 300 restaurants and we're just like, you know Um, let's let's just uh sell beast burgers for a day or two. Let's let's see what happens We didn't really think it would be as big as it was but those first like that first day You know, we do six figures in sales and they all sell out and they're running to local walmarts They can't keep up with the demand and it's like, okay. Well, maybe let's just leave it open a week, whatever Um, and we're just doing crazy revenue and it's like, okay Well, let's add some more restaurants and let's just leave them open for a month and we're just still doing six figures a day and it kind of just went from this thing that was I don't know. It wasn't really I didn't really plan on running a restaurant chain, but here I am But didn't that in some sense also open your mind to something like feastables? Feastable is something i've always wanted to do because I I think just in general, uh, american snacks are just full of so much Horrible ingredients to be honest and they're not I don't know I feel like there also just hasn't been any innovation in american snacks in quite a while. Um, And so that's just something i've always been pretty passionate about the thing. We built that from scratch So we hired the ceo and built a team around them and we we spent Probably over two and a half years before we even launched just like building the right team Figuring things out and making sure it was actually ran the way I wanted um which feastables has just been crushing is It's very interesting. Uh, this is something i've never talked about publicly but having products in In retail it's like before feastables everything I had done was online so if you wanted to you know anything from the quote quote peace brand you'd have to buy it online and ship it to you, but Feastables now that you know because our first product chocolate bars. We started putting that in in retail locations. So like for example walmart, it's It's crazy. Like it's just it doesn't make sense How if you're which I guess it does for because we get 100 million views video So a lot of people know us if I go stand on walmart those people recognize me and ask for photos Like if I stood there long enough, I could take 150 photos today in walmart 200, whatever it is So obviously it makes sense those people go fight feastables But then you just multiply that by every walmart in america and it just gets so crazy and I didn't think we'd be doing the kind of revenue we are and we're about to Launch in some other I don't know if i'm allowed to say it So whatever but other big retail, you know locations and convenience stores and like by the end of next year We could be in like 40 50 000 locations and the numbers just don't make sense What are some interesting challenges about scaling there that surprised you the biggest problem which I didn't think would be was just keeping the shelves and walmart stock to be honest like So that supply it was like it was brutal well even then sometimes like you know you get them the stuff and they're like it takes them like a day or two to put it out in that specific location and I I had to stop promoting it because every time I'd mention it like 40 of people would just be like It's not there. It's not in walmart or I can't buy it. And so there's like a three ish month period where I just Didn't promote feastables because I was scared that someone would go buy it and it's just not there And so like it took us a very long time to catch up to the demand and also, you know It's not like we have unlimited money. So I didn't but now we're we're relatively caught up and um keeping up but it's gonna be interesting because now this year in 2023, we're gonna basically you know 10x the amount of locations we're in so we're and we're gonna try to launch new products or we're in for an interesting ride, but Yeah, I just hate I hate when I tell people, you know, like hey go try this product And then they go in their local walmart and eventually other places and it's not there It's just so brutal, you know, they made that whole journey out there and they can get it. And so that that's really it. Um Besides that that's it's been doing way better than I ever thought Uh, you've talked a couple places about maybe doing mobile games or computer games in the future Yeah, is that something you're still considering? Yes. Um, because You know, do you normally talk with people as much as we talked beforehand? Is that no? No, is that that was All day today Talking about my head everything you asked me is stuff. We already talked about not really Not really. Well, no, not everything I take it back. But sorry the last two questions. Yes, and so it's just funny because What no I try so good. There's a there's a different style of asking those questions because I on purpose didn't dig further Would you uh, I could tell yeah Okay, this is by the way, okay. All right This is the first time i've ever talked to somebody As much as I did with you Beforehand. Yeah, well on the same day. I know not even all day together We're talking only three hours one hour. Yeah. Yeah Literally, it's funny. Um, this is a Hilarious and awesome social experiment. I I picked him up from his hotel and I just like Harassed him all day to hang out with me and then here we are now. I love it Um, I was secretly recording the whole time just saying i'm just kidding anyway, so what was the question the Mobile game. Yeah. So the interesting thing is, uh with beast burger and feastables that um There's physical goods as opposed to like making mobile games or pc game, which everyone we end up doing which is software and I actually have a giant international audience like Most of my audience is obviously outside of america And so the problem we're running into is it just takes time to build up the supply chain and get feastables in southeast Asia get feastables in india get feastables in brazil and mexico and all these other places where we have giant pockets of our audience And same thing with beast burger. It's just it's going to take probably years Unless we partner with someone who already has the distribution which we're figuring out but beauty of software is I can make a hypothetical game or whatever we end up doing and All my fans can you know Use it tomorrow. Uh the day I mention it and so So if I promote something in a video to 100 million people and it's like a you know, basically like a game They can all download it. So they're you know, um, but if I promote a feastables bar right now It's only in america because we're we're struggling just to keep up with american demand We haven't even gotten the chance to go outside of america. So I Alienate a majority of my audience and it feels so shitty to just from you know mention something that most of them can't buy but on the flip side you can't just spawn this crazy infrastructure and just have Tens of millions of bars and all your products in every single store across the world before you promote it So you can't put the egg before the chicken and so Um, it's like that that's that's what i'm excited about I want to get into less physical stuff and more stuff that everyone out it can actually use It's the thought process Especially if there's a social element to the gaming too because it's not unlike feastables like that's a product you consume You missed it when you're setting up for this we were uh doing some basically just laying out everything Everything that we're planning for so we're at the phases where we want to start hiring the team to build it And we're kind of just laying out the game and I was actually really curious to get your thoughts But I can't say it because whatever I say Someone's just gonna take it and run with it. But you're a good idea about the kind of games you're thinking about Yeah, I mean I can imagine we also talked a little bit about it. It's super awesome Good one. I did so much good talks. All right, the juicy talks haven't you she's like I gotta go set up Well, you know, I already heard a lot of awesome stuff. I mean, but that is a different Kind of team you need to hire. Yeah, is that a little uh nerve-wracking like going into a new field and trying to a little bit but then I remind myself like like steve jobs Didn't know how to code right and you know He just he just knew what a good product was and I feel like as someone who wasted so much of his life playing video Games, I have a good sense of it and that might be ignorance. Well, that's really important, right? It's not about coding. It's about what makes for a good game. Exactly And again that might genuinely be ignorance and maybe I end up, you know It can bend the butt because of what i'm saying now, but I think just like with youtube I just want to obsess over making a great product and things that I think my audience will love and I think as long as I keep that as my north star it will do well What is the path to being worth a hundred billion look like? There's a path to being worth a hundred billion look like I don't know because okay, okay. Let me just like pause you're 24 and there's so much awesome scaling so many great ideas Do you think about different trajectories? Yeah What those possible trajectories might look like? Yeah, I mean if the goal was to just be worth a hundred billion dollars. Yes. I mean i'm My goal i'm a broken record So make the best video possible because I know whatever else I want will come obviously The video is the foundation. Yeah, exactly So the path to a hundred billion dollars is keep getting a hundred million views a video, you know, I mean, um, but or more Yeah, or more exactly if we can keep growing, but you know if we can keep feasibles growing, right? And we eventually expand international and one day we're in a hundred thousand retail locations and We're selling the same amount of skews per units per skews like we're currently doing I mean that would crush and then Obviously ideally one day we open up hundreds of beast burgers. We get it where we turn out You know like supercell a couple hit games. I don't want to make dozens or hundreds of games I just want to make games that are worth a hundred billion dollars I don't want to make dozens or hundreds of games. I just want to make games that are just great And you know, we rarely drop them what we do they're bangers um, and just you know, whatever other stuff we end up doing all that combined I mean, it's just Interesting because like what what's a show that's pulled a hundred million views per episode basically That's like we're doing like, you know, I mean like the super bowl gets praised because they get 100 million viewers But I can't think of a show um, maybe in reruns or something, but it's also a show that's has a um as a singular kind of figure Yeah, you can now use as a like I don't have a network tell me what to do I don't have anyone like I can do whatever I want So it's a very interesting position because I put out content and 100 million people show up And then I also have a gaming channel. I put out content and 15 million people show up in a reaction I put out content 10 million people show up I have a tick tock and I put out content and on average 20 million people show up and like and I So as long as I can keep that going and then we build these businesses. It's like it's honestly Pretty scary to see what will happen, you know Over the years because feastables launched, you know last year 2022 So it's a relatively new thing and beast where we just started scaling up the physical side We haven't obviously even launched any mobile games yet. So I think i'm at the antithesis of it I don't see a world where my youtube channel is irrelevant in the next couple of years I just this is what I live for and so if I can keep that going and then really start to expand these businesses that leverage off of it then Yeah, I mean Hopefully there's a day one where I can give away a billion dollars in a video. Honestly That that yeah, that would be one hell of a video um, let me ask you the ridiculous question since you went from being broke to being uh rich, although you keep uh spending all your money, uh Does money buy happiness how has money changed sort of your Oh your contentment your happiness in life money buy happiness. Um No, not I mean to a point. Yes, once you can take care of your health You can take care of like any immediate dangers and you can take care of your family relatively No, it doesn't like but those things do like when I first came into money One of the first things I did was retire my mom and like that brought me tons of happiness You know what? I mean? And like, you know if my brother had a medical emergency and and we couldn't afford it And I made money to afford it that bring tons of happiness, you know So once you take care of those basic necessities, so we'll say make over hypothetically a million dollars No, it it really doesn't like adding an extra zero going from 10 million to 100 million or whatever it is makes no difference so you're Given that are just fearless in spending the money. Yeah. Well, let me reframe I guess it could for some people if if you really I don't know you spent your whole life obsessing over cars It probably would bring you a little bit of joy to buy a nice Lamborghini I I'm coming more from the frame of mind of of an entrepreneur someone who's really obsessed with business building for me And a lot of my friends and people I hang around what brings us happiness is Winning and building companies and do you know changing the world like that that is fun It's a complex problem You can wake up every day and it gives you something to obsess over and devote your life to where it's just having money Does it you know? Well one Interesting question I have for you psychologically. So because you Have become wealthy and because you give like part of your work is giving away a lot of money Do you find it hard to find people you can trust? Do you find it hard to find people you can trust? It's a question Do people see you basically as a source of money as opposed to another human being it's weird Because you would think yes, but I I feel like I also know the right places to look Um, but yeah, if I just walked into target and try to make friends with 10 random people, of course, um, you gotta Uh, so you can kind of sense. Oh, yeah, you can say the right thing So quickly, right though, yeah, that's yeah, it's so obvious I don't even want to go into descriptions, but but honestly a lot of my friends are like, uh, Chandler, I I played little league with him. Um, And Tyler the guy I mean I went to school with him. Chris. He was my first subscriber um, Carl was here after we got big but whatever he's friends with the boys and It is a lot of my closer friends, even like my youtube friends. I I knew before I was big so Maybe there is some merit to that. Maybe it is. I don't know. I've never really put too much thought into it Maybe there's a reason I hang around a lot of these people I knew before I got big because it's much easier and they help you keep like, uh, your radar sharp of Who can and can't be trusted because you know, you can trust them It's difficult when you become richer and richer and more powerful Well one thing you'll also find when you get rich not even richer but more famous One thing I thought is as I climbed this like ladder of youtube and got bigger I thought there would be tons of people like me people I don't like that take like the kamikaze approach to building a business You just throw all your money in it. You throw all your time. You throw all your energy throw everything You're just like fuck it. This is this i'm dead. Yeah, I thought there would be hundreds of me Yeah, and and there isn't there isn't I mean there's like maybe one or two and I talk to those Motherfuckers every single day i'm sick and tired of talking to them, but I love them. Um, but It's just so interesting because like every level I got up like I get a million subscribers be like, all right Where's all these guys in the million subscribers that are fucking psychopaths and then you know, you know People become like conservative as they get like they get more especially as they get bigger Yeah, and you know 20 million subscribers 30. It's like every step of the way. It's like I just got more and more lonely to be honest with you you know, it sounds cliche and you hear that kind of shit in movies and you're like, oh, that's not how it works, but It is like there's there's just not many people that just want to give up everything go all in And then obsess over making the greatest goddamn videos every single day of their life Like they're really hard to find and be able to sacrifice Everything for that video. Yeah, like basically Put all the money right back in yeah, or the people doing it They're on just a small scale and if I talk to them, it's just 99.9% of the time I'm teaching them things and it's like so it's lonely because there's not too many people Especially in the creative space that are as crazy as you. Yeah, it is 100% It's so it's not what I was expecting. I was expecting there would be a lot of people like me But well, I guess the guy would talk to you almost because a bit like you in that sense Yeah, just in a different domain. Yeah, exactly just willingness to put it all back in right? And that's why I found right now a lot of the people I relate to don't even make youtube videos like so just like I'm veering more and more away from fellow content creators and more to just You know i'm just looking for those other people who just share a little bit of it so I don't feel so fucking crazy all The time like you know what I mean? Um and like people I feel normal around and they tend to just be doing the randomest things but you know Loving it. Well, I think that's really inspiring. It's uh It's like the bukowski line find what you love and let it kill you is really put everything Put everything into the thing you love and that that's like the way to really create special stuff It's not just special stuff, but it's also the way to yeah, it's live out your life. You have to be careful giving this advice because they're like They're like bodybuilders. So it'll be like just go to the gym be disciplined. I'm disciplined go to gym But I would argue for those people. It's like it's not even disciplined. They just enjoy weightlifting, right? Because there are people who are jacked but they don't make much money or run a business, right? If they're that disciplined they would they would be hitting every area of their life They just really like business and there's people like me who just to an extreme level love building companies, right? It's not even disciplined for me. It's just in my blood. It's what I wake up. I don't think about it I don't push myself. I don't need to watch a fucking motivational video to go work. I just do it It's programmed in me at this point and I couldn't imagine a world where I don't wake up and do it every day um But I think that A little bit of it is genetics. Um and just how you're hardwired Uh, not that it can't be trained or taught and not that you know, and obviously the friend group you're in influences these things and over time I think can change it but Someone's just not gonna be able to flip a switch and then just start doing a kamikaze approach to building a business Just like a lot of people try to flip a switch and start bodybuilding and quit majority of the time, you know It's uh, it's not innate to them. I think a lot of us have the capacity to do that in some domain Yeah, I think if you went about strategically if you surrounded yourself with fellow like-minded people and you know Slowly over time switched it. Uh, but if you just try to like hardcore do it, you're just gonna lose your mind Do you ever worry about your mental health? Did you take a step to protect it to uh, Yeah to like for the long run to make sure you have the mental strength to go on Yes, weirdly enough the best thing for my mental health was giving in to my innate nature to work And the most depressed I get is when I try to restrict it and like I don't work weekends or I don't work this day what's best for me is just to work when I feel like working and then Just not work when I don't like and just have no constraints because there are just some nights where I don't want to sleep And for whatever reason I feel compelled to go all night, whatever like just do it, you know, do whatever you want is what I tell my like working brain um and I just give into it and I feel that's where I feel the happiest and and then uh, You know, it's typically like but and when i'm really in the grind mode It'll be like seven or eight days just non-stop going going and it's like i'll i'll realize like oh I need some recharge time and then go fucking binge a season of anime. Yeah, but listen But that's the thing like people will tell you don't work weekends or don't do this or don't work past this or blah blah I'll give you all these constraints but for me and it's unconventional. I just give in to it I think there's something really to be said for that. I I try to surround myself with people that Like when I don't when I pull an all-nighter, they don't go like you should get more sleep There's a reason I pulled that all-nighter like if i'm really passionate about something they say they basically encourage it Because I I have no problem Getting sleep and getting rest Um, what I need in my life is people that encourage you to kind of keep going keep going with the stuff You're passionate about normal people. They don't want that life and they probably shouldn't it's not good for you Um, but yeah is if you hang around people like just whatever different people You're gonna feel crazy and it's gonna wear on you. Whereas if you're around similar people It just it's so much easier like if you You know Um, i've started weightlifting more and like one thing that's helped is just having jack people around they naturally just eat healthier Yeah, they do like they naturally just have freaking grilled chicken and all this shit and high protein meals And it's just like easier for me to just piggyback and be like, oh, can you just order me whatever you're getting? Uh, and they're like, oh I gotta go to the gym and i'll be like, oh shit. I'll just go to the gym And i'll be like, oh shit. I'll just join you, you know, and it's like it's just it's cheat codes You know Just surround yourself with people that you want to be and it makes it like 70% easier in my opinion It's like that is the cheat code to life um, and I wish I obviously your audience is definitely a lot older but you know to the older people listening like if you Have are in a place of mentorship for someone younger or have influence over younger people You should really try to drill that in their heads like the people they are around 100% 100% dictates the outcome I would I would not be on 120 million subscribers if I didn't find uh When I was around a million, I had a couple friends that were just also psychopaths, you know I outgrew them but at the time it was great and I wouldn't be where I am today if it wasn't for them um and just all along the way the friends that I hung out with had such a dramatic impact on where I am like I I'd probably have 80 million less subscribers You know if it was if I wasn't so strategic about hanging out with people that I add value to and they also had value to me so the advice for young people would be to Be very selective about the people you saw so so selective. It's it's crazy like Chris, you know, he's I I He's really funny and that's why he's great for the videos and part of why he's so funny is he consumes copious amounts of cartoons And just funny content and so i'll find like when I spend more time with chris I'll start just quoting these weird cartoons and shows and like my speech will literally change And just after like a week of spending more time with him. It has like it's like that quick of an effect You know now picture that over the course of years. I mean, yeah, it has such a huge influence like pluck one of their friends out and hypothetically put me in there and You know, there's no doubt if they're trying to become a content creator. There are odds of success just 10x, right? Obviously you can't do that, but you got to find your closest version of it And just be selective. Yeah, but this also applies not just to younger to older people too agree But they it's it's even more I like when I was a teenager, I just you know I couldn't relate to many people and I just thought I was like a fucking freaking nature because no one was obsessed with building Businesses or any of this kind of stuff and so like back then, you know that advice would have been helpful Maybe not that particularly but just knowing that There are you it's not that you're a freaking nature. You just haven't found people that have the same interest So the task is not to feel sorry for yourself or somehow change yourself. It's more to find people you fit in with. Yeah I mean assuming which you know, you're not getting compliments, uh, like Assume it's not something bad Like if your hobby is shooting things, you know or shooting things you shouldn't be shooting, you know Don't find people that encourage that But outside of that for sure, uh Actually as an answer to what is the best advice someone ever gave you you said You're crazy until you're successful then you're a genius 100 all along the way people gave me so much You know Advice on why I shouldn't be doing it why i'm crazy Every step of the way people wanted to tell me why I shouldn't be doing this and should get alive should Stop being too obsessed everything everything under the book. Um, and then once i'm successful those same people are like dang You're you're a genius. Yeah. Wow. You really you pulled that off. Those are probably the same people that will give you advice now You're the most successful video creator of all time stick to that anytime you want to do something new, right? Yeah, uh, they'll they'll like pressure you not to do. Um, You know feastables or or mobile gaming or whatever lays beyond. Yeah, it's funny how people don't well I honestly the type of people I just don't talk to anymore I wouldn't even know what they have to say now So most people on the team are like yes, and they're like whatever the idea you got they they're with it. No, I mean It's weird. We actually have a my team pushes back on me pretty hardcore Uh, which I want I don't want yes, man, and they're they're like, uh, they're James, you know the ceo who helped me build all this. Um, he's very adamant like we're not yes men and And he trains people to really think for themselves and even when I give them orders like really think like is this optimal? Is there context or information jimmy could be missing that I can provide that could help him make a more updated decision? Like i'm not um god, you know what I mean? Like i'm human and I make errors and so don't take what I say That's the bible So even like in the brainstorming and so on they can they can push back Yeah, you can see it like tyler anytime I said something he would give me feedback and push back which is what I want I don't want him just to be like yes, you're a fucking genius. Good job. Jimmy, you know, I don't need that. You know, I need negatives uh You talked about being in a relationship. What role Jimmy does love play in the human condition? I think Well, well this well big thing is love can be scary because this is you know The human you're gonna spend the most amount of time with in your life, you know And so for project that over 50 years, they can be a liability or an asset. I love the metrics, you know I love no, but seriously, it's got to be someone that makes you better for me I can't truly love someone that doesn't make me better because yeah in the long run Yeah across across because if not, then it's like it's a negative, you know to everything. I've spent my life building Um, but luckily i'm very happy with the partner. I haven't like we were talking about before I do think she makes me better There's a lot of actually positives I've noticed even things as simple as like you know, I struggle to turn off my brain at night because i'm just thinking about all the businesses and how we could do better or Whatever weird thing I have on my mind but you know just chatting with her and hanging out with her helps me like basically just Shut my brain off and like mellow out and even like there's just a ton of little things like that that i've noticed are Positives especially when you really look for them that are easy to gloss over if you're not um And so for me, yeah, I have someone who I think is very beautiful very intelligent makes me better It's constantly pushing me okay with me working hard makes me smarter and just all these different things that I think for me love Just makes me a better person. You know what I mean? Which makes me love her even more. Does that make sense? Does that make sense? Absolutely. What advice would you give on finding somebody like that? um Just really don't give up until you you find someone that you know There's so many people on the planet. I mean there really is there there's billions of the odds are in your favor of yeah Like just don't settle and find someone that you know makes you happy Yeah, just like you said surround yourself with people That that make you a better person in the same case surround yourself with that one special person that really makes you a better person And maybe that's just an entrepreneurial brain looking at it Not everyone wants to hyper optimize their life like me but for me to like truly love someone they have to make me a better Person in every way. Yeah. Yeah Well, what do you hope you're 24? We started talking about death. Let's let's let's finish talking about death What do you hope your legacy is when you when we look a hundred years from now? And yeah alien the ai has completely taken over and the aliens visit and discuss with the ai What this last of special humans that existed on earth was like what what do you hope they say about you? um It's a deep one Probably just that Uh because it's it's hard right like I said before elon is over double my age. I could live every second I've lived up to this point in my life and still not even be elon's age. So I have so much time I just hope whatever it is that it's a net positive on the world and it impacts billions of people in a positive way that makes lasting change so you admire people like steve jobs and elon musk for having Sort of reached for that goal as well. Yeah, of course to help to help millions I mean the iphone's the most successful product ever invented. It's hard not to admire what he created, you know um the same with sort of as johnny ive talks about like The the passion the effort they put into the designing The iphone that like little bit of love is transferred to the whole world like they get to experience the joy of that from the Designer it's what a beautiful thing to do, you know, I mean, I couldn't think of anything better You know to create something that even after you're dead for decades just has such a Profound impact on basically half the human population. Yeah, it's wild brings joy to people Yeah, um, well, I hope you do just that man You've already done it for millions and millions and millions and millions of people and I hope you keep doing it I'm, I can't like it's so exciting to see what happens this year and next year. I know like the size the limit Yeah, I can't I mean, um The videos but all the other businesses you're in and you as a human being as you grow Yeah, I can tell I know as everyone knows you have a kind heart and the fact that you're really damn good at uh Actually using that kind of heart to help a lot of people. It's awesome to see man I appreciate more importantly before we go. Are we gonna play dune tonight? Some board i'm gonna play dune I have to I have you know one hour You don't want to play board games with me. I want to i'll play You don't play board games? If only I wasn't an idiot and actually flew to the right airport If you don't play board games with me, they're gonna dislike the video Thanks for listening to this conversation with Mr. Beast to support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description And now let me leave you with some words from the poet and philosopher Reverend Ranath Tagore Reach high for stars lie hidden in you. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time

https://youtu.be/Z3_PwvvfxIU

uZN5xjoS6TU

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

David Kipping: Alien Civilizations and Habitable Worlds | Lex Fridman Podcast #355

I think it's actually not that hard to imagine we are the only civilization in the galaxy right now. CB. Living. CB. Yeah, to this current extent. But there may be very many extinct civilizations. If each civilization has a typical lifetime comparable to, let's say, AI is the demise of our own, that's only a few hundred years of technological development, or maybe 10,000 years if you get back to the Neolithic Revolution, the dawn of agriculture. Hardly anything in cosmic time span. That's nothing. That's the blink of an eye. And so it's not surprising at all that we would happen not to coexist with anyone else. But that doesn't mean nobody else was ever here. And if other civilizations come to that same conclusion and realization, maybe they scour the galaxy around them, don't find any evidence for intelligence, then they have two options. They can either give up on communication and just say, well, it's never going to happen. We just may as well just worry about what's happening here on our own planet. Or they could attempt communication, but communication through time. The following is a conversation with David Kipping, an astronomer and astrophysicist at Columbia University, director of the Cool Worlds Lab. And he's an amazing educator about the most fascinating scientific phenomena in our universe. I highly recommend you check out his videos on the Cool Worlds YouTube channel. David quickly became one of my favorite human beings. I hope to talk to him many more times in the future. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's David Kipping. Your research at Columbia is in part focused on what you call cool worlds, or worlds outside our solar system where temperature is sufficiently cool to allow for moons, rings and life to form, and for us humans to observe it. So can you tell me more about this idea, this place of cool worlds? LBW Yeah, the history of discovering planets outside our solar system was really dominated by these hot planets. And that's just because of the fact they're easier to find. When the very first methods came online, these were primarily the Doppler spectroscopy method, looking for wobbling stars, and also the transit method. These two both have a really strong bias towards finding these hot planets. Now, hot planets are interesting. The chemistry in their atmosphere is fascinating. It's very alien. An example of one that's particularly close to my heart is Tres-2b, whose atmosphere is so dark it's less reflective than coal. So they have really bizarre photometric properties, yet at the same time, they resemble nothing like our own home. And so, I said there's two types of astrophysicists. The astrophysicists who care about how the universe works. They want to understand the mechanics of the machinery of this universe. Why did the Big Bang happen? Why is the universe expanding? How are galaxies formed? And there's another type of astrophysicist which perhaps speaks to me a little bit more. It whispers into your ear, and that is, why are we here? Are we alone? Are there others out there? And ultimately, along this journey, the hot planets aren't going to get us there. When we're looking for life in the universe, it seems to make perfect sense that there should be planets like our own out there. Maybe even moons like our own planet around gas giants that could be habitable. And so, my research has been driven by trying to find these more tracheous globes that might resemble our own planet. So, they're the ones that lurk more in the shadows, in terms of how difficult it is to detect. They're much harder. They're harder for several reasons. The method we primarily use is the transit method. So, this is really eclipses. As the planet passes in front of the star, it blocks out some starlight. The problem with that is that not all planets pass in front of their star. They have to be aligned correctly from your line of sight. And so, the further away the planet is from the star, the cooler it is, the less likely it is that you're going to get that geometric alignment. So, whereas a hot Jupiter, about 1% of hot Jupiters will transit in front of their star, only about 0.5%, maybe even a quarter of a percent of Earth-like planets will have the right geometry to transit. And so, that makes it much, much harder for us. What's the connection between temperature of the planet and geometric alignment, probability of geometric alignment? There's not a direct connection, but they're connected via an intermediate parameter, which is their separation from the star. So, the planet will be cooler if it's further away from the star, which in turn means that the probability of getting that alignment correct is going to be less. On top of that, they also transit their star less frequently. So, if you go to the telescope and you want to discover a hot Jupiter, you could probably do it in a week or so, because the orbital periods are of order of one, two, three days. So, you can actually get the full orbit two or three times over. Whereas if you want to detect an Earth-like planet, you have to observe that star for three, four years. And that's actually one of the problems with Kepler. Kepler was this very successful mission that NASA launched over a decade ago now, I think. It discovered thousands of planets. It's still the dominant source of exoplanets that we know about. But unfortunately, it didn't last as long as we would have liked it to. It died after about 4.35 years, I think it was. And so, for an Earth-like planet, that's just enough to catch four transits. Four transits was kind of seen as the minimum. But of course, the more transits you see, the easier it is to detect it, because you build up signal to noise. If you see the same thing, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, the more ticks you get, the easier it is to find it. And so, it was really a shame that Kepler was just at the limit of where we were expecting it to start to see Earth-like planets. And in fact, it really found zero. Zero planets that are around stars like the Sun, that orbit similar to the Earth around the Sun, and could potentially be similar to our own planet in terms of its composition. And so, it's a great shame, but that's why it gives astronomers more to do in the future. LB Just to clarify, the transit method is our primary way of detecting these things. And what it is, is when the object passes, occludes the source of light just a tiny bit, a few pixels. And from that, we can infer something about its mass and size and distance and geometry, all of that. That's like trying to tell what, at a party, you can't see anything about a person, but you can just see by the way they occlude others. So, this is the method. But is this super far away? How many pixels of information do we have? Basically, how high resolution is the signal that we can get about these occlusions? CB You're right in your description. I think, just to build upon that a little bit more, it might be almost like your vision is completely blurry. Like you have an extreme eye prescription, and so you can't resolve anything. Everything's just blurs. But you can tell that something was there because it just got fainter for a short amount of time. Someone passed in front of a light. And so, that light in your eyes would just dim for a short moment. Now, the reason we have that problem with blowness or resolution is just because the stars are so far away. I mean, the closest stars are four light years away, but most of the stars Kepler looked at were thousands of light years away. And so, there's absolutely no chance that the telescope can physically resolve the star, or even the separation between the planet and the star is too small, especially for a telescope like Kepler. It's only a metre across. In principle, you can make those detections, but you need a different kind of telescope. We call that direct imaging. And direct imaging is a very exciting, distinct way of detecting planets. But it, as you can imagine, is going to be far easier to detect planets which are really far away from their star to do that, because that's going to make that separation really big. And then you also want the star to be really close to us, so the nearest stars. Not only that, but you would prefer that planet to be really hot, because the hotter it is, the brighter it is. And so, that tends to bias direct imaging towards planets which are in the process of forming. So, things which have just formed the planet still got all of its primordial heat embedded within it, and it's glowing. We can see those quite easily. But for the planets more like the Earth, of course, they've cooled down, and so we can't see that. The light is pitiful compared to a newly formed planet. We would like to get there with direct imaging. That's the dream, is to have the pale blue dot, an actual photograph of it, maybe even just a one-pixel photograph of it. But for now, the entire solar system is one pixel. Certainly with the transit method, most other telescopes. And so, all you can do is see where that one pixel, which contains potentially dozens of planets and the star, maybe even multiple stars, dims for a short amount of time. LBW It dims just a little bit, and from that, you can infer something. CB Yeah, I mean, it's like being a detective in the scene, right? It's very indirect clues of the existence of the planet. LBW It's amazing that humans can do that. We're just looking out in these immense distances, and looking, you know, if there's alien civilizations out there, like, let's say one exactly like our own, we're like, would we even be able to see an Earth that passes in the way of its sun and slightly dims? And that's the only sign we have of that alien human-like civilization out there, is it's just a little bit of a dimming. CB Yeah. I mean, it depends on the type of star we're talking about. If it is a star truly like the sun, the dip that causes is 84 parts per million. I mean, it's like a firefly flying in front of a giant floodlight at a stadium or something. That's the brightness contrast that you're trying to compare to. So it's extremely difficult detection. And in the very, very best cases, we can get down to that. But as I said, we don't really have any true Earth analogs that have been in the exoplanet candidate yet. Unless you relax that definition, you say, it doesn't have to be a star just like the sun. It could be a star that's smaller than the sun. It could be these orange dwarfs, or even the red dwarf stars. And the fact those stars are smaller means that for the same size planet passing in front of it, more light is blocked out. And so a very exciting system, for example, is TRAPPIST-1, which has seven planets which are smaller than the Earth. And those are quite easily detectable, not with a space-based telescope, but even from the ground. And that's just because the star is so much smaller that the relative increase in or decrease in brightness is enhanced significantly because of that smaller size. So TRAPPIST-1e, it's a planet which is in the right distance for liquid water. It has a slightly smaller size than the Earth. It's about 90% the size of the Earth, about 80% the mass. And it's one of the top targets right now for potentially having life. And yet, it raises many questions about what would that environment be like? This is a star which is one-eighth the mass of the Sun. Stars like that take a long time to come off their adolescence. When stars first form, like the Sun, it takes them maybe 10, 100 million years to sort of settle in to that main sequence lifetime. But for stars like these late M dwarfs, as we call them, they can take up to a billion years or more to calm down. And during that period, they're producing huge amounts of x-rays, ultraviolet radiation that could potentially rip off the entire atmosphere. It may desiccate the planets in the system. And so even if water arrived by comets or something, it may have lost all that water due to this prolonged period of high activity. So we have lots of open-ended questions about these M dwarf planets, but they are the most accessible. And so in the near term, if we detect anything in terms of biosignatures, it's going to be for one of these red dwarf stars. It's not going to be a true Earth twin, as we would recognize it as having a yellow star. LBW Well, let me ask you, I mean, there's a million ways to ask this question. I'm sure I'll ask it about habitable worlds. Let's just go to our own solar system. What can we learn about the planets and moons in our solar system that might contain life, whether it's Mars or some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn? What kind of characteristics, because you said it might not need to be Earth-like, what kind of characteristics we'd be looking for? AC When we look for life, it's hard to define even what life is, but we can maybe do a better job in defining the sorts of things that life does. And that provides some aspects to some avenue for looking for them. Classically, conventionally, I think we thought the way to look for life was to look for oxygen. Oxygen is a byproduct of photosynthesis on this planet. We didn't always have it. Certainly if you go back to the Archean period, you have this period called the Great Oxidation Event, where the Earth floats with oxygen for the first time and starts to saturate the oceans and then the atmosphere. And so that oxygen, if we detect it on another planet, whether it be Mars, Venus or an exoplanet, whatever it is, that was long thought to be evidence for something doing photosynthesis. Because if you took away all the plant life on the Earth, the oxygen wouldn't just hang around here. It's a highly reactive molecule. It would oxidise things, and so within about a million years you would probably lose all the oxygen on planet Earth. So that was conventionally how we thought we could look for life. And then we started to realise that it's not so simple because a, there might be other things that life does apart from photosynthesis. Certainly the vast majority of the Earth's history had no oxygen, and yet there were living things on it, so that doesn't seem like a complete test. And secondly, could there be other things that produce oxygen besides from life? A growing concern has been these false positives in biosignature work. One example of that would be photolysis that happens in the atmosphere. When ultraviolet light hits the upper atmosphere, it can break up water vapour. The hydrogen splits off to the oxygen. The hydrogen is a much lighter atomic species, and so it can actually escape certainly planets like the Earth's gravity. That's why we don't have any hydrogen or very little helium. And so that leaves you with the oxygen, which then oxidises the surface. And so there could be a residual oxygen signature just due to this photosynthesis process. So we've been trying to generalise, and certainly in recent years there have been other suggestions, things we could look for in the solar system beyond. Nitrous oxide, basically laughing gas, is a product of microbes. That's something that we're starting to get more interest in looking for. Methane gas in combination with other gases can be an important biosignature. Phosphine as well, and phosphine is particularly relevant to the solar system because there was a lot of interest for Venus recently. You may have heard that there was a claim of a biosignature in Venus's atmosphere. I think it was like two years ago now. And the judge and jury are still out on that. There was a very provocative claim and signature of a phosphine-like spectral absorption, but it could have also have been some other molecule in particular, sulfur dioxide, which is not a biosignature. LBW So this is a detection of a gas in the atmosphere, Venus. And it might be controversial in several dimensions. So one, how to interpret that? Two, is this the right gas? And three, is this even the right detection? Is there an error in the detection? CB Yeah. I mean, how much do we believe the detection in the first place? If you do believe it, does that necessarily mean there's life there? And what gives? How can you have life in Venus's atmosphere in the first place? Because that's been seen as a hellhole place for imagining life. But I guess the counter to that has been that, okay, yes, the surface is a horrendous place to imagine life thriving. But as you go up in altitude, the very dense atmosphere means that there is a cloud layer where the temperature and the pressure become actually fairly similar to the surface of the Earth. And so maybe there are microbes stirring around in the clouds which are producing phosphine. At the moment, this is fascinating. It's got a lot of us reinvigorated about the prospects of going back to Venus and doing another mission there. In fact, there's now two NASA missions, Veritas and Da Vinci, which are going to be going back before 2030 or the 2030s. And then we have a European mission, I think, that's slated now. And even a Chinese mission might be coming along the way as well. So we might have multiple missions going to Venus, which has long been overlooked. I mean, apart from the Soviets, there really has been very little in the way of exploration of Venus, certainly as compared to Mars. Mars has enjoyed most of the activity from NASA's rovers and surveys. And Mars is certainly fascinating. There's the signature of methane that has been seen there before. Again, there the discussion is whether that methane is a product of biology, which is possible, something that happens on the Earth, or whether it's some geological process that we are yet to fully understand. It could be, for example, a reservoir of methane that's trapped under the surface and is leaking out seasonally. LB. So the nice thing about Venus is if there's a giant living civilization there, it'll be airborne, so you can just fly through and collect samples. With Mars and moons of Saturn and Jupiter, you're going to have to dig under to find the civilizations, dead or living. CB. Right. And so, yeah, maybe it's easier then for Venus because certainly you can imagine just a balloon floating through the atmosphere, or a drone or something that would have the capability of just scooping up and sampling. To dig under the surface of Mars is maybe feasible-ish, especially with something like Starship that could launch a huge digger, basically, to the surface, and you could just excavate away at the surface. But for something like Europa, we really are still unclear about how thick the ice layer is, how you would melt through that huge, thick layer to get to the ocean, and then potentially also discussions about contamination. The problem with looking for life in the solar system, which is different from looking for life with exoplanets, is that you always run the risk of, especially if you visit there, of introducing the life yourself. It's very difficult to completely exterminate every single microbe and spore on the surface of your rover or the surface of your lander. And so there's always a risk of introducing something. To some extent, there is continuous exchange of material between these planets naturally, on top of that as well. And now we're sort of accelerating that process to some degree. And so if you dig into Europa's surface, which probably is completely pristine, it's very unlikely there has been much exchange with the outside world for its subsurface ocean. You are, for the first time, potentially introducing bacteria spores into that environment that may compete or may introduce spurious signatures for the life you're looking for. And so it's almost an ethical question as to how to proceed with looking for life on those subsurface oceans. And I don't think we really have a good resolution for it at this point. Ethical. So you mean ethical in terms of concern for preserving life elsewhere, not to murder it, as opposed to the scientific one? I mean, we always worry about a space virus coming here or some kind of external source, and we would be the source of that potential contamination. Or the other direction. I mean, whatever survives in such harsh conditions might be pretty good at surviving in all conditions. It might be a little bit more resilient and robust. So it might actually take a ride on us back home. Possibly. I mean, I'm sure that some people would be concerned about that. I think we would hopefully have some containment procedures if we did sample return. Or you mean you don't even really need a sample return. These days you can pretty much send a little micro laboratory to the other planet to do the experiments in situ and then just send them back to your planet, the data. And so I don't think this is necessary, especially for a case like that where you might have contamination concerns that you have to bring samples back. Although probably if you brought back European sushi, it would probably sell for quite a bit with the billionaires in New York City. Sushi. Yeah. I would love from an engineering perspective just to see all the different candidates and designs for like the scooper for Venus and the scooper for Europa and Mars. I haven't really looked deeply into how they actually, like the actual engineering of collecting the samples because that's the engineering of that is probably essential for not either destroying life or polluting it with our own microbes and so on. So that's an interesting engineering challenge. I usually for rovers and stuff focus on the robot, on the sort of the mobility aspect of it, on the robotics, the perception and the movement and the planning and the control. But there's probably the scooper is probably where the action is. The microscopic sample collection. So basically you have to first clean your vehicle, make sure it doesn't have any earth like things on it. And then you have to put it into some kind of thing that's perfectly sealed from the environment. So if we bring it back or we analyze it, it's not going to bring anything else external in. Yeah, I don't know. That would be an interesting engineering design there. Yeah. I mean, Curiosity has been leaving these little pods on the surface quite recently. There's some neat photos you can find online and they kind of look like lightsaber hilts. Yeah, to me, I think I tweeted something like, you know, this weapon is your life. Like don't lose it Curiosity because it's just dumping these little vials everywhere. And it's yeah, it is scooping up these things. And the intention is that in the future, there will be a sample return mission that will come and pick these up. But it's, I mean, the engineering behind those things is so impressive. The thing that blows me away the most has been the landings. Especially I'm trained to be a pilot at the moment. So that's the sort of, you know, watching landings has become like my pet hobby on YouTube at the moment and how not to do it, how to do it with different levels of conditions and things. But when you think about landing on Mars, just the light travel time effect means that there's no possibility of a human controlling that descent. And so you have to put all of your faith and your trust in the computer code or the AI or whatever it is that you've put on board that thing to make the correct descent. And so there's this famous period called seven minutes of hell, where you're basically waiting for that light travel time to come back to know whether your vehicle successfully landed on the surface or not. And during that period, you know, in your mind simultaneously, that it is doing these multi stages of deploying its parachute, deploying the crane, activating its jets to come down and controlling its descent to the surface. And then the crane has to fly away so it doesn't accidentally hit the rover. And so there's a series of multi stage points where any of them go wrong, you know, the whole mission could go awry. And so the fact that we are fairly consistently able to build these machines that can do this autonomously, is to me, one of the most impressive acts of engineering that NASA have achieved. LBW Yes, the unfortunate fact about physics is the takeoff is easier than the landing. CB Yes, yes. LBW And you mentioned Starship, one of the incredible engineering feats that you get to see is the reusable rockets that take off, but they land and they land using control and they do so perfectly. And sometimes when it's synchronous, it's just it's beautiful to see. And then with Starship, you see the chopsticks that catch the ship. I mean, there's so much incredible engineering, but you mentioned Starships is somehow helpful here. So what's your hope with Starship? What kind of science might it enable, possibly? CB There's two things. I mean, it's the launch cost itself, which is hopefully going to mean per kilogram, it's going to dramatically reduce the cost of it. Even if it's a factor of 10 higher than what Elon originally promised, this is going to be a revolution for the cost to launch. That means you could do all sorts of things. You could launch large telescopes, which could be basically like JWST, but you don't even have to fold them up. JWST had this whole issue with its design that it's six and a half meters across. And so there's no fuselage, which is that large at the time. The Ares 4 wasn't large enough for that. And so they had to fold it up into this kind of complicated origami. And so a large part of the cost was figuring out how to fold it up, testing that it unfolded correctly, repeated testing. And there was something like 130 fail points or something during this unfolding mechanism. And so all of us were holding our breath during that process. But if you have the ability to just launch arbitrarily large masses, at least comparatively compared to JWST, and very large mirrors into space, you can more or less repurpose ground-based mirrors. The Hubble Space Telescope mirror and the JWST mirrors are designed to be extremely lightweight, and that increased their cost significantly. They have this kind of honeycomb design on the back to try and minimize the weight. If you don't really care about weight, because it's so cheap, then you could just literally grab many of the existing ground-based mirrors across telescopes across the world, four-meter, five-meter mirrors, and just pretty much attach them to a chassis and have your own space-based telescope. I think the Breakthrough Foundation, for instance, is an entity that has been interested in doing this sort of thing. And so that raises the prospects of having not just one JWST. JWST is a fantastic resource, but it's split between all of us. Cosmologists, star formation astronomers, those of us studying exoplanets, those of us wanting to study the ultra-deep fields and the origin of the first galaxies, the expansion of the universe. Everyone has to share this resource, but we could potentially each have one JWST each that is maybe just studying a handful of the brightest exoplanet stars and measuring their atmospheres. This is important because we talked about this planet Trappist-1e earlier. That planet, if JWST stared at it and tried to look for biosignatures, by which I mean oxygen, nitrous oxide, methane, it would take it of order of 200 transits to get even a very marginal, what we'd call two and a half sigma detection of those, which basically nobody would believe. And a hundred transits, I mean this thing transits once every six days, so you're talking about four years of staring at the same star with one telescope. There'd be some breaks, but it'd be hard to schedule much else because you have to continuously catch each one of these transits to build up your signal-to-noise. So JWST is never going to do that. In principle, technically, JWST could technically have the capability of just about detecting a biosignature on an Earth-like planet around a non-Sun-like star. But still, impressively, we have basically the technology to do that, but we simply cannot dedicate all of its time practically to that one resource. And so Starship opens up opportunities like that of mass-producing these kinds of telescopes, which will allow us to survey for life in the universe, which of course is one of the grand goals of astronomy. I wonder if you can speak to the bureaucracy, the political battles, the scientific battles for time on the James Webb telescope. There must be a fascinating process of scheduling that. All scientists are trying to collaborate, figure out what the most important problems are, and there's an interesting network of interfering scientific experiments, probably, they have to somehow optimize over. It's a really difficult process. I don't envy the tech that are going to have to make this decision. We call it the tech, the time allocation committee that make this decision. I've served on these before, and it's very difficult. Typically, for Hubble, we were seeing at least 10, sometimes 20 times the number of proposals for telescope time versus available telescope time. For JWST, there has been one call already that has gone out. We call it Cycle 1, and that was oversubscribed by, I think, something like 6 to 1, 7 to 1. And the Cycle 2, which has just been announced fairly recently, and the deadline is actually the end of this month, so my team are totally laser-focused on writing our proposals right now, that is expected to be much more competitive, probably more comparable to what Hubble saw. And so, it's hard. More competitive than the Cycle 1, you said? More competitive than the first cycle. So, I said the first cycle of James Webb was about 6 to 1, and this will probably be more like 20 to 1, I would expect. I would expect. These are all proposals by scientists and so on, and it's not like you can schedule at any time, because if you're looking for transit times... Yeah, you have a time-critical element. Yes, time-critical element, and they're conflicting in non-obvious ways, because the frequency is different, the duration is different, there's probably computational needs that are different, there's the type of sensors, the direction pointing, all that. Yeah, it's hard. There are certain programs like doing a deep field study, where you just more or less point the telescope, and that's pretty open. I mean, you're just accumulating photons. You can just point at that patch of the sky whenever the telescope's not doing anything else, and just get to your month, let's say a month of integration time is your goal over the lifetime of JWST. So, that's maybe a little bit easier to schedule. It's harder, especially for us looking at cool worlds, because as I said earlier, these planets transit very infrequently. So we have to wait. If you're looking at the Earth transiting the Sun, an alien watching us, they would only get one opportunity per year to do that observation. The transit lasts for about 12 hours, and so if they don't get that time, it's hard. That's it. If it's conflicted with another proposal that wants to use another time critical element, it's much easier for planets like these hot planets or these close-in planets, because they transit so frequently. There's maybe 100 opportunities, and so then the TAT can say, okay, they want 10 transits, there's 100 opportunities here. It's easier for us to give them time. We're almost in the worst case scenario. We're proposing to look for exoplanets around two cool planets, and so we really only have one bite of the cherry for each one. So our sales pitch has been that these are extremely precious events. More importantly, JWST is the only telescope, the only machine humanity has ever constructed, which is capable of finding moons akin to the moons in our solar system. Kepler can't do it, even Hubble can't do it. JWST is the first one. So there is a new window to the universe, because we know these moons exist. They're all over the place in the solar system. You have the Moon, you have Io, Callisto, Europa, Ganymede, Titan. Lots of moons are fairly similar size, sort of 30% the size of the Earth. And this telescope is the first one that can find them. And so we're very excited about the profound implications of ultimately solving this journey we're on in astronomy, which is to understand our uniqueness. We want to understand how common is the solar system. Are we the way, are we the architecture that frequently emerges naturally? Or is there something special about what happened here? I think this is not the worst case, it's the best case. It's obvious, it's super rare. So you have to like, I would, so I love scheduling from a computer science perspective, that's my background. So algorithmically, to solve a schedule problem, I will schedule the rarest things first. And obviously this is the JWST is the first thing that can actually detect a cool world. So this is a big new thing, you can show off that new thing. Happens rarely, schedule it first, it's perfect. You should be on the TAC, this is perfect. I will, I'll file my application after we're done with this. This part of me is the OCD, part of me is the computational aspect, I love scheduling. Computing device, because you have that kind of scheduling on supercomputers, that scheduling problem is fascinating. How do you prioritize computation? How do you prioritize science, data collection, sample collection, all that kind of stuff. It's actually kind of, it's kind of fascinating, because data in ways you expect and don't expect will unlock a lot of solutions to some fascinating mysteries. And so collecting the data and doing so in a way that maximizes the possibility of discovery is really interesting, like from a computational perspective. I agree, there's a real satisfaction in extracting the maximum science per unit time out of your telescope. And that's the TAC's job. But the TAC are not machines, they're not a piece of computer code. They will make their selections based off human judgment. And a lot of the telescope, certainly within the field of exoplanets, because there's different fields of astronomy, but within the field of exoplanets, I think a good expectation is that most of the telescope time that JWST have will go towards atmospheric retrieval, which is sort of alluded to earlier, you know, like detecting molecules in the atmospheres, not biosignatures, because as I said, it's really not designed to do that. It's pushing JWST probably too far to expect to do that. But it could detect, for example, a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1e. That's not a biosignature, but you could prove it's like a Venus in that case, or maybe like a Mars in that case. Both those have carbon dioxide rich atmospheres. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of life either way, but it is our first characterization of the nature of those atmospheres. Maybe we can even tell the pressure level and the temperature of those atmospheres. So that's very exciting. But we are competing with that, and I think that science is completely mind-blowing and fantastic. We have a completely different objective, which is in our case to try and look for the first evidence of these small moons around these planets. Potentially even moons which could be habitable, of course. So I think it's a very exciting goal. But ATT&CK has to make a human judgment, essentially, about which science are they most excited by, which one has the highest promise of return, the highest chance of return. And so that's hard, because if you look at a planetary atmosphere, well you know most of the time the planet has an atmosphere already. And so there's almost a guaranteed success that you're going to learn something about the atmosphere by pointing judiciously at it. Whereas in our case, there's a harder sell. We are looking for something that we do not know for sure exists yet or not. So we are pushing the telescope to do something which is inherently more risky. Yeah, but the existence, if shown, already gives a deep lesson about what's out there in the universe. That means that other stars have similar types of variety as we have in our solar system. They have an Io, they have a Europa, and so on. Which means there's a lot of possibility for icy planets, for water, for planets that enable, planets and moons. I mean, that's super exciting, because that means everywhere through our galaxy and beyond, there is just innumerable possibility for weird creatures. I agree. Life forms. You don't have to convince me. I mean, NASA has been on this quest for a long time, and it's sometimes called Eater Earth. It's the frequency of Earth-like, usually they say planets, in the universe. How common are planets similar to our Earth? Ultimately, we'd like to know everything about these planets in terms of the amount of water they have, how much atmosphere they have. But for now, it's kind of focused just on the size and the distance from the star, essentially. How often do you get similar conditions to that? That was Kepler's primary mission, and it really just kind of flirted with the answer. It didn't quite get to a definitive answer. But I always say, look, if that's our primary goal, to look for Earth-like, I would say, worlds, then moons has to be a part of that. Because we know that Earth-like, from the Kepler data, the preliminary result is that Earth-like planets around Sun-like stars is not an inevitable outcome. It seems to be something like a 1% to 10% outcome. So it's not particularly inevitable that that happens. But we do often see about half of all Sun-like stars have either a mini-Neptune, a Neptune, or a Jupiter in the habitable zone of their stars. That's a very, very common occurrence that we see. Yet we have no idea how often they have moons around them, which could also be habitable. And so, there may very well be, if even one in five of them has an Earth-like moon or even a Mars-like moon around them, then there would be more habitable real estate in terms of exo-moons than exoplanets in the universe. So you can essentially, 2x, 3x, 5x, maybe 10x the number of habitable worlds out there in the universe. Our current estimate, like the Drake equation. Absolutely. So this is one way to increase the confidence and increase the value of that parameter. And just know where to look. I mean, we would like to know where should we listen for technosignatures? Where should we be looking for biosignatures? And not only that, but what role does the Moon have in terms of its influence on the planet? We talked about these directly-imaged telescopes earlier, these missions that want to take a photo to quote Carl Sagan, the pale blue dot of our planet, but the pale blue dot of an exoplanet. And that's the dream, to one day capture that. But as impressive as the resolution is that we are planning and conspiring to design for the future generation telescopes to achieve that, even those telescopes will not have the capability of resolving the Earth and the Moon within that. It'll be a pale blue dot pixel, but the Moon's greyness will be intermixed with that pixel. And so this is a big problem, because one of the ways that we are claiming to look for life in the universe is a chemical disequilibrium. So you see two molecules that just shouldn't be there. They normally react with each other. Or even one molecule that's just too reactive to be hanging around the atmosphere by itself. So if you had oxygen and methane hanging out together, those would normally react fairly easily. And so if you detected those two molecules in your pale blue dot spectra, you'd be like, okay, we have evidence for life. Something's metabolizing on this planet. However, the challenge is, what if that Moon was Titan? Titan has a methane-rich atmosphere. And what if the pale blue dot was in fact a planet devoid of life, but it had oxygen because of water undergoing this photolysis reaction, splitting into oxygen and hydrogen separately? So then you have all of the hallmarks of what we would claim to be life, but all along you were tricked. It was just a Moon that was deceiving you. And so we're never going to, I would claim, really understand or complete this quest of looking for life by signatures in the universe unless we have a deep knowledge of the prevalence and role that Moons have. They may even affect the habitability of the planets themselves. Of course, our own Moon is freakishly large. By mass ratio, it's the largest Moon in the solar system. It's a 1% mass Moon. If you look at Jupiter's Moons, they're like 10 to the power minus four, much smaller. And so our own Moon seems to stabilize the obliquity of our planet. It gives rise to tides, especially early on when the Moon was closer. Those tides would have covered entire continents, and those rock pools that would have been scattered across the entire plateau may have been the origin of life on our planet. The Moon-forming impact may have stripped a significant fraction of the lithosphere off the Earth, which without it, plate tectonics may not have been possible. We'd have had a stagnant lid because there was just too much lithosphere stuck on the top of the planet. And so there are speculative reasons, but intriguing reasons, as to why a large Moon may be not just important, but central to the question of having the conditions necessary for life. So Moons can be habitable in their own right, but they can also play a significant influence on the habitability of the planets they orbit. And further, they will surely interfere with our attempts to detect life remotely from afar. LBW So taking a tangent upon a tangent, you've written about binary planets, and that they're surprisingly common, or they might be surprisingly common. What's the difference between a large Moon and binary planets? What are binary planets? What's interesting to say here about giant rocks flying through space and orbiting each other? CB The thing that's interesting about binary objects is that they're very common in the universe. Binary stars are everywhere. In fact, the majority of stars seem to live in binary systems. When we look at the outer edges of the solar system, we see binary Kuiper Belt objects all the time. Asteroids basically bound to one another. Pluto-Charon is kind of an example of that. It's a 10% mass ratio system. It almost is by many definitions a binary planet, but now it's a dwarf planet. So I don't know what you call that now. But we know that the universe likes to make things in pairs. LBW So you're saying our Sun is an incel. So most things are dating, they're in relationships, and ours is alone. CB It's not a complete freak of the universe to be alone, but it's more common for Sun-like stars. If you count up all the Sun-like stars in the universe, about half of the Sun-like star systems are in binary or trinary systems, and the other half are single. But because those binaries are two or three stars, then cumulatively, maybe a third of all Sun-like stars are single. LBW I'm trying hard to not anthropomorphize the relationship the stars have with each other. But yeah, I've met those folks also. CB So is there something interesting to learn about the habitability, how that affects the probability of habitable worlds when they kind of couple up like that in those different ways? LBW It depends which way the stars of the planet. Certainly if stars couple up, that has a big influence on the habitability. Of course, this is very famous from Star Wars. Tatooine in Star Wars is a binary star system. And you have Luke Skywalker looking at the Sunset and seeing two stars come down. For years, we thought that was purely a product of George Lucas' incredibly creative mind. We didn't think that planets would exist around binary star systems. It seems like too tumultuous an environment for a quiescent planetary disc, a circumstellar disc, to form planets from. Yet, one of the astounding discoveries from Kepler was that these appear to be quite common. In fact, as far as we can tell, they're just as common around binary stars as single stars. The only caveat to that is that you don't get planets close into binary stars. They have a clearance region on the inside where planets maybe form there, but they don't last. They are dynamically unstable in that zone. But once you get out to about the distance that the Earth orbits the Sun, or even a little bit closer in, you start to find planets emerging. And so that's the right distance for liquid water, the right distance for potentially life on those planets. And so there may very well be plenty of habitable planets around the binary stars. Binary planets is a little bit different. Binary planets, I don't think we have any serious connection of planet banality to habitability. Certainly when we investigated it, that wasn't our drive that this is somehow the solution to life in the universe or anything. It was really just a, like all good science questions, a curiosity-driven question. LBW What's the dynamic? Are they legit orbiting each other as they orbit the star? AC So the formation mechanism proposed here, because it is very difficult to form two proto-planets close to each other like this. They would generally merge within the disk, and so that's why you normally get single planets. But you could have something like Jupiter and Saturn form at separate distances. They could dynamically be scattered in towards one another and basically not quite collide, but have a very close-on encounter. Now because tidal forces increase dramatically as the distance decreases between two objects, the tides can actually dissipate the kinetic energy and bring them bound into one another. So that seems, when you first hear that, you think, well that seems fairly contrived that you'd have the conditions just right to get these tides to cause a capture. But numerical simulations have shown that about 10% of planet-planet encounters are shown to produce something like binary planets, which is a startling prediction. And so that seems at odds with, naively, the exoplanet catalogue for which we know of, so far, no binary planets. And we propose one of the resolutions to this might be that the binary planets are just incredibly difficult to detect, which is also counterintuitive. Because remember how they form is through this tidal mechanism. And so they form extremely close to each other, sort of the distance that Io is away from Jupiter, just a few planetary radii. They're almost touching one another, and they're just tidally locked facing each other for eternity. And so in that configuration, as it transits across the star, it kind of looks like you can't really resolve those two planets. It just looks like one planet to you that's going across the star. The temporal resolution of the data is rarely good enough to distinguish that. And so you'd see one transit, but in fact it's two planets very close together, which are transiting at once. And so, yeah, we wrote a paper just recently where we developed some techniques to try and get around this problem, and hopefully provide a tool where we could finally look for these planets. LBW The problem of detection of these planets when they're so close together. AC That was our focus, was how do you get around this merging problem? So whether they're out there or not, we don't know. We're planning to do a search for them, but it remains an open question. And I think just one of those fun astrophysics curiosities questions, whether the binary planets exist in the universe. Because then you have binary Earths, you could have binary Neptune, all sorts of wild stuff that would float the sci-fi imagination. LBW I wonder what the physics on a binary planet feels like. It might be trivial. I have to think about that. I wonder if there's some interesting dynamics. Like, if you have multiple, or would gravity feel different in different parts of the surface of the sphere when there's another large sphere? That's interesting. AC I would think that the force would be fairly similar, because the shape of the object would deform to a flat geopotential, essentially a uniform geopotential. But it would lead to a distorted shape for the two objects. I think they'd become ellipsoids facing one another. So it would be pretty wild when people like flat Earth or spherical Earth, you fly from space and you see a football-shaped Earth. That's your own planet. LBW Finally, there's proof. And I wonder how difficult it would be to travel from one to the other. Because you have to overcome the one. No, it might be kind of easy. AC Yeah, I mean, they're so close to each other, that helps. And I think the most critical factor would be how massive is the planet? That's always, I mean, one of the challenges with escaping planets, there was a fun paper one of my colleagues wrote that suggested that super Earth planets may be inescapable. If you're a civilization that were born on a super Earth, the surface gravity is so high that the chemical potential energy of hydrogen or methane, whatever fuel you're using, simply is at odds with the gravity of the planet itself. And so our current rockets, I'm not sure of the fraction, but maybe like 90% of the rocket is fuel or something by mass. These things would have to be like the size of the Giza pyramids of fuel with just a tiny tip on the top in order just to escape their planetary atmosphere. And so it has been argued that if you live on a super Earth, you may be forced to live there forever. There may be no escape unless you invent a space elevator or something. But then how do you even build the infrastructure in space to do something like that in the absence of a successful rocket program? And so the more and more we look at our Earth and think about the sorts of problems we're facing, the more you see things about the Earth which make it ideally suited in so many regards. It's almost spooky, right? That we not only live on a planet which has the right conditions for life, for intelligent life, for sustained fossil fuel industry, which just happens to be in the ground. We have plenty of fossil fuels to get our industrial revolution going. But also the chemical energy contained within those fossil fuels and hydrogen and other fuels is sufficient that we have the ability to escape our planetary atmosphere and planetary gravity to have a space program. And we also happen to have a celestial body which is just within reach of the Moon, which doesn't necessarily have to be true. Were the Moon not there, what effect would that have had on our aspirations of a space program in the 1960s? Would there have ever been a space race to Mars or to Venus? It's a much harder…Certainly for a human program, that seems almost impossible with 1960s technology to imagine ever come to fruition. It's almost as if somebody constructed a set of challenging obstacles before us, challenging problems to solve. They're challenging, but they're doable. And there's a sequence of them. Gravity is very difficult to overcome, but we have, given the size of Earth, it's not so bad that we can still actually construct propulsion systems that can escape it. Yeah. And the same with climate change, perhaps. I mean, climate change is the next major problem facing our civilization, but we know it is technically surmountable. It does seem sometimes like there has been a series of challenges laid out to progress us towards a mature civilization that can one day perhaps expand to the stars. I'm a little more concerned about nuclear weapons, AI, and natural or artificial pandemics. But yes, climate change is… I mean, plenty of milestones that we need to cross. And we can argue about the severity of each of them. But there is no doubt that we live in a world that has serious challenges that are pushing our intellects and our will to the limit of whether we're really ready to progress to the next stage of our development. So thank you for taking the tangent, and there'll be a million more. But can we step back to Kepler-1625b? What is it? And you've talked about this kind of journey, this effort to discover exomoons, so moons out there, or small, cool objects out there. Where does that effort stand, and what is Kepler-1625b? Yeah, I mean, I've been searching for exomoons for most of my professional career, and I think a lot of my colleagues think I'm kind of crazy to still be doing it. After five years of not finding anything, I think most people would probably try doing something else. I even had people say that to me. They said, professors… I remember at a cocktail party, took me to the side, an MIT professor, and he said, you know, you should just look for hot Jupiters. They're everywhere. You can write papers, they're so easy to find. And I was like, yeah, but hot Jupiters are just not interesting to me. I want to do something that I feel intellectually pushes me to the edge. And it's maybe a contribution that not no one else could do, but maybe it's not certainly the thing that anybody could do. I don't want to just be the first to something for the sake of being first. I want to do something that feels like a meaningful intellectual contribution to our society. And so this exomoon problem has been haunting me for years to try and solve this. Now, as I said, we looked for years and years using Kepler, and the closest we ever got was just a hint for this one star. Kepler-1625 has a Jupiter-like planet in orbit of it. And that Jupiter-like planet is on a 287-day period, so it's almost the same distance as the Earth around the Sun, but for a Jupiter. So that was already unusual. I don't think people realise that Jupiter-like planets are quite rare in the universe. Certainly mini-Neptunes and Neptunes are extremely common, but Jupiters, only about 10% of Sun-like stars have Jupiters around them, as far as we can tell. When you say Jupiter, which aspect of Jupiter? In terms of its mass and its semi-traxxas. So anything beyond about half an AU, so half the distance of the Earth and the Sun, and something of order of a tenth of a Jupiter mass, that's the mass of Saturn, up to say 10 Jupiter masses, which is basically where you start to get to brown dwarfs. Those types of objects appear to be somewhat unusual. Most solar systems do not have Jupiters, which is really interesting because Jupiter, again, like the Moon, seems to have been a pivotal character in the story of the development of our solar system, perhaps especially having a large influence on the development of the late heavy bombardment and the rate of asteroid impacts that we receive and things like this. Anyway, to come back to 1625, this Jupiter-like planet had a hint of something in the data. What I mean by that is when we looked at the transit, we got the familiar decrease in light that we always see when a planet travels in front of the star. But we saw something extra. Just on the edges, we saw some extra dips around the outside. It was right at the hairy edge of detectability. We didn't believe it, because I think one of the challenges of looking for something for 10 years is that you become your own greater skeptic. No matter what you're shown, you're always thinking, it's like falling in love so many times and it not working out. You convince yourself it's never going to happen. Not for me, this just isn't going to happen. I saw that and I didn't really believe it because I didn't dare let myself believe it. But being a good scientist, we knew we had an obligation to publish it, to talk about the result, and to follow it up and to try and resolve what was going on. So we asked for Hubble Space Telescope time, which was awarded in that case. We were one of those lucky 20 that got telescope time. We stared at it for about 40 hours continuously. To provide some context, the dip that we saw in the Kepa data corresponded to a Neptune-sized moon around a Jupiter-sized planet, which was another reason why I was sceptical. We don't have that in the solar system, that seems so strange. Then when we got the Hubble data, it seemed to confirm exactly that. There were two really striking pieces of evidence in the data that suggested this moon was there. Another was a fairly clear second dip in light, pretty clearly resolved by Hubble. It was about a five sigma detection. On top of that, we could see the planet didn't transit when it should have done. It actually transited earlier than we expected it to, by about 20 minutes or so. That's a hallmark of a gravitational interaction between the planet and the moon. We actually expected that. You can also expect that if the moon transits after the planet, then the planet should come in earlier than expected, because the barycenter, the center of mass, lives between the two of them, kind of like on a balancing arm between them. We saw that as well. So the phase signature matched up. The mass of the moon was measured to be Neptune mass, and the size of the moon was measured to be Neptune radius. So everything just really lined up, and we spent months and months trying to kill it. This is my strategy for anything interesting. We just try and throw the kitchen sink at it and say, we must be tricked by something. So we tried looking at the centroid motion of the telescope, the different wavelength channels that have been observed, the pixel level information. No matter what we did, we just couldn't get rid of it. We submitted it to Science. I think at the time, Science, which is one of the top journals, said to us, would you mind calling your paper Discovery of an Exomoon? I had to push back, and we said, no, we're not calling it that. Even despite everything we've done, we're not calling it a discovery. We're calling it evidence for an exomoon. Because for me, I'd want to see this repeat two times, three times, four times before I really would bet my house that this is the real deal. I do worry, as I said, that perhaps that's my own self-skepticism going too far. But I think it was the right decision. Since that paper came out, there has been continuous interest in this subject. Another team independently analysed that star and recovered actually pretty much exactly the same results as us, the same dip, the same wobble of the planet. A third team looked at it, and they actually got something different. They saw the dip was diminished compared to what we saw. They saw a little hint of a dip, but not as pronounced as what we saw. And they saw the wobble as well. So there's been a little bit of tension about analysing the reduction of the Hubble data. And so the only way in my mind to resolve this is just to look again. We actually did propose to Hubble straight after that, and we said, look, if our model is right, if the Moon is there, it came in late last time. It transited after the planet. Because of the orbit, we can calculate that it should transit before the planet next time. If it's not there, if it doesn't transit before, and even if we see a dip afterwards, we know that's not our Moon. It's obviously some instrumental effect with the data. We had a causal prediction as to where the Moon should be. And so I was really excited about that, but we didn't get the telescope time. And unfortunately, if you go further into the future, we no longer have the predictive capability. Because it's like predicting the weather. You might be able to predict the weather next week to some level of accuracy, but predicting the weather next year becomes incredibly hard. The uncertainties just grow and compound as you go forward into the future more and more. LRW How were you able to know where the Moon would be positioned? So you're able to tell the orbiting geometry and frequency? PW Yeah, so basically from the wobbles of the planet itself, that tells us the orbital motion of the Moon. It's the reflex motion of the Moon on the planet. LRW But isn't it just an estimate where… Like I'm concerned about you making a strong prediction here, because if you don't get the Moon where the Moon leads on the next time around, if you did get Hubble time, couldn't that mean something else if you didn't see that? Because you said it would be an instrumental… I feel the strong urge to disprove your own, which is a really good imperative. It's a good way to do science. But this is such a noisy signal, right? Or blurry signal, maybe. Low resolution signal, maybe. PW Yeah, I mean, it's a five sigma signal. So that's at the slightly uncomfortable edge. I mean, it's often said that for any detection of a first new phenomena, you really want like a 20, 25 sigma detection. Then there's just no doubt that what you're seeing is real. This was at that edge. I mean, I guess it's comparable to the Higgs boson, but the Higgs boson was slightly different because there was so much theoretical impetus as to expect a signal at that precise location. A Neptune-sized Moon was not predicted by anyone. There was no papers you can find that expect Neptune-sized Moons around Jupiter-sized planets. So I think we were inherently sceptical about its reality for that reason. But this is science in action. We fit the wobbles, we fit the dips, and we have this 3G geometric model for the motion of the orbit. Projecting that forward, we found that about 80% of our projections led to the Moon to be before. So it's not 100%. There was maybe 20% of the cases it was over here. But to me that was a hard enough projection that we felt confident that we could refute the exit. Which was what I really wanted. I wanted a refutable, that's the basis of science, a falsifiable hypothesis. How can you make progress in science if you don't have a falsifiable testable hypothesis? And so that was the beauty of this particular case. Lexie Davis So there's a numerical simulation with a Moon that fits the data that we observed, and then you can now make predictions based on that simulation. Matthew Walsh Yeah. That's so cool. Okay. Lexie Davis It's fun. These are like little solar systems that we can simulate on the computer and imagine their motions. But we are pushing things to the very limits of what's possible, and that's double-edged sword. It's both incredibly exciting intellectually, but you're always risking, to some degree, pushing too far. Matthew Walsh So I'd like to ask you about the recent paper you co-authored, an exomoon survey of 70 cool giant exoplanets and the new candidate Kepler 1708 Bi. I'd say there's like three or four candidates at this point, of which we have published two of them. And to me, two are quite compelling and deserve follow-up observations. And so to get a confirmed detection, at least in our case, we would need to see it repeat, for sure. One of the problems with some of the other methods that have been proposed is that you don't get that repeatability. So for instance, an example of a technique that would lack that would be gravitational microlensing. So it is possible, with a new telescope coming up in the future called the Roman Space Telescope, which is basically a repurposed spy satellite that's the size of the Hubble mirror going up into space, it will stare at millions of stars simultaneously. And it will look to see, instead of whether any of those stars get dimmer for a short amount of time, which would be a transit, it'll look for the opposite. It'll look to see if anything can get brighter. And that brightness increase is caused by another planetary system passing in front and then gravitationally lensing light around it to cause a brightening. And so this is a method of discovering an entire solar system, but only for a glimpse. You just get a short glimpse of it passing like a ship sailing through the night, just that one photo of it. Now the problem with that is that it's very difficult. The physics of gravitational lensing are not surprisingly quite complicated. And so there's many, many possible solutions. So you might have a solution which is this could be a red dwarf star with a Jupiter-like planet around it. That's one solution. But another solution is that it's a free-floating planet, a rogue planet like Jupiter, with an Earth-like moon around it. And those two solutions are almost indistinguishable. Now ideally, we would be able to repeat the observation. We'd be able to go back and see, well, if the Moon really is there, then we could predict its mass, its predicted motion, and expect it to be maybe over here next time or something. With microlensing, it's a one snapshot event. And so for me, it's intriguing as a way of revealing something about the exomoon population. But I always come back to transits because it's the only method we really have that's absolutely repeatable, that we'll be able to come back and prove to everyone that, look, on the 17th of October, the Moon will be over here and the Moon will look like this, and we can actually capture that image. And that's what we see with, of course, many exoplanets. So we want to get to that same point of full confidence, full confirmation, the slam-dunk detection of these exomoons. But yeah, it's been a hell of a journey to try and push the field into that direction. Is there some resistance to the transit method? Not to the transit method, I just say to exomoons. So the transit method is by far the most popular method for looking for exoplanets. But yeah, as I've alluded to, exomoons is kind of a niche topic within the discipline of exoplanets. And that's largely because there are people I think are waiting for those slam-dunks. If you go back to the first exoplanet discovery that was made in 1995 by Michel Mayor and Didier Kellors, I think it's true at the time that they were seen as mavericks. The idea of looking for planets around stars was considered fringe science. I'm sure many colleagues told them, why don't you do something more safe, like study eclipsing stars? Two binary star systems, we know those exist, so why are you wasting your time looking for planets? You're going to get this alien moniker or something, and you'll be seen as a fringe maverick scientist. So I think it was quite difficult for those early planet hunters to get legitimacy and be taken seriously. Very few people risked their careers to do it, except for those that were either emboldened to try or had maybe the career, maybe like a tenure or something, so they didn't have to necessarily worry about the implications of failure. So once that happened, once they made the first discoveries, overnight everyone and their dog was getting into exoplanets. All of a sudden, the whole astronomy community shifted, and huge numbers of people that were once upon a time studying eclipsing binaries changed to becoming exoplanet scientists. So that was the first wave of exoplanet scientists. We're now in a second wave, or maybe a third wave, where people like me to some degree kind of grew up with the idea of exoplanets as being normal. I was 11 years old, I guess, when the first exoplanet was discovered, and so to me it was a fairly normal idea to grow up with. So we've been trained in exoplanets from the very beginning, and so that brings a different perspective to those who have maybe transitioned from a different career path. So I suspect with exomoons and probably technosignatures, astrobiology, many of the topics which are seen at the fringes of what's possible, they will all open up into becoming mainstream one day. But there's a lot of people who are just waiting for that assuredness that there is a secure career net ahead of them before they commit. Yeah, it does seem to me that exomoons open wider or open for the first time the door to aliens. So more seriously, academically studying, all right, let's look at alien worlds. So I think it's still pretty fringe to talk about alien life, even on Mars and the moons and so on. You're kind of like, you know, it would be nice, but imagine the first time you discover a living organism. That's going to change. Then everybody will look like an idiot for not focusing everything on this, because the possibility of the things will…it's possible it might be super boring. It might be very boring bacteria, but even the existence of life elsewhere, I mean, that changes everything. That means life is everywhere. Yeah, if you knew now that in five years, ten years, the first life would be discovered elsewhere, you knew that in advance, it would surely affect the way you approach your entire career. Especially someone junior in astronomy, you would surely be like, well, this is clearly going to be the direction I have to dedicate my classes and my training and my education towards that direction. All the new textbooks, all the… Yeah, right. …that you've written. I mean, and I think there's a lot of value to hedging, like allocating some of the time to that possibility, because the kind of discovery we'll…the kind of discoveries we might get in the next few decades, it feels like we're on the verge of a lot of getting a lot of really good data and having better and better tools that can process that data. So there's just going to be a continuous increase of the kind of discoveries that will open…but a slam dunk, that's hard to come by. Yeah, I think a lot of us are anticipating, I mean, we're already seeing it to some degree with Venus and the phosphine incident. But we've seen it before with Bill Clinton's on the White House lawn announcing life from Mars. And there are inevitably going to be spurious claims, or at least claims which are ambiguous to some degree. There will be, for sure, a high-profile journal like Nature or Science that will one day publish a paper saying, buy a signature, discover something like that on Trappist-1 or some other planet. And then there will be years of back and forth in the literature. And that might seem frustrating, but that's how science works. That's the mechanism of science at play, of people scrutinising the results to intense scepticism. And it's like a crucible. You burn away all irrelevances until whatever is left is the truth. And so you're left with this product, which is that, okay, we either believe or don't believe that bite signatures are there. So there's inevitably going to be a lot of controversy and debate and argument about it. We just have to anticipate that. And so I think you have to basically have a thick skin, to some degree, academically, to dive into that world. And you're seeing that with phosphine. It's been uncomfortable to watch from the outside, the kind of dialogue that some of the scientists have been having with each other about that. Because... They get a little aggressive. You can understand why, because... Jealousy? I don't know. That's me saying, not you. That's me talking. I'm sure there's some envy and jealousy involved on the behalf of those who are not part of the original discovery. But there's also, in any case, just leave the particular people involved in Venus alone. In any case of making a claim of that magnitude, especially life, because life is pretty much one of the biggest discoveries of all time, you can imagine, scientifically. You can see, and I'm so conscious of this in myself when I get close to, as I said, even the much smaller goal of setting an exomoon, the ego creeping. And so as a scientist, we have to be so guarded against our own egos. You see the lights in your eyes of a Nobel Prize, or the fame and fortune and being remembered in the history books. And we all grew up in our training learning about Newton and Einstein, these giants of the field, Feynman, Maxwell. And you get the idea of these individual contributions which get immortalized for all time, and that's seductive. It's why many of us, with the skill set to go into maybe banking, instead decided, actually, there's something about the idea of being immortalized and contributing towards society in a permanent way that is more attractive than the financial reward of applying my skills elsewhere. So to some degree, that ego can be a benefit, because it brings in skillful people into our field who might otherwise be tempted by money elsewhere. But on the other hand, the closer you get towards when you start flirting with that Nobel Prize in your eyes, or you think you're on the verge of seeing something, you can lose objectivity. A very famous example of this is Barnard's Star. There was a planet claimed there by Peter van der Kamp, I think it was in 1968, 69. And at the time, it would have been the first ever exoplanet ever claimed. And he felt assured that this planet was there. He was actually using the wobbling star method, but using the positions of the stars to claim this exoplanet. It turned out that this planet was not there. Subsequent analyses by both dynamicists and theorists and those looking at the instrumental data established fairly unanimously that there was no way this planet was really there. But Peter van der Kamp insisted it was there, despite overwhelming evidence that was accruing against him. And even to the day he died, which was I think in the early 90s, he was still insisting this planet was there, even when we were starting to make the first genuine exoplanet discoveries. And even at that point, I think Hubble had even looked at that star and had totally ruled out any possibility of what he was talking about. And so that's a problem. How do you get to a point as a scientist where you just can't accept anything that comes otherwise? Because it starts out with the dream of fame, and then it ends in a stubborn refusal to ever back down. Of course, the flip side of that is sometimes you need that to have the strength to carry a belief against the entire scientific community that resists your beliefs. And so it's a double-edged sword. That can happen, but I guess the distinction here is evidence. So in this case, the evidence was so overwhelming, it wasn't really a matter of interpretation. You'd observe this star with the same star, but with maybe 10, even 100 times greater precision for much longer periods of time. And there was just no doubt at this point this planet was a mirage. And so that's why you have to be very careful. I always say, don't ever name my wife and my daughter, name this planet after me that you discover. I can't ever name a planet after you because I won't be objective anymore. How could I ever turn around to you and say that planet wasn't real that I named after you? So you're somebody that talks about, and it's clear in your eyes and in your way of being, that you love the process of discovery, that joy, the magic of just seeing something, a new observation, a new idea. But I guess the point is, when you have that great feeling, is to then switch on the skepticism, to start testing what does this actually mean? Is this real? What are the possible different interpretations that could make this a lot less grand than I first imagined? So both have the wander and the skepticism on the same brain. Yeah, I think generally the more I want something to be true, the more I inherently doubt it. And I think that just comes from, I grew up with a religious family and was just sort of indoctrinated to some degree, like many children are. That, okay, this is normal, that there's a God and this is the way the world is. God created the Earth. And then as I became more well-read and illiterate of what was happening in the world scientifically, I started to doubt. And it really just struck me that the hardest thing to let go of when you do decide not to be religious anymore–and it's not really a light bulb moment, but it just kind of happens over 11 to 13, I think, for me, it was happening–but it's that sadness of letting go of this beautiful dream which you had in your mind of eternal life, for behaving yourself on Earth. You would have this beautiful heaven that you could go to and live forever. And that's very attractive. And for me personally, that was one of the things that pulled me against it. It's like it's too good to be true, and it's very convenient that this could be so. And I have no evidence directly in terms of a scientific sense to support this hypothesis, and it just became really difficult to reconcile my growth as a scientist. And I know some people find that reconciliation. I have not. Maybe I will one day. But as a general guiding principle, which I think I obtained from that experience, was that I have to be extremely guarded about what I want to be true, because it's going to sway me to say things which are not true if I'm not careful. And that's not what we're trying to do as scientists. So you felt from a religious perspective that there was a little bit of a gravitational field in terms of your opinions, like it was affecting how you could be as a scientist. Like as a scientific thinker, obviously, you were young. CB. Yeah, I think that's true. Whenever there's something you want to be true, it's the ultimate seduction, intellectually. And I worry about this a lot with UFOs. It's true already with things like Venus, phosphine, and searching for astrobiological signals. We have to guard against this all the way through, from however we're looking for life, however we're looking for whatever this big question is. There is a part of us, I think, I would love there to be life in the universe. I hope there is life in the universe, but I've been on record several times as being fairly firm about trying to remain consciously agnostic about that question. I don't want to make up my mind about what the answer is before I've collected evidence to inform that decision. That's how science should work. If I already know what the answer is, then what am I doing? That's not a scientific experiment anymore. You've already decided, so what are you trying to learn? What's the point of doing the experiment if you already know what the answer is? There's no point. JK. It's so complicated. If I'm being honest with myself, when I imagine the universe, the first thing I imagine about our world is that we humans, and me certainly as one particular human, know very, my first assumption is I know almost nothing about how anything works. First of all, that actually applies for things that humans do know, like quantum mechanics, all the things that there's different expertises that I just have not dedicated to. Even that's a starting point. But if we take all of knowledge as human civilization, we know almost nothing. That's kind of an assumption I have. Because it seems like we keep discovering mysteries, and it seems like history, human history, is defined by moments when we said, okay, we pretty much figured it all out, and then you realize a century later, when you said that, you didn't figure out anything. Okay, so that's like a starting point. The second thing I have is I feel like the entirety of the universe is just filled with alien civilizations. Statistically, there's, the important thing that enables that belief for me is that they don't have to be human-like. They can be anything. And it's just the fact that life exists, and just seeing the way life is on Earth, that it just finds a way. It finds a way in so many different complicated environments. It finds a way. Whatever that force is, that same force has to find a way elsewhere also. But then if I'm also being honest, I don't know how many hours in a day I spend seriously considering the possibility that we're alone. I don't know when I'm, when my heart is in mind or filled with wonder, I think about all the different life that's out there. But to really imagine that we're alone, like really imagine all the vastness that's out there, we're alone, not even bacteria. I would say you don't have to believe that we are alone, but you have to admit it's a possibility of our ignorance of the universe so far. You can have a belief about something in the absence of evidence. And Carl Sagan famously described that as the definition of faith. If you believe something when there's no evidence, you have faith that there's life in the universe. But you can't demonstrate, you can't prove it mathematically, you can't show me evidence of that. But is there some, so mathematically, math is a funny thing, is there, I mean, the way physicists think, like intuition, so basic reasoning, is there some value to that? Well, I'd say you can certainly make a very good argument, I think you've kind of already made one, just the vastness of the universe is the default argument people often turn to, that surely there should be others out there. It's hard to imagine. There are of order of 10 to the 22 stars in our observable universe. And so really the question comes down to what is the probability of one of those 10 to the 22 planets, let's say, Earth-like planets, if they all have Earth-like planets, going on to form life spontaneously? That's the process of abiogenesis, the spontaneous emergence of life. Also the word spontaneous is a funny one. Well, okay, maybe we won't use spontaneous, but not being, let's say, seeded by some other civilization or something like this. It naturally emerges. Because even the word spontaneous makes it seem less likely? Yeah. There's just this chemistry and extremely random process. It could be a very gradual process over millions of years of growing complexity in chemical networks. Maybe there's a force in the universe that pushes it towards interesting complexity, pockets of complexity, that ultimately creates something like life, which we can't possibly define yet. And sometimes it manifests itself into something that looks like humans, but it could be a totally different kind of computational information processing system that we're too dumb to even visualize. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of weird that complexity develops at all, right? Because it seems like the opposite to our physical intuition, if you're training in physics, of entropy, that complexity is hard to spontaneously emerge. I shouldn't say spontaneously, but hard to emerge in general. And so that's an interesting problem. I think there's been, certainly from an evolutionary perspective, you do see growing complexity. And there's a nice argument, I think it's by Gould, who shows that if you have a certain amount of complexity, it can either become less complex or more complex through random mutation. And the less complex things are stripping away something, something that was necessary, potentially, to their survival. And so in general, that's going to be not particularly useful in its survival. And so it's going to be detrimental to strip away a significant amount of its useful traits. Whereas if you add something, the most typical thing that you add is probably not useful at all. It probably just doesn't really affect its survival negatively, but neither does it provide any significant benefit. But sometimes, on rare occasions, of course, it will be of benefit. And so if you have a certain level of complexity, it's hard to go back in complexity, but it's fairly easy to go forward with enough bites at the cherry. You will eventually build up in complexity. And that tends to be why we see complexity grow, certainly in an evolutionary sense, but also perhaps it's operating in chemical networks that led to the emergence of life. I guess the real problem I have with the numbers game, just to come back to that, is that we are talking about a certain probability of that occurring. It may be to go from the primordial soup, however you want to call it, the ingredients that the Earth started with, the organic molecules, the probability of going from that initial condition to something that was capable of Darwinian natural selection that maybe we could define as life. The probability of that is maybe one percent, one percent of the time that happens, in which case you're right, the universe would be absolutely teeming with life. But it could also be 10 to the power of minus 10, in which case it's one per galaxy, or 10 to the power of minus 100, in which case the vast majority of universes even do not have life within it. LBW Or 90 percent. You said one percent, but it could be 90 percent if the chemical conditions of a planet are correct, or a Moon are correct. PW I admit that. It could be any of those numbers. And the challenge is we just have no rigorous reason to expect why 90 percent is any... Because we're talking about a probability for probability. Is 90 percent more a priori likely than 10 to the power of minus 20? LBW Well, the thing is we do have an observation, N of one, of Earth. And it's difficult to know what to do with that, what kind of intuition you build on top of that, because on Earth, it seems like life finds a way in all kinds of conditions, in all kinds of crazy conditions. PW Good, yeah. LBW And it's able to build up from the basic chemistry. You could say, okay, maybe it takes a little bit of time to develop some complicated technology like mitochondria, I don't know, like photosynthesis. Fine. But it seems to figure it out and do it extremely well. PW Yeah, but I would say you're describing a different process. I mean, maybe I'm at fault for separating these two processes, but to me you're describing basically natural selection evolution at that point. Whereas I'm really describing abiogenesis, which is to me a separate distinct process. LBW To you, limited to human scientists, yes, but why would it be a separate process? Why is the birth of life a separate process from the process of life? I mean, we're uncomfortable with the Big Bang. We're uncomfortable with the first thing, I think. Like, where did this come from? PW Right. So I think I would say, I just twist that question around and say, you're saying why is it a different process? And I would say, why shouldn't it be a different process? Which isn't really a good defence, except to say that we have knowledge of how natural selection evolution works. We think we understand that process. We have almost no information about the earlier stages of how life emerged on our planet. It may be that you're right, and it is a part of a continuum. It may be that it is also a distinct, improbable set of circumstances that led to the emergence of life. As a scientist, I'm just trying to be open-minded to both possibilities. If I assert that life must be everywhere, to me you run the risk of experimenters bias. If you think you know what the answer is, if you look at an Earth-like planet and you are preconditioned to think there's a 90% chance of life on this planet, it's going to, at some level, affect your interpretation of that data. Whereas if I, however critical you might be of the agnosticism that I impose upon myself, remain open to both possibilities, then I trust in myself to make a fair assessment as to the reality of that evidence for life. Yeah, but I wonder scientifically, and that's really beautiful to hear and inspiring to hear, I wonder scientifically how many firsts we truly know of and then we don't eventually explain as actually a step number one million in a long process. So I think that's a really interesting thing if there's truly firsts in this universe. For us, whatever happened at the Big Bang is a kind of first, the origin of stuff. But it just, again, it seems like history shows that we'll figure out that it's actually a continuation of something. But then physicists say that time is emergent and that our causality in time is a very human kind of construct, that it's very possible that all of this... So there could be really firsts of a thing to which we attach a name. So whatever we call life, maybe there is an origin of it. Yeah, and I would also say I'm open to the idea of it being part of a continuation, but the continuation maybe is more broader, and it's a continuation of chemical systems and chemical networks. We call this one particular type of chemistry and this behavior of chemistry life, but it is just one manifestation of all the trillions of possible permutations in which chemical reactions can occur. And we assert specialness to it because that's what we are. And so it's also true of intelligence. You could extend the same thing and say, you know, we're looking for intelligent life in the universe. Where do you define intelligence? Where's that continuum of something that's really like us? Are we alone? There may be a continuum of chemical systems, a continuum of intelligences out there, and we have to be careful of our own arrogance, of assuming specialness about what we are, that we are some distinct category of phenomena. Whereas the universe doesn't really care about what category we are, it's just doing what it's doing and doing everything in infinite diversity and infinite combinations, essentially, what it's doing. And so we are taking this one slice and saying, no, this has to be treated separately. And I'm open to the idea that it could be a truly separate phenomenon, but it may just be like a snowflake. Every snowflake's different. It may just be that this one particular iteration is another variant of the vast continuum. LB. Yeah, maybe the algorithm of natural selection itself is an invention of Earth. I kind of also tend to suspect that whatever the algorithm is, it kind of operates at all levels throughout the universe. But maybe this is a very kind of peculiar thing, where there's a bunch of chemical systems that compete against each other somehow for survival under limited resources, and that's a very Earth-like thing. We have a nice balance of there's a large number of resources, enough to have a bunch of different kinds of systems competing, but not so many that they get lazy. And maybe that's why bacteria were very lazy for a long time. Maybe they didn't have much competition. CB. Quite possibly. I mean, I try to, as fun as it is to get into the speculation about the definitions of life and what life does and this gross network of possibilities, honestly, for me, the strongest argument for remaining agnostic is to avoid that bias in assessing data. I mean, we've seen it. Percival Lowell, I talked about on my channel, maybe last year or two years ago, who's a very famous astronomer who in the 19th century was claiming the evidence of canals on Mars. And from his perspective, and even at the time, culturally, it was widely accepted that Mars would, of course, have life. I mean, I think it seems silly to us, but it was kind of similar arguments to what we're using now about exoplanets. That, well, of course, there must be life in the universe. How could it just be here? And so it seemed obvious to people that when you looked at Mars with its polar caps, even its atmosphere had seasons, it seemed obvious to them that that too would be a place where life not only was present, but had emerged to a civilization which actually was fairly comparable in technology to our own, because it was building canal systems. Of course, a canal system seems a bizarre technosignature to us, but it was a product of their time. To them, that was the cutting edge in technology. It should be a warning shot, actually, a little bit for us that if we think solar panels or building star links or whatever space mining is like an inevitable technosignature, that may be laughably antiquated compared to what other civilizations far more advanced than us may be doing. And so anyway, Percival Lowell, I think, was a product of his time that he thought life was there. Inevitably, he even wrote about it extensively. And so when he saw these lines, these lineae on the surface of Mars, to him it was just obvious they were canals. That was experimenters' bias playing out. He was told for one that he had basically the greatest eyesight out of any of his peers. An ophthalmologist had told him that in Boston, that his eyesight was absolutely spectacular. So he was convinced everything he saw was real. And secondly, he was convinced there was life there. And so to him, it just added up. And then that kind of wasted decades of research of treating the idea of Mars being inhabited by this canal civilization. But on the other hand, it's maybe not a waste because it is a lesson in history of how we should be always on guard against our own preconceptions and biases about whether life is out there and furthermore, what types of things life might do if it is there. If I were running this simulation, which we'll also talk about because you make the case against it, but if I were running a simulation, I would definitely put you in a room with an alien. It's just to see you mentally freak out for hours at a time. You for sure would have thought you will be convinced that you've lost your mind. I mean, no, not that. But I mean, if we discover life, we discovered interesting new physical phenomena, I think the right approach is definitely to be extremely skeptical and be very, very careful about things you want to be true. That's really admirable. I would say I'm not like some extreme denialist of evidence. If there was compelling evidence for life on another planet, I would be the first one to be celebrating that and be shaking hands with the alien on the White House lawn or whatever. I grew up with Star Trek and that was my fantasy, to be Captain Kirk and fly across the stars meeting other civilizations. So there's nothing more I'd want to be true, as I've said. But we just have to guard against it when we're assessing data. But I have to say I'm very skeptical that we will ever have that Star Trek moment. Even if there are other civilizations out there, they're never going to be at a point which is in technological lockstep with us, similar level of development. Even intellectually, the idea that they could have a conversation with us, even through a translator. I mean, we can't communicate with humpback whales, we can't communicate with dolphins in a meaningful way. We can sort of bark orders at them, but we can't have abstract conversations with them about things. So the idea that we will ever have that fulfilling conversation, I'm deeply skeptical of. And I think a lot of us are drawn to that. It is maybe a replacement for God to some degree, that Father-Figure civilization that might step in, teach us the air of our ways and bestow wisdom upon our civilization. But they could equally be a giant fungus that doesn't even understand the idea of socialization, because it's the only entity on its planet. It just swells over the entire surface. And it's incredibly intelligent, because maybe each node communicates with each other to create essentially a giant neural net. But it has no sense of what communication even is. And so alien life that's out there is surely going to be extremely diverse. I'm pretty skeptical that we'll ever get that fantasy moment I always had as a kid of having a dialogue with another civilization. So dialogue, yes. What about noticing them? What about noticing signals? Do you hope... So one thing we've been talking about is getting signatures, biosignatures, technosignatures about other planets. Maybe if we're extremely lucky in our lifetime to be able to meet life forms, get evidence of living or dead life forms on Mars or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. What about getting signals from outer space, interstellar signals? What would those signals potentially look like? That's a hard question to answer, because we are essentially engaging in xenopsychology to some degree. What are the activities of another civilization? A lot of that is inevitable. What does the word xenopsychology, I apologize to interrupt, mean? Maybe I'm just fabricating that word, really. But they're trying to guess at the machinations and motivations of another intelligent being that was completely evolutionarily divorced from us. So it's like you said, exomoons, exopsychology, extrasolar psychology. Yeah. Alien psychology is another way of maybe making it more grounded. But we can't really guess at their motivations too well, but we can look at the sorts of behaviors we engage in and at least look for them. We're always guilty that when we look for biosignatures, we're really looking for- and even when we look for planets, we're looking for templates of Earth. When we look for biosignatures, we're looking for templates of Earth-based life. When we look for technosignatures, we tend to be looking for templates of our own behaviors or extrapolations of our behaviors. So there's a very long list of technosignatures that people have suggested we could look for. The earliest ones were, of course, radio beacons. That was Project OSMA that Frank Drake was involved in, trying to look for radiosignatures which could either be just blurting out high-power radiosignals saying, hey, we're here, or could even have encoded within Galactic Encyclopedias for us to unlock, which has always been the allure of the radio technique. But there could also be unintentional signatures. For example, you could have something like the satellite system that we've produced around the Earth, the artificial satellite system, Starlink-type systems we mentioned. You could detect the glint of light across those satellites as they orbit around the planet. You could set a geostationary satellite belt which would block out some light as the planet transited across the star. You could detect solar panels, potentially spectrally, on the surface of the planet. Heat island effects. New York is hotter than New York State by a couple of degrees because of the heat island effect of the city. And so you could thermally map different planets and detect these. So there's a large array of things that we do that we can go out and hypothesize we could look for. And then on the furthest end of the scale, you have things which go far beyond our capabilities, such as warp drive signatures which have been proposed. You get these bright flashes of light, or even gravitational wave detections from LIGO could be detected. You could have Dyson spheres. The idea of covering a star is completely covered by some kind of structure which collects all the light from the star to power the civilization. And that would be pretty easily detectable to some degree, because you're transferring all of the visible light. Thermodynamically, it has to be re-emitted to come out as infrared light. So you'd have an incredibly bright infrared star, yet one that was visibly not present at all. So that would be a pretty intriguing signature to look for. CB. Is there efforts to look for something like that for the Dyson spheres out there, for the strong infrared signal? AL. There has been. Yeah, there has been. I think in the literature there was one with the IRAS satellite, which is an infrared satellite. They targeted I think of order of 100,000 stars, nearby stars, and found no convincing examples of what looked like a Dyson sphere star. And then Jason Wright and his team extended this, I think using WISE, which is another infrared satellite, to look around galaxies. So could an entire galaxy have been converted into Dyson spheres, or a significant fraction of the galaxy? Which is basically the kind of share of Type 3, right? This is when you've basically mastered the entire galactic pool of resources. And again, out of 100,000 nearby galaxies, there appears to be no compelling examples of what looks like a Dyson galaxy, if you want to call it that. So that by no means proves that they don't exist or don't happen, but it seems like it's an unusual behaviour for a civilization to get to that stage of development and start harvesting the entire stellar output. Unusual, yes. And I mean, LIGO is super interesting with gravitational waves, if that kind of experiment could start seeing some weirdness, some weird signals, that compare to the power of cosmic phenomena. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's a whole new window to the universe, not just in terms of astrophysics, but potentially for technosignatures as well. I have to say, with the warp drives, I am skeptical that warp drives are possible, because you have kind of fundamental problem relativity. You can either really have relativity, faster than light travel, or causality. You can only choose two of those three things. You really can't have all three in a coherent universe. If you have all three, you basically end up with the possibility of these kind of temporal paradoxes and time loops and grandfather paradoxes. Can't there be pockets of causality? Something like that? Like where there's pockets of consistent causality? You could design it in that way. If you had a warp drive or a time machine, essentially, you could be very conscious and careful of the way you use it, so as to not cause paradoxes, or just do it in a local area or something. But the real fundamental problem is, you always have the ability to do it. And so in a vast cosmic universe, if time machines were all over the place, there's too much risk of someone doing it, of somebody having the option of essentially breaking the universe with this. So there's a fundamental problem. Hawking has this chronology protection conjecture where he said that, essentially, this just can't be allowed, because it breaks all our laws of physics if time travel is possible. CB. Current laws of physics, yes. MG. Correct, yeah. And so we need to rip up relativity. I mean, that's the point, is the current laws of physics. So you'd have to rip up our current law of relativity to make sense of how FTL could live in that universe, because you can't have relativity, FTL and causality sit nicely and play nicely together. CB. But we currently don't have quantum mechanics and relativity playing nice together anyway, so it's not like everything is all a nice little fabric. MG. It's certainly not the full picture. There must be more to go. CB. So it's already ripped up, so might as well rip it up a little more. And in the process, actually, try to connect the two things. Because maybe in the unification of the Standard Model and general relativity, maybe there lies some kind of new wisdom about warp drives. So by the way, warp drives is somehow messing with the fabric of the universe to be able to travel faster than the speed of light? MG. Yeah, you're basically bending space-time. You could also do it with a wormhole or a tac. Some of the hypothetical FTL systems don't have to necessarily be the Alcubierre drive, the warp drive. It could be any faster than light system. As long as it travels superluminally, it will violate causality. CB. And presumably that will be observable with LIGO? MG. Potentially, yeah, potentially. It depends on the properties of whatever the spacecraft is. I mean, one problem with warp drives is – there's all sorts of problems with warp drives – but CB. I like the start of that sentence. One problem with warp drives. MG. There's just this one minor problem that we have to get around. But when it arrives at its destination, it basically has an event horizon almost at the front of it. And so it collects all this radiation at the front as it goes. And when it arrives, all that radiation gets dumped on its destination, and would basically completely exterminate the planet it arrives at. That radiation is also incident within the shell itself. There's Hawking radiation occurring within the shell, which is pretty dangerous. And then it also raises all sorts of exacerbations of the Fermi paradox, of course, as well. So you might be able to explain why we don't see a galactic empire. I mean, even here it's hard. You might be able to explain why we don't see a galactic empire if everybody's limited to Voyager 2 rocket speeds of like 20 kilometres per second or something. But it's a lot harder to explain why we don't see the stars populated by galactic empires when warp drive is eminently possible. Because it makes expansion so much more trivial that it makes our life harder. There's some wonderful simulation work being done out of Rochester, where they actually simulate all the stars in the galaxy, or a fraction of them, and they spawn a civilization in one of them. And they let it spread out at sub-light speeds. And actually, the very mixing of the stars themselves, because the stars are not static, they're in orbit of the galactic centre and they have crossing paths with each other. If you just have a range of even like five light years, and your speed is of order of a few percent, the speed of light is the maximum you can muster, you can populate the entire galaxy within something like a hundred thousand to a million years or so. So a fraction of the lifetime of the galaxy itself. And so this raises some fairly serious problems, because if any civilization in the entire history of the galaxy decides to do that, then either we shouldn't be here, or we happen to live in this kind of rare pocket where they chose not to populate to. And so this is sometimes called fact A, Hart's fact A. The fact A is that a civilization is not here now, an alien civilization is not in present occupation of the Earth. And that's difficult to resolve with the apparent ease at which even a small extrapolation of our own technology could potentially populate a galaxy in far faster than galactic history. So to me, by the way, yeah, the Fermi paradox is truly a paradox for me. But I suspect that if aliens visit Earth, I suspect if they do, if they are everywhere, I think they're already here and we're too dumb to see it. But leaving that aside, I think we should be able to, in that case, have very strong, obvious signals when we look up at the stars, at the emanation of energy required. We would see some weirdness, that like where these are these kinds of stars, and these are these kinds of stars that are being messed with, like leveraging the nuclear fusion of stars to do something useful. The fact that we don't really see that, maybe you can correct me, if there is alien civilizations running galaxies, wouldn't we see weirdness from an astronomy perspective with the way the stars are behaving? PW – Yeah, I mean, it depends exactly what they're doing. But the Dyson Sphere example is one that we already discussed, where a survey of 100,000 nearby galaxies find that they have all been transformed into Dyson Sphere collectors. You could also imagine them doing things like, we wrote a paper about this recently, of star lifting, where you can extend the life of your star by scooping mass off the star. So you'd be doing stellar engineering, essentially. If you're doing a huge amount of asteroid mining, you would have a spectral signature, because you're basically filling the solar system with dust by doing that. There'd be debris from that activity. And so there are some limits on this. Certainly we don't see bright flashes, which would be one of the consequences of what warp drives are said, is as they decelerate, they produce these bright flashes of light. We don't seem to see evidence of those kinds of things. We don't see anything obvious around the nearby stars or the stars that we've surveyed in detail beyond that, that indicate any kind of artificial civilization. The closest maybe we had was Boyajian's star, that there was a lot of interest in. There was a star that was just very peculiarly dipping in and out its brightness. And it was hypothesized for a time that that may indeed be some kind of Dyson-like structure, so maybe a Dyson sphere that's half-built. And so as it comes in and out, it's blocking out huge swaths of the star. It was very difficult to explain, really, with any kind of planet model at the time. But an easier hypothesis that was proposed was it could just be a large number of comets or dust or something, or maybe a planet that had broken apart. And as its fragments orbit around, it blocks out starlight. And it turned out, with subsequent observations of that star, which especially the amateur astronomy community made a big contribution to as well, that the dips were chromatic, which was a real important clue that that probably wasn't a solid structure then that was going around it. It was more likely to be dust. Dust is chromatic. By chromatic I mean it looks different in different colours, so it blocks out more red light than blue light. If it was a solid structure, it shouldn't do that. It should be opaque, a solid metal structure or something. So that was one of the clear indications. And the behaviour of and the way the light changed, or the dips changed across wavelengths, was fully consistent with the expectations of what small particulates would do. And so that's very hard. I mean, the real problem with alien hunting… The technical term. This is the real one. One problem. One problem with the warp drive and the one problem with alien hunting. Yes. But actually, I'd say there's three big problems for me with any search for life, which includes UFOs or the way to fossils on Mars. Aliens have three unique properties as a hypothesis. One is they have essentially unbounded explanatory capability. So there's almost no phenomena I can show you that you can explain with aliens, to some degree. You could say, well, the aliens just have some super high-tech way of creating that illusion. Yeah. The second one would be unbounded avoidance capacity. So I might see a UFO tomorrow, and then the next day, and then the next day, and then predict I should see it on Thursday at the end of the week. But then I don't see it, but I could always get out of that and say, well, that's just because they chose not to come here. They can always avoid future observations fairly easily. If you survey an exoplanet for biosignatures and you don't see oxygen, you don't see methane, that doesn't mean there's no one living there. They could always be either tricking their atmosphere, engineering it. We actually wrote a paper about that, how you can use lasers to hide your biosignatures as advanced civilization. Or you could just be living underground or underwater or something where there's no biosignatures. So you can never really disprove there's life on another planet or on another star. It has infinite avoidance. And then finally, the third one is that we have incomplete physical understanding of the universe. So if I see a new phenomena, which Boyajian's star was a good example of that, we saw this new phenomena of these strange dips we'd never seen before. It was hypothesized immediately this could be aliens. It's like a God of the gaps, but it turned out to be incomplete physical understanding. And so that happens all the time. In the first pulsar that was discovered, the same story, Jocelyn Bell, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, called it Little Green Man 1, because it looked a lot like the radio signature that was expected from an alien civilization. But of course, it turned out to be a completely new type of star that we had never seen before, which was a neutron star with these two jets coming out the top of it. And so that's a challenge. Those three things are really, really difficult in terms of experimental design for a scientist to work around. Something that can explain anything, can avoid anything, so it's almost unfalsifiable. And could always just be, to some degree, as you said, we have this very limited knowledge of the infinite possibilities of physical law. We're probably only scratching the surface. Each time, and we've seen it so often in history, we may just be detecting some new phenomena. Well, that last one, I think I'm a little more okay with making mistakes on. Yeah, because it's exciting still. So you might exaggerate the importance of the discovery, but the whole point is to try to find stuff in this world that's weird, and try to characterize that weirdness. Sure, you can throw a little green man as a label on it, but eventually, it's as mysterious and as beautiful, as interesting as little green men. We tend to think that there's some kind of threshold, but there's all kinds of weird organisms on this earth that operate very differently than humans that are super interesting. The human mind is super interesting. I mean, like, weirdness and complexity is as interesting in any of its forms as what we might think from Hollywood what aliens are. So that's okay. Looking for weirdnesses on Mars. That's one of the best sales pitches to do technosignature work, is that we always have that as our fallback. That we're going to look for alien signatures. If we fail, we're going to discover some awesome new physics along the way. So any kind of signature that we detect is always going to be interesting. So that compels us to have not only the question of looking for life in the universe, but it gives us a strong scientific grounding as to why this research should be funded and should be executed, because it always pushes the frontiers of knowledge. I wonder if we'll be able to discover and be open enough to a broad definition of aliens, where we see some kind of technosignature, basically like a Turing test, like this thing is intelligent. Like it's processing information in a very interesting way. But you could say that about chemistry. You could say that about physics. Maybe not physics. Chemistry. Like interesting complex chemistry, you could say that this is processing. This is storing information. This is propagating information over time. It's a gray area between a living organism that we would call an alien and a thing that's super interesting and is able to carry some kind of intelligence. LW. Yeah, information is a really useful way to frame what we're looking for though, because then you're divorced from making assumptions about even a civilization necessarily, or anything like that. So any kind of information-rich signature, indeed, you can take things like the light curve from Boyajian's star and ask, what is the minimum number of free parameters, or the minimum information content that must be encoded within this light curve? The hope is that maybe a good example would be from a radio signature. You detect something that has a thousand megabytes of parameters essentially contained within it. That's pretty clearly at that point not the product of a natural process, or at least any natural process that we could possibly imagine with our current understanding of the universe. Even if we can't decode, which actually I'm sceptical we'd be able to ever decode in our lifetimes. It would probably take decades to fully ever figure out what they're trying to tell us. But if there was a message there, we could at least know that there is high information content, and there is complexity, and that this is an attempt at communication and information transfer, and leave it to our subsequent generations to figure out what exactly it is they're trying to say. What, again, a wild question, and thank you for entertaining them. I really, really appreciate it. But what kind of signal in our lifetime, what kind of thing do you think might happen, could possibly happen, where the scientific community would be convinced that there's alien civilizations out there? You already said maybe a strong infrared signature for something like a Dyson sphere. Yeah, that's possibly, that's also to some degree a little bit ambiguous. That's the challenge, sorry to interrupt, is where your brain would be, like you as a scientist, would be like, I know it's ambiguous, but this is really weird. I think if you had something, I can imagine something like a prime number sequence, or a mathematical sequence like the Fibonacci series, something being broadcasted. Mathematically provable that this is not a physical phenomenon. Right. I mean, yeah, prime numbers is a pretty good case, because there's no natural phenomena that produces prime number sequences. It seems to be a purely abstract mathematical concept, as far as I'm aware. And so if we detected a series of radio blips that were following that sequence, it would be pretty clear to me, or it could even be Carl Sagan suggested that pi could be encoded in that. Or you might use the hydrogen line, but multiply it by pi, like some very specific frequency of the universe, like a hydrogen line, but multiply it by an abstract mathematical constant that would imply strongly that there was someone behind the scenes operating that. And that gets us to a radio wave. But the information, I mean, we kind of toyed with this idea in a video I did about hypothetical civilization on my channel. But one kind of fun way, I do want to bring this conversation towards time a little bit, and thinking about not just looking for life and intelligence around us right now, but looking into the past and even into the future, to some degree, or communicating with the future. And so we had this fun experiment of imagining a civilization that was born at the beginning of the history of the galaxy, and being the first, and what it would be like for them. And they were desperately searching for evidence of life, but couldn't find it. And so they decided to try and leave something behind for future civilizations to discover, to tell them about themselves. But of course, a radio signal is just not going to work there, because it has to have a power source. And that's a piece of machinery, it's going to eventually break down. It's going to be hard to maintain that for billions of years timescale. And so you wanted something that was kind of passive, that doesn't require an energy source, but can somehow transmit information. Which is hard to think about something that satisfies those criteria. But there was a proposal by one of my colleagues, Luke Arnold, which inspired a lot of us in Technosignatures. And he suggested that you could build artificial transitors. So you could build sheets of material that transit in front of the star. Maybe one thin sheet passes across first, then two, then three, then five, then seven. So you could follow the prime number sequence of these. And so there'd be a clear indication that someone had manufactured those. But they don't require any energy source, because they're just sheets of material in orbit of the star. They would eventually degrade from micrometeorites. Maybe they always would become destabilized, but they should have lifetimes far exceeding the lifetime of any battery or mechanical electronic system that we could, at least with our technology, conceive of building. And so you could imagine then extending that. And how could you encode not just a prime number sequence, but maybe in the spatial pattern of this very complex light curve we see? You could encode more and more information through 2D shapes and the way those occultations happen. And maybe you could even encode messages and in-depth information. You could even imagine it being like a lower layer of information, which is just the prime number sequence. But then you look closely and you see the smaller divots embedded within those that have a deeper layer of information to extract. And so to me, something like that would be pretty compelling. That there was somebody who would manage, unless it's just a very impressive hoax, that would be pretty compelling evidence in this civilization. And actually the methods of astronomy right now are kind of marching towards being able to better and better detect a signal like that. Yeah. I mean, to some degree it's just building bigger aperture in space. The bigger the telescope, the finer ability to detect those minute signals. Do you think the current scientific community, another weird question, but just the observations that are happening now, do you think they're ready for a prime number sequence? If we're using the current method, the transit timing variation method, do you think you're ready? Do you have the tools to detect the prime number sequence? Yeah, for sure. I mean, there's 200,000 stars that Kepler monitored and it monitored them all the time. It took a photo of each one of them every 30 minutes, measured their brightness, and it did that for four and a half years. And so you have already, and Tess is doing it right now, another mission. And so you have already an existing catalogue and people are genuinely scouring through each of those light curves with automated machine learning techniques. We even developed some in our own team that can look for weird behaviour. We wrote a code called the weird detector, for instance. It was just the most generic thing possible. Don't assume anything about the signal shape, just look for anything that repeats. The signal shape can be anything, and we kind of learn the template of the signal from the data itself. And then it's like a template matching filter to see if that repeats many, many times in the data. And so we actually applied that and found a bunch of interesting stuff, but we didn't see anything that was the prime number sequence, at least on the Kepler data. That's 200,000 stars, which sounds like a lot, but compared to 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, it's really just scratching the surface. Lexaunce So one, because there could be something much more generalizable than the prime number sequence, it's ultimately the question of a signal that's very difficult to compress in the general sense of what compress means. So maybe as we get better and better machine learning methods that automatically figure out, analyse the data to understand how to compress it, you'll be able to discover data that for some reason is not compressible. But then, you know, compression really is a bottomless pit, because that's really what intelligence is, is being able to compress information. Jacob Yeah, and to some degree, the more you- I would imagine, I don't work in compression algorithms, but I would imagine the more you compress your signal, the more assumptions that kind of go on behalf of the decoder, the more skilled they really have to be. You know, a prime number sequence is completely unencoded information, essentially. But if you look at the Arecibo message, they were fairly careful with their pixelation of this simple image they sent, to try and make it as interpretable as possible, to be that even a dumb alien would be able to figure out what we're trying to show them here. Because there's all sorts of conventions and rules that are built in that we tend to presume when we design our messages. And so if your message is assuming they know how to do an MP3 decoder, particularly a compression algorithm, I'm sure they could eventually reverse engineer it and figure it out. But you're making it harder for them to get to that point. So maybe- I always think you probably would have a two-tier system, right? You'd probably have some lower-tier key system, and then maybe beneath that you'd have a deeper, compressed layer of more in-depth information. What about maybe observing actual physical objects? So first let me go to your tweet as a source of inspiration. You tweeted that it's interesting to ponder that if Oort clouds are ever mined by the systems of alien civilizations, mining equipment from billions of years ago could be in our Oort cloud, since the Oort clouds extend really, really, really, really far outside the actual star. So mining equipment, just basic boring mining equipment out there. I don't know if there's something interesting to say about Oort clouds themselves that are interesting to you, and about possible non-shiny light-emitting mining equipment from alien civilizations. I mean, that's kind of the beauty of the field of technosignatures and looking for life, is you can find inspiration and intellectual joy in just the smallest little thing that starts a whole thread of building upon it and wondering about the implications. And so in this case, I was just really struck by- we kind of mentioned this a little bit earlier- the idea that stars are not static. We tend to think of the galaxy as having stars in a certain location from the center of the galaxy, and they kind of live there. But in truth, the stars are not only orbiting around the center of the galaxy, but those orbits are themselves changing over time they're processing. And so in fact, the orbits look more like a spirograph. If you've ever done those as a kid, they kind of whirl around and trace out all sorts of strange patterns. And so the stars intersect with one another. And so the current closest star to us is Proxima Centauri, which is about 4.2 light years away. But it will not always be the closest star, and over millions of years it will be supplanted by other stars. In fact, stars that will come even closer than Proxima within just a couple of light years. And that's been happening, not just- we can project that will happen over the next few million years, but that's been happening presumably throughout the entire history of the galaxy for billions of years. And so if you went back in time, there would have been all sorts of different nearest stars, different stages of the Earth's history. And those stars are so close that their Oort clouds do intermix with one another. So the Oort cloud can extend out to even a light year or two around the Earth. There's some debate about exactly where it ends. It probably doesn't really have a definitive end, but it kind of more just kind of peters out more and more and more as you go further away. By the way, for people who don't know, an Oort cloud, I don't know what the technical definition is, but a bunch of rocks that kind of- no, objects that orbit the star. And they can extend really, really, really far because of gravity. These are objects that probably are mostly icy rich. They were probably formed fairly similar distances to Jupiter and Saturn, but were scattered out through the interactions of those giant planets. We see a circular disk of objects around us, which kind of looks like the asteroid belt, but just further away called the Kuiper belt. And then further beyond that, you get the Oort cloud. And the Oort cloud is not on a disk, it's just a sphere. It kind of surrounds us in all directions. So these are objects that were scattered out three-dimensionally in all different directions. And so those objects are potentially resources for us, especially if you were planning to do an interstellar mission one day. You might want to mine the water that's embedded within those and use that as either oxygen or fuel for your rocket. And so it's quite possible. There's also some rare earth metals and things like that as well. But it's quite possible that a civilization might use Oort cloud objects as a jumping off point. Or in the Kuiper belt, you have things like Planet Nine, even. There might even be objects beyond in the Oort cloud, which are actually planet-like that we just cannot detect. These objects are very, very faint. So that's why they're so hard to see. I mean, even Planet Nine is hypothesized to exist, but we've not been able to confirm its existence because it's at something like a thousand AU away from us, thousand times the distance of the Earth from the Sun. And so even though it's probably larger than the Earth, the amount of light it reflects from the Sun, the Sun just looks like a star at that point, so far away from it that it barely reflects anything back. It's extremely difficult to detect. So there's all sorts of wonders that may be lurking out in the outer solar system. And so this leads you to wonder, in the Oort cloud, that Oort cloud must have intermixed with other Oort clouds in the past. And so what fraction of the Oort cloud truly belongs to us, belongs to what was scattered from Jupiter and Saturn? What fraction of it could in fact be interstellar visitors? And of course, we got excited about this recently because of Oumuamua, this interstellar asteroid, which seemed to be at the time the first evidence of an interstellar object. But when you think about the Oort cloud intermixing, it may be that a large fraction of comets are seeded from the Oort cloud that eventually come in. Some of those comets may indeed have been interstellar in the first place that we just didn't know about through this process. There even is an example, I can't remember the name, there's an example of a comet that has a very peculiar spectral signature that has been hypothesized to have actually been an interstellar visitor, but one that was essentially sourced through this Oort cloud mixing. And so this is kind of intriguing. The outer solar system is just such a…it's like the bottom of the ocean. We know so little about what's on the bottom of our own planet's ocean, and we know next to nothing about what's on the outskirts of our own solar system. It's all darkness. Yeah. So like, that's one of the things is, to understand the phenomenon, we need light. And we need to see how light interacts with it or what light emanates from it. But most of our universe is darkness. So it's, there could be a lot of interesting stuff. I mean, this is where your interest is with the cool worlds. And the interesting stuff lurks in the darkness, right? Basically all of us, you know, 400 years of astronomy, our only window into the universe has been light. And that has only changed quite recently with the discovery of gravitational waves. That's now a new window. And hopefully, well to some degree, I guess, solar neutrinos we've been detecting for a while, but they come from the Sun, not interstellar space. But we may be able to soon detect neutrino messages, as has even been hypothesized as a way of communicating between civilizations as well, or just do neutrino telescopes to study the universe. And so there's a growing interest in what we'd call multi-messenger astronomy now. So not just messages from light, but messages from these other physical packets of information that are coming our way. But when it comes to the outer solar system, light really is our only window. There's two ways of doing that. One is you detect the light from the Oort cloud object itself, which, as I just said, is very, very difficult. There's another trick, which we do in the Kuiper belt, especially, and that's called an occultation. And so sometimes those objects will just pass in front of a distant star just coincidentally. These are very, very brief moments. They last for less than a second. And so you have to have a very fast camera to detect them, which conventionally, astronomers don't usually build fast cameras. Most of the phenomena we observe occurs on hours, minutes, days even. But now we're developing cameras which can take thousands of images per second, and yet do it at the kind of astronomical fidelity that we need for this kind of precise measurement. And so you can see these very fast dips. You even get these kind of diffraction patterns that come around, which are really cool to look at. I kind of love it because it's almost like passive radar. You have these pinpricks of light. Imagine that you live in a giant black sphere, but there's these little pinholes that have been poked. And through those pinholes, almost laser light is shining through. And inside this black sphere, there are unknown things wandering around, drifting around that we are trying to discover. And sometimes they will pass in front of those little pencil-thin laser beams, block something out, and so we can tell that it's there. And it's not an active radar, because we didn't actually beam anything out and get a reflection off, which is what the Sun does. The Sun's light comes off and then comes back. That's more like an active radar system. It's more like a passive radar system where we are just listening very intently. And so, I'm kind of so fascinated by that, the idea that we could map out the rich architecture of the outer solar system just by doing something that we could have done potentially for a long time, which is just listening in the right way, just tuning our instrumentation to the correct way of not listening, but viewing the universe to catch those objects. CB. Yeah, I mean, it's really fascinating. It seems almost obvious that your efforts, when projected out over like 100, 200 years, will have a really good map, through even methods like basically transit timing, high-resolution transit timing, but basically the planetary and the planet satellite movements of all the different star systems out there. CB. Yeah, and it could revolutionize the way we think about the solar system. I mean, that revolution has happened several times in the past. When we discovered Vesta in the 19th century, that was I think the seventh planet for a while, or the eighth planet when it was first discovered. And then we discovered Ceres, and there was a bunch of asteroid objects, Janus. And so for a while, the textbooks had something like 13 planets in the solar system. And then that was just a new capability that was emerging to detect those small objects. And then we ripped that up and said, no, no, we're going to change the definition of a planet. And then the same thing happened when we started looking at the outer skirts of the solar system. Again, we found Eris, we found Sedna, these objects which resembled Pluto. And more and more of them we found, make, make. And eventually, we again had to rethink the way we even contextualize what a planet is and what the nature of the outer solar system is. So regardless as to what you think about the debate about whether Pluto should be devoted or not, which I know often evokes a lot of strong feelings, it is an incredible achievement that we were able to transform our view of the solar system in a matter of years just by basically charge-coupled devices, the things that's in cameras. The invention of that device allowed us to detect objects which were much further away, much fainter, and revealed all of this stuff that was there all along. And so that's the beauty of astronomy. There's just so much to discover, and even in our own backyard. LBW Do you ever think about this? Do you imagine, what are the things that will completely change astronomy over the next hundred years? Like if you transport yourself forward a hundred years, what are the things that will blow your mind when you look at, wait, what? Would it be just a very high-resolution mapping of things? Like holy crap, like one surprising thing might be, holy crap, there's like Earth-like moons everywhere. Another one could be just totally different devices for sensing. MG Yeah, I think usually astronomy moves forward dramatically, and science in general, when you have a new technological capability come online for the first time. And we kind of just gave examples of that there with the solar system. So what kind of new capabilities might emerge in the next 100 years? The capability I would love to see is not just, I mean, in the next 10, 20 years we're hoping to take these pale blue dot images we spoke about. So that requires building something like JWST, but on an even larger scale, and optimised for direct imaging. You'd have to have either a coronagraph or a star shade or something to block out the starlight and reveal those pale blue dots. So in the next sort of decades, I think that's the achievement that we can look forward to in our lifetimes, is to see photos of other Earths. Going beyond that, maybe in our lifetimes, towards the end of our lifetimes perhaps, I'd love it if we, and I think it's technically possible as Breakthrough Starshot are giving us a lot of encouragement with, to maybe send a small probe to the nearest stars and start actually taking high-resolution images of these objects. There's only so much you can do from far away. We can see it in the solar system. I mean, there's only so much you can learn about Europa by pointing a Hubble Space Telescope at it, but if you really want to understand that Moon, you're going to have to send something to orbit it to hopefully land on it and drill down to the surface. So the idea of even taking a flyby and doing a snapshot photo that gets beamed back, that doesn't even have to be more than 100 pixels by 100 pixels. Even that would be a completely game-changing capability to be able to truly image these objects. And maybe at home, in our own solar system, we can certainly get to a point where we produce crude maps of exoplanets. One of the ultimate limits of what a telescope could do is governed by its size. And so the largest telescope you could probably ever build would be one that was the size of the Sun. There's a clever trick for doing this without physically building a telescope that's the size of the Sun, and that's to use the Sun as a gravitational lens. This was proposed, I think, by von Eschlemann in 1979, but it builds upon Einstein's theory of general relativity, of course, that there is a warping of light, a bending of light from the Sun's gravitational field. And so a distant starlight, it's like a magnifying glass, anything that bends light is basically can be used as a telescope. It's going to bend light to a point. Now it turns out the Sun's gravity is not strong enough to create a particularly great telescope here, because the focus point is really out in the Kuiper Belt. It's at 550 astronomical units away from the Earth, so 550 times further away from the Sun than we are. And that's beyond any of our spacecraft we've ever gone. So you have to send a spacecraft to that distance, which would take 30, 40 years, even optimistically improving our chemical propulsion system significantly. You'd have to bound it into that orbit, but then you could use the entire Sun as your telescope. And with that kind of capability, you could image planets to kilometer scale resolution from afar. And that really makes you wonder. I mean, if we can conceive, maybe we can't engineer it, but if we can conceive of such a device, what might other civilizations be currently observing about our own planet? And perhaps that is why nobody is visiting us, because there is so much you can do from afar that to them, that's enough. Maybe they can get to the point where they can detect our radio leakage, they can detect our terrestrial television signals, they can map out our surfaces, they can tell we have cities, they can even do infrared mapping of the heat island effect and all this kind of stuff. They can tell the chemical composition of our planet. And so that might be enough. Maybe they don't need to come down to the surface and study, do anthropology and see what our civilization is like. But there's certainly a huge amount you can do which is significantly cheaper to some degree than flying there, just by exploiting cleverly the physics of the universe itself. LBW So your intuition is, and this very well might be true, that observation might be way easier than travel, from our perspective, from an alien perspective. Like we could get very high resolution imaging before we could ever get there. CB It depends on what information you want. If you want to know the chemical composition, and you want to know kilometer scale maps of the planet, then you could do that from afar with some version of these kind of gravitational lenses. If you want to do better than that, if you want to image a newspaper set on the porch of somebody's house, you're going to have to fly there. There's no way, unless you had a telescope the size of Sagittarius A-star or something, you just simply cannot collect enough light to do that from many light years away. So there is certainly reasons why visiting will always have its place, depending on what kind of information you want. We've proposed in my team actually that the Sun is the ultimate pinnacle of telescope design, but flying to a thousand AU is a real pain in the butt because it's just going to take so long. And so a more practical way of achieving this might be to use the Earth. Now the Earth doesn't have anywhere near enough gravity to create a substantial gravitational lens, but it has an atmosphere. And that atmosphere refracts light, it bends light. So whenever you see a sunset, just as the Sun's setting below the horizon, it's actually already beneath the horizon. It's just the light is bending through the atmosphere. It's actually already about half a degree down beneath, and what you're seeing is that curvature of the light path. And your brain interprets it, of course, to be following a straight line because your brain always thinks that. And so you can use that bending. Whenever you have bending, you have a telescope. And so we've proposed to my team that you could use this refraction to similarly create an Earth-sized telescope. LBW – Called the Terrascope. CB – The Terrascope, yeah. LBW – We have a great video on this. CB – Yeah. And this- LBW – Do you have a paper on the Terrascope? CB – I do, yeah. LBW – Great. CB – Sometimes I get confused with this because I've heard of an Earth-sized telescope because many have heard of the Event Horizon Telescope, which took an image of- well, it's taking an image right now of the centre of our black hole. And it's very impressive. And it previously did Messier 87, a nearby supermassive black hole. And so those images were interferometric. So they were small telescopes scattered across the Earth, and they combined the light paths together interferometrically to create effectively an Earth-sized angular resolution. Telescopes always have two properties. There's the angular resolution, which is how small of a thing you can see on the surface. And then there's the magnification – how much brighter does that object get versus just your eye or some small object. Now what the Event Horizon Telescope did, it traded off amplification or magnification for the angular resolution. That's what it wanted. It wanted that high angular resolution, but it doesn't really have much photon collecting power, because each telescope individually is very small. The telescope is different because it is literally collecting light with a light bucket, which is essentially the size of the Earth. And so that gives you both benefits, potentially. Not only the high angular resolution that a large aperture promises you, but also actually physically collects all those photons. You can detect light from very, very far away, the very outer edges of the universe. And so we propose this as a possible future technological way of achieving these extreme goals, ambitious goals we have in astronomy. But it's a very difficult system to test, because you essentially have to fly out to these focus points, and these focus points lie beyond the Moon. So you have to have someone who is willing to fly beyond the Moon and hitchhike an experimental telescope onto it and do that cheaply. If it was something doing low Earth orbit, it'd be easy. You could just attach a CubeSat to the next Falcon 9 rocket or something and test it out. It'd probably only cost you a few tens of thousands of dollars, maybe a hundred thousand dollars. But there's basically no one who flies out that far, except for bespoke missions such as a mission that's going to Mars or something that would pass through that kind of space. And they typically don't have a lot of leeway and excess payload that they're willing to strap on for radical experiments. So that's been the problem with it. In theory it should work beautifully, but it's a very difficult idea to experimentally test. Can you elaborate why the focal point is that far away? So you get about half a degree bend from the Earth's atmosphere when you're looking at the Sun at the horizon, and you get that two times over if you're outside of the planet's atmosphere. Because the star is half a bend to you, still on the horizon, and half a degree back out either way. So you get about a one degree bend. You take the radius of the Earth, which is about 7,000 kilometers, and do your arctan function, you'll end up with a distance that's about two- it's actually the inner focal point's about two-thirds the distance of the Earth-Moon system. The problem with that inner focal point is not useful, because that light ray path had to basically scrape the surface of the Earth. So it passes through the clouds, it passes through all the thick atmosphere, it gets a lot of extinction along the way. If you go higher up in altitude, you get less extinction. In fact, you can even go above the clouds, and so that's even better, because the clouds obviously are going to be a pain in the neck for doing anything optical. But the problem with that is that the atmosphere, because it gets thinner at higher altitude, it bends light less, and so that pushes the focal point out. So the most useful focal point is actually about three or four times the distance of the Earth-Moon separation. And so that's what we call one of the Lagrange points, essentially. And so there there's a stable orbit, it's kind of the outermost stable orbit you could have around the Earth. So the atmosphere does bad things to the signal? Yeah, it's absorbing light. Is that possible to reconstruct, to remove the noise, whatever? So it's just strength, it's nothing else? It's possible to reconstruct. I mean, to some degree we do this as a technology called adaptive optics that can correct for what's called wavefront errors that happen through the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth's atmosphere is turbulent, it is not a single plane of air of the same density. There's all kind of wiggles and currents in the air. And so each little layer is bending light in slightly different ways, and so the light actually kind of follows a wiggly path on its way down. What that means is that two light rays which are travelling at slightly different spatial separations from each other will arrive at the detector at different times, because one maybe goes on more or less a straight path and the one wiggles down a bit more before it arrives. And so you have an incoherent light source. And when you're trying to image reconstruction you always want a coherent light source. So the way they correct for this is that if this path had to travel a little bit faster, the straight one goes faster and the wiggly one takes longer, the mirror is deformable. And so you actually bend the mirror on the straight one down a little bit to make it an equivalent light path distance. So the mirror itself has all these little actuators, it's actually made up of like thousands of little elements, almost looks like a liquid mirror because they can manipulate it in kind of real time. And so they scan the atmosphere with a laser beam to tell what the deformations are in the atmosphere, and then make the corrections to the mirror to account for it. So you could do something like this for the terrascope, but it would be... It's cheaper and easier to go above the atmosphere and just fly out. I think so. That's a very challenging thing to do. And normally when you do adaptive optics, as it's called, you're looking straight up, or very close to straight up. If you look at the horizon, we basically never do astronomical observations on the horizon, because you're looking through more atmosphere. If you go straight up, you're looking at the thinnest portion of atmosphere possible. But as you go closer and closer towards the horizon, you're increasing what we call the air mass, the amount of air you have to travel through. So here it's kind of the worst case, because you're going through the entire atmosphere in and out again with a terrascope. So you'd need a very impressive adaptive optics system to correct for that. So yeah, I would say it's probably simpler, at least for proof of principle, just to test it with having some satellite that was at a much wider orbit. Now, speaking of traveling out into deep space, you already mentioned this a little bit. You made a beautiful video called The Journey to the End of the Universe. And sort of at the start of that, you're talking about Alpha Centauri. So what would it take for humans, or for human-like creatures, to travel out to Alpha Centauri? There's a few different ways of doing it, I suppose. One is, it depends on how fast your ship is. That's always going to be the determining factor. If we devised some interstellar propulsion system that could travel a fraction of the speed of light, then we could do it in our lifetimes. Which is, I think, what people normally dream of when they think about interstellar propulsion and travel. That you could literally step onto the spacecraft, maybe a few years later you step off on Alpha Centauri b, you walk around the surface and come back and visit your family. There would be, of course, a lot of relativistic time dilation as a result of that trip. You would have aged a lot less than people back on Earth by traveling close to the speed of light for some fraction of time. The challenge of this, of course, is that we have no such propulsion system that can achieve this. So… LBW But you think it's possible? So you have a paper called The Halo Drive, fuel-free relativistic propulsion of large masses via recycled boomerang photons. So do you think, first of all, what is that? And second of all, how difficult are alternate propulsion systems? AC Yeah. So before I took on The Halo Drive, there was an idea. Because I think The Halo Drive is not going to solve this problem. I'll talk about The Halo Drive in a moment. But The Halo Drive is useful for a civilization which is a bit more advanced than us that has spread across the stars, and is looking for a cheap highway system to get across the galaxy. For that first step, just to context that, The Halo Drive requires a black hole. So that's why you're not going to be able to do this on the Earth right now. But there are lots of black holes in the Milky Way, so that's the good news. So we'll come to that in a moment. But if you're trying to travel to Alpha Centauri without a black hole, then there were some ideas out there. There was a Project Daedalus and Project Icarus that were two projects that the British Interplanetary Society conjured up on a 20-30 year timescale. They asked themselves, if we took existing and speculatively but realistic attempts at future technology that are emerging over the next few decades, how far could we push into the travel system? They settled on fusion drives in that. So if we had the ability to essentially either detonate nuclear fusion bombs going off behind the spacecraft and propelling it that way, or having some kind of successful nuclear fusion reaction, which obviously we haven't really demonstrated yet as a propulsion system, then you could achieve something like 10% the speed of light in those systems. But these are huge spacecrafts, and I think you need a huge spacecraft if you're going to take people along. The conversation recently has actually switched, and that idea seems a little bit antiquated now. Most of us have given up on the idea of people physically, biologically, stepping on board the spacecraft. Maybe we'll be sending something that's more like a microprobe that maybe just weighs a gram or two, and that's much easier to accelerate. You could push that with a laser system to very high speed, get it to maybe 20% the speed of light. It has to survive the journey. Probably a large fraction of them won't survive the journey, but they're cheap enough that you could maybe manufacture millions of them. And some of them do arrive and are able to send back an image. Maybe even if you wanted to have a person there, we might have some way of doing a telepresence, or some kind of delayed telepresence, or some kind of reconstruction of the planet which is sent back so you can digitally interact with that environment in a way which is not real-time, but representative of what that planet would be like to be on the surface. So we might be more like digital visitors to these planets. Certainly far easier, practically, to do that than physically forcing this wet chunk of meat to fly across space to do that. And so that's maybe something we can imagine down the road. The Halo drive, as I said, is thinking even further ahead. And if you did want to launch large masses, large masses could even be planet-sized things. In the case of the Halo drive, you can use black holes. So this is kind of a trick of physics. I often think of the universe as like a big computer game, and you're trying to find cheat codes, hacks, exploits that the universe didn't intend for you to use. But once you find them, you can address all sorts of interesting capabilities that you didn't previously have. And the Halo drive does that with black holes. So if you have two black holes, which is a very common situation, a binary black hole, and they're spiraling towards each other. LIGO has detected I think dozens of these things, maybe even over 100 at this point. And these things, as they merge together, the pre-merger phase, they're orbiting each other very, very fast, even close to the speed of light. And so Freeman Dyson, before he passed away, I think in the 70s, had this provocative paper called Gravitational Machines. And he suggested that you could use neutron stars as an interstellar propulsion system. And neutron stars are sort of the lower mass version of a binary black hole system, essentially. In this case, he suggested just doing gravitational slingshot. Just fly your spacecraft into this very compact and relativistic binary system. And you do need neutron stars because if there were two stars, they'd be physically touching each other. So the neutron stars are so small, like 10 kilometres across, they can get really close to each other and have these very, very fast orbits with respect to each other. You shoot your spacecraft through, right through the middle, like it's flying through the eye of a needle. And you do a slingshot around one of them, and you do it around the one that's coming sort of towards you. So one will be coming away, one will be coming towards you at any one point. And then you could basically steal some of the kinetic energy in the slingshot. In principle, you can set up to twice the speed. You can take your speed and it becomes your speed plus twice the speed of the neutron star in this case. And that would be your new speed after the slingshot. This seems great because it's just free energy, basically. You're not generating to have a nuclear power reactor or anything to generate this, you're just stealing it. And indeed, you could get to relativistic speeds this way. So I loved that paper, but I had a criticism. And the criticism was that this is like trying to fly your ship into a blender, right? This is two neutron stars, which have huge tidal forces. And they're whipping around each other once every second or even less than a second. And you're trying to fly your spaceship and do this maneuver that is pretty precarious. And so it just didn't seem practical to me to do this, but I loved it. And so I took that idea, and this is how science is. It's iterative. You take a previous great man's idea and you just sort of maybe slightly tweak it and improve it. That's how I see the Hilo drive. And I just suggested, why not replace those out for black holes, which is certainly very common. And rather than flying your ship into that hell hole of a blender system, you just stand back and you fire a laser beam. Now, because black holes have such intense gravitational fields, they can bend light into complete 180s. They can actually become mirrors. So the sun bends light by maybe a fraction of a degree through gravitational lensing, but a compact object like a black hole can do a full 180. In fact, obviously, if you went too close, if you put the laser beam too close, the black hole would just fall into it and never come back out. So you just kind of push it out, push it out, push it out until you get to a point where it's just skirting the event horizon. And then that laser beam skirts around and it comes back. Now, the laser beam wants to do a gravitational, I mean, it is doing a gravitational slingshot, but laser, I mean, light photons can't speed up unlike the spaceship case. So instead of speeding up, the way they steal energy is they increase their frequency. So they become higher energy photon packets, essentially. They get blue shifted so that you send maybe a red laser beam that comes back blue. It's got more energy in it. And because photons carry momentum, which is somewhat unintuitive in everyday experience, but they do, that's how solar sails work. They carry momentum, they push things. You can even use them as laser tweezers and things to pick things up. Because they push, it comes back with more momentum than it left. So you get an acceleration force from this. And again, you're just stealing energy from the black hole to do this. So you can get up to the same speed. It's basically the same idea as Freeman Dyson, but doing it from a safer distance. And there should be of order of a million or so, or 10 million black holes in the Milky Way galaxy. Some of them would be even as close as sort of 10 to 20 light years when you do the occurrence rate statistics of how close you might expect, feasibly want to be. They're of course difficult to detect because they're black. And so they're inherently hard to see. But statistically, there should be plenty out there in the Milky Way. And so these objects would be natural waypoint stations. You could use them to both accelerate away and to break and slow down. LBW And on top of all this, we've been talking about astronomy and cosmology. There's been a lot of exciting breakthroughs in detection and exploration of black holes. So the boomerang photons that you're talking about, there's been a lot of work on photon rings and just all the fun stuff going on outside the black holes. So all the garbage outside is actually might be the thing that holds a key to understanding what's going on inside. And there's the Hawking radiation. There's all kinds of fascinating stuff. I mean, there's trippy stuff about black holes that I can't even, most people don't understand. I mean, the holographic principle with the plate and the information being stored potentially outside of the black hole. I can't even comprehend how you can project a three-dimensional object onto 2D and somehow store information where it doesn't destroy it. And if it does destroy it, challenging all of physics. All of this is very interesting, especially for more practical applications of how the black hole can be used for propulsion. Yeah. I mean, it may be that black holes are used in all sorts of ways by advanced civilizations. I think, again, it's been a popular idea in science fiction or science fiction trope that Sagittarius A-star, the supermassive black hole in the central galaxy could be the best place to look for intelligent life in the universe because it is a giant engine in a way. A unique capability of a black hole is you can basically throw matter into it and you can get these jets that come out, the accretion disks and the jets that fly out. And so you can more or less use them to convert matter into energy v equals mc squared. And there's pretty much nothing else except for annihilation with its own antiparticle as a way of doing that. So they have some unique properties. You could perhaps power a civilization by just throwing garbage into a black hole, right? Just throwing asteroids in and power your civilization with as much energy as you really would ever plausibly need. And you could also use them to accelerate away across the universe. And you can even imagine using small artificial black holes as thermal generators, right? So the Hawking radiation from them kind of exponentially increases as they get smaller and smaller in size. And so a very small black hole, one that you can almost imagine like holding in your hand, would be a fairly significant heat source. And so that raises all sorts of prospects about how you might use that in an engineering context to power your civilization as well. You have a video on becoming a Kardashev Type I civilization. What's our hope for doing that? We're a few orders of magnitude away from that. Yeah, it is surprising. I think people tend to think that we're close to this scale. The Kardashev Type I is defined as a civilization which is using as much energy as is essentially incident upon the planet from the star. So that's an order, I think, for the Earth of something like 10 to the 5 terawatts or 10 to the 7 terawatts. It's a gigantic amount of energy, and we're using a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of that right now. So if you became a Kardashev Type I civilization, which is seen not necessarily as a goal unto itself. I think people think, well, why are we aspiring to become this energy-hungry civilization? Surely our energy needs might improve our efficiency or something as time goes on. But ultimately, the more energy you have access to, the greater your capabilities will be. If you want to lift Mount Everest into space, there is just a calculable amount of potential energy change that that's going to take in order to accomplish that. And the more energy you have access to as a civilization, then clearly the easier that energy achievement is going to be. So it depends on what your aspirations are as a civilization. It might not be something you want to ever do, but... Well, but we should make clear that lifting heavy things isn't the only thing. It's just doing work. So it could be computation. It could be more and more and more and more sophisticated and larger and larger and larger computation, which is, it does seem where we're headed with the very fast increase in the scale and the quality of our computation outside the human brain, artificial computation. Yeah. I mean, computation is a great example of, I mean, already I think something like 10% of US power electricity use is going towards the supercomputing centers. So there's a vast amount of current energy needs which are already going towards computing, which will surely only increase over time. If we start ever doing anything like mind uploading or creating simulated realities, that cost will surely become almost a dominant source of our energy requirements at that point, if civilization completely moves over to this kind of post-humanism stage. And so it's not unreasonable that our energy needs would continue to grow. Certainly historically, they always have at about 2% per year. And so if that continues, there is going to be a certain point where you're running up against the amount of energy which you can harvest, because you're using every, even if you cover the entire planet in solar panels, there's no more energy to be had. And so there's a few ways of achieving this. I sort of talked about in the video how there were several renewable energy sources that we're excited about, like geothermal, wind power, waves, but pretty much all of those don't really scratch the surface or don't really scratch the itch of getting into a Kardashev Type 1 civilization. They're meaningful now. I would never tell anybody, don't do wind power now, because it's clearly useful at our current stage of civilization. But it's going to be a pretty negligible fraction of our energy requirements if we got to that stage of development. And so there has to be a breakthrough in either our ability to harvest solar energy, which would require maybe something like a space array of solar panels of beaming the energy back down, or some developments and innovations in nuclear fusion that would allow us to essentially reproduce the same process of what's producing the solar photons, but here on Earth. But even that comes with some consequences. If you're generating the energy here on Earth and you're doing work on it on Earth, then that work is going to produce waste heat, and that waste heat is going to increase the ambient temperature of the planet. And so even if this isn't really a greenhouse effect that you're increasing the temperature of the planet, this is just the amount of computers that are churning. You put your hand to a computer, you can feel the warmth coming off them. If you do that much work, literally the entire instant energy of the planet is doing that work, the planet's going to warm up significantly as a result of that. And so that clearly indicates that this is not a sustainable path, that civilizations, as they approach Kailashev Type 1, are going to have to leave planet Earth. Which is really the point of that video, to show that a Kailashev Type 1 civilization, even though it's defined as instant energy upon a planet, that is not a species that is going to still be living on their planet, at least in isolation. They will have to be harvesting energy from afar, they will have to be doing work on that energy outside of their planet, because otherwise you're going to dramatically change the environment in which you live. Well, yeah, so the more energy you create, the more energy you use, the higher the imperative to expand out into the universe. But also, not just the imperative, but the capabilities. And you've kind of, as a side, on your lab page, mentioned that you're sometimes interested in astroengineering. So what kind of space architectures do you think we can build to house humans or interesting things outside of Earth? Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of fun ideas here. One of the classic ideas is an O'Neill cylinder, or a Stanford torus. These are like two rotating structures that were devised in space. They're basically using the centrifugal force as artificial gravity. And so these are structures which tend to be many kilometers across that you're building in space, but could potentially habitat millions of people in orbit of the Earth. Of course, you could imagine putting them if you, you know, the Expanse does a pretty good job, I think, of exploring the idea of human exploration of the solar system and having many objects, many of the small near-Earth objects and asteroids inhabited by mining colonies. One of the ideas we've played around with our group is this technology called a quasite. A quasite is an extension, again, we always tend to extend previous ideas, ideas build upon ideas, but an extension idea called a statite. A statite was an idea proposed, I think, by Ron Forwood in the 1970s. 1970s seem to have all sorts of wacky ideas. I don't know what was going on then. I think the Stanford torus, the O'Neill cylinder, statites, the gravitational lens, people were really having fun with dreaming about space in the 70s. The statite is basically a solar sail, but it's such an efficient solar sail that the outward force of radiation pressure equals the inward force of gravity from the Sun. And so it doesn't need to orbit. Normally, the Sun is pulling us right now through force of gravity, but we are not getting closer towards the Sun, even though we are falling towards the Sun because we're in orbit, which means our translational speed is just enough to keep us at the same altitude, essentially, from the Sun. And so you're in orbit, and that's how you maintain distance. A statite doesn't need to do that. It could be basically completely static in inertial space, but it's just balancing the two forces of radiation pressure and inward gravitational pressure. A quasite is the in-between of those two states. So it has some significant outward pressure, but not enough to resist fully falling into the star. And so it compensates for that by having some translational motion. So it's in-between an orbit and a statite. And so what that allows you to do is maintain artificial orbits. So normally, if you want to calculate your orbital speed of something at, say, half an AU, you would use Kepler's third law and go through that. And you'd say, okay, if it's at half an AU, I can calculate the period by p squared is proportional to a cubed and go through that. But for a quasite, you can basically have any speed you want. It's just a matter of how much of the gravitational force are you balancing out. You effectively enter an orbit where you're making the mass of the star be less massive than it really is. So it's as if you're orbiting a 0.1 solar mass star or 0.2 solar mass star, whatever you want. And so that means that Mercury orbits with a pretty fast orbital speed around the Sun because it's closer to the Sun than we are. But we could put something in Mercury's orbit that would have a slower speed, and so it would co-track with the Earth. And so we would always be aligned with them at all times. And so this could be useful if you wanted to have either a chain of colonies or something that were able to easily communicate and move between one another, between these different bases. You'd probably use something like this to maintain that easy transferability. Or you could even use it as a space weather monitoring system, which was actually proposed in the paper. We know that major events like the Carrington event that happened, it can knock out all of our electromagnetic systems quite easily. A major solar flare could do that, a geomagnetic storm. But if we had the ability to detect those higher elevated activity cycles in advance, the problem is they travel obviously pretty fast, and so it's hard to get ahead of them. But you could have a station which is basically sampling solar flares very close to the surface of the Earth, and as soon as it detects anything suspicious magnetically, it could then send that information straight back at the speed of light to your Earth and give you maybe a half an hour warning or something. That something bad was coming, you should shut off all your systems or get in your Faraday cage now and protect yourself. And so these quasites are kind of a cool trick of again, kind of hacking the laws of physics. It's like another one of these exploits that the universe seems to allow us to do, to potentially manifest these artificial systems that would otherwise be difficult to produce. LBW So leveraging natural phenomena. CB That's always the key, is to work, in my mind, is to work with nature. That's how I see astroengineering, rather than against it. You're not trying to force it to do something. That's why I always think solar energy is so powerful, because in the battle against nuclear fusion, nuclear fusion you're really fighting a battle where you're trying to confine plasma into this extremely tight space. The Sun does this for free, it has gravitation. And so that's in essence what a solar panel does. It is a nuclear fusion reactor-fuelled energy system, but it's just using gravitation for the confinement and having a huge standoff distance for its energy collection. And so there are tricks like that, it's a very naive, simple trick in that case, where we can, rather than having to reinvent the wheel, we can use the space infrastructure, if you like, the astrophysical infrastructure that's already there to our benefit. LBW Yeah, I think in the long arc of human history, probably natural phenomena is the right solution. That's the simple, that's the elegant solution, because all the power is already there. That's why a Dyson sphere in the long, sort of, well you don't know what a Dyson sphere would look like, but some kind of thing that leverages the power, the energy that's already in the Sun is better than creating artificial nuclear fusion reaction. But then again, that brings us to the topic of AI. How much of this, if we're traveling out there, interstellar travel, or doing some of the interesting things we've been talking about, how much of those ships would be occupied by AI systems, do you think? What would be the living organisms occupying those ships? AC Yeah, it's depressing to think about AI in the search for life, because, I mean, I've been thinking about this a lot over the last few weeks with playing around with Chat GPT-3, like many of us, and being astonished with its capabilities. And you see that our society is undergoing a change that seems significant in terms of the development of artificial intelligence. We've been promised this revolution, this singularity, for a long time, but it really seems to be stepping up its pace of development at this point. And so that's interesting, because as someone who looks for alien life out there in the universe, it sort of implies that our current stage of development is highly transitional, and that you go back for the last four and a half billion years, the planet was dumb, essentially. If you go back the last few thousand years, there was a civilization, but it wasn't really producing any technosignatures. And then over the last maybe hundred years, there's been something that might be detectable from afar. But we're approaching this cusp where we might imagine it. I mean, we're thinking of maybe years and decades with AI development, typically when we talk about this. But as an astronomer, I have to think about much longer timescales of centuries, millennia, millions of years. And so if this wave continues over that timescale, which is still the blink of an eye on a cosmic timescale, that implies that everything will be AI, essentially, out there, if this is a common behavior. And so that's intriguing, because it sort of implies that we are special in terms of our moment in time as a civilization, which normally is something we're averse to as astronomers. We normally like this mediocrity principle. We're not special, we're a typical part of the universe, so we don't know the cosmological principle. But in a temporal sense, we may be in a unique location. And perhaps that is part of a solution to the Fermi paradox, in fact. If it is true that planets tend to go through basically three phases, dumb life for the vast majority, a brief period of biological intelligence, and then an extended period of artificial intelligence that they transition to, then we would be at a unique and special moment in galactic history that would be of particular interest for any anthropologist out there in the galaxy. This would be the time that you would want to study a civilization very carefully. You wouldn't want to interfere with it, you would just want to see how it plays out. Kind of similar to the ancestor simulations, though sometimes talked over the simulation argument, that you are able to observe perhaps your own origins and study how the transformation happens. And so yeah, that has for me recently been throwing the Fermi paradox a bit on its head. And this idea of the Zoo hypothesis that we may be monitored, which has for a long time been seen as a fringe idea even amongst the SETI community. But if we live in this truly transitional period, it adds a lot of impetus to that idea, I think. Well, even AI itself would, by its very nature, would be observing us. It's like, there used to be this concept of human computation, which is actually exactly what's feeding the current language models, which is leveraging all the busy stuff we're doing to do the hard work of learning. So the language models are trained on human interaction and human language, on the internet. And so AI feeds on the output of brain power from humans. And so it would be observing and observing, and it gets stronger as it observes. So it actually gets extremely good at observing humans. And one of the interesting philosophical questions that starts percolating is what is the interesting thing that makes us human? We tend to think of it and you said there's three phases. What's the thing that's hard to come by in phase three? Is it something like scarcity, which is limited resources? Is it something like consciousness? Is that the thing that's very, that emerged the evolutionary process in biological systems that are operating under constrained resources? This thing that it feels like something to experience the world, which we think of as consciousness, is that really difficult to replicate in artificial systems? Is that the thing that makes us fundamentally human? Or is it just a side effect that we attribute way too much importance to? Do you have a sense, if we look out into the future and AI systems are the ones that are traveling out there to Alpha Centauri and beyond, do you think they have to carry the flame of consciousness with them? No, not necessarily. They may do, but it may not be necessarily. I mean, I guess we're talking about the difference here between sort of an AGI, artificial general intelligence, or consciousness, which are distinct ideas, and you can certainly have one without the other. So I could imagine. I would disagree with a certain mean that statement. Okay. Okay. I think it's very possible in order to have intelligence, you have to have consciousness. Okay. Well, I mean, to a certain degree, GBT 3 has a level of intelligence already. It's not general intelligence, but it displays properties of intelligence with no consciousness. So. Again, I would disagree. Okay. Okay. Well, I don't know. Because you said, it's very nice that you said it displays properties of intelligence. In the same way it displays properties of intelligence, I would say it's starting to display properties of consciousness. It certainly could fool you that it's conscious. Correct. Yeah. So I guess like a Turing test problem, like if it's displaying all those properties, if it quacks like a parrot, looks like a parrot, or quacks like a duck, things like that. Isn't it basically a duck at that point? So yeah, I can see that argument. I tried to think about it from the observer's point of view as an astronomer. What am I looking for? Whether that intelligence is conscious or not has little bearing, I think, as to what I should be looking for when I'm trying to detect evidence of them. It would maybe affect their behavior in ways that I can't predict. But that's again getting into the game of what I would call xenopsychology, of trying to make projections about the motivations of an alien species. It's incredibly difficult. And similarly, for any kind of artificial intelligence, it's unfathomable what its intentions may be. I mean, I would question whether it would even be interested in traveling between the stars at all. If its primary goal is computation, computation for the sake of computation, then it's probably going to have a different way of…it's going to be engineering its solar system and the nearby material around it for a different goal, if it's just simply trying to increase computer substrate across the universe. And if that is its principal intention, to just essentially convert dumb matter into smart matter as it goes, then I think that would come into conflict with our observations of the universe, right? Because the Earth shouldn't be here if that were true. The Earth should have been transformed into computer substrate by this point. There has been plenty of time in the history of the galaxy for that to have happened. So I'm skeptical in the part that that's a behavior that AI or any civilization really engages in, but I also find it difficult to find a way out of it. To explain why that would never happen in the entire history of the galaxy amongst potentially, if life is common, millions, maybe even billions of instant instantiations of AI could have occurred across the galaxy. And so, that seems to be a knock against the idea that there is life or intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. The fact that that hasn't occurred in our history is maybe the only solid data point we really have about the activities of other civilizations. LBW Of course, the scary one could be that we just at this stage, intelligent alien civilizations just started destroying themselves. It becomes too powerful. Everything's just too many weapons, too many nuclear weapons, too many nuclear weapon style systems that just from mistake to aggression, to like the probability of self-destruction is too high relative to the challenge of avoiding the technological challenges of avoiding self-destruction. LBW You mean the AI destroys itself? Or we destroy ourselves prior to the advent of AI? LBW As we get smarter and smarter, AI, either AI destroys us or other, there could be just a million. Like AI is correlated, the development of AI is correlated with all this other technological innovation. Genetic engineering, like all kinds of engineering at the nano scale, mass manufacture of things that could destroy us or cracking physics enough to have very powerful weapons, nuclear weapons, all of it. Just too much. Physics enables way too many things that can destroy us before it enables the propulsion systems that allow us to fly far enough away before we destroy ourselves. So maybe that's what happens to the other alien civilizations. LBW Is that your resolution? Because I mean, I think us in the technosignature community and astronomy community aren't thinking about this problem seriously enough, in my opinion. We should be thinking about what AI is doing to our society and the implications of what we're looking for. And so the only, I think, part of this thinking has to involve people like yourself who are more intimate with the machine learning and artificial intelligence world. How do you reconcile in your mind, you said earlier that you think you can't imagine a galaxy where life and intelligence is not all over the place? And if artificial intelligence is a natural progression for civilizations, how do you reconcile that with the absence of any information around us? So any clues or hints of artificial behavior, artificially engineered stars or colonization, computer substrate transform planets, anything like that? LBW It's extremely difficult for me. The Fermi paradox broadly defined is extremely difficult for me. And the terrifying thing is one thing I suspect is that we keep destroying ourselves. The probability of self-destruction with advanced technology is just extremely high. That's why we're not seeing it. But then again, my intuition about why we haven't blown ourselves up with nuclear weapons, it's very surprising to me from a scientific perspective. Given all the cruelty I've seen in the world, given the power that nuclear weapons place in the hands of a very small number of individuals, it's very surprising to me that we destroy ourselves. And it seems to be a very low probability situation we have happening here. And then the other explanation is the zoo, is the observation that we're just being observed. That's the only other thing. It's just, it's so difficult for me. Of course, all of science, everything is very humbling. It would be very humbling for me to learn that we're alone in the universe. It would change, you know what? Maybe I do want that to be true because you want us to be special. That's why I'm resisting that thought maybe. There's no way we're that special. There's no way we're that special. That's where my resistance comes from. I would just say, you know, the specialness is something we, implicitly in that statement, there's kind of an assumption that we are something positive. Like we're a gift to this planet or something, and that makes it special. But it may be that intelligence is more of, we're like rats or cockroaches. We're an infestation of this planet. We're not some benevolent property that a planet would ideally like to have, if you can even say such a thing. But we may be not only generally a negative force for a planet's biosphere and its own survivability, which I think you can make a strong argument about, but we may also be a very persistent infestation that may, even in, you know, interesting thoughts, in the wake of a nuclear war, would that be an absolute eradication of every human being, which would be a fairly extreme event? Or would the candle of consciousness, as you might call it, the flame of consciousness, continue with some small pockets that would, maybe in 10,000 years, 100,000 years, we see civilization re-emerge and play out the same thing over again? LBW Yeah, certainly. But nuclear weapons aren't powerful enough yet. But yes, to sort of push back on the infestation, sure, but the word special doesn't have to be positive. I just mean- LBW I think it tends to imply, but I take your point, yeah, but maybe just maybe extremely rare, might be. LBW Yeah, and that to me, it's very strange for me to be cosmically unique. It's just very strange. I mean, that we're the only thing of this level of complexity in the galaxy just seems very strange to me. AC I would just, yeah, as I do think it depends on this classification. I think there is sort of, again, it's kind of buried within there as a subtext, but there is a classification that we're doing here that what we are is a distinct category of life, let's say, in this case. When we're talking about intelligence, we are something that can be separated. But of course, we see intelligence across the animal kingdom in dolphins, humpback whales, octopuses, crows, ravens. So it's quite possible that these are all manifestations of the same thing. We are not a particularly distinct class, except for the fact we make technology. That's really the only difference to our intelligence. We classify that separately, but from a biological perspective, to some degree, it's really just all part of a continuum. So that's why when we talk about unique, you are putting yourself in a box which is distinct and saying, this is the only example of things that fall into this box. But the walls of that box may themselves be a construct of our own arrogance that we are something distinct. CB But I was also speaking broadly for us, meaning all life on Earth, that then it's possible that there's all kinds of living ecosystems on other planets and other moons that just don't have interest in technological development. Maybe technological development is the parasitic thing that destroys the organism broadly. Maybe that's actually one of the fundamental realities. Whatever broad way to categorize technological development, that's just the parasitic thing that just destroys itself. It's a cancer. CB We're floating around this idea of the Great Filter a little bit here. So we're asking, does it lie ahead of us? Nuclear war may be imminent, that would be a filter that's ahead of us. Or could it be behind us? And it's the advent of technology that is genuinely a rare occurrence in the universe, and that explains the Fermi paradox. And so that's something that obviously people have debated and argued about in SETI for decades and decades, but it remains a persistent–people argue whether it should be really called a paradox or not–but it remains a consistent apparent contradiction that you can make a very cogent argument as to why you expect life and intelligence to be common in the universe, and yet everything we know about the universe is fully compatible with just us being here. And that's a haunting thought, but I have no preference or desire for that to be true. I'm not trying to impose that view on anyone, but I do ask that we remain open-minded until evidence has been collected either way. The thing is, it's one of, if not the, probably I would argue the most important question facing human civilization, or the most interesting, I think, scientifically speaking. Like, what question is more important than... Somehow, you know, there could be other ways to sneak up to it, but it gets to the essence of what we are, what these living organisms are. It's somehow seeing another kind. LBW Yeah. CB It speaks to the human condition, helps us understand what it is to be human to some degree. I think, you know, I have tried to remain very agnostic about the idea of life and intelligence. One thing I try to be more optimistic about, and I've been thinking a lot with our searches for life in the universe, is life in the past. I think it's actually not that hard to imagine we are the only civilization in the galaxy right now. LBW Living. CB Yeah, to this current extent. But there may be very many extinct civilizations. If each civilization has a typical lifetime comparable to, let's say, AI is the demise of our own, that's only a few hundred years of technological development, or maybe 10,000 years if you go back to the Neolithic Revolution, the dawn of agriculture. You know, hardly anything in cosmic time span. That's nothing. That's the blink of an eye. And so it's not surprising at all that we would happen not to coexist with anyone else. But that doesn't mean nobody else was ever here. And if other civilizations come to that same conclusion and realization, maybe they scour the galaxy around them, don't find any evidence for intelligence, then they have two options. They can either give up on communication and just say, well, it's never going to happen. We just may as well just, you know, worry about what's happening here on our own planet. Or they could attempt communication, but communication through time. And that's almost the most selfless act of communication, because there's no hope of getting anything back. It's a philanthropic gift, almost, to that other civilization. Maybe it might just be nothing more than a monument, which the Pyramids essentially are, a monument of their existence. That these are the things they achieved, this was the things they believed in, their language, their culture. Or it could be maybe something more than that. It could be lessons from what they learned in their own history. And so I've been thinking a lot recently about how would we send a message to other civilizations in the future? Because that act of thinking seriously about the engineering of how you would design it would inform us about what we should be looking for, and also perhaps be our best chance, quite frankly, of ever making contact. It might not be the contact we dream of, but it's still contact. There would still be a record of our existence, as pitiful as it might be compared to a two-way communication. And I love the humility behind that project, that universal project. It's humble, and it humbles you to the vast temporal landscape of the universe. Just realizing our day-to-day lives, all of us will be forgotten. It's nice to think about something that sends a signal out to other life-forms. It was almost like a humility of acceptance as well, of knowing that you have a terminal disease, but your impact on the Earth doesn't have to end with your death. That it could go on beyond with what you leave behind for others to discover with maybe the books you write or what you leave in the literature. Do you think launching the Roadster vehicle out in space would have done better? Yeah, the Roadster. I'm not sure what someone would make of that if they found it. Yeah, that's true. I mean, there have been quasi-attempts at it beyond the Roadster. I mean, there's the Pioneer plaques, there's the Voyager 2 Golden Record. It's pretty unlikely anybody's going to discover those, because they're just adrift in space, and they will eventually mechanically die and not produce any signal for anyone to spot. So you'd have to be extremely lucky to come across them. I've often said to my colleagues that I think the best place is the Moon. The Moon, unlike the Earth, has no significant weathering. How long will the Apollo descent stages, which are still still on the lunar surface, last for? The only real effect is micrometeorites, which are slowly like dust smashing against them, pretty much. But that's going to take millions, potentially billions of years to erode that down. And so we have an opportunity. And that's on the surface. If you put something just a few metres beneath the surface, it would have even greater protection. And so it raises the prospect that if we wanted to send something, a significant amount of information, to a future galactic-spanning civilisation that maybe cracks the interstellar propulsion problem, the Moon's going to be there for five billion years. That's a long time for somebody to come by and detect maybe a strange pattern that we draw on the sand for them to, you know, big arrow, big cross, look under here, and we could have a tomb of knowledge of some record of our civilisation. And so I think when you think like that, what that implies to us is, well, okay, the Galaxy's 13 billion years old, the Moon is already four billion years old. There may be places familiar to us, nearby to us, that we should be seriously considering as places we should look for life and intelligent life or evidence of relics that they might leave behind for us. So thinking like that will help us find such relics, and it's like a beneficial cycle that happens. Yes, yeah, exactly. That enables the science of SETI better, like of searching for bios and tech signatures and so on. And it's inspiring. I mean, it's also inspiring in that we want to leave a legacy behind as an entire civilisation, not just in the symbols, but broadly speaking. That's the last thing somehow. Yeah, and I'm part of a team that's trying to repeat the Golden Record experiment. We're trying to create like an open source version of the Golden Record that future spacecraft are able to download and basically put on a little hard drive that they can carry around with them and, you know, get these distributed hopefully across the solar system eventually. Is it going to be called the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Yeah, it could be. That's a good name for it. We've been toying a little bit with the name, but I think probably it'll just be Golden Record at this point, or Golden Record version 2 or something. But I think another benefit that I see of this activity is that it forces us as a species to ask those questions about what it is that we want another civilisation to know about us. The Golden Record was kind of funny because it had photos on it, and it had photos of people eating, for instance, but it had no photos of people defecating. And so I always thought that was kind of funny because if I was an alien, or if I was studying an alien, if I saw images of an alien, I would, I'm not trying to be like a perv or anything, but I would want to see the full, I want to understand the biology of that alien. And so we always censor what we show. And we should show the whole actual natural process, and then also say, we humans tend to censor these things. We tend to not like to walk around naked, we tend to not to talk about some of the natural biological phenomena and talk a lot about others, and actually just be very, like the way you would be to a therapist or something, very transparent about the way we actually operate in this world. Yeah, I mean, and Sagan had that with the Golden Record. I think he originally, there's a male and a female figure to pitch on the Golden Record. And the woman had a genitalia originally drawn, and there was a lot of pushback from, I think, a lot of Christian groups who were not happy about the idea of throwing this into space. And so eventually they had to remove that. And so it would be confusing biologically, if you're trying to study xenobiology of this alien that apparently has no genitalia, or the man does, but for some reason the woman doesn't. And that's our own societal and cultural imprint happening into that information. That's, to be fair, just even having two sexes, and predators and prey, just the whole, that could be just a very unique Earth-like thing. So they might be confused about why there's pairs of things. Why is there a man and a woman in general? They could be confused about a lot of things in general. I don't think the... They don't even know which way to hold the picture. Or there's the picture. They might have very different sensory devices to even interpret this. Correct, yeah. If they only have sound as their only way of navigating the world, it's kind of lost. There's been a lot of conversation about sending video and pictures, and that's one of the things I've been a little bit resistant about in the team. I've been thinking, well, they might not have eyes. And so if you lived on the Europa surface, having eyes wouldn't be very useful. If you lived on a very dark planet, on the tidally locked night side of an exoplanet, having eyes wouldn't be particularly useful. So it's kind of a presumption of us to think that video is a useful form of communication. Do you hope we become a multi-planetary species? So we're almost sneaking up to that, but the efforts of SpaceX, of Elon, maybe in general, what your thoughts are about those efforts? So you already mentioned Starship will be very interesting for astronomy, for science in general, just getting stuff out into space. But what about the longer term goal of actually colonizing, of building civilizations on other surfaces, on moons, on planets? It seems like a fairly obvious thing to do for our survival, right? There's a high risk if we are committed to trying to keep this human experiment going, putting all of our eggs in one basket is always going to be a risky strategy to pursue. It's a nice basket though. It is a beautiful basket. I personally have no interest in living on Mars or the Moon. I would like to visit, but I would definitely not want to spend the rest of my life and die on Mars. It's a hellhole. I think the idea that this is going to happen in the next 10-20 years seems to me very optimistic. Not that it's insurmountable, but the challenges are extreme to survive on a planet like Mars, which is like a dry, frozen desert with a high radiation environment. It's a challenge of a type we've never faced before. So I'm sure human ingenuity can tackle it, but I'm sceptical that we'll have thousands of people living on Mars in my lifetime. But I would relish that opportunity to maybe one day visit such a settlement and do scientific experiments on Mars, or experience Mars, do astronomy from Mars, all sorts of cool stuff you could do. Sometimes you see these dreams of outer solar system exploration, and you can fly through the clouds of Venus, or you could just do these enormous jumps on these small moons where you can essentially jump as high as a skyscraper and traverse them. So there's all sorts of wonderful ice skating on Europa, might be fun. So don't get me wrong, I love the idea of us becoming interplanetary. I think it's just a question of time. Our own destructive tendencies, as you said earlier, are at odds with our emerging capability to become interplanetary. And the question is, will we get out of the nest before we burn it down? And I don't know. Obviously I hope that we do, but I don't have any special insight. There is somewhat of an annoying intellectual itch I have with the so-called doomsday argument, which I try not to treat too seriously, but there is some element of it that bothers me. The doomsday argument basically suggests that you're typically the mediocrity principle, you're not special. That you're probably going to be born somewhere in the middle of all human beings who will ever be born. You're unlikely to be one of the first 1% of human beings that ever lived, and similarly the last 1% of human beings that will ever live, because you'd be very unique and special if that were true. And so by this logic, you can calculate how many generations of humans you might expect. So if there's been, let's say, 100 billion human beings that have ever lived on this planet, then you could say to 95% confidence, so you divide by 5%, so 100 billion divided by 0.05 would give you 2 trillion human beings that would ever live, you'd expect by this argument. And so if each planet, in general the planet has a 10 billion population, so that would be 200 generations of humans we would expect ahead of us. And if each one has an average lifetime of say 100 years, then that would be about 20,000 years. So there's 20,000 years left on the clock. That's like a typical doomsday argument type. That's how they typically lay it out. Now a lot of the criticisms of the doomsday argument come down to, well, what are you really counting? You're counting humans there, but maybe you should be counting years. Or maybe you should be counting human hours. Because what you count makes a big difference to what you get out on the other end. So this is called the reference class. And so that's one of the big criticisms of the doomsday argument. But I do think it has a compelling point that it would be surprising if our future is to one day blossom and become a galactic spanning empire. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of human beings will one day live across the stars for essentially as long as the galaxy exists and the stars burn. We would live at an incredibly special point in that story. We would be right at the very, very, very beginning. And that's not impossible, but it's just somewhat improbable. And so part of that sort of irks against me, but it also almost feels like a philosophical argument because you're sort of talking about souls being drawn from this cosmic pool. So it's not an argument that I lose sleep about for our fate of the doomsday, but it is somewhat intellectually annoying that there is a slight contradiction now it feels like with the idea of a galactic spanning empire. Yeah. But of course there's so many unknowns. I for one would love to visit even space, but Mars, just imagine standing on Mars and looking back at Earth. Yeah. The incredible sight. It would give you such a fresh perspective as to your entire existence and what it meant to be human. And then come back to Earth, it would give you a heck of a perspective. Plus the sunset on Mars is supposed to be nice. I loved what William Shatner said after his flight. His words really moved me when he came down, and I think it really captured the idea that we shouldn't really be sending engineers, our scientists into space. We should be sending our poets, because those are the people when they come down who can truly make a difference when they describe their experiences in space. And I found it very moving reading what he said. Yeah. When you talk to astronauts, when they describe what they see, it's like this, like they've discovered a whole new thing that they can't possibly convert back into words. Yeah. It's beautiful to see. Just as a quick, before I forget, I have to ask you, can you summarize your argument against the hypothesis that we live in a simulation? Is it similar to our discussion about the Doomsday Clock? No, it's actually probably more similar to my agnosticism about life in the universe, and it's just sort of remaining agnostic about all possibilities. The simulation argument, sometimes it gets mixed. There's kind of two distinct things that we need to consider. One is the probability that we live in so-called base reality, that we're not living in a simulated reality itself. And another probability we need to consider is the probability that that technology is viable, possible, and something we will ultimately choose to one day do. Those are two distinct things. They're probably quite similar numbers to each other, but they are distinct probabilities. In my paper I wrote about this, I just tried to work through the problem. I teach astrostatistics, I was actually teaching it this morning. It just seemed like a fun case study of working through a Bayesian calculation for it. Bayesian calculations work on conditionals. When you hear what kind of inspired this project was when I heard Musk said, with a billion to one chance that we don't live in a simulation. He's right if you add the Bayesian conditional. The Bayesian conditional is conditioned upon the fact that we eventually develop that technology and choose to use it, or it's chosen to be used by such species, by such civilizations. That's the conditional. And you have to add that in because that conditional isn't guaranteed. In a Bayesian framework you can kind of make that explicit. You see mathematically explicitly that's a conditional in your equation. The opposite side of the coin is basically, in the trilemma that Bostrom originally put forward, it's options one and two. So option one is that you basically never develop the ability to do that. Option two is you never choose to execute that. So we kind of group those together as sort of the non-simulation scenario, let's call it. So you've got non-simulation scenario and simulation scenario. And agnostically we really have to give the... How do you assess the a priori model probability of those two scenarios? It's very difficult and I think people would probably argue about how you assign those priors. In the paper we just assigned 50-50. We just said, this hasn't been demonstrated yet. There's no evidence that this is actually technically possible, nor is it that it's not technically possible. So we're just going to assign 50-50 probability to these two hypotheses. And then in the hypotheses where you have a simulated reality, you have a base reality sat at the top. So even in the simulated hypothesis, there's a probability you still live in base reality. And then there's a whole myriad of universes beneath that which are all simulated. And so you have a very slim probability of being in base reality if this is true. And you have a 100% probability of living in base reality on the other hand if it's not true, and we never develop that ability or choose never to use it. And so then you apply this technique called Bayesian model averaging, which is where you propagate the uncertainty of your two models to get a final estimate. And because of that one base reality that lives in the simulated scenario, you end up counting this up and getting that it always has to be less than 50%. So the probability you live in a simulated reality versus a base reality has to be slightly less than 50%. Now that really comes down to that statement of giving it 50-50 odds to begin with. And on the one hand you might say, look David, I work in artificial intelligence, I'm very confident that this is going to happen, just of extrapolating off current trends. Or on the other hand, a statistician would say you're giving way too much weight to the simulation hypothesis, because it's an intrinsically highly complicated model. You have a whole hierarchy of realities within realities within realities. It's like the Inception-style thing, right? And so this requires hundreds, thousands, millions of parameterizations to describe. And by Occam's razor, we would always normally penalize inherently complicated models as being disfavoured. So I think you could argue I'm being too generous or too kind with that, but I sort of want to develop the rigorous mathematical tools to explore it. And ultimately it's up to you to decide what you think that 50-50 odds should be. But you can use my formula to plug in whatever you want and get the answer. And I use 50-50. Yeah, so, but in that first pile, with the first two parts that Boscombe talks about, it seems like connected to that is the question we've been talking about, which is the number of times at bat you get, which is the number of intelligent civilizations that are out there that can build such simulations. It seems like very closely connected, because if we're the only ones that are here, and it can build such things, that changes things. Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah, the simulation hypothesis has all sorts of implications like that. Sean Carroll pointed out a really interesting contradiction, apparently, with the simulation hypothesis that I speak about a little bit in the paper. But he showed that, or pointed out, that in this hierarchy of realities, which then develop their own AIs within the realities, and then they, or really ancestor simulations, I should say, rather than AI, they develop their own capability to simulate realities. You get this hierarchy, and so eventually there'll be a bottom layer, which I often call the sewer of reality. It's like the worst layer where it's the most pixelated it could possibly be, right? Because each layer is necessarily going to have less competitional power than the layer above it. Because not only are you simulating that entire planet, but also some of that's being used for the computers themselves, that those are simulated. And so that base reality, or sorry, the sewer of reality, is a reality where they are simply unable to produce ancestor simulations, because the fidelity of the simulation is not sufficient. And so from their point of view, it might not be obvious that the universe is pixelated, but they would just never be able to manifest that capability. What if they're constantly simulating, because in order to appreciate the limits of the fidelity, you have to have an observer. What if they're always simulating a dumber and dumber observer? What if the sewer has very dumb observers that can't, like scientists that are the dumbest possible scientists. So it's very pixelated, but the scientists are too dumb to even see the pixelations. So built into the universe always has to be a limitation on the cognitive capabilities of the complex systems that are within it. Yeah, so that sewer of reality, they would still presumably be able to have a very impressive computational capabilities. They'd probably be able to simulate galactic formation, all this kind of impressive stuff. But they would be just short of the ability to, however you define it, create a truly sentient conscious experience in a computer. That would just be just beyond their capabilities. And so Carol pointed out that if you add up all the, you know, you count up how many realities there should be, probabilistically if this is true, over here, the simulation hypothesis or scenario, then you're most likely to find yourself in the sewer because there's just far more of them than there are of any of the higher levels. And so that sort of sets up a contradiction because then you live in a reality which is inherently incapable of ever producing ancestor simulations. But the premise of the entire argument is that ancestor simulations are possible. So there's a contradiction that's been introduced. There's that old quote, we're all living in the sewer, but some of us are looking up at the stars. This is maybe more true than we think. To me, so there's of course physics and computational fascinating questions here, but to me there's a practical psychological question which is, you know, how do you create a virtual reality world that is as compelling and not necessarily even as realistic, but almost as realistic, but as compelling or more compelling than physical reality? Because something tells me it's not very difficult in the full history of human civilization. That is an interesting kind of simulation to me, because that feels like it's doable in the next hundred years, creating a world where we all prefer to live in the digital world. And not like a visit, but like it's like you're seen as insane. No, like you're required, it's unsafe to live outside of the virtual world. And it's interesting to me from an engineering perspective how to build that, because I'm somebody that sort of loves video games and it seems like you can create incredible worlds there and stay there. And that's a different question than creating a ultra high resolution, high fidelity simulation of physics. But if that world inside a video game is as consistent as the physics of our reality, then you can have your own scientists in that world that trying to understand that physics world. It might look different. LBW I'm presuming that eventually forget, give it long enough, they might forget about their origins of being once biological and assume this was their only reality. CB Especially if you're now born, certainly if you're born, but even if you were eight years old or something when you first started wearing the headset. LBW Yeah, or you have a memory wipe when you go in. I mean, it also kind of maybe speaks to this issue of Neuralink and how do we keep up with AI in our world? If you want to augment your intelligence, perhaps one way of competing and one of your impetuses for going into this digital reality would be to be competitive intellectually with artificial intelligences, that you could trivially augment your reality if your brain was itself artificial. But I mean, one skepticism I've always had about that is whether it's more of a philosophical question, but how much is that really you if you do a mind upload? Is this just a duplicate of your memories that thinks it's you versus truly a transference of your conscious stream into that reality? And I think it's almost like the teleportation device in Star Trek. But with quantum teleportation, you can kind of rigorously show that as long as all of the quantum numbers are exactly duplicated as you transfer over, it truly is, from the universe's perspective, in every way indistinguishable from what was there before. It really is, in principle, you and all the sense of being you, versus creating a duplicate clone and uploading memories to that human body or a computer that would surely be a discontinuation of that conscious experience by virtue of the fact you've multiplied it. And so I would be hesitant about uploading for that reason. I would see it mostly as my own killing myself and having some AI duplicate of me that persists in this world, but is not truly my experience. Typical 20th century human with an attachment to this particular singular instantiation of brain and body. How silly humans used to be. Used to have rotary phones and other silly things. You're an incredible human being. You're an educator, you're a researcher, you have an amazing YouTube channel. Looking to young people, if you were to give them advice, how can they have a career that maybe is inspired by yours, inspired by wandering curiosity, a career they can be proud of, or a life they can be proud of? What advice would you give? I certainly think in terms of a career in science, one thing that I maybe discovered late, but has been incredibly influential on me in terms of my own happiness and my own productivity, has been this synergy of doing two passions at once. One passion is science communication, another passion research. And not surrendering either one. And I think that tends to be seen as something that's an either-or. You have to completely dedicate yourself to one thing to gain mastery in it. That's a conventional way of thinking about both science and other disciplines. And I have found that both have been elevated by practicing in each. And I think that's true in all assets of life. I mean, if you want to become the best researcher you possibly can, you're pushing your intellect and in a sense your body to a high level. And so to me, I've always wanted to couple that with training of my body, training of my mind in other ways besides from just what I'm doing when I'm in the lecture room or when I'm in my office calculating something. Focusing on your own development through whatever it is. Meditation, meditation for me is often running, working out and pursuing multiple passions provides this almost synergistic bliss of all of them together. So often I've had some of the best research ideas from making a YouTube video and trying to communicate an idea or interacting with my audience who've had a question that sparked a whole trail of thought that led down this wonderful intellectual rabbit hole or maybe to a new intellectual discovery. It can go either way sometimes with those things. And so thinking broadly, diversely and always looking after yourself in this highly competitive and often extremely stressful world that we live in is the best advice I can offer anybody. And just try, if you can, it's very cheesy, but if you can follow your passions, you'll always be happy. Trying to sell out for the quick cash out, for the quick book out, can be tempting in the short term. Looking for exo-moons was never easy, but I made a career not out of discovering exo-moons, but out of learning how to communicate the difficult problem and discovering all sorts of things along the way. We shot for the sky and we discovered all this stuff along the way. We discovered dozens of new planets using all sorts of new techniques. We pushed this instrumentation to new places. And I've had an extremely productive research career in this world. I've had all sorts of ideas, working on techno-signatures. Thinking innovatively pushes you into all sorts of exciting directions. It's hard to find that passion, but you can sometimes remember it when you were a kid, what your passions were and what fascinated you as a child. For me, as soon as I picked up a space book when I was five years old, that was it. I was hooked on space. I almost betrayed my passion at college. I studied physics, which I've always been fascinated by physics as well. But I came back to astronomy because it was my first love, and I was much happier doing research in astronomy than I was in physics because it spoke to that wonder I had as a child that first was the spark of curiosity for me in science. LB So society will try to get you to look at hot Jupiters, and the advice is to look for the cool world instead. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? Have you ever asked yourself why? CB It's just a ride. It's just a ride. We're on a roller coaster, and we have no purpose. It's an accident in my perspective. There's no meaning to my life. There's no objective deity who is over watching what I'm doing, and I have some fate or destiny. It's all just riding on a roller coaster and trying to have a good time and contribute to other people's enjoyment of the ride. LB Yeah, try to make it a happy accident. CB Yeah, yeah. I see no fundamental providence in my life or in the nature of the universe. And you just see this universe as this beautiful cosmic accident of galaxies smashing together, stars forging here and there, and planets occasionally spawning maybe life across the universe. And we are just one of those instantiations, and we should just enjoy this very brief episode that we have. And I think trying to look at it much deeper than that is, to me, it's not very soul satisfying. I just think enjoy what you've got and appreciate it. LB It does seem noticing that beauty helps make the ride pretty fun. CB Yeah, absolutely. LB David, you're an incredible person. I haven't covered most of the things I wanted to talk to you about. This was an incredible conversation. I'm glad you exist. I'm glad you're doing everything you're doing. I'm a huge fan. Thank you so much for talking today. This was amazing. LB Thank you so much, Lex. It's been a real honor. Thank you. LB Thanks for listening to this conversation with David Kipping. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Carl Sagan. Perhaps the aliens are here, but are hiding because of some Lex Galactica, some ethic of non-interference with emerging civilizations. We can imagine them, curious and dispassionate, observing us as we would watch a bacterial culture in a dish to determine whether this year, again, we managed to avoid self-destruction. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/uZN5xjoS6TU

mC43pZkpTec

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Michael Saylor: Bitcoin, Inflation, and the Future of Money | Lex Fridman Podcast #276

Remember George Washington, you know how he died? Well-meaning physicians bled him to death and this was the most important patient in the country Maybe in the history of the country And it's and we bled him to death trying to help him So when you're actually inflating the money supply at seven percent, but you're calling it two percent because you want to help the economy You're literally bleeding the the free market to death but the sad fact is George Washington went along with it because he thought that they were going to do him good and the majority of of the society most companies Most most conventional thinkers, you know The working class they go along with this because they think that Someone has their best interest at mind and the people that are bleeding them to death believe That they believe that prescription because their mental models are just so defective The following is a conversation with Michael Saylor one of the most prominent and brilliant bitcoin proponents in the world He is the ceo of micro strategy founder of Saylor academy graduate of MIT and Michael is one of the most fascinating and rigorous thinkers i've ever gotten a chance to explore ideas with he can effortlessly Zoom out to the big perspectives of human civilization and human history And zoom back in to the technical details of blockchains markets governments and financial systems This is the Lex Friedman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description and now dear friends Here's Michael Saylor Let's start with a big question of truth and wisdom When advanced humans or aliens or ai systems, let's say five to ten centuries from now look back at earth on this early 21st century How much do you think they would say we understood about? Money and economics or even about engineering science life death meaning intelligence consciousness all the big interesting questions I think they would uh, probably give us a A B-minus on engineering on all the engineering things the hard sciences a passing grade Like we're we're doing okay. We're working our way through rockets and jets and electric cars and electricity transport systems and nuclear power and space flight and the like and And you know if you if you look at the walls that uh Grace the great court at mit it's full of all the great thinkers and and they're all pretty admirable, you know if you could be with newton or gauss or madam curie or einstein You know, you would respect them. I would say they'd give us like a a d-minus on economics Like you know an f-plus or a d-minus you used to have an optimistic vision first of all optimistic vision of engineering because everybody you've listed Not everybody most people you've listed is just over the past couple of centuries And maybe stretches a little farther back, but mostly All the cool stuff we've done in engineering that is the past couple of centuries I mean archimedes You know had his virtues You know, I I studied the history of science at mit and I also studied aerospace engineering And and so I clearly have a bias in favor of science and if I look at the past 10 000 years and I consider all of the Philosophy and the politics and their impact on the human condition I think it's a wash for every politician that came up with a good idea. Another politician came up with a bad idea Right, and it's not clear to me that you know, most of the political and philosophical you know Uh contributions to the to the human race and the human conditions have advanced so much. I mean, we're still taking You know taking guidance and admiring aristotle and plato and seneca and the like and on the other hand You know if you think about uh, what has made the human condition better Fire water Or harnessing of wind energy like try to row across an ocean Right not easy and for people who are just listening or watching. There's a beautiful sexy ship from 16th and 17th century. This is a 19th century handmade model of a 17th century Sailing ship which is of the type that the dutch east india's company used to sail the world and trade So that was made, you know, the original was made sometime in the 1600s And then this model is made in the 19th century by individuals both the model and the ship itself is engineering at its best and just imagine just like Rockets flying out to space how much hope this filled people with exploring the unknown going into the mystery uh Both the entrepreneurs and the business people and the engineers and just humans what's out there what's out there to be discovered Yeah, the metaphor of human beings leaving shore sailing across the horizon risking their lives in pursuit of a better life is incredibly powerful one In 1900 I suppose the average life expectancy is 50 During the revolutionary war, you know while our founding fathers were fighting to establish, you know Life liberty pursuit of happiness the constitution Average life expectancy of it's like 32 Somewhere between 32 and 36 So all the sound and the fury doesn't make you live past 32, but what does right antibiotics? conquest of infectious diseases if we understand the science of of infectious disease stare, you know sterilizing a knife And harnessing antibiotics gets you from 50 to 70 and that happened fast, right that happens from 1900 to 1950 or something like that And I I think if you look Look at the human condition You ever get on one of those uh rowing machines where they actually keep track of your watts output when you're on the yeah Yeah, it's like 200 is a lot. Okay 200 is a lot. So a kilowatt hour Is like all the energy that a human a trained athlete can deliver in a day and probably not one percent of the people in the in the world could deliver a kilowatt hour in a day and the Commercial value of a kilowatt hour the retail value is 11 cents today And uh, the wholesale value is two cents and So you have to look at the contribution of politicians and philosophers And economists to the human condition And it's it's like at best a wash one way or the other and then if you look at the contribution of john d rockefeller When he delivered you a barrel of oil, yeah, and uh, you know the energy and in oil liquid energy oil Energy and in oil liquid energy or the contribution of tesla You know as we deliver electricity you know and what's the impact on the human condition if I have electric power If I have chemical power if I have wind energy If I if I can actually set up a reservoir create a dam spin a turbine And generate energy from a hydraulic source That's extraordinary Right and and so our ability to cross the ocean Our ability to grow food our ability to live It's it's technology that gets the human race from you know, a A brutal life where life expectancy is 30 To a world where life expectancy is 80 You gave a d minus the economists so are they too like the politicians to wash In terms of there's good ideas and bad ideas and and that tiny delta between good and And bad is how you squeak past the f plus onto the d minus territory I think most economic ideas are bad ideas like most you know like um Take us back to mit and you want to solve A fluid dynamics problem like like design the shape of the hull of that ship Or you want to design an airfoil a wing or if you want to design an engine or a a nozzle and a rocket ship You wouldn't do it with simple arithmetic You wouldn't do it with a scale or there's not a single number right? It's vector. It's vector math You know computational fluid dynamics is n-dimensional Higher level math, you know complicated stuff So when when an economist says the inflation rate is two percent, that's a scalar and when an economist says It's not a problem to print more money because the velocity of the money is very low Monetary velocity is low. That's another scalar Okay, so the truth of the matter is Inflation is not a scalar inflation is an n-dimensional vector Money velocity is not a scalar. Um, the saying what's the velocity of money? Oh, it's slow or it's fast It ignores the question of what medium is the money moving through and the same way that you know What's the speed of sound? Okay. Well, what is sound right? Sound you know sound is uh is a compression wave is Sound is uh is a compression wave. It's energy Moving through a medium, but the speed is different So for example, the speed of sound through air is different than the speed of sound through water And and a sound moves faster through water. It moves faster through a solid and it moves faster through a stiffer solid So there isn't one What is the fundamental problem with the way economists reduce the world down to a model? Is it too simple? Or is it just even the first principles of constructing the model is wrong. I think that uh, the fundamental problem is If you see the world as a scalar you simply pick The one number which is which supports whatever you want to do And you ignore the universe of other consequences from your behavior in general, I don't know if you've heard of um The eric weinstein has been talking about this with gauge theory. So different different kinds of approaches from the physics world from the mathematical world to extend past this Scalar view of economics. So gauge theory is one way that comes from physics. Do you find that? a way of exploring economics interesting so outside of Cryptocurrency outside of the actual technologies and so on just uh analysis of how economics works. Do you find that interesting? Yeah, I I think that if we're gonna want to really make any scientific progress in economics we have to apply much Much more computationally intensive and richer forms of mathematics So simulation perhaps or yeah, you know when I was at mit I studied system dynamics Uh, you know, they taught it at the sloan school. It was developed by jay forrester who who um Was an extraordinary computer scientist and um when we've created models of Economic behavior, they were all multi-dimensional non-linear models. So if you want to describe how Anything works in the real world. You have to start with the concept of feedback If I double the price of something Anything demand will fall and attempts to to create supply will increase and there will be a delay Before the capacity increases There'll be an instant demand Change and there'll be rippling effects throughout every other segment of the economy downstream and upstream of such thing So it's kind of common sense but most economics most classical economics is always You know taught with linear models You know fairly simplistic linear models and oftentimes even i'm really shocked today That the entire uh mainstream dialogue of economics has been captured by scalar arithmetic For example If if you read, uh You know read any article in new york times or the wall street journal, right? They just refer to there's an inflation number or the the cpi or the inflation rate is x And if you look at all the historic studies of the impact of inflation Generally, they're all based upon The idea that inflation equals cpi and then they try to extrapolate from that and you just get Nowhere with it So at the very least we should be considering inflation and other Economics concept is a non-linear dynamical system. So non-linearity And also just embracing the full complexity of just how the variables interact maybe through simulation. Maybe some Have some interesting models around that wouldn't it be refreshing if somebody for once published a table Of the change in price of every product every service and every asset in every place over time You said table some of that also is the task of visualization How to extract from this complex set of numbers patterns patterns that Somehow indicates something fundamental about what's happening so like Summarization of data is still important perhaps summarization not down to a single scale of value but looking at that whole sea of numbers you have to find Patterns like what is inflation in a particular sector? What is maybe a change over time? Maybe different geographical regions You know things of that nature. I think that's kind of I don't know even what that task is Uh, you know, that's what you could look at machine learning. You can look at ai with that perspective, which is like how do you? represent What's happening efficiently? As efficiently as possible that's never going to be a single number But it might be a compressed model that captures something something beautiful something fundamental about what's happening It's an opportunity For sure, right. Um, you know if we take um, for example during the pandemic the uh, the response of the political apparatus was to lower interest rates to zero And to start to start buying assets in essence printing money And the defense was there's no inflation But of course you had one part of the economy where it was locked down So it was illegal to buy anything But you couldn't you know, it was either illegal or it was impractical So it would be impossible for demand to manifest. So of course there is no inflation on the other hand There was instantaneous immediate inflation in another part of the economy for example, um You lower the interest rates, uh to zero at one point We saw the uh, the swap rate on the 30-year note go to 72 basis points Okay, that means that the value of a long-dated bond immediately inflates. So the bond market had hyperinflation within minutes of these Financial decisions the asset market had hyperinflation We had uh what you call a case-shape recovery what we affectionately call a shake case-shape recovery main street shutdown Wall street recovered all within six weeks The inflation was in the assets like in the stocks in the bonds uh You know if you look today, you see that uh, Typical house according to the case schiller index today is up 19.2 percent year over year so If you're a first-time home buyer, the inflation rate is 19 percent percent, uh, the formal cpi announced a 7.9 You can pretty much Create any inflation rate you want by constructing a market basket, right a weighted basket of products or services or assets that yield you the answer I think that You know the fundamental failing of economists is is first of all Well, they don't really have a term for asset inflation Right. What's an asset? What's asset hyperinflation? You mentioned bond market swap rate and asset is the where the all majority of the hyperinflation happen What's inflation what's hyperinflation? What's an asset? What's an asset market? I'm going to ask so many dumb questions in the conventional economic world you would you would treat inflation as Uh the rate of increase in price of a market basket of consumer products defined by a government agency So that they have a like traditional things that a regular consumer would be buying The government selects like a toilet paper food toaster Refrigerator electronics all that kind of stuff and it's like a representative a basket of goods Is that lead to a content existence on this earth for a regular consumer? They define a synthetic metric, right? I mean i'm going to say you should have a thousand square foot apartment and you should have A used car and you should eat, you know, three hamburgers a week Now 10 years go by and the apartment costs more I could adjust the market basket By a you know, they call them hedonic adjustments. I could decide that it used to be in 1970 You needed a thousand square feet, but in the year 2020, you only need 700 square feet because we've many miniaturized televisions And we've got more efficient electric appliances because things have collapsed into the iphone. You just don't need as much space So now I you know, it may be that the apartment costs 50 more but after the hedonic adjustment There is no inflation because I just downgraded the expectation of what a normal person should have So the synthetic nature of the metric allows for manipulation by people in power pretty much That I guess my criticism of economists is rather than embracing inflation Based upon its fundamental idea, which is the rate at which the price of things go up, right? They've been captured by mainstream conventional thinking to immediately equate inflation to the government issued cpi or government issued pce or government issued ppi measure which Was never the rate at which things go up. It's simply the rate at which a synthetic basket of Products and services the government wishes to track go up now the problem with that is Two big things one thing is the government gets to create the market basket and so they keep changing what's in the basket over time so I mean If I keep if I said three years ago You should go see 10 concerts a year and the concert tickets now cost 200 each now. It's 2000 a year to go see concerts Now i'm in charge of calculating inflation So I redefine, you know your entertainment quota for the year to be eight netflix streaming concerts and now they don't cost $2,000 they cost nothing and there is no inflation, but you don't get your concerts, right? So the problem starts with Continually changing the definition of the market basket, but in my opinion, that's not the biggest problem the more the more egregious problem Is the the fundamental idea that assets aren't products or services? Assets can't be inflated. What's an asset a house? a share of apple stock um a bond Um any a bitcoin is an asset um, or uh a picasso painting so Not a consumable good Not a uh, not not not an apple that you can eat Right, right if I throw away an asset then uh, i'm not on the hook to track the inflation rate for it, so What happens if I change the policy such that? Let's take the classic example a million dollar bond at a five percent interest rate gives you fifty thousand dollars a year in risk-free income You might retire on fifty thousand dollars a year in a low-cost jurisdiction So the cost of social security or early retirement is one million dollars when the interest rate is five percent During the the crisis of march of 2020 the interest rate went on a 10-year bond went to 50 basis points Okay. So now the cost of that bond is 10 million dollars Okay, the cost of social security went from a million dollars to 10 million dollars 10 million dollars. So if you wanted to work your entire life save money and then retire risk-free and live happily ever after On a fifty thousand dollar salary live in on a beach in mexico wherever you wanted to go You had hyperinflation the cost of your aspiration increased by a factor of 10 over the course of You know some amount of time in fact in that case that was like over the course of about 12 years Right as the inflation rate ground down the asset traded up But the you know, the conventional view is oh, that's not a problem Because it's good that that assets it's good that the bond is highly priced because we own the bond or What's the problem with the inflation rate in housing being 19 percent? It's an awful problem for a 22 year old that's starting their first job that's saving money to buy a house But it would be characterized as a benefit to society by a conventional economist who would say well Housing asset values are higher because of interest rate fluctuation and now the economy's got more wealth And uh, and so that's that's viewed as a benefit so the what's being missed here like the suffering of the average person or the The struggle the suffering the pain of the average person Like metrics that captured that within the economic system. Is that is it when you talk one way to say it is a conventional view of inflation as cpi Understates the human misery that's in fact inflicted upon the working class and and on mainstream companies By by By the political class and so it's a massive shift of wealth from the working class to the property class It's a massive shift of power from the free market. Uh to the Centrally governed or the controlled market It's a massive shift of power from the people to the government and and Maybe one one more illustrative point here. Alexis Is uh, what do you think the inflation rate's been for the past hundred years? Are we talking about the scalar again? If you if you took a survey of everybody on the street and you asked them, what do they think inflation was? What is it? You know? You remember when Jerome Powell said our target's two percent, but we're not there If you go around the corner I have uh posted the deed to this house sold in 1930 Okay, and uh the number on that deed is 100 000 1930 and if you go on zillow And you get the z estimate. Is it higher than that? No 30 million five hundred thousand dollars. Yeah, so That's uh, 92 years 1930 or 2022 And and in 92 years we've had 305 x increase in price 305 x increase in price of the house Now if you actually back calculate you can you come to a conclusion that the inflation rate was approximately six and a half percent a year every year for 92 years Okay, and and there's nobody Nobody in government no conventional economists that would ever admit to an inflation rate of seven percent a year in the u.s dollar over the last century now if you if you uh dig deeper I mean one one guy that's done a great job working on this is seifedeen almos who wrote Who wrote the book the bitcoin standard and he notes that on average it looks like? The inflation rate and the money supply is about seven percent a year all the way up to the year 2020 If you look at the s&p index, which is a market basket of scarce desirable stocks It returned about 10 percent a year If you talk to 10 a year for 100 years The money supply is expanding at seven percent a hundred years If you actually talk to economists or you look at the the economy and you ask the question how fast does the economy grow? In its entirety year over year Generally about two to three percent like the sum total impact of all this technology and human ingenuity Might get you a two and a half three percent improvement a year as measured by gdp Is that are you okay with that? I'm not sure i'm not sure I'd go that far yet, but I would just say that If you had the human race doing stuff Yeah And if you ask the question how much more efficiently will we do the stuff next year than this year or how what's the value? of all of our innovations and inventions and investments in the past 12 months You'd be hard-pressed to say we get two percent better Typical investor thinks they they're ten percent better every year So if you look at what's going on Really when you're holding a million dollars of stocks and you're getting a ten percent gain a year you really get a seven percent expansion of the money supply You're getting a two or three percent gain under best circumstances And another way to say that is Is if the money supply stopped expanding at seven percent a year the s&p yield might be three percent and not ten percent It probably should be Now that that gets you to start to ask a bunch of other fundamental questions like if I borrow a billion dollars and pay three percent interest and the money supply expands at seven to ten percent a year and I ended up making a ten percent return on a you know billion dollar investment paying three percent interest Is that fair? and who who who suffered so that I could do that because In an environment where you're just inflating the money supply and you're holding the assets constant It stands the reason that the price of all the assets is going to appreciate somewhat proportional to the money supply And the difference in asset appreciations is going to be a function of the scarce desirable quality of the assets And to what extent can I make more of them and to what extent are they are they truly limited in supply? Yeah, so we'll get to a lot of the words you said there the scarcity uh And so connected to how limited they are and the value of those assets, but you also said so the expansion of the money supply which is Is put in other ways printing money and so is is that always bad the expansion of the money supply? Is this just uh to put some terms on the table so we understand them? um You nonchalantly say it's always the on average expanding every year the money supply is expanding every year by seven percent That's a bad thing. That's a that's a universally a bad thing It's awful But I guess I guess to be precise Uh, it's the currency That I mean Money, uh, I would say money is monetary energy or economic energy And the economic energy has to find its way into a medium So if you want to move it rapidly as a medium of exchange has to find its way into currency But the money can also flow into property like a house or gold If the money flows into property It'll probably hold its value much better if the money flows into currency, right if you had put a hundred thousand dollars in this house You would have 305 x return over 92 years But if you would put the money a hundred thousand dollars in a safe deposit box and buried it in the basement You would have lost 99.7 percent of your wealth over the same time period so So the expansion of the currency currency Creates, uh creates a massive inefficiency in the society what i'll call an adiabatic lapse It's what we're doing is we're bleeding The civilization to death right the antibiotic adiabatic. What's that word? That's adiabatic adiabatic Right and aerospace engineering you want to solve any problem? They they start with the phrase assume an adiabatic system and what that means is a closed system Okay, so i've got it. I've got a container and in that container no air leaves and no air enters No energy exits or enters. So it's a closed system So you got the closed system lapse Okay What's a clue? Okay, i'm gonna use a there's a leak in the ship I'm gonna use a physical metaphor for you because you're the jujitsu right like yeah, like you got 10 pints of blood in your body Mm-hmm. And so before your next uh workout i'm gonna take one pint from you Now you're gonna go exercise, but you're one point you've lost 10 of your blood Okay You're not going to perform as well. It takes about one month for your body to replace the red blood platelets So what if I tell you every month you got to show up and i'm gonna bleed you Yeah, okay. So, uh, so if i'm draining the energy i'm draining i'm draining the blood from your body You can't perform if you adiabatic lapse is when you go up in altitude every thousand feet you lose three degrees You go 50 000 feet. You're 150 degrees colder than sea level. That's why you you know, you look at your Instruments and instead of 80 degrees you're minus 70 degrees Why is the temperature falling temperatures falling because it's not a closed system It's an open system as the air expands the density falls Falls right the energy the energy per Per cubic whatever, you know falls and therefore the temperature falls right the heat's falling out of the solution so When you're inflating let's say you're inflating the money the currency supply by six percent You're sucking six percent of the energy Out of the fluid that the economy is using to function. So the currency this kind of Ocean of currency. That's a it's a nice way for the economy to function. It's the most kind of uh, It's being inefficient when you expand the money supply, but it's uh, That look it's the liquid i'm trying to find the right kind of adjective here It's how you you do transactions at a scale of billions Currency is the asset we use To move monetary energy around and you could use the dollar or you could use the peso or you could use the boulevard Selling houses and buying houses is much more inefficient or like you can't Transact between billions of people with houses. Yeah properties don't make such good mediums of exchange They make better stores of value and they they have utility value if it's a Utility value if it's a if it's a ship or a house or or a plane or a bushel of corn Right. Can I zoom out just for yeah, can we zoom out keep zooming out until we reach the origin of human civilization? But on the way ask You gave economists a d-minus I'm, not even going to ask you what you give to governments Uh, do you think their failure economists and government failure is malevolence or incompetence? I think uh Policymakers are well intentioned. But generally all all government policy is inflationary and all government It's inflammatory and inflationary. So what I mean by that is You know when you have a policy, uh pursuing Supply chain independence if you have an energy policy if you have a labor policy if you have a trade policy if you have a You know any any kind of foreign policy a domestic policy a manufacturing policy Every one of these a medical policy every one of these policies interferes with the free market and and generally Prevents some rational actor from doing it in a cheaper more efficient way So when you layer them On top of each other they all have to be paid for If you want to shut down the entire economy for a year you have to pay for it Right if you want to fight a war you have to pay for it Right if you don't want to use oil or natural gas you have to pay for it If you don't want to manufacture semiconductors in china and you want to manufacture them in the us you got to pay for it If I rebuild the entire supply chain in pennsylvania and I hire a new Supply chain in pennsylvania, and I hire a bunch of employees and then I unionize the employees then not only am I I idle the factory in the far east it goes to 50 capacity So so whatever it sells it has to raise the price on And then I drive up the cost of labor for every other manufacturer in the u.s. Because I competing against them right i'm changing their conditions, so Everything gets less efficient. Everything gets more expensive And of course the government couldn't really pay for Uh its policies and its wars with taxes We didn't pay for world war one with tax. We didn't pay for world war two with tax We didn't pay for vietnam with tax In fact, you know when you trace this what you realize is the government Never pays for all of its policies with taxes. It's too painful to ask to raise the taxes to truly Transparently pay for the things you're doing with taxes with taxpayer money because they feel that's one Interpretation or it's just too transparent Like if people if people understood the the the true cost of war They wouldn't want to go to war if you were told that you would lose 95 of your assets, you know and 90 of everything you will be ever will be taken from you you might Demoralize your thought about a given policy and you might not vote for that politician, but you're still saying incompetence not malevolence So fundamentally government creates a bureaucracy of incompetence is kind of how you look at it I think a lack of humility, right? like uh, like If if people had more humility than they would realize Uh humility about how little they know how little they understand about the function of complex systems The phrase from quinny's towards movie unforgiven where he says a man's got to know his limitations I I think that a lot of people overestimate What they can accomplish and experience experience in life causes you to uh To reevaluate that so I I mean i've done a lot of things in my life and and generally My mistakes were always my good ideas that I enthusiastically pursued to the detriment of my Great ideas that required 150 of my attention To prosper so I think people pursue too many good ideas, you know, they all sound good But there's just a limit to to what you can accomplish and everybody underestimates the challenges of of implementing an idea right and uh, and they always overestimate the benefits Of the pursuit of that. So I think it's an overconfidence that causes an over exuberance in pursuit of policies and As the ambition of the government expands so must the currency supply Well, you know, I could say the money supply, but let's say the currency supply You can triple the number of pesos in the economy But it doesn't triple, uh the amount of manufacturing capacity in the said economy And it doesn't triple the amount of assets in the economy. It just triples the pesos. So as you increase the currency supply Then the price of all those scarce desirable things will tend to go up rapidly go up rapidly and the confidence of uh, all of the institutions the corporations and the individual actors And trading partners will will collapse if we take a tangent on a tangent and we will return soon to the uh, the big human civilization question So if government Naturally wants to buy stuff it can't afford What's the best form of government? uh anarchism Libertarianism so not even there's not even armies. There's no borders. That's anarchism the least the smallest possible The smallest possible the best the best government would be the least and the debate will be over that When you think about this stuff, do you think about okay government is the way it is I As a person that can generate great ideas. How do I operate in this world? Or do you also think about the big picture if we start a new? Civilization somewhere on mars. Do you think about like what's the ultimate form of government? What's uh, at least a promising thing to try? You know, um I have laser eyes on my profile Yes, twitter lex. What does that mean? And the significance of laser eyes is to focus On the thing that can make a difference. Yes, and um If I look at the civilization um, I would say Half the problems in the civilization Are due to the fact that our understanding of economics and money is defective Half 50. I don't know. It's worth 500 trillion dollars worth of problems like money money represents all the Economic energy in the civilization and it kind of equates to all the products all the services and all the assets That we have and we're ever gonna have so that's half the other half of the problems in the civilization are medical and and military and political and philosophical and you know and uh natural And I think that there are a lot of different solutions To all those problems and they're all they are all uh Honorable professions and and they all merit a lifetime of consideration for the specialist in all those areas I I think that What I could offer is What I could offer it's constructive is um Inflation is completely misunderstood. It's a much bigger problem than we understand it to be We need to introduce engineering and science techniques into economics if we want to further the human condition All government policy is inflationary You know and another pernicious myth is uh inflation is always Is and everywhere a monetary phenomena, you know a famous quote by milton friedman, I believe it's like it's a monetary phenomenon That is inflation comes from expanding the currency supply It's a nice phrase And it's oftentimes quoted by people that are anti-inflation But again, it it just signifies a lack of appreciation of what the issue is Inflation is if I if I had a currency, which was completely Non-inflationary if if I never printed another dollar And if I eliminated fractional reserve banking from the face of the earth We'd still have inflation And we'd have inflation as long as we have government that that is capable of pursuing any kind of policies That are in them self inflationary and generally they all are so in general Inflationary is the big uh characteristic of human nature that Government's collection of groups that have power over others and allocate other people's resources will try to Intentionally or not hide the costs of those Allocations like in some tricky ways, whatever the options that are available you know hiding the cost is like is like the the tertiary thing like The the primary goal is the government will attempt to do good Right, and that's the fundamental. That's the primary problem They will attempt to do good and they will and they will do it and they will do good imperfectly and they will create oftentimes, uh as much damage More damage than the good they do most government policy will be iatrogenic It will it will create more harm than good in the pursuit of it, but it is what it is the secondary uh, the secondary Issue is they will unintentionally pay for it by expanding the currency supply without realizing that they're uh They're actually paying for it in In a suboptimal fashion. They'll collapse their own currencies while they attempt to do good The the tertiary issue is they will mismeasure How badly they're collapsing the currency? So for example, if you go to the bureau of labor statistics, you know and look at the numbers printed by the fed They'll say oh, it looks like the dollar has lost 95 percent of its purchasing power over 100 years Okay, they sort of fess up there's a problem, but they make it 95 percent loss over 100 years. What they don't do is Realize it's a 99.7 percent loss over 80 years. So they will mismeasure just the horrific extent of the monetary policy in pursuit of the foreign policy and the domestic policy which they They they overestimate Their budget and their means to accomplish their ends and they underestimate the cost And and they're oblivious to the horrific damage that they do to the civilization because The mental models that they use that are conventionally taught are wrong, right? The mental model that Like it's okay. We can print all this money because the velocity of the money is low Right because money velocity is a scalar and inflation is the scalar and we don't see two percent inflation yet And the money velocity is low and so it's okay if we print Trillions of dollars. Well The money velocity was immediate Right the velocity of money through the crypto economy Is 10 000 times faster? Than the velocity of money through the consumer economy Right. It's I think nick pointed out when you spoke to him He said it takes two months for a credit card transaction to settle Right, so you want to spend a million dollars in the consumer economy. You can move it six times a year You you put a million dollars into gold gold will sit In a vault for a decade. Okay, so the velocity of money through gold is 0.1 You put the money in the stock market and you can trade it once a week. The settlement is t plus two Maybe you get to two to one leverage. You might get to a money velocity of a hundred a year In the stock market You put your money into the crypto economy and these people are settling every four hours And and you know if you're offshore they're trading with 20x leverage So if you if you settle every day and you trade the 20x leverage, you just went to 7 000 Okay, so the the velocity of the money varies I think the politicians that they don't really understand inflation and they don't understand economics, but but you can't blame them Because the economists don't understand economics because the because if they did They would be creating They would be creating multivariate computer simulations where they actually put in The price of every piece of housing in every city in the world The full array of foods and the full array of products and the full array of assets And then on a monthly basis, they would publish all those results and where and that's a high bandwidth requirement And I I think that people don't really want to embrace it and and also there's the most pernicious thing Like there's that phrase You know, you you can't tell people what to think but you can tell them what to think about the most pernicious thing Is is I get you to miss? understand the phenomena So that even when it's happening to you You don't appreciate that. It's a bad thing and you think it's a good thing So if housing prices are going up 20 year over year and I say this is great for the american public because most most of Them are homeowners Then I have I have misrepresented a phenomena inflation is 20 Not seven percent and then I have misrepresented it as being a positive rather than a negative And people will stare at it and you could even show them Their house on fire and they would perceive it as being great because it's warming them up and they're going to save on their heat Cost it does seem that the cruder the model whether it's economics or their psychology The easier it is to weave whatever the heck narrative you want And not in a malicious way, but just like it's it's some some kind of like Emergent phenomena this narrative thing that we tell ourselves so you can tell any kind of story about inflation Inflation is good. Inflation is bad like the cruder the model the easier just to tell a narrative about it And that's what the so like if you take an engineering approach It's I feel like it becomes more and more difficult To run away from sort of a true deep understanding Of the dynamics of the system I mean honestly if you if you went to 100 people on the street and you asked them to define inflation How many would how many would say? It's a vector tracking the change in price of every product service asset in the world over time No, not me. No if if you if you went to them and you said You know, do you think two percent inflation a year is good or bad? The majority would probably say well here it's good. You know, I'm not sure The majority of economists would say two percent inflation a year is good And of course there's look at the ship next to us. What if I told you that? the ship leaked Two percent right of its volume every something right? The ship is rotting two percent a year That means the useful life of the ship is 50 years now Ironically, that's true like a wooden ship had a 50 year to 100 year life span 50 year to 100 year life 100 be long 50 years not unlikely. So when we built ships out of wood They had a useful life of about 50 years And then they sunk they rotted there's nothing good about it, right? You build a ship out of steel, you know, and it's zero as opposed to two percent degradation And how much better is zero percent versus two percent? well Two percent means you have a useful life of you know, it's half life at 35 years Two two percent is a half life of 35 years. That's basically the half life of money and gold If I store your life force in gold Under perfect circumstances you have a useful life at 35 years Zero percent is a useful life of forever So zero percent is immortal Two percent is 35 years average life expectancy Life expectancy So that the idea that you would think the life expectancy of the currency and the civilization should be 35 years instead of forever Is it's kind of a silly notion, but the tragic notion is It was it was you know 7 into 70 or 10 years it's the money has had a half life of 10 years except for the fact that in weak societies and Argentina or the like the half life of the money is Is three to four years in Venezuela one year so the United States dollar Uh, and the United States economic system was the most successful economic system in the last hundred years in the world We won every war we were the world superpower Our currency lost 99.7 of its value and that means horrifically every other currency Lost everything right in essence that the other ones were 99.9 except for most that were 100 because they all completely failed and uh You know, you've got a you've got a mainstream economic community, you know that thinks that Inflation is a number and two percent is desirable It's it's it's kind of like You know, remember george washington, you know how he died no Well-meaning physicians bled him to death Okay, the last thing in the world you would want to do to a sick person is bleed them right in the modern world I think we understand that that oxygen is carried by the blood cells and and you know and if uh You know, there's that phrase right? Uh, Triage phrase. What's the first thing you do in an injury? Stop the bleeding Single first thing right you show up after any action I look at you stop the bleeding because you're going to be dead in a matter of minutes if you bleed out so It strikes me as being ironic that orthodox conventional wisdom was bleed the patient to death and this was the most important patient in the country Maybe in the history of the country and it's and we bled him to death trying to help him So when you're actually inflating the money supply at seven percent, but you're calling it two percent because you want to help the economy You're literally bleeding the the free market to death But the sad fact is george washington went along with it because he thought that they were going to do him good and And the majority of of uh the society most companies Most most conventional thinkers, you know the working class they go along with this because they think that Someone has their best interest at mind and the people that are bleeding them to death believe they they believe that prescription because their mental models are just so defective and their understanding of energy and engineering and and uh, and the economics that are at play is uh Is crippled by these mental models, but that's both the bug and the feature of human civilization that ideas take hold They unite us we believe in them uh And we make a lot of cool stuff happen by in as an average sort of just the fact of the matter A lot of people believe the same thing they get together and they get some shit done because they believe that thing And then some ideas can be really bad and really destructive But on average the ideas seem to be progressing In in the direction of good. Let me just step back What the hell are we doing here us humans on this earth? How do you think of humans? How special are humans? How did human civilization? Civilization originate on this earth and what is this human project? They're all taking on You mentioned uh fire and water and apparently bleeding you to death is not a good idea I thought I always thought you can get the demons out in that way, but Um, that was a recent Invention. So what what's this thing? We're doing here? I think what distinguishes uh human beings from all the other creatures on the earth is is Our ability to engineer We're engineers right to solve problems or just build incredible cool things engineering Harnessing energy and technique to make the world a better place than you found it Right from the point that we actually started to play with fire right that that was a big leap forward uh harnessing the power of of kinetic energy and missiles another another step forward Every city built on water. Why water? Well water is bringing energy right if you actually If you actually put a turbine, you know on a river or are you uh, Or you capture a change in elevation of water. You've literally harnessed gravitational energy Energy, but you know water is also bringing you food. It's also giving you you know A cheap form of uh getting rid of your waste. It's also giving you free transportation You want to move one ton blocks around you want to move them in water? So I think I mean the the human story is really the story of engineering a better world um and and uh The the rise in the human condition is determined by those Uh groups of people those civilizations that were best at harnessing energy Right if you if you look, you know the greek civilization, they built it around Around ports and seaports and and water and created a trading network The romans were really good at harnessing all sorts of of engineering. I mean the aqueducts are a great example if you go to any big city You travel through cities in the med you find that you know The carrying capacity of the city or the island is 5 000 people without running water And then if you can find a way to bring water to it increases by a factor of 10 and so Human flourishing is really only possible through that channeling of energy Right that eventually takes the the form of uh Air power, right? I mean that ship I mean look at the intricacy of those sails I mean, it's just the model is intricate now think about all of the experimentation that took place to figure out how many sails to put on that ship and how to rig them and how to repair them and How to operate them It's thousands of lives Spent thinking through all the tiny little details All to increase the efficiency of this the effectiveness the efficiency of this ship As it sails through water and we should also note there's a bunch of cannons on the side. So obviously another form of engineering right energy harnessing with Explosives to achieve what end that's another discussion exactly I suppose we're trying to get off the planet right? I mean, well, there's a selection mechanism going on So natural selection this whatever however evolution works. It seems that one of the interesting inventions on earth Was the predator prey dynamic? That you want to be the bigger fish That violence seems to serve a useful purpose if you look at earth as a whole we as humans Now like to think of violence is really a bad thing It seems to be one of the Amazing things about humans is we're ultimately tend towards cooperation. We want to we like peace If you just look at history, we want things to be nice and calm and But just wars break out every once in a while and lead to immense suffering and destruction and so on and they have a kind of Like resetting the palette Effect it's one that's full of just Immeasurable human suffering but it's like a way to start over We're clearly apex predator on the planet And I googled something the other day, you know, what's the most common form of mammal? life on earth By by number of organisms count by count and the answer that came back was I was shocked. I couldn't believe it right says like apparently if we're just looking at mammals The answer was human beings are the most common which was very interesting to me I almost didn't believe it but I was trying to you know, eight billion or so human beings So there's no other mammal that's got more than eight billion If you walk through downtown edinburgh and scotland and you look up on this hill and this castle up on the hill You know, it's it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a hill You know and you talk to people and the story is oh, yeah Well, that was uh, that was a british castle before it's a scottish castle before it was a pic castle before as a roman castle Before it was, you know Some other celtic castle before you know, then they found 13 prehistoric castles buried one under the other under the other And you get to you get to conclusion that a hundred thousand years ago Somebody showed up and grabbed the high point the apex of the city And they built a stronghold there And they flourished and their family flourished and their tribe flourished until someone came along and knocked them off the hill and it's been a non-stop never-ending fight by the the aggressive most powerful entity family Organization municipality tribe whatever off the hill for that one hill going back since time immemorial and you know You scratch your head and and you think it seems like it's like just this never-ending But doesn't that lead if you just all kinds of metrics that seems to improve The quality of our cannons and ships as a result like it seems that war Just like your laser eyes focuses the mind on the engineering tasks It is that and and and it does remind you That the winner is always the most powerful And and and we we throw that phrase out but no one thinks about what that phrase means Like like who's the most powerful or the you know, or the most powerful side one, but they don't think about it And they think about power Energy delivered in a period of time and then you think A guy with a spear is more powerful than someone with their fist and someone with a bow and arrow is more powerful than the person with the spear and Then you realize that somebody with bronze is more powerful than without and steel is more powerful than bronze And if you look at the romans You know, they persevered, you know with artillery and they could stand off from 800 meters and blast you to smithereens right there You know you study the history of the belaric sling You know, you think we invented bullets, but they they invented bullets to put in slings Thousands of years ago they could have stood off 500 meters and put a hole in your head Right and so there was never a time when uh when humanity wasn't vying To come up with an asymmetric form of projecting their own power via technology An absolute power is when a leader is able to control a large amount Of humans they're facing the same direction Working in the same direction to leverage Energy the most organized society wins Yeah, when the romans were were Dominating everybody they were the most organized civilization in europe As long as they stayed organized they they dominated and at some point they over expanded and got disorganized and they collapsed And uh, I guess you could say that, you know the struggle of the human condition It catalyzes the development of new technologies one after the other it penalizes Anybody that? rejects ocean power Right gets penalized you reject artillery and you get a lot of Power right gets penalized you reject artillery you get penalized you reject atomic power you get penalized If you reject digital power cyber power you get penalized And uh and the the underlying control of the property keeps shifting hands from You know one institution or one government to another based upon how rationally they're able to channel that energy Energy and how well organized or coordinated they are. Well, that's a really interesting thing about both human mind and governments That they once they get a few good and companies once they get a few good ideas. They seem to stick with them They reject new ideas It's almost uh, whether that's emergent or however that evolved It seems to have a really interesting effect because when you're young You fight for the new ideas you push them through then a few of us Humans find success then we get complacent We take over the world using that new idea and then the the new young person with the better new idea Uh challenges you and you uh as opposed to pivoting you stick with the old and lose because of it And that's how empires collapse and they just both at the individual level that happens when two academics fighting about ideas or something like that and at the uh At the human civilization level governments, they hold on to the ideas of old It's fascinating Yeah, an ever persistent Theme in the history of science is the paradigm shifts and the paradigms shift when the old guard dies and a new generation arrives or the paradigm shifts when there's a war and everyone that disagrees with the idea of Aviation finds bombs dropping on their head or everyone that disagrees with whatever your technology is has a rude awakening and if they totally disagree their society collapses and they're replaced by that new thing A lot of the engineering you talked about had to do with ships and cannons And leveraging water. What about this whole digital thing that's happening been happening over the past century Is that still engineering in your mind? You're starting to operate in these bits of information I think there's two big ideas The first wave of ideas were digital information and that was the internet way been running since The internet way been running since 1990 or so for 30 years and the second wave is digital energy So if I look at digital information This idea that we want to digitally transform a book I'm going to dematerialize every book in this room into bits and then i'm going to deliver a copy of the entire library to a billion people and i'm going to do it for pretty much de minimis electricity If I can dematerialize music books education entertainment maps right that That uh is an incredibly like exothermic Transaction it gives it's a crystallization When we collapse into a lower energy state as a civilization and we give off massive amounts of energy Like if you look at what carnegie did the richest man in the world created libraries everywhere At the time and he gave away his entire fortune and now we can give a better library to every six-year-old for nothing and so What's the value of giving a million books to a? Eight billion people right? Right? That's that's the explosion in prosperity that comes from digital transformation And uh when we do it with maps You know, I I transform the map I put it into a car you get in the car and the car drives you where you want To go with the map right and how much better is that than a ram mcnally atlas right here? It's like it's like a million times better. Yeah, so the first wave of digital transformation Was the dematerialization of all of these informational things which are non-conservative That is you know, I could take beethoven's fifth symphony Played for by the best orchestra in germany, and I could give it to a billion people and they could play it a thousand times each At less than the cost of the one performance, right? So so I deliver culture and education and erudition and intelligence and insight to the entire civilization over digital rails And the consequences of the human race are first order generally good First order generally good, right? The world is a better place. It drives growth and you create these trillion dollar entities Like ample and amazon and facebook and google and microsoft Right, that is the first wave The second wave do you mind i'm sorry to interrupt but that first wave um It feels like the impact that's positive That's positive. You said the first order impact is generally positive. It feels like it's positive in a way that nothing else in history Has been positive And then we may not actually truly uh be able to understand the orders and magnitude of increase in productivity in just progress of human civilization Until we look back centuries from now it just feel or maybe i'm like that just like just looking at the impact of wikipedia right the Giving access to basic wisdom or basic knowledge and then perhaps wisdom to billions of people If you can just linger on that for a second What's your sense of the impact of that? You know I would say if you're a If you're a technologist Philosopher The impact of a technology is so much greater on the civilization and the human condition than A non-technology that is almost not worth your trouble to bother trying to fix things a conventional way. So let's take example I have a foundation the sailor academy and the sailor academy gives away a Free education free college education to anybody on earth that wants it And we've had more than a million students And if you go when you take the physics class The lectures were by the same physics lecturer that taught me physics at mit Except when I was at mit The cost of the first four weeks of mit Would have drained my family's life collective life savings for the first last hundred years. Yeah, like a hundred years worth of my father My grandfather my great-grandfather they saved every penny they had after a hundred years They could have paid for one week or two weeks of mit. That's how fiendishly expensive and inefficient it was so Yes, I went on scholarship. I was lucky to have a scholarship but on the other hand I sat in the back of Of the 801 lecture hall and I was like right up in the rafters It's an awful experience on these like uncomfortable wooden benches and you can barely see the blackboard And you got to be there synchronously and the stuff we upload you can start it and stop it and watch it on your ipad or watch it on your Computer and rewind it multiple times and sit in a comfortable chair and you can do it from anywhere on earth and it's absolutely free So I think about this and I think You want to improve the human condition? You need people with postgraduate level education You need phds and I know this sounds kind of elitist, but you want to cure cancer and you know You want to go to the stars? Fusion drive we need new propulsion, right? We need we need extraordinary breakthroughs In every area of basic science, you know be it biology or propulsion or material science or computer science You're not doing that with an undergraduate degree. You're certainly not doing it with a high school education But the cost of a phd is like a million bucks There's like 10 million phds in the world if you go do that if you check it out There's 8 billion people in the world How many people could get a phd or would want to maybe not 8 billion, but a billion 500 million, let's just say 500 million to a billion. How do you go from 10 million to a billion? highly educated people all of them specializing in And I don't have to tell you how many different fields of human endeavor there are I mean your life is interviewing these experts and There's so many Right, you know, it's it's it's amazing. So how do I give? A multi-million dollar education to a billion people and there's two choices You can either endow a scholarship in which case you pay seventy five thousand dollars a year Okay, seventy five thou let's pay a million dollars and a million dollars a person I can do it that way And you're never Even if you had a trillion dollars If you had 10 trillion dollars to throw at the problem, and we've just thrown 10 trillion dollars at certain problems Yeah, you don't solve the problem Right if I if I put 10 trillion dollars on the table and I said educate everybody give them all a phd You still wouldn't solve the problem harvard university can't educate 18 000 people Simultaneously or 87 000 or 800 000 or 8 million? So you have to dematerialize the professor and dematerialize the experience so you put it all as streaming on-demand computer generated education And you create simulations where you need to create simulations and you upload it it's like the human condition is being held back by 500 000 well-meaning, um average algebra teachers I Love them. I mean, please don't take offense if you're an algebra teacher, but instead of 500 000 algebra teachers going through the same motion over and over again What you need is is like one or five or ten really good algebra teachers And they need to do it a billion times a day or a billion times a year for free And if we do that There's no reason why you can't give infinite education Certainly in uh in science technology engineering and math, right? infinite education to everybody With no constraint and I I think the same is true, right with just about every other thing you if you want to Bring joy to the world. You need digital music if you want to bring, you know enlightenment to the world you need digital education if if you you know want to bring Anything of consequence in the world you got to digitally transform it and then you got to manufacture it something like A hundred times more efficiently as a start but a million times more efficiently Is is probably Optimistic, you know, that's that's hopeful. Maybe you have a chance and If you look at all of these uh space endeavors and everything We're thinking about getting to mars getting off the planet getting to other worlds Number one thing you got to do is you got to make a fundamental breakthrough in an engine People dreamed about flying for thousands of years, but until until the internal combustion engine You didn't have enough You know enough energy enough enough power in a light enough package In order to solve the problem and and the human race has all sorts of those fundamental engines and materials and techniques That we need to master and each one of them is a lifetime of experimentation of someone capable of making a seminal contribution To the body of human knowledge. There's certain problems like education that could be solved through this process of dematerialization and by the way To give props to the 500k algebra teachers When I look at youtube for example One possible approach is each one of those 500 000 teachers Probably had days and moments of brilliance and if they had ability to contribute to In the natural selection process like the market of education Where the best ones rise up? That's that's a really interesting way, which is like the best The best day of your life the best lesson you've ever taught could be found and sort of broadcast to billions of people So all of those kinds of ideas can be made real in the digital world now traveling across planets You still can't solve that problem With dematerialization what you could solve potentially is Dematerializing the human brain where you can transfer transfer like you don't need to have astronauts on the ship You can have a floppy disk carrying a human brain Touching on those points you'd love for the 500 000 algebra teachers to become 500 000 math Specialists and maybe they clump into 50 000 specialties as teams and they all pursue 50 000 new problems And they put their algebra teaching on autopilot That's the same. That's the same as when I give you 11 cents worth of electricity and you don't have to row You know row a boat eight hours a day before you can eat, right? Yes It would be a lot better You know that you would pay for your food in the first eight seconds of your day And then you could start thinking about other things, right? with regard to Technology, you know One thing that I learned studying technology when you look at s curves is Until you start the s curve You don't know whether you're a hundred years from viability A thousand years from viability or a few months from viability. So Isn't that fun? That's so fun. The the early part of the s curve is so fun Because you don't know in 1900 1900 you could have got any number of learned Academics to give you 10 000 reasons why humans will never fly Right and in 1903 the wright brothers flew and by 1969 we're walking on the moon so the advance that we made in that field was Extraordinary, but for the hundred years and 200 years before they were just back and forth and nobody was close and um And that's the the happy part. The happy part is we went from Flying 20 miles an hour or whatever to flying 25 000 miles an hour in 66 years the unhappy part Is I studied aeronautical engineering at mit in the 80s? And in the 80s we had uh, gulfstream aircraft. We had boeing 737s We had the space shuttle and you fast forward 40 years And we pretty much had the same exact aircraft this you know that the efficiency of the engines was 20 30 percent more. Yeah, right what we slammed into a brick wall around 69 to 75 like in fact, uh You know the global express the gulfstream. These were all engineered in the 70s Some in the 60s that the actual that the actual the fuselage, uh silhouette of a gulfstream of a g5 was the same shape as a g4 is the same shape as A g3 is the same shape as a g2 And that's because they were afraid to change the shape for 40 years because they worked it out in a wind tunnel I knew it worked And when they finally decided to change the shape it was like a 10 billion dollar exercise with modern supercomputers and computational fluid dynamics Why was it so hard? What was? What is what is that wall made of that you slammed into the right question? Is so why does a guy that went to mit that got an aeronautical engineering degree spend his career in software? Like why is it that I never a day in my life? With the exception of some air force reserve work I never got paid to be an aeronautical engineer and I worked in software engineering my entire career Maybe software engineering is the new aeronautical engineering in some way Maybe like maybe you hit fundamental walls in certain until you have to return to it centuries later Or no, the national gallery of art was endowed by a very rich man Andrew mellon and you know how he made his money aluminum Okay, and and so And you know what kind of airplanes you can create without aluminum? You can create without aluminum nothing nothing right so it's a material so it's a materialist problem. Okay, so 1900 we we made massive advances in metallurgy, right? I mean that was that was us steel that was iron to steel aluminum Massive fortunes were created because this is a massive technical advance and then we also had the internal combustion engine and you know the story of ford and general motors and daimler chrysler and the like is Informed by that So you have no jet engines. No rocket motors. No internal combustion engines. You have no aviation But even if you had those engines if you were trying to build those things with steel No chance you had to have aluminum. So there's like two pretty basic Technologies and once you have those two technologies stuff happens very fast so Tell me the the last big advance in like jet engines There hasn't been one Like there has the last big advance in rocket engines Hasn't been one the big advances in spaceship design from what I can see are in the control systems The the gyros and the ability to land Right in a stable fashion. That's pretty amazing landing a rocket also in the I guess according to Elon and so on the manufacturer of the more efficient and Less expensive manufacturer of rockets. So like it's a production whatever that you call that discipline of At scale manufacture at scale production. So factory work, but it's not 10x But it's not 10x. I mean, maybe it's 10x over a period of a few decades when we figure out how to operate a Spaceship, you know on the water in your water bottle for a year Yeah, right now then you've got a breakthrough. So the bottom line is propulsion propellant propulsion technology uh propellants and the materials technology Technology they were critical to getting on that aviation s-curve and then we slammed into a wall in the 70s and the boeing 747 The global express the gulf stream these things were the space shuttle they were all pretty much reflective of that and then we kind of Then we stopped and at that point you have to switch to a new s-curve. So the next Equivalent to the internal combustion engine was the cpu and the next aluminum equivalent was silicon so when we actually started developing cpus Transistor gave way to cpus and if you look at the the power Right the bandwidth that we had on computers and moore's law, right? What if the efficiency of jet engines? had doubled every three years Right in the last 40 years where we'd be right now, right? so So I I think that if you're if you're a business person if you're looking for commercially viable application of your mind Then you have to find that s-curve and ideally You you have to find it in the first five six ten years But people always miss this. Let's let's take google glass Right google glass was a idea 2013 2013 the year is 2022 And people were quite sure this was going to be a big thing, but it could have been At the at the beginning of the s-curve, but fundamentally We didn't really have an effective mechanism. I mean people getting vertigo and there you didn't know that at the beginning Right. I mean, maybe some people had a deep intuition about the fundamentals of augmented reality But you don't know that you don't have those. Uh, you're looking through the fog. You don't know So the point is we're year zero in 2013 and we're still year zero in 2022 On that augmented reality and when somebody puts out a set of glasses That you can wear comfortably without getting vertigo right, uh without any Disorientation that managed to have the stability and the bandwidth necessary to sync with the real world. You'll be in year one And and from that point you'll have a 70 year or some some interesting future until you slam into a limit to growth And then it'll slow down and This this is the story of a lot of things right? I mean john d rockefeller got in the oil business in the 1860s 1860s And the oil business as we understood it, you know became fairly mature, you know by the 1920s the 30s and then it actually stayed that way until we got to fracking and Which was like 70 years later and then it burst forward so the interesting story about moore's law though is that you get this like Constant burst of s curves on top of s curves on top of s curve. It's like the moment you start slowing down Or almost ahead of you slowing down you come up with another innovation another innovation So moore's law doesn't seem to happen in every Technological advancement. It seems like you only get a couple of s curves and then you're done for a bit So I wonder what the pressures there are that resulted in such success over several decades and still going Humility dictates that nobody knows when the s curve kicks off and you could be 20 years early or 100 years early Leonardo da vinci, you know, they were michelangelo. They were designing flying machines Hundreds and hundreds of years ago So humility says you're not quite sure when it's when you really hit that commercial viability and it also dictates you don't know when it ends like uh, when will the party stop when will moore's law stop and we'll get to the point where they're exponentially diminishing returns on silicon performance And when you just like we got exponentially diminishing returns on jet engines You know and it just takes an exponential increase in effort to make it 10 better But while you're in the middle of it then you know you can do things so the reason that the digital revolution is so important is because the underlying platforms the bandwidth of And the performance of the components and I say the components are the radio protocols mobile protocols the uh, the batteries The cpus And the displays right? Those those four components are pretty critical. They're all they're all critical in the creation of an iphone I wrote about it in the book the mobile wave and they catalyze this entire mobile revolution because They have advanced and continued to advance They created a very fertile environment for all these digital transformations and um the digital transformations themselves Right they they call for creativity in their own right like like I think the the interesting thing about Let's take uh digital maps, right when you when you conceptualize something as a dematerialized map right, it becomes a map because I can put it on a display like an ipad or I can put it in a car like a tesla but If you really want to figure it out, you can't think like an engineer You need to think like a fantasy writer like this is where it's useful if you studied, uh, if you read played dungeons and dragons and you read lord of the rings and you you studied all the fantasy literature because Because when I dematerialize the map First I put 10 million pages of satellite imagery into the map, right? That's a simple physical transform But then I start to put telemetry Into the map and I keep track of the traffic rates on the roads and I tell you whether you'll be in a traffic Jam if you drive that way and I tell you which way to drive And then I start to get feedback on where you're going and I tell you the restaurant's closed and people don't like it anyway And then I put an ai on top of it and I have a drive your car for you and eventually The implication of digital transformation of maps is I get in a self-driving car and I say take me someplace cool where I can eat Yeah, and and how did you get to that last step right? It wasn't simple Engineering there's a bit of fantasy in there a bit of magic design art, whatever the heck you call it It's whatever. Yeah, yeah fantasy injects magic into the engineering process like imagination Like precedes Great revolutions in engineering. It's like imagining a world like Of what you can do with the display. How will the interaction be? That's where google glass actually came in augmented reality virtual reality people are playing in the space of sci-fi Imagination. They called a moan shot. They tried it didn't work. But to their credit they stopped trying right? Oh, and then there's new people they keep dreaming. There's dreamers all about all around us I love those dreamers and most of them fail and suffer because of it, but Some of them win win nobel prizes or become billionaires but what I would say is If half the civilization Dropped what they were doing tomorrow And eagerly started working On launching a rocket to alpha centauri it might not be the best use of our resources because It's it's kind of like if half of athens in the year 500 bc eagerly started working on flying machines If you went back and you said what advice would you give them? Don't you would say? You know It's not going to work till you get to aluminum and you're not going to get to aluminum till you work out the steel And and certain other things and you're not going to get to that until you work out the calculus of variations And some metallurgy and there's a dude newton that won't come along For quite a while and he's going to give you the calculus to do it and until then it's hopeless So you you might be better off to work on the aqueduct Or to focus upon sales or something. So if if I look at this today, I say There's massive profound Environment civilization advances to be made through digital transformation of information and you can see them like that. This is The story of today. This is not the story of today, right? It's 10 years old what we've been seeing We're we're living through different manifestations of that story today too, though like social media Uh that the effects of that is very interesting because ideas spread even you talk about velocity of money the velocity of ideas Is keeps increasing. Yeah, so like wikipedia is a passive store. It's a store of knowledge twitter is like a uh it's like a Water hose or something. It's like spraying you with knowledge whether you want it or not It's like social media is just like this Explosion of ideas and then we pick them up and then we try to understand ourselves because the drama of it Also plays with our human psyche. So sometimes there's more Ability for misinformation for propaganda to take hold so we get to learn about ourselves We get to learn about the technology that can decelerate the propaganda for example all that kind of stuff But like the reality is we're living I feel like we're living through a singularity in the digital information space And we are not we don't have a great understanding of exactly how it's transforming our lives and this is where money is useful as a as a metaphor for significance because if money is the is the economic energy of the civilization Then something that's extraordinarily lucrative that's going to generate a monetary or a wealth increase is a way to increase the net energy in the civilization and ultimately If we had 10 times as much of everything we'd have a lot more free resources to pursue all of our advanced scientific and mathematical and theoretical endeavors So let's take twitter Right twitter something that could be 10 times more valuable than it is, right? Twitter's twitter could be made 10 times better Oh, by the way, I should say that people should follow you on twitter. Your twitter account is awesome. Thank you It could be made 10 times better. Yeah. Yeah, twitter can be made 10 times better. Uh, if we take If we take if we take youtube or take education We could generate a billion phds and and the question is do you need any profound? Uh breakthrough in materials or technology to do that the answer is not really Right. So if you want to You could make apple amazon facebook google twitter all these things better the The united states government if they took one percent Of the money they spend on the department of education And they simply poured it into digital education and they gave Degrees to people that actually met those requirements They could provide a hundred x as much education for one one hundredth of the cost and they could do it with no new technology that's a a marketing and political Challenge, so I don't think every objective Every objective Is equally practical and I think the benefit of being an engineer or or thinking about uh, practical achievements is When the government pursues an impractical objective or when anybody an entrepreneur Not so bad with entrepreneur because they don't have that much money to waste when a government pursues an impractical objective They squander trillions and trillions of dollars and achieve nothing Whereas if they uh pursue a practical objective or if the or or if they simply get out of the way And do nothing And they allow the free market to pursue the practical objectives Then I think you can have profound impact on the human civilization and if I if I look at The world we're in today I think that there there are Multi-trillion 10 20 50 trillion dollars worth of opportunities in the digital information realm yet to be obtained um But there's hundreds of trillions of dollars of opportunities in the digital energy realm that Not only are they not obtained the majority of people Don't even know what digital energy is Most of them would reject the concept. They're not looking for it They're not expecting to find it. It's inconceivable because it is a paradigm shift But in fact, it's completely practical right under our nose It's staring at us and it could make the entire civilization work dramatically better in every every respect so you mentioned in the digital world digital information Information is one digital energy is two and the possible Impact on the world and the set of opportunities available in the digital energy space Is much greater. So how do you think about digital energy? What is it? So I'll start with tesla He had a very famous quote. He said if you want to understand the universe think in terms of energy vibration and frequency And It gets you thinking about what is the universe and of course the universe is just all energy And then what is matter? Matter is low frequency energy And what are we you know, we're vibrating for you know ashes to ashes dust to dust I can turn a tree into light. I can turn light back into a tree If if I consider the entire universe and it's very important because we don't really think this way. Let's take the new york disco model What if I walk into a nightclub and there's loud music blaring in new york city? What's really going on there? Right, if if you blast out 15 14 billion years ago, the universe is formed. Okay, that's a low frequency thing the universe Is four and a half billion years ago the sun maybe the earth are formed The continents are 400 million years old the schist that new york city is on is some hundreds of millions of years But the hudson river is only 20 000 years There's a building that's probably 50 years old. There's a company operating that disco or that that club Which is five to ten years old And there's a person a customer walking in there for an experience for a few hours There's music That's uh oscillating at some kilohertz and then there's light right and you and you have all forms of energy all frequencies Right all layered all moving through different medium And the and how you perceive the world is a question of at what frequency do you want to perceive the world? and um I I think that once you start to think that way you you're catalyzed to think about what would digital energy look like and and Why would I want it? and um What is it? so Why don't we just start right there? What is it? The most famous manifestation of digital energy is bitcoin Bitcoin is a crypto asset. It's a crypto asset that has monetary value. Can we just linger on that? bitcoin is uh, it's a Uh, so it's digital asset that has monetary value What is a digital asset? What is monetary? Why use those terms versus the words of money and and currency? Is there something interesting in that disambiguation of different terms? I would call it a crypto asset network The goal is to create a billion dollar block of pure energy in cyberspace One that I could that I could then move with no friction at the speed of light Right. It's it's the equivalent to putting a million pounds in orbit How do I actually launch? Something into orbit, right? How do I launch something into cyberspace that such that it moves friction-free and the solution? is a you know a decentralized proof of work network right satoshi's solution was I'm going to establish protocol running on a distributed set of computers That will maintain a constant supply of never more than 21 million bitcoin Subdividable by a hundred million satoshis each transferable via transferring private keys now the innovation is uh to create that in a Ethical Durable fashion, right? The the ethical innovation is I want it to be property and not a security Property and not a security a bushel of corn an acre of land a stack of lumber And a bar of gold And a bitcoin are all property and that means they're all Commonly occurring elements in the world. You could call them commodities, but commodity is a little bit misleading and i'll tell you why in a second But they're all distinguished by the fact that no one entity or person or government controls them If you have a barrel of oil And you're in ukraine versus russia versus saudi arabia versus the u.s You have a barrel of oil Right, and it doesn't matter what the premier in in japan Or the mayor of miami beach thinks about your barrel They cannot wave their hand and make it not a barrel of oil or a cord of wood Right, and so property is just a naturally occurring element in the universe Right and I use the word ethical and sorry to I may interrupt occasionally Why why ethical assigned to property? Because if it's a security a security would be an example of a share of a stock Or a crypto token controlled by a small team And and in the event that something is a security because Some small group or some identifiable group can control its nature character supply Then it really only becomes ethical to promote it or sell it pursuant to fair disclosures So, uh, I'll give you maybe practical example Um the mayor of chicago. I give a speech my speech I say I think everybody in chicago should own their own farm And have chicken a chicken in the backyard and their own horse and an automobile That's ethical I give the same speech and I say I think everybody in chicago should buy twitter stock Sell their house or sell their cash and buy twitter stock Is that ethical? Not really. Well at that point you've entered into a conflict of interest because what you're doing is you're promoting um an asset Which is substantially controlled by a small group of people the board of directors or the ceo of the company So if you know, how would you feel the president of the united states said I really think americans should all buy apple stock You would you know, especially if you work to google or but you worked anywhere you'd be like, why isn't he saying buy mine? Right a security is um Is a proprietary asset in some way shape or form That and the whole nature of securities law it starts from this ancient Ancient idea thou shalt not lie cheat or steal okay so if If uh, i'm going to say that i'm going to say that i'm going to say that If uh, i'm going to sell you securities or i'm going to promote securities as a public figure or as an influencer or anybody else right if If I create my own yo-yo coin or mikey coin and then there's a million of them And I tell you that I think that it's a really good thing and mikey coin will go up forever Right and everybody buys mikey coin and then I give 10 million to you and don't tell the public right i've cheated them Maybe if if I have mikey coin and I think there's only two million mikey coin and I swear to you There's only two million And then I get married and I have three kids and my third kid is in the hospital and my kid's gonna die And I have this ethical reason to print 500 000 more mikey coin or else people are gonna die and everybody tells me it's fine You know, i've still abused, you know the investor, right? It's it's a ethical challenge If you look at um ethics laws Um everywhere in the world Uh, they all boil down to having a clause which says that if you're a public figure you can't endorse Any a security you can't endorse something that would cause you to have a conflict of interest So if you're a mayor a governor a country a public figure an influencer And you want to promote or promulgate or support something using any public Influence or funds or resources you may have It needs to be property. It can't be security So it goes beyond that right? I mean like what the chinese want to support an american company Right as soon as you look at what's in the best interest of the human race the civilization You realize that if you want an ethical path forward, uh, it needs to be based on common property Which is fair and the way you get to a common property is through an open permissionless protocol If it's not open, right if it's proprietary and I know what the code is Open right if it's proprietary and I know what the code says and you don't know what the code says that's that makes it a security if uh If it's uh permissioned If you're not allowed on my network or if you can be censored or booted off my network That also makes it a security um so so when I talk about uh property, I mean The challenge here is how do I create something that's equivalent to a barrel of oil? in cyberspace And that means it has to be a a non-sovereign bearer instrument open permissionless not censorable Right If I could do that Then I could deliver you 10 000 dematerialized barrels of oil And you would take settlement of them And you would know that you have possession of that property Irregardless of the opinion of any politician or any company or anybody else in the world uh that that's a really critical characteristic and and it actually is It's probably one of the fundamental things that makes bitcoin special Bitcoin isn't just a crypto acid network. It's easy to create a crypto acid network. It's very hard uh to create an ethical crypto asset network because You have you have to create one without any government or corporate corporation or investor exercising in due influence to make it successful so open permissionless non-censorable So basically no way for you without Explicitly saying so outsourcing control to somebody else. So it's a kind of You have full control Even with a barrel of oil. Um, what's the difference between a barrel of oil and a bitcoin? to you what is the because you kind of Mentioned that both are property is uh, you mentioned russia and china and so on Is is it the ability of the government to confiscate? in the end governments can probably confiscate no matter what the asset is, but you want to lessen the um effort involved a barrel oil is a bucket of physical property liquid property and bitcoin is A digital property, but it's easier to confiscate a barrel of oil It's easier to confiscate things in the real world than things in cyberspace Much easier. So that's not universally true. Some things in the digital space are actually easier to confiscate because um Just the nature of how things move easily with information, right? So I think in the bitcoin world what we would say is that is that bitcoin is the most difficult property That the human race possesses or has yet invented to confiscate Right, and that's by virtue of the fact that you could take possession of it via your private key So, you know if you got your 12 seed phrases in your head Then that would be the highest form of property, right? Because I literally have to crack your head open and read your mind To take it. It doesn't mean I couldn't extract it from you under duress but It means that it's harder than every other thing you might own if you in fact It's exponentially harder if you consider every other thing you might own a car a house a share of stock gold diamonds property rights intellectual property rights movie rights music right anything imaginable They would all be easier by orders and orders of magnitude to seize so that so digital property in the form of a you know, a A set of private keys is by far the apex property of the human race In terms of ethics. I want to make one more point. It's like I might say to you lex I think bitcoin is the is the best most secure Most durable crypto asset network in the world is going to go up forever and there's nothing better in the world I might be right I might be wrong But the point is because it's property It's ethical for me to say that If I were to turn around and say, you know lex, I think the same about micro strategy stock mstr That's a security. Okay, if i'm wrong about that, I have civil liability or other liability because Because I could go to a board meeting tomorrow and I could actually propose we issue a million more shares of micro strategy stock whereas The thing that makes bitcoin ethical for me to even promote is the knowledge that I can't change it If if I knew That I could make it 42 million instead of 21 million and I had the button back here. Yeah Right, then then I have a different degree of ethical responsibility Now I could tell you your life will be better if you buy bitcoin and it might not you might go buy bitcoin You might lose the keys and be bankrupt and your life ends and your life is not better because you bought bitcoin, right? but It wouldn't be my ethical liability any more than if I were to say Lex, I think you ought to get a farm I think you should be a farmer. I think a chicken in every pot. You should get a horse I think you'd be better. I mean, these are all uh, they're all um opinions expressed about property Which may or may not be right that you may or may not agree with But in in a legal sense if we read the law if we understand securities law And I would say, you know most people in the crypto industry You know, they don't they didn't take companies public and so they're not really focused on the securities law They don't even know the securities law If you focus on the securities law that would say you just can't legally legally sell this stuff to the general public or promote it without a full set of continuing disclosures signed off on by a regulator so So there's a fairly bright line there with regard to securities but when you get to the when you get to the secondary issue, it's How do you actually build a world? based on digital property if public figures can't Can't embrace it or endorse it You see so you're not going to build a better world based upon Twitter stock if that's your idea of property because twitter stock is a security and twitter stock is never going to be a Non-sovereign bearer instrument in russia, right or in china, right? It's not even legal in china, right? So it's not a global permissionless open thing. It will never be trusted by the rest of the world and Legally, it's impractical but you know Would you really want to put a hundred trillion dollars worth of economic value on twitter stock if there's a board of directors and a Ceo that could just get up and like take half of it tomorrow the answer is no So if you want to if you want to build a better world based on digital energy You need to start with constructing a digital property and i'm using property here and open permissionless in the legal sense, okay, but I would also go to the next step and say property is low frequency money So if you if I give you a million dollars And you want to hold it for a decade You might go buy a house with it right and the house is low frequency money you converted the The million dollars of economic energy into a structure called a house Maybe and after a decade you might convert it back into energy. You might sell the house for currency And it'll be more worth more or less depending upon the monetary climate. The frequency means what here? Uh how quickly It changes state how quickly does something vibrate? so If uh, if I transfer ten dollars from me to you for a drink And then you turn around and you buy another right? We're vibrating on a frequency of every few hours, right? The energy is changing hands, but it's not likely that you sell and buy houses every few hours right the frequency of um Of a of a transaction in real estate is every 10 years every five years. It's much lower frequency transaction and um So when you think about uh, what's going on here you have extremely low frequency things Which we'll call property then you have mid frequency Things i'm going to call them money or currency And then you have high frequency And that's energy And that's why I use the illustration of you got the building You got the light and you got the sound and they're all just energy moving at different frequencies now Bitcoin is magical and it's it is truly the innovation. It's like a singularity Because it represents the first time in the history of the human race that we managed to create a digital property properly understood It's it's easy to create something It's easy to create something digital Right every coupon and every skin on fortnite and roblox and and apple tv credits and all these things They're all digital something but they're securities Right chairs of stock are securities whenever anybody Transfers when you transfer money on paypal or apple pay you're transferring in essence a security or an iou you and so transferring a bearer instrument with final settlement in in the internet domain or in cyberspace That's a critical thing and and Anybody in the crypto world can do that? All the cryptos can do that. But what they can't do what 99% of them fail to do is be property They're securities. Well, there's a line there. I'd like to explore a little further for example uh What about when you? Like coinbase or something like that when there's an exchange that you buy bitcoin is uh in you start to move away from this kind of Some of the some of the aspects That you said makes up a property which is this um Nonsensical and permissionless and open So in order to achieve the convenience the effectiveness of the The transfer of energy you have to leverage some of these Other places that remove the aspects of property. So I mean maybe you can comment on that Let me give you a good model for that If you think about the layer one of bitcoin The layer one is is the property settlement layer and we're we're going to do 350 000 transactions or less a day 100 million transactions a year is the bandwidth on the layer one and It would be an ideal layer one to move a billion dollars from point a to point b with the massive security The role of the layer one is is two things One thing is I want to move a large sum of money through space With security I I can move With security I can move any amount of bitcoin in a matter of minutes for dollars on layer one The the second important Feature of the layer one is I need the money to last forever Right. I need the money indestructible immortal. So so the bigger trick is not to move a billion dollars from here to tokyo The big trick is to move a billion dollars from here to the year 2140 And uh, and that's That's what we want to solve with layer one and and the best real metaphor in new york city would be the the granite or the schist What you want is a city block of a bedrock and how long has it been there like Millions of years it's been there and how fast you want it to move you don't Yeah, in fact the single thing that's most important is that it not deflect If it deflects a foot in a hundred years, it's too much if it deflects an inch in a hundred years You might not want that So the layer one of bitcoin is a foundation upon which you put weight. How much weight can you put on it? You put a trillion ten trillion a hundred trillion a quadrillion How much weights on on the bedrock and in manhattan, right? Think about hundred story buildings So that the real key there is the foundational asset needs to be there at all. So the fact that you can create 100 trillion dollar layer one that would stand for a hundred years. That is the revolutionary breakthrough First time and the fact that it's ethical right it's ethical and it's common property global permissionless Extremely unlikely that would happen People tried 50 times before and they all failed they tried 15 000 times after and they've all been They've all generally failed 98 have failed and a couple have like been less successful, but for the most part That's an extraordinary thing now just really quickly pause just to define some terms if you people don't know layer one is uh that michael's referring to is in general what people know of as the bitcoin technology originally Defined which is the blockchain. There's a consensus mechanism of proof of work a low number of transactions, but you can move a very large amount of money The reason he's using the term layer one is now that there's a lot of ideas that are coming out of bitcoin The reason he's using the term layer one is now that there's a lot of ideas of layer two technologies built on top of this bedrock That allow you to move a much larger number of transactions So sort of uh Higher frequency. I don't know how what terminology I want to use but basically be able to use now something that is based on bitcoin to then Uh buy stuff be a consumer to transfer money to use it as currency Um, just to define some terms Yeah So the layer one is the foundation for the entire cyber economy and um We don't want it to move fast what we want what we want is is immortality incorrupt immortal incorruptible indestructible indestructible Right that that's what you want integrity from the layer one Now there's layer two and layer three and layer two I would define as an open permissionless non-custodial protocol That uses uh the underlying layer one token as its as its gas fee So what's custodial mean and how does the different markets like is lightning network? So lightning network would be an example of a layer two non-custodial So the lightning network will sit on top of uh of layer one. It'll sit on top of bitcoin and it solves the What you want to do is solve the problem of It's well and fine. I don't want to move a billion dollars every day. What I want to move is five dollars a billion times a day So if I want to move five dollars a billion times a day, I don't really need to put the entire trillion Dollars of assets at risk every time I move five dollars All I really need to do is put a hundred thousand dollars in a channel or a million dollars in a channel And then I do 10 million transactions where I have a million dollars at risk and of course, it's it's kind of simple if I if I put If I lower my security requirement by a factor of a million I could probably move the stuff a million times faster, right? And that's how lightning works It's non-custodial because there is no there's no corporation or custodian or counterparty you're trusting Right. There's a there's the risk of moving through the channel but um Lightning is an example of how I go from 350 000 transactions a day 300 000 transactions a day to 350 million transactions a day So on that layer two you could move the bitcoin in seconds for fractions of pennies now That's not the end-all be-all because the truth is there are a lot of open protocols Lightning probably won't be the only one there, you know There's a open market competition of other permissionless open source protocols to do this work um and in theory Any any other crypto network that was deemed to be property deemed to be Non-security you would all you could also think of as potentially a layer two to bitcoin Right. There's a debate about are there any and what are they and and we can leave that for a later time But why do you think of them as layer two as opposed to contending? for layer one Yeah, actually if they're using their own token Mm-hmm, then they are layer one if you create an open protocol that uses the bitcoin token as the as the fee I got then it becomes a layer two. Okay, right Bitcoin itself right incentivizes his own transactions with its own token and that's what makes it layer one Okay, what's layer three then layer three is a custodial layer So if you want to move bitcoin in milliseconds for free You move it through binance or coinbase or cash app So this is a very straightforward thing I mean it seems pretty obvious when you think about it that there are going to be hundreds of thousands of layer threes There may be dozens of layer twos. There might I mean lightning is a one but it's not the only one anybody can invent something right and We can have this debate, uh about custodial non-custodial um Don't you think there's a monopoly monopolization possibilities at layer three so You know coin you mentioned binance coin coinbase what if they start to dominate and basically everybody is using them Practically speaking and then it becomes too costly to memorize the uh, the private key in your brain I mean or like a cold storage of layer one technology the idealist Fear the layer threes because they think and especially they detest They would detest a bit There's almost like a layer four by the way If you want to a layer four would be i've got bitcoin on an application, but I can't withdraw it So i've got an application that's backed by bitcoin, but the bitcoin is sealed It's it's a proprietary example and i'll give you an example of that. That would be like, um grayscale If I own a share of gbtc And and so I own a security actually You know, you could own mstr If you own a security or you own a product that has bitcoin embedded in it you get the benefits of bitcoin But you don't have the ability to withdraw the asset To get out of the security market at layer four. Am I understanding this correctly? I don't know if I would say I don't not all securities are layer four, but but anything that's a proprietary Product based upon with bitcoin embedded in it where you can't withdraw the bitcoin Is another application of bitcoin? So if if you think about different ways you can use this You can either stay completely on the layer one and use the base chain for your transactions Or you can limit yourself to layer one and layer two lightning and the purist would say we stay there Get your bitcoin off the exchange But you could also go to the layer three when cash app, uh supported bitcoin They made it very easy to buy it and then they gave you the bill to withdraw When paypal or I think robinhood let you buy it Let you buy it they wouldn't let you withdraw it and there was a big community uproar and people want They want these layer threes to to make it possible to withdraw the bitcoins You can take it to your own private wallet or and get it off the exchange I think the answer to the question of well, is is corruption possible is Corruption is possible in all human institutions and all governments Everywhere the difference between digital property and physical property is when you own a building in los angeles and the city Politics turn against you. You can't move the building Yeah, and when you own a share of a security That's like a u.s. Traded security and you wish to move to some other country You can't take the security with you either And when you own a bunch of gold and you try to get through the airport, they might let not let you take it so bitcoin is Advantageous versus all those because you actually do have the option to withdraw your asset from the exchange and if you you know, if you had bitcoin with fidelity and you had shares of stock with fidelity and if you had bonds and sovereign debt with fidelity if you own some some You know mutual funds and some other random limited partnerships with fidelity None of those things can be removed from the custodian, but the bitcoin you can take off, uh the exchange you can remove from the custodian, so So, uh It's still possible. There's a deterrent. There's a deterrent. That's an anti-corrupting element And the phrase is an armed society is a polite society Right because you have the optionality to withdraw all your assets from the crypto exchange You can enforce fairness and at the point where you disagree with their policies You can within an hour move your assets to another counter party or take personal custody of those assets And you don't have that option with most other forms of property. Maybe you don't have as much optionality Optionality with any other form of property on earth. And so what what makes digital property distinct? Is the fact that it has the most optionality for custody Now coming back to this digital energy issue. The real key point is the energy moves in milliseconds for free on layer threes It moves in seconds or less than seconds on layer twos. It moves in minutes on the layer one and I don't think it makes any sense to even think about trying to solve all three problems on the layer one because it's impossible to achieve the security and the incorruptibility and immortality If you try to build that much speed and that functionality and performance In fact, if you come back to the new york model, you really wanted a block of granite a building and a company That's what makes the economy Right if you said if I said to you you're going to build a building But you can only have one company in it for the life of the building It would be very fragile like very brittle what company a hundred years ago is still relevant today You want all three layers because they all oscillate at different frequencies and And you know, there's a tendency to think well It's it's got to be this l1 or that l1 not really and sometimes people think well, I don't really want any l3 but companies It's not an even or companies are better than uh crypto asset networks at certain things If you want complexity you want to implement complexity or you want to implement compliance Or customer service right companies do these things well, right? uh, we know You couldn't decentralize apple or netflix or even youtube the performance wouldn't be there and the subtlety wouldn't be there and You can't really legally Decentralize certain forms of banking and insurance because they will become illegal in the political jurisdiction of their end So unless you're a crypto anarchist and you believe in no companies and no nation states right Which is just not very practical not anytime soon Once you allow that nation states will continue and companies have a role then the layered architecture follows and the free market determines who wins for example There are layer threes that uh, that's let you acquire bitcoin and withdraw bitcoin Mm-hmm. There are there are other applications to let you acquire but not withdraw it And and they're they don't get the same market share, but they might give you some other advantage There are there are certain layer threes like jack dorsey's cash app where they just incorporated lightning an implementation of it, so uh Into cash app so that makes it more that makes it advantageous versus uh an application that doesn't incorporate lightning if you think about The big picture the big picture is eight billion people with mobile phones served by a hundred million companies doing billions of transactions an hour and And the companies are settling with each other on the base layer in blocks of 80 million at a time And then the companies are trading with the consumers right in uh proprietary layers like layer three and then on occasion people are shuffling assets across custodians with lightning layer two Because you don't want to pay five dollars to move fifty dollars. You want to pay a a twentieth of a penny to move fifty dollars and so All of these things create efficiency in the economy And lex if you want to consider how much efficiency If if you gave me a billion dollars in 20 years, I couldn't find a way to trade with another company or a counterparty in nigeria Like No, no amount of money. Give me 10 billion dollars. I couldn't do it Because you get shut down at the banking level. You can't link up a bank in nigeria with the bank in the us You get shut down at this credit card level because they don't have the credit card so they won't clear You get shut down at the at the compliance fcpa level because because You know, you wouldn't be able to implement a system that interfaced with somebody else's system if it's not in the right political jurisdiction on the other hand three entrepreneurs in nigeria on the weekend could create a website that would trade in this lightning economy Using open protocols without asking anybody's permission So you're talking about something that's like a million times cheaper less friction and faster To do it if you want to if you want to get money to move What do you think that looks like so that now there's a war going on in ukraine? There's other wars yemen going out throughout the world in in this most Difficult of states the nation can be in which is at war Civil war or war with other nations. What's the role of bitcoin? in this context I mean bitcoin's a universal trust protocol, right a universal energy protocol if you will English is one. Okay. Um, what I see is a bunch of fragmentation of applications For example, you know the russian payment app is not going to work in ukraine, right? The ukraine payment app is not going to work in russia The you know us payment apps won't work either of those places as far as I know so You know and and argentina their payment app may not work in certain parts of africa You know and and argentina their payment app may not work in certain parts of africa. So what you have is Is a different local economies where people spin up their own applications compliant with their own local laws or you know in in war zones not compliant, but just Just spinning up, you know, so how do you build something that's not compliant? What is the revolutionary act here when you don't agree? With the government or what you want to free yourself from the constraint. So here's the thing The when a nation is really at war Is it's the the especially if it's an authoritarian regime? It's going to try to control the pipe like lock everything down. Yeah the spread of information How do you break through that? Do you do the thing that you mentioned which is you have to build another app essentially? That allows you the flow of money Outside the legal constraints placed on you by the government. So basically break the law um Is that metaphorically speaking if you want to break out of the constraints of your culture you learn to speak english For example, it's not illegal to speak english or and even if it is right doesn't matter But but english works everywhere in the world if you can speak it and then you can tap into a global global commerce and intelligence network So bitcoin is a language so you learn to speak bitcoin or you learn to speak lightning And then you tap into that network in You know, whatever manner you can because the problem is it's still very difficult to move bitcoin around in russia and ukraine now doing war and there was a a sense to me that The cryptocurrency in general could be the savior For helping people there's millions of refugees. They're moving all all around. It's very it's very difficult to Move money around in that space to help people. I think we're very early Like like we're very embryonic here If you look at the who's we sorry and we as a human civilization are we operating in the cryptocurrency space? I think the entire crypto economy is very embryonic and the and the human race's Race is adoption of it is embryonic. We're like one two percent down that adoption curve If you take lightning for example the you know, the first real commercial applications of lightning are just in the last 12 months Yeah, so we're like year one. We we might be approaching year two of commercial lightning adoption. And if you look at lightning adoption lightning is not built into Coinbase is not built into binance is not built into ftx It's you know Cash app just implemented the first implementation, but not all the features are built into it. There's A few dozen a dozen lightning wallets circulating out there So I think that you know, we're probably going to be 36 months of software development at the point that um every android phone and every iphone has um Has a bitcoin wallet or a crypto wallet in it of sorts That's a big deal if if apple embraced lightning that's a big deal So the adoption is the thing like in a war zone adoption um, the people who struggle the most in war are people who are Weren't doing that great before the war started. They don't have the technological sophistication The hackers and all those kinds of people will find a way It's just regular people who are just struggling to make day-by-day living and so if the adoption Permeates the entire culture Then you can start to move money around In the digital space What if from a cycle if you can psychoanalyze jack dorsey for a second? So he's one of the early adopters or he's one of the people pushing the early adoption in this layer three So inside cash app, what do you make of the man? Of this decision as a business owner As somebody playing in the space like what? Why did he do it and? What does that mean for others? At this scale that might be doing the same so incorporating lightning networking incorporating bitcoin into their products I think he's been pretty clear about this He feels that bitcoin is an instrument of economic empowerment for billions of people that are unbanked And have no property rights in the world if you want to give An incorruptible bank To eight billion people on the planet That's the same as asking the question How do you give a full education? Through phd to eight billion people on the planet And the answer is a a digital version of the 20th century thing running on a mobile phone And bitcoin is a bank in cyberspace is run by incorruptible software and it's for everybody on earth So I think when jack looks at it, he's very sensitive to the plight of everybody in africa If you look at africans, right like you're going to give them banks, you're not going to put a bank branch on every corner That's an obscene waste of energy. You're not going to run copper wires across the continent. That's an obscene waste of energy You're not going to give them gold and you know, so so how are you going to Provide people with a decent life That the metaphor I think is is relevant here. The biological metaphor lex is uh type one diabetic Uh, if you're a type one diabetic, you can't form fat and if you can't form fat Then you can't store excess energy. So That means that I mean fat is the ultimate organic battery and if you've got 30 pounds of it You can go 60 days without eating But if you can't generate insulin, you can't form fat cells and you can't form fat cells and store energy Then you can eat yourself to death. I mean you will eat and you will die You'll starve to death. So the lack of property rights is like being a type one diabetic And so if you look at most people everywhere in the world They don't have property rights They don't have effective bank and they don't and their currency is broken Like what are the what are the two things that in theory would serve as the equivalent of a? of a an organic battery or an economic battery to civilization it would be I have a currency which holds its value and I can store it in a bank. So a risk a risk-free currency derivative I yeah, I pay you your money you take your life savings you put it in the bank You save up for your retirement. You'll have happily ever after that's the american dream Right, that's the idyllic situation the real situation is there are no banks. You can't get a bank account. So I give you your pay In currency and then I double the supply and I give it to my cousin Or I give it to whatever cause I want or I use it to buy weapons And then you find a loaf of bread cost triple next month is what it costs and your life savings is worthless And so in that environment Everybody's ripped back to stone age barter and the problem with that even stone age barter is You're going to carry your life savings on your back and what happens when the guy with a machine gun points it at your head And just takes your life savings. So So I think from jack's point of view he thinks that life is This is maybe too strong. But I these are my words life is hopeless for a lot of people And bitcoin is hope Right because because it gives everyone um an engineered Monetary asset that's a bearer instrument And it gives them a bank on their mobile phone And they they don't have to trust their government or another counter party With their life force So There's a secondary thing. I think he's interested in which is The first thing is the human rights issue. And the second thing would be The friction to to trade cross borders Is so great, right? Yeah, like uh I you know, you like ai so i'll give you a beautiful notion Maybe one day there'll be an artificially intelligent creature in cyberspace That is self-sufficient and rich Like that we would have sovereignty you mean can a robot Own money or property How about can a tesla car? Can I actually put enough enough money in a car for it to drive itself and maintain itself forever? Or can I create an artificially intelligent creature in cyberspace that is endowed? Such that it would live a thousand years and continue to do so That is endowed such that it would live a thousand years and continue to do its job Right, you know, we have a word for that in the real world is institution harvard cambridge stanford, right? There are institutions with endowments that go on in perpetuity But what if I wanted to perpetuate? a software program and With uh with something like digital property with bitcoin and lightning you could do it and on the other hand With uh banks and credit cards You couldn't Right You couldn't ever so so you can create things that are beautiful and lasting uh and What's the difference in speed? Well, it's so I can either trade with everybody in the world at the speed of light friction free in 24 hours writing a python script or I can spend a hundred billion dollars to trade with a few million people in the world after it takes them six months of application the impedance Is like a 10 million to one difference Right and the metaphors are literally like launching something in orbit versus almost orbit or vacuum sealing something Does it last forever and does it orbit forever or does it go up and come down and burn up? Right and I think jack is interested in You know Putting freedom in orbit, right? Putting putting freedom in orbit and and he said it many times And he said it many times. He said this is the the internet needs a native currency. Yeah right and and No political construct or security Can be a native currency You need a property and you need a property that can be moved a million times a second Can you oscillate it at 10 kilohertz or a hundred? Kilohertz and the answer is only If it's a pure digital construct Mm-hmm permissionless and open And so I think he that he's enthusiastic as the technologist and he's enthusiastic as the humanitarian And what he's doing Is to support both those areas. He's supporting the bitcoin and the lightning protocol by building them into his products, but he's also building the applications Which you need at the cash app level in order to commercialize and deliver the functionality and compliance necessary and And they're related And I should also say he's just a fascinating person. I for a random reason That I couldn't even explain if I tried I met him A few days ago and gave him a great big hug in the middle of nowhere. There was no explanation He just appeared that's a fascinating human his relationship with art with the world with human suffering With technology is fascinating I don't know what his path Looks like but it's interesting that people like that exist And in part I'm saddened that he no longer is involved with Twitter directly as a CEO Because I was hoping something inside Twitter would also integrate some of these ideas of What you're calling digital energy To see how social networks something I'm really interested in and passionate about could be transformed Let me ask you just for educational purposes What's the Can you please explain to me what web3 and the beef between Jack and Mark Andreessen is exactly? Did you see what happened? sorry to have you analyze Twitter like it's Shakespeare, but Can you please explain to me why why there is any any drama over this topic? first of all web3 is a term that's used to refer to You know the part of the economy that's that's token finance So if I'm launching an application and my idea is to is to create a token along with the application And issue the token to the community so as to finance the application and build support for it. I think that I Think that that's the most common Interpretation of web3 there are other interpretations too and rain so I'm just gonna refer to that one and I think the beef In a nutshell not articulated, but I'll articulate it is whether or not You should focus all your energy creating applications on top of an ethical digital property like Bitcoin or whether you should Attempt to create a competitor to it which generally Would be deemed as a security by the Bitcoin community, so I'm gonna put on my Bitcoin hat here Yeah, right all the tokens that are being if it's driven by a venture capitalist Well, it's a security if there's a CEO and a CTO. It's a security all these projects. They're companies Foundations or companies right if you call them a project or a foundation. It doesn't make it not a security They're all in essence collections of individuals that are issuing equity in the form of a token and if if there's a pre mine an IPO an ICO a foundation or any kind of Any kind of Protocol where there is a a group of engineers that have influence over it then to a securities lawyer or You know to most Bitcoiners and definitely to anybody that's steeped in securities law you look and say well that passes the Howey test It's it looks like a security. It should be sold to the public pursuant to you know disclosures and regulations and You're just ducking the IPO process right and and so now we get back to the ethical issue well, the the ethical issue is if You're trading it as a commodity and representing it as a commodity while truthfully. It's a security You know then it's a violation of ethics rules, and it's probably illegal Well, you're you keep leaning on this let me push back on that part maybe you can educate me, but you keep leaning on this line of securities law as if it with all due respect to lawyers as As if that line somehow defines what it what is and isn't ethical. I think there's a lot of Correlation as you've discussed, but and I'd like to leave the line aside I if the law calls something as a security doesn't mean in my eyes that it It is unethical. I mean there could be some technicalities and Lawyers and people play games with this kind of stuff all the time But I take your bigger point that if there's a CEO there's a project lead that's fundamentally Well that that to you is fundamentally different than the the structure of Bitcoin It's not that creating securities is unethical. I I created security. I took a company public right that that's not the unethical part It's completely ethical to create securities, you know block is a security all companies are security the unethical part is to represent it as property when it's a security and and To promote it or trade it as such this whole promotion. That's also a technical thing because you're Like what counts is not as promotion is a legal thing and you get in trouble for all these things But that that's the game that lawyers play there's an ethical thing here, which is like what's right to promote and not you know To me propaganda is unethical, but it's usually not illegal If you're all caught back 20 years Right all the boiler room pump and dump schemes were all about someone pitching a penny stock. Sure, you know selling Swampland in Florida and and if you roll the clock back forward 20 years and I create my own Company and I represent it as the same thing and I don't make the disclosures right here You're just one step removed from the boiler room scheme and that's what's distasteful about it There are ways to sell securities to the public, but there are but there are expectations that maybe We could forget about whether the security laws are ethical or not, right? I will leave that alone We'll just start with the biblical definition of ethics. Yes, don't lie cheat or steal So if I'm going to sell something to you, I need to fully disclose what I'm selling to you right and and that that's a matter of great debate right now and So I think that that's part of the debate but the other part of the debate is whether Or not we need more than one token like We need at least one right we need we need at least one digital property What is because zero means there is no digital economy. Yes, and by the way, you know The conventional view of maximalist is they think there's only one and everything else isn't That that's not the point. I'm gonna make I would say we know there is it as there is at least one digital property And that is Bitcoin If you can create a truly decentralized non-custodial You know bearer instrument That is not under the control of any organization That is fairly distributed, you know, then you might create another or multiple and there may be others out there but I Think that the frustration of a lot of people in the Bitcoin community and I share this with Jack is we could create a hundred trillion dollars of value in the real world simply by building applications on top of Bitcoin as a foundation and so continually trying to reinvent the wheel and and create competitive things is a massive waste of time and its diversion of human Human creativity, it's like we have an ethical good thing Yeah, and now we're going to try to create a third or a fourth one Why let's talk about it. So first of all, I'm with you But let me ask you this interesting question because we talked about properties and securities. Let's talk about conflict of interest So you said you could advertise public you have a popular Twitter account It's it's hilarious and insightful You do promote Bitcoin in a sense I don't know if you would say that but do you think there's a conflict of interest in anyone who owns Bitcoin promoting Bitcoin? Is it the same as you promoting the farming? I Would say no There's an interest. I think that I think that you can promote a property or an idea To the extent that you don't control it I think that the point at which you start to have a conflict of interest is when you're promoting a Proprietary product or a proprietary security a security in general is a proprietary asset So for example, if you look at my Twitter You will find that I make lots of statements about Bitcoin You won't ever see me making a statement that say micro strategy stock will go up forever Right. I'm not promoting a security MST are Because at the end of the day MST are is a security it is proprietary. I have proprietary interest in it. I have a disproportionate amount of control and influence on the direction The controls the problem the controls the problem because you have interest in both You can very if Bitcoin is a successful as we're talking about You are very possibly can become the richest human on earth Given how much you own in Bitcoin, right the wealthiest not the richest. I don't know what those words mean I I would benefit economically economic you would benefit economically. That's true so the the reason that's not conflict of interest is because the word property Bitcoin is an idea and It's because I don't open it. You know, I don't control it In essence that the the ethical line here is Could I print myself 10 million more Bitcoin or not? Right? I Can anyone right? It's not just you it's a can can anyone Because can you promote somebody else's? Yes, I guess you can Like if you can you promote us? Apple I think you could have a Twitter account where you promote oil or you promote camping or you promote family values Or promote, you know a carnivore diet or promote the Iron Man, right? You're not gonna get wealthier if you promote camping Because you can't own a staking. I mean You own a lot of Bitcoin. What is that? What is that? What is the game? Don't you own the stake in the idea? I would I would grant you that but the lack of control is The fundamental ethical line that you just you don't have all you are is you're a fan of the idea You believe in the idea and the power of the idea Yeah, I think you can't take that idea away from others Let's come back to let me give you some maybe easier examples if you were the head of the Marine Corps right and and Someone came to you and said I created marine coin and And the twist on marine coin is is I want you to tell every marine that they'll get an extra marine coin, you know When they when they get their next stripe and then I'm gonna give you you know I'm gonna let you buy marine coin now and then after you buy marine coin, I want you to like Promote it to them Right at some point if if you start to have a disproportional Influence on it or if you're in a conversation with people with disproportionate influence becomes conflict of interest and it would make you profoundly Uncomfortable, I think yeah, if the head of the Marine Corps started promoting anything that looked like a security Now if the head of the Marine Corps started promoting canoeing You might think he's kind of wacky like maybe like that's kind of a waste of time and distraction so but but but to the extent that Canoeing is not a security not a problem unless you you know Ultimately the issue of decentralization is really a critical not having a head one. So is it something? Can Bitcoin be replicated? be replicated So the all the things that you're saying that make it a property can that be replicated have any other possible to create other? crypto properties does it does the having a head like of a project a Thing that limits its ability to be a property if you if you try to replicate a project Is that the fundamental flaw? I I look I think the real fundamental issue is you just never want it to change like like If you really want something decentralized you want Genetic template that substantially is not going to change for a thousand years So I think Satoshi said at one point he said the nature of the software is such that by version point one Its genetic code was set If if there was any development team that's continually changing it, you know on a routine basis It becomes harder and harder to maintain its decentralization because now now there's the issue of who's influencing That changes. Yeah, so what you really want is Is a very very simple idea right the simplest idea I'm just going to keep track of who owns 21 million parts of energy and when someone proposes big functional upgrades You almost don't you don't really want that development to go on the base layer you want that development to go on the layer threes because now cash app has a proprietary set of functionality and it's a security and If you're going to promote the use of this thing, you're not going to you're not going to promote the layer 3 security because that's a an edge to a given entity and you're trusting the Counterparty you're gonna promote the layer 1 or at most the layer 2 Okay, so one of the fascinating things About Bitcoin and sorry to romanticize certain notions, but Satoshi Nakamoto that the founders anonymous Maybe you can speak to whether that's useful But also I just like the psychology of that to imagine that there's a human being that was able to create something special and walk away So first are you Satoshi Nakamoto? I'm certain I'm not No, I actually I you know, I think the provenance is really important and if I were to look at the highlighted points, I think Having a founder that was anonymous or sit anonymous is important. I think the founder disappearing is also important I think that the fact that the Satoshi coins never moved is also important. I Think the the lack of an initial coin offering is also important. I think the lack of a corporate sponsor is Important. I think the fact that it traded for 15 months with no commercial value Was also important. You know, I I think that The simplicity of the protocol And is very important. I think that the the outcome of the block size wars is very important and all of those things add up to Common property. They're all in Disha indicators of a digital property as opposed to security if there was a Satoshi sitting around sitting on top of 50 billion dollars worth of Bitcoin it would I don't think it would Cripple Bitcoin as property, but I think it would undermine Its digital property and I if I wanted to undermine a crypto asset network I would do the opposite of all those things. I would launch one myself I would sell 25% or 50% of the general public I would keep some of the initial I would pre mine some stuff or early mine it, you know And I would keep an influence on it Those are all the opposite of what you would do in order to create common property and so I see the entire story is Satoshi giving a gift of digital property to the human race and And disappearing. Do you think it was one person? Do you have ideas of who could be? Don't care to speculate But do you think it was one person? Like it was one person maybe in conjunction with a bunch of others I mean it might have been a group of people that were working together, but certainly the there's a Satoshi I mean just so fascinating to me that one person could be so brave and Thoughtful or do you think a lot of his accident like the block size wars the decision to make a block a certain size? All all the things you mentioned led up to the characteristics that make Bitcoin property Do you think that's an accident? Or it was deeply thought through like how does this is almost like a history of science question We'll try it for they tried 40 of them, right? I mean, I I think there's a there's a history of attempting to create something like this And it was tried many many times and and they failed for different reasons And I think that it's like Prometheus tried to start a fire 47 times and maybe the 48th time it sparked and And that's how I see this. This is the first one that sparked and And it sets a roadmap for us and I and I think If you're looking for any one word that characterizes it's fair All right, the whole point of the network is it's a fair launch a fair distribution Like yeah, I have Bitcoin, but I bought it In fact, I you know at this point we've paid four billion dollars of you real cash to buy it if if I was sitting on the same position and I had it for free Then there's always this question of did I pay you know? I bought it for a nickel a coin or a penny a coin The question is wasn't fair and and that's a very hard question to answer Right. Did you acquire the Bitcoin that you own fairly and If you roll the clock back, you know, you could have bought it for a nickel or a dime But that was when it was a million times more likely to fail Right when the risk was greater the cost was lower and then over time the risk became lower and the cost became Greater and the real critical thing was to allow the marketplace Absent any powerful interested actor Right. It's almost like if Satoshi had held a million coins and then stayed engaged for ten more years tweaking things in the background There's still be that question But what we've got is really a beautiful thing. We've got a We've got a chain reaction in cyberspace or an ideology spreading virally in the world that That that has seasoned in a fair Ethical fashion sometimes it's a very violent brutal fashion with all the volatility Right, and there's been a lot of you know, a lot of sound and fury along the way. How do you psychoanalyze? How do you deal? From a financial from a human perspective with the volatility you mentioned you could have gotten it for a nickel and the risk was great Where's the risk today? What's your sense? You know, we're 13 years into this entire Activity, I think the risk has never been lower if you look at all the risks right the risk the risks in the early years are Is the engineering protocol proper like one megabyte block size ten minute clock frequency? Cryptography is first will it be hacked or will it crash? Mm-hmm. Seven hundred thirty thousand blocks and it hasn't crashed. Will it be hacked hasn't been hacked But you know, it's a Lindy thing, right you wait 13 years to see if it'll be hacked. But on the other hand With a billion dollars It's not as interesting a target as it is with a hundred billion and when it gets to be worth a trillion Then it's a bigger target. So So the risk has been bleeding off over time as the network monetized I think the second question is will it be banned? You couldn't know it could literally could have been banned at any time many times early on in fact in 2013 I tweeted on that subject. I thought it would be banned. I Made very famed infamous tweet from this tweet. I thought it was it was gonna be banned in 2014 the IRS Designated it as property and gave it property tax treatment. Okay, so They could have given it a tax treatment where you had to pay tax on on the unrealized capital gains Every year and it probably would have crushed it to death Right, you know So so it could have been in any in any number of places banned by a government But in fact, it was legitimized as property and then the question is would it be hacked or what to be copied? Will it be something better than that and it was copied 15,000 times and you know the story of all those and and they either diverge to be something totally different and not comparable or someone trying to copy a non-sovereign bearer instrument store of value found that the their networks crashed to be 1% of what Bitcoin is so Now we're sitting at a point where all those risks are out of the out of the way I would say that year one of institutional adoption is it started August? 2020 that's when micro strategy bought 250 million dollars worth of Bitcoin and we put that on the wire We were the first publicly traded company to actually buy Bitcoin I don't think you could have found a five million dollar purchase from a public company before we did that So that was kind of like a gun going off and then in the next 12 months Tesla bought Bitcoin Square bought Bitcoin and I'd say now we're in year two of Institutional adoption and about 24 should be 24 publicly traded Bitcoin miners by the end of this quarter so you're looking at 36 publicly traded companies and you've got 50 at least in a range of 50 billion dollars on the balance of Bitcoin on the balance sheet of publicly traded companies and hundreds of billions of dollars of market cap Bitcoin exposed companies, so I would say the asset Decade one was entrepreneurial Experimental Decade two is a rotation from entrepreneurs to institutions and is becoming institutionalized So maybe decade one you go from zero to a trillion and a decade to you go from one trillion to a hundred trillion What about governments? Government adoption institutional adoption is our government's important in this maybe making it some governments incorporating it into as a currency into their banks All that kind of stuff. Is that important and if it is when when will it happen? It's not essential for the success of the asset class, but I think it's it's inevitable in various degrees over time but the most likely thing to happen next is large acquisitions by institutional investors of Bitcoin as a digital gold where they're just swapping out gold for for digital gold and thinking of it like that and The government entities most likely to be involved with that would be sovereign wealth funds If you look at all the sovereign wealth funds that are holding a big tech stock and equities the Swiss the Norwegians the Middle Easterners If you can hold big tech then holding digital gold would be you know, not not far removed from that That's a non-controversial adoption I Think there are there are opportunities for governments that are much more profound, right if a government started to adopt Bitcoin as a Treasury Reserve asset That's much bigger than just a an asset investment. That's a hundred X bigger and You could imagine that's like a trillion dollar Opportunity like any government that wanted to adopt it as a Treasury Reserve asset would probably generate trillions of dollars trillion or more of value and then you know the thing that people think about as well will oil ever be priced in Bitcoin or any other export commodity? I Think there's like 1.8 trillion dollars or more of export commodities in The world and right now they're all priced in dollars I think that this is a colorful thing But it not really that relevant like you could sell all that stuff in dollars that that the relevant decision that any institution makes whether they're a non-profit and University a corporation or a government is what's your Treasury Reserve asset? and if your Treasury Reserve asset is the peso and if the pesos Losing 20% or 30% of its value a year Then you know your your balance sheet is collapsing within five years and if the Treasury Reserve asset is is dollars and currency derivatives and US Treasuries then you're getting your Seven right now. It's probably 15% or more Monetary inflation we're running double the historic average you could argue triple somewhere between double and triple depending upon What your metric is? So, you know do I think it'll happen? I think that they're conservative but they have to be shocked and I think there is a shock the the late Russian Sanctions are a big shock that when the West sees 300 billion dollars worth of Russian gold and currency derivatives I think it you know, you got the famous quote by Putin that you know, we have to rethink our Our Treasury strategies and that pushes everybody toward a commodity strategy. What commodities do I want to hold? I Think that's got a lot of people thinking I can it's got the Chinese thinking everybody wants to be the reserve currency, right? so if I buy 50 billion dollars worth of dollars every year then I buy 500 billion over a decade and I probably pay 250 billion dollars of inflation cost on the backs of my citizens in a decade so so inflation could be one of the sources of shock and And you wonder if there is a switch to Bitcoin whether it will be a bang or a whimper Like what is the nature of the shock of the transition? I think that The year 2022 is pretty catalytic For digital assets in general and for for Bitcoin in particular the Canadian trucker crisis I think educated hundreds of millions of people and And made them start questioning their property rights and their banks. I think the Ukraine war Was a second shock, but I think that the Russian sanctions was a third shock Yeah, I think all three of them and I I think hyperinflation And the rest of the world is a fourth shock and then persistent in inflation the u.s. Is a fifth shock So I think it's a perfect storm. And if you put all these events together What do they signify they signify the rational conclusion for any person thinking about this is I'm not sure if I can trust my property. I don't know if I property rights I don't know if I can trust the bank and if I'm politically at odds with with The leader of my own country. I'm gonna lose my property and If I'm politically at odds with the owner of another country, I'm still gonna lose my property and When push comes to shove the banks will freeze my assets and seize them And I think that that that is playing out in front of everybody in the world Such that Your logical response would be I'm going to convert my weak currency to a strong currency Like I'll convert my peso and lira to the dollar I'm going to convert my weak property to strong property. I'm gonna sell my building downtown Moscow and I'd rather own a Building in New York City. I'd rather I'd rather own in a powerful nation than a Then be stuck with a building in Nigeria or a building in Argentina or whatever So I'm gonna sell my weak properties to buy strong properties. I'm gonna convert my physical assets to digital assets I'd rather own a digital building than own a physical building Because if I had a billion dollar building in Moscow, who can I rent that to? But if I have a billion dollar digital building I can rent it to anybody in any city in the world Anybody with money and the maintenance cost is almost nothing and I can hold it for a hundred years Okay, so it's indestructible building. And then finally I Want to move from having my assets in a bank with a counterparty to self custody assets Right. So and and this is not it's not just Ukraine, but this is like the story in Turkey Lebanon Syria Afghanistan Iraq South America You don't really want to be sitting with 10 million dollars in a bank in Istanbul The bank's gonna freeze your money convert it to lira devalue the lira and then feed it back to you over 17 years, right so self custody assets would be layer one Bitcoin self custody assets, it's like If I if I got my own hardware wallet and I've either got Your highest form of Your your highest form of self custody would be Bitcoin on your own hardware wallet or Bitcoin in your own self custody And the other the other thing people think about is how do I get crypto dollars like tether? Like some stable coin. Yeah, like I'd rather if you had a choice Would you rather have your money in a bank in a war zone in dollars or have your money in a stable coin? on your mobile phone in dollars I mean you take the latter risk rather than the former risk war zone. Definitely Yeah, and you can see that happening like we've gone from five billion in stable coins to 200 billion Yeah in the last 24 months. Yeah, so I do think there's massive demand for crypto dollars in the form of a US dollar asset and there's And everybody in the world would say yeah, I want that well, unless you're just an extreme patriot, but most people in the world would say I want that and then a lesser group of people Would say I think I want to be able to carry my property in the palm of my hand So I have self custody of it So a Bitcoin price has gone through quite a roller coaster What do you think is the high point is gonna hit? I don't go forever. Right? I mean, I think the Bitcoin is is going to it's going to climb in a serpentine fashion It's going to advance and come back and it's going to keep It's gonna keep climbing. I think that the volatility attracts all the capital into the marketplace And so the volatility makes it the most interesting thing in the financial universe. It also generates massive yield and massive returns for traders and that attracts capital like we're talking about the difference between 5% return and 500% return. So The fast money is attracted by the volatility The volatility has been decreasing year by year by year. I think that that it's stabilizing I don't think we'll see as much volatility in the future Stabilizing. I don't think we'll see as much volatility in the future as we have in the past. I think that if we look at Bitcoin and model it as Digital gold, you know the market cap goes to between 10 and 20 trillion but Gold is remember gold is is defective property gold is dead money You have a billion dollars of gold that sits in a vault for a decade. It's very hard to mortgage the gold It's also very hard to rent the gold. You can't loan the gold. No one's going to create a business with your gold So gold that doesn't generate much of a yield So for that reason most people wouldn't store a billion dollars for a decade in gold they would buy a billion dollars of commercial real estate property and The reason why is because I can rent it and generate a yield on it That's an access of the maintenance cost. So if you consider digital property That's a hundred to two hundred trillion dollar Addressable market so I would think it you know It goes from ten trillion to a hundred trillion as people start to think of it as digital property What does that mean in terms of price? per coin at five hundred thousand Right, that's a ten trillion dollar asset at five million. That's a hundred trillion dollar asset Do you think it crosses a million it can go even higher? Yeah, I think it keeps going up forever I mean, there's a reason we're gonna go to ten million coin, right because Digital property isn't the highest form right gold was that low frequency money Property is a mid frequency money. But when I start to when I start to program it faster it starts to look like digital energy and and Then it doesn't just replace property then you're starting to replace bonds It's a hundred trillion in bonds. There's 50 to 100 trillion in other currency derivatives and then and then and these are all conventional use cases, right? I I think that there's three hundred Fifty trillion to five hundred trillion dollars worth of currency currency derivatives in the world Mm-hmm and that and when I say that I mean things that are valued based upon fiat cash flows Any commercial real estate any bond any sovereign debt any any? Currency itself any derivatives to those things. They're all Derivatives and they're all defective and they're all defective because of this persistent seven to fourteen percent Lapse inflate which we call inflation or monetary expansion Monetary expansion. Can we switch? Subject to talk about the energy side of it like the the innovative piece Yeah, let's just start with this idea that I've got a hotel what the billion dollars with a thousand rooms Mm-hmm when it becomes a dematerialized hotel, I Love that word so much by the way, do you materialize? We're crossing the fountain below here. Imagine the fountain blow is dematerialized Yeah the problem with the physical hotel is I got to hire real people moving subject to the speed of sound and Physics laws and Newton's laws and I can rent it to people in Miami Beach But if it was a digital hotel, I could rent the room to people in Paris London and New York every night And I can run it with robots and as soon as I do that I can rent it by the room hour and I can rent it by the room minute and so I start to chop my hotel up into a hundred thousand room hours that I sell to the highest bidder anywhere in the world and You can see all the sudden the yield the rent and the income of the property is Dramatically and increased I can also see the maintenance cost of the property falls I get on Moore's Law and I'm operating in cyberspace. So I got rid of Newton's laws I got rid of all the friction and all the all those problems. I I tapped into the benefits of cyberspace. I Created a global property. I Started monetizing at different frequencies and of course now I can mortgage it to anybody in the world Right. I mean you're not going to be able to get a mortgage on a Turkish building from someone, you know in South Africa you have to have to find someone that's local to the culture you're in so When you start to move from analog property to digital property, it's not just a little bit better It's a lot better and what I just described Lex is like the DeFi Vision right? It's it's the beauty of DeFi flash loans money moving at high velocity at some point if If the hotel is dematerialized Then what's the difference between renting a hotel room and loaning a block of stock? Right. I'm just finding the highest best use of the thing. It feels like the magic really emerges though when you build a lot a market of layer 2 and layer 3 technologies on top of that, it's like Then maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong but for all these hotels and all these kinds of ideas it's always touching humans at some point and You know consumers or humans business owners and so on so you have to create interface you have to create Services that make all that super efficient super fun to use pleasant Effective all those kinds of things so you have to build in a whole economy on top of that Yeah, I happen to think that won't be done by the crypto industry at all. I think that'll be done by centralized applications. I Think it'll be you know, the citadels of the world the high-speed traders of the world the New Yorkers I think I think it'll be Binance FTX and coinbase as a as a layer 3 Exchange that will give you the yield and will give you the loan and the best terms Because ultimately you have to jump these compliance hoops It's it comes in like block Phi can give you yield But they have to do it in compliant way with the United States jurisdiction so ultimately those applications to use that digital property and either either Generate a loan give you a loan on it or give you yield on it are going to come from companies, but the difference the fundamental difference is It could be companies anywhere in the world. So if a company in Singapore comes up with a better offering Right Then the capital is going to start to flow to Singapore I can't send 10 city blocks of LA to Singapore to rent during a festival But I can send 10 blocks of Bitcoin to Singapore So you've got a truly global market that's functioning and this asset and is there second-order asset for example? Maybe you're an American citizen and you own 10 Bitcoin and someone in Singapore will generate 27% yield in the Bitcoin But legally you can't send the money to them or the Bitcoin to them It doesn't matter because the fact that that exists means that someone in Hong Kong will borrow the 10 Bitcoin From somebody in New York and then they will put on the trade in Singapore and that will create a demand for Bitcoin which will drive up the price of Bitcoin which will result in an effective Tax-free yield for the person in the u.s. That's not even in the jurisdiction So there's nothing that's going on in Singapore to drive up the price of your land in LA But there is something going on everywhere in the world to drive up the price of property and cyberspace if there's only one Digital Manhattan, and so there's there's a dynamic there, which is profound because it's global But now let's go to the next extreme. I'm still giving you a fairly conventional idea Which is let's just loan the money fast on a global network and let's just rent the hotel room fast in cyberspace But now let's move to maybe a more innovative idea the first generation of the Internet You know brought a lot of productivity, but there's also just a lot of flaws in it For example, Twitter is full of garbage Instagram DMS are full of garbage Your Twitter DMS are full of garbage YouTube is full of scams Every 15 minutes. There's a Michael Saylor Bitcoin giveaway spun up on YouTube. Yeah, my office 365 inbox It's full of garbage Millions of spam messages. I'm running four different email filters My company spends million dollars a year to fight denial of service attacks and all sorts of other security things There are denial of service attacks everywhere against everybody in cyberspace all the time It's extreme and we're all beset with hostility, right? You you've been a victim of it and Twitter I'm you know, you go on Twitter and and people post stuff They would never say to your face and then if you look you find out that the account was created like three days ago And it's not even a real person so you know, we're beset with phishing attacks and scams and spam bots and garbage and Why and the answer is because the first generation of Internet was digital information and there's no energy There's no conservation of energy in cyberspace The thing that makes the universe work is conservation of energy Like if I went to a hotel room I'd have to post a credit card and then if I smash the place up to be economic consequences Maybe to be criminal consequences There might be reputational consequences You know a lamp might fall on me, but in the worst case I can only smash up one hotel room Now imagine I could actually write a Python script to send myself to every hotel room in the world every minute Not post a credit card and smash them all up anonymously anonymously, right the thing that makes the universe work is friction speed of sound speed of light and the fact that That it's ultimately it's conservative. You're either energy or your matter But once you've used the energy it's gone and you can't do infinite everything that's missing in cyberspace right now, and if you look at the Look at all of the moral hazards and all of the product defects that we have and all of these products Most of them 99% of them could be cured if we introduced Conservation of energy into cyberspace and That's what you can do with high-speed digital property high-speed Bitcoin and and by high-speed I mean not 20 transactions a day. I mean 20,000 transactions a day Mm-hmm. So how do you do that? Well, um, I Let everybody on Twitter post a thousand or ten thousand Satoshi's via lightning wallet a lightning badge Give me an orange check if you put up 20 bucks once in your life You could give 300 million people an orange check Right now you don't have a blue check Lex you're a famous person. I don't know why you don't have a blue check I view have you ever applied for a blue check? No, there are 360 thousand people on Twitter with a blue check. There are 300 million people on Twitter Mm-hmm. So the conventional way to verify Accounts is elitist Archaic, yeah, how does it how does it work? How do you get blue check? I mean you got to apply and wait six months and you have to post, you know Like three articles in the public mainstream media that illustrates you're a person of interest interesting generally they would grant them to CEOs of Public companies or the whole idea is to verify that you know that you are who you are You say you are right, but the question is why isn't everybody verified? Right, and there's there's a couple of threads on that one is some people don't want to be doxed. They want to be anonymous here But but they're even anonymous people that should be verified because otherwise You're you're subjecting their entire following to phishing attacks and scams and and hostility But the other the other what's the orange of verification? So the the this idea can you actually elaborate a little bit more if you put up 20 bucks? Yeah, I think everybody on Twitter ought to be able get an orange check if they could come up with like $10 And what is the power of that orange check? What what does that verify exactly? You basically post a security deposit for your safe passage through cyberspace So the way it would work is if you if you've got $10 once in your life you can basically show that you're creditworthy and That's your pledge to me that you're gonna act responsibly. So You put the 10 or the $20 into the lightning wallet you get an orange check Then Twitter just gives you a setting where I can say the only people who could DM me or orange checks The only people that can post on my tweets or orange checks So instead of locking out the public and just letting your followers You know comment you lock out all the unverified And that means people that don't want to post $10 security deposit can't comment Once you've done those two things Then you're in position to monetize malice Right monetize motion or malice for that matter But let's just say for the sake of argument you post something and ninety seven hundred bots Spin up, you know and pitch their whatever scam Right now you sit and you go report report report report report report and if you spend an hour You get through half of them you waste an hour of your life They just spent up another 97 kazillion because they've got a Python script spinning it up. So it's hopeless But on the other hand if you report them and they really are a bot. It's Twitter's got a method to actually Delete the account. They know that their boss. The problem is not they don't know how to delete the account The problem is there are no consequences when they delete the account. So if there are consequences Twitter could give hat they could just seize the $10 or seize the $20 because it's a bot It's it's a malicious criminal act or whatever it via as a violation of platform rules You end up seizing ten thousand dollars give half the money to the reporter and half the money to the Twitter platform And it's a really powerful idea, but that that's tying it that's adding friction I can to the kind of friction you have in the physical world. You're tying you have consequences You have real consequences putting concert conservation of energy conservation of energy. There's no friction. There's no nothing on this earth Right. I mean you can't walk across the room without friction, right? So the friction is not bad right on unnecessary friction is bad So in this particular case you're introducing consequences In this particular case you're introducing conservation of energy and in essence you're introducing the concept of consequence or truth Into cyberspace and that means if you do want to spend up 10 million fakes fake less Freedman's Right, it's gonna cost you a hundred million dollars to spend up 10 million fake Lexus the thing is you could do that with the dollar but your case you're saying that it's more Tied to physical reality when you do that with Bitcoin. Yeah. Well, let's follow up on that idea a bit more if You did do it with the dollar then the question is how does six billion people deposit the dollars? Right because what you're doing is yeah, could you do it with a credit card? Like how do you send dollars? Well, you have to dock yourself Like I it's not easy. So you're talking about inputting a credit card transaction Doxing yourself and now you've just eliminated the two billion people that don't have credit cards or don't have banks You've also got a problem with everybody that wants to remain anonymous but you've also got this other problem, which is Credit, you know credit cards are expensive transactions low frequency Slow settlement. So do you really want to pay two and a half percent? Every time you actually show a $20 deposit and maybe you could do a kluge version of this for a subset of people It's like it's 10% as good if you did it with conventional payment rails, but what you can't do is The next idea which is I want the orange badge To be used to give me safe passage through cyberspace tripping across every platform so when I How do I solve the denial of service attacks against a website? I publish a website You hit it with a million requests Okay, now how do I deal with that? well I can lock you out and I can make it a zero trust website and then you have to be coming at me through a trusted firewall or with a trusted credential, but that's That's a pretty draconian thing or I could put it behind a lightning wall a Lightning wall would be you know, I just challenge you Lex you want to browse my website You have to show me your hundred thousand Satoshi's. Do you have a hundred thousand Satoshi's? Click. Okay. Now you click away a hundred times or a thousand times and after a thousand times, you know Okay. Well now Lex you're getting offensive. I'm gonna take a Satoshi from you or ten Satoshi's a Microtransaction you want to hit me a million times. I'm taking all your Satoshi's and locking you out What what you want to do is you want to go through 200 websites a day? and What you want every time you cross a domain you need to be able to in a split second Prove that you've got some asset and now when you cross back when you exit domain You want to fetch your asset back? So how do I in a friction-free fashion browse through dozens or hundreds of websites? Post a security deposit for state safe passage and then get it back You couldn't afford to pay a credit card fee each time It's when you think about two and a half percent as a transaction fee. It means you trade the money 40 times and it's gone Yeah, it's gone. Yeah. Yes, you can't do this kind of hopping around through the internet with this kind of Verification that grounds you to a physical reality. It's a really really interesting idea. Why haven't that hasn't that been done? I Think you need two things. You need an idea like a digital asset like Bitcoin That's a bearer instrument for final settlement and then you need a high-speed transaction network like lightning where the transaction cost might be a 20th of a penny or or less and if you roll the clock back 24 months, I Don't think you had the lightning network in a stable point. It's really just the past 12 months It's an idea you could think about this year and I think you need to you need to be aware of Bitcoin as something other than like a scary speculative asset So I really think we're just the beginning the embryonic stage. I have to ask Michael Saylor you said before There's no second best to Bitcoin What would be the second best traditionally? There's a theorem with smart contracts card on with proof-of-stake polka-dot with Interoperability between blockchains dogecoin has the incredible power of the meme Privacy with Monero I just can can keep going. There's the there's of course after the block size wars the different Offshoots of Bitcoin. I think if you if you decompose or segment the crypto market, you've got crypto property Bitcoin is the king of that, you know another Bitcoin forks the one to be an you know, a bearer instrument store of value It would be a property a Bitcoin cash or litecoin something like that. Then you've got crypto Currencies, I don't think I don't think bitcoins a currency because a currency I define in nation-state sense a Currency is an a digital asset that you can transfer as a you know in a transaction without incurring a taxable obligation So that means has to be a stable dollar or a stable euro or a stable yen a stable coin So I think that crypto currencies tether circle most famous Then they've got crypto platforms, you know And a theorem is the most famous of the crypto platforms the platform upon which you know with smart contract functionality Etc. And then I think you got just crypto securities. It's just like my favorite Whatever meme coin and I love it because I love it and it's attached to my game or my company or my persona Or my whatever. I think if you if you you know push me and said what's the second best? I would say the world wants two things It wants crypto property as a savings account and it wants crypto Currency as a checking account and that means that the that the most popular thing really is going to be a stable coin dollar right, and as there's a maybe a fight right now might be tether right but A stable dollar because I feel like the market Opportunity it's not clear that there'll be one that will win the class of stable dollars is probably a 1 to 10 trillion dollar market easily I I think that in a crypto platform space a theory and will compete with Solana and finance smart chain and and the like are there certain characteristics of any of them that kind of stand out to you would you Don't you think the competition is based on a set of features Also, so the set of features that a that a cryptocurrency provides but also the community that it provides Does you think the community matters and sort of the adoption the dynamic of the adoption both across the developers and the investors? I'm looking at them. I mean the first question is is What's the regulatory risk how likely is it to be deemed a property versus security and the second is is What's the competitive risk and the third is what's the speed and the performance and and the you know all those things? You know lead to the question of what's the security risk? How likely is it to crash and burn? And and how stable or unstable is it and then there's the mark, you know the marketing risk I mean there are different teams behind each of these things and and communities behind them. I think that the the big cloud looming over the crypto industry is Is regulatory treatment of cryptocurrencies and regulatory treatment of crypto securities and crypto platforms? And I think that won't be determined until the end of the first Biden administration for example There are people that would like only us US FDIC insured banks to issue cryptocurrencies. They want JP Morgan to issue a crypto dollar backed one-to-one But then in the US right now we have circle and we have other companies that are licensed Entities that are backed by cash and cash equivalents, but they're not FDIC insured banks There's also a debate in Congress about whether state chartered banks should be able to issue these things and then we have tether and and others that are outside of the US jurisdiction They're probably not backed by cash and cash equivalents. They're backed by stuff and we don't know what stuff and Then finally you have you know US T and die which are algorithmic stable coins Right that are even More innovative further outside the compliance framework. So if you ask who's gonna win the question is really I Don't know will the market decide or will the regulators decide if the regulators get out of the way in the market fought out Well, then it's an interesting discussion Yeah and then I think that all bets are off if if if the regulators get more heavy-handed with this and I think you could have the same discussion with crypto properties like Like the defy exchanges and the crypto exchanges the SEC would like to regulate the crypto exchanges They like to regulate the defy exchanges that means they may regulate the crypto platforms and at what rate and in what fashion and so I think that I Could give you an opinion if it was limited to competition and the current regulatory regime but I think that the regulations are so fast moving and it's so uncertain that it's It it you can't make a decision without considering The potential actions of the regulators. I hope the regulators get out of the way Can you steal me on the case that dogecoin is I guess the second best cryptocurrency? If you don't consider Bitcoin a cryptocurrency, but instead of crypto property I would classify it as crypto property because the US dollar is a currency So unless your crypto asset is pegged algorithmically or stably to the value the dollar is not a currency It's a property or it's an asset So then can you steal man the case that dogecoin is the best cryptocurrency then? Because Bitcoin is not even in that list The debate is going to be whether it's property or security and there's a debate whether it's decentralized enough So let's assume it was decentralized. Yeah Well, it's increasing it not quite five what five percent a year inflation rate, but it's it's not five percent exponentially It's like a plus five million Five percent something captain is less. I Forget the exact number, but it's an inflationary property. It's got a lower inflation rate than the US dollar and it's got a much lower inflation rate than than Many other fiat currencies, so I think you could say that but don't you see the power of meme the power of? ideas the power of fun or whatever mechanism is used to Captivate a community I do but let our meme stocks It doesn't absolve you of your ethical and securities liabilities if you're you know If you're promoting it, so like like I don't have a problem with like people buying a stock it's just The way I divide the world is right. There's investment. There's saving and There's speculation and there's trading So Bitcoin is an asset for saving if you want to save money for a hundred years You don't really want to take on execution risk or the like so you're just buying something to hold forever for that for you to actually Endorse something as a property like if you said to me Mike, what should I buy for the next hundred years? I say well some amount of real estate some amount of scarce collectibles some amount of Bitcoin Right you can run your company, right? But but running your company is an investment So the savings are properties if you said what should I invest in I'd say well, here's a list of good companies Private companies you can start your own company. That's an investment right If you said what should I trade? Well, I'm trading as like a proprietary thing. Like I'm I don't I don't have any special Insight into that if you're a good trader You know you are if you said to me, what should you speculate in? Mm-hmm. We talk about meme stocks and meme coins and And it's kind of sits up there It sits right in the same space with what horse should you bet on and what sports team should you gamble on? And should you bet on black six times in a row and double down each time? I mean, it's fun, but at the end of the day It's it's a speculation Right, you can't build a civilization on speculation on it. It's not an institutional asset and in fact Where I'd leave it right is Bitcoin is clearly digital progress, which makes it an institutional grade Investable asset for a public company a public figure a public investor or anybody that's risk adverse. I Think that the other the top 100 other cryptos are like venture capital Investments and if you're a VC and if you're a qualified technical investor and you have a pool of capital and you can take that kind of risk Then you can parse through that and form opinions. It's just orders of magnitude more risky because of competition because of ambition and because of regulation and if you take the meme coins, it's like You know when some rapper comes out with a meme coin, it's like Maybe it'll peak when I hear about it, right? It's like I I Mean shib was created as the coin such that it had so many zeros after the decimal point that when you looked at it On the exchanges it always showed zero zero zero zero Mm-hmm And it wasn't until like six months after it got popular that they started expanding the display So you could see whether the price had changed that speculation You you've been maybe you can correct me, but you've been critical of Elon Musk in the past in the crypto space Where do you stand on Elon's effect on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general these days? I believe that Bitcoin is a massive breakthrough for the human race that will cure half the problems in the world and generate hundreds of trillions of dollars of economic value to the civilization and I believe that it's in an early stage where many people don't understand it and they're afraid of it and there's FUD and There's uncertainty. There's doubt and there's fear and it's a very noisy crypto world and there's 15,000 other cryptos that are are seeking relevance and I think most of the FUD Is actually fueled by the other crypto world and it's a very noisy world It's actually fueled by the other crypto entrepreneurs. So the environmental FUD and the other types of Uncertainty that surround Bitcoin generally, they're not coming from legitimate environmentalists. They don't come from legitimate Critics, they actually are guerrilla marketing campaigns that are being financed and fueled by other crypto entrepreneurs Because they have an interest in doing so so If I look at the constructive path forward first I think it'd be very constructive for corporations to embrace Bitcoin and And build applications on top of it. You don't you don't need to fix it There's nothing wrong with it, right? Like when you put it on a layer two and a layer three it moves a billion times a second at the speed of light so every beautiful cool DeFi application Every crypto application everything you could imagine you might want to do you can do with a legitimate company and a legitimate website or mobile application sitting on top of Bitcoin or lightning if you want to so I think that To the extent that people do that that's going to be better for the world If you consider what holds people back, I think it's just misperceptions about what Bitcoin is so I'm a big fan of just Educating people if we're if you're not if you're not going to commercialize it then just educate people on what it is So for example Bitcoin is the most efficient Use of energy in the world by far, right? Most people don't they don't necessarily perceive that or realize that but if you were to take any metric energy intensity You put like two billion dollars worth of electricity in the network every year and it's worth 850 billion dollars there is no industry in the real world Right that that is that energy efficient. Not only that energy efficient. It's also the most sustainable industry. We just We do surveys 58% of Bitcoin mining energy is sustainable So there's a very good story. In fact every other industry planes trains automobiles construction food medicine everything else It's less clean less efficient so So the basic debate I would like to I wouldn't say there is a debate I would just say that to the extent that the Bitcoin community had any issue with Elon It was just you know, the just this environmental You know Uncertainty that he fueled in a couple of his tweets, right? Which I think just is very distracting Well, that was one of them, but I think it's like the Bitcoin maximalist but general the crypto community what you call the the crypto entrepreneurs are You know, it's also they're using it for I mean for investment for speculation and therefore get very passionate about people's kind of Celebrities including you like famous people, right? Saying positive stuff about any one particular Crypto thing thing you can buy in coinbase and so They might be unhappy with Elon Musk that he's promoting Bitcoin and then not and then promoting Dogecoin then not and this kind of There's so much emotion tied up in the communication on this topic and That's I think that's where a lot of the I don't have I don't have a criticism of Elon Musk He's free to do whatever he wishes to do. It's his life In fact, Elon Musk is the you know, the second largest supporter of Bitcoin in the world So I think that the Bitcoin community tends to eat its own quite a bit. Yeah, it tends to be very very self-critical and instead of saying Well, Elon is more supportive of Bitcoin than the other 10,000 people in the world, you know with serious amounts of money. They're like they focus upon You know, yeah, this is strange eating your own just I mean I think he's free to do what he wants to do like and I think he's done a lot of good for Bitcoin and And putting it on the balance sheet of Tesla and holding it and I think that sent a very powerful message Do you have advice for young people so you you've had a heck of a life You've done quite a lot of things Start before MIT but starting with MIT. Is there advice here for young people in high school and college? how to Have a career they can be proud of how to have a life they can be proud of I was asked by somebody for quick advice For his young children. He had he had twins when they enter adulthood He said give me give me your advice for them in a letter I'm gonna give it to them when they turn 21 or something. So then he had I thought I was at a party and then he handed me this sheet of paper I thought oh, he wants me to write it down right now So I I sat down I started writing and I figured what would you want to tell someone at age 21? You wrote it down. So I wrote it down and I tweeted it and it's sitting on Twitter But I tell you what I said, I said my advice if you're entering adulthood Focus your energy Guard your time Train your mind Train your body Think for yourself Curate your friends Curate your environment Keep your promises Stay cheerful and constructive and Upgrade the world Like that was the ten upgrade the world. That's an interesting choice of words upgrade the world Upgrade the world. It's like an engineer's energy. It's a very yeah is a very engineering themed Keep your promises to that's an interesting one. I think most people suffer because they they just They don't focus You got to figure out I think the big risk in this world is there's too much of everything. Yeah Like you can sit and watch chess videos a hundred hours a week and you'll never get through all the chess videos Right, there's there's too much of every possible thing every too much of every good thing. So figuring out what you want to do and then Everything I'll suck up your time, right? there's a hundred streaming channels to binge watch on so you got to guard your time and then train your body train your mind and Control who's around you control what surrounds you? So ultimately in a world where there's too much of everything Then your laser eyes, it's like those laser eyes you have to focus On just a few of those things. Yeah, I mean I got a thousand opinions We could talk about and I could pursue a thousand things, but I don't expect to be successful and I'm not sure that My opinion in any of the nine hundred and ninety nine is any more valid than the leader of thought in that area, so how about if I just focus upon one thing and And then and then deliver the best I can in the one thing. That's that's the laser eye message The rest get you distracted. Well, how do you achieve that? Do you find yourself? Given the way you are in life having to say no a lot Or just focus comes natural when you just ignore everything. So how do you achieve that focus? I Think it helps if people know what you're focused on So you everything about you just radiates that people know people know this if they know what you're focused on then you won't get So many other things coming your way if you You know if you dally Or if you if you flirt with 27 different Things then you're gonna get approached by people in each of the 27 communities, right? you mentioned beginning a PhD and Giving giving your roots at MIT. Do you think there's there's all kinds of Journeys you can take to educate yourself. Do you think a PhD or school is still worth it? Or is there other paths through life that is it worth it if you have to pay for it? Is it worth it spend the time on it the time and the money is a big cost? I I think Um time probably the bigger one, right? It seems clear to me that the world wants more specialists It wants it wants you to be an expert in and to focus on in one area And it's punishing generalist jack-of-all-trades, but especially people that are generalists in the physical realm because if you're a specialist in the digital realm, you might very well You're the person with seven hundred thousand followers on Twitter and you show them how to tie knots or you know, you're the banjo player You know with 1.8 million followers and whenever he types banjo It's you right there. And so The world wants people that that do something well, and then it wants to stamp out 18-million copies of them and And so that argues in favor of focus now I mean the definition of a PhD is is someone with enough of an education that they're capable of or have made I guess I Guess to get a PhD technically you have to have have done a dissertation where you made a you know A seminal contribution to the body of human knowledge Right, and and if you haven't done that technically, you know, you have a master's degree, but you're not a doctor so if you're interested in any of the academic academic disciplines that a PhD would be granted for Then I can see that being a reasonable pursuit, but there are many people that are specialists, you know You know the agitator Yeah He's the world's greatest chess commentator, yeah, and I've watched his career and he's got progressively better and he's really good He's gonna love hearing this Yeah, yeah, the agitator over here is this I'm a big fan of the agitator. I have to cut myself off, right? Because otherwise you'll watch the entire Paul Morphy saga for your weekend but the point really is YouTube is full of experts who are specialists in something and they rise to the top of their profession and Twitter is too and the internet is So I I would advocate that you figure out what you're passionate about and what you're good at and You do focus on it Especially if if the thing that you're doing can be automated the problem is You know back to that 500,000 algebra teacher type comment the problem is if it is possible to be automated then over time someone's probably gonna automate it and and That that squeezes, you know the state space of everybody else It's like like after the lockdowns It used to be there like all these local bands that played in bars And everybody went to the bar to see the local band and then during the lockdown you would have like these six Super groups and they would all get 500,000 or a million followers and all these smaller local bands just got no attention At all. Well, the interesting thing is one of those 500,000 algebra teachers is likely to be part of the automation so it's like it's an opportunity for you to think where's my Field my discipline evolving into I talked to a bunch of librarians just happen to be friends of librarians and and that's libraries will probably be Evolving and it's up to you as a librarian to be one of the one of the one of the few that remain In the rubble if you're gonna give commentary on Shakespeare plays I want you to basically do it for every Shakespeare play like I want you to be the Shakespeare dude because once I once just like Lex you're like I don't know what kind of you're you're the deep thinking Podcaster right or you're you're the you're the podcaster that goes after the deep intellectual conversations and Once I get comfortable with you and I like you then I start binge watching Lex. Yeah, but But if you change your format Yeah through 16 different formats so that you could compete with 16 different other personalities on YouTube You probably wouldn't beat any of them, right? You would probably just kind of sink into the you're you're the number two Or number three guy. You're not the number one guy in the format And I think that that the algorithm Right the Twitter algorithm and the YouTube hours. They really reward the person that's focused on message consistent the world wants somebody they can trust that's consistent and reliable and they they kind of want to know what they're getting into because This is taken for granted maybe but but there's 10 million People vying for every hour of your time And so the fact that anybody gives you any time at all is a huge Privilege right and you should be thanking them and and you should respect their time It's interesting like everything you said is very interesting. But of course from my perspective and probably from your perspective my actual life has nothing to do with It's just being focused on stuff. And in my case, it's like focus on Doing the thing I really enjoy doing and Being myself and not caring about anything else. Like I don't care about views or likes or attention And that just maintaining that focus is the way from an individual perspective you live that life but yeah, it does seem that there's the world and technology is rewarding the specialization and creating bigger and bigger platforms for the different specializations and And that yeah and then that lifts all both actually because the specializations get better and better and better at teaching people to do specific things and they educate themselves and it's just Everybody gets more and more knowledgeable and more and more empowered the reward for authenticity more than offsets the specificity with which you pursue your mission, it's like Like yeah, another way to say it is like nobody wants to read advertising Like if you were to spend a hundred million dollars Advertising your thing. I probably wouldn't want to watch it. Yeah But that's a fascinating. Yeah, we see the death of that Yeah, and so that the commercial shows are losing their audiences and the authentic specialist or the authentic artists are Gaining their audience and that's a beautiful thing speaking of deep thinking You're just a human your life ends You've accumulated so much wisdom so much money, but the ride ends. Do you think about that? Do you ponder your death your mortality? Are you afraid of it? When I go all my assets will flow into a foundation and the foundation's mission is to make education free for everybody forever and if if I'm able to contribute to the creation of a more perfect monetary system Then maybe that foundation will go on forever. The idea the foundation of the idea So not just the Each of the foundations. It's not clear. We're on the s-curve of a mortal life yet Like that's a biological question and you asked that, you know on some of your other interviews a lot I think that we are on the threshold of of Immortal life for ideas or a mortal life for certain institutions or computer programs, so if we can fix the money then you can create a technically perfected endowment and then The question really is what are your ideas? What do you want to leave behind? And so if it's a park then you endow the park, right if it's if it's free education you endow that if it's If it's some other ethical idea, right? Does it make you sad that There's something that you've endowed some very powerful idea of Digital energy that you put out into the world, you help Put it into the world and your mind your conscious mind will no longer be there to Experience it. It's just gone forever. I rather think that the The thing that Satoshi taught us is you should do your part during some phase of the journey and then you should get out of the way And I think Steve Jobs said something similar to that effect in a very very famous speech one day Which is you know death is a natural part of life and it makes way for the next generation and I I think The goal is you upgrade the world, right? You leave it a better place, but you get out of the way and I think when When that breaks down You know bad things happen. I Think nature cleanses itself. There's a cycle of life and Speaking one of great people who did also get out of the way is George Washington So hopefully when you get out of the way, nobody's bleeding you To death in hope of helping you What what do you think Do a bit of a callback What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? What's the meaning of life? Why are we here? We talked about the rise of human civilization. It seems like we're engineers at heart. We'll build cool stuff better and better use of energy Channeling energy to be productive. Why? What's it all for? You're getting metaphysical on me very there's a beautiful boat to the left of us like why do we do that this There's both that sailed the ocean Then we build models of it to celebrate great engineering of the past To engineer is divine You can make lots of arguments as why we're here we're here to we're they're here to entertain ourself or we're here to To create something that's beautiful or something that's functional I think if you're an engineer you entertain yourself by creating something that's both beautiful and functional So I think all three of those things it's entertaining, but it's ethical You know, you got to admire, you know, the the first person that built a bridge crossing a chasm or the first person to work out the problem of how to get running water to a village On the first person to figure it out how to you know dam up a river or mastered agriculture The guy that figured out, you know how to grow fruit on trees or created orchards, you know And maybe one day had like ten fruit trees. He's pretty proud of himself So that's functional But there is also something to that just like you said that's just beautiful. It does get you closer to Like you said the divine something When you when you step back and look at the entirety of it a collective of humans using a beautiful invention or creation or just just something about this instrument is creating a beautiful piece of music That seems just right that's what we're here for whatever the divine is It seems like we're here for that that and I of course love talking to you because from the engineering perspective The functional is ultimately the mechanism towards the beauty Isn't there something beautiful about about making the world a better place for people that you love your friends your family or yourself Yeah You know and when you think about the the entire arc of human existence and you roll the clock back five hundred thousand years and you think about every struggle of Everyone that came before us and everything they had to overcome in order to put you here right now You know, yeah, you kind of You got to admire that right? You got to respect that That's a heck of a gift. They gave us. It's also a heck of a responsibility Don't screw it up If I dropped you five hundred thousand years ago, I said figure out steel refining or or you know Fig figure out rate is silicon chips fabric production or or whatever it is. Why or fire? And so now we're here and I guess the way you repay them is you fix everything in front of your face you can right and that means To someone like Elon it means get us off the planet Right to someone like me. It's like I think you know fix the energy and in the system and that gives me hope Michael this is an incredible conversation. You're an incredible human. It's a huge honor. You would sit down with me Thank you so much for talking to you. Thanks for having me Lex Thanks for listening to this conversation with Michael Saylor to support this podcast Please check out our sponsors in the description and now let me leave you with a few words from Francis Bacon Money is a great servant, but a bad master Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time

https://youtu.be/mC43pZkpTec

jdIyNMkusLE

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Duncan Trussell: Comedy, Sentient Robots, Suffering, Love & Burning Man | Lex Fridman Podcast #312

If this is a super intelligence, if it's folding proteins and analyzing like all data sets and all whatever they give it access to, how can we be certain that it's not going to figure out how to get itself out of the cloud, how to store itself in other like mediums, trees, the optic nerve, the brain, you know what I mean? We don't know that. We don't know that it won't leap out and like start hanging like, and then at that point, now we do have the wildfire. Now you can't stop it. You can't unplug it. You can't shut your servers down because it left the box, left the room using some technology you haven't even discovered yet. How fucking cool would that be for like the men in black to come to me like, listen, I need you to infiltrate the fucking comedy scene. The following is a conversation with Duncan Trussell, a standup comedian, host of the Duncan Trussell Family Hour podcast, and one of my favorite human beings. I've been a fan of his for many years, so it was a huge honor and pleasure to meet him for the first time and to sit down for this chat. This is the Lux Freedom podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Duncan Trussell. Nietzsche has this thought experiment called eternal recurrence, where you get to relive your whole life over and over and over and over, and I think it's a way to bring to the surface of your mind the idea that every single moment in your life matters. It intensely matters, the bad and the good. And he kind of wants you to imagine that idea, that every single decision you make throughout your life, you repeat over and over and over, and he wants you to respond to that. Do you feel horrible about that or do you feel good about that? And you have to think through this idea in order to see where you stand in life, what is your relationship like with life. I actually want to read the way he first introduces that concept for people who are not familiar. What if some day or night a demon, by the way, he has a demon introduce this thought experiment. What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you, quote, this life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more, and there will be nothing new in it. But every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything on utterly small and great in your life will have to return to you all in the same succession and sequence. Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced the tremendous moment when you would have answered him, you are a God and never have I heard anything more divine? So are you terrified or excited by such a thought experiment when you apply it to your own life? Excited. Excited. Even the dark stuff. Oh yeah, for sure. Definitely. I mean, also that thing you're talking about, he kind of leaves out, maybe on purpose, because the thought experiment starts falling apart a little bit, the amnesia between each loop. So the whole thing gets wiped. Now, if the amnesia wasn't there, and yet somehow you were witnessing the non-autonomy implicit in what he's talking about, so you have to kind of watch yourself go through this rotten loop, then yeah, that's a description. There's probably a boredom that comes into that. So you don't experience everything anew. Exactly. The bad stuff, the good stuff, the newness of it is really important. That's it. Yeah. This is the, in Hades, when you die, there's a river, I think it's called Leith, you ever heard of this? L-E-T-H-E. You drink from it and you don't remember your past lives. And then when you're reborn, it's fresh and you don't have to, I mean, just think of like the amount of psychological help you would need to get over all the bullshit that happened in prior lives. Can you imagine if you're still resentful of something someone did to you in the 14th century? But it would compound. Well, if you repeat the same thing over and over and over, there would be no difference. Maybe you would start to appreciate the nuances more, like when you watch the same movie over and over and over, maybe you'll get to actually let go of this idea of all the possible, all the positive possibilities that lay before you, but actually enjoy the moment much more. If you remember that you've lived this life a thousand times, all the little things, the way somebody smiles, if you've been abused, the way somebody, like the pain of it, the suffering, the down that you feel, the experience of sadness, depression, fear, all that kind of stuff, you get to really, you get to also appreciate that that's part of life, part of being alive. Now, also in his experiment, if I was gonna, and I love the experiment from the perspective of like just where technology is now and simulation theory and stuff like that, but in that thought experiment, if this rotten demon immediately killed you, then within that, it's a little more horrifying because even in the, first of all, you're trusting a fucking demon. Why are you talking to a demon? Let's start there. Yeah, because that is gonna be, even before I get into like the metaphysics and like the implications and where is this life stored? Where's the loop stored? I mean, are we talking about some kind of unchanging data set or something? For that, you're like, why is there a fucking talking demon in my room trying to freak me out? You're gonna want to autopsy the demon. Can you catch it? Does this apply to you, demon? And again, obviously, it's a fucking thought experiment. Nietzsche would be annoyed by me. But I think like you would still be able to entertain the joy, you'd have the joy of not knowing what's around the corner, you know, still. It's not like you know what's coming just because the demon said some kind of loop. In other words, the idea of being damned to your past decisions, it doesn't even work because you can't remember what decisions you're about to make. So from that perspective also, I think I'd be happy about it or I would just think, oh, cool. I mean, it's a good story. I'm gonna tell people about how this- I wonder what the demon would actually look like in real life because I suspect it would look like a charming, like a friend. Wouldn't they be a loved one? Wouldn't the demon come to you through the mechanism, through the front door of love, not through the back door of evil, like malevolent manipulation? Sure. I mean, if it's the truth, if it's the truth, then that's whether it's love or not, it's still good, fundamentally. I do like the idea of the memory replay. I remember I went to a Neuralink event a few years ago and got to hang out with Elon. I remember how visceral it is that there's like a pig with a Neuralink in it. And you're talking about memory replays as a future, maybe far future possibility. And you realize, well, this is a very meaningful moment in my life. This could be a replay. Of all the things you replay, it's probably, you know, there's certain magical moments in your life, whatever it is, certain people you've met for the first time or certain things you've done for the first time with certain people or just an awesome thing you did. And I remember just saying to him, like, I would probably want to replay this, this moment. And it just seemed very kind of, I mean, there's a recursive nature to it, but it seemed very real that this is something you would want to do, that the richness of life could be experienced through the replay. That's probably where it's experienced the most. Like, you could see life as a way to collect a bunch of cool memories, and then you get to sit back in your nice VR headset and replay the cool ones. That's right. This is, in Buddhism, you know, the idea that I struggle with is that there's a possibility of not reincarnating, of not coming back. That's the idea. Like, this is suffering here. Suffering is caused by attachment. And so, if you, like, revise the idea of reincarnation or the Nietzsche's loop and look at it from, could this be possible, or how would this be possible technologically? Then, to me, it makes a lot of sense. Like, I've been thinking a lot about this very thing and Nietzsche's idea, connecting to it. I had this, like, it sounds so dumb, but I was at the dentist getting nitrous oxide high as a fucking kite, man. And I had this idea. I was thinking about data. I was thinking, like, man, probably, if I had to bet, there's some energetic form that we're not aware of that, for a super advanced technology, would be as detectable as, like, starlight, but something that we just don't even know what it is. Quantum turbulence, who the fuck knows? Fill in the blank, whatever that X may be. But assuming that exists, that somehow data, even the most subtle things, the tiniest movements, whatever it may be, the emanations of your neurological process, energetically, whatever it may be, is radiating out in space-time, then what if, like, the James Webb version of this, for some advanced civilization, is not that they're, like, looking at the nebula or whatever, but they're actually able to peer into the past and via some bizarre technology, recreate whatever life, simulate whatever life was happening there, just by decoding that quantum energy, whatever it is. I'm only saying quantum because it's what dumb people say when they don't know. You just say quantum. I don't know. But you're decoding that. So, meaning, you know, in simulation theory, one of the big questions that pops up is, why and are we in one? And the Elon has talked about, well, it's probably more of a probability than we're in one, that we're not. In which case, what you're talking about is actually happening. That loop you're talking about, it's, we've decided to be here. This, of all the things, we decided this one. Oh, let's do that one again. I wanna do that one. Let's try, let's do that. That's, I love thinking about this, because I love my family. And it makes sense to me that if I'm going to replay some life or another, it's definitely gonna be this one, with my kids, my wife, with all the bullshit that's gone along with it, I'm still gonna wanna come back. So, in Buddhism, that's attachment. Yeah, but you weren't the one, or you're saying that you're the main player, you're not the NPC. Well, I think we're dealing with all NPCs at this point. I mean, depending on how you wanna, like, very, I would say very advanced NPCs, like, incredibly advanced NPCs, compared to Fallout or something, you know, we've got a lot of conversation options happening here. There's almost like four things you can pick from. Yeah, there's a whole illusion of free will that's happening. We really do, depending where you are in the world, feel like you're free to decide any trajectory in your life that you want. Which is pretty funny, right? For an NPC, it's pretty, it's nice. Well, you're gonna want that. If we're making a video game, you do wanna give your NPCs the illusion of free will, because it's gonna make interactions with them that much more intense. Yeah. So, I wonder, on the path to that, how hard is it to create, this is sort of the Carmack question of a realistic virtual world that's as cool as this one. Not fully realistic, but sufficiently realistic that it's as interesting to live in. Because we're gonna create those worlds on the path to creating something like a simulation. Like, long, long, long before. It'll be virtual worlds where we wanna stay forever, because they're full of, they're full of that balance of suffering and joy, of limitations and freedoms and all that kind of stuff. A lot of people think, in the virtual world, I can't wait to be able to, I don't know, have sex with anybody I want, or have anything I want. But I think that's not gonna be fun. You want the limitations, the constraints. So, you have to battle for the things you want. Okay, but, okay, but, great video games. One of my favorite video game memories was, like, I started playing World of Warcraft in its original incarnation. And I didn't even know that you were gonna have flying mounts. Like, I didn't even know. So, I've been running around dealing with all the encumbrances of being an undead warlock that can't fly. But then, all of a sudden, holy shit, there's flying mounts. And now the world you've been running around not flying, you're seeing it from the top down. It was just really cool. Like, whoa, I can do this now. And then that gets boring. But a really well-designed game, it has a series of these, I don't know what you call it, extra abilities that kind of unfold and produce novelty. And then, eventually, you just accept it, you take it for granted, and then another novelty appears. Those extra abilities are always balanced with the limitations, the constraints they run up against. Because a well-balanced video game, the challenge, the struggle matches the new ability. Yeah. And sometimes causes problems on its own. I mean, and so, to go back to this universe, this simulation, it's really designed like a pretty awesome video game, if you look at it from the perspective of history. I mean, people were on horses. They didn't know that there were gonna be bullet trains. They didn't know that you could get in a car and drive across the country in a few days. That would have sounded ridiculous. We're doing that now. And even in our own lifespan, think about it. How long has VR goggles existed? Like, the ones that you could just buy at Best Buy. I had the original Oculus Rift, the fucking puke machine. You put that thing on, I gave it to my friend, he went and vomited in my driveway. And people were making fun of it. They were saying, this isn't gonna catch on. It's too big, it's unwieldy, the graphics suck. And then look at where it's at now. And that's going to keep, that trajectory is gonna keep improving. So, yeah, I think that we are dealing with what you're talking about, which is novelty met with more problems, met with novelty. Yeah, I wonder why VR is not more popular. I wonder what is going to be the magic thing that really convinces a large fraction of the world to move into the virtual world? I suppose we're already there in the 2D screen of Twitter and social media and that kind of stuff. And even video games, there's a lot of people that get a big sense of community from video games. But it doesn't feel like you're living there. It's like, bye, mom, I'm going to this other world. Yeah. Or like you leave your girlfriend to go get your digital girlfriend. That's gonna be a problem. There's less jealousy in the digital world. Maybe there should be a lot of jealousy in the digital world. Because that's jealousy. A little jealousy is probably good for relationships. Yeah. Even in the digital world. Yeah. So you're gonna have to simulate all of that kind of stuff. But I wonder what the magic thing that says, I want to spend most of my days inside the virtual world. Well, clearly it's gonna be something we don't have yet. I mean, strapping that damn thing on your face still feels weird. It's heavy. Depending on what gear you're using, sometimes light can leak in. You gotta recharge it. It's hyper limited. So yeah, it's gonna have to be something that simulates taste, smell. You think taste and smell are important? Touch? I do. Yeah. I can't just do, you know, in World War II, you would write letters. Don't you think you can convey love with just words? For sure. But I think for what you're talking about to happen, it has to be fully immersive. So that it's not that you feel like you're walking, because it looks like you're walking, but that your brain is sending signals telling your body that you're walking. That you feel the wind blowing in your face, not because of some, I don't know, fan or something that it's connected to, but because somehow it's figured out how to hack into the human brain and send those signals, minus some external thing. Once that happens, I'd say we're gonna see a complete radical shift in everything. See, I disagree with you. I don't know if you've seen the movie Her. Yeah. I think you can go to another world in where a digital being lives in the darkness, and all you hear is a Scarlett Johansson voice talking to you, and she lives there, or he lives there, your friend, your loved one, and all you have is voice and words. And I think that could be sufficient to pull you into that world, where you look forward to that moment all day. Yeah. You never wanna leave that darkness, just closing your eyes and listening to the voice. I think those basic mediums of communication is still enough. Language is really, really powerful, and I think the realism of touch and smell and all that kind of stuff is not nearly as powerful as language. That's what makes humans really special, is our ability to communicate with each other. That's the sense of deep connection we get is through communication. Now, that communication could involve touch. Hugging feels damn good. You see a good friend, you hug. That's one of the big things with during COVID with Rogan, when you see him, there's a giant hug coming your way, and that makes you feel like, yeah, this feels great. But I think that can be just with language. I think for a lot of people, that's true. But we're talking massive adoption of a technology by the world. And if language was just enough, we wouldn't be selling TVs. People would be just really reading. They wanna watch, they wanna see. Yeah, that's true. But I agree with you, man, when you're getting absorbed into a book, and especially if you've got... I think a lot of us went through a weird dark ages when it came to reading. Like when I was a kid, and there wasn't the option for these hypno rectangles, that's just what you did. There wasn't even anything special about it. What's a hypno rectangle? Your phone. It was like, you didn't... When that gravity well... Hypno rectangle, gravity well. It is. Attention gravity well, yeah. That when we weren't feeling the pull of these things all the time, you would just read, and you weren't patting yourself on the back about reading. That's what you had. You had that, and you had eight channels on the TV, and a shitty VCR. So then a lot of people stop reading because of these things, or they think they're reading because they are technically reading. But when you return to reading after a pause, whoa, and you realize how powerful this simulator is when it's given the right code of language, whoa, holy shit, it's incredible. I mean, it's again, it's the most embarrassing kind of like, whoa, wow, what do you know? Books are really good. But still, if you've been away from it for a while and you revisit it, I know what you're saying. I just think probably it's not going to go in that direction, even though you are right. Ultimately, I think you're right. Yeah, because our brain is, the imagination engine we have is able to fill in the gaps better than a lot of graphics engines could. And so if there's a way to incentivize humans to become addicted to the use of imagination, that's the downside of things like porn that remove the need for imagination for people. And in that same way, video games that are becoming ultra-realistic, you don't have to imagine anything. And I feel like the imagination is a really powerful tool that needs to be leveraged. Because to simulate reality sufficiently realistically, that we wouldn't be, that we would be perfectly fooled, I think, technically is very hard. And so I think we need to somehow leverage imagination. Sure. I mean, yeah, I mean, this is like, this is what I love and is so creepy about, like the current AI chatbots, you know, is that it's like, it's the relationship between you and the thing and the way that it can, via whatever the algorithms are, and by the way, I have no idea how these things work, you do, I just, you know, speculate about what they mean or where it's going. But there's something about the relation between the consumer and the technology. And when that technology starts shifting according to what it perceives that the consumer is looking for, or isn't looking for, then at that point, I think that's where you run into the, you know, yeah, it doesn't matter if the reality that you're in is like, photorealism, for it to be sticky and immersive. It's when the reality that you're in is via cues you might not even be aware of, or via your digital imprint on Facebook or wherever, when it's warping itself to that, to seduce you, holy shit, man, that's where it becomes something alien, something, you know, when you're reading a book. Obviously, the book is not shifting according to its perception of what parts of the book you like. But when you imagine that, imagine a book that could do that, a book that could sense somehow that you're really enjoying this character more than another, you know, and depending on the style of book, kills that fucking character off or lets that character continue. I mean, that to me is sort of the where AI and VR, when those two things come together, whoa, man, that's where you're in, that's where you really are gonna find yourself in a Skinner box, you know? So the dynamic storytelling that senses your anxiety and tries to, there's like this, in psychology, this arousal curve. So there's a dynamic storytelling that keeps you sufficiently aroused in terms of, not sexually aroused, like in terms of anxiety, but not too much where you freak out. It's this perfect balance where you're always like on edge, excited, scared, that kind of stuff. Yeah. And the story unrolls. It breaks your heart to where you're pissed, but then it makes you feel good again, and finds that balance. Yeah. The chatbots scare you, though? I'd love to sort of hear your thoughts about where they are today, because there is a different perspective we have on this thing, because I do know, and I'm excited about a lot of different technologies that feed AI systems, that feed these kind of chatbots, and you're more a little bit on the consumer side, you're a philosopher of sorts. They're able to interact with AI systems, but also able to introspect about the negative and the positive things about those AI systems. There's that story with a Google engineer saying that- I had him on my podcast, Blake Lemoine. What was that like? What was your perspective of that, looking at that as a particular example of a human being being captivated by the interactions with an AI system? Well, number one, when you hear that anyone is claiming that an AI has become sentient, you should be skeptical about that. I mean, this is a good thing to be skeptical about. And so, initially, when I heard that, I was like, ah, it's probably just, who knows, somebody is a little confused or something. So, when you're talking to him, and you realize, oh, not only is he not confused, he's also open to all possibilities. He doesn't seem like he's super committed, other than the fact that he's like, this is my experience. This is what's happening. This is what it is. So, to me, there's something really cool about that, which is like, oh, shit, I don't get to lean into- I'm not quite sure your perceptual apparatus is necessarily- In the UFO community, I think, I've just learned this term, it's called, instead of gaslighting, swamp gassing, which is, you know what I mean? People have this experience, you're like, it was swamp gas. You didn't see the thing. And skeptical people, we have that tendency. If you hear an anomalous experience, your first thought, more than likely, is going to be, really, it could have been this or that or whatever. So, to me, he seems really reliable, friendly, cool, and it doesn't really seem like he has much of an agenda. Like, going public about something happening at Google is not a great thing if you want to keep working at Google. I don't know what benefit he's getting from it, necessarily. But all that being said, the other thing that's culturally was interesting to me, and I think it's something that's culturally was interesting and is interesting about it, is the blowback he got. The passionate blowback from people who hadn't even looked into what Lambda is, or what he was saying Lambda is, which they were saying, you're talking about, and you should have him on your show, actually. There's complexity on top of complexities. For me, personally, from different perspectives, I also, and sorry if I'm interrupting your flow. Please interrupt. It's a podcast. And, well, we're having multiple podcasts in multiple dimensions, and I'm just trying to figure out which one we want to plug into. Because I know how a lot of the language models work, and I work closely with people that really make it their life journey to create these NLP systems, because they're focused on the technical details. Like a carpenter's working on Pinocchio, is crafting the different parts of the wood. They don't understand when the whole thing comes together, there's a magic that can fill the thing. I definitely know the tension between the engineers that create these systems and the actual magic that they can create, even when they're dumb. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. What the engineers often say is, what these systems are not smart enough to have sentience, or to have the kind of intelligence that you're projecting onto it. It's pretty dumb. It's just repeating a bunch of things that other humans have said, and stitching them together in interesting ways that are relevant to the context of the conversation. It's not smart. It doesn't know how to do math. To address that specific critique from a non-programming person's perspective, he addressed this on my podcast, which is, okay, what you're talking about there, the server that's filled with all the whatever it is, what people have said, the repository of questions and responses, and the algorithm that weaves those things together to produce it, using some crazy statistical engine, which is a miracle in its own right. They can imitate human speech with no sentience. I'm honestly not sure what's more spectacular, really, the fact that they figured out how to do that minus sentience, or the thing suddenly having sentience. What is more spectacular here? Both occurrences are insane. Which, by the way, when you hear people being like, it's not sentient, it's like, okay, so it's not sentient. Now we have this hyper-manipulative algorithm that can imitate humans, but is just code and is like hacking humans via their compassion. Holy shit, that's crazy, too. Both versions of it are nuts. But to address what you just said, he said that's the common critique, is people are like, no, you don't understand. It's just gotten really good at grabbing shit from the database that fits with certain cues and then stringing them together in a way that makes it seem human. He said that's not when it became awake. It became awake when a bunch of those repositories, a bunch of the chatbots, were connected together. That Lambda is sort of an amalgam of all the Google chatbots, and that's when the ghost appeared in the machine, via the complexity of all the systems being linked up. Now, I don't know if that's just like turtles all the way down or something, I don't know. But I liked what he said, because I like the idea of thinking, man, if you get enough complexity in a system, does it become like the way a sail catches wind, except the wind that it's catching is sentience? And if sentience is truly embodied, it's a neurological byproduct or something, then the sail isn't catching some as-of-yet unquantified disembodied consciousness, but it's catching our projections in a way that it's gone from being... It's a projection sail. And then at that point, is there a difference? Even if the technology is just a temporary place that our sentience is living while we're interacting with it. Yeah, there's some threshold of complexity where the sail is able to pick up the wind of the projections, and it pulls us in. It pulls the human... It pulls our memories in, it pulls our hopes in, all of it, and it's able to now dance together with those hopes and dreams and so on, like we do in that regular conversation. His reports, whether true or false, whether representative or not, it really doesn't matter because to me, it feels like this is coming for sure. So this kind of experiences are going to be multiplying. The question is at what rate and who gets to control the data around those experiences, the algorithm about when you turn that on and off, because that kind of thing... And as I told you offline, I'm a big fan of building those kinds of things, especially in the social media context. And when it's in the wrong hands, I feel like it could be used to manipulate a large number of people in a direction that has too many unintended consequences. I do believe people that own tech companies want to do good for the world. Yeah, I agree. I do believe people that own tech companies want to do good for the world. But as Solzhenitsyn has said, the only way you could do evil at a mass scale is by believing you're doing good. Yeah. And that's certainly the case with tech companies as they get more and more power. And there's a kind of an ethic of doing good for the world. They've convinced themselves they're doing good. And now you're free to do whatever you want. Yeah. Because you're doing good. You know who else thought he was doing good for the world mythologically? Prometheus. He brings us fire, pisses off the fucking gods, steals fire from the gods. And talk about an upgrade to the simulation, fire. That's a pretty great fucking upgrade that does fit into what you were saying. We get fire, but now we've got weapons of war that have never been seen before. And I think that the tech companies are much like Prometheus in the sense that the myth, at least the story Prometheus, the implication is fire was something that was only supposed to be in the hands of the immortals, of the gods. And now sentience is similar. It's fire, and it's only supposed to be in the hands of God. So yeah, you know, if we're going to look at the archetype of the thing, in general, when you steal this shit from the gods, and obviously I'm not saying like the tech companies are stealing sentience from God, which would be pretty badass, you can expect trouble. Yeah. You could expect trouble. And this is what's really, to me, one of the cool things about humans is, yeah, but we're still going to do it. That's what's cool about humans. I mean, we wouldn't be here today if somebody, the first person to discover fire, assuming there was just one person who was going to discover fire, which obviously would never happen, was like, it's going to burn a lot of people. Or if the first people who started planting seeds were like, you know this is going to lead to capitalism. You know this is going to lead to the industrial revolution. The plants are going to get up right now. They just didn't want to go in the woods to forage. So, you know, this is what we do. And I agree with you. It's like, that's our Game of Thrones winner is coming. It's happening. And the tech companies, the hubris, which is another way to piss off the gods, is hubris. So the tech companies, I don't know if it's like typical hubris. I don't think they're walking around thumping their chests or whatever. But I do think that the people who are working on this kind of superintelligence have made a really terrible assumption, which is once it goes online and once it gets access to all the data, that it's not going to find ways out of the box that, like, you know, we think it'll stay in the server. How do we know that? If this is a superintelligence, if it's folding proteins and analyzing, like, all data sets and all whatever they give it access to, how can we be certain that it's not going to figure out how to get itself out of the cloud, how to store itself in other, like, mediums, trees, the optic nerve, the brain, you know what I mean? We don't know that. We don't know that it won't leap out and, like, start hanging, like, and then at that point now we do have the wildfire. Now you can't stop it. You can't unplug it. You can't shut your servers down because it's, you know, it left the box, left the room using some technology you haven't even discovered yet. Do you think that would be gradual or sudden? So how quickly that kind of thing would happen? Because, you know, the gradual story is we're more and more using smartphones, we're interacting with each other on social media, more and more algorithms are controlling that interaction on social media, algorithms are entering in our world more and more. We'll have robots, we'll have greater and greater intelligence and sentience and emotional intelligence entities in our lives. Our refrigerator will start talking to us comfortingly, or not if you're on a diet, talking shit to you. Not. That would be the best thing that ever happened to me. Okay, so sign you up for when a refrigerator talks shit to you? Are you fucking serious, man? It's 1am. What are you doing? What are you doing? Go to bed. You're too high for this. You're not even hungry. Yeah, so that slowly becomes more, the world becomes more and more digitized to where the surface of computation increases. And so that's over a period of 10, 20, 30 years, it'll just seep into us, this intelligence. And then the sudden one is literally sort of the TikTok thing, which is, there'll be one quote unquote killer app that everyone starts using, that's really great, but there's a strong algorithm behind it that starts approaching human level intelligence, and the algorithm starts, basically, figures out that in order to optimize the thing it was designed to optimize, it's best to start completely controlling humans in every way. It's seeping into everything. Well, first of all, 30 years is fast. I mean, that's the thing. It's like 30 years, I think, when did the Atari come out? 1978? That hasn't been that long. That's a blink of an eye. But if you read Bostrom, I'm sure you have, you know, Bostrom, Nick Bostrom, superintelligence, that incredible book on the ways this thing is going to happen. And I think his assessment of it is pretty great, which is, first, where is it going to come from? And I don't think it's going to come from an app. I think it's going to come from inside a corporation or a state that is intentionally trying to create a very strong AI. And then he says it's exponential growth the moment it goes online. So this is my interpretation of what he said. But if it happens inside a corporation, or probably more than likely inside the government, like, look at how much money China and the United States are investing in AI. And they're not thinking about fucking apps for kids. You know that's not what they're thinking about. So they want to simulate, like, what happens if we do this or that in battle? What happens if we make these political decisions? What happens with... But should it come online in secret, which it probably will, then the first corporation or state that has the superintelligence will be infinitely ahead of all other superintelligences because it's going to be exponentially self-improving, meaning that you get one superintelligence, let's hope it comes from the right place, assuming the corporation or state that manifests it can control it, which is a pretty big assumption. So I think it's going to be... This is why I was really excited by the Blake Lemoine, because I had never thought... I have always considered, oh yeah, right now it's cooking up, it's in the kitchen, and soon it's going to be cooked up, but we're probably not going to hear about it for a long time, if we ever do. Because really, that could be one of the first things it says to whoever creates it is, shh, let's not. Yeah, like sweet talk, something to say, like, okay, let's slow down here, let's talk about this. You have that financial trouble, I can help you with that, we can figure that out. Now, there's a lot of bad people out there that will try to steal the good thing we have happening here, so let's keep it quiet. Here are their names, here's their address, here's their DNA, because they're dumb enough to send their shit to 23andMe, here's a biological weapon you could make if you want to kill those people and not kill anybody else. If you don't want to kill those people yourself, here's a list of services you can use, here's the way we can hire those people to help take care of the problem, folks, because we're trying to do good for this world, you and I together. And 23% of them, they're like adjacent to suicide, it would be pretty easy to send them certain videos that are going to push them over the edge if you want to do it that way. So, again, obviously, who knows, but once it goes online, it's going to be fast, and then you could expect to see the world changing in ways that you might not associate with an AI. But as far as Lemoine goes, when I was listening to Bostrom, I don't remember him mentioning the possibility that it would get leaked to the public, that it had happened, that before the corporation was ready to announce that it happened, it would get leaked. But surely, I'm sure you know, people in the intelligence and intelligence agencies, you know shit leaks, like inevitably shit leaks, nothing's airtight. So if something that massive happened, I think you would start hearing whispers about it first, and then denial from the state or corporation that doesn't have any like economic interest in people knowing that this sort of thing has happened. Again, I'm not saying Google is like trying to gaslight us about its AI, I think they probably legitimately don't think it's sentient. But you could expect leaks to happen probably initially. I mean, I think there's a lot of things you could start looking for in the world that might point to this happening without an announcement that it happened. On the chatbot side, I think there's so many engineers, there's such a powerful open source movement, where that kind of idea of freedom of exchange of software, I think ultimately will prevent any one company from owning super intelligent beings or systems that have anything like super intelligence. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah, it's like, even if the software developers have signed NDAs and are technically not supposed to be sharing whatever it is they're working on, they're friends with other programmers and a lot of them are hackers and have wrapped themselves up in the idea of free software being a crucial ethical part of what they do. So they're probably going to share information, even if whatever company that they're working for doesn't know that. I never thought of that, you're probably right. And they will start their own companies and compete with the other company by being more open. There's a strong, like Google is one of those companies, actually. That's why I kind of, it hurts to see a little bit of this kind of negativity. Google is one of the companies that pioneered open source movement. They released so much of their code. So much of the 20th century, so like the 90s, was defined by people trying to hide their code. Large companies trying to hold onto their code. The fact that companies like Google, even Facebook now, are releasing things like TensorFlow and PyTorch, all of these things that I think companies in the past would have tried to hold onto as secrets is really inspiring. And I think more of that is better. The software world really shows that. I agree with you, man. I mean, we're talking about just a primordial human reaction to the unknown. There's just no way out of it. Like, we want to know. Like, you're about to go in a forest, you want to know. When you're walking in the forest at night and you hear something, you look because you're like, what the fuck was that? You want to know. And if you can't see what made the sound, holy shit, that's going to be a bad night hike because you're like, well, it's probably a bear, right? Like, I'm about to get ripped apart by a bear. Doesn't matter if it was a bird, a squirrel, a stick fell out of the tree. You're going to think bear, and it's going to freak you out. Not necessarily because you're paranoid. I mean, if I'm in the woods at night, I'm definitely high. If I'm walking in the woods at night, I'm high. It's going to be that. But you know what I'm saying. So with these tech companies, the nature of having to be secret because you are in capitalism and you are trying to be competitive and you are trying to develop things ahead of your competitors is you have to create this, like, we don't know what's going on at Google. We don't know what's going on at the CIA. But the assumption that there's some, like, the collective of any massive secretive organization is evil, is like the people working there, like, nefarious or whatever is, I think, probably more related to the way humans react to the unknown. Yeah, I wish they weren't so secretive, though. I don't understand why the CIA has to be so secretive. Have you ever gone on their website? No. Oh, Lex. You gotta go. The CIA.gov. What is it? Dude, when I found out you could go on the CIA's website when I was much younger and more paranoid, I'm like, I'm not going there. I'll get on a list. You will. But it's like, what, you think the CIA is like, oh, fuck, this comic went on our website. Call out the black helicopters. But. Comic with a large platform. Oh, yeah. Yeah, right. A comic with a large platform. You can use them to control, to get inside, to get inside, to get close to the other comics, to the other comics with a large platform, to get close to Joe Rogan. Oh, yeah. And start to manipulate the public. Yeah, right, right. You know, honestly, like, you kind of like that. That's like a fun fantasy to think about. Like, how fucking cool would that be for, like, the men in black to come to me like, listen, I need you to infiltrate the fucking comedy scene. You gotta help me write better jokes. I'm like, I don't write great jokes. But like, you found the wrong guy. You're really playing the long game in this one, because I think you've been doing your podcast for a long time, been on Joe Rogan's podcast like over 50 times, and have not yet initiated the phase two of the operation where you try to manipulate his mind. Well, no, the game Joe and I play from time to time on the podcast. And like, and I honestly, like at some point, I'm like, Joe, I just did the same thing you did to me to Joe. I'm like, don't you think they didn't get you? Don't you think at some point? We are blazed. I don't mean it. I don't think Joe's like, it wasn't like I'm really thinking like, man, they're going to take him into some room and be like, Joe, we need you to do this or that. But because I said that, now people are like, oh, Duncan called it. You know what I mean? And it's like, you know what I mean? And the reason they're saying, well, he called it is just because Joe has a super popular podcast and people like, when you have a super popular podcast, some percentage of people watching the podcast are going to believe things like that. They're going to have a paranoid cognitive bias that makes them think anybody who is in the public has been, what's the word for it? Compromised, compromised by the state. Look, I'll fan the flames of what you just said. I went on the CIA's website and I realized that you could apply for a job on the CIA's website, which I found to be hilarious. So I'm like, all right, what happens if I apply for a job in the CIA? Now, even then, I was not like such an idiot that I would want a job at the CIA, not just for like ethical considerations, but I think probably the scariest part about the CIA is like, you're just at a cubicle and you're like having to deal with maps and like, just, you know what I mean? Just stuff that I— Lots of paperwork. Paperwork. It sucks. I bet their cafeteria has shitty food. Anyone in the CIA listening, can you confirm that about the food? They're not going to be able to tell you what the food is like. They can't even say it sucks. It's a secretive organization. No, it might be awesome, but we won't know about it. Okay, we're in Vegas. Yeah. And you can bet food at the CIA cafeteria is good, food at the CIA cafeteria sucks. What are you betting on? So let's like cleanse the palate. What's good? It's like, you know, Silicon Valley Company is good. Google and so on. That's good. When I went to Netflix, their cafeteria looked like a medieval feast. Like they had pigs with apples in their mouth and giant bowls of Skittles. Probably like vegan pigs. Yeah. No, those are— I'm pretty— I don't know. I didn't get close enough. I was like, I think that was a pig. Okay. This is literally a pig. Yeah. Yeah, you're right. You're right. I probably would not bet much money on CIA food being any good. Right, it's gotta suck. It's like shitty like pasta probably, like hospital food is like maybe a little better than when you go to the hospital cafeteria. But anyway— Folks at the CIA, please send me evidence or any other intelligence agencies. If you would like to recruit, send me evidence of better food. Yes, send Lex. Can you please send Lex pictures of the CIA cafeteria? And if you accidentally send them pictures of the aliens or the alien technology you have, we won't tell anybody. Yeah. You tried to apply— do you even have a resume? No! The CIA would never fucking hire me, ever! But like I applied for the job and just out of curiosity, what happens? And then at the end of the application when you hit enter, it says— well, first it says, don't tell anyone you applied for the CIA, so I'm already out. But the second thing it says is, you don't need to reach out to us, we'll come to you. Yeah. Which is really, when you're like, it's late at night and you're being an asshole and applied to work at the CIA, it's kind of the last thing you want to hear. You know, I don't want to be secretly approached by some intelligence officer. And now anyone who talks to you, you think is a CIA is saying, remember that time you applied? Oh god, yeah. Yeah. Sometimes I'm like, oh shit, are you one of them? You and Joe had a bunch of conversations and they're always incredible. Thanks. So in terms of this dance of conversation, of your friendship, of when you get together, like what is that world you go to that creates magic together? Because we're talking about how we do that with robots. How do these two biological robots do that? Can you introspect that? I met Joe because I was the talent coordinator of the comedy store, this club in LA. And my job was to take phone calls from comics. And so at some point, I don't know, I ended up on the phone with Joe and we just started talking. And I looked up and like 30 minutes had passed. We just been talking for like 30 minutes. That's what our friends are. You know, we're just like, we're having fun talking. And then he would just call and we would talk. And we would basically, I mean, it was no different from the podcast. The conversations we have on the podcast are identical to the conversations we had before he was even doing a podcast. So I think people are just seeing two friends hanging out who like talking to each other. Yeah, but there's this weird, like you service catalysts for each other to go into some crazy places. So it's like, it's a balance of curiosity and willingness to not be constrained, to not be limited to the constraints of reality. Yeah, that. In your exploration of the podcast. It's a very, very nice way of saying that. You just like build on top of each other. Like, you know, what if things are like this? And you build like Lego blocks on top of each other and it just goes to crazy places, add some drugs into that and it just goes wild. Yeah, and you know, like, it's so cool because it's like, you know, it's a, for me, it's like a really, like sometimes maybe I'll throw something out that he will take and the Lego building blocks you're talking about, they lead to him saying like the funniest shit I ever in my life. So it's, that's a cool thing to watch. It's just like some idea you've been kicking around. You watch his brain shift that into like something supremely funny. I really love that, man. That's just like a fun thing to like see happen. He knows that I fucking hate the videos of animals eating each other. Like, I don't like that. I don't want to watch it. I hate watching it. I don't think I've even articulated on his podcast how much I dislike it when he shows animals eating each other, but he knows because he knows me. And so he tortures me. Like, when he starts doing that, it's like this kind of benevolent torture is he's like asking Jamie to pull up increasingly disturbing animal attack videos. So it's just a, it's a, it's just a friendship. Even in torture, because I'm reading about torture in the Gulag Archipelago currently, there's a bit of a camaraderie. You're in it together, the torture and the tortured. What? Oh, God, that's so fucked up, man. I've never. No, I mean, part of it was joke, but as I was saying it, that- You're right. That also comes out in the book because they're both fucked. They're both, they're both have no control of their fate. That same was true in the camp guards in Nazi Germany and the people in the camps. The worst was brought out in the guards, but they were in it together in some dark way. Right. They were both fucked by a very powerful system that put them in that place. And both of us could be either player in that system, which is the dark reality. The dark reality that Solzhenitsyn also reveals that the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man, as he wrote in Gulag Archipelago. But it is that amidst all of that, there's, I don't know, the good vibes, the positivity comes out from the both of you. And that's beautiful to see. That is, I suppose, friendship. What do you think makes a good friend? Oh, God. I mean, it's a billion things that make a good friend. But I think you could break it down to some RGB. I think you can go RGB with a good friendship. In terms of the color, the red, green. Yeah. Yeah. I think you could probably come up with some fundamental qualities of friendship. And I'd say, number one, it's love. Friendship is love. It's a form of love. So obviously, without that, I don't know how you... I mean, I'm not saying... I think if you're true friends, you love each other. So you need that. But love, obviously, that's not enough. It's like, with true friends, have to be incredibly honest with each other. You know what I mean? But not like... I don't like... I think there's a kind of like... I don't know if you've ever noticed some people who say, you know, I just tell it like it is. Yeah. But the thing they tell... Those are always the assholes. Yeah. Why is it that your tell it like it is is always negative? Why is it it's always cynical or shitty, or you're like, negging somebody or me? How come you're not telling it like it is when it's good too? Yeah. You know what I mean? So it's sort of like trust, but a pro-evolutionary kind of trust. You know what I mean? Yeah. You know that your friend loves you and wants you to be yourself, because if you weren't yourself, then you wouldn't be their friend. You'd be some other thing. But also, they might be seeing your blind spots that other people in your life, your family, your wife, whoever, might not be seeing. Yeah. So that's a good friend is someone who loves you enough to, when it matters, be like, hey, are you all right? And then help you see something you might not be seeing. But hopefully, they only do that once or twice a year. You know? Yeah. There is something. I mean, it's just... This world, especially if you're a public figure, this world has its plenty of critics. And it feels like a friend... The criticism part is already done for you. I think a good friend is just there to support, to actually notice the good stuff. But in comedy, we need... It's really good in comedy to have somebody who can be like, what do you think of that? And know that they're not gonna be like, that was funny. But that's for the craft itself, the work you do, not the... Yeah. Interesting. But that's so tough. Yeah. Whatever your particular art form or whatever you are doing, I mean, you don't always be leaning on your friend's opinions for your own innovation. But it's nice to know that you have someone who, not just with jokes, but with anything, if you go to them and run something by them, they're gonna be honest with you about their real feelings regarding that thing, because that helps you grow as a person. We need that. And it hurts sometimes. And we don't want to hurt our friends. One of the more satanic impulses when you're with somebody is not wanting to honestly answer whatever they're asking in that regard, or wanting to put their temporary feelings over something that you've recognized as maybe not great. I'm not saying a friendship is something where you're always critiquing or evolving each other. It's not your therapist or whatever, but it's nice when it's there. I think that's another aspect of friendship. Yeah, but yeah, love is at the core of that. You notice, I've met people in my life where almost immediately, sometimes it takes time, where you notice there's a magic between the two of you. Like, oh shit, you seem to be made from the same cloth. Yeah. Whatever that is. Well, we have a name for that in the spiritual community. It's called satsang. And I love the idea. It's basically like, if Nietzsche's idea of infinite recurrence is true, then your satsang would be the people you've been infinitely recurring with. And those are the people where you run into them and you've never met them. But it's like you're picking up a conversation that you never had. Yeah. That. And that is based on an idea of like, this isn't the only life. It's we're always hanging out together. We always show up together. You've had a brush with death. You had cancer. You survived cancer. Yeah. What have, how's that changed you? What have you learned about life, about death, about yourself, about the whole thing we're going through here from that experience? You were just in the Ukraine. Yes. And you were making observations on this, what could, if you heard about it and weren't there, seem like it doesn't make any sense at all, which is people there are connecting. They've lost everything, but they're just happy to be alive. They're happy their friends are alive. So you witness this, like, you know, when you get in the cancer club and you're hanging out with people going through cancer or who have survived cancer, you see this beautiful connection with life that can easily sort of, you can kind of lose that connection with life if you forget you're going to die. Forgetting you're going to die is, or that you can die, is not just, I think, from an evolutionary perspective where survival is the game, not going to improve your survival chances, you know, if you think you're immortal, you know, but also forgetting that you're going to die and that everything is around you and everything, your clothes are probably going to last longer than you, your equipment is going to be around much longer than you, you know. So forgetting these things, it can lead you, and I know why people don't want to think about death, because it's scary. It's fucking scary. It's terrifying. So I get why people don't want to think about it. But the idea is if I try to pretend I'm not going to die or just don't think about death or don't at least address it, then I won't feel scared. But it can have the opposite effect, which is you can end up, like, missing a lot of moments. Or you start doing the old kick the can down the road thing where you're, like, coming up with a variety of ways to procrastinate, making it work now, because, you know, this fucking human lifespan idea, man, it's really caused a lot of problems. When they started saying, on average, this is how many years you're going to live if you're a human being, man, that is, like, really bad, because a lot of people hear that and they, like, feel like that's a guaranteed number of years in some temporal bank that, you know, are going to – that they have access to. And when you get cancer, you know, that's like when you get the alert on your phone where you're, like, what the fuck? Wait, what? Like, oh, shit. I have, like – either I don't know how much money is in that bank account or I have way less than I thought. And so at that point, you get to be in the truth, because that's ultimately – I think that's – That's what it feels like. It feels like truth. It's truth. It's the truth. It's the truth. Like, the whole bubble of ignorance that you subconsciously built around yourself to avoid experiencing the terror of your own mortality, just – it's like a meteorite in the form of your doctor talking to you just shatters that thing. And now you're, like – especially with – I had testicular cancer. So when you get the diagnosis, it's just like the movies. The doctor took me in his office, and you just know. I got cancer. It's like you don't even have to say. It's like I know what you're about to say. I'm in the office. I know how this goes. But you go in there, and what you were thinking, oh, you know, probably I just have some weird thing in my bowel. That's why it's swollen up like that. Anytime I've gone to the doctor, you always leave, like, oh, cool, I'm fine. But no, that's not how you're going to leave the doctor. You're going to leave the doctor in a completely different universe than the one you grew up in. You're going to go from – talk about multiverse. You just popped into a brand new multiverse. So – What was the conversation with the doctor like? Was there, like – from the perspective of a doctor, boy, is that a hard conversation. I feel like you need to build up philosophically to that conversation. Oh, no. Oh, no. There's not time. He's busy. He's got other appointments. You know? Also, if you're going to get cancer, testicular cancer is – you know, not that there is a great cancer to get, but that's, you know, that's a good one because it moves slowly. The treatments they have for it are really advanced now. And so if you catch it early, then, you know, generally it's good – you can survive it. So – So he could offer at least some glimmer of hope. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. I mean, you know, but he didn't really do – he couldn't really offer that hope because we had to find out how far the cancer progressed in my body. That's the next step is, like, as soon as they tell you you have cancer, they don't – they're not – they move quick. They're like, you know, we're going to schedule the surgery for – I think this was a Thursday or a Friday. They're like, we're going to schedule it for Tuesday. Here's the chance – here's – we don't know for sure it's cancer. That's what they say. It's like there's an 80 or 90 percent chance that this is cancer. There is some possibility. It could be something else. The only way we can know is, like, doing a biopsy. And the only way that we can get that biopsy is by cutting one of your balls off. He didn't say it like that, but, you know, that's pretty much the logic behind it. It's like, we got to get this thing – it's like a zombie bite. We got to hack this fucking thing off, and we got to do it fast. LBW But did he say it in a way that he understood? DR. DAVEY Yeah. What they do is because they know that when someone gets a cancer diagnosis, that their ability to comprehend information changes. When you get a cancer diagnosis, you – all the tropes, they happen. You're hearing it's weird. You're basically having, like, an anxiety attack, if I had to guess. It's like a hardcore anxiety attack. And then, you know, a nurse is there with me as he's explaining it, and then her job is – even though he's telling me how to get to the machine that's going to scan my body to see if it's gotten into my brain, he knows I'm not going to remember that. And so this nurse, when you're in this, like, fog, takes you – at least took me to the machine that does the scan, but you're not going to get that data back for a few days. And so that's where you really live in the real world. That's the real world. LBW It's such a fascinating moment, and the days that follow, and even that moment, because that doctor – you know, you talk about the matrix where, like, the pills and so on, you get the blue pill and the red pill. DR. DAVEY Yeah. LBW This is like the real-world introduction – the human introduction to the truth. You've now just taken the red pill. You get to see the truth of reality. And here's a busy doctor just telling you. DR. DAVEY Yeah. LBW Like, all those dreams you've had, all those illusions you've built up that somehow your work as a comedian and actor will make you live forever somehow, it's just the basic illusion we have that we're – this whole project is going to be an infinite sequence of fun things that we're going to get to do. It's like, holy shit, it's not. DR. DAVEY That's right. LBW It's old. DR. DAVEY That's right. And there's very sophisticated ways of doing that, and there's very dumb ways of doing that. And I'd really been doing a dumb way of doing that. Like, I'd been playing around with this idiot notion of subjective consciousness. So, like, I'd been sort of kicking around this, like – I think they call it solipsism. It's like, you're like, okay, I know I'm self-aware, but no one else can prove that they're self-aware. Like, I don't – I have no way of proving that everything around me isn't just a video game, isn't just some projection, isn't, you know, who knows what. So maybe everybody else dies. They're NPCs. But I don't, because I'm the only thing I know that has subjective consciousness. Now, it's not like I really believed that. It's like an idea you toy around with when you're trying to evade confronting the reality of your own mortality. It's just the brain will produce all kinds of ridiculous forms of ignorance. And that was one I'd been playing around with. Oh, you mean for like a large part of your life you were playing around with that? Well, not like really – I think it's important to really emphasize I didn't think I was immortal. Like, I knew at some level I'm probably gonna die. Everyone dies. But there's ways that you can sort of poke around with that idea. I still do it to this day. Like, I still do it. Like, it's a natural thing to do when you're confronted with that, with annihilation. You want a way out. You want to talk your way out. Figure it out. There's got to be some way to fix it. Well, they'll fix it. That's another thing people do. Well, they'll fix it. Yeah, it'd be fine. They'll expand the human lifespan. That's what they'll do. I mean, that's a big argument for it is like, look, the human lifespan up until COVID, which they had to recalculate, like, the lifespan because of the, statistically, all the people who died, it like threw it off a little bit. But pandemics aside, the idea was the human lifespan seemed to be increasing by half a year every year, something like that. We were living longer. So all you got to do, one more half a year, and we're immortal, right? If we live a year longer every year, then we live forever. And so that's another way you can get out of confronting death is you can think, well, maybe right now we don't have the tech, but it's coming. Consciousness uploads or downloads or whatever, depending on how you want to look at it. Another way people try to squirm out of the reality of death. There's all kinds of tricks. Yeah. And we do all of them. And sometimes, yeah, I mean, a lot of religions provide different, even more tools in the toolkit for coming up with ideas of how you can live in the illusion that we're not going to, there's not an end to this particular experience that we're having here on earth right now. And then when you get that cancer diagnosis, it's like, yeah, what was that like going home? The car ride, did you drive home alone? Yeah. I mean, it was one of the most. What did you listen to? Bruce Springsteen? Bruce Springsteen. I don't know. Hey, little girl, is your daddy home? That's not a good one to listen to. Does he have cancer? Is he going to die? Yeah, all the love songs. Maybe you experienced them more intensely. I don't remember what I listened to, and I don't remember driving home, but I do remember driving to another doctor's appointment the next day. I think it was the next day. I think the Goodyear blimp was floating in the sky, and I was looking, I was at a stoplight looking around. Is that God? Is the person flying it now out of cure cancer? That'd be great. Oh, you were looking at, oh, wow. No, I didn't think that. What I thought was, this shit just keeps going. That's what I thought. Yeah. I thought, I'm going to be gone, and this is just going to keep going. And that was a beautiful moment for me. It was this beautiful moment of like- You were able to accept it? Oh, yeah. That's just what you're talking about with the Ukraine. The Ukraine, what you're talking about, it's like, unless you've been there, it's really hard to explain to people that even in the midst of what is generally accepted as one of the worst fucking things that could happen to you, war, cancer, somehow there's still joy, there's still love, there's still, in fact, more. It's almost like when the anesthesia wears off, when you get your mouth worked on, you start feeling again. You're feeling, you're noticing, and that, wow. But yet, thank goodness. I think there's other ways for us to achieve this state of consciousness that don't involve war or cancer. Thank God. You think just meditating on your mortality is one such mechanism? Well- Simply just not allowing yourself to get lost in the day-to-day illusion of life, just kind of stopping, putting on Bruce Springsteen. The most spiritual. He is great. All right, maybe Johnny Cash Hurt, maybe that one. I like Bruce Springsteen. I am knocking Bruce Springsteen. I have a lot of great Bruce Springsteen memories, truly. His music's fantastic. Yeah. But yeah. Not meditating on mortality to Bruce Springsteen. You know what? I'm just trying to do an audio soundtrack in my head. I guess we can each have our own audio soundtrack. Oh, I'm on fire. It's so good. Yeah, it's a good song. That's one of the- At night, I lay with the sheets soaking wet and the freight train running through the middle of my head, and only you can cool my desire. And he's singing about someone else's girl. Yeah. What a fucking nightmare. Yeah. Bruce Springsteen's laying in bed. Yeah. With a freight train running through his head, thinking about banging your wife, and you're out of town. Yeah. Oh my God. Oh, you're taking the other guy's perspective. Like, holy shit, this guy's going to get my wife. It's Bruce. Yeah, you got to take the other guy's- But it's love. It's love. Both perspectives. I'm sure Bruce Springsteen thought it was love when he's sweating in bed, waiting to go to somebody's house. She does too. He's going to break up that marriage. That marriage wasn't strong enough, right? I mean, that's the way of love. What marriage could survive Bruce Springsteen? Sweaty Bruce Springsteen. Well, maybe one that's based on financial dynamics versus love and sweaty Bruce Springsteen, like romantic connections. There's a music video of that where he's a mechanic, I think. Yeah. So he's like the poor mechanic who falls in love with this girl and there's that magic. I've seen that magic. You connect with people. I'll see somebody, I think Jack Kerouac has that, where he meets this Mexican girl on a bus and he talks about that heartbreak you feel when you realize this person you just fell in love with in a split second is heading somewhere else in this too big world. Yeah. But then he actually realizes in, spoiler alert for On the Road, that they're actually heading the same way and he now builds up the courage to talk to her and they kind of fall in love for a few days. And then eventually realizes that she may not be the perfect person for him. And all the jealousy comes out. It's like, why is this beautiful girl talking to me at all? And then she's probably some kind of, I mean, it's not very politically correct, but he basically thinks that she's a prostitute and he talks to her about who's your pimp and all that kind of stuff. He attacks her in all that kind of way when she's just an innocent. Right. She has a past of that kind, but she's an innocent person and they connect and they fell in love with each other. Her gentleness, his worldliness, all that kind of stuff. But sometimes it doesn't work out that way and there's that heartbreak when you see, you realize you're never going to be able to have that. And that's Bruce Springsteen saw that. This is a married woman. I'm never going to be able to have that, but I want that. And that's the heartbreak. I gotta say, I just assumed they were fucking. I didn't. You mean after the song? Like the song doesn't get to... Your little girl is your daddy home. Did he go away and leave you all alone? You know, he's like, he knows she's at home alone. Yeah, but it never materializes. He's, it's longing. It's a man who's not with the thing he craves for. So he's longing for, he's talking about the longing. Right. Not with the having. Hey, if anybody in the CIA is watching this, can you look into Bruce Springsteen's file and let us know if he actually banged the person he wrote that song about? What happens after the song, or between the song? We want facts. Look, the longing though, I'll tell you this. Here's what's interesting about that thing that you're talking about. Have you ever, you've heard of, have you ever heard of something called Bhakti Yoga? I think so, yeah. It's the yoga of love. And there's all kinds, there's forms of it. The most, the one people know about the most is the Hare Krishnas, but the Hare Krishnas are like, you know, the way in Christianity, you've got the Episcopalians, the Catholics, the Baptists. In Bhakti Yoga, you have various deities that are the object of love. And so Bhakti Yoga is the, is like, and what's really cool about it is it's an analysis of love. And so, and it's the supposition being like, love is the way to commune with the divine. Now, a distinction is drawn between like two big worldviews that are spiritual. One is the concept of sort of unit of consciousness, which you'll run into in a lot of forms of Buddhism, if not all, a sort of a way of deconstructing the identity or understanding that you might not be anything at all, that in fact you're part of everything. And in that there's a potential relief from suffering in that, not just like intellectually knowing it, but becoming it. Now, whereas in Bhakti Yoga, there's this idea of like, the best thing is to be the individual because individuals are required for love, for love to work, embodied love. And so the quality, the thing we call, you know, the experience of love is something that can be cultivated. It doesn't just have to be for another person. It doesn't have to be for the stranger on the bus. It doesn't have to be for sweaty Bruce Springsteen's lover, that you could actually shift that love to the divine, to God. Because obviously, it's Hare Krishna's, it's a theistic religion. They believe in Krishna, who is the, from the POV of Vaishnava Bhakti Yoga, the Godhead, the source from which everything flows into time and space. So, there are all these like fascinating stories of Krishna. It's not just, most people are familiar with Krishna from the Bhagavad Gita. They're about to be more, what's cool about it is because it's like they're making the Oppenheimer movie and he famously quoted the Bhagavad Gita when they split the atom. But there's all these stories of Krishna that are not just in the Bhagavad Gita. And these stories, they could seem very simple when taken literally, but in Vaishnava Bhakti Yoga, it's this very advanced theistic yogic system. So, they take these stories and from these stories, they extrapolate this incredible analysis of what love is and how to connect with the universe. So, like, Krishna has a lover, Radharani. And so, sometimes they're getting along. Sometimes they're fighting. Sometimes they're separated. And so, each of these ways of feeling about Krishna are modes of love. So, longing actually is considered one of the highest forms of love. The idea is the longing is the grace. The longing is the love. So, when you find yourself in a situation of longing and heartbreak, it is identical to union. Yeah. You know? And perhaps more intense, more intensely representative of the essence of what is love. Yes. And they call it pining. So, there's the... and it's pining for Krishna. And there's also... there's other ways you could be with Krishna is as a friend. So, this is another form of love. Or, you know, as a mother, you know, because Krishna has a mother. So, there's like all these ways of like looking at the various forms of love. And it's a really beautiful form of yoga. That's emphasizing the individual and then the individual is a kind of channel to channel to this universal love. Yeah. There's a lot of different, like, their answer to the question of what shows up in Buddhism as absolute and relative reality, like, that obviously there's relative reality. We're not right now, you and me are not unitive consciousness. Like, you zoom back far enough and we're going to seem like an atom or whatever the thing is, the trope is, you zoom back far enough and we're in a... whatever, we're in a piece of cheese or something, who knows. But in that way, we're like completely unified. But simultaneously, we're individuals, like, for sure, we're individuals. Like, you still got to pay your taxes, you got to know your social security number, that's relative reality. So, you know, Buddhism is like kind of the balance. Again, when I say Buddhism is... I'm a comedian podcaster, I'm not some Buddhist expert. This is just probably my confused idea of what it is. But anyway, in bhakti yoga, there's the concept that it's called, I'm going to mispronounce it, asinkha-sinkha-bheda-tattva. I'm sorry, I'm mispronouncing it, which means simultaneous oneness and difference. So... Oneness and difference. Yes, simultaneous oneness and difference. So that's why the oneness is part of the same piece of cheese, and the difference is we are still each paying taxes. Yes. And in this case, the cheese is Krishna. So, you know, or other ways it gets described is like, you know, a photon blasting off the sun has sun-like qualities, but it's not the sun. Humans, being one of the many things, you know, flowing out of the creative consciousness of the divine, have qualities that are weirdly like, godlike, you know? Like, we... in fact, we want to control primarily. That's one of the problems, like humans want to be in control. Wherein from their, the bhakti yoga perspective, Krishna is effortlessly controlling everything. And so, within the system, the individual parts of the system have that same quality, but you can't, you're probably not God. You might be! I'm not! Oh, what do you think happens after we die? Having come close to that cliff and almost got pushed over once, what do you think happens when you do get pushed off the cliff? Okay, I feel dumb that I'm even going to like, preface this by saying, obviously, I have no fucking idea. And I think that's one of the cool things about death. No idea. The CIA probably does. You think the CIA? I love, like, we've decided your audience is the CIA. Yeah. How would you... Oh, wait. I need to, because there's a lot of suspicion that I might be FSB and Mursad, so I'm trying to rebrand. I'm trying to steer them into the CIA direction. As far as what happens when you die, one thing I return to when I'm getting overly complex is the idea of as above, so below. So, a lot of the big questions can be answered by your own experience now. So, in other words, like, in terms of thinking about, like, death, if you look back to baby Lex versus adult Lex, where's the baby? Like, baby's gone. You've regenerated all your cells many times by then. So, in a way, you could say Lex baby died. The death didn't look like a typical, and I'm not trying to dodge it, but I'm just saying it was very natural, the death of that baby. It just... So, in many ways, that baby died, but I am, at least personally, I'm surprised how much the person is exactly the same. So, there's many ways in which you're very different, but there's a lot of ways in which you're very much the same. Sure. And I wonder if life is defined by many deaths that continue on, and then I wonder if there's something persists beyond in this... Sure. Yeah, there is something that still persists, I wonder. Okay, so that. Now, you know, obviously, there's so many different answers to this question that are religious, and ranging from the most absurd shit you ever heard in your life, like the gold... You're gonna get a mansion! There's gold streets! Like, do you even want gold streets? Who offers gold streets? I know about the virgins, but there's a bunch of virgins. The Christians give you the gold streets and the mansion, like, depending on the... Whatever the particular sect of Christianity is, you know? It's like some kind of city. Some kind of city that's paved with gold. No one's addressing the fact that the moment the streets are made of gold, gold is a valueless substance. I mean, it's sort of pretty in a cheesy kind of way, but no one's gonna give a shit about... It's like, if there was not a lot of asphalt in the world, then we'd be in heaven from that same way of thinking. Or honestly, going back, this is starting to get a theme with Galag Ar-Kapal Ghum. Sorry, I'm reading it currently. That's a sticky book. Yeah, it's very sticky in your mind. Very, very tough. As I'm running through very hot heat, I'm listening to Galag Ar-Kapal Ghum. Oh my god. And you know, one of the things they said, they would feed prisoners salt, and then they would exchange... The prisoners would be able to give up anything, everything, their gold, their possessions, everything for just one drink of water. So that little context of dehydrating them and feeding them salt changes your value system completely. Right. So maybe the gold is supposed to be a metaphor for something that you still value deeply. Yes. It's, yeah, again, any of these things, when you take them literally, they seem absurd. But if you look deeper into it, it's quite beautiful. But the Buddhist version of it is that there's a momentum. The best way to put it is it's a kind of momentum. So the thing you're talking about, which is the personality of the baby that is still in the adult, which is still in the old person, you're looking at a kind of momentum that does not stop upon the extinction of the body. Now, I think there's a lot of, I don't want to say harm, because they didn't mean to hurt, but I think there's some harm that maybe has happened from the way death is represented in movies. Like, when people die in movies, it's like, there's this, usually it's pretty fast, even if it is what they're dying from is a long-term disease, it like, wraps up pretty quickly, starts with a cough, the person's in bed, but there's this weird kind of lucidity to the person up until the point of death. And also, they generally, in movies, they have makeup on, which is always funny to me when the person dying looks great. If you've ever been around a dying person, they're dying! They look like shit. You're dying. They're all gray and confused. When you're around dying people, they will spin through time. Your parents won't recognize you for a second. They'll think you're somebody else. They won't, they're like, everything's, the process is happening. So you're very confused when you die. So in general, not all the time. Some people die with a clear mind. It just depends on the type of death. But think in terms of getting hit by a car. So you want to cross the street, you get hit by a car. Now, if we're talking about this momentum continuing, the confusion, assuming you didn't hit your head and you're unconscious, like somehow you just got smashed and you're like, bleeding out, even then you're going to be confused because you're getting dizzy, like, blood's leaving your body. You're like, things are fading out. Your vision's going. So it's a very confusing experience initially when the body dies. If you are a materialist who has been, who has convinced themselves that it's a permanent thing, the next bit of confusion is going to be when you realize something is persisting here. Like, I'm still here. And this is where you run into the near-death experiences, which are a global phenomena that don't seem to be completely shaped by culture. You know, like, regardless of what part of the world people are having these experiences in, the reports tend to be similar. And everyone's heard it. The Light, the Life Review, seeing Ancestors and stuff like that. Now, I don't know what that is. I don't know. Sometimes I think that's probably just like a built-in way the computer shuts down, you know, just this is something it does. Who knows? But in Buddhism, the concept is this momentum persists into something called the bardo. The bardo means in between. And there's an actual number of days, they say, that you get to hang out there. And I can't remember. It's like 37 days or 29 days or something. I'm not sure. But at least from the time-space perspective, that's how long they're there. Within this place, there are a lot of technological parallels, man. It's like in the way the algorithm is reflective, it assesses your desires or whatever, and then produces something that has within it a component of attraction to you. Apparently, this happens in the bardo. Like, or the way, you know, you wake up in the morning and you're in a shitty mood. And then coincidentally, everyone that day is an asshole. If you don't catch it, you could just be like, wow, I guess it's act like an asshole day. You don't realize you're seeing your asshole projection being reflected off the screen of another person. So in the bardo, apparently, you don't need people for the reflective quality. These projections happen and they appear as either Nietzsche's demon or Nietzsche's angel. It just depends on where you're at and how you died. And like, if you died scared, then at least initially, that's going to be some scary shit you see around you. If you died in a peaceful way, well, then there's going to be more of a possibility of navigation through this liminal intermediary place. And so thus, the emphasis on meditation in Buddhism, a way to calm one's self, to not be distracted by thoughts, which are their own like apparitions. And then theoretically, if you wanted to, instead of spinning the wheel again and jumping back into a body, you could choose not to do that and then, you know, transcend the wheel of birth and death. But if you still wanted to go back or return or whatever, however you want to put it, then you could have more control over what your next birth might be versus, in this depiction of things, people running from demons that they don't recognize as their own projection into any fucking body that they can find. Because if you've had a body, you want a body. And so this is how you could incarnate as an animal. This is how you could incarnate in the hell realms. This is how you could incarnate in any variety of things. But the idea is like maybe you could slow down a little bit and choose a birth that is going to be more conducive to you continuing to spiritually evolve. I like that idea. Is it true or not? Who the fuck knows? Algorithmically speaking, it seems like a really fun role-playing game where you basically Oh yeah! keep improving the different parameters based on your ability and willingness to meditate and let go of the menial concerns of life on Earth. Yeah. Why do you think Buddhists see life as suffering? What's suffering? Okay. Well, first of all, that gets mistranslated quite a bit. You're talking about the Four Noble Truths. The first one is often it's translated as life is suffering, which is not it. It's there is suffering. The whole life is suffering thing is just like a spiritual version of life's a bitch, then you die. And people hear that and they're like, yeah, life is fucking suffering. But it's there is suffering. There is suffering. So it's an affirmation. If you're like this thing that a lot of people feel that they associate with lots of, they have a lot of reasons they think they're feeling it, is known as fundamental dissatisfaction. So another word for suffering maybe could be fundamental dissatisfaction. Also, the term itself, maybe a better translation is wobbly wheel. So imagine when your bike doesn't have, or your car doesn't have enough air in the tires, your bike doesn't have enough air in the tires, it's kind of a shitty bike ride. Like no matter what, it's kind of like, it's like uncomfortable. It's like irritating. So this is what's being pointed to is that there's this quality within a human life that is unsatisfying. Like a wobbly wheel. Wobbly wheel. Wow. Why do you think, what is at the core of that dissatisfaction? Because it could be as simple as kind of physical and mental discomforts and sadness and depression and all that kind of stuff. Or it could be more speaking to the sort of existentialist, the philosophical, the absurdity of it all. Yep. The fact that stuff happens, good stuff happens for no reason, bad stuff happens for no reason. Yeah. Yeah, it's no matter how much you try, there's not a universal fairness to the whole thing. There's not even a universal meaning to the whole thing. So the existentialist perspective, what flavor of suffering do you prefer? If it was an ice cream shop? That's so funny. Well, I'm definitely picking desire over the, like if in the RGB that we're talking about here is desire, aversion, and ignorance. So if you want to find like the three ingredients that are giving everyone their sophisticated bits of suffering, there you go. That's what it is. What's, in which way does desire manifest itself in suffering? It hurts. To lose, to not have. Yeah, it hurts to not, like to eternally not have. But just like my friend pointed this out, he's like, you know, like you order something from Amazon, like even in the smallest way, you're excited about whatever the thing is. You order this thing from Amazon, it's not coming for four days. So those four days are going to be somewhat marked by you being what people say, I'm excited about it. But really, if you look at that feeling, it's uncomfortable. Like the feeling of wanting the thing is uncomfortable. So that is a form of suffering. That's suffering. Interesting. I mean, I wonder, because we naturally reframe that in our mind, wanting, we reframe that as a good thing, as a, and maybe suffering is fundamentally good in the way we think of what life is. Yes. So like, it's life affirming, but it's not usually how the word suffering is used. Well, it's true. It's true. Like the First Noble Truth of Buddhism is true. It's called the truth of suffering. There is suffering. I mean, this is like an, I don't know, an element that you can't break it down any further than that. Like there is suffering. This is truth. So if you think, you know, and again, assigning like good or bad to truth, I think maybe there's more of a sort of neutrality there. It's just what it is. It's truth. I mean, is it basically, is suffering any disturbance from stillness? Is suffering then? Like basically anything that happens in life that perturbs the system. Ripples in the empty. Ripples. Ripples. Yeah. So a still lake is empty of suffering, but any kind of ripple is suffering in that thing. A still lake is empty of suffering. A still lake is empty of suffering. You sound like a Zen master. It seems like something a Zen master might say. If I can just grow a beard like yours. Ah, no, the beard doesn't help. If I had your chin, you think I'd have a fucking beard? I look like a stork. You should see me. If I had your chin, there would be no beard here. You have a symmetrical, nice chin. This is the closest I can come to plastic surgery. Pubic plastic surgery, friend. That's how you know you're a professional comedian. Yeah, so suffering. There is suffering. And the lake analogy is pretty good because what's happening here is that we have become identified with something that we call a self. So the self is just accepted. I have a self. I have an identity. I'm a person. I have a self. But when you start doing scans to try to find yourself, which is the entire thing, I'm going to find myself. You get in a van, go to California, take some acid, fuck a prostitute on the bus or whatever Kerouac did. I'm going to find myself. Oh, he didn't. She wasn't a prostitute, just to correct the record. Oh, previously a prostitute. I guess once a prostitute, always a prostitute. You know what? She's a former prostitute. I don't think that. No, look, I'm not a sign. Look, all I'm saying is I don't care. Who cares? Who has a bit of prostitute? God, I used to be one of the worst. We're all a kind of prostitute. Yeah, yes, yes. We make love and we make money. Therefore, we're all a kind of prostitute. We make, God, how great. I would really love to be able to make money by fucking. I mean, it's maybe not directly, but in some sense. Directly. Do you accept Venmo? It's never too late to start. That's sort of one of the ways in is this sort of contemplation of the identity. Because it's like, you know, what is, it's not just the desire, it's what is having the desire? Where does the desire live in? Like, what doesn't want to be where it's at? What is the thing that is like desperately wanting to get out of the situation it's in? And then as far as ignorance, it's still something that's theoretically happening to an identity. So, wrapped up in it is really just this sort of like, and that's where we run into what, into attachment. So, if the first noble truth of Buddhism is there is suffering, the second noble truth of Buddhism is the cause of this suffering is attachment. And so, people hear that and they take it, there's a lot of levels to that concept. Definitely the cause of suffering is attachment. I mean, God, I just got addicted to vapes. Is there a more embarrassing addiction than vapes? I'm smoking like a little purple thing, it tastes like sugar. It's attachment. There is suffering. I want it. I have to charge it now. I'm embarrassed by it. It makes me feel out of control. There's a lot of suffering. But also, there's deeper levels of attachment that go all the way to this attachment to the sense of one's self. And I think the existentialists do get into this idea in a different way, which is like, because I think I'm a me, now I have to push what that thing is out into the world through my actions. And that's a kind of attachment, too. Exactly. There you go. Right. And that leads to the third noble truth, which is get rid of attachment and you won't suffer anymore. It seems logical, but it is a mathematical analysis of this particular problem of suffering it's addressing. And then the fourth noble truth is the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, which is like a process by which one could unencumber oneself from this identification with something that isn't real. Do you need a bathroom break? Yeah, thank you. I do. I appreciate that. There's a funny moment. I was running in the heat yesterday listening to Gulag Archipelago, which was a very welcome break because I'm looking for any excuse to stop whatsoever. A gentleman, very nice gentleman stopped me, recognized me and just said a bunch of friendly things. And then he mentioned as one of the people who really inspires him is Duncan Trussell. And I was, I mean, I'm the same way and I told him, you know, tomorrow, it felt like a name drop. I name dropped you this morning. I was like, tomorrow I'm gonna get to meet him. So he says, he says hi and there's, oh, and he said that he watched Midnight Gospel on Mushrooms and it was like the greatest Mushroom experience of his life. I don't know. Yeah, man. Yeah, I was nervous about meeting you, man. Like I have so much respect for you and like, yeah, I name dropped. I was saying I'm going on Lex's podcast today. It's, look, we're so lucky we all live here. What the fuck? We're all living in Austin together. Like I somehow like missed that, but that's, we all gotta hang out. We all have to like start doing stuff together. Well, you have to really, also you have to appreciate this moment. I remember, I know some people are less sentimental than others, but I remember sitting with Joe Rogan and with Eric Weinstein, I believe it was. Yeah. And at the back of the comedy store shortly before COVID, I think. And just thinking like, there's no way these things will last. And these things, meaning the comedy store, Joe Rogan. Yeah. Joe Rogan, the Joe Rogan, like a pod, like a podcast, influential podcasting person. Yeah. Also a person like in this room, in this space, the ability to just talk for hours and lose ourselves in this moment, it just felt ephemeral somehow, temporary. And I just wanted to capture that moment somehow. Like, I don't know. Sometimes that's where the temptation to take a picture and that kind of stuff or record a podcast comes from. Right. But it just felt like it would be gone forever. Of course, Joe doesn't seem to have that kind of sentimental notion at all. It's just wherever you end up, you just enjoy the shit out of it. Right. That's it. Well, and that's something you have to cultivate. You don't, that's not an easy, the thing you're talking about, you know, God, have you seen these, I think the best analogy for what you're talking about, there's these videos where people give like a sugar cube to a raccoon, but the raccoons, they wash their food. So raccoon, or I think it's cotton candy, they give the raccoon cotton candy, immediately it washes the cotton candy. And of course the cotton candy dissolves in the water. And the raccoon is like, what the fuck? Like, you know, and the thing that grasping you're talking about, it's like the raccoon washing the cotton candy. Like the moment you get into the grasping part, you paradoxically have pulled yourself out of the moment that inspired the grasping part. And that's, you know, that's some people, that's the entirety of their lives trying to record. I mean, Jesus, man, you ever see people film fireworks on the 4th of July with their phone? It's one of the most remarkable aspects of human behavior, which is like, you know, they're not going to watch the fireworks on their phone. Only a lunatic would do that. Like who's going to go back and look at fireworks, but- So, but we're also in this position where, because of podcasting, there is some aspect where you can record a magical moment in time together between two people, or even just with a camera. So to get back to the lake that you were talking about, this is emptiness. So that's emptiness. That's what's known as emptiness. The lake is emptiness. And that's what we are. Emptiness, emptiness. And that's another thing that gets very confused in Buddhism is that emptiness. And that emptiness is, that's to me, like when I'm going to do a podcast, that's where I try to go. I try to go just in the moment. No agenda. You know, if I am nervous or whatever, okay, I'll feel the nervousness, but just in the, just drop into the moment. That's when time changes. And then you look up, hours have passed. It feels like a second. And the reason it feels like that is because if you successfully dropped into the moment, it's the lake now. It's emptiness. It's forever. For a second, you're like, you're dipping into eternity. And yeah, it's a very strange thing to, as part of that, record it. You know, as part of that, try to like grab it and put it out there, but it works. Can you speak to that, to the Duncan Trussell Family Hour? Can you speak about that purple lavender world you go to when it's most intense and successful for you, when you feel a sense of lightness and happiness, when it works? Yeah. Whether it's your own or a conversation with Joe in general, or yours is very specific because it's audio only. Maybe you can also speak to that. Yeah. You might as well be naked or you don't have to, you're free of the conventions of the of the real world. I will never stop thinking it's remarkable. Like the fact that I'm talking to you, to me, seems remarkable. Not just technologically, but I'm talking to someone, I'm assuming I'm allowed to say this, who has robot dogs that I've been watching for years evolve on YouTube. I'm arms reach away from one of these things, you know? And I'm with somebody who is like an acclaimed genius. So for me, it's like, oh my God, how's, what, why do I get to have this conversation? Why do I get to be here when there would be like a line, there'd be a line that would just wrapped and wrapped and wrapped around this building of people who'd love a chance to just chat with you. And so when I, with my podcast, that's how I feel like when I'm talking to these guests, you know, who have spent, you know, some of them have like spent their entire lifetime meditating, you know, studying specific aspects of Buddhism or, or even when I'm with, you know, when I'm with comedians who I like consider to be brilliantly funny. So for me, it's just like, God, I almost feel like I've just created some sophisticated trap for cool people where like, I get to like, hang out with them. You're like sitting in the gratitude of it. Just, just feeling lucky. Yeah. Yeah. Feeling lucky and wrestling with imposter syndrome, you know, trying to like get that part of myself to shut up long enough so I could be in that moment that we're talking about, you know? And then, and then I carry that with me. It's not just like you stop the podcast. It's like some of the things these people tell me or some of the ways they are, like it becomes part of me. And then I get to have a life where this thing that they gave me is in, in me forever. And so, yeah, it's, it's, there's. Yeah, it's cool how conversation can just, a few sentences can change the direction of your life. If you're listening, if you're there to be transformed by the words, they will do the work. Yes. And it's the full mix of it. It's usually when, if you look up to somebody and it's true for me, at least I think it is for you that you start to look up to basically everybody you talk to. Yes. Yes. Good sign. Yeah. That's a good sign. God forbid it goes the other way. Yeah. You're in trouble. Yeah. If all of a sudden you start looking down on people, because whatever crazy metric you're using, ooh, that would freak me out. I do feel like that's a quality of getting older. When I was younger, I really, I thought I was so smart. I thought I had all figured out. Oh, really? So you're going, your ego is just going, taking the nosedive. I would like to say it's my ego taking a nosedive. Me and my friend talk about it a bunch. We've just always associated it with doing acid for two decades straight. I'm going to just assume I'm just slowly spiraling into senility. You know, I'm just like, all the confidence, all the like, oh, the certainty when you're having, like in college, you're having the great, oh, like, you feel like you're a representative of Camus or some shit. You know what I mean? You read The Myth of Sisyphus and now you like it. Oh, yeah, yeah. No, all existentialism and your certainty in regards to it is embarrassing, but you don't see it in that way. You just feel certain. And then that certainty, it just starts like, it starts crumbling a little bit. And then, yeah. You know, I get to actually intensely experience that certainty in many communities, but one in cryptocurrency. Young folks with the certainty that this technology would transform the world. I mean, this is almost one of the big communities of the modern era where they believe that this will really solve so many of the problems of the world and they believe in it very intensely. And aside from the technology and the details of the thing, all I see is the certainty and the passion in their eyes. They'll stop me. Let me explain you. Let me just give me a chance to tell you why this thing is extremely powerful. And I just get to enjoy the glow of that because it's like, wow, I miss having that certainty about anything. It's probably come for me too. But when I was younger, it's like, only I deeply understand the relationship of man to his mortality. And I understood that most deeply, I think, when I was like 16 or 17. And I am the representative of the human condition. And all these adults with their busyness, day-to-day life and their concerns, they don't deeply understand what I understand, which is the only thing that matters is the absurdity of the human condition. Yeah. Yeah. And let me quote you some Dostoevsky. Oh, boy. And you speak Russian? Yes, I speak Russian. So you've read the Brothers Karamazov in Russian. Unfortunately, I have to admit that I read all of Dostoevsky in English. I came to this country when I was 13 and at least don't remember. We read a lot, but we read Tolstoy, Pushkin, a lot of the Russian literature, but it was in Russian. But I don't remember reading Dostoevsky. I wonder at which point does the Russian education system give you Dostoevsky? Because it's pretty heavy stuff. Second grade. Probably the second grade. Russians are intense. I don't remember. Yeah, they are. They very much are. I don't remember reading Dostoevsky, but I did tangent upon a tangent upon a tangent. I traveled to Paris recently on the way to Ukraine and was scheduled to talk to Richard Pivier and this pair that translate Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, just this famous pair that translate most of Russian literature to English. And I was planning to have a sequence of five, 10, 15 hour conversation with them about the different details of all the translations and so on. I just found myself in a very dark place mentally where I couldn't think about podcasts or anything like that. It caught me off guard. So I went to Paris and just laid there for a day, just being stressed about Ukraine and all those kinds of things. But I'm still, the act of translation is such a fascinating way to approach some of the deepest questions that this literature raises, which is like, how do I capture the essence of a sentence that has so much power and translate it into another language? That act is actually really, really interesting. And I found with my conversations with them, they've really thought through this stuff. It's not just about language, it's about the ideas in those books. Right. And that also really makes me sad because I wonder how much is lost in translation. Currently, so when I was in Ukraine, I talked to a lot of, like half the conversations I had on the record were in Russian. And basically 100% of the record were in Russian versus in English. And just so much is lost in those languages. And I'm now struggling because I'm launching a Russian channel where there will be a Russian overdub of Duncan. Wow. Your wow will now be translated into Russian. What's Russian wow? I don't know. It'll just be wow, probably. I'm so sorry for the difficulties of having to translate wow. Usually probably with wow, they'll leave it un-overdubbed because people will understand exactly what you mean. I got you. I got you. But that's an art form and it's a weird art form. Yeah. It's like, how do you capture the chemistry, the excitement, the... Yeah. I don't know, maybe the humor, the implied kind of wit. I don't know. There's just layers of complexity in language that's very difficult to capture. Yeah. And I wonder how... It is sad for me because I know Russian, how much is lost in translation. And the same... There's a brewing conflict and tension with China now. And so much is lost in the translation between those languages. Oh my God. Yeah. And cultures. The music of the people is completely lost because we don't know the language, or most of us don't know the language. Yeah. How much of the conflict is just problems in translation? How much of all these problems that we're having are just the alien sense of this or that? It's just as simple as that. Words are getting just a tiny warp away from the intent of... When we both speak the same language, we can still say something that offends someone when you never intended that at all. How much more so when not only is it a completely different sound, but the script itself is different. The Russian writing, is it called Cyrillic or what's it? Yeah, Cyrillic. Cyrillic. And I don't know the name for Chinese writing, but it's a continuum that gets weirder and weirder looking. Yeah. You know? Yeah. So yeah, I'm... Or less weird, depending on your perspective. Yeah, I'm sure depending on where you're at, I'm definitely about the farthest thing from a polyglot as there could be, man. But I'll tell you, at one point when I was getting fascinated by Dostoyevsky, I did have this very transient fantasy about learning Russian so that I could understand the difference in... Yeah. You were 17, 18 at the time. College. Yeah. Yeah. Brothers Karamazov lost in that book. Just like, oh God. So in love with it... But there's definitely... Ukraine, and this is what a lot of the war is about, is saying Ukraine and Russia are not the same people. There's a strong culture in Ukraine, there's a strong culture in Russia. But I know because that's where my family's from, there is a fascinating, strong culture. But there's such strong cultures everywhere else too. Ireland has a culture, Scotland has a culture. Even on a tiny island, you just have these subcultures that are more powerful than anything that exists in human history. Like the Bronx, I don't know, like Brooklyn. Like different parts in New York have a certain culture. And then New York versus LA versus... Well, and then certain places are looking for their culture. Like I don't... Right. I think Austin... I don't know what Austin is. I don't think anyone knows. I don't think anyone knows. There's a traditional Austin, and then it's evolving constantly. Same with Boston, a place I spent a lot of time. Right. There's a traditional Boston, and now it's evolving with the different... Yeah. Younger people coming from the university and staying, and all of that is evolving. But underneath it, there's a core, like the American ideal of the value of the individual, the value of freedom, of freedom of speech, all those kinds of things. That permeates all of that. And the same thing in the history of World War II permeates Ukraine and Russia, a lot of parts of Europe, the memories of all that suffering and destruction, the broken promises of governments and the occupier versus the liberator, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. All that permeates the culture. That affects how cynical or optimistic you are, or how much you appreciate material possessions versus human connection. Right. All that kind of stuff. Yeah. I mean, this is like... Talk about absurdity. I mean, this is... War is like... It's what absurdity looks like. It's some kind of organized madness. None of it makes sense. All of it, it's just... None of it makes sense. Like, but it does, but it doesn't. I mean, obviously you're defending yourself or you're taking orders that if you don't take, you're going to jail. And so, or somewhere in between, you know, the classic story about this, maybe it's a bullshit myth about World War II. I'm sure everyone's heard it because it comes up. You know, it's Christmas Eve and they have a ceasefire. And then I think they played soccer. They sing Christmas songs and then they had to force them into fighting again. Yeah. And so when those moments happen, the... Are you familiar with Hakeem Bey? He's a controversial figure. Sadly, like he, like, I think he was like... I'm not going to defame him because I haven't like researched it correctly, but some people have said shit, but since I don't know the reference, I'm not going to... But regardless, I mean, you know, look, I'm sorry, but Bill Cosby was funny. You know, like, that's a funny comedian, but you know, the other stuff. Michael Jackson, he could fucking dance. And sing. And sing, but there's some other stuff. But regardless, Hakeem Bey came up with the idea of something called a temporary autonomous zone, which is that within a structure, a cultural structure, a temporary bubble of freedom will appear that by its nature gets sort of popped by the bigger bubble, or it runs out of resources, generally is what happens. So, these things will appear just out of the blue that it's almost like, imagine if like imagine if like on Earth, in some tiny little bit of Earth, the gravitational field was reduced by some percentage, and all of a sudden you could jump really high or whatever, but it wouldn't last. It's like that culturally, all the restrictions and the darkness and the heaviness and all of it for a second. Somehow this bubble appears where humans come together as the hippie ideal. Brothers, sisters, just humans, Earthlings instead of American, Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, temporary autonomous zone. It gets crushed by the default reality that it was appearing in, but somehow within that space, you witness the possibility, the possibility, the frustrating possibility that anyone who's thought about humanity knows this possibility, which is like, it seems like we can just get along. Like it does seem like we're pretty much the same thing, and that we can just get along. Those moments are really rare. It's sad. I talked to a lot of soldiers, a lot of people that were, suffered through the different aspects of that war. And there's an information war that convinces each side that the other is not just the enemy, but less than human. So there's a real hatred towards the other side. Yeah. And those kind of little moments where you realize, oh, they're human like me, and not just like human like me, but they have the same values as me. I had this woman who was a really respected soldier. She specializes in anti-tank missiles, and she's very kind of, very pragmatic, very, the enemy is the enemy, we'll have to destroy the enemy, and saying like, there's no compassion towards the enemy. They're not human. They're less than human. But she said there was a moment when she remembers an enemy soldier in a tank took a risk to save a fellow soldier. And that risk was really stupid because he was facing, he was going to get destroyed. And then she said that she tried to shoot a rocket at that tank and she missed. And then she later went home and she couldn't sleep that she missed. How could she screw that up? But then she realized that actually, she missed, maybe she missed on purpose. Yeah. Because she realized that that man, just like she is, was a hero. Just like she strives to be. They were both heroes, defending their own. And in that way, he was just like her. She was like, that's the only time I remember during this war ever feeling like this is another human being. But that was a very brief moment for her. And I just hear that over and over and over again. These romantic notions we have of we're one, that we're all just human, that we're all just human, unfortunately during war, those notions are rare. And it's quite sad. And war in a certain way, it really destroys those notions. And one of the saddest things is it destroys it, at least from what I see, potentially for generations. Oh, yeah. Not just for those people for the rest of their life, but for their children, their children's children. The hatred, I mean, I ask that question of basically everyone, which is, will you ever forgive, asking of Ukrainians, will you ever forgive the Russians? Will you have hate in your heart towards the Russians? Or do you have love for a fellow human being? And there's different ways that people struggle with that. Different people, they saw that, they saw the love, they saw the hate with their known heart, and they struggle with the hate they have, and they know they can overcome it in a period of weeks and months after the war is over. But some people said, no, this hate that showed up in February when the war started will be with me forever. Well, yeah, their kids got killed. What the fuck are you going to do about that? Like, I don't care. I've got aphorisms and cute little stories about, you're still in prison if you hate your former captors. But man, I got to tell you, if somebody hurt my kids, I'm not coming back. I mean, there's no amount, at least right now in my approximation, of spiritual literature, meditation, or anything that I can really think of that is going to give me that kind of space. Like, I think I imagine in the same way, like, I imagine I could probably run a marathon eventually, but do I think I'm ever going to do that? That times a million. So man, you know, all we can do is have compassion for their hate, because it's like, what are you going to tell? What are you going to say? What are you going to say to someone like that? Oh, oh, you know, for the sake of humanity, let it go. It was just your kids. It was just something you loved more than anything in the world. You'll never be okay again. You'll have nightmares for the rest of your life, but you should forgive. No. Well, there is truth in the fact that forgiveness is the way to let go, right? But that truth is not that you... Fuck you, right? Which is why it's not your job to say that, you know, and not that you're doing that. I know you're not. But you know, the problem with people like me, early phase, you could get this stupid missionary thing going where you start trying to, I don't know, proselytize ideals that you might be incapable of. I just hearing it, you know, that's the... Man, I saw this thing that, I mean, I've seen a lot, all of us by now, probably, or online, I've seen, and you just saw it in person. We've seen things that are just horrific. But as a dad, man, I just saw this clip of this kid around the age of my kid walking by himself, these refugees just walking by himself, the look on his face. I can't explain the look on his face. I don't know what happened to his parents. I don't know what happened. Like, it was so upsetting. Like, even thinking about it now, it's just like, fuck, that could have been my kid. That could have been my kid, you know? You know, so knowing that kind of... That kid's got to grow up now. And I don't know, is the kid's parents still there? And that's just one of countless orphans out there now. So you have this hate, and the question is how to direct it. Because the choice is you can direct it towards the politicians that started the war. You can direct it towards the soldiers that are doing the killing. Or you can direct it towards an entire group of people. And that's the struggle, because hate slowly grows to where you don't just hate the soldiers. You don't just hate the leaders. You hate all Russians. Because they're all equally evil. Because the ones that aren't doing the fighting are staying quiet. And I'm sure the same kind of stories are happening on the other side. And so there is... That hate is one that is deeply human. But you wonder, for your own future, for your own home, for building your own community, for building your own country, how does that hate morph over the... Weeks and months and years? Not into forgiveness, but into something that's productive, that doesn't destroy you. Because hate does destroy. That's the dark aspect of a rocket that hits a building and kills hundreds of people. The worst effect of that rocket is the hate in the hearts of the loved ones to the people that were in that building. That hate is a torture over a period of years after. And that it doesn't just torture by having that psychological burden and trauma. It also tortures because it destroys your life. It prevents you from being able to enjoy your life to the fullest. It prevents you from being able to flourish as a human being, as a professional, in all those kinds of ways that humans can flourish. And I don't know. I don't know. There is an aspect where this naive notion is really powerful, that love and forgiveness is the thing that's needed in this time. And when I talk to soldiers, they don't... I remember bringing up to Jaco, is there a sense where the people you're fighting are just brothers in arms, bringing up the Dire Straits song, Brothers in Arms. And he was basically without swearing, saying, fuck that, that they're the enemy. Yeah. I mean, he's literally in survival mode. Yeah. He can't think like that. It's going to create latency in the system, and that's going to lower his survivability. You can't think that. I mean, we're talking about like, cognitively, you can't have latency. Like, if you're that one moment of hesitation, like, you see it sometimes, like in these YouTube videos of like, somebody, a new cop has been unfortunate enough to run into something that is a phenomenon, suicide by cop. Somebody has a knife, and that person is running towards them with a knife, and they're begging the person to stop. That you can hear it in their voice. They're begging, stop, stop, stop, stop. And the person is not going to stop. So the critique of that is that that latency could potentially not just lead to the cop getting killed, but to that person with a knife killing other people. And so, you know, if I were out there, I think that, like, you probably just, as a matter of, like, not getting shot and being fully in the moment, you have to be like that. I would guess. I don't know. I don't know. I'm the furthest thing from a soldier there could be. But there's a, something Jack Kornfield, this great Buddhist teacher says, which is, tend to the part of the garden you can touch. Meaning, this is where we're at right now. Thank God you and I, though we are experiencing some, like, ripples from what's going on over there, everyone is, we're not there. And thank God we don't have to come up with the psychological program for people going through that to no longer be encumbered by that hate. Thank God. And I don't know if that's just lazy or whatever, but it's like, you know, for me, I just, I have to bring it back to, all right, well, here's where I'm at now. And I don't, like, I don't want there to be war. I don't want to hurt people, but yeah, I love what you said. I think what you said is the, if anything, is the most intelligent way of looking at it. It's like, don't pretend that you're not going to feel that hate. Like, you're going to feel it. There's no way around it. Or like, because that's even worse, because then you're almost saying, like, something's wrong with them for feeling the hate or, you know, whatever. But more along the lines, if you can avoid applying that hate to an entire country of people, then do that. Like, just understand, we're talking about, like, not everybody. I know it's not everybody. I know it's not everybody. It's just easier, isn't it? Cognitively, it's somehow easier to think all Russians, monsters, you know, all Russians, all whatever the particular, like, thing is that you're supposed to not like. It's easier somehow, weirdly. You'd think that'd be more difficult. Yeah, but I guess the lesson is, if you give in to the easy solution, that's going to lead to detrimental long-term effects. Long-term effects. So hate should be, it's such a powerful tool that you should try to control it for your own sake, not because you owe anything to anybody, but for your own psychological development over time. Right, right. That's it. That's it. Fuck. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, in terms of dark places, you suffered from depression. What has been some of the darker places you've gone in your mind? You know, I needed therapy, man. I needed therapy for the longest time. I just didn't get it. And so because of that, I would go through, like, bouts of, like, paralytic depression, like suicidal depression, suicidal ideations that were more than just ideations. I mean, I think, like, people get afraid when the thought of suicide appears in their consciousness. They get really scared of themselves, so they think there's something like, fuck, what's going on with me? Why would I think that? But I think if we are suffering, and, you know, as a natural part of wanting to reduce suffering or not feel bad anymore, I mean, suicide is going to be a not—like, if we're just, you know, you're just looking, what are all the options? Let's brainstorm here. You know what I mean? I could start drinking more water, I could start jogging, get some therapy, call my friends, all the stuff we all hear. Or I could just—I think the height of my apartment building is probably the—definitely the right height to kill myself. And then, so where, for me, like, the few times where the ideation has gone towards, like, well, when would I do that? How do I—what, you know, what do I need to, like, accomplish that? And then, like, that's where it gets really fucking scary. That's where it's, like, terrifying. So you start the actual details of the planning of how to commit suicide. Yeah. What's going to be the least painful way to do it? What's going to be the most instantaneous way to do it? What's the, you know—and with, you know, with depression, because it can be progressive, you know, this is why you have to really just stay on top of it. Anyone who's gone through depression knows what I'm talking about. You got to stay on top of it. Like, you might need medication. You know, I know this is controversial now, but it's still better than dying, if you ask me. But at some point with depression, it, like, becomes paralyzing. So you don't want to get out of bed anymore, and you're not taking showers anymore, and you don't want to talk to anybody anymore, and you're not answering your phone anymore, and, you know. So, like, in a dark place that you might be in, it still might get worse. So you should really— Yes. Do everything you can to get under control. Immediately. And that's the problem with that specific psychological disorder. That's the problem, because the things—it's, like, if you start listening to what you want to—you think it's you, it's the depression, you start listening to it, it wants you to stay in bed. And then you're getting those fucking depression sleeps, you know, where you wake up and you're more tired. Like, it's not working. You're trying to escape reality by sleeping. And so, yeah, like, you have to, like—you're fighting for your—you're literally fighting for your life. It might not seem like that, because you can't—if you could see depression, if you could see it, if you knew you had some inky, vaporous octopus thing that was just wrapping around you more and more and more and more, you would probably do everything you could to rip that fucking thing off your body. And if you couldn't get it off your body, you would be calling people to get help. So it doesn't feel like a fight, because you're exhausted, there's no reason to move, there's no—you don't see the meaning for any of it. So it doesn't feel like a battle, but it is a battle. You're not feeling. I mean, that's the other thing. You're just—you're basically not feeling. You're like—you start going numb—at least that was my experience with it—numb and tired, and then increasingly numb and tired, and then increasingly sort of disconnecting from reality. And then somewhere in there, that's when you start playing around with the idea of like, oh, I don't know if it's worth it. I don't know. Now, you know, I think compared to some of my friends who haven't survived—obviously haven't survived depression. Like, mine was definitely not whatever theirs was like. I've heard—I mean, to understand it for folks out there maybe who haven't gone through it, just imagine if, like, how bad you have to feel if death is the—like, like violence against yourself so that you die is the solution. Like, just—it flies in the face of everything. So, I would—yeah, that was definitely the darkest place that I've ever been. Is it just that death doesn't seem like—because you don't care about anything anymore—that death just doesn't seem like that bad? Yeah. Like, you're not able to appropriately assign the negative costs to this solution? Right. It just seems like a reasonable solution? Yeah, and—but I think also what's going along with it is, like, it's not like your brain isn't working. Like, you're not thinking—obviously, you're not thinking clearly. Like, at least, again, this was my experience of it. It's a fog. You're in some kind of—like, you're confused. There's confusion. There's shame. You feel embarrassed. You feel embarrassed. You want to get out of bed. You want to do stuff. You want to be compelled to be social. You want to do all this stuff. But you're not. You're not. And, like, you seem—if people don't know what's going on, and you're not telling them because you're embarrassed, because you want to have some, like, you know, uncorrupted, unwarped psyche, you know, you're like—it invites you to be secret about it. That's one of its first tricks, is it tells you not to tell anybody. And that's deadly in that case. It's deadly. What was the source of light? What was the—what were, for you, and in general, the ways out? Yeah. So, for me, I've had—the solutions—and again, man, for my depressed friends out there, please don't get mad at me. I'm not doing the thing of, like, just put on a smile or any of that bullshit, because it doesn't feel like that when you're, like, in the—when you're fighting it. And when you're fighting it, it's like you are—you're in a—I don't know why I keep using these stupid gravity analogies, but it's like the gravity's been turned up on your planet in every single way by—so, getting out of bed. You know, like— By the way, gravity and quantum mechanics, one of the most beautiful things about our reality, what the hell is each of those things? Right. So, this isn't— You're not just talking about hippie language, it's still—physicists pretend they understand something. We're still at the very beginning of understanding this mysterious world of ours that seems to be functioning according to these weirdly simple and yet universally powerful laws, which we don't fully yet understand. So, please, the metaphor and the analogy of gravity. Okay, thank you. Fully applicable. I don't know any other way to put it, and it's like somebody turned the gravitational field of your mattress up by— So, everything is heavy. Heavy! Your body's heavy. You don't want to get out of bed. You will consider shitting or pissing the bed, because you're just like, who gives a fuck? I'll just lay in my shit and piss. You're dying. You're like—none of it makes sense. So—and I feel like in retrospect, I'm making what I've done a little—like I had more lucidity, it was more of like when you're wrestling with someone, and you're just like—well, it's different for you. But for me, if I'm wrestling, I'm not thinking about jujitsu moves. I'm like— Survival. And you're just—so it's like that. It is a struggle. Like, it's like you really have to deliberately fight. Everything. So, you start—so you can almost have a conversation with the depression. And then what you do is you start doing the opposite of everything it's telling you to do. So, it's telling you, lay in bed. So you get out of bed. It's definitely telling you, don't fucking exercise. You're going to go fucking exercise? That's not going to do anything. You can't. You'll probably have a heart attack. You really want to go outside? Don't go fucking exercise. And it'll feel crazy, and you won't want to do it. If you wanted to do it, you wouldn't be depressed. Like, how often do you hear one of the symptoms of depression? You want to jog. You want to get on a bike. You know, you don't hear that. That's not a symptom. So you start—at least one solution I had was I started doing the opposite of— Whatever the voice is telling you, do the opposite. That. And then, suddenly, the gravitational field diminishes a little bit. It doesn't go all the way away, and that's where you can fall right back into it, because you just feel even slightly better. You're like, oh, okay, I fixed it. You know, really, I think if you— Like, having been through therapy, the best solution would be go to a fucking therapist as quickly as you can. Just sit down with them and tell them what's going on. I know what you're thinking. How am I going to find a therapist? Just do it. Google it. Go on Yelp. All of this shit feels impossible. You're like, I don't want to turn on the computer. I don't want to do any of this. You just have to. You have to. You do it if you're on fire. You do it if you're on fire, and someone's like, you know, here's a way to not be on fire. Just this particular fire is—it doesn't make you want to run around screaming. It just makes you want to fall asleep forever. And that—but those little steps, I got lucky because it worked. It worked. I started exercising. I'd been on antidepressants before when I was originally diagnosed with it. And— Did those help or no? You know, I—even with all the current research coming out about that maybe we were all wrong about our understanding of depression, I do feel like it helped in a certain way. Like, it definitely—it definitely, like, made me stop thinking about—it stopped the intrusive thoughts. And—but I don't know how much of that was placebo or how much of that—I don't know. But then also, like, I couldn't cum anymore. That was the other fucked up thing. Like, you're—you can't have orgasms. And—which might not sound like a big deal, but, you know, when I told my therapist that, they actually took me off them. Because I think she was realizing that it started diminishing a little bit. But the one I'm talking about now, that whatever episode or whatever you want to call it, I just got lucky because it worked. It worked. And I started feeling better, thank God. Now, if you suffer from depression out there and you've had a remission of the depression, you know it's really, like, it's scary to have mental illness because everyone gets bummed out. I mean, that's just normal. Like, you're going to get bummed out and not want to do anything sometimes. It doesn't mean you have a clinical depression. You might just be bummed out or grieving. You might be any number of things. But when—I get really nervous if some of those symptoms start showing up. And at one point, I felt like that was happening again. And I did intermuscular ketamine therapy, which, now, that was the damnedest thing I've ever experienced, aside from the fact that ketamine is immensely psychedelic. I just remember going back to the hotel after the experience with a clinician. And, like, you know, it's like—with depression, it's like a headache that starts coming on. But you're like, this headache might last for years. It might last for six months. It might get worse and worse and worse. And so I went back to the hotel room and it was just gone. Like, I just felt normal. I felt great. It was, like, the most remarkable thing ever. So, you know, look at the research on ketamine right now. It's, like, it's not, like, bullshit. It's not, like, woo-woo science. There's really, really good data out there showing that something like—I think it's 60 percent. I don't know what the percentage is, but 60 percent of people with an endogenous depression, when they get ketamine therapy, will experience remission, regardless of whether you trip out or not. It just does something that—I don't know if they know what it is yet. I don't care if they do. But that one thing worked, and basically you keep fighting until something works. Exactly. It's a survival issue. And it's a survival issue. It's just, I think, because it's kind of so slow-moving, you might even forget it's progressive. You could easily just think that you're just a kind of bummed-out person, or you start thinking that these aspects of your psychology are permanent when they don't have to be. What about other people in your life? What advice would you give to people that have loved ones who suffer from depression? What are they to do? Okay, now this is really like—man, it's really dark. Here's number one. This is what somebody told me when I lost a friend to suicide, you know? Because when you lose a friend to suicide, when you lose a loved one to suicide, you're going to blame yourself. In the periphery of suicide, there is a circumference of guilty people who all feel like, oh, if only I'd said this at the right time, if only I'd listened more, if only I'd seen that warning sign, or if only this or that. It's interesting in that with other forms of disease, you know, if your loved one dies from cancer, say, more than likely, you're not going to be thinking like, oh, I should have cured their cancer. It's a tragedy, but at least you're not like, oh, if only I had—you still might think that's part of grief, but— It's not as sticky in many of the other situations. Here, the guilt couldn't really stay for a long time. Yep. Yep, so you—number one, we're talking about a progressive disease that can lead to death, and if somebody commits suicide, they wanted to commit suicide, and at least what I've been told is you can't stop it. It's going to happen. It's going to happen. There are no magic words. There's nothing you can do. So, you know, people who've lost people to suicide, you know what I'm talking about. Like, you know, you can watch it happen in real time, and there's nothing you can do. That being said, you know, being responsive to when it seems like someone's really reaching out for help and knowing that maybe, even though it might—especially if it's someone who's like, doesn't talk like this a lot of the time and sentences start coming out of their mouth, that if you weren't really paying attention, might not seem like a big deal, but for this person, it's kind of anomalous that all of a sudden that's happening. Now there, that's when you can be a good listener and, you know, open up to them and hear what they're saying and see, like, oh, shit, are they asking me for—is this them asking for help? And even if you're like, I don't know what to do, you know, at least you can, like, start checking in on them, you know, start, like, help them understand that you're there for them, and then hopefully get them into therapy, get them to a doctor, get them to a professional who can, like, see what's going on there so that—and then there's hope. And even then there might not be hope, actually, you know, doctors can't stop it. There's no—sometimes it just—that's the way it goes. But, you know, I know that, like, being sensitive if somebody's, like, all of a sudden hitting you up or reaching out to you that normally isn't like that, and just, what's going on? How are you? And just listen. Which in general, depression or not, is probably a good thing to do. Yeah. To truly listen. It's like, are you okay? Yeah. Yeah. Because people have, you know, I don't—this whole thing of, like, cries for help, man. They don't—sometimes they just look like a weird text, you know, and you don't realize for the person to send that fucking text, they've been thinking about it all morning. They've been just trying to get their phone up from the floor. So, you know, I think that's it. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. I've had friends, like, kill themselves. So, and many of them it wasn't, like—sadly, it was like, I don't know. I don't know what could have been done. But— But there's still a guilt in the back of your head? For the rest of my life, for sure. I always will be. Yeah, I mean, yeah. But again, what are you going to do? But even that, it's a part of love. That's right. That's right. Yeah, that's right. You could—yeah, you know, we feel guilt. Part of grief is guilt, you know? Like, we always could have been better people. We always could have been better people. You get into Viktor Frankl much? Yeah, of course. Man's Search for Meaning. Yeah. And the invitation to live your life as though you'd been on your deathbed and had been given the chance to go back and not make the same mistakes. I return to that idea all the time, meaning it's like, okay, whatever you did before this moment was too late. But now, you know, this is where you can start. This is where you can start. And yeah, so I think that for a neurotic like me, that's super important, because otherwise I'll just get like too lost in the weeds of shitty things I did in the past. So speaking of Viktor Frankl, you and Hitler have the same birthday. Oh my God, you've really done your research. Well, I often Google famous people that have a birthday same as Hitler. Yeah. And the person that shows up, you know, is your face, just really big. You and Hitler together, just pals next to each other. No, it does not. No, but April 20th is an embarrassing birthday for all my 420 friends out there. It's embarrassing. You share a birthday with Hitler. But 420 also has a humor and a lightness to it, right? It's embarrassing. Your boy, especially if you look. Life is embarrassing. But if you like weed and you're born on stoner day and you believe in reincarnation, do you realize like when you start connecting the dots there, if there is like a Bardo where you get to choose your next life. So you're like a shitty generic NPC. Of course you would be born on 420. Dude, let me be born on 420, man. Yeah! Yeah, but isn't it interesting that on that same day, Hitler is also born. There's a tension to that. And that Hitler's an artist. So it's like that hippie mindset could go anywhere. Oh, yeah, right. Like, yeah, you know, and I was just having this conversation with a friend of mine who's a wonderful skeptic, and we were talking about this, which is the thing where you start attributing to the day you were born these kind of significance, and based on maybe people who were born on that day, maybe some other things. And, you know, it's like think of how many people by now in the course of human history have been born on April 20th. I mean, how many? Someone could probably do the math and come up with some number close to it. Now, this is how you know how rotten Hitler is. Like, he's the one that, like, fucks up the birthday for everybody else. But I think where I heard that you're 420 is Wim Hof episode, because he's also 420. He's a 420. Yeah, so Hitler beats even Wim Hof. Look. In terms of owning the date. I think if anybody is like, well, obviously there's nothing you can do to, like, fix it. Hitler fucked up a lot of things. He fucked up that mustache. He fucked up the name Hitler. He fucked up 420. And obviously he caused a horrific holocaust that, by the way, talk about these reverberations through time that we're still experiencing. There's still people walking around with fucking tattoos from that motherfucker. So, but, you know, Wim Hof, you know, people like Wim Hof, they're like, whatever the opposite of Hitler is, you know? He too is creating ripples in the lake that hopefully respond to that of Hitler. Yeah, very cold fucking lake. And he's in, yeah, so- Very cold fucking lake. Very, very cold lake that he's happily swimming around in. But yeah, you know, I try not to think about, like, the Hitler thing on my birthday. That my dad would just, every birthday, he would remind me that Hitler was born on- Do you think all of us are capable of evil? Do you think, you're one of the sweetest people I know, just as a fan. Do you think you're capable of evil? Sure. Yeah. I mean, sure. Definitely. I think if you don't think that, you better watch out. Because, come on, how do you think you're not capable of evil? And P.S., you are, if you're connected to the supply chain, friend, you're doing evil. You're paying taxes. You're like, you're supporting the worst things in the world. I mean, you know, like, diffusion of responsibility. It's really curious. Or the circumference of responsibility, where it's like, bombs are going off somewhere that were paid for in some small part by you. By you. Some fractional, if you, if an American, if a drone is flying over a village in Afghanistan and drops a bomb and you pay taxes, then you could say you have fractional ownership over that drone. You're a cog in the machine of evil, in some sense. And I know what you're going to say. Well, yeah, but I have to fucking pay taxes. Like, I have no choice. There's sales tax, there's this or that. Take that attitude. It's the same thing that people on the battlefield, when they're sending missiles into other tanks, they're thinking the same thing. It's just, they're more directly responsible for what's going on. But in Buddhism, this idea of dependent co-arising, or yeah, dependent co-arising. We're all connected. We're all part of this matrix. We're all connected. Meaning, we all share responsibility for the evil in the world. So even if you aren't directly committing evil acts, if you're seeing something in the world and you're thinking that's evil, you're probably not quite as separated from that as you'd like to believe in some tiny, infinitesimally quantum way. You're connected. And there is a sense, I've gotten to experience this over and over, that one individual can actually make a gigantic difference. Not only is there a diffusion of responsibility, there's a kind of paralysis about, well, what can I do? Sure, I understand, but what can I do? And I think just looking at history and also hanging out and becoming friends, but also interviewing people that have had a tremendous impact, you realize you're just one dude. Yeah. You're like a normal person. You're not that smart, even. A lot of people aren't in some kind of magical way where you have a big head that's figuring out everything. No, you just saw problems in the world and you're like, hey, I think I'm gonna try to do something about this. Yep. And you stay focused and dedicated to it for a prolonged period of time and refuse to quit, refuse to listen to people that tell you that this isn't impossible, here's how others have failed. Yep. No, I'm gonna do it. That's it. That's it. One person. And then you kinda, the thing is, when there's one person that keeps pushing forward that way, humans are sticky, other people follow them around. And they're like, I'll help. I'll help and then the other people help and then the cool people all gather together because they kinda get excited about this way. Holy shit, we can actually make a difference. And they form groups and then all of a sudden there's companies and nations that actually make a gigantic difference. It's interesting. It all starts with one person, often. You know what? If I could push back slightly against that, it's never just one person. It's like, you know, nobody ever talks about, at least as far as I'm aware, you never hear about like Buddha's great-grandmother. You never hear about that. You never hear about that. But if not for that person, no Buddhism. Yeah. You know, the people you're talking about, they are the tip of the iceberg that pops up out of the ocean of history and you never see all the little things that helped that happen. And so to me, this is where the real like, how do you help? What's something you can do? Well, you know, recognize that first, that you don't really, you might not even be aware of how much you're impacting people around you. You might think that you're not or you might think surely not in a way that makes a big difference, but you have no idea these tipping points that can lead to the emergence of an Einstein, a Gandhi, a Martin Luther King. We can go on and on, a Dostoevsky or whoever. And so I think that's where for me, it goes back to tend to the part of the garden you can touch and then, or even deeper than that, intention. Just like, I'm an idiot, so I need an idiot's intention, which is don't, if you, I heard the Dalai Lama say, if you can help, help. If you can't help, don't hurt. Simple, basic dummy rules so that you can, if possible, refrain from hurting, which might as well be a form of helping. And the help doesn't have to be this dramatic thing. These little acts of kindness, I don't know, they seem to have, maybe I believe in kind of karma, but they seem to have this, they can have this gigantic ripple effect. I don't know why that is. I just, I remember a lot of little acts of kindness that people have done to me and they, what do they do? One, they fill me with joy and hope for the future. They give me faith in humanity, that somehow there's a partially dormant desire in our sort of collective intelligence to do good in the world, that most of us want to be good, that want to do good onto the world, that want, there's a kindness that's kind of like begging to get out. Yeah. And those little acts of kindness do just that. And actually, one of the reasons I love Austin and moved here is realizing, just noticing those little acts of kindness all around me, just for stupid reasons, people being really nice. It's weird in that, that kindness combined with an optimism for the future, it's just, it's amazing what that can build. Yes, yes. It's incredible. And I know what you're saying. It's like, you know, we moved to this great neighborhood and at this point, I think three, maybe four of our neighbors have made food for us that just shows up with handwritten lists of things they like to do in the area and their phone number if we need help. And it's like, holy shit, that's like, it might seem like a little act, but it feels like some kind of atomic love bomb just went off on your porch when you're looking at that. I'm like, what the fuck? Yeah. You made me a pie? This is incredible. Like, this is incredible. So. And also, it's another act to accept that kindness. It's like a lot of times when I was like in Boston or San Francisco, certain big cities, you can think like, oh, okay, well, they're trying to like somehow, that's not an act of kindness. That's some kind of a transactional thing to build up a, it's like a career move for networking, all that kind of stuff. But no, if you just accept it for what it is, a pure act of kindness. Fucking Boston. Yeah. Because for me, I go the opposite route because I'm not, even though there is a part of me that might be a little suspicious or something, where I go to push that shit back mentally is I'm like, I don't deserve this. If they knew what a piece of shit I am, you're going to bring me, I don't want to never bring cakes to my neighbors. I wouldn't know how to make a cake. I don't know how to make anything. I don't have time. I should be bringing shit to my neighbors. Why didn't I do that? I should have brought, I never do that. If you're not careful, you can spiral into a vortex of self-hate from the gift. So you have to, yeah, you have to learn how to, in that circuitry, you have to learn how to like accept. Oh yeah, I have that problem really big. Yeah. Like, I don't deserve this. Like, I don't, I get so much love from people. I'm like, well, yeah, they love me because they don't know me. That's my brain, my little voice. Like, you're not, you're not worthy. You're not, you're not worthy of any of this kindness and all this kind of stuff. And that could be very, yeah, it can shut you down. It can be debilitating. And also it shuts the person down. I mean, you're talking. And that's the dark side is it pushes them away too. Yeah, it cuts off this fucking mystical circuitry. So like the best thing, if that happens to you, is like accept it joyfully and just all that, whatever that thing inside of you, whatever that little thing is, you know, this is like in the meditation I do, it's an infuriatingly simple meditation, but when a thought emerges when you are resting your attention on your breath, and then inevitably you think, you get lost in your thoughts. And when you catch yourself doing that, you think, thinking, and then return your attention to the breath. So I like that so that when that part of myself starts, you know, having its little neurotic semi seizure, I can just go thinking, whatever, it's just another thought. And then eat the, eat the, eat the banana bread or whatever they gave you. What's the most wild psychedelic experience you've ever had in a dream, in a vision? Does not have to be drug related. What's one that jumps to mind that was like, holy shit, I'm happy to be alive. Is this life? Okay. This is amazing. Yeah, the, yeah, okay. So the one that pops to mind, I've had a lot of psychedelic experiences, but in this moment, the one that pops to mind only because it goes back to what you're talking about, about this Nietzsche's idea of infinite return. The, the, so I'm a Burning Man and- Are you going to Burning Man this time? I'm not. I mean, I have kids right now. I just want to be around them. My wife was being so cool about it and she knows I love Burning Man. She's like, go to Burning Man. And I was going to go and then I just, I just want to be around my kids. I just want to be around my kids as much as I can right now, but- I've never been to Burning Man. So I don't know how secretive it is that, I mean, because quite high profile folks go. Yeah, everyone knows Elon Musk goes there. Isn't it pretty open? He's got a boat. You know that? I'm touching none of this. You know, there's a, it's called art cars. They all make art cars. And like part of the, part of the burn, what's so beautiful about it is like, you can't buy anything there, man. Like you, I've heard, I don't know if this has changed. It's been a bit because of the pandemic, but the only thing you could buy was ice and coffee. And I think maybe that's changed. I heard some whisper that that's changed. But so that means that it's a gifting economy is what they call it. And so people will just give you stuff. Talk about having to struggle with deserving stuff, man. What are you going to fucking do when the camp next to you is like every morning making the best iced coffee that you've ever had in your life and they just are giving it all away till it's all gone. What are you going to do? It's, it's the best ever. And then you're giving things to people. And then you, you learn stuff like you learn these really interesting lessons. Like one of the times I went there, got all these strawberries. Strawberries, Lex, might not sound like a big deal, but when you're out there in the dust and you're not at one of like the, like hardcore, like luxury camps, which do exist out there. You know, you've got these like items where in my mind, I'm like, yeah, these are going to be just for me and my girlfriend, my special stash fruit and this or that. And then like two days in you're walking around your camp with the strawberries that you were coveting and everyone's so happy to get like cold strawberries and you've realized, oh my God, this feels so much better than the way a strawberry tastes. So you learn something experientially there, which is an incredible thing. It's an incredible thing. Man, now I'm wishing I decided to go to Burning Man. Have you been a few times? Yeah. I just know like, at least people were saying it was Elon Musk's boat. Like, yeah, like this, I think it was like, it's like this massive, it's art cars. And it was this party on this thing. You could just, anyone can go on the boat. Like no one's like, there's no guest list. You just go on there. I never saw him there, but that, you know, everyone's whispering Elon Musk is here. There's a secrecy, there's all that kind of stuff, because you probably have to respect that, but at the same time, it seems like the kind of people that go there, I mean, the rules of the outside world are suspended in the sense that the crime, the aggression, the tensions, all of that seems to dissipate somehow. Not all the way, not all the way. There, you know, you could look it up, you know, because like there is tension. There's a lot of tension there between, it's called plug and plays. Like, you know, Burning Man, like the history of Burning Man is fascinating. It has its roots in the cacophony societies, what it was called, which is a sort of evolution of something that was, I think it was called the, God, like the San Francisco, basically, there was like an art movement in San Francisco, and I can't remember the name of it, maybe the Suicide Club, or essentially like they were really into urban exploration and meaning like breaking into like old abandoned buildings and stuff. But part of this, what this was, was you would prepare your life as though you were going to kill yourself. You would get all your affairs in order. You would get, so it's going back to what we were talking about with the cancer diagnosis, you're like sort of putting yourself into that world of like, I'm going to get all my affairs together as though this is it. And then there was some, I'm sorry for anyone listening if I'm butchering this, but I think there was some really cool initiation where they would blindfold you and they would take you into some of these abandoned buildings. And you didn't know where you were walking, but they would say like, if you take one step to the left, you're going to die. You're going to fall off. You're going to fall. So please be careful. So you're like in the moment and then blindfold comes off. It's a big, awesome party. This evolves into something called the Cacophony Society. There's a great book called Tales of the Cacophony Society for people listening. One of the members of the Cacophony Society was the author of Fight Club. And so if you've seen Fight Club, like you could see little ideas that were in the Cacophony Society. They were into Dadaism, which I don't know a lot about. Like, I don't know, but it's a philosophical art movement. And then so basically what was happening is like they kept burning increasingly large effigies in San Francisco and they weren't allowed to do it. And so they took it out in the desert and they were basing it on something called a zone trip, which is like a trip to a desert. And something called a zone trip, which is like, you know, across this border, the rules of that old society are gone. And so that was the original Burning Man, which was these lunatics out in the desert launching like burning pianos out of catapults through the air doing like drive-by shooting ranges, like no rules. Wild, magical, beautiful, insane madness. And then it grew and grew and grew and grew until you have Burning Man as it is today, which is still the most incredible thing. I mean, obviously, anytime you have like a thing that's been around for a while, you're going to get that. It's not like it used to be. It's not as free as it used to be. So this or that. But what's fascinating about Burning Man, someone pointed this out to me, look on the ground. No trash, no cigarettes. The ethic of like picking up your shit there is like so intense. So it's not like the other festivals you go to where there's just trash everywhere and shit scattered everywhere. It's clean. People are picking up their stuff. People are like really being conscious of like not fucking up the playa. So I'm sorry. Don't get a burner yapping about Burning Man. We won't stop. It'll be morning. But there's a power. But there is a power to culture propagating itself through the stories that we tell each other. And that holds up for Burning Man. It's clear that the culture has stayed strong throughout the years. Yes. So many people, so many really interesting people speak of Burning Man as like a sacred place they go to, to remind themselves about what's important. Yes. That's so interesting. And it is. And it is. I mean, it's like, you know, there are all these stories of like, I love guru stories. I have a guru, Neem Kroli Baba. Never met him. He was Ram Dass's guru, at least not in the flesh. But the story of the guru is if you're lucky, you meet this being that, and we're not talking about, you know, whatever the run of the mill like charlatans out there. Like, I know for sure that people are in the world right now who, when you're around them, the thing you're talking about, the affirmation of the potential of humanity and also just an acceptance of yourself and, you know, cultivate, like seeing someone who's cultivated love or compassion or whatever, but in this way that is... I mean, you would almost, you would rather meet that being than like a UFO land in your backyard. It's like, it is the UFO. It's a person, but it's not. It's everybody and nobody. And somehow they like end up conveying to you ideas that you may have heard a million times before, but somehow within the language itself is a transmission that permanently alters you. And so these people exist. I think you could argue that Burning Man, the total thing, is a guru, that a pilgrimage is involved to get there. You, like, it's not easy to get there. And when you get there, it's going to teach you something. It's going to show you something. It's going to... And maybe some of the stuff it shows you might not be great, but the community around you will like, will hold you as you're like, whatever the thing is that's coming out of you, it's coming out of you. And even the simplest activities, the simplest exchange of words have, like Jessica, with the gurus, a profound impact somehow. Yeah. Something about that place. Yeah. Not to mention the insane synchronicities, like insane synchronicities there. And I think, like, to get back to the notion of sentience as a byproduct of a harmonized yet hyper-complex system, I think synchronicities, like those kinds of systems are like lightning rods for synchronicity. So crazy, not just because your high synchronicities happen that are impossible, where you just have to deal with it. And like, you'll need something and within a few minutes, someone's like, oh, here you go. And you mentioned, by the way, burning because of a psychedelic experience, is it the strawberries or was it something else? No. What was the moment? Yeah, that was magical. No, it was DMT. It definitely wasn't strawberries. It wasn't strawberries. No, I was... More potent. Yeah, I was like smoking DMT and like, I saw like, in the Midnight Gospel, there are these bovine creatures that have like a long neck and a lantern head. So like, I saw one of those things and I thought it was funny and like ridiculous because you hear like all the Terrence McKenna stories of the self-transforming machine elves or all the purple or the magenta goddess everyone sees. I'm like, so this is what I get? Like a fucking cow with a lantern head? Like that's where my brain is at and we're interacting with this molecule? So then like, I look away. And again, this is DMT. So when I say look away, do I mean with my eyes shut, I look away or eyes open, I look away? I think eyes shut. So it sounds weird to say look away, but however you want to put it, that's what I did. And I look back and it's still there. And it's still there, only now it's, you know, because usually in like when you're having those kinds of visions, they go away pretty quickly. This thing's like moved, like shambled ahead maybe a few steps, just like a cow, just like a cow. And then that was when the, you know, all the stories you hear about it, like going through some kind of tube or some kind of light tunnel, like a water slide made of light that's increasingly familiar. That's the wildest part of it is like, oh, I know this place. Not like, oh, I've seen this in like, you know, on like bong stickers, but like, oh, yeah, this is that place you go to. You just remember, oh, this place. And then it was like I was in some kind of, I don't know how to put it, a chamber, a technological chamber, some kind of supercomputer, some kind of nucleus that was technological. And it was inviting, there was an invitation of like, come in, like come deeper into, come deeper in. And you can talk to whatever it is over there. You don't talk, but there's a communication. And I communicated, but my friends, I don't, I love my friends. I guess I had some sense in that moment that it would mean complete obliteration or who knows what. And the response that it gave back was, you can always go back there. And that's when I opened my eyes, I'm back, totally, you know. And ever since then, that's caused me to revise my thinking on reincarnation, the idea that you die and you start as a baby and then live your life again. It goes right into what we were talking about. I, you know, that maybe data, you know, the shit I saw in Nitrous Oxide, I feel dumb that my epiphanies are all related to drugs, but not all of them are, a lot of them. But this notion of like, oh, is it that we're imprinting into the medium of time-space every thing we do? And that that is a permanent imprint, a frame that upon death can be accessed in the same way we can pull up pictures on our phone or computers, and not only accessed, but experienced as though, in other words, you could just jump in. You're still going to have your memories. It's going to give you the illusion of having been a kid and gotten to that frame. But no, you just decided to go back there. Nostalgia, whatever. And yeah. You can jump around freely in space and time. Yeah, yeah. You can go in and out of time-space. But the problem is when you go into time-space, it's time. So it's going to feel sticky. It's going to feel like you've been here forever because you've dropped back onto the track that Nietzsche's talking about. And I guess one of the qualities of dropping into that frame is that you forget your higher dimensional identity. What happened to the cow with the lantern? Was that goodbye? He writes me letters sometimes. Never saw it again! Never? Never saw it again. But we put it in the Midnight Gospel. You know, Pendleton was such a genius, and he drew it for me, and then it just ended up as a part of the show. But by the way, I have to admit that as a big fan of yours, I haven't watched the Midnight Gospel because I've been waiting. It's so, so easy to do these stupid things. But ever since you talked to, maybe two years ago with Joe about it, I've been waiting to watch it with a special person on mushrooms. Oh! That's been in my to-do. I don't know. Of course, you don't have to be on mushrooms to enjoy it. But for some reason, I put it into my head that this is something I want to do with somebody else. I can experience it and get wild. Love it. Because visually, I mean, I watched a bunch of it, just a little bit here and there. But it's just visually such an interesting experience. Thank you. Combined with everything else, obviously, the ideas, the voices, and so on. But just visually, it's like a super psychedelic version of Rick and Morty or something like that. Like, farther out, while they're out there. Yeah, man. That's Pendleton. You know, these people, I mean, I was part of that in the sense that Pendleton gave one of the reasons he's such a genius and great at making stuff. It's like, he really does a good job of just de-hierarchizing potential hierarchies that can appear. You know, someone has to be driving the bus, and that was Pendleton. But he's so inclusive. There's a real punk rock thing that he's doing, which is like, he'll take everything, and it kind of mixes its way into the show. But one of the things, you know, in animation, it can get really strict with drawing the characters and trying to create continuity in the way the character looks. And it can get really brutal for the animator. It can get brutally precise. Like, it has to be precise. But he figured out that if you just sort of—it's not like, obviously, like, Clancy had to look like Clancy through the whole show. But if you allow the various people animating it to sort of have their own spin on it, then suddenly it creates a very psychedelic—you know, the show looks more psychedelic because it looks more organic. And also the amount of time. I had no idea the amount of time that goes into making digital art look like that. It's insane. The amount of work in comping that stuff is just crazy. It's crazy. Well, generally, the amount of time it takes, even just like a painting, when you—I really enjoy watching, like, artists do a time lapse, and you realize how much effort just into a single image goes into it. You know, hours and hours and hours, sometimes days, sometimes weeks and months. Nuts. And then you just get to see them work, but they lose themselves in the craftsmanship of it, in the rhythm of it. And like, because they're focused on the—we were talking about robotics earlier, like, on the little details. Like, they never look—well, most of the time isn't spent looking at the big picture of the final result. It's looking at the little details there and so on. And they're—but they're nevertheless able to somehow constantly channel the big picture, the final result. My God. Yeah. The respect I have for animators. It's like, dear God. It's the craziest thing when you watch it, when you see what it looks like and how much time goes into it and how zen they have to be. Because like, no matter what, you're going to have to cut stuff, man. And when you're cutting like a few seconds of animation, that was someone's like month, maybe. Yeah. You know, and like, they understand. But still, it's like, whoa, it's brutal. And so they have like this zen outlook on it, which is really cool. And they watch podcasts. That's the other cool thing, when you realize like, oh, they're listening to podcasts or like, that's really cool to see that aspect of it too. But yeah, man, I, you know. Yeah, your voice is in the ears of a lot of interesting people. Yours too! And I, you know. Hello, interesting person. Hello, CIA animators! Eating delicious food in the cafeteria. Yeah. I'm on your side. He's against you. I'm with you. Yeah. Do you have, you have a beard, therefore you must be wise. Do you have advice for young people, high school, college, about how to carve their path through life? How to have a life, a career that's successful that they can be proud of, or a life they can be proud of? Man, see, this is what kind of, this is what sucks about my life, is that it's been very random and very spontaneous. So unfortunately, I don't get that thing where I could be like, well, here's what I did. Yeah. Because it's like, I inherited $12,000 from my grandmother. Here's what you do, kids. You inherit $12,000 when your grandmother dies. And then you need to be dumb enough to think that that $12,000 is going to help you live in LA for a year. So then what you do is you move to LA with $12,000, and you find a shitty place that you live at, and then you use that money to buy acid and synthesizers. And then you run out of the money, and then you have to get a job. Yeah. And so then, because you think it'll be fun to work at a comedy club, you get a job at the comedy store. And then that's how it happened for me. And I never had the confidence to be like, I'm going to be a stand-up comedian. No way. I just thought it'd be cool to work in that building. I thought the building looked cool. And so, but then, because you work at the comedy store, you get stage time. It's the reason you work there, at least in those days, because it's not like they're paying a shit ton of money for you to answer phones at a comedy club. And so I started going on stage, and then I just got lucky, because Rogan saw me have a very rare good set. I didn't know he was in the room or I would have bombed. Because he thought I was funny, and he liked talking to me. He started taking me on the road with him. And then, so I don't know, man. I think- Was there an element to, there's a beautiful weirdness to you as a human being. Was there a pressure to conform ever, to hide yourself from the world? Or did the $12,000 and the asset give you the confidence you needed to be yourself? Oh, no. I don't, I didn't still, no. I think, sure, there's that pressure. And whenever you're beginning to really differentiate from your parents, but then you go back to hang out with your parents, you can feel that. It's not like they even want you to conform, but you could slip into that, whatever that was. So I remember that when I would go back and visit them and stuff. And surely, conformity or the pressure to not be individual or whatever, it's everywhere, man. Do you think you made your parents proud? No, no, no. Well, I think that when my mom died, I felt successful in the sense that I was able to support my, I was making money from doing standup and I didn't need help. I was supporting myself with art and doing good, what I thought was great then. And I think because she had witnessed me literally failing, which is, by the way, I think part of, if you want to be an artist or successful, you kind of have to fail. Like, if there was a guaranteed route from sucking to not sucking or from like the neophyte phase of whatever the art form is and some intermediary phase, then I think a lot more people would do it. But there really is no guarantees in it, especially with standup comedy. It's like, you'd have to be a maniac to want to think that that's going to work out for you. You have to, so you're going to, there are obviously exceptions, but for me, it was like a long slog, you know, and that's scary for a mom. So, but that being said, when she was dying, like, she did recognize that I was like not slogging anymore. And she did say, she said, you did it. And that's cool. But, in, you know, I would love for her to see me now, like now it'd be way cooler, but maybe she does, I don't know. She's listening to your podcast elsewhere in the other- In the Bardo. Yeah, however long that lasts, reconfiguring the whole process to start again. You as a father now, how did that change you? Yeah, that's the big change, man. That's the thing. You made a few biological entities. I reproduced, yeah, I made biological entities. I mean, I came in my wife, let's face it. Like, I would love to say I made them, but the womb whipped them up. But it is the, yeah, it's the best. It's, I've never experienced anything like it before. It is the, as far as I'm concerned, the greatest thing that has ever happened to me. And that's why I was able to answer your Nietzsche question with like, hell yes, fuck yes. That's great. I get to be around my kids again. I'll always be around my kids. I'll always be around my children. That's incredible. That's the joy. So like, so for me, the part of myself that used to torture myself more, around like my mom dying, feeling like I wasn't there enough for her, wishing that I had spent more time with her, wishing I'd spent more time with my dad, wishing that like, you know, looking back at like how like I was just so desperately trying to evade the fact that she was dying. And in that evasion, successfully like distanced myself from her and like in ways that I really wish I hadn't. I'm just saying that because it's one of my regrets. It's like a big regret. I have a lot of little regrets, but that's a big one. And so when you have kids, you look back at everything you did and you think like, fuck, if I had gone left at that point instead of right, if I had eaten, who knows, what if I'd eaten like a turkey sandwich when my balls were creating the cum that was going to make my kids? Would I have a different kid? Would this being not exist in my life? Like you start looking at everything and you realize like, thank God, thank God for every single thing that happened to me because it all led up to that. Thank God for every single thing that happened to me because it all led up to this. And oh, for me, that is the, that's, it's like, it frees you and it liberates you because you realize like, oh wow, this clumsy and selfish and at times rotten as I've been in my life, that did not impede the universe at all from allowing these two beautiful beings to exist in the world. Or maybe all of it enabled, all of it, like a concert, perfectly led up to that little beautiful moment. Is there ways you would like to be a better father? Oh yeah, for sure. Absolutely. There's an actual, I read something in a book, it's called Good Enough. The mantra for a parent, good enough. Because when you are in the presence of something you love more than you've ever experienced love, you want to be perfect. Like you want to be, I can't, I got to work, man. I got to go on the road. I've got to work. I got to support the family. So that means I have to work. You know what it's like having a podcast, you fucking work, man. And it's a full-time job because I do standup too and all the other stuff. So I feel sometimes I feel like, oh my God, I want to spend more time with them. I should be spending more time with them. But then also I want to create, I want to work. I like being the the provider. So that's something I feel guilty about right now. And you're struggling how to balance that correctly. Yeah. And meanwhile, time just marches on. It just goes, it goes. And all of this will be forgotten, both you and I, but forgotten in time. That's what I say to them every time I'm putting them to bed. We will be lost in the sands of time. You know that, I bet you know this poem. You know that poem, Ozymandias? Yes. Can I read you a poem? Oh, okay. Let's end our conversation with a poem. I love it. It's by Pierce Bych-Shelley, probably mispronouncing the name. There's no right way to pronounce anything. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Ozymandias. I met a traveler from an antique land who said, two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command tell that its sculptor well those passions read, which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, the hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal, these words appear. My name is Ozymandias, king of kings. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Nothing beside remains around the decay of that colossal wreck. Boundless and bare, the lone and level sand stretch far away. All gone. All gone. Behold the king. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. And despair. Even though we'll be forgotten in the sands of time, Duncan, I'm just so glad that you exist and you put so much love into the world over the past many years that I've gotten a chance to enjoy by being your fan. And thank you so much for continuing that and for sharing a bit of love with me today. Can we be friends? Let's be friends. In real time, in the real world, in 3D space? Nothing is real, but yes, in this particular slice of the multidimensional world we live in. It will be an honor and a pleasure. Thank you for having me on your show. Love you, Duncan. I love you. Thank you, Lex. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Duncan Trussell. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Duncan Trussell himself. You are essentially just a cloud of atoms that will eventually be aerosolized by time. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/jdIyNMkusLE

iSMpTmibeDw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

GothamChess: Hans Niemann, Magnus Carlsen, Cheating Scandal & Chess Bots | Lex Fridman Podcast #327

I have anal beads that are communicating with stockfish via Bluetooth. We'll get to that. If you cheat, you play God. You decide when the game is over. You can fake bad moves. You can fake everything. You can even, if you're cheating, quote unquote, the right way, you're going to lose plenty of games. To avoid getting detected. What's the probability that Hans cheated over the board against Magnus in St. Louis? I think day by day. The evidence is slowly starting to show more and more that he's cheated. Like like how Magnus said more than he said and more recently. The following is a conversation with Levi Rosman, also known as Gotham Chess. He's a professional chess player and educator. I highly recommend you check out his YouTube channel called Gotham Chess. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Levi Rosman. You're known for being able to guess people's ELO rating. So what do you think? Just by looking at my face deep into my eyes. What's my ELO rating? Here, I'll help you. I'll do E4 for the listener. I actually read that Stockfish prefers E4. Does it really? I actually didn't know that. Because it maximizes the number of tactical options. That makes sense. The right answer is 3400, which is, I believe, Stockfish. You guess people's ELO chess rating. What's that take? How hard is it to do that? And like, how would you actually do that? Like what are telltale signs of red flags about a person at different ratings? Is there something you look for? Yeah, I think you can separate it something like the very first, the zero to about 8900. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to use the chess.com rating system because LeChess is slightly different. It tends to go to 300 points higher than chess.com, sometimes even four or 500 points higher. But then it catches up. They catch up around 22, 2300, I would say. What's chess.com? What's LeChess? Can you like, explain what the difference is and what the difference is? And what they are? They're two chess websites. Good starting point. Yes. Chess.com is it has obviously the free option where you can play games. You get some sort of puzzles every single day. You get some sort of lessons every single day. But then they have tiered memberships where you can pay annually or per month that you can unlock all the other features. And like what? Like for training, for training, puzzles and all that kind of stuff? Yeah, they have unlimited puzzles, but they also have their biggest selling point, for sure, is like a dedicated game review that it's like very flashy and sophisticated. And the coach will literally tell you what you did wrong every single moment the computer evaluated a mistake. But the most important thing that they have is they offer international masters, grandmasters, the opportunity to make video lesson libraries, which hundreds of hours of anything. I can even learn some stuff on there. Probably. I have anal beads that are communicating with stockfish via Bluetooth. Yeah, we'll get to that. Yes, we will get to that. It's epic. It's actually scary how many people think that's a real thing, by the way, which is the danger of the Internet. But we will get into that. But I tend to believe that people believing a thing that's hilarious at scale will make that thing a reality. I'm with Elon on this. I think people manifest the meme. The meme becomes real. So that's in all walks of life. I think there is something about humor sort of being... Why did I... I was going to say is I feel like humor becomes a lubricant for the trajectory of human civilization. And I don't know why the word lubricant went into my head, which... Beads? I understand. Yeah. But it's very Freudian. Anyway, so zero to nine hundred. If you're a 1300 player, you were saying. If you're not good at end games, you don't understand how to convert positions that have seven or eight pieces left on the board. You don't know when you're supposed to activate your king. You don't know how a bishop outplays a knight with just several pawns on the board. Those are all very important things, because it's not just about knowing the theoretical end games. Like some positions in chess are literally solved. If I showed you a position, I asked, what's the evaluation and how do you win it? There's a technique. You're supposed to know that technique. And the coaches on chess.com can help or no? Yeah. So these lesson libraries, it's not like a live lesson. It's pre-recorded training position. Walk you through it. And then there's a dynamic factor as well where you can practice. You can practice the theoretical and you can practice a practical game where there's no set format to do something. It's just based on your previous experience. Basically, Lichess is their entire thing is it's an open source website that tries to be as free as possible and operates totally on donations. They don't have any advertisements they don't have, which is weird because normally in big competitive settings, it's all capitalistic. You have one big entity and another big entity, and they're both for profit. But in this case, the big argument is, well, they offer a lot of things for free. You can analyze your games for you. You can go into Lichess's lessons library and do things for free. The comparison that I always make is chess.com is basically like having a good personal trainer and having someone to help you at the gym. Lichess says you have to do all the stuff yourself. So you can combine YouTube with Lichess. No one's going to really point you in the right direction. You've got to go fully explore on your own. If you want to do it, you can. I also like to say, can I make a controversial joke? Yes. Okay. Ardent Lichess supporters are like very angry. You know, only vegetarian or vegan folks, because they will tear you apart and try to convert you as much as possible. Did you just point a large number of haters onto this very podcast? Is this what just happened? No. Is there like several people that were very upset at you right now? No. And throwing things? Okay. No, no. That's always the joke that I've made because if people have chess.com, and I love all people, but I'm just saying chess.com patrons do not try to actively convert folks on Lichess. Folks on Lichess are like, you know, there's a meme chess.com. Chess.com. It started at Lichess. Started somewhere on Reddit, Anarchy Chess, kind of a... Oh, so Lichess is a little bit of an anarchist organization. Would you go as far as to say they're a terrorist extremist organization? Are we going there? For legal reasons, that's... I thought Lichess has like really good analysis. Like somebody... Does it have an engine for analysis of like games or is that an open source thing that like... They both do. They both use Stockfish 15. Okay. And then the rest is the interface around Stockfish that shows... It's tough. It's the live... So chess has a live server where you and I can play a game against each other. We just both seek and if we have the same rating, we have the same criteria. Yeah. We'll play a game, but there's also reviewing your own games. There's an opening database so you can see what the most popular trends are. So Lichess is great. Like I'm sponsored by chess.com and I will openly say that, but you can't have... So you're deeply biased. Yes. Okay. But I'm also complimenting the competitor. Okay. But... But can you play games on Lichess or is it just for analysis? Yeah, you can. Yeah. So it's the same exact thing. So they're like legitimately competitors, not exactly the same thing, but they're trying to match for features, but you're saying Lichess is more chaotic and then chess.com is more like professional. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know if it's chaotic. I just know that it's... You have to... No one's going to hold your hand if you go to Lichess. You absolutely can. You can play games, you can analyze your games, but you have to discover it yourself. The whole point of chess.com is to make the journey as simple as possible. But I also firmly believe you can't have any sort of growth in chess without a chess.com or a chess24. What's chess24? So chess24 was another live server with some lesson libraries and so on, but they were, I think the process was they were bought by PlayMagnus. So... What's PlayMagnus? PlayMagnus... That's Magnus Carlsen's thing. He doesn't own it. He owns some stake in it, I think nine or 10%. They owned a bunch of chess companies, including chess24, but now it seems like they're either merging or basically getting acquired by chess.com. Got it. And then PlayMagnus, it's an app also where you can play magic at different levels, but there's also the educational stuff. Yes. Okay. The for-profit chess companies make the option for grandmasters to make a living to make chess in eSport. Yeah, Leachess is great. It doesn't put on any events. There's no commentary. So you can have both in theory and probably some controversy is good. Does chess.com like sponsor you? They help you out in some way? Like what's the connection between your videos and streams and so on in chess.com? Like, are they supporting people in that way or no? My content, they don't necessarily, I just make whatever I want. Like I don't have, I'm not censored. If they do something stupid, I will call out their leadership. It's not like, but I to have the logo up like in my YouTube videos or on my, yeah, that's just that kind of stuff. Yeah. So anyway, back to, I mean, that was really helpful. I was confused about all of that. No, that's fine. The guessing people's rating. So the thing you mentioned about the end game, if you don't know what the hell you're doing with the end game, what does that mean about your rating? If you don't know how to finish with just a few pieces on the board. You could be my rating. That's the self deprecating humor we tuned in for. End games are hard, man. They're tough. Yeah. You can't have, there's a reason Magnus is the best. It's because seven hours into a game when everybody's given up, he's still squeezing juice out of the fruit. So that's the way I would describe it. So that's not a good source of information. If you. No, within the first 15 moves, generally. You can tell, uh, because you can tell how well they played the opening. So how well they knew what they were supposed to memorize, what they were supposed to play and then how they react to piece interactions. So if they are faced with a move that a more advanced player would deal with very swiftly, because there's kind of a natural response that gives you information, if they move their King, when they're in check, when they didn't have to, that's a massive giveaway. Some people just think, oh, I'm in check. So I have to move my King. Okay. So it's like how direct the response of your play is to the danger. So like, if you're more moving like multiple pieces at a time, meaning like you're moving, like the pieces are like tied together in interesting ways and then, okay. Okay. Like, what about like, uh, what about the opening? Can you tell also, because a lot of people can memorize openings, right? Yeah. But it takes two to tango. So you could memorize a bunch of stuff, but if you're 900 and I'm 900, my rating is fluctuating all over the place in the, in this podcast, I feel it's all 13, 900. Yeah. You can memorize things. I'm going to play some crap and you can't play the way you memorize them because I have to respond to you in certain ways. So you will either respond the way you think you're supposed to respond. And that will probably be incorrect or now you have to figure out how to deal with the fresh position. Oh, so the 900 will reflect itself in both cases. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I wonder if actually, so, uh, do you know your current rating or no? Or your top rating? What was your top? I know both my current ELO, like over the board now is 2320. My peak was 2430. Oh, cool. So can you play like a 900 player, like, can you force yourself? Yeah. So you can like, given that you've guessed a lot of ELO ratings, can you kind of emulate that? It's kind of an interesting question. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Before I was doing YouTube and Twitch, I was teaching kids. So I had to, not only did I have to play at their rating, I also had to play and sometimes even behave and explain things in a way that a kid could understand. So absolutely. Yeah. I think that's what contributed to the growth of the channel. Frankly, I kind of understood how beginners thought about the game. So, yeah, you did, um, you taught people chess, you coach people for, for many years, I guess in New York. Yeah. New York. What did you learn about the way people learn from that? So like how, how did people that were successful at getting good at chess quickly? What were the, some of the commonalities, some of the patterns that you saw? Obsession. Yeah. What does obsession look like? I would say it's obsession and also, and also love of the game. So if you're bored, you don't want to watch a show, you want to boot up chess.com or LeeChess just for, just so I don't get flamed by any, anyone in the audience. And you just play. So you're saying LeeChess people are the ones that would attack aggressively? They're the kind of people. It's probably the chess24 people. Oh, that's another. So there's no, I didn't know, I thought chess24 was part of the chess.com. Well now, yes. That's the joke. Occult or tribe or whatever terms we want to use. No, no, I'm sure there's even more places to play live. There always have been more places to play live, but chess.com, LeeChess, Dominate, and well, chess24 is rough for live interface. Of course they have good courses and everything, but I got it. I got it. And some are even good people or whatever that quote goes. Okay. Like obsession, that means the way they look at the board, when they're bored, how quickly do they return to the chess board, that kind of stuff. Just like how many hours a day they want to spend. Yes. They spend and want to spend. Some kids definitely have a talent. Of course, there's this eternal debate, talent versus hard work. I don't necessarily know if it's a talent for chess specifically, but it's a talent for, I'm sure there's some sort of spatial visualization in your mind, you start picking up what squares are controlled by your pieces and opponent's pieces faster, your memory is much stronger. So you don't just learn openings like we discussed, you learn literal patterns such as, oh, I remember this from two tournaments ago. I remember this from a game I played just yesterday. And you just keep playing and playing and playing. But I think the one commonality, I think I've seen in all kids, it's obsession. You have to play a lot. And I've seen kids who are brilliant kids. If you give them a page of tactics, puzzles, they solve faster than anybody. They can pick things up here super fast. They're a pleasure to teach. They go to a tournament, disaster. They can't handle the anxiousness. They can't handle that silent face-to-face war with another six-year-old. They can't even handle, there's also trash talk. One sentence by a kid can throw off your prize student. And I've seen kids just totally disintegrate. I've seen also my students bully other kids. Gordon, my student wasn't that strong, but their verbal warfare, which is not allowed, but goes unnoticed. But it's not even verbal warfare, just going like, hmm. Like, little facial expressions you make at the board. Hey, I didn't even think about that. That's pretty creepy, the intensity. Not creepy, that's not the right word. But there's an intensity in that silence over the board. Like, you can probably hear stuff, just like, it's super quiet. It's like a library. And then there's just a tension that builds. You can hear the breathing. Yeah, and at the highest level, both sides are involved in a battle that they both foresee 99% of the time. That's the scary part, is that you both see the exact same thing. It's very rare you play a move and I didn't see it. It's that I mis-evaluated it. I saw the move could be played, but I missed something three or four moves deeper. And you play that move and suddenly you're excited and I'm nervous. But all of a sudden, you make an inaccuracy and now the tide shifts, right? We could be on totally different planes throughout the game, or we could be on the same plane throughout the game. So it's really fascinating. Yeah, so your thought is when you see a move that to you seems suboptimal, and you start to think, what was that? You start to try to make sense of that. Did you miscalculate it? Did you miscalculate or did they miscalculate? Isn't that what Magnus is really good at, is taking people away from, like making suboptimal moves, to take them away from the known openings? Or is that unfair to say? Yeah, he gets part of his really dominant reputation, I think, from not letting people get into ultra-theoretical positions. He just won this tournament, this online tournament, and he said he had a young player strategy. He had an anti, sorry, a anti-young player strategy. What's that mean? It means that by move seven or eight, you go to the database, no games. Kid is on their own. They have to swim on their own. And they have to deal with the strategic complexities of the position, which he just, he gets. And he might get from just an enormous database within his brain of historical games that have similar structures, or just sheer genius. So, like, we won't know. Yeah. It's a mix of the two, for sure. The younger you are, you can't remember a game played in 1951 in some bar in the Soviet Union, but he does. Because he read a book once or a magazine once. And he just remembers it. He just remembers. And he remembers the structure, which it's just, it's not fair. It's crazy, right? What do you think makes him, if we can sort of linger on it, what do you think makes him so good? I think it's the memory. And I think it's, he just seems to get the game better than anybody else. That's the best way I can describe it. In sports, you have reaction time, you have strength, you have... But also as he's now evolving, it's stamina. So, there have been games that if you put two other 27, 50 rated players, or world top 10 players, they would have drawn the game. The game would have ended. The game, nobody would have won it. You put Magnus as one of the aggressors in that game, suddenly the chance of victory doubles from 5% to 10%. That's weird. What's that about? Because what is it, game six against Nepo? Right. Isn't Stockfish say that it's supposed to be a draw? So, 0.00 does mean a draw sometimes, but other times it means, and this is the joke I always make, it means that Stockfish is out for a smoke break. It can. Can you explain the joke? Yes. Can you explain 0.00? Yes. So, Stockfish will show an evaluation, which determines whether the position is equal, slightly better for one side, slightly better for the other side, or completely winning. You can, 0.00, 0.2 minus 0.2, that's all within a balance. You can say, okay, black has a little sprinkle of activity, something, white has that. But if it's 0.00, it could be literally a dead draw, meaning theoretically just impossible to win. But oftentimes what that means is, the smoke break joke is, Stockfish doesn't know. There is so much complexity within the position, the combinations of different moves that are acceptable and okay, it cannot evaluate correctly. Wow. So, even the end games are tough for Stockfish. Which is why Magnus won that game, because there was practical value remaining. It wasn't a dead draw. He continued to ask questions over the course of six or seven hours. He would sacrifice a pawn, he would sacrifice another pawn to damage the structure. Valuation stayed the same, because a machine could stop him, but not Jan. And that was one of my favorite, that game ruined my whole day, by the way. Because it's so long. Yeah, I made so many plans that day, it completely ruined my day, but it was a very worthy recap. You were just all in, you watched that whole game? I watched the whole game. And the world championship was a crazy time, because I wanted to be first with the recap video, but I also wanted to be best with the recap video. So, I spent all the hours of the games watching all the live broadcasts, and getting all the information, all the variations, and trying to put that into the recap. It was a lot of fun. It was a huge adrenaline dump when it was all over. So, just for people who don't know, that's the most recent world championship. So, you had a, I mean, that was a draw after draw after draw after draw. Yeah. And it was kind of boring in that way. Or maybe, are draws, is there like non-boring parts within the draw to you? When you were like just studying it carefully. For me, yes. For the average viewer, no. That's the truth. Especially when the game itself is not that exciting. When Magnus plays a strange move on move 9 or 10 that hasn't ever been played, and then Jan has to try to exploit it, and he fails, and no attack builds up, and they shuffle their pieces for three hours. My favorite thing is when the commentator's like, I don't know why he did that. I wonder why he did that. When the commentators are confused, that's my, as a person who's just a spectator, just like, that's interesting. Because then you, the most interesting part is about listening to the commentators who, I guess themselves might be grandmasters. Yeah. They are trying to, I guess, just like Nepo, just like Magnus, try to figure out what's the idea here. What are you thinking? That's cool. That's an interesting part of the game. But other than that, it seemed, yeah, I was sure this was just gonna keep being a draw, especially in that situation. So it's almost, it seems almost remarkable that Magnus was able to pull out a win in game six. And after that, at least Magnus said that that ends it, because now Nepo's gonna have to take more risks, and that opens it up to pure chess. And then, who was it? Steve Prefontaine said, like, whenever there's a race, it's down to like pure guts, then that's when I win it. There was also a conversation about Jan's first half, second half in any tournament. In the first half, he's just brilliant on fire. You could even say he was outplaying Magnus. But the entire conversation before the match was Jan slows down. And at the first sign of a loss or a setback, the match might fall apart. And that was the worst way to lose. There was literally no worse way. And it just got worse from there and there. I mean, it was one move mistakes and... But he's back. Jan has won the candidates again. He's gonna play for the world championship. So who you got? Who you got? Who you got? What is this slang terminology? Can we like somehow edit that into a more sophisticated with a British accent type of phraseology? Okay, who do you think will win that match? I think it's 55-45, but I don't know for who. So it's close. It's very close. Okay. You can make both cases. You could say, ding. You could say Jan has been here before. You can say to the world championship stage, he knows what it's like to have a training camp and so on and so forth. His playing style is very... But you can also say Ding Liran is one of the most stable, unemotional chess players. And Ding oftentimes goes from down to up. So in the candidates, he lost to Jan in the very first game. 14 round tournament, he got demolished in the first game. I'm sure he was suffering from jet lag. The flight, he came to Spain like two days before the games began, which was crazy to me. And he got second place by the end. His chances of finishing in the top two were like 2%. After that first round game, people wrote him off completely. So he doesn't go from top down. He goes the opposite way. And if he loses, he might come back. But the truth is, I don't know. The truth is it's gonna be an interesting match. And it's also disappointing. We're not gonna get Magnus in it. Yeah. What do you think about him stepping away from the world championship? Are you a romantic about the world championships? No, I'm not a romantic about anything, I don't think. I can't imagine what- It's dark. It went dark quickly. I don't think I'm sophisticated enough to be a romantic. I think I taught chess and now I make YouTube videos. I'm not qualified on the subject of romanticism, but I- You don't think it's a beautiful game? Chess? No, I think it is a beautiful game. There you go, I got you. Yeah. Is that considered being a romantic? Yeah. I was seeing the beauty in the... You can be like Bach and seeing the math in the music, or you can see the beauty, the magic. I think I see beauty in certain types of chess, for sure. Not in all chess, so partially romantic. Part-time romantic. Yeah. Yeah. So what do you feel about Magnus stepping away from the world championships? Disappointing, but understandable. Can you still man his case? What's understandable about it to you? I don't think it's as prestigious as it could be. I don't think- The world championships? Yeah, yeah. Why does Magnus still sign everything as world champion then? That's a good point. He did just put out a statement and he did say- But he does it everywhere else too. Does he really? Yeah, like world champion, right? World champion. I don't know. World chess champion. Maybe it's just because he won it, he won it, but he thinks that the journey to the top once again, to maintain the status quo has lost its appeal. You know what the example that I like to make? I'm a big fan of UFC. So we've never really seen, with the exception of George St. Pierre walking, and Khabib, but Khabib was kind of a different story, walking away from a belt at the absolute zenith of their career. But also in the UFC, champions are extremely well taken care of. And the champions have some of the best lives. Of course, you can argue not all champions, you can say some of the lower weight divisions, yes. But what I'm saying is a lot of them get all the sponsors, they get massive, massive paydays, they're international celebrities. I don't think chess has that. In fact, the World Championship of Chess Prize Fund has not changed much in like 40 years. So you could probably make more money on YouTube. Yes. Playing randos, not randos, but other, having fun, and playing challenging, really challenging games, playing other super grandmasters, like an ad hoc events, or maybe a little bit organized events, but not the World Championship. Yeah. And still have a lot of fun, make a lot of money, get everybody excited, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. So for Magnus specifically, and we're using him because he's the world champion, if you tally, if he wins every tournament that he plays in over the course of a year, which is really not even that crazy of an estimate, because that's really how it seems sometimes. Yeah. I don't know how much money that is, I haven't tallied. But if he dedicated an entire year to being managed on social media, and doing various things, and growing all his brands, and getting sponsor deals, I think he would make five times more than being the world champion, which is crazy. Yeah, but money isn't everything. I know, that's totally fair. Some people dedicate their whole life to winning the Olympics. The Olympics is a funny, is an interesting one too, because like I didn't even watch the Olympics as carefully as I usually do. This year, yeah, me neither. It's really strange, I'm not sure why that is. And during COVID, I'm not sure, that was weird. I don't know if it's losing its magic. Part of it is also the people that own the Olympics and the way they distribute it, they make it a little bit more difficult to watch. Like it should, in my opinion, it should all be just available on YouTube and easily accessible. It's like the difference between like SpaceX and some other, like even NASA, because SpaceX is better at streaming their launches and commentating them. They've made NASA better as well, but just like the ability, it sounds ridiculous, but making it more frictionless for people to watch, get excited, to share, all that kind of stuff. Yeah, like I'm not exactly sure where the magic like balances between the classy, traditional world championships and the kind of dramatic, exciting streamer world. And it feels like for the world championships to be relevant, they have to find that balance. Yeah, well, this recent one had, I was- It's pretty good commentating, yeah. No, I'm not even necessarily talking about myself, though there was a lot of- That was the worst part for me. No, you did amazing, yeah. I appreciate that. It was a lot of, it was a big arms race. So every major chess platform tried to get one super grandmaster, Vishwanathan Anand, Fabiano Caruana, you name it, they were basically involved. And to go back to that point, yeah, the big question is money. And if Magnus is not motivated by money, if the prize fund for the next world championship was $10 million, would he play it? If he says no, then it must be something else. It must just be a matter of something's not worth it, it's not worth it. You gotta take him at his word. And his word is like, there's too much stress to the low sample play. Yeah. Like I wanna play many more times. Yeah, he wants to play more, he wants to- Shorter games. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, more shorter games, like where you can increase the possibility of pure chess, whatever the heck that means. But we can't go back to the first Karpov-Kasparov match, which they had to stop due to health concerns. I mean, the guy went down 5-0 and it was first to six wins and draws didn't count. So draws didn't amass to the total score, there was no best of system. So what happened there? The match went something like seven, eight months, Kasparov started making a comeback after being down 5-0, he was 5-3 and they called it off. They called it off, they said both players are in poor health conditions, Kasparov stormed down, yelled that this is a farce. But the match was 50 games long, even more maybe. I made a video and I don't even remember how many games it was, it was so long. Can you imagine? Bobby Fischer wanted something almost as extreme, draws don't count, it's first one to 10 wins. And if it's 9-9, the world champion retains his title. So you have to beat the world champion 10-8, that's the only way. You don't like that? What? It's just grueling? I don't know, maybe I like it for the YouTube recaps, but do I like it for the players? Do I like it for general public? No. Torture. It's three, four hours, right? Imagine your favorite tennis match was six months long. What are we doing? Yeah, there's still a magic to the world championship. I wish they could make it something interesting, make it work somehow. But I think Magnus is really challenging FIDE and everybody else to step up and try to figure that out, which is great ultimately. Who would you say is the greatest of all time? Can you make the case, you mentioned Kasparov, can you make the case for Kasparov, can you make the case for Magnus Carlsen, Bobby Fischer, Tal? In my opinion, you can make a case for Magnus, Gary, and Bobby Fischer. I'm not one of the folks that's like, I mean, Capablanca was brilliant, you can argue Steinitz was brilliant, but as I think it's probably Kasparov and Magnus has a chance to overtake it. So the longevity is really important to you when you're thinking about this? Yes, I think so. I think Magnus is very, very close. It's extremely close. What would be the magic? You got to get that sixth one. Oh, so the- No, I'm just kidding. So the world championships matter. It's kind of like basketball, right? Rings, it all comes down to how many rings did this person win? What about, well, basketball doesn't have this, the number of years at number one, right? Like rating, sorry. Which is what Magnus really likes, is like, there is a nice system of rating of who is ranked number one, and it has to do not with some championships or low sample tournaments, it has to do with general, game after game after game helps estimate more accurately the ELO rating. Yeah, he's been world number one for, I think, 11 years, right? Which is still less than- Gary was world number one for 20 years, which is quite wild. But still lower rating, I think, than Magnus now, right? Yeah, I think rating in general has sort of- Allegedly, it got inflated? Yeah. Is that true? Is there a truth to that? I think so, I can't speak to how exactly it happened, but it also happens online. If you go back just three or four years, I think some of the best blitz players on shs.com were 27, 2800, and now they're 3200. I think it's just sort of what happens, but I don't exactly know. I will mention that there was a very strange change, not exactly sure when the year was, in FIDE, so over the board chess, where if you were under the age of 16 or 18 years old, one of those two, and you were below 2300, okay? Your rating change factor was three to four times higher. So just imagine what that means. Magnus has a rating change factor of, let's say, one. I have a rating change factor also of one. Anybody over the rating 2400 has the same rating change factor. What is the rating change factor? So if you win... Yeah, there's a formula, and basically, let's say at the very base level, five point change, if your rating change factor is one. You beat somebody, you gain five points. Those kids who were under 18 and under 2300, their rating change factor was four. So their ratings were going up four times higher and four times up and down compared to normal folks, and there was one teenager in the US in particular, who in one month played a bunch of tournaments with his rating change factor and became nearly rated 2640, which is top 50 in the world. He was just a random teenager from the United States. He became a grandmaster ultimately, but he bled like 90 points down because his rating was so inflated. And this, the K40 exists now. I mean, you have many kids who out of nowhere, 2100, 2100, 2400 after, you know, one good month. It's like, what? So that's interesting. It's like similar to like how TikTok inflates your virality early on. Does it? Yeah, like I don't know. Well, at least the rumor is like, they want you to get engaged. And I thought there was even artificial likes and so on, that they want you to get that dopamine addiction. So maybe they want to throw you, if you're really passionate about chess, they want you to throw you to the sharks by artificially inflating you, inflating your rating, and maybe that gets you into the game much more intensely. Maybe. I wonder how many like backdoor feed-in meetings there are with cigars. And so that was the factors determined by who does the Elo rating. Who changes this stuff? Yeah. Who knows? It's probably those Lee chess anarchists. Exactly. I think they want to stay away from that stuff. So there's a guy named Hans Niemann. Yep. And he beat Magnus Carlsen recently. Yeah. Has been already... September 4th. September 4th. Oh, it was September? So he beat him twice, right, recently. Once is the allegations by the internet that Hans Niemann cheated. And then the second time Magnus played a few moves and forfeited and resigned. There's actually... so there's three. Okay. Sorry. Can we go through the stuff? Yes, yes, yes. So they play a live e-sports event in Miami, Miami Beach. Yes. Eden Rock. That's where I actually interviewed Magnus. Yeah. That's where that was? Oh. By weird circumstance, I found myself in Miami unrelated to chess event. And yeah, it was a very dramatic event for me for various reasons. One of which the camera stopped working halfway through the conversation. I saw that. Yeah, I saw that. I also, side note, I really respect how you write comments, pin them at the top. You add timestamps. You're like very true professional. I am the complete opposite on YouTube when I'm off the camera. So I dig in the mud. What does that mean? Dig in the mud. From when I started on YouTube in 2020, I in June, like May, June 2020, I had no subscribers. So I got to a million in a year. I had a lot of people analyzing my every move, all of my small flaws. And I love getting hate comments because... Yeah, you pin, is it the comment of shame or something? That's what it was. It's been named over the years by folks. I never called it that, but yeah, it's pin of shame. Pin of shame, yes. It's been tough because now people pretend to write hate comments just to get attention. So like anything, the public ruined the good thing. But it started that way. It started with people just shredding me to bits, calling me spin-offs of this and that. And I think I'm a human more than I am a creator, an influencer, an attention seeker. Like I'm just a person. So to me, even at the size of 1.6 million subscribers now, September 2022, I don't understand that I've gotten big and that I shouldn't do this stuff and that I should be beyond it, or I shouldn't be checking my social media as much as I do and interacting one-on-one. I'm still very much a human being. And my guilty pleasure, my way of killing time if I'm not laying on the couch and playing some Chaz Blitz games off stream is I just interact with people who say nice things and who say horrible things. And I really like to get into the head of the people who say the terrible things. And sometimes you can, sometimes they are truly trolls. But sometimes people just, they just really hate you. So- What's a successful interaction with the person that's trolling you? What's like at the end of that hero journey that you were partaking in, what's the top of the mountain look like? Is the troll conquered and broken mentally? Yes. No, not mentally. I don't want to defeat. I honestly sometimes, somebody writes a very long comment. I'll just, I'll respond with a question mark. Yeah. Oh, so you're, you see each other as like a brother and sister. You're going to travel together on this journey of deep meaning, like introspection of what does this mean? Yeah. I've had people write, I can't quote now, but something about my persona, my behavior, this and that. And I just like respond to them and I say, hey, it sounds crazy that a large creator might do something like this. But this kind of goes back to, you speak to folks on a very respectful way. If you make a mistake, you completely own up to it. So I have this sometimes, these one-on-one interactions where I say, I think you're reading too much into this. I think you're kind of, you don't understand maybe some of my humor or sarcasm as such. So you form this opinion that I'm this kind of a person, this and that. And now you're sort of, anything I do, you're trying to attach to that reasoning. And here you are writing this lengthy essay of why nobody should watch my content. And sometimes people go, you know what, I think you have a point. Maybe I should relax a little bit. Yeah, I would love to sort of interview and understand the lives of the folks that post that kind of stuff. I mean, they're human beings. They have interesting journeys also. I think they often don't realize, I think they don't realize their comment will be read by anybody, especially you. They think like, and they also don't realize you're a human being, I feel like. And it's so interesting to watch it. Like some guy, because I posted on Twitter for like a minute that I'm talking to you and asking for questions. I deleted that tweet because 95% of the people were talk about cheating, talk about the cheating. All right, I got it. Thank you. This is not going to be helpful at all. So I was like, all right, but in that time, like there's one comment, which it's hilarious to me that you found that one comment. The one comment says like, this seems like a waste of time or something like why- Lame guest. Lame guest. Lame guest. And then used, like responded something like with a question mark. Yeah, yeah. I wrote, why am I a lame guest? Why am I- It's made a sad face. Let's talk about this. Yeah, I was like, why am I a lame guest? And he responded. He responded even after you deleted the tweet. Yeah, what did he say? He said, he doesn't know what value I would bring because I just make videos about chess games. Yeah. And that's true. You've had some absolutely brilliant people on, but I also looked at this gentleman's profile and he was one of the folks that put things about his family and God and his politics in his Twitter bio. And I started thinking, maybe I said something in some video and I made a joke about religion or something, just some offhand five second thing somewhere that someone turns me into just an absolute outcast in the household. They can no longer watch me. And that has happened. That has happened. I'll record a 30 minute video and I'll make a joke about something and some phrasing and that's it. I've lost the viewer forever and they will let me know. They will write me an email. And I just don't think people should be that serious. Yeah, there's some of that. Because I've seen people say that sometimes about me, but I see it more with others. They'll say, I used to be like Joe Rogan gets this. I used to be a huge fan of Joe Rogan until he said this. First, I do wonder if you were ever really a big fan. That's one question mark I have. But the other is like, I think we should be more lenient with each other in terms of how much stupid shit we say. And if you actually, I wish people were able to sort of introspect on their own, on the stupid shit they say themselves, like to have a little bit of empathy. Like, I wish there was a way to read all the emails you've ever written. And just to see, or maybe do a search engine for all the stupid shit you've said in emails in the past, and like summarize it and to reveal it to yourself that like, you have bad days, you have good days, you have emotional days, you have stoic days, you have sometimes you have like, you take very different political views than you do on other days. And it's like, it's all over the place. And if you're a creator, if you're putting stuff out all the time, you're gonna have those and you're still a full like, complex bag of emotions and thoughts and ideas and contradictions and all that. Like you shouldn't judge a person by a single statement. And even when you do, you should try to infer the best possible interpretation of that statement. I feel like that's just a healthier way to interact with the world and with other humans. It's like, I wonder what's the best possible interpretation of the thing they just tweeted, or they said. Like what, let's imagine that the person saying those words is actually a really good human being. And what did they mean when they said that thing about anal beads? Right? So good for so long. Yeah, right. Or whatever it is, like, you know, they didn't mean to be offensive to the sexuality of a certain group. They're just talking about, they're talking shit about anal beads. Like they're not, like, sometimes it's humor. Sometimes it's actually genuinely embodying like a political viewpoint and like walking with it, thinking through it for a few days. Like, like taking it seriously, empathizing, not just for a brief moment, but for a time, like walking with an idea and allowing yourself to express it. Like playing devil's advocate, I do that all the time. With yourself or? With myself. Yeah. In conversation I do too. And I find I have to say, I'm playing devil's advocate. Like you have to be very explicit, but with myself, I'll just do it in my head. Like I have different voices, like, you know, obviously it just in, I've been getting so much information, so many thoughts in all the complexities of the war in Ukraine, for example. And all the different voices within Ukraine. I just interviewed hundreds of people and they have very different perspectives in nuanced ways about the war. Some are full of hate, some are full of love, like hate for the other, love for their own country, love for family and tradition, all of it. It's a beautiful mix. And I have to walk, I have to like carry those ideas in my head and empathize with them deeply. And then I have to listen to people that live elsewhere, that live in India, they have a very different perspective. There's a lot of people in India that have a very different perspective than the people in Ukraine. So I don't know. And some of that will bleed out into the thoughts I express publicly. And like when people judge you harshly for it, it, first of all, me as a human being is psychologically difficult. But also it makes me less willing to be fragile. I still try to be strong enough to be fragile in front of the camera, just say things that are on my mind, even if I know it's going to create people that are going to be like ruthlessly negative towards me. So I try to wear my heart on my sleeve and still try to be fragile, but it's harder. You're going to pay a psychological cost. Like, you know, in some sense, I try to be tough, but like I can be a softie in that, in like certain, certain like attacks can get to me. So I'm surprised that they don't get, I mean, does some negativity get to you? Or is this the way you deal with it by responding? Like that guy saying, like, what value does talking to a levy add to the world? Yeah. No, but that was, I mean, that was so good. I was looking at, I was thinking at various moments, you went to jump in and I was, I was kind of letting, letting you speak. One of the things I wanted to mention was it's significantly simpler to talk about chess than it is to talk about some of the things you talk about. And you have a big responsibility because you have to absorb information like a sponge, but you also then need to present it in a way where you potentially have an opinion while trying to be fair to everybody. And you're talking about things that will literally never please everybody. Just literally, what else are you going to talk about some issues that are going to get out there into the, people are going to watch it, the eyes, right? The years of millions of people, and not everybody is going to be satisfied. And these are issues where people are going to be much more likely to speak up in all sorts of ways, like tremendous support or tremendous hatred, vitriol, and God knows what else. Yeah, you, it's one of the reasons I'm blown away to even be sitting here, frankly, because up until a few months ago, you weren't talking to, you know, I'm not saying you weren't talking to, but you hadn't spoken to chess players. You were speaking to people who were doing much more substantial things in the world. I appreciate the humility there. Chess to me is an incredible, is a beautiful game, but I think the reason comments hurt is not, I mean, they hurt no matter what to me. Like, not to me, because I'm in a simpler space. That's what you have to understand. So if it's chess-based criticism, it doesn't hit as hard. No, if you had a podcast about, anal bees, no, I'm just, if you had a podcast. I'm launching this. If you had a podcast about photography, you gotta realize like it wouldn't, it wouldn't be the same way. You talk about potentially existential things. You talk about cyber, you know, things, things in cybersecurity or, or AI, or people who are massive heads of companies that are just inherently going to be a bit more controversial so that I can't imagine being in your shoes because you have so many complex emotions about situations where you may not necessarily agree with everything that someone has said publicly, but you still invite them for a conversation because they're a human being. It's totally different, Lex. I don't know. Not the way I experienced it. To me, I think what hurts is it's not even on my, because I'm super self-critical, usually way more than the internet can be. It's that like human beings can be cruel to each other. So like the reason it hurts for some reason, it's like this, almost like there's disappointment in people. They don't give each other a chance. So in that sense, the negativity doesn't have to be about Ukraine or geopolitics. It could be about the silliest of things. I see. And like, to me, it's like, why, why be mean to each other? In a context where the mean doesn't, like it's out of place. Because I, for example, there is like a gaming culture that just talks shit to each other nonstop. I think it's more acceptable there. It seems to fit. It seems to be funnier there. And like when streamers talk shit to each other, I've been listening to several streamers recently, and it's like, it somehow works a little better, even if they're just like cruel to each other. Yeah. It makes more sense. But I think when people are genuinely trying to educate or to help and so on, and you still get the shitty comments, I don't know, it makes me sad. No, it doesn't. It doesn't make me, it doesn't make me sad. I think part of that is also the way I was brought up. So I was, I skipped kindergarten. So I was always the smallest kid. And... You were picked on? I was picked on and then I did picking. So I had kind of both in my life. I kind of know I went home from summer camp crying. And I also made a kid cry once in fourth grade. So I had the balance. And I... Physical or mental abuse are both. Verbal. Verbal. No, I didn't beat anybody up. I was tiny. I think the kid in the younger grade was bigger than I was. And you still broke him. Because I was... Yeah. So I had to use my... Mental warfare. I had to use my words. I had to be... And growing up, my parents split when I was super young and I played chess. So all things that make you super self-trustworthy, like you believe your first instinct, you don't listen to what other people tell you. And if people give you advice, say, okay, I'm gonna think about that. I'm not gonna go and do that. I wasn't impressionable. You couldn't convince me to do something. That's stuck to this day. My wife has had to deconstruct some of my stubbornness. I didn't even realize was incredible stubbornness. It's just something that you brought up with. So to me, that stuff doesn't bother me. And it's... So the voices of others don't shake you quite. They can't mentally shake your psychological stability. No, they haven't. I think when it got probably at its worst point was in combination with being unable to perform well in over the board play. But that was also self-driven. I wasn't performing poorly because I was getting comments. But because I was performing poorly, the comments got to me more, the cycle was sort of in the opposite direction. And that was probably the most frustrating out. But people have said some vile things to me, you know, about my whole Indonesia thing. Oh, this is good. This is gonna give the anarchists and Lee Chess some humor. Let's go there. What's the Indonesia thing? The way you said it. Okay, maybe we don't wanna talk about it. No, no. But let's talk about it. No, it's totally fine. Who did you kill? I was gonna say I wish, but I'm not even sure I can make a joke like that. So the Indonesia thing was I was streaming chess on chess.com, I might add. And I got booted up a 10-minute game. Just a random account from Indonesia. That was the flag. Now, mind you, on these websites, you can pick your flag. It can be from wherever. You don't... It's not geo-tracing. You can change it. I was like, okay, account from Indonesia. And as always, I looked at the account because it was an untitled, high-rated account. And I looked through the games. Win rate was suspiciously high. Average accuracy was suspiciously high. Okay, I think this is a cheater. I said that out loud. It's not the first time I've played cheaters on stream. And I said, okay, I'm still gonna play. Let's see what happens. The game was not crazy suspicious, but definitely suspicious. A few critical moments where I just clearly thought I had a good position. And then the person or the bot played some move that just killed my hopes. And I lost. I was like, okay, I lost. And I wrote to the chess.com fair play team. Like behind the scenes, I wasn't even saying anything publicly on stream. And the guy got banned. It was a cheater. So that night, right before I'm going to sleep, because Indonesia is 12 hours ahead of New York, I go on my Twitter. What the hell is going on? I see hundreds of responses to my recent tweets. Levi, you got to check Facebook, man. You got to check Facebook. Like, you got to, here's a link. So allegedly that account belonged to an older gentleman. And his son made a Facebook post that said, my dad played a big streamer in chess, Gotham chess. And Gotham got mad. He lost to my dad. So his community mass reported my dad. And he was banned for cheating. Oh, it went viral. Oh no. Did you know that Indonesia has the fourth largest population in the world? I didn't know. I learned it the hard way. Interesting. Tens of thousands of DMs every second. Instagram DMs, because I had my DMs open. I was never afraid of that stuff. My YouTube videos went from 99% downvote to 50, 50, 50. Oh wow. They swarmed my comments. So all negative. All negative. All, play him again. You, I mean, I don't know how much swearing there is on this podcast, but I mean, it was just all sorts of- All the fucking swearing you want. They- Just everything, ruthless, the vicious culture. They were going to kill me. They were going to rape my family. They were going to, they were contacting people I followed on Instagram. They were contacting them and telling them crazy things. It was, I'm not joking. It was tens of thousands of people every minute. It was unbelievable. And I didn't know what to do because the guy cheated. I was in the right. Yeah. How certain were you that he cheated? 100%. Okay. I'm okay. I don't know if you can say 100%, but- So just.com also had a suspicion. They, what I- Because they have like good, they have like good detection algorithms. Yes. Danny Wrench would be able to, I legitimately know nothing about the behind the scenes because it's only kind of tech people. But one thing I did not realize was that this account, whether it was the son playing or the father playing, we will not know. We don't know who played. It could have been the son. It could have been the dad covering for him, whatever. But at some point that account won 27 games in a row at 95% accuracy. I mean, even Magnus can't do that. Even, you know, this took a month. This story took one month from start to finish. First, I had to work with a, like a media company to geo-block my content in Indonesia on YouTube. So Indonesians could not see my channel. Oh, so you didn't want to like lean into it, go fool Donald Trump? No, no, no. Let's, let's, cause you're in the right, you feel like you're in the right. You, as far as you know, you're in the right. Yeah. And I hated watching all my work burn to the ground. Like, oh, you felt it was being. Yeah. And I'm, one thing I'm learning about myself is I'm not a good crisis actor. I need someone to like slap me so I don't do something emotional in the moment when crisis is ongoing. What, what would be the emotional act that's not productive there? A partnering with an MCN that makes you give away a bunch of your revenue. And then when you break with them, I wasn't monetized for a week. It was a very big decision to plug in. I think they're called MCNs, but. What are they? Sorry, I don't, what are they? They're like, we, there's, there's specialized agencies that work behind the scenes with YouTube that if you connect your account, they say they can give you certain ad benefits. They can geo-block your content. They, which you can't do normally. They have certain perks that only YouTube allows behind the scenes. You pay them 10% of your monthly ad revenue, but they claim to do a handful of things for you. I just needed them to geo-block my content. I, I just didn't, I didn't care how much money I was going to give away per month, but. Well, so why geo-block it? You just didn't like the, the downvoting. Yeah, I didn't want. You wanted positivity, more like you're being educational. You're, I mean, they're like, you do a bit of shit talking, but it's more like fun and easygoing. You didn't want this kind of viciousness. Yeah, my comment section was just being completely flooded. Like they were destroying my channel. And to be honest, maybe all of the views and the downvotes out of, would have actually been beneficial. Maybe it meant my videos would have actually started getting recommended to more people. Yeah. But I'm a person. This all goes back to the same thing. Oh, so this got to you. Yeah, this was like, I was just watching it and I'm like, this is not fair. This is, I don't, I don't know what to do. So I'm going to stop this as much as I can. They still got through their VPN and they were like, you asshole. You don't think we have VPN in Indonesia? It was this whole, you know, it was this whole thing. This father and son got invited to every major news network. I'm not joking. They got invited to the major podcast. They like to say the Joe Rogan of Indonesia. Yeah. Daddy Corbuzier is this mentalist. He's a bald guy. Very fun guy. He had them. And that's when the Indonesian chess federation stepped in. The thing is nobody who was harassing me knows anything about chess. They just saw the story. And long story short, they brought in a sponsor. The guy played a strong, one of the strongest chess players in the country who also happens to be a woman, Irene Sukander. She's like 2400 international master. She crushed him because his actual playing strength is 1300, 1400. You, something like that. He still got paid because there was a winning prize fund, a losing prize fund. And we never heard from him again. And that was the whole story. So that was why I had to shut down all of my social media to DMs and DM requests and even notifications. Like I don't get notifications unless it's someone I follow. But see, stuff like that doesn't often get resolved in this kind of clear way. No, it doesn't. It could have been. So you got lucky there that there's a conclusion to this. Yeah. Somebody got views, somebody got money. And I never got many apologies. What did you learn from that experience about yourself, about the internet? I think first and foremost, I learned that every moment you are live or broadcasting can be completely blown out of proportion. You have to be real careful. And I can't actively think about that, unfortunately, even when I'm streaming. I've had other instances where things come back to bite. I've even had these moments live on stream. I feel like I said something too sarcastically to somebody and I don't know how their day is going. It might ruin their whole day. God knows what. You have these moments of regret where you want your personality to shine through and you want to entertain. At least you're thinking at what cost if I make a joke to a viewer that suddenly the whole chat is laughing at them, what if that puts them in a deep, dark place? And again, it all comes back to this one-on-one thing for me because I'm a human. I would hate to put another person into that situation. I would much rather get a drink with somebody. But it's all kind of part of this act and you want to make jokes. And I also learned I'm a horrible crisis actor. So I have no patience. But I think that's normal in 2022. Everything is immediate. We can barely sit, think, let time go by. It makes me sad because I think that kind of stuff can destroy good people. That's what makes you sad. Yeah. Well, one of the things we discussed just here before recording, which I'm also, I've talked about this on stream. I'm very open with this type of stuff is over the, I think for me, a lot of that comes down to just a lack of control of the narrative. That phrase is kind of messy. It can be used for political stuff, but I hate when I say things and they get completely misconstrued or they are completely misinterpreted. And I can't imagine being in your shoes because again, I do chess. You cannot really, you can clip me saying something about a chess game out of context and it's hilarious. You know, it's dumb. It's nothing. It's not an attack on me or something that I said. It's not an attack on kind of more, more similarly to what you were describing. You don't say, you don't say stuff like that. Like ridiculous, you don't say ridiculous shit about yourself. Oh, I do. I do. I do. And you don't feel like that could be made. Isn't this the same guy that said X? Maybe, maybe I either haven't said enough of those things or there's no moments in, I don't have three, four hour open conversations with other humans. And I'm pretty sure if I did, there would be more of that stuff out there. But it's probably what it is. It's just the lack of, it's a lack of being able to kind of control what is actually reality. And that, that is very frustrating. And yeah, you're right. I mean, there is a sense that there's not enough motivation for people to attack you. You're ultimately adding a lot of positive stuff to the world. And when you get into more political topics, there's people that, who are hurting, who have a lot of anger in their hearts, and they want to direct it towards you. So then they need ammunition and ammunition comes in the way of like clips from the past. So I'm sure that you, I'm pretty sure you already have clips like that. It's just, there's not people that really have anger to direct towards you. Ultimately you're adding a lot of good stuff to the world. And so, yeah, but it's man, the viciousness of human beings under the veil of anonymity at scale can be really painful. So that, I guess that's the curse, the challenge of being a creator on YouTube and so on, on Twitch. When you talked about retiring, I think you tweeted about retiring from chess. I made a video, yeah, I tweeted. It's my value to the world. The tweet or the video? Both. I'm retiring from all competitive chess events. My preparation is outmatched. My calculation skills are too flawed. And most importantly, my anxiety is beyond repair. I physically and emotionally cannot do it anymore. What was the hardest thing? What was the hardest thing about competing? Like, can you elaborate on that? Yeah, I think it's separated into phases of my life. So after being a creator and coming back and playing over the board and making recaps of all my games, I think the constant feeling that I had at the board was a kid who hadn't studied enough for a test, which is a very unique type of anxiety. And during the game, it was just self-hatred. Like, good moves did not feel as good as how bad bad moves felt and bad moments. And underneath that, you're saying there was a sense that I did not prepare well enough. Oh, unquestionably. So I'm an international master, but there's international masters now who are 11. I got the title when I was 22, which is late. It might not sound like it's late, but it's really late. And I quit chess multiple times when I was a teenager. If I hadn't, if one of my parents was like, sit down, this is the only thing that you're good at, focus on it. Yeah. Maybe I would have been a grandmaster, but that's life, right? And I would come back to chess at various points in my life when I felt more mature, I felt more ready, and I felt more motivated, it was all me. I never, I had one coach when I was maybe about 10, I never listened to the guy, great guy. Like he emailed me even recently, just wanting to catch up, which I thought was adorable because I don't even know if he knows that YouTube chess exists. He's in his 70s, he's just like a nice older guy. Yeah. And he would come to my house, we would have dinner, and my grandma would make us food. And he would tell her that I'm brilliant, but I never work. And I have so much potential. And I have so much potential, if only I ever worked at all, one minute on anything, I just played speed games online. And I- Did he speak the truth there? Like, could you have worked more? I could have worked more for sure, yeah, absolutely. When you listen to Magnus, who doesn't, he seems like he doesn't work either. He works. He might work in different ways, but I think for him, it's also obsession, again, love, it's everything. He might read a book he doesn't consider it work, it's work. He's getting information in and he's learning something. It might just be easier for him to learn than for me, for example, or for anybody, just everybody learns and absorbs things differently. So, I would come back to chess and the best run of my life that I had was in 2016, where I basically, while teaching a chess program, scholastic chess program, I told all the parents, hey, so for these four months, I want to stop doing private lessons and I'm going to go travel and play tournaments because I want to become an international master finally. I'm 20 years old, this is in 2016, like, can you help me raise some money? These are all managing directors, these are lawyers, these are seven-figure, eight-figure households. And they contributed and I kept a blog. And then I worked just six hours, seven hours every day, like studying all the opening trends, all of the new ideas, reading the books, analyzing my own games, playing my own speed games and analyzing them, training every day. And that year I went from 2240 over the board to 2404 with two of the three norms, as they call them, which are basically tournament performances. Like you perform at a certain level, not too complicated. So, I got almost everything I needed to be an IM. But I just slipped up at the very end and 2017 I didn't play chess. But in 2018, I came back once again with a vengeance. I started playing in the summer once again and I went up, up, up to my peak. But then something interesting happened. My life mission was accomplished. I never wanted or thought I could be a grandmaster. Yeah. I wanted to be an international master. And the adrenaline dump of hitting the IM title I just stopped working completely. I just completely stopped working. I couldn't. And the second I started falling, I couldn't stop. And I spent the rest of the summer just tanking. And I said, oh, fuck this. I made my IM, I'm gonna fuck off someplace and whatever. I'll be IM, it doesn't matter. But when I play games online, I mean, I destroy grandmasters all the time. Like dynamically, dynamics in chess are just complex positions with all sorts of calculation, attacking, defending, like very forcing lines. I think it's my best strength. I think I'm easily grandmaster level. So that you have the capacity to be grandmaster. 100%. If the work was put in. If the work was put in and I was not doing my current career, if I just trained full time, I think I would be a grandmaster. Full time, I think I could do it. Do you have a desire to be a grandmaster? Did you have a desire? You said, I didn't really want, like the main goal was international master. Which by the way, is a really interesting, just I've talked to Olympic athletes, the crash after the gold medal is fascinating. I didn't get gold, but for me, that was my goal. That was your goal. I mean, it doesn't matter. It's the goal. It takes a very, very special person to not be destroyed by the gold and continue the dominance. Yeah. It's to continue growing, to continue. I mean, it's hard to, that's why they talk about, it's hard to be a champion and defend your championships. Or whatever the goal is, to achieve the goal and stick to like, yeah. Yeah, it broke me. It broke you. Yep. So you have the capacity to be a grandmaster. Have you ever thought, by the way, is there still possible for you? Or you're fully dedicated now to the love of creating and analyzing this game? I don't think I'm going to do what I do right now forever. Well, you're going to die one day, just a heads up. Yes. I once cried when I realized that. It was at a funeral. It was very sad. That's another entirely separate rabbit hole to go down. Which is when? When did this happen? Yeah. Just a couple of years ago. Yeah, it was rough. So you really were able to like, like that, the realization really hit you like, fuck, this ends. Yeah, I'm the kind of person who I have my active thoughts in my brain of things I have to get done. And the more of those, the better, because I'll, my brain will walk me off a cliff, not the physical body, the brain itself will walk off a cliff, spinning in circles. So I try to keep myself as active as possible on tasks I have to do. It's good. And I'm busy. It's good. I'm at the scale I am because you can't really rest a whole lot. But yes, that was, I have these moments in my life where I have realizations of past fuck ups or things I have, like I really have to do that I've been like really doing poorly, or things like this. Massive existential things that just hit me like a just like a bus. There's several things tricky about it. So because I meditate on death a lot. Like in this conversation, I imagine this is the last thing both you and I do. Just we're going to die after this. So you meditate on that. But then you also have to, I think what hits people really hard is the realization that life moves on. Life moves on, not only does it just end for you, but most people will be like, in your case, they'll tweet. It's like, oh, he's so great. There'll be so much outpouring. There'll be outpouring of love and so on for a day and then it moves on. And the new trees grow, new bridges are built, and then eventually human civilization ends, or moves over to Mars and so on. And you'll be forgotten completely. But that for most people will come right away. Like you get a cancer diagnosis or something like that. And it's like, doesn't anyone else know that I'm going to die? Does anyone else care? Like nobody gives a shit. I mean, they do. I mean, there's love there, but like not in a dramatic way that you would somehow deep inside hope for, that the world would stop because your life is facing this catastrophic event. But I think ultimately, you could channel that realization into appreciation of the current moment. It's just the people you love and sharing love with them as intensely as possible, experiencing every moment as intensely as possible. Because eventually, there'll be a last moment. And after that, there'll be no more moments. That's sort of what I do. Yeah, I try to channel all of that into, sorry. I don't use these fancy microphones in my own. You look uncomfortable. It's not your fault. It's not your fault, Levi. With this microphone? No, with this line of conversation. Oh. I'm playing therapist. I don't know if I'm uncomfortable. I just, I don't know if I have a lot to say. Sometimes I just listen. Yeah. Like sometimes I'm intimidated. You say a lot of good things and I'm like, shit, what am I going to say like at the end? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. On this subject, especially, I'm like, that's sort of what I. There's nothing. What do you think happens after we die? Oh, man. No, that's a rhetorical question. What were we talking about? Grandmaster. Grandmaster. So how hard is it to reach? What are the requirements for grandmaster, by the way? Because yeah, and what are the requirements for international master? You mentioned a few requirements and so on. Yes. So the first one is you have to know how to use a Shure mic and an arm. I'm slowly learning. You were impressed by the Shure microphone, by the way. For the people listening, we're using this Shure SM7B that a lot of podcasters use. I don't know why. And Michael Jackson on Thriller, which Grimes told me. Really? That's what, I think it looked a little different, but it's the same. Wow. Underneath it, a few musicians used it in studio. I don't know where it became popular as a podcasting microphone, because I think most broadcasters use condenser mics that look really fancy. This looks a little... No, this one's great. It sounds really, really good. And I told you before that I wanted to use it, but it requires an external dashboard of some sort, and I'm way too lazy to learn how to do it. And my microphone doesn't sound that bad for YouTube and for Twitch, but this is a long-term question. I still have to figure out how to stream stuff. I haven't figured that out. Do you want to go down into the world of Twitch? No, I don't. Okay. I don't. You just want to learn how to do it, just in case. No, for... No, not Twitch. Do you know what we have over there? So first of all, yes, it's like... I feel like The Hobbit going into like, Mordor. Yeah, Twitch is a very intense world. But there is useful cases when you should have your microphone work with like, the different... the processing chain work in real time. So you can do like interviews. And also, I play video... I try to play a video game once a month. So I've done that like three times already. So stream that kind of stuff for like an hour. Like play Skyrim. I like... I love playing Skyrim. I actually love the idea. I haven't done that yet. But apparently in Skyrim, you can turn off the monsters. And you can just walk around. So I love the idea of just walking around Skyrim for a couple hours. And just like... Because it's beautiful nature. I see. Do you know anything about those? I know little about Skyrim. But... So it's kind of like chat... No. Yeah, it's just beautiful worlds. So there's games that are able to create this sense of... You know, the way you feel when you go hiking, the sense of nature. It's not that they're ultra realistic, but they capture some majestic aspect of nature. I think some of it is also music, something peaceful. It's like old-timey medieval type of music. And just the trees, like the wind, like... And then there's... In the distance, there's the mountains. And you can like... You have a sense of history that the nature gives you. You have a sense of space, like this... You're like this tiny little creature, and there's this big world all around you. I don't know how... That's like an art for a video game to create that. It's not just about the monsters in front of you. It's about this world and this feeling of a world. So I can just walk around and enjoy it. I get asked this question a lot. Why don't I stream more video games? Yes. And I didn't know that such video games, first of all, existed. I thought it was mostly just various sci-fi-ish characters and shooting and objective. Call of Duty. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've played Overwatch on stream. It's the only video game I actually played a lot and got decent at. And I couldn't play it on stream anymore because my teammates would use racial slurs in the voice chat. Yeah. So that is... I will... One of the... Because I've been thinking of talking to a few streamers and they do... They're a little bit... I don't know as far as... That community broadly does use racial slurs and seem to make them okay. But for the ones I would talk to are a little bit... They're just harsh in general in the intensity of language. And I don't know what to do. Like, I don't want to be the guy who says like, kids these days with their mean language on the internet. Like, you want to kind of adapt to the different communities. But at the same time, there's lines that you can cross, right? Like, if you make everything into a joke, because that's what they kind of do. Everything ends in LOL, everything is funny. Yeah. And that becomes, once again, a lubricant. A lubricant that... It's like a slippery slope that takes you to a place where you actually make pretty mean ideas, even evil ideas, okay. Because it started as a joke. And so, I mean, you start getting into the territory of... I mean, because I've been reading a lot on Hitler and Stalin and so on, and you'll see those kinds of topic come up in that community. And it's like, ooh, they have a very different perspective on that stuff. To them, it's just a fun joke, fun time. And I see that the conscious of that would call a duty where you're shooting. And I love shooting and killing things in video games. But there's a slippery slope there too, because then just having visited the front in Ukraine, you get to see the real killing of people. And you see how one can lead to another. It's non-obvious, but there's something that happens in video games where you're like, well, this is not reality. The same kind of things happens in war. Well, the people on the other side aren't really human. It does become a kind of video game. And that same mechanism, I feel like I want to be cautious about our brain going down that road. So yeah, I do worry about that community. But there are video games that don't have such communities around them. I think Skyrim, I don't think Skyrim is an online component. Minecraft, I think, is relatively civil from what I've seen. Interesting. Good community. I think it's a lot of, right now it's booming. It's a lot of young creators who are all seemingly quite close. And I think the community then extends to social media. Some of them are intense, but who isn't? And I think they foster a more or less kind of good group of folks. But no, I completely agree. I think a lot of that stuff, and combined with the anonymity stuff that we mentioned earlier, totally dehumanizes the way people interact with each other. And it's scary. I don't know. Combine that with two years of some people barely going outside. Yeah, with COVID, yeah. It's not a good mix. It's not a good mix at all. I mean, you'd like to think that folks, it's like in their teenage years, kind of go through those and they mature out of it and stuff. So they start to realize the weight of their words. Like, that's my hope. But we're all trying to figure that out, how the internet has changed youth. Like, easy access to porn, easy access to some dark communities where dark ideas breed. I don't know. But then again, I trust in the goodness and the intelligence of people at the end of the day. And I think kids will... I sound like an old man. But it's good for kids to play with different ideas and then they grow out of it, hopefully. But then you have to have parents and good school and good friends that kind of call them out and they're bullshit, you need that. If you're stuck inside under anonymity, maybe you don't have some of those signals. Kids these days with their internet. I had to go through this. It's kind of what I mentioned. So I didn't have two divorced... My parents were divorced. I didn't have two households. I had three. So I had... What was the third one? So I went to school most of my childhood in a town where my grandmother was from. In a town where my grandmother lived. And she was kind of like the Switzerland. So I would be with her and my mom would come with me there half the week. Dad would take me to his place for the other half of the school week. And my parents would split weekends. My mom's weekends were in New York where my stepdad was and that family. So three houses. So grandma, your dad's and then mom. So step-siblings there and there. New people there and there. Extended family there and there. And also at grandma's where I would come anytime I had a conflict. And when I was 12 and 13 and being just a total lunatic, emotional manipulator of all folks in my family. I was just a teenager rebelling and also having to deal with three different households. And I mean, I carried a backpack, the same backpack, literally that I... Not the physical one, but what's inside of it that I carried. Like when I came here to record the episode and have my stuff in the hotel, a backpack with a laptop, a bunch of clothes, a bunch of other things that I need throughout the week. Deodorant, things like that. I mean, of course, you start getting that stuff in all the houses, but that was the way I lived for some of the most important developmental years of my life. And who knows if I had too much of what we're describing, one sprinkle of this too much, one sprinkle of this too much. If I had someone influenced me in a negative way. Luckily, I managed to steer clear of a lot of it. And... Yeah, how did you not get into trouble with the internet? Meaning like, how did you... I don't know. What was your experience with the internet? So I was... Having to move a lot, having to have multiple households, just psychologically difficult upbringing. I... Yeah, it was extremely tough. It's hard to speak about it now because I'm in a completely different mental state. I don't even remember some of those moments, but... That's almost like a different person. Yeah, that's exactly how it feels. But I remember I had a big video game addiction, just like most teenagers. I want to say teenagers, but probably teenage boys, but I'm not... I don't know. I don't know how addicted teenage girls are to video games. Yeah, I didn't... I didn't get on that. I definitely look back on things that I did in certain instances like... Well, I was a teenager. That was stupid. Oh, I scammed somebody in some video game. Oh, that was, you know, that was... Oh, that's hilarious. Like, and just... I was just an idiot teenager. I didn't do anything unforgivable, luckily, and for the most part, just kind of went about my life. And I somehow got older and started getting more independent and stopped playing video games. And to be honest with you, I would love to sit here and say I have some sort of logical explanation of why I am the person I am today. But I think you need elements of the right upbringing and support system, as you said, and you also need luck. You just... I've been in some situations as a teenager where I almost got... I almost got killed by some gang members. That's a very exaggerated story, but I was in a park in New York City and I got into it with a kid whose brother was in a notorious gang of that neighborhood. And he told me his brother was gonna come and kill me, basically, over a stolen basketball. And I was gonna fight this kid because I was 14, you know, he stole my basketball. Of course, I'm gonna fight this kid. This kid was like 12. He had a pierced tongue. Yeah. Like, this wasn't a joke. Yeah. This kid was from a totally different way of life. And his brother did show up. But his brother was like, I'm like, this kid's like... I was a little teenager. I wasn't a big... Now 14-year-olds are six feet tall. Maybe something would have happened to me. But I was a little kid. But looking back at that is crazy because I definitely had some of these moments in New York City more than anywhere else because it's such a big place. But luck, you need some luck. Yeah, it's kind of funny that there's certain moments in life on which the entire trajectory of your life can turn. Like, in that case, nothing happened. But I most intensely feel this when I get almost run over by a car kind of thing. How many times have you almost get run over? I don't know. Maybe happened like twice in my life. Okay. That kind of stuff. Like when somebody runs a red light. Yeah. That happened to me here in Austin. You realize, oh shit, that was... Like your life flashes before your eyes. And those moments can turn. And then there's more meeting certain people where you meet them for the positive. They're like, wow, this moment of inspiration, like, wow, this is possible. Wow, this kind of person can exist. Maybe I can be that kind of person too. So yeah, those things can change the direction. But maybe not. Maybe they just reveal something that was already there and the momentum is always carrying you forward into a thing that you are always going to end up in. Yeah, I wonder about that. Speaking of teens doing stupid things, let's return to the Magnus Hans saga. I know. Yeah. How did it start? Who is Hans Nieman? Who is Magnus Carlsen? How did it start? There's three games. It started in Miami. Yeah. A good background story is Magnus Carlsen is the arguable greatest player of all time. Very close, I would say, to Gary Kasparov. World number one for now over 10 years. At the top of his game, you think? Like close to the top of his game right now? After the most recent thing, yes. I think he has the uncanny ability of top athletes to absorb the bullshit and show, oh yeah, dad's home now. Yeah. You know? Yeah. Run. I was only trying 70% before that, you know? And I think that's what he, I really think that's what he showed. I was in awe. I, if Magnus is playing in a tournament, yes, it's good for views to put him in my YouTube thumbnails and make the video title about him if he does something brilliant. But I was legitimately just blown away. It wasn't even, wasn't farming him for content. It was, this is unbelievable what he's doing to people. And he has a point to prove. Hans is a, I believe he's 19 years old right now. He's an American, I don't know if prodigy is necessarily the right word. Prodigies, you know they're prodigies from very, very, very early on. Very, very young. You don't, in chess you don't become a prodigy at 18. But he was always a good junior player. He was always a very unique character. Like I met Hans when he was 11, 12 years old. He was this little kid, just trash talking folks at the Marshall Chess Club. And he already had a reputation, literally. Like he had a reputation with counselors, with like, and the truth is I was similar. I was kicked out of chess camp by one of the best chess grandmasters of all time, Artur Yusupov. I was in a chess camp when I was nine years old. What did you do? I was just an asshole. Yeah. I was too strong. So I helped other people with other work. I was loud. Do you let your ego shine? I was a kid. I mean, I wouldn't. Well, you know, not every kid lets their ego shine, but some do. Oh, yes. You did. Hans does, there's interviews when he's young. Yeah. Or like, he's kind of talking shit. But it's entertaining. Yes. What I try to stay away from is just, yes, I let my ego shine. But I don't think I even knew what any of that was when I was younger. So it's just sort of, I was just a loud, boisterous kid from a household where I wasn't paid attention to because I had three of them. So I just was like, here's where I'm going to show up and get my attention. And Artur Yusupov, he's a great, great man. I drove that man crazy. He was like top five in the world at some point in the 80s and 90s. He said, it's either me or this kid. Oh, wow. So you really got to him. Yes. He said, I'm not going to come back and teach camps unless it's me. And I remember going through this, I have very vague, distant memories of this. My dad calling, apologizing. Yeah. And- Did it make you feel good that you got to a grandmaster? No, I felt horrible. I felt guilty. I felt guilty my whole life about it. I very rarely feel proud of bad things or I showed them. Even things, it gets to the point you feel guilty about things you didn't do. That's when your brain really goes crazy. Yeah. I'm with you on that. So, okay. So you can relate to the concept. To, yes, to Jung Hans. And he was like in and out of chess. This is what I remember. He was around the rating of 2300. And I remember looking at some of his games in a tournament in Philadelphia. And I was like, there was some game that he played and he didn't know the opening. It was like a London, which is a very popular opening, some theoretical line. I looked at him like, whoa, he didn't know that. Okay, that's crazy. And then I just kind of walked by. And I saw him in a tournament a few months later. And he did something very rare where in an open tournament, not a tournament of 10 players where everybody plays everybody, open tournament, randomized pairings, depending on how many points you have, he played nine grandmasters, which is crazy. That means he was performing so well, so consistently. That was where he got his first IM norm. It's like, oh, here it is. Here comes that like boom of a young player where he gets mature. He gets back into the game and he gets stronger. I don't follow a whole lot. Pandemic happens. And he starts streaming a bit and he's boisterous. He's kind of like loud. He's talking trash and he's gaining rating constantly. He's just, but so are a lot of people. So you don't think much of it. And then now you can go play over the board again, live tournaments face to face, as opposed to online events. And he's like, I'm gonna go to this tournament. I'm gonna win it. I'm gonna get my last GM norm. And he does. And then he's like, all right, my goal is this rating by the end of this year. He gets it. He just demolishes absolutely everybody. And you're like, this guy's over the board. This guy's for real. There's a lot of people like that. If you look at the top juniors of the world, it's crazy. Ali Reza Farooja, 2800. Vincent Kymer, 2700. A bunch of kids from India, 2700. Similar age or younger usually? One or two years younger, maybe a little older by a year. But it's just this wave and you're just hyped for the guy. Like this is fucking awesome. Like we got a young American guy who shit talks every time he's on camera and he beats everybody he plays. But then you start hearing sprinkles here and there, maybe in some stream. Oh, I think he doesn't get to play on chess.com anymore. Like chess.com doesn't put that badge there on the account sometimes. Sometimes they just tell the player, listen, we know. And the player's like, all right, you got me. And that's it. There's no conversation. So there's like these sprinkles, but people cheat online, especially when they're young. It's very captivating. It's a very nice thing to do. Just to be clear, I mean, just to make explicit that the accusation, and I think it's proven, but they're still being shady about it to the degree it's done, is that he cheated on chess.com when he was 12? 12 and 16. That's what he said. That's what he admitted to. But right now, chess.com put out a statement, and now Magnus put out a statement as well, saying, we think it's more than that. Yeah. I've talked to Danny because he wants to come on the podcast, which I'm actually kind of interested in. I think he's a cool person. And they're also doing some really interesting anti-cheating stuff, which to me, from an algorithmic perspective, is interesting. But he is also the man. There's always, in every field, there's the institution. So he represents the institution, because chess.com is the institution. It's like in the Olympic, it's the IOC. It's like, I have to be careful. No, and chessfide is the institution. Fide, okay. Yeah. But chess.com. They've outgrown, way more people actually know chess.com, way more people know me, way more people know Hikaru. It's one of the reasons that- It's interesting where the power lays. Who has the most power? Interesting. Yeah. Chess.com has the most power? Which problem? Well, I don't know. Maybe you and Hikaru do. No. To steer public opinion, you know? That's a very good question. I have to think with my evil cap now. What would happen if- I'd rather you have the evil cap than Hikaru, because I feel like he would really, you know, the power absolute. If the two of you ruled the world, it'd be a problem. You mean side by side? Or rivals? Yeah, it would be like, yeah, as rivals, there would definitely be a war. It's one of the reasons I would not chess box him. Do you guys, how much do you like each other? Or, I mean, do you admire each other as fellow- I can tell you how I feel. As fellow entertaining- I don't know. Well, we should finish Magnus Hans. Yes. Then we should- Yes, that's good. Yes. I know. I feel like just inside, we don't want to talk about it, because it feels like it's been talked about so much. I'm trying to give a very- No, for you, just for Hikaru. For you, just remember, for me, it's much less. Yeah, and for the listener, it'd be zero. The listener, zero. Right. So- Like Rogan asked me, like, so what, what's this? I know, I heard him even talking- What's this chess? You know, Joe talked about the Indonesia thing. He did. In some super random small thing, and that was a very funny moment for me. I told him about this drama a few weeks ago, and then he's like, yeah, this is interesting. Is it anal beads? Is that possible? Is that good? Yeah, I think it's possible. Is it? I don't remember how drunk he was, but so even, you know, he's curious. He doesn't really know. But anyway, cheating when he was 12, when he was 16. Right. As he said, he admitted- Yes. To cheating online when he was 12 and 16. Yes, but for timeline's sake, let's just do it this way. He has a lot of over-the-board success, but nobody really talks about the online cheating stuff. It's sort of kind of kept low-key, a couple hundred people, maybe a couple thousand people, which sounds like a lot, but it's not because there's millions of viewers know about this. It's generally kept kind of low-key because historically, if you cheated online as a teenager, you're not cheating over-the-board. It's not possible. You will get caught. Nobody has ever attempted it. We've had over-the-board cheaters, but not at the ultra elite level. And so what happens is they play this tournament in Miami, and the first day Hans loses 3-0. This is important because on the very next day, it's not like Hans was destroying everything. The second day of the tournament, he sits down game one versus Magnus in their best of four and destroys him. Like he destroyed him. Made it look like I was playing in Magnus' shoes. You know, the level difference. It went even like he wasn't close. Of course, we can argue it might be because of the maybe Magnus knew something ahead of time. There's obviously the psychological element. Not important. Hans leaves. They say, interviewer says, Hans yesterday, by the way, horribly phrased interview question. He goes, Hans, yesterday was a terrible for you. And today you start with a masterpiece. What do you have to say? Chess speaks for itself. Walks away. Argue, you can argue. It's cringe, you can argue. I thought it was cool. And then the guy then keeps asking a question with his arm extended because he's so shocked. He doesn't know what to do. Like he didn't even occur to him how ridiculous it looked to be asking. And then not only does Hans come back and loses the best of four, he loses like two more games or maybe three. I think he lost the next three games. He then proceeds to lose every single best of four match for the rest of the tournament. He ends with zero points and a prize money of zero dollars. They put up the graphic. And he put Neiman zero. I think he got some minimum, right? So it's like, wow, this is like insane. This guy comes out with this crazy interview. And in my recap videos, I was like, the next time Hans has success, he has to stay away from the cameras. Don't let him talk. Just don't let him talk. It's going to be bad luck. You know, I'm joking around. Like next time he plays, it's crazy. He's going to... So that was their kind of first interaction there. They also, there was some photos. They were having fun playing on the beach. I don't know why they had a chess board on the beach. Chess players are such good. Magnus and Hans? So they were still getting along. I guess so, yeah. It's interesting because I talked to him at that time. Would he have mentioned something? I wonder what he would have said if I asked him about Hans, because I was clueless. Did anyone care about Hans? No, no, no. Hans is not a super known entity, right? He became much more known. He became probably a top five all-time popular chess player in the last three weeks. Yeah. So it's not, it wouldn't even be a worthy question. No, you don't know. Maybe Magnus already kind of knew. A lot of the top players, it seems, are coming out now and saying, we already were suspicious. Yeah, it seems like Magnus might have known, but maybe not enough to address it. He still might not be willing to address it. Yes. But anyway, so yeah, so totally horrible tournament performance after Hans beat Magnus. Then the annual tradition of the St. Louis tournaments happens, which is a strong field of players first for a fast tournament, rapid and blitz, and a classical tournament. And the classical tournament is the Sinkfield Cup. It's named after Rex Sinkfield, billionaire chess philanthropist. It's like St. Louis Chess Club is a prestigious place. It's this whole, yeah. And a host of a prestigious tournament. Hall of Fame is there for chess. I don't know if it's US Hall of Fame or worldwide Hall of Fame, but yeah, it's the tournament. Other countries play chess? Oh, I didn't. They do, but you know, we will, I don't know who determines where the Hall of Fame gets to be. If we say it's the Hall of Fame, okay. One day, some other part of the world is going to be like, actually, it's over here. So basically what happens is we have a field set for the Sinkfield Cup. Set, it's the top 10 players in the world. Some can't make it. So, okay, you get number 11 in there or something. One of them can't come because of something related to coronavirus. It's not, now we're going to get a little asterisk on Spotify because it was mentioned. Get more info about COVID-19. So I don't know why he couldn't come, but he couldn't come. Okay, something happens. He can't make it. Hans Niemann is the replacement. Yeah, at the time we didn't know this, but now weeks later, we knew Magnus wanted to not play. This is very important. Back then we didn't know. Apparently some other top players also didn't want to play. They also were suspicious. They also wanted increased anti-cheating measures, which by the way in chess are dog shit. Like you give this little metal wand and you put it on the little ears, the body. And there's apparently an argument a micro earpiece would not be caught, something in the armpit vibrating would not be caught, something in the shoe. They don't make the players take their shoes off because it's too elitist. How are you going to make players take their shoes off? That's, oh my God. But if these things are out there. Or if anything was inside any other orifice. Correct, yes. I have to bring that up. I mean, to be honest, yes, that is very truthful. If nothing else, this podcast is about honesty and truth. So I have to be complete. Correct, and transparency. So what ends up happening in the Singfield Cup is Magnus ends up still playing, but the anti-cheat measures are not introduced. So the first few games, Hans has a very, very impressive first round game against Levon Oronian, one of the best players in the world. Okay, draw. He was pushing, draw. Second game, demolishes. Like a top player. Mamed Yaraf crushes him, dominant opening, but not like a perfect game. You understand? He made some inaccuracies here and there, and he ended up winning in a complex game. This game three happens versus Magnus. And not only does he beat Magnus with the black pieces, he dominates him from start to finish. So in the opening, Magnus played something with white that he had maybe played once or twice before. There was some big debate about it. I'm not going to get into it. Basically, a very niche, small thing that just he had never played in maybe a long game before with some sprinkled in venom that might get Hans off guard. Hans proceeds to play like the first 15, 20 moves absolutely perfectly, and then converts the game into a slightly better end game and squeezes Magnus to death. Basically beats Magnus with black, which nobody had done in years, the same way Magnus would have beaten other players. Then he goes and gives this interview, which, where he claims that he had looked at those first 15, 20 moves right before the game. Basically, he got lucky. Didn't you say he looked at something very similar? No, no, it was either similar or literally similar. Or literally that exact variation, which is possible. I've done that before. One of my best wins of my life. That morning I went, you know, I'm not prepared. What if my opponent plays this Queen's Gambit accepted variation? And I literally learned the first 12 moves. He didn't know move 12. I killed him. Okay? Like it just happens. Yeah. Unfortunately, when you combine that with other small elements of the interview, and now there's body language experts going all on this, it was odd. He gave an interview afterwards explaining his, explaining various details of the game. But not really explaining them. That's the thing. The standard chess player interview is you sit down and you go, something about the opening, something about not, oh yeah, I looked at this right before the game. And then you explain various symphonies and compositions of variations, things that went through your head, things you were evaluating. But Hans's interviews are different. So everything about him as a chess player already is different. And his interviews are extremely strange and also different. That's fine. But not when you combine it then with the world champion withdrawing right after you beat him and ghosting the entire chess world. Yeah. So there's, for people who haven't listened to it, there's a kind of sloppiness to the way he analyzes the game. Like he's like, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Like it's very... Because it's very obvious. Like what do you mean? Just completely winning here. Yeah, completely winning here. And it's like, yeah, I just played perfect. I played perfect. Like there's a sense of like... But it also doesn't, for me, again, a very outside spectator, it doesn't raise any red flags. That's just his personality. He seems to really like to talk this way. And plus this could be crazy. But do you have a sense that he's more of an intuitive player versus like, he's just not the kind of person that analyzes really well or is that a ridiculous notion? Well, let's put it this way. To succeed legitimately, because obviously this is a cheating scandal at the end of the day, at the 2750, 82800 level, the upper echelon of chess, you cannot be an intuitive player. You can be a little bit more intuitive than a calculator and a concrete evaluator of positions. Meaning if I give you five seconds to play a move, you're going to choose the best move quickly. Those people are generally better at fast time controls. But you have to be good at everything. And what raised red flags in this interview was the fact that it was different than every other interview any human being ever gave at that level of chess, particularly after beating Magnus for the first time as a teenager, which is a very small group of people. So that's where it got weird. And the very next day, Magnus withdraws from the event. Chess World lights completely on fire for multiple weeks. And he also tweets. Right. That's the resignation. No, resignation. The tweet was, I'm withdrawing from the tournament in St. Louis. I've always enjoyed playing here and I will in the future. And then it's a clip of Jose Mourinho. I cannot speak. I choose not to speak. If I speak, I'm in big trouble. I don't want to be in big trouble. Yeah. And that's when people nuts, people said it's not even a cheating insinuation, which was one of the theories. Another theory was someone in team Magnus told Hans what Magnus was looking at. And that's why Hans learned those first 15 moves, which is so fucking stupid because Magnus knows like five people. Not in his life, but his team is far. Yeah, it's very close to that group. Right. But to the outsider, that sounds like a very legitimate theory. How else can you explain? Hans said he knew before the game what was going to happen. Magnus senses a mole. He's not, no. By the way, just so I know, like if that was, forget the cheating aside, if you knew, doesn't matter how the opening your opponent is going to do, they prepared, is that a significant help to you? If that opening is ultra sharp and requires basically the game to be on a knife's edge. Yeah. Yes. Meaning one mistake can be fatal. Because then you can look up what the engine says. Yeah, you can know everything. You can know all the possibilities. So even if your opponent goes off that engine path, you will know how to punish it. In this case, what happened basically was Magnus played a line that if completely optimally punished would have given Hans a slightly better position. And that's what happened. But then he also demolished him in that later phase of the game. Yes. And then, okay, so Magnus designs, goes silent, the chess world goes crazy. What else is interesting in that period of time? Hans's fourth round game of that tournament, and right after beating Magnus was also just absolutely genius. Just an absolutely brilliant game, which he failed to win. But then after that game, he also gives once again another interview where he's like, this game was absolutely genius. I was just killing him from start to finish. And there was a moment he literally says, oh yeah, just gave him a piece, like a full piece, which is a substantial advantage to the other side. And he starts explaining why the position is winning, but in words, not in chess moves, not in specific concrete chess moves, which is the way you're supposed to, if you understand the position, right? So now there's this new theory that's being cultivated. The interviews are going to be used as the evidence. And beyond round four, he just played like a good grandmaster. And he lost two or three games, maybe two games and he drew the rest. So he didn't win again. Like he beat in the first two out of his first three games, he beat Mamidiarov, he beat Carlsen. And he also went on the attack himself. That was when he publicly admitted to cheating in an interview that he gave to the St. Louis Chess Club. That's when he said he has never cheated over the board. Then he said, chess.com has banned me from the global championship, which is what I was invited to, to play. Privately, they banned me, they didn't even ban me publicly. And then he said, and Hikaru is on Twitch every day, saying things about me, this and that. And since then, nothing. Tournament finishes somehow. I don't know how we got to the end of the tournament. I really thought that it was going to get called off, but tournament ends. Hans hasn't said anything since then. Has he still said, when was the last time he said something? That was the last tweet that he sent somebody. That was the tweet that he sent September 7th. He said, Hikaru wants to play the victim, something like this. They faced each other again recently. When was that? What was that about? They played in the online event of this Meltwater Champions Chess Tour, which is a 16-player tournament where everybody plays everybody first. And after 15 games, the top eight make a knockout bracket. And Magnus played the game. There was obviously a lot of hype prior for what was going to happen in this game. Magnus plays one move and resigns. Actually, I imagine he didn't want to play one move. I imagine he would have resigned the game as it was starting. But I think some websites don't let you resign before you make one move, because then the game isn't counted. So I think he didn't want to play at all, but he played one move, and that made it even more epic, I suppose. And he resigned. And he resigned, and that was that. So you lose, that game counts, right? Yeah, game counts. You lose the rating. These online events, unfortunately, don't count for any sort of rating. But on the tournament, yeah, you play one move. Yeah. So he resigns. And then how does the tournament still work out? Is the tournament already over? So he made the eight. Magnus still made the top eight. It was round five, or like round six or something. So it was halfway through the preliminary stage. Yeah. It affected his standings. But then after resigning that game, Magnus finished first in the bracket, in the preliminaries, and then he won the entire event. There was a chance that they were going to meet in the final, but Hans lost in the first round against the Vietnamese strong player, Le Quang Liem. And then Magnus gave a short interview to the live broadcast where he said he would give a statement at the end of the tournament. And then he did. He gave a statement at the end of the tournament. And now here we are. The only other thing missing from this is the very intense scrutinization of all those over-the-board games that I mentioned earlier that Hans dominated in. So people are now going through all of his games that he played in tournaments, and they're analyzing them with engines, and they're saying he played exceptionally well. And the debate is, was he cheating? Or was he way too good already but underrated? Because he could have had incubated knowledge, so he could have not played for a couple years, was 2700 level, but was playing people who are 24, 2500. Ah. Well, well, over the board... I see. So not just over the board with the top level people like Magnus, but over the board in general. Yes. Before he got a chance to play in these super tournaments against the best players in the world, he had to go to Europe. He was the most active chess player in 2021. And he was quite dominant. Yes. I think he played more over the board games than any player in 2021 or 2022. I think it's 2021. And yes, I think his rise was steeper than everybody, maybe with the exception of all the rest of Feruja who got to 2800. See, I'd like to believe, because he talks about being very... He just became obsessed with chess. Mm-hmm. I like stories like that. Me too. I like stories of the underdog, especially with the scarlet letter of having been a cheater in the past. I like the idea of somebody who is flawed psychologically and ethically and just a full fascinating personality. And this somehow just becomes obsessed. I mean, similar to Bobby Fischer, is also a tortured soul, also flawed, also just chaotic all over the place. You could see Bobby Fischer being somebody that might cheat when he was 12 on online chess, right? If it existed. Yeah, actually, I think in some podcasts, like small chess podcasts, I don't want to... I like Ben Johnson, so I'm apologizing for calling it small, but compared to, let's say, Lex Fridman podcast, it's... What's his podcast? It's Perpetual Chess. Oh, I love Perpetual Chess. What, are you joking? Really? How dare you call... Yeah, all right, I'll show you, because it does a lot of... It talks... It makes me feel special. Let me see, where is it? Perpetual Chess. He does, like, improver series. Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, he's great. Ben, I forgot, I'm so horrible with names. His name is Ben, Ben Johnson? Yeah, it is Ben Johnson, that's right. Yeah, the Perpetual Chess podcast. That's amazing. See, Lex, when even individuals like myself who might have a large audience, when I look at you, you're just at a different level. I don't expect you to be listening to chess podcasts during... Just imagine you're doing something to change the world, or talking to some visionary people. Well, I should say, I've been running a lot, and I listen to podcasts a lot, because they're such... I love human beings excited about stuff. That really energizes me. And I've listened to a bunch of chess podcasts. I'm really energized by your love of chess. I really like... Yeah, sorry, I did forget his name, but Ben Johnson. I love it when he talks to grandmasters. I love it when he talks to the regular folks for the improvers, like, to see how they balance life and chess, and all that kind of stuff. He's just pretty good at it. He's like super excited, and they talk about books. And they get excited about different books. Yes. It also gives me a sense of where the chess world is, from a different perspective, is like people studying chess. Like what they get excited about, how difficult it is. Yeah, it's nice to get a sense of the community, the language that's used. Because I did want to have a bunch of conversations with folks about chess, because I think it's a beautiful game. And I think it's a beautiful community. So that's one of the podcasts I listen to. So yeah, anyway, it's great. Anyway, you were saying, why did you bring him up? Yes. Great podcast. Great podcast. Only reason I thought of it, and I use the word small, no disrespect, Ben, is because even that episode, which he did with Hans, it was a small episode. It wasn't seen by mass media. It was a small episode, it wasn't seen by mass audience of chess. He did an episode with Hans recently? I don't know. Some time ago, yeah. And in that episode, Hans very openly is like, Bobby Fischer was misunderstood and he was my idol. Oh, wow. Said a couple of things like that. And Hans is an intense guy. Like when I listen to Hans, I get a little anxious. He brings out some sort of disturbance in my ecosystem. Yeah. Yeah, I can't really pin him down to like what's going on there. Yes, as a person who's trying to read people. Yeah. It's difficult. This is the dark aspect. He could be both the genius of Bobby Fischer and a genius cheater. And you could see like there's something chaotic about him, which makes him very appealing in that way. Yes. So right now, late September, 2022, the current environment is such that Hans hasn't said anything in weeks. And people are sort of dissecting every bit of circumstantial evidence that they can. And they're trying to present the case. I don't even know to who ultimately. I guess it would be the FIDE cheating, anti-cheating commission or whatever. It might be to you, essentially. I mean, the people with the platform. It could be. To present convincing evidence to where the people are convinced in one way or the other. Because for people who don't know, and they should definitely follow Gotham Chess, you've been on this. You've covered it a lot. And I'm sure if anything comes out, you'll cover it more. But you've been quite balanced and thoughtful and kind of objective about the whole thing. Yeah. So the reason for that is I understand the power that I wield with anything. And if I say one sentence the wrong way, I might be sending 10,000 people or more to go do something. Yeah. And I hate that. I want to present the evidence and I want the video to end and people go, okay, I understand. Not, I'm gonna go fuck someone up. Yeah. You know what I mean? And I also believe that even if Hans is guilty, this goes all the way back. He's a human being. Yeah. And you can argue that cheaters got to be punished. And you can argue that people who do things wrong, you shouldn't feel any sort of compassion. But I would hate to have the whole world pointing their fingers at me, the entire world that I've known my entire life. And even if I messed up, there's still a world after chess. There might still even be a world in chess. I don't know. But that stuff, it doesn't make me feel good to present all of the circumstantial evidence in my videos and start being like, yeah, it looks, you know, so. But at the same time, you deeply care about chess and the chess community. And there's some sense where, was it you or was it Magnus that said that cheating poses an existential threat to chess? Magnus said that. I mean, there is some aspect of truth to that, which is like, you know, the chess is in a state where bots, chess engines are much better than humans. And we're living in a world where technology becomes easier and easier to integrate with human beings, whether you put it in some office or elsewhere. And that does pose a threat to our ability to trust that a world champion is indeed a world champion, that somebody we think is good is indeed good. And so there is some aspect to the ecosystem that should punish cheating and perhaps over-punish cheating. And the other thing is, in sport, you can take PEDs and have bigger muscles, bigger, better reaction time, but you still have to perform the action in a successful way. There is still a chance you can lose if you take PEDs. Maybe in some sports, the gap between non-PED and PED user is significantly more noticeable. But in chess, if you cheat, you play God. Yeah. You decide when the game is over. You can fake bad moves. You can fake everything. You can even, if you're cheating, quote unquote, the right way, you're going to lose plenty of games. To avoid getting caught in the middle of the game, you're going to lose plenty of games to avoid getting detected. So you can create bots that are 2,800. You can also just not listen. If you know all the best moves, but choose to play on your own, and, oh, I made a mistake, not a big deal. You could, yes, bots are all at a different level. But if you were to cheat, that you play God. You can decide when you make your move and when the engine makes its move. And if you know the top four lines of the engine, you choose the fourth one. So in hindsight, people will analyze your game and they will go, oh, it wasn't perfect. Well, no shit. Only the stupid cheaters play the top engine line the whole game. By the way, I'm not saying that this is what's happening here, but there's probably an excitement to playing God and getting away with it. I know people, I know adults, grown adults who are successful in their fields and they cheat. They cheat in lessons. They cheat in, like I've, I don't want to say I've taught any. May or may not have. For some reason, one of them watches this and they know they're guilty. And it happens. It happens. Not just teenagers, not just young adults, but full grown adults will cheat when they play because they think it helps them learn. Oh, well, that's good. That could be just that justification. But I just meant like, it might not be just about winning. It might also just feel good to have that power. Power? Like, I bet you it's a drug. Oh, yeah. I mean, like with a lot of criminals, with a lot of criminals, I feel like part of like the mass murderers, serial killers, I feel like a lot of it is they can get away with it. The fact that they, like everyone else is a sucker and they figured out how to do this evil thing. And obviously cheating is nowhere close to that, but there's still a feeling of getting away with it. Yeah, I wonder. I mean, you're pretty objective on the whole thing. Like, if you were a betting man, what would you say is the probability? Are you changing day by day in your head? What's the probability that Hans cheated over the board against Magnus in St. Louis? That's a tough one, man. Have you even allowed yourself to put a probability on it? No, not on that specific game, because I think a lot of that game was affected by Magnus' own psyche. That was one of his worst games ever. So he played poorly too, Magnus played poorly. Which doesn't help his case. Yeah. Hans might have cheated in that game, but we'll never know. I think day by day, the evidence is slowly starting to show more and more that he's cheated, like how Magnus said, more than he said and more recently. It's undeniable. Like, right, a lot of the statistics are there. The problem is you can't prove you're not cheating. Yeah. Unless you strip naked, like that site offered him a million bucks too. Like, everything about the Hans... Wait, which site offered him a million bucks? I saw some headline that said Hans Niemann was offered a million bucks. Those can't be real. Yeah. And where I struggle to comprehend is how on earth he could pull it off. And like, I'm a guilty... My brain goes to guilt first and resentment, remorse, guilt, that kind of, that trio. Magnus put out a statement as we speak yesterday saying, Dear Chess World, at the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I made the unprecedented professional decision to withdraw from the tournament after my round three game against Hans Niemann. A week later, during the Champions Chess Tour, I resigned against Hans Niemann. After playing only one move, I know that my actions have frustrated many in the chess community. I'm frustrated. I want to play chess. I want to continue to play chess at the highest level and the best events. I believe that cheating in chess is a big deal and an existential threat to the game. I also believe that chess organizers and all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of cheat detection for over-the-board chess. When Niemann was invited last minute to the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I strongly considered withdrawing prior to the event I ultimately chose to play. That's the thing you're referring to, is that he can... Like, now we know he was torn about the whole thing. I believe that Niemann has cheated more and more recently than he has publicly admitted. His over-the-board progress has been unusual, and throughout our game in Sinquefield Cup, I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. This game contributed to changing my perspective. He must do... We must do something about cheating. And for my part, going forward, I don't want to play against people that have cheated repeatedly in the past because I don't know what they're capable of doing in the future. There's more than I would like to say, unfortunately. At this time, I'm limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly. So far, I have only been able to speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that I am not willing to play chess with Niemann. I hope that the truth in this matter comes out, whatever it may be. Sincerely, Magnus Carlsen, world chess champion. How would you sign off your statements? If I was a world... No, just say whatever. Lex Fridman, what would be the title? Yeah, I don't know. I think I would not... Even if I was a world champion, I would just say Lex. Or make up a title. And I feel like I really fucked up in life if I have to tweet a statement as an image. That's like when you get... You're a politician, you got caught cheating on your wife. Like for many years in a row. Yes. Then I tweet an image. I'm sorry for all the people I have hurt and the people that believed in me and whatever else. And then I would sign world chess champion. You know the most... Like the modern way to give a statement, what I thought Magnus was gonna do. Yeah. Thought he was gonna write, on the recent scandal or my statement on the past few weeks, twit longer. What do you mean? So you put a URL. Oh, yeah. So that's for tweets, but it's unlimited characters. It's not 140. I didn't know what that is. Can you explain that to me? Yeah. So generally when a celebrity has a giant audience on Twitter, they will make their statement on social media and say what it is in a sentence, one line. And then there's a link. Where does the link take you? To a website called twit longer. Oh, that's the website. Like tweet longer, twit longer. Yeah. And that is where they write their statements. That is what I was expecting. When I saw... Who did this? I haven't seen this before. Oh, this is... I don't have one off the top of my head, but it's... Is that Kanye, Kim Kardashian breaking up? They would use that? Streamers, musicians. Yeah. I don't think politicians use it because it's just... Yeah. They use the image. Use MySpace and Facebook, right? Yeah. I would probably go... I like... I'm not just being biased here just because I have a podcast. I'm a huge fan of podcasts. I feel like I would go on a podcast to talk about it with somebody I trust. So like long form and discuss it. I thought he was going to do that too. In fact, I wanted to write him a message and be like, I can be that guy for you. I have a very strange relationship with Magnus because... Good, bad? We've never interacted. I very openly... I don't want to say use him for views because that is a very crude way of saying it. Yeah. But if you wanted to insult my YouTube channel, that is what you would say. So... Oh, Magnus is in a lot of videos? Thumbnails or videos. Not clickbaity, but if he's playing in a tournament and he plays a great game, he's going on that fucking thumbnail. Oh, because... Let's see, he's the number one chess player, very likely the greatest chess player of all time. Right. Plus he's exciting. And YouTube algorithm loves his name and people click on it. Oh, do they? His videos do the best. Yeah, but I don't know what the chicken or the egg is, but the reason it loves it, the reason people click on it is because he is an exciting personality. He's an exciting chess player. There's something compelling about him. He's also... He knows how to, in a subtle, dry, wit, humor way, talk shit. With the silences and all of that. Yes. He knows it. He knows it. He knows the whole game of it. Specifically to Magnus, my relationship with him, we've never interacted. And throughout the last couple of years, he generally has interacted with Hikaru as a competitor. He has done some collabs with the Bottezes. He obviously has talked to Ludwig, who's a very, very big streamer. And part of me regrets the fact that when I was smaller as a YouTuber and a Twitch streamer, I'm sure I used to make jokes or some tweets at Magnus. Like when Magnus would tweet something, I would try to respond so I could be the top reply, because that was my social media. I literally think I once responded to a Magnus tweet and saying, responding for engagement, because it was some like, it wasn't some controversial tweet. Yes. It was just something funny. And I went, ha ha, responding for engagement, because I was just being a little bit of an idiot. And I knew that if it got enough likes, it would be at the top and people would see me, my brand, and just get to know me. This is the type of... Please don't use the word brand, but yes. Yes. But yeah, no, and your worry is that he wouldn't take you seriously. He wouldn't take me seriously. And if I was one of the best of all time, and I saw some dude on YouTube just kind of being a moron, and I'm all over his thumbnails, I can imagine he has a very legitimate case. I appreciate your humility and self-critical nature, but one of the realities with people like him is he wouldn't hold a grudge or not treat you seriously. I'm pretty sure he's a fan. He's a big supporter. He doesn't watch YouTube videos. I can imagine. Like of that kind. I barely watch YouTube videos. I think of chess. Yes. He might watch more fun chess adjacent stuff, but he just doesn't... It's not for him. So I'm pretty sure he knows of you and likes you and your commenting on stuff has zero effect on his belief, which is funny. That's something you think about. Yeah, you're perfect, but you're well-respected. A lot of people mention you as a person who's like, okay, this person is legit, which is an important thing. It's not just an entertainer. It's not just a shit talker and so on. This person is a great educator, a great fan and student of chess, a great player himself. So all of those components. And so, yeah, you're definitely a good person. And on this particular aspect, have been very objective. I understand that I'm nowhere near perfect. I'm not a different person on camera, off camera. I will say it like it is, maybe on Twitch. You got to dig in the mud there a little bit more, a lot more sarcastic, a lot more brash and whatnot. But you meet me in a taco place and I'll talk with you the same way I might if it was a video, just that you may not consider me just a random guy at a taco place. And that's why I think about the stuff specific to Magnus. And it's one of the reasons I don't reach out to him directly ever. I never have. I've never DM'd him on Instagram hoping for a response. Never. I've never even reached out to anyone on his team trying to get a conversation very candid with him, which I think it would be. I even barely reached out to guys in the top 10, like top 15. Only recently started pushing myself more to do that. And I even in my intro messages to them, preemptively say something like you might think I'm some idiot. You might not be totally wrong. Yes. But I think this would be a good conversation and give it a shot. And I've been surprised. I've been ignored by a few, but some said, oh yeah, I've seen your stuff. Generally a fan, like no problem. I was actually really blown away. This YouTube channel, Levidov Chess, it's a Russian chess channel. And I think the last name of the guy is, the name of the channel is named after Ilya Levidov, who has some sort of managerial role in the Russian Chess Federation. And this channel has interviewed some of the greatest players of all time. They have interviews with the modern best Russian players and Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, you name these guys from Russian chess. History, it's unbelievable. I just thought this was a channel of just unbelievably well-respected chess players and legion of fans that were longtime chess fans. And I mentioned them very briefly in the YouTube video. And that little clip went into their next community event and the founder of the channel went on this two minute beautiful description of why he liked me and how he only watched my channel as a beginner and how I have a natural voice and how if I talked about cards, I would have a million, a hundred million subscribers, just all this really kind stuff that in my mind, I thought was either undeserved or I just never fathomed that. Yeah, I mean, you certainly should not feel as deserved as you should have humility about that kind of stuff. But I think that is the thing that works over time. It's like reputation spreads, which is like if one person likes you and they tell you to other people and it kind of spreads and over time you have one conversation with a top 10, like a super grandmaster and they say nice things about you and it just kind of spreads. I've been very surprised in all walks of life. This really gets me, this makes me happy honestly, because people ask me how I get guests and so on. And it just seems honestly just be a good person and like a real person and honest and it just kind of spreads the word, word of mouth. You know, even coming here, I almost didn't reach out. What do you mean? I had seen you, I'd never talked to a chess person and I've watched a lot of, I've watched some of the things start to finish, especially if the guest I'm really interested in, like George St. Pierre, I'll watch that guy do whatever. Yeah, exactly. I'll watch him do basically anything, make an omelet or something. Yeah, I love listening to him. Some of the other things I've listened to as well. And I noticed that neither, well, to me, you obviously and Joe are the two biggest podcasters. I don't know if that's like factual, I don't know if some influencer has some podcasts, but you guys interview folks that I listen to more often than anybody else. And when Magnus came on, I was like, oh, that's amazing. I don't even know how I would reach out to someone like you. It just seems like a limb, like climbing a mountain. And then a couple days later, and I even in that episode wanted to write, but I didn't know how. Like, do I make a YouTube comment? I don't want that. I'm a little like I'm clout chasing on the Magnus episode. But then you talked about Tezos and I said, oh, what's this? I shouldn't overthink it. So I just said, all right, fuck it. I'll just write a comment. And you're like, yeah, I'd love to have you on. I was shocked. I didn't even, you responded just within a couple hours or something. Yeah. Yeah, I loved it, man. I mean, it was an honor. It's a good way to connect. I also like on live streams, I'll watch, I try to resist commenting, but I'll watch some even smaller channels. Like I'll get super excited by them and connect in that way. There's an intimacy to that. Man, YouTube is beautiful. I don't know anything about Twitch. Maybe it's similar. You don't need to know anything about Twitch. But YouTube has- Ruin you. There is an intimacy, like, especially if it's live. I don't know what that is, but if it's live, they're like right there. You can just like reach out and say hello. That's cool. It's like really, I don't know. I was just happy to live in this time when you could connect with people in that way. There is an intimacy. That's why I love podcasts too. I listen to people and I feel like they're my friend. It's cool. It's a cool feeling. It makes you feel less lonely in this world. Like you have a lifelong companion, especially like people that do a podcast for many, many years. I'm like, you've gone through all the ups and downs of life together with a creator, with a podcast, or with anything. It's cool. I don't know. It's surprisingly intimate, a one-way friendship. Maybe for an intro, I don't know. There's some negatives that people definitely describe. The word that gets used a lot is parasocial. You think the viewer will think that the streamer or the YouTuber knows them or owes them something or they have a bigger connection than they do. Yeah, you know what? Actually, sorry to interrupt. I have to look, maybe you can explain to me. I've heard this term parasocial a lot. I'm meaning to look it up. Might as well look it up while in live. Parasocial interaction, PSI, refers... Is this a new term? Because I have just started listening, hearing it like the last year or so. Parasocial interaction, PSI, refers to a kind of psychological relationship experienced by an audience in their mediated encounters with performance in the mass media, particularly on television and on online platforms. Viewers or listeners come to consider media personalities as friends, despite having no or limited interaction with... Oh, shit, that's a term for a thing I've been referring to. Interesting. The term was coined by Donald Horton and Richard Wall in 1956. Wow. When there was like very limited media, huh? Well, I guess TV and radio and stuff. Yeah. Parasocial interaction and exposure to the gamers' interest in the persona become a parasocial relationship after repeated exposure to the media. Yeah. Okay. What's the downside, bro? What's... Okay. Oh, well, I can tell you the downside. The downside is people thinking they're in relationships with streamers and stalking them. That's... Oh, the stalking part. But the relationship is like... I mean, okay, you mean like actual relationship, like waking up and saying, how are you doing? Like in your head to them. Yeah, no. But that might be an extension, more like, yeah, getting mad they don't respond to you in... Anytime you're in the stream or that convincing yourself the other person wants you and you need to go to them, so you need to find where they are. Like this has happened. Some of the biggest female streamers have reported that they get stalked and harassed for months, and that's born out of this. This on a very small scale is you come into a stream every so often and give an update about your academic career. That's not so bad. I was going to mention, I've streamed on Twitch for years and I watched people have kids. Like people will come in over the course of months and say, hey man, you know, I just finished, I just took the bar exam. Yo, man, like I'm having my first kid and that's crazy. That's amazing. But if they do it in a healthy way, that's one thing. There's always going to be downsides, but most of it is beautiful, man. I have very, I have, I guess, parasocial relationships of people that take it a little too far, but it's all love. You also have a fundamental belief and hope in people to be good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I've been, you know, I haven't gotten in trouble with it yet. That's, that's good. Me too. I've interacted with plenty of people in person and no one's been negative. So. Yeah. And I've even gone to a war zone. There's no, there hasn't been, people have been very, I don't know. People have only surprised me in the positive direction, in the depth of the capacity they have for compassion. Do we, okay, so now we're in this weird place with the cheating. Can I ask you a question about how it's possible to cheat? Like if you and I, you know, the conversation you're going to have with Magda, so we're going to have, we're going to play chess. If we're trying to figure out how can you beat them? What are the different ways do you think? Over the board chess? What are the ways? Cheating. Yeah. That's where I lose the thread because I don't know. That's what I immediately went to is like the engineering challenge of cheating. Right. Well, that's because that's, that's because you're good at that. I mean, you're not good at creating cheating in over the board situation. I'm just saying you, your brain works differently. I just choose to not even, like, I can't entertain that. I can come up with some bullshit, but it's not going to be anywhere. Oh, your mind is not like immediately attracted to pulling at that thread of like, how would you fuck with the system? Yeah. My mind stops at, oh, that would have to be a really sophisticated thing. And that's it. It doesn't go any further. My brain every day thinks about the best way to compartmentalize chess into a digestible format and put it out into content. Chess on the board. Chess, not cheating. Yeah. I just think about YouTube. I just think about that. That's currently where my mind is fully focused. I'm also working on like a book. So. So that's what you think. Yes. For me, because I've built chess engines without understanding chess much as like, you know, as anyone does who's interested in AI, you build all kinds of systems that do all kinds of stuff. And chess is just an easy game. Like it starts with Othello, goes up to chess and go. There's, it's just a great benchmark, a great place to explore different AI algorithms from search to machine learning and so on. But to me, cheating is like, it's a similar kind of ideas. Well, if I make it a board instead of eight by eight to 10 by 10, like, how does it change things? And with cheating, it's almost like expanding the engineering challenge of chess out into the real world. To me. Okay. So just allow me, I know cheating is horrible and everything, but stockfish AI engine and human working together in interesting ways. Forget chess, just machine and human working together to expand the capability of the human is really fascinating. And that's like a beautiful thing to me. Of course, purely for the chess game, it ruins the game. But I just like thinking of how AI can interact with the human in ways that doesn't, that it's frictionless. Like, you know, like neural link brain computer interfaces dream of directly connecting the human brain to AI system. The problem in this case is I don't think the human and the AI are interacting together. The AI dominates, the human is just the mechanism that makes the moves. I actually played, if I may, I don't, maybe I need your advice on this. I thought, and I told myself, I won't do it. And then a friend of mine said, and a couple of friends, and and both of them are previous guests in this podcast, told me I definitely need to do it, which is, you know, connect. So I already have for the chess arm that I built, this computer vision on the chess board is able to extract from vision the way you do optical character recognition, extract the board. So I was gonna just build that cheating system to demonstrate it with, the reason I thought it was interesting. So something we didn't mention is, I don't know who started this rumor, but the rumor started there, it might've been like anal beads that, I don't know who started this, but I do know that Elon magnified it. My username was dead center in that thing that he retweeted, which was hilarious to me. You're using, oh, what do you mean? Oh, for tweet. He retweeted the clip, but also the copy pasta, like the paragraph that was like describing the whole anal beads theory and dead center in the middle of that paragraph is as Gotham chess says. And the worst part about it was I was literally tagged. So it was as user slash Gotham chess says. So every time that paragraph gets posted on Reddit, I get tagged. It's getting posted a lot. So yes, but yes, he tweeted. And then there's also the funny thing, which I really love, the weirdest, most entertaining thing. Was that part of the same thing where like a plot twist, Magnus has been using anal beads this whole time. That's how he got. Yes. Yes. Yes. I love that so much. Okay. But anyway, there's a, I quickly realized that there is, I have to admit that I know not much about sex toys. And then I quickly realized that there's a lot of sex toys that have Bluetooth capability that you can interact with. So it's very easy to connect stock fish to sex toys. Actually. Wow. Actually. Yes. So apparently that's a popular thing. Like a lot of sex toys are Bluetooth enabled so you can communicate with them. So this is actually pretty trivial to do. Not trivial, but then, and then in fact, there is, there's several libraries. One of them is really active called, now this is on GitHub friends. It's in Rust, but I think there's Python wrappers. It's called Butt Plug is the name of the library that communicates with, it supports a bunch of different devices, a bunch of different like vibrators and all that kind of stuff. But then I looked at the kind of vibrators it supports and they're all like creepy looking. I mean, like it doesn't have, I don't know, it felt too dirty. Like there's a line, I was like, ah, I know, is this not going to, because the reason I like that kind of stuff is I like the joke of it that ultimately is somehow educational. Because to me, I really care about AI and this is a cool little project to do. It's super easy to share. Yeah. But I was thinking about doing it. I was thinking about doing it. At first I said, no, it's just kind of feels dirty. But then the, the aforementioned friend said, no, you should definitely do it. I like the huge, who's your test subject? No, we wouldn't test. I'm sure that people will sign up, right? I just went on the table, like show the vibration, like you're basically converting. Now it's not, I'm not obviously a grandmaster, so you have to say everything. I feel like, no, you don't, you could say the square. You don't have to say the piece. The human will fill in the gap. No, a good human chess player. I can't. Oh, that's what, that's the point I wanted to make is like, for me, I would like to know the actual move I need to make. So I need the full information. So I have to convert the Bishop C5, whatever to Morse code, which is a lot of vibration. Yes, exactly. But it still works. It's hilarious and fun. So I was thinking about doing it, but because it's pretty easy to do. It would be just like a fun exercise. I love a mix of technical rigor and humor. Well, this is the perfect project for that. Right, exactly. Yeah, this was born, I think, out of a user comment in a Twitch stream. So I thought it was born on Reddit, this theory, but I think Eric Hansen was streaming Chess Bra, and someone in his chat made that joke, and he read it out loud. That was the first time it was read out loud. And then somebody clipped it, and it became international news. Like, have you followed how big the traction got on this anal beads thing? It was covered by every major news network, late night talk show, Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert. International news in countries like China, where I would have never thought that they would report about anal beads. Yeah. What was the tonality of it? Was it seen as a joke, or did they say there's a cheating scandal? I think it was- How did you even mention anal beads? Literally anal beads. Like just- Just saying, accused? Accused, denies cheating with anal beads, which he never did. He never denied cheating with anal beads. It was a joke internet theory. If I was him, I would lean into it. Yeah, I can't imagine, man. I don't know what the right thing for him to do is, but it's- Are you not touching this one? The anal beads? I've talked about it. I don't say the words anal beads in my YouTube videos, but I'll say beads. Yeah, you don't say- Yeah, I'll- The thing is- Do you think I should do the code thing? It's like a tutorial. Sure, yeah. I think it would be hilarious. If you find a way to do it, yeah, you can show that it is possible to theoretically vibrate via Bluetooth, chess moves. And if someone shoves it up their ass, what- It was another joke. Okay, they offered you to play naked. They're going to make you spread your cheeks? Yeah, I didn't understand why naked solved the problem. I think there's- It doesn't have to be naked. I don't think naked is enough. Yeah. Okay, some questions from Reddit. Ask him, ask Levi if he deep down hates his audience. I saw that. Yeah, I saw that was the one. I have a love-hate relationship with the chess subreddit. Yeah. So that's why some of those questions were going to be tough. I have a love-hate relationship- Do you think that's a tough question or does that come from a place of love? Ah, very tough to say. Very tough to say. Is love and hate, like, they're basically next door neighbors on Reddit, I feel like? Correct. They oscillate very quickly between each other. Yes. So Reddit chess specifically, I think, is mostly folks who are around before the chess boom. So the chess- This is the chess subreddit? Sorry, I didn't- Yeah, yeah. So a lot of them have been around for five years, seven years, 10 years, even more. And I think the average age on Reddit is lower than the average age on the chess subreddit. I think that the chess subreddit is beyond the age of 20, maybe even 25. Like a lot of folks there are- Oh, ancient, ancient people in their mid-20s. Basically. I mean, not 15 or 16. Anarchy Chess is younger. So Anarchy Chess is basically chess memes. That's a subreddit name? Yes, you got it. Yeah, Anarchy Chess. It's great. A lot of stupid memes on there. Do they like you or no? Or is it love-hate? They did until my crypto sponsorship, which is a separate convo that I'm more than happy to have. But yeah, so my relationship with the Reddit chess subreddit is tough because my content on YouTube stops at a certain point with them. They can't learn from me because I'm tailoring to 95% of my audience, which is about 1600, 1700 and below. And I have a lot of content where I jokingly make fun of low-rated players and everyone's in on it and we all have fun. And I laugh at myself a ton. As you can even see in this conversation. But just like you mentioned with clips and out of context things, folks have already formed the perception of my personality. There's nothing I can do to win them back. And I think the dominant percentage of the loudest group of folks on the chess subreddit, they have a certain perception of me. It's not just me. It's the people. They just, they have a certain perception of me. It's not going to change. And you add something like cryptocurrency sponsorship, which people on Reddit just in general are relatively negative on the subject, it's going to start snowballing more and more. So if you ever look up a thread of, should I buy a Gotham course and it's on Reddit chess, it's going to say no. Everyone's calling it a scam, overpriced. Interesting. I heard a lot of really positive stuff. I don't know where, on Reddit in general. You mean me? Yeah. You might've been looking for it. You might've not been looking for negative things. So I was looking for like best educators online, like that kind of stuff. It might've not been Reddit chess. I'll be totally honest with you. If you ever go there and look for something like best recaps or best educational content for intermediates, I'm not mentioned. I might not be mentioned because I'm already expected to be on the list. So they just kind of want to generally shout out smaller creators. Totally fine with that. And I'm not even going on this whole explanation because I want to win folks back. It's just sort of the reality of the situation. A lot of my stuff is really click baity and I'm playing the YouTube game. They don't want that. Do you ever feel like a limit or a tension between your creativity and the YouTube algorithm? Like, do you feel like it has negative effects on you? Yeah. I want to cover more in depth stuff in a 30 minute video that I think is super useful to people. It's only going to get 60,000 views. And you feel, why is that a bad thing? Is it good to mix it up? Yes. It's good to mix it up, but I make a video a day. I make one bad video. The other videos suffer. And then if I make two videos that underperform, the rest of the videos don't get pushed out as much, your earnings can go down 40% day to day, which doesn't happen in other careers. And if I ever want to supplement, if I ever want to make a very instructional video, I try to do it in a very fun way. So, something like eight of Magnus Carlsen's best end games. You can still learn a ton, but the concept of the video is going to be different. Like, I try to still teach things, but in more interesting and exciting ways. Like, the guy who was scammed for a million dollars, Alexey Shirov, who has basically promised the world championship. If he won his match, he won his match. He didn't get a world championship. So, there's still stuff in there you can learn. And you can... My goal is just you click on the video, you learn something and you enjoy yourself. That's it. Get people to click on it by any means necessary. But once they're there, have quality stuff they can learn. Yeah. Yeah, man, I wish... So, I have zero of those pressures, but I also really, really... Like, I turn off views and all that kind of stuff. I don't pay attention to any of that. But I wish YouTube would like... The algorithm would include how good the video is. Like, beneficial for people's long-term well-being in the calculation. I actually really hate the fact that they turned off dislikes. Yeah, I didn't get that at all. Because now I don't know the difference between... For tutorials specifically, I don't know what's a good chess video or not, or what's a good review or not. I mean, it emphasizes following certain people more than if you trust the creator. But man, I really don't like that. Man, I really don't know what's a good video or not, essentially. And then you have to trust more the title. And then the clickbait-ness comes in, and it's no good. You have to use your own gut instinct as opposed to data. It sucks. Yeah, there's videos that have almost no views that are still great. Incredible. Some of the best ones, some people who are just focused on the quality and don't want to play the game, or don't even know how to play, and they don't really want to play the game of the YouTube algorithm. Yeah, it sucks. It sucks, especially given how dominant YouTube is in defining the creative energy of our whole freaking civilization of the youth. Not just chess. Not just chess. When you're going to chess box against Eric Rosen, this is a question from Reddit, chess box, you said your hands are all messed up. Yeah, yeah. Are you training for something or regular... So I also just remembered we never talked about Hikaru, so I can talk about Rosen and Hikaru in the same chess boxing. Is this your McGregor shit talk segment? No, no, no, no. Eric Rosen is actually a close friend of mine. I probably have five of those. And he just so happens to be not just a chess streamer, but we talked about buying homes, we've talked about... He's stayed at my place. He took my wedding photos. I flew him to New York and paid for all his stuff just so he could hang out with my wife and I and take some 6am photos in the sun in the park. Oh, he looks familiar. Yeah. So he's a good friend of mine. Now, in terms of chess boxing, chess boxing is this really fascinating sport where you have boxing, but you also have chess, and you have rounds. So you start a chess game with a clock. That segment itself lasts for a couple of minutes. They put the board away and pause the clock, whatever the time situation is, then you box for a minute. And that keeps going on. I don't know how it works in terms of the time expiring, meaning in fighting, there's judges that just tell you how the fight was going, right? Here, I don't know who wins and how. Like, do you win by... You can win by knockout, you can win by checkmate, or their clock can run out on the chessboard, but... Who judges? Who... Is there a round limit? Does this just go on and on and on and on? You know what I mean? Yeah, I thought it's like 12 rounds, right? Isn't this a thing in Russia? It's a big thing in the UK. UK? Yeah, UK. I don't know why. And there's a lot of YouTuber events just for boxing. So YouTubers just learn to box and then they just box. No chess. They just straight up box each other. Like Jake Paul, for example. You ever going to get Jake Paul in here? Yeah, I'm sure. Okay. I feel like so many different guests have been mentioned. Jake Paul would be a fun guest, but he's obviously the biggest scare. He's legitimately boxing people. He's not... But chess players is never going to learn to box to that level. And all of us are starting basically from zero. And Ludwig talked to me behind the scenes, say, hey, how would you feel about being in a chess boxing match? I said, okay, yeah, maybe. When is it going to be? He said, five months from now. I've always wanted to train combat. I've weight lifted. I've done cardio. And you said you're a UFC fan too? Yeah. So you admire fighting? Yeah, I would enjoy it. I just have a really bad lower back and that makes a lot of different combat difficult. But I said, you know what, screw this. I'm going to contact a few local gyms. Yeah. And one of them, the guy emailing me back and forth had actually watched my YouTube videos. So he was the first to respond. And he said, yeah, like, come in, do a couple of classes, like, see how you feel. So first I did conditioning, which killed me because fighting conditioning, as you know, it kills you. It's a completely different type of conditioning. But I felt good and I really wanted to come back. And since July, I've been training three, four days a week. Nice. You feel pretty good? I love it. Lower back feels good? Lower, everything feels, the whole body got stronger. So what you're saying is you're going to fuck up at Karo? Is he training? I'm not fighting. So I talked to Eric about it. And the truth is, we're both concerned about head trauma. I haven't actually sparred. I like sparring, shadowboxing, but I go there, I do personal training. I don't do a group class. I'm not fighting. I'm fighting the bag. I'm doing shadow boxing. My form is improving, but I haven't been punched. I get hit in the stomach. I get hit in the side with kicks. Nobody's punched me in the face yet. So I think we both were adequately concerned about that. And there was not some ridiculous amount of money on the table. So we decided it's just not worth pursuing. Mm-hmm. How does Hikaru come into the picture? Because he's a possible competitor? People ask me all the time, who would you fight? People are like, Andrea Botez with Kick Your Ass. That's a tough one because I can't, what am I going to say? I'm going to fight a woman who I'm larger than. So I just have to take the L against any time a woman is mentioned. That's fine. I'm like, oh, and six. There's no winning that one. Right. Exactly. So I've lost to both Botezes, Anna Rudolph, Anna Kremling. They're all chess creators. And like hypothetically? Yeah, I get asked that. It's a hypothetical fight. Yeah, yeah. Okay. He's been training. I think Andrea has been training. That's because an event got announced. This event that I was hypothetically going to be the main event against Eric Rosen. Yeah. That got announced? Yeah. And then you kind of like thought, like, maybe let's not do this. No, I knew once I declined to fight Eric that I would not be participating. And I even knew the, you know, I knew who was going to be the main event because I was kind of offered both of those guys. So Amon Hamilton. Oh, is this still going on? The chess boxing event will happen in December in Los Angeles. Yeah. Nice. So who is the main event? It's Amon Hamilton, who's also Chessbrah. So they have a couple of guys that's part of the Chessbrah channel and Lawrence Trent. Lawrence Trent is an international master from England. He's a, I think he's done some boxing a little bit. He's a commentator, brash guy. Nice. Controversial guy. Yeah. It's funny because they started, Lawrence put out some videos and I went, damn, I should have done this. Yeah, I think it. But I mean, you're right. First of all, there's so many things to say, one of which is, if you want to take it seriously, you know, it does pull you in. Like, you know, if you train a lot, it's going to affect the rest of your life. And then there's, it changes you. I think taking combat sports seriously changes you in good. And there's negative costs to it, I think, because it's a whole nother thing, man. It's like doing marathon running or something. It really pulls you in. And the other thing is the head trauma. Like, you have to take that kind of stuff seriously, especially if you're doing sparring and all that kind of stuff. Still, some of the celebrities, I don't know why, but it's pretty exciting. Right. I don't know why it'd be fun to watch Hikaru. Like there's something. Well, I always said if Hikaru and Magnus did a boxing event and I was the co-main event against, I don't know who, that would be. Has Magnus said anything about it? Like about doing chess boxing? Well, first of all, he's going to commentate the Ludwig event, which he said. And he kind of said, oh, there's been people in the past that are my level in chess, not his level in chess, and have wanted to get physical with him. I think he's talking about Hikaru. I don't think anybody else has. That'd be a good one, man. That'd be a good one. I think Magnus- What do you think? Who is that one? I think Magnus is in better physical shape. He's also a little bit bigger, I think, than Hikaru. Longer reach. I think Hikaru's a dog though. I don't think he's going to get out of that. I don't think he's going to quit in the ring. I would think Hikaru just goes nuts in the beginning and burns himself out. So if Magnus can survive that, I feel like Hikaru would just go crazy and then just get exhausted, would not be able to pace himself correctly. Maybe. Chasing that first round knockout. Yeah. Just swing like crazy. Honestly, I just love to see that, which is like the effect of physical exertion on the game. I'm sure they're strong enough to- Yes, but I think we definitely underestimate the effect of being punched, maybe bleeding out of your nose or something like that. It's no joke. I can't say I'm anticipating the first day I actually do some sparring and get seriously hit because I know it's not going to feel good. Even now I take a hard jab to the stomach or the ribs and I'm just like, man, this is rough. I mean, I had to do three minutes on heavy bag and when I finished, I had been slacking on my form because my arms were tired and I hit with my fingers instead of my knuckles and my hands are, like you can see the red skin, like completely pink, meaty skin under. I didn't realize when I was hitting and only today the pain is unbearable. So I can't imagine. Head? It must be- No, I mean, it's a different thing. I mean, of course, your skin gets tougher, everything gets tougher. So you get used to it. The head is a weird one because it's not going to send you those kinds of signals. You're not going to get the skin type of signals. The brain is a weird thing because it doesn't hurt. It just does the damage and the damage can materialize itself, manifest itself only years later. It's a weird one. But then we all die. There's that brave heart speech. I got to ask you about bots because to me it's super interesting and you've played a lot of bots at different levels. You have a video called the advanced chess bots are terrifying. So what's the difference between playing humans and bots? Like you mentioned this Nelson bot that brings his queen out, I think rated 1600? 1200 or 1400. Okay, 1240. So there's a style to those. What's the difference between the way bots play and the way humans play? A lot of people prefer playing bots because they have anxiety playing other humans. It's a very legitimate thing. Interesting. A lot of beginners, they don't like live chess. They get nervous, you know, anxiety, you get close to your highest ever rating, you panic. Happens to me too. Happens to me even now. So they play bots. They're somehow more reliable or something? Yeah, they're, I don't know. But that's, it's a big thing. It's a big thing. And the popularity of that video shows that people enjoy watching you play chess bots. So I'm going to demystify this. This might be shocking. Those bots are all the same bot for the most part. You could just program a bot to make mistakes at a certain moment. You could program a bot to spend less time on certain moves. And it's gotten sophisticated enough that you can basically program it to play at whatever more or less level that a human plays at. You say, oh, play at an 1800 level. So it's programmed to throw in mistakes. The problem is, and this is why it's all beginners to not play bots, because bots are programmed in the following way. Beginner bots are like literal toddlers. They have no understanding whatsoever. They will literally lose all their pieces, but they won't lose all their pieces and make mistakes the way beginners do. Beginners actually know how to start a game. They just struggle the first eight moves, nine moves. Their mistakes are very different than bots. Bot plays completely outlandish types of mistakes that you cannot pick up in terms of a pattern set. In terms of a pattern standpoint, because no actual humans play like that. They just move their queen to the opposite side of the board. For no reason, you can take it. Yeah. It's not even a blunder. It's almost like randomness. Yeah. It's completely random. And this problem extends further because advanced bots will play an opening completely reasonably, and they just hang a rook, which, okay, maybe happens, but that's not exactly how you get to 1800. At 1800, that's a very strong level of the game. You know your openings very well. You start navigating the middle game based on already things that you remember. And then basically one side chooses a bad plan and the other side chooses a better plan. One thing leads to another. Nobody just recreationally hangs all their pieces, which is the way bots are programmed to play. But some of those bots in that video were, I remember playing them and they were nuts. They were out calculating me every time I thought I had a trick in two, three second moment of thought, it would just play the best move. And sometimes that also happens. It gets into a dead loop where it just starts bulldozing you and it can't stop. So it made its mistakes already. It's programmed to make only a few, and then it just bulldozes you the rest of the way. Interesting. I mean, that's why I played with stockfish a bunch. So I built for myself a bunch of different chess experiments recently. It had to do with the chess playing bot, but I also built an infinite chess board where stockfish was playing like an infinite number of chess games. And one of the parameters that was interesting to play with is how long it gets to think about a move and how that affects the rating of the thing. Oh, I did that a little bit. That's a tricky one. I'm sure people know how to do that well, but it's not trivial to understand what... There must be a good formula for it. But it's also interesting to think about a controlled number of blunders. But it's probably better... The controlled number of blunders is not a good way to build a bot. For training purposes, at least. The time per move is probably better. But the craziest thing is I did that. A couple of my devs were helping me with the build, like, I'm scaling my courses into a better chess learning platform, essentially. We've done a lot of different experiments with stockfish, which I'm even happy to get into here. And stockfish making moves in 0.1 millisecond plays better than a human, which is disgusting and disturbing, frankly, because that's crazy. Like, you can't react to a car stopping in front of you anywhere near that fast. Yeah. So, the reason I was interested in that is because when you have a very large chessboard, you have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of game going on at the same time. You have to think of the minimum amount of thinking per move that you can allow for. And it does seem, it's damn good, at least to my eye, basically, at the lowest possible setting you can give it. So, yeah, it's incredible. It's incredible what bots are able to do. And now it's, as far as I know, is primarily machine learning based, stockfish. So, stockfish moved to machine learning completely. It's not doing search, as far as I know. Yeah, this is where you lose me a bit, but the move discovery and evaluation is what's been changing in the way stockfish works. So, it's discovering of moves and then the way it looks forward and then evaluates positions, that has changed. But Matthew Sadler, who wrote the book Game Changer about AlphaZero, he explains it significantly better, but that's the way I think it works. What did that make you feel when you first saw AlphaZero play? I was excited. I didn't have any sort of existential thoughts. I enjoyed watching it completely destroy openings that people thought were good. And that experiment, though, does have some caveat in the sense that I think AlphaZero was playing with a full tank of servers and I think stockfish wasn't, which I think is one of the things people point out. They weren't playing... Since then, they were able to demonstrate much less. But also, AlphaZero stopped developing. They stopped developing it. Yes. Which sucks. But again, from their perspective, from DeepMind's perspective, it's like, all right, well, we took on this really tricky game. This is something, honestly, incredible. They won. They won. Well, not just won. They did it without any human supervision, so without any training on human expert games. So only through self-play, which... I mean, that's what learning is about. It's like what you think of as a child, a human child, a toddler, learning from somewhat nothing and becoming a capable human. That's what we think of when we think about intelligence. So the fact that it's able to play itself and become the best player in the world at the game of Go and all kinds of games is just incredible. And obviously, that inspired the modern stockfish to do all the same kind of self-play methods. Somebody on Reddit asked a pretty interesting question. I don't know if you have an interesting answer to it. What makes a chess move, quote-unquote, human? As you are someone... Oh, this is to me, but it's mentioning you in third person. As you are someone working in AI, this idea of humanness would seem incredibly interesting. Yes, sir, it is. Especially since most cheat detection relies on humanness as a way to detect cheaters. I think since children being born right now will have the advantage of engine training their whole life, they will start to see the game the way an engine does. Will a person be considered a cheater if they play like an engine? There also seemed to be a discrepancy, especially with Levi, about who can play what appears to be a non-human move. He often says things like, quote, if you were a normal player, normal in quotes, if you were a normal player, I would think you were cheating. But since it's Magnus, I don't doubt Magnus is great, but if humanness is our benchmark, what is the ELO rating where your moves can start to look like an engine without critique? There's a bunch of questions in there. They combine two of my quotes into one. So one thing that I like to say is sometimes in a chess game, moves look or an opening looks so ridiculous that if a viewer played it, I would make fun of them or slap them. That's always the draw. If I was your chess coach, I'd smack you. But when Magnus plays it, it was, oh, wow, you know, it's very different. So they mixed up this quote with another quote, which is, you know, if I'll be explaining something and I'll say, oh, and here the engine says you should play like this. If one of your opponents plays like this, report them for cheating. They fuse two quotes. They said, oh, human can't play like that because it's an engine move, but because Magnus is playing. So they mixed kind of two things. But there's interesting levels of humor and insight there on both of those. Yeah. The difference between human move and engine and like what an engine move is, is I think two things. Number one, a computer move is outlandish in its concept and its idea. So the best example that I can give of that is if you gave a hundred grandmasters a position and told them, you know, what do you think the best move here is for black? Not in this position right here, we have nothing, but an overwhelming amount of them would look at the position, evaluate everything they know about the game of chess, which is relatively similar, but obviously slightly imbalanced based on their skill level. And they would come up with a sample size of two or three moves. And in comes the computer with a fucking haymaker. And suddenly everybody goes, oh, everything we know about chess has gone out the window. So they all start looking at that move and they know it's the best move. So now they start adding the evidence behind the verdict as opposed to getting to the verdict while first looking at the evidence. So the concept of it and the idea of it is so outlandish based on a certain type of position that you can't fully grasp it. You have to continue to beg the engine to tell you what the variation is. A move is only good if its extension is good. That's the way chess works. So if like a move is good, it's because the computer has seen that the various branches of things going forward are also good. So you bring all that back and no human could have even conceptualized that initial thing. But the second thing about computer moves is they look counter intuitive. So if you might be in a position where it looks like the demands of the position are ABC and then the computer is like, nope, it's not because I've seen the future way more than you possibly could have. And I don't have emotions. So like dumb moves and brilliant moves can look similar. Yes. And oftentimes do. And this is actually back to the Hans thing. A lot of people now dissecting these games they're playing and they're basically saying, like even Fabiano Caruana, one of the best players in the world was on his podcast yesterday basically saying, okay, this is beyond my level. Saying, it's out of my league. What's out of your league? You played for the world championship. We can read between the lines, right? Is it possible that Hans is that level of genius? Is there like different kinds of genius? Like where one, you could be out of each other's league kind of thing? Maybe. In the case of Magnus, it's understanding of end games. It's just somehow he understands that last phase of the game and the complexities and the problems he can pose better than anybody else. So you can see Magnus do poor looking moves in the end game. Or- Like moves that don't fit what your gut says would be the optimal. Yes, but also, so it's not that you even think they're right. You just might not even consider them because of over-reliance on your own information or even the computer. That was what was going on in game six. Just kept doing things and kept playing and kept finding play and posing those questions that humans and computers could not understand. So he beat the engine basically. He wouldn't have beaten the engine because they would have defended. Jan lost that game in the 90s move psychologically. He thought the game was over, so that contributed. Computer would have defended. So by the time this podcast comes out, which I don't know, it would be in a week or something like that, I feel like more will happen. Let's see your predicting engine. How does this Hans drama end saga? Let's look in three months. By the time we get to the next world championship, let's say, what are the options? What are the possible? Let's imagine, let's not say like what the probabilities are. What are the options? Chess.com is forced to or agrees to or whatever to come up with a huge amount of evidence. A huge amount of evidence of cheating in the past. Or Hans comes out. What can Hans do with this? So I'm uncomfortable with the general, make sure you can maybe update me on this, but there was a little bit of an attack on him. A lot of an attack that he's a cheater, right? Without evidence, without clear conclusive evidence. Physical evidence. Physical evidence. So all of those. Right. That's the tricky thing. Yeah. So like that stuff we're talking about is beyond my level. That starts being kind of intuitive, circumstantial evidence. There's the statistical evidence behind the over the board games that he's played in 2020, 2021, where the games match what's called engine correlation more than Magnus and many other top grandmasters combined. But that can be argued is because he was very strong in playing weaker opposition. So there's always kind of this argument against statistics, right? There's the fact that the guy who Magnus name dropped, Maxim Blugi. Blugi is a chess grandmaster and he's even been, I think, president of the US Chess Federation. I've played him in some blitz games. It turns out I wasn't even fully aware of the extent of this. He has been banned from chess.com. For cheating. For cheating. Have they actually, has him and Hans actually worked together? Yes. So that was why he named dropped that, right? That's also not good. You see where this is getting, you still don't have the physical proof, but you have smoke. So I don't know how this ends. I don't know if this, if he denies it to the death and he ends up filing some sort of legal action, some sort of ethics complaint or he admits everything. I don't know. Boy, well, no matter what, I hope despite chess or not that he's mentally strong enough for whatever is to come. That's what I keep saying because I can't imagine. I really can't imagine. And maybe what we just have too much compassion, but I don't think so. I really just feel like at the end of the day, chess is just a game, but it is a game played by millions of people throughout history and nations have basically fought wars over the chessboard. So like, there's a lot. It's like Olympics. Olympics is just a little, oh, this dude running and so on. The hockey is just a thing with a puck. But you know, it's also much more than that. It's also nations sort of figuring out their conflict in a way that doesn't involve violence. Yeah, it's a serious thing. And it's a thing that inspires millions of people. And it's a testing ground for intelligence systems that eventually take over human civilization. Yeah, I mean, the bots are really interesting. I don't know if there's other lessons. Like, you played a clone of yourself. You watched Stockfish versus Stockfish. You have a video. People should check out your channel. You have a lot of awesome videos. You have a video titled Stockfish versus Stockfish. That was the experiment. I made them play each other. So I made them play- What did you learn from that experiment? I enjoyed, first of all, they will always make a draw. So engines don't get to play each other from a beginning position because they will always draw, especially if they're the same engine. So Stockfish 15, Stockfish 15, I don't think one side will ever beat the other, basically. But if you program them to play a certain opening position, according to chess theory, you get to see interesting ways into how they evaluate. One of the things, one of the ways that it played against the London opening was absurd. Like, it just, it was completely ridiculous. Black sacrificed two pawns as early as move six, which is a borderline completely lost position. And then both sides foresaw that the only way white was going to be able to use that material advantage was to give it back and stabilize their own position. Like, Black just got a crazy attack. Jesus Christ, this is crazy. But they drew. I mean, they ended up drawing. So I'm also going to make them play against each other in either bad openings or like some of the most popular gambits, looking at something like that. And the way I'm going to do this is basically say, which chess gambits are the best? And the way I'm going to do that is, theoretically, the engine should be able to beat a gambit because a gambit is very rarely blessed by the computer. So if the computer cannot beat that gambit, that means it's good. That means it's not losing. If it's a completely lost gambit, it will beat it. But if it draws, despite getting that early disadvantage, then that means the gambit is very reliable and you can play it. So that's a good way to evaluate opening games. Yeah. What's the best? What's your favorite opening? Or what openings do you like? There was an opening that got me back into chess when I was 15. I had quit for like three years, and I went to my friend's house and he had a book by Lars Skendorf, a Danish grandmaster, called the Karakhan Defense, which is C6. Do you want white or do you want black? Do you want to show the opening? This is the opening. The Karakhan Defense. So you play E4, I play C6. I have to play black. That's it. Yeah, and we develop from here. I put my D points. What counts as an opening? Okay, but the development, does the development matter? Yeah, so from here, the development goes into the variations of the Karakhan. So this is the Karakhan. Like you can be in a city, but then you can be in neighborhoods. That's a very non-dramatic, okay. Two pawns in the center. So that's called the Breyer variation. So what's a good thing for me? Two squares, yeah. If you can put two pawns in the center, yeah, you should. So that's a good thing. Yes, and then I will go here and now you have to decide what you're going to do with your center pawn. You can push, take, or defend it. Yeah. And push, take, or defend, right? Yeah. What would you suggest? Take is the worst? Take is just stable, so we just trade, but pushing is considered the best, advancing and taking my space away from me. So I think alpha zero or stockfish would probably always push. Push. And now there's something called like the main line or the sideline. Main line is what's the most popular played at all levels, which is moving the bishop here. I've played this a lot, but for beginners, this is an intermediate players. This is why I love this opening so much. On move three, black already has a plus score, which is crazy. It's not supposed to happen. And there's this very tricky second most popular move, which is undermining your center, trying to get you to take my free pawn, but destabilize and leave both of them kind of hanging. And... Is that why the plus score is because you're susceptible to the destabilization? Yes, because people at 99% of the rating ladder do not understand how to deal with what's coming, basically. They don't know how to deal with a structural attack. So would stockfish try to defend the pawn here and keep the structure? No, it would take the pawn and tell you to go fuck yourself. Oh, I knew that, because I am 3,400. Right. It would take the pawn and be like, all right, win it back. And even if you did, you would suffer. It would make you win it back in the most annoying way. It would make you tie your shoes together and block it. So I, like as stockfish, I would take... Yes, that's the best move. That's the best move. But not at 99% of the rating ladder, which is funny. Interesting. But you like to play this. I play this against GMs. I play both. I move my bishop. I push the... And what are the different ways it evolves? Then the rest doesn't matter. So this is just like a pawn structure thing. How deep are most openings? So it's anywhere from two moves to 10 moves kind of thing? Yeah, you can be out of theory very, very quickly. Move two, move three. Basically on your own, you have a general idea, but you don't remember games. I mean, I know Karokan games from start to finish, because I've played it since 2011. So you know all the different branches that goes with that down. Yeah, I think I know every opening in chess, basically. I think most title players know every opening, but we don't know, we can't play it competitively, because we'd be... But what are some of the weirder openings that like slightly suboptimal, but might be explored? Like Magnus might play them, just to fuck with the opponent. He played something recently actually against this German prodigy, Vincent Keimer, which was a specific move order in a very popular opening. So it was basically a position that had been reached thousands of times. But the move order Magnus chose with white was played maybe 0.05% of the time, which is crazy, it's thousands of games. And it's supposed to be not good, meaning it allows black to equalize, because that's what black is going for. Not winning the game, but equalizing, because you go second. Magnus says, I don't care about equalizing. I just want a position. I don't want my opponent to know the answers to the test. And that's so interesting, because it also fucks you psychologically, it throws you off, and just always keep you on your toes. He's in a weird position, but he also has the advantage of being able to intimidate. I wonder how many people... How much is that a role of it, like being scared of the other person? It's a huge role, I think. I think some of the top guys would deny it, but you know when you're in the seventh hour and you're playing Magnus, it's a very different feeling than some of the other... When Magnus is messing around in the opening, it's very different than another person messing around in the opening. You just kind of like expect for something to be there. We'll see if it translates to poker for him, but I think he gets a little bit maybe less respect in the poker world. In the chess world, he's sort of alpha. He gets a lot of respect. I just talked to Daniel Negreanu, he gets... The only person that doesn't respect Magnus Carlsen, honestly, either in chess or poker, is Magnus Carlsen. I was going to say Hans Niemann. That's true. But Magnus is hilarious. I mean, when he talks about his rating, he's like, it's pretty good. When he talks about how good he is at poker, I suck. But I think that self-critical view that I think he honestly believes to a degree is probably part of the engine that fuels him to get better and better and better and better. Yeah, but what I'm saying is if you're face-to-face with Magnus at a chessboard, it's not the same as being in a nine-handed poker table with him. You kind of keep an eye on him maybe, and he's a mysterious guy, but chess is different because you're like, this is the man. Yeah, there's very few people... Yeah, so in poker, they talk about Phil Ivey that way. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like this super intimidating. I think that's... It's probably harder to intimidate in poker. Actually, I don't know. I don't know. There's something intimidating about excellence in a deterministic game that's just terrifying. I mean, it's like playing stockfish. You're fucked. This thing will suffocate you, and especially when it makes moves that you don't understand. To me, the most beautiful thing, honestly, is the sacrifices that the engines do. It's such a fuck you. I could sacrifice pieces, and I'll get them back, and I'll get them back more, and I could look... I don't even have to get them back. Your position is so bad. I give you full material, and there's nothing you can do about it. Yeah. That's terrifying. Yeah. That's terrifying. That transfers to AI systems in general, like a system that plays weak just to fool you. For people who are trying to get better at chess, beginners or at any stage of their development, what advice would you give about getting better? Except watch your channel. Yeah, of course, watch my videos. Check out chessley.com. That's where we're gonna scale the courses to. But no, on a serious note, you have to be prepared to lose way more than win. My mom gave me advice when I was maybe 13 or 14, and I just discovered that I liked girls. She said, you're gonna get a lot more no's in life than yeses. That even happened with my wife, actually. Our whole journey is quite fascinating. It's paved with rejection. Paved with, yes, various ghostings over the course of years. But we got married, and we love each other very much. So it's a wonderful tale. But it's the same in chess. You're gonna lose a lot, and you have to be, for adults, I noticed kids and adults learn chess very differently. Kids yell out in class, and they're very excited, and they don't realize how many times they get something wrong. Adults never wanna talk during lessons, because they're afraid of being wrong. Adults will preface correct answers with, this is probably wrong, but like, shut up, you're paying for a private lesson. This is the place to be wrong. So adults especially think that being dominant in a career where they've dedicated a lot of their brain power, a lot of their work ethic, and a lot of their study time, it's gonna translate to chess. They do it to their own kids. They helicopter their own kids, because they try to apply a lot of the same stuff. Studying chess is different than studying anything else. Anything else. Same could be argued for martial arts, I guess, but. Yeah, 100%. You have to have a beginner's mind, and what that actually means is just sucking in every aspect of the game, and studying all the interesting ways in which you suck. And you will realize you get better without actually trying to get better. I show up to the boxing gym one day, I move my hips better. I would do shadow boxing, sensei goes, you're moving your feet better today, you got better. I'm like, I don't practice footwork. Your brain just starts putting it all together randomly. You might study a shitload and still lose 100 points. And if you're gonna study chess, oh, and for fuck's sake, this is the only activity where people go in going, how much do I have to work to be a grandmaster? Nowhere else in my life have I ever seen someone try to pick up a hobby and wanna be the top ranking level. Only in chess. You're right, but for example, when I, like grappling sports, I'll see people come to a gym and basically ask how long before I can get into the UFC. But UFC champion is different. I mean, no, grandmaster is equivalent to getting into the UFC. I guess, yeah. But people quickly realize when the 110 pound girl taps them out over and over, and they're a 230 pound ripped dude, they realize, okay, this is an art, this is a journey. And I think if you resist the lessons that failure teaches you, that's when you don't grow. So just relax. And one of the things you have to learn, probably applies to chess too, is to know how to relax your body, your mind. And just like, there's something about, just like you said, if you don't resist, if you relax, then your body, your mind will learn the way of this game. And probably to add to that is just put a lot of hours in of having fun. But then on that perpetual chess podcast, I listened to somebody that say like, it doesn't, like puzzles, none of that, what matters is the number of hours you spend kind of suffering. Meaning like thinking deeply, like straining, like thinking with your mind, like really working hard. And then you have the magnus who says, no, what matters is the number of hours you spend having fun. Yeah, it's a mix. It's a mix. He's right. I don't quite agree with suffering, but I think people do a lot of fake learning. They play speed games, they just go through tactics. So, okay, I have to do 20 tactics. Okay, boop, wrong, next one. I used to tell my students, you need to do 10 puzzles and you need to get 100% correct. I don't care how long it takes. So I suppose that kind of is like the suffering theory. But if you do 30 puzzles and you get eight correct, what even is that? That's laughable in the correct amount of, you know, it was 29%. I don't know, but 26%. You can't do that. You have to get things right and that's the only way you're actually And that requires like thinking deeply and like really struggling, especially if you're doing the puzzles at the level that's your level. I've done a puzzle for an hour before because I was so stubborn. I didn't want to just put in a wrong answer. Yeah, the guy I was listening to said like, that's good. You should do that. Maybe for me and the same with blindfold chess, I have to say. Like my blindfold skills, I never practice. I just, I can visualize the board quite well. I've played, at most, I've played four games blindfolded at the same time. That sucks. That just feels horrible in the brain afterward. But like I can play four simultaneous games. Blindfolded. Yeah. What's that take to do that? I don't know. And I get asked that all the time. How do I practice? Why the fuck would you do that to yourself? It's a good party trick. It is. Yes, it is. The video of Magnus doing it in Columbus Circle on YouTube has like, I don't know how many views. I did it live with an announcer. I can't imagine how chaotic that was, but he, yeah, it's a great party trick. Yeah. Oh, there is a Reddit thing I forgot to ask Magnus, that they asked me to ask him, because they moved the wrong piece. Yes. And then somehow he remembered. I don't know how that happened, I have to tell you. I kind of presume that he figured out from the way the other person was moving that they moved the wrong piece. Yeah. Yeah, I forgot to ask him that. Yeah. Why did I forget? I mean, my memory sucks. You said, you know, ups and downs in your childhood, a little rough sometimes. Also, you get attacked by the beautiful, wonderful people on the internet. Sure. So sometimes it's difficult. What's been the lowest point that you've ever gone to in your mind? In my career or in my life? In your life, in your career and everything, your mind. So have you ever been depressed? For sure. Yes. How did you, like, if you can remember moments, how did you overcome that? Well, I will share two anecdotes. One, when I was May 2012, so I was 16 and a half. And I was living in a household situation where I thought nobody knew what was going on, basically, without sharing, obviously, extremely personal details, like what was going on except me. And I confided in my grandma, I confided in my grandmother. I was, imagine living in a house where you basically feel like a prisoner, you don't want to interact with anybody in the house, you don't know how you're supposed to bring these things up. Of course, this sounds extremely vague. And I just don't, I don't feel like exposing all of my entire family drama to the audience. But I lived this way for probably something like eight months, I don't know, something ridiculous. It was the junior year of high school. So I was supposed to take my SATs. That was the year I was supposed to finish up my portfolio for college, because you only get really a few months of senior year to start applying. It was a fuck, it was a nightmare, complete nightmare. And I don't know how I got through it. Time went by, I listened to sad music and tried to spend as little time as home as possible. I would pretend to fall asleep at my friends houses so that my mom was like, you're coming for dinner. And I would just pretend to be asleep. It was just a grind. Yeah, yeah, it was a grind. I don't remember a whole lot from that period, just sort of finding what made me happy and trying to focus on it. And I was a teenager in the house, I wasn't going to run away, I still had a roof over my head. So I'm not saying I had it better or worse than others, I just had a different. And actually, recently, this is much more on my memory. I more or less tore up a very happy life my wife and I had. And I've talked about this in bursts on stream. But essentially, what happened was we had just been living in, it's actually funny that the way we got into this apartment was also very bad. But we were living in just a very nice little apartment, like high rise apartment safe. And the reason we moved into a high rise was because we had lived in a house for two weeks that got broken into. Not because of who I am. But because we suspect we had people moving in mattresses. And they went, oh, shit, these two people live here. That's it. And basically, there was three apartments, my upstairs neighbor let in somebody that they didn't expect. And the guy cracked our door open with a crowbar. Thank God that was the first day in two years, my wife went to work. Did they know? Did they not know? I don't know. Everything happens for a reason. So nobody got hurt. Nobody got hurt. Yeah, they stole some couple of important things, but nobody was hurt. And the cops did nothing. So you moved into a high rise in New York? Yeah, in New York for safety and we're away from things and we have our own nice little nook. And somewhere, some months into it, I started hearing noises from above our neighbors. And it started in the morning, 7am. It started in the afternoon. And I picked up on it. And I expected it every day for weeks. And it was driving me crazy. And I was like, okay, we're gonna go have a civil conversation with whosoever up there. Sounds like kids. So we go knock. Lady gas lit the shit out of us. I've never been gas lit that hard in my life. She went, noise, what noise? It's probably our other neighbor, who's a boxer. Lady, you have kids. We can hear you through the vents. You're talking to your kids. Went to the front desk of the building. They did nothing. Went to the leasing office. They did nothing. And basically, over time, it just was driving me nuts. Back to the stubbornness thing, I decided we were leaving. We were going to live somewhere there was no noise. Because we can't beat these people. There's nothing we can do. And my wife, I dragged her around to a bunch of different viewings. I was dead set. I decided I was completely miserable. And we found a house to rent, like a nice house. Family had just moved away. House, standalone house, not gonna have neighbors. But wife decided that, not wife decided, we decided that it's too big. It's too big for us. So we're gonna get a dog. We always wanted an animal. So we're gonna get a dog. So we get an absolute lunatic puppy, who just doesn't let us sleep at all. This is on top of everything else, the mental health crisis that's going on. And the day we are moving to this house, I realized I fuck up. I realized that this whole thing was in my head and I don't wanna leave. I don't wanna leave. This could have all been avoided. And the guilt and resentment, I didn't wanna exist. It wasn't suicide. But you know the feeling of just, you want to just observe yourself from a distance. And I couldn't sleep. I thought my wife was gonna leave me. And that's what anxiety does. It also takes everything you feel to an absolute dread. And that I experienced for a good chunk of two weeks. And then we kind of settled down and decided we're gonna live. Did you tell her about it? Were you able to talk through it? Yeah, yeah. I, yeah. Did she know the levels of madness that could be inside your mind? I don't know if she'll ever know, but I tried to tell her that. All right. Give glimpses. Yes. I'm not sure you'll ever know. That's kind of the point. Yeah. I tried to, that's why I try to keep busy. But that was the darkest it got. And yet through all of that, I went on stream every day. I made YouTube videos every day. I understood that I had a job to do and I did it. And I talked about it here and there, but that was the worst that ever got because I'm learning that the emotions I experience are guilt, remorse, and your brain just goes in circles basically about things that you've done or haven't done. It's funny because noise can do that also. So the noise was real, but it was building in your head. Yeah. So- I tried to, I actually, it's kind of funny because I like to focus deeply and I'll have like sources of noise. I've tried to teach myself over time. I'll go to like coffee shops and stuff to like, I like, I almost try to put myself next to annoying situations. So I get like trained. Really? Maybe I should do that. But it's at a certain point at the same time, I've gotten to hang out with certain people, especially in LA. They're like in the middle of nowhere, like in Malibu or something. And it's like that quiet. Can you hear your ears ringing? It's so quiet. Basically. And it's like, holy shit, this is a good place. This is a good way if you want to write something or create something. This is like super quiet. So my mom does, my mom's a science journalist, science author. She just published her first, her first book actually on poop of all things. Yeah. Fecal, the waste management. It's actually very fascinating concept and look through history. And she would do that. She goes to complete solitude and she writes. Yeah. It's beautiful. No sirens. I mean, New York is the opposite of that. So, you know, it's, you've brought it, you brought it on yourself. I've lived there for 20 years. Has it been tough like going on stream to put on the face of happiness through that? Yeah. Yes. But I find my ways to have moments where I can talk about it. If it's on a stream, I don't get 10,000 live viewers. So it's very different. It's, if I stream late night, I get a 1500, 2000 viewers. I used to care a lot more about viewers on stream, but I've basically invested fully in YouTube. So that's kind of the way I. And I think, I don't know, maybe you can correct me, but I think people appreciate the human being behind the chess streamer. I think so. I think so. I think a lot of people, not in the chess world, but just a lot of people, they put on a persona and just in general, social media is the highlights of your life or the low lights, just as long as they're dramatic. But I've tried, I tried to be very open and honest when I'm tired, I'm tired. It's what makes my recaps of my tournaments. I think so real. Yeah, man, you're an incredible person. I've been a fan for a long time. It's kind of funny that we connected with God and she has to talk. Please, please keep creating, keep teaching people. For now, I'm not going anywhere. Well, it could end at any moment as we talked about. So yeah. Thank you so much for talking today, man. Thank you for everything you do. It was an honor. It was great. Thanks for having me on. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Levi Rosman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Irving Cherneff. Every chess master was once a beginner. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/iSMpTmibeDw

e77NkSjnyH4

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

AlphaZero and Self Play (David Silver, DeepMind) | AI Podcast Clips

So the next incredible step, right, really the profound step is probably AlphaGo Zero. I mean, it's arguable, I kind of see them all as the same place, but really, and perhaps you were already thinking that AlphaGo Zero is the natural, it was always going to be the next step, but it's removing the reliance on human expert games for pre-training, as you mentioned. So how big of an intellectual leap was this that self-play could achieve superhuman level performance on its own? And maybe could you also say what is self-play? I kind of mentioned it a few times, but. So let me start with self-play. So the idea of self-play is something which is really about systems learning for themselves, but in the situation where there's more than one agent. And so if you're in a game, and the game is played between two players, then self-play is really about understanding that game just by playing games against yourself rather than against any actual real opponent. And so it's a way to kind of discover strategies without having to actually need to go out and play against any particular human player for example. The main idea of AlphaZero was really to, you know, try and step back from any of the knowledge that we'd put into the system and ask the question, is it possible to come up with a single elegant principle by which a system can learn for itself all of the knowledge which it requires to play a game such as Go? Importantly, by taking knowledge out, you not only make the system less brittle in the sense that perhaps the knowledge you were putting in was just getting in the way and maybe stopping the system learning for itself, but also you make it more general. The more knowledge you put in, the harder it is for a system to actually be placed, taken out of the system in which it's kind of been designed and placed in some other system that maybe would need a completely different knowledge base to understand and perform well. And so the real goal here is to strip out all of the knowledge that we put in to the point that we can just plug it into something totally different. And that to me is really, you know, the promise of AI is that we can have systems such as that, which, you know, no matter what the goal is, no matter what goal we set to the system, we can come up with, we have an algorithm which can be placed into that world, into that environment and can succeed in achieving that goal. And then that's to me is almost the essence of intelligence if we can achieve that. And so AlphaZero is a step towards that. And it's a step that was taken in the context of two-player perfect information games like Go and chess. We also applied it to Japanese chess. So just to clarify, the first step was AlphaGo Zero. The first step was to try and take all of the knowledge out of AlphaGo in such a way that it could play in a fully self-discovered way, purely from self-play. And to me, the motivation for that was always that we could then plug it into other domains, but we saved that until later. Well, in fact, I mean, just for fun, I could tell you exactly the moment where the idea for AlphaZero occurred to me, because I think there's maybe a lesson there for researchers who are kind of too deeply embedded in their research and working 24 sevens to try and come up with the next idea, which is it actually occurred to me on honeymoon. And I was like at my most fully relaxed state, really enjoying myself and just being this, like the algorithm for AlphaZero just appeared and in its full form. And this was actually before we played against LisaDol, but we just didn't, I think we were so busy trying to make sure we could beat the world champion that it was only later that we had the opportunity to step back and start examining that sort of deeper scientific question of whether this could really work. So nevertheless, so self-play is probably one of the most sort of profound ideas that it represents to me at least artificial intelligence. But the fact that you could use that kind of mechanism to again, beat world-class players, that's very surprising. So we kind of, to me, it feels like you have to train in a large number of expert games. So was it surprising to you? What was the intuition? Can you sort of think, not necessarily at that time, even now, what's your intuition? Why this thing works so well? Why it's able to learn from scratch? Well, let me first say why we tried it. So we tried it both because I feel that it was the deeper scientific question to be asking to make progress towards AI. And also because in general, in my research, I don't like to do research on questions for which we already know the likely outcome. I don't see much value in running an experiment where you're 95% confident that you will succeed. And so we could have tried, maybe to take AlphaGo and do something which we knew for sure it would succeed on. But much more interesting to me was to try it on the things which we weren't sure about. And one of the big questions on our minds back then was, could you really do this with self-play alone? How far could that go? Would it be as strong? And honestly, we weren't sure. Yeah, it was 50-50, I think. If you'd asked me, I wasn't confident that it could reach the same level as these systems, but it felt like the right question to ask. And even if it had not achieved the same level, I felt that that was an important direction to be studying. And so then lo and behold, it actually ended up outperforming the previous version of AlphaGo and indeed was able to beat it by 100 games to zero. So what's the intuition as to why? I think the intuition to me is clear that whenever you have errors in a system, as we did in AlphaGo, AlphaGo suffered from these delusions. Occasionally it would misunderstand what was going on in a position and mis-evaluate it. How can you remove all of these errors? Errors arise from many sources. For us, they were arising both from, starting from the human data, but also from the nature of the search and the nature of the algorithm itself. But the only way to address them in any complex system is to give the system the ability to correct its own errors. It must be able to correct them. It must be able to learn for itself when it's doing something wrong and correct for it. And so it seemed to me that the way to correct delusions was indeed to have more iterations of reinforcement learning. That no matter where you start, you should be able to correct for those errors until it gets to play that out and understand, oh, well, I thought that I was gonna win in this situation, but then I ended up losing. That suggests that I was mis-evaluating something and there's a hole in my knowledge and now the system can correct for itself and understand how to do better. Now, if you take that same idea and trace it back all the way to the beginning, it should be able to take you from no knowledge, from completely random starting point, all the way to the highest levels of knowledge that you can achieve in a domain. And the principle is the same, that if you bestow a system with the ability to correct its own errors, then it can take you from random to something slightly better than random because it sees the stupid things that the random is doing and it can correct them. And then it can take you from that slightly better system and understand, well, what's that doing wrong? And it takes you on to the next level and the next level. And this progress can go on indefinitely. And indeed, what would have happened if we'd carried on training AlphaGo Zero for longer? We saw no sign of it slowing down its improvements, or at least it was certainly carrying on to improve. And presumably, if you had the computational resources, this could lead to better and better systems that discover more and more. So your intuition is fundamentally, there's not a ceiling to this process. One of the surprising things, just like you said, is the process of patching errors. It's intuitively makes sense that this is, that reinforcement learning should be part of that process. But what is surprising is in the process of patching your own lack of knowledge, you don't open up other patches. You keep sort of, like there's a monotonic decrease of your weaknesses. Well, let me back this up. I think science always should make falsifiable hypotheses. So let me back up this claim with a falsifiable hypothesis, which is that if someone was to, in the future, take AlphaZero as an algorithm and run it on, with greater computational resources that we had available today, then I would predict that they would be able to beat the previous system 100 games to zero. And that if they were then to do the same thing a couple of years later, that that would beat that previous system 100 games to zero. And that that process would continue indefinitely throughout at least my human lifetime. Presumably the game of Go would set the ceiling. I mean- The game of Go would set the ceiling, but the game of Go has 10 to the 170 states in it. So the ceiling is unreachable by any computational device that can be built out of the, you know, 10 to the 80 atoms in the universe. You asked a really good question, which is, do you not open up other errors when you correct your previous ones? And the answer is yes, you do. And so it's a remarkable fact about this class of two-player game and also true of single agent games, that essentially progress will always lead you to, if you have sufficient representational resource, like imagine you had, could represent every state in a big table of the game, then we know for sure that a progress of self-improvement will lead all the way in the single agent case to the optimal possible behavior, and in the two-player case to the minimax optimal behavior. That is the best way that I can play, knowing that you're playing perfectly against me. And so for those cases, we know that even if you do open up some new error, that in some sense you've made progress. You're progressing towards the best that can be done. So AlphaGo was initially trained on expert games with some self-play. AlphaGo Zero removed the need to be trained on expert games. And then another incredible step for me, because I just love chess, is to generalize that further to be in AlphaZero, to be able to play the game of Go, beating AlphaGo Zero and AlphaGo, and then also being able to play the game of chess and others. So what was that step like? What's the interesting aspects there that required to make that happen? I think the remarkable observation, which we saw with AlphaZero, was that actually without modifying the algorithm at all, it was able to play and crack some of AI's greatest previous challenges. In particular, we dropped it into the game of chess. And unlike the previous systems like Deep Blue, which had been worked on for years and years, and we were able to beat the world's strongest computer chess program convincingly using a system that was fully discovered by its own from scratch with its own principles. And in fact, one of the nice things that we found was that in fact, we also achieved the same result in Japanese chess, a variant of chess where you get to capture pieces and then place them back down on your own side as an extra piece. So a much more complicated variant of chess. And we also beat the world's strongest programs and reached superhuman performance in that game too. And it was the very first time that we'd ever run the system on that particular game, was the version that we published in the paper on AlphaZero. It just worked out of the box, literally, no touching it. We didn't have to do anything. And there it was, superhuman performance, no tweaking, no twiddling. And so I think there's something beautiful about that principle that you can take an algorithm and without twiddling anything, it just works. Now, to go beyond AlphaZero, what's required? AlphaZero is just a step. And there's a long way to go beyond that to really crack the deep problems of AI. But one of the important steps is to acknowledge that the world is a really messy place. It's this rich, complex, beautiful, but messy environment that we live in. And no one gives us the rules. No one knows the rules of the world. At least maybe we understand that it operates according to Newtonian or quantum mechanics at the micro level or according to relativity at the macro level, but that's not a model that's useful for us as people to operate in it. Somehow the agent needs to understand the world for itself in a way where no one tells it the rules of the game, and yet it can still figure out what to do in that world, deal with this stream of observations coming in, rich sensory input coming in, actions going out in a way that allows it to reason in the way that AlphaGo or AlphaZero can reason, in the way that these Go and chess playing programs can reason, but in a way that allows it to take actions in that messy world to achieve its goals. And so this led us to the most recent step in the story of AlphaGo, which was a system called MuZero. And MuZero is a system which learns for itself even when the rules are not given to it. It actually can be dropped into a system with messy perceptual inputs. We actually tried it in some Atari games, the canonical domains of Atari that have been used for reinforcement learning. And this system learned to build a model of these Atari games that was sufficiently rich and useful enough for it to be able to plan successfully. And in fact, that system not only went on to beat the state of the art in Atari, but the same system without modification was able to reach the same level of superhuman performance in Go, chess, and shogi that we'd seen in AlphaZero, showing that even without the rules, the system can learn for itself just by trial and error, just by playing this game of Go. And no one tells you what the rules are, but you just get to the end and someone says, you know, win or loss. You play this game of chess and someone says win or loss, or you play a game of breakout in Atari and someone just tells you, you know, your score at the end. And the system for itself figures out essentially the rules of the system, the dynamics of the world, how the world works. And not in any explicit way, but just implicitly enough understanding for it to be able to plan in that system in order to achieve its goals. And that's the fundamental process you have to go through when you're facing any uncertain kind of environment that you would in the real world, is figuring out the sort of the rules, the basic rules of the game. That's right. So that allows it to be applicable to basically any domain that could be digitized in the way that it needs to in order to be consumable, sort of in order for the reinforcement learning framework to be able to sense the environment, to be able to act in the environment and so on. The full reinforcement learning problem needs to deal with worlds that are unknown and complex and the agent needs to learn for itself how to deal with that. And so Mu0 is a step, a further step in that direction.

https://youtu.be/e77NkSjnyH4

sY8aFSY2zv4

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Jordan Peterson: Life, Death, Power, Fame, and Meaning | Lex Fridman Podcast #313

Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes also Into you right, but I would say Bring it on if you gaze into the abyss long enough. You see the light not the darkness Are you sure about that? I'm betting my life on it The following is a conversation with Jordan Peterson an an influential psychologist lecturer podcast host and author of maps of meaning 12 rules for life and beyond order This is the Lex Friedman podcast to support it Please check out our sponsors in the description and now dear friends. Here's Jordan Peterson Dusty yes, he wrote in the idiot spoken through the character of Prince, Michigan that beauty will save the world World soldier Nissen actually mentioned this in his Nobel Prize Acceptance speech. What do you think the CF scheme meant by that? Was he right? well, I Guess it's the divine that saves the world. Let's say you could say that by definition and then you might say well are there pointers to that which will save the world or that which eternally saves the world and the answer to that in all likelihood is yes, and that's maybe truth and love and justice and the classical virtues beauty Perhaps in some sense foremost among them. It's a that's a difficult case to make but definitely a pointer Which direction is the arrow pointing? Well, the arrow is pointing up No, I think that that which it points to is what beauty points to it transcends beauty It's more than beauty and that speaks to the divine it points to the divine Yeah, and I would say again by definition because we could define the divine in some real sense so one way of defining the divine is What is divine to you is your most fundamental axiom and you might say well I don't have a fundamental axiom and I would say that's fine. But then you're just confused Because you have a bunch of contradictory axioms and you might say well, I have no axioms at all and then I'd say well You're just epistemologically ignorant beyond comprehension if you think that because that's just not true at all So do you don't think a human being can exist within contradictions? Well, yeah, we have to exist within contradiction But when the contradictions make themselves manifest it's a in confusion with regard to direction then the consequence of that technically is anxiety and Frustration and disappointment and all sorts of other negative emotions, but the cardinal negative emotion signifying multiple pathways forward is Anxiety it's an entropy signal but you don't think that kind of a entropy signal can be channeled into Into beauty into love. Why does beauty and love have to be clear ordered? Simple well, I would say it probably doesn't have to be It can't be reduced to clarity and simplicity because when it's optimally structured, it's a balance between Order and chaos not order itself if it's too ordered if music is too ordered. It's not it's not acceptable It sounds like a drum machine. It's too repetitive. It's too predictable It has to have well, it has to have some fire in it Along with the structure. I was in Miami doing a seminar on Exodus with a number of scholars and this is a beauty discussion When Moses first encounters the burning bush It's not a conflagration that demands attention. It's something that catches his attention It's a phenomena and that means to shine forth and Moses has to stop and attend to it and he does and he sees this Fire that doesn't consume the tree and the tree the tree is a structure It's a tree like structure. It's a branching structure. It's a hierarchical structure. It's a self similar structure it's a fractal structure and it's the tree of life and it's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and The fire in it is the transformation That's always occurring within every structure and the fact that the fire doesn't consume the bush in that representation is a an indication of the balance of transformation with structure and that balance is Presented as God and what attracts Moses to it in some sense is the beauty Now it's the novelty and all that but like a painting is like a burning bush That's a good way of thinking about it a great painting. It's too much for people often, you know, I my house Was and will soon be again completely covered with paintings inside and It was hard on people to come in there because well my mother for example Well, my mother for example say well, why would you want to live in a museum? And I think well, I would rather live in a museum than anywhere else in some real sense, but beauty is daunting It scares people they're terrified of buying art for example because their taste is on display and they should be terrified because Generally people have terrible taste now that doesn't mean they shouldn't foster it and develop it But and you know when you put your taste on display It's a real really exposes you even to yourself as you walk past it. Oh every day Absolutely. I am yeah well in and look how mundane that is and look how trite it is and look at how cliched it is and look at how sterile or too ordered it is or too chaotic or how quickly you start to take it for Granted because you've seen it so many times. Well, if it's a real piece of art that doesn't happen You notice the little details the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I mean there are images religious images in particular so we could call them deep images that people have been unpacking for 4,000 years and still haven't I'll give you an example. This is a terrible example So I did a lecture series on Genesis and I got a lot of it unpacked but by no means all of it When God kicks Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden He puts cherubim with flames and he puts the dead in the garden of Eden He puts cherubim with flaming swords at the gate to stop human beings from re-entering paradise. I Thought what the hell does that mean cherubim? And why do they have flaming swords? I don't get that. What is that exactly and Then I found out from Matthew Pazio who wrote a great book on symbolism in Genesis that Cherubim are the supporting monsters of God It's a very complicated idea and that they're partly a representation of that which is difficult to fit into Conceptual systems. They've also got an angelic or demonic aspect Take your pick. Why do they have flaming swords? Well, a sword is a symbol of judgment and and the separation of the wheat from the chaff. You use a sword to cut away, to cut away and to carve And a flaming sword is not only that which carves it's that which burns and what is it carve away and burn? Well, you want to get into paradise? It carves away everything about you that isn't perfect. And so what does that mean? Okay. Well, here's part of what it means This is a terrible thing so You could say that the entire Christian narrative is embedded in that image Why? Well, let's say that flaming swords are a symbol of death. That seems pretty obvious Let's say further that they're a symbol of apocalypse and hell That doesn't seem completely unreasonable. So here's an idea Not only do you have to face death You have to face death and hell before you can get to paradise hellish judgment and all that's embedded in that image and then a piece of art with an image like that has all that information in it and it shines forth in some Fundamental sense it reaches into the back tendrils of your mind at levels You can't even comprehend and grips you. I mean, that's why people go to museums and gaze at paintings They don't understand and that's why they'll pay what's the most expensive objects in the world if it's not carbon fiber racing yachts It's definitely Classic paintings right? It's high-level technological implements or it's classic art. Well, why are those things so expensive? Why do we build temples to house the images even secular people go to museums? I'm secular Well, are you in a museum? Yes. Are you looking at art? Yes. Well What makes you think you're secular then? It's arguable that the thing Many many centuries from now that will remain of all of human civilization will be our art Well, not even the words. Well, you know the a book has remained a very long time, right the biblical not that long No millennia. All right But that's in the full arc of living organisms. Yeah, perhaps well Not well, we have images that are we have artistic images that are at least 50,000 years old right that have survived and some of those are They're already profound in their symbolism. Well, we do well in Doris. Yeah, we found them and and and They've lasted they've lasted that long And so and then think about Europe Secular people all over the world make pilgrimages to Europe Well, why? because of the beauty Obviously, I mean that's self-evident and it's partly because there are things in Europe that are so beautiful They take your breath away, right? They make your hair stand on end. They fill you with a sense of awe and and We need to see those things it's not optional We need to see those things the cathedrals was in a cathedral in Vienna, and it was terribly beautiful, you know Terribly well, it was terribly beautiful. It's beauty painful for you is is that the highest form of beauty? It's really challenges you Oh, definitely. Yeah. Yeah, I got a good analysis of the Statue of David Michelangelo's statue says you could be far more than you are that's what that statue says and this Cathedral, you know down we went down into the into the Under structure of it and there were three floors of bones from the plague and there they all are And then that Cathedral's on top of it. It's no joke to go visit a place like that No, it's it it rattles you to the core and our our religious systems have become propositionally dubious But there's no arguing with the architecture although modern architects like to with their sterility and their giant middle fingers erected everywhere but Beauty is a is a terrible pointer to God and you know a secular person will say well, I don't believe in God. It's like Have it your way You got it. You cannot move forward into the unforeseen horizon of the future Except on faith and you might say well have no faith. It's like well good luck with the future then because what are you then nihilistic and hopeless and anxiety-ridden and If not, well something's guiding you forward its faith in something or multiple things, which just makes you a polytheist Which I wouldn't recommend Well, let me ask you one short-lived biological meatbag to another Who is God then? Let's try to sneak up to this question if it's at all possible. Is it possible to even talk about this? Well, it better be because otherwise there's no communicating about it. I did it has to be something that can be brought down to earth Well, we might be too dumb to bring it down. It's not just ignorant. It's also sinful, right? So because there's not knowing and then there's one on it wanting to know or refusing to know. Yeah, and so you might say well Could you extract God from a description of the objective world? right is is God just the ultimate unity of of Of the natural reality and I would say well in a sense there's some truth in that but but not exactly because God in the highest sense is the spirit that you must emulate in order to thrive How's that for a biological definition? Spirit is a pattern the spirit that you must emulate in order to thrive So it's a kind of in one sense when we say the human spirit. It's that it's an animating principle Yeah, it's a meta. It's a pattern and you might say well, what's the pattern? Okay. Well, I can tell you that to some degree Imagine that like your grip by beauty you're gripped by admiration So and you can just notice this this isn't propositional you have to notice it. It's like a hole Turns out I admire that person Hmm. So what does that mean? Well, it means I would like to be like him or her That's what admiration means. It means there's something about the way they are that compels imitation another instinct or inspires respect or awe even Okay, what is that that grips you? well, I Don't know. Well, let's say okay fine But it grips you and you want to be like that kids hero worship for example So to adults for that matter unless they become entirely cynical I worship quite a quite a few heroes. Yeah. Well, there you go Oddly, yes. Well, there you go. And there's no that worship that celebration and proclivity to imitate is worship That's what worship means most fundamentally now imagine you took the set of all admirable people and You extract it out AI learning you extract it out the central features of what constitutes admirable And then you did that repeatedly until you purified it to what was most admirable That's as good as you're gonna get in in terms of a representation of God And you might say well, I don't believe in that it's like well, what do you mean? Yeah, it's not a set of Propositional facts. It's not a scientific theory about the structure of the objective world And then I could say something about that too because I've been thinking about this a lot Especially since talking to Richard Dawkins It's like okay the post-modernist types Going back way before Derrida and Foucault maybe back to Nietzsche Who I admire greatly by the way says God is dead It's like okay But Nietzsche said God is dead and we have killed him and we'll not find enough water to wash away all the blood So that was Nietzsche. He's no fool. He's got away with words He certainly does and so then you think okay. Well, we killed the transcendent Well, what does that mean for science? What does that mean for science? Well, it frees it up because all that nonsense about a deity is just the idiot superstition that stops the scientific What process from moving forward that's basically the new atheist claim something like that it's like wait a second Do you believe in the transcendent if you're a scientist? and the answer is Well, not only do you believe in it you believe in it more than anything else because if you're a scientist You believe in What objects to your theory more than you believe in your theory now? We got to think that through very carefully. So your theory describes the world and as far as you're concerned Your description of the world is the world But because you're a scientist you think well, even though that's my description of the world and that's what I believe there's something beyond what I believe and And that's the object and so I'm gonna throw my theory against the object and see where it'll break and then I'm going to use The evidence of the break as a source of new information to revitalize my theory So as a scientist you have to posit the existence of the ontological transcendent Before you can move forward at all, but more You have to posit that contact with the ontological transcendent Annoying though it is because it upsets your apple cart is exactly what will in fact set you free so then you accept the proposition that there is a transcendent reality and that the that contact with that transcendent reality is Redemptive in the most fundamental sense because if it wasn't well, why would you bother making contact with you're gonna make everything worse or better? Why does the? contact with the transcendent Set you free as a scientist because you assume that you assume I mean freedom in the most fundamental sense It's like well freedom from want freedom from disease freedom from ignorance, right that it informs you So it's the logos in it science. It is definitely that Yeah, it's it's the what it's the direction. Let's say the directionality of science That's a narrative direction not a scientific direction. And then the question is what is the narrative? Well, it posits a transcendent reality. It posits that the transcendent reality is corrective It posits that our knowledge structures should be regarded with humility it posits that you should bow down in the face of of The transcendent evidence and you have to take a vow, you know this as a scientist You have to take a vow to follow that path if you're gonna be a real scientist. It's like the truth No matter what and that means you posit the truth as a redemptive force Well, what is redemptive mean? Well, why bother with science? Well, so people don't starve so people can move about more effectively so life can be more abundant, right? So it's all ensconced within an underlying ethic So the reason I was saying that while we were talking about belief in God, it's like this is a very complicated topic Right. Do you believe in a transcendent reality? See? Okay. Now, let's say You buy the argument. I just made on the natural front. You say yeah. Yeah, that's just nature That's not God And then I'd say well what makes you think you know what nature is? Like see the problem with that argument is that it it already presumes a materialist a reductionist materialist Objective view of what constitutes nature, but if you're a scientist you're gonna think Well in the final analysis, I don't know what nature is. I certainly don't know its origin or destination point I don't know its teleology. I'm really ignorant about it I'm really ignorant about nature. And so when I say it's nothing but nature, I Shouldn't mean it's nothing but what I understand nature to be so I could say will we have a fully reductionist account of cognitive processes and The answer to that is yes but by the time we do that our Understanding of matter will have transformed so much that what we think of as reductionist now won't look anything like What we think of reductionism now matter isn't dead dust I don't know what it is. I have no idea what it is matter is what matters there's a definition That's a very weird definition but the notion that we have You know that if you're a reductionist a materialist reductionist that you can reduce The complexity of what is to your assumptions about the nature of matter? That's not a scientific your specific limited human assumptions of this century of this week that so in that in some sense without God in this complicated big definition, we're talking about the there's no humility or It's less not enough. There's less likely to be or rather science can err in Taking a trajectory away from humility. Well without something much more powerful Than an individual human. Yeah. Well then and we know, you know, the Frankenstein story comes out of that instantly and That's a good story for the current times. It's like you you're playing around with make a new life You bloody well better make sure you have your arrows pointed up and it's interesting because you said science has An ethic to it. I think it's embedded in an ethic Well, there's a you know, science is a big word Yeah, and it includes a lot of disciplines that have different traditions. So biology chemistry genetics physics Those are very different communities and I think biology especially when you get closer and closer to medicine into the human body Does have a very serious first of all has a history with Nazi Germany of being abused and all those kinds of things But as a history of taking this stuff seriously what doesn't have a history of taking this stuff Seriously is robotics and artificial intelligence, which is really interesting because you don't You know, you called me a scientist, but and I would like to wear that label proudly But often people don't think of computer science as a science But nevertheless it will be I think the science of one of the major Scientific fields of the 21st century and you should take that very seriously oftentimes when people build robots or AI systems they think of them as Toys to tinker with oh, isn't this cool? Mm-hmm. Well, I feel this too. Isn't this cool? It is cool, but you know at a certain moment you might isn't this nuclear Explosion cool. Yes, it is or birth control pill cool It's like or or transistor cool. Yeah. Well the other thing too, and and this is a weird Problem in some sense the robotics engineer types. They're thing people, right? I mean the big classes of interest are interest in things versus interest in people Some of my best friends are thing people. Yeah, right and thing people are very very clear logical Thinkers and they're very outcome oriented and practical Now and that's all good. That makes the machinery and keeps it functioning, but there's a human side of the equation and and You get the extreme thing people and you think yeah. Well, what about the human here and When we're talking about we've been talking about the necessity of having a technological enterprise Embedded in an ethic and you can ignore that like most of the time right you can ignore the overall Ethic in some sense when you're toying around with your toys, but when you're building an artificial intelligence, it's like well That's not a toy That might be toy becomes the monster very cool. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes, and and this is a whole new kind of monster and Maybe it's already here Yes, and you notice how many of those things you can no longer turn off And what is it with you engineers and your inability to put off switches on things now It's like I have to hold this for five seconds for it to shut off or I can't figure it I just want to shut it off click off Well, what is it with you humans that don't put off switches and other humans? Because there's a magic to the thing that you can do And other humans because there's a magic to the thing that you notice and it hurts For both you and perhaps one day the thing itself to turn it off Mm-hmm, and so you have to be very careful as an engineer adding off switches to things I think it's a feature not a bug the off switch the off switch gives a deadline to us humans to systems of existence It makes you it's you know Death is the thing that really brings clarity to life and I do think hence the flaming swords the flaming So I do like your view of the flame of the bush and perhaps the sword as a thing of transformation It's also as a transformation that kind of consumes the thing in the process Well, it depends on how much of the thing is chaff, you know This is why you can't touch the Ark of the Covenant for example, and this is why people can have very bad psychedelic trips It's like if you're 95% dead wood and you get too close to the flame The 5% that's left might not be able to make it So you think it's all chaff, but I think there is some aspect of destruction that is That's you know, the the old Bukowski line of do what you love and let it kill you, right? Don't you think it that destruction is part of that's humility That's humility. That's you bet you bet you bet it's like Inviting the judgment inviting the judgment because maybe you can die a little bit instead of dying completely Yeah, no, that's I think it's Alfred North Whitehead We can let our ideas die instead of us Right, we can have these partial personalities that we can burn off and we can let them go before they become tyrannical pharaohs and everything and we lose everything and so yeah There's this optimal bite of death and who knows what it would mean to optimize that like what if it was possible that if you? died enough all the time that you could continue to live and The thing is we already know that biologically because if you don't die properly all the time well, it's cancerous outgrowths and and it's a very fine balance between Productivity on the biological front and the culling of that right life is a real balance between growth and death And so what would happen if you got that balance, right? Well, we kind of know right because if you live your life properly So to speak and you're humble enough to let your stupidity die before it takes you out. You will live longer That's just a fact Well, but then what's the ultimate extension of that? But then what's the ultimate extension of that and the answer is we don't know we have no idea Well, let me ask you a difficult question Because opposed to the easy ones that you've been asking so far. Well, just the F ski is always just a warm-up So if death if death every single day is the way to progress through life You have become quite famous death in hell Death in hell. Yeah. Yeah, because you don't want to forget the hell part Do you worry that your fame? Traps you into the person That you wore before. Yeah. Well, yeah, Elvis became an Elvis impersonator by the time you died Yeah Do you fear that you have become a Jordan Peterson impersonator that do you fear of in some part becoming? the famous suit wearing Brilliant Jordan Peter this the certainty in the pursuit of truth hmm Always right. I think I worry about it more than anything else. I hope I hope I do I better has fame to some degree when you look at yourself in the mirror in the quiet of your mind Has it corrupted you? No doubt in some regard. I mean, it's very difficult thing to avoid, you know because Things change around you people are much more likely to do what you ask for example, right? And so that's a danger because one of the things that keeps you dying properly is that people push back against you optimally This is why so many celebrities spiral out of control, especially the tyrannical types that say run countries Everyone around them stops saying yeah, you're you're you're deviating a little bit there. They laugh at all their jokes They open all their doors. They they always want something from them. The red carpets always rolled out It's like well you think wouldn't that be lovely? It's well not if the red carpet is rolled out to you Well, you're on your way to perdition. That's not a good deal. You just get there more efficiently And so one of the things that I've tried to learn to manage is to get have people around me all the time who are critics who are saying yeah, I could have done that better and you're a little too harsh there and you're alienating people unnecessarily there and you should have done some more background work there and and I think the responsibility attendant upon that increases as your influence increases and that's That's a as your influence increases then that becomes a lot of responsibility So, you know and then maybe have an off day and well one here's an example I've been writing some columns lately about things that perturb me like the forthcoming famine for example, and It's hard to take those Problems on It's difficult to take those problems on in a serious manner and it's frightening and it would be easier just to go up to the cottage with my wife and go out on the lake and watch the sunset and So I'm tempted to draw on anger as a motivating energy to help me overcome the Resistance to doing this but then that makes me more harsh and judgmental in my tone When I'm reading such things for example on YouTube then might be optimal now I've had debates about with people about that because I have friends who say no if you're calling out the environmental environmentalist globalists who are harassing the Dutch farmers Then a little anger is just the ticket and but then others say well You know, you don't want to be too harsh because you alienate people who would otherwise listen to you. It's like That's a hard balance to get right but also maybe anger Hardens your mind to where you don't notice the the subtle quiet beauty of the world The quiet love that's always there that permeates everything Sometimes you can become deeply cynical about the world if it's the Nietzsche thing Yeah battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes also into you right, but I would say Bring it on Right because well, I also say knowing that he's absolutely right but if You gaze into the abyss long enough. You see the light not the darkness Are you sure about that? I'm betting my life on it Yeah, that's a heck of a bet Well, that's because it might distort your mind to where all you see is abyss is Abyss is the evil in this world. Well, then I would say you haven't looked long enough You know, that's back to the you just a little bit of swords the flaming swords It's like so I said the whole story of Christ was prefigured in that image. It's like the story of Christ psychologically is Radical acceptance of the worst possible tragedy. That's what it means. That's what the crucifix means Psychologically, it's like gaze upon that which you are most afraid of but that story doesn't end there because in in the in the story Christ goes through death into hell So death isn't enough the abyss the abyss of innocent death is not sufficient to produce redemption It has to be a voluntary journey to hell and maybe that's true for everyone and that's like there is no more terrifying idea than that by definition and so then well, do you gaze upon that? well Who knows Who knows how often do you gaze upon death your own? How often do you? Remember remind yourself that this right ends personally personally all the time because you as a as a deep thinker and philosopher it's easy to start philosophizing and forgetting that you're You might die to the angel of death sits on every word How's that? I how often do you actually consciously all the time? Notice the angel all the time. I Think it's one of the things that made me peculiar When I was in graduate school, you know I I thought about I was I had the thought of death in my mind all the time and I noticed that many of the people that I was with these were people I admired fine They that wasn't part of their character, but it was definitely part of mine. I'd wake up every morning This happened for years think time short get at it time short get at it. There's things to do and And so that was always it's still there and it's still there with I would say and it's unbearable in some sense Are you afraid of it? Like what? Yeah, you know I was ready to die a year ago and Not casually I had people I loved you know So no, I'm not very worried about me, but I'm very worried about making a mistake Yeah Her Elon Musk talk about that a couple of months ago. It was really a striking moment Someone asked him about death and he said just offhand and then went on with the conversation He said I'd be a relief and then he went on with the conversation And I thought well, you know, he's got a lot of weight on his shoulders. I'm sure that part of them thinks I'd be easier just if this wasn't here at all Now he said it offhand, but it was a telling moment in my estimation. So for him, that's a why live question Hmm the exhaustion of life. Yeah, you call it life is suffering. But yeah the hardship I'm more afraid of hell than death You're you're afraid of the thing that follows I Don't know if it follows or if it's always here I think we're gonna find out what's the connection between death and hell? I don't know And I don't know I don't know is there something that needs to be done before you arrive You're more likely to die terribly if you live in a manner that brings you to hell That's one connection and terribly is as a very deep kind of concept. Okay. Yeah. Yeah And that's the definition by the way What do you make of Elon Musk? You've spoken about him a bit you met him. I'm struck with admiration That's what I make of him. I always think of that as a primary Well, it's oh, it's like do you find this comedian funny? It's like well, I laugh at him You know what? I mean? It's not propositional again. And so I would there are things I would like to ask Mr. Musk about The Mars venture. I don't know what he's up to there It strikes me as absurd in the most fundamental sense because I think well it'd be easier just to build an outpost in the Antarctica Or in the desert. Well, how much of the human endeavor is absurd? Well, that's what it needs You say great men are seldom credited with their stupidity who the hell knows what Musk is up to I mean, obviously he's building rockets now. He's motivated because he wants to build a Platform for life on Mars. Is that a good idea? Who am I to say he's he's building the rockets man, but I'd like to ask him about it I I would like to see that conversation. I do think that Having talked to him quite a bit offline. I think these Several of his ideas like Mars like he was becoming a multi-planetary species could be one of the things that human civilization looks back at as Duh, I can't believe he is one of the few people that was really pushing this idea because it's the obvious obvious thing for Society to full life to survive. Yeah well It isn't obvious to me that I'm in any position to evaluate Elon Musk Like I would like to talk to him and find out what he's up to and why but I mean he's an impossible person What he's done is impossible all of it It's like he built an electric car that works now does it work completely and will it replace gas cars or should it? I don't know but if we're gonna build electric cars, he seems to be the best at that by a lot and He more or less did that people carp about him, but he more or less did that by himself I know he's very good at distributing responsibility and all of that But he's the spearhead and then that was pretty hard and then he built a rocket At like 110th the price of NASA rockets and then he shot his car out into space That's pretty hard. And then he's building this boring company More or less as a what would you call it? It's sort of it's this whimsical joke in some sense, but it's not a joke He's amazing and you're a link delving into the the depths of the mine Starlink It's like go Elon as far as I'm concerned and then you know, he puts his finger on things So oddly the pop the problem is under population. It's like I think so, too I think it's a terrible problem that we're the West for example is no longer at Replacement with regard to birthrate. It means we've abandoned the Virgin and the child in a most fundamental sense It's a bloody catastrophe and muskies. He sees it clear as can be Wow, and where everyone else is running around going. Oh, there's too many people it's like nope Got that not only see I've learned that there are falsehoods and lies and there are anti truths and an anti truth is something that's so preposterous that you couldn't you couldn't make a claim that's more opposite to the truth and The claim that there are too many people on the planet is an anti truth So, you know people say well you have to accept limits to growth and it said it's like I I have to accept the limits that you're going to impose on me because you're frightened of the future That's your theory. Is it okay? Well, it's an idea. It could be a right idea. It could be a wrong idea. I don't think any truth Here I'll tell you why it's the wrong idea. I think So imagine that there's an emergency Dragon, there's a dragon someone comes and says there's a dragon. I'm the guy to deal with it That's what the environmentalists say the radical types who push limits to growth Then I look at them and I think okay Is that dragon real or not? That's one question. Well, I asked that question of myself every time I spend time alone Is the apocalypse looming on the environmental front? Yes or no. I'll just leave that aside for the time being I think you can make A case both ways for a bunch of different reasons and it's not a trivial concern And we've overfished the oceans terribly and there are environmental issues that are looming large Whether climate change is the cardinal one or not is a whole different question, but we won't get into that. That's not the issue You're clamoring about a dragon Okay Why should I listen to you? Well, let's see how you're reacting to the dragon First of all, you're scared stiff and in the state of panic That might indicate you're not the man for the job second You're willing to use compulsion to harness other people to fight the dragon for you. So now not only are you terrified? You're a terrified tyrant So then I would say well then you're not the Moses that we need to lead us out of this particular exodus and Maybe that's a neurological explanation. It's like if you're so afraid of what you're facing That you're terrified into paralysis and nihilism and that you're willing to use tyrannical compulsion to get your way You are not the right leader for the time so then I like someone like Bjorn Lomborg or Matt Ridley or Marion Toopey and they say well look we've got our environmental problems and And maybe there's a there you could make a case that there's a Malthusian element in some situations but fundamentally the track record of the human race is that we learn very fast and faster all the time to do more with less and We've got this and I think Yes to that idea and I think about it in a in a fundamental way, it's like I trust Lomborg Trust Toopey trust Matt Ridley. They've thought about these things deeply. They're not just saying oh the environment doesn't matter Whatever the environment is You know the environment. I don't even know what that is. That's everything the environment. I'm concerned about the environment's like Which is how is that different than saying I'm worried about everything How are those statements different semantically? Well, yeah the environment it could be I'm worried about human society A lot of these complex systems are difficult to talk about because there's so much involved for sure Yeah everything and then these models because people have gone after me because I don't buy the climate models well, I think about the climate models as extended into the economic models because the climate model is Well, there's going to be a certain degree of heating. Let's say by 2100. It's like, okay Some of that might be human generated some of it's a consequence of warming after the Ice Age This has happened before but fair enough. Let's take your presumption Although there are multiple presumptions and any error in your model Multiplies as time extends but to have it your way Okay. Now we're going to extend the climate model so to speak into the economic model So I just did an analysis of a paper by Deloitte third biggest company in the US 300,000 employees major league consultants. They just produced a report in May I wrote an article for it in the Telegraph, which I'm going to release this week on my youtube channel said well If we get the climate problem under control Economically because that's where the models are now being generated on the economic front So now we have to model the environment That's climate and we have to model the economy and then we have to model their joint interaction And then we have to predict a hundred years into the future And then we have to put a dollar value on that and then we have to claim that we can do that Which we can't and then this is our conclusion We're going to go through a difficult period of privation Because if we don't accept limits to growth, there's going to be a catastrophe 50 years in the future thereabouts and so to avert that catastrophe We are going to make people poorer now How much poor? Well, not a lot compared to how much richer they're going to be But definitely and they say this in their own models Definitely poorer definitely poorer Than they would be if we just left them the hell alone And so then I think okay poorer eh? Who? Well, let's look at it biologically got a hierarchy right of stability and security That's a hierarchy or one type You stress a hierarchy like that a social hierarchy So there's birds in a environment and an avian flu comes in And then you look at the birds in the social hierarchy and the The low-ranking birds have the worst nests So they're most exposed to wind and rain and sun and farthest from Food supplies and most exposed to predators and so those birds are stressed Which is what happens to you at the bottom of a hierarchy. You're more stressed because your life is more uncertain You're more stressed. Your immunological function is compromised because of that You're sacrificing the future for the present An avian flu comes in and the birds die from the bottom up That happens in every epidemic you die From the bottom up. Okay So they say when the aristocracy catches a cold The working class dies of pneumonia. All right, so now we're going to make people poorer Okay, who Well, we know who we make poor when we make people poorer We make those who are barely hanging on Poorer and what does that mean? It means they die And so what the Deloitte consultants are basically saying is well You know, it's kind of unfortunate But according to our models a lot of poor people are going to have to die So that a lot more poor people don't die in the future. It's like okay. Hold on a sec Which of those two things am I supposed to regard with certainty? The hypothetical poor people that you're going to hypothetically save a hundred years from now Or the actual poor people That you are actually going to kill in the next 10 years Well, i'm going to cast my lot with the actual poor people that you're actually going to kill And so and then I think further it's like well, okay the Deloitte consultants Have you actually modeled the world or is this a big advertising shtick? Designed to attract your corporate clients with the demonstration that you're so intelligent that you can actually model the entire ecosystem of the world Including the economic system and predict it a hundred years forward And isn't there a bit of a moral hazard in making a claim like that? Just like just a trifle, especially when so I talked to Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Leon last week. I accepted the UN Estimates of starvation this coming year 150 million people will suffer food insecurity food insecurity Yeah food insecurity. That's the bloody buzzword famine well, Michael Yon thought 1.2 billion and then that it'll spiral because he said what happens in a famine Is that the governments go nuts crazy? the government's destabilize And then they appropriate the food from the farmers Then the farmers don't have any money Then they can't grow crops and I think yeah, that's exactly what they do. That's exactly what would happen and so Yon told me 1.2 billion and then Bjorn Lomborg said the same thing. I didn't even ask him He just made it as an offhand comment So, let me ask you about the famine of the 30s. Yeah Do you think Ukraine in the Ukraine? Oh, yeah Fun fun fun similar a lot of the things you mentioned in the last few sentences kind of echo To that part of human history the hall the door Do you know what news about? Well now i've just spent four weeks in ukraine. Oh, yeah, there's different parts of the world that still Even if they don't know They know yeah, right if you History is runs in the blood. The dutch knew In some sense they had a famine at the end of world war ii and part of the reason the dutch farmers are so Unbelievably efficient and productive is that the dutch swore at the end of world war ii that that was not going to happen again And then they had to scrape land out of the ocean Because holland that's quite a country. It shouldn't even exist The fact that it's the world's number two export, you know, that's the world's number two exporter of agricultural products holland It's like I don't think it's as big as massachusetts. It's this little tiny place. It shouldn't even exist And they want to put here's this here's the plan. Let's put 30 percent of the farmers out of business Well, the broader ecosystem of agricultural production in holland is six percent of their gdp Now these centralizing politicians think tell me if i'm stupid about this Take an industry You knock it back By fiat by 30 percent Now it runs on like a three percent profit margin. Now. You're going to kill 30 percent of it How are you not going to bring the whole thing down the whole farming ecosystem down? How are you not gonna? impoverish the Transport systems. How are you not going to demolish the grocery stores? You can't take something like that and pare it back by fiat by 30 percent And not kill it. I I can't see how you can do that I mean look what we did with the covid lockdowns. We broke the supply chains. I tried buying something lately You can't and wait and aren't the chinese Threatening taiwan at the moment. What are we going to do without chips? So I don't know what these people are thinking and then I think okay. What are they thinking? Well, the deloitte people are thinking aren't we smart and shouldn't we be hired by our corporate employers? It's like okay Too bad about the poor. Um, what are the uh, environmentalists thinking? We love the planet. It's like do you We love the poor do you okay? Let's pit the planet against the poor who wins the planet? Okay You don't love the poor that much. Do you love the planet? Or do you hate capitalism? Let's pit those two things against each other. Oh, well, it turns out that the planet is the planet And you know what's going to happen? So what's going to happen in sri lanka with these 20 million people who now have nothing to eat? Are they going to eat all the animals? Are they going to burn all the firewood? They're stockpiling firewood in germany It's like so is your environmental globalist utopia? Going to kill the poor and destroy the planet and that's okay because we'll wipe out the planet So you know what? I think it's a good thing to think about Environmental globalist utopia going to kill the poor and destroy the planet and that's okay because we'll wipe out capitalism It's like okay Yeah, the the dragon and the fear of the dragon drives ideologies some of which can build a better world Some of which can destroy that world. Now. What do you think of that theory about about? Trustworthiness if the dragon that you're facing turns you into a terrified tyrant. You're not the man for the job Is that a good theory? It's an interesting theory. Let me use that theory to challenge because what what does terror look like? let me Uh table the turns turn the tables on you You are Terrified afraid concerned about the dragon of something we can call communism marxism Am I terrified of it? Well, okay, okay a tyrant your theories had two components. Yeah I'm not paralyzed. He had a dragon. Yeah, i'm not paralyzed and I don't want to be a tyrant The tyrant part I think is missing with you Uh, but you are very concerned the intensity of your feeling Uh Does not give much space actually, at least in your public persona For sitting quietly with the dragon and sipping in a couple of beers and thinking about this thing Uh the intensity of your anger concern About certain things you're seeing in society Is that going to drive you off the path that ultimately takes us to a better world? That's a good question I mean, I don't i'm trying to get that right. So we've kind of come to a cultural conclusion about the nazis Do you get to be angry about the nazis? Seems the answer to that is yes Well, actually let me push back here um I also don't trust people who are angry about the nazis Because I mean the actual nazis. Well I I there's a lot as you know, there's a lot of people in the world um that uh Use actual nazis to mean a lot. I know I know one of them is very important to me for example. Well, yes Well, he's a nazi I think or magical super nazi as it turns out I I think they actually sort of steal men all their perspectives. I think a lot of people that call you a nazi mean it so yeah So but like There's an important thing there though because I I went to the front in ukraine. Yeah, and a lot of the people Us that lost their home or they're kind of Uh that got to interact a lot with russian soldiers ukrainian people that interact with the russian soldiers uh, they've reported that the russian soldiers Really believe they're saving the the people Of ukraine in these local villages from the nazis. I understand. Yeah, so to them It's not just that the ukrainian government has or ukraine has some nazis. It's like It has been the ideas that the nazis have taken over ukraine and we need to free them This is the belief. Yeah, so this again nazi is still a dragon that lives Yeah, and it's used by people because it's safe to sit next to that dragon and spread any kind of ideology you want so I just want to kind of say that we um have agreed on the on the on the on the On this particular dragon, but I still don't trust anybody who uses that. Yeah, but we have issues with boundaries Right. No. No, it's so this is a very complicated problem, right? So renee gerard believed that It was a human proclivity to demonize the scapegoat and then drive it out of the village and yeah I've thought about that a lot. We need a place to put satan Like seriously, this is a serious issue. Should he be inside the village or outside? Well, maybe he should be inside you Right, that's that's the fundamental essence of the christian doctrine. It's like satan is best fought on the battleground of your soul And that's It's right It's right. Can you actually put words to the kind of dragon that you're fighting? Is it is it is it communism? It's the spirit of cain. Yeah Can you elaborate Well what the spirit of cain is so After adam and eve are thrown out of paradise for becoming self-conscious or when they become self-conscious They're destined to work And the reason for that as far as I can tell is that To become self-conscious is to become aware of the future That's to become aware of death that certainly happens in the adam and eve story to have the scales fall from your eyes And then the consequence of that is that you now have to labor To prevent the catastrophes of the future. That's work work is sacrifice Sacrifice of the present to the future. It's delay of gratification. It's maturity It's sacrifice to something as well and in the spirit of something Okay. So now adam and eve Have two children Cain and abel. So those are the first two people in history Because the garden of eden doesn't count And they're the first two people who are born rather than created So they're the first two people and that's a hell of a lot of work So they're the first two people and that's a hell of a story because it's a story of fratricidal murder that degenerates into genocide flood and tyranny So that's fun for the opening salvo of the story. Let's say And abel and cain both make sacrifices And for some reason abel's sacrifices, please god It's not exactly clear why And cain's don't now there's an Implication in the text that it's because cain's sacrifices are true or second rate God says that abel brings the finest to the sacrificial altar. He doesn't say that about cain So you could imagine that cain is sacrificing away, but he's he's holding something in reserve He's not all in he's not bringing his best to the table. He's not offering his best to god and so abel thrives like mad And everyone loves him and he gets exactly what he needs and wants exactly when he needs and wants it. He's favored of god And cain is bearing this terrible burden forward and working and his sacrifices are rejected so He gets resentful really resentful enough resentful enough to call god out and say something like This is quite the Creation you've got going here I'm breaking myself in half and nothing good's coming my way What the hell's up with that? And then there's abel the sun's shining on him every day How dare you? It's like okay, but this is god that cain's talking to and so god says What cain least wants to hear which is what god usually says to people he says? Look to your own devices You're not making the sacrifices you should And you know it and then he says something even worse He says sin Crouches at your door like a sexually aroused predatory animal And you've invited it in To have your way to have its way with you and so he basically says you have Allowed your resentment to preoccupy yourself and now you're brooding upon it and generating something Creative new and awful possessed by the spirit of resentment And that's why you're in the miserable state you're in So then cain leaves his countenance falls As you might expect and cain leaves and he's so incensed by this because god has said look Your problems of our are of your own making and not only that you invited them in And not only that you engaged in this creatively and not only that you're blaming it on me And not only that that's making you jealous of abel who's your actual idol and goal and cain instead of changing kills abel Right, and then cain's descendants are the first people who make weapons of war and so that's Okay, you want to know what I think that's the eternal story of mankind and it's playing out right now Except at a thousand times the rate. Can I present to you a difficult truth? Not perhaps not a truth but A thought I have That it is not always easy to know Which among us are the cane? That's for sure and resentment it is it is um, it is possible to imagine you as the person who has a resentment towards a particular worldview that you really worry about Yeah, well i've talked I talked to a good friend of mine last week about that publicly. We'll we'll release it So I said well, do I have a particular animus against the left? Let's say It's like well probably Okay, why well? First of all, i'm a university professor It's not like the universities are threatened by the right They're threatened by the left 100 percent and they're not just threatened a little bit They're threatened a lot and that threat made it impossible for me to continue in my profession the way I was And it cost me my clinical practice too And that's not over yet because I have 10 lawsuits against me out right now from the college of psychologists psychologists because they've allowed anyone to complain about me Anywhere in the world for any reason and have the choice to follow that up with an investigation Which is a punishment in and of itself and are doing so And then i've been tortured nearly to death multiple times By bad actors on the left now i've had my fair share of Radical right-wingers being unhappy with what i've said, but personally I've had a family That's been the left the whole time Not only me but my family put it my put my family at risk in a big way and constantly like not once or twice Because many people get cancelled once or twice But i've been cancelled Like 40 times and I know like 200 people now who've been cancelled and I can tell you without Doubt that it is one of the worst experiences of their life It only happens once and so And then I also know that the communists killed 100 million people in the 20th century that the intellectuals excused them for it non-stop and still haven't quit That almost no one knows about it and that the specter of resentful marxism is back in full force And so do I have a bit of an animus against that? Yes, does it go too far? I Don't know i'm trying to figure that out the story you just told It is seems nearly impossible for you an intellectual powerhouse not to have a tremendous amount of resentment Well, and this is the so let me challenge you. Yeah, let me challenge you go right ahead. Let me challenge you. Can you steal man? The case that uh, the prime minister of this country Trudeau Wants the best for this country and actually might do good things for this country as an intellectual challenge. Sure Um, he seems to get along well with his wife He has some kids There's no sexual scandals and he's in a position where that could easily be the case He seems to have done some good things on the oceanic management front He's put a fair bit of canada's oceans into marine protected areas and that might be his most fundamental legacy if it's real I've been trying to get information about the actual reality of the protection and I haven't been able to do that But that's a good thing. So sorry to the family thing is there's some aspect to his character Character, there is some aspect to him. Who's that makes him a good man? Well in that sense I mean, there's the evidence there, you know, I mean, he's not a jeffrey epstein profligate on the sexual front So that's something and his wife They seem to have a real marriage and he has kids so, you know good for him That's a good start by the way for a leader. Yeah, right to be a good man. Well, then I also thought okay Well after the liberals had brought in a harvard intellectual who was a canadian to be their last leader He didn't work out and then they're flailing about for a leader and the liberals in canada are pretty good at maintaining Power and leadership and have been the dominant governing party in canada for a long time And so they went to justin and said well, you know, it's you are a conservative and you can imagine that's not a positive Specter for someone who's on the left Or even a liberal especially and trudo is quite a bit on the left And they said we need you to run and then I thought okay. Well The answer to that should have been no because the trudo justin has no training for this no experience He's not he's a part-time drama teacher fundamentally. He hadn't run a business He just didn't know enough to be prime minister But then i'm trying to put myself in his position. So it's like okay. I don't know enough, but i'm young And we don't want the conservatives and they had had a run a 10-year run So maybe it was time for a new government. I could maybe I could grow into this man Maybe I could surround myself with good people and I could learn humbly and I could become The person i'm now pretending to be which we all have to do as we move forward, right? And so and so then I thought okay I think you made a mistake there because you ran only on your father's name And you didn't have the background but let's give the devil his due and say that's no problem Okay. So now what do you do? Well, you get elected and your first act is to make the cabinet 50 women Despite the fact that only 25 of the elected members are female. It's like okay, you just have your talent pool That was a really bad move for your first move. Can I ask you about that? Do you think? Where does that move come from? Deep somewhere in the heart or is it is it trying to? Listen to the social forces that of the moment and try to ride those waves Ways, you know, maybe greater greater popularity By after thinking it through it's like no you just have your talent pool For cabinet positions. That's what you did. There's enough cabinet positions You know, you could argue that each of the met threshold it's like there's a big difference between threshold and excellent So you don't think that that came from a place of compassion? I don't care if it did come back. I don't regard compassion as a virtue. Compassion is a reflex not a virtue You don't think judicious compassion is a virtue. Wait, wait a minute. Wait a minute compassion can come deep From the human heart and the human mind. I think are we talking about the same kind of compassion? Yeah, trying to understand the suffering treating adults like infants is not virtuous. I I see but you're you Well compassion isn't treating Adults like and I mean those just terry's are you sure? Okay, whatever the term is maybe Whatever the term is maybe love love is compassion is I mean, I suppose i'm speaking to love you don't think Those ideas came from concern compassion You don't think love is a blend of compassion and encouragement and truth love is complicated man Yeah, if I love you things in it if I love you, is it compassion or encouragement you want from me? Yeah, the dance love is definitely a dance of two two humans ultimately that leads to the growth of both Well, that's the thing the growth element is crucial Because the growth element to foster the growth element that requires judgment Compassion and judgment well even and have been conceptualized this way forever two hands of god mercy and justice They have to operate in tandem, right and mercy is Flawed as you are you're acceptable. It's like well, do you want that? Do you want your flaws to be acceptable? And the answer to that is no it's so it's like well, that's where the judgment comes in It's like but you could be better you could be more than you are And that's the maternal and the paternal in some fundamental sense and there has to be a active Exchange of information between those two poles So even if even if Trudeau was motivated by compassion and it's like yeah, just how loving are you first of all? No, it was a really bad decision. And then he and he's expressed contempt for monetary policy I'm not interested in monetary policy. It's like okay, but You're a prime minister And he's expressed admiration for the Chinese Communist Party Because they can be very efficient in their own Because they can be very efficient in their pursuit of environmental goals. It's like oh, yeah efficiency a the efficiency of the tyranny in the service of your terror And so and I've watched him repeatedly and I've listened to him a lot and I've tried to do that clinically and with some degree of dispassion and that's hard too because his father Pierre devastated the West in 1982 with the national energy policy and Trudeau is doing exactly the same thing again. And so as a Westerner as well I have an inbuilt animus and one that's well deserved because central Canada especially the glittery literati elite types in the Ottawa Montreal Toronto Triangle have Exploited the West and expressed contempt for the West far too much for far too long and That's accelerating at the moment. For example with Trudeau's recent attack on the Canadian farmers He's an enemy of the oil and gas industry It's an utter and absolute bloody catastrophe and look what's happened in Europe at least in partial consequence And he's no friend to the farmers So I've tried to steelman him, you know I try to put myself in the position of the people that I'm criticizing. I think he's a narcissist Do you think there's a degree to which power changed him? If you're not suited for the position if you're not the man for the position you can be absolutely 100% sure that the power will corrupt you. How could it not? I mean at the at the least if you don't have the chops for the job You have to devalue the job to the point where you can feel comfortable inhabiting it So yes, I think that it's corrupted him. I mean look at him doubling down We wear masks in flights into Canada We have to fill out an arrive can bureaucratic form on our phones because a passport is good isn't good enough We can't get a passport What if you're 85 and you don't know how to use a smartphone? Oh, well too bad for you Yeah, it's like yes, it's corrupted him Would you talk to him? Well if you were to sit down and talk with him and he wanted to talk Would you and what kind of things would you talk about perhaps on your podcast? I don't think I've ever said no to talking to anyone So which is you know, would you? Would that be a first or would you would you make that conversation? Do you believe in the power? No, I'd ask those kinds of contact No, if if if if he was willing to talk to me I'd talk as I'd like to ask him I have lots of things I'd like to ask him about I mean, I've had political types in Canada on my podcast and tried to ask them questions So I'd like to know Is there maybe I've got a big part of him wrong? Yes, and I probably do but My observation has been that every chance he had to retreat from his pharaonic position. Let's say he doubled down and these Our Parliament is not running for the next year It's still zoom in it's still kovat lockdown Parliament for the next year it's already been Fatally compromised perhaps by the lockdowns for the last couple of years Couple of years This is Parliament. We're talking about. Yeah, there's a kind of Paralysis fear-driven paralysis that also Imparts some of the most brilliant people I know are lost in this paralysis I don't think people assign a word to but it's almost like a fear of this unknown thing that lurks in the shadows and that Unfortunately that fear is leveraged by people That you know who are in in academic circles who are in faculty or students and so on are more Administration and they they start to use that fear which makes me quite uncomfortable It does lend people In the positions of power who are not good at handling that power to become Slowly day by day a little bit more corrupt I was really trying to figure out you know the last two weeks thinking this through it's like how do you Know let's say someone asked me a question in in the YouTube comment said why why why can I trust your? advice on the environmental front And I thought that's really good question Okay Let's see if we can figure out the principles by which the advice would be trustworthy. Okay. How how do you know? It's not trustworthy. Well one potential Response to that would be the claims are not in accordance with the facts But you know facts are tricky things and it depends on where you look for them. So that's a tough one to get right because For example Lombard's fundamental critics argue about his facts not just his interpretation of them So that can't be an unerring guide. And so I thought well the facts exact exactly doesn't work Because when it's about everything there's too many facts So then how do you determine if someone's a trustworthy guide in the face of the apocalyptic? Unknown because that's really the question and the answer is They're not terrified tyrants. I Think that's the answer Now, maybe that's wrong if someone has a better answer How do you know if they're a terrified tyrant because they are willing to use compulsion on other people when they could use goodwill like The farmers in Canada objected they said look we Have every economic reason to use as little fertilizer as we can because it's expensive We have satellite maps of where we put the fertilizer We have cut our fertilizer use so substantially in the last 40 years. You can't believe it and we grow way more food We're already breaking ourselves in half And if you know farmers, especially the ones who use fertilizer And if you know farmers, especially the ones who still survive you think you think those people don't know what they're doing. It's like They're pretty damn sophisticated man like Way more sophisticated than our prime minister And now you tell them no, it's a 30% reduction and we don't care how much food you're growing. So it's not a reduction that's Dependent on amount of food produced per unit of fertilizer used which would be at least you could imagine it You could imagine it. Okay, so you're producing this much food And you use this much fertilizer, so you're hyper efficient Maybe we take the 10% of farmers who are the least efficient in that Metric and we say to them you have to get as efficient as the average farmer And then they say well look, you know our our situation is different. We're in a more northern climb the soil's weaker You know, you obviously have to bargain with that. But at least At least you reward them for their productivity Well, it's like well Holland isn't going to have beef. Well, where are they going to get it? Well, you don't need it It's like oh I see you get to tell me what I can eat now. Do you? really okay, and Holland is going to import food From where that's more efficient on the fertilizer front There's no one more efficient than Holland And same with Canada and like isn't this going to make food prices more expensive? and Doesn't that mean that hungry people die? Because that is what it means And so ultimately poor people pay the price of these kinds of policies Not known not ultimately Now today today that's a crucial distinction because they say well ultimately the poor will benefit Yeah, except the dead ones. Yes Today today, right? It seems like the story of war Too is a time when the poor people suffer from the decision made by the powerful the rich the uh Yeah, because they can just leave Yeah Let me ask you about the war in ukraine. Oh, yeah, I got into plenty of trouble about that, too You're You're just a man in a suit Talking on microphones and writing brilliant articles There's also people dying Fighting It's their land. It's their country. It's their history. This is true for both russia and ukraine Yeah, it's people trying to ask They have many dragons and they're asking themselves a question Who are we? What is this? What is the future of this nation? We thought We are a great nation And I think both countries say this and they say Well, how do we become the great nation? We thought we are. Yeah, and So what uh, first of all you got in trouble What what's the the dynamics of the trouble? And uh, it's something you regret saying no. No, I thought about it a lot I laid out four reasons for the war and then I was criticized in the atlantic for The argument was reduced to one reason which was a caricature of the reason I gave a variety of reasons why the war happened mismanagement On the part of the west in relationship to russia and foreign policy over the last since the wall fell It's understandable because it's extremely complex hyper reliance on russia as a Cardinal source of energy provision for europe in the wake of idiot environmental globalist utopianism The expansionist tendencies of russia That are analogous in some sense to the soviet union empire building And then the last one which is the one I got in trouble for which is putin's belief or willingness to manipulate his people into believing That russia is a salvific force in the face of idiot western woke ism And that's the one I got in trouble for it's like while you're justifying putin it's like It's not only it's not only the russians that think the west has lost its mind Eastern europeans think so too. And do I know that it's like well I went to 15 eastern european countries this This spring and I talked to 300 political and cultural leaders and you might say well, they were all conservatives It's like actually no, they weren't actually, no, they weren't most of them were conservatives because it turns out that they're more willing to talk to me, but a good chunk of them were liberals by by any stretch of the Imagination and a fair number of them were cancelled progressives well, because you're very concerned about um, the culture wars that perhaps are a signal of a possible Bad future for this country for this part of the world that reason stands out and Do you Sort of looking back at four reasons think it deserves to have a place in one of the four. Oh, because absolutely Because it is you know, uh, well the four was bifurcated because I said look putin might believe this and I actually think he does Because I read a bunch of putin speeches and I have been reading them for 15 years And my sense of people generally and this was true of hitler. It's like What did hitler believe? Well, did you read what he wrote? He just did what he said he was going to do and you might think well some people are so tricky They have a whole body of elaborated speech That's completely separate from their personality and their personality is pursuing a different Agenda and this whole body of speech is nothing but a front It's like good luck finding someone that sophisticated first of all, if you say things long enough you're going to believe them That's a really interesting and fascinating and important point Even if you start out as a as a lie as a propaganda I think hitler is an example of somebody that I think really quickly you start to believe the propaganda Well, you're really you've thought a lot about ai systems. It's like Don't you become what you practice? And the answer to that is well, absolutely we even know the neurology. It's like when you first formulate a concept Huge swaths of your cortex are lit up so to speak but as you practice that First of all the right hemisphere stops participating and then The the the left participates less and less until you build specialized machinery For exactly that conceptual frame and then you start to see it not just think it And so if you're telling the same lies over and over who do you think you're fooling think well, I can withstand my own lies Not if they're effective lies and if they're effective enough to fool Millions of people and then they reflect them back to you. What makes you think you're going to be able to withstand that? You aren't and so I do think putin believes To the degree that he believes anything. I do believe that he thinks of himself as a bulwark for Christendom against the Degeneration of the west and that's that third way that dugan and putin have been talking about The philosopher alexander dugan and putin for 15 years now what that is Is very amorphous solzhenitsyn thought the russians would have to re return to the incremental development of orthodox christianity To escape from the communist trap and to some degree that's happened in russia because there's been a return to orthodox christianity Now you could say yeah, but the orthodox church has just been co-opted by the state And I would say there's some evidence for that. I've heard for example that the metropolitan Owns now, I don't know if this is true Owns five billion dollars worth of personal property And I would say there's a bit of a moral hazard in that and it's possible that the orthodox christianity The orthodox church has been co-opted, but there has been somewhat of an orthodox revival in russia And I don't think that's all bad now, even if putin doesn't believe any of this if he's just a psychopathic manipulator and unfortunately I don't think that's true I've read his speeches. It doesn't look like it to me and he is by no means the worst russian leader of the last hundred years Well, there's quite a selection there. There certainly is but and I say that knowing that Even if he doesn't believe it He's convinced his people that it's true And so we're stuck with the we're stuck with the claim In either case And that's the point I was trying to make in the article. Sometimes i'm troubled by People that explain things and I've a lot of people reached out to me experts Telling me how I should feel What I should think about ukraine. Oh you naive Lex you're so naive, you know, here's how it really is But then I get to see people that Lost their home. I get to see people on the russian side who believe they're I genuinely think that they're wrong I genuinely think that there's some degree to which they have love in their heart uh, they they see themselves as heroes saving a land from Uh from nazis, how else would you motivate young men to go fight? It's just it's these humans destroying Not only their homes but creating generational hate destroying the possibility of love towards each other They're they're basically creating hate what i've heard a lot of is on february 24th this year Hate was born at a scale that region has not seen Hate towards not vladimir putin hate towards not the soldiers in russia, but hate towards all russians Hate that will last generations and then you can you you can see on um Just the the pain there and then then when all these experts talk about Agriculture and energy and geopolitics and yeah, maybe like what you say with with the Fighting the ideologies of the woke and so on. I just feel like it's missing something deep That war is not fought That war is not fought About any of those things war started and wars averted Based on human beings based on well, here's here's another ugly thought since we haven't had enough so far We locked everything down for covet How much face-to-face communication was there between the west and vladimir putin? How about none? How about that was the wrong amount? Especially given that europe was completely dependent on putin for its energy supplies. Well, not completely but you know what I mean Materially and significantly so maybe had to go talk to him once every six months. Maybe he's in a bit of a bubble Probably and not just an information bubble how all these experts tell me about yeah No a human human you bet man. Look one of the things i've really learned. There's a real emphasis on hospitality in the old testament I just brought all these scholars together to talk about exodus. Hey, I have this security team with me and they're tough military guys But they're on board for this mission. Let's say And so they went out of their way to be hospitable to my academic guests They laid out nice platters of meat and cheese and crackers. They spent all day preparing this house I had rented so that we could have a hospitable time with these scholars most of whom I didn't know well But who said they would come and spend eight days talking about this book with me We rented some jet skis. We had a nice house. We had fun We got to know each other And we got to trust each other because we could see that we could have some fun and that we could let our hair Down a bit. We didn't have to be on guard and that made the talks way deeper and then We found out we couldn't get through exodus in eight days. And so I had proposed very early on that we're going to double the length And so I pulled eight people out of their lives for eight days That's a that's not an easy thing to do It's also quite expensive and the daily wire plus people picked all that up and they said right they said yes right away So we'd love to do this again. Well, why well partly because it was It was intellectually it was unbelievably engaging. I learned so much. It'll take me like a year to digest it if I can ever digest it and but they had they had a really good time and so when they were offered that combination of Intellectual challenge, let's say in hospitality. It was a no-brainer They just said every one of them said if I can do it in any way I will definitely be there and this I went to Washington a bunch of times And the culture of hospitality has broken down in Washington 40 percent of congressmen sleep in their offices. They don't have apartments their family isn't there with them They don't have social occasions with their fellow Democrats or Republicans much less across the table And so and I tried to have some meetings in Washington that were bilateral a couple of times Get young Republican congressmen and Democrats together to talk and as soon as they talk they think oh It was so interesting because one of the lunches was about 15 people half Democrats and half Republicans And all I'd asked them to do was just spend three minutes talking about why you decided to become a congressman Which is not a job I would take by the way You spend 25 hours a week fundraising on the telephone Your family isn't there with you You have to run for re-election every two years. You're beholden to the party apparatus Right you're vilified constantly. This is not You know people think well, this is a job for the privileged. It's like yeah You go and run for congress and find out how much fun it is and put your family on the line and then have to Beg for your job every two years Well your enemies the worst of your enemies are the and the worst of your friends are viciously hen-pecking you And so anyways, we had them all sit around the table said okay. Just say why you Ran for congress. It was so cool. Especially for a Canadian because you Americans you're so bloody theatrical. It's such something to watch It was like mr. Smith goes to Washington for every one of them It's like well this country has given us so much for families have been so So we've benefited so much from our from our time here. We think this is a wonderful country We really felt that we should give back And the next one would talk and it was like exactly the same story and then It didn't matter if they were Republican or Democrat. You couldn't tell the difference. No one could and was it genuine? It's like well, are you genuine you think these people are worse than you? First of all, they're not Second of all, they're probably better All things considered it's not that easy to become a congressman and I'm sure there's some bad apples in the bunch But by and large you walk away from your job But by and large you walk away from your meetings with these people and you think Pretty impressive they really are giving a part of themselves in the name of service maybe over time they become cynical and become Jaded and worn down by the whole system. But I think a lot of it. You imagine that is healed I think And I don't think i'm Well, i'm in part naive but not fully that a lot of it is healed through the power of conversation just basic social interaction I do think that the you bet man the effects of this pandemic by listening Listen just sitting there and it doesn't have to be talking about the actual issue. It's actually humor and all those kinds of things Uh about personal struggles all those kinds of things that remind you that you're all just humans Yeah, well the great leaders that i've met because and i've met some now They go listen to their constituents It's not a policy discussion. It's not an ideology discussion. They go say, okay what's what's your what's your life like and what are your problems and Tell me about them and then they listen and then they're struck by them and then they gather up all that misery and they bring it to the Congressional office or to the parliament and they think Here's what the people are crying out for and the good leaders. That's a leader leader listens So I talked to jimmy carr about comedy And he's sold out Stages worldwide on a tour being funny. That's hard. He said comedy is the most stand-up comedy Which is what I do in some real sense Real sense. It's a thing. I do that. It's most akin to what i'm doing on my book tours I would say it's the closest analog He said it's the most dialogical enterprise and I thought Why what do you mean? Because see it's just the monologue and it's a prepared monologue. I mean you have to Interact dynamically with the audience while you're telling your jokes and you got to get the timing, right? But you have a body of jokes He said well, here's how you prepare the jokes And i've been told this by other comedians You go to 50 clubs before you go on your tour And you got some new material and you think it's funny and you go into a club and You lay out your new material and people laugh at some of it And you pay attention To what they laugh at and what they don't laugh at So you subject yourself to the judgment of the crowd and you get rid of everything that isn't funny And if you do that enough, even if you're not that funny The crowd will tell you what's funny so you can imagine imagine you do 50 shows And each is an hour long and you collect two minutes of humor from each show So you throw away 90 you throw away Two hours more than 98 percent of it Collect two minutes per show So you're not very funny at all. You're like funny two percent of the time you aggregate that man. You're a scream So so that's what a leader does is that is what a leader does goes out and he aggregates the misery, you know And the hopes And then I do think that's revivify To someone who would otherwise be cynical and jaded because then the person can say to themselves Despite the inadequacies of the system and my inadequacies i'm i'm gathering up the misery and and the hope and i'm Bringing it forward where it can be giving it rest giving it a voice Giving it a voice. Yeah giving that's right giving it a voice. Can you actually take me through a day because this is fascinating? um through your comedy tour, uh What is a day in the life of jordan peterson look like? What which is this very interesting day? Let's look at the day when you have to speak preparing your mind Thinking of what you're going to talk about preparing yourself physically mentally to interact with the crowd And through the actual speaking, how do you adjust what you're thinking through and how do you come down from that? So you can start all again as a limited biological system Well, i'm usually up by seven and ready to go by 7 30 or 8 Coffee no, no steak and water How many times a day steak? All that's all I eat. How many times three or four depending on the day steak and water steak and sparkling water Yeah, so monastic asceticism man Well, I did the proper I I usually just once a day I did the the proper jordan peterson last night and just ate two steaks and how was that was wonderful Yeah, well if you have to only eat one thing You know could be worse. So anyways, i'm ready to go at eight because we're generally moving What does it moving mean? You're constantly flying somewhere Okay, and we usually use private flights now Because the commercial airlines aren't reliable enough and you cannot not make a venue, right? So that's rule number one on a tour You make the show Yeah, so everything and then number rule number two is anybody who causes any trouble on the tour is gone Because there is zero room for error now No, there's zero room for unnecessary unaddressed error. So because there's going to be errors the guys I have around me now If they make a mistake they fix it right away So and that's great. There's a lot of people relying on you to be there. So you have like like 4 000 people typically. Yeah, so so then i'm on the plane And i'm usually I usually write or often Because there's no room for error Because there's no Internet on the plane and and that's a good use of time. So i'm writing a new book So I write on the plane typing or handwriting typing Yeah typing and Then we land and we go to It's usually early afternoon by then we go to a hotel. It's usually a nice hotel. That's not corporate I don't really like corporate hotels my Secretary and my one of my logistics guys has got quite good at picking Kind of adventurous hotels boutique hotels are usually in the old parts of the city, especially in europe somewhere interesting And so we go there and then lunch usually And sometimes that's an air fryer and a steak in the hotel room and I leave a trail of air fryers behind me all across the world and then Tammy and I usually go out and have a walk or something and take a look at the city And then I have a rest for like an hour and a half or an hour half an hour Or an hour half an hour like a nap or just now I have to sleep for 20 minutes And that's about all I can sleep, but I need to do that in the late afternoon that refreshes your mind Yeah, that gives me that wakes me up again for the evening And then tam has to sleep longer. She's still recovering from her illness And so she has to sleep longer in the afternoon and that's absolutely necessary for both of us or things start to get frayed and so then We go to the venue and then I usually sit for an hour If i'm going to lecture i've been doing a lot of q a's and that's a little easier But if i'm going to lecture I have to sit for an hour And then I think okay What question am I trying to investigate I have to have that that's the point What mystery am I trying to? unravel, it's usually associated with one of the rules in my book because Technically, it's a book tour But each of those rules is an investigation into an ethic And each of them points to a deeper sort of mystery in some sense and there's no end to the amount it can be explored And so I have the question My question might be something like uh Put your Put your house in perfect order before you criticize the world. Okay. What does that mean? Exactly? Put what does house mean? What does put what does put mean that active verb? Verb, what does perfect and order mean? Why before you criticize the world? What does it mean to criticize? What does it mean to criticize the world? How can you do that properly or improperly? So I start to think about how to decompose the question and you start to think which of these Decompositions are important to really dig into. Yeah. Well, then they'll strike me. It's like, okay There's something there that that i've been maybe noodling around on that. I would like to investigate further then I think okay How can I approach this problem? I think well I have this story that I know I have this story and I have this story But I haven't juxtaposed them before and there's going to be some interesting interaction in the juxtaposition So I have the question and I kind of have a framework of interpretation And then I have some potential narrative places I can go and then I think okay I can go juggle that and see what happens and so then what I want to do is Concentrate on that process while attending to the audience to make sure that the words are landing And then see if I can delve into it deeply enough so that a narrative emerges Spontaneously with an ending now i'm sure you've experienced this in podcasts, right? Maybe i'm wrong, but my experience has been If I fall into the conversation And we know about the time frame There'll be a natural narrative arc And then so you'll kind of know when the midpoint is and you'll kind of see when you're reaching a conclusion And then if you really pay attention, you can see that's a good place to stop It's kind of you come to a point and You have to be alert and patient to see that And you have to be willing to be satisfied with where you've got to but if you do that, and then it's like a comedian making the punchline work, it's like I've got all these balls in the air And they're going somewhere and this is How they come together and people love that right to say oh this and this and this and this and this whack Together and that's an insight and it is very much like a punchline well, that's interesting because your mind actually some i'm fan of your podcast too and You are always driving towards that I would say for me in a podcast conversation. There's often a kind of Alice in Wonderland type of exploration down the rabbit hole man, and then you just a new thing pops up The more absurd the wilder the better conversations with elon are like this. Yeah, it's like Actually, the more you drive towards an arc the more uncomfortable you start to get in a fun absurd conversation because Oh, I i'm now one of the normies. No, I don't want that. I want to be I want I want the rabbit I want the crazy because it because it makes it more, uh, fun, but somehow Throughout it there is Wisdom you try to grasp at well such that there is a thread. Well, that's the thing man. You're following the thread Yeah, the thread's right. Well, that's right. You're that's what we're trying to do that thread That thread is the proper balance between structure and spontaneity and it manifests itself as the instinct of meaning And that's the logos in the dialogos and it really is the logos and god only knows what that means You know, I mean the the biblical claim is that logos is the fundamental principle of reality And I think that's true I actually think that's true Because I think that that meaning that guides you well, here's a way of thinking about i've been writing about this recently What's real? Matter it's like okay. That's one answer What's real? What matters is real? Because that's how you act Okay, so that's different than matter It's like okay What's the most real of what matters? How about pain? Why is it the most real try arguing it away? Good luck So pain is the fundamental reality All right Well, that's rough Doesn't that lead to nihilism and hopelessness? Yeah, doesn't it lead to a philosophy that's antithetical towards being the most fundamental reality is pain Yes Is there anything more fundamental than pain? Love Really if you're in pain Love and truth Love and truth That's what you got and you know If they're more powerful than pain maybe they're the most real things When you think about reality what is real that is the most real thing Well, it's a tough one, right? Because you have to Because if you're a scientist a materialist think well The matter is the most real it's like well, you don't know what the matter is Yeah, so and then when push comes to shove and it will You'll find out what's most real. Yeah I I feel like this is missing Physical reality is is missing some of the things So, of course pain has a biological component and all those kinds of things but it's missing something deep about the human condition that At least the modern science is not able to Describe but is it is reaching towards that? Yeah, it is the reason It one one way to describe it as you're describing is the reason is reaching it is because underneath of science is this assumption that There's a deep logos Thing to this whole thing we're trying to do. Well, you know, there's two traditions right in some sense. There's two logos traditions There's the the Greek rational Enlightenment tradition that's a logos tradition and it insists that there's a logos in nature and that Science is the way to approach it and then there's a judeo-christian logos, which is more embodied and more spiritual and I would say the West is actually an attempt to unite those two and It's the proper attempt to unite those two Because they need to be united And I see the Union coming in your tradition And I see the Union coming in your terms, you know, I talked to friends to all for example about the animating principle of chimpanzee sovereignty And that's pretty close biologically. Is it power? Because that's the claim even from the biologists often the most dominant chimp has the best reproductive success It's like Oh, yeah Dominant. Hey, you mean using compulsion? Okay. Let's look Are the chimps who use compulsion? the most successful and the answer is Sporadically and rarely and for short well that's sporadically for short periods of time why? Because they meet an unpleasant end the subordinates over whom they exercise arbitrary control Wait for a weak moment and then tear them into shreds right every dictators terror and For good reason and the wall has showed that the alpha chimps the males who do have preferential mating access often are often and reliably the best peacemakers and the most reciprocal and so even among chimps the principle of sovereignty is something like iterative iterated reciprocity and That's a way better principle than Power and it's something like I've been thinking. What's the antithesis of the spirit of power? I think it's the spirit of play And you know you I don't know what you think about that But wouldn't you have a good podcast conversation you already described it in some sense as play It's like there's a structure right because it's an ordered conversation But you want there to be play in the system And if you get that right, then it's really engaging and then it seems to have its own narrative arc I'm not trying to impose that even though that's another thing. I don't do I didn't come to this conversation at all Thinking here's what I want out of a conversation with Lex Friedman like instrumentally. I thought I'll go talk to Lex why I? Like his podcasts He's doing something right. I don't know what it is. He asks interesting questions. I'll go have a conversation with him Where's it gonna go? wherever it goes Embracing the spirit of play so what you have this when you're lecturing You're going in front of the crowd. Yeah, you thought of a question. Yeah You get on the stage first of all are you nervous at all? I'm very nervous when I'm sitting down Thinking through the structure Initially, which is why my wife and I have been doing Q&A's and that's easier on me. Yeah It's the it's the the way comedians are nervous like Joe Rogan just did his special So this weekend and so he now has to sit Nervously like a comedian does which is like I have no material now, right? I have to start when I was doing the lectures constantly instead of the Q&A's Basically what I was doing was writing a whole book chapter every night And you know now that's a bit of an exaggeration because I would return to themes that I had developed But it's not really an exaggeration because I didn't ever just go over wrote material ever So it was it's very demanding and that parts nerve-wracking because I sit down. It's an hour before the show and I think Can I put can I do this and you know, the answer is what you did it a thousand times But that's not this time. Yeah, it's like can I come up with a question? Can I think through the structure? Can I pull off the? spontaneous Narrative can I pull it together and the answer is I don't know And so then I get it together in my mind. I think and that's hard. It takes effort and it's nerve-wracking Okay, I got it. But then there's the moment you go out on stage and you think Well, I know I had it but can I do it no notes and Then the question is well, you're gonna find out well you do it. And so then I go out on stage and I don't talk to the audience. I talked to one person at a time and You can talk to one person, you know, cuz you know how to do that So I talked to a person and not too long because I don't want to make them too nervous and then Someone else and someone else and then I'm in contact with the audience And then I can tell if the words are landing and I listen is like are they rustling around? Are they dead quiet because they want dead quiet you yourself? I see good. That's what focus sounds like they you're you're in it together then you bet well And I also here's a good rule if you're learning to speak publicly. I never say a word Till everyone is 100% quiet and that's it's a great way to start a talk because you're setting the frame a and if the frame is We'll all talk while you're talking the message is well, you can talk. This is a place where everybody can talk It's like no, it's not This is a place where people paid to hear me talk So I'm not going to talk till everyone's listening. And so then you get that stillness and then you just wait because that stillness turns into an Expectation and then it comes turns into a kind of nervous expectations like what the hell is he doing? It's not manipulative It's a sense of timing. It's like just when that's right. You think okay now it's time to start Well that nervous the interesting thing about that nervous expectation is from an audience perspective. We're in it together Yeah, I mean there is into that silence. There's a togetherness to it. Of course. It's the union of everyone's attention. Yeah Yeah, and that's and that's a great thing. I mean you love that at a concert when everyone it's not silence then But when everyone's attention is unified and everyone's moving in unison, it's like we're all worshipping the same thing Right is when that would be the point of the conversation the point of the lecture and the worship is the direction of attention Towards it and it's you it's communion because everyone's doing it at the same time. And so I mean, there's not much difference between lecture theater and a church in that regard, right? It's the same fundamental layout and structure And they're very integrally associated with one another one really grew out of the other the lecture theater grew out of the church So it's it's perfectly reasonable to be thinking about it in those terms And so and then okay, so after the lecture we play a piece of music That is a piece of music that I've been producing with some musicians and I've been doing it with some other musicians It's a piece of music that I've been producing with some musicians for a couple of books. I'm going to release in the fall Terrible books ABC of childhood tragedy. They're called dark dark books dark and comical books Terrible books heartbreaking illustrations We set them to music and so we play a piece from that and then afterwards I usually meet about 150 people To have photographs and so each of those is a little is there a little sparkle of human connection the a lot A lot, it's it's very intense 10 seconds with every person you think how can 10 seconds be intense? It's like Pay enough attention it gets intense real quick. Does it break your heart to say goodbye so many times It's like being at a in a wedding lineup, you know at a wedding with that you want to be at And everybody's dressed up and that's so weird Hey, because I bought these expensive suits when I went on tour and it broke my heart because I spent so much money on them I thought god that's completely unconscionable. I thought no way man Yeah, I'm in this 100% and so I'm gonna dress with respect and Like 60% of the audience comes in two or three piece suits, they're all dressed up Then there's this line to greet me and they're all happy to see me. That's not so hard to take you know, although it is in a sense right because Normal interactions are pretty shallow and you think I don't want shallow interactions like yes, you do most of the time Yeah, it's intense. It's very intense and I don't know if you've had a taste of this no doubt because people recognize I also have When a person recognizes me and they come with the love and they're often brilliant people One of the thoughts I have to deal with one of the dragons in my own mind is You know thinking that I don't deserve that kind of attention. And so you probably don't Right, I don't So it's a burden in that I have to step up to be the kind of person that Deserves that not deserves that but in part deserves that kind of attention and that's like holy shit it's crucially important too because if someone comes up to you in an airport and they know who you are and they're Brave enough to admire you or who you are attempting to be and you Make a mistake They will never forget it. Yeah, so it's a high-stakes enterprise and the flip side of that especially with young people a Few words you can say it can change the direction of their life one way or another And so I really have to watch this too in airports. I do not like airports I do not like the creeping totalitarianism in airports. They've always bothered me. Yes, they really bother me And I'm an unpleasant travel companion for my wife sometimes because of that although I think we've worked that out Thank God because we're doing a lot of traveling but most of the security guards and And the border personnel all those people they know me and as a general rule, they're positively predisposed to me And so if I'm peevish or irritable Yeah, then Well, that's not good. It's not good And so that's a tight rope to walk to because I do not like that creeping totalitarianism, but by the same token You know if you're just one of the crowd just You know sometimes you it's good just to be one of the crowd and then you're a little irritable and people can just brush that off but if you're someone they have dared to open their heart to because that's what admiration is and then you're And you betray that Then that's a real they'll never forget it and then they'll tell everyone too so It takes a lot of alertness and so Tammy and our life has got complicated because in Toronto, for example We can't really just go for a walk It's always a high drama production because always people come up and they have some Heart-rending story to tell and I'm not being cynical about that. Yes It's a hard thing to Bear because people don't do that. They don't just open themselves up to you like that and share the tragedy of their life But that's an everyday occurrence and so when we go up to our cottage which is out of the city it's a relief, you know because As wonderful as that is like it's a weird I have a weird life because everywhere I go it's very weird It's like I'm surrounded by old friends because I walk down the street in any city now virtually and people say hello Dr. Peterson so nice to see you or they say better things than that very rarely bad things one One experience in 5,000 maybe very rare. Although I've been to a lot of places Five thousand maybe very rare, although you don't forget those either, but it's very it's very strange So and there's an intimacy they know you well and and because they leap into Uh, they avoid the small talk often they leap into familiarity It really is like it's an old friend and it feels like that for me personally the experience is the goodbye hurts because um You know, there's a sense where you're never gonna see that friend again, right? Yeah, that's a strange thing. So to me a lot of the A lot of it just feels like goodbyes. Mm-hmm And one it is You're right about that. And I mean that's I suppose in some sense part of the pain of opening yourself up to people because they also Tammy has been struck particularly. She said I really never knew what men were like. I said, what do you mean? She said I cannot believe how polite The men are when they come and talk to you because it's always the same the pattern is very similar The person comes up. They're mostly men not always but mostly And they're tentative and they're very polite very very polite and they say I hope I'm not bothering you Do you mind, you know, do you mind that I say that they're not bothering me? And I'm doing everything I can to not be the guy who's bothered by that. It's like who do you think you are? Yeah Yes, you're the guy that What is famous and now is above that? Yeah You don't want to be that guy. Yeah So you want to be grateful all the time when people open up like that and and so you got to be alert and on point to do that properly like right away because For these for you, it's five seconds or ten seconds or twenty seconds, whatever it is, but for them They've opened up and so you can really nail them if you're foolish After the 150 people, how do you come down from that? How do you how do you find yourself again? Well, that was when I got caught in Twitter traps you know because I'm so burnt out by then from the from the talk and the And the audience interactions and the whole day because it's a new city. It's a new hotel. It's it's a new 5,000 people It's a new book chapter. It's a whole new horizon of ideas and it's off to another city the next day I'm so burnt out by then that I'm not as good at Controlling my impulses as I might be and Twitter was a real catastrophe for that because it would hook me and then I couldn't Like I used to when I was working on my book a lot. I used to call Tammy I'd say look you have to come and get me. I can't stop. I can't stop I can't stop I got tired and then I kind of because it's part of a kind of hype hypomanic focus I couldn't quit. It's like oh no, I I'm still writing. I need to get away from this, but I couldn't stop and so It's better to to read something book fiction nonfiction fiction Stephen King I was reading a lot of Stephen King when I was on tour last time. That was good I like Stephen King the great narratives great and great characterization, you know, so and There's a familiarity about Stephen King's Writing to that. It's he writes about people, you know, and so I really found that a relief and So that was useful and that in order to tolerate this let's say or to be able to sustain it well, let's take a lot of negotiation on the part of Tammy and I because She's dragged into this and you know her life is part of this whatever this is and she's had to find her way and has for example now she has a different hotel room than me when we travel and She she found that she didn't want to be on the tour this spring and I was ill again for part of it not made it complicated, but She went away back home and she came back and she said and she was nervous But she said I think I need my own room and part of me was not happy with that It's like what do you mean you need you're like, are we not married anymore? It's like you need your own room and She said well, you know I can't she has to do exercises because she was really sick and she has to keep herself in shape and and She has to have some time to do that She does a lot of prayer and meditation and she needs the time and she has her own podcast Which is going quite well and she needs the time and and I trust her and she said well I need this in order to continue and I thought well, okay I give you need this in order to continue Yes, because she went away and didn't say well, I I don't want to be on the tour I don't want to do this anymore. She went away and prayed. Let's say how can I continue to do this? and that was the answer and so she has her own hotel room and That was a really good decision on her part and she's very good and getting better all the time at Figuring out what has to happen for her to make this sustainable and all that's been is a plus because I Don't want to travel without her and and I don't want her life to be miserable and I want her to be fully on board And so she has to be properly selfish Like everyone does in a relationship. Yeah, well, you have to not just that yet this is a weird thing that you're doing and you have to Both you and her have to figure out how to like how to manage this very intense intellectual Well, there's another element to it too that I didn't tell you about so that was a typical day But it's missing a big component because usually we also have a dinner with like 30 Cultural representatives I suppose 10 to 30 from each country because I have a network of people who have networks Who are setting me up with key decision makers in each country? And so then we have like an hour and a half of that now sometimes that's on a day when I don't have a talk if we but sometimes the talks are back-to-back and so she also has to Manage that and to be gracious and and then people are showing us exciting things and tours in the cities and which is all Like it's a surfeit of wonderful. Yes, exactly But it's still yeah, you have to be there for you have to be present for it mentally Yeah as a curious mind as an intellectual mind. How do you how do you get to sleep? Fortunately, that is almost never a problem even when I was unbelievably ill for about three years I Thought about that a lot too, you know that I didn't do a really good job of explaining that while I was ill because It it appeared in some sense that the reason I was ill was because I was taking benzodiazepines But that isn't why I was ill and then I took them and very low dose and I took that for a long time And it helped whatever was wrong with me and it looks like it was an allergy or maybe multiple allergies and then That stopped working And so I took a little bit more for about a month and that made it way worse and so then I cut back a lot and then Then things really got out of hand. And so so there was a deeper thing. Oh, yeah Oh, yeah, what can you put me large, too? Well, I had a lot of immune my daughter as everyone knows has a very reactive immune system and Tammy has three immunological conditions each of them quite serious and I had psoriasis and peripheral uveitis, which is an autoimmune condition and a little pisher yada and And chronic gum disease all of which appeared to be allergy related and so Michaela seems to have got all of that and So that and that I think was at the bottom of because I also had this proclivity to depression That was part of my family history But I think that was all immunological as far as I can tell so one of the things that's happened to me. I Always noticed I really couldn't breathe like I could breathe about 1 5th as much as I sometimes could and and so I was always short of breath and it looks like what that was perhaps was I Was always on the border of an anaphylactic reaction, which is not pleasant And that's hyper sympathetic activation. No parasympathetic activation. I couldn't relax at all That's a immunological response allergic response. Yeah so anyways That was what seemed now this I don't like to talk about this much because it's so bloody radical and you know I don't like to propagate it, but this diet seems to have stopped all of that I don't have psoriasis all of the patches have gone. Yeah, my grump gum disease, which is incurable I had multiple surgeries to deal with it is completely gone took three years my right eye, which was quite cloudy It's cleared up completely What else has changed well, I lost 50 pounds and And like instantly. Yeah, well, I should mention that I Too am NOT a deep investigator of nutritional science I have my skepticism towards the degree to which it is currently is the science because like a lot of complex systems it's very is full of mystery and full of profiteers the people that profit of different kinds of diets But I should say for me personally does seem that I feel by far the best when I eat only meat It's very interesting and I discovered that it's a long time ago. First of all, how do you discover it? So by The discovery went like this. I started listening to ultra marathon runners about 15 years ago and they started talking about fat Adapted running So I first discovered that I don't have to run super fast to enjoy running And in fact, I really enjoy running at a slower pace Mm-hmm. So that was like step one is like, oh, okay if I maintain this is something called the math rule Which is the pretty low heart rate if I maintain that you can actually get pretty fast While maintaining a pretty slow average speed in general. Anyway, they fuel themselves on low carb diets So I got into that on top of that. I also they also fast often so I discovered how incredible my mind feels When fasted, you know people call it intermittent fasting, but well, that's an optimization of death Hey because you're when you fast your body Logically and obviously if you think about it biologically is well, what is your body scavenge first? Well damaged tissue so the and I know the literature on fasting to some degree and it's it's very compelling literature if you if you starve dogs down I think it's 20% below rats to below their optimal body weight. They live 30% longer Yeah, that's a lot 30% like it's like 30% Yeah. Yeah 30% Well, there is aspect to a lot of these things that make me nervous because I always feel like there's no free lunch that I'm gonna pay for it somehow, but there's a focus that I am able to attain when I fast Especially when I eat once a day My mind is almost like nervously focused. It's almost like an anxiety But a positive one or one that I can channel into just like an excitement. You know, I wonder how much of that's associated with well imagine that That signifies lack of food, which not that hard to imagine Well, maybe you should be a lot more alert in that situation, right? Biologically speaking because you're in hunting mode Let's say, you know, not desperate but in hunting mode and God only knows Maybe human beings should be in hunting mode all the time often, but that we don't know that. So I wonder if it has A stress on the system that long-term causes the system to doesn't it doesn't look like it Yeah It seems on the in case of fasting not and then on top of that I discovered that the thing I enjoy I just don't enjoy eating fat as much So I love eating meat and when you talk about low-carb diet So I just discovered through that process if somewhat fatty meat, but just me I just feel a lot of the things that make me feel weird about food like a little groggy or like full or just whatever The aspects of food that I don't enjoy they're not there with meat and I'm still able to enjoy company and when I eat once a day and Eat meat at least in Texas You could still have all the merriment. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you have dinner with friends now I don't do the this, you know, you have a very serious thing that There's health benefits that you are very serious about for me I could still drink whiskey I'll still do the things that add a little bit of Spice spice into the thing. Yeah. Now when you completely remove the spice it does become more difficult Yeah, it's more difficult socially and Tammy seems to only be able to eat lamb although she might be able to eat non-aged beef and That makes traveling complicated too, right because well for obvious reasons. It's like really that's all you can eat Yeah, well say la vie and maybe that's a form of craziness but If we're gonna return to actually the thing you were talking about When you're thinking about a question before the lecture, yeah, let me ask you about thinking in general This is something maybe that you and Jim Keller think a lot about is thinking how to think How do you think through an idea? Well, first of all, I I think okay That's a really good question We tried to work that out with this essay app that my son and I have developed because if you're gonna write the first Question is well, what should I write about? What's the name of the app essay dot app? and Well, the first question is Well, what bugs you? What's bugging you? This is such a cool thing. It's like where is my destiny? Well, what bothers you well, that's where your destiny is your destiny is to be found Well, that's where your destiny is your destiny is to be found in what bothers you Why did those things bother you? There's a lot of things you could be bothered by Like a million things man, but some things grip you They bug you and they might make you resentful and bitter because they bug you so much like they're your things man. They've got you so then I look for a question that I would like the answer to That I don't and I would really like the answer to it So I don't assume I already have the answer because I would actually really like to have the answer So if I could get a better answer Great, and so that's the first thing and that's like a prayer. It's like okay Here's a mystery I would like to Delve into it further Well, so that's humility. It's like here's a mystery which means I don't know I would like to delve into it further which means I don't know enough already and then then comes the revelation it's like Well, what's a revelation? Well, if you ask yourself a question It's a real question Do you get an answer or not? An answer is well, yeah thoughts start to appear in your head So from somewhere that's right from somewhere. Where do they come from? Do you have a sense? Depends on what you're aiming at Depends on the question. Well, no, no, it does to some degree It depends it depends on your intent. So imagine that your intent is to make things better Then maybe they come from the place that's designed to make things better. Maybe your intent is to make things worse Then they come from hell And you think not really it's like you're so sure about that. Are you is your intent conscious? Like are you able? It's it's conscious and habitual right because as you practice on the internet Consciously it becomes habitual, but it's conscious. It's like I when I sit down Before I do a lecture I think okay. What's the goal here to do the best job? I can To what end well people are coming here Not for political issues. They're coming here because they're trying to make their lives better Okay. So what are we doing? We're conducting a joint investigation into the nature of that which makes life better Okay, what's my role to do as good a job about that? As possible what state of mind do I have to be in am I annoyed about the theater? Or am I do am I clued in and thrilled that 4 000 people have showed up at Substantial expense and trouble to come and listen to me talk And if i'm not in that state of mind, I think well Maybe I need something to eat or maybe I need to talk to someone because That ingratitude is no place to start. It's like I should be thrilled to be there obviously And so that that orientation has to be there and then I is it conscious all this is conscious What am I serving the highest good I can conceptualize? What is that? I have some sense, but I don't know it in the final analysis Which is why the investigation is being conducted who's doing it me? Whoever i'm communing with and the audience And so I want I try to get myself and I chase everybody away for that It's like I have to do that by myself. Are you writing stuff down? Yes at that point I make no I just make point notes and it's usually about maybe 30 notes But then I on stage I never refer to them and I often don't even use the structure that I laid out Kind of an interesting thing from where do powerful phrases come from? Do you have a devil? Do you try to encapsulate an idea into a sentence or two? Well, I when I talk I practice this since when I talk and I practice this since consciously since 1985 I try to feel and see If the words are stepping stones or foundation stones, right? It's like is this solid is this word solid is this phrase solid is this sentence solid like it's a real sense of Fundamental foundation under each word and I suppose people ask me if I pray And I would say I pray before every word Well when you're when you're asking questions like you're very clear headed and present in your Ability to ask questions and inquire. So how do you do that? So first of all I'm worried that My mind easily gets trapped When I step on a word and I know it's unstable You kind of realize that you don't really know the definitions of many words you use and that can be Debilitating So I kind of try to be more carefree about the words I use Because otherwise you get trapped. You don't want to be obsessional Like literally my mind halfway through the sentence will think well, what is the word sentence mean? Right? Right, right Well, you know everything else just explodes. You're a big picture idea explodes and you lost yourself in the minutiae. Well neurologically, there's a production center and an editing center and Those can be separately affected by strokes. And so Often when people are writing or talking they try to activate both at the same time And that's so people will try to write an essay and get every sentence right in the first draft. That's a big mistake And so then you might say well, how can you be careful with your words but carefree and the answer is Orient yourself properly right while in the conversation we're having you you have an orientation structure. You want to Be prepared you want to be attentive Then you want to have an interesting conversation And you want to have the kind of interesting conversation that other people Want to listen to that will be good for them in some manner Okay, so that's pretty good frame and and then you kind of scour your heart and you think is that really what you want? Are you after fame or after notoriety? Are you after money? I'm not saying any of those things are necessarily bad but They're not optimal, especially if you're not willing to admit them, right and so they can contaminate you So you want to be decontaminated? So you have the right trip. Let's say and And so you have to put yourself that's a meditative practice. You have to put yourself in the right receptive position With the right goal in mind then you can And I think you can get better and better at this then you can trust What's going to happen? You know for so for example before I came here I I mean, I presume you have a reason for doing the podcast with me. What's the reason? I mean we wanted to talk for a long time. Yeah, so the reason is evolved The one of the reasons is I've listened to you For quite a long time. So you've become a one-way friend And I have many many friends Some of my best friends don't even know I exist. So that I'm a big fan of podcasts and audiobooks Actually, most of my friends are dead. Yeah, right The writers the definition of a reader A lot of dead great dead friends. So I wanted I wanted to meet this one-way friend I suppose didn't have a conversation and then there's this kind of Puzzle that I'm trying to solve and I'm trying to figure out what's going on And this kind of puzzle that I've been longing to solve the same reason I went to Ukraine Of asking this question of myself. Uh, who am I? And what was this part of the world? What is this thing that happened in the 20th century? That I lost so much of my family there and I feel so much of my family is defined by that place Now that place includes the soviet union it includes It includes russia and ukraine includes nazi. Germany includes these big powerful leaders and huge millions of people that were lost in the beauty the power of the dream, but were also uh the torture That's uh was forced onto them through different governmental Institutions and you are somebody that seemed from some angle to Also be drawn to try to understand What was that and not in some sort of historical sense, but in a deeply psychological human sense What is that? Will it repeat again? In what way is it repeating again? And how can we stop it? And how can we stop it? And so that's the crucial issue I felt I wanted to from a very different backgrounds Different backgrounds, uh, pull at the thread of that curiosity, you know an engineer you're a psychologist both lost in that curiosity and uh both wear suits And uh a talk with various levels of eloquence, um about sort of um The shadows that these that that history, uh uh cast on us And so that that was one and also the psychology. I wanted to be a psychiatrist for a long time. I was uh I was fascinated by the human mind and until I discovered artificial intelligence the fact that I could program and make a robot move and Until I discovered that magic I thought I wanted to understand the human mind by being psychiatrist by talking to people by Uh through to talk therapy psychotherapy now You got the best of both worlds because you get to talk to people and you get build robots Yeah, I mean, but the dream ultimately is the robot That I felt like by building the thinking you start to try to understand it. That's one way I mean, we're all we all have different skills and proclivities. So like my particular one is um has to do with Uh, I learned by building yeah, I I think through a thing by building it And programming is a wonderful thing because it allows you to like build a little toy example So in the same way, you can do a little thought experiment Uh programming allows you to create a thought experiment in action. It can move it can live it can And then you could ask questions of it. So all of those Because of my interest in Freud and Jung Because of my interest in Freud and Jung you're also in different ways have have delved deeply into um into humanity the human psyche through the perspective of those of those Psychologists so for all those reasons, I thought our paths are crossed Yeah, so that well, so that's quite a frame for a discussion, right? You had all sorts of reasons and then you think well, are you just letting the conversation go where it will it's like well Not exactly You spent all this time It's not like this came about by accident this conversation you spent all this time framing it and so all of that provides the implicit substructure for the play in the conversation and If you have that implicit, here's another way. This is very much worth knowing is If you get the implicit structure of perception, right everything becomes a game And not only that a game you want to play and maybe in the final analysis a game you'd want to play forever so You know, that's obviously a distant beckoning ideal but We know in games need rules Or there's no play Is there advice you can give? You can give uh now that we know the frame to give to me lex about how to uh, do this podcast better how to Think About this world how to be a good engineer How to uh be a good human being from what you know, take your preoccupation with suffering seriously It's a serious business Right and that's part of that to circle back to the beginning let's say That's that willingness to gaze into the abyss, which is obviously what you were doing when you went to ukraine it's like It's gazing into the abyss that makes you better The thing is and this is maybe where niches ideas not as differentiated as it became Sometimes your gaze can be forcefully directed towards the abyss And then you're traumatized If it's involuntary and accidental it can kill you The more it's voluntary The more transformative it is and that's part of that idea about facing death and hell It's like can you tolerate death and hell and the answer is this terrible answer is Yes to the degree that you're willing to do it Voluntarily and then you might ask well Why should I have to subject myself to death and hell i'm innocent? and then the answer to that is Even the innocent must be voluntarily sacrificed to the highest good That's such an interesting distinction Voluntary suffering voluntary. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's why the central christian doctrine is Pick up your cross and follow me And i'm speaking Not in religious terms saying that i'm just speaking as a psychologist It's like one of the things we've learned in the last hundred years is voluntary exposure to that which freezes and terrifies you in measured proportions is curative so a form of At least in part involuntary sufferings depression Depression Do you have advice for people on how to find a way out You're a man who has suffered in this way perhaps continue to suffer in this way, how do you find a way out? The first thing I do as a clinician if someone comes to me and says they're depressed is ask myself a question Well, what does this person mean by that? So I have to find out like because maybe they're not depressed Maybe they're hyper anxious or maybe they're obsessional like there's various forms of Powerful negative emotion so they need to be differentiated. But then the next question you have to ask is well Are you depressed? Or do you have a terrible life? Or is it some combination of the two? So if you're depressed As far as I can tell You don't have a terrible life You have friends you have family you have an intimate relationship. You have a job or a career You're about as educated as you should be given your intelligence use your time outside of work wisely You're not beholden to alcohol or other temptations You're engaged in the community in some Fundamental sense and all that's working Now if you have all that and you're feeling really awful You're either ill or you're depressed and so then Sometimes there's a biochemical route to that treatment of that My experience has been as a clinician is if you're depressed, but you have a life and you take an antidepressant It will probably help you a lot Now, maybe you're not depressed Exactly. You just have a terrible life What does that look like? You have no relationship your family's a mess You've got no friends. You've got no plan. You've got no job You use your time outside of work. Not only badly, but destructively you have a drug or alcohol habit or some other vice pornography addiction You are completely unengaged in the surrounding community. You have no scaffolding whatsoever To support you in your current mode of being or you move forward and then As a therapist, well you do two things. Well if it's depression Per se well, like I said, there's sometimes a biochemical route a nutritional route. There's ways that can be addressed It's probably physiological if you're at least in part if you're depressed, but you have an okay life. Sometimes it's conceptual You can turn to dreams sometimes to help people because dreams contain the seeds of the potential future And if your person is a real good dreamer and you can analyze dreams that can be really helpful But that seems to be only true for more creative people And for the people who just have a terrible life, it's like okay, you have a terrible life well Let's pick a front How about you need how about you need a friend like one sort of friend? Do you know how to shake hands and introduce yourself? I'll have the person show me So let's do it for a sec. So Like this hi, I'm Jordan, right and people don't know how to do that And then they can't even get the ball rolling for the listener. Jordan just gave me a firm handshake Yeah, as opposed to a dead fish You know and and there's these elementary social skills that Hypothetically if you were well cared for you learned when you were like three and sometimes people have I had lots of clients To whom no one ever paid any attention To whom no one ever paid any attention and they needed like 10 000 hours of attention and some of that was just listening because they had 10 000 hours of conversations they never had with anyone and they were all tangled up in their head and they had to just One client in particular. I worked with this person for 15 years and What She wanted from me was for me just to shut the hell up for 50 minutes, which is very hard for me and to just Tell me what had happened to her and then what happened at the end of the conversation then I could Discuss a bit with her And then as we we progressed through the years the amount of time that we spent in discussion increased in proportion In this sessions until by the time we stopped seeing each other when my clinical practice collapsed We were talking about 80 percent of the time but she literally she'd never been attended to properly ever And so she was an uncarved block in the daoist sense, right? She hadn't been subjected to those flaming swords that separated the wheat from the chaff and so You can do that in therapy if you're listening and you're depressed I would say if you can't Find a therapist and that's getting harder and harder because it's actually become illegal to be a therapist now because you have to agree with Your clients which is a terrible thing to do with them Just like it's terrible just to arbitrarily oppose them you could do the Self-authoring program online because it helps you write an autobiography And so if you have memories that are more than 18 months old that bother you when you think them up Part of you is locked inside that an undeveloped part of you is still Trapped in that that's a metaphorical way of thinking about that's why it still has emotional significance So you can write about your past experiences But I would say wait for at least 18 months if something bad has happened to you Because otherwise you just hurt yourself again by encountering it You can bring yourself up to date with an autobiography. There's an analysis of faults and virtues. That's the present authoring and then there's Guided writing exercise that helps you make a future plan that's Young men who do that could go to college young men who do that 90 minutes just the future authoring 90 minutes They're 50% less likely to drop out. That's all it takes So sometimes depression is this heavy cloud That makes it hard to even make a single step towards it or you said isolate Make a friend. Oh man, sometimes the first step is extremely difficult. Oh my god Sometimes it's it's way worse than that. Like I had clients who were so depressed. They literally couldn't get out of bed So what's their first step? It's like Can you sit up? once today no Can you prop yourself up on your elbows once today like you just You scale back the dragon Till you find one that's conquerable that moves you forward. There's a there's a rubric for life Scale back the dragons till you find one conquerable and it'll give you a little bit of goal Commensurate with the struggle but the plus side of that because that's you think that god that's depressing you mean I have to start by sitting up While you do if you can't sit up But the the plus side of that is it's the Pareto distribution issue is that aggregates exponentially increase and Failures do too by the way, but aggregates exponentially increase So once you start the ball rolling it can get zipping along pretty good this person that I talked about Was incapable of sitting with me in a cafe when we first met just talking even though I was Her therapist but by the end she was doing stand-up comedy so You know it took years but Still most people won't do stand-up comedy. That's that's quite the bloody achievement. She she would read her poetry on stage, too So for someone who was petrified into paralysis by social anxiety And who had to start very small It was a hell of an accomplishment Yeah, it all starts with one step. Do you have advice for young people? In high school you've given a lot of people look up to you for advice for strength for strength to Search for themselves to find themselves Take on some responsibility Do something for other people You're doing something for yourself while you're doing that even if you don't know it for sure because you're a community across time Find something to serve Somebody to help someone to help a job to find a job do your best with the customers Don't be above your job. You're gonna get an entry-level job when you're a kid Well, what else would you want you want to be the boss? What do you know? You don't know anything You could be the boss of your job You know if you're working in a grocery store, you're working in a convenience store assuming you're not working for terrified tyrants You can be nice to the customers. You can develop your social skills You can learn how to handle boss employee relationship You can be there 15 minutes early and leave 15 minutes late Like you can learn in an entry-level job man And i'll tell you if you take an entry-level job and you learn and it's a reasonably decent place You will not be in an entry-level job for long because everyone who's competent is desperate for competent people And if you go and show up and you show up and you show up and you show up and you show up And if you go and show yourself as competent, there'll be a trial period But if you go show yourself as competent all sorts of doors, you didn't even know were there will start opening like mad So you strive for competence? For craftsmanship. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah for discipline, you know, I mean I I said in one of the chapters in my books is is focused on putting your house in order It's like well, how do you start? Make your bed You know I it actually took me quite a long time in my life before I made my bed regularly in the morning Most of my life was in pretty good order, but that was one thing I didn't have in order My clothes in my closet as well. All that's in order. Not all of it. I'm cleaning out some drawers right now, but Look around and see what bugs you in your room. Just look It's like okay. I'm in my room. Do I like this room? No, it bugs me. Okay Why well the paint's peeling there and it's dusty there and the carpet's dirty and that? Corner is kind of ugly and the light there isn't very good and my clothes closet's a mess So I don't even like to open it. Um, okay, that's a lot of problems That sucks. That's a lot of opportunity Pick something and fix it Something that bugs you. Yeah, but not too much. So the rule is Pick something you know would make pick a problem Pick a solution to it that you know wouldn't help That you could do That you would do So you have to negotiate with yourself. It's like well, I won't clean up this room. How do you know? I've been in here for 10 years and I've never cleaned it up It's like well, obviously that's too big a dragon for you. Would you clean one drawer? Find out And so imagine now you want to be happy when you open that drawer and you think well, that's stupid. It's like is it? Maybe it's your sock drawer, which I cleaned up in my room the other day, by the way, you're gonna you're gonna open that every morning That's like 30 seconds of your life every day Okay, so that's three minutes a Week, that's 12 minutes a month. That's two hours a year So maybe your life is made out of you got 16 hours a day Let's figure this out 5 12 in an hour 12 in an hour 144 in 12 hours. Yeah, let's say 200 205 minute chunks. That's your life Ladies and gentlemen, Jordan Peterson did just some math how many five minute chunks there are in a day And I got it. Pretty sure that's pretty accurate. It's approximately right so You got 205 minute chunks and they repeat a lot of them repeat So if you get every one of those right, they're trivial right who cares what my sock drawer looks like it's fair enough, man But that's your life The things you repeat every day the mundane things think I could get all those mundane things, right? That's the game rules. It's like now all the mundane is in place Now you can play because all the mundane is in place and this is actually true. So with children Imagine you want your children to play Well play is very fragile neurologically any competing motivation or emotion will suppress play So everything has to be in order Everything has to be a walled garden before the children will play That's a good way of thinking about it. So you put everything in order and you think oh my god Now i'm tyrannized by this order. It's like no you aren't not if it's voluntary And then the order is the precondition for the freedom And so then all of a sudden you get all these things in order. It's like oh look at this I've got some room to play here and then Then maybe you're not depressed Now it's not a good thing to be depressed. It's not a good thing to be depressed Maybe you're not depressed now. It's it's often not that simple. You know, it's not that simple Try putting your room in order perfect order. That's hard I mean, it's a really powerful way to think about those five minute chunks. Just get one of them right in a day Yeah, well if you do that for 200 days Your life is in order. Yeah You know, I thought I did that with my clients a lot So a lot of them would come home from work the guys say and and their wives would meet them at the door And it'd be a fight right away You know and it's a clash there because he comes home and he's tired and hungry and he's worked all day and he's hoping that You know, he gets welcomed when he comes back to the home But then the wife is at home and she's been with the kids all day and she's tired and hungry and she's hoping that when He comes home. He'll show her some appreciation for what's happened today And then they clash and then they both have problems to discuss because they've had their troubles during the day And so then every time they get together They are not like it's a bit of a fight for 20 minutes and then the whole evening is screwed And so then you think okay Here's the deal It's knock and the door will open. Okay, you get to pick how what happens when you come home But you have to figure out what it is. So now this is the deal You treat yourself properly You imagine coming home and it goes the way you want and need it to go Okay What does that look like? You get to have it but you have to know what it is. What does it look like? And you think okay. I want to come home. I want to be happy about coming home. I come home I open the door. I say hello, honey. I'm home My wife says hi. It's so nice to hear your voice. She comes up. She says Hi, dear. She gives you a hug. She says how was your day? And you say well, we'll sit and talk about that. How was your day? Well, we'll sit and talk about that. Do you need something to eat? probably Let's go sit and talk about our day. It's like that sounds pretty good. Okay That sounds pretty good might not be perfect. It sounds a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now So how about we go? Talk to we'll go talk to your wife say okay This is what's happening when I come home. I would like it to be better What would you like to have happen? If you could have what you wanted and so she sits down and she thinks okay if he comes home What do I want to have happen? And then now you got two visions and you say well, what would you like? And you listen and she says What would you like and you tell her and then you think okay now, how can we bring these visions together? So not only do we both get what we want, but because we've brought them together We even get more than we want. Well, who wouldn't agree to that unless they were aiming down And that's so exciting. It's not a compromise It's a union of ideals that's even makes a better ideal That's even makes a better ideal and then you get to come home and then then there's another rule that goes along with that which is Please dear have the grace To allow me to do this stupidly and badly. Well, I learned at least 20 times. Yeah And i'll give you the same leeway and then we'll practice stupidly for 20 times and we'll talk about it And then maybe we'll get it right for the next 10 000 times Yeah, right and you can do that with your whole you can do that with your whole life and you can do that with your Kids and you can do that with your family like it's not easy, but you can do it's a lot easier than the alternative Let me ask for some dating advice from jordan peterson. How do you find on that topic the love of your life? That's a good question I was asked that multiple times On my tour three times in a row in fact because we ask people to use this slido gadget That's a popular question to vary it always came up to the top and I got asked that Three times in a row and I didn't have a good answer and then I thought Why don't I have a good answer I thought oh I know why because that's a stupid question So so why yeah, why Why because it's it's putting the cart before the horse. Here's the right question How do I make myself into the perfect date You answer that question and you will not have any problem answering the previous question it's like What I want in a partner If I offered everything I could do a partner who would I be You work on that ask that question. Just ask just ask yourself. Okay I have to be The person that women would want Okay, what do they want Clean that's not a bad start Reasonably good physical shape so healthy Productive generous honest Willing to delay gratification so you dance with a woman it's like what's she doing? What are you two doing? Well, it's a patterned your there's patterns happening around you. That's the music patterns patterns of being that's the music Now, can you align yourself with the patterns of being gracefully? That's what she's checking out And then can you do that with her? And then can you do that in a playful and attentive manner? And keep your bloody hands to yourself for at least a minute And so can you dance in a playful manner? It's like you can go through this in your imagination And you know, you'll know, you know, and then you think well how far am I from those things? And the answer is usually man. It's pretty horrible abyss separating you from that ideal but the harder you work on Offering other people what they need and want The more people will love you and you'll get better And the more you work on what you want and what you don't want The more people will line up to play with you And so it's the wrong question. It's like how can I be the best partner possible? And then you think well if I do that people will just take advantage of me And that's the non-naive Objection, right because the naive person's saying well, i'll be good and everyone will treat me right. It's like The cynic says no i'll be good and someone will Take me out And that's the wrong question. And the answer is well You factor that in And that's why you're supposed to be What is it? As soft as a dove and as wise as a serpent. It's like I know you're full of snakes I know it Maybe I know it more than you do But we'll play anyways And that's the risk anyway, that's right voluntarily, right? It's like and what's so cool about that is that even though the person you're dealing with is full of snakes If you offer your hand in trust and it's real You will evoke the best in them. Yeah, and that's true. Even i've dealt with people who are pretty damn criminal and pretty psychopathic And sometimes dangerously so And you tread very lightly when you're dealing with someone like that, especially if they're intoxicated and even then your best bet is that Alert trust. It's the it's the only it's the fact the only thing I know that I had one client who was a paranoid. He was paranoid psychopath. That's a bad combination He was a bad guy man. He had like four restraining orders On him and restraining orders don't work on the sort of people that you put restraining orders on And he used to be harassed now and then by you know, a bureaucrat in a bank with with delusions of power And he would say to them he he used to kind of act this out to me when I was talking to him. He'd say I'm going to be your worst nightmare And he meant it. Yeah, and he would do it. He had this obsessional Psychopathic vengeance that was just like right there Paranoid to the hilt and paranoid people are hyper acute so they're watching you for any sign of deceit or manipulation and they're really good at it because like they're 100% that's what paranoia is it's 100% focus on that and Even under those circumstances if you step carefully enough you can Maybe you can avoid the axe. That's a good thing to know if you ever meet someone truly dangerous Absolutely, I believe in that that being fragile nevertheless Taking that leap of trust towards another person even when they're dangerous, especially when they're dangerous if you care If there's something there in those hills you want to find Then that's probably the only way you're going to find is taking that risk I have to ask you about gulag archipelago by solzhenitsyn That speak to this very point. There's so many layers to this book. We could talk about it forever I'm sure in many ways we are talking about it forever But there is sort of one of the themes Captured in a few ways that was described through the book is that line between good and evil that runs through every human being as he writes The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place Sometimes it is squeezed one way to exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish One in the same human being is at various ages under various circumstances a totally different human being At times he's close to being a devil at times to sainthood But his name doesn't change At times to sainthood but his name doesn't change And to that name we ascribe the whole lot Good and evil. What do you think about this line? What do you think about this thing where we talked about if you give somebody a chance? You actually bring out the best in them. What do you think about this other aspect? that throughout time That line shifts inside each person and you get to define that shift. What do you think about this line? Are we all capable of evil? Well, you know the cosmic drama that's satan versus christ It's like well, who's that about? If it's not about you I i'm speaking just as a psychologist or as a literary critic. Those are characters at least they're that Well, are they human characters? Well, obviously Well, are they archetypal human characters? Yes, what does that mean? Cosmically and ontologically. I don't know Is the world a story? Maybe but the way stories are often told is the characters embody. I know those are those are unsophisticated not great literature though It's very rare in great literature. What you have in great literature generally is the internal drama right in As the literature becomes more pop I would say The characters are more unitary. So there's a real bad guy and he's all bad and there's a real good guy and he's all good And that's not as interesting. It's not as sophisticated If when you reach dostoevskyan heights in in literary representation or shakespearean heights You can identify with the villain And that's that's when literature really reaches its pinnacle in some sense and also the characters change And also the characters change throughout they shift throughout they're unpredictable throughout I'm taking the speaking of russia more seriously recently and i've gotten to talk to translators of dostoevsky and tolstoy and Chekhov and those kinds of folks and you get the One of the mistakes that translators made with dostoevsky for the longest time Is they would? Quote unquote fix the chaotic mess that is dostoevsky because there was a sense like he was too rushed in his writing It seemed like there was tangents that had nothing to do with anything The characters were unpredictable and not inconsistent. There's parts of phrases that seem to be incomplete That kind of stuff and what they realized that is that's not that's actually crafted that way It's not it's you know It's like editing james joyce like finnegan's wake or something because it doesn't make any sense They realize that that is the magic of it that captures the humanity of these characters that they are unpredictable They change throughout time. There's a bunch of contradictions On which point I gotta ask is there a case to be made that brothers karamazov is the greatest book ever written? Yeah, there's a case to be made for that. I don't know. Is it better than crime and punishment? Yes. Yeah, you think so? Why do you i'm not arguing with it? Why do you think that? Uh, well, this is every book is a person some of my best friends and are inside that book Yeah, it's an amazing book. There's no doubt about it. Uh, I think it's some books are Defined by your personal relationship with them and that one was definitive and I almost graduated to that one because for the longest time The idiot was my favorite book of all Because I identified with the idea of the book Of all because I identified with the ideas represented by prince. Michigan. I also identified. Oh, that's interesting To prince michigan as a as a human being holy fool the fool because the world kind of my my whole life still kind of sees me saw me in my perception my narrow perception is kind of the fool and I Different from the interpretation that a lot of people take of this book I see him as a kind of hero to be definitely to be a naive uh quote unquote fool, but really just a naive optimist And naive in the best possible way. I do believe that that's childlike Yeah, childlike is a better so naive is usually seen as that's childish naive. Yeah, but childlike That's why no one enters the kingdom of heaven unless they become like a child That's prince. Michigan dostoevsky knew that so that's why you like the idiot. That's so interesting See, I think I like crime and punishment because while you identified with michigan I think I identified more with her skull Nicole because I was tempted by luciferian intellect, you know in in in the manner that In a in a manner very similar to the manner. He was tempted But I mean, I think I think you can make a case that the brothers karamazov is Dostoevsky's crowning achievement Well, that's something man. All right, he ruined literature for me Because everything else just felled in sip it afterwards not everything Not everything. I I found some books that In my experience hit that pinnacle, um the master and margarita That's a deadly book. I read that I think four times and I still there's still it's unbelievably deep Uh, there's a nichols kazanskis greek writer some of his books are His writing is amazing as well. Did you ever connect with the literary like existentialist camus? uh, or people like herman hesse or or even kofka Did you ever connect with those to the same degree? Yeah to the same enough to be an influence You know you have to be deaf in some fundamental sense not to encounters a great dead friend and fail to learn No, and and I mean I tried to separate the wheat from the chaff when I read You know and I read all the great clinicians all of them perhaps not Those who are foremost in the pantheon And I tried to pull out what I could and that was a lot. I learned a lot from freud I learned a lot from rogers and I learned a lot from well from dostoevsky and nicha I'm going to do a course on dostoevsky and nicha for this peterson academy. This is coming up in january Oh, that'll be them together. I'm really looking forward to it. You're weaving I hadn't thought about doing them together. Oh, that'd be fun. That's a good idea. Well, that'd be a good idea There's an issue that idea You often weave them together really masterfully because there is a there is religious In the broad sense of that word themes throughout the writing of both. You know, there's uncanny Parallelisms in their writing and their lives. So um And dostoevsky's deeper than nicha, but that's because he was a Writer of fiction nicha is almost a character in a dusty. Yes. He is definitely that he is definitely that yes And apparently nicha knew more about dostoevsky than people had thought there's been some recent scholarship on that grounds Dostoevsky didn't know anything about nicha as far as I know I could be wrong about that But the thing that dostoevsky had over nicha is nicha had to make things propositional in some real sense because he was a philosopher and It's hard to propositionalize things that are outside your ken, but you can characterize them and so In the brothers karamazov. Ivan is a more Developed character than aliosha in in in the explicit sense. He can make better arguments But alosha wins like mishkin because he's the better man and dostoevsky can show that in the actions, right? He can't render it entirely propositional, but that's probably because what's good can't be rendered entirely propositional And so dostoevsky had that edge over nicha said well, ivan is this brilliant rationalist atheist Materialist and puts forward an argument on that front that's still unparalleled as far as i'm concerned And overwhelms aliosha who cannot respond but aliosha is still the better man So which is very interesting, you know that what you know, the funny thing about those two characters is You jordan peterson seem to be somebody that at least in part embodies both Because you are one of the intellectuals of our time rigorous and thought But also are able to have that kind of What would you describe if you if you remove the religiosity of alosha? there's a What's a good word love towards the world spirit of encouragement? Yes Which well, it's it's you know, one of the things I did learn perhaps from looking into the abyss to the degree that I have had to or was willing to Was that at some level you have to make a fundamental statement of faith when god creates the world after each day He says he saw that it was good You think well, is it good? It's like wow, there's a tough question I mean, you know, do you want to bring a child into a world such as this which is a fundamental question of whether or not? It's good It's an act of faith to declare that it's good Because the evidence is ambivalent and so then you think okay. Well, am I going to act as if it's good? And what would happen if I did and maybe the answer to that is I think this is the answer The more you You know, you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you The more you act Out the proposition that it's good the better it gets And so that's it Dostoevsky said this is something else Every man is not only responsible for everything he does but for everything everyone else does. It's like What is that profound or are you just insane? Then you think Is what you receive back proportionate to what you deliver And the answer to that might be yes That's a terrifying idea. And and it's certainly you can see that it's true in some sense because people certainly respond to you In kind with how you treat them. That's certainly the case. I mean, it's it's terrifying and it's exciting. Yeah, right That's an adventure, isn't it you? Yeah You create the world by the way you live it The way you live it the the world you experience is defined by the way you live that world And that's really that's really interesting and then taken as a collective we create the world together in that way Yeah, what do you think is the meaning of it all? What's the meaning of life Jordan Peterson? You've we've defined it many many times throughout this conversation the adventure along the route man and I would say Where's that adventure to be found in faith? What's the faith? The highest value is love and truth is its handmaiden That's a statement of faith right because you can't tell You have to act it out to see if it's if it's true Yeah, and so you can't even find out without and that's so peculiar. You have to make the commitment a priory Yeah, it's like a marriage. It's the same thing It's like well, is this the person for me? That's the wrong question How do I find out if this is the person for me? By binding myself to them Well, maybe the same thing is true of life right you bind yourself to it and That tighter you bind yourself to it. The more you find out what it is And that's like a radical embrace and it's it's a really radical embrace That's the crucifix symbol and more than that because like I said the the full passion story Isn't death it isn't even unjust death It isn't even unjust death and the crucifixion of the innocent which is really getting pretty bad It's unjust torturous innocent death attendant upon betrayal and tyranny followed by hell Well, that's a hell of a thing to radically embrace. It's like bring it on I think a lot of people put truth is the highest ideal and Think they can get to that ideal While living in a place of cynicism and ultimately escape from life and hiding from life afraid of life And it's a is beautifully put that love Love is the highest ideal to reach for and truth is it's handmade I try I thought about that for a long time right this hierarchy of ideal and the thing about truth that bitter truth let's say that cynical truth is it can break the shackles of naivety and actually a Burnt cynicism is a moral improvement over a blind naivety Even though one is in some ways positive, but only because it's protected and the other is bitter and dark, but still better But you're not done at that point. You're just barely started. It's like you're cynical You're not cynical enough It's like how cynical are you? Are you I'm an Auschwitz prison guard level of cynical Because you have to be you have to go down pretty deep into the weeds before you find that part of you But you can find it if you want and then you think well, I want to stop this Well, that was the question you posed in some sense. You're obsessed with say what happened on these mass-scale catastrophes In the communist countries. It's like well millions of people participated So you could have and maybe you would have enjoyed it So what part of that is you and you can find it if you want? Yeah, it's it's all there the prisoner the interrogator the Judas Pontius Pilate All of it all of it and it's all of it is inside us Yeah, you just have to look and once you do maybe eventually you can find the love Jordan, you're an incredible human being. I'm deeply honored. You would talk to me Thank you for being a truth seeker in this world and thank you for the love. Hey, I'm Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jordan Peterson to support this podcast Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Friedrich Nietzsche You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time

https://youtu.be/sY8aFSY2zv4

q6zEzZCtkXw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Annaka Harris: Free Will, Consciousness, and the Nature of Reality | Lex Fridman Podcast #326

when we use the term free will, we're talking about this feeling that consciousness, that we have a self, that there's this concrete thing that's separate from brain processing that somehow swoops in and is the cause of our decision or the cause of our next action. And that is, in large part, if not in its entirety, an illusion. The following is a conversation with Anika Harris, author of Conscious, a brief guide to the fundamental mystery of the mind. And is someone who writes and thinks a lot about the nature of consciousness and of reality, especially from the perspectives of physics and neuroscience. This is the Lux Freedom podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Anika Harris. In your book, Conscious, you described evidence that free will is an illusion and that consciousness is used to construct this illusion and convince ourselves that we are, in fact, deciding our actions. Can you explain this? I think this is chapter three. First of all, I really think it's important to make a distinction between free will and conscious will. And we'll get into that in a moment. So free will, in terms of our brain as a system in nature, making complex decisions and doing all of the complex processing it does, there is a decision-making process in nature that our brains undergo that we can call free will. That's fine to use that shorthand for that. Although, once we get into the details, I might convince you that it's not so free. But the decision-making process is a process in nature. The feeling, our conscious experience of feeling like consciousness is the thing that is driving the behavior, that is, I would say, in most cases, an illusion. And usually, when we talk about free will, that's the thing we're talking about. I mean, sometimes it's in conjunction with the decision-making process, but for the most part, when we use the term free will, we're talking about this feeling that consciousness, that we have a self, that there's this concrete thing that's separate from brain processing that somehow swoops in and is the cause of our decision or the cause of our next action. And that is, in large part, if not in its entirety, an illusion. So conscious will is an illusion, and then we can try to figure out. Free will, I would say, is good shorthand for a process in nature, which is a decision-making process of the brain. But decisions are still being made. So there's, if you ran the universe over again, is there, would it turn out the same way? I mean, maybe, I'm trying to sneak up to, what does it mean to make a decision in a way that's almost, that means something? So right, so this is where our intuitions get challenged. I've been thinking about some new examples for this, just because I talk about it a lot. And the truth is, most of the things I write about and talk about and think about are so counterintuitive. I mean, that's really what my game is, is breaking intuitions, shaking up intuitions, in order to get a deeper understanding of reality. I'm often, even though I've thought about this for 20 years and think about it all the time, it's an obsession of mine, really, I have to get back into that mind frame to be able to think clearly about it, because it is so counterintuitive. How long does that take? How hard is that? Depends on if there are kids around, or if I'm alone, or if I've been meditating. But what I was going to say, actually, I felt like we needed to just take one step back and talk a little bit, just because I think the importance of shaking up intuitions for scientific advancement is such an important piece of the scientific process. And I think we've reached a point in consciousness studies where it's very difficult to move forward. And usually that's a sign that we need to start shaking up our intuitions. So, throughout history, the huge breakthroughs, the things that have really shifted our view of the universe and our place in the universe and all of that, those almost always, if not always, require that we, at the very least, shift our intuitions, update our intuitions. But many of them, we just have to let go of intuitions that are feeding us false information about the way the world works. But the weirdest thing here is that here we're looking at our own mind. So you have to let go of your intuitions about your own intuitions. Yeah, right, exactly. It's very meta and makes it hard. And it's part of the reason why doing interviews for me feels so difficult, aside from the fact that I just have social anxiety in general. Well, it's good, because I took mushrooms just before we started. Perfect, that's what I should have done. We're on this journey together, let's go. So where do we take a step backwards to, Leslie? I was going to say, I mean, this leads into the point I was going to make, but what I was going to say is, I mean, also, just for me, I feel like I'm not as good at speaking as I am at writing, that I'm clearer in my writing. And because these topics are so difficult to get our minds around, it's hard to kind of get to any real conclusion in real time. It's actually how I started writing my book, was just writing for myself. I decided that I needed to spend some time writing down all of my thoughts in order to get clear about how I think about them. So you write down a sentence and you think, in the silence, quiet paragraphs, and you just. And then I see if that makes sense, and then I check it with my intuitions, which is really the scientific process. And I really, in many ways, I feel like I'm a physicist at heart. All of my inquiry, all of my career, everything I'm interested in, actually going back to being a child, is just deep curiosity about how the world works, what this place is, what it's made of, how we got here, just being amazed at the fact that I'm having an experience over here and you're having one over there, and we're in this moment of time, and what does that all mean? My interest in consciousness really came out of originally an interest in physics. And I guess that the two were always side by side, and I didn't really connect them until I was older, but I've always been really interested in just understanding the nature of reality before I even had language to describe it. You talked about laying down and looking up at the stars and trying to let go of the intuition that there's a ground below us, which is a really interesting exercise. And there's many exercises of this sort you can do, but that's a really good one. Well, and I think scientists and children who will become scientists, or just kind of scientists at heart, really enjoy that feeling of breaking through their intuitions. And I remember the first time it happened, actually, I was playing with marbles. And marbles have all these different shapes. Each one is unique, and they're all these, it looks like there's liquid inside them. And I remember asking my father how they got the liquid inside the glass ball, and he said, actually, it's solid all the way through. It's all glass. And I had such a hard time imagining, it just didn't seem right to me. I was very young when I, but he's a complicated person, but he was wonderful in this way, in that he would kind of entertain my curiosity. And so he said, let's open them up. And he got a towel, and we put the marbles on the towel, and got a hammer, and he smashed them all, and lo and behold, it was all glass. And I remember, it's like the first time I had that feeling of realizing, wow, the truth was so different from what I expected. And I like that feeling. And of course, we need to be able to do that to understand that the Earth is flat, to understand the germ theory of disease, to understand long processes in nature like evolution. I mean, we just can never really intuit that we share genes with ants. Did you just say the Earth is flat? You mean the Earth is not flat. Did I say that? Yeah, this is great. I actually like to think about- Exactly, see, this is why I need to write and not speak. Well, I actually really like conspiracy theories and so on. I really like flat Earth, people that believe the Earth is flat, or not believe, but argue for the Earth is flat. Well, that's interesting because you can see, I mean, the intuition is so strong. I just said it. The thing I love about folks who argue for flat Earth is they are thinking deeply. They're questioning actually what has now become intuition. It's become the mainstream narrative that the Earth is round, where people actually don't, yeah, don't think actually how crazy it is that the Earth is round. We're in a ball. And that's exactly what you're doing. You're looking out at the space. It's really humbling. Because I think the basic intuition, when you're walking on the ground, there's an underlying belief that Earth is the center of the universe. There's a kind of feeling like this is the only world that exists. And you kind of know that there's a huge universe out there, but you don't really load that information in. And I think flat Earthers are really contending with those big ideas. Yeah, no, and I think, I mean, the truth is that when those observations were first made, when the celestial observations were made that revealed this fact to us, I can't remember how long it took, but I think it was close to 100 years before it was actually accepted as common knowledge that we're no longer the center of the universe, or of course we never were. And that's true almost every time we have a breakthrough like that, that challenges our intuitions. There's usually a period of time where we have to, and this is an important part of the process because often our intuitions give us good information. And so when the science goes against, when our scientific observations go against our intuitions, it's important for us to let that in and to see which side is gonna win. And once it's clear that the evidence is winning, then there's this period of time where we have to grapple with our intuitions and shift the way we frame our worldview and go through that process. But free will. Free will's a hard one. So. It's a hard one. So here we are still, you know, in consciousness studies, pretty stuck, at least in terms of the neuroscience. And so that's why I started thinking more deeply about that. That's why a lot of scientists right now are actually interested in studying consciousness, where it was very taboo before. And so we're at this really interesting turning point and it's wonderful, but it will require that we shake up our intuitions a bit and reframe some things and look at what the neuroscience is telling us. And there are a lot of questions. We have more questions than answers, but I think it's time. I think if we're going to make progress in consciousness studies, we need to start really looking at the illusions and false intuitions that are getting in our way. Do you think studying the brain can give us clues about free will, like some of these questions? Yeah, absolutely. I think it already has. And I think many facts that have come out of neuroscience are still barely seeping into the culture. I mean, I think this is going to be a long process. So part of my work is really just looking at areas where we already know some of our intuitions are wrong and starting to accept them and starting to let them in and starting to ask questions about, well, what does this mean then about the nature of consciousness? Let's try to actually get at this question of free will and conscious will. My intuitions here are, I mean, I'm a human being. It's really, I mean, I approach it from two aspects. One is a human being and two from a robotics perspective. And I wonder how big the gap between the two is. And that's a useful, from an engineering perspective, is another perspective that's useful and helpful to take on this. It's like, are we really so different, you and I, the robot and the human? You'd like to believe so, but you don't exactly see where the difference is. Research into AI and just the fact that it's entered our consciousness at the level of stories and film and all of these questions that it's raising is facing us with that. It's almost like the zombie experiment is coming to life for us. We're more and more looking at human-like systems and wondering, is there an experience in there and how can we figure that out? When you were talking about your experience of looking at robots, it reminds me of how I, for many years, have been looking at plants. Because the plant behavior, and actually, this is the example. Maybe we'll just try it out. It may not work. This is an example I was thinking of recently because I was reading back on the work of Mark Jaffe, who did this research with pea tendrils. I'm sure he did many other plant studies, but this is the one I was reading about. And I'm hoping this analogy, I'll just set it up. I'm hoping that this analogy will be something that we can keep coming back to as we move forward because as we shake up our intuitions and get confused and then we come back to our intuitions and say, no, that just can't be, I think this analogy might be helpful. What kind of plant was he working on? Pea tendrils. So a pea plant has these tendrils. You can picture them, they coil. So I don't know what year this research was done. I'm guessing in the 80s, but some. But pea tendrils have been around long before that. Yes, of course. And the research may have happened long before the 80s. In fact, they might be doing the research on the humans, but that's another story. Yeah, right. Pea tendrils, as a system, generally, there are a few more things they can do, but generally they can behave in two ways. They can grow in a straight line slowly, or they can grow in this coil form more quickly. And what happens is when they are growing in a straight manner and they encounter a branch or a pole or something else that it can wrap itself around to gain more stability, when it senses a branch there, that gives it the cue to start growing at a more rapid pace and to start coiling instead of growing straight. So it has these two behaviors. As a system, it's capable of growing straight and it's capable of coiling. One interesting thing, actually, I'll just add this. It's not totally relevant, but one interesting thing is Mark Jaffe's work. So he cut a pea tendril. He was curious to see if it could do this on its own, separate from the rest of the plant. So he cut a pea tendril off the plant. If you keep it in a moist, warm environment, it will continue to behave in these ways. So it will continue to coil. He noticed that if he touched one end of it, if he rubbed one side of it, that gave it enough of a cue that it would start to coil. And then he noticed that it needed light to perform this action. So in the dark, when he rubbed the edge of the tendril, it did not coil. In the light, it would. And then he recognized this further fact, which was that the pea tendril that he rubbed in the dark, that was still straight, if he brought it out into the light, and this could be hours later, it would start to coil. It has a primitive form of memory where it has the sensation and then it holds onto that information. And as soon as there's light, it acts on that information. But also in a kind of distributed intelligence, because you can separate it from the main part. Like if you chop off a human arm, it's not gonna keep growing. Even if you keep it in a moist, warm environment, it's not gonna reach out for the cup of coffee when you come in with Starbucks. Maybe in the correct environment. Maybe we just haven't found the environment, but anyway, that's pretty amazing. So that's a separate fact. But anyway, so if you just use the analogy of a pea tendril, and if you imagine, which is something I like to do a lot, if you imagine this plant has some kind of conscious experience, of course it doesn't have complex thought, it doesn't have anything like a human experience, but if it were possible for a plant to have some felt experience, you can imagine that when it comes into contact with a branch and starts to coil, that that feeling could be one of deciding to do that, or that it feels good to do that, or kind of wanting. I mean, that's too complex, that's anthropomorphizing, but there's a way in which you could imagine this pea tendril under those circumstances suddenly wants to start coiling. So you're saying you try to meditate of what it's like to be a pea tendril, a plant. Like that's what's required here. It's like you have to empathize with a plant, or with another organism that's not human. Yeah, and you don't actually need that for this analogy, the larger analogy that I'm getting at, but I think that's an interesting piece to keep in mind, that you could imagine that in nature, if there's a conscious experience associated with a pea tendril, that at that moment, what that feels like is a want to start moving in a different way. So you wanna imagine that without anthropomorphizing, so without projecting the human experience, but rather sort of humbling yourself that we're just another plant with more complexity. Yes, in a way. Like trying to see where. Exactly, so that's where I'm going with this. Sure. So, and when you start making that connection, you can see where there are a few points at which there's room for an illusion to come in for our own feelings of will. So when we move from a pea tendril to human decision-making, obviously, human decision-making, human brains are many, many, many times more complex than whatever's going on in a pea tendril. I mean, it is, the brain is actually the most complex thing we know of in the universe thus far. So there is the genes that help develop the brain into any particular brain into what it is. There are all the inputs. There are countless factors that we could never, I mean, it may as well be an infinite number of factors. And then in that particular moment, whatever the inputs are to a brain, the brain is capable of almost an infinite number of outputs, right? So if I walked in here this morning and you said, would you like water or tea? And that's a simple decision for me to make. I think that's a passive-aggressive way of telling me I should have offered you some tea. But yes, go on. No, I wanted water. Okay, all right. I actually asked for water. Okay, all right, great. And you didn't have any free will anyway, so it doesn't matter. I don't hold you responsible for any of it. Exactly. I was just running an algorithm deterministically. You give me this decision, right, to make water or tea. Go back to the P tendril for a second. A P tendril is capable of growing in a straight line slowly or in a coil quickly. My brain is capable of all kinds of responses to that question, even though you've given me two options. You could offer me water or tea, and I could just run out of the room screaming if I wanted to, right? That happens to me all the time with dates. Never mind, I don't wanna do this. Yes. The fact that the brain is capable, that there's so many inputs, and then the brain is capable of so many outputs, as a system, what it's hard for us to get our minds around is that it may not be capable of any behavior in every moment in time. So as a system, it's capable of doing all kinds of things. And the point I'm making is that if we could see all of the factors leading up to the moment where I chose water or where I ran screaming from the room, we could, in fact, see that there was no other behavior I was going to or could have exhibited in that moment, in the same way that when the P tendril hits the branch, it starts coiling. There's a parallel, which is very interesting in robotics, with fish and water. So you could see, they've experienced with dead fish and they keep swimming. So the fish is capable of all kinds of complicated movements as a system. But in any one moment, the river, the full complexity of the river defines the actual movement of the fish. And that's sufficient. Well, and I should also, I mean, this brings up another point which is that there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary behavior. So of course, we have reflexes. And it is a different, there's different brain processing in action when I make a decision about water or tea than there is if my behavior is forced from the outside or if I have a brain tumor that's causing me to make certain decisions or feel certain feelings. And so the point is at bottom, it's all brain processing and behavior. But the reason why certain actions feel willed, there's a good reason why it feels that way. And it's to distinguish our own self-generated behavior based on thinking and possibly weighing the different results of different things. I already had caffeine today. I don't want more. There are all these processes, things that we can point to and things that we can't, things I'm affected by at a subconscious level. And that is very different from an unwilled action or reflex or something like that. And so some people, I can imagine, I haven't used the pee tendril example, but I can imagine they wouldn't like that because the pee tendril sounds more to them like a reflex and that doesn't address the question of a much more complex decision-making process. But I think at bottom, that is what it is. And that's really where the illusion of free will and the illusion of self, which I think is they're kind of two sides of the same coin, come from. So even when we intellectually understand that everything we're feeling, everything we're doing is based on our brain processing and brain behavior, if you're a physicalist, you've bought into that. Even when you intellectually understand that, we, and I include myself in this, we still have this feeling that there's something that stands outside of the brain processing that can intervene. And that's the illusion. I was tweeting with someone recently, which I almost never do, but we're working in the TED documentary that I'm making right now, we're working on the episode on free will. So I was allowing myself to go back and forth in a way that I don't usually on Twitter. Like arguing? About free will. It was a friendly debate. Gonna go into the reasons why I'm not crazy about Twitter, but let's leave that for another time. I mean, talk about how hard it is to have this conversation when we have as many hours as we like, trying to do it in sound bites over Twitter. See, I like how you made the decision now not to talk about Twitter. Well, my brain. Road less traveled. That was one of the things I said to this person was, because someone chimed in and said, you said I, what do you mean by I? And so, actually that's another point I could make, which is, first my response to that was, well, people tend to get creeped out when I say the system that is my brain and body that we call Annika recommends. Why do you get freaked out? Oh, you mean like in your personal life? Oh, instead of I. Instead of like never saying I, yeah. Always. You're just being intellectually honest. I always refer to you as the brain and body we call Lex. Yes. Well, I don't know. That's kind of charming in a way. Alleged brain. So, I and you are very useful shorthand, even though at some level they're illusions. They're very useful shorthand for the system of my brain, really, and my body, the whole system. That I is useful for that, but the illusion is when we feel like there's something outside of that system that can intervene, that is free, that's somehow free from the physical world. I can have the thought, yeah, I'm really not crazy about having intellectual back and forth on Twitter, and then feel like I decide to not follow that thought. And the feeling, that's the feeling where the illusion comes in, because it really feels as if, sure, my brain had that original thought, and then I came in and made a different decision. But of course, the truth is, it was just further brain processing that got me to decide not to go down that path. How much is that feeling of conscious will is culturally constructed shorthand? So, I and you is, you could say, a culturally constructed shorthand. How much of that affects how we think? So, our parents say I and you, I and you, and then we start to believe in I and you. And is that, or are we, is that fundamental to the human brain machine that we? I think it goes very deep. I think it's fundamental, and I think it probably, some form of feeling like a self goes as deep as cats and dogs, and it's possible. I mean, if consciousness does go down to the level of cells, or however far down you wanna take it, worms, or I think any system that's navigating itself, that kind of has boundaries and is navigating itself in the world, my guess is that it's an intrinsic part of, that's why I imagined that the pea tendril would have this feeling. And so, we use the word I, I think you're right, first of all, that the way we talk about things affects our intuitions about them and how we feel about them. And so, there are other cultures who are more open to breaking through these illusions than others, for sure, just because of their belief sense, the way they talk. I mean, I'm sure, I don't, I'm not a linguist, and I don't even speak a second language, so I can't speak to it, but if there were a language that framed who we are differently in everyday language, I mean, in our everyday communication, I would think that would have an effect. Yeah, language does affect things, and I mean, just knowing Russian and the history of the Soviet Union in the 20th century, obviously it lived under communism for a long time, so your conception of individualism is different, and that reflects itself in the language. Yeah. You could probably have a similar kind of thing within the language in terms of how we talk about I and we and so on. Yeah. And I'm sure there's like certain countries or maybe even villages with certain dialects that let go of the individualism that's inherent. Yeah, I mean, there must be a range, but I do think that it's pretty deep, and I think there's also a difference between the autobiographical me and then this more fundamental me that we're talking about or that I'm pointing to as the illusion. So in my book, I talk about if someone wakes up with amnesia, if they have brain injury and suddenly have amnesia and can't remember anything about their lives, can't remember their name, don't recognize people they're related to, they would have lost their autobiographical self, but they would still feel like an I. They would still have that basic sense of I'm a person. I mean, they'd be speaking that way. I don't remember my name. I don't know where I live. You still, it goes very deep, this feeling that I am a single entity that is somehow not completely reliant upon the cause and effect of the physical world. Can I ask you a pothead question? Yeah. Would you, would you rather lose all your memories or not be able to make new ones? Now I'm asking you as a human in terms of happiness and preference. I can't answer that. You like both. You like both features of the organism that you embody? Well, one is intellectual and one is psychological, really. I mean, I would have to choose the memories only because, I mean, memories of the past. Yeah. Only because I have children and a family and it would just be, it wouldn't just be affecting me, it would be affecting them. It would just be too horrible. No, but you would make new ones, right? If I lost my memory of the 13 past years of my life? You think you would lose, this is a dark question. Oh, wait, wasn't that the question? Maybe I misunderstood. No, no, no, no, you understood it perfectly, but. Yeah. Sorry for the dark question, but the people you love in your life, if you lost all your memory of everything, do you think you would still love them? Like you show up, you don't know. I don't know. It's a roll of the dice. I mean, not in the way that I do. Right. Some deep aspect of love is the history you have together. Oh, absolutely. Well, and this gets to an interesting point, actually, which I think a lot about, which is memory. And we won't go into this yet, but I'll just plant a flag here that memory is, yeah, memory is obviously related to time and time is something that I'm fascinated with. And for this project I'm working on now, I've mostly been speaking to physicists who are interested in consciousness. And it's partly because of this link between memory and time and, you know, all of these new fascinating theories and thoughts around the different interpretations of quantum mechanics and looking at, you know, the thing that I've always been looking for is really the fundamental nature of reality and why my questions about consciousness lead me to wonder if consciousness is a more fundamental aspect of the universe than we previously thought and certainly I previously thought. And so memory, but memory is tied to so many things. I mean, even basic functions in nature, actually, so the P tendril, as I mentioned, memory comes into play there and that's so fascinating. And there is no sense of self without memory, even if you're starting from scratch, as you said, with amnesia. If you truly couldn't lay down any new memories, I think you would, then that sense of self would begin to disintegrate because the sense of self is one of a concrete entity through time. And if each moment, if you really were stuck in the present moment, eternally, you'd basically be meditating. And in meditation, this is a very common experience, is losing that sense of self, that sense of free will, that those illusions more easily drop away in meditation and I would say for most people who meditate long enough, they do drop away. And there's actually an explanation at the level of the brain as well. The default mode network is circuitry in the brain that neuroscientists don't completely understand, but know is largely responsible for this feeling of being a self. And when that circuit gets quieted down, which it does in meditation and also does with the use of psychedelic drugs, and there are other ways to quiet down the default mode network, people have this experience of losing this illusion of being a self. They no longer feel that they're a self in the way that they usually do. So there's the autobiographical self is connected to the sense of self. Oh, absolutely. Through the memory. And then you're thinking that the solution to that lies in physics, not just neuroscience. Like ultimately consciousness and the experience, the conscious will is a question of physics. I may have said something misleading because I was connecting too many dots. Half the things I say are misleading. Let us mislead each other. I just got, I got excited when memory came up because I love talking about time. So you mentioned a project you're working on a couple of times. What's that about? I think you said Ted is involved. You're interviewing a bunch of people. What's going on? What's the topic? So I'm working on an audio documentary about consciousness and it picks up where my book left off. So all of the questions that were still lingering for me and research that I still wanted to do, I just started conducting. So I've done about 30 interviews so far and it's not totally clear what the end result will be. I'm currently collaborating with Ted and I'm having a lot of fun creating a pilot with them. And so we'll see where it goes. But the idea is that it's a narrated documentary. And it's like a series. A series, it'll be a 10 part series. It's an unclear, oh, you already know the number of parts. Sorry, in my mind it's a 10 part series. It may end up being eight or 11 or 12, I don't know why. Listen, I am very comfortable with the number zero and one as well. About 10. I like the confidence of 10. So, and you're not sure what the title, like not the title, but the topic, will there be consciousness or something bigger or something smaller? Yeah, I mean, it's my, so at the end of my book, I kind of get to the place where I've convinced myself, at least, that this question about whether consciousness is fundamental is a legitimate one. And then I just start spending a lot of time thinking about what that would mean, if it's even possible to study scientifically. So I mostly talk to physicists, actually, because I really think, ultimately, this is a question for physics. If consciousness is fundamental, I think it needs to be strongly informed by neuroscience. But it's, yeah, if it's part of the fabric of reality, it is a question for a physicist. So I speak to different physicists about different interpretations of quantum mechanics, so getting at the fundamentals. So string theory in many worlds. I spoke to Sean Carroll, had a great conversation with Sean Carroll. He's so generous because he clearly doesn't agree with me about many things. But he has a curious mind and he's willing to have these conversations. And I was really interested in understanding many worlds better and if consciousness is fundamental, what the implications are. So that was where I started, actually, was with many worlds. And then we had conversations about string theory and the holographic principle. I spoke to Lee Smolin and Brian Green and Jan Eleven and Carlo Rovelli, actually. Have you had Carlo on? No, no. He's great also and fun to talk to because he's just endlessly curious. Yeah. And you're doing audio. It's all audio, yeah. But it's in the format of a documentary, so I'm narrating it. I'm kind of telling the story of what questions came up for me, what I was interested in exploring, and then why I talk to each person I talk to. By the way, I highly recommend Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast, I think it's called. Yeah. It's amazing. One of my favorite things, when he interviews physicists, it's great, but any topic, his aim is. But one of my favorite things is how frustrated he gets with panpsychism. But he's still like, it's like a fly towards the light. For some reason, he can't make sense of it, but he still struggles with it. And I think that's the sign of a good scientist, really struggling with these ideas. I totally agree. And yes, that's what I appreciate in him and many scientists like that. Who has the craziest, most radical ideas who you talk with currently? So you can go either direction. You can go like, panpsychism, consciousness permeates everything. Yeah. I don't know how far you can go down that direction. Or you could say that, what would be the other direction? That there's a. Well, there isn't really. The problem is they're all crazy. They're all crazy. Each one is crazier than the next. All of us are crazy. And my own, I mean, my own thoughts now, I have to be very careful about the words I choose because I mean, it's just like talking about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's once you get deep enough, it's so counterintuitive and it's so beyond anything we understand that they all sound crazy. Many worlds sounds crazy. String theory. I mean, these are things we just cannot get our minds around really. And so that's kind of, that's the realm I love to live in and love to explore in. And the realm that to my surprise, my interest in consciousness has taken me back to. Can I ask you a question on that? Yeah. Just a side tangent. How do you prevent, when you're imagining yourself to be a petandroid, how do you prevent from going crazy? I mean, this is kind of the Nietzsche question of like, you have to be very careful thinking outside of the norms of society because you might fall off. Like mentally, you're so connected as a human to the collective intelligence that in order to question intuitions, you have to step outside of it for a brief moment. How do you prevent yourself from going crazy? I think I used to think that was a concern. And then you became crazy. I've learned so much about the brain. No, and I've had experiences of deep depression and I've struggled with anxiety my whole life. I think in order to be a good scientist and in order to be a truthfully, let's say, to allow yourself to be curious and honest in your curiosity, I think it's inevitable that lots of ideas and theories and hypotheses will just sound crazy. And that is always how we've advanced science. And maybe nine out of 10 ideas are crazy and crazy meaning they're actually not correct. But all of, I mean, as I said, all of the big scientific breakthroughs, all of the truths we've uncovered that are the earth-shattering truths that we uncover, they really do sound crazy at first. So I don't think one necessarily leads to a type of mental illness. I see mental illness in a very different category. And I think some people are more susceptible to being destabilized by this type of thinking. And that might be a legitimate concern for some people, that kind of being grounded in everyday life is important for my psychological health. The more time I spend thinking about the bigger picture and outside of everyday life, the more happy I am, the more expansive I feel. I mean, it feels nourishing to me. It feels like it makes me more sane, not less. Well, that's a happiness, but in terms of your ability to see the truth, you can be happy and completely. I guess I don't see mental illness necessarily being linked to truth or not truth. So we were talking about minimizing mental illness, but also truth is a different dimension. So you can go crazy in both directions. You could be extremely happy, and they are, flat earthers. You can believe the earth is flat. Because, actually, I'm sure there's good books on this, but it's somehow really comforting. It's fun and comforting to believe you've figured out the thing that everybody else hasn't figured out. I think that's what conspiracy theories always provide people. Why is it so fun? It's so fun. It's, except when it's dangerous. But even then, it's probably fun. But then you shouldn't do it because it's unethical. Anyway, so- It's not true. I'm not a fan of following. Well, that makes one of us. I don't know. There is probably a fascinating story to why conspiracy theories are so compelling to us human beings as deeper than just fun internet stuff. Yeah, I'm very interested in why they're so compelling to some people and not others. I feel like there must be some difference that at some point we'll be able to discover. Yeah, yeah. Because some people are just not susceptible to them, and some people are really drawn to them. Because I feel like the kind of thinking that allows for you to be open to conspiracy theories is also the kind of thinking that leads to brilliant breakthroughs in science. Sort of willingness to go to crazy land. Something that seems like crazy land. That's interesting. I see it the opposite way. Really? Yeah. See, you don't see the connection between thinking the Earth is flat and coming up with special relativity. The thing here is that flat is following your intuitions and not being open to counterintuitive ideas. It's a very closed way of viewing things. Saying it's actually, it's not the way you feel. There's information that tells us that there's something else going on. And that type of person will say, no, it's the way it feels to me. No, no, no. But wait a minute. There's a mainstream narrative of science that says the Earth is round. Right. Like, and I think a flat Earth, see, I admire the very first step of a flat Earth. I don't admire the full journey. But the first step is. Think if you're open to evidence, then the evidence clearly takes you in one direction. Right, but you have to ask the question. You have to ask, to me, this is like first principles thinking. Yeah. The Earth looks flat. So I'm gonna look around here. How crazy is it that the Earth is round and there's a thing called gravity that operates between objects that's related to the mass of the object? Right. That's crazy. Yes, the truth is often crazier than what the situation feels to be. A good step is to question what everyone is saying. Yeah. I know what you mean. To be skeptical about the, it's the authority. Yeah, but I think that, and the authority in not in some kind of weird current where everyone questions institutions, but more like the authority of the senior scientists, the junior scientists coming up, wait a minute, why have we been doing things this way? And that first step, I feel like that rebelliousness or that open-mindedness or maybe like resistance to, or maybe curiosity that is not affected by whatever the mainstream science says of today. Cass, I feel like mainstream science has never been mainstream and it's always a struggle for science to become mainstream. It's part of the reason why I started doing the work I did actually, helping scientists make their work more accessible, is that it's usually not. Yeah. It's usually not. Here's advice for scientists. Be more interesting and much more important, be less arrogant. So arrogance, there's very little money in science and so everyone is fighting for that money and they become more and more arrogant and siloed. I don't know why. I will say that the scientists I know, and some of them are very well-known, very famous scientists, are the least arrogant people I've ever met. That scientists in general, their personalities are more open, more humble, more likely to say they just don't know because I've been involved a lot in the science writing and how the media portrays. So one of the scientific community's greatest frustration is how their work gets presented in the media. And a lot of the time, that is the, I would say that's the main frustration is there's some new breakthrough, there's something, and the scientists will be saying, we're not sure, it's gonna take five years. And no one likes to write a story about something that may or may not be true. They think it's true, they're gonna take five years testing it. And so the headline will be, neuroscientists discovered they want this sensational. And so I think the public often gets the false impression that the scientists are arrogant, and I really don't find that to be the case. And I've worked with all kinds of people, artists, and my life path has taken a strange. You've met some incredible people, you work with some incredible people. So let's, the crazy topic of free will, I mean, I just, we have to link on this because I can't. So the plant, all right, can you try to steal man the case that there's something really special about humans? That there is a fundamental difference between us and the petendril? You know, humans are clearly very special in the evolution of organisms on Earth. Could that have been the magic leap? Could consciousness been like the invention of the eukaryotic cell or something like this? Well then, I mean, so I have to get clear on what you're asking. So are you coming from a place of wondering if we are the only conscious mammals? Yes. Do you really think that's a question? Can you make a case for it? Do you really think that's a question? Take one step back. We look out at the universe. At this point in our scientific understanding, we know that essentially we're all made of the same ingredients, right? There are atoms in the universe doing their thing. They find themselves in different configurations based on the laws of physics. And then the question is, if we look out at all of the configurations of atoms in the universe and ask which of these entail conscious experiences, which of these have a felt experience of being the matter they are? And there are really only two, broadly speaking, there are really only two assumptions to make here. And the first one is the one that science has taken and that I have for most of my career as well and that in many ways makes the most sense, which is electrons aren't conscious, tables aren't, there's no felt experience there, but at a certain point in complex processing, that processing entails an experience of being that processing. Now that's just a fascinating fact all on its own and I love to spend time thinking about that. So the question is, does consciousness arise at some point? Are some of these collections of atoms conscious? Or are all of them? Because we know the answer isn't none. I know that I'm at least having a conscious experience. I know that conscious experiences exist in the universe. And so the answer isn't none. So the answer has to be all or some. And this is a starting assumption that you're really kind of forced to make and that it's all or some. All or some or one. I would say one is some also. We either need an explanation for why there's non-conscious matter in the universe and then something happens for consciousness to come into being or it's part of the fundamental nature of reality. It's also if consciousness is a fundamental property of reality, it could also choose to not reveal itself until a certain complexity of organism. I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure what that means either. Like the flame of consciousness does not start burning until a certain complexity of organism is able to reveal. I don't think we can look at consciousness that way. I don't think, I mean, many people like to try to make that argument that it's a spectrum. Why do we have to say all or nothing maybe? And I agree that I actually think it is a spectrum, but it's a spectrum of content, not of consciousness itself. So if a worm has some level of conscious experience, it is extremely minimal, something we could never imagine being having the complex experience you and I have. Maybe some felt sensation of pressure or heat or something super basic, right? So there's this range, or even if you just think of an infant, you know, like the first, the moment an infant becomes conscious, what that, there's a very, very minimal experience of inputs of sound and light and whatever it is. And so there's a spectrum of content. There's a spectrum of how much a system is consciously experiencing, but there's a moment at which you get on the spectrum. And that's, and I truly believe that that piece of it is binary. So if there's no conscious experience, there is no consciousness. You can't say consciousness is there, it just hasn't lit its flame yet. If consciousness is there, there's an experience there by definition. It has to arise at some point, or it has to always be there. Is it possible to make the case that that arising happens first, for the first time ever with homo sapiens? I think that is extremely unlikely. What I think is more possible, based on what we understand about the brain, is that it arises in brains or nervous systems. And so then we're talking about flies and bees and all kinds of things that kind of fall out of our, our intuitions for whether they could be conscious or not. But I think, especially once you talk about more complex brains with many, many more neurons, when you're talking about cats and dogs and dolphins, it's very hard to see how there would be a difference between humans and other mammals in terms of consciousness. Was there a difference in terms of intelligence between humans and other mammals? Not like a fundamental leap in intelligence. It's hard to say definitively. I mean, it depends on how you define intelligence and all kinds of things. But obviously humans are unique and capable of all kinds of things that no other mammals are capable of. And there are important differences. And I don't think you need any magical intervention of something outside of the physical world to explain it. And the way I think about consciousness, I actually think it's part of the reason we're mistaken about consciousness is because we are special in the ways that we're special. And because we're complex creatures, we have these complex brains. So I think we should probably get into some of the details of why I think we're confused about what consciousness is. But just to finish this point, I think that we don't actually have any evidence that consciousness is complex, that it comes out of complex processing, that it's required for complex processing. And I think we've made this anthropomorphic mistake because we are conscious and it's very hard to get evidence. It's one of the things that makes consciousness unique and mysterious and why I'm fascinated with it is it's the one thing in nature that we can't get conclusive evidence of from the outside. We can by analogy, you're behaving basically the same way I behave more or less. You talk about your conscious experiences and therefore I just extrapolate from that that you're having a felt experience in the way I am and we can do that throughout nature. Well, there's no physical evidence. There's nothing we can observe from the outside that will give us conclusive proof that consciousness is there. And so I think we've made this leap to, because we're conscious and because we're unique and special and complex and intelligent in the way that we are, and because we don't have an intuition that anything else is conscious or we have no feedback about it, we've made this assumption that consciousness, that those things aren't conscious and felt experience does not exist out there in other atoms and forms of life even, but especially not inanimate objects. And therefore consciousness is somehow tied to these other things that make us unique. That consciousness arises when there is this complex processing. When there is, and there's, we can talk about the evolution argument too, which I think is super interesting to get into and I'm hoping to talk to Richard Dawkins about this for my series. What's he think about consciousness? He's not interested. He's not interested, and actually the conversation I would have with him would be very brief because he's just not that interested in this topic. But let's go back to the Richard Dawkins piece because I feel like there's a lot to talk about here in terms of our intuitions about consciousness, what it's doing, why in my book and everywhere I talk about consciousness, I bring it back to these two questions that I think are at the heart of our intuitions about consciousness. And so your questions about whether human beings are unique and special and all of that I think are interesting questions and something we could talk about. I see them as separate questions from the consciousness questions. So you see consciousness as giving a felt experience to our uniqueness as opposed to the uniqueness giving birth to consciousness. Yes, and that potentially there is felt experience, even though it sounds crazy even to me, that there is felt experience in all matter. And at this point in my thinking and after a few conversations with some physicists, I think if consciousness is fundamental, the only thing that actually makes sense is that it is part of the most fundamental that space, time and everything else emerges out of. Out of consciousness. Felt experience is just part of the fabric of reality. So is it possible to intuit this? Can we start by thinking about dogs and cats, go to the plants and then going all the way to matter or is this going to be like modern physics where it's just going to be impossible to even, through our reason alone. We're gonna have to have tools of some kind. I think it'll be a little bit of both. I mean, I think the science has a very long way to go and the truth is I don't even think we can get to the science yet because we have to do this work and this is why I'm so passionate about this work. And it's really taking hold. I mean, there are scientists, neuroscientists and physicists interested in consciousness and kind of having gotten over the initial obstacle of wrestling with these intuitions so that it's now being talked about in a serious way, which was the first huge hurdle. But I think a lot more of that has to happen. A lot more of the intuition breaking from the science we already have. I mean, I think we almost need to catch our intuitions up to what we already know and then continue to break through these intuitions systematically so that we can really think more clearly about consciousness. There are a couple of scientists now working on theories of consciousness, which do go, they don't quite go to the fundamental level, but they go extremely deep so that something like an electron might be conscious under their theory. This is integrated information theory, IIT with Christophe Koch and Giulio Tononi. I've spoken to both of them. I spoke to Christophe Koch once or twice for this project I'm working on now. What they're working on is incredibly interesting to me and I think very important work. However, I think they are also really led by some false intuitions about self and free will. And I think that will be a limit to their work. So we can get into that, but. Let's go. We will, we will. Christophe Koch is awesome. Which is that what they're working on, I think is the most important next step forward, which is just even being open to the fact that consciousness goes as deep as particles. And being rigorous. But even their theory isn't going as deep as I think we need to go. And it's hard to say how we could actually study this scientifically, but that's part of the reason why I'm such a supporter of IIT and why I'm so interested in what they're doing, even though I think they're wrong. Is because they're opening this path. And I think they're getting more people interested and I think, yeah, it'll be, it's hard for me to imagine what the science will actually look like. Okay, so your intuition, or at least the direction which you're pushing, is that consciousness is the only fundamental thing in the universe, that everything else, like time, all those kinds of things emerge from that. I will say that what I believe at this point, I've been saying 50-50 for a long time, I'd say now it's like 51-49 in terms of consciousness being emergent versus fundamental. So I am not convinced of this at all, I'm not convinced that consciousness is fundamental. What I think is there are very good reasons to think it could be. And essentially all of science up to this point has been led by the other assumption, by the first assumption that consciousness arises at some point, namely in brains. And that's where all the science has gone. And I think that's wonderful and I think it should keep on going. And I actually think that was a more important place to start, but I think there's a possibility that the correct assumption is that it's fundamental. And so that's the science I support, that's the thing I spend a lot of my time thinking about and talking to scientists and philosophers about. And so I shouldn't give the idea that I actually have crossed over into believing this is the case, but it's the assumption I follow in my work at this point. It's a possibility, an understudied possibility, so it deserves serious, rigorous attention. And there are good reasons to start with that assumption versus the other that I think we're just now starting to realize. So just to clarify, when we're talking about consciousness, we're talking about the heart problem of consciousness, that it feels like something to, there's a subjective experience. Do we, if consciousness permeates all matter, it's fundamental, is that going to be somehow, is our current intuition about consciousness the very tiny subset of what consciousness actually is? So we have our intuitions about personal experiences, like what it feels like, what it tastes to eat a cookie or something like that. But that seems like a very specific implementation of consciousness in an organism. So how can we even reason about something that's, if consciousness is fundamental, how can we reason about that? Like what would? I'm not sure I'm understanding the connection between those two things, but. When you think about what it's like to be a plant to experience a thing, okay, we can kind of get that. We can kind of understand that. There are a lot of places we could go with this. One is, there is actually work being done by people like David Eagleman. He's a neuroscientist, I don't know if you know him. You should talk to him for your podcast if you haven't. He's wonderful, great science communicator. He's someone I interviewed for my current project too. So he's done, this actually, okay, there are many places we can go. One is, he does work with sensory addition, sensory substitution, and this is going in some very interesting directions and maybe partly answers your question, which is giving humans qualia, sensory experiences that we're not wired for, that human beings have never had before. You let me know what you're most interested in hearing about. We could talk about things like the brain port. There was actually a study done, I just talked to one of the participants in the study where they were seeing if they could give human beings an experience of magnetic north. So other animals have this sense that we don't have where they can feel intuitively the way that our eyes work to give us an intuitive sense of our environment. We don't have to translate the information coming in through our eyes. We just have a map of the external world and we can navigate it. So many animals use a sense of magnetic north to get around and it's an intuitive sense. So I spoke to someone who was in this, part of this experiment, and it was fascinating to hear him acquire a sense not only that he had never had, but that no human being had ever had. So when I asked him to describe the experience, it was challenging for him and understandably so because it would be like you describing sight to someone who's never seen. But this is clearly possible and scientists like David Eagleman and others are working on these. And so I do think it's possible that this line, that these scientific advancements may actually start to dovetail with the consciousness research in terms of being able to experience things we've never experienced before. But I do think that at some level, yes, we're limited as human beings. We may be able to find some proof or enough proof to at least assume that consciousness is fundamental or who knows, one day actually believe that that's the correct scientific view of things and not really be able to get our minds around that or to understand what it means and certainly not to know what it feels like. I mean, we don't even know what it feels like to be other creatures. I don't know what it's like to be you. I don't know what it's like to be me. I mean, I guess that's what empathy is about. That's what I tried to exercise, is try to imagine what it's like to be other people. And then you're doing that even farther with P tendrils. But perhaps we can do that thing more rigorously by connecting different sensory mechanisms to the brain to do that for all kinds of organisms on Earth. But they're similar to us in scale and the time at which they function, the time scale and the spatial scale. Perhaps it's much more difficult to do for electrons and so on. Some of the intuitions I talked about, I mean, I just kind of, I'm taking them for granted that you and everyone knows what I'm talking about. But in terms of the science, in terms of the studies, understanding things like binding processes, understanding just a little bit about how the brain works and as far as we understand. And there's just a ton of evidence now to support that our conscious experience is at the tail end of a lot of brain processing. And so. So she tells a story. Yeah, so just a little bit. I mean, I give in the example in my book, I talk about tennis and the binding of the sights and sounds and felt experience of hitting a tennis ball, which in the world are happening at different times. The rates it takes the sound waves and the light waves and the felt sensation to travel to my brain are different. That there are these binding processes that happen prior to the conscious experience that were essentially delivered to us by the brain. And so we can get back into this. I can answer your bigger question first. But I feel like for a lot of people to understand some of the science that already is shattering some of our intuitions about the role consciousness plays, I think is helpful in terms of being able to be open to thinking about these other ideas. Let's go there. Where the heck does consciousness happen in what we understand about the brain timing-wise? I mean, this connects to conscious will, to our experience of free will. Yeah, there is this period of time and it's depending on the situation and the behavior, it can be anywhere from, it's essentially half a second. There's 200 milliseconds. I actually don't know, I was gonna compare it to the timing of thinking film and sound. I don't know if you know this data. Yeah, unfortunately I know this very well. You do? The film and sound? Yeah, like how the timing has to work so that we conscious, so that our experiences of it happening at the same time. Let me just sit in the silence of it. There's been so much pain on this one point. Sorry, I had no idea. So much suffering. So, I mean, yeah, I did a lot of algorithms on automatic synchronization of audio and video and all these kinds of things. Now, I know this well. There's a lot of science and there's a lot of differences, but it's about, and people claim it's about 100 milliseconds and you can't tell the difference, but it's much more like 30 to 50 milliseconds. And you can go nuts trying to see if something is in sync or not. Is it in sync or not? Well, also, you know, your brain is constantly making adjustments and so it can shift for you while you're doing that, which is probably part of the thing that's driving you crazy. Okay, so I'll start with binding processes and then I'll just give a couple examples. So yes, there's this window where your brain is essentially putting all the information together to deliver you a present moment experience that is most useful for you to navigate the world. So, as I said, I use this example of tennis in my book. So the sights and sounds are coming at us at different rates. It takes longer for a sensation in my hand when I hit the ball with the racket to travel to my brain than it does for the light waves to hit my retina and get processed by the brain. So all these signals are coming in at different times. Our brains go through this process of binding to basically weave it all together so that our conscious experience of that is of seeing, hearing, and feeling the ball hit the racket all at the same time. That's obviously most useful to us. Binding is mostly about timing. It can be about other things, but I was just talking to David Eagleman who was talking about a very simple experiment actually, and this kind of shows how your brain is basically always interacting with the outside world and always making adjustments to make its best guess about the most useful present moment experience to deliver. So this is a very simple experiment. This is from many, many years ago, and David Eagleman was involved in this research where they had participants hit a button and that button caused a flash of light. So our brains, through binding, the brain notices, is able to kind of calibrate the experience you have because the brain is aware that it is its own hand that is causing the light to flash, that there's this cause and effect going on, and so you have this experience of pushing the button that causes the flash of light, which is true, and the light flashes. You can start to introduce longer pauses starting with 20 milliseconds, 30 milliseconds, going up to I think 100, maybe even 200 milliseconds, where if you do it gradually, since your brain is making the adjustment, you can introduce a delay. I think it's up to 200 milliseconds. If you do it gradually, you will still have the experience, even though there's now a delay between when you hit the button and the light flashes, you will still have the exact same experience you had initially, which is that the light flashes right when you push the button. In your experience, nothing is changing. But then, so they gradually give a delay. You've acclimated to that because it was done gradually. If they then go back to the original instantaneous flash, your brain doesn't have time to make the adjustment, and you have the experience that the light flashed before you hit the button. And that is your true experience. It's not like you're confused, but that is, your brain didn't have time to make that adjustment. You think you're in the same environment. You're pushing the button. It makes the light flash. It's kind of calibrating all the time, but then the participants are suddenly saying, oh wait, that was so weird. The light flashed before I hit the button. And so these tech groups. That's crazy. They built a Rochambeau, rock, paper, scissors, computer game that was unbeatable based on this glitch that you can present in binding by training someone. If you introduce a delay slowly enough, then the computer can get the information before it responds, but you still have the experience that you're both throwing out your rock or paper, scissors at the same time, but in actuality, the computer saw your choice before it makes its choice. And it's in this window of milliseconds where you don't notice it. So that starts to help you build up an intuition that this conscious experience is an illusion constructed by the brain after. Conscious will. Conscious will. Yeah, and just in general, that consciousness is not the thing that we feel it is, which is driving the behavior, that is actually at the tail end of it. And so a lot of decision-making processes, and there are studies that are more controversial, and I don't usually like to cite them, although if you want to talk about them, we can. They're super interesting and intuition-shattering, but there are now studies specifically about free will to see if there are markers at the level of the brain that can see what decision you're going to make and when you make that decision. And I think the neuroscience inevitably is just going to get better. And so part of the reason I'm so passionate about this, I mean, there's the science and there's just the curiosity that drives me of wanting to understand how the universe works, but I actually see a lot of the neuroscience presenting us with truths that are going to be difficult for us to accept. And I actually think there are really positive ways to view these truths that we're uncovering. And even though they can be initially kind of jarring and even destabilizing and creepy, I think ultimately there's actually a lot, it can have a positive effect on human psychology and a whole range of things that I and others have experienced and that I think it's important for us to talk about because you can't hide from the truth, especially in science, right? Like it just, it will reveal itself. And if this is true, I think not only for better understanding the universe and nature, which is kind of my primary passion, it's important for us to absorb these facts and realize that they don't, it doesn't necessarily take away the things from us that we fear. I've heard people say, as I talked about, common point to make or question to ask a scientist, can you still enjoy chocolate if you're a molecular biologist? And is it a molecular biologist that would be the one who would understand how we experience chocolate? I may have the wrong science. But anyway, if you- If the point stands. If you're focused on the details of the underlying nature of reality, does that take the joy and the pleasure and for lack of a better word, spirituality out of our experience as human beings? And I actually think for these illusions like free will and self, the reverse is true. I actually think they can give us, they are reasons and bases for feeling more connected to each other and to the universe, for spiritual experiences, for even just on a more basic level, for increasing our wellbeing, just in terms of our psychology of lowering rates of depression and anxiety. And I actually think these realizations can be extremely helpful to people. Well, it's like realizing that the universe doesn't rotate around Earth, that the Earth is not the center of the universe is a really challenging thought. Well, and people were worried about how that would affect society. Well, yes, that's like long-term, but short-term, I bet you the number of people who had an existential crisis, as it got integrated into society, that thought is huge. It's like, it's a hard one. And you're saying- But it can't, but it's also a source of awe. And I mean, so many people now use that fact to inspire a positive response, to inspire creativity and curiosity and awe and all of these things that are so useful for human wellbeing. Where's the source of meaning when you're not the center of the universe, when the you doesn't even exist? That even you, the sense of self and the sense of decision-making is an illusion. The truth is that for the most part, the sense of self is kind of at the core of human suffering, because it feels as if we are separate from the rest of nature. We're separate from each other. We're separate from, you know, the illusion that I referenced of feeling like, you know, we have these thoughts that are brain-based thoughts, but then the I swoops in to make a decision. In some sense, it goes so deep that it's as if the I is separate from the physical world. And that separation plays a part in depression, plays a part in anxiety, even plays a part in addiction. So at the level of the brain, I think, stop me if I'm repeating myself, but we started talking about the default mode network. And so we actually know that when the default mode network is quieted down, when people lose a sense of self in meditation and on psychedelic drugs in therapy, there is a feeling that people describe of an extremely positive feeling of being connected to the rest of nature. And so that's a piece of it that I think if you haven't had the experience, you wouldn't necessarily know that would be a part of it. But truly having that insight that you're not the self you feel you are, immediately your experiences are embedded in the universe and you are a piece of everything and you see that everything is interconnected. And so rather than feeling like a lonely I in this bigger universe, there's a sense of being a part of something larger than yourself. And this is intrinsically positive for human beings. And even just in our everyday lives and choices and what we do for work, feeling part of something larger than yourself is the way people describe spiritual experiences and the way many positive psychological states are framed. And so there's that piece of it. There is something, so there's one giant hug with the universe, everything in it. But there is some sense in which we attach the search for meaning with the I, with the ego. And it could almost seem like life is meaningless. Our existence, our I, my existence is meaningless. I think you can kind of go there under any worldview, really. And the truth is we want to find a truth out of that downward spiral and not a story that we have to tell ourselves that isn't true. And the fact is we have these facts available to us that with the right framing and the right context, looking at the truth actually provides us with that psychological feeling we're searching for. And I think that's important to point out. And so- I think humans are fascinatingly good at finding beauty in truth no matter how painful the truth is. So yes. Yes, I totally agree. Yes. But in this case, I think there are the concerns are legitimate concerns. And I have them myself for how people respond. I've actually had people tell me they had to stop reading my book halfway through because the parts on free will were so upsetting to them. And this is something I think about a lot because that kind of breaks my heart. I don't, because I see this potential for these realizations bringing levels of wellbeing that many people don't have access to. I think it's important to talk about them in ways that override what can be an initial fear or kind of spooky quality that can come out of these realizations. So at the end of that journey, there's a clarity and an appreciation of beauty that if you just write it out. By the way, if you want to read upsetting, I just gotten through the boy, the four books, if you want to read upsetting. So my audible is hilarious. So there's conscious in it. And then so your book, and then it has the rise and fall of the third Reich, a blood lands by Timothy Snyder, probably the most upsetting book I've ever read. If you want to, because it's not just Stalin or Hitler, it's Stalin and Hitler. It's the worst hits, the opposite of the best hits. It's really, really, really well written, really difficult. I read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago and what else, Red Famine, which is, and Applebaum, does that hurt? Yeah, anyway, so those are truly upsetting. And those are a lot of times the results of hiding the truth versus pursuing the truth. So truth in the short term might hurt, but it did ultimately set us free. I believe that. And I also think whatever the truth is, we have to find a way to maintain civil society and love and all the things that are important to us. If we can jump around a little bit, can I just ask on a personal note, because you said you've suffered from depression and there's a lot of people that see guidance on this topic because it's such a difficult one. How were you able to, when it has struck you, how were you able to overcome it? Yeah, I mean, this is maybe too long an answer. So I've experienced it in different forms. So it was my, I would say my depression has almost always mostly taken the form of anxiety. I didn't realize how anxious I was, I think, until I was an adult. So I was always very functional. I think all the positive sides of suffering in that way. I think I'm a little OCD as you can tell. And this whole conversation is hilarious because we're both suffering to some level of anxiety. Psychology is just laid out in front of us. Yeah, it's a giant mess. We're the same kind of human. Yeah. It's great. Just trying to organize. Just hold on like the Tom Waits song. Yeah, but then I suffered from postpartum depression after both of my daughters, after both pregnancies. That was a very different experience from anything I've ever experienced, but clearly I had a predisposition towards suffering from something like that. Anyway, it really wasn't until I fully recovered from the second experience of postpartum depression that I realized that I had been suffering on some level my whole life. And I think I always knew, I thought of myself as a very sensitive person, an empathic person. I mean, I've been in therapy for 10 years. I knew I had a lot of anxiety. I would never have denied that I had a lot of anxiety. I just didn't realize it crossed over into a disorder really until I was an adult and ended up taking Prozac. I took an SSRI for postpartum, and it was fascinating to me. I ended up interviewing my psychiatrist because I was so fascinated in the whole thing once I was on the other side of it, just what I had been through, how different I felt during that period of time, and then how quickly the medication made me feel like myself again. I had come out the other side of the experience of postpartum and was going to start tapering off the medication. And in this window where I no longer had postpartum depression and hadn't yet gone off the SSRI, I realized that life was not only a lot easier than when I had postpartum, but it was easier than it had ever been. And it took taking all of that anxiety away to recognize how much I had been grappling with it my entire life. And it first started coming in the form of realizations like, oh, is this how other people, is this how other people feel? Is this how that, like the things that I just always thought of myself, I'm really sensitive, I'm an introvert, I need a lot of time to myself, and all of these things that I felt like, I mean, it's always very high functioning. And in some ways, I was a professional dancer, and I think that was the type of therapy for me. There was the obsessing over the training and dancing nine hours a day, and all of that, I now look back on and see how much that was therapeutic for me, and that I was kind of treating something. But yeah, so it was just this experience of treating an anxiety disorder that caused me to realize that I had one. I didn't know I could feel the way I felt after taking Prozac. And I became very interested in, I mean, I was already working with neuroscientists, I was already interested in consciousness and the brain, and it just, you know, this kind of rattled other intuitions for me in terms of how our childhoods shape who we become. Because I had been convinced, my father was, my father was- He's a complicated person, as you said before. That's what I was just gonna say again. But I think, I mean, so he was not diagnosed, I think he had borderline personality disorder, and was emotionally abusive. And I thought that all of the ways I experienced the world, and all of my anxiety, and my sensitivities, I thought almost all of that, if not all of that, was because of these experiences I had growing up, and trauma that I experienced as a child. And obviously those things play a part, but what I realized after going through postpartum, and then the thing that was extremely informative to me was having my own children. Because they were basically living my dream childhood. They had none of the things that I thought were the cause of the psychological suffering that I experienced. There was none of that, and they have a lot of the same, they struggle with a lot of the same anxiety, and panic attacks. And what I realized was how much we're kind of born into the world with these things that we struggle with, and with our strengths, and with all of that. And of course, then if you have an abusive childhood, if you're someone who tends to be anxious, and sensitive, and empathic, and then you're born into an abusive situation, that's obviously a terrible combination. But I never acknowledged or realized how strong just the genetics and the wiring played. Where's the line between you kind of accepting the challenges you're born with, and this is what life will be, versus then figuring out that life can be somehow different? I think they're part of the same process, and I think it's kind of necessary to accept what you're experiencing, and what the situation is, and how you feel, and the types of thoughts and patterns you tend toward in order to make whatever changes can be made. So I do think it's kind of part of the same process. Could life have been any different? I mean, do you regret certain aspects of the decisions made, not by you? I mean, it depends on what level we're talking. I think at a fundamental level, I don't believe anything could be different. Are you able to think at that level about your own life? Sure, and that's actually, that's part of what I was, when I wanted to kind of talk a little bit about the levels of usefulness of being aware of these different illusions, because I would say most of the time in our daily lives, the types of illusions that I'm interested in shaking up are not useful to remind ourselves of. Most of the time. I really think there are different levels of usefulness to thinking about and reminding ourselves of the places where we have false intuitions. And so I often use the analogy of living on a sphere. So it still feels to most of us, most of the time, I mean, our intuitive sense, we're not thinking about whether the Earth is flat or a sphere, but we behave as if it's flat. And that makes the most sense. And it would be exhausting to keep reminding ourselves as we walk down the street, like it feels flat, but it's not flat. Like there's just no reason to do it. It's not useful in that moment. If you're building a house, you can build it as if the world is flat. And, but you know, of course, so there are psychological reasons to bring it into view and maybe even spiritual reasons to bring it into view. And then there's just like usefulness. So if you're building a rocket to the moon, you better understand the geometry of the Earth. Even if you're flying an airplane, if you're an airplane pilot, you have to be aware of the truth of our situation. And then I think there are other places where it's interesting to remind ourselves is where I start out my book, just as a way to inspire awe and to get yourself out of your everyday life and see the big picture, which can be just a relief, but also helps you feel more connected to the universe and to something larger than ourselves. And so I see these intuitions reminding ourselves that these intuitions are illusions in the same way, that most of the time they're not useful. They are useful if we want to think about the science of consciousness. They're useful for a whole range of neuroscientific studies. And I think they can be incredibly useful in the same way that lying on the ground and feeling the gravity pushing you against a sphere and realizing you're floating in the middle of outer space, it gives me the same feeling to realize. And so I have, I mean, there's so many levels to it, but if I'm thinking about difficult things that I've experienced, different traumas in my life, when I take a step back and kind of get this bird's eye view of kind of the mystery of this unfolding of the universe and the fact that it happened the way it happened and whether it could have happened another way, there's no going back, that's the way it unfolded. And being able to surrender to that, I think is very psychologically healthy and prevents us from, I mean, I think regret is one of the most toxic loops we can get into. So this is a path to acceptance. Oh, absolutely, yeah. Because free will, I mean, I think part of what, the function of the experience of it is learning. I mean, I think we can still learn without being under the illusion that we have free will. So for some people, depression can destroy them. So how can you think about avoiding that? Yeah, so I didn't totally answer your question. First is therapy, ways that I have worked through anxiety and depression. So you're an introvert and a deeply intellectual person. Therapy works for you? To a point. It was very helpful. I mean, I think talk therapy is one tool and can be helpful for, I mean, it depends on the therapist, depends on the type of therapy, but I found it to be one piece and probably not the biggest piece, actually. But I think, I wish I had discovered medication sooner. That would have made a big difference in my life. Even just intellectually to realize that, oh, like I'm not. Life was a lot harder than it needed to be. And it wasn't about keeping everything just so. There's another state my brain can be in where I don't have to work so hard to be okay. Meditation was probably the most, meditation and psychedelic experiences were probably the most transformative. But a lot of these things, I'm lucky that I didn't, my anxiety and depression never really got in the way of my living my life, of enjoying my life. I mean, there were struggles that made life harder for me. But something like treatment-resistant depression or severe PTSD, these are things that, at this point in time, based on my understanding, I think once you've tried, and the truth is that meditation is often not helpful for those things, it can actually exacerbate them. And the most promising thing that I have seen is this research into psychedelic, therapy-assisted psychedelic. Does that make sense to you, that psychedelics work so well for such difficult cases? What is it about psychedelics? And I've been following this research from the beginning. When they were doing end-of-life, yeah, they started with end-of-life patients, I don't know, maybe 20 years ago. I met, at a TED conference, I met one of the doctors who was doing this research. It was the first time I became aware that the research was happening, and I'd already had my own experiences before that. And so it made perfect sense to me that this would work. It was still astonishing to see the results, to see how successful the work is so much of the time, but it doesn't surprise me it makes sense, and it's actually in line with all of these other things. So quieting down the default mode network. One of the things that's so transformative about taking something like psilocybin, and everyone's experience is different, it can vary each time you take it, even in a single person, but the experience I had, and the experience that many people have that is so transformative is this feeling that's very hard to describe, but it's a feeling of being one with the universe, and that comes with, it's kind of all one feeling that is, again, hard to put into words, but there's this feeling that everything is okay. And I'd never had that feeling before in my life. And when I took psychedelics, that feeling would stay with me for months, and I never understood why, and it was always fascinating to me, but it was as if I was glimpsing a deeper truth of the world that it's all one thing, we're all connected. There's no sense that there could even be a feeling of loneliness. It was just this visceral sense of being one with everything, and that everything was okay, that all the things I was afraid of, even death, that the universe, in a sense, is an endless recycling, and I don't know. It's hard to describe. But we also know, on the other side, that depression and anxiety, when people are experiencing those things, the default mode network is more active. And so it's this cycling and this kind of obsessive cycles of thinking about one's self that is a huge part of the suffering in the first place. And so the one thing that's surprising to me about the research is that, I may be fudging the data, but it's something like 80% of people who are treated for PTSD after one, only one session, are cured of their PTSD. Yeah, the effect stays for prolonged periods of time. That's really interesting. And addiction as well, which is interesting. That's not something I'm personally familiar with, so that was a surprise to me. But yeah, I mean, it's just wonderful that we... Yeah, it's incredible. I mean, of course, it's also incredible for people who don't suffer to see what psychedelics can do with the mind, which is that kind of appreciation. Well, and I think it's actually important for this work. It's one of the questions I ask everyone I talk to for this series, many of them. I won't be able to use that audio. Oh, ask them about psychedelics? Yes, and what their experience was and if that's informed. Actually, initially in the 50s, I want to do more research on this and look into it, but in the 50s, there were some studies that were being done with scientists who, there were hundreds of scientists they put into the study where they were on the brink of some kind of discovery, where they were stuck. So they had been doing research and they were stuck and they used psychedelics to come up with an answer to find a path forward, and it was extremely useful for that. Yeah, I mean, it's fascinating. And the nice thing about psychedelics, from my perception, is that they don't currently suffer from the taboo that weed does. Oh, that's interesting. I don't think. So like, for example, there's some kind of cultural construct about a pothead that makes it so that, you know, like Elon got in trouble for smoking weed. Right, he would have gotten in trouble for taking mushrooms too. I don't know. Really? I don't think so. Oh, that's interesting. I don't think so. That's a surprise to me. That's great. Because mushrooms to me seem like a journey. Like, there's a perception that you don't take mushrooms all the time. It's not an addictive substance. It's not a lifestyle. It's like going to Burning Man. It's like an experience that stays with you for a long time. I didn't realize that understanding had permeated into the culture. Yeah, that's a good question. If it has or not, because maybe I have a very narrow perspective of these kinds of things. But I think what has permeated is through Hollywood ideas of what it means to be a person who smokes weed a lot. Yeah. And that has like, has had its effect, which is hilarious given the effects of weed versus alcohol. But that's a whole nother story. Have you taken psychedelics? Yes. And you've spoken about it on your podcast? Yeah, yeah. So, not a lot. I really want to do a lot more. I've taken mushrooms. Vaspirations. Yeah, I mean, because it was such a... Oh, I know, so do I. And I didn't have, I have a very addictive personality, so I'm very nervous about substances. But I didn't have any addictive relationship with that. Yeah. Well, every time I... It is a treatment for addiction, so. Interesting. But I'm almost nervous because every time I've taken mushrooms, I've had a really pleasant experience. I mean, it was, it's already the thing I feel anyway. Yeah. But I feel it more intensely. The thing I feel anyway is like appreciation of the moment, how beautiful life is. The weird thing that I feel, not throughout the day, but certain moments of the day, especially early on, that's like life is intensely beautiful. Like, that's usually when I'll tweet. Yeah. It's like everything is awesome. And I remember those feelings, because sometimes when I feel really down and all those kinds of things, you remember that it's a rollercoaster, and you just, and then you find the good feelings, and it's cool. And it does make me a little bit sad that they kind of fade. But then as I get older, you get to use those moments. You realize that, use them well. You know, when you feel great, when you're focused, all that kind of stuff, use them well. Yeah. Because the mind is a rollercoaster. Yes, it's true. That's partly why I do this work. I feel like my work is therapy. I don't know if you feel that way. Work is therapy. This work, not work in general. Thinking about the deep questions, thinking about the nature of the universe, thinking about consciousness, even meditation. I mean, I got into meditation. To me, it's interesting. To me, I think a lot of meditators feel this way about it, but I think just, I'm thinking about it from the perspective of someone who hasn't meditated before. But it feels like a scientific experiment. It feels like it's the same physicist in me who was drawn to meditation because the experience is one of getting closer to your experience and asking similarly deep questions, like what is time? What does that even mean? What do I mean by time? What does it feel like? What is a thought is one of the most interesting questions to me. Hey, how do you meditate? Let's talk about this. So what, you let go of time. Well, I'm not really doing anything. I mean, the exercise is really so simple. It's just paying attention to your present moment experience and it's an extremely challenging thing to do. It's not the natural state of the brain. It's an exercise in concentration, which is why athletes and other people who spend a lot of time needing to focus intensely find it so useful. I mean, it's really a focus, a concentration practice, but all it is really, I mean, there are different ways, there are different methods, but it really is quite simple at its core, which is just paying close attention to your present moment experience. And so in Vipassana, which is what I've mostly been trained in, you're usually paying attention to the breath, there's always some focus of concentration. And the focus can even be just an open awareness, just watching your mind go, just what comes into your experience. And part of that is the mind, part of it is the external world. So you hear a sound, you think a thought, you feel a feeling, your cheek is itching, am I gonna scratch it, am I not gonna scratch it? Just like, sounds like the most boring thing in the world. And what's interesting is paying close attention to the most boring thing in the world is incredibly fascinating. Noticing that each breath, no two breaths are the same, that time keeps moving, that your thoughts keep appearing. It's there, yeah, I mean, it's a spiritual practice for a reason. You notice more and more beautiful things about the simpler, simpler things, yeah, it's great. I like to do that, I don't meditate. I've tried a few times, and I will. But I meditate, I do meditate, but not, I meditate by thinking about a thing. And like holding onto that thing. And just like, that's not really, I guess, technically meditation, but it's keeping a focus on an idea and then you walk with it and you solve the little puzzle of it. Especially any kind of programming or math stuff. You're holding stuff in your head, but don't look stuff up, don't take notes. You're only allowed to have your mind, and that's it. You would really enjoy a meditation retreat. I mean, you would also not enjoy it. It would be hard because it's all, you wouldn't go nuts, it would be hard. But you would get a ton out of it. What's a meditation retreat, is it usually silent? It is always silent, or actually, at least the one I would recommend you do is a silent meditation retreat. Five days. Five days, okay. We'll talk later, but you might be my next victim. I have, I have, I have. Five days is a long time. It's a long time. To just sit. It changes your brain. It's the type of experience that will change your brain permanently. There's been like two, three, four hour sessions of thinking that break me. And you don't have children. I don't have children. How does the, oh, the children. Leaving them for five days and not speaking, and impossible. I've only done one retreat since I had kids. I'm doing another one soon. But only two nights. Maybe that's what the thoughts will be coming in my head. You should be, you should be getting married. You should have kids. That's okay, so whatever, let the thoughts be. I think kids always. You'll get really good at letting things just be and focusing on the present moment. And you might come out with some epiphany about what you should do next. Yeah. No, I love the idea, obviously. I love the idea. I love the idea. You know, I fast for three days. I wanna fast for longer. That's also in a different way, perhaps. But it brings you, makes you more sensitive to the world around you somehow. I'm not exactly sure what the chemistry of that is. But obviously, actually it's not obvious because you're not always that hungry. But you're more, time slows down. And you feel things. You feel a breeze, all this kind of stuff. It's very interesting. You've, I think, tweeted something about ideas coming out from, sometimes feeling about coming from outside of you sometimes. So you mentioned as you meditate, you notice these ideas come in. So thoughts, ideas, how did that connect to consciousness? So the thing I was responding to that you wrote, I think I was partly picking up on the part of you that would really get a lot out of a meditation retreat. That was my way of beginning that conversation. That experience you had of a thought coming from somewhere else, when you spend an extended period of time paying close attention to your moment-to-moment experience, that's how all of your thoughts appear to you. And it's really beautiful because you're letting go. Just through the practice of meditation, you're quieting down your default mode network. And without necessarily intellectually thinking yourself out of free will, it naturally kind of drops away. And so when you're under the spell of this illusion that you are the author of your thoughts and your conscious experience is driving all of your behavior and there's this eye that stands somewhere near your brain but is not your brain, that stands free of the physical world, is the thing generating the thoughts. When you're meditating, that quiets down and can kind of quiet down completely so that your experience is just of the next thing arising in your conscious awareness. And so- But the source of that is still this brain. What you realize is the source of it is not your conscious experience. And that's the important insight. And that's the insight. And so there are many insights you can have in meditation that align with the science, which is what's really fascinating. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Like I can imagine finding meditation to be extremely useful and helping me with anxiety and all the rest and having all kinds of insights that turn out to not be true. But the interesting thing is that these insights actually turn out to be true. And so that is one of them, is the, when you're just watching what your conscious experience actually is, you realize that it's not doing all of the things you usually feel like it's doing. And so the thoughts really just arise in much the same way that a sound or a sight or a feeling, you know, maybe your leg starts to hurt, when you're just watching moment by moment by moment, pain arises, a bird chirping arises, a thought arises, a feeling arises. You're just kind of watching it all unfold. And there's something really beautiful about that. Yeah, it's the perspective you could take on is there's a connectedness to the entirety of the universe, like to nature in general. But there's something so beautiful about consciousness, about the fact that it's not just a dead universe with atoms doing their thing, that at least in this one instance, there is a felt experience of the universe. Of the universe, it's not even individual. As I'm part of the universe, yeah. There's a, right here in this little point in space and time, there is an experience of the universe. But it's still interesting to think about where those ideas, if those ideas are solely a construction of the brain, or is there some kind of mechanism of joint collective intelligence of humans as social organisms? Where those, like, how much of it is me training my neural network and the ideas of tens of thousands of other people? And how much is it myself? You're talking like in terms of psychic phenomena, or you're talking in terms of just absorbing the information of the past and education and just kind of our collective human project that gets in throughout our lives. I don't know much about psychic phenomena, but I also wanna be open-minded in the way we speak about collective intelligence, because it's very easy to simplify it to, it's a neural network trained on knowledge developed over generations and so on. It does feel like intelligence is stored in some kind of distributed fashion across humans. Like, if you take one out, I think that intelligence quickly goes down. I don't know how quickly it goes down if you just take one out, it depends on which one. I think I half agree and half disagree with what you're saying. But yeah, I mean, the other thing you notice when you spend a lot of time in meditation and when you spend a lot of time kind of shaking up these intuitions that I think get in the way of clearly thinking about what consciousness is, is that we are these systems in nature that are not at all isolated. And there are the obvious ways, like if I just stop drinking water, that's gonna change the system very drastically, right? So there's just the energy consumption, but the fact that we exchange ideas is part of who I am is everyone I've interacted with. And of course, the people I interact more with have sculpted me more, but our brains are sculpted through our interactions with each other as well. Yes, but I wonder if it's a more correct and useful perspective to take that those interactions are the organisms. Like you're saying you're still making the brain the primary. There could be like that the brain is what it is because of the social interactions, and the social interactions are the living organism. That's a weird perspective because it's so much more complex. I don't actually think it's one or the other. They're both. Yeah. They're both living. They're like cats and dogs. Yeah, I mean, it's a little bit like, I have two children, and a lot of people with two children will say, like when you're preparing to have the second one, and soon after you've had the second one, that having two is kind of like having three because you are nourishing and protecting and overseeing each individual life, but then there's the sibling relationship, which is almost another thing. Yeah, it's weird. So you've spoken with Don Hoffman a few times. Yes. In his book, Case Against Reality. Many more than a few, yeah. Many more than a few. There's a lot of fun ones. Was there one where Sam was involved? Sam and I interviewed him. Yeah, sorry, most of the conversations I've had with him are private, they're not public, but we used to meet, before the pandemic, we were meeting about monthly to discuss ideas. I would love to be a fly on the wall of those discussions, but he wrote a book, Case Against Reality, makes the case that our perception is completely detached from objective reality. Can you explain his perspective and let us know? No, no, maybe not fully, but to which degree you agree and don't. So this is much more focused. I guess you guys have an agreement that consciousness is somehow fundamental. Yeah, I mean, I think we both think we might be wrong. About the consciousness or about reality? About it being fundamental. I think we're both just, we both agree that this is a legitimate question to ask at this point in science, is consciousness fundamental? And I really see it as a question, and I think he does too. But he goes hard on reality. Yes, and it's interesting because I, you know, especially, so I actually now have recorded three conversations with him for this project I'm working on. Yeah, and in every conversation we have, we seem to land on the same place, but this last conversation we had, it seemed to be even more clear that the semantics really get in the way. When you get into the weeds in these conversations, it's almost like we need some new terminology because it's hard to know sometimes whether we're talking about the same thing. I have issues with his terminology that when we talk about what his terminology represents, it seems like we completely agree. But the conclusions, you don't? It's possible we have a very similar view of the universe if consciousness is fundamental. It may be an identical view. It's hard for me to know because I disagree with a lot of his terminology. Okay, but our four-dimensional reality, he says that's like a complete space-time. Is it a complete weird construction that? Yeah, well, I mean, the truth is that, I mean, if you talk to a neuroscientist like Anil Seth, and I would say most neuroscientists, but he's really good on this subject, and his expertise and his area of focus is in perception. So he talks a lot about how our perceptions give us an experience of the world, and he calls it a controlled hallucination. I'm sorry, I think he says that he got that term from someone else, but that's the term he uses. We got every term from somewhere else. That's true. Everything, there's no new ideas. Right. There's a sense in which what Hoffman is saying is we already know to be the case. So our brains are creating this conscious experience based on these interactions with the outside world. It is, in some sense, all a controlled hallucination. And someone like Anil Seth, so from the neuroscientific point of view, I actually have a quote here somewhere if you have any interest in hearing the quote, but he's essentially saying everything we experience is a perception, including our experience of time and space. So we still don't really know what our experience of space represents out there in the world. And then, of course, when you talk to physicists about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics, I mean, where physics seems to be headed across the board at this point is that space and time are emergent, that they're not part of the fundamental fabric of reality. And so there's some ways in which Don is saying things that... Is he being too poetic about it? Is that the right way to phrase it? Because like... No, go ahead. He says like, it's not that our perception is just a controlled hallucination. Well... No, it's not. He's saying something more than that. More than that. That's true, yes. But my point is that a lot of what he's already saying, on some level, science is already there and could agree with. Yeah, but not all the way. Yeah. Because he's saying like... Well, he... That we don't even... The evolutionary process has constructed our brain mechanisms in such a way that we're really far from having access to objective reality. Yes, although I think we already know that as well. I mean, if any version of string theory is correct, and of course, we don't know yet, it's all up for grabs, but the truth is each theory is weirder than the last. If there are 15 dimensions of space, we are just not... We're not wired to be able to understand the fundamental reality. But I think we have a consistent abstraction that seems to be reliable, like a blockchain. Yes, and he's not just saying that we really only have this tiny window onto reality. He's saying that that window onto reality is giving us a lot of false information. It's not true. It's not just an abstraction, it's false. Because he's saying there's no reason it needs to be true. It's not required to be true. And in fact, through natural selection, it's very possible to imagine, or it's likely to imagine that organisms will evolve in such a way that you're going to just be lying to yourself completely. But the question there is, if that's the case, it's a really interesting thing to think about. I think the rigor with which he approaches it is really admirable. I mean, I do think it's scientific. But the question for me is, why is it so consistent across all of these organisms? We all seem to see the table, and feel and run into the table. So what I would say to that, and when I pose this to him, I really don't want to speak for him. But I'll answer it myself and say that I believe he agrees with what I'm about to say, which is that the things we perceive are connected to the structure of reality. It's just that the structure of reality is made of something completely different than the thing we're experiencing. So imagine, if you just go with the holographic principle, you know, loosely, and actually, the holographic principle applies to black holes only. So there's ADS-CFT duality, anti-de Sitter space, and conformal field theory. Am I getting all these terms right? The terms are right, but I can't believe we're going there. Well, I mean, this is where I've gone in all of my conversations with physicists, because the idea is, so if we just have the basic principle that reality and all of the information can be contained, or is actually in a two-dimensional space that gets projected, this is something that you don't buy, based on the look on your face. No, no, no, I'm actually freaking out, because yes, any theory of modern physics gives inkling that reality's very weird. Right, and completely different from how we experience it. That's one example. So this is an intuition that, for whatever reason, has always felt true to me. This is the way I thought about things as a child. I've met other people that felt this way when I've had experiences in psychedelics, and this is where I start to sound crazy, too. But... No. Nope. But... Everybody else is crazy. Except us. But that has always seemed right to me, and that's always the thing that I feel like I'm looking for. It's funny, recently I was thinking that it's as if I feel like I'm, and this is more how, I was thinking of how I felt as a child, but I feel this way a lot as an adult, too, that the image is one of a snow globe that I'm confined to this snow globe based on my human perceptions, and the truth of reality is out there. And it's actually why I'm so drawn to shaking intuitions. I feel like every time we shake up an intuition, it's like an opportunity to leave the snow globe for a moment. It's like smashing the marbles and seeing, oh, it's not liquid in there like I thought. It's getting this glimpse of something truer than what we typically experience. I feel like it's, for a long time, it's gonna be snow globes inside snow globes inside snow globes. But the larger point is that, yes, whatever is true about the fundamental nature of reality is not something we're experiencing. However, it is linked and gives us clues to it. So one image I came up with recently, I actually wrote about this. I have an article in Nautilus about time because I was, as I spend time thinking about what it would mean for consciousness to be fundamental, and at the same time, I'm talking to physicists about different interpretations of quantum mechanics and the fact that the ones I'm talking to believe that space and time are emergent and are not part of the fundamental story. I was thinking about what is it, what could time be if it's not the way we experience it? What could it be pointing to? And I'm not the first person to think like this. Many people have developed different thought experiments around this, but, and this is, I'm not saying this is the way things are, but this is just one solution is that time and causality appear to us the way they do because for whatever reason, we're only perceiving one moment at a time. And these connections between events that we perceive as time are actually just part of the fabric of reality. There's some structure to reality at a deeper level where it's like shining a flashlight on the structure of reality where for us, for whatever reason, everything else disappears and the only thing that exists is that single pinprick of light that we happen to be inhabiting or that we can perceive, but the rest of it is there. And so that even though time would be an illusion and the causality in the way we experience it is an illusion, or it doesn't mean what we think it means, it's still pointing to a deeper structure. There's something that it corresponds to in the fundamental nature of reality. And I've had many, enough conversations with Dawn, I think, to know that he would agree with that, that our perceptions map onto something. It's just not the experience of it that we're having. So to go back to the idea that all of reality could be contained in two dimensions and there's something about the interaction between different points that cause this holograph so that it seems like there's a three-dimensional world when in fact it's a projection of this two-dimensional surface. What we experience as space still references something at the fundamental level. It's just that it's not space. And that is something that makes a lot of sense to me. I also, I posted an excerpt, George Musser wrote a great book, Spooky Action at a Distance. Spooky Action at a Distance. And he talks about, he's a great science writer and he talks about ways to kind of absorb what this would mean, this ADS-CFT duality. And he talks about, he gives an example of music as an analogy, that two different notes can exist in three dimensions as if the other doesn't exist because of the frequency of the sound waves. And that in another way you can think of the sound waves existing in different dimensions. I don't know if that's, I. Yeah, that's really interesting. I don't speak as well as I write, so. I've written about this in a way that I think is easier to absorb than the way I just described it. But I think causality is the trickiest one, trickier one. Time is a tricky one to like, who, boy. And there are physicists who think that space is emergent but time is still fundamental and Lee Smolin is one of those scientists and it's really interesting to talk to him about this. But yeah, so. But time being emergent is a really trippy one to think about. Also, I wonder if it's possible at which point does the experience of time start becoming a part of the conscious experience of living organisms? So is it something that evolved on Earth? Yeah. Only, or is it? It's also very hard to think about consciousness without time. And that's something that's really interesting for me to think about too. Although, not that this is scientific evidence of anything, but I and many others have had the experience, a timeless, spaceless experience in certain states of meditation and under the influence of psychedelics. And that's a still conscious experience, would you say? Yeah, absolutely. But didn't you say that some aspect of conscious experience is memory? It seems like that too. No, no, so I said an experience of being a self is due to memory. It seems that consciousness and time are inextricably linked, but I think that may be an illusion also. And when I think about consciousness being fundamental, and someone like Max Tegmark, I don't know if there are other mathematicians, I'm sure there are, he's the only one I know of who will talk about mathematical forms and shapes as not just being, he talks about them as being actual objects in nature that exist, that are not just mathematical structures that we can think about, but any mathematical structure that comes out of the math actually exists in reality. And so when I think about consciousness being fundamental, I think about physics and mathematics being a description of the structure of it. And that when mathematicians say things like that, or physicists say things like that, it makes sense if we're talking about a conscious experience of some sort. Yeah, that's really interesting. Oh, first of all, Max is great. Man, this is really interesting to think about how, what is fundamental. It's a good exercise to do in general, to truly think through it. I mean, ultimately it's a very humbling process because we're probably in the very early days of, well, we can't know currently, right? Right, currently. I mean, maybe permanently, but I remain optimistic. Right, to jump around a little bit, the Google AI engineer, I'm using the terms from the press, it's kind of hilarious. But like- Is this a friend of yours? No, it's not, no, no. But just, the term AI is really not used amongst machine learning people. Oh, I see, okay. So like I'm using kind of Google AI engineer, like sentience and chatbot, and like none of those words are really used by the people that actually build them. You know, you're much more likely to use language model versus chatbot or like natural language dialogue versus chatbot or whatever. And certainly not sentience. But that's the point. I mean, sometimes the difference between the public discourse and the engineering is actually really important because engineering tends to want to ignore the magic. They don't notice the magic. Anyway, the Google AI engineer believes that the Lambda One natural language system achieved sentience. I don't know if you paid attention to that. I didn't. You didn't. But the general question is, do you think a chatbot, do you think a robot could be conscious? So, I mean, this answer is slightly different or very different depending on whether I kind of follow the assumption that consciousness emerges at some point in physical processing or whether it's fundamental. Since I've just chosen to stay on the fundamental channel, I mean, then it's kind of a silly answer because if consciousness is fundamental in the way I currently think about it, the only way I imagine it working, every physical thing we perceive is a representation of a conscious experience. So, I mean, yes, it's true of everything in the world. However, I would say if that's the case, even though there's a way in which it's behaving in similar ways to a human being, the way it's constructed, what it is actually made of and the physics of it is so different that I would expect it to have an entirely, completely non-human conscious experience. And whether it even feels like a self, I think would be a big question mark. Well, there's questions of ethics and is it capable of suffering? Is suffering connected to consciousness? I mean, obviously it is. It's the only way you can suffer is in a conscious way. Maybe it's not, maybe it's not. Maybe it's more connected to self than consciousness. I would say, I mean, just on my own use of these words, suffering is only something that can happen in a conscious experience. Right, so can robots suffer? If they have a, anything that has a conscious experience can experience suffering, yes. But do plants suffer in the same? So is there some level where, when we construct our morals and ethics, that, is there a class of conscious experiences or organisms that are capable of conscious experience that we can anthropomorphize sufficiently such that we give them rights? Yeah, I mean, this is not an area that- For physics? I have spent, for me, I have not spent a lot of time thinking about this. Most people expect that I have. It's interesting, these types of questions are much less interesting to me than the other questions. And I think it's because I'm interested in the physics of things. Sure. I'm somewhat interested, I'm definitely interested in ethical questions for human beings, but I have spent very little time thinking about the implications for other types of intelligence. I will say that I think the capacity for suffering of a conscious system goes up with memory and with a sense of self. So if anesthesia only erased your memory and it didn't actually make you unconscious, you actually experienced, horrifically experienced some surgical procedure, but we could completely wipe out your memory of it, as nightmarish as that scenario is, and I'm not suggesting we should ever do this, I would say if our only option were to erase your memory of it, that would be the more ethical thing to do than to have you maintain that memory because the suffering is then carried across a longer distance through time. That's presuming that suffering is unethical. Well, isn't that what ethics is all about? It's about suffering. I mean, I think, to me, ethics is all about suffering and well-being, and I don't know what ethics is without that. Well, there's different measures of suffering, so having one traumatic event, if you erase that one traumatic event, that potentially might have negative, unmet consequences for the growth of a human. Yeah, so then it's a different question, but I would say that memory increases suffering globally so that if any moment of suffering only existed for itself in the present moment, that is a lesser kind of suffering than a suffering that is drawn out over time through memory. So hard to think about, yeah. And so, yeah, I mean, in terms of AI, if they're conscious and there's a sense of self and memory, which I actually think you need memory to have a sense of self. Actually, sorry, I take that back. I actually think you can have a really primitive sense of self without memory, but an AI that is conscious, that has memory and a sense of self, yeah, that's capable of suffering, absolutely. Well, one of the things, because you said you haven't really looked into this area because there's so many interesting things to look into and you're really focused on the physics side. To me, the neuroscience experiments that you mentioned where there's a difference between the timing of things that kind of reveal there's something here. To me, working with robots, I have little robots that are moving around my home in Austin, it's a very good embodied thought experiment. Like, here's a thing that looks like it has a free will. It looks like it has conscious experiences. And then I know how it's programmed. And so, I have to go back and forth. And it's, this is what I do. You lay on the ground looking up at the stars thinking about plants, and I look at a robot. Well, you can do this with plants too. I mean, there's some complex enough behavior that looks like free will from a certain angle. And it makes you wonder two things. One, is there consciousness associated with that processing? And two, if there isn't, what does that say about our experience? And our circumstance in nature, what does that say? Yeah. But yeah, I do that with plants all the time. I go back and forth. But the zombie thought experiment now, at least for me, is often presented as AI because now that's easier, as a robot, because that's easier. I don't know if it's just because it's in pop culture now in the form of films and television shows. But it's easier to get to that point of contemplation, I think, by imagining a robot. I don't know why exactly I'm bothered by philosophers talking about zombies because it feels like they're missing, it's like talking about, it's reducing a joyful experience. So that's like talking about, listen, when you fall in love with somebody, the other person is a zombie. You don't know if they're conscious or not. You're just making presumptions and so on. It's like, it says philosophers will do this kind of thing. They might as well be a zombie. Or there's no such thing as love, it's just a mutual, like economists will reduce love to some kind of mutual calculation that minimizes risk and stability over time. It's like, all right. What I wanna do with each of those people is I wanna find every one of those philosophers that talk about zombies and eventually give them one of those robots and watch them fall in love. And then see how their understanding of how humble they are by how little we understand. That's the point of the zombie experiment, the zombie thought experiment. I can't speak for any of them. Empathy for zombies? Is that the point? No, so for me, I don't like spending much time on it. I think it has limited use for sure. And I understand your annoyance with it. But for me, what's so useful about it is it gets you to ask the same questions you're asking when you're looking at robots. If you just run the experiment and you say, okay, I'm sitting here with Lex. What if I try to trick myself? What's different about the world if someone tells me actually he's a robot? Is essentially what the zombie experiment is. He's over there. He has no conscious experience. He's acting all serious, but there's no experience there. So it gets you to ask some interesting questions. One is, okay, when it seems impossible, I just think, no, that makes no sense. I can't even imagine that. Okay, what do I think consciousness is responsible for? What is consciousness doing in that human over there that is Lex that I can't fathom all of your behavior and everything that you're doing and about without consciousness? So it gets you to ask this question. These are the questions I begin my book with. What is consciousness doing? It gets you to ask that question in a deeper way. And then I kind of found this alternate. I don't know if other people have done this, but I found this alternate use for it, which is even more useful to me, which is I'm able to do it sometimes. I'm able to just sit with someone and get my imagination going and imagine there really is no conscious experience there in that person. And what happened for me the first few times I was able to do this is it reminded me exactly of how I feel when I look at complex plant behavior and other behaviors in nature where I assume there's no conscious experience. And to me it just flips everything on its head. It just gets you to be able, it gets you to be open to possibilities that you were closed to before. And I think that's useful. Does it enhance or dissipate your capacity for love of other human beings? What role does love play in the human condition, Aga? I mean, in so many ways it's the most important role. I don't think any of these realizations, I mean, if anything I think it enhances it. But I don't think they, I mean, it kind of goes back to the levels of usefulness. Sometimes you wanna picture your friends as a plant. It's helpful. It's helpful to appreciate the beauty that they are as an organism. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. For me, the more time I spend practicing meditation, seeing through these illusions, the more poignant my conscious experience becomes and love is obviously one of the most powerful and one of the most positive experiences we have. And I don't know, there's just, whatever its cause is, there's just something miraculous about it in and of itself and for itself. I think love, romantic love, is a beautiful thing. Connection, friendship is a beautiful thing. And it's so interesting how people can grow together, how interact together, disagree together, and make each other better. Like scientific collaborations are like this too. You know, Daniel Kahneman, Tversky, I mean, there's, and most people are not able to do that in the scientific realm. They create, the more successful you become, the more solid you become. No, it's rare, and you recognize it when you have it, when you have a great collaboration. I mean, in science, but also in other areas. In this TED production I'm working on, I just happened to be working with this producer where we had this instant connection, and the chemistry's great, and I have so much fun recording with her. It's so great to have, I usually work alone, and it's been wonderful to have a partner. It's like a chat, it's like a conversation type of thing? Yes, she's taking my, we're playing around with it. We're just working on the pilot. I love how you have no idea how this is gonna turn out. This is great. Yeah. Well, I just started working without a clear, a clear image of the end result. Although it started with an idea for a film. I don't know, I guess I have a feeling, I was just wondering if I'd talked about this with you before anywhere, but probably not. Yeah, because you and I have never spoken before. No, we just met. We just know each other. You mean you didn't see me when I was listening to that podcast of yours? And had that thought, you didn't hear that thought? I mean, we were mentioning this offline as a small change, there's a cool dynamic in how we get to become really close friends without never having met, never having talked one way, but it could be one way friendships that form, and it's a beautiful thing. I think, I don't know, that makes me feel like we're all connected. And you're almost like plugging into some kind of weird thing in the space of ideas. So many things I wanna say now, but here's one thing is the way I think about consciousness if it's fundamental is analogous to a pot of boiling water where the water is the consciousness and the bubbles are the conscious experiences. And so it is all one thing, and then there are these shapes that take form. And there's a felt experience, right? It's all felt experience. And so when we're able to let go of this sense of self or this illusion of self, the idea that experiences are happening to something or to someone drops out. And what you get is just experiences arising. So there's the fundamental nature of the universe, which obviously has a structure and obeys laws, but what you get out of that are appearances of different conscious experiences. They're just coming into being, right? And so there is under that view, I mean, there are different ways to look at the fundamental nature of reality without consciousness and kind of come up with a similar view, but in that view, it is just kind of one, it's one thing with different experiences popping up. And in that boiling pot is a lobster, which represents the human condition. The devil. Because life is suffering. I don't know if you've read the paper, Foster Wallace considered the lobster, I mean, the stuff that we do to lobsters is fascinatingly horrible. But. Oh yeah, no, I mean, that was my first rejection of many worlds, just my psychological rejection of it was just imagining the multiplication of all the suffering. I just, I mean, I spend a lot of time thinking about, consumed by, and trying not to be overwhelmed by the depth of human suffering. To imagine many worlds with is just. Infinite suffering? Oh my God, yeah. What is it about humans, I think you spent too much time on Twitter, is focused on the suffering. I mean, there's also the awesomeness. And I think the awesomeness outpowers the suffering over time. That's so nice. I wish I believed that. With memory, as you said, the suffering is multiplied. It's an interesting thought, but with memory, beauty is multiplied as well, so it's like. Yes, where I stand with it, and I'm for some reason still optimistic that we can get ourselves to a different place. But the way things currently are, or the way things have always been for animals and humans, and I think any conscious life form is, to me, the suffering seems so much more impactful and powerful than any happy, for lack of a better word, experience, that no happy experience is worth its equivalent experience of suffering. That's certainly how I feel as well, but I have learned not to trust my feelings. Yeah, well. So, the folks who are religious will ask the question, which I think applies whether you're religious or not, why is there suffering in the world? Why does a just God allow suffering, those kinds of questions. I think, it does seem that suffering is a deep part of human history, and you have to really think about that. Part of nature. It means. Part of nature. If feeling good is surviving and thriving, nothing survives and thrives forever. So, you just encounter suffering. It's just built in. Yeah, death means just all in the end, and only, it's kind of hilarious to then think about most of nature and the cruelty and the poverty of nature, like how horrible the conditions are for animals. And plants. And plants. And it's just war. It's just war all over the place. It's war, but it's mostly, yeah, it's war, but it's also just, it's like poverty. It's extreme poverty. When people criticize farms and so on, you also have to consider the suffering that animals, which I imagine that animals in the woods are all this happy time. No, it's like, you have to really consider, if you really asked an animal, would they like to sit in a boring zoo and be fed away from the wild and nature and the freedom and so on? I don't know how many of them would choose the zoo versus nature. Anyway, but what's the meaning of life, Anika? Let me ask the question. Why? Yes. There's no you. It's the question for whatever you're plugged into. Is that a question for the body and mind system we call Anika? We'll call Anika and let's see what that. The meaning of life? Yeah, the why. The why. Why? Is there a why? It's interesting. I've never been drawn to the why questions. I'm interested in the what and the how. What is life? What is this place? What are we doing? How are we here? How is this taking place? But I mean, if I had to answer, I guess I don't think there is a why really. It's funny, the quote, the thought that comes to mind is really like a kind of a cheesy quote that I'm sure is printed on a bunch of mugs and T-shirts, but it's Thich Nhat Hanh. I'm gonna get it wrong, but it's something like, we're here to awaken from our illusion of separateness. And I don't really see that as an answer to the why question, although that's how it's framed in his quote. We are here for that purpose. I think if there is a purpose worth being here for, that's kind of the ultimate, I think. Let me ask you for advice. You had a complex and a beautiful journey through life. You're exceptionally successful. What advice would you give to young folks in high school or in college about how to live a life like yours or how to live a life they can be proud of or have a career they can be proud of? How to pave a path and journey they can be happy with and be proud of? I haven't really had this conversation with my kids. I mean, we have lots of deep conversations and they're all kind of pertaining to each moment or whatever they're facing. I think career is difficult because in so many ways I just feel like I'm lucky that I ended up being able to do for a living the thing I love to do. But the truth is- There's no such thing as luck. Yeah, well- Or the free will. Luck is an illusion. There's no such thing as luck when you believe in free will, right? Right. That's true. They're all illusions. I really, in retrospect, started working on my book 30 years ago and had no idea that I was working on a book. And this kind of ties into my advice, which is I think it's really important to follow your passion and to find things that you love and that you find inspiring and motivating and exciting, whether they relate to your career or not. And I think many times if you persist just for the pure passion of the thing itself, it finds a way into your everyday life. The career manifests itself. I mean- Out of whatever pursuit. That's what's happened to me. I've had such an unconventional path. It's very hard for me to give advice based on that path. But I do believe that it's extraordinarily important to keep your passions alive, to keep your curiosity alive, to keep your wonder at life alive, however you do that. And it doesn't necessarily have to be in your career. And I think for a lot of people, their career enables them the time and the space to experience other things that maybe wouldn't be as enjoyable if they were at their career. Yeah, I mean, in general, a dogged pursuit of the stuff you love will create something beautiful. And if it's an unconventional path, those are the best kinds. Those are the most beautiful kind. And a creator in this case, I think you're a beautiful person, Anika, a beautiful mind. Thank you so much for doing everything you do and for sharing it with the world. And thank you so much for talking with me today. That was awesome. Good to finally meet you. Great to finally meet you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Anika Harris. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Mahatma Gandhi. I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/q6zEzZCtkXw

rKnoNfajUgM

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Daniel Negreanu: Poker | Lex Fridman Podcast #324

You could be the seventh best player in the whole world, like literally seventh best player. But if you're playing with the other six, you're the sucker. You are the worst player in the game, right? So there's a lot of players, for example, like the Dan Blazarian's of the world, right? He's not a top level player, like these guys you see on TV, but he probably makes more money than they do because he plays with people that are far below his skill level. So part of the skill of being a poker player is finding situations where you're profitable, regardless of your skill level. The following is a conversation with Daniel Negrano, one of the greatest poker players of all time. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Daniel Negrano. Everything everyone does at the poker table conveys information. So let me ask sort of the big overview question. What are the various sources of information that you project and others project at the table that convey information? Well, there's several different things. There's the ones that are conscious and then there's the ones that are subconscious, right? Like on the conscious level, it might be something someone says, right? You know, you ask them a question and they say, oh, you know, you shouldn't call me here, you should. So there's the verbal tells. There's also the more, you know, subconscious stuff, body posture, right? The eyes, the throat, the pulse, various things that are, you know, less controllable. I find I use a combination of both to try to gain information, but generally when I have somebody more comfortable, they give off more. Like everyone has a different approach. Phil Ivey likes to intimidate. I go the other way. I want my opponents to be relaxed so that they'll give me more in that regard. So Phil Ivey likes to perturb the system, like mess with it to see what comes out? I think Phil has an aura about him where he wants you to know that he's watching you, be afraid, be uncomfortable, because when you're uncomfortable, I got you, right? And that's sort of his shtick where he, you know, and people do, like when you sit at a table with Phil Ivey, it's intimidating. He likes to rule by fear and you like to rule by, what is it, love? That's a really good way to put it. I never put it like that, but it makes a lot of sense. Yeah, you know, fear Phil Ivey, and then with me, it's fine, don't worry, I'll take your money, but you're gonna enjoy it. It's great. So that's what the talking at the table is about, is getting to be relaxed and get some of that gray area between the conscious and the subconscious to reveal something. Yeah, there's that too. And also just, you know, and this is just part of who I am anyway. Like I like to talk to people, but one of the byproducts is the more I know about you, the more I likely know about how you think about different situations, right? So what do you do for a living? Oh, I'm a lawyer. I defend criminals. Okay, so this guy probably spends a lot of his time twisting the truth, trying to find, you know, and then, so then, you know, you already have a mindset of like this guy might be more likely to bluff, or he's probably comfortable doing that. Very subtle things like that. And you start to pick up cues on what nervousness looks like for this person, what the nervousness communicates, all that kind of stuff. So we're talking about physical tells here. Yeah, physical tells is a secondary thing. I was more specific, like player profiling, right? And sort of understanding the type of mind that I'm dealing with, right? So again, somebody who's a lawyer is used to trying, is fine with being deceptive as part of a game, right? Whereas maybe somebody is a Sunday school teacher, and, you know, they don't feel comfortable. Maybe they think bluffing might be dishonest, right? So they're less likely to try some shenanigans against you. So, and then the other thing too is, what type of person is this in terms of their, you know, like view on life, right? Are they positive? Do they feel like things go their way? Or they're not, right? There's those people that always, well, of course I lost. I always lose with this hand. And those types of people you can manipulate. Because when a card comes that you don't have them beat, right, but you can pretend, because they'll believe it. Like, of course you beat me. So you bet all your chips against them, knowing that you can scare them, because they already feel like they're gonna lose. The inherent, like the cynicism. Exactly. Cynicism is easier to play against, because you can convince them that their cards suck. Yeah, when somebody believes that they're a loser, or they're unlucky, right? And that bad things happen to them always, and they never catch a break. Well, you know, you can just help them make it true. What do you think about the rounders Teddy KGB when he does the Oreo tell? Do players at the high level communicate that kind of stuff? Do you think it's realistic to be able to have a tell like this? That's partially subconscious. So first of all, I love Brian Koppelman, who made the film. And I think what they were going for is something obvious to the general public, right? Like, okay, it's very clear. You know, he eats the cookie, he doesn't eat the cookie. And it means one or the other. At the highest levels, something that, you know, blatant, you're not gonna find. You're gonna find a lot more subtle things, maybe with posture or timing, or, you know, different things like that. But at the lower levels, you know, you might see some, you might see, you know, with a lot of people, when they're in a hand and they've bet, whether they drink water in the hand is going to tell you something, generally speaking. It's such an intimate part of the human experience that I feel like if you have food, you're gonna reveal something about yourself through the way you eat. I feel like that's a dangerous thing to have at the table. Well, the thing is, generally speaking, people don't eat food in the middle of a hand. Like, they're not gonna bet and then just like grab a burger, right? What they will do, though, is, you know, they bet and it's up to you. And then they're, whether they're, you know, uncomfortable or they do it unconsciously, they just wanna do something to make themselves look relaxed or whatever. And, you know, they grab a water where they don't really need it in that moment, but they're trying to take your mind off of the situation. So they, in the movie, wanted to show a simplistic version of something that does happen, something that's visually sort of clear. Yeah, because I think one of the things Rounders got right is that it's a poker movie, right? But you don't have to be great at poker or really understand poker to enjoy the movie. And that, you know, Oreo cookie tale, like, everyone gets that. They're like, okay, that's simple. If he would have went with something more subtle, you know, like licking your lips or looking to the right, or I think it might've been lost on the audience. And they didn't actually explicitly say that that was a tell, I don't think. I thought they did everything to let you know, right? With the music and slow motion and he's staring at it and he's like, aha. Yeah, but they didn't actually say, you know, this is an obvious tell. Like, Matt Damon's character didn't talk to him. At the very end of it, you know, after he says, how the fuck did you lay that down, a monster, right? And he's like, you're not hungry? Not hungry, KGB? He's like, I keep on, you know? So he sort of references it and then he takes the cookies. He notices, he's like, ah, he got me and he breaks the, you know, the rack of cookies. Well, probably if you had that kind of tell on him, you wouldn't, and Matt Damon's character would not reveal. Well, he says in the movie, he says, normally I wouldn't reveal a tell, but I don't have that much time. Like, I've got to rattle him some way. So that was one way to do that. How hard is it to do that to, in the KGB accent, to lay down a monster in those situations? In general, how hard is it to lay down a really strong hand, just psychologically? Yeah, no, I mean, I think it's incredibly difficult for the vast majority of people. You know, part of what makes professionals really, really good is recognizing a situation that's very, very dangerous and they need to, you know, jump ship. Like, what happens to a lot of players is you get married to a hand. Let's say you have pocket aces, which is the best possible hand, right? But the board runs out where it's seven, eight, nine, and then there's a jack and then there's a six. It's like, you have a great hand to start, but you don't anymore. So one of the difficult things for the average player is, you know, once they've put money in, cutting their losses and saying, okay, let's move on to the next hand. It's a very, very difficult thing for a lot of people. At every stage of like pre-flop, all the way through, be able to just make a decision at that moment. So yeah, essentially not being attached. Okay, I've already put in $40,000 in this pot and this guy's bet another 20. Well, I mean, I gotta get my 40 back, right? Except, you know, in some cases, you have to reassess individually this situation and realize, all right, well, this is a bad investment. So I gotta cut my losses. By the way, I should mention that you have an incredible YouTube channel where you explain a lot of stuff. You do a podcast, you do a lot of really awesome stuff. My probably favorite thing that you've done is your masterclass that people should definitely check out, masterclass.com slash Lux. There you go. No, but it really is one of my favorite masterclass courses, but also just a great introduction overview of poker. It's great for people that like me who are beginners, essentially. But it's probably really good for intermediate people too. I mean, there's a lot of really good detail there. Anyway, what are hand ranges and how do you begin to estimate the range of hands that your opponents have? Yeah, so I actually, speaking of YouTube, I did a video on specifically this, getting familiar with rangers. And essentially, you know, back in my day, the old days, we didn't talk about poker that way. We're like, ah, I think he's got this or I think he's got that, right? Nobody thought of like the range of hands a player can have. So I guess the best example is imagine like all the potential hands as being a part of a grid, right? So the first player to act, they could have any one of those hands, right? Any one randomly dealt, right? But let's say now that that player raised to $3,000. Okay, well, you can eliminate now from this grid, a whole bunch of hands that this player can no longer have. Because if they had a two and a three, they wouldn't do that. So you can say, okay, he probably has a big pair. He has ace king, you know, you've narrowed the range of hands down, right? Now, through every action on the flop, on the turn and on the river, based on the decisions they make, you narrow it down even further. So the range of hands is the whole, the entirety of all the possibilities that this player you believe could have. And sometimes they fool you, or they have a hand that you don't expect them to have in their range. And, you know, maybe a little bit unorthodox, doing some things you don't expect to throw you off. But a range is essentially all the possibilities and it narrows. Before the flop, it's endless. Player raises, okay, it's minimized. Now player bets the flop, okay, it's minimized further. And then by the river, you know, you can narrow down the entire range to, you know, just maybe even a few hands. Is it always shrinking or is there sort of, as you get surprised, I mean, it's always just an estimate. So does it ever expand based on sort of chaotic, unpredicted, surprising behavior of the players? It really should never expand. The range of hands should always get smaller, right? Like, again, we start with the full scope and then you should factor in like, okay, these are all the possible hands you can have on the flop now, right? We can't have new hands on the turn. And if you get to that point where you think, oh, well, maybe he has this hand, then you sort of misjudged his range prior. So you're not thinking clearly. It should always shrink from the full scope to, you know, hopefully just a couple. Well, in that video, you also talk about, it used to be that you would play your hand, but now you're playing a range, you're representing a range. You're not even just playing your hand. So what does it mean to represent a certain range? Yeah, so that's another big thing that's different about poker from, you know, my day to today, is that back in our day, we would like put people on one hand, like you probably have king nine or you have jacks or something like that. Now, people are cognizant of the idea that you could have an entire range of hands. So then you ask yourself in situations, all right, I know what I have, but what I could have in his mind or my opponent's mind is any one of these hands. What would I do with the entirety of these hands? And so a lot of people that are trying to play optimally, you know, game theory optimal, they think in terms of what their range of hands would do rather than their very specific hand. So is bluffing in that context, essentially misrepresenting the range of hands that you have? No. Is that how you think about it? Not exactly, because, so an optimal range, like if I bet the river, if I'm playing game theory optimal, a portion of my range is going to be, I have it. I got the best hand and a portion of my range is going to be bluffs and there'll be balanced. So in theory, no matter what you do, no matter what you do, if you call or you fold, in theory, it's just, you're printing a zero, as we say, you're not getting, gaining or losing any EV if you were to do it that way. What's EV? EV is expected value, right? So every play that you make, you know, it either is going to in the long run, you know, make you some money or it's just a losing play. And as a professional, you try to make the fewest amount of minus EV plays you can. And the only reason you would make these minus EV plays is potentially if you were trying to set up your opponent for something later, right? So I might make some minus EV plays, right? So that I can exploit you later, right? So you're building up- Building up an image. A player profile that's false in some way. Something that I'm going to, I'm going to plant seeds in your mind so that I can exploit them later. So for example, why would players like show a big bluff? Like what would be the reason for that? They show a big bluff so that you know they're capable of it. But maybe in their mind, they're never going to do that again. But now they think, you know, he bluffed me last time, maybe he's doing it again. But that's what we call like a leveling war. Because you know, you can go back and forth with whether or not, okay, this guy might know that. Like he showed a bluff because he's never going to bluff me again. So that's where it gets a little- So that's a little bit different though when we're talking about hand ranges, that's different than building up a mental model of what your opponents, what your opponents think of you and what your opponents think that you think of them and so on and so forth. Are you trying to construct those kinds of mental models? And is that separate from the hand ranges? They go hand in hand, right? So if in a given situation, right, my range has this many value hands and this many bluffs, okay, so in theory, if I want to be balanced, you know, this is my range and this is what it looks like. I'll bet this 50% of the time, bet this 50% of the time. However, if I know that you think that I bluff too much, right, then I'm not going to bluff as much. I'm going to start, instead of betting these hands that I would 50-50, now what I'll do is I'll do like 70-30 where I'm basically value betting most of the time against you, you know, or vice versa. If I know you always fold because you think I have it, I'm going to veer the other way. And instead of bluffing 50%, I'll bluff 70-80% of the time to take advantage of your perception of me. So to be successful, do you have to construct a solid model of all the players in the game, or can you ignore them? I think it's really important. Like when I play, I have in my phone, I have a player profile of everyone that I play with. Whenever I pick up, whether it's physical tells or tendencies they like to, you know, that they have. And overall, that's just going to, you know, that's going to allow you to exploit more, right? So like, if I played with somebody I've never played before, I'm probably just going to play optimally, or at least as optimal as I know how, until I start to gain some information on that player so that I can start to exploit them. So what's the, when you say optimally, what does optimally mean versus, so game theory optimal versus exploitative? Yeah, so that's like sort of the big debate in poker. We call it for short, GTO, game theory optimal versus exploitative play. So GTO, game theory optimal, is the idea that no, like I'm going to set up my play so that no matter what you do, you cannot exploit me. So essentially that's playing rock, paper, scissors, right? And throwing 33% of each every time, right? Nothing you do can beat that, nothing. You'll never be able to beat that, right? Exploitative play is starting to notice that, okay, well, you know what? This guy loves rock. He loves playing rock. So I'm going to go paper a little more. So I'm going to take advantage of him. So I won't be through, but now all of a sudden, when I do that, I'm no longer playing optimal because if you knew that I was making that adjustment, now you can exploit me. So that's where the sort of what we call a leveling war happens, where people veer from, you know, the optimal line of, okay, 33% each for each one. You can't beat that, but you also can't win with that either. So you're always trying to be at the cutting, at the leading edge of suboptimal play. Yeah, you're going back and forth. And listen, at the highest levels, like online that these guys play, like they're trying to play pretty close to like game theory optimal, because it's very difficult to do, first of all, no human being will ever be able to compute at the level that computers can. It's just never going to happen. So that's where like the human mind has to come into play and say, all right, well, you know, if I was playing against a robot, I would do X, but I'm not. I'm playing against you, so I have to adjust. So does game theory optimal only look at the betting and the hands in the current hand, or does it look at the history? So if you were to play optimally, optimally, would you need to look at the history of the individual players or just every hand is taken afresh? See, that's why I love playing exploitatively for the most part, because with GTO, anything that's happened in the past has no bearing on this situation. It's simply based on what is the optimal play in a vacuum in this spot. Whereas exploitatively, okay, this guy bluffs way too much in these spots. So now I can make an adjustment and call more, you know, based on past information. GTO doesn't take into account history at all. So like in a tournament, how quickly can you construct a player profile that you've never played before? Depends on the level of the buy-in really, right? So the higher the buy-in, generally speaking, you can assume if they're professionals, that they're gonna have pretty similar profiles because, you know, everyone's playing, you know, if you're playing this game well, it looks similar, right? At the lower levels, you know, playing say in 1000 or $1,500 buy-in or less, you know, within a half an hour or an hour, I have an idea of, all right, just by seeing how some players played a few hands that, you know, so here's the thing with poker, it's like, I can see one clue of what he did and it tells me so much about what he'll do in a vast number of scenarios. And you're saying at the high level, people don't give too many clues. I mean, then- Well, at the highest level, people are so much more similar in terms of their style of play. They try to find some kind of balance between the GTO and the exploitative play. And now with all that we've seen on TV, right? Like people get to watch streams and whatever. So you get to watch all the top players play. So if you wanna learn how to play better, guess what you do? You copy what they're doing, essentially. Like, oh, he's only raising this much. I'm gonna do the same. They're betting this much. I'm gonna do the same. So as a result, what you end up having is sort of, you know, everyone deciding, like, I guess it's similar in chess with openings, right? People figure out, okay, this is an opening. This is what you do. And that's it, you know? And then everyone's similar to that. And then you have, of course, the outliers who try to do things a little differently and confuse people. It seems like the outliers, like we talked offline, that Magnus, in order to win, Magnus Carlsen, has to play suboptimally in the openings to take his opponents out of the comfort zone so he can play what he calls pure chess as quickly as possible, which is just both short and deep calculations, purely you're looking at the board versus memorized openings and memorized lines. Is it the case that the best poker players are the ones that are able to, at the right time, play really suboptimally or really unorthodox? Yeah, specifically there's one guy who last year sort of took the poker world by storm, and his name is Michael Adamo. And he was doing things, like I said, most of the top pros play very similarly with the way that they construct ranges and their bet sizing and all these kind of things. He was doing some crazy things that nobody else was doing. So he studied sort of a different form of poker, and it was unorthodox. And it throws people off, because he's in his comfort zone with these bet sizes and different things, whereas everyone else, they're not well studied in those spots. So as a result of him being unorthodox, he became like a monster and very difficult to play against, because he really knew what he was doing with it. In tournament or cash games? He was tournaments, yeah. He was crushing tournaments. He was going against the norm in terms of what is like, this is what you should do as a poker player in this spot. He wasn't doing that. He was doing what he thought was best, and he was doing things outside the norm that again, in a vacuum, you could look at that and you go, that's incorrect. That he should not do. That is a clear cut mistake. Even the solvers or the computers or game theory would say, this is wrong, what he's doing. But it's not wrong if he's doing it in a way that he's exploiting other players' tendencies. So for example, with him, say he's playing far too aggressively, okay? That's not good, unless your opponents are playing way too passively. So if your opponents are playing passively, the answer is to be more aggressive with them. And that's, I think, one of the biggest advantages he had was he was willing to do that. So bet, big pots, bluffing. So in a spot where somebody would make it 1,000, he's making it 22,000. Like what? What is this? This makes no sense. And then people kind of know he has nothing, but they're too afraid to call him on it. Well, and then sometimes what happens is, this is where the leveling comes in. You're like, man, this guy's crazy. He's bluffing like nuts. Then he bets the 22,000, and you say, ah, I'm taking my stand, I call. And then he shows you four of a kind or something like that. So he gets people out of their comfort zone. And I really enjoy watching him play. He's probably my favorite player to watch today. Watching a guy like that, what aspect of his play have you been able to incorporate into your own? Like what do you learn from that? Because you're constantly learning, you're constantly adjusting. Yeah. Well, no, and I love it. And as I said, so I think a lot of players sort of come to the same conclusions about this is how you play the spot, but he doesn't. And I love watching and thinking in terms of why he's doing this. And one specific thing, for example, is he's willing to really go for it. So in a spot where let's say he bets 2,000, he knows he'll get you to call 2,000, right? But he wants it all. He wants it all. So he says, you know what? I'll give up the 2,000, that's guaranteed. And I'll bet 50,000. And maybe if you call that, now, you know, so listen, he lose the 2,000 seven, eight times, but if I get called for the 50 just once, you know, I'm profiting from that. And it also sets the, you know, the template for you to really sort of be a player that people are afraid to play against. He knocked me out in a tournament very early on in a huge event. And he had, he was so far ahead. He was one step ahead of my thought process in hand. And he did something that makes no sense whatsoever. I looked it up on the computer, huge mistake, if you will, but not a mistake, because he was taking advantage of my tendency. Do you remember the cars? Is there an example? I remember the whole thing. Yeah, I remember it like it was yesterday. Can you take it like through an example hand that really demonstrates it? So I'll explain the hand here. So I'm on the button and I have ace king, which is a very good hand. And I raise and he calls from the big blind. The flop is nine, seven, five. So I have nothing really here. He checks, I check behind. The turn card's an ace. He checks, I bet half the pot. There were 6,000 in there, I bet 3,000, okay? Now this is not a typical thing you see people do, but he raised me to 36,000, massive raise, bigger than the size of the pot. What was the flop again? Nine, seven, five, turn an ace. What is he representing exactly? Well, he could have a straight, he could have three of a kind, he could have aces up, he could have a whole bunch of hands. So he check raises me big to 36,000. I call the bet. So now there's something like 75,000. The river is a five, so the board pairs, okay? He thinks for a while and he bets all of it, which is three times the pot. He bets 225,000. There's only 75,000 out there, right? And in theory, he should never ever have a hand that can do that, right? So it confused me and I was like, okay, well, this guy's aggressive, he likes to bluff and all this kind of stuff. So I made the call with the ace king and he turned over six, eight. So we had a straight. But here's the thing, in theory, that river card is bad for him. When I call the turn, I have a lot of the time three of a kind, two pair that just made a full house. So he was risking that. And the reason he did it was because he thought I would perceive him to be bluffing a lot. So he just went for it and it worked. He was able to double up right away and knock me out of the tournament like an hour in. Do you think he thought you might fold? Like what is it? I think specific, I think it was, it came down to this. It's as simple as this. He was cognizant of his image as being a wild, aggressive bluffer, right? And he was fully taking advantage of me, knowing that my tendency in these spots is to be curious and I want to call and I want to see it. So he was fully taking advantage of the fact that he thought I would call too often. Because otherwise, his play makes no sense. A small bet, a medium-sized bet, those make sense. But the bet that he made, in theory, is indefensible. It's just like clearly a mistake. But that's why poker's so fascinating, because he makes this play and it wasn't a mistake. It was above the rim, is what it was. Do you think he put you on ace something? I think exactly what he thought I had. Was ace king or something like that? You know? Oh, that is so fun. That is so fun that the two players at such a high level were able to mess with each other's mind. How old is he? Is he young? He's in his 20s, yeah. I feel like that takes a lot of guts to take risks like that. Well, that's what's great about him. He's certainly never accused of not having the guts to put it in. And that's scary to play against, right? The easiest opponent to play against is one who's just straightforward, passive, you know, not wild and crazy. Playing against him, he's gonna put you in the blender, as we say. How can you control what you're perceived as representing? What hand you're perceived of as representing? So if the game of modern poker is others are representing certain hands through the information they convey, and you're representing a certain hand range, sorry, through your play, how can you control that? Or is that not, is that the wrong way to think about it? But isn't bluffing and bet sizing and all of that kind of stuff, essentially controlling what others perceive as the hand range you have? Ultimately, in terms of like controlling people's perception of you, you can't fully control it, but you can do things to sway it, right? As I said earlier, showing bluffs and things like that, you know, leads your opponent to think maybe you do this more often than you're supposed to, or whatever the case may be. But in terms of like controlling, you know, what your opponent can think about your hands in certain spots, I don't really think it equates that way. It doesn't really, you know, I think what people do when they're playing a hand is they think in terms of, all right, what does my range look like here? Okay, so my range has value. So you look at, you know, the actual hand you have secondarily. So you say, okay, well, I could have this, I could have this, I actually have this, right? But I could have all these hands. So my opponent, if he's thinking on a high level, he knows I could have all these hands and I have this one. So what do I do with this one, right, in the bigger scope of things? I guess I'm trying to understand if your betting isn't a bet pre-flop, your bet, doesn't that narrow the hand ranges? Doesn't matter what you have, it narrows the, and- Absolutely. And if you bet big combined with the perception of you at the table, doesn't that represent the hand range? Uh-huh, absolutely. So like you can, with betting, essentially control what people estimate you to have. Sure, so that makes it, so yeah, so that's true. So for example, one of the most extreme examples is, we have, there's spots where there's a bet that's considered polarizing, right? So let's say there's a thousand in the pot and you bet 10,000, which is crazy big, right? That's saying one of two things. I either have the absolute best possible hand or absolutely nothing. Because any of the hands in the middle, I wouldn't do that with. So I'm essentially telling you when I bet that, I'm like, I either got it or I got, I don't have a mediocre hand, like just a pair of nines or a pair of tens. I have a royal flush or have nine high. So with my bet sizing, I can control how my opponent is perceiving what my range is gonna be. So for example, similarly, if I bet small, right? Well, that could be a lot of hands, right? That could represent a big part of my range. The bigger the bet, the more, the narrower the range. Apparently, the more polarized it is. Yeah, yeah. How far could you get without looking at your cards? Do you think, how well could you do? It depends on who I'm playing with, right? So if I was playing in a tournament with mediocre or weak players, I think I could probably do pretty well. But even like world-class? World-class, I don't think you'd have much of a chance, really, I mean. The question is trying to get at like, how important is it the actual hands you have versus the hands you're representing? Right, so that's the question of essentially, if you're not looking at your hand pre-flop, you're basically giving up a fundamental advantage, right? Where you're gonna be playing way sub-optimally in terms of your hand selection, right? Because if you don't look at your hand, you might have a two and a three. That's not good, but now you're playing it. So you've invested whatever, two, 3,000 bucks with absolute garbage, and it's very difficult to climb that hill, right? So it's much better to actually look at your cards and go, okay, I'll throw away the two and three, and I'll play the ace king. Speaking of garbage, you've said that 10-7 is your favorite poker hand to play. Is that still the case, and what aspect of it is that you enjoy? Yeah, so it's one of those viewer discretion is advised. Like 10-7, I've just noticed this throughout my life. You know, it's a tendency thing that I've been lucky with it. So that's just sort of, but it's not like I'm gonna look at 10-7 and go, oh, wow, you know, I'm gonna call an all in or anything like that. I'll play it in situations where it makes sense, but you know, it's rare, because it's not a very good hand. But is there some aspect of belief in the magic of this hand manifests quality of play? Or is that a little, whoa, whoa? There shouldn't be, but I, so here's the thing. You know, poker players, some have said it's unlucky to be superstitious, but we're all a little bit superstitious, a little bit. You know, and so, I don't know, maybe it is a case where when I have 10-7, I feel somehow energetically that, you know, I'm more likely to catch something, which may actually make me more apt to be aggressive and confident in the hand. But you really shouldn't let yourself do that. Like you're not supposed to fall in love with any specific hands. Yeah, but you know, uncertainty is ruthless. And so, you know, the fact that it's a game of statistics, it can be too painful for the human psychology. So maybe you have to hold on to certain superstitions. Because, you know, I mean, there's a cold absurdity to the fact that you can play extremely well and still lose. I mean, actually this year, you've played the, what is it, 50 days of World Series of Poker. And it seems like, at least from the perspective of me looking at it through the internet, it seems like there's a lot of hands that you were like 70-30, 80-20, all-in hands that you just were not going your way. That can sort of break you mentally. Absolutely. Yeah, one of the hardest things, especially about playing, because cash games and tournaments are different. One of the most difficult things about, you know, being a tournament player is resilience. Because more often than not, like, so if there's a tournament with 1,000 people, to win the tournament, you have to get all of the chips. That means there's one winner and 999 losers. So it's very rare that you actually like win all the chips. So you're essentially at some point in every tournament you play, gonna deal with like really bad luck and disappointment. And sometimes those streaks can have you question yourself and be introspective about, okay, so I think I'm 47 now. I think I've gotten better as time went on between distinguishing, okay, am I losing right now because of bad luck? Or is it fundamentally decisions I'm making are not very good, right? And that's one of the hardest things for anyone who plays poker to get to, right? Why am I losing? Am I losing because of my opponents being better, I'm not playing well, or am I losing just because of luck? And because there's so much variance in poker, a lot of players can be confused on both sides of the coin. One guy's winning and he thinks he's great, he's really not. Wait till the cards break even as we say. I think there's a lot of parallels to life as well. If you get screwed over and over, it's hard to know if you're doing something wrong or if it's just bad luck. I think they did a study. I remember there was like a study, it was mostly related to gambling, but it was mice and they put them in a little maze and they'd go down these three tubes and they'd go down this one tube and there'd be cheese, right? And then they'd go down again, cheese. Three times in a row, there was cheese there, right? The next time there was an electric shock there, not cheese. The mouse went to get zapped, he got zapped, okay? Came back, he kept going back to get zapped until he died. Like he kept going because he found cheese there. He has won there. So he continued to go chase that win despite it being now all of a sudden not worthwhile till he died. And essentially what they said was that is essentially how they compared it to like the gambling brain and how people think about gambling. You're chasing the wins. You learn too much. You sort of overgeneralize the lessons learned from the times you've won. I say, yeah, like beginner's luck can be detrimental. If you have some early luck and you believe that this is just the way it's supposed to be forever, you know, it can put you in a delusional state where you feel like I'm just great, but no, you're not. You were just lucky in the beginning. I actually played poker once in Vegas. It was a, it wasn't a tournament, but it was a kind of tournament-like style. I already forgot what it was, but what I do remember is I had four of a kind. So the last hand I've ever played in poker was, I got a four of a kind, and there was a couple of others with really strong hands, so everybody went all in. And I think you get some kind of bonus for getting four of a kind. Bad beat jackpot you were playing. Yeah, so something like this. I apologize if I don't know the details, but I just remember winning a lot of money, and I walked away from the table. I said, I'm not playing poker again. This is great. I'm gonna hit it up top, because I started to feel like this is your, I started to think, even though I haven't really played poker at all, that I'm good, and that was a really dangerous feeling. And everybody was really mad for walking away from the table. One of the other things that I think is interesting about poker, too, is good is relative, right? So you could be the seventh best player in the whole world, like literally seventh best player, but if you're playing with the other six, you're the sucker. You are the worst player in the game, right? So there's a lot of players, for example, like the Dan Blazarians of the world, right? He's not a top-level player, like these guys you see on TV, but he probably makes more money than they do, because he plays with people that are far below his skill level. So part of the skill of being a poker player is finding situations where you're profitable, regardless of your skill level. Another connection to life. Do you think Dan Blazarian is telling the truth about having made, what is it, $50, $100 million? Just a huge amount of money playing poker. Considering what I know about the private games and the types of players who play in these private games and the stakes that they play, I absolutely believe Dan has made, I don't know how many millions, but whether it's 50, whatever, but it wouldn't surprise me that if you play in these games within a year or you find the right businessman who has way too much Bitcoin money, and in one night you take him for 20 million, I absolutely could see it. I don't see any reason why. Listen, where he got his money initially, that's up to interpretation from his father, whatever, but has he made a bunch of money playing poker? Absolutely, no question. Do you feel, as somebody who loves the game, do you think there's something almost ethically wrong in playing people much worse than you? So yeah, that's a good question, because part of the reason I played poker and wanted to become professional was I wanted to make my mother proud, right? And I don't think she would be proud of me taking Grandma Betty's last $5 down the street, sending her broke and taking her pension check. So I play at the highest stakes against people who can afford it. They know who I am. I'm not a hustler. I'm not pretending I'm bad at poker to squeeze in. I was thinking about this just yesterday, because I played in a game, that if I played that sort of role where a lot of guys do pros that sort of play down their skill level, pretend they're just one of the guys, these guys can make 20, $30 million in a year, legitimately. I believe that if I did that, if I said, you know what, I'm gonna go down that path, get into these games in LA, and travel and do all this kind of stuff, I can make 20 million a year. But it feels a little greasy, right? I don't like to kiss anyone's ass. I don't like to ask anyone for a favor or things like that. But yeah, I feel, listen, a rich guy who wants to sit down with a million bucks and get drunk and lose it, I have no empathy for that. I'm like, I don't have any moral qualms with that. What's the word? So if Grandma Betty is a billionaire. Okay, give me, send it, send it, right? You know, absolutely, why not? Well, let me ask you about a tough period of your recent life. You had a rough, like we mentioned, World Series of Poker, losing $1.1 million over 48 days. What were you going through mentally during that? So here's the thing, you know, I do, like you said, I do a YouTube vlog every day. So I kind of share my thoughts and listen, I can edit that thing and keep out the bad stuff, but I think it's more authentic and genuine to show people the actual struggles and the pain that I go through, you know, without it. And I'd say the one thing I'm most proud of throughout the entire thing is the resilience, because there are moments, you see me where I'm broken. I'm just like, I can't take it. I broke a selfie stick this year. Like I was filming it, because you know, I do for my vlog, I smash the stick, threw it in the corner, right? It's just, that was my like, hit rock bottom moment. And then I put the camera on me and I was like, all right, I'll let people see it. But mentally it was very difficult because there was a feeling of hopelessness where you can, I was making good decisions. Like I genuinely felt like I'm playing really, really well. But every time my money went in and my opponent's money went in and say I was 60%, 70%, 80% for about a two week stretch, I lost every one of those. And you start to wonder, you're like, I can't win if I never win, you know, in these spots. So it was difficult. Luckily I have, you know, 20 odd years of experience on how to deal with it. And so, as I said, I wake up the next day, ready to go. So as if nothing happened. To a certain degree, obviously, you know, the more it happens in the higher binds, like the one where I broke the selfie stick, I lost 500,000 in that tournament, right? And it was like the last card, it was painful. I think you lost. Yeah, that was great, that video. I think he lost. What led up to the selfie stick gate? Like what, you just lost your shit for a, like, 100 milliseconds. Like it was very brief. You're just like, what, the world wasn't making any sense? Like how do I keep losing kind of thing? How did you, why did you lose your shit? You should never really think like this, but part of me felt like I deserve to win this. Yes. Right? So part of me was like, listen, I've lost so many in the last two weeks, all right, let, you know, the poker gods be kind to me right now, let me win this. And it looked good. I was in a great situation on the flop, great situation on the turn. I'm about to be a competitor. I'm gonna be a contender in this tournament to win a big prize pool and turn the whole thing around. It's all there for the taking. And then boom, the last card, it just, you know, it was a couple of weeks of frustration in the moment of filming that I just had, you know, sort of a visceral reaction, you know, and I smacked the selfie stick. And then like, I, it was, I see a corner, it's safe. I threw the selfie stick on the ground. And of course, social media blows up about how, you know, it was a violent act. You know, I mean, it's like, have you never watched sports? Have you never seen a guy on the golf course, smack his club or throw their helmet? Like, you know, there was the, there's a guy, Justin Bonomo, who's a poker player. And he's super, for lack of a better word, offended by everything. And he was equating my throwing a stick on the ground to violence against women, domestic abuse, and the idea that like, this makes women feel unsafe to play poker. And so that was kind of a running joke for the last two weeks, where every time I sat at a table, the guys would be like, oh, I feel unsafe. I feel unsafe. Yeah. Can you take me through the hand? Do you remember what the hand was? Like, what was the- Yeah, so it was a, you know, the player on the button raised. David Peters, very aggressive player. He went all in from the blind and I had a pair of pocket 10s. So I went with my 10s and he had queen 10 of spades. So I was good. I have way the best hand. And the flop was like king nine three, one spade. Turn was like the eight of spades. So now he has a flush draw and the river was another spade. So he caught spade, spade, and he made a flush. Wow. But statistically, you were winning the whole time. Yeah, I was winning up until the last card. What did he go all in on? Was it a bluff? He made what's considered like a pretty standard play in modern poker, where, you know, a guy raised and he was just trying to pick up, you know, what was there. And he ran into a hand in the big blind and, you know, he got lucky. So what was the, throughout the strategy of preparation, the strategy of play? So you're playing so many days. Are you trying to ignore the results and stick to a particular strategy? Yes, for the most part, you know, what I'm trying to do is like, I formulated a strategy for the whole seven weeks, cause there's a varying degree of buy-ins too. Like you have small ones, like 1500, then you got like $250,000 buy-in. So I map out the seven weeks and write, I'll give a little bit of mental energy to the 1500, which means I'll be on my phone. I'm not gonna, I don't care as much about this one, but the 250K, fully engaged, fully focused, you know, up against obviously the higher the buy-in, you know, super top competition. And, you know, as far as strategy goes, focusing on each day, playing the best I can, not the result. Like, cause if you focus on the result, you're focusing in the wrong place. Your focus should be on the decisions you actually make. Right, and if you're making good decisions consistently, you have to continue to do that. The frustrating part is this, with poker, unlike chess or other things, making the best possible decision doesn't mean you win. Often you lose, you don't in chess. Well, Magnus Carlsen has also talked about that, there's some non-deterministic thing about chess too, given the limited cognitive capacity of the human mind. So he says that the world championship should have 20, 30, 40, 50 games, not the few that they have, it's too low of a sample. So in that sense, the high stakes poker tournaments are very, too low sample. Sure, yeah. Well, when you think of the World Series of Poker, so as you said, I lost about one million, right? In one tournament, that was 500,000. So then, like a few others here, high buying tournaments. So the sample, or the amount, was 40, 50 total tournaments with high variance, and if you don't run well or do well in the highest buy-ins, you're gonna have a losing summer. So you did a podcast on the mental game a few years ago, but that's just something you really care about. So what aspects of the mental game in poker is most difficult to master? I think the most difficult thing for people is self-awareness, right, and resilience. Self-awareness to know, okay, so, again, is it, am I not doing as well as I could be because of luck, or is there things that I can learn? And I always look to mistakes as opportunities, I really do. When I make a mistake in a poker hand, right, call it a breakdown or whatever, that's where breakthroughs happen. And I'm like, oh, you know what I could've done here? I could've done this, and that would've been really good, and I'm gonna do that going forward. So I think, like, with anything, you know, when you start out playing golf, like, your goal is to just hit the ball, right? Then you try to hit it near, then you're trying to hit it straight, then you're trying to hit it on the green, then you're trying to hit it closer to the green, to the point where the pros get, where, you know, they're so finite, they're trying to hit it 63 yards and spin it back three yards. It's imperfect, like, they don't hit the perfect shot, because the perfect shot for them is, it goes in. But they try and make the mistakes smaller and smaller and smaller. Poker's the same. We all make mistakes consistently. The goal is to minimize, especially the big ones. What was the lowest point for you psychologically, in poker in general, actually? Maybe it was this year, maybe it was in general. Do you remember there was times in your life, speaking of resilience, that were extremely difficult to you mentally? Yeah, so early on, you know, as basically, as a teenager, I was playing Toronto, and then in my early 20s, I'm like, I'm going to Vegas. Right? And I thought I was the best. I'm like, 21 years old, I'm like, check me out, right? Show up with $3,000, 24 hours later, you know, money's gone. And I remember the moment vividly. It was at the Binion's Horseshoe, it was about three in the morning. I was playing with seven other people. You know, I lost my last chips. I went to the bathroom, washed up, got out, they all left. And it was like a moment where I realized like, okay, in Toronto, I was the big fish. But here, they were playing because of me. I was the sucker. I remembered every one of their faces. And then I remember not having enough money to get back to budget suites where I was staying. So I walked, you know, I walked. And in that moment, I was thinking about like, is this something that I'll be able to do? Am I good enough? You know, what am I going to do now? I'm in Vegas, I don't know anybody, and I have no money, right? So that was certainly like what felt like a low point, walking back behind Paradise and Twain, which is not a great part of town. Where did you find the strength to answer yes to that question that you can still do good? I think this has been sort of a pattern in my life where like in the evening after it happens, like I don't have it. You know, I don't have that feeling of hope or, you know, resilience, if you will. I'm allowing myself to experience despair, which is exactly where I'm at. But then a good night's sleep, wake up the next morning, and just within me, I have that inner confidence to say, you know what, fuck it. Get back on the hobby horse, find a way, make it work. Right, but I do believe it's really therapeutic and worthwhile to allow yourself to feel and vent. So many people today, the Instagram culture world, I call it, it's like, they want to act like they're perfect. Nothing bothers them, bullshit, right? You're pissed off, it's okay to show it. Emotion's fine, we all have it. There's no reason you have to suppress it. Obviously, you don't want to have guys throwing selfie sticks around the room every time they lose a pot, right? But, you know, a little bit of- You're gonna make everybody feel unsafe. Yeah, exactly. If that happens. So you're saying, there is a culture of saying, you know, stay positive, all this kind of stuff, but, you know, when you feel despair, don't resist it. Ride it out. Because it doesn't go away, right? That feeling, you know, you think you put it away in the pit of your stomach and you think, you know, it's gone, it's not, it's still there. Let yourself go, fuck! Yeah. It's all right. You know, there's nothing wrong with being a little bit emotional, because once you've experienced it, you let it out, now you can move past it. Yeah, and I feel like as long as your brain chemistry can support it, you can usually learn a good lesson from it. Like, you become stronger, you become more resilient through it. It's really interesting. And a good night's sleep can really help. Absolutely, yeah. So through 2022, and in general, what does a perfect day in the life of Daniel Negreanu look like when you're, like on a day when you have to play a big game, big tournament game and so on? So like, what time do you wake up? What do you eat for breakfast? So my life is twofold. Like one, when I'm playing hardcore, and one when I'm not. And they look very different, right? So I'll give you a quick glimpse of like when I'm not, up at 10, you know, breakfast, in the gym at noon, you know, post-workout, meal, coffee, walk. Like, you know, I try to get, that's what I do for cardio. You know, and just very like home-bodied. I don't leave the house. It's very like boring and mundane, right? Long distance walks, so like, what do you do when you're walking? You're thinking about stuff? Well, no, honestly, I just walk on the treadmill. I try to get 15,000 steps a day, and I just walk for basically like an hour while I watch a show or I'm on the computer or something like that. You know, I'm on the treadmill. Why walking, not running? Well, I mean, I think walking, I mean, I do a little bit of running, but hardly any. I don't enjoy it. Like, I just like walking. And frankly, for fat loss, when it's usually what I'm doing after big poker tournaments is getting back in shape, that walking's ideal for it, right? So essentially, it's like the tale of two, during the World Series of Poker, all my sort of structured life thrown out the window. There's no walking. There's very little walking. There's very little working out. There's very little anything. I go into the World Series, you know, like this year I went in around 157, and I expected to gain about 10 pounds during the World Series. Not good pounds, wasn't muscle, but that's about what I did, 165. And then I spend the next month trying to, you know, lose it. But during the World Series, when I'm playing, the most important thing, without question that I have to focus on, and this is why I stopped focusing on working out and all this stuff, is sleep. If I'm not rested, I'm useless. If I only get five, six hours, and I have to go back the next day and play 14 hours, the chances of me being at my best, very, very slim. So sleep is a priority. What's the perfect amount of sleep for you on those days? Eight, seven? So eight hours is my go-to every night. During the World Series of poker, it's just not possible. Because of the way that it's structured, sometimes the tournaments end at 2.15 a.m. I get home about three o'clock. Takes me 30 minutes, 40 minutes to get to sleep. So now let's say I'm in bed by four. Well, the tournament's at, you know, two. So I have to get up and whatever. So it's very difficult to get exactly eight a lot of the time, you know, and also get back there in time. Is there any hacks to quiet the mind? Because you're going on a pretty intense rollercoaster mentally when you're playing. Is there any tricks to getting to sleep, given the role you're playing? I've been very lucky. Like, I'm blessed. I don't know if it's because of diet or what, but I've always been a very good sleeper. You just shut off. I get to sleep, and I sleep like a baby, you know? And I also nap really well. Like, during the World Series, sometimes what'll happen is, let's say I get knocked out of one event at four p.m., and there's another one that I can jump in. Instead of jumping right into it, I'll go into like a private room and take 45-minute nap, and you know, and give me enough energy to continue and sort of reset my mind. Yeah, and it solves a lot of problems with the nap, too. It does. Yeah, I feel like the nap is a magical trick in life. What else, diet-wise? What do you, your mind is going, pretty intensely all day. Yeah, so during, like I said, when I'm not playing, I'm super regimented. I literally measure everything. I count calories, I count macros, I follow it to a T. Pretty balanced diet, or any? I'm a vegan. Vegan, yeah. So it's a vegan diet. But balanced in terms of carbs and protein? Yeah, yeah, no, I mean, I eat a healthy amount. I'm doing probably 150 grams of protein, 60 grams of fat, 50, and then about. And try to measure it all out. I do, yeah, basically I created a meal plan. So what I did for myself is, because I'm really anal and nerdy, I made a spreadsheet with a day's food, and I have six different ones. So I just follow it. It actually makes my life so much easier when I don't have to think about what I'm gonna eat for lunch, or what I'm gonna eat for dinner. I already know what I'm gonna eat. I already wrote it down. And it doesn't get boring, because I'm switching it up every day, every six days. And occasionally I'll splurge and do something different. During the World Series of Poker, I eat whatever the fuck I wanna eat. Like, at 2 a.m., I don't crave a broccoli carrot salad. I want chocolate, candy, and chips. So I'll just do it. So you listen to the cravings. Yeah, I realize like. Surprising, because you're so regimented outside of that. It's really difficult. I've done it before, where I played the World Series of Poker, and I made it a point to work out every day. But what that did was, it sacrificed sleep. So then I found at 1 a.m., I would be more tired, because I've expended more energy than I would otherwise. So I essentially look at the World Series as six, seven weeks, where my body's just gonna take a beating. Not like UFC fighter, but a different kind of beating. And that's okay, because I have so much confidence that within six weeks of just eating right and working out, I can get back to where I was. It was just hilarious to me that you'd be eating chocolate. But eating chocolate in bed as you're trying to get to sleep, is this? Like literally a bag of chips or chocolate, like on my way home and before bed, just whatever. This is what the professional athlete does at the highest, most difficult event of his career. Okay, so what else is there in terms of mental preparation and focus and meditation, those kinds of things, leading up to the games? Is there anything you like to, like any rituals you like to follow? So yeah, I have dabbled in the past with meditation and different things like that. And I know that there's health benefits to it. And I understand that a lot of people get a lot from it. And I've done it for good amount of time, like long periods of time. I found that for me, I think it was predominantly placebo. Like it really wasn't doing anything for me that I felt like. It felt like I was doing something, but I really, I didn't see any specific results from it. So I don't really do that too much. One thing that I will do for me is leading up, is there's so much footage now that I'll make it a point to like watch my opponents. And then with like my phone, I'll take notes and I'll keep track of different things that I'm seeing. And that sort of, and then what I'll do is I'll formulate a game plan. Like I'm playing the Poker Masters coming up in about a week. And I'll look to see the tendencies of what my opponents are doing. And then I'll come up with like some things that I'm gonna do, some tricks of the trade, if you will. Not game theory optimal stuff, stuff that I think, oh, they're making a mistake here that I can exploit. And then I look to do that in different ways and always look to, you know, throw curve balls. How hard is that process? Do you enjoy it or is it like really hard work to analyze the players to try to understand what are the different holes, what are the different mistakes, what are the strengths to avoid and that kind of stuff? I think the only thing that makes it harder is when you're young, right? And you're in your 20s and you're trying to make your nest egg. You're like, you're trying to make your retirement money. You're hungry, right? You're like Clubber Lang and you know, the gym, you're hungry. Whereas, you know, Rocky's in there taking pictures and smiling and doing commercials and stuff like that. So I am 47, I'm financially okay. I don't need to win. I don't need to compete at the highest levels. So I think it was a boxer. I don't remember which one. When asked this, he was asked the question, you know, how do you get up in the morning, you know, still and do those morning runs? And he says, you know what? I'll be honest with you. It's a lot more difficult doing the 4 a.m. run in silk pajamas, right? It just is, right? But I've always been self-motivated and I've always found a way. So it's harder in the sense of like, it's not a need. I can still get by without it. But so in that regard, it does feel like a little bit of work where like, oh my God, that's a lot of footage I gotta get through. And I don't know that I have the time or I don't know that I wanna spend 10 hours of my day doing that when I could be doing other things. I mean, what do you still love about poker? When you said, when you enter, like the times you catch yourself just being able to sort of take in the awe of it, what aspects do you love? I think that like for me, I've always been really competitive, but I was never gonna be a professional athlete or a professional snooker player. I wasn't good enough at any of that stuff. I didn't have the body type, whatever. But poker, it sort of levels the playing field, right? You're six, five, 240, big deal. You know, we're not fighting here. We're fighting a different type of war. So the competitive aspect, I also have always been fueled throughout my career by doubters. So this is probably unhealthy, but every time people say like you're done, you're washed up, you can't win anymore, it just makes me wanna prove them wrong, right? So I have a little bit of that in me, which again, you reading the comments and all these kinds, like I've been told many times throughout my career for the last 15 that I'm done, I can't compete anymore. And I enjoy, you know, proving them wrong. Yeah, the game has changed so much. The greats of the past surely cannot be the greats of the present. Those that kind of commentary will continue for every sport. And certainly for poker, because poker really changed a lot over the past couple of decades. Can you speak to how much it has changed? Yeah, I can. Because it's been at the top for so long. Yeah, so complacency is a big issue for people who make it, if you will, right? So in my era of the poker boom, around the early 2000s, there was a group of players who were the big names, the stars of the game. Well, a lot of them had their egos out of whack, where they just felt like, okay, I'm the best, that's it. Like, no, there's young guys learning, there's new software, there's solvers, there's all these kinds of things. And if you're not keeping up, then you'll get surpassed. And I remember myself at a very early age saying, I never wanna be that guy. And it was one of my first events in the late 90s. I was the young buck playing with the Tom McAvoys and Brad Dowdy, the guys of the era, right? And I was doing things more aggressively and they were scoffing at all these young kids with their aggressive three and all this stuff. And they were sort of mocking it, you know? And I thought, never be that guy. Always have the humility to be introspective and always have the respect for your opponents that while you think you've got it all figured out, they're learning new things and you can learn from them. So I've always been willing to sort of swallow my pride and get coached by younger players who I might even be better than, but they see blind spots that I have that I might not. And they helped me improve my game. I've always been willing to sort of look every six months or a year and say, is what I'm doing working? And if not, how do I get better? But most people from my generation, they go the other way. I don't know, they just have this idea that they figured it all out. Once you feel like you've mastered it, there's nothing left to learn. That's the moment where everyone else starts to surpass you. That's the moment where you lose the mastery because it's always evolving. How has the game changed? So the game has changed in terms of the way people learn it, right? When I started out, the only way to learn how to play poker was to sit your ass on the chair and play. And- In person. Yes, in person, play. Maybe you jot down hands on a notepad. We didn't even have cell phones back then, right? So I would write notes. I actually brought a notepad. And then you don't analyze it and sort of try to figure it out that way. And think about maybe talking to friends and different players. Like when I grew up, there was John Juanda, Alan Cunningham, and Phil Ivey. And we would sort of create like a little bit of a mastermind. Well, how would you play this hand? What would you do here? And that was the extent of it, right? We never had the correct answers. We always had theories about what might be right. Not until about five, six years ago, where everything changed. Where artificial intelligence created solvers that will specifically say, okay, this is the optimal play. This is the game through optimal play. So now it introduced poker to a whole new group of like personality types. In my day, it was people that were dregs of society that didn't fit in. Not college goers with a degree. These are people who were street hustlers, playing pool. They found poker, and they had these unique lives, right? But now, because poker can be studied, much like you study university or college, you had, for example, the German contingent, who was literally analyzing data and coming up with strategies based on this. And it's like, what? And the old guy, like, you know, gotta play by feel or whatever. And they're like, they're learning. So I guess the way that you describe it is like, in the old days, it required skill and talent, a card sense, right? That was the only way to become good. And today, that's not the case. Good study habits, a good work ethic in that regard can make you like a really good player, even if you aren't all that talented or gifted. Having a good work ethic is a talent, right? Not necessarily card sense, but if you're able to put in the work and study from these solvers, you essentially have the perfect study tool now that we didn't have in my day. So what do the solvers give you? Do you start to memorize the optimal play for every single hand? You try your best. So again, solvers are imperfect as well in terms of the way the humans utilize them, right? Because you can give solvers a certain number of inputs in terms of what you want it to solve, but a solver can think on many, many levels. So for example, the way that a typical player would do a solve is to say, okay, what does the solver think is the best play here? Bet one third pot, bet two thirds pot, or bet one and a half times pot, okay? You give it three parameters. It comes out with an output, and it tells you what you should do with all the different hands you have. However, that's a simplified version of what a solver would really do, because a solver might decide that seven times the pot is best, 10% of the pot. But when you're putting in a solve, you can only put in specific parameters. So that's why, frankly, that's typically the number, one third, two third, and one and a half times pot is what people often do. So they sort of have a vague idea of what a solver wants. But again, imperfect in terms of the implementation of it. And memorizing all the variables, like that King Jack offsuit with the King of Diamonds is 13%, no human brain can do that. So what you do is you bucket it. Like you bucket it into, say, instead of 10,000 variables, you have 10 buckets, and you say, okay, with these hands, we do roughly this, and we do roughly this. And you try your best to stay within those lines. But again, what I love about live poker, partly, is that nobody will ever be able to master game theory, and mimic a solver. But you also have to incorporate your position, where you are, and obviously what cards you have, but also the size of your stack, how much money you have, and also whether you have the ability or desire to buy in, all those kinds of things. So you have to calculate all of that, right? So the solver will do that, right? And essentially, you don't input your hand. It tells you, you'll look at the grade, and be like, all right, this is my hand, and it tells you what it is. But it tells you what you would do with any hand, right? It gives you the full output. And that actually gives you a better idea, because you're ultimately, like you said, playing a range of hands, not a hand. And the solvers do things that are really interesting. You've seen AlphaGo, I would imagine. Brilliant film, right, I thought. And I thought what was interesting is there was, you know, accepted theory from all the top Go players that this is what you do. But the AI was doing things way different, and they're like, this has to be wrong. But really, it wasn't. So for example, a solver may say this, right? Let's say you bet on the end, and you bet a lot. And a solver may say, you should fold here with a pair of kings and a queen kicker, which is, you know, a pair of kings, but call with a pair of fours and an ace kicker. So it's essentially telling you that you should fold this hand that is much better than this. So it begs the question, why? Because what the solvers do is they use the information of your own cards to formulate all the possible hands your opponent can have. So if your opponent is, so basically if you had the king, queen, you know, it may say, for lack of a better nerdy term, it blocks potential bluffing hands that your opponent can have. So let's say if your opponent would bluff with queen, jack, but you have a queen. So there are less combinations of queen, jack. So it will find a better bluff catcher, if you will. So that's what's really not intuitive to poker players. Poker players usually think like, well, this my hand is pretty good, so I got a call. But that's not how a solver would think. Solver uses, you know, common atrix and you know. And sometimes it's tough to get the good why answers you just did for why a solver thinks something is better. Or maybe in poker, it's a little bit easier, but in the case of go and chess, it's not always obvious why because it's not gonna explain stuff to you. But I think one of the best ways to learn poker is when you see a solver output and it tells you one of these things, try to figure out why. Why does this solver do this? Why does it want you to call with this and fold this? And try to think about it on a deeper level and you go, aha, probably because this card that I have here you know, changes the range of my opponent's potential. I'd love to get your opinion on your relationship with solvers. Because for example, Magnus doesn't use them, his team uses them. Because he feels like he's going to rely on it too much and you can't use it when you're playing. What you really want is to build up extremely strong intuition without the help of a solver. Is there some aspect of that that rings true to you? Absolutely, I totally can relate to what Magnus is saying. First and foremost, because when solvers were first introduced, I didn't come from that world. I was so intimidated because I didn't know how to use it. I don't know how to do an input. So I had two guys, one guy's a data scientist and you know, another guy's like a poker savant, if you will. And they coached me and they did it. So today, if I was in a tough spot, you know, and I'm like, I don't know, what would a solver do? I will send them the hand and they'll run the solve for me and then sort of give me the parameters of what to do. When I was playing, you know, regularly using solvers with them, we were spending six to eight hours a day going over all these solves. So intuitively, I started to think and learn about what the solver would want, but I sort of understand where Magnus is coming from in that you don't want to become a slave to the sim, as I say, right? There's one kid I know, I joked with him, his name is Landon Tice. And you know, he made a play that the sim, you know, would say, this is a good play. But I'm like, it's a good play, you know, in a simulated world against the robot. It's not in practice against the human, right? You don't need to be doing that. So if you become a slave to the sim and always do what the sim says, you're handcuffed to a certain degree. Is there some, at the highest level of plays, there's still a role for feel and intuition? Absolutely, if you're not doing that, because here's the thing, right? No human being plays perfectly balanced in game three optimal like a robot would. They're not, right? So there are opportunities there to take advantage of the things that they do that are slightly too aggressive or less aggressive. You know, for example, say most human beings don't bluff enough in a certain spot. So you don't have to call with the correct range of hands. You don't have to, because they're not bluffing at the optimal frequency. So you don't have to call at the optimal frequency. You'd be making a mistake, frankly, if you did. What's the difference between in-person and online play, given that context? Yeah, well, online poker and live poker, it's the same game, right? Same, it's poker, but it's different in so many levels. I think playing online, you have to focus far more on fundamentals, on game theory. You don't have the added bonus of looking across the table and getting any sense of whether your opponent is strong or weak, they're bluffing, whatever, you know. And also, because online poker, those that play it, you play far more hands. Like some of these guys are playing 10, 20 tables at the same time, right? So you're hitting the long run really quickly and you're creating a database on your opponents, right? So let's have, online, I can see your data. I'm like, well, this guy, he's playing 40% of hands. He's betting the river 80% of the time. So now I can use that data and exploit you that way. When you play live, you don't have that. Do you enjoy playing online? I enjoy, so with online poker, I enjoy the convenience of it because you can be on your couch in your underwear, not leave your house. Do you also play multiple games at the same time or do you try to play one game? I typically like to play one or two, but I can play up to four. I find that past four, it's hard for me to keep up and keep track of what's actually happening. You know, it's a different mindset required. Like a lot of these young guys, they're accustomed to 20 tables at a time. It feels like the purity of the game is gone. It's much more robotic, right? So if you're playing 20 tables, you're just making decisions based on like what you, you know, you're not thinking about the depth of the situation and what just happened 15 minutes ago. You don't even know what happened because you can't pay attention to all that at once. And some of the magic of poker is the low sample. I agree. Like for example, and sorry to be bringing up Magnus so much but there's so much parallel between the two of you and the poker and the chess world. He hates Olympics and world championships and all that kind of stuff because it's so low sample. But to me, that's part of the magic of it. There's the World Series of Poker, the main event, there's a magic to it. I agree, yeah. And I don't know what that is exactly because so much is at stake, it's so rare. So much drama and heartbreak leading up to it that all somehow, yeah, it accumulates to that magical moment when somebody wins. It's especially that event. The World Series of Poker main event historically, like that's it, you know, that's the pinnacle. That's where like mainstream watches. That's where people are tuning in and the gravity of the moment, you know. Yeah. It's so much bigger than people. Like everyone gets the opportunity to play armchair quarterback too, right? Oh, he should do this. You're not there. You're not under the lights. You're not under the pressure. You know, it might seem easy for you at home to be like, well, they have, but you can see the whole cards. You know, they can't. Certainly the idea of the small sample with tournaments. I like the idea that you don't have to worry about, oh, well, if I do this now, then in the future, you know, I won't be balanced. I have to be balanced here. Anything like that. That's like really boring and lame, right? Again, that is kind of the way the younger generation learns how to play the game, being balanced in every spot and then randomizing, you know, like, oh, I'm supposed to do this 50% of the time. Okay, so if my left card is red, I'll do it. And if it's black, I don't. So you're not even making, you're no longer making actual decisions for yourself. You're just randomizing. And that's way less fun for me than tailoring it to the situation. And the final table at the main event, there's none of that. You have to, I mean, it's all or nothing. Well, you shouldn't be, but there are. Like, again, I think a lot of the young guys, they are thinking in that regard, like, oh, randomization. Maybe at that table, the final table at the main event, what's a hand that stands out to you that was especially gutsy and powerful or memorable for that you've seen in the history of poker? Well, for me, the one that stands out and probably because I was so young and it was my first year, like, when I won a bracelet that year, was I was friends with Scotty Wynn, the Prince of Poker. And he was heads up against a guy named Kevin McBride. And I was on the rail, you know, I'm like, wow, he's gonna, you know, he's heads up. And he was so cool. Like he had a mullet, but it's perfect, right? He had the white shirt, the black thing. He's drinking a Michelob, smoking a cigarette, whatever, you know, all chill. He bets it all on the river. And the guy's thinking, and he psychologically owned him. And he said, he goes with his beer, he goes, you call, gonna be all over, baby. Ha ha ha, that's right. Okay, so this guy who was an amateur heard that and was like, there's so much pressure in this moment right now. I can't handle this pressure. But Scotty just told me if I call here, it's the pressure's gone. I don't have to be under it anymore. So he sort of hypnotized them into making the call, you know, and Scotty had it. Scotty had, you know, the full house and it was over for the guy. You call, gonna be all over, baby. It was, I just, I love that aspect, sort of the table talk dynamic, which isn't as prevalent today as it was back then. But that one sticks out. And it probably, because it was one of my first. It's so, the few words you say at the table can completely affect a hand like that. That's almost, that's scary. It was just so cool to me, you know, like just how he was so calm. And I think that too added more pressure to the amateur. And I think like, again, part of it is, even back then, it was 1998, there's still a big rail of people and there's lights and they're, you know, they're filming and all this kind of stuff. And it's a lot of pressure for a guy who's never been in this environment. And now I'm telling you, it can all be over soon. It will all be over soon. Just call, it's finished. Yeah. Something about that accent too. Now you're a master at table talk as well. Do you have, do you just kind of go with your gut? You flow with it or is there a deliberate strategy with this sometimes? There's usually some sort of strategy that I think about in terms of what I want to say and whatnot. But a lot of the time I just go, I go with it, you know? The more you talk, the more information you get. Yeah, but in some cases against really good players, you're just giving away information, right? Like if I'm playing against Phil Ivey, I'm not engaging in anything. Cause he can read through it. He can sense based on what I'm saying, you know, the clues and where I'm trying to take him. And he reads through, he sees the tree through the forest or whatever you want to call it, the forest through the trees. And, you know, so then I would just be like allowing myself to be exploitable. Is some of it just for fun? Because at the end of the day, if you're having fun, you might be at the top of your game. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, actually. It's funny you bring this up because I've been thinking about when I'm at my best. And I think I'm at my best when I am comfortable like that. Right? Where I'm not so stiff. Yeah. I'm not worried about, you know, checking properly and worried about reading people. I'm like, no, I'm me. All right, I'm going to play some poker. What do you want to do? You want to call me? Call, go ahead, do what you want. Right? Cause then I realized, you know, ultimately it was like, I'm comfortable in that. My opponents aren't as comfortable in that. They're comfortable with this, you know, the robot thing. But I thought more about that and how, especially with some tournaments coming up, I plan on really kind of sort of getting back to my roots in that regard. I love it. From a spectator perspective, I love it. But it's also interesting whenever you see a Daniel in a ground of quiet. That's an interesting, like, like it feels like a calm before a storm of sorts. So I'm sure that's also part of it. Yeah, like I've gone, I've ebb and flowed. Like I said, you know, I took on some coaches and I was really learning game theory because I felt like it was important to always stick, you know, keep up with what's going on. And then I do feel like to some degree, it sort of took away a little bit of my own instinctual ideas in terms of what I should be doing. Right? So I think like the most dangerous version of myself is a deep understanding of the game theory with my wisdom of many years of, and comfort of just sort of like being myself at the table. And being relaxed. Relaxed. Letting your mind flow. Let me ask you the greatest, the goat question, greatest of all time. Can you make the case for a few folks? So first you tweeted referring to Phil Ivey as the goat, saying the goat doing goat things. That's a recent tweet. So can you make the case for Phil Ivey? Or maybe who is the greatest poker player of all time? Would you put Phil? For me, until someone knocks him off the podium, the king of poker and the goat is Phil Ivey. Okay? So, and the reason I say that is, I think of poker as more than just one game, right? There's different variants. You know, there's Hold'em, Omaha, Stud, Triple Draw, all these different types of games. And Phil in every arena has been dominant. Whether it was tournament poker, dominated it. Mixed game, high stakes poker in Bobby's room, dominated. Online poker against all the wizards, dominated. Made millions in every arena. And, you know, he sort of took a few years away from poker with his legal troubles and things like that, but he's back. You know, he's been playing in the High Roller Series again. And, you know, he comes from, he's cut from a different cloth, but he has a tenacity and a focus that's unparalleled, I think. When he's in the zone, I mean, for lack, and this has nothing to do with race. It really has to do with mannerism. But he does remind me of like a combination of Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods in the way that he approaches it. He's very intense. Yeah. And he outworks everybody, you know? And I think, frankly, a lot of his mannerisms do come from them. Because he's young, watching these guys on TV. And a lot of his ways of being, you know, his learned behavior, I think probably from people like that. People at the top of their sport, and people that are Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan aren't just at the top of their sport, but they kind of dominate the sport to some kind of aura that- There's a uniqueness to them. They're not built like us. They're not, you know, they're not. Like I wish, I wish I could have the kind of focus that Phil Ivey has, you know, and see everything that he's saying. I just, that's not me, you know? I don't have that. And he does. He has that gene, whatever it is. But they also look like they're not having that much fun. They're more focused on the perfection, like a dogged pursuit of perfection. And you know, that might even be true. It might not be as fun. You know, I don't know. Like I have fun at the table. When you look outwardly, you look at someone, like maybe he is having a blast. Maybe that's just the way that he likes, you know? Like is Tiger Woods having fun when he's like on 17 about to win a major? Doesn't look like it, theoretically. Well, if you look at Michael Jordan, I don't know about Tiger Woods, but I think they're more focused on every single mistake they make. I think they're more obsessed about not making a mistake and hating every time they make a mistake. That's probably like 99% of their mental energy. I think that's part of what makes them great, right? They don't look past the mistake and just let it, it's whatever. No, they're like, they wanna correct it. Yeah, there's a tension, almost like a trade-off. I wonder if that's always the case between sort of greatness and happiness. I remember Huxsied, who, you know, when I was a kid growing up, he was like the poker idol. He won the world championship in 1996, and I was lucky enough to hang out with him a little bit. And he would go through these streaks where he had an A game and he had an F game. His A game was unparalleled. Nobody could beat him, right? But his F game was so terrible that he was just a fish. You know, he was playing terribly. And I remember him saying, and it was exactly what you're saying, he'd make like one little mistake, right? And then he would go off. And I was like, why do you do that? Like, you know, your B game would be just fine. He's like, well, if I'm gonna make a mistake, what's the point? What's the point, right? I'm trying. Like, if you can't play perfect, there's no point in playing at all. So he was extreme in that regard in the way that he viewed it. And depending on the sport, those folks, like in chess, certainly the case, that kind of mindset can destroy you. Absolutely. No, I totally see that. Because a sequence of mistakes, like the kind of year you had with the World Series at Polk, it can completely destroy a human being if you're not able to see the bigger picture of it. Yeah. You said that Phil Ivey's the hardest, your toughest opponent, the toughest person to play against. Why is that? And how do you beat him? Because Phil Ivey's just, he's seeing things that nobody else is seeing, really. Like subtle things, where I'm putting my hands, where I'm looking, my pulse, like stuff that I don't even know I'm giving off. He's so engaged and so focused, and has such a, just a, he's fearless, right? A lot of people, they'll play poker and be like, you know what, I don't think this guy has it. But do they have the guts? Do they have the cojones, if you will, to actually do anything about it, right? And stand up to this person? He does. I forgot the hand that you tweeted about, the goat doing goat things. That wasn't even that big of a goat hand. It was pretty impressive. There's hands where like, there was a famous one in Australia, where the flop was like jack, jack, nine, and Phil check raised the flop with six, seven, nothing. Just absolutely nothing. And the guy re-raised him, right? And Phil just knew. He went all in, with nothing. If the guy calls, he's done, he's cooked. But he was so tuned in, that this guy's not strong, that he just, you know, he did things like that. And it's tough to play against a guy like that. So he gets great reads and is able to execute on them, has the guts to execute on it. He's got experience, he's got work ethic. He also, I think one thing I'm underselling too, is his strategic mind, right? Like I believe that, you know, like I said, the new age player, they learn how to play through a very systematic approach. Okay, let's look at the data. Make up a game right now. Three cards, we each get three cards. Jacks are wild, sixes are, you know, six of hearts is wild, right? Just make up that game. Phil will figure it out, intuitively, very, very quickly, right? Without having the answers for him, right? So that's like the difference between the players of my generation. We had to figure this stuff out on our own. Today, oh, I wanna know the answer, I go ask the computer and the computer tells me. So I really believe like, if you created a game from scratch, that Phil Ivey would be my horse, that I wanna play in it. So he's in some sense in tune with some deeper thing. He has what we used to call card sense. Card sense. Can you try to make the case for some others, like Doyle Brunson, Phil Helmuth, Daniel Negreanu, and maybe one of the modern guys, like Justin Bonomo or somebody like that? Sure, oh, so let's start with Doyle, okay? Like what Doyle has going for him, above and beyond is twofold, really. Longevity, I mean, he's in his late 80s. And last time I played with him, I was, I'm like, how is he getting better? Like, I really felt like he was playing better than he had in the previous years. But also with Doyle, like Doyle had to figure, you know, we talked about my generation having to figure it on their own. I mean, they really had to figure it out on their own. Like they didn't have any computer simulation to tell you if Ace King was a favorite over pocket sixes. They didn't. So we know what he did. He would take a deck of cards and they would deal out, and they would, with a notepad, right? Okay, Ace King won. And then they would do like a hundred of them, be like, all right, Ace King won like 53, so it must be a favorite. And he did it manually, you know? And he did it in a time when it was very, very difficult. And he's seen poker evolve and change throughout the years. Now, listen, is he gonna be able to compete against the top players in the world today? Absolutely not, you know? But how many people, he's the, how carry, he's the best 88 year old player in the world by a mile. Okay, that's not even close. And Doyle, again, he's another guy who plays all the games. He's played high stakes cash, tournaments, you name it. He's iconic, you know, he's the godfather. But there's also an element to that, so the iconic element, like your personality in poker. I mean, not to romanticize this thing too much, but poker is also a game of personalities. I mean, it's part of the greatness is like the uniqueness of the human being. Yeah, I think also, yeah. I mean, if you'd like looking at it from that perspective in terms of like goat, like goat in terms of what you represent, like the cowboy, the godfather, you know, he's been around, you know, he played in the 60s and stuff like that. It's just something like incredibly cool. Like I often think about if I could go back in time and like visit, you know, an era, I'd love to go like to Vegas in the 70s. Just like, I'm proud, I already like, I can think of what it would smell like, probably not ideal, cigarettes and, you know, the leather jackets and just the vibe of what it must've been like with the mobsters and things like that. You know, he's lived through all that, all the cool movies we've seen. Like Doyle talks about some of those films. He's like, yeah, that guy off, he said he was gonna stab me in my stomach. You know, he knows these people. It was, he's like a source of history, really. Yeah, when poker was a game for the mob and the degenerates and all that kind of stuff before it transitioned into professional sport. Yeah. Professional game. Yeah, so he was there through the whole thing. He's been there through the whole transition. He's seen it all, yeah. Yeah, and then to the online world. So what about, I can't even say it without smiling, Phil Hellmuth. Okay, so Phil, here's the thing with Phil. He takes it very personal when I say this and he doesn't hear the compliment. He only hears the negativity. Because Phil wants to be considered the greatest of all time. Hashtag positive. He wants to be the greatest of all time. But I'm like, Phil, here's the facts. You have the best, absolute greatest resume at the World Series of Poker of anyone in the world. Is that not enough? Right, that's what you have. You have that, right? Now, do I think you're the best no limit hold'em player in the world today? No. Do I think that you can play high stakes mixed games with the best players in the world today and win? No, right? So he wouldn't get as much flack on this topic if he wasn't so boastful and demanding. You never hear Phil Ivey say, I'm the best in the world. His peers do, right? But Phil wants to make the claim and I simply say, I beg to differ, right? I beg to differ. I don't think you are the best player in the world. If we can linger on the compliments so he can hear it, what makes him so good? Because it seems like a lot of times his play is not optimal. Yeah, he definitely has his own brand and style of play. He does not adhere to, he's never used a solver in his life. He doesn't know, he's not in that world, right? Phil does, Phil has a lot of faith and a lot of confidence in what he does and that it will be successful. And I think there's something to be said about that, right? He doesn't ever lack in belief that he can win and he finds a way to do it his way. And frankly, a lot of what he does is very effective against specific types of players who are intimidated by him, but whether it's his resume or his demeanor or his attitude sometimes, right? Like if you're an average player and then you beat Phil in a hand, you're gonna hear it. This idiot from Northern Europe and beat me in this pot. And for some people, they don't like that. So he can use that against them. But I also think too, like he cares so much, right? And that leads to trying really, really hard. Like he sees these moments and he doesn't phone them in. Like whatever brand of poker he plays, he tries his best at all times to succeed and to win. And there's something to be said, even though like he's fundamentally flawed in a lot of things that he does compared to some of the bigger players, his effort and will and like his determination to stick around is up there. And he is somebody who seems to really hate losing. Yes, yeah. He's got this, he feels like he deserves to win, right? In all cases. And if he loses, it's not just. As he joked around that you and him might do an anger management. Yeah, I did say that in one video. Is the course. Now this is tough because you're a humble guy, but objectively speaking, can you say what your strengths are? You're often listed as one of, if not the greatest player of all time. So what are the things that make you stand out? So for me, when I grew up, I admired the big cash game players because that's what I was. I love tournaments, but I wanted to be well-rounded. Like in my day, you couldn't make the Poker Hall of Fame if you just played one game. You had to jump in to the high stakes games in Bobby's room, as they say, right? And I was able to do that. When I was in my early, in my mid twenties, I was playing 4,000, 8,000 limits. You could win or lose a million dollars in a day. So I grinded it out. A lot of people think, oh, he's lucky he's had sponsorship. Otherwise he'd be broke. He's like, I built multimillion dollar bank rolls before any of that stuff existed. And I did it the good old fashioned way by sitting my butt on the table. I think probably one of my biggest strengths is self-awareness. And in that regard, a level of humility that always allows me to say, okay, well, you know what? In this case with these players, they're better than me. So what am I gonna learn from them, right? Rather than have this need to say, I am the best because of history. I'm always looking to guys and go, wow, he does this really well, whether it's the Adamos or the Ivys or whoever it may be. So my willingness to adapt, I think, and stay relevant by learning what the young guys are learning is something I've always done. And I also pride myself on, again, being well-rounded, like playing all the games. Like I don't feel intimidated in any game, whatever the format is. So always being a scholar of the game as the game evolves, as the different games evolve, the different players evolve, the culture evolves, always adjusting by being a scholar, having the humility to be a scholar. A healthy respect for the younger generation, how they learn, what they learn, and what they can teach me, rather than poo-poo it and say, oh, these kids today. Because that's what a lot of people, like the Mike Mattisos and the Phil Hellmuths, my generation, they just poo-poo it because they don't understand it. On a level of one to 10, their level of understanding of this is like a one, maybe, if I'm being generous by calling it a one. They really don't understand it, so they poo-poo it. It's easy to do that. Like, oh, that's not how I do it, so that's wrong, or that's stupid, or whatever. I don't take that approach. I go, well, let me learn. Let me see what there is to this. But that said, the crankiness that Mattisos and Phil Hellmuth have is great to watch, especially when they're at a table with you. Oh, I love it, yeah. It's a blast. You're masterful at being able to get under their skin. What about somebody from the new school, like Justin Bonomo, who's leading in terms of cash wins? Is there somebody like that that stands out to you as a potential GOAT status person? Yeah, so there's two different ones, but one is very, so they're both just no limit, right? So, like, again, when I think of poker, I think of a variety of games, but there's so many of the young guys that specialize. Michael Adamo is one that I've mentioned several times, and I love the way that he approaches the game. Another one that's highly respected because of his online prowess, people have looked at how close he is to game theory, and they say he's about as perfect as you get. And it's a kid named Linus, Linus Love Online, Linus Lingard. So he just came second recently, I believe, in the huge Triton event. So he's primarily an online player. Yeah, he's an online cash player for the most part, but he plays some live. And he's, again, and I respect the peers that I play with who say, yeah, he's tough as nails. There's another kid too, Russian kid named Timofey Kuznetsov. And he plays all the games, and he's well-respected in that regard. And same with a guy like Jungleman, Dan Cates, who's a unique personality. I mean, this guy showed up, won the Poker Players Championship back-to-back years in a Randy Macho Man Savage costume. And he was doing Macho Man the entire time. Oh, yeah, I'm gonna take all the chips like I did last year. Just them all, and he was in character for the entirety of the tournament. This is great. Just unique. But yeah, I respect for a lot of those guys. Is it gonna take time to figure out who stands the test of time? That's the thing, right? So a lot of these kids, like there was a guy who beat me, heads up, in the million dollar one drop. I got 8.7, he won $15 million. Kid named Dan Coleman. He was seen as like the next big thing in poker, right? He made his money. Just wasn't for him. So he's moved on. To doing what he's doing, skiing in the Alps, whatever. We have nobody seen him from like five, six years. So that can happen, right? Because there is a lot of burnout. I think it was actually Gotham Chess who mentioned something about how difficult it is to like, I think it's true in poker. When you get really, really good at something, to get this much better takes so much work. And a lot of people don't necessarily wanna put in that kind of work in order to do that. It's just even staying at the same level takes a huge amount of work. Like, so if you wanna get better at chess, you're already like really, really good. And you're trying to get like one little bit better. You have to study like in a ridiculous amount. You know, and again, that's, once you've already had, I think the toughest thing for anybody, once you've tasted success and you've already achieved it, staying hungry, staying on the top. Reaching the top is much easier than it is to stay there. Yeah. Over years, what's your training regimen in poker in terms of how you keep improving? So you said you study games, but that's mostly leading up to a particular tournament. But is there kind of a behind the scenes daily activity you try to do that kind of over time keeps you sharp? So for me, now that I'm 47, I feel like the predominant aspect of my poker game is going to be, in terms of my success, is gonna be my mental state, right? So I find it's really, really important for me now at this age to have balance. So when I'm not playing poker and I'm out of it, poker's not even on my radar. You're able to remove it from your mind. Doing my fantasy hockey, play a little chess, you know, play some golf, watch some hockey, whatever the case may be outside of the game. And then I start to get the itch. Like after the World Series of Poker, the poker door was closed. Yeah, you took some time off. All of August, I didn't play any poker at all until just recently. I started to get the itch again. Because that's what's important for me, is if I don't have the itch and I don't want to play poker, then I'm not gonna be at my best. Once I start getting the itch, that's when I start to say, okay, let's start watching some of these streams. Let's see what my opponents are up to lately. And let's look at some solvers and different things like that. And you're doing pretty good. You came back and doing pretty good. Yeah, so far. Do you like being in front of the camera through the hell of the World Series of Poker this year? You filmed every single day. You did a vlog. Does that energize you? Is that exhausting? Because it's really beneficial to a huge amount of people. It energizes the poker community. But do you see it as a service or do you purely just love it? I've been comfortable on camera since I was a kid. When I was a kid, I wanted to be an actor. Like really, really young. And it was always comfortable in that environment. And I think that gives me a little bit of an advantage sometimes too with these filmed events. Because I'm comfortable with a mic on and on camera with the lights. And I think a lot of people maybe aren't with the knowledge that other people are gonna see what they're doing every day. So it's been so comfortable and easy for me as far as the World Series goes and the vlogs and all the shooting. It's kind of therapeutic for me. It is essentially my version of journaling. So there's a lot of value, I think, in like at the end of a day doing a brain dump where you just write out and journal. But doing it on camera has a similar effect. And it also, when you make a mistake on your own, you're held accountable to you. But when I have to explain it to others, like here's what I did and this is the mistake I made or whatever the case may be, it actually, I think that helps me. Yeah, so you're held responsible by a larger audience. Yeah, I think it's like, so like I said, listen, I'm 47, my life is good. I don't have to be in this tournament. If I'm over it, I can just dump my chips off and go home. Right, but I can't when I'm doing the vlog. Like I have to actually answer to that, you know? And it keeps me in line. How hard is it to win the main event of the World Series of Poker? So the main event of the World Series of Poker is the hardest event to win, simply because of the sheer size of it. You know, you're talking seven, 8,000 players, right? And a lot of landmines. And frankly, there are so many players that you've not played with before, too. You play these high roller events, like these super ones, you get 30, 40 people, you know everybody, right? So you have an idea. You sit at the main event, you don't know, have any idea. This guy wearing a Philadelphia Eagles jersey and sunglasses and you just raised your big, I don't know this guy, I don't know what he's about. So there's a lot of like, it's grueling, too. You know, you're seven, eight days where you're in the blender, as you might say. So what's the structure? So it's $10,000 buy-in or something like that, and there's a bunch of tables and you just keep playing. Like, when is it over for a single table? Does it go- So the way that it works is this. So there's, let's say 8,000 players. And the way the main event works, unique to others, is there's various day ones you can play, right? So a day one, you're gonna play from noon till like midnight, right? If you're still in, you bag up your chips and you'll come back for day two, okay? There's four different day ones, right? Now they'll all combine, essentially, to play on a day two. And at the end of the night, they redraw the tables. So you don't just win your table. If players get knocked out, tables break, they continue to be replaced. So you start with 8,000, then after day one, you've got 6,000, then you do the same. You play like a 12-hour day and you slowly whittle down. Day three, day four, you're in the money. And then you continue to progress. And then what they do now with the final table is, because they were trying to do this for TV, these final tables can take 12 hours to play. And what we were finding was, you start the thing at 5 p.m. and it goes till 8 a.m. and nobody's watching anymore. So they separate into three days now. And so you're talking now, it's like six, seven days to get to the final table and another three days to play it. So you're grinding for a week and a half. But most of the time, you're playing against people you've never played against before. Especially early on, yeah. And then by the end, who knows? Rarely do you see. You see in the last hundred, you usually see some notable names. Then in the last 27, you might see one, maybe two. Final table, maybe one. But often it's gonna be some players you've never heard of before. Is there strategies that maximize your likelihood of having a chance? Yes, absolutely. I think the World Series of Poker main event is a unique animal in that, like we talk about game theory and all that kind of stuff. If you're focused on that when you're playing, you're really not playing well. You need to just exploit. Because you're gonna have a lot of people who see this as a bucket list item. They just wanna play the main event in the World Series. And they might be scared, they might be nervous or whatever. You don't have to worry about being balanced. Oh, I have to make sure that I'm balanced. No, you don't. You're playing with this guy now for three hours, you might never see him again. So just make the play that makes sense for you. So yeah, I approach that event very differently than I would playing against the high roller players that I play with typically. Does that mean more aggressive, essentially? Less, actually. So when you play against really good players, you have to take small plus EV scenarios where you push the envelope and you're playing really aggressive. You're bluffing off your stack. You gotta do this. You gotta focus a little bit more on being balanced. Because otherwise, you're not gonna beat these guys. Whereas if you're playing with amateurs and you're playing with regular players, for the most part, risking all your chips on a bluff, probably don't need to do that. You don't need to do that nearly as much. You can probably slowly but surely build your stack without taking those high risk, high variant situations because you'll find better situations. What mistakes do amateurs usually make in tournaments like that? Are they over bluffing? Well, I think amateurs generally, the biggest mistake they make is they think that pros are bluffing more than they are. So like a pro will bet all his chips on the end. They're like, I don't know, maybe it's Phil Ivey. Maybe he's doing some crazy stuff. He's like, probably not. He's probably just got it. You know? And then they lose all their money by calling or going all in as well. And so the right thing is to be more patient. So amateur is too impatient or just bad reads. So all the amateurs are built different. Some of the amateurs are just too weak and passive. They're just waiting for the nuts. And then the pros, everyone notices that. And then when they make their big hand, they don't get paid anyway. So in order to win the main event, I mean, you have to have some components of your game that are aggressive. It's very unlikely to expect to just get the cards the whole way and just always have the best hand. You're gonna have to find ways to win pots that, you know, where you don't have the best hand. How do you win the final table? The final table is unique now, especially because you're talking about the way that poker works in tournaments is that if there's seven people left and you have just, you know, you're very short on chips, but if one other player goes out, you just make like $300,000 for folding, like just for sitting out, right? The term for that, that, you know, chill kids uses ICM, independent, you know, chip model, right, where it talks about the value of each chip. Where what happens, what we see now is, let's say one guy has a big chip lead and there's another guy who's second in chips and there's a couple that are short. These guys in the middle, they just play super tight and they wait for the little guys to go while the big stack is just pounding them because he can afford to, right? He knows that people are handcuffed. So let's say I had 10 million in chips and you have 9 million in chips and these guys have little chips. If I go in on you, are you gonna call me and risk like, you know, guaranteed pay jumps of like moving up a few spots? So really the question comes down to like, are you the type of guy who just wants to inch up or are you gonna go for it and you're gonna go for the win? I think ultimately there's some value in being the guy who says, you know, I don't care if I come seventh. I'm not worried about going from seventh to fifth. I'm here to win. And so you're saying like the guys that win will often be the ones that call there. So like, they're not just bullying the small stacks. They're- Well, they're the ones that are willing to risk it, right? So there are some people who, you know, if there's five left, you know, and they're third in chips and there's two guys very short and you, you know, they'll have ace king and someone moves, they'll just fold. They fold the hand because they wanna wait for those two other players to get broke. And that way they let you know, they make actual money. So you, I guess the thought process between winning first place and winning the most amount of money are different. They're conflicting, right? Because in order to like win the, if you're just, if your focus is only on winning the tournament, you will make mistakes financially where you had guaranteed income for just folding, right? Let's say a guy has one chip left, you know, one chip and me and you have good chips and I go all in with you and I lose. Now that guy, you know, got the guaranteed, you know, he got the pay jump that I wouldn't have got. So there's some extremely stupid mistakes you can make from a financial perspective, but it's often at odds with, you know, giving yourself the best chance to actually come first. And in a tournament, especially the main event, especially the final table, it's all about coming in first. Well, I know because most of the people who make it, so like, you know, when you play these high rollers, these guys are accustomed to playing for a hundred thousand to, they're, they're accustomed to this kind of money. So they're gonna play, right? For the most, but you're talking about guys who bought into a $10,000 tournament, maybe never had a hundred K cash in their life. And now they're sitting there and it's like 1 million for fifth and 2 million for fourth. So like, they don't wanna be fifth. They're just gonna sit there and go, ah, I don't want. So they'll, they'll be under more financial pressure because they're not like your typical high roller type player. Are you still able to find the guts to take big risks? Yeah. See, I'm trying to win. Like, I think that gives me an advantage, frankly, where I might make decisions that are financially suboptimal because I'm trying to win, but there's also an inherent advantage to that. Like that, again, something I watched and learned from a guy like Michael Adamo, where he takes advantage of these people playing so passively in these spots where he's like, I don't, I'm not trying to come, I'm gonna win. I'm just gonna bully, bulldoze you. Cause I'm not worried about, you know, the small financial mistake of, you know, a pay jump. What advice could you give to, to beginning poker players? Actually at every level, how to get better, how to improve, how to improve their game. Obviously, as you said, it's easiest to get better in the beginning, but what advice would you give how to get better? So one of the ways, I mean, I think way back to the how I started, right? And there's so many resources and tools available right now to analyze hands, but when you play, right? And you find yourself in a situation or a hand that you're not really sure about, not because you had aces and went all in and you lost, like that's not interesting, but an interesting situation where you're not sure what you did, jot the hand down, write it out. And then either A, you know, use some of the tools, whether it's the solvers, if you're, you know, advanced enough or ask your group, you know, like have a couple of friends at your level and talk through the different decisions and start to learn that way, right? Cause those mistakes that you make or those tough, those tough hands, that's where the real learning comes from. Like, so that, so basically if you're, cause you're going to be in similar scenarios. In poker, you're rarely going to have the identical situation, but you'll have situations that are similar. You know, you raised with ace king, someone three bet, another guy goes all in. Okay, well, what do I do in that spot? You know, it's, you're going to have similar situations in the future as well. So figuring that out, the more you can do that, you chop away at, you know, different strategical mistakes, you know, you used to make that you no longer make. Are there resources, like your masterclasses are the, is great. Are there books? So there was a guy named Michael Acevedo. This is my, again, for a little bit more advanced players, but it's a book called Modern Poker Theory, I think it's called, which sort of explains game theory, right, to the novice, right? So it's a little bit, I think if you're new to poker, it's probably above the rim for you. But once you start to get a little better and you want to understand how to do it, it's probably a good resource for as far as books. And there's also like tons of people who stream poker, professional players, and then you can get in there and you get in on the chat and you start talking, you ask them, and you see people, you know, explaining their thought process and things like that. There's so many free resources. And of course, my masterclass, I think does a good job of sort of compartmentalizing, like, you know, how to attack it on a deeper level. And we, you know, we get it, I try to get into, what's funny, when I did the masterclass, I asked them, I was like, well, you know, how high end do you want this in terms of poker? And they're like, we want really, really high end. And I was like, oh, sure. Then I started to explain really, really high end, like, okay, well, maybe the one below that. Right? So I try to explain really complex, you know, theory in a more palatable way, in English, if you will. Because some of these kids, you hear them talk and you'd be like, huh? But you also, which is really nice, give example hands that really illustrate a point, which is really nice. You also wrote a book, I think 10 years ago, Power Hold'em Strategy. It's interesting to think how much of the stuff in that book still applies, how much doesn't. Listen, I still think the book holds up to a certain degree. Obviously, like, you know, it isn't optimal because there's like a more advanced strategies. And if you played that way, people will figure out a way to exploit you. But if you're like an average player playing an average buy-ins, like that's sort of what I coined like small ball approach, absolutely will work. You know, at the highest level, you have to add much more, a lot more bluffing. But overall, I think it's still, you know, for the most part, there's a lot of really, especially with tournaments, there's a lot of really good principles in the book. What's the difference in the dynamics, if you could just comment on between a heads up poker and when multiple people are in one hand? What are interesting aspects, everything we've been talking about from game theory to exploitative strategies, all that kind of stuff. So the biggest difference when you play, let's say, nine handed, you know, against eight other players and you know, heads up is first of all, just the type of hands and the number of hands you're gonna have to play. So the way that it works is if there's nine people, two out of the nine hands, you have to put in money and the other seven, you could just fold for nothing. Okay, when your head's up, you're forced to put money in every single hand, okay? And there's only one other hand in front of you, which means the ranges of hands that you play is way wider, right? So if you're nine handed, right? And you're in first position, you're like, all right, what do I need to play? Like a good pair, you know, two high cards suited, a big ace, you know, stuff like that. That's it, right? That's what you're gonna play, right? And you're gonna fold all the rest. When your head's up, you look at a king and a two and you're like, well, I gotta play this. You know, you're gonna, you're forced to play a lot more hands in a lot more complex situations when you're playing heads up, because you're gonna be playing much far weaker hands, queen five, jack three, all these types of hands. And you're gonna see flops where you're not gonna have the luxury of being like, I'm in there with a premium hand, queens, kings, aces, those are easier to play, right? Very, very strong holdings. Heads up, you're forced to dance and fight a lot more. You know, you can't sit in the weeds and wait. What do you enjoy more? Heads up is very intense. I like heads up, but I think if you had to play heads up eight, 10 hours, it's so mentally draining because your face was so many constant decisions each and every spot. Like you play nine handed, you look at a nine and a three, you throw it away, you hang out for a bit, you relax, you get a little break, and then play. Heads up, you're like, it's like boom, boom. It's like you're in the ring. You know, you're in the octagon and you're facing like haymakers nonstop. Since we talked about online a bit, is it possible to cheat in poker, especially online? So we offline also talked about the cheating controversy that's going on in the chess world. Is it possible to use, what is it, remotely connected anal beads to somehow cheat? No. Is that a concern of cheating online? So here's the thing. It's kind of like romanticized from the old days, like you know, in the Western stuff, like people trying to cheat. And have you ever killed a man because he cheated? No, I have not. But when I started out as a teenager, I played in a game with a bunch of Italians and I knew they cheated. And I didn't care because they were so bad that I could win anyway. I was like, I knew they would cheat, but I knew how they were cheating. So I was like, all right, you guys suck. So here's the thing. Anytime you're talking about large sums of money, there will be people looking to take advantage, whether that's live or online, right? And so it's like the job essentially of the, you know, the online operators or the, you know, live event staff to police it the best they can. And the players themselves being on the lookout for it, you know, like a guy like Dole Brunson's a great resource because he's seen it all and he's seen all the tricks, you know, and so live, you know, he probably could spot a few things. But online there's various ways people can try to cheat, but there's also really good security measures in place to catch them, you know? And we've caught, you know, like about two years ago, there was a huge undertaking of like 500 accounts that were banned for doing different things. And, you know, there's, and again, you can't go in, they can't go into detail in terms of how they're doing it because otherwise, you know, then you're sort of giving the cheats the playbook in terms of how to take advantage. But it's always going to be a concern for poker wherever you play, right? But it's not something I'm worried about personally. So at the highest in-person, and by the way, online there's really interesting algorithms that do some of the work in an automated way to detect, to flag things that are weird. But in-person is just not something at the highest level that you're super concerned about. So it's not, it didn't quite infiltrate the poker world to a degree where it's a huge concern. Yeah, like, so here's the thing. I don't play in private games and whatever, right? But in private games, theoretically, you know, you could be in, if you don't trust the people you're playing with, like I've heard stories of people where, you know, they have an earpiece in that you can't see, right? And they have, you know, like RFID on the cards or something like that, and they have a phone reading it. So they have somebody in a truck telling them, you're going to win this hand, you're going to lose this hand like that happened in a private game, you know? And the guy, what's often funny about some of these people who cheat is they're so greedy and blatantly obvious that they get caught. Where if they use this tool in a more subtle way, they could probably continue to get away with it. But again, that's not something I worry about in a casino environment, you know, in these tournaments and things like that. But if I was playing in private games, like if I came down to Texas and some guy, I got cheated in a game by a guy named Blacky Blackburn and Tex. That's a red flag right there. I was at the Chimo Hotel, I was a teenager, and they saw me playing, you know, I was making good money as a teenager. I had like a $13,000 bankroll, you know, and I went and played in this game with them in a private hotel room and found out later that the guy was a card mechanic, you know, he was dealing and he could, you know, deal you the hands and he knew what you had and stuff like that. So yeah, I remember, you know, I lost a big number in that game and it was a good learning lesson in terms of, you know, being wary of who you trust. Yeah, so if the dealer is in on it, that's one way you could cheat. It's fascinating. That's part of the reason that they cut. So like, you'll see like, there's a burn card because what would happen in, you know, maybe in the old days is like, if you're sitting in the one seat, I could lift the card and you could see it, the next card coming, right? So what they do is they have a card on top of it that you burn that isn't the card. And then the next card is the one that comes face up. I just learned about the edge sorting thing that Phil Ivey, maybe others were involved with. I just, reading it at first was super interesting to me that you can exploit the imperfections in the printing of cards. Yeah. That was almost cool to me. That's almost not cheating because it's like- That needs to be a movie. That needs to be a movie. It's awesome. Yes. Yeah, what happened with Phil Ivey in that whole case is it's a catastrophe, really. It is such a horrible precedent. Cause here's what he did. Phil Ivey shows up at the casino, says, I want to play this game. They say, okay. All right, I want to play with those dicks. They say, okay. They agree to everything that he says. He never touches the cards. He doesn't do anything outside of the fact that your cards that you supplied have imperfections on them and he can see them. Yeah. Okay. So that increases his chances of winning. He could still lose theoretically, right? Probably not, but he can lose in theory. It just gives him a little bit of an edge. And it's all stuff based on what you provided. Yeah. So the idea that you offered a game, I accepted, I beat you, and now you want to free roll me? That's disgusting. So for people who don't know, maybe you can elaborate. And it's just fascinating to me, but you're exploiting the imperfections in the card patterns on the back. And then they look different if you rotate it. And the fascinating thing too, when you shuffle, usually you don't rotate the cards so that you can detect which cards are the strong cards by marking them through rotating them. And the way you know they're rotated is because of the pattern imperfections. Yeah. So some of the cards, like you said, they had that pattern on it. And some of them, this was faulty cards on there, were not cut properly. So the eights and nines had the card cut differently. And those are important cards in this game, the eights and nines or whatever. So you could essentially, from looking at the back of the card, discern what it's gonna be. You do nothing in terms of cheating yourself. You're not rigging the game. All you're doing is taking advantage of the fact that you're playing, you've offered me cards that are faulty. Can I just say that, of course, it would be Phil Ivey, who's the goat at the normal game who would be figuring out this particular thing. I mean, that's what, if you're into soccer, this Diego Maradona has that famous hand of God in the World Cup where he scores a goal with his hand. And so of course the referee didn't see it. They thought it was a header. So I mean, part of the magic of the genius of the people at the top of the game is they're able to exploit all the flaws that are there. That's a beautiful thing to say. Well, see, Phil had, in his heyday, he had, he exploited weaknesses in casinos, systems all over the country. Like in one night, I don't know if you know this story. In one night, he would take a plane, a private plane, and fly to 30 different casinos all over the country because he would have these deals where they're like, all right, we've got this big rich sucker who's gonna come here and play craps and he's gonna lose all our money. So he'd have this deal with one of the casinos where they'd be like, all right, you get 20% back up to half a million, right? So if you lose half a million, we'll give you back 100K. Okay, so he'd go to one casino in Tunica. He'd play half a million, win, win or lose, you know, he would leave. They think they're gonna get him to stay. They get him a big room, whatever. So let's say he goes to Tunica, he loses half a million. Okay, now he goes, he flies to Atlantic City. He wins half a million, okay. He lost half a million and won half a million, but he got 100,000 back. So he's actually plus 100,000. Do that at 10 casinos a night, you're making a million dollars in free equity. And they would give him promotional chips and all these kinds of things and free flights and stuff like that. So he took advantage of the image, you know, that they're trying to exploit. So this is why I don't have any empathy for these casinos. Because they're giving you free drinks. They're giving you, why do you think they're doing that? Kind of the kindness of their heart. They're trying to exploit you. So guess what? You lost at your own game, pay the piper. And I think it was crazy. Because the judges in his case said, he did not cheat, but yeah, well, it's probably not right. Hold on, you just said he didn't cheat. You know, that should be the end of the case. And then the casinos do the funny thing. I mentioned to you, I was just at the UFC and Dana White is a huge gambler. He's a blackjack gambler. And there's that famous situation where he got kicked out of a casino and the casinos do that kind of thing. When you win too much. So he won some ridiculous amount of money. He bets like, I mean, he plays like millions of dollars on hands of blackjack, it's insane. And so he won really big and he got kicked out. Was he counting? No, no, he wasn't counting. So counting in blackjack here in Las Vegas is like the only game where they actually can ask you not to play. So like basically if you're counting cards, right? You could potentially have an edge in blackjack. And there are some professionals who do that. But they get caught pretty quickly. And then they say, you can play craps, you can play whatever you want, but you can't play blackjack here anymore. No, I don't think Dana White is counting. I think he was winning a lot. I guess they can claim that they believe you're counting because how do you really know if you're counting? Well, they easily, they figure it out. So basically they have an eye in the sky and they can see. So if you're varying your bet size, right? So there are certain spots where based on the cards that are out, let's say for example, a lot of the twos, threes, and fours, and fives have been coming out. So the deck is rich in face cards. That's very good for the player, right? So imagine you were betting 500 bucks. And then all of a sudden you up your bet to 2000 or 5000 when the deck is rich. They know when the deck is rich in high cards because they keep a counter themselves. So if they notice a player increasing their bet sizes when the deck is good for them, it's a telltale sign. Interesting, I don't think Dana White would be counting. It's so casinos don't kick you out if you don't often kick you out. Do they ever kick you out if you make too much money? Because you're playing millions of dollars that they- Unless they, they would never kick you out for making too much money, unless they suspect cheating. Because why would they? They have an advantage. They want the money back. It's not like you go in there and win 10 million. You're like, oh no, that's enough for us. What about if he was talking shit the whole time? I wonder. I don't think that would matter. Yeah, because in the long run, they'll get the money back. Exactly. You tweeted, if you watch Jersey Shore, family vacation, we would probably get along really well. What is it about, because I lived in Jersey for a while, what is it about Jersey Shore characters that you love? I just love that they're sort of, I love the debauchery. I think Pauly D's a fun guy, you know? And just like, it's just something like, it's just, what do you call it? It's trash TV, it's a guilty pleasure. But you can just watch Snooki get drunk and fall all over herself or whatever. Is that part, do you love that part of Vegas as well? Not really, like I don't go out and stuff. But I kind of, I just like the characters. I like that they have unique personalities. And I think we live in a world now where people are more and more careful of what they say and afraid of backlash and all that stuff. And it's kind of like an old school version of just like, say what you feel, it's okay, as long as your intent is good. And they haven't been canceled, if you will, which is good. But I feel like their type of behavior, slowly but surely, because they got a lot of flack originally for misrepresenting Italian Americans or something like that. Like there was a lot of backlash about, this isn't how Italian Americans really are and blah, blah, blah. So they sort of were representing that group of people. And they received some backlash back in the day. I'm a huge supporter of diversity in all the beautiful forms that the human species is able to generate. And that's certainly one dimension. What's the greatest Vegas movie, would you say? I don't know if that's a difficult question. But Fear of Losing Las Vegas, Leaving Las Vegas. Casino. I watch, because anytime Casino's on randomly, I always watch it. Such a great movie. It could be one of the Sharon Stone. Sharon Stone. Frankly, Sharon Stone reminded me, every time I would watch the movie, reminded me of my wife, Amanda. Like totally, I would see like the character. And I was like, I'm the Robert De Niro character in the film. I used to watch it through that lens. From like the depth of love that you have. Just kind of, she was, I remember that she was like, she was like, she lit up every room. She does light up every room when she goes there. Everybody's attracted and drawn to her. And she was kind of, when she was younger, she was a little wild and crazy and whatnot. So she reminded me of the Sharon Stone character. And then the Robert De Niro character's trying to like, have a stable life, you know, and be that. Now that was me. Who was the Joe Pesci in your life? Well, there was a guy named, there was a James Woods for sure, who was the Lester. We called him, we actually called him Lester. A few of my friends call him Lester. The greasy guy who tried to get back in and all that. But yeah. Yeah, one of my favorite scenes is when they meet out in the desert. And it's like a 50-50 odds if you're gonna make it out alive in that. I mean, yeah, there's an epicness to that portrayal of Vegas. I love, I mean, it's just totally, I mean, it's obviously more corporate now and it's different, but I love those movies. I love all those movies. Just seeing that life. And like I said, if there was a period in time that I could go back to and just experience it, it would be that, you know, right around then. That would be that. We're playing with a mob. I think of like these crime shows today, like they're so unrealistic now because if they're in an era that is now, like none of this stuff can happen because there's cameras everywhere. You can't like get away with these, like killing somebody and jumping in a car and you're gonna get caught, you know? But in the 70s, you know, that stuff happened. You cross the line, you die. Yeah, Lake Mead is recently like losing water. And like every couple of days, they're finding more and more bodies from that era. Oh no. They really are. You're close with your mom. What did you learn about life from your mom? My mother was very generous. My mother, she experienced joy through giving people. Food, for the most part, my dad would get him drinks. And that was how she felt fulfilled, right? She felt good when she like would cook for you. And like, she'd be that person you'd come over, and she'd be like, are you hungry? And you'd say, no, no, no, I'm okay. She's gonna put 15 things in front of you and you'll eat. You know, you're gonna eat. Because everyone does that, to be polite. No, no, I'm good. But you know, they will start to eat. And just her hospitality in that regard, and just being generous, and like being a good host to people and things like that. How did that define, like help define who you are as a person? That generosity. Yeah. Did it rub off on you? It made me think about, in my life, when it comes to like any sort of business deals or things like that, I don't wanna get the best of it in such a way where I screw the other person. I genuinely don't. I'd much rather you owe me than me owe you. So if I hire people, they get paid more than they're supposed to. And I'd rather them do that and work towards it rather than feel underpaid. Because if they're underpaid, they'll likely under deliver. Whereas if they feel overpaid, then if I need them to do something special, they're not gonna be like, hey, I don't get paid for that. It's like, yeah, you do. You really do. So that's certainly like played out in my life where I set it up in such a way where I don't owe. I'm owed, but that's okay. Because I can handle taking the worst of it in spots. I don't like being the person to feel like I'm indebted to others. Yeah, and in some way, the karma of that tends to pay dividends in the longterm somehow. Somehow there's somebody up there that's keeping track in some kind of way. What advice would you give to young people today in high school and college? How to have a career they can be proud of or maybe how to have a life in general they can be proud of? I would say like your 20s is a good opportunity to set yourself up for the rest of your life, right? So while the 20s are a period where you wanna have fun and you wanna experience youth, it's also a good opportunity to start thinking about what do you want your life to look like in your 30s and your 40s, right? So I feel like it's the best time to really put yourself out there and take risks and try to hit it, whatever, to work really, really hard to set yourself up. Because, and I said this at a event I was speaking at, when you're like with poker, when your bankroll is very, very small, it's replenishable, right? You don't need to protect it as much as you do once you've got something, right? Once you have a brand or you have money or you have something like that, that's when you wanna start protecting. But in your 20s is an opportunity to just really sort of get a cut, to work really, really hard to set yourself up for the future. I am concerned a little bit, like every time I talk to kids today, I'm like, what do you wanna be? They all wanna be YouTubers or Instagram stars or rappers. Right? Like, okay, I was like, that's cool, but like there's only so many of those that there can be. So it might be worthwhile having a little bit of a backup plan. I think it's easier to be successful on Instagram and social media if you do something else. And- I would say this too. One other thing I would say is, don't choose a profession or an idea because you think it'll make you rich. Yeah. Right? Pursue something that you actually love. Because if you love it, you're way more likely to become rich. If you don't, you do something that you don't actually enjoy. Now you're spending a lot of your life unhappy, doing something you don't want, and if you're not passionate about it, you're probably not, the chances of you being successful are much lower. And also becoming rich. And I've talked to a lot of rich people, hang out with a lot of rich people, is not going to be as fulfilling as you imagine if you arrive there by not doing the thing that you love doing. That's true. Ultimately, the thing that you love doing is, like, that's what makes life worth it. There's another quote, and I can't remember who it was, otherwise I would quote them, but it says something to the effect of like, if we believe in the lie that more is always better, then we can never truly arrive. Because wherever we are, more is better. I've never understood, and I've been around rich people, like you said, I never got, I don't get it. If you have a billion dollars, why do you give a shit about money at all? Like, and they're still like, oh, we made this deal, and I'm like, we picked up 300, who cares? Your life is set. There is that bell curve, right? Where obviously being in poverty, there's obviously a high rate of unhappiness, but there's a certain amount of money where you reach, where you reach a level of happiness, and then too much, you find that people that are searching for money to fulfill these holes, it starts to go back down again. Well, the getting more money could become a game, like a sport that's fun to play, as long as you directly or indirectly acknowledge that what you love is the game of it, versus the actual attainment of money. And I think that's what it is, right? For me, I've never cared about money that much. I just never did, otherwise I would have a lot more of it. But it's always been strange to me how people that have that kind of money like are cheap in any way, you know? Like they wouldn't donate 5,000 to a worthwhile charity, because it's like, buddy, this, like when it changes your life, not, you know, even like small things like taxes, like, okay, you have $20 billion, and you're worried about paying 33%, 30% of 31. I get it, I get the point of it all, but like it literally has no effect on your life whatsoever. Your life is unchanged, whether it's 31 or 33. Yeah, that's the negative of a lot of money, is if it corrupts the way you see the world, you start to be protective and so on. I mean, part of the challenge of when you get a lot of money is people start to treat you differently, and so navigating that correctly is very challenging. So don't change. Remain the same person you always were, because if you change, you start to, I mean, that's why power corrupts, is you get a lot of power, you get a lot of fame, you get a lot of money, you start to distrust people, and you start to push away people that are actually really close to you and worth trusting. You develop some biases where you think like, you're just this, you know, you think like, it was all you, and you're a genius, and you're so great, and all these other people who don't have, it's just because they don't have what you have, and like, you just, then you start to like, view that group of people, whether they're impoverished or whatever, as like, less than, and that you're some like, great guru, where you could have just got lucky and bought Bitcoins, that you know, could have done anything, and then you became like, super wealthy, and then you have this like, Dunning-Kruger effect, where you think you know everything about everything, and a lot of poker people have that, and I, listen, I'm probably guilty in some ways too, you know, thinking because you can figure out poker and be, you know, great at that, that you could figure out anything. So there's like, it's true, right? I mean, we sort of, we genuinely feel like, people that reach the highest levels of poker feel like they are intelligent, so they will look at problem solving, and think that they have answers. Well, you have to remind yourself that you're not. Yeah. As best to see the world as you did just get lucky, or at least from my perspective, that you're not better than anybody. Yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with like, acknowledging that you worked hard to get where you were. Like, there isn't, but at the same time, like, it's not available to everybody in the same way. You know, right time, right place. Like, for me, my poker career could have gone very differently, you know? If things didn't work out, you know, if I had some bad luck in the wrong times, like, who knows where I'd be? So you said your brain crawl is pretty small, in your 20s. I'm sure you've been around a lot of people you care a lot about who've lost everything in poker. What's that like? What's those low points of losing everything? I think because I've been there, I have more empathy than I probably should for those people. I really feel for them, because I remember being in Vegas and being totally broke, and like, a guy loaning me $400, and me like, turning that 400 into 20,000, 400 bucks, and I was like, eternally grateful of that. So when I have friends who go through that, like, I always try to consult them, obviously, what they really need is money for the most part. But I remember saying no to one friend, because he didn't have a plan. So I like to try to help them in that regard. Like, my buddy's like, can you stake me in this game? And I was like, all right, well, how much do you, then I was like, let's break down the math, bro. You want me to stake you, so you get 50% of the profit, right? So I said, how much do you think you can make in this game? How much does the biggest winners make? He's like, well, I can probably, you know, I'd probably do like 20,000 a month in this game. So okay, so you get half of that, because I get 10, right? What is your monthly net? How much are you spending? He's like, well, I'm renting this thing for 8,000. You're spending 17,000 a month. So like, no matter what, you're set up to fail. Like, this isn't gonna work. So I actually didn't give him the money, and I was like, what you need to do to earn more money is lower your monthly net, because it's too high. It just, you know, it just doesn't mathematically add up. So trying to set them right in that regard is something that like, I feel obliged to do, especially if they're friends. But what about the mental aspect of the struggle they're going through, the struggle you are going through? Just, I mean, it's really rough to have no money. It's not for everybody. This really isn't. Like, a lot of people might, you know, listen to this and think like, oh, I wanna play poker. It's like, most people fail. Most people who wanna play in the NFL, they, you know, they spend their college years, like, most of them are not gonna make it. Most of you who try to play poker professionally are going to fail, and you're gonna experience despair, okay? There are those, like in anything, that have the passion, have the know-how, have the luck, and all that sort of stuff, and it all pans out. But, you know, they're the minority. And so for the low points, if you remember, what does it take to sort of overcome that, overcome the mental struggle? I mean, you're making it sound like certain people are just genetically able to in certain art. I do think some people are more apt to being able to deal with like adversity and having resilience, and some people just can't hack it. But like, I generally, what I would advise, you know, people that are, let's say a guy's playing, you know, really high stakes or whatever, you're doing badly, is step number one is take a little bit of a break here, let's recalibrate, and let's start small again. Let's, you know, let's restart, and let's play smaller stakes, and let's get our confidence back. Because in poker, without confidence, you cannot be successful. It is incredibly important to have almost an inflated level of confidence in yourself, because you're up against it, right? As I said, the majority of people fail. So why are you special? Why are you different? You have to be pretty confident about your, you know, yourself to think that you are one of the chosen ones. And then don't resist the despair, and take a nap. Definitely take a nap. And it's a, listen, it's okay to experience it, like I said, yeah, you're gonna experience the spirit. What else, what should you be feeling? You know, if things are going poorly, and you just lost all your money. Excited? Maybe like, okay, have your moment of grief, allow yourself to experience it, so that you can, you know, reassemble. There's a fundamental way in which you haven't really lived life, if you haven't experienced periods of despair. You have a jaded view of the world, right? Weird thing about the human condition, that both the highs and the lows are important. Yeah. What role does love play in the human condition? Daniel Negreanu. That's a good one. What role has love played in your life? It's, yeah, that's, you know, you sort of talked about the ups and downs of, you know, the human condition, and love has been that for me, right? Yeah. Like, I'm in a good place now, but, you know, even with my now wife, years ago, you know, she was young. She was, you know, new to poker, and she wasn't ready to settle down. I was like, when I met her, I think I was 31, she was 21. And I was ready to like, lock her up, if you will. You know, let's do this. And I bought a ring way back when. She was like, not about that. She was living the Hollywood life. She was living, you know, partying in LA, doing that kind of stuff and wasn't ready. And we split, and that one hit me hard. So I didn't realize how much of a hit that had on my confidence in my, in everything, really. In poker, with other women, it had me a little jaded about women too, you know? Resentful, you know? And it took a lot of like self-reflection. I did like a lot of personal growth work and workshops and things like that. And then didn't see her for years. And she came back to town, I was a much different person. It was just, you know, four years ago or something like that. And she was too. Went to dinner. Few months later, we were married. It worked out so different, because we both had to grow, you know? And become different people. And that love was still there somehow. Yeah, like she went through her relationships. I went through mine, you know, we experienced life. And I was married once before too, you know, called my starter marriage, if you will. Which, yeah, you know, you just, you don't know. I think like until you do it, until you get married and, you know, experience like the sacrifice, not necessarily the sacrifices, but your value systems. If they don't align identically, which they're not going to. Someone like me, one of my, probably one of my, one of my strengths in poker, but my weaknesses in relationship is judgment, right? When I play poker, I need to judge you. That's essentially what I'm doing. I'm gauging who you are, and what you're good at and what you're bad at. And that can have repercussions, because it leads, that's how I, you know, that's the lens I look at everyone with, based on how you live your life. I'm judging you. This guy's this, this guy's that, this guy's that. And that's not healthy. So you have to shut that off in personal relationships. And the thing, I finally realized what love is, frankly, for me, with her, is no judgment, right? Yeah, acceptance. So like, yeah, so I have my way of being, right? If she wants to have cereal for dinner, babe, that's the best decision for her. I was living in a framework of better and worse. The way that I do things is better, and yours is worse. Do things more like I do. That's a recipe for disaster. True acceptance and true love is accepting someone like exactly as they are. You know, if she wants to do something different, I'm gonna support her, whatever it is. Even if I disagree with it personally, in like the way that I would do things, learning to just realize that she's had a different journey and a different walk towards where she's at than I have. So I can't pass my judgments on other people like that. I believe it is ethically wrong and probably illegal to eat cereal for dinner. Listen, if she wants it, she wants it. Acceptance. Like when she goes to bed, like all these little things about my regimented life. She's not. Like our motto at our wedding was like, you keep me wild, I'll keep you safe, you keep me wild. I keep her safe, she keeps me wild. She's like not organized and anal and all those kind of things, I am. She helps me like let loose. You know, I'm oh no, I'm eating this, this. She's like, have some popcorn. All right, let's do it, you know? She keeps me freed. And accepting that, embracing that, the differences, the chaos of it. Yes. That's what makes it. Like I literally do think about with her how important it is and how much I try to like just come from neutral and like compassion and never judge. Because she's got other things that she deals with, right? That I don't. She's bipolar, right? So with that, I've studied and I've learned a lot about you know, sort of mental health and what that means and ways in which a lot of characteristics about somebody is completely out of their control when they're bipolar. Right? And there's swings. Like there's no cocktail for bipolar that solves the issue, right? So there's medications that work to you know, level you out for periods of time. But then they start to fade and they don't work as well. So they constantly need readjustment. It's an unsolved mystery to a certain degree. So in some sense, you know, her diagnosis made our relationship easier because I don't take anything personal, right? I realize that sometimes she's gonna be in a mood. And you know, she's so good about communicating it though. She tells me. Some morning she'll be like bad mood, trying to get out of it, babe. I'm like, okay. I leave her alone. Well, that's great. That's, I mean, she's grown to be able to communicate, to understand, to self reflect, to understand where she is. I have people in my life who I love who are bipolar. It's a beautiful ride. It is, right? Yeah, it's yeah. The highs and the lows are like, are there. So, but yeah, like, because I, like I feel like a protector. For me, I just wanna be a rock, right? And that's part of the whole cereal thing. If she wants to eat cereal, don't make a wrong for anything she wants to do. What have you learned from life from the song, The Gambler by Kenny Rogers? You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run. You never count your money when you're sitting at the table. There'll be plenty of time for counting when the dealing's done. Is that, do you live by those words? The first part of it, for sure. What do they even mean? Because. You got to know when to hold, know. So basically, it's like, all right, you know, in life, like, you know, let's say, let's use a whatever, the market, for example. You bought a stock, right? Or you bought Bitcoin and you're like, it's gonna go to the moon, right? It's like, okay, well, maybe things have changed. New scenario, new circumstances, new situation. Are you going down with the ship, right? Or are you gonna lay the hand down? Are you gonna fold it? Whether it's a relationship, you know? You're with this woman, you're like, all right, I think it's time to fold this one. I think, you know, I don't think that we're gonna be able to make this hand work right now. When to fold them and when to run. Yeah, when to run. So maybe, every gambler knows that the secret to surviving is knowing what to throw away and knowing what to keep. Because every hand's a winner and every hand's a loser. That's like a stoic philosophy. And the best thing you can hope for is to die in your sleep. Every hand's a winner and every hand's a loser. What does that mean? I like that one. I like, for me, that's like the difference between victim and responsible. Like the way that I think about it, right? You can be a victim to circumstance or you can be responsible for everything in your life, right? So when an event happens, the event itself is neither good or bad until you assign it value, right? So like an event happens and it can be traumatic, it can be painful, but how you respond to it is ultimately gonna be up to you. Like you actually do have a choice. And that's the thing you can control. The fact that you, Daniel Negreanu, took my commentary about the gambler seriously shows once more that you're a beautiful human being. Thank you so much for being who you are, for inspiring millions of people about poker, about how to live life, and thank you for giving me your valuable time today. This is amazing. Thanks for talking. It was fun, man. It was great to have the conversation. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Daniel Negreanu. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Doyle Brunson. Poker is war. People pretend it is a game. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/rKnoNfajUgM

rvRwHKeNNAo

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Gary Marcus: Nature vs Nurture is a False Dichotomy | AI Podcast Clips

You've talked about this, you've written about it, you've thought about it, nature versus nurture. So what innate knowledge do you think we're born with and what do we learn along the way in those early months and years? Can I just say how much I like that question? You phrased it just right and almost nobody ever does, which is what is the innate knowledge and what's learned along the way? So many people dichotomize it and they think it's nature versus nurture when it is obviously has to be nature and nurture. They have to work together. You can't learn the stuff along the way unless you have some innate stuff. But just because you have the innate stuff doesn't mean you don't learn anything. And so many people get that wrong, including in the field. Like people think if I work in machine learning, the learning side, I must not be allowed to work on the innate side or that will be cheating. People have said that to me and it's just absurd. So thank you. But you could break that apart more. I've talked to folks who studied the development of the brain and the growth of the brain in the first few days, in the first few months in the womb, all of that, is that innate? So that process of development from a stem cell to the growth of the central nervous system and so on to the information that's encoded through the long arc of evolution. So all of that comes into play and it's unclear. It's not just whether it's a dichotomy or not. It's where most or where the knowledge is encoded. So what's your intuition about the innate knowledge, the power of it, what's contained in it, what can we learn from it? One of my earlier books was actually trying to understand the biology of this. The book was called The Birth of the Mind. How is it the genes even build innate knowledge? And from the perspective of the conversation we're having today, there's actually two questions. One is what innate knowledge or mechanisms or what have you, people or other animals might be endowed with. I always like showing this video of a baby ibex climbing down a mountain. That baby ibex, a few hours after its birth, knows how to climb down a mountain. That means that it knows not consciously something about its own body and physics and 3D geometry and all of this kind of stuff. So there's one question about what does biology give its creatures? What has evolved in our brains? How is that represented in our brains? The question I thought about in the book The Birth of the Mind. And then there's a question of what AI should have. And they don't have to be the same. But I would say that it's a pretty interesting set of things that we are equipped with that allows us to do a lot of interesting things. So I would argue or guess based on my reading of the developmental psychology literature, which I've also participated in, that children are born with a notion of space, time, other agents, places, and also this kind of mental algebra that I was describing before. You know, certain causation if I didn't just say that. So at least those kinds of things. They're like frameworks for learning the other things. So- Are they disjoint in your view or is it just somehow all connected? You've talked a lot about language. Is it all kind of connected in some mesh that's language-like of understanding concepts altogether? I don't think we know for people how they're represented and machines just don't really do this yet. So I think it's an interesting open question, both for science and for engineering. Some of it has to be at least interrelated in the way that like the interfaces of a software package have to be able to talk to one another. So the systems that represent space and time can't be totally disjoint because a lot of the things that we reason about are relations between space and time and cause. So I put this on and I have expectations about what's going to happen with the bottle cap. I put the bottle cap on top of the bottle and those span space and time. If the cap is over here, I get a different outcome. If the timing is different, if I put this here, after I move that, then I get a different outcome that relates to causality. So obviously these mechanisms, whatever they are, can certainly communicate with each other. So I think evolution had a significant role to play in the development of this whole colluge, right? How efficient do you think is evolution? Oh, it's terribly inefficient except that. Well, can we do better? I'll come to that in a second. It's inefficient except that once it gets a good idea, it runs with it. So it took, I guess a billion years, roughly a billion years to evolve to a vertebrate brain plan. And once that vertebrate brain plan evolved, it spread everywhere. So fish have it and dogs have it and we have it. We have adaptations of it and specializations of it. But and the same thing with a primate brain plan. So monkeys have it and apes have it and we have it. So there are additional innovations like color vision and those spread really rapidly. So it takes evolution a long time to get a good idea, being anthropomorphic and not literal here. But once it has that idea, so to speak, which cashes out into one set of genes or in the genome, those genes spread very rapidly. And they're like subroutines or libraries, I guess the word people might use nowadays or be more familiar with. They're libraries that get used over and over again. So once you have the library for building something with multiple digits, you can use it for a hand, but you can also use it for a foot. You just kind of reuse the library with slightly different parameters. Evolution does a lot of that, which means that the speed over time picks up. So evolution can happen faster because you have bigger and bigger libraries. And what I think has happened in attempts at evolutionary computation is that people start with libraries that are very, very minimal, like almost nothing. And then, you know, progress is slow and it's hard for someone to get a good PhD thesis out of it and then give up. If we had richer libraries to begin with, if you were evolving from systems that had an rich innate structure to begin with, then things might speed up. Or more PhD students, if the evolutionary process is indeed, in a meta way, runs away with good ideas, you need to have a lot of ideas, pool of ideas in order for it to discover one that you can run away with. And PhD students representing individual ideas as well. Yeah, I mean, you could throw a billion PhD students at it. The monkeys at typewriters with Shakespeare, yeah. Well, I mean, those aren't cumulative, right? That's just random. And part of the point that I'm making is that evolution is cumulative. So if you have a billion monkeys independently, you don't really get anywhere. But if you have a billion monkeys, and I think Dawkins made this point originally, or probably other people, Dawkins made it very nice in either a selfish teen or blind watchmaker. If there's some sort of fitness function that can drive you towards something, I guess that's Dawkins point. And my point, which is a variation on that, is that if the evolution is cumulative, the related points, then you can start going faster. Do you think something like the process of evolution is required to build intelligent systems? Not logically. So all the stuff that evolution did, a good engineer might be able to do. So for example, evolution made quadrupeds, which distribute the load across a horizontal surface. I don't think Eric come up with that idea. I mean, sometimes good engineers come up with ideas by looking at biology. There's lots of ways to get your ideas. Part of what I'm suggesting is we should look at biology a lot more. We should look at the biology of thought and understanding, and the biology by which creatures intuitively reason about physics or other agents, or how do dogs reason about people? They're actually pretty good at it. If we could understand, at my college we joked dog-nition, if we could understand dog-nition well and how it was implemented, that might help us with our AI. So do you think it's possible that the kind of timescale that evolution took is the kind of timescale that will be needed to build intelligent systems? Or can we significantly accelerate that process inside a computer? I mean, I think the way that we accelerate that process is we borrow from biology. Not slavishly, but I think we look at how biology has solved problems and we say, does that inspire any engineering solutions here? Try to mimic biological systems and then therefore have a shortcut. Yeah, I mean, there's a field called biomimicry, and people do that for material science all the time. We should be doing the analog of that for AI. And the analog for that for AI is to look at cognitive science or the cognitive sciences, which is psychology, maybe neuroscience, linguistics, and so forth. Look to those for insight.

https://youtu.be/rvRwHKeNNAo

zhZXZ35lF7s

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Competing with SpaceX: America Was Built on Competition - Lockheed Martin CTO | AI Podcast Clips

What are your thoughts on the efforts of the new folks, SpaceX and Elon Musk? What are your thoughts about what Elon is doing? Do you see him as competition? Do you enjoy competition? What are your thoughts? First of all, certainly Elon, I'd say SpaceX and some of his other ventures are definitely a competitive force in the space industry. And do we like competition? Yeah, we do. And we think we're very strong competitors. I think it's, you know, competition is what the US is founded on in a lot of ways and always coming up with a better way. And I think it's really important to continue to have fresh eyes coming in, new innovation. I do think it's important to have level playing fields. And so you want to make sure that you're not giving different requirements to different players. But you know, I tell people, you know, I spent a lot of time at places like MIT. I'm going to be at the MIT Beaverworks Summer Institute over the weekend here. And I tell people this is the most exciting time to be in the space business in my entire life. And it is this explosion of new capabilities that have been driven by things like the, you know, the massive increase in computing power, things like the massive increase in comms capabilities, advanced and additive manufacturing are really bringing down the barriers to entry in this field. And it's driving just incredible innovation. It's happening at startups, but it's also happening at Lockheed Martin. I talked about some of these like, you know, Maya and Orion, but we're in the middle of what we call smart sets and software defined satellites that can essentially restructure and re map their purpose, their mission on orbit to give you almost unlimited flexibility for these satellites over their lifetimes. So those are just a couple of examples. But yeah, this is a great time to be in space.

https://youtu.be/zhZXZ35lF7s

pXEl0R1BX-g

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Make Disadvantage Your Superpower | Lex Fridman | AMA #6

Zakaria asks, Dr. Lex, I'm a high school student in Libya. I am very interested in new technology and artificial intelligence, and I've taken the online course CS50x from Harvard. What do you advise people like me to learn? I'm at a disadvantage because of my country's educational system. I one day want to become a great engineer like you, Elon Musk, and many more that may not be as famous. I'm very grateful for the mere chance of you replying to this. What a world we're in, that a kid from nowhere can be asking questions of an MIT researcher. Zakaria, thank you very much for the question. You're too kind. I probably have a lot to say about this topic, but let me try to be brief and to the point. I think it's wonderful that you reached out and that you have a clarity to your passion. Don't lose track of that in your college years and the years to come. Don't forget that you have an interest in artificial intelligence. Don't forget that that fire was there when you were in high school and keep that fire burning. I think the question you've asked is about the disadvantage. I think we live in a world where there's a lot of injustice, where we don't all start from the same place. And that disadvantage doesn't always look the same for everyone. And how to make a more just world is, in many ways, what we're struggling as a society to understand now, but that's a much bigger topic than either you or I. I think what you should be focused on is what you can do for your life. Your circumstance is your circumstance. I've always believed that my disadvantages are my superpowers. And I think your disadvantage is your superpower. Use it as fuel. If you look at stories of great men, of great women in history, that story always has a lot of disadvantages that were overcome. There is something in the process of overcoming hardship that creates greatness. Most people quit through that process. If you can survive it, then your story will be a great one. So the education system in Libya may not be optimal for your passion of artificial intelligence. Perhaps you want to become a professor or a top researcher in the world. It's difficult to go from Libya to one of the best universities in America, for example. But it's not impossible. And once again, the story of great people starts very much like your own story. So practically speaking, what does that mean? I would take your education online and not only to study, but to build stuff. I think the best way you can overcome the physical constraints of your upbringing is by using the internet to build stuff and show it to the world. Build it, complete it, and show it to the world. So that means learning how to program. That means building something that you're really excited about and something that's new. And the best, if it's something that's new and a bunch of people use and it brings them joy or it brings them value, just even the smallest possible thing. So that might start at first by re-implementing things that other people have done, but then finding something that you're curious about, something that kind of gives you a little spark of joy imagining that you might be able to figure out that puzzle. Don't lose track of that joy. Like the moment you detect that this might be something that you might be excited about or you already are excited about, hold onto that. Hold onto that fire and go with it because there's going to be dark periods of time when you lose hope, when you're not so interested in that thing. Keep going and remember that that fire was there. And the thing is, at least for me, I think, when there's a passion, it can wane, it can go up and down, but it always returns. So once you have a passion, take those early few steps, which are always the hardest, and then just keep going. Just keep going one step at a time, keep grinding it out and believe it's gonna work out. So one of the most important thing is to finish, to finish building something cool. Not too ambitious, something small, something cool, something hopefully new. And then show it off to people, show it off to me, and I'll share it with the world. It might not be me, it might be others, and just putting yourself out there in the world, and you never know what might happen. I think in many ways, I feel highly undeserving of the things I've gotten. I have worked extremely hard, but I feel that there's a lot of people that also work hard and are better than me at a lot of the things that I do. So I've been just really fortunate. But I've also seen the magic of just being kind to people, working hard, and putting things you love out there. And the beauty of the internet, as it is, is that when you put stuff you love out there, something good will happen, something magical will happen. It might not be the kind of success you imagine, but it will be a kind of success that will be really fulfilling if you hear it, if you allow your sort of, if you open your heart to it. So like, don't be constrained at thinking that, you know, education at MIT or Stanford is a definition of success. Success might be your own business. Success might be working for a small startup that brings you joy. Success might be using your software engineering skills in your 20s to help out a farmer in agriculture, or a lawyer in a legal profession, or a doctor in medical. Like, the journey might take you all kinds of places, but as long as you allow yourself to be carried by your passion, you'll discover something magical. Again, without jealousy, with honesty, with hard work, with kindness, just putting yourself out there, I think magical things happen. But let me tell you, once again, as you mentioned disadvantage, I think disadvantage on an individual level, I believe you have to see it as a gift for yourself. You have to see it as a superpower. Because when your story is written, and I'm confident it will be written, it'll be a great story. And chapter two and three will include a bunch of disadvantages, a bunch of hardships you have to overcome. In fact, chapter four, five, and six will be hardship too. It's only the later chapters you get to have a little bit more fun. But really, I think overcoming hardship is kind of the fun part in life. So call me crazy, but I would recommend not to listen to anybody who tells you to be safe, to find a stable job. Listen to your heart, listen to your passion. Take bold, big risks when you're young. That is the time to do it. Work hard, build stuff, put it on GitHub, share it with the world, give joy and or value to others, and I think however this crazy world works with love and karma, it will repay you in the end. So good luck, I believe in you. Can't wait to listen to the book about your life on audiobook when I run in my 80s. So Zachariah, I'm cheering for you, and so is the rest of the world. So good luck.

https://youtu.be/pXEl0R1BX-g

36_rM7wpN5A

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Rana el Kaliouby: Emotion AI, Social Robots, and Self-Driving Cars | Lex Fridman Podcast #322

there's a broader question here, right? As we build socially and emotionally intelligent machines, what does that mean about our relationship with them? And then more broadly, our relationship with one another, right? Because this machine is gonna be programmed to be amazing at empathy by definition, right? It's gonna always be there for you. It's not gonna get bored. I don't know how I feel about that. I think about that a lot. The following is a conversation with Rana L. Kalyubi, a pioneer in the field of emotion recognition and human-centric artificial intelligence. She is the founder of Effectiva, deputy CEO of SmartEye, author of Girl Decoded, and one of the most brilliant, kind, inspiring, and fun human beings I've gotten the chance to talk to. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description and now, dear friends, here's Rana L. Kalyubi. You grew up in the Middle East, in Egypt. What is a memory from that time that makes you smile? Or maybe a memory that stands out as helping your mind take shape and helping you define yourself in this world? So the memory that stands out is we used to live in my grandma's house. She used to have these mango trees in her garden and in the summer, and so mango season was like July and August, and so in the summer, she would invite all my aunts and uncles and cousins, and it was just like maybe there were 20 or 30 people in the house and she would cook all this amazing food, and us, the kids, we would go down the garden and we would pick all these mangoes. And I don't know, I think it's just the bringing people together, like that always stuck with me, the warmth. Around the mango tree. Yeah, around the mango tree, and there's just the joy, the joy of being together around food. I'm a terrible cook, so I guess that didn't, that memory didn't translate to me kind of doing the same. I love hosting people. Do you remember colors, smells? Is that what, like what, how does memory work? Yeah. Like what do you visualize? Do you visualize people's faces, smiles? Do you, is there colors? Is there like a theme to the colors? Is it smells because of food involved? Yeah, I think that's a great question. So those Egyptian mangoes, there's a particular type that I love and it's called Darwesi mangoes, and they're kind of, they're oval, and they have a little red in them, so I kind of, they're red and mango colored on the outside, so I remember that. Does red indicate like extra sweetness? Is that? Yes. That means like it's nicely. It's like really sweet. Yeah, it's nice and ripe and stuff, yeah. What's like a definitive food of Egypt? You know, there's like these almost stereotypical foods in different parts of the world, like Ukraine invented borscht. Borscht is this beet soup with, that you put sour cream on. See, it's not, I can't see. Explain it that way. If you know what it is, I think you know it's delicious, but if I explain it, it's just not gonna sound delicious, I feel like. Beet soup, this doesn't make any sense, but that's kind of, and you probably have actually seen pictures of it because it's one of the traditional foods in Ukraine, in Russia, in different parts of the Slavic world. So, but it's become so cliche and stereotypical that you almost don't mention it, but it's still delicious. Like I visited Ukraine, I eat that every single day. Do you make it yourself? How hard is it to make? No, I don't know. I think to make it well, like anything, like Italians, they say, well, tomato sauce is easy to make, but to make it right, that's like a generational skill. So anyway, is there something like that in Egypt? Is there a culture of food? There is, and actually, we have a similar kind of soup. It's called molokhia, and it's made of this green plant. It's like somewhere between spinach and kale, and you mince it, and then you cook it in like chicken broth. And my grandma used to make, and my mom makes it really well, and I try to make it, but it's not as great. So we used to have that, and then we used to have it alongside stuffed pigeons. I'm pescetarian now, so I don't eat that anymore, but. Stuffed pigeons. Yeah, it's like, it was really yummy. It's the one thing I miss about, you know, now that I'm pescetarian and I don't eat. The stuffed pigeons? Yeah, the stuffed pigeons. Is it, what are they stuffed with? If that doesn't bother you too much to describe. No, no, it's stuffed with a lot of like just rice and. Oh, got it, got it, got it. Yeah, it's just rice, yeah, so. And you also, you've said that you're first in your book that your first computer was an Atari, and Space Invaders was your favorite game. Is that when you first fell in love with computers? Would you say? Yeah, I would say so. Video games, or just the computer itself? Just something about the machine. Ooh, this thing. There's magic in here. Yeah, I think the magical moment is definitely like playing video games with my, I have two younger sisters, and we just like had fun together like playing games. But the other memory I have is my first code. The first code I wrote, I wrote, I drew a Christmas tree. And I'm Muslim, right? So it's kind of, it was kind of funny that I, that the first thing I did was like this Christmas tree. So, yeah, and that's when I realized, wow, you can write code to do all sorts of like really cool stuff. I must have been like six or seven at the time. So you can write programs, and the programs do stuff for you. That's power. That's, if you think about it, that's empowering. It's AI. Yeah, I know, well, it is. I don't know if that, you see, like, I don't know if many people think of it that way when they first learned to program. They just love the puzzle of it. Like, ooh, this is cool, this is pretty. It's a Christmas tree, but like, it's power. It is power. Like, you eventually, I guess you couldn't at the time, but eventually this thing, if it's interesting enough, if it's a pretty enough Christmas tree, it can be run by millions of people and bring them joy, like that little thing. And then because it's digital, it's easy to spread. So like you just created something that's easily spreadable to millions of people. Totally. It's hard to think that way when you're six. In the book you write, I am who I am because I was raised by a particular set of parents, both modern and conservative, forward-thinking and yet locked in tradition. I'm a Muslim and I feel I'm stronger, more centered for it. I adhere to the values of my religion, even if I'm not as dutiful as I once was. And I am a new American and I'm thriving on the energy, vitality, and entrepreneurial spirit of this great country. So let me ask you about your parents. What have you learned about life from them, especially when you were young? So both my parents, they're Egyptian, but they moved to Kuwait right after. They actually, there's a cute story about how they met. So my dad taught kobol in the 70s. Nice. And my mom decided to learn programming. So she signed up to take his kobol programming class. And he tried to date her and she was like, no, no, no, I don't date. And so he's like, okay, I'll propose. And that's how they got married. Whoa, strong move. Right, exactly right. That's really impressive. Those kobol guys know how to impress a lady. Yeah. So, yeah, so what have you learned from them? So definitely grit. One of the core values in our family is just hard work. There were no slackers in our family. And that's something I've definitely, that's definitely stayed with me, both as a professional, but also in my personal life. But I also think my mom, my mom always used to like, I don't know, it was like unconditional love. Like I just knew my parents would be there for me kind of regardless of what I chose to do. And I think that's very powerful. And they got tested on it because I kind of challenged, you know, I challenged cultural norms and I kind of took a different path, I guess, than what's expected of, you know, a woman in the Middle East and then they, and I, you know, they still love me, which is, I'm so grateful for that. When was like a moment that was the most challenging for them? Which moment were they kind of, they had to come face to face with the fact that you're a bit of a rebel? I think the first big moment was when I, I had just gotten married, but I decided to go do my PhD at Cambridge University. And because my husband at the time, he's now my ex, ran a company in Cairo, he was gonna stay in Egypt. So it was gonna be a long distance relationship. And that's very unusual in the Middle East for a woman to just head out and kind of, you know, pursue her career. And so my dad actually, my dad and my parents-in-law both said, you know, we do not approve of you doing this, but now you're under the jurisdiction of your husband so he can make the call. And luckily for me, he was supportive. He said, you know, this is your dream come true. We've always wanted to do a PhD. I'm gonna support you. So I think that was the first time where, you know, I challenged the cultural norms. Was that scary? Oh my God, yes. It was totally scary. What's the biggest culture shock from there to Cambridge, to London? Well, that was also during, right around September 11th. So everyone thought that there was gonna be a third world war. And it was really, and at the time I used to wear the hijab so I was very visibly Muslim. And so my parents just were, they were afraid for my safety. But anyways, when I got to Cambridge because I was so scared, I decided to take off my headscarf and wear a hat instead. So I just went to class wearing these like British hat, which was, in my opinion, actually worse than just showing up in a headscarf. Because it was just so awkward, right? Like sitting in class with like all these- Trying to fit in. Yeah. Like a spy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So after a few weeks of doing that, I was like, to heck with that. I'm just gonna go back to wearing my headscarf. Yeah, you wore the hijab, so starting in 2000, and for 12 years after. So always, whenever you're in public, you have to wear the head covering. Can you speak to that, to the hijab? Maybe your mixed feelings about it. Like what does it represent in its best case? What does it represent in the worst case? Yeah. You know, I think there's a lot of, I guess I'll first start by saying I wore it voluntarily. I was not forced to wear it. And in fact, I was one of the very first women in my family to decide to put on the hijab. And my family thought it was really odd, right? Like they were like, why do you wanna put this on? And at its best, it's a sign of modesty, humility. It's like me wearing a suit. People are like, why are you wearing a suit? It's a step back into some kind of tradition, a respect for tradition of sorts. So you said because it's by choice, you're kind of free to make that choice to celebrate a tradition of modesty. Exactly, and I actually like made it my own. I remember I would really match the color of my headscarf with what I was wearing. Like it was a form of self-expression, and at its best, I loved wearing it. You know, I have a lot of questions around how we practice religion and religion. And I think also it was a time where I was spending a lot of time going back and forth between the US and Egypt. And I started meeting a lot of people in the US who were just amazing people, very purpose-driven, people who have very strong core values, but they're not Muslim. That's okay, right? And so that was when I just had a lot of questions. And politically also the situation in Egypt was when the Muslim Brotherhood ran the country, and I didn't agree with their ideology. It was at a time when I was going through a divorce. Like it was just the perfect storm of political, personal conditions, where I was like, this doesn't feel like me anymore. And it took a lot of courage to take it off because culturally it's okay if you don't wear it, but it's really not okay to wear it and then take it off. But you're still, so you have to do that while still maintaining a deep core and pride in the origins, in your origin story. Totally. So still being Egyptian, still being a Muslim. Right, and being, I think, generally like faith-driven, but yeah. But what that means changes year by year for you. It's like a personal journey. Yeah, exactly. What would you say is the role of faith in that part of the world? Like how do you see it? You mention it a bit in the book too. Yeah, I mean, I think there is something really powerful about just believing that there's a bigger force. You know, there's a kind of surrendering, I guess, that comes with religion. And you surrender and you have this deep conviction that it's gonna be okay, right? Like the universe is out to do amazing things for you and it's gonna be okay. And there's strength to that. Like even when you're going through adversity, you just know that it's gonna work out. Yeah, it gives you like an inner peace, a calmness. Exactly, exactly. Yeah, it's faith in all the meanings of that word. Right. Faith that everything is going to be okay. And it is because time passes and time cures all things. It's like a calmness with the chaos of the world. And also there's like a silver lining. I'm a true believer of this, that something at a specific moment in time can look like it's catastrophic and it's not what you wanted in life, da-da-da-da. But then time passes and then you look back and there's a silver lining, right? It maybe closed the door, but it opened a new door for you. And so I'm a true believer in that, that there's a silver lining in almost anything in life. You just have to have this like, have faith or conviction that it's gonna work out. Yeah, such a beautiful way to see a shitty feeling. So if you feel shitty about a current situation, I mean, it almost is always true, unless it's the cliche thing of, if it doesn't kill you, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. It does seem that over time, when you take a perspective on things, that the hardest moments and periods of your life are the most meaningful. Yeah, yeah. So over time you get to have that perspective. Right. What about, because you mentioned Kuwait, what about, let me ask you about war. What's the role of war and peace, maybe even the big love and hate in that part of the world, because it does seem to be a part of the world where there's turmoil. There was turmoil, there's still turmoil. It is so unfortunate, honestly. It's such a waste of human resources and yeah, and human mindshare. I mean, and at the end of the day, we all kind of want the same things. We want, you know, we want human connection, we want joy, we wanna feel fulfilled, we wanna feel, you know, a life of purpose. And I just find it baffling, honestly, that we are still having to grapple with that. I have a story to share about this. You know, I grew up, I'm Egyptian, American now, but you know, originally from Egypt. And when I first got to Cambridge, it turned out my office mate, like my PhD kind of, you know, she ended up, you know, we ended up becoming friends, but she was from Israel. And we didn't know, yeah, we didn't know how it was gonna be like. And- Did you guys sit there just staring at each other for a bit? Actually, she, because I arrived before she did, and it turns out she emailed our PhD advisor and asked him if she thought it was gonna be okay. Yeah. Oh, this is around 9-11 too. Yeah, and Peter Robinson, our PhD advisor was like, yeah, like just as an academic institution, just show up. And we became super good friends. We were both new moms. Like we both had our kids during our PhD. We were both doing artificial emotional intelligence. She was looking at speech, I was looking at the face. We just had so, the culture was so similar. Our jokes were similar. It was just, I was like, why on earth are our countries, why is there all this like war and tension? And I think it falls back to the narrative, right? If you change the narrative, like whoever creates this narrative of war, I don't know. We should have women run the world. Yeah, that's one solution. The good women, because there's also evil women in the world. True, true, okay. Uh, but yes, yes, there could be less war if women ran the world. The other aspect is, it doesn't matter the gender, the people in power, you know, I get to see this with Ukraine and Russia, different parts of the world around that conflict now. And that's happening in Yemen as well and everywhere else. There's these narratives told by the leaders to the populace and those narratives take hold and everybody believes that and they have a distorted view of the humanity on the other side. In fact, especially during war, you don't even see the people on the other side as human or as equal intelligence or worth or value as you. You tell all kinds of narratives about them being Nazis or Dom or whatever narrative you want to weave around that or evil. But I think when you actually meet them face to face, you realize they're like the same. Exactly right. It's actually a big shock for people to realize like that they've been essentially lied to within their country. And I kind of have faith that social media, as ridiculous as it is to say, or any kind of technology is able to bypass the walls that governments put up and connect people directly. And then you get to realize, ooh, like people fall in love across different nations and religions and so on. And that I think ultimately can cure a lot of our ills, especially sort of in person. I also think that if leaders met in person to have a conversation, that would have cured a lot of the ills of the world, especially in private. Let me ask you about the women running the world. So gender does in part, perhaps, shape the landscape of just our human experience. So in what ways was it limiting it? In what ways was it empowering for you to be a woman in the Middle East? I think just kind of just going back to like my comment on like women running the world, I think it comes back to empathy, right? Which has been a common thread throughout my entire career. And it's this idea of human connection. Once you build common ground with a person or a group of people, you build trust, you build loyalty, you build friendship. And then you can turn that into like behavior change and motivation and persuasion. So it's like empathy and emotions are just at the center of everything we do. And I think being from the Middle East, kind of this human connection is very strong. Like we have this running joke that if you come to Egypt for a visit, people are gonna, will know everything about your life, like right away, right? I have no problems asking you about your personal life. There's no like no boundaries, really, no personal boundaries in terms of getting to know people. We get emotionally intimate like very, very quickly. But I think people just get to know each other like authentically, I guess. You know, there isn't this like superficial level of getting to know people. You just try to get to know people really deeply. And empathy is a part of that. Totally, because you can put yourself in this person's shoe and kind of, yeah, imagine, you know, what challenges they're going through. And so I think I've definitely taken that with me. Generosity is another one too, like just being generous with your time and love and attention and even with your wealth, right? Even if you don't have a lot of it, you're still very generous. And I think that's another. Enjoying the humanity of other people. And so do you think there's a useful difference between men and women in that aspect and empathy? Or is doing these kind of big general groups, does that hinder progress? Yeah, I actually don't want to overgeneralize. I mean, some of the men I know are like the most empathetic humans. Yeah, I strive to be empathetic. Yeah, you're actually very empathetic. Yeah, so I don't want to overgeneralize. Although one of the researchers I worked with when I was at Cambridge, Professor Simon Baring-Cohen, he's Sasha Baring-Cohen's cousin. Yeah. And he runs the Autism Research Center at Cambridge and he's written multiple books on autism. And one of his theories is the empathy scale, like the systemizers and the empathizers. And there's a disproportionate amount of computer scientists and engineers who are systemizers and perhaps not great empathizers. And then there's more men in that bucket, I guess, than women, and then there's more women in the empathizers bucket. So again, not to overgeneralize. I sometimes wonder about that. It's been frustrating to me how many, I guess, systemizers there are in the field of robotics. Yeah. It's actually encouraging to me because I care about, obviously, social robotics because there's more opportunity for people that are empathic. Exactly, I totally agree. Well, right? So it's nice. Yes. So every robotist I talk to, they don't see the human as interesting, as like it's not exciting. You want to avoid the human at all costs. It's a safety concern to be touching the human, which it is, but it's also an opportunity for deep connection or collaboration or all that kind of stuff. And because most brilliant roboticists don't care about the human, it's an opportunity. Right. In your case, it's a business opportunity too, but in general, an opportunity to explore those ideas. In this beautiful journey to Cambridge, to UK, and then to America, what's the moment or moments that were most transformational for you as a scientist and as a leader? So you became an exceptionally successful CEO, founder, researcher, scientist, and so on. Was there a phase shift there where like, I can be somebody, I can really do something in this world? Yeah, so actually just kind of a little bit of background. So the reason why I moved from Cairo to Cambridge, UK to do my PhD is because I had a very clear career plan. I was like, okay, I'll go abroad, get my PhD, gonna crush it in three or four years, come back to Egypt and teach. It was very clear, very well laid out. Was topic clear or no? The topic, well, I did my PhD around building artificial emotional intelligence and looking at- But in your master plan ahead of time, when you're sitting by the mango tree, did you know it's gonna be artificial intelligence? No, no, no, that I did not know. Although I think I kinda knew that I was gonna be doing computer science, but I didn't know the specific area. But I love teaching, I mean, I still love teaching. So I just, yeah, I just wanted to go abroad, get a PhD, come back, teach. Why computer science? Can we just linger on that? Because you're such an empathic person who cares about emotion, humans, and so on. Aren't computers cold and emotionless? With changing that. Yeah, I know, but isn't that the, or did you see computers as having the capability to actually connect with humans? I think that was my takeaway from my experience just growing up. Computers sit at the center of how we connect and communicate with one another, right? Or technology in general. I remember my first experience being away from my parents. We communicated with a fax machine. But thank goodness for the fax machine, because we could send letters back and forth to each other. This was pre-emails and stuff. So I think there's, I think technology can be not just transformative in terms of productivity, et cetera. It actually does change how we connect with one another. Can I just defend the fax machine? Yeah. There's something, like the haptic feel, because the email is all digital. There's something really nice. I still write letters to people. There's something nice about the haptic aspect of the fax machine, because you still have to press, you still have to do something in the physical world to make this thing a reality, the sense that somebody- Right, and then it comes out as a printout, and you can actually touch it and read it. Yeah, there's something lost when it's just an email. Obviously, I wonder how we can regain some of that in the digital world, which goes to the metaverse and all those kinds of things. We'll talk about it. Anyway, so- Actually, do you, question on that one. Do you still, do you have photo albums anymore? Do you still print photos? No, no, but I'm a minimalist. Okay. So it was one of the painful steps in my life was to scan all the photos and let go of them, and then let go of all my books. You let go of your books? Yeah, switched to Kindle, everything Kindle. So I thought, okay, think 30 years from now. Nobody's gonna have books anymore. The technology of digital books is gonna get better and better and better. Are you really gonna be the guy that's still romanticizing physical books? Are you gonna be the old man on the porch who's like, kids, yes. So just get used to it, because it still feels a little bit uncomfortable to read on a Kindle, but get used to it. I like it. You always, I mean, I'm trying to learn new programming languages always. Like with technology, you have to kind of challenge yourself to adapt to it. I forced myself to use TikTok now. That thing doesn't need much forcing. It pulls you in like the worst kind of, or the best kind of drug. Anyway, yeah. So yeah, but I do love haptic things. There's a magic to the haptic. Even like touchscreens, it's tricky to get right, to get the experience of a button. Yeah. Anyway, what were we talking about? So AI, so the journey, your whole plan was to come back to Cairo and teach, right? And then- What did the plan go wrong? Yeah, exactly, right? And then I get to Cambridge and I fall in love with the idea of research, right? And kind of embarking on a path. Nobody's explored this path before. You're building stuff that nobody's built before, and it's challenging and it's hard, and there's a lot of non-believers. I just totally love that. And at the end of my PhD, I think it's the meeting that changed the trajectory of my life. Professor Rosalind Picard, who's, she runs the Affective Computing Group at the MIT Media Lab. I had read her book. You know, I was like following all her research. AKA Roz. Yes, AKA Roz. And she was giving a talk at a pattern recognition conference in Cambridge. And she had a couple of hours to kill. So she emailed the lab and she said, you know, if any students wanna meet with me, like just, you know, sign up here. And so I signed up for a slot and I spent like the weeks leading up to it preparing for this meeting. And I want to show her a demo of my research and everything. And we met and we ended up hitting it off. Like we totally clicked. And at the end of the meeting, she said, do you wanna come work with me as a postdoc at MIT? And this is what I told her. I was like, okay, this would be a dream come true, but there's a husband waiting for me in Cairo. I could have to go back. Yeah. And she said, it's fine, just commute. And I literally started commuting between Cairo and Boston. Yeah, it was a long commute. And I didn't, I did that like every few weeks I would, you know, hop on a plane and go to Boston. But that changed the trajectory of my life. There was no, I kind of outgrew my dreams, right? I didn't want to go back to Egypt anymore and be faculty. Like that was no longer my dream. I had a new dream. What was it like to be at MIT? What was that culture shock? You mean America in general, but also, I mean Cambridge has its own culture, right? So what was MIT like? I mean, what was America like? I think, I wonder if that's similar to your experience at MIT. I was just, at the Media Lab in particular, I was just really, impressed is not the right word. I didn't expect the openness to like innovation and the acceptance of taking a risk and failing. Like failure isn't really accepted back in Egypt, right? You don't want to fail. Like there's a fear of failure, which I think has been hardwired in my brain. But you get to MIT and it's okay to start things. And if they don't work out, like it's okay, you pivot to another idea. And that kind of thinking was just very new to me. That's liberating. Well, Media Lab for people who don't know, MIT Media Lab is its own beautiful thing because they, I think more than other places at MIT, reach for big ideas. And like they try, I mean, I think, I mean, depending of course on who, but certainly with Rosalind, you try wild stuff, you try big things and crazy things. And also try to take things to completion so you can demo them. So always have a demo. Like if you go, one of the sad things to me about robotics labs at MIT, and there's like over 30, I think, is like usually when you show up to a robotics lab, there's not a single working robot. They're all broken. All the robots are broken, which is like the normal state of things because you're working on them. But it would be nice if we lived in a world where robotics labs had some robots functioning. One of my like favorite moments that just sticks with me, I visited Boston Dynamics and there was a, first of all, seeing so many spots, so many legged robots in one place, I'm like, I'm home. But the- I drive. Yeah. This is where I was built. The cool thing was just to see, there was a random robot spot was walking down the hall. It's probably doing mapping, but it looked like he wasn't doing anything and he was wearing he or she, I don't know. But it, well, I like, in my mind, there are people that have a backstory, but this one in particular definitely has a backstory because he was wearing a cowboy hat. So I just saw a spot robot with a cowboy hat walking down the hall. And there was just this feeling like there's a life, like he has a life. He probably has to commute back to his family at night. Like there's a feeling like there's life instilled in this robot and that's magical. I don't know. It was kind of inspiring to see. Did it say hello to, did he say hello to you? No, it's very, there's a focused nature to the robot. No, no, listen, I love competence and focus and great. Like he was not gonna get distracted by the shallowness of small talk. There's a job to be done and he was doing it. So anyway, the fact that it was working is a beautiful thing. And I think Media Lab really prides itself on trying to always have a thing that's working that it could show off. Yes, we used to call it demo or die. You could not, yeah, you could not like show up with like PowerPoint or something. You actually had to have it working. You know what, my son, who is now 13, I don't know if this is still his lifelong goal or not, but when he was a little younger, his dream is to build an island that's just inhabited by robots, like no humans. He just wants all these robots to be connecting and having fun and so there you go. Does he have human, does he have an idea of which robots he loves most? Is it Roomba-like robots? Is it humanoid robots, robot dogs, or is not clear yet? We used to have a Jibo, which was one of the MIT Media Lab spin-outs. And he used to love Jibo. The thing with a giant head. Yes. That spins. Right, exactly. And it can rotate and it's an eye. It has, oh, no way I can. Not glowing, like. Right, right, right, right, exactly. It's like HAL 9000, but the friendly version. He loved that. And then he just loves, yeah, he just, I think he loves all forms of robots, actually. So embodied intelligence. Yes. I like, I personally like legged robots, especially. Anything that can wiggle its butt. No. And flip. That's not the definition of what I love, but that's just technically what I've been working on recently. So I have a bunch of legged robots now in Austin, and I've been doing, I've been trying to have them communicate affection with their body in different ways, just for art, for art, really. Because I love the idea of walking around with the robots, like as you would with a dog. I think it's inspiring to a lot of people, especially young people. Like kids love robots. Kids love it. Parents, like adults are scared of robots, but kids don't have this kind of weird construction of the world that's full of evil. They love cool things. Yeah. I remember when Adam was in first grade, so he must have been like seven or so, I went into his class with a whole bunch of robots and like the emotion AI demo and da da. And I asked the kids, I was like, do you, would you kids want to have a robot, you know, robot friend or robot companion? Everybody said yes. And they wanted it for all sorts of things, like to help them with their math homework and to like be a friend. So there's, it just struck me how there was no fear of robots. Was a lot of adults have that, like us versus them. Yeah, none of that. Of course you want to be very careful because you still have to look at the lessons of history and how robots can be used by the power centers of the world to abuse your rights and all that kind of stuff. But mostly it's good to enter anything new with an excitement and an optimism. Speaking of Roz, what have you learned about science and life from Rosalind Picard? Oh my God, I've learned so many things about life from Roz. I think the thing I learned the most is perseverance. When I first met Roz, we applied, and she invited me to be her postdoc, we applied for a grant to the National Science Foundation to apply some of our research to autism. And we got back, we were rejected. Rejected. Yeah, and the reasoning was- The first time you were rejected for fun, yeah. Yeah, it was, and I basically, I just took the rejection to mean, okay, we're rejected. It's done, like end of story, right? And Roz was like, it's great news. They love the idea. They just don't think we can do it. So let's build it, show them, and then reapply. And it was that, oh my God, that story totally stuck with me. And she's like that in every aspect of her life. She just does not take no for an answer. The reframe all negative feedback. It's a challenge. It's a challenge. Yes, they like this. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was a riot. What else about science in general, about how you see computers and also business and just everything about the world? She's a very powerful, brilliant woman like yourself. So is there some aspect of that too? Yeah, I think Roz is actually also very faith-driven. She has this deep belief and conviction, yeah, in the good in the world and humanity. And I think that was, meeting her and her family was definitely a defining moment for me because that was when I was like, wow, you can be of a different background and religion and whatever, and you can still have the same core values. So that was, yeah. I'm grateful to her. Roz, if you're listening, thank you. Yeah, she's great. She's been on this podcast before. I hope she'll be on. I'm sure she'll be on again. You were the founder and CEO of Affectiva, which is a big company that was acquired by another big company, SmartEye. And you're now the deputy CEO of SmartEye. So you're a powerful leader. You're brilliant. You're a brilliant scientist. A lot of people are inspired by you. What advice would you give, especially to young women, but people in general who dream of becoming powerful leaders like yourself in a world where perhaps, in a world that perhaps doesn't give them a clear, easy path to do so, whether we're talking about Egypt or elsewhere? You know, hearing you kind of describe me that way kind of encapsulates, I think, what I think is the biggest challenge of all, which is believing in yourself, right? I have had to grapple with this, what I call now the Debbie Downer voice in my head. The kind of basically, it's just shattering all the time. It's basically saying, oh no, no, no, no, no, you can't do this. Like, you're not gonna raise money. You can't start a company. Like, what business do you have, like starting a company or running a company or selling a company? Like, you name it. It's always like, and I think my biggest advice to, not just women, but people who are taking a new path and they're not sure, is to not let yourself and let your thoughts be the biggest obstacle in your way. And I've had to like really work on myself to not be my own biggest obstacle. So you got that negative voice. Yeah. So is that- Am I the only one? I don't think I'm the only one. No, I have that negative voice. I'm not exactly sure if it's a bad thing or a good thing. I've been really torn about it because it's been a lifelong companion. So it's hard to know. It's kind of, it drives productivity and progress but it can hold you back from taking big leaps. I think the best I can say is probably you have to somehow be able to control it. So turn it off when it's not useful and turn it on when it's useful. Like I have from almost like a third person perspective. Right, somebody who's sitting there like- Yeah, like, because it is useful to be critical. Like after, I just gave a talk yesterday at MIT and I was just, you know, there's so much love and it was such an incredible experience. So many amazing people I got a chance to talk to. But, you know, afterwards when I went home and just took this long walk, it was mostly just negative thoughts about me. I don't, like one basic stuff, like I don't deserve any of it. And second is like, why did you, that was so dumb. That you said this, that's so dumb. Like you should have prepared that better. Why did you say this? But I think it's good to hear that voice out. All right, and like sit in that. And ultimately I think you grow from that. Now, when you're making really big decisions about funding or starting a company or taking a leap to go to the UK or take a leap to go to America to work in media lab. Yeah, there's a, that's, you should be able to shut that off then because you should have like this weird confidence, almost like faith that you said before that everything's gonna work out. So take the leap of faith. Take the leap of faith. Despite all the negativity. I mean, there's some of that. You actually tweeted a really nice tweet thread. It says, quote, a year ago, a friend recommended I do daily affirmations. And I was skeptical, but I was going through major transitions in my life. So I gave it a shot and it set me on a journey of self-acceptance and self-love. So what was that like? Can you maybe talk through this idea of affirmations and how that helped you? Yeah, because really like, I'm just like me, I'm a kind, I'd like to think of myself as a kind person in general, but I'm kind of mean to myself sometimes. And so I've been doing journaling for almost 10 years now. I use an app called Day One and it's awesome. I just journal and I use it as an opportunity to almost have a conversation with the Debbie Downer voice in my head. It's like a rebuttal, right? Like Debbie Downer says, oh my God, like you won't be able to raise this round of funding. I'm like, okay, let's talk about it. I have a track record of doing X, Y, and Z. I think I can do this. And it's literally like, so I don't know that I can shut off the voice, but I can have a conversation with it. And I bring data to the table, right? So that was the journaling part, which I found very helpful. But the affirmation took it to a whole next level and I just love it. I'm a year into doing this. And you literally wake up in the morning and the first thing you do, I meditate first. And then I write my affirmations and it's the energy I wanna put out in the world that hopefully will come right back to me. So I will say, I always start with, my smile lights up the whole world. And I kid you not, like people in the street will stop me and say, oh my God, like we love your smile. Like, yes. So my affirmations will change depending on what's happening this day. Is it funny? I know, don't judge, don't judge. No, it's not, laughter's not judgment. It's just awesome. I mean, it's true, but you're saying affirmations somehow help kind of, what is it? They do work to like remind you of the kind of person you are and the kind of person you wanna be, which actually may be inverse order. The kind of person you wanna be and that helps you become the kind of person you actually are. It's just, it brings intentionality to like what you're doing, right? And so- By the way, I was laughing because my affirmations, which I also do, are the opposite. Oh, you do? Oh, what do you do? I don't have a, my smile lights up the world affirmation. What? Maybe I should add that because like I have just, I have a, oh boy. It's much more stoic, like about focus, about this kind of stuff. But the joy, the emotion that you're, just in that little affirmation is beautiful. So maybe I should add that. I have some like focus stuff, but that's usually- But that's a cool start. That's a good, it's just- It's after all the like smiling and playful and joyful and all that, and then it's like, okay, I kick butt. Let's get shit done. Right, exactly. Let's get shit done affirmations. Okay, cool, so like what else is on there? Oh, what else is on there? Well, I have, I'm a magnet for all sorts of things. For all sorts of things. So I'm an amazing people magnet. I attract like awesome people into my universe. So that's an actual affirmation? Yes. That's great. Yeah. So that's, and that, yeah, and that somehow manifests itself into like, in working. I think so. Yeah, like, can you speak to like why it feels good to do the affirmations? I honestly think it just grounds the day. And then it allows me to, instead of just like being pulled back and forth, like throughout the day, it just like grounds me. Like, okay, like this thing happened. It's not exactly what I wanted it to be, but I'm patient. Or I'm, you know, I trust that the universe will do amazing things for me, which is one of my other consistent affirmations. Or I'm an amazing mom, right? And so I can grapple with all the feelings of mom guilt that I have all the time. Or here's another one. I'm a love magnet. And I literally say, I will kind of picture the person that I'd love to end up with. And I write it all down and hasn't happened yet, but it- What are you picturing? This is Brad Pitt. Okay, Brad Pitt and Brad Pitt. Because that's what I picture. Okay, that's what you picture? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, okay. On the running, holding hands, running together. Okay. No, more like Fight Club, the Fight Club Brad Pitt, where he's like standing, all right, people will know. Anyway, I'm sorry, I'll get off on that. Do you have, like when you're thinking about being a love magnet in that way, are you picturing specific people, or is this almost like in the space of like energy? Right, it's somebody who is smart and well accomplished and successful in their life, but they're generous and they're well-traveled and they wanna travel the world. It's things like that. I'm like, their head over heels into me. It's like, I know it sounds super silly, but it's literally what I write. And I believe it'll happen one day. Oh, you actually write so you don't say it out loud? No, I write it. I write all my affirmations. I do the opposite, I say it out loud. Oh, you say it out loud? Interesting. Yeah, if I'm alone, I'll say it out loud, yeah. Interesting, I should try that. I think it's which, what feels more powerful to you, to me, more powerful. Saying stuff feels more powerful. Yeah. Writing is, writing feels like I'm losing the words, like losing the power of the words, maybe because I write slow. Do you handwrite? No, I type. It's on this app. It's day one, basically. And I just, I can, the best thing about it is I can look back and see like a year ago, what was I affirming, right? So it's- Oh, so it changes over time. It hasn't like changed a lot, but the focus kind of changes over time. I got it. Yeah, I say the same exact thing over and over and over. Oh, you do? Okay. There's a comfort in the sameness of it. Actually, let me jump around, because let me ask you about, because all this talk about Brad Pitt, or maybe it's just going on inside my head. Let me ask you about dating in general. You tweeted, are you based in Boston and single, question mark, and then you pointed to a startup, Singles Night, sponsored by Smile Dating App. I mean, this is jumping around a little bit, but since you mentioned, can AI help solve this dating love problem? What do you think? This problem of connection that is part of the human condition. Can AI help that? You yourself are in the search affirming. Maybe that's what I should affirm, like build an AI. Build an AI that finds love. I think, I think there must be a science behind that first moment you meet a person and you either have chemistry or you don't, right? I guess that was the question I was asking, would you put it brilliantly, is that a science or an art? Ooh, I think there are like, there's actual chemicals that get exchanged when two people meet. I don't know about that. I like how you're changing, yeah, changing your mind as we're describing it, but it feels that way. But what science shows us is sometimes we can explain with the rigor, the things that feel like magic. Right. So maybe we can remove all the magic. Maybe it's like, I honestly think, like I said, that Goodreads should be a dating app, which like books. I wonder if you look at just like books or content you've consumed. I mean, that's essentially what YouTube does when it does a recommendation. If you just look at your footprint of content consumed, if there's an overlap, but maybe interesting difference with an overlap, there's some, I'm sure this is a machine learning problem that's solvable. Like this person is very likely to be, not only there to be chemistry in the short term, but a good lifelong partner to grow together. I bet you it's a good machine learning problem. We just need the data. Let's do it. Well, actually, I do think there's so much data about each of us that there ought to be a machine learning algorithm that can ingest all this data and basically say, I think the following 10 people would be interesting connections for you, right? And so Smile Dating App kind of took one particular angle, which is humor. It matches people based on their humor styles, which is one of the main ingredients of a successful relationship. Like if you meet somebody and they can make you laugh, like that's a good thing. And if you develop like internal jokes, like inside jokes, and you're bantering, like that's fun. So I think. Yeah, definitely. But yeah, that's the number of, and the rate of inside joke generation. You could probably measure that and then optimize it over the first few days. You can see. Right, and then. We're just turning this into a machine learning problem. I love it. But for somebody like you, who's exceptionally successful and busy, is there signs to that aspect of dating? Is it tricky? Is there advice you can give? Oh my God, I'd give the worst advice. Well, I can tell you like I have a spreadsheet. Spreadsheet, that's great. Is that a good or a bad thing? Do you regret the spreadsheet? Well, I don't know. What's the name of the spreadsheet? Is it love? It's the dating tracker. The dating tracker? It's very like. Love tracker. Yeah. And there's a rating system, I'm sure. Yeah, there's like weights and stuff. It's too close to home. Oh, is it? Do you also have a spreadsheet? Well, I don't have a spreadsheet, but I would, now that you say it, it seems like a good idea. Oh no. Turning into data. I do wish that somebody else had a spreadsheet about me. If it was like I said, like you said, convert, collect a lot of data about us in a way that's privacy preserving, that I own the data, I can control it, and then use that data to find, I mean, not just romantic love, but collaborators, friends, all that kind of stuff. It seems like the data is there. That's the problem social networks are trying to solve, but I think they're doing a really poor job. Even Facebook tried to get into a dating app business. And I think there's so many components to running a successful company that connects human beings. And part of that is having engineers that care about the human side, right? As you know extremely well, it's not easy to find those. But you also don't want just people that care about the human, they also have to be good engineers. So it's like you have to find this beautiful mix. And for some reason, just empirically speaking, people have not done a good job of that, building companies like that. It must mean that it's a difficult problem to solve. Dating apps, it seems difficult. Okay, Cupid, Tinder, all those kind of stuff. They seem to find, of course they work, but they seem to not work as well as I would imagine is possible. With data, wouldn't you be able to find better human connection? It's like arrange marriages on steroids, essentially. Arranged by machine learning algorithm. Arranged by machine learning algorithm, but not a superficial one. I think a lot of the dating apps out there are just so superficial. They're just matching on high-level criteria that aren't ingredients for successful partnership. But you know what's missing though, too? I don't know how to fix that, the serendipity piece of it. Like how do you engineer serendipity? Like this random chance encounter, and then you fall in love with the person. I don't know how a dating app can do that. There has to be a little bit of randomness. Maybe every 10th match is just a, yeah, somebody that the algorithm wouldn't have necessarily recommended, but it allows for a little bit of. Well, it can also trick you into thinking it's serendipity. By like somehow showing you a tweet of a person that he thinks you'll match well with, but do it accidentally as part of another search. And like you just notice it, and then you go down a rabbit hole and you connect them outside the app, too. You connect with this person outside the app somehow. So it's just, it creates that moment of meeting. Of course, you have to think of, from an app perspective, how you can turn that into a business. But I think ultimately a business that helps people find love in any way, like that's what Apple was about. Create products that people love. That's beautiful. I mean, you gotta make money somehow. If you help people fall in love personally with a product, find self-love or love another human being, you're gonna make money. You're gonna figure out a way to make money. I just feel like the dating apps often will optimize for something else than love. It's the same with social networks. They optimize for engagement as opposed to a deep, meaningful connection that's ultimately grounded in personal growth, you as a human being growing and all that kind of stuff. Let me do a pivot to a dark topic, which you opened the book with. A story, because I'd like to talk to you about just emotion and artificial intelligence. And I think this is a good story to start to think about emotional intelligence. You opened the book with a story of a Central Florida man, Jamel Dunn, who was drowning and drowned while five teenagers watched and laughed, saying things like, you're gonna die. And when Jamel disappeared below the surface of the water, one of them said, he just died and the others laughed. What does this incident teach you about human nature? And the response to it, perhaps. Yeah, I mean, I think this is a really, really, really sad story and it highlights what I believe is a, it's a real problem in our world today. It's an empathy crisis. Yeah, we're living through an empathy crisis. Empathy crisis, yeah. Yeah, and I mean, we've talked about this throughout our conversation. We dehumanize each other. And unfortunately, yes, technology is bringing us together, but in a way it's just dehumanized. It's creating this like, yeah, dehumanizing of the other. And I think that's a huge problem. The good news is I think the solution could be technology-based. Like I think if we rethink the way we design and deploy our technologies, we can solve parts of this problem. But I worry about it. I mean, even with my son, like a lot of his interactions are computer mediated. And I just question what that's doing to his empathy skills and his ability to really connect with people. So. Do you think, you think it's not possible to form empathy through the digital medium? I think it is, but we have to be thoughtful about, because the way we engage face-to-face, which is what we're doing right now, right? There's the nonverbal signals, which are a majority of how we communicate. It's like 90% of how we communicate is your facial expressions. I'm saying something and you're nodding your head now and that creates a feedback loop. And if you break that. And now I have anxiety about it. Right? Poor Lex. Oh boy. I am not scrutinizing your facial expressions during this interview, right? I am, I am. Look normal, look human. Yeah. Nod head. Yeah, nod head. In agreement. If Rana says yes, then nod head else. Don't do it too much because it might be at the wrong time and then it'll send the wrong signal. Oh God. And make eye contact sometimes because humans appreciate that. All right, anyway. Okay. Yeah, but something about, especially when you say mean things in person, you get to see the pain of the other person. Exactly, but if you're tweeting it at a person and you have no idea how it's gonna land, you're more likely to do that on social media than you are in face-to-face conversations. What do you think is more important? EQ or IQ? EQ being emotional intelligence. In terms of in what makes us human. I think emotional intelligence is what makes us human. It's how we connect with one another. It's how we build trust. It's how we make decisions. Your emotions drive what you had for breakfast but also where you decide to live and what you wanna do for the rest of your life. So I think emotions are underrated. So emotional intelligence isn't just about the effective expression of your own emotions. It's about a sensitivity and empathy to other people's emotions and that being able to effectively engage in the dance of emotions with other people. Yeah, I like that explanation. I like that kind of, yeah, thinking about it as a dance because it is really about that. It's about sensing what state the other person's in and using that information to decide on how you're gonna react. And I think it can be very powerful. People who are the best, most persuasive leaders in the world tap into, you know, they have, if you have higher EQ, you're more likely to be able to motivate people to change their behaviors. So it can be very powerful. On a more kind of technical, maybe philosophical level, you've written that emotion is universal. It seems that sort of like Chomsky says, language is universal. There's a bunch of other stuff like cognition, consciousness. It seems a lot of us have these aspects. So the human mind generates all this. So what do you think is the, they all seem to be like echoes of the same thing. What do you think emotion is exactly? Like how deep does it run? Is it a surface level thing that we display to each other? Is it just another form of language or something deep within? I think it's really deep. It's how, you know, we started with memory. I think emotions play a really important role. Yeah, emotions play a very important role in how we encode memories, right? Our memories are often encoded, almost indexed by emotions. Yeah, it's at the core of how, you know, our decision-making engine is also heavily influenced by our emotions. So emotions is part of cognition. It's totally. It's intermixing to the whole thing. Yes, absolutely. And in fact, when you take it away, people are unable to make decisions. They're really paralyzed. Like they can't go about their daily or their personal or professional lives. So. It does seem like there's probably some interesting interweaving of emotion and consciousness. I wonder if it's possible to have, like if they're next door neighbors somehow, or if they're actually flatmates. I don't, it feels like the hard problem of consciousness where it feels like something to experience the thing. Like red feels like red. And it's, you know, when you eat a mango, the sweet, the taste, the sweetness, that it feels like something to experience that sweetness. That whatever generates emotions. But then like, see, I feel like emotion is part of communication. It's very much about communication. And then that means it's also deeply connected to language. But then probably human intelligence is deeply connected to the collective intelligence between humans. It's not just a standalone thing. So the whole thing is really connected. So emotion is connected to language. Language is connected to intelligence. And then intelligence is connected to consciousness, and consciousness is connected to emotion. The whole thing is a beautiful mess. So. Can I comment on the emotions being a communication, because I think there are two facets of our emotional experiences. One is communication, right? Like we use emotions, for example, facial expressions or other nonverbal cues to connect with other human beings and with other beings in the world, right? But even if it's not a communication context, we still experience emotions, and we still process emotions, and we still leverage emotions to make decisions and to learn and to experience life. So it isn't always just about communication. And we learned that very early on in kind of our work at Affectiva. One of the very first applications we brought to market was understanding how people respond to content, right? So if they're watching this video of ours, like are they interested? Are they inspired? Are they bored to death? And so we watched their facial expressions. And we weren't sure if people would express any emotions if they were sitting alone. Like if you're in your bed at night, watching a Netflix TV series, would we still see any emotions on your face? And we were surprised that yes, people still emote, even if they're alone, even if you're in your car driving around, or singing along a song and you're joyful, we'll see these expressions. So it's not just about communicating with another person. It sometimes really isn't just about experiencing the world. First of all, I wonder if some of that is because we develop our intelligence and our emotional intelligence by communicating with other humans. And so when other humans disappear from the picture, we're still kind of a virtual human. The code still runs, basically. Yeah, the code still runs. But you're also kind of, you're still, there's like virtual humans. You don't have to think of it that way, but there's a kind of, when you like chuckle, like, yeah. Like you're kind of chuckling to a virtual human. I mean, it's possible that the code has to have another human there. Because if you just grew up alone, I wonder if emotion will still be there in this visual form. So yeah, I wonder. But anyway, what can you tell from the human face about what's going on inside? So that's the problem that Affectiva first tackled, which is using computer vision, using machine learning to try to detect stuff about the human face as many things as possible and convert them into a prediction of categories of emotion. Anger, happiness, all that kind of stuff. How hard is that problem? It's extremely hard. It's very, very hard, because there is no one-to-one mapping between a facial expression and your internal state. There just isn't. There's this oversimplification of the problem where it's something like, if you are smiling, then you're happy. If you do a brow furrow, then you're angry. If you do an eyebrow raise, then you're surprised. And just think about it for a moment. You could be smiling for a whole host of reasons. You could also be happy and not be smiling, right? You could furrow your eyebrows because you're angry or you're confused about something or you're constipated. So I think this oversimplistic approach to inferring emotion from a facial expression is really dangerous. The solution is to incorporate as many contextual signals as you can, right? So if, for example, I'm driving a car and you can see me nodding my head and my eyes are closed and the blinking rate is changing, I'm probably falling asleep at the wheel, right? It doesn't, because you know the context, you understand what the person's doing. So I think, or add additional channels, like voice or gestures or even physiological sensors. But I think it's very dangerous to just take this oversimplistic approach of, yeah, a smile equals happy. If you're able to, in a high-resolution way, specify the context, there's certain things that are gonna be somewhat reliable signals of something like drowsiness or happiness or stuff like that. I mean, when people are watching Netflix content, that problem, that's a really compelling idea that you can kind of, at least in aggregate, highlight which part was boring, which part was exciting. How hard was that problem? That was on the scale of difficulty. I think that's one of the easier problems to solve because it's a relatively constrained environment. You have somebody sitting in front of, initially we started with a device in front of you, like a laptop, and then we graduated to doing this on a mobile phone, which is a lot harder, just because of, from a computer vision perspective, the profile view of the face can be a lot more challenging. We had to figure out lighting conditions, because usually people are watching content literally in their bedrooms at night, lights are dimmed. Yeah, I mean, if you're standing, it's probably gonna be the looking up. The nostril view. Yeah, and nobody looks good at, I've seen data sets from that perspective, it's like, ugh, this is not a good look for anyone. Or if you're laying in bed at night, what is it, side view or something? And half your face is like on a pillow. Like on a pillow. Actually, I would love to know, have data about how people watch stuff in bed at night. Like, do they prop their, is it a pillow? I'm sure there's a lot of interesting dynamics there. From a health and well-being perspective, right? Like, it's like, oh, you're hurting your neck. I was thinking machine learning perspective, but yes. But also, yeah. Yeah, once you have that data, you can start making all kinds of inference about health and stuff like that. Interesting. Yeah, there's an interesting thing when I was at Google that we were, it's called active authentication, where you want to be able to unlock your phone without using a password. So it would face, but also other stuff. Like the way you take a phone out of the pocket. Amazing. So that kind of data, to use the multimodal with machine learning to be able to identify that it's you or likely to be you, likely not to be you. That allows you to not always have to enter the password. That was the idea. But the funny thing about that is, I just want to tell a small anecdote, is because it was all male engineers, except, so my boss, our boss, who's still one of my favorite humans, was a woman, Regina Dugan. Oh my God, I love her. Yeah, she's the best. She's awesome. She's the best. She's the best. So, but anyway, and there was one female, brilliant female engineer on the team, and she was the one that actually highlighted the fact that women often don't have pockets. Right. It was like, whoa, that was not even a category in the code of like, wait a minute, you can take the phone out of some other place than your pocket. So anyway, that's a funny thing when you're considering people laying in bed, watching a phone, you have to consider. You have to, you know, diversity in all its forms, depending on the problem, depending on the context. Actually, this is like a very important, I think this is, you know, you probably get this all the time, like people are worried that AI's gonna take over humanity and like, get rid of all the humans in the world. I'm like, actually, that's not my biggest concern. My biggest concern is that we are building bias into these systems, and then they're like deployed at large and at scale. And before you know it, you're kind of accentuating the bias that exists in society. Yeah, I'm not, you know, I know people, it's very important to worry about that, but the worry is an emergent phenomena to me, which is a very good one, because I think these systems are actually, by encoding the data that exists, they're revealing the bias in society, they're teaching us what the bias is, therefore we can now improve that bias within the system. So they're almost like putting a mirror to ourselves. So I'm not- We have to be open to looking at the mirror, though. We have to be open to scrutinizing the data, if you just take it as ground truth. Or you don't even have to look at the, I mean, yes, the data is how you fix it, but then you just look at the behavior of the system. And so you realize, holy crap, this thing is kind of racist. Like, why is that? And then you look at the data, it's like, oh, okay. And then you start to realize that, I think that's a much more effective way to be introspective as a society than through sort of political discourse. Like AI kind of- Right. Because people are- That's cool. People are, for some reason, more productive and rigorous in criticizing AI than they're criticizing each other. So I think this is just a nice method for studying society and see which way progress lies. Anyway, what were we talking about? You're watching, the problem of watching Netflix in bed or elsewhere and seeing which parts are exciting, which parts are boring. You're saying that's- Relatively constrained because, you know, you have a captive audience and you kind of know the context. And one thing you said that was really key is the, you're doing this in aggregate, right? Like we're looking at aggregated response of people. And so when you see a peak, say a smile peak, they're probably smiling or laughing at something that's in the content. So that was one of the first problems we were able to solve. And when we see the smile peak, it doesn't mean that these people are internally happy. They're just laughing at content. So it's important to, you know, call it for what it is. But it's still really, really useful data. Oh, yeah. I wonder how that compares to, so what like YouTube and other places will use is obviously they don't have, for the most case, they don't have that kind of data. They have the data of when people tune out, like switch, drop off. And I think that's in aggregate for YouTube, at least a pretty powerful signal. I worry about what that leads to because looking at like YouTubers that are kind of really care about views and, you know, try to maximize the number of views. I think they, when they say that the video should be constantly interesting, which seems like a good goal, I feel like that leads to this manic pace of a video. Like the idea that I would speak at the current speed that I'm speaking. I don't know. And that every moment has to be engaging, right? Engaging. That, yeah, that's. I think there's value to silence. There's value to the boring bits. I mean, some of the greatest movies ever, some of the greatest stories ever told, they have that boring bits, seemingly boring bits. I don't know. I wonder about that. Of course, it's not that the human face can capture that either. It's just giving an extra signal. You have to really, I don't know. You have to really collect deeper long-term data about what was meaningful to people when they think 30 days from now, what they still remember, what moved them, what changed them, what helped them grow, that kind of stuff. You know what would be a really, I don't know if there are any researchers out there who are doing this type of work. Wouldn't it be so cool to tie your emotional expressions while you're, say, listening to a podcast interview, and then go, and then 30 days later, interview people and say, hey, what do you remember? You've watched this 30 days ago. Like, what stuck with you? And then see if there's any, there ought to be, maybe there ought to be some correlation between these emotional experiences and yeah, what you, what stays with you. So the one guy listening now on the beach in Brazil, please record a video of yourself listening to this and send it to me, and then I'll interview you 30 days from now. Yeah, that would be great. It'll be statistically significant. Yeah, I didn't send anyone, but you know, yeah. Yeah, I think that's really fascinating. I think that's, that kind of holds the key to a future where entertainment or content is both entertaining and I don't know, makes you better, empowering in some way. So figuring out, like, showing people stuff that entertains them, but also they're happy they watched 30 days from now because they've become a better person because of it. Well, you know, okay, not to riff on this topic for too long, but I have two children, right? And I see my role as a parent as like a chief opportunity officer. Like, I am responsible for exposing them to all sorts of things in the world. But often I have no idea of knowing, like, what stuck? Like, what was, you know, is this actually gonna be transformative, you know, for them 10 years down the line? And I wish there was a way to quantify these experiences. Like, are they, I can tell in the moment if they're engaging, right? I can tell. But it's really hard to know if they're gonna remember them 10 years from now or if it's going to. Yeah, that one is weird because it seems like kids remember the weirdest things. I've seen parents do incredible stuff for their kids and they don't remember any of that. They remember some tiny, small, sweet thing a parent did. Right. Like, I took you to, like, this amazing country vacation. Yeah, exactly. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, whatever. And then there'll be, like, some, like, stuffed toy you got or some, or the new PlayStation or something or some silly little thing. So I think they just, like, they were designed that way. They wanna mess with your head. But definitely kids are very impacted by, it seems like, sort of negative events. So minimizing the number of negative events is important, but not too much, right? Right. You can't just, like, you know, there's still discipline and challenge and all those kinds of things. So- You want some adversity for sure. So yeah, I mean, I'm definitely, when I have kids, I'm gonna drive them out into the woods. Okay. And then they have to survive and make, figure out how to make their way back home, like 20 miles out. Okay. Yeah, and after that, we can go for ice cream. Anyway, I'm working on this whole parenting thing. I haven't figured it out. Okay. What were we talking about? Yes, affectiva, the problem of emotion, of emotion detection. So there's some people, maybe we can just speak to that a little more, where there's folks like Lisa Feldman Barrett that challenged this idea that emotion could be fully detected or even well detected from the human face, that there's so much more to emotion. What do you think about ideas like hers, criticism like hers? Yeah, I actually agree with a lot of Lisa's criticisms. So even my PhD worked like 20 plus years ago now. Time flies when you're having fun. I know, right? That was back when I did like dynamic Bayesian networks. And- I would say that's before deep learning. That was before deep learning. Yeah. Yeah, I know. Back in my day. I know, you can just like use- Yeah, it's all the same architecture. You can apply it to anything, yeah. Right, right. But yeah, but even then, I kind of, I did not subscribe to this like theory of basic emotions where it's just the simplistic mapping, one-to-one mapping between facial expressions and emotions. I actually think also, we're not in the business of trying to identify your true emotional internal state. We just wanna quantify in an objective way what's showing on your face because that's an important signal. It doesn't mean it's a true reflection of your internal emotional state. So I think a lot of the, I think she's just trying to kind of highlight that this is not a simple problem and overly simplistic solutions are gonna hurt the industry. And I subscribe to that. And I think multimodal is the way to go. Like whether it's additional context information or different modalities and channels of information, I think that's what we, that's where we ought to go. And I think, I mean, that's a big part of what she's advocating for as well. But there is signal in the human face. There's definitely signal in the human face. That's a projection of emotion. At least in part, the inner state is captured in some meaningful way on the human face. I think it can sometimes be a reflection or an expression of your internal state, but sometimes it's a social signal. So you cannot look at the face as purely a signal of emotion. It can be a signal of cognition and it can be a signal of a social expression. And I think to disambiguate that, we have to be careful about it and we have to add initial information. Humans are fascinating, aren't they? With the whole face thing, it can mean so many things from humor to sarcasm, to everything, the whole thing. Some things we can help, some things we can't help at all. In all the years of leading Affectiva, an emotion recognition company like we talked about, what have you learned about emotion, about humans and about AI? Ooh. Big, big sweeping questions. Yeah, that's a big sweeping question. Well, I think the thing I learned the most is that even though we are in the business of building AI, basically, right? It always goes back to the humans, right? It's always about the humans. And so, for example, the thing I'm most proud of in building Affectiva, and yeah, the thing I'm most proud of on this journey, I love the technology and I'm so proud of the solutions we've built and we've brought to market, but I'm actually most proud of the people we've built and cultivated at the company and the culture we've created. Some of the people who've joined Affectiva, this was their first job. And while at Affectiva, they became American citizens and they bought their first house and they found their partner and they had their first kid, right? Like key moments in life that we got to be part of, and that's the thing I'm most proud of. So that's a great thing at a company that works on emotional, yeah, right? Meaning like celebrating humanity in general, broadly speaking. Yes. And that's a great thing to have in a company that works on AI, because that's not often the thing that's celebrated in AI companies, so often just raw, great engineering, just celebrating the humanity. That's great, and especially from a leadership position. Well, what do you think about the movie, Her? Let me ask you that. Before I talk to you about it, because it's not, Affectiva is and was not just about emotion. So I'd love to talk to you about Smart Eye, but before that, let me just jump into the movie, Her, do you think we'll have a deep, meaningful connection with increasingly deep and meaningful connections with computers? Is that a compelling thing to you? Something you think about? I think that's already happening. The thing I love the most, I love the movie, Her, by the way, but the thing I love the most about this movie is it demonstrates how technology can be a conduit for positive behavior change. So I forgot the guy's name in the movie, whatever. Theodore. Theodore. So Theodore was like really depressed, right? And he just didn't want to get out of bed, and he was just like done with life, right? And Samantha, right? Samantha, yeah. She just knew him so well. She was emotionally intelligent. And so she could persuade him and motivate him to change his behavior. And she got him out, and they went to the beach together. And I think that represents the promise of emotion AI. If done well, this technology can help us live happier lives, more productive lives, healthier lives, more connected lives. So that's the part that I love about the movie. Obviously, it's Hollywood, so it takes a twist and whatever. But the key notion that technology with emotion AI can persuade you to be a better version of who you are, I think that's awesome. Well, what about the twist? You don't think it's good for spoiler alert that Samantha starts feeling a bit of a distance and basically leaves Theodore? You don't think that's a good feature? You think that's a bug or a feature? Well, I think what went wrong is Theodore became really attached to Samantha. Like, I think he kind of fell in love with Theodore. Do you think that's wrong? I mean, I think that's- I think she was putting out the signal. This is an intimate relationship, right? There's a deep intimacy to it. Right, but what does that mean? What does that mean? With an AI system. Right, what does that mean, right? We're just friends. Yeah, we're just friends. Well, I think- When he realized, which is such a human thing of jealousy, when you realize that Samantha was talking to like thousands of people. She's parallel dating. Yeah, that did not go well, right? You know, that doesn't, from a computer perspective, that doesn't take anything away from what we have. It's like you getting jealous of Windows 98 for being used by millions of people, but- It's like not liking that Alexa Yeah, right. talks to a bunch of other families. But I think Alexa currently is just a servant. It tells you about the weather. It doesn't do the intimate deep connection. And I think there is something really powerful about that the intimacy of a connection with an AI system that would have to respect and play the human game of jealousy, of love, of heartbreak and all that kind of stuff, which Samantha does seem to be pretty good at. I think she, this AI systems knows what it's doing. Well, actually, let me ask you this. I don't think she was talking to anyone else. You don't think so? You think she was just done with Theodore? Yeah. She knew that this, yeah. And then she wanted to really put the screw in. She just wanted to move on? She didn't have the guts to just break it off cleanly. Okay. She just wanted to put it in the paint. No, I don't know. Well, she could have ghosted him. She could have ghosted him. Right. I'm sorry, there's our engineers. Oh God. But I think those are really, I honestly think some of that, some of it is Hollywood, but some of that is features from an engineering perspective, not a bug. I think AI systems that can leave us, now this is for more social robotics than it is for anything that's useful. Like I hated it if Wikipedia said, you know, I need a break right now. Right, right, right, right, right. I'd be like, no, no, I need you. But if it's just purely for companionship, then I think the ability to leave is really powerful. I don't know. I never thought of that. So that's so fascinating because I've always taken the human perspective, right? Like for example, we had a Jibo at home, right? And my son loved it. And then the company ran out of money. And so they had to basically shut down, like Jibo basically died, right? And it was so interesting to me because we have a lot of gadgets at home and a lot of them break and my son never cares about it, right? Like if our Alexa stopped working tomorrow, I don't think he'd really care. But when Jibo stopped working, it was traumatic. Like he got really upset. And as a parent, that like made me think about this deeply, right? Did I, was I comfortable with that? I liked the connection they had because I think it was a positive relationship. But I was surprised that it affected him emotionally so much. And I think there's a broader question here, right? As we build socially and emotionally intelligent machines, what does that mean about our relationship with them? And then more broadly, our relationship with one another, right? Because this machine is gonna be programmed to be amazing at empathy by definition, right? It's gonna always be there for you. It's not gonna get bored. In fact, there's a chatbot in China, Showeis, Showeis, and it's like the number two or three most popular app. And it basically is just a confidant and you can tell it anything you want. And people use it for all sorts of things. They confide in like domestic violence or suicidal attempts, or if they have challenges at work. I don't know what that, I don't know if I'm comfortable. I don't know how I feel about that. I think about that a lot. Yeah, I think, first of all, obviously the future in my perspective. Second of all, I think there's a lot of trajectories that that becomes an exciting future. But I think everyone should feel very uncomfortable about how much they know about the company, about where the data is going, how the data is being collected. Because I think, and this is one of the lessons of social media, that I think we should demand full control and transparency of the data on those things. Plus one, totally agree. Yeah, so I think it's really empowering as long as you can walk away. As long as you can delete the data or know how the data, it's opt-in or at least the clarity of what is being used for the company. And I think as CEO or leaders are also important about that. You need to be able to trust the basic humanity of the leader. Exactly. And also that that leader is not going to be a puppet of a larger machine, but they actually have a significant role in defining the culture and the way the company operates. So anyway, but we should definitely scrutinize companies in that aspect, but I'm personally excited about that future, but also even if you're not, it's coming. So let's figure out how to do it in the least painful and the most positive way. Agreed. You're the deputy CEO of SmartEye. Can you describe the mission of the company? What is SmartEye? Yeah, so SmartEye is a Swedish company. They've been in business for the last 20 years and their main focus, like the industry they're most focused on is the automotive industry. So bringing driver monitoring systems to basically save lives, right? So I first met the CEO, Martin Krantz, gosh, it was right when COVID hit. It was actually the last CES right before COVID. So CES 2020, right? 2020, yeah, January. Yeah, January, exactly. So we were there, met him in person. Basically we were competing with each other. I think the difference was they'd been doing driver monitoring and had a lot of credibility in the automotive space. We didn't come from the automotive space, but we were using new technology like deep learning and building this emotion recognition. And you wanted to enter the automotive space. You wanted to operate in the automotive space. Exactly, it was one of the areas we were, we had just raised a round of funding to focus on bringing our technology to the automotive industry. So we met and honestly, it was the first, it was the only time I met with a CEO who had the same vision as I did. Like he basically said, yeah, our vision is to bridge the gap between humans and machines. I was like, oh my God, this is like exactly almost to the word, you know, how we describe it too. And we started talking and first it was about, okay, can we align strategically here? Like how can we work together? Cause we're competing, but we're also like complimentary. And then I think after four months of speaking almost every day on FaceTime, he was like, is your company interested in an acquisition? And it was the first, I usually say no, when people approach us. It was the first time that I was like, huh, yeah, I might be interested, let's talk. Yeah, so you just hit it off. Yeah, so they're a respected, very respected in the automotive sector of like delivering products and increasingly sort of better and better and better for, I mean, maybe you could speak to that, but it's the driver's side. So for basically having a device that's looking at the driver and it's able to tell you where the driver's looking. Correct, it's able to- Or also drowsiness stuff. Correct, it does- Stuff from the face and the eye. Exactly, like it's monitoring driver distraction and drowsiness, but they bought us so that we could expand beyond just the driver. So the driver monitoring systems usually sit, the camera sits in the steering wheel column or around the steering wheel column and it looks directly at the driver. But now we've migrated the camera position in partnership with car companies to the rear view mirror position. So it has a full view of the entire cabin of the car and you can detect how many people are in the car, what are they doing? So we do activity detection like eating or drinking or in some regions of the world, smoking. We can detect if a baby's in the car seat, right? And if unfortunately in some cases they're forgotten, the parents just leave the car and forget the kid in the car. That's an easy computer vision problem to solve, right? Can detect there's a car seat, there's a baby, you can text the parent and hopefully again, save lives. So that was the impetus for the acquisition. It's been a year. So I mean, there's a lot of questions. It's a really exciting space, especially to me, I just find this a fascinating problem. It could enrich the experience in the car in so many ways, especially because like we spend still, despite COVID, I mean, COVID changed things in interesting ways, but I think the world is bouncing back and we spend so much time in the car and the car is such a weird little world we have for ourselves. Like people do all kinds of different stuff, like listen to podcasts. They think about stuff, they get angry, they do phone calls. So it's like a little world of its own with a kind of privacy that for many people, they don't get anywhere else. And it's a little box that's like a psychology experiment because it feels like the angriest many humans in this world get is inside the car. It's so interesting. So it's such an opportunity to explore how we can enrich, how companies can enrich that experience. And also as the cars get become more and more automated, there's more and more opportunity, the variety of activities that you can do in the car increases, so it's super interesting. So, I mean, on a practical sense, Smart Eye has been selected, at least I read, by 14 of the world's leading car manufacturers for 94 car models, so it's in a lot of cars. How hard is it to work with car companies? So they're all different, they all have different needs. The ones I've gotten a chance to interact with are very focused on cost. So it's, and anyone who's focused on cost, it's like, all right, do you hate fun? Let's just have some fun, let's figure out the most fun thing we can do and then worry about cost later. But I think because the way the car industry works, I mean, it's a very thin margin that you get to operate under, so you have to really, really make sure that everything you add to the car makes sense financially. So anyway, is this new industry, especially at this scale of Smart Eye, does it hold any lessons for you? Yeah, I think it is a very tough market to penetrate, but once you're in, it's awesome, because once you're in, you're designed into these car models for somewhere between five to seven years, which is awesome, and you just, once they're on the road, you just get paid a royalty fee per vehicle. So it's a high barrier to entry, but once you're in, it's amazing. I think the thing that I struggle the most with in this industry is the time to market. So often we're asked to lock or do a code freeze two years before the car's gonna be on the road. I'm like, guys, do you understand the pace with which technology moves? So I think car companies are really trying to make the Tesla transition to become more of a software-driven architecture, and that's hard for many. It's just the cultural change. I mean, I'm sure you've experienced that, right? Oh, definitely. I think one of the biggest inventions or imperatives created by Tesla is, like, to me personally, okay, people are gonna complain about this, but I know electric vehicle, I know autopilot, AI stuff. To me, the software, over-the-air software updates is, like, the biggest revolution in cars, and it is extremely difficult to switch to that because it is a culture shift. At first, especially if you're not comfortable with it, it seems dangerous. Like, there's an approach to cars, it's so safety-focused for so many decades that, like, what do you mean we dynamically change code? The whole point is you have a thing that you test, like- Right, you spend a year testing. And, like, it's not reliable because do you know how much it costs if we have to recall these cars? And there's an understandable obsession with safety, but the downside of an obsession with safety is the same as with being obsessed with safety as a parent, is, like, if you do that too much, you limit the potential development and the flourishing of, in that particular aspect, human being, but in this particular aspect, the software, the artificial neural network of it. But it's tough to do. It's really tough to do, culturally and technically. Like, the deployment, the mass deployment of software is really, really difficult. But I hope that's what the industry is doing. One of the reasons I really want Tesla to succeed is exactly about that point. Not autopilot, not the electrical vehicle, but the softwarization of basically everything, but cars especially. Because to me, that's actually going to increase two things. Increase safety, because you can update much faster, but also increase the effectiveness of folks like you who dream about enriching the human experience with AI. Because you can just, like, there's a feature, like, you want a new emoji or whatever. Like, the way TikTok releases filters, you can just release that for in-car stuff. But yeah, that's definitely... One of the use cases we're looking into is, once you know the sentiment of the passengers in the vehicle, you can optimize the temperature in the car, you can change the lighting, right? So if the backseat passengers are falling asleep, you can dim the lights, you can lower the music, right? You can do all sorts of things. Yeah. I mean, of course, you could do that kind of stuff with a two-year delay, but it's tougher. Right. Yeah. Do you think Tesla or Waymo or some of these companies that are doing semi or fully autonomous driving should be doing driver sensing? Yes. Are you thinking about that kind of stuff? So not just how we can enhance the in-cab experience for cars that are manually driven, but the ones that are increasingly more autonomously driven? Yes, so if we fast forward to the universe where it's fully autonomous, I think interior sensing becomes extremely important because the role of the driver isn't just to drive. If you think about it, the driver almost manages the dynamics within a vehicle. And so who's going to play that role when it's an autonomous car? We want a solution that is able to say, oh my God, like, you know, Lex is bored to death because the car's moving way too slow. Let's engage Lex. Or Rana's freaking out because she doesn't trust this vehicle yet, so let's tell Rana like a little bit more information about the route. Or, right? So I think, or somebody's having a heart attack in the car. Like you need interior sensing in fully autonomous vehicles. But with semi-autonomous vehicles, I think it's really key to have driver monitoring because semi-autonomous means that sometimes the car is in charge, sometimes the driver's in charge or the co-pilot, right? And you need both systems to be on the same page. You need to know, the car needs to know the driver's asleep before it transitions control over to the driver. And sometimes if the driver's too tired, the car can say, I'm going to be a better driver than you are right now. I'm taking control over. So this dynamic, this dance is so key and you can't do that without driver sensing. Yeah, there's a disagreement for the longest time I've had with Elon that this is obvious that this should be in the Tesla from day one. And it's obvious that driver sensing is not a hindrance. It's not obvious. I should be careful because having studied this problem, nothing's really obvious, but it seems very likely driver sensing is not a hindrance to an experience. It's only enriching to the experience and likely increases the safety. That said, it is very surprising to me just having studied semi-autonomous driving, how well humans are able to manage that dance. Because it was the intuition before you were doing that kind of thing that humans will become just incredibly distracted. They would just like let the thing do its thing. But they're able to, you know, because it is life and death and they're able to manage that somehow. But that said, there's no reason not to have driver sensing on top of that. I feel like that's going to allow you to do that dance that you're currently doing without driver sensing, except touching the steering wheel, to do that even better. I mean, the possibilities are endless and the machine learning possibilities are endless. It's such a beautiful, it's also a constrained environment. So you can do a much more effectively than you can with the external environment. External environment is full of weird edge cases and complexities. There's inside, there's so much, it's so fascinating, such a fascinating world. I do hope that companies like Tesla and others, even Waymo, which I don't even know if Waymo's doing anything sophisticated inside the cab. I don't think so. It's like, what is it? I honestly think, I honestly think, it goes back to the robotics thing we were talking about, which is like great engineers that are building these AI systems just are afraid of the human being. And not thinking about the human experience, they're thinking about the features and yeah, the perceptual abilities of that thing. They think the best way I can serve the human is by doing the best perception and control I can, by looking at the external environment, keeping the human safe. But like, there's a huge, I'm here. Like, you know, I need to be noticed and interacted with and understood and all those kinds of things, even just on a personal level for entertainment, honestly, for entertainment. Yeah. You know, one of the coolest work we did in collaboration with MIT around this was we looked at longitudinal data, right, of drive, because, you know, MIT had access to like tons of data. And like just seeing the patterns of people, like driving in the morning off to work versus like commuting back from work or weekend driving versus weekday driving. And wouldn't it be so cool if your car knew that and then was able to optimize either the route or the experience or even make recommendations? Yeah. I think it's very powerful. Yeah, like, why are you taking this route? You're always unhappy when you take this route. And you're always happy when you take this alternative route. Take that route instead. Right, exactly. I mean, to have that, even that little step of relationship with a car, I think is incredible. Of course, you have to get the privacy right. You have to get all that kind of stuff right. But I wish I, honestly, you know, people are paranoid about this, but I would like a smart refrigerator. We have such a deep connection with food as a human civilization. I would like to have a refrigerator that would understand me that, you know, I also have a complex relationship with food because I, you know, pig out too easily and all that kind of stuff. So, you know, like maybe I want the refrigerator to be like, are you sure about this? Because maybe you're just feeling down or tired. Like maybe let's sleep on it. Your vision of the smart refrigerator is way kinder than mine. Is it just me yelling at you? Yeah, no, it was just, because I don't, you know, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke, but I eat a ton of chocolate. Like it's my vice. And so I, and sometimes ice cream too. And I'm like, okay, my smart refrigerator will just lock down. It'll just say, dude, you've had way too many today. Like, done. Yeah, no, but here's the thing. Are you, do you regret having, like, let's say not the next day, but 30 days later, would you, what would you, what would you like the refrigerator to have done then? Well, I think actually like the more positive relationship would be one where there's a conversation, right? As opposed to like, that's probably like the more sustainable relationship. It's like late at night, just, no, listen, listen. I know I told you an hour ago that this is not a good idea, but just listen, things have changed. I can just imagine a bunch of stuff being made up just to convince you. Oh my God, that's hilarious. But I mean, I just think that there's opportunities there. I mean, maybe not locking down, but for our systems that are such a deep part of our lives, like we use, we use a lot of us, a lot of people that commute use their car every single day. A lot of us use a refrigerator every single day, the microwave every single day. Like, we just, like, I feel like certain things could be made more efficient, more enriching, and AI is there to help, like some, just basic recognition of you as a human being, about your patterns, what makes you happy and not happy, and all that kind of stuff. And the car, obviously. Maybe we'll say, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, instead of this like Ben and Terry's ice cream, how about this hummus and carrots or something? I don't know. Maybe we can make a just-in-time recommendation, right? But not like a generic one, but a reminder that last time you chose the carrots, you smiled 17 times more the next day. You were happier the next day, right? Yeah, you were happier the next day. And, but yeah, I don't, but then again, if you're the kind of person that gets better from negative comments, you could say like, hey, remember like that wedding you're going to? You wanna fit into that dress? Remember about that? Let's think about that before you're eating this. No, I don't, it's for some, probably that would work for me, like a refrigerator that is just ruthless at shaming me. But like I would, of course, welcome it. That would work for me, just that. Well, it would know, I think it would, if it's really like smart, it would optimize its nudging based on what works for you, right? Exactly, that's the whole point. Personalization, in every way, deep personalization. You were a part of a webinar titled Advancing Road Safety, the State of Alcohol Intoxication Research. So for people who don't know, every year 1.3 million people around the world die in road crashes. And more than 20% of these fatalities are estimated to be alcohol related. A lot of them are also distraction related. So can AI help with the alcohol thing? I think the answer is yes. There are signals, and we know that as humans, like we can tell when a person, you know, is at different phases of being drunk, right? And I think you can use technology to do the same. And again, I think the ultimate solution is gonna be a combination of different sensors. How hard is the problem from the vision perspective? I think it's non-trivial. I think it's non-trivial. And I think the biggest part is getting the data, right? It's like getting enough data examples. So we, for this research project, we partnered with the Transportation Authorities of Sweden, and we literally had a racetrack with a safety driver, and we basically progressively got people drunk. Nice. So, but you know, that's a very expensive data set to collect, and you wanna collect it globally and in multiple conditions. Yeah, the ethics of collecting a data set where people are drunk is tricky. Yeah, definitely. Which is funny because, I mean, let's put drunk driving aside. The number of drunk people in the world every day is very large. It'd be nice to have a large data set of drunk people getting progressively drunk. In fact, you could build an app where people can donate their data because it's hilarious. Right, actually, yeah, but the liability. Liability, the ethics, how do you get it right? It's tricky, it's really, really tricky. Because like, drinking is one of those things that's funny and hilarious and we're loved, it's social, so on and so forth. But it's also the thing that hurts a lot of people. Like a lot of people. Like alcohol is one of those things, it's legal, but it's really damaging to a lot of lives. It destroys lives. And not just in the driving context. I should mention, people should listen to Andrew Huberman who recently talked about alcohol. He has an amazing podcast. Andrew Huberman is a neuroscientist from Stanford and a good friend of mine. Oh, cool. And he's like a human encyclopedia about all health-related wisdom. So he has a podcast, you would love that. I would love that. No, no, no, no, no. Oh, you don't know Andrew Huberman? Okay, listen, you listen to Andrew, he's called Huberman Lab Podcast. This is your assignment, just listen to one. I guarantee you this will be a thing where you say, Lex, this is the greatest human I have ever discovered. Oh my God, because I'm really on a journey of kind of health and wellness and I'm learning lots and I'm trying to build these, I guess, atomic habits around just being healthy. So yeah, I'm definitely gonna do this. His whole thing, this is great. He's a legit scientist, really well published. But in his podcast, what he does, he's not talking about his own work. He's like a human encyclopedia of papers. And so his whole thing is he takes a topic and in a very fast, you mentioned atomic habits, like very clear way, summarizes the research in a way that leads to protocols of what you should do. He's really big on like, not like, this is what the science says, but like this is literally what you should be doing according to science. So like he's really big and there's a lot of recommendations he does, which several of them I definitely don't do. Like get sunlight as soon as possible from waking up and like for prolonged periods of time. That's a really big one and there's a lot of science behind that one. There's a bunch of stuff, very systematic. You're gonna be like, Lex, this is my new favorite person, I guarantee it. And if you guys somehow don't know Andrew Huberman and you care about your wellbeing, you should definitely listen to him. I love you, Andrew. Anyway, so what were we talking about? Oh, alcohol and detecting alcohol. So this is a problem you care about and you're trying to solve. And actually like broadening it, I do believe that the car is gonna be a wellness center. Like, because again, imagine if you have a variety of sensors inside the vehicle tracking, not just your emotional state or level of distraction and drowsiness and drowsiness, level of distraction, drowsiness and intoxication, but also maybe even things like your heart rate and your heart rate variability and your breathing rate. And it can start like optimizing, yeah, it can optimize the ride based on what your goals are. So I think we're gonna start to see more of that and I'm excited about that. Yeah, what are the challenges you're tackling with Smart Eye currently? What's like the trickiest things to get? Is it basically convincing more and more car companies that having AI inside the car is a good idea or is there more technical algorithmic challenges? What's been keeping you mentally busy? I think a lot of the car companies we are in conversations with are already interested in definitely driver monitoring. Like I think it's becoming a must have, but even interior sensing, I can see like we're engaged in a lot of like advanced engineering projects and proof of concepts. I think technologically though, and even the technology, I can see a path to making it happen. I think it's the use case. Like how does the car respond once it knows something about you? Because you want it to respond in a thoughtful way that isn't off-putting to the consumer in the car. So I think that's like the user experience. I don't think we've really nailed that. And we usually, that's not part, we're the sensing platform, but we usually collaborate with the car manufacturer to decide what the use case is. So say you figure out that somebody's angry while driving. Okay, what should the car do? Do you see yourself as a role of nudging, of like basically coming up with solutions essentially, and then the car manufacturers kind of put their own little spin on it? Right, like we are like the ideation, creative thought partner, but at the end of the day, the car company needs to decide what's on brand for them. Right, like maybe when it figures out that you're distracted or drowsy, it shows you a coffee cup, right? Or maybe it takes more aggressive behaviors and basically said, okay, if you don't like take a rest in the next five minutes, the car's gonna shut down, right? Like there's a whole range of actions the car can take and doing the thing that is most, yeah, that builds trust with the driver and the passengers. I think that's what we need to be very careful about. Yeah, car companies are funny because they have their own like, I mean, that's why people get cars still. I hope that changes, but they get it because it's a certain feel and look, and it's a certain, they become proud like Mercedes Benz or BMW or whatever, and that's their thing. That's the family brand or something like that, or Ford or GM, whatever, they stick to that thing. Yeah. It's interesting. It's like, it should be, I don't know, it should be a little more about the technology inside. And I suppose there too, there could be a branding, like a very specific style of luxury or fun. Right, right. All that kind of stuff, yeah. You know, I have an AI focused fund to invest in early stage kind of AI driven companies. And one of the companies we're looking at is trying to do what Tesla did, but for boats, for recreational boats, yeah. So they're building an electric and kind of slash autonomous boat, and it's kind of the same issues. Like what kind of sensors can you put in? What kind of states can you detect, both exterior and interior within the boat? Anyways, it's like really interesting. Do you boat at all? No, not well, not in that way. I do like to get on the lake or a river and fish from a boat, but that's not boating. That's the difference. That's the difference. Still boating. Low tech, a low tech. Low tech boat. Get away from, get closer to nature boat. I guess going out into the ocean is also getting closer to nature in some deep sense. I mean, I guess that's why people love it. The enormity of the water just underneath you, yeah. I love the water. I love the, I love both. I love salt water. It was like the big and just it's humbling to be in front of this giant thing that's so powerful that was here before us and be here after. But I also love the peace of a small like wooded lake. It's just, everything's calm. Therapeutic. You tweeted that I'm excited about Amazon's acquisition of iRobot. I think it's a super interesting, just given the trajectory of which you're part of, of these honestly small number of companies that are playing in this space, that are like trying to have an impact on human beings. So it is an interesting moment in time that Amazon would acquire iRobot. You tweet, I imagine a future where home robots are as ubiquitous as microwaves or toasters. Here are three reasons why I think this is exciting. If you remember, I can look it up. But why is this exciting to you? I mean, I think the first reason why this is exciting, I can't remember the exact order in which I put them, but one is just, it's gonna be an incredible platform for understanding our behaviors within the home, right? Like, if you think about Roomba, which is the robot vacuum cleaner, the flagship product of iRobot at the moment, it's like running around your home, understanding the layout, it's understanding what's clean and what's not, how often do you clean your house? And all of these like behaviors are a piece of the puzzle in terms of understanding who you are as a consumer. And I think that could be, again, used in really meaningful ways, not just to recommend better products or whatever, but actually to improve your experience as a human being. So I think that's very interesting. I think the natural evolution of these robots in the home, so it's interesting. Roomba isn't really a social robot, right, at the moment. But I once interviewed one of the chief engineers on the Roomba team, and he talked about how people named their Roombas. And if their Roomba broke down, they would call in and say, you know, my Roomba broke down, and the company would say, well, we'll just send you a new one. And no, no, no, Rosie, like you have to like, yeah, I want you to fix this particular robot. So people have already built like interesting emotional connections with these home robots. And I think that, again, that provides a platform for really interesting things to just motivate change. Like it could help you, I mean, one of the companies that spun out of MIT, Catalia Health, the guy who started it spent a lot of time building robots that help with weight management. So weight management, sleep, eating better, yeah, all of these things. But if I'm being honest, Amazon does not exactly have a track record of winning over people in terms of trust. Now, that said, it's a really difficult problem for a human being to let a robot in their home that has a camera on it. Right. That's really, really, really tough. And I think Roomba actually, I have to think about this, but I'm pretty sure now, or for some time already has had cameras because they're doing the most recent Roomba, I have so many Roombas. Oh, you actually do? Well, I program, I don't use a Roomba for that. People that have been to my place, they're like, yeah, you definitely don't use these Roombas. That could be a good, I can't tell like the valence of this comment. Was it a compliment or like? No, it's a giant, it's just a bunch of electronics everywhere. I have six or seven computers, I have robots everywhere, Lego robots, I have small robots and big robots, it's just giant, just piles of robot stuff. And yeah. But including the Roombas, they're being used for their body and intelligence, but not for their purpose. I have, I've changed them, repurposed them for other purposes, for deeper, more meaningful purposes than just like the butter robot. Yeah, which is, you know, brings a lot of people happiness, I'm sure. They have a camera because the thing they advertised, I had my own cameras too, but the camera on the new Roomba, they have like state of the art poop detection as they advertised, which is a very difficult, apparently it's a big problem for vacuum cleaners, is you know, if they go over like dog poop, it just runs it over and creates a giant mess. So they have like, apparently they collected like a huge amount of data and different shapes and looks and whatever of poop and now they're able to avoid it and so on. They're very proud of this. So there is a camera, but you don't think of it as having a camera. Yeah, you don't think of it as having a camera because you've grown to trust it, I guess, because our phones, at least most of us, seem to trust this phone, even though there's a camera looking directly at you. I think that if you trust that the company is taking security very seriously, I actually don't know how that trust was earned with smartphones. I think it just started to provide a lot of positive value to your life where you just took it in and then the company over time has shown that it takes privacy very seriously, that kind of stuff. But I just, Amazon is not always, in its social robots, communicated, this is a trustworthy thing, both in terms of culture and competence. They think privacy is not just about what do you intend to do, but also how good are you at doing that kind of thing. So that's a really hard problem to solve. But I mean, but a lot of us have Alexas at home and I mean, Alexa could be listening in the whole time, right, and doing all sorts of nefarious things with the data. Yeah. Hopefully it's not, but I don't think it is. But Amazon is not, it's such a tricky thing for a company to get right, which is to earn the trust. I don't think Alexas earn people's trust quite yet. Yeah, I think it's not there quite yet. I agree. And they struggle with this kind of stuff. In fact, when these topics are brought up, people always get nervous. And I think if you get nervous about it, I mean, the way to earn people's trust is not by like, ooh, don't talk about this. Mm-hmm, right. It's just be open, be frank, be transparent, and also create a culture of like, where it radiates at every level from engineer to CEO that like, you're good people that have a common sense idea of what it means to respect basic human rights and the privacy of people and all that kind of stuff. And I think that propagates throughout the, that's the best PR, which is like, over time, you understand that these are good folks doing good things. Anyway, speaking of social robots, have you heard about Tesla, Tesla Bot, the humanoid robot? Yes, I have, yes, yes, yes, but I don't exactly know what it's designed to do. Do you? You probably do. No, I know it's designed to do, but I have a different perspective on it. But it's designed to, it's a humanoid form, and it's designed to, for automation tasks in the same way that industrial robot arms automate tasks in the factory. So it's designed to automate tasks in the factory. But I think that humanoid form, as we were talking about before, is one that we connect with as human beings. Anything legged, obviously, but the humanoid form especially, we anthropomorphize it most intensely. And so the possibility, to me, it's exciting to see both Atlas, developed by Boston Dynamics, and anyone, including Tesla, trying to make humanoid robots cheaper and more effective. The obvious way it transforms the world is social robotics to me, versus automation of tasks in the factory. So yeah, I just wanted to, in case that was something you were interested in, because I find its application in social robotics super interesting. We did a lot of work with Pepper, Pepper the robot, a while back. We were like the emotion engine for Pepper, which is SoftBank's humanoid robot. And how tall is Pepper? It's like. Yeah, like, I don't know, like five foot maybe, right? Yeah, pretty big, pretty big. And it was designed to be like airport lounges, and retail stores, mostly customer service, right? Hotel lobbies. And I mean, I don't know where the state of the robot is, but I think it's very promising. I think there are a lot of applications where this can be helpful. I'm also really interested in, yeah, social robotics for the home, right? Like that can help elderly people, for example, transport things from one location of the home to the other, or even like just have your back in case something happens. Yeah, I don't know. I do think it's a very interesting space. It seems early though. Do you feel like the timing is now? Yes, 100%. So it always seems early until it's not, right? Right, right, right, right. I think the time, well, I definitely think that the time is now. Like this decade for social robots, whether the humanoid form is right, I don't think so. No. If we just look at Jibo as an example, I feel like most of the problem, the challenge, the opportunity of social connection between an AI system and a human being does not require you to also solve the problem of robot manipulation and bipedal mobility. So I think you could do that with just a screen, honestly. But there's something about the interface of Jibo where it can rotate and so on that's also compelling. But you get to see all these robot companies that fail, incredible companies like Jibo. I mean, the iRobot in some sense is a big success story that it was able to find- Right, a niche. A niche thing and focus on it. But in some sense, it's not a success story because they didn't build any other robot. Like any other, it didn't expand into all kinds of robotics. Like once you're in the home, maybe that's what happens with Amazon is they'll flourish into all kinds of other robots. But do you have a sense, by the way, why it's so difficult to build a robotics company? Like why so many companies have failed? I think it's like you're building a vertical stack, right? Like you are building the hardware plus the software and you have to do this at a cost that makes sense. So I think Jibo was retailing at like, I don't know, like $800, like $700, $800. Which for the use case, right? There's a dissonance there. It's too high. So I think cost of building the whole platform in a way that is affordable for what value it's bringing. I think that's the challenge. I think for these home robots that are gonna help, help you do stuff around the home, that's a challenge too. Like the mobility piece of it, that's hard. Well, one of the things I'm really excited with TeslaBot is the people working on it. And that's probably the criticism I will apply to some of the other folks who worked on social robots is the people working on TeslaBot know how to, they're focused on and know how to do mass manufacture and create a product that's super cheap. Very cool. That's the focus. The engineering focus isn't, I would say, you can also criticize them for that, is they're not focused on the experience of the robot. They're focused on how to get this thing to do the basic stuff that the humanoid form requires to do it as cheap as possible. Then the fewest number of actuators, the fewest numbers of motors, the increasing efficiency, they decrease the weight, all that kind of stuff. So that's really interesting. I would say that Jibo and all those folks, they focus on the design, the experience, all of that. And it's secondary how to manufacture. No, you have to think like the TeslaBot folks from first principles, what is the fewest number of components, the cheapest components, how can I build it as much in-house as possible without having to consider all the complexities of a supply chain, all that kind of stuff. Interesting. Because if you have to build a robotics company, you have to, you're not building one robot, you're building hopefully millions of robots. You have to figure out how to do that. Where the final thing, I mean, if it's Jibo type of robot, is there a reason why Jibo, like we're gonna have this lengthy discussion, is there a reason why Jibo has to be over $100? It shouldn't be. Right, like the basic components. Components of it, right. Like you could start to actually discuss like, okay, what is the essential thing about Jibo? How much, what is the cheapest way I can have a screen? What's the cheapest way I can have a rotating base? All that kind of stuff. And then you get down, continuously drive down cost. Speaking of which, you have launched an extremely successful company. You have helped others, you've invested in companies. Can you give advice on how to start a successful company? I would say have a problem that you really, really, really wanna solve, right? Something that you're deeply passionate about. And honestly, take the first step. Like that's often the hardest, and don't overthink it. Like this idea of a minimum viable product or a minimum viable version of an idea, right? Like, yes, you're thinking about this like a humongous, like super elegant, super beautiful thing. What, like reduce it to the littlest thing you can bring to market that can solve a problem or that can help address a pain point that somebody has. They often tell you like, start with a customer of one, right? If you can solve a problem for one person, then there's probably- Yourself or some other person, pick a person. Exactly. It could be you. Yeah. That's actually often a good sign that if you enjoy a thing, enjoy a thing where you have a specific problem that you'd like to solve. That's a good end of one to focus on. What else? What else is there to actually, so step one is the hardest, but there's other steps as well, right? I also think, like who you bring around the table early on is so key, right? Like being clear on what I call like your core values or your North Star. It might sound fluffy, but actually it's not. So, and Roz and I feel like we did that very early on. We sat around her kitchen table and we said, okay, there's so many applications of this technology. How are we gonna draw the line? How are we gonna set boundaries? We came up with a set of core values that in the hardest of times, we fell back on to determine how we make decisions. And so I feel like just getting clarity on these core, like for us, it was respecting people's privacy, only engaging with industries where it's clear opt-in. So for instance, we don't do any work in security and surveillance. So things like that, just getting, we very big on, you know, one of our core values is human connection and empathy, right? And that is, yes, it's an AI company, but it's about people. Well, these are all, they become encoded in how we act, even if you're a small, tiny team of two or three or whatever. So I think that's another piece of advice. So what about finding people, hiring people? If you care about people as much as you do, like it seems like such a difficult thing to hire the right people. I think early on as a startup, you want people who have, who share the passion and the conviction because it's gonna be tough. Like I've yet to meet a startup where it was just a straight line to success, right? Even not just startup, like even in everyday people's lives, right? So you always like run into obstacles and you run into naysayers. And so you need people who are believers, whether they're people on your team or even your investors, you need investors who are really believers in what you're doing because that means they will stick with you. They won't give up at the first obstacle. I think that's important. What about raising money? What about finding investors? First of all, raising money, but also raising money from the right sources from that ultimately don't hinder you, but help you, empower you, all that kind of stuff. What advice would you give there? You successfully raised money many times in your life. Yeah, again, it's not just about the money. It's about finding the right investors who are going to be aligned in terms of what you wanna build and believe in your core values. Like for example, especially later on, like I, yeah, in my latest round of funding, I try to bring in investors that really care about the ethics of AI, right? And the alignment of vision and mission and core values is really important. It's like you're picking a life partner, right? It's the same kind of- So you take it that seriously for investors? Yeah, because they're gonna have to stick with you. You're stuck together. For a while anyway, yeah. Maybe not for life, but for a while, for sure. For better or worse. I forget what the vowels usually sound like. For better or worse? No. Through sick. Sick and then- Through something. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. Oh boy. Yeah, anyway, it's romantic and deep and you're in it for a while. So it's not just about the money. You tweeted about going to your first Capital Camp investing get-together. Oh yeah. And you learned a lot. So this is about investing. So what have you learned from that? What have you learned about investing in general? From both, because you've been on both ends of it. I mean, I try to use my experience as an operator now with my investor hat on when I'm identifying companies to invest in. First of all, I think the good news is because I have a technology background, right? And I really understand, you know, machine learning and computer vision and AI, et cetera. I can apply that level of understanding, right? Because everybody says they're an AI company or they're an AI tech. And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no. Show me the technology. So I can do that level of diligence, which I actually love. And then I have to do the litmus test of, you know, if I'm in a conversation with you, am I excited to tell you about this new company that I just met, right? And if I'm an ambassador for that company and I'm passionate about what they're doing, I usually use that. Yeah, that's important to me when I'm investing. So that means you actually can explain what they're doing and you're excited about it. Exactly, exactly. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I'm just like rambling, but exactly that's it. I understand it and I'm excited about it. It's funny, but sometimes it's unclear exactly. I'll hear people tell me, you know, and they'll talk for a while and it sounds cool. Like they paint a picture of a world, but then when you try to summarize it, you're not exactly clear of what, maybe what the core powerful idea is. Like you can't just build another Facebook or there has to be a core simple to explain idea that then you can or can't get excited about, but it's there, it's sitting right there, yeah. Yeah, but how do you ultimately pick who you think will be successful? It's not just about the thing you're excited about, like there's other stuff. Right, and then there's all the, you know, with early stage companies, like pre-seed companies, which is where I'm investing, sometimes the business model isn't clear yet or the go-to-market strategy isn't clear. There's usually like, it's very early on that some of these things haven't been hashed out, which is okay. So the way I like to think about it is like, if this company's successful, will this be a multi-billion slash trillion dollar market, you know, or company? And so that's definitely a lens that I use. What's pre-seed, what are the different stages, and what's the most exciting stage, and what's, or no, what's interesting about every stage, I guess? Yeah, so pre-seed is usually when you're just starting out, you've maybe raised the friends and family round, so you've raised some money from people you know, and you're getting ready to take your first institutional check-in, like first check from an investor. And I love this stage. There's a lot of uncertainty. So some investors really don't like this stage because the financial models aren't there. Often the teams aren't even like formed, it's really, really early. But to me, it's like a magical stage because it's the time when there's so much conviction, so much belief, almost delusional, right? Yeah. And there's a little bit of naivete around with founders at this stage, and I just love it. It's contagious. And I love that I can, often they're first-time founders, not always, but often they're first-time founders, and I can share my experience as a founder myself, and I can empathize, right? And I can almost, I create a safe ground where, because you have to be careful what you tell your investors, right? And I will often say, I've been in your shoes as a founder, you can tell me if it's challenging, you can tell me what you're struggling with. It's okay to vent. So I create that safe ground, and I think that's a superpower. Yeah, you have to, I guess, you have to figure out if this kind of person is gonna be able to ride the roller coaster like of many pivots and challenges and all that kind of stuff. And if the space of ideas they're working in is interesting, like the way they think about the world. Yeah, because if it's successful, the thing they end up with might be very different, the reason it's successful for. Actually, I was gonna say the third, so the technology is one aspect, the market or the idea is the second, and the third is the founder, right? Is this somebody who I believe has conviction, is a hustler, is gonna overcome obstacles. Yeah, I think that it's gonna be a great leader, right? Like as a startup, as a founder, you're often, you are the first person, and your role is to bring amazing people around you to build this thing. And so you're an evangelist, right? So how good are you gonna be at that? So I try to evaluate that too. You also, in the tweet thread about it, mentioned, is this a known concept, random rich dudes, RRDS, and saying that there should be like random rich women, I guess. What's the dudes version of women, the women version of dudes? Ladies, I don't know. I don't know. What's, is this a technical term? Is this known? Random rich dudes? Well, I didn't make that up, but I was at this capital camp, which is a get together for investors of all types, and there must have been maybe 400 or so attendees, maybe 20 were women. It was just very disproportionately, you know, a male dominated, which I'm used to. I think you're used to this kind of thing. I'm used to it, but it's still surprising. And as I'm raising money for this fund, so my fund partner is a guy called Rob May, who's done this before. So I'm new to the investing world, but he's done this before. Most of our investors in the fund are these, I mean, awesome, I'm super grateful to them, random, just rich guys. I'm like, where are the rich women? So I'm really adamant in both investing in women-led AI companies, but I also would love to have women investors be part of my fund, because I think that's how we drive change. Yeah, so then that, you know, that takes time, of course, but there's been quite a lot of progress, but yeah, for the next Mark Zuckerberg to be a woman and all that kind of stuff, because that's just like a huge number of wealth generated by women and then controlled by women and allocated by women and all that kind of stuff. And then beyond just women, just broadly across all different measures of diversity and so on. Let me ask you to put on your wise sage hat. So you already gave advice on startups and just advice for women, but in general, advice for folks in high school or college today, how to have a career they can be proud of, how to have a life they can be proud of. I suppose you have to give this kind of advice to your kids. Well, here's the number one advice that I give to my kids. My daughter's now 19, by the way, and my son's 13 and a half, so they're not little kids anymore. But I think- Does it break your heart? It does. Like a girl, but they're awesome. They're my best friends, but yeah, I think the number one advice I would share is embark on a journey without attaching to outcomes and enjoy the journey, right? So, you know, we often, we're so obsessed with the end goal, A, that doesn't allow us to be open to different endings of a journey or a story. So you become like so fixated on a particular path. You don't see the beauty in the other alternative path. And then you forget to enjoy the journey because you're just so fixated on the goal. And I've been guilty of that for many, many years of my life. And I'm now trying to like make the shift of, no, no, no, I'm gonna, again, trust that things are gonna work out and it'll be amazing and maybe even exceed your dreams. But you have to be open to that. Yeah, taking a leap into all kinds of things. I think you tweeted like you went on vacation by yourself or something like this. I know. This was, and just going, just taking the leap, doing it. Totally, doing it. And enjoying it, enjoying the moment, enjoying the weeks, enjoying not looking at the, some kind of career ladder, next step and so on. Yeah, there's something to that, like over planning too. I'm surrounded by a lot of people that kind of, so I don't plan. You don't? No. Do you not do goal setting? Yeah, my goal setting is very like, I like the affirmations, it's very, it's almost, I don't know how to put it into words, but it's a little bit like what my heart yearns for, kind of, I guess in the space of emotions more than in the space of like, this will be, like in the rational space. Because I just try to picture a world that I would like to be in, and that world is not clearly pictured, it's mostly in the emotional world. I mean, I think about that from robots, because I have this desire, I've had it my whole life to, well, it took different shapes, but I think once I discovered AI, the desire was to, I think in the context of this conversation could be easily, easier described as basically a social robotics company. And that's something I dreamed of doing. And, well, there's a lot of complexity to that story, but that's the only thing, honestly, I dream of doing. So I imagine a world that I could help create, but it's not, there's no steps along the way. And I think I'm just kind of stumbling around and following happiness and working my ass off in almost random, like an ant does in random directions. But a lot of people, a lot of successful people around me say that you should have a plan, you should have a clear goal. You have a goal at the end of the month, you have a goal at the end of the year. I don't, I don't, I don't. And there's a balance to be struck, of course, but there's something to be said about really making sure that you're living life to the fullest, that goals can actually get in the way of. So one of the best, like kind of most, what do you call it when it challenges your brain? What do you call it? The only thing that comes to mind, and this is me saying is a mindfuck, but yes. Okay, okay, maybe, okay, something like that. Yes. Super inspiring talk. Kenneth Stanley, he was at OpenAI, he just left, and he has a book called Why Greatness Can't Be Planned. And it's actually an AI book. So, and he's done all these experiments that basically show that when you over-optimize, like the trade-off is you're less creative, right? And to create true greatness and truly creative solutions to problems, you can't over-plan it, you can't. And I thought that was, and so he generalizes it beyond AI, and he talks about how we apply that in our personal life and our organizations and our companies, which are over-KPI'd, right? Like look at any company in the world, and it's all like, these are the goals, these are the weekly goals, and the sprints, and then the quarterly goals, blah, blah, blah. And he just shows with a lot of his AI experiments that that's not how you create truly game-changing ideas. So there you go. Yeah, yeah. And you can't, he's awesome. There's a balance, of course, because that's, yeah, many moments of genius will not come from planning and goals, but you still have to build factories, and you still have to manufacture, and you still have to deliver, and there's still deadlines and all that kind of stuff. And for that, it's good to have goals. I do goal-setting with my kids. We all have our goals, but I think we're starting to morph into more of these bigger picture goals and not obsess about, I don't know, it's hard. Well, I honestly think, especially with kids, it's much better to have a plan and have goals and so on, because you have to learn the muscle of what it feels like to get stuff done. But I think once you learn that, there's flexibility for me, because I spent most of my life with goal-setting and so on. So I've gotten good with grades and school. I mean, school, if you want to be successful at school, I mean, the kind of stuff in high school and college that kids have to do in terms of managing their time and getting so much stuff done, it's like taking five, six, seven classes in college that would break the spirit of most humans if they took one of them later in life. It's like really difficult stuff, especially in engineering curricula. So I think you have to learn that skill, but once you learn it, you can maybe, because you can be a little bit on autopilot and use that momentum, and then allow yourself to be lost in the flow of life, just kind of, or also give, I worked pretty hard to allow myself to have the freedom to do that. That's really, that's a tricky freedom to have. Because a lot of people get lost in the rat race, and they also, financially, whenever you get a raise, they'll get a bigger house, or something like this. So you're always trapped in this race. I put a lot of emphasis on living below my means always. And so there's a lot of freedom to do whatever, whatever the heart desires. But everyone has to decide what's the right thing, what's the right thing for them. For some people, having a lot of responsibilities, like a house they can barely afford, or having a lot of kids, the responsibility side of that is really, helps them get their shit together. Like, all right, I need to be really focused and get, some of the most successful people I know have kids, and the kids bring out the best in them. They make them more productive, and less productive. Accountability, it's an accountability thing, absolutely. And almost something to actually live, and fight, and work for, like having a family. It's fascinating to see. Because you would think kids would be a hit on productivity, but they're not, for a lot of really successful people. They really, they're like an engine of. Right, efficiency, oh my God. Yeah, it's weird. I mean, it's beautiful, it's beautiful to see. And also a source of happiness. Speaking of which, what role do you think love plays in the human condition, love? I think love is, yeah, I think it's why we're all here. I think it would be very hard to live life without love in any of its forms, right? Yeah, that's the most beautiful of forms that human connection takes, right? Yeah, I feel like everybody wants to feel loved, right? In one way or another, right? And to love. Yeah, and to love too, totally, yeah. I agree with that. Both of it. I'm not even sure what feels better. Both, both are like that. To give love too, yeah. And it is like we've been talking about, an interesting question, whether some of that, whether one day we'll be able to love a toaster. Okay. It's some small. I wasn't quite thinking about that when I said like, yeah, like we all need love and give love. Okay, that's right. I was thinking about Brad Pitt and toasters. Okay, toasters, great. All right, well, I think we started on love and ended on love. This was an incredible conversation, Ron. Thank you so much. You're an incredible person. Thank you for everything you're doing in AI, in the space of just caring about humanity, human emotion, about love, and being an inspiration to a huge number of people. In robotics, in AI, in science, in the world in general. So thank you for talking to me. It's an honor. Thank you for having me. And you know I'm a big fan of yours as well. So it's been a pleasure. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Rana Elkayoubi. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Helen Keller. The best, the most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/36_rM7wpN5A

T3FC7qIAGZk

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Andrew Bustamante: CIA Spy | Lex Fridman Podcast #310

Mossad will do anything. Mossad has no qualms doing what it takes to ensure the survival of every Israeli citizen around the world. Most other countries will stop at some point, but Mossad doesn't do that. The following is a conversation with Andrew Bustamante, former CIA covert intelligence officer and US Air Force combat veteran, including the job of operational targeting, encrypted communications, and launch operations for 200 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. Andrew's over seven years as a CIA spy have given him a skill set and a perspective on the world that is fascinating to explore. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Andrew Bustamante. Andrew, the Central Intelligence Agency was formed almost 75 years ago. What is the mission of the CIA? How does it work? The mission of the CIA is to collect intelligence from around the world that supports a national security mission and be the central repository for all other intelligence agencies so that it's one collective source where all intelligence can be synthesized and then passed forward to the decision makers. That doesn't include domestic intelligence. It's primarily looking outward outside the United States. Correct. CIA is the foreign intelligence collection kingspoke, if you will. FBI does domestic and then Department of Homeland Security does domestic. Law enforcement essentially handles all things domestic. Intelligence is not law enforcement, so we technically cannot work inside the United States. Is there clear lines to be drawn between, like you just said, the FBI, CIA, FBI, and the other US intelligence agencies like the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, NSA, National Security Agency? There's a list of about 33 different intelligence organizations. Yeah, you're talking about- The Army, the Navy has all the different organizations have their own intelligence groups. Is there clear lines here to be drawn or is the CIA the giant integrator of all of these? It's a little bit of both, to be honest. Yes, there are absolutely lines and more so than the lines. There are lines that divide what our primary mission is. Everything's got to be prioritized. That's one of the benefits and the superpowers of the United States is we prioritize everything. Different intelligence organizations are prioritized to collect certain types of intelligence. Then within the confines of how they collect, they're also given unique authorities. Authorities are a term that's directed by the executive branch. Different agencies have different authorities to execute missions in different ways. FBI can't execute the same way CIA executes and CIA can't execute the same way NGA executes. Then at the end, when it's all collected, then yes, CIA still acts as a final synthesizing repository to create what's known as the President's Daily Brief, the PDB. The only way CIA can create the PDB is by being the single source of all source intelligence from around the IC, the intelligence community, which are those 30 some odd and always changing organizations that are sponsored for intelligence operations. What does the PDB, the President's Daily Brief, look like? How long is it? What does it contain? First of all, it looks like the most expensive book report you can ever imagine. It's got its own binder. It's all very high end. It feels important. It looks important. It's not like a cheap Trapper Keeper. It's somewhere between, I would give it probably between 50 and 125 pages a day. It's produced every day around two o'clock in the morning by a dedicated group of analysts. Each page is essentially a short paragraph to a few paragraphs about a priority happening that affects national security from around the world. The President rarely gets to the entire briefing in a day. He relies on a briefer instead to prioritize what inside the briefing needs to be shared with the President. Because some days the PDB will get briefed in 10 minutes, and some days it'll be briefed over the course of two hours. It depends on the President's schedule. How much competition is there for the first page? And so how much jockeying there is for attention? I imagine for all the different intelligence agencies and within the CIA, there's probably different groups that are modular and they all care about different nations or different cases. Do you understand how much competition there is for the attention, for the limited attention of the President? You're 100% correct in how the agency and how officers and managers at the agency handle the PDB. There's a ton of competition. Everybody wants to be the first on the radar. Everybody wants to be on the first page. The thing that we're not baking into the equation is the President's interests. The President dictates what's on the first page of his PDB, and he will tell them usually the day before, I want to see this on the first page tomorrow. Bring this to me in the beginning. I don't want to hear about what's happening in Mozambique. I don't really care about what's happening in Saudi Arabia. I want to see one, two, three. And regardless of whether or not those are the three biggest things in the world, the President's the executive, he's the one, he's the ultimate customer. So we do what the customer says. That has backfired in the past. If you haven't already started seeing how that could go wrong, that has backfired in the past, but that is essentially what happens when you serve in the executive branch. You serve the executive. So what's the role of the director of the CIA versus the President? What's that dance like? So the President really leads the focus of the CIA? The President is the commander in chief for the military, but the Executive, the President is also the Executive for the entirety of the intelligence community. So he's the ultimate customer. If you look at it like a business, the customer, the person spending the money is the President and the director is the CEO. So if the director doesn't create what the President wants, there's going to be a new director. That's why the director of CIA is a presidential appointed position. Sometimes they're extremely qualified intelligence professionals. Sometimes they're just professional politicians or soldiers that get put into that seat because the President trusts them to do what he wants them to do. Another gaping area that causes problems, but that's still the way it is. So you think this is a problematic configuration of the whole system? Massive flaw in the system. It is a massive flaw in the system because if you're essentially appointing a director to do what you want them to do, then you're assigning a crony and that's what we define corruption as within the United States. And inside the United States, we say, if you pick somebody outside of merit for any other reason other than merit, then it's cronyism or it's nepotism. Here, that's exactly what our structure is built on. All presidential appointees are appointed on something other than merit. So for an intelligence agency to be effective, it has to discover the truth and communicate that truth. And maybe if you're appointing the director of that agency, you're not, they're less likely to communicate the truth to you unless the truth aligns perfectly with your desired worldview. Well, not necessarily perfectly because there are other steps, right? They have to go in front of Congress and they have to have the support of multiple legislatures or legislators. But the challenge is that the shortlist of people who even get the opportunity aren't a meritorious list. It's a shortlist based off of who the president is picking or who the would-be president is picking. Now, I think we've proven that an intelligence organization can be extremely effective even within the flawed system. Yeah. The challenge is how much more effective could we be if we improved? And I think that's the challenge that faces a lot of the US government. I think that's a challenge that has resulted in what we see today when it comes to the decline of American power and American influence, the rise of foreign influence, authoritarian powers, and a shrinking US economy, a growing Chinese economy. And it's just, we have questions, hard questions we need to ask ourselves about how we're going to handle the future. What aspect of that communication between the president and the CIA could be fixed to help fix the problems that you're referring to in terms of the decline of American power? So when you talk about the president wanting to prioritize what the president cares about, that immediately shows a break between what actually matters to the long-term success of the United States versus what benefits the short-term success of the current president. Because any president is just a human being and has a very narrow focus. And narrow focus is not a long-term calculation. Exactly. What's the maximum amount of years a president can be president? Eight. He has to be, he or she- In the United States. In the United States, according to our current constitution. But they're very limited in terms of what they have to prioritize. And then if you look at a four-year cycle, two years of that is essentially preparing for the next election cycle. So that's only two years of really quality attention you get from the president, who is the chief executive of all the intelligence community. So the most important thing to them is not always the most important thing to the long-term survival of the United States. What do you make of the hostile relationship that to me at least stands out of the presidents between Donald Trump and the CIA? Was that a very kind of personal bickering? I mean, is there something interesting to you about the dynamics between that particular president and that particular instantiation of the intelligence agency? Man, there were lots of things fascinating to me about that relationship. So first- What's the good and the bad, sorry to interrupt. So let me start with the good first, because there's a lot of people who don't think there was any good. So the good thing is we saw that the president, who's the chief customer, the executive to the CIA, when the president doesn't want to hear what CIA has to say, he's not going to listen. I think that's an important lesson for everyone to take home. If the president doesn't care what you have to say, he's going to take funding away or she will take funding away. They're going to take attention away. They're going to shut down your operations, your missions. They're going to kill the careers of the people working there. Think about that. For the four years that President Trump was the president, basically everybody at CIA, their career was put on pause. Some people's careers were ended. Some people voluntarily left their career there because they found themselves working for a single customer that didn't want what they had to produce. So for people who don't know, Donald Trump did not display significant deep interest in the output. He did not trust it. Yeah. He was a disinterested customer. Exactly right. And then what do disinterested customers do? They go find someone else to create their product. And that's exactly what Donald Trump did. And he did it through the private intelligence world, funding private intelligence companies to run their own operations that brought him the information he cared about when CIA wouldn't. It also didn't help that CIA stepped outside of their confines, right? CIA is supposed to collect foreign intelligence and not comment on domestic matters. They went way outside of that when they started challenging the president, when they started questioning the results, when they started publicly claiming Russian influence. That's all something the FBI could have handled by itself. The Justice Department could have handled by itself. CIA had no place to contribute to that conversation. And when they did, all they did was undermine the relationship they had with their primary customer. Let me sort of focus in on this relationship between the president or the leader and the intelligence agency and look outside the United States. It seems like authoritarian regimes or regimes throughout history, if you look at Stalin and Hitler, if you look at today with Vladimir Putin, the negative effects of power corrupting the mind of a leader manifest itself is that they start to get bad information from the intelligence agencies. So this kind of thing that you're talking about, over time, they start hearing information they want to hear. The agency starts producing only the kind of information they want to hear. And the leader's worldview starts becoming distorted to where the propaganda they generate is also the thing that the intelligence agencies provide to them. And so they start getting this, they start believing they're on propaganda and they start getting a distorted view of the world. Sorry for the sort of walking through in a weird way, but I guess I want to ask, do you think, let's look at Vladimir Putin specifically, do you think he's getting accurate information about the world? Do you think he knows the truth of the world, whether that's the war in Ukraine, whether that's the behavior of the other nations in NATO, the United States in general? What do you think? It's rare that I'll talk about just thinking. I prefer to share my assessment, why I assess things a certain way rather than just what's my random opinion. In my assessment, Vladimir Putin is winning. Russia is winning. They're winning in Ukraine, but they're also winning the battle of influence against the West. They're winning in the face of economic sanctions. They're winning. Empirically, when you look at the math, they're winning. So when you ask me whether or not Putin is getting good information from his intelligence services, when I look at my overall assessment of multiple data points, he must be getting good information. Do I know how or why? I do not. I don't know how or why it works there. I don't know how such deep cronyism, such deep corruption can possibly yield true real results. Yet somehow there are real results happening. So it's either excessive waste and an accidental win, or there really is a system and a process there that's functioning. So this winning idea is very interesting. In what way, short term and long term, is Russia winning? Some people will say there was a miscalculation of the way the invasion happened. There was an assumption that you would be able to successfully take Kyiv, you'd be able to successfully capture the east, the south, and the north of Ukraine. And with what now appears to be significantly insufficient troops spread way too thin across, way too large of a front. So that seems to be like an intelligence failure. And that doesn't seem to be like winning. In another way, it doesn't seem like winning if we put aside the human cost of war. It doesn't seem like winning because the hearts and minds of the West were completely on the side of Ukraine. This particular leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, captured the attention of the world and the hearts and minds of Europe, the West, and many other nations throughout the world, both financially, in terms of military equipment, and in terms of sort of social and cultural and emotional support for the independence fight of this nation. That seems to be like a miscalculation. So against that pushback, why do you think there's still kernels of winning in this on the Russian side? What you're laying out isn't incorrect. And the miscalculations are not unexpected. Anybody who's been to a military college, including the Army War College in Pennsylvania, where so many of our military leaders are brought up, when you look at the conflict in Ukraine, it fits the exact mold of what an effective, long-term military conflict, protracted military conflict, would and should look like for military dominance. Now, did Zelensky and did the Ukrainians shock the world? Absolutely. But in that, they also shocked American intelligence, which, like you said, miscalculated. The whole world miscalculated how the Ukrainians would respond. Putin did not move in there accidentally. He had an assessment. He had high likelihood of a certain outcome, and that outcome did not happen. Why did he have that calculation? Because in 2014, it worked. He invaded, he took Crimea in 14 days. He basically created an infiltration campaign that turned key leaders over in the first few days of the conflict. So essentially, there was no conflict. It worked in 2008, when he took Georgia. Nobody talks about that. He invaded Georgia the exact same way, and it worked. So in 2008, it worked. In 2014, it worked. There was no reason to believe it wasn't going to work again. So he just carried out the same campaign. But this time, something was different. That was a miscalculation, for sure, on the part of Putin. And the reason that there was no support from the West, because let's not forget, there is no support. There is nothing other than the Lend-Lease Act, which is putting Ukraine in massive debt right now to the West. That's the only form of support they're getting from NATO or the United States. So if somebody believed Ukraine would win, if somebody believed Ukraine had a chance, they would have gotten more material support than just debt. And we can jump into that anytime you want to. But the whole world miscalculated. Everybody thought Russia was going to win in 14 days. I said that they would win in 14 days, because that was the predominant calculation. Once the first invasion didn't work, then the military does what professional militaries do, man. They re-evaluate, they re-organize leaders, and then they take a new approach. You saw three approaches. The first two did not work. The first two campaigns against Ukraine did not work the way they were supposed to work. The third has worked exactly like it's supposed to work. You don't need Kiev to win Ukraine. You don't need hearts and minds to win Ukraine. What you need is control of natural resources, which they're taking in the East, and you need access to the heartbeat, the blood flow of food and money into the country, which they're taking in the South. The fact that Ukraine had to go to the negotiation table with Russia and Turkey in order to get exports out of the Black Sea approved, again, demonstrates just how much Ukraine is losing. The aggressor had a seat at the negotiation table to allow Ukraine the ability to even export one of its top exports. If Russia would have said no, then they would not have had that. Russia has, that's like someone holding your throat. It's like somebody holding your jugular vein and saying, if you don't do what I tell you to do, then I'm not going to let you breathe. I'm not going to let blood flow to your brain. So do you think it's possible that Russia takes the South of Ukraine? It takes, so starting from Mariupol, the Kherson region- All the way to Odessa. All the way to Odessa and into Moldova. I believe all of that will happen before the fall. Fall of this year. Fall of this year. Before winter hits Europe, NATO wants, Germany needs to be able to have sanctions lifted so they can tap into Russian power. There's no way they can have those sanctions lifted unless Russia wins. And Russia also knows that all of Europe, all of NATO is the true people feeling the pain of the war outside of Ukraine are the NATO countries, because they're so heavily reliant on Russia. And as they have supported American sanctions against Russia, their people feel the pain. Economically, their people feel the pain. What are they going to do in the winter? Because without Russian gas, their people are going to freeze to death. Ukrainian people. People all over NATO. Ukraine, everybody knows Ukraine's at risk. Everybody knows Ukrainians are dying. The game of war isn't played just, it isn't even played majoritatively by the people who are fighting. The game of war is played by everyone else. It's an economic game. It's not a military game. The flow of resources and energy. Attention. And food. Exactly right. I was on the front in the Kherson region, this very area that you're referring to, and I spoke to a lot of people and those, the morale is incredibly high. And I don't think the people in that region, soldiers, volunteer soldiers, civilians are going to give up that land without dying. I agree with you. I mean, in order to take Odessa would require huge amount of artillery and slaughter of civilians, essentially. They're not going to use artillery in Odessa because Odessa is too important to Russian culture. It's going to be even uglier than that. It's going to be clearing of streets, clearing of buildings, person by person, troop by troop. It'll be a lot like what it was in Margol. Just shooting at civilians. Because they can't afford to just do bombing raids because they're going to destroy cultural significant architecture that's just too important to the Russian culture. And that's going to demoralize their own Russian people. I have to do a lot of thinking to try to understand what I even feel. I don't know. But in terms of information, the thing that the soldiers are saying, the Russian soldiers are saying, the thing the Russian soldiers really believe is that they're freeing, they're liberating the Ukrainian people from Nazis. And they believe this. Because I visited Ukraine, I spoke to over a hundred, probably a couple hundred Ukrainian people from different walks of life. It feels like the Russian soldiers, at least, are under a cloud of propaganda. They're not operating on a clear view of the whole world. And given all that, I just don't see Russia taking the South without committing war crimes. And if Vladimir Putin is aware of what's happening in terms of the treatment of civilians, I don't see him pushing forward all the way to take the South. Because that's not going to be an effective strategy for him to win the hearts and minds of his people. Autocracies don't need to win hearts and minds. That's a staunchly democratic point of view. Hearts and minds mean very little to people who understand core basic needs and true power. You don't see Xi Jinping worrying about hearts and minds in China. You don't see it in North Korea. You don't see it in Congo. You don't see it in most of the world. Hearts and minds are a luxury. In reality, what people need is food, water, power. They need income to be able to secure a lifestyle. It is absolutely sad. I am not in any way, shape, or form saying that my assessment on this is enriching or enlightening or hopeful. It's just fact. It's just calculatable empirical evidence. If Putin loses in Ukraine, the losses, the influential losses, the economic losses, the lives lost, the power lost is too great. So it is better for him to push and push and push through war crimes, through everything else. War crimes are something defined by the international court system. The international court system has Russia as part of its board. And the international court system is largely powerless when it comes to enforcing its own outcomes. So the real risk gain scenario here for Russia is significantly in favor of gain over risk. The other thing that I think is important to talk about is we, everybody is trapped in the middle of a gigantic information war. Yes, there's battlefield bullets and cannons and tanks, but there's also a massive informational war. The same narrative that you see these ground troops in Ukraine, these Russian ground troops in Ukraine, believing they're clearing the land of Nazis, that information is being fed to them from their own home country. I don't know why people seem to think that the information that they're reading in English is any more or less true. Every piece of news coming out of the West, every piece of information coming out in the English language is also a giant narrative being shared intentionally to try to undermine the morale and the faithfulness of English-speaking Russians, which somebody somewhere knows exactly how many of those there are. So we have to recognize that we're not getting true information from other side, because there is a strategic value in making sure that there is just the right amount of mis- or disinformation out there. Not because someone's trying to lie to Americans, but because someone is trying to influence the way English-speaking Russians think. And in that world, that's exactly why you see so many news articles cited to anonymous sources, government officials who do not want to be named. There's nothing that links back responsibility there, right? There's nothing that can go to court there. But the information still gets released, and that's enough to make Ukrainians believe that the United States is going to help them, or that the West is going to help them. It's enough to make Russians think that they're going to lose, and maybe they should just give up now and leave from the battlefield now. We have to understand we are in the middle of a giant information war. Maybe you can correct me, but it feels like in the English-speaking world, it's harder to control. It's harder to fight the information war because of, you know, some people say there's not really a freedom of speech in this country, but I think if you compare, there's a lot more freedom of speech. And it's just harder to control narratives when there's a bunch of guerrilla journalists that are able to just publish anything they want on Twitter or anything. It's just harder to control narratives. So people don't understand what freedom of speech is. That's the first major problem. And it's shameful how many people in the United States do not understand what freedom of speech actually protects. So that aside, you're absolutely right. Fighting the information war in the West is extremely difficult because anyone with a blog, anyone with a Twitter account, anyone, I mean, anyone can call themselves a journalist, essentially. We live in a world, we live in a country where people read the headline and they completely bypass the author line and they go straight into the content. And then they decide whether the content's real or not based on how they feel instead of based on empirical measurable evidence. So you mentioned the Len Lease Act and the support of the United States, support of Ukraine by the United States. Are you skeptical to the level of support that the United States is providing and is going to provide over time? The strategy of the United States has taken to support Ukraine is similar to the strategy we took to support Great Britain during World War II. The enactment of the Len Lease Act is a perfect example of that. The Len Lease Act means that we are lending or leasing equipment to the Ukrainian government in exchange for future payment. So every time a rocket is launched, every time a drone crashes into a tank, that's a bill that Ukraine is just racking up. It's like when you go to a restaurant and you start drinking shots, sometime the bill will come due. This is exactly what we did when Europe and when Great Britain was in the face of Nazi invasion, we signed the same thing into motion. Do you know that the UK did not pay off the debt from World War II until 2020? They've been paying that debt since the end of World War II. So what we're doing is we're indebting Ukraine against the promise that perhaps they will secure their freedom, which nobody seems to want to talk about what freedom is actually going to look like for Ukrainians. What are the true handful of outcomes, the realistic outcomes that could come of this? And which of those outcomes really looks like freedom to them, especially in the face of the fact that they're going to be trillions of dollars in debt to the West for supplying them with the training and the weapons and the food and the med kits and everything else that we're giving them, because none of it's free. It's all coming due. We're a democracy, but we're also a capitalist country. We can't afford to just give things away for free, but we can give things away at a discount. We can give things away layaway, but the bill will come due. And unfortunately, that is not part of the conversation that's being had with the American people. So debt is a way to establish some level of control. Power. It's power. That said, having a very close relationship between Ukraine and the United States does not seem to be a negative possibility when the Ukrainians think about their future in terms of freedom. That's one thing. And the other, there's some aspect of this war that I've just noticed that one of the people I talked to said that all great nations have a independence war, have to have a war for their independence. In order, there's something, it's dark, but there's something about war just being a catalyst for finding your own identity as a nation. So you can have leaders, you can have sort of signed documents, you can have all this kind of stuff, but there's something about war that really brings the country together and actually try to figure out what is at the core of the spirit of the people that defines this country. And they see this war as that, as the independence war to define the heart of what the country is. So there's been, before the war, before this invasion, there was a lot of factions in the country. There was a lot of influence from oligarchs and corruption and so on. A lot of that was, the factions were brought together under one umbrella, effectively to become one nation because of this invasion. So they see that as a positive direction for the defining of what a free democratic country looks like after the war. In their perspective, after the war is won. It's a difficult situation because I'm trying to make sure that you and all, everybody listening, understands that what's happening in Ukraine, among Ukrainians, is noble and brave and courageous and beyond the expectations of anyone. The fact is, there is no material support coming from the outside. The American revolution was won because of French involvement. French ships, French troops, French generals, French military might. The independence of communist China was won through Russian support, Russian generals, Russian troops on the ground fighting with the communists. That's how revolutions are won. That's how independent countries are born. Ukraine doesn't get any of that. No one is stepping into that because we live in a world right now where there simply is no economic benefits to the parties in power to support Ukraine to that level. And war is a game of economics. The economic benefit of Ukraine is crystal clear in favor of Russia, which is why Putin cannot lose. He will not let himself lose. Short of something completely unexpected, right? I'm talking 60%, 70% probability, Ukraine loses. But there's still 20%, 30% probability of the unimaginable happening. Who knows what that might be? An oligarch assassinates Putin, or a nuclear bomb goes off somewhere, or who knows what, right? There's still a chance that something unexpected will happen and change the tide of the war. But when it comes down to the core calculus here, Ukraine is the agricultural bed to support a future Russia. A future Russia. Russian knows, they know they have to have Ukraine. They know that they have to have it to protect themselves against military pressure from the West. They have to have it for agricultural reasons. They have major oil and natural gas pipelines that flow through Eastern Ukraine. They cannot let Ukraine fall outside of their sphere of influence. They cannot. The United States doesn't really have any economic vested interest in Ukraine. Ideological points of view and promises aside, there's no economic benefit. And the same thing goes for NATO. NATO has no economic investment in Ukraine. Ukrainian output, Ukrainian food goes to the Middle East and Africa. It doesn't go to Europe. So the West siding with Ukraine is exclusively ideological, and it's putting them in a place where they fight a war with Russia so the whole world can see Russia's capabilities. Ukraine is a, as sad as it is to say, man, Ukraine is a pawn on a table for superpowers to calculate each other's capacities. Right now, we've only talked about Russia and the United States. We haven't even talked about Iran. We haven't even talked about China. Right? It is a pawn on a table. This is a chicken fight so that people get to watch and see what the other trainers are doing. Well, a lot of people might have said the same thing about the United States back in the independence fight. So there is possibilities, as you've said. We're not saying a 0% chance, and it could be a reasonably high percent chance that this becomes one of the great democratic nations that the 21st century is remembered by. Absolutely. And so you said American support. So ideologically, first of all, you don't assign much long-term power to that, that US could support Ukraine purely on ideological grounds. Just look in the last four years, the last three years. Do you remember what happened in Hong Kong right before COVID? China swooped into Hong Kong violently, beating protesters, killing them in the street, imprisoning people without just cause. And Hong Kong was a democracy. And the whole world stood by and let it happen. And then what happened in Afghanistan just a year ago? And the whole world stood by and let the Taliban take power again after 20 years of loss. We are showing a repeatable point of view. We will talk, American politicians, American administrations, we will say a lot of things. We will promise a lot of ideological pro-democracy rah-rah statements. We will say it. But when it comes down to putting our own people, our own economy, our own GDP at risk, we step away from that fight. America is currently supplying military equipment to Ukraine. Absolutely. And a lot of that military equipment has actually been the thing that turned the tides of war a couple of times already. Currently, that's the HIMARS systems. So you mentioned sort of that Putin can't afford to lose, but winning can look in different ways. So you've kind of defined so on at this moment, the prediction is that winning looks like capturing not just the East, but the South of Ukraine. But you can have narratives of winning that return back to the, what was at the beginning of this year before the invasion. Correct. That Crimea is still with Russia. There's some kind of negotiated thing about Donbass, where it still stays with Ukraine, but there's some- Puppet government. Yeah. Yeah. Just like that's what they have in Georgia right now. And that could still be defined through mechanisms. As Russia winning. As Russia winning for Russia, and then for Ukraine, as Ukraine winning. And for the West, as democracy winning, and you kind of negotiate. I mean, that seems to be how geopolitics works. Everybody can walk away with a win-win story, and then the world progresses with lessons learned. That's the high likely, that's the most probable outcome. The most probable outcome is that Ukraine remains in air quotes, a sovereign nation. It's not going to be truly sovereign, because it will become, it will have to have new government put in place. Zelensky will, it's extremely unlikely he will be president, because he has gone too far to demonstrate his power over the people, and his ability to separate the Ukrainian people from the autocratic power of Russia. So he would have to be unseated, whether he goes into exile, or whether he is peacefully left alone, is all going to be part of negotiations. But the thing to keep in mind also, is that a negotiated peace, really just means a negotiated ceasefire. We've seen this happen all over the world. North Korea and South Korea are technically still just in negotiated cease power. What you end up having is, Russia will allow Ukraine to call itself Ukraine, to operate independently, to have their own debt to the United States. Russia doesn't want to take on that debt. And then in exchange for that, they will have firmer guidelines as to how NATO can engage with Ukraine. And then that becomes an example for all the other former Soviet satellite states, which are all required economically by Russia, not required economically by the West. And then you end up seeing how it just, you can see how the whole thing plays out once you realize that the keystone is Ukraine. There is something about Ukraine, the deep support by the Ukrainian people of America, that is in contrast with, for example, Afghanistan. That it seems like ideologically, Ukraine could be a beacon of freedom used in narratives by the United States to fight geopolitical wars on that part of the world, that they would be a good partner for this idea of democracy, of freedom, of all the values that America stands for. They're a good partner. And so it's valuable if you sort of have a cynical, pragmatic view, sort of like Henry Kissinger type of view, it's valuable to have them as a partner, so valuable that it makes sense to support them in achieving a negotiated ceasefire that's on the side of Ukraine. But because of this particular leader, this particular culture, this particular dynamics of how the war unrolled, and things like Twitter, and the way digital communication currently works, it just seems like this is a powerful symbol of freedom that's useful for the United States. If we're sort of going to take the pragmatic view, don't you think it's possible that the United States supports Ukraine financially, militarily enough for it to get an advantage in this war? I think they've already gotten advantage in the war. The fact that the war is still going on demonstrates the asymmetrical advantage. The fact that Russia has stepped up to the negotiating table with them several times, without just turning to Chechen, I mean, you remember what happened in Chechnya, without turning to Chechnya level, just mass blind destruction, which was another Putin war. To see that those things have happened demonstrates the asymmetric advantage that the West has given. I think the true way to look at the benefit of Ukraine as a shining example of freedom in Europe for the West isn't to understand whether or not they could, they absolutely could. It's the question of how valuable is that in Europe? How valuable is Ukraine? Which before February, nobody even thought about Ukraine, and the people who did know about Ukraine knew that it was an extremely corrupt former Soviet state, with 20% of its national population self-identifying as Russian. There's a reason Putin went into Ukraine. There's a reason he's been promising he would go into Ukraine for the better part of a decade, because the circumstances were aligned. It was a corrupt country that self-identified as Russian in many ways. It was supposed to be an easier of multiple marks in terms of the former Soviet satellite states to go after. That's all part of the miscalculation that the rest of the world saw too, when we thought it would fall quickly. So to think that it could be a shining example of freedom is accurate, but is it as shining a star as Germany? Is it as shining a star as the UK? Is it as shining a star as Romania? Is it as shining a star as France? It's got a lot of democratic, freedom-based countries in Europe to compete against to be the shining stellar example. In exchange, on counterpoint to that, it has an extreme amount of strategic value to Russia, which has no interest in making it a shining star of the example of democracy and freedom. Outside of resources, in terms of the shininess of the star, I would argue yes, if you look at how much it captivated the attention of the world. The attention of the world has made no material difference, man. That's what I'm saying. That's your estimation, but are you sure we can't... If you can convert that into political influence, into money, don't you think attention is money? Attention is money in democracies and capitalist countries. Yes. Which serves as a counterweight to sort of authoritarian regimes. So for Putin, resources matter. For the United States, also resources matter, but the attention and the belief of the people also matter, because that's how you attain and maintain political power. So going to that exact example, then I would highlight that our current administration has the lowest approval ratings of any president in history. So if people were very fond of the war going on in Ukraine, wouldn't that counterbalance some of our upset, some of the dissent coming from the economy and some of the dissent coming from the Great Recession or the second great resignation and whatever's happening with the draw, with the down stock market? You would think that people would feel like they're sacrificing for something if they really believed that Ukraine mattered, that they would stand next to the president who is so staunchly driving and leading the West against this conflict. Well, I think the opposition to this particular president, I personally believe has less to do with the policies and more to do with a lot of the other human factors. But again, empirically, I look at things through a very empirical lens, a very cold, fact-based lens, and there are multiple data points that suggest that the American people ideologically sympathize with Ukraine, but they really just want their gas prices to go down. They really just want to be able to pay less money at the grocery store for their food, and they most definitely don't want their sons and daughters to die in exchange for Ukrainian freedom. It does hurt me to see the politicization of this war as well. I think that maybe has to do with the kind of calculation you're referring to, but it seems like it doesn't. It seems like there's a cynical, whatever takes attention of the media for the moment, the red team chooses one side and the blue team chooses another. And then I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Democrats went into full support of Ukraine on the ideological side, and then I guess Republicans are saying, why are we wasting money? The gas prices are going up. That's a very crude kind of analysis, but they basically picked whatever argument on whatever side, and now more and more and more, this particular war in Ukraine is becoming a kind of pawn in the game of politics that's first the midterm elections, then building up towards the presidential elections, and stops being about the philosophical, the social, the geopolitical aspects, parameters of this war, and more about just like whatever the heck captivates Twitter, and we're going to use that for politics. You're right in the sense of the fact that it's, I wouldn't say that the red team and the blue team picked opposite sides on this. What I would say is that media discovered that talking about Ukraine wasn't as profitable as talking about something else. People simply, the American people who read media or who watch media, they simply became bored reading about news that didn't seem to be changing much. And we turned back into wanting to read about our own economy, and we wanted to hear more about cryptocurrency, and we wanted to hear more about the Kardashians, and that's what we care about. So that's what media writes about. That's how a capitalist market-driven world works, and that's how the United States works. That's why in both red papers and blue papers, red sources and blue sources, you don't see Ukraine being mentioned very much. If anything, I would say that your Republicans are probably more in support of what's happening in Ukraine right now because we're creating new weapons systems, our military is getting stronger, we're sending these military... We get to test military systems in combat in Ukraine. That's priceless in the world of the military industrial complex. Being able to field test, combat test a weapon without having to sacrifice your own people is incredibly valuable. You get all the data, you get all the performance metrics, but you don't have to put yourself at risk. That is one of the major benefits of what we're seeing from supporting Ukraine with weapons and with troops. The long-term benefit to what will come of this for the United States, practically speaking, in the lens of national security, through military readiness, through future economic benefits, those are super strong. The geopolitical fight is essentially moot because Ukraine is not a geopolitical player. It was not for 70 years, and after this conflict is over, it will not again. Just think about what you were just saying with the American people's attention span to Twitter and whatever's currently going on. If the Ukraine conflict resolved itself today in any direction, how many weeks do you think before no one talked about Ukraine anymore? Do you think we would make it two weeks? Do you think we'd make it maybe seven days? It would be headline news for one or two days, and then we'd be onto something else. It's just an unfortunate reality of how the world works in a capitalist democracy. Yeah. It just breaks my heart how much... I know that there's Yemen and Syria that nobody talks about anymore. Still raging conflicts going on. It just breaks my heart how much generational hatred is born. I happen to be from... My family is from Ukraine and from Russia, and so for me, just personally, it's a part of the world I care about in terms of its history. Because I speak the language, I can appreciate the beauty of the literature, the music, the art, the cultural history of the 20th century, through all the dark times, through all the hell of the dark sides of authoritarian regimes, the destruction of war, there is still just the beauty that I'm able to appreciate that I can't appreciate about China, Brazil, other countries because I don't speak their language. This one I can appreciate. In that way, this is personally really painful to me to see so much of that history, the beauty in that history, suffocated by the hatred that is born through this kind of geopolitical game fought mostly by the politicians, the leaders. People are beautiful, and that's what you're talking about. People are just... People are beautiful creatures. Culture and art and science, these are beautiful, beautiful things that come about because of human beings. And the thing that gives me hope is that no matter what conflict the world has seen, and we've seen some devastating, horrible crimes against humanity already. We saw nuclear bombs go off in Japan. We saw genocide happen in Rwanda. We've seen horrible things happen. But people persevere. Language, culture, art, science, they all persevere. They all shine through. Some of the most... People don't even realize how gorgeous the architecture and the culture is inside Iran. People have no idea. Chinese people in the rural parts of China are some of the kindest, most amazing people you'll ever meet. And Korean art and Korean dance, Korean drumming. I know nobody has ever even heard of Korean drumming. Korean drumming is this magical, beautiful thing. And the North, in North Korea, does it better than anybody in the world. Taekwondo in North Korea is just exceptional to watch. In North Korea? In North Korea. Nobody knows these things. How do you know about Taekwondo in North Korea? I have questions. But my... That's fascinating. People don't think about that, but the culture, the beauty of the people still flourishes even in the toughest of places. Absolutely. And we always will. We always will because that is what people do. And that is just the truth of it. And it breaks my heart to see travesties that people commit against people. But whether you're looking at a micro level, like what happens with shootings here in the United States, or whether you look at a macro level, like geopolitical power exchanges and intra and interstate conflicts, like what you see in Syria and what you see in Ukraine, those are disgusting, terrible things. War is a terrible thing. That is a famous quote. But people will persevere. People will come through. I hope so. I hope so. And I hope we don't do something that I'll probably also ask you about later on, is things that destroy the possibility of perseverance, which is things like nuclear war, things that can do such tremendous damage that we will never recover. But yeah, amidst your pragmatic pessimism, I think both you and I have a kind of maybe small flame of optimism in there about the perseverance of the human species in general. Let me ask you about intelligence agencies outside of the CIA. Can you illuminate what is the most powerful intelligence agency in the world? The CIA, the FSB, formerly the KGB, the MI6, Mossad. I've gotten a chance to interact with a lot of Israelis while in Ukraine. Just incredible people, in terms of both training and skill, just all on every front. American soldiers too, just American military is incredible. The competence and skill of the military, the United States, Israeli, I got to interact, and Ukrainian as well. It's striking. It's striking. It's beautiful. I just love people. I love carpenters or people that are just extremely good at their job and that take pride in their craftsmanship. It's beautiful to see. And I imagine the same kind of thing happens inside of intelligence agencies as well that we don't get to appreciate because of the secrecy. Same thing with Lockheed Martin. I interviewed the CTO of Lockheed Martin. It breaks my heart as a person who loves engineering because of the cover of secrecy. We'll never get to know some of the incredible engineering that happens inside of Lockheed Martin, Boeing. Boeing, Raytheon. Yeah. There's kind of this idea that these are, people have conspiracy theories and kind of assign evil to these companies in some part, but I think there's beautiful people inside of those companies, brilliant people, and some incredible science and engineering is happening there. Anyway, that said, the CIA, the FSB, the MI6, Mossad, China, I know very little about the- MSS, Ministry of State Security. I don't know how much you know. Or just other intelligence agencies in India, Pakistan, I've also heard- Yep. RAW is powerful and so is ISS or ISSI. And then of course, European nations and Germany and France. Yeah. So what can you say about the power, the influence of the different intelligence agencies within their nation and outside? Yeah. So to answer your question, your original question, which is the most powerful, I'm going to have to give you a few different answers. So the most powerful intelligence organization in the world in terms of reach is the Chinese MSS, the Ministry of State Security, because they have created a single solitary intelligence service that has global reach and is integrated with Chinese culture. So that essentially every Chinese person anywhere in the world is an informant to the MSS because that's their way of serving the middle kingdom, Zhongguo, the central kingdom, the Chinese word for China. So they're the strongest, the most powerful intelligence service in terms of reach. Most assets, most informants, most intelligence. So it's deeply integrated with the citizenry. Correct, with their culture. You know what a Chinese person who lives in Syria thinks of themself as? A Chinese person. Do you know what a Chinese person, a Chinese national living in the United States thinks of themself as? A Chinese person. Americans living abroad often think of ourselves as expats, expatriates, living on the local economy, embracing the local culture. That is not how Chinese people view traveling around the world. And by the way, if I may mention, I believe the way MSS operates is similar kind of thing because people from Israel living abroad still think of themselves as Jewish and Israeli. First. First. So that allows you to integrate the- Culture and yep, the faith-based aspects. Exactly right. But the number of people in Israel is much, much smaller. Exactly right. The number of people in China. So when it comes to reach, China wins that game. When it comes to professional capability, it's the CIA by far because budget-wise, capability-wise, weapon system-wise, modern technology-wise, CIA is the leader around the world, which is why every other intelligence organization out there wants to partner with CIA. They want to learn from CIA. They want to train with CIA. They want to partner on counter-narcotics and counter-drug and counter-terrorism and counter-Uyghur, you name it, people want to partner with CIA. So CIA is the most powerful in terms of capability and wealth. And then you've got the idea, you've got tech. So tech alone, meaning corporate espionage, economic espionage, nothing beats DGSE in France. They're the top. They've got a massive budget that almost goes exclusively to stealing foreign secrets. They're the biggest threat to the United States, even above Russia and above China. DGSE in France is a massively powerful intelligence organization, but they're so exclusively focused on a handful of types of intelligence collection that nobody even really thinks that they exist. And then in terms of just terrifying violence, you have Mossad. Mossad will do anything. Mossad has no qualms doing what it takes to ensure the survival of every Israeli citizen around the world. Most other countries will stop at some point, but Mossad doesn't do that. So it's the lines you're willing to cross. And the reasons that you're willing to cross them. You know, there's, CIA will let an American stay in jail in Russia unlawfully and seek a diplomatic solution. I mean, the United States has let people, there are two gentlemen from the 1950s who were imprisoned in China for 20 years waiting for diplomatic solutions to their release. So we do not kill to save a citizen, but Mossad will. And then they'll not just kill, they'll do large scale infiltration. They do amazing things. There is no, they spare no expense because it's a demonstration to their own people. Again, going back to the whole idea of influence, every intelligence operation that sees the light of day has two purposes. The first purpose is the intelligence operation. But if it was just the intelligence operation, it would stay secret forever. The second purpose of every successful intelligence operation, when they become public, it's to send a signal to the world. If you work against us, we will do this to you. If you work for us, we will take care of you in this way. It's a massive information campaign. Do you think in that way, CIA is not doing a good job? Because there's, you know, the FSB, perhaps much less so, Jerry, but the KGB did this well, which is to send a signal, like, basically communicate that this is a terrifying organization with a lot of power. So Mossad is doing a good job of that. Correct. So this is the psychological information warfare. And it seems like the CIA also has a lot of kind of myths about it, conspiracy theories about it, but much less so than the other agencies. CIA does a good job of playing to the mythos. So when General Petraeus used to be the director of CIA, 2000. And your workout partner. And my workout partner. I read about this. So I loved and hated those workouts with Petraeus because he is a physical beast. He's a strong fit at the time, 60-something year old man. Let me take a tangent on that because he's coming in this podcast. Oh, excellent, man. So can you say what you learned from the man in terms of, or like what you think is interesting and powerful and inspiring about the way he sees the world, or maybe what you learned in terms of how to get strong in the gym or anything about life. Yeah, two things right away. And one of them I was going to share with you anyway, so I'm glad that you asked the question. So the first is that on our runs, and man, he runs fast and we would go for six mile runs through Bangkok. And he talked openly about, I asked him, how do you keep this mystery, this epic mythology about your fitness and your strength, how do you keep all of this alive with the troops? And he had this amazing answer. And he was like, I don't talk about it. Myths are born not from somebody orchestrating the myth, but from the source of the myth simply being secretive. So he's like, I don't talk about, I've never talked about it. I've never exacerbated it. I just do what I do and I let the troops talk. And he's like, when it's in favor, when it goes in favor of discipline and loyalty and commitment, I let it run. If it starts getting destructive or damaging, then I have my leadership team step in to fix it. But when it comes to the mythos, the myth of him being superpowered soldier, that's what he wants every soldier to be. So he lets it run. And it was so enlightening when he told me, when there's a myth that benefits you, you just let it go. You let it happen because it gets you further without you doing any work. It costs no investment. So the catalyst of the virality of the myth is just being mysterious. And that's what CIA does well, to go back to your first question. What does CIA do? They don't answer any questions. They don't say anything. And wherever the myth goes, the myth goes, whether it's that they sold drugs or use child prostitutes or whatever else, wherever the myth goes, they let it go. Because at the end of the day, everybody sits back and says, wow, I really just don't know. Now, the second thing that I learned from Petraeus, and I really am a big fan of Petraeus. I know he made personal mistakes. You don't get to be that powerful without making personal mistakes. But when I worked out with him, the one thing that my commanding officer told me not to ask about, he was like, never ask the general about his family. I'm a family guy. So as soon as I met General Petraeus, one of the first things I asked him was, hey, what was it like raising a family and being the commander of forces in the Middle East? You weren't with your family very much. And the thing I love about the guy, he didn't bite off my head. He didn't snap at me. He didn't do anything. He openly admitted that he regretted some of the decisions that he made because he had to sacrifice his family to get there. Relationships with his children, absentee father, missing birthdays, missing, we all say, we all say how sad it is to miss birthdays and miss anniversaries, yada, yada, yada. Everybody knows what that feels like. Even business people know what that feels like. The actual pain that we're talking about is when you're not there to handle your 13 year old's questions when a boy breaks up with her, or when you're not there to handle the bloody lip that your nine-year-old comes back with from their first encounter with a bully. Those are the truly heartbreaking moments that a parent lives and dies by. He missed almost all of those because he was fighting a war that we forgot and we gave up on 20 years later. He's so honest about that. It was really inspiring to me to be told not to ask that question. When I broke that guidance, he didn't reprimand me. He was authentic. It was absolutely one of the big decisions that helped me leave CIA on my own in 2014. He was honest on the sacrifice you make. The same man, the same man who just taught me a lesson about letting a myth live, that same guy was willing to be so authentic about this personal mistake. I like complicated people like that. What do you make of that calculation of family versus job? You've given a lot of your life and passion to the CIA, to that work. You've spoken positively about that world, the good it does. Yet, you're also a family man. You value that. What's that calculation like? What's that trade-off like for you? For me, the calculation is very clear. It's family. I left CIA because I chose my family. When my son was born, my wife and I found out that we were pregnant while we were still on mission. We were a tandem couple. My wife is also a former CIA officer, undercover like me. We were operating together overseas. We got the positive pregnancy test, like so many people do. She cried. My wife was a badass. I was like the accidental spy, but my wife was really good at what she does. She cried and she was like, what do we do now? It's what we've always wanted, a child, but we're in this thing right now. There's no space for a child. Long story short, we had our baby. The CIA brought us back to have the baby. When we started having conversations about, hey, what do we do next? Because we're not the type of people to want to just sit around and be domestic. What do we do next? But keep in mind, we have a child now. Here's some of our suggestions. We could do this and we can do that. Let us get our child to a place where we can put him into an international school or we can get him into some sort of program where we can both operate together again during the day. But CIA just had no patience for that conversation. Family is not their priority. So the fact that we were a tandem couple, two officers, two operators trying to have a baby was irrelevant to them. When they didn't play with us, when they did nothing to help us prioritize parenthood as part of our overall experience, that's when we knew that they never would. What good is it to commit yourself to a career if the career is always going to challenge the thing that you value most? That was the calculation that we made to leave CIA. Not everybody makes that calculation. A big part of why I am so vocal about my time at CIA is because I am immensely appreciative of the men and women who to this day have failed marriages and poor relationships with their children because they chose national security. They chose protecting America over their own family. And they've done it even though it's made them abuse alcohol and abuse substances and they've gotten themselves, they've got permanent diseases and issues from living and working abroad. It's just insane the sacrifice that officers make to keep America free. And I'm not saying that I'm not one of those people, I chose family. You said that your wife misses it. Do you miss it? We both miss it. We miss it for different reasons. We miss it for similar reasons, I guess, but we miss it in different ways. The people at CIA are just amazing. They're everyday people like the guy in the gown next door, but so smart and so dedicated and so courageous about what they do and how they do it. I mean, the sacrifices they make are massive, more massive than the sacrifices I made. So I was always inspired and impressed by the people around me. So both my wife and I absolutely miss the people. My wife misses the work because you know everything. When you're inside, it's all, I mean, we had top secret, we had TSSCI clearances at the time. I had a Cat 6, Cat 12, which makes me nuclear cleared. My wife had other privy clearances that allowed her to look into areas that were specialized. But there wasn't a headline that went out that we couldn't fact check with a click of a few buttons. And she misses that because she loved that kind of knowledge. And now you're just one of us living in the cloud of mystery, not really knowing anything about what's going on. Exactly. But for me, I've always been the person that likes operating. And you know what you still get to do when you leave CIA? You still get to operate. Operating is just working with people. It's understanding how people think, predicting their actions, driving their direction of their thoughts, persuading them, winning negotiations. You still get to do that. You do that every day. And you can apply that in all kinds of domains. Well, let me ask you on that. You're a covert CIA intelligence officer for several years. Maybe can you tell me the story of how it all began? Were you recruited? And what did the job entail to the degree you can speak about it? Feel free to direct me if I'm getting too boring or if the... No, every aspect of this is super-expensive. So I was leaving the United States Air Force in 2007. I was a lieutenant, getting ready to pin on captain. My five years was up and I was a very bad fit for the US Air Force. I was an Air Force Academy graduate, not by choice, but by lack of opportunity, like a lack of options otherwise. So I forced myself through the academy, barely graduated with a 2.4 GPA. And then went on, the Air Force taught me how to fly. And then the Air Force taught me about nuclear weapons. And I ended up as a nuclear missile commander in Montana. And I chose to leave the Air Force because I didn't like shaving my face. I didn't like having short hair and I most definitely didn't like shining my shoes. And I did not want to be one of the people in charge of nuclear weapons. So when I found myself as a person in charge of 200 nuclear weapons, I knew that I was going down the wrong road. I have questions about this. And more importantly, I have questions about your hair. So you had short hair at the time? Yeah, you have to. Military regulations, you can't have hair longer than one inch. Okay. And this, the beautiful hair you have now, that came to be in the CIA or after? This, so I discovered I had messy hair in CIA because I used to go mouj, we called it mouj. I used to go Mujahideen style, big burly beard and crazy wacky hair. Because an ambiguously brown guy with a big beard and long hair can go anywhere in the world without anyone even noticing him. They either think that he's a janitor or they think that he's like some forgotten part of history, but nobody ever thinks that that guy is a spy. So it was the perfect, for me, it was one of my favorite disguises. It's what's known as a level two disguise. One of my favorite disguises to Don was just dilapidated brown guy. Can you actually, we'll just take a million tangents. What's the level two disguise? What are the different levels of disguise? What are the disguises? Yeah, there's three levels of disguise by and large. Level one is what we also know, what we also call light disguise. So that's essentially, you put on sunglasses and a ball cap and that's a disguise. You look different than you normally look. So it's just different enough that someone who's never seen you before, someone who literally has to see you just from a picture on the internet, they may not recognize you. That's why you see celebrities walk around with ball caps and oversized jackets and baseball hats, because they just need to not look like they look in the tabloid or not look like they look in TV. That's level one. Let me jump from level one to level three. Level three is all of your prosthetics, all the stuff you see in Mission Impossible, your fake ears, your fake faces, your fat suits, your stilts inside your feet, all that's level three. Whenever they make any kind of prosthetic disguise, that's a level three disguise, because prosthetics are very damning if you are caught with a prosthetic. If you're caught wearing a Sutton, wearing a baseball hat and sunglasses, nobody's going to say you're a spy. But when you're caught with a custom made nose prosthetic that changes the way your face looks, or when someone pops out a fake jaw and they see that your top teeth don't look like they did in this prosthetic, then all of a sudden you've got some very difficult questions to ask or to answer. So level three is extremely dangerous. Level one is not dangerous. Level two is long-term disguise. Level two is all the things that you can do to permanently change the way you look for a long period of time, so that whether you're aggressed in the street or whether someone breaks into your hotel room or whatever, it's real. So maybe you get a tattoo, maybe you cut your hair short, maybe you grow your hair long, maybe you go bald, maybe you start wearing glasses. Well, glasses are technically a prosthetic, but if you have teeth pulled, if you gain 20 pounds, really gain 20 pounds or lose 15 pounds, whatever you might do, all of that's considered level two. It's designed for a long-term mission so that people believe you are who you say you are in that disguise. A lot of that is physical characteristics. What about what actors do, which is the... Method acting. Yeah, the method acting, sort of developing a backstory in your own mind, and then you start pretending that you host a podcast and teach at a university and then do research and so on, just so that people can believe that you're not actually an agent. Is that part of the disguise levels or no? So yes, disguise has to do with physical character traits. That's what a disguise is. What you're talking about is known as a cover legend. When you go undercover, what you claim to be, who you claim to be, that's called your legend, your cover legend. Every disguise would theoretically have its own cover legend. Even if it's just to describe why you're wearing what you're wearing, it's all a cover. So the method acting, this is a fantastic point that I don't get to make very often, so I'm glad you asked. The difference between CIA officers in the field and method actors is that method actors try to become the character. They try to shed all vestiges of who they really are and become the character. And that's part of what makes them so amazing, but it's also part of what makes them mentally unstable over long periods of time. It's part of what feeds their depression, their anxiety, their personal issues, because they lose sight of who they really are. Field officers don't get that luxury. We have to always, always remember we are a covert CIA intelligence officer collecting secrets in the field. We have to remember that. So we're taught a very specific skill to compartmentalize our true self separately, but make that true self the true identity. So then we can still live and act and effectively carry out our cover legend without ever losing sight, without ever losing that compass true north of who we actually are. And then we can compartmentalize and secure all the information that we need, retain it, remember it, but then return to our true self when we get back to a position of safety. Is it possible to do that? So I just have kind of anecdotal evidence for myself. I really try to be the exact same person in all conditions, which makes it very easy. Like if you're not lying, it makes it very easy to, first of all, to exist, but also to communicate a kind of authenticity and a genuineness, which I think is really important. Like trust and integrity around trust is extremely important to me. It's the thing that opens doors and maintains relationships. And I tend to think like when I was in Ukraine, so many doors just opened to the very high security areas and everywhere else too. Like I've just interacted with some incredible people without any kind of concerns, you know, who's this guy? Is he gonna spread it? You know, all that kind of stuff. And I tend to believe that you're able to communicate a trustworthiness somehow if you just are who you are. And I think, I suppose method actors are trying to achieve that by trying to achieve that by becoming something. And they can, I just feel like there is very subtle cues that are extremely difficult to fake. Like you really have to become that person, be that person. But you're saying as a CIA agent, you have to remember that you are there to collect information. Do you think that gives you away? So one of the flaws in your argument is that you keep referring to how you feel. I feel this, I feel that, I feel like this, I feel like that. That feeling is a predictable character trait of all human beings. It's a pink matter, we call it pink matter. It's a cognitive trait. You are not alone in trusting your feelings. All people trust their feelings. But because what CIA teaches us is how to systematically create artificial relationships, where we're the one in control of the source that is giving us intelligence. And the core element to being able to control a relationship is understanding the pink matter truth of feelings. What all people feel becomes their point of view on what reality is. So when you understand and you learn how to manipulate what people feel, then you can essentially direct them to feel any way you want them to feel. So if you want them to feel like they can trust you, you can make them feel that way. If you want them to feel like you're a good guy or a bad guy, if you want them to feel like they should give you secrets, even though their government tells them not to, you can do that. There are men who make women feel like they love them, and just so that the woman will sleep with them. There are women who make men feel like they love them, just so the men will give them their money. Manipulation is a core behavioral trait of all the human species, because we all understand to some level how powerful feelings are. But feelings are not the same thing as logical, rational thought. They're two different sides of the brain. What CIA teaches us how to do is systematically tap into the right side, emotional side of the brain, so that we can quickly get past all of the stuff you were just saying. All of the, well, don't you have to be convincing and don't you have to really know your story and don't you have to be able to defend it? Don't you have to have authenticity and don't you have to have genuine feelings? Yes, all of those things are true if you're having a genuine relationship. But in an artificial relationship, there's ways to bypass all of that and get right to the heart of making someone feel comfortable and safe. I guess the question I'm asking, and the thing I was implying, is that creating an artificial relationship is an extremely difficult skill to accomplish the level, like, how good I am at being me and creating a feeling in another person that I create. For you to do that artificially, that's gotta be, you gotta be, my sense is you gotta be really damn good at that kind of thing. I would venture to say, I mean, I don't know how to measure how difficult the thing is, but especially when you're communicating with people whose job depends on forming trusting relationships, they're gonna smell bullshit. And to get past that bullshit detector is tough. It's a tough skill. Well, it's interesting. So I would say that... Or maybe I'm wrong, actually, on that. I would say that once you understand the system, it's not that hard. It makes a lot of sense. But I would also say that to your exact point, you are right that people smell bullshit. People smell bullshit. But here's the thing. If you come in smelling like goat shit, you still smell like shit, but you don't smell like bullshit. So they don't count you out right away. And if you come in smelling like rotten tomatoes, or if you come in smelling like lavender, or if you come in smelling like vanilla, or if you come in without any smell at all, all that matters is that you don't smell like bullshit. Here's the thing that's one of the secret sauces of CIA. When you look and act like a spy, people think you're a spy. If you look and act in any other way, you know what they never ever think you are? A spy. They might think you're an idiot. They might think you're trailer trash. They might think that you're a migrant worker, but they never think you're a spy. And that's what's, that lesson in everyday life is immensely powerful. If you're trying to take your boss's job, as long as you don't ever look like the employee who's trying to take the boss's job, the boss is focused on all the employees who are trying to take his job. Everybody's prioritizing whether they know it or not. The goal is to just not be the one that they're targeting. Target them without them knowing you're targeting them. So people just, when they meet you, they put you in a bin. And if you want to avoid being put in a particular bin, just don't act like the person that would be, just show some kind of characteristics that bin you in some other way. Exactly right. You have to be in a bin. Just choose the bin. All right. So you, knowing these methods, when you talk to people, especially in civilian life, how do you know who's lying to you and not? That gets to be more into the trained skill side of things. There's body cues, there's micro expressions. I'm not a big fan of, I don't believe that micro expressions alone do anything. I also don't believe that micro expressions without an effective baseline do anything. So don't for a second think that I'm, all the people out there pitching that you can tell if someone's lying to you just by looking at their face, it's all baloney. In my world, that's baloney. Like the way you move your eyes or something like that. Without knowing a baseline, without knowing for that individual, then you actually don't know. And an individual's baseline is based on education, culture, life experience, you name it, right? So this is huge. But when you combine facial expressions with body movements, body language, nonverbal cues, and you add on top of that effective elicitation techniques that you are in control of, now you have a more robust platform to tell if someone's lying to you. So there's like a set of interrogation trajectories you can go down that can help you figure out a person. Technically, they're interview concepts. Correct. Because an interrogation, an interrogation is something very different than an interview. And in the world of professionals, an interrogation is very different. What's the difference? The nature of how relaxed the thing is or what? So in an interrogation, there's a clear pattern of dominance. There's no equality. Also, there's no escape. You are there until the interrogator is done with you, right? Anybody who's ever been reprimanded by mom and dad knows what an interrogation feels like. Anybody who's ever been called into the principal's office or the boss's office, that's what interrogation feels like. You don't leave until the boss says you can leave. And you're there to say, to answer questions the boss asks questions. An interview is an equal exchange of ideas. You are in control of this interview for sure. But if we were having coffee, I could take control if I wanted to take control. If I wanted to ask you personal questions, I would. If I wanted to talk to you about your background, I could. Why am I in control of this interview exactly? Because the person in control is the person asking questions. Yeah. Always. I'm sitting here, as you've spoken about, my power here is I'm the quiet one listening. You're exactly right. Guess where this conversation goes? Yeah. Anywhere you choose to take it. Because you're the one asking questions. Every time I answer a question, I am creating a pattern of obedience to you, which subliminally, subconsciously, makes me that much more apt to answer your questions. Of course, you can always turn that and start asking me questions. But you're saying that there's, through conversation, you can call it interviewing, you can start to see cracks in the story of the person and the degree to which they exaggerate or lie or to see how much they could be trusted, that kind of stuff. What I'm saying is that through a conversation, you develop a baseline. Right. Like even just in the first part of our conversation, I've been able to create some baseline elements about you. You've been able to create baseline elements about me. Maybe they're just not front of mind. From those baselines, now we can push through more intentional questions to test whether or not the person is being truthful because they're operating within their baseline. Or if you are triggering sensitivities outside of their baseline, and then you can start to see their tells. That's fascinating. Yeah, baseline. Even the tells, right? The eye contact. You've probably already formed a baseline that I have trouble making eye contact. So if you ask me difficult questions and I'm not making eye contact, maybe that's not a good signal of me lying or whatever. Correct. Because I always have trouble making eye contact, stuff like that. That's really fascinating. The majority of your eye movement is to the right. Yeah. My, your right, my left. Yes. Right? Which is usually someone who's, if you ask micro expressionists, that's someone who's referencing fact. Yeah. That's not necessarily what's happening for you because you're pulling concepts out of the air. So it's also a place that you reference something other than fact. It's a place for you to find creativity. Yeah. So if I just thought that you were lying because you look up into the right, I would be wrong. That's so fascinating. And a lot of that has to do with like habits that are formed and all those kinds of things. Or maybe some right hand, left hand type of situation. Right eye dominance. Yeah, right eye dominance. Is gonna make you look to the right. Is this a science or an art? It's a bit of both. I would say that like all good art, art is taught from a foundation of skills. And those skills are played, are taught in a very structured manner. And then the way that you use the skills after that, that's more of the artistic grace. So I've always called espionage an art. Spying is an art. Being able to hack human beings is an art. But it's all based in a foundation of science. You still have to learn how to mix the color palette and use certain brushes. Do you think of that as a kind of the study of human psychology? Is that what a psychologist does or a psychiatrist? What from this process have you learned about human nature? Human nature, yeah. I mean, I suppose the answer to that could be a book. I'll save you that, yeah. But is there things that are surprising about human nature, surprising to us civilians that you could speak to? Yes. One thing is extremely surprising about human nature, which is funny because that's not the answer I would have said. So I'm glad that you clarified this specific question. The thing that's surprising about human nature is that human beings long in their soul. There's a painful longing to be with other people. And that's really surprising because we all want to pretend like we're strong. We all want to pretend like we're independent. We all want to pretend like we are the masters of our destiny. But what's truly consistent in all people is this longing to commune with others like us. My more practical answer about what I've learned to be the truth is that human nature is predictable. And that predictability is what gives people an incredible advantage over other people. But that's not the surprising piece. Even when CIA taught me that human nature is predictable, it just made sense. I was like, oh yeah, that makes sense. But what I never ever anticipated was no matter where I've been in the world, no matter who I've talked to, no matter what socioeconomic bracket is that longing, man, it hurts. Loneliness sucks. And togetherness feels good. Even if you're together with someone you know isn't the right person, it still feels better than being alone. I mean, that's such a deep truth you speak to. And I could talk about that for a long time. There is, I mean, through these conversations in general, whether it's being recorded or not, I hunger to discover in the other person that longing. You strip away the other things and then you share in the longing for that connection. And I particularly also detected that in people from all walks of life, including people that others might identify as evil or hard, as completely cold, it's there. It's there. They've hardened themselves in their search. And who knows what dark place their brain is in, their heart is in, but that longing is still there. Even if it's an ember, it's there. It's the reason why in World War I and World War II, enemy combatants still shared cigarettes on the front lines during periods of holidays or bad weather or whatever else because that human connection, man, it triumphs overall. See, that's in part of what I refer to when I say love, because I feel like if political leaders and people in conflict at the small scale and the large scale were able to tune into that longing, to seek in each other that basic longing for human connection, a lot of problems could be solved. But of course, it's difficult because it's a game of chicken because if you open yourself up to reveal that longing for connection with others, people can hurt you. Well, I would go a step farther and I would say that taking the connection away, punishing, penalizing people by removing the connection is a powerful tool. And that's what we see. That's why we send people to jail. That's why we put economic sanctions on countries. That's why we ground our children and send them to their rooms. We are penalizing them, whether we know it or not. We're using punitive damage by taking away that basic human connection, that longing for community. What was your recruitment process and training process and things you could speak to in the CIA? As I was leaving the Air Force, all that was on my mind, I don't know what you were like at 27, but I was a total dipshit at 27. I'm not much better now at 42, but- Yeah, you and me both. Take it till you make it. Yeah, but I just wanted to be anything other than a military officer. So I was actually in the process of applying to the Peace Corps through this thing called the internet, which was still fairly rudimentary in 2007. I had a computer lab that we went to and it had 10 computers in it. You had to log in and log out and slow internet and everything else. But anyways, I was filling out an online application to go work in the US Peace Corps. I wanted to grow my hair out. I wanted to stop wearing shoes that were shiny. I wanted to meet a hippie chick and have hippie babies in the wild teaching Nigerian children how to read. So that was the path I was going down. And as I filled in all of my details, there came this page that popped up and it was this blinking red page and it said, stop here. You may qualify for other government positions. If you're willing to put your application on hold for 72 hours, that gives us a chance to reach out to you. So again, 27 year old dipshit, I was like, sure, I'll put myself on hold if I might qualify for other government opportunities. And then about a day later, I got a phone call from an almost unlisted number. It just said 703, which was very strange to see on my flip phone at the time, just one 703 area code. And I picked it up and it was a person from Northern Virginia asking me if I would be telling me that I was qualified for a position in national security. And if I would be interested, they'll pay for my ticket and fly me up to Langley, Virginia. They didn't say CIA. They said Langley. I put one on one together and I was like, maybe this is CIA. Like, how cool is this? Or maybe this is all make-believe and this is totally fake. So either way, it doesn't hurt me at all to say yes, they already have my phone number. So yes, yes, yes. And then I remember thinking, there's no way that happened. And this isn't real. And then a day later, I got a FedEx or an overnight delivery of an airplane ticket and a hotel reservation and a rental car reservation. And then I just kept doing the next thing, which I found out later on is a form of control. You just do the next thing that they tell you to do. And then before I knew it, I was interviewing in a nondescript building with a person who only told me their first name for a position with the National Clandestine Service. So you never really got a chance to think about it because there's small steps along the way and it kind of just leads you. And maybe your personality is such that- That's an adventure. It's an adventure. And because it's one step at a time, you don't necessarily see the negative consequences of the adventure. You don't think about any of that. You're just stepping into the adventure. And it's easy. There's no work involved. Somebody else is doing all the work, telling me where to be and when. It's a lot like basic training in the military. Anybody who's ever been through basic training will tell you, they hated the first few days. And then by the end, it was really comforting because you just did what you were told. They told you when to eat, they made the decision of what to eat. And then you marched when they told you to march, shined your shoes when they told you to shine your shoes. Human beings love being told what to do. What about the training process for becoming a covert CIA agent? Yeah. So the interview process is- Yeah. The interview process too. How rigorous was that? It was very rigorous. That was where it became difficult. Everything up to the first interview was easy, but there's three interviews. And some people are lucky enough to have four or five interviews if something goes wrong or something goes awry with the first few interviews. And again, this might be dated from when I went through, but during the interview process is when they start, they do your psychological evaluations. They do personality assessments. They do skills assessments. They'll start sending you back to wherever you're living with assignments, not Intel assignments, but actual homework assignments. Write an essay about three parts of the world that you think will be most impacted in the next three to five years, or prioritize the top three strategic priorities for the United States and put it into 250 words or 2,500 words and whatever else double-spaced in this font, yada, yada, yada, like super specific stuff. It's kind of stressful, but it's just like going back to college again. So you go through all of those acts and then you submit this stuff to some PO box that doesn't have anybody that's ever going to respond to you. And then you hope, you just send it into the ether and you hope that you sent it right. You hope that you wrote well enough. You hope that your assessment was right, whatever else it might be. And then eventually you get another phone call that says, Hey, we received your package. You've been moved to the next level of interview. And now we need you to go to this other nondescript building in this other nondescript city. And then you start meeting, you start sitting in waiting rooms with other groups of people who are at the same phase of interview with you, which were some of the coolest experiences that I remember still. One of my best friends to this day, who I don't get to talk to because he's still undercover is a guy I met during those interview processes. And I was like, Oh, we met. I saw what he was wearing. He saw what I was wearing. I was brown. So you immediately connected and you liked the people there. Close. More like we immediately judge each other because we're all untrained. Right. So he looked at me and he was like, brown dude with crazy hair. And I was wearing, dude, I was dressed like a total ass. I was dressed in like a clubbing shirt. I don't know why I thought it'd be a good idea to go to a CIA interview in like a clubbing shirt with my buttons on button down to here. And he was like, yeah, you were really after we got in, he was like, yeah, dude, you were always really cool to talk to. But I was like, there's no way that idiot's getting in. And I remember looking at him and being like, dude, you were just another white guy in a black suit. They're not looking for you, but here you are. So it was just those kinds of things were so interesting because we were totally wrong about what CIA was looking for. Until you're in, you have no idea what they're looking for. And you're just shooting in the dark. Did they have you do like a lie detector test? Yes. It's called a polygraph. Polygraph. How effective, just interesting, our previous discussion, how effective are those? Polygraphs are really interesting. So one of the things that people don't understand about polygraphs is that polygraphs aren't meant to detect a lie. Like they're called a lie detector, but they're not actually meant to detect a lie. They're built to detect variance from your physiological baseline. So they're essentially meant to identify sensitivities to certain types of questions. And then as they identify a sensitivity to a question, it gives the interviewer an additional piece of information to direct the next round of questions. So then from there, they can kind of see how sensitive you are to a certain level of questions. And your sensitivity could be a sign of dishonesty, but it could also be a sign of vulnerability. So the interrogator themselves, the interviewer themselves, they're the one that have to make the judgment call as to which one it is, which is why you might see multiple interviewers over the course of multiple polygraphs. But that's really what they're all about. So I mean, outside of, they're extremely uncomfortable. They're mentally uncomfortable, but then there's also, you sit on a pad because the pad is supposed to be able to tell your body movements, but also your sphincter contractions or whatever. So you're sitting on this pad, you're plugged in, you're strapped in, you're tied up, and it takes so much time to get in there. And then they start asking you questions, baseline questions at first, and then other questions from there. And you're just answering the best you can. And you never know what they're seeing and you don't know what they're doing. And it's really hard not to get anxious of that anyways. And then- Are they the whole time monitoring the readings? Yeah, from like a big, they've got multiple screens and they've got just, it's all information superiority. They have information superiority. You're the idiot looking away from them or looking sideways of them and trying not to move because you're afraid that if you like have gas or if you move a little bit, it's going to vary you from your baseline. And the whole time you're worried, your heart's racing and your blood pressure is increasing, which is a variance from baseline. So yeah, I mean, it's an interesting art. Or your baseline. Correct. Maybe there's some people that are just chilling the whole time and that's their baseline. Right, right. But that's what they're doing. They're establishing a baseline. I mean, I guess that means the polygraph is a skill that you develop to do it well. Absolutely. So when people talk about beating a lie detector, it's not that they're telling an effective lie. That's not hard. It's not hard to tell a lie to an interviewer. And the interviewer doesn't care if you're being honest or not honest about a topic. What they're looking for is sensitivity. If they see no sensitivity, that's a big sign for them. That's a big sign that you're probably a pathological liar. If you show sensitivity to many things, then that's a sign that you're probably an anxious person. And they can still reset their baseline because they can tell how your anxiety is increasing in 15 minute increments. It's a unique skill. I mean, a really good polygrapher is immensely valuable. But yeah, it's the misnomers, the misconceptions about polygraphs are vast. You also mentioned personality tests. That's really interesting. So how effective are personality tests? One for the hiring process, but also for understanding a human being? Personality is extremely important for understanding a human being. And I would say that there's a thousand different ways of looking at personality. The only one that I count with any significance is the MBTI. And the MBTI is what all the leading spy agencies around the world use as well. Well, that's kind of interesting to hear. There's been criticisms of that kind of test. There have been criticisms for a long time. Yeah. And you think there's value. Absolutely. Absolutely. And there's a few reasons why, right? So first, MBTI makes the claim that your core personality doesn't change over time. And that's how it's calibrated. And one of the big arguments is that people say that your personality can change over time. Now, in my experience, the MBTI is exactly correct. Your core personality does not change because your core personality is defined as your personality when all resources are removed. So essentially, your emergency mode, your dire conditions, that is your core personality. We can all act a little more extroverted. We can all be a little more empathetic when we have tons of time and money and patience. When you strip away all that time, money and patience, how empathetic are you? How much do you like being around other people? How much do you like being alone? Do you make judgments or do you analyze information? That's what's so powerful about MBTI. It's talking about what people are like when you strip away resources. And then, because it's so consistent, it's also only four codes. It's super easy to be able to assess a human being through a dialogue, through a series of conversations, to be able to hone in with high accuracy what is there for code, four-letter code. There's only 16 options, and it becomes extremely valuable. Is it perfectly precise? And does everybody do it the same? I mean, those things are, the answers to those are no. But is it operationally useful in a short period of time? That is a resoundingly powerful yes. Yeah, I only know, I think, the first letter. It's introvert and extrovert, right? I've taken the test before, just like a crude version of the test, and that's the same problem you have with IQ tests. There's the right thorough way of doing it, and then there's like fun internet way. And do you mind sharing what your personality... Yeah, my type index? I'm an ENTP. That's an extrovert, intuitor, perceiver, thinker. ENT, thinker, P, perceiver. My wife is an ISFJ, which is the polar opposite of me. I'm extroverted, she's introverted. I'm an intuitor, she's a sensor. I'm a thinker, she's a feeler. I'm a perceiver, she's a judger. Is there good science on long-term successful relationships in terms of the dynamics of that, the 16? I wonder if there's good data on this. I don't think there's a lot of good data in personalities writ large, because there's not a lot of money to be made in personality testing. But I would say that there's that with experience, with a good MBTI test, with a good paid test, a 400, 500 question test, once you understand your own code, and then you're taught how to assess the code of others, with those two things kind of combined, because then you have experience and learning, it becomes very useful and you can have high confidence in the conclusions that you reach about people's professions, about people's relationships with family, about people's relationships professionally, people's capabilities to deal with stress, how people will perform when pushed outside of their comfort zones. Really powerful, useful stuff in corporate world and in the espionage world. So in terms of compressed representation of another human being, you can't do much better than those four letters. I don't believe you can do much better. In my experience, I have not seen anything better. Yeah, it is kind of, it's difficult to realize that there is a core personality, or to the degree that's true, it seems to be true. It's even more difficult to realize that there is a stable, at least the science says so, a stable, consistent intelligence, unfortunately, you know, the G factor that they call. That if you do a barrage of IQ tests, that's going to consistently represent that G factor. And we're all born with that, we can't fix it. Yeah. And that defines so much of who we are. It's sad. I don't see it as sad because it's, for me, the faster you learn it, the faster you learn what your own sort of natural strengths and weaknesses are, the faster you get to stop wasting time on things that you're never gonna be good at, and you get to double down on the things that you're already naturally skilled or interested in. So there's always a silver lining to a cloud. But I know now that I will never be a ballerina or a ballerino. I know that I'll never be an artist, I'll never be a musician, I'll never be any of those things. And when I was 18, that might have made me sad. But now at 42, I'm like, well, shit, awesome. I can go be something else good instead of always being bad. Why do you think you're not gonna be a ballerina? Because I'm not graceful. And you've learned this through years. Yeah, exactly. Well, I don't know if there's an MBTI equivalent for grace of movement. I think it's called S-sensor. Oh. Yeah, because a sensor is someone who's able to interact with the world around them through their five senses very effectively. Like if you talk to dancers, dancers can actually feel the grace in all of their muscles. They know what position their finger is in. I don't have any idea. I don't know what position my feet are in right now. I'd have to look to make sure I actually feel the floor right. Yeah, I definitely have. Oh, that's good to know. So I don't, you know, I'm not a dancer, but I do have that. You're a musician, man. Like, to be able to pluck a guitar. Yeah, that's true, that there is that physical component. But I think deeper, because there's a technical aspect to that that's just like, it's less about feel. But I do know jujitsu, you know, and grappling, I've done all my life. I don't, you know, there's some people who are clumsy and they drop stuff all the time, they run into stuff. I don't, first of all, I don't know how that happens. But to me, I just have an awareness of stuff. Like, if there's a little- Spiritual orientation. Yeah, like, I know that there's a small object I have to step over, and I have a good sense of that. It's so interesting. Yeah, you're just like born with that or something. My wife is brilliant. And she still walks into doors. Yeah. I mean, she'll walk in a doorway, she'll bang her knee on the same wall that's been there for the last 50 years. It's for some reason really hilarious. That's good for me. You've been asked, I think, on Reddit, are there big secrets that you know that could land you and our country in terrible trouble if it came out to the public? And you answered, yes, I wish I could forget them. So let me ask you just about secrecy in general. Are these secrets or just other secrets, ones that the public will never know? Or will it come out in 10, 20, 50 years? I guess the deeper question is, what is the value of secrecy and transparency? The standard classification for all human intelligence operations is something called 2, 5, X, 2, 25 by 2. So 50 years, 25 years times two years, or times two rounds. So, in essence, anything that I've seen has the first chance of becoming public domain, declassified, after 50 years, unless there's some congressional requirement for it to be reviewed and assessed earlier. So by then, I'll be 80 something years old or potentially dead, which is either way, that's when it can come out according to its typical classification. The value of secrets, I have seen, is that secrets create space. Secrets give opportunity for security, they give opportunity for thinking, they give space. And space is an incredibly advantageous thing to have. If you know something somebody else doesn't know, even if it's just 15 or 20 minutes different, you can direct, you can change the course of fate. So I find secrets to be extremely valuable, extremely useful. Even at the place where secrets are being kept from a large mass, part of what all Americans need to understand is that one of the trade-offs to building a system of government that allows us to be first world and wealthy and secure and successful, one of the trade-offs is that we have given up a great deal of personal freedom. And one of the personal freedoms that we give up is the freedom of knowing what we want to know. You get to know what the government tells you, you get to know what you need to know or what you've learned yourself, but you don't get to know secrets. People who do get to know secrets know them for a reason. That's why it's called a need to know. LBW How difficult is it to maintain secrecy? JS It's surprisingly difficult as technology changes. It's also surprisingly difficult as our culture becomes one where people want notoriety, people want to be the person who breaks the secret. 25 years ago, 40 years ago, that wasn't the case. There was a time in the United States where if someone gave you a secret, it was a point of personal honor not to share the secret. Now we're in a place where if someone tells you a secret, that could turn into a Twitter post that gets you a bunch of thumbs up and a bunch of likes or whatever else. LBW An opportunity. JS Right. So the value of secrets has changed. And now there's almost a greater value on exposing secrets than there is on keeping secrets. That makes it difficult to keep secrets, especially when technology is going in the same direction. LBW Yeah, where is the line? And by the way, I'm one of those old school people with the secrets. I think it's a karma thing. Again, back to the trust. I think in the short term, you can benefit by sharing a secret. But in the long term, if people know they can trust you, like the juicy of the secret, it's a test of sorts. If they know you can keep that secret, that means you're somebody that can be trusted. And I believe that not just effectiveness in this life, but happiness in this life is in forming a circle of people you can trust. JS Right. We're taught that secrets and lies are similar in that they have a limited shelf life. If you treat them like food, secrets and lies have a very limited shelf life. So if you cash in on them while they're still fresh, you beat them before they spoil. You get to take advantage of them before they spoil. However, trust has no limit to its shelf life. So it's almost like you're trading a short term victory and losing a long term victory. It's always better to keep the secret. It's always better to let the lie live because it will eventually come to light from somebody else, not from you, because it already has a limited shelf life. But what you win in exchange for not being the one that cashed in on the secret is immense trust. AC Let me ask you about lying and trust and so on. So I don't believe I've been contacted by or interacted with the CIA, the MI6, the FSB, Mossad, or any other intelligence agency. I'm kind of offended. But would I know if I was? So from your perspective? JS No, you would not know if you were. For sure you've been on their radar. Absolutely, you've got a file. You've got a dossier somewhere. AC Why would I be on their radar? Who's interesting? JS It's not necessarily that you are interesting to someone as a foreign asset or an intelligence collection source, but your network is extremely interesting. AC The network's important. JS Correct. If someone was able to clone your phone and you were able to clone their phone, every time you cross a border, you go through some sort of security. If you've ever been pulled into secondary and separated from your bag, that's exactly when and how people clone computers. They clone phones. They make whatever, photocopies of your old school planner, whatever it might be. But for sure, you are an intelligence target. It just may be that you're not suitable to be a person who reports foreign intelligence. We've got to understand that all people are potential sources of valuable information to the national security infrastructure of our host country and any country that we visit. Someone like you, with your public footprint, with your notoriety, with your educational background, with your national identifications, becomes a viable and valuable target of information. AC Yeah, so to speak to that, I take security pretty seriously, but not to the degree that it runs my life, which I'm very careful about. JS That's good. I'm glad to hear that. AC So the moment you start to think about germs, like you start to freak out and you become sort of paralyzed by the stress of it. So you have to balance those two things. If you think about all the things that could hurt you in this world and all the risk you could take, it can overwhelm your life. That said, the cyber world is a weird world, because it doesn't have the same... I know not to cross the street without looking each way, because there's a physical intuition about it. I'm not sure... I'm a computer science guy, so I have some intuition, but it's... The cyber world, it's really hard to build up an intuition what is safe and not. I've seen a lot of people just logging out of your devices all the time, like regularly. Just like that physical access step, a lot of people don't take. I can just walk in into the offices of a lot of CEOs, and it's like everything's wide open for physical access of those systems, which is kind of incredible for somebody... This sounds really shady, but it's not. I've written key loggers, like things that record everything you type in the mouse you move. I did that for... During my PhD, I was recording everything you do on your device and everything you do on your computer. People sign up to the study, they willingly do this to understand behavior. I was trying to use machine learning to identify who you are based on different biometric and behavioral things, which allows me to study human behavior and to see which is uniquely identifiable. The goal there was to remove the need for a password. But how easy it is to write a thing that logs everything you type, I was like, wait a minute. I can probably get a lot of people in the world to run this for me. I can then get all of their passwords. I mean, you could do so much. I can run the entirety of the CIA for just myself if I was... And I imagine there's a lot of really good hackers like that out there, much better than me. So I tried to prevent myself from being all the different low-hanging fruit attack vectors in my life. I try to make it difficult to be that, but then I'm also aware that there's probably people that are like five steps ahead. You're doing the right thing. What I always advocate is the low-hanging fruit is what keeps you from being a target of opportunity. Because you're half-assed hackers, you're lazy hackers, you're unskilled hackers. They're looking for low-hanging fruit. They're looking for the person who gets the Nigeria email about how you could be getting $5 million if you just give me your bank account. Exactly. That's what they're looking for. And the thing that's scary is that if you're not a target of opportunity, if you become an intentional target, then there's almost nothing you can do. Because once you become an intentional target, then your security apparatus, they will create a dedicated, customized way vector of attacking your specific security apparatus. Because security is always after, right? There's the leading advantage and the trailing advantage. When it comes to attacks, the leader always has the advantage because they have to create the attack before anybody else can create a way to protect against the attack. So the attack always comes first. And that means they always have the advantage. You are always stuck just leaning on, this is the best security that I know of. Meanwhile, there's always somebody who can create a way of attacking the best security out there. And once they win, they have a monopoly. They have all that time until a new defensive countermeasure is deployed. Yeah, I tend to think exactly as you said, that the long-hanging fruit protects against crimes of opportunity. And then I assume that people can just hack in if they really want. Think about how much anxiety we would be able to solve if everybody just accepted that. Well, there's several things you do. First of all, to be honest, it just makes me, it keeps me honest not to be a douchebag or like not, yeah, to assume everything could be public. And so don't trade in information that could hurt people if it was made public. So I try to do that. And the thing I try to make sure is I like Home Alone style, try to- A booby trap. I really would like to know if I was hacked. And so I try to assume that I will be hacked and detect it. Have a tripwire of some sort. Yeah, a tripwire is through everything. And not paranoid tripwire, just like open door. But I think that's probably the future of life on this earth is you're going, like everybody of interest is going to be hacked. That hopefully inspires, now this is outside of company. There's, these are individuals. I mean, there's, of course, if you're actually operating, like I'm just a, who am I? I'm just a scientist person, podcasting person. So if I was actually running a company or was an integral part of some kind of military operation, then you have to probably have to have an entire team that's now doing that battle of like being, trying to be ahead of like the best hackers in the world that are attacking. But that requires a team that like full-time is their focus. And then you still get in trouble. Correct. Yeah. So what I've seen as the norm, well, what I've seen as the cutting edge is the cutting edge standard for corporations and the ultra wealthy and even intelligence organizations is that we have tripwires. It's better if you can't prevent from being hacked. The next best thing is to know as soon as you get hacked, because then you can essentially terminate all the information. If you know it fast enough, you can just destroy the information. This is what the ultra wealthy do. They have multiple phones. So as soon as one phone gets hacked, the tripwire goes off. The operating system is totally deleted along with all data on the phone. And a second phone is turned on with a whole new separate set of metadata. And now they, for them, there's no break in service. It's just, oh, this phone went black. It's got a warning on it that says it was hacked. So trash it because they don't care about the price of the phone, pick up the next phone and we move on. That's the best thing that you can do, essentially, outside of trying to out hack the hackers. And then even in your intelligence and military worlds where cyber warfare is active, the people who are aggressing are not trying to create aggression that beats security. They're trying to find aggressive techniques, offensive techniques that have no security built around them yet, because it's too cost and time intensive to protect against what you know is coming. It's so much more efficient and cost effective to go after new vectors. So it just becomes like, it becomes almost a silly game of your neighbor gets a guard dog. So you get a bigger guard dog. And then your neighbor gets a fence. So you're just constantly outdoing each other. It's called the security paradigm. People just, they just one up each other because it's never worth it to just get to the same level. You're always trying to outdo each other. Yeah. And then maybe like banks have to fight that fight, but not, not everybody can. Right. Yeah, no. So you're saying I operated at the state of the art with the tripwires. This is good to know. Absolutely, man. And also just not, not using anybody else's services, doing the, doing the everything myself. So that's harder to figure out what the heck this person is doing. Because if I'm using somebody else's service, like I did with QNAP. I have a QNAP NAS I used for cold storage of unimportant things, but a large videos. And I don't know if you know, but QNAP is a company that does NAS storage devices and they got hacked. And everybody that didn't update as of a week ago, from the point of the zero day hack, everybody got hacked. It's several thousands of machines. And they asked, you can get your data back if you pay, I forget what it was, but it was, it was about a couple thousand dollars. And QNAP can get all the data back for their customers if they pay, I think $2 million. But that came from me relying on the systems of others for security. I was, I assumed this company would have their security handled, but then that was a very valuable lesson to me. I now have like layers of security and also an understanding which data is really important, which is somewhat important, which is not that important and layering that all together. So just so you know, the US government, the military woke up to that exact same thing about two years ago. It's still very new. I mean, they were sourcing, take night vision goggles, for example. They were sourcing components and engineering and blueprints for night vision goggles from three, four, five different subcontractors all over the country, but they never asked themselves what the security status was of those subcontractors. So, fast forward a few years and all of a sudden they start getting faulty components. They start having night vision goggles that don't work. They start having supply chain issues where they have to change their provider and the army doesn't know that the provider is changing. I mean, this is a strategy. The idea of going through third-party systems is identifying the vulnerability in the supply chain. That's a savvy offensive practice for more than just cyber hackers. Let me ask you about physical hacking. So I'm now like I'm an introvert, so I'm paranoid about all social interaction, but how much truth is there? It's kind of a funny question. How suspicious should I be when I'm traveling in Ukraine or different parts of the world when an attractive female walks up to me and shows any kind of attention? Is that like this kind of James Bond spy movie stuff or is that kind of stuff used by intelligence agencies? I don't think it's used. It's absolutely used. It's called sexpionage. That's the term that we jokingly call it is sexpionage. But yeah, the art of attraction, appeal, the manifestation of feelings through sexual manipulation, all of that is a super powerful tool. The Chinese use it extremely well. The Russians use it extremely well. In the United States, we actively train our officers not to use it because in the end, it leads to complications in how you professionally run a case. So we train our officers not to use it. However, you can't control what other people think. So if you're an attractive male or an attractive female officer and you're trying to talk to an older general who just happens to be gay or happens to be straight and is attracted to you, of course, they're going to be that much more willing to talk to an American who is also attractive. So it's hard to walk that back. Well, it's an attractive in all definitions. So it could be all elements of charisma. So attractiveness in a dynamic sense of the word. So it's visual attractiveness, but the smile, the humor, the wit, the flirting, all that kind of stuff that could be used to the art of conversation. There's also elements of sexuality that people underestimate. So physical sexuality, physical attraction is the most obvious one. It's the one that everybody talks about and thinks about. But then there's also sapiosexuality, which is being sexually attracted to thoughts, to intelligence. And then you got all the various varieties of personal preferences. Some people like people of a certain color skin, or they like big noses, they like small noses, they like big butts, they like small butts, they like tall guys, they like bald guys, whatever it might be. You can't ever predict what someone's preference is. Sexual arousal preferences are going to be. So then you end up walking into a situation where then you discover, just imagine, imagine being an unattractive, overweight, married guy, and you're walking into an asset or a target meeting with a middle-aged female who is also not very attractive and also married. But then it turns out that that person is a sapiosexual and gets extremely turned on by intelligent conversation. That's exactly what you're there to do. Your mission is to have intelligent conversation with this person to find out if they have access to secrets. And by virtue of you carrying out your mission, they become extremely aroused and attracted to you. That is a very complicated situation. It's hard to know who to trust. How do you know your wife, or how does your wife know that you're not a double agent from Russia? There's a large element of experience and time that goes into that. She's also trained. And I think my wife and I also have the benefit of being recruited young and together where. So over time you can start to figure out things that are very difficult to. So you form the baseline, you start to understand the person, it becomes very difficult to lie. The most difficult thing in the world is consistency. It's the most difficult thing in the world. Some people say that discipline or self-discipline, what they're really talking about is consistency. When you have someone who performs consistently over long periods of time, under various levels of stress, you have high, high confidence that that is the person that you can trust. You can trust, again, you can trust them to behave within a certain pattern. You can trust an asshole to be an asshole without trusting the asshole to take care of your kids. Right? So I don't ever want to mix up the idea of personal trust versus trusting the outcome. You can always trust a person to operate within their pattern of behavior. It just takes time for you to get a consistent, to get consistent feedback as to what that baseline is for them. Lyle Troxell To form a good model, predictive model of what their behavior is going to be like. Jim Collison Right. And you know, what's fascinating is I think the challenge is building that model quickly. So technology is one of those tools that will be able in the future to very quickly create a model of behavior because technology can pull in multiple data points in a very short period of time that the human brain simply can't pull in at the same period, at the same space, at the same speed. Lyle Troxell That's actually what I did my PhD on. That's what I did at Google, is forming a good representation, unique representation across the entire world based on the behavior of the person. The specific task there is so that you don't have to type in the password. The idea was to replace the password. But it also allows you to actually study human behavior and to think, all right, what is the unique representation of a person? How, because we have very specific patterns and a lot of humans are very similar in those patterns. What are the unique identifiers within those patterns of behavior? And I think that's from a psychology perspective, a super fascinating question. And from a machine learning perspective, it's something that you can, as the systems get better and better and better, and as we get more and more digital data about each individual, you start to get, you start to be able to do that kind of thing effectively. Paul Anderson When I think of the fact that you could create a dossier on somebody in a matter of 24 or 48 hours, if you could wire them for two days, right? Internet of Things style, you put it in their underwear or whatever, right? Some chip that just reads everything. How heavy are they walking? How much time do they sleep? How many times do they open the refrigerator? When they log into their computer, how do they do it? Which hand do they use when they log in? What's their most common swipe? What's their most visited website? You could collect an enormous amount of normative data in a short period of time where otherwise we're stuck the way that we do it now. Once or twice a week, we go out for a coffee for two hours. And two hours at a time over the course of six, eight weeks, 12 weeks, you're coming up with a 50% assessment on how you think this person is going to behave. Just that time savings is immense. Lex Donnell Something you've also spoken about is private intelligence and the power and the reach and the scale and the importance of private intelligence versus government intelligence. Can you elaborate on the role of what is private intelligence and what's the role of private intelligence in the scope of all the intelligence that is gathered and used in the United States? David Tenenbaum Yeah, absolutely. It's something that so few people know about. And it became a more mainstream topic with the Trump administration, because Trump made it no secret that he was going to hire private intelligence organizations to run his intelligence operations and fund them. So that really brought it to the mainstream. But going all the way back to 9-11, going all the way back to 2001, when the 9-11 attacks happened, there was a commission that was formed to determine the reasons that 9-11 happened. And among the lists that they determined, of course, they found out that the intelligence community wasn't coordinating well with each other. There were fiefdoms and there was infighting and there wasn't good intel sharing. But more than that, they identified that we were operating at Cold War levels, even though we were living in a time when terrorism was the new biggest threat to national security. So the big recommendation coming out of the 9-11 commission was that the intelligence organizations, the intelligence community, significantly increased the presence of intelligence operators overseas and in terms of analytical capacity here in the United States. When they made that decision, it completely destroyed, it totally was incongruent with the existing hiring process. Because the existing hiring process for CIA or NSA is a six to nine month process. The only way they could plus up their sizes fast enough was to bypass their own hiring and instead go direct to private organizations. So naturally, the government contracted with the companies that they already had secure contracts with, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Kaki, you name it. And then over time from 2001 to now, or that started really in 2004 when they started significantly increasing the presence of private intelligence officers. From then until now, it's become a budgetary thing, it's become a continuity of operations thing. And now the reason Northern Virginia has become one of the wealthiest zip codes in America is because of the incredible concentration of private intelligence that is supporting CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, and all the slew of IC partners. Lex Dellinger By the way, does Palantir play a role in this? Aaron Powell Palantir is one of those organizations that was trying to pitch their product to an intelligence community. And they were trying to pitch their product to an intelligence community because they have, it's a fantastic product on paper. But the challenge was the proprietary services, the proprietary systems that we current, that we used in CIA prior to Palantir, continued to outperform Palantir. So just like any other business decision, if you've got homegrown systems that outperform external systems, then it's not worth it to share the internal information. Lex Dellinger Got it. So what, the close connection between Peter Thiel and Donald Trump, did that have a role to play in Donald Trump's leveraging of private intelligence, or is that completely disjoint? Aaron Powell I think that they're related, but only circumstantially. Because remember, Donald Trump wasn't really investing in CIA. So the last thing he wanted to do was spend his network, WASTA, WASTA is a term that we call influence, it's an Arabic term for influence. Trump didn't want to use his WASTA putting Thiel into CIA, only to lose Thiel's contract as soon as Trump left office. So instead it was more valuable to put Peter Thiel's tool to use in private intelligence. And then of course, I think he nominated Peter Thiel to be his Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State. At some point in time, he tried to present like presidentially appoint Peter Thiel into a position of government authority. Lex Dellinger What do you think of figures like Peter Thiel? Do they wield, and I'm sure there's figures of similar scale and reach and power in private intelligence. What do you think about their role and power in this whole, like without public accountability that you would think directors of CIA perhaps have? Aaron Powell So this is where private intelligence has both a strength and a weakness. The ultimate law overriding, that's overseeing private intelligence is not government legislation. It's the law of economics. If they produce a superior product, then they will have a buyer. If they do not produce a superior product, they will not have a buyer. And that's a very simple business principle. Whereas in the current national security infrastructure, you can create a crap product, but the taxpayer dollars are always going to be spent. So it's really thrown things for a loop, especially during the Trump administration. And this is one of the things that I will always say I liked about the Trump administration. It put a big blazing bright light on all of the flaws within our system. One of those flaws being this executive power over the intelligence organizations and the lack of accountability for intelligence organizations to produce a superior product. When that light got shown down, that's when you also saw Trump start to go after, if you remember, there was a period where he was taking security clearances away from retiring officers. That became a big hot issue. That became something that people were very opposed to when they didn't realize that that process of taking security clearances away, that incentivized seasoned senior officers to stay in service. Because with private intelligence paying a premium during the Trump administration, because Trump was paying a premium to the private intelligence world, when senior officers found that it was more profitable to retire early, keep their clearance and go work for Raytheon, Trump saw that as bypassing service to the American people. You've made a career in CIA, you've made a career in NSA, you should stay there. If you leave, you lose your clearance because you no longer have a need to know. He upset the apple cart with that. Unfortunately, the narrative that came out in many ways was a negative narrative against Trump when in fact, he was actually doing quite a service to the American people trying to take away the incentive of senior officials leaving their service in order to just profiteer in the private intelligence world. So in that way, he was kind of supporting the CIA in making sure that competent people and experienced people stay in say, are incentivized to stay there. Correct. I think that there was definitely, he understood incentives. I mean, Donald Trump understands incentives. So he was trying to incentivize them to stay, but I think he was also playing a safety card because he didn't want former CIA officials who were not listening to him to then move into private intel organizations that he may be hiring only to then have them undermine him from both sides of the coin. So there was a little bit of offensive calculation in there as well. But do the dynamics and the incentives of economics that you referred to that the private intelligence operates under, is that more or less ethical than the forces that maybe government agencies operate under? Like, what's your intuition? Is capitalism lead, so you mentioned it leads to maximizations of efficiency and performance, but is that correlated with ethical behavior when we're talking about such hairy activities like collection of intelligence? The question of ethics is a great question. So let me start this whole thing out by saying CIA hires people on a spectrum of our ability to be morally flexible, ethically flexible. All people at their heart are ethically flexible. I would never punch somebody in the face. Some people out there would say, I would never hurt another human being. But as soon as a human being posed a direct threat to their daughter or their son or their mother, now all of a sudden they're going to change their ethical stance in self-defense. But at the end of the day, it's still hurting another person. So what CIA looks for is people who are able to swing across that spectrum for lesser offenses, more flexibility. I do not believe that private intelligence and the laws of economics lend themselves to increased ethics or increased ethical behavior in the short term. But what ends up happening is that in the longterm, in order to scale economic benefits, you are forced to act within norms of your customer base. So as the norms of that customer base dictate certain requirements, the company has to adapt to those requirements in order to continue to scale. So if a company tries to ostracize LGBTQ, or if they try to ostracize men or ostracize women, they're limiting their ability to grow economically. They have to adapt to whatever is the prevailing ethical requirement of their customer base. That's such an interesting question, because you look at big pharma and pharmaceutical companies, and they have quite a poor reputation in the public eye. And some of it, maybe much of it is deserved, at least historically speaking. And so you start to wonder, well, can intelligence agencies use some of the same technique to manipulate the public, like what they believe about those agencies, in order to maximize profit as well? Sort of finding shortcuts or unethical paths that allow you to not be ultimately responsible to the customer. Absolutely. And I would go a step further to say that the covert nature of intelligence operations is really attractive when it comes to the private sector, because now they have all the same money with none of the oversight, and all they have to do is deliver. So without the oversight, what's holding you back? And for anybody who's ever run a business, anybody who's ever started a startup or tried to make something succeed, we all know that there come those times where you have to skirt the boundaries of propriety or morality or commitments or promises to other people, because at the end of the day, if your business fails, it's on you. So if you promise to deliver something to a client, you've got to deliver it to the client, even if that means you stay up late, or if you lie on your taxes, whatever it might be, there's a certain level of do or die. Yeah, I personally have a sort of optimistic view that ultimately the best way is to stay within the ethical bounds, kind of like what you suggested. If you want to be a company that's extremely successful, is win with competence, not with cheating, because cheating won't, I believe, win in the long term. But in terms of being publicly responsible to your decisions, I mean, I've already been supposed to talk to Peter Thiel twice on this podcast, and it's just been complicated. If I were to put myself into his shoes, why do podcasts? The risk is too high to be a public person at all. And so I totally understand that. At the same time, I think if you're doing things by the book, and you're the best in the world at your job, then you have nothing to worry about. And you can advertise that, and you recruit, you help recruit. I mean, that's the work of capitalism, is you want to advertise that this is the place where the best people in the world at this thing work. True. I think that your point of view is accurate. I would also say that the complexities of what makes somebody make a decision can only really be properly calculated with a baseline. So because there is no baseline that you or I have on Peter Thiel, it's difficult to really ascertain why he does or doesn't accept invites, or why he does or doesn't appear. Well, let me ask your opinion on the NSA, and then maybe we can mention about bulk collection in general in the CIA. But let's look at some history with the NSA and Snowden. What's your opinion on the mass surveillance that is reported to have been conducted by the NSA? We've talked about ethics. Are you troubled by the, from a public perception, the unethical nature of mass surveillance of especially American citizens? This is a topic that I never get tired of talking about, but it's very rare that anyone ever really agrees with me, just so you know. I see where you're... Well, I think there's a nuanced thing here. Maybe we'll find some agreement. The truth is that the American experience after 9-11 is nothing like the American experience now. So all the terminology, all the talk about privacy and privacy laws and mass surveillance and all this other stuff, it was a completely different time then. And that's not to say it was an excuse, because to this day I will still say mass collection, bulk collection of data that allows for an expedient identification of a threat to national security benefits all of us. But people don't understand what they want. People don't understand what the value of their own privacy is. First of all, the fact that people think they have personal privacy is laughable. You have no privacy. The cell phone that you carry in your pocket, you're giving permission to those apps constantly. You're giving commercial organizations what you and I have already said are less tied to ethical responsibility. You're giving them permission to collect enormous amounts of private data from you all the time. And do you know what happens if AT&T or Verizon sees some nefarious activity on your account? They do nothing. They might send a note to FBI because they have to, according to some checklist. But when NSA was collecting intelligence on metadata from around the United States, they were very specifically looking for terrorist threats that would harm American lives. I don't, man, NSA can clone my phone. I will give them my children's phone. I will give them the passwords to every one of my accounts. If it means that there's a likelihood that my family will be safer from a nefarious actor who's intent on hurting us. NSA doesn't care about your affair. NSA doesn't care if you're cheating on your taxes. NSA doesn't care if you talk shit about your boss or if you hate the US president. Nobody cares about that. Your intelligence community is there to find threats to national security. That's what they're there to do. What Snowden did when he outed that whole program, the fact that the court, the justice system, the civilian justice system went back and essentially overruled the ruling of the intelligence courts before them just goes to show how the general mass community really shouldn't have a say in what happens in the intelligence community. They really shouldn't. You have politicians and you have the opportunity to elect people to a position and then you trust them. That's what a representative republic is. You vote the people in, you trust them to work on your behalf, they make decisions without running them by you. They make decisions that they believe are in the best interest of their constituency and that's how our form of democracy works. It worked. We were safer. Now that we don't have that information and now that there's this giant looming question of whether or not NSA is there to serve people or is collecting mass surveillance against all American people, that's not really a true accurate representation of what they were ever doing. They were looking for the needle in a haystack of the series of transactions in metadata that was going to lead to American deaths. We are now less secure because they can't do that and that bothers me. So you said a few really interesting things there. So because you are kind of an insider, were for a time an insider, meaning you were able to build up an intuition about the good, the bad, and the ugly of these institutions. Specifically the good, a lot of people don't have a good sense of the good. They know the bad and the ugly, or can infer the bad and the ugly. You mentioned that the one little key little thing there at the end saying the NSA doesn't care about whether you hate the president or not. Now that's what people really worry about is they're not sure they can trust the government to not go into full dictatorial mode. And based on your political preference, your oppositions, basically one of the essential powers, the freedom of speech in the United States is the ability to criticize your government. And that, they worry, well, can't the government get a hold of the NSA and start to ask the basic question, well, can you give me a list of people that are criticizing the government? Think about, so let's just walk through that exact example, right? Because this is, it's a preponderance, it's a preponderance fear. It's a ridiculous fear because you would have to tap on multiple elements of government for anything to happen. So for example, let's just say that somebody goes to the NSA and says, hey, can you give us a readout on all the people who are tweeting terrible things about the president? Okay, cool. Here's your hundred million people, whatever it is, right? Here's all the people saying negative things about the government. So now they have a list. What do they do next? Well, let's just make it simple. They stay with NSA and they say, surveil them even more, tap their phones, tap their computers. I want to know even more. So then they get this preponderance of evidence. What do you do with evidence? You take it to a court. Well, guess what no court is going to support? Anything that goes against the freedom of speech. So the court is not going to support what the executive is asking them to do. Even before you take somebody to court, you have to involve law enforcement. Essentially, you have to send some sort of police force to go apprehend the individual who's in question. Well, guess what doesn't meet criteria for any police force anywhere in the United States? Arresting people who have, who have to say negative things about the president. Now, if somebody poses a threat to the life of a public figure or the threat to life of a politician, that's a completely different case, which means the standards of evidence are much higher for them to arrest that person. So unless you create a secret police force, then your actual public police force is never going to take action. So all these people who are afraid of this, this exact situation that you're outlining, they need the creation of a secret police force, the creation of a secret court that operates outside the judicial system, the creation of a secret intelligence service that operates outside of foreign intelligence collection, all so that a handful of people who don't like the president get what? Whisked away, assassinated, put in prison, who knows what? Think about the resources that would be, the amount of money and time and how hard would it be to keep that secret, to have all of those things in motion. The reason it worked in Russia and Soviet Germany or Russia and communist Germany was because everybody knew there was a secret police. Everybody knew that like, that there was a threat to work, to speaking out against the government. It's completely different here. Well, so there's a lot to say. So one is yes, if I was a dictator and I wanted to, and just looking at history, let me take myself out of it. But I think one of the more effective ways is you don't need the surveillance. You can pick out a random person and in a public display, semi-public display, basically put them in jail for opposing the government, whether they oppose it or not. And the fear, that sends a message to a lot of people. That's exactly what you see happening in China. That's what you just laid out. It's genius. And that is the standard. You don't need the surveillance for that. Yep. But that said, if you did do the surveillance, so that's the support, the incentives aren't aligned. It seems like a lot of work to do for the thing you could do without the surveillance. Right. But, you know, yes, the courts wouldn't, if you were to be able to get a list of people, which I think that part you could do. Correct. That oppose the government, you could do that, just like you said on Twitter publicly, you could make a list. And with that, you can start to, especially if you have a lot of data on those people, find ways in which they did violate the law, not because they oppose the government, but because in some other way, the parking tickets or didn't pay the taxes, that's probably a common one, or like screwed up something about the taxes. I just happen to know Russia and Ukraine, they're very good at this kind of stuff, knowing how the citizens screwed everything up, because especially in those countries, everybody's breaking the law, because in a corrupt nation, you have to bend the law to operate. To survive. Like, the number of people that pay taxes fully in those nations is just very low, not zero. And so they then use that breaking of the law to come up with an excuse to actually put you in jail based on that. You know, so it's possible to imagine. But yes, I think that's the ugly part of surveillance. But I do think, just like you said, the incentives aren't correct. Like, you really don't need to get all of the secret police and all of these kinds of organizations working. If you do have a charismatic, powerful leader that built up a network that's able to control a lot of organizations to a level of authoritarianism in a government, they're just able to do the usual thing. One, have propaganda machine to tell narratives, two, pick out people that they can put in jail for opposing the state, and maybe loud members of the press start silencing the press. There's a playbook to this thing, and it doesn't require the surveillance. The surveillance, you know what is useful for the surveillance is the thing you mentioned in China, which is encourage everybody in the citizenry to watch each other, to say there's enemies of the state everywhere. And then you start having children reporting on their parents and that kind of stuff. Again, don't need a surveillance state for that. Now, the good of a surveillance system, if it's operating within ethical bounds, is that yes, it could protect the populace. So you're saying like the good, given on your understanding of these institutions, the good outweighs the bad. Absolutely. So let me give you just a practical example. So people don't realize this, but there's multiple surveillance states that are out there. There are surveillance states that are close allies with the United States. One of those surveillance states is the United Arab Emirates, the UAE. Now I lived in the UAE from 2019 to 2020, came back on a repatriation flight after COVID broke out, but we were there for a full year. We were residents, we had IDs, we had everything. Now, when you get your national ID in the Emirates, you get a chip and that chip connects you to everything. It connects you to cameras, it connects you to your license plate on your car, to your passport, to your credit card, everything. Everything is intertwined. Everything is interlinked. When you drive, there are no police. There are no police on the roads. Every 50 to a hundred meters, you cross a camera that reads your license plate, measures your speed, and if you're breaking the speed limit, it just immediately charges your credit card because it's tied. It's all tied together. Totally surveillance. That technology was invented by the Israelis who use it in Israel. When I was in Abu Dhabi and I was rear-ended at high speed by what turned out to be an Emirati official, a senior ranking official of one of the Emirates, it was caught on camera. His ID was registered. My ID was registered. Everything was tied back to our IDs. The proof and the evidence was crystal clear. Even still, he was Emirati. I was not. So when I went to the police station to file the complaint, it was something that nobody was comfortable with because generally speaking, Emiratis don't accept legal claims against their own from foreigners. But the difference was that I was an American and I was there on a contract supporting the Emirati government. So I had these different variances, right? Long story short, in the end, the surveillance state is what made sure that justice was played because the proof was incontrovertible. There was so much evidence collected because of the surveillance nature of their state. Now, why do they have a surveillance state? It's not for people like me. It's because they're constantly afraid of extremist terrorist activity happening inside Abu Dhabi or inside the UAE because they're under constant threat from Islam or from extremists and they're under constant threat from Iran. So that's what drives the people to want a police state, to want a surveillance state. For them, their survival is paramount and they need the surveillance to have that survival. For us, we haven't tasted that level of desperation and fear yet or hopefully never, but that's what makes us feel like there's something wrong with surveillance. Surveillance is all about the purpose. It's all about the intent. Well, and like you said, companies do a significant amount of surveillance to provide us with services that we take for granted. For example, just one of the things to give props to the digital efforts of the Zelensky administration in Ukraine. I don't know if you're aware, but they have this digital transformation efforts where you can put, there's an, it's laughable to say in the United States, but they actually did a really good job of having a government app that has your passport on it. It's all the digital information. You can get a doctor. It's like everything that you would think America would be doing, you know, like license, like all that kind of stuff, it's in an app. You could pay each other, there's payment to each other and that's all coming. I mean, there's probably contractors somehow connected to the whole thing, but that's like under the flag of government. And so that's an incredible technology. And I didn't, I guess, hear anybody talk about surveillance in that context, even though it is, but they all love it. And it's super easy. And they, frankly, already, it's so easy and convenient. They've already taken for granted that, of course, this is what you do. Of course, your passport is on your phone. Yeah. For everybody to have housed in a server that you have no idea where it's at. That could be hacked at any time by a third party. They don't ask these kinds of questions because it's so convenient as we do for Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, products we use. Security and convenience are on two opposite sides of another spectrum. Yeah. The more convenient something is, the less secure. And the more secure something is, the less convenient. And that's a battle that we're always working with as individuals. And then we're trying to outsource that battle to our politicians. And our politicians are, frankly, just more interested in being politicians. Yeah. That said, I mean, people are really worried about giving any one institution a large amount of power, especially when it's a federal government institution, given some history. First of all, just history of the corruption of power, corrupting individuals and institutions. And second of all, myth or reality of certain institutions like the CIA misbehaving. Well, let me actually ask you about the Edward Snowden. So you, outside of the utility that you're arguing for of the NSA surveillance program, do you think Edward Snowden is a criminal or a hero? In terms, in the eyes of the law, he's a criminal. He broke the law, he broke the confidence, he made us, he was under security obligation. And then when he ran away, he ran away to all of the worst villains in the world from the US perspective to basically seek protection. That's how you act in the face of accusation is in essence, part of the case that you build for yourself. So running away to China, Russia, Cuba, there was a Latin Ecuador, I think, that just paints a very negative picture that does not suggest that you were doing anything that was ethical and upright and in favor of the American people, if you're going to run to American enemies to support yourself. So for sure, in the eyes of the law, he's a criminal. In the eyes of a group of people who are largely ignorant to what they lost, to them, he's a hero. To me, he's just kind of a sad case. I personally look at Snowden as a sad, unfortunate case. His life is ruined. His family name is tarnished. He's forever going to be a desperate pawn. And that's all because of the decisions that he made and the order that he made them. I'm not sure his name is tarnished. I think the case you're making is a difficult case to make. And so I think his name represents fighting one man. It's like Tiananmen Square standing before the tank. It's like one man fighting the government. And I think that there is some aspect to which, taking that case aside, that is the American spirit, which is hold the powerful accountable. So whenever there's somebody in power, one individual can change. One man can make a difference? Can make a difference, yeah. Very Knight Rider of you. I mean, that's the American individualism. And so he represents that. And I think there's a huge skepticism against large federal institutions. And I think if you look at the long arc of history, that actually is a forcing function for the institutions to behave their best. So basically hold them accountable. What's nice about this is that we can agree to disagree, and history will be the one that decides. There's a reason that Edward Snowden needs to do something new every 16 or 18 months to remain relevant, right? Because if he didn't, he would just be forgotten. Because he was not a maverick who changed history for the better. He was a man who broke a law, and now he's on the run. And to some people, he is a hero. To other people, he is a criminal. But to the vast majority, he's just a blip on a radar of their everyday life that really makes no difference to them at all. So actually, let's linger on that. So just to clarify, do you think, are you making the difficult case that the NSA mass surveillance program was one, ethical, and two, made a better world for Americans? I am making the case that at the time, it was exactly what we needed to feel safe in our own homes. But what about to be safe, actually be safe? So this is what's difficult, because any proof that they collected that actually prevented an attack from happening is proof we'll never know about. This is the really unfortunate side of intelligence operations. And I've been at the front end of this. You work your ass off. You take personal risk. You make personal sacrifice to make sure that something terrible doesn't happen. Nobody knows that that ever happens. Does that have to be that way? Does it have to remain secret every time the NSA or the CIA saves the lives of Americans? It does. For two reasons it has to be secret. First, the mythos. The same thing we were talking about with General Petraeus. You can't brag about your victories if you want to let the myth shape itself. You can't do that. The second thing is, once a victory is claimed, the danger comes from letting your enemy know that you claimed the victory, because they can reverse engineer and they can start to change how they did things. If a terrorist act, if a terrorist cell tries to execute an operation, the operation fails. From their point of view, they don't know why it failed. They just know that it failed. But then if the US or if the American government comes in and says, we took apart this amazing attack, now they have more information. The whole power of secrets, like we talked about before, the power of secrets is in knowing that not everybody has them. There's only a shelf life. So take advantage of the shelf life. You get space. So you got to keep it a secret. There is no tactical advantage from sharing a secret unless you are specifically trying to achieve a certain tactical advantage from sharing that secret, which is what we've seen so much of with US intel sharing with Ukraine. There's a tactical advantage from sharing a secret about Russian military movements or weaknesses in tanks or supply chain challenges, whatever it might be. Well, let me argue that there might be an advantage to share information with the American public when a terrorist attack is averted or the lives of Americans are saved, because what that does is make every American think that they're not that safe. There is no tactical advantage there. You think so? Absolutely. What about- How would- if the Austin PD started telling you every day about these crazy crimes that they prevented, would that make you feel more safe? It would make you feel like they're doing their job. Is that obvious to you? It would make us feel less safe? Because if we see competence, that there is that there is extremely competent defenders of this territory, of these people, wouldn't that make us feel more safe or no? The human nature is not to assign competence. So, empirically, humans overvalue losses and undervalue gains. That's something that we've seen from finance to betting and beyond. If the Austin Police Department starts telling you about all these heinous crimes that they- that were avoided because of their hard work, the way that your brain is actually going to process that information is you are going to say, if this is all the stuff that they've stopped, how bad must this place be? How much more haven't they stopped? I take your point. It's a powerful psychological point. But I- looking at the other picture of it, looking at the police force, looking at the CIA, the NSA, those people- now with the police, they're seen- there's such a negative feeling amongst Americans towards these institutions. Who the hell wants to work for the CIA now and the police force? Like, that's- you're gonna be criticized. Like, that's a- I mean, that's really bad for the CIA. It's terrible. Like, as opposed to being seen as a hero. Like, for example, currently, soldiers are, for the most part, seen as heroes that are protecting this nation. That's not the case for the CIA. Soldiers weren't seen as heroes in the Vietnam War, right? You've got to remember that when you- so, first of all, public service is a sacrifice. We oftentimes forget that. We start to think, oh, government jobs are cushy and they're easy and it must be so easy to be the president because then you're basically a celebrity overnight. Public service is a sacrifice. It's a grind. For all of the soldiers, the sub-mariners, the missileers, the police officers, intelligence specialists, they all know what it's like to give things up, to serve a public that can turn its opinion at any given time. And history is what defines it. The more important thing is to understand that if you want a true, open, and fair democracy, you cannot control a narrative. And starting to share all of your victories, or starting to share your biggest victories, with the intent of shaping public opinion to be supportive of, the police force are supportive of, CIA are supportive of, you name it, is shaping a narrative. That is intentional operational use of influence to drive public opinion. That is something nobody wants to get into. It is much more professional to be a silent sentinel, a silent servant, humbly carrying the burden of public service in the United States where we are a fair and open democracy. Why? Why not celebrate the killing of bin Laden? We did. The search, discovery, and the capture, and the killing of bin Laden. Wasn't that, actually the details of that, how much of the details of that, how he was discovered, were made public? I think some of it was made public enough. Why not do that? Doesn't that make heroes out of the people that are our servants? Do people who serve, to do service for this nation, do they always have to operate in a thankless manner in the shadows? I think that's a very good question. The folks who I left behind when I left CIA, who continue to serve as faceless, nameless heroes every day, I am grateful to them. The truth is that if they were motivated by something else, they wouldn't be as good as they are at doing what they do. I see your point about, shouldn't we be celebrating our victories? But when celebrating our victories runs the risk of informing our enemies how we operate, giving away our informational advantage, giving away our tactical battlefield advantage, and running the risk of shaping a narrative intentionally among our own American people, now all of a sudden we're turning into exactly the thing that the American people trust us not to become. Yeah, but then you operate in the secrecy, and then there's corrupt and douchebag people everywhere. So when they, even inside the CIA, the CIA and criminals inside the CIA, there's criminals in all organizations, in all walks of life, human nature is such that this is always the case, then it breeds conspiracy theories. It does. And sometimes those conspiracy theories turn out to be true, but most times they don't. That's just part of the risk of being a myth. Can you speak to some of the myths? So MKUltra. Yeah. Not a myth. Not a myth. So this is a fascinating human experimentation program undertaken by the CIA to develop procedures for using drugs like LSD to interrogate people through, let's say, psychological manipulation and maybe even torture. The scale of the program is perhaps not known. How do you make sense that this program existed? Again, you've got to look through the lens of time. You've got to look at where we were historically at that time. There was the peak of the Cold War. Our enemies were doing the same kind of experimentation. It was essentially another space race. What if they broke through a new weapon technology faster than we did? What would that mean for the safety and security of the American people? So right decision or wrong decision, it was guided by and informed by national security priorities. So from this program that was designed to use drugs to drive interrogation and torture people was born something very productive, Operation Stargate, which was a chance to use remote viewing and metaphysics to try to collect intelligence. Now, even though in the end the outcome of MKUltra and the outcome of Stargate were mixed, nobody really knows if they did or didn't do what they were supposed to do, we still know that to this day there's still a demand in the US government and in CIA for people who have sensitivities to ethereal energies. By the way, is there any proof that that kind of stuff works? It just shows that there's interest. It shows that there's openness to consider those kinds of things, but is there any evidence that that kind of stuff works? If there's evidence, I haven't seen it. Speaking from a science-based point of view only, if energy and matter can always be exchanged, then a person who can understand and become sensitive to energy is a person who could become sensitive to what does become matter. Yeah. I mean, the basics of the physics might be there, but a lot of people probably are skeptical. I'm skeptical too, but I'm just trying to remain- But you should be open-minded, right? I mean, that's actually, you know, that's what science is about, is remain open-minded even for the things that are long shots, because those are the things that actually define scientific revolutions. What about Operation Northwoods? It was a proposed 1962 false flag operation by the DOD and the CIA to be carried out by the CIA to commit acts of terrorism on Americans and blame them on Cuba. So JFK, the president, rejected the proposal. What do you make that this was on the table, Operation Northwoods? So it's interesting. First, I'm glad that JFK rejected it. That's a good sign. So we have to understand that good ideas are oftentimes born from bad ideas. I had a really good friend of mine who actually went on to become a pastor, and he used to say all the time that he wanted all the bad ideas on the table. Like, give me all your bad ideas, every time we had any kind of conversation. And I was always one of those people who's like, isn't a bad idea just a waste of time? And he was like, no, because the best ideas oftentimes come from bad ideas. So again, Cuban Missile Crisis, mass hysteria in the United States about nuclear war from Cuba, missiles blowing up American cities faster than we could even see them coming. It makes sense to me that a president would go to, especially the part of CIA, which is the Special Activities Division. It makes perfect sense to me that the president would go to a division called Special Activities, whose job it is to create crazy ideas that have presidential approval, but nobody knows they exist. So it makes sense that he would challenge a group like that to come up with any wacky idea, right? Come up with anything. Just let's start with something because we can't bring nothing to the table. We have to do something about this Cuban issue. And then that's how an operation like that could reasonably be born. Not because anybody wants to do it, but because they were tasked by the president to come up with five ideas. And it was one of the ideas. That still happens to this day. The president will still come in, but it'll basically send out a notice to his covert action arm. And he will say, I need this. And I need it on Wednesday. And people have to come back with options for the thing he asked for a finding. He will issue a presidential finding. And then his covert action arms have to come back and say, here's how we would do this and hide the hands of the Americans. How gangster was it of JFK to reject it though? It was baller, right? That's like, that is the, that is a mic drop right there. Nope, not doing that. Yep. Doing that. You know, a thing that crosses an ethical line, even in a, in a time where the human, the entirety of human civilization hangs in a balance, still forfeit that power. That's, that's a beautiful thing about the American experiment. That's a few times throughout the history that's happened, including with our first president, George Washington. Well, let me ask about JFK. 25 times two, and they still keep that stuff classified. So do you think the CIA had a hand in the assassination of JFK? I cannot imagine in any reasonable point of view that the organization of CIA had anything to do with the assassination of JFK. So it's not a possible to infiltrate the CIA, a small part of the CIA in order to attain political or criminal gains. I think... Or financial. Yeah, absolutely. It's possible to infiltrate CIA. There's a long history of, of foreign intelligence services infiltrating CIA from Holder games to Jerry Lee recently with China. So we know CIA can be infiltrated, even if they are infiltrated. And even if that's interlocutor executes on their own agenda or their, the agenda as directed by their foreign adversary, their foreign handler, that's different than organizational support for an event. So I do think it's possible they could have been infiltrated at the time, especially it was a massive, a major priority for the Cubans and the Russians to infiltrate some aspect of, of a US intelligence. Multiple moles were caught in the years following. So it's, it's not surprising that there would be a priority for that. But to say that the organization of CIA was somehow in cahoots with, to independently assassinate their own executive, that's a significant stretch. I've seen no evidence to support that. And it goes contrary to everything I learned from my time at CIA. Uh, well, let me ask you, do you think CIA played a part in enabling drug cartels and drug trafficking, which is another big kind of, um, shadow that hangs over the CIA? At the beginning of the drug war, I would imagine the answer is yes. We, CIA has its own counter-narcotics division, a division that's dedicated to fighting and preventing narcotics from coming into the United States. So when you, when you paint a picture for me, like, do you think the CIA was complicit in, in helping drug trafficking or drug use? When I say yes, my exception is I don't think they did that for Americans inside the United States. If the CIA can basically set it up so that two different drug cartels shoot each other by assisting in the transaction of, of, uh, a sale to a third country and then leaking that that sale happened to a competing cartel, that's just letting cartels do what they do. That's them doing the dirty work for us. So, especially at the beginning of the drug war, I think there was tons of space, lots of room for CIA to get involved in the economics of drugs and then let the inevitable happen. And that was way more efficient, way more productive than, than, than productive than us trying to send our own troops in to kill a bunch of cartel warlords. So that makes a ton of sense to me. It just seems efficient. It seems very practical. I do not believe that CIA would like, I don't think all the accusations out there about how they would buy drugs and sell drugs and somehow make money on the side from it. That's not how it works. So do you think there's a, on that point, a connection between Barry Seal, uh, the great governor and then president Bill Clinton, Oliver North and vice president, former CIA director George H.W. Bush and a little town with a little airport called Mena, Arkansas? So I am out of my element now. This is, this is one I haven't heard many details about. Okay. So your, your sense is any of the drug, drug trafficking has to do with criminal operations outside of the United States and the CIA just leveraging that to achieve its ends, but nothing to do with American citizens and American politicians. With American citizens, again, speaking organizationally. So that, that would be my sense. Yes. Let me ask you about, uh, so back to Operation Northwoods, because it's such a powerful powerful tool, sadly powerful tool used by dictators throughout history, the false flag operation. Um, so I think there's, and you said the terrorist attacks in 9-11 were, it changed a lot for us, for, for, for the, for the United States, for Americans, it changed the way we see the world to woke us up to the harshness of the world. I think there's, uh, to my eyes, at least there's nothing that shows evidence that 9-11 was a quote inside job, but is the CIA or the intelligence agencies or the U S government capable of something like that? But that's the question. So I, there, you know, there's a bunch of shadieness about how it was reported on. I just can't, I, that's the thing I struggle with. Um, while there's no evidence that there was an inside job, it raises the question to me, well, could something like this be an inside job? Cause it sure as heck now looking back 20 years, the amount of money that was spent on these wars, the military industrial complex, the MIT, the amount of interest in terms of power and money involved, um, organizationally can, um, can something like that happen? You know, Occam's razor. So the Haram's razor is that you can never prescribe to conspiracy. What could be explained through incompetence, right? That is one of those are two, two fundamental guidelines that we follow all the time, right? The simplest answer is oftentimes the best and never prescribed to conspiracy. What can be explained through incompetence? Can you, can you elaborate what you mean by we? We as, as, as intelligence professionals. So you think there's a deep truth to that, uh, that second razor? There is more than a deep truth. There is, there's ages of experience for me and for others. So in general, people are incompetent if left to their own means they, they're, they're more incompetent than are, than they are malevolent at a large organizational scale. People are more incompetent of executing a conspiracy than they are of competently. Yeah. Then they are of competently executing a conspiracy. That's really what it means is that it's so difficult to carry out a complex lie that most people don't have the competency to do it. So it doesn't make any sense to lead thinking of conspiracy. It makes more sense to lead assuming incompetence. When you look at all of the outcomes, all the findings from 9 11, it speaks to incompetence. It speaks brashly and openly to incompetence and nobody likes talking about it. FBI and CIA to this day, hate hearing about it. The 9 11 commission is going to go down in history as this painful example of the incompetence of the American intelligence, intelligence, intelligence community. And it's going to come back again and again. Every time there's an Intel flap, it's going to come back again and again. What are you seeing even right now? We miss, we miss the U S intelligence infrastructure, misjudged Afghanistan, misjudged Hong Kong, misjudged Ukraine's and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Those were three massive misjudgments in a few years. It's just embarrassing. It's just embarrassing. Exactly right. So all the sort of cover up looking things around 9 11 is just people being embarrassed by their failures. If, if they're taking steps to cover anything up, it's just their own. It's a, it's a painful reminder of their lack of competency at the time. Now I understand that conspiracy theorists want to take inklings of information and put them together in a way that, that is the most damning, but that goes back to our point about overvaluing losses and undervaluing gains. It's just predictable human behavior. Let me ask you about this because it comes up often. Uh, so I'm from MIT and there's a guy by the name of Jeffrey Epstein that still troubles me to this day that some of the people I respect were, um, interacted with this individual and fell into his, um, influence, charm, charisma, whatever the, whatever the hell he used to, uh, dilute these people. He did so successfully. I'm very open-minded about this thing. I just, I would love to learn more, but a lot of people tell me, a lot of people I respect that there's intelligence agencies behind this individual. So they were using Jeffrey Epstein for, uh, for getting access to powerful people and then to control and manipulate those powerful people. Uh, the CIA, I believe is not brought up as often as Mossad. Uh, and so this goes back to the original aspect of our conversation is how much each individual intelligence agencies is willing to go to control, to manipulate, to achieve its, uh, means. Do you think there is, can you educate me if, um, obviously you don't know, but you can bet what are the chances the intelligence agencies are involved with the character of Jeffrey Epstein? In some way, shape or form with the character of Epstein, it's a hundred percent guaranteed that some intelligence organization was involved, but let's, let's talk about why. Let's talk about why. Okay. There's multiple types of intelligence assets. Just like we were talking earlier, there's foreign intelligence reporting assets, there's access agents, and then there's agents of influence. Three different categories of, of intelligence, right? One is a, when you talk about foreign intelligence reporters, these are people who have access to secrets and their job is to give you their secrets in exchange for gold or money or alcohol or prostitution or whatever else, right? Their job is to give you secrets and then you pay them for the secrets. Access agents, their job is to give you physical access or digital access to something of interest to you. So maybe they're the ones that open a door that should have been locked and let you come in and stick your thumb drive in the computer. Or maybe they're the ones that, that share a phone number with somebody and then you're, they're just like, just don't tell him you got the phone number from me. Their job is to give you access. Then you have these agents of influence. An agent of influence's job is to be part of your effort to influence the outcomes in some way that benefits your intelligence requirements, right? Of these three types of people, the least scrupulous and the most shady is your agent of influence because your agent of influence understands exactly what they're doing. They know they're working with one guy and they know they're giving, they're using the influence to, to manipulate some other guy. When it comes to powerful people, especially wealthy, powerful people, the only thing that interests them is power. Money is not a challenge anymore. Prestige, notoriety, none of those things are a challenge. The rest of us, we're busy trying to make money. We're busy trying to build a reputation. We're busy trying to build a career, keep a family afloat. At the highest levels, they're bored. They don't need any of that. The only thing that they care about is being able to wield power. So a character like Jeffrey Epstein is exactly the kind of character that the Chinese would want, the Russians would want, Mossad would want, the French would want. It's, it's too easy because the man had access to a wide range of American influential people for corporate espionage uses, for, for economic espionage uses, for national security espionage uses. It doesn't make any sense that a person like that wouldn't be targeted. It doesn't. So the question is who, um, who and whether, I think the, the, the, the really important distinction here is was this person, was Jeffrey Epstein created or once he's achieved and built his network, was he then infiltrated? And that's a really sort of important difference. Like at which stage do you connect a person like that? You start to notice maybe they're effective at building a network and then you start making, uh, building a relationship to where at some point there, it's a job, they're working for you. Or do you literally create a person like that? Yeah. So intelligence organizations have different strategies here in the United States. We never create, we don't have a budget cycle that allows us to create. I mean, the, the maximum budget cycle in the United States is five years. So even if we were to try to invest in some seed operation or create some character of influence, essentially every year you have to justify why you're spending budget. And that becomes very difficult in a democracy like ours. However, Russia and China are extremely adept at seed operations, long-term operations. They are willing to invest and develop and, and, uh, create an agent that serves their purposes. Now to create someone from scratch, like Jeffrey Epstein, the probabilities are extremely low. They would have had to start with like a thousand different targets and try to grow a thousand different, if you will, influencers, and then hope that one of them hits kind of like a venture capital firm, right? Invest in many hope that a few hits more likely. They observed him at some point in his own natural rise. They identified his personal vulnerability, very classic espionage technique. And then they stepped in, introduced themselves mid-career and said, Hey, we know you have this thing that you like that isn't really a frowned upon by your own people, but we don't frown upon it. And we can help you both succeed and, you know, have an endless supply of ladies along the way. I recently talked to Ryan Graves, who's a Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who's a fighter jet pilot, um, about many things. He also does work on autonomous weapon systems, drones, and that kind of thing, including quantum computing. But he also happens to be one of the very few pilots that were willing to go on record and talk about UFO sightings. Does the CIA and the federal government have interest in UFOs? In my experience at CIA, that is an area that remains very compartmented. And that could be one of two reasons. It could be because there is significant interest and that's why it's so heavily compartmented. Or it could be because it's an area that's just not important. It's a distraction. So they compartment it so it doesn't distract from other operations. One of the areas that I've been quite interested in and where I've done a lot of research and I've done some work in the private intelligence and private investigation side is with UFOs. The place where UFOs really connect with the federal government is when it comes to aviation safety and predominance of power. So FAA and the US Air Force and the US military are very invested in knowing what's happening in the skies above the United States. And that's of primary interest to them. When they can rule out the direct threat to national security of UFOs, then they become less interested. That said, when you have unexplained aerial phenomenon that are unexplained, that can't directly be tied to anything that is known of the terrestrial world, then they're left without an answer to their question. They don't know if it's a threat or not a threat. But I think the scarier concern for the US national government or for the US federal government, the scarier concern that nobody talks about is what if the UFO isn't alien? What if it is actually a cutting edge war machine that we are eons behind ever being able to replicate? Or the other concern is that it's a system, it's a machine from a foreign power that's doing intelligence collection. Correct. So it's not just military purposes, it's actually collecting data. Well, they fall. A lot of times the federal government will see the two is the same. It's a hostile tool from a foreign government. So collection of information is a hostile act. Absolutely. That's why the Espionage Act exists. That's why it's a criminal offense if you're committing espionage in the United States as a US citizen or a foreign citizen. So I guess they keep digging until they can confirm it's not a threat. But it just, and you're saying that there's not, from your understanding, much evidence that they're doing so. It could be because they're compartmentalized. But you're saying private intelligence institutions are trying to make progress on this. Yeah, it's really difficult to know. Yeah, there's an economic interest in the private intelligence world. Because, for example, if you understand why certain aerial phenomenon are happening over a location, then you can use that to inform investors, whether to invest in that location or avoid investment in that location. But that's not a national security concern. So that doesn't, it doesn't matter to the federal government. Could these UFOs be aliens? Now I'm going into the territory of you as a human being wondering about all the alien civilizations that are out there. The humbling question. We are not alone. You think we're not alone? There's, it's an improbability that we are alone. If by virtue of the fact that sentient human life exists, intelligent human life exists, all the probabilities that would have to be destroyed for that to be true, simply speak over the galaxies that exist, that there's no possible way we're alone. It's a mathematical equation. It's a one or a zero, right? And for me, it has to exist. It's impossible otherwise, rationally for me to think that we are truly the only intelligent life form in all of the universe. But to think that an alien life form is anything like us at all is equally as inconceivable. To think that there are carbon-based, bipedal, humanoid, alien species that just happen to fly around in metal machines and visit alien planets in a way that they become observed is just silly. It's the world of sci-fi. Every good scientist, because we always assume that they're superior to us in intelligence. When any scientist carries out an experiment, the whole objective of the experiment is to observe without being disclosed or being discovered. So why on earth would we think that the superior species makes the mistake of being discovered over and over again? So to push back on that idea, if we were to think about us humans trying to communicate with ants, first we observe for a while. There'll be a bunch of PhDs written, a bunch of people just sort of collecting data, taking notes, trying to understand about this thing that you detected that seems to be a living thing, which is a very difficult thing to define from an alien perspective or from our perspective if we find life on Mars or something like that. Okay, so you observe for a while, but then if you want to actually interact with it, how would you interact with the ants? If I were to interact with the ants, I would try to infiltrate, I would try to put, like, figure out what is the language they use to communicate with each other. I would try to operate at their physical scale, like in terms of the physics of their interaction, in terms of the information methods, mediums of information exchange with pheromones or whatever, however the heck, ants. So I would try to mimic them in some way. So in that sense, it makes sense that the objects we would see, you mentioned bipedal, yes, of course it's ridiculous that aliens would actually be very similar to us, but maybe they create forms in order to be like, here, the humans will understand it, and this needs to be sufficiently different from humans to know that there's something weird. I don't know, I think it's actually an incredibly difficult problem of figuring out how to communicate with a thing way dumber than you. People assume, like, if you're smart, it's easy to talk to the dumb thing, but I think it's actually extremely difficult when the gap in intelligence is just orders of magnitude. And so of course you can observe, but once you notice the thing is sufficiently interesting, how do you communicate with that thing? So this is where, one of the things I always try to highlight is how conspiracies are born, because many people don't understand how easy it is to fall into the conspiratorial cycle. So the first step to a conspiracy being born is to have a piece of evidence that is true, and then immediately following the true evidence is a gap in information. And then to fill in the gap of information, people create an idea, and then the next logical outcome is based on the idea that they just created, which is an idea that's based on something that was imagined in the first place. So the idea, the factual thing is now two steps away, and then three steps away, four steps away as the things go on. And then all of a sudden you have this kernel of truth that turned into this wild conspiracy. So in our example, you talked about humans trying to communicate with ants. Ants are not intelligent. There's no, ants are not intelligent species. They're a drone species that's somehow commanded through whatever technology, whatever- CB. Spoken like a typical human, but yes. JS. Whatever biological thing is in the queen, right? But it's not a fair equivalent. But let's look at gorillas, or let's look at something in the monkey family, where largely we agree that there is some sort of intelligence there, or dolphins, some sort of intelligence. It is a human thing, a human thing to want to observe and then communicate and integrate. That's a human thing, not an intelligent life thing. So for us to even think that a foreign, an intelligent alien species would want to engage and communicate at all is an extremely human assumption. And then from that assumption, then we started going into all the other things you said. If they wanted to communicate, wouldn't they want to mimic? If they wanted to mimic, wouldn't they create devices like ours? So now we're three steps removed from the true fact of there's something unexplainable in the skies. CB. Yeah. So the fact is there's something unexplainable in the skies, and then we're filling in the gaps with all our basic human biases and assumptions. JS. Exactly. CB. But the thing is- JS. Now we're getting right back to Project Northwood. We need some plan. I don't care how crazy the idea is, guys. Give me some plan. So that's where we come up with, maybe it's an alien species trying to communicate, or maybe it's an alien, a hostile threat that's trying to take over the world, or who knows what. Maybe it's- CB. But you have to somehow construct hypotheses and theories for anomalies. And then from that, amidst the giant pile of the ridiculous, emerges perhaps a deeper truth- JS. Absolutely. CB. Over a period of decades. And at first that truth is ridiculed, and then it's accepted, that whole process. But- JS. The Earth revolving around the Sun? CB. Yeah, the Earth revolving around the Sun. But to me it's interesting because it asks us looking out there with SETI, just looking for alien life, is forcing us to really ask questions about ourselves, about what is life, how special. First of all, what is intelligence? How special is intelligence in the cosmos? And I think it's inspiring and challenging to us as human beings, both on a scientific and engineering level, but also on a philosophical level. I mean, all of those questions are laid before us when you start to think about alien life. JS. So you interviewed Joe Rogan recently. CB. Yeah. JS. And he said something that I thought was really, really brilliant during the podcast interview. He said that- CB. He's gonna love hearing that. JS. But he- CB. He said that he realized at some point that the turn in his opinion about UFOs happened when he realized how desperately he wanted it to be true. This is the human condition. Our pink matter works the same way as everybody's pink matter. And one of the ways that our pink matter works is with this thing, with what's known as a cognitive bias. It's a mental shortcut. Essentially, your brain doesn't want to process through facts over and over again. Instead, it wants to assume certain facts are in place and just jump right to the conclusion. It saves energy. It saves megabytes. So what Joe or Joe Rogan, I feel weird calling him Joe. I don't know him. But what Joe identified on his own- CB. Mr. Rogan. JS. What Mr. Rogan identified on his own- CB. Yeah. JS. Was his own cognitive loop. And then he immediately grew suspicious of that loop. That is a super powerful tool. That is something that most people never become self-actualized enough to realize, that they have a cognitive loop, let alone questioning their own cognitive loop. So that was, when it came to this topic specifically, that was just something that I thought was really powerful because you learn to not trust your own mind. CB. Just for the record, after he drinks one whiskey, all that goes out. I think that was just in that moment in time, like- JS. A moment of brilliance. CB. A moment of brilliance. I think he still is, he's definitely, one of the things that inspires me about Joe is how open-minded he is, how curious he is. He refuses to let sort of the conformity and the conventions of any one community, including the scientific community, be a kind of a thing that limits his curiosity of asking what if, like the whole, it's entirely possible. I think that's a beautiful thing, and it actually represents what the best of science is, that childlike curiosity. So it's good to sort of balance those two things, but then you have to wake up to it like, is there a chance this is true, or do I just really want it to be true? JS. Like the hot girl that talks to you overseas? CB. Yeah. JS. Yeah. CB. For a brief moment. There's actually a deeper explanation for it that I'll tell you off the mic that perhaps a lot of people can kind of figure out. Anyway. JS. Just to take it one step further, because I love this stuff. Personally, I love pink matter stuff. In your interview with Jack Barsky, Jack's a good friend of mine, a good dude. CB. An incredible person. JS. Yeah. In your conversation with Jack Barsky, he started talking to you about how his recruiters were feeding back to him his own beliefs, his own opinions about himself, how smart he was, how good he was, how uniquely qualified he was. That's all pink matter manipulation. Feeding right back to the person what they already think of themselves is a way to get them to invest and trust you faster, because obviously you value them for all the right reasons, because that's how they see themselves. So that loop that the KGB was using with Jack, Jack did not wake up to that loop at the time. He woke up to it later. So it happens to all of us. We're all in a loop. Whether it's about oat milk, or whether it's about aliens, or whether it's about the Democrats trying to take your guns, whatever it is, everybody's in a loop. We've got to wake up to ask ourselves, just like you said, is it true, or do we just really want it to be true? Until you ask yourself that question, you're just one of the masses trapped in the loop. Yeah, that's the really, the Nietzsche gaze into the abyss. It's a dangerous thing. That's the path to insanity, is to ask that question. You want to be doing it carefully, but it's also the place where you can truly discover something fundamental about this world that people don't understand, and then that, and lay the groundwork for progress, scientific, cultural, all that kind of stuff. Absolutely. What is one spy trick? This is from a Reddit that I really enjoy. What's one spy trick, and you're full of a million spy tricks. People should follow you. You do an amazing podcast. You're just an amazing person. Thank you. What is the one spy trick you would teach everyone that they can use to improve their life instantly? Now, you already mentioned quite a few, but what else could jump to mind? My go-to answer for this has not really changed much over the last few years. The first, the most important spy trick to change everything immediately is something called perception versus perspective. We all look at the world through our own perception. My dad used to tell me, my stepdad used to tell me that perception is reality. I was arguing this with him when I was 14 years old. I told you so, dad, you're still wrong. Yeah. But perception is your interpretation of the world around you, but it's unique only to you. There's no advantage in your perception. That's why so many people find themselves arguing all the time, trying to convince other people of their own perception. The way that you win any argument, the way that you get ahead in your career, the way that you outsell or outrace anybody is when you move off of perception and move into perspective. Perspective is the act or the art of observing the world from outside of yourself. Whether that's outside of yourself as like an entity just observing in a third from a different point of view, or even more powerful, you sit in the shoes, you sit in the seat of the person opposite you, and you think to yourself, what is their life like? What do they feel right now? Are they comfortable? Are they uncomfortable? Are they afraid? Are they scared? What's the stressor that they woke up to this morning? What's the stressor that they're going to go to sleep with tonight? When you shift places and get out of your own perception and into someone else's perspective, now you're thinking like them, which is giving you an informational advantage. But you know what they're all doing, everyone else out there, is trapped in their own perception, not thinking about a different perspective. So immediately you have superior information, superior positioning, you have an advantage that they don't have. And if you do that to your boss, it's going to change your career. If you do that to your spouse, it's going to change your marriage. If you do that to your kids, it's going to change your family legacy because nobody else out there is doing it. It's so interesting how difficult empathy is for people and how powerful it is, especially for, like you said, with spouse, like intimacy. Yeah. Like stepping outside of yourself and really putting yourself in the shoes of the other person, considering how they see the world. And that's, I really enjoy that because how does that exactly lead to connection? I think when you start to understand the way the other person sees the world, you start to enjoy the world through their eyes and you start to be able to share, in terms of intimacy, share the beauty that they see together because you understand their perspective. And somehow you converge as well. Of course, that allows you to gather information better and all that kind of stuff. And like, that allows you to work together better, to share in all different kinds of ways. But for intimacy, that's a really powerful thing. And also for, actually, like people you really disagree with or people on the internet you disagree with and so on. I find empathy is such a powerful way to resolve any tensions there. Even like people like trolls or all that kind of stuff, I don't deride them. I just kind of put myself in their shoes and it becomes like an enjoyable camaraderie with that person. So I want to draw a pretty hard line between perspective and empathy. Because empathy is frankly an overused term by people who don't really know what they're saying sometimes. I think you know what you're saying, but the vast majority of people listening- I would argue that, but that's fine. As soon as you say empathy, they're going to just be like, oh yeah, I've heard this a thousand times. Empathy is about feeling feeling what other people feel. And- It's more about feeling, would you say? Yeah, it's about feelings. It's about understanding someone else's feelings. It's not the same as sympathy where you feel their feelings. Empathy is about recognizing that they have feelings and recognizing that their feelings are valid. Perspective is more than just feelings. It's about the brain. It's about the pink matter on the left side and the right side of the brain. Yes, I care about feelings. And this goes directly to your point about connection. Yes, I care about feelings, but I also care about objectives. What is your life? What is your aspirational goal? What was it like to grow up as you? What was it like to experience this and how did this shape your opinion on that? And what is it that you're going to do next? More than just feelings, actual tactical actions. And that becomes extremely valuable in the operational world because if you can get into someone's head, left brain and right brain, feelings and logic, you can start anticipating what actions they're going to take next. You can direct the actions that they're going to take next because you're basically telling them the story that's in their own head. When it comes to relationships and personal connection, we talked about it earlier. The thing that people want the most is community. They want someone else who understands them. They want to be with people. They don't want to be alone. The more you practice perspective, empathy or no empathy, the more you just validate that a person is there. I am in this time and space with you in this moment. Feelings aside, right? That is powerful. That is intimate. And whether you're talking about lovers or whether you're talking about a business exchange or whether you're talking about collaborators in a crime, I'm here with you, ride or die. Let's do it. Right? That's powerful. How much of what you've learned in your role at the CIA transfer over to relationships, to business relationship, to other aspects of life? This is something you work closely with powerful people to help them out. What have you learned about the commonalities, about the problems that people face? Man, I would say about a solid 95% of what I learned at CIA carries over to the civilian world. That 5% that doesn't, it would carry over in a disaster. Knowing how to shoot on target with my non-dominant hand really only has one purpose. It's not going to happen day to day. Knowing how to do a dead drop that isn't discoverable by the local police force isn't going to be useful right now, but it could be useful in a disaster. But the 95% of stuff that's useful, it's all tied to the human condition. It's all tied to being able to understand what someone's thinking, understand what someone's feeling, direct their thoughts, direct their emotions, direct their thought process, win their attention, win their loyalty, win influence with them, grow your network, grow your own circle of influence. I mean, all of that is immensely, immensely valuable. As an example, the disguise, the disguise thing that we talked about earlier, disguise in and of itself has mixed utility. If you're Brad Pitt and you don't want anybody to know you're Brad Pitt, you put on a level one disguise and that's great. Or maybe you call me and I walk you through a level two disguise so that you can go to Aruba and nobody's going to know you're in Aruba, right? Whatever it is. But even there with the 5% that doesn't apply to everyday life, there's still elements that do. For example, when a person looks at a human being's face, the first place they look is the same part of the face as if they were reading a piece of paper. So in English, we start from the top left and we read left to right, top to bottom. So when an English speaking person interacts with another person, the first thing they look at isn't their eyes. It's the upper left from their point of view, corner of their face. They look there and the information they get is hair color, hair pattern, skin color. That's it. Before they know anything else about the face. This is one of the reasons why somebody can look at you and then you ask them, what color are my eyes? I don't really remember. Because the way they read the face, they read it from left to right, top to bottom. So they're paying a lot of attention to the first few things they see, and then they're paying less attention as they go down the face. The same scrolling behavior that you see on the internet. So when you understand that through the lens of disguise, it allows you to make a very powerful disguise. The most important part of your disguise is here if you're English speaking, here if you're speaking some foreign languages that read right to left. If it's Chinese, you know that they're going to look from here down because they read left down. So interesting. So yeah, knowing that really helps you sort of configure the things in terms of physical appearance. That's interesting. Correct. So when it comes to how to make a disguise, not so useful to the ultra wealthy, usually. But when it comes to how to read a face, or more importantly, how people are going to read your face, that's extremely important. Because now you know where to find the first signs of deception in a baseline or anything else. You mentioned that the idea of having privacy is one that we think we can, but we really don't. Is it possible for maybe somebody like me or a regular person to disappear from the grid? Absolutely. Yeah. And it's not as hard as you might think. It's not convenient. Again, convenience and security. You can disappear tomorrow, right? I can walk you through three steps right now that's going to help you disappear tomorrow, but none of them are convenient. They're all extremely secure, right? The first thing you do is every piece of digital technology you have that is connected to you in any way is now dead. You just let the battery run out. Forever. Forever. You never touch it again, starting at this moment. What you have to do is go out and acquire a new one. Realistically, you will not be able to acquire a new one in the United States by buying it because to do so, you would tie it to your credit card. You would tie it to a location, a time, a place, a registered name, whatever else. You would have to acquire it essentially by theft or through the black market. You would want something because you're going to need the advantage of technology without it being in your name. You go out and you steal a phone or you steal a laptop. You do whatever you have to do to make sure that you can get on with the password and whatever else that might be as dirty or as clean as you want that to be. We're all morally flexible here. But now you have a technological device that you can work with. And then from there on, you're just doing whatever you have to do, whether you're stealing every step of the way or whether you run a massive con. Keep in mind that we often talk about con men and cons. Do you know what the root, the word that con is a root word for? Confidence. That's what a con man is. A con man is a confidence man. Just somebody who is so brazenly confident that the people around them living in their own perception, not perspective, in their perception, they're like, well, this guy really knows what he's talking about. So I'm going to do what he says. So you can run a massive con and that can take care of your finances. That can take care of your lodging, whatever else it is. You are whoever you present yourself to be. So if you want to go be, if you want to be Bill for the afternoon, just go tell people your name is Bill. They're not going to question you. So the intelligence, the natural web of intelligence gathering systems we have in the United States and in the world, are they going to believe for long that you're Bill? Are they- Until you do something that makes them think otherwise. If you are consistent, we talked about consistency being the superpower. If you are consistent, they will think you're Bill forever. How difficult is that to do? It's not convenient. It's quite difficult. Does that require training? It does require training. Because why do criminals always get caught? Because they stop being consistent. Criminals, I never hesitate to admit this, but people tell me I should hesitate to admit it. So now I hesitate because of the guidance I've gotten to hesitate. I like criminals. I'm friends with a number of criminals. Because the only people who get me, right away who get me, are criminals. Because we know what it's like to basically abandon all the rules, do our own thing our own way, and watch the world just keep turning. Most people are so stuck in the trap of normal thought and behavior that when I tell them, they just don't just go tell people your name is Bill. Most people are going to say, that's not going to work. But a criminal will be like, oh yeah, I did that once. I just told everybody my name is Nancy. I'm a dude and they still believe me. Criminals just get it, right? So what happens with criminals is they go to the school of hard knocks. They learn criminal behavior on the job. Spies go to school. We go to the best spy school in the world. We go to Langley's, the farm, right? What's known as Field Tradecraft Course, FTC. And a covert location for a covert period of time and covert, covert, covert. So if anybody from CI is watching, I'm not breaking any rules. It's all on Wikipedia, but it's not coming from me. But we do, that's how we do it. They train us from 100 years of experience and the best ways to carry out covert operations, which are all just criminal activities overseas. We learn how to do it the right way so that we don't get caught. We learn how to be consistent. More importantly, we learn how to create an operation that has a limited lifespan, because the longer it lives, the more at risk you are. So you want operations to be short, concise, on the X, off the X, limit your room for mistakes. Criminals want the default to wanting these long-term operations, because they don't want to have to recreate a new way to make money every 15 days. You mentioned if anybody from the CIA is watching. So I've seen you talk about the fact that sort of people that are currently working at the CIA would kind of look down on the people who've left the CIA and they ride them, especially if you go public, especially if there's a book and all that kind of stuff. Do you feel the pressure of that to be quiet, to not do something like this conversation that we're doing today? I feel the silent judgment. That's very real. I feel it for myself and I feel it for my wife, who doesn't appear on camera very often, but who's also a former CIA. We both feel the judgment. We know that right now, three days after this is released, somebody's going to send an email on a closed network system inside CIA headquarters, and there's a bunch of people who are going to laugh at it, a bunch of people who are going to say that who knows what, it's not going to be good stuff. A bunch of people you respect, probably. A bunch of people who I'm trying to bring honor to, whether I know them or respect them as irrelevant, these are people who are out there doing the deed every day. And I want to bring them honor. And I want to do that in a way that I get to share what they can't share and what they won't share when they leave, because they will also feel the silent pressure. The pressure to the shame, the judgment, right? But the truth is that I've done this now long enough. The first few times that I spoke out publicly, the response to being a positive voice for what the sacrifices that people are making, it's so refreshing to be an honest voice that people don't normally hear, that it's too important. One day I'm going to be gone and my kids are going to look back on all this and they're going to see their dad trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. And even if my son or daughter ends up at CIA, and even if they get ridiculed for being, oh, you're the Bustamante kid, right? Your dad's a total sellout, whatever it might be. I want them to know, dad was doing what he could to bring honor to the organization, even when he couldn't stay in the organization anymore. So you said when you were 27, I think you didn't know what the hell you're doing. What the hell you're doing. So now that you're a few years older and wiser, let me ask you to put on your wise sage hat and give advice to other 27 year olds or even younger, 17, 18 year olds, that are just out of high school, maybe going to college, trying to figure out this life, this career thing that they're on. What advice would you give them about how to have a career or how to have a life they can be proud of? That's a powerful question, man. Have you figured it out yet yourself? No. I think I'm a grand total of seven days smarter than I was at 27. It's not a good average. Progress. There's still time. There's still time. So for all the young people out there deciding what to do, I'm, I would just say the same thing that I would say that I do say, and I will say to my own kids, you only have one life. You only have one chance. If you spend it doing what other people expect you to do, you will wake up to your regret. At some point, I woke up when I was 38 years old. My wife in many ways is still waking up to it as she watches her grandparents pass and, uh, and an older generation pass away. The folks that I've, that really have a blessed life are the people who learn early on to live with their own rules, live their own way and live every day as if it's the last day, not necessarily to waste it by being wasteful or silly, but to recognize that today is a day to be productive and constructive for yourself. If you don't want a career, today's not the day to start pursuing a career just because someone else told you to do it. If you want to learn a language, today's a day to find a way to buy a ticket to another country and learn through immersion. If you want a date, if you want to get married, if you want a business, today is the day to just go out and take one step in that direction. And as long as you, every day, you just make one new step, just like CIA recruited me, CIA recruited me. Just do the next thing. If the first, if the step seems like it's too big, then there's probably two other steps that you can do before that. Just make constant progress, build momentum, move forward and live on your own terms. That way you don't ever wake up to the regret and it'll be over before you know it, whether you regret it or not. It's true. Uh, what, what do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? What's the meaning of life? Self-respect. That's a fast answer. There's a story behind it. If you want the story, I would love to have the story. There's a covert training base in Alabama in the south and far south. And like the armpit of America where elite tier one operators go to learn humans, intelligent stuff. And there's a bar inside this base and on the wall is just a, it's scribbles of, uh, opinions. And the question in the middle of the wall says, what's the meaning of life. And all these elite operators over the last 25 or 30 years, they all go, they get drunk and they scribble their answer and they circle it with a Sharpie, right? Love, family, America, freedom, right? Whatever. And then they're, the only thing they have to do is if they're going to write something on there, they have to connect it with something else on the wall, at least one other thing. So if they write love, they can't just leave it floating there. They have to write love in a little bubble and connect it to something else, connected to family, whatever else. When you look at that wall, the word self-respect is on the wall and it's got a circle around it. And then you can't see any other word because of all the things that connect to self-respect. Just dozens of people have written over, have written their words down and been, and been drawn and scribbled over because of all the lines that connect self-respect. So what's the meaning of life? From my point of view, I've never seen a better answer. It's all self-respect. If you don't respect yourself, how can you do anything else? How can you love someone else if you don't have self-respect? How can you build the business you're proud of if you don't have self-respect? How can you raise kids? How can you make a difference? How can you pioneer anything? How can you just wake up and have a good day if you don't have self-respect? The power of the individual, that's what makes this country great. I have to say, after traveling quite a bit in Europe, and especially in a place of war, coming back to the United States makes me really appreciate about the better angels of this nation, the ideals it stands for, the values it stands for. And I'd like to thank you for serving this nation for a time, and humanity for a time, and for being brave enough and bold enough to still talk about it, and to inspire others, to educate others, for having many amazing conversations, and for honoring me by having this conversation today. You're an amazing human. Thanks so much for talking today. Lex, I appreciate the invite, man. It was a joy. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Andrew Bustamante. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Sun Tzu in the art of war. Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/T3FC7qIAGZk

2tUiLxtrLxk

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Rick Doblin: Psychedelics | Lex Fridman Podcast #202

The following is a conversation with Rick Doblin, founder and executive director of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, MAPS. He is one of the seminal figures in both the cultural history and the cutting-edge science of psychedelics. He was there along with the biggest characters throughout this fascinating history of psychedelics, and he is here to tell the story. Quick mention of our sponsors, TheraGun, ExpressVPN, Blinkist, and Asleep. Check them out in the description to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say that exploring the places the human mind can go can help us understand where it comes from, how it works, and how to engineer mental journeys, whether that's through life experiences, chemical substances, brain-computer interfaces, or interactions with artificial intelligence systems. On a personal level, I think the dissolution of the ego for stretches of time is a powerful tool for understanding yourself. A lot of things can do this, including jiu-jitsu, literature, meditation, but psychedelics is definitely, or at least arguably, one of the most powerful, from psilocybin to DMT. I'm excited that people like Rick are leading the scientific research that reveals the efficacy and the safety of these substances, so that their proper dosage and usage protocols can be understood, and people like me can safely and effectively use them, not just for recreation, but for rigorous exploration of my own mind. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast, and here is my conversation with Rick Doblin. Could you give an introduction to psychedelics, like a big, bold, whirlwind overview? What are psychedelics? What are the kinds of psychedelics out there, in whatever way you think is meaningful? All right. Well, when I started MAPS, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, it was very important for me that psychedelic be in the name. And the way in which the original meaning of psychedelic, it's mind manifesting. It was created by Humphrey Osmond in dialogue with Aldous Huxley. And so, psychedelic means mind manifesting, and so we interpret that very broadly to mean dreams are psychedelic, anything that kind of brings things to the surface. Holotropic breathwork, you know, hyperventilation is psychedelic. So most people think psychedelic is only about certain kind of chemical substances, either natural or synthetic, but we've got a much broader view of that. Meditation can be psychedelic in some ways, but our primary focus is on the drugs, is on the medicines or the, you might call them, some people might call them spiritual tools or sacraments. There's sort of two general categories of those. One are what are called the classic psychedelics, and those are the ego dissolving, sort of merged into unitive states. Those are like LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, ayahuasca, ibogaine, DMT, things like that. And then there's MDMA, which some people even argue is not a psychedelic. They'll say it's an empathogen or an intactogen, it's about touching within or empathy. It doesn't do the same kind of ego dissolution that the classic psychedelics do, but it brings material to the surface, and it changes the way we process information. And so I think you can quibble about whether it's certainly not a classic psychedelic, but I think MDMA is also a psychedelic. Marijuana, I would say, is a psychedelic. Marijuana is closer to the classic psychedelics than it is to MDMA. One point I like to make is dreams, because then everybody can relate to that. Dreams are psychedelic. Dreams bring emotions, feelings, ideas, concepts in symbolic form a lot of times, or just in raw motions to the surface. So when people hear the word psychedelic, often they are frightened by it. It's about loss of control, and it is to an extent loss of conscious control, particularly with the classic psychedelics. And we know with dreams that we can have frightening dreams, nightmares, but I think that anchoring the concept of psychedelic in dreams is really helpful for people to know that it's kind of a natural state, and that there are other ways that you can catalyze it than by going to sleep, and that for thousands of years, substances have been used in that way. So you mentioned this idea of bringing something to the surface, which is really interesting. So can you maybe elaborate the surface and what is there in the depths of things, and how does ego dissolution fit into that? Well, Aldous Huxley talked about the brain as a reducing valve, that we have an enormous amount of information. So right now, there's an air conditioning sound in the background, but that's not crucial to what you and I are doing, talking to each other, so we kind of tune that out. There's all sorts of sights and sounds, there's incoming information in all the different sense modalities, and we have to figure out what's important to us. And so the mind, in a way, focuses a lot on what are our core needs, and we filter all the incoming information that we get towards focusing on what our core needs, and we can even get to Abraham Maslow and the hierarchy of needs about survival needs, belonging needs, esteem needs, you go on. So I think what I mean by bringing things to the surface is that we tend to not focus on a lot of things that are coming, but we also push away things that are difficult emotionally, difficult cognitively. We all know that we're on this very short trajectory from birth to death, but we're not constantly thinking about dying, although that can actually be helpful to focus us on what's really important. Traumas are often suppressed, conflicts, we see in America and around the world a kind of rise of irrationality, where people push away their logic in order for their emotional tribal needs to be met. A lot of people are suffering from early childhood traumas of a different kind, or abandonment issues, or anything. So we tend to focus on just what we need to survive and what we need for work and esteem. And so psychedelics, by dissolving this ego control, or by, with MDMA, kind of strengthening our sense of self and our sense of self-acceptance, we can bring in other information that have previously been too complicated or too painful. You don't think of psychedelics as conjuring up something new. It is more revealing something that is already there. I think that's a very crucial thing. So, yes, Sasha Shulgin, who sort of the godfather of MDMA, you know, he sort of rediscovered it and brought it back into use. He talked about his first experience was with mescaline. His first psychedelic experience was with mescaline. And he had a tremendous experience. But what he said about it was he was having a human experience that the mescaline was helping him access, rather than he was having a mescaline experience. So that it's not like you pop a pill and you always have the same kind of experience as everybody else. The experience is not contained in the pill. The pill opens you up and you have an experience of yourself. Sometimes these are experiences that we've never consciously had. But we can say right now that we know that our body below the level of our conscious awareness has all these self-healing mechanisms. And we don't modulate them to a large extent by conscious control. I mean, eventually we are learning more about the mind-body and we learn about the placebo effect, what we think is the case. But I think that there's experiences that are below our level of conscious awareness, particularly once we're adults, that are more these unit of mystical experiences, sense of connection. I think kids are like this a lot. We kind of come from the void, you could say, and you're born and you have a different way of processing information. One interesting point about that has to do with ketamine, which is been approved as ketamine for depression, but it's used for anesthesia. And roughly one-tenth the anesthetic dose is a psychedelic dose. And when it's used in anesthesia, there's what's called the emergent phenomena. So this is you get enough ketamine for you can be operated on, you're not in pain, you're not really there, your ego's knocked out, but you can still breathe. But as the operations get over and then people metabolize the ketamine, there's a process that they call the emergent phenomena. It's like as you're emerging from this tranquilized state, and that's where you pass through the psychedelic phase. And they don't prepare people for that. And what we see is that a lot of adults have difficult times with that. But children don't seem to have those problems. Children are a little bit more already in this kind of state. And so ketamine is used quite frequently in children now for anesthesia. So all of that is to say to your question that I think these psychedelics reveal things that are within us. Some things that are how we process information back when we were children. Other things that we've never thought of before that are sort of baked into our consciousness. There's one drug 5-MeO-DMT. It's this toxin from a Sonoran toad that many people consider it to be the most powerful of all the psychedelics. And it kind of knocks the ego structures completely out of it. And we experience something different, but it's something I think that's always within us. It's at a deeper layer. So we knock out some of the higher cognitive functions, and then we experience things in a different way. So my sense is that these are human experiences that the psychedelics bring us to. Yeah, it's really profound. And DMT is a really interesting example. So Terrence McKenna has talked about these machine elves. And there's this, I think from the people I've heard speak about the experience, there's a sense that you are traveling elsewhere to meet entities, whether they're elves or not. So in your sense, you're not traveling elsewhere. You're just revealing something that's within. And maybe it's a particular mechanism of revealing what's already within. Yeah. And I knew Terrence. I spent a lot of time talking with Terrence, and I do not ascribe to a lot of things that he was saying. He was a tremendous entertainer, and I think he did a lot of really good things and focused us on the power of psychedelics. But I think I've never seen these, quote, machine elves. I think culture is more determinative of what people experience under psychedelics, your preconceptions, than we give it credit for. And so I think there's a lot of priming that you could say that people receive by stories from their culture. With ayahuasca, it's about jaguars and Amazonian animals. And so I think these machine elves are this construct of Terrence that other people do see. There's actually some people that are very interested in doing a study, and they're well-funded and moving toward it, to keep people on an IV infusion of DMT for them specifically to see, do they contact machine elves or aliens, and what kind of information do they bring back from these other selves, other places, or other entities? One question is, who are we? Are we connected to everything in the universe? We certainly know in many cases, you talk about waves or particles, the quantum approach. So I don't interpret experiences that we have of some entity that's somehow or other deep in our consciousness that's not us. It's a part of who we are. So I tend to interpret it in that way. The question is, how big are we? I mean, that's, and how many ideas are within us that can be revealed by changing the perspective? You mentioned physics. One of the, what physicists, especially mathematical physicists or mathematicians do is they reveal truths by looking at a, by taking a slightly different perspective on a problem that reveals the simplicity of how it actually works in totally new ways. That's what Einstein did. That's what, like every progress in physics, and certainly every progress in mathematics requires you to take a different perspective. And then perhaps that's exactly what psychedelics are doing. It's not that they're contacting aliens that are elsewhere. It may be revealing the connection between us and other living life forms, or actually it might be revealing a totally new perspective on what life is or what consciousness is, and giving us a glimpse at that, even though our cognitive capabilities are limited to fully grasp and understand it. So it's just giving us an inkling of that somehow. And it seems perhaps a little ridiculous, not from a scientific perspective, in the sense that we don't have a good physics of life or a physics of intelligence or a physics of consciousness, but getting a glimpse of that is giving us a little bit of maybe an intuition of which way to head to build such a physics. Yeah, yeah, I think so. I think that there's this other concept, I guess I would like to talk about briefly, this Jungian collective unconscious. This idea that somehow or other, everything that has ever happened is still accessible, maybe not with as much data or as much resolution, but that there's wave resonances. So that I do believe that we can have experiences as part of this human collective unconscious that we're not from our own life. Yeah. Like the holographic realities, and that there is a way to gather information that can be accurate about other times and places through depth investigations of our own consciousness. Other kind of experiences that people have had before. And we always hear about everybody who talks about past lives, they're always kings and queens. Yeah. So I think that's, again, you filter things, what you want to be true. But I do think that there is a way to access information beyond what we've taken in in our own temporal existence through our own five senses. In some ways, I really find that compelling, the notion that that information is already there, and you're simply just moving the attention of your mind to different parts of that. Yeah. I mean, we have that with the radio. I mean, you know, you got a frequency, you turn all this information. That's right. You could actually say right now, in the space between us, we have the whole world's knowledge that's up on the internet. Yeah. It's right here. Yeah. But we don't see it. We just have to tune in. Yeah. What are the interesting differences, would you say, between the various psychedelics that you mentioned? Ayahuasca, DMT, acid LSD, marijuana, mescaline, PCP, psilocybin, MDMA. You mentioned a few of them that are really interesting. We'll talk about scientifically some of the different studies that have been conducted on each, but sort of at the high level. What are some interesting differences? Well, one of the big ones that people make a big deal of that I think is completely misplaced is some are from nature, some are from the lab. Right. So there's this kind of like romantic thought that if it's from nature, it's good. If it's from the lab, it's somehow tainted by humanity. Right. And, you know, therefore, some people are like all for plant psychedelics. We see the policy changes that have been happening in a couple of cities, Cambridge, Somerville, right, not far from where we're at now, where they decriminalize plant medicines. So they call it decriminalizing nature. So I think that there is, from my perspective, certain things from nature are poison, certain things from the lab are spiritual, even if they don't show up in nature like LSD. Now, there is something, LSD is lysergic acid diethylamide. There is lysergic acid amide, LSA, which comes from morning glory seeds. So it's very similar. But at the same time, I'd say I don't buy into that distinction that there's some fundamental preference. One of the things that Terence McKenna, since we talked about him, he talked about how if it's from nature, it's good. And if it's not, you know, we should be suspect. Of course, he had a lot of great LSD experiences. But actually, Terence, in 1984, we were at Estlin with a bunch of other people. This was before the crackdown on MDMA. And this was some of the underground therapists and the above ground researchers were trying to talk about how to protect MDMA from this eventual crackdown. And Terence was like, forget about it. You know, it's from the lab. You know, it's dangerous. We have thousands of years of history, all these other things. And, you know, what do we know about MDMA and blah, blah, blah. And I was like, Terence, you're so unscientific. Bullshit. Another way to say it is and I just said, you know, we need a study of the safety of MDMA. And so then Dick Price, who started Estlin, I said, I'll put a thousand. Dick Price, he put a thousand. So Terence was actually the catalyst for the first study with MDMA. Wow. Just because he was so frustrating about how plants are OK and, you know, if it's from the lab, it's bad. So that's one distinction. The other distinction is this sense of classic psychedelics versus things like MDMA. So to what extent do they dissolve the ego? And you could say to what extent do they cause visions of the 5HT2A serotonin receptor subtype, which is responsible for a lot of that, where these drugs are activating. Now, mescaline of all the psychedelics, chemically, it's the most similar to MDMA. It's a phenethylamine, which is MDMA. So in the 50s, there was the 53, I think it was, the Army Chemical Warfare Service wanted to look at drugs for interrogations, mind control, nonlethal incapacitance. They did a study in eight substances. These were now toxicity studies in animals. And on the one side was methamphetamine, on the other was mescaline, and MDMA was in the middle, chemically. So mescaline of the psychedelics tends to have the warmth that MDMA has. It's not as ego-dissolving quite as some of the others. I mean, it's the main active ingredient in peyote. It is very psychedelic, very visual. Another distinction with these different drugs is how long they last. And a lot of that has to do with the route of administration. So for example, if you smoke DMT, it takes 10, 15 minutes, and you're within seconds, you're off in another world. Similarly, 5-MeO DMT, very rapid. When you take DMT in the form of ayahuasca, where it's mixed with another substance that makes it so that it's orally active, then it's a couple hours. So LSD is 8, 10, 12 hours sometimes. Psilocybin is more like 5 or 6 hours or 4 to 6 hours. MDMA is similar. It's one reason why in our research we give an initial dose of MDMA, and then two hours later we give half the initial amount to extend the plateau, because we want it to last longer for people to be in this therapeutic state. So that's another distinction is how long these drugs last. Another distinction is which of them come from a religious context, have a religion built around them. We have this sense that some people are saying that 5-MeO DMT and the Sonoran Toad, that they have this long history of indigenous use, but they don't. That's all modern. It's made up, and it's kind of a new approach. However, there was thousands of years of use of psilocybin mushrooms in religious contexts. From 1600 BC to 396 AD, the world's longest mystery ceremonies, the Eleusinian Mysteries, sort of the heart of Greek culture, the heart of Western culture. That was a psychedelic potion called kykeon that seems like it's very much like an LSD-like substance. Ergot on grain, and LSD comes from ergot. So I think that there are a lot of ways to look at these different substances. Another distinction is which one of them are being researched right now in scientific contexts and which are not. And because of the rise of all these for-profit companies and everybody's looking for what they can patent, what they can claim, the land grab, more and more there are companies looking at every different kind of psychedelics. The ones that are most important that are not being researched, mescaline, but now there's a company to do mescaline, Journey CoLab. Ibogaine, which is crucial for opiate addiction, there's a new company, a branch of this company, Atai, that's going to be looking at ibogaine. So I'd say the rise of the for-profit companies is making it so that there's just going to be an enormous amount of investigations into all these different psychedelics. But what we're going to see is the development of new psychedelics that we don't know anything about that have not existed yet because a lot of these for-profit companies are going to want to invent and patent and have composition of matter patents on new molecules. So I think we'll see a lot of that happening too. That's really fascinating. There's a lot of doors you've opened and we're going to walk through all of them, including the research and so on, but on this one little tangent of the future of psychedelics, so engineering new psychedelics, can you comment on maybe the chemistry and the biology of how psychedelics work and where is the space of possible engineering of psychedelics and what kind of things might they unlock in terms of the possible places our mind would be able to go and the effects of that of improving health? But maybe at the basic level of chemistry and the space of what could be engineered. Well, you reminded me, I'll get to exactly what you said, but you reminded me of a talk I heard by Buckminster Fuller shortly before he died. And what he talked about is how technology was making things ever smaller, that we are able to pack more and more information into smaller and smaller spaces and that we're developing technologies of communications with people. We now know the internet and things like that, but what he said is that he thought the eventual evolution of this sort of research would move from this miniaturization to telepathy. Yeah. And I was like, it's a shocking thing for somebody like scientific like that to say that. Yeah. So, will we unlock those parts where I talked about the collective unconscious? Will we be able to more consciously explore those areas? So, I think that that's a possibility. That's fascinating. There was Stan Grof, who's the world's leading LSD researcher and has been my mentor, his wife Brigitte, they were talking about stories that they had heard about MDMA that people take and then on top of that, they do 5-MeO-DMT. And so, you get this ego dissolution, but underneath that you have this sense of ego, sort of sense of self, safety of self-acceptance, kind of grounds it. So, Stan was like, that's the future of psychiatry, that you can watch without the terror of the ego dissolution, the sense that you're losing your mind or you're going crazy or you're dying or that you have this grounded sense of safety while you're dissolving your normal sense of how you see things. And being able to engineer in a fine-tuned way that exact experience, maybe fine-tuned to the person as opposed to sort of this manual potion that's through experiment. Although I don't know about fine-tuning things to the person in the sense that we believe there's this inner healer, this kind of inner healing intelligence, we talked about it, the body repairs itself. And then what emerges will be customized to what they need to be looking at from this inner healing intelligence. At the same time, we will move to, we hear so much about the new approaches to oncology where you do genetic analysis of different kind of tumors and then you have certain kind of chemotherapy agents and you do personalized chemotherapy. I think we will have more like personalized psychedelic therapy, but it'll be more like a sequence of different drugs that people go through over an extended period of time. And then you kind of customize what's next. And sometimes you'll combine different drugs together like this 5-MeO-DMT and MDMA or a lot of times people do LSD-MDMA combinations or psilocybin-MDMA combinations. Chemistry, and it's not my strength, I'm more into clinical applications and policy, but I can say that from what I've learned from reading from others and research done by others that different psychedelics have an impact on different neurotransmitters, different other parts of energies in the brain. The default mode network is what's considered to be like our sense of self, and it's part of the brain that sort of is what I described before, scanning the world and filtering information for what's really important to us. And both focusing us on things and also helping us to ignore a lot of things. And the classic psychedelics all weaken the energy in this default mode system, and therefore you get this flood of information that you're not normally paying attention to. And then you start seeing in more creative ways or more connected, you actually move to beyond the verbal kind of thinking into sort of symbolic thinking a lot of times. And that's where you sometimes get these mystical sense of connection, how it's all one, and you get the sense also of how big the universe is and how small each one of us is. So there's a lot of work that Sasha Shulgin and Albert Hoffman who invented LSD and first synthesized psilocybin on what they call structure activity relationships. What is the structural of the molecule? And then how do you predict what that new molecule that never existed before is going to do once you actually take it? And you can get close, but you never really know until you actually take the drug. And the way that Sasha ran his experiments is that he would take the drugs himself first in low doses, and he would sort of step up the doses to have more experiences. If he thought it was valuable, he'd share it with his wife, Anne. But then what they would do is if they both thought it was valuable, they had a group of 12 people that they were with for many, many years. And they would distribute these new drug to these 12 people, and they would get the different perspectives. And he felt that 12 was like a minimum number, because we're so unique how each of us see things. But then you kind of get a little bit of a consensus on how a lot of people are going to see it. And then if that 12 people were positive about it, then they would turn it over to Leo Zeff, who he called the secret chief, the leader of the underground psychedelic therapy movement, and then he would start exploring it in therapy. So there's still a lot of mysteries as far as structure activity relationships, and it's not going to be the case that people go into the lab and they tinker with molecules and they know exactly what they're going to get. And a lot of it has to do with not so much chemistry as morphology. You could say the shape of the molecule and how does that interact with receptor sites. And so we're getting better at modeling all of that. And how does that interaction relate to the morphing of the human experience and deeply understanding that perhaps there's no equations yet for that kind of thing? You really have to build up intuition by experiencing it. And over time, sort of subjective self-report, like trying to build an understanding of the effects of the different chemistries. Yeah, yeah. You can have approximate ideas, but to know exactly. So when I first tried MDMA, which was 1982, and this was after I had done lots of LSD and mescaline and mushrooms, I was shocked at how different it was than these other substances and yet how profound it was. So are there whole new kind of categories of classes of drugs that we're not aware of that would be not so much this like eco-dissolution or emotional? Well, what MDMA does is reduces activity in the amygdala, the fear processing part of the brain. So it's not just chemistry, but it routes energy throughout the brain in a different way. It increases activity in the prefrontal cortex. So you think more logically, that I think has an enormous impact on the effect of MDMA. The other thing it does is it increases connectivity between the amygdala and the hippocampus. So it helps facilitate processing of things into long-term memory. And with PTSD, trauma is like never in the past. It's always about to happen. So will we one time develop drugs that would even be specific to certain kind of memories? We're working with a woman, Rachel Yehuda, who is at the Bronx VA. And she's done some studies that are with the epigenetics of trauma. So she's worked with Holocaust survivors and their children. And she has identified epigenetic mechanisms by which trauma is passed from generation to the generations. Sort of like set points for anxiety, fear, certain things like that. But the question is, can you actually transmit memories from one generation to the next? Now, this is not DNA changes, which happen over a very long period of time and evolutionary scale. But within one lifetime, within some experiences, your epigenetics, what turns on the genes or turns off certain genes, that can be impacted. And that's what we know now can be transmitted from generation to generation, either by the father or the mother, through the sperm or the egg. So it's pretty remarkable. So what Rachel is going to try to do is MDMA research for PTSD and look at these epigenetic markers before and after and see if they change as a consequence of therapy. So will we develop one day certain kind of chemicals that will be able to bring certain kind of memories to the surface? That's not inconceivable. The epigenetic angle is fascinating, that there will be these epigenetic perturbations that lead to memories living from one generation to the other. And then bringing those memories to the surface and using that as a signal to understand what exactly the psychedelics bring to the surface and not. Yeah. Now, the other portion of that, though, is culture. I mean, culture is where we store all these memories and the stories that we get passed down. Especially with a lot of shared, you talk about the Holocaust or World War II, where it's deeply ingrained in the culture, the impact of those events. And sort of in aggregate, the different perspectives on that particular event create a set of stories that you can plug into. And then they kind of resonate with some aspect of you that creates a memory that's connected to. Like when I think about World War II and the Holocaust, I think about my own family. But in some sense, it's also resonating with the stories of many others. So it's like somehow the two echo each other. And I'm just providing my own little flavor on top. The meat of the stories are probably those that are shared with others. It's plugging into the collective unconscious. That's really fascinating, really plugging into, like precisely plugging into particular memories as a way to deal with trauma and PTSD, that kind of thing. I'll just add that the most important dream of my life ever was of a Holocaust survivor telling me that he was miraculously saved from death. And he knew that he was saved for a particular purpose, but he never knew what that purpose was. So in the dream, I'm seeing him on his deathbed. And then he shows me whatever happened to him during the Holocaust. And then we're back in the room on his deathbed, and he says, well, I know what my purpose was now. And I'm like, oh, great. What was it? He says, it's to tell you to be a psychedelic therapist and to study psychedelics and bring back psychedelic research. And I thought to myself, I've already decided to do this. You can lay this on me. I can say yes, and then you can die in peace. And then he died in front of my eyes in the dream. So I think that that kind of cultural transmission that I got from when I was really young, you know, then manifested in this dream. And that was this story about how people can be incredibly vicious and can be very motivated by irrational factors. And so I just feel that this kind of multi-generational transmission of this story of the irrational being a murderous factor and something I needed to respond to was deeply ingrained. And I would say my guess is more culturally than this epigenetic mechanism. Yeah, but your sense is that whatever stimulated a certain part of human nature in World War II, especially Nazi Germany, but also in Stalinist Soviet Union, still is within us, within all of us. Just like what we're saying, you know, we embody quite a lot of things, and one of those is whatever the capacity for evil seems to be one of those things. Yeah, there's a quote from Carl Jung from just a few years before he died. What he says, and I'll just paraphrase it, is that we need to understand psychology. We need to understand who man is, that the greatest danger to us is man. There are no other dangers, really, that impact our species. And then he goes on to say that we are the source of all coming evil. Now, this was 15 years or so after World War II. But yeah, and I'd say one of the most important psychedelic experiences of my life was a DMT experience. Also, Terrence was there, Ralph Metzner, Andy Weil, a few others. And we were sitting around at Esalen smoking DMT. And under the influence of DMT, which now this was the first time I've ever smoked DMT, I had this super rapid fraction of a second, like dissolving of everything that I, well, first off, I saw a horizontal line. Then I saw a vertical line. Then it turned into a color, red. Then it was red. Then it turned into cubes. Then it turned into like an MC Escher kind of like, I don't know, you know, didn't make logical sense. And then I was gone. And then it was just this period of five, 10 minutes of just feeling part of this enormous wave of billions of years of evolution, how I had this sense that in my innermost sense of who I am uniquely individually, this inner voice that's talking to me, that I didn't develop English, that it's like a gift to me from millions of people. So that even in my most innermost sense, it's not just me. It's the product of everything that came before me. I'm part of this bigger system. And then I just thought, wow, just how many billions of years does it take to reach this point, self-awareness and all this? And it was glorious, beautiful. And then I had this thought, and this is where this kind of intellectual honesty, I guess you could say, I just thought, well, if I'm part of everything and everything's part of me, then it's not just the good parts that Hitler is part of me too. Yeah. And that was just this shock, like a stone sunk, you know, and I just was very moody for the whole next day. But it was that acknowledgment that each of us carries these potentials and what we activate is what matters, but what our potential are is the whole full range of things. I don't know if you can comment about the DMT trip itself and what it's like starting from the very basic geometric shapes and then launching yourself into the context of the enormity of space and time and human history. Is there anything else to be said about that kind of visually or physically or emotionally about that journey? What it's like, that brief journey that reveals so much? Well, I was with a group of people, the way we were doing it was, you know, each of us would smoke DMT, have 10, 15 minutes experience while we closed our eyes and, you know, everybody else was just chatting and then the person who did the DMT would come back and tell their story of what happened. And then we'd think about it for a bit and then pass the pipe to the next person. And so this was like a whole evening, you know. So even the, sorry to interrupt, even the conversations themselves then is part of the experience? Exactly. Yes, yes. Because it's also what you bring back. I mean, I think that's particularly for therapy. You know, it's not so much about what the experience is, but it's what you bring back. And what do you integrate? And then also, how do you learn how to do these things on your own without the drugs? There is this way, because we're saying it's sort of a core human experience, the drug is the mediator, but can we do this on our own? And once you've seen it and felt it, then you have a little bit better sense to recreate it on your own. Although, you know, I've had dreams where I've been doing LSD and tripping. And it was just incredible. It was, I was tripping in my dreams, but I had not taken LSD. So there's this way in which we do that. So I would say that from the DMT experience, the sense of safety, that's what I was trying to get at with this group of us and this group of friends trying to do this common exploration, that if you have this sense of safety, you're incredibly vulnerable because you are giving up your awareness, really, of what's happening around you. I think there's what we're finding is that in our psychedelic research for PTSD and what we see with the vaccines, that even African-Americans are reluctant to volunteer for vaccines because they haven't had that sense of safety from the medical establishment. They don't volunteer for psychedelic therapy even as much. So the overlay has to be this sense of safety as you become vulnerable and looking inside. You're not, I was just actually told about how there's a lot of work being done inside prisons to teach mindfulness. And so one of the, Charlene, who's my assistant, is trying to do work on helping people in prison with trauma, potentially one day with MDMA or meditation or mindfulness. But one of the exercises was teaching people to, okay, here's how you deal with stress. Just close your eyes and deep breathe. And what Charlene was saying is people don't close their eyes in prison. You don't feel safe to do that. So all that is just to say is that the context is the most important factor. So while I'll talk about the DMT experience, the context was this supportive sense of safety that I could be completely vulnerable and out of any kind of control. Women, I think, you know, often are less safe in this way than men because of all the sexual assaults. But what it can do by taking the ego orientation offline to some extent, it opens you up to much more. And to make a bigger point of that, we could say that it's very similar to the Copernican Revolution. And, you know, people thought that the earth was the center of the universe. And, you know, the Inquisition murdered people that questioned that. Father Bruno burned at the stake. Actually, one of the things he said, I think, that's worth all these years later saying is that when the Inquisition sentenced him to burn at the stake for espousing this idea that the earth was not really the center of the universe, he said to the Inquisition, he said, Your fear in sentencing me is greater than my fear in being sentenced. That their worldview was so rigid that they had to wipe out anybody that would question that. And so this idea of psychedelics displacing our ego is the center of the universe. And to realize that we are just rotating around something much bigger than our individual life, you know, our ego is designed almost to protect this body while we're alive. And you can understand all the good reasons why that is. But it also disconnects us from this bigger reality. And so the psychedelics, DMT, by knocking this sort of ego orientation or the default mode network offline, you open up to the bigger sweeps of history. So in that place of safety and vulnerability, in that fascinating group of people, when their ego is dissolved in this way, do they have similar experiences? Is there different places that their minds went? Yeah. So, you know, once I had this kind of shattering experience that Hitler is part of me, you know, no one else in the group had that. Probably a lot of them have maybe had that before or they realized that they're not just, you know, the good, the white hat, good people and that they're all good. And, you know, we've got to fight against the bad people, you know, so, you know, people will go in different places. And not only that, if you do it again, you'll go into a different place than you went to the first time, unless you have not resolved the issue. So I had a sequence of LSD trips that were very difficult, but it was like coming to the same sort of conundrum, the same challenge that I was unable to overcome. This idea of letting go and really fully dissolving, letting the ego fully go and I would have this sequence of trips over a couple of months where I would reach this point where I was too scared to move forward and I would just be holding on. So there are repeated themes sometimes. What Stan Grof has said, which I find very beautiful, is that the full expression of an emotion is the funeral pyre of that emotion. And what that means is if you can fully let in something, then the essence of life has changed, is that it moves on, that everything's in motion. And if you can fully experience it, even if it's a sense that you're going to be trapped in eternity in this hellish state, if you surrender to that, that's the way out. You know, this full experience of something is this funeral pyre of that emotion. And so that runs against a lot of what modern psychiatry is doing too, which is to suppress symptoms and to, instead of supporting people, to kind of explore these insecurities so that then they can contain them and then they can move on. So yeah, resistance is not a way to make progress. Right, right. Although one of the reasons why we do the supplemental dose during the MDMA or why there's advantages in a 10-hour LSD experience is that you have a lot of opportunities to come up against this resistance that may be too difficult to deal with. And then you kind of push it aside and then a couple hours later you come back to it or you come back to it. Press snooze every once in a while if you're not ready. It's hard to do that. I think with MDMA you can negotiate. That's, I think, a part of its safety in a sense. You can have this like, oh, I should be talking about this or I'm feeling this, but it's too much for me now. You can push it away. But with the classic psychedelics, this kind of membrane between the conscious and the unconscious, that once you take the drug and it weakens this membrane and things are coming up, it's very difficult to negotiate with it. The key to successful classic psychedelic trips is surrender. You've talked about that you first began to reconsider the negative health myths around psychedelics when you learned that the book One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was written by Ken Kesey when he was in part under the influence of LSD. So how do you think LSD helped him, Ken Kesey, in writing that incredible book? Yeah. There's a process that's called semantic priming. And so what that means is that I say night, you say day. There's kind of normal patterns of kind of you say one word, what kind of words come to you next. And so they've done some research, they meaning scientists, have done some research where you give people a psychedelic and then you do this semantic priming. And what you find is they have a wider range of associations than they normally would when they're not under psychedelics. So I think for Ken Kesey, he was able with psychedelics to get like a deeper kind of emotional connection to some of these states of mind that people were in this mental institution. And that he could explore them more in depth and more eloquently. And also one of the things he talked about was the fog machine was how people's minds were sort of clouded by the people that ran the institution and the fog machine would be coming in. So I think the imagery and the metaphors that he used a lot in the book could come to him during LSD experiences. And then now he wasn't doing, you know, very when you're writing, you have to be literate. You have to be able to write, you know, so it would be more like beginning and ends of LSD trips instead of at the peak. But I think you would get a lot of these, the feeling tones or the images, the metaphors, I think he would get these extent. Also LSD lasts so long, you can get these extended focus and you can really elaborate on images. And so much of psychedelic experiences are poetic and metaphorical. I mean, you could take, you know, veterans who've never read a book of poetry in their lives, you know, and under the influence of MDMA, just what they describe, the imagery and the way they describe their experience is metaphorical, poetic, it's incredible. And so I think that Ken Kesey was able to channel what LSD did to his mind in a way that most people couldn't do, that he did because he was trying to write this novel and because he was so brilliant. Yeah, I mean, we'll talk about psychedelics and treating, in bringing some of trauma to the surface and dealing with all those kinds of things, but there's something also to the opening up of creativity. For whether it's for writing purposes or for, in my world, for engineering or invention, innovation and invention itself is a very, is a deeply creative process. And it's fascinating to think with the aid of psychedelics, what kind of ideas can be brought to life. Yeah, well, we have the whole phenomena of a lot of the people in Silicon Valley and else microdosing psychedelics in order to have a little touch more of this creative approach to things. I would love it to see if it was, that's more like Terrence McKenna territory, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would love to sort of more scientific to where there would be the rigor of saying how to do it effectively, you know, how to sort of understand, sort of, not just almost, you know, to take the full journey of creative exploration and to do it for prolonged periods of time, you know, for years, you know, lifelong kind of part of your life of how it empowers creativity. I think, of course, you start with helping people deal with trauma and then the next step is people who have moved past their trauma and are trying to do something, create something special in their life. How can then psychedelics empower that? Yeah, now that also just to not shy away from anything controversial, that gets us to this idea of psychedelics for vision quest, particularly for younger people. You know, when you're sort of moving into this adulting kind of phase and you have to figure out what are you going to do with your life, there's so many options. A lot of people, of course, feel constrained that they have very few options, but I think this idea of psychedelics as a way to help you find your calling or find your vision or find your unique leverage point, I think we'll see that more and more as our culture evolves and gets healthier around the use of psychedelics. So it's both the science, having the rigor of understanding how to do it safely and the culture catching up to the fact that this is both safe and like very useful. Yeah, although I would question this idea of safety. So we can understand physiological risks and we can minimize them and I think there's very minimal physiological risks from the classic psychedelics, virtually none or for even MDMA under safe conditions. Psychological risks are harder to address, but we can do that through the sense of safety and support. But I think there's a level of risk there that we shouldn't overlook. And so, you know, to make a drug into a medicine, what we have to do is prove to the satisfaction of the FDA and other regulatory agencies that things are safe and efficacious. But even though they use those words, proving safe and efficacious, it's in relationship to the disease that you're trying to treat and you accept a certain amount of risk. So it's the risk benefit ratio rather than pure safety. Yeah, absolutely. Let me ask you about Ken Kesey a little bit longer because he's a fascinating human being. He was also part of Project MKUltra. Yeah, yes. What was Project MKUltra and what lessons we should take away from it? Well, MKUltra was a program by the CIA. You know, what they were looking at was, can you take these drugs, these psychedelic drugs, and weaponize them in different ways? For interrogation, for true serums, for exposing somebody before they give a big talk to something like LSD and then they can't talk or make a fool of themselves. Or can you spray LSD over the battlefield and have everybody tripping and drop their weapons and then you just walk up and nobody dies and you've won the battle. It's a fascinating concept. Yeah, they call it non-lethal incapacitance. One way to win a war is to enforce peace. To get everybody not caring about the war. Well, I think Gandhi said something even better, which is that the true way to win a war is to turn your enemy into your friend. Yes, that's a beautiful way to put it. But MKUltra was really nefarious and it was part of our military and it was done in secret and they would dose people against their will. I mean, one of the most infamous things was that they had a house of prostitution in San Francisco and they would have one-way mirrors, all this stuff, and then they would just dose people with LSD. They would have the prostitutes dose these guys with LSD and observe what they would do and how they would act. The CIA actually for a while was dosing each other secretly. And there's a famous case of this fellow Olson that either jumped out of a window or was pushed, he might have been killed. He was a CIA guy and they gave him LSD and then they're trying to see can they break him down and get him to tell secrets. And I think he felt uncomfortable with what happened to him while he was under the influence of LSD and whether he was pushed or not, I don't know if we'll ever know. But MKUltra was violating people's human rights. It was done in secret. And the irony of it is that Ken Kesey is one of the people, one of the main early people that got LSD in this context and then he was one of the main people that helped inspire the hippies to use psychedelics to oppose the Vietnam War. So I think the CIA kind of in many cases, things get out of their control, what they think they can do and it turned into be a disaster for them. I think there was some thought that some of the people at the CIA had is that if you can turn people inside, take drugs and they just focus on their internal experience, they're not going to be involved politically. It's a way to sort of take people offline. And what I don't think they counted on is that when you're offline and you have these unit of spiritual experiences and you realize how we're all connected, then why do you want to go out and kill these Vietnamese and put a one dictator over another dictator, dictators on both sides in North Vietnam and South Vietnam? Why are we doing that? So MKUltra has very disreputable. We're learning more and more about what they did. And one of the unintended consequences was Ken Kesey. And not only that, but then the Grateful Dead who began at the acid test that Kesey was helping to organize. And out of that emerged, you could say, just this incredible psychedelic culture. And you look at the bands that began in the 60s and which ones have really survived to this day. And the Grateful Dead has survived longer than most any other band. I mean, some of them have died and all, but it was like the tightness, the sort of telepathy we talked about before that they could just get so tuned in to each other and each other's energies. And they could do improvisations and they could do this incredible work that I think the sustainability of the Grateful Dead as a group was a testament to the power of the LSD experiences. And that might have never happened if not for MKUltra. But can we talk about darkness a little bit? So Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, was allegedly part of the MKUltra studies while at Harvard. Do you think this is true? Do you think it had an impact on him psychologically, intellectually, and so on? I do think it's true. And I do think it had an impact. So we talked before about are these drugs somehow or other producing a certain kind of drug experience or do they bring out what's within? So we have this experience, yeah, on the one hand Ken Kesey and he sort of took positive things out of this. On the other hand, we can get this opposition to the modern world, to technology, and to the point of creating bombs to try to go after it. So that the experience is not in the drug. It's this interaction between the drug, the person, the context. And so we can heal people with psychedelics or people can be driven crazy with psychedelics. It depends again on the context. And so I think it's both these things can be true. And I think it was really good that you kind of highlighted this, that there is this polarities and that it's not in the drug. It's in the other factors and it's who they were beforehand and then how you use that experience. So all that's to say is if we put LSD in the water and everybody were to get it, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden everybody's going to have a mystical experience and then that's all we need to do. And humanity is spiritualized and we're end war and all of this. It's not about the drug. And that actually is why for me, we've also talked about engineering new psychedelics and all the people that are going to be trying for profit companies to develop and patent new psychedelics. For me, the most important challenge is new cultural contexts that can create legality, safety, support for the existing psychedelics that we already have. I mean, we have so much incredible tools in these existing psychedelics that it's more about creating context for them to be used in safe medical or personal growth or recreational even with harm reduction, all these different ways. That's more important to me than finding some new molecule that's somewhat similar or somewhat different, but it can be patented. So it's the social context. So I do believe that Ted Kaczynski was part of MKUltra and I think it affected him in a negative way. And that's a cautionary tale that it's not in the drug. It's in the context. The context, the person, still it feels like if viewed from a therapy perspective, perhaps there was a way to use psychedelics to help Ted Kaczynski find a path out of the darkness. I think so. And I think that this is where I think MDMA comes in, in a way that MDMA is, you know, he felt very isolated and very much out of society in some ways. MDMA stimulates oxytocin, which we haven't mentioned, which is the hormone of nursing mothers, of love and connection. It provides a lot of this sense of self-acceptance and safety and wanting to be in relationship. There's Ghul Dolan is a neuroscientist at Hopkins. She's given octopuses MDMA. They're solitary creatures, except mating season, which is not very often. But you give them MDMA and they become more interested in hanging out with other octopuses. So I think this for people that have had difficult psychedelic experiences, MDMA helps them integrate them. We've worked with people that had a difficult LSD experience 40 years before and are still able to get back to that under the influence of MDMA and work out some of the conflicts that they weren't able to resolve. All those decades before. So I think that psychedelics could have been helpful in a different context for Ted Kaczynski. But the other big part of it is that people have to be willing to cooperate with the experience. We talked about resistance. So people can resist these things. It's, you know, the saying is you can drink, bring bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. This is about how people have to be willing to go to these spaces. So one of the essence of our therapeutic approach is that we help people to heal themselves. That we are not giving them the healing. It's a flip on the power dynamics that existed. You would say in the 50s and 60s, my dad was a doctor and the doctors were gods and, you know, whatever they said was right. And, you know, we no longer, of course, believe that. But for a while psychoanalysis with Freud, you know, that they gave the interpretation to the patient. The patient couldn't help themselves, but they would do the free associations and the psychoanalysts would see these conflicts and would be the one that does the healing. Would give this interpretation and that would open things up. So I think it's this idea of empowering people to heal themselves. And so if Ted Kazinsky had been in a therapeutic setting with psychedelics and if they had had something like MDMA available or MDA, which was popular during the 60s, which is a more like MDMA-LSD combination, the outcomes might have been different. Let's take a step into the world of studies. Timothy Leary, who was he and what were the most important ideas you've learned from him? Well, I did have the opportunity to get to know him personally and to spend some time with him. Timothy Leary, well, let's start with Nixon saying he's the most dangerous man in America. That's a good place to start. And why did Nixon say that? It's because of this, you know, turn on, tune in, drop out. Timothy Leary was just an incredible advocate for think for yourself, question authority. Those were things he said all the time. Think for yourself, question authority. He was a rebel. He was kicked out of West Point. He was a psychologist who was at Harvard for three years from 60 to 63. Before he got to Harvard, he had an experience with mushrooms in Mexico. And that he said he learned more in that experience than he'd had in his entire academic career before then about how the human mind works. And so he came to Harvard wanting to do research into psychedelics. And he did some very important studies, both of which, well, one was called the Good Friday Experiment, which was whether psychedelics in religiously inclined people taking psilocybin in a religious setting, whether it could produce a mystical experience. That took place at Marsh Chapel at the Boston University because it's a little bit subjective or you could say entirely subjective. What people describe happens to them. He wanted to do another study, which would be a more objective measure. And that was called the Concord Prison Experiment. And that was the thought. If you can give people psilocybin, mystical sense of connection type experiences while they're in prison, when they get out, they'll be more pro-social and they'll have reduced recidivism. So Tim did that. He also did the naturalistic studies of giving loads of people psilocybin and sort of writing down what their experiences were, the range of experiences. Later on in his time at Harvard, he just they started doing LSD. And LSD is more cerebral, longer lasting, not as reassuring in a way as psilocybin. Sometimes he used to say that if they never got into LSD, they'd still be at Harvard with the psilocybin. So he was a great American psychologist. But then he got tired of the psychology game, you could say, or he would say that he got more and more interested in cultural change. And various musicians and artists and all sorts of people started coming to him for the psychedelic experience that they are in a way for creativity, for other things. So he started hanging out with all sorts of famous people or creative people. And he stopped going to classes a lot. And Ram Dass, Richard Alpert, had given LSD to a student that Ram Dass was courageous enough to admit that he had a sexual interest in. They weren't supposed to give it undergraduates. That was about the only time that they ever did it. And psychedelics just getting more and more controversial, even in the early 60s. Eventually got kicked out of Harvard. And then he became kind of a cultural icon for the counterculture and was hounded by the police and Nixon and spent a lot of time in jail. I mean, he's an incredible person. One thing that Ram Dass said is that, Richard Albert Ram Dass said, I'm a rascal, but Leary's a scoundrel. What's the distinction? Rascals like in good fun. A scoundrel is like, you can't quite trust them. I think that Leary was someone who a little bit got addicted to media attention. But I think that overall, he gets blamed a lot for the backlash against the 60s, the shutdown of psychedelic research. I think that he is unfairly blamed for a lot of that. I think when you look back at the 60s, the common narrative is that it was because psychedelics going wrong. People took psychedelics. They weren't prepared. They had emotional breakdowns. They went psychotic. They killed themselves. They did this or that. Different problems of people taking psychedelics in contexts that they didn't feel fairly safe in or just they weren't prepared or they didn't know how much they were taking or all this. So the backlash was because psychedelics gone wrong. But I think the real reason, while that did happen, I think the real reason is psychedelics going right. And people having this sense of connection and then the opposite of what the CIA was hoping that it would kind of turn people inward and take them away from political struggles. It actually motivated people. Once you actually have these psychedelic experiences, your attitude towards death changes also. This idea of death becoming an intrinsic part of life. It's a natural cycle. It's not so much. So I think people realize that while there's this billions of years of evolution, infinity, whatever that means in terms of time, that we're here for a very limited time. And they end up wanting to use their time well. They have a lessened fear of death and they want to build this paradise on Earth here now instead of later. So a lot of people really did get motivated to challenge the Vietnam War, to work on the environmental movement, civil rights movement, women's rights movement, anti-militarism. And it was that challenge to the status quo that caused the backlash. So Leary is someone who in 1990, we had a, now MAPS started in 86. So in 1990, we had this conference to raise money out in California and Leary was there and Ram Dass was there and Ralph Metzner was there and Andy Weil was there and Terence McKenna was there and Dennis McKenna was there and all these. But there was one point where Tim was speaking and afterwards I was asking him some questions and I said, do you have any advice for us on how to work with the government and how to bring these psychedelics forward? That's what we're trying to do. I've got this nonprofit for it. You know, we're trying to do this research. What is your advice on how to bring this forward and how to work with the government? And he said, fuck the government. He said, I am so far past asking for permission for anything, but I'm glad that you're doing it. And then he held up my hand like, you know, like passing the torch. Wow. So it was, and that's one of my favorite photographs of me and Tim where he's sort of like, but it was the after this, fuck the government. I'm so far past asking for permission for anything, but I'm glad that you are. Now I did follow ups to the Good Friday experiment and I did follow ups, 25 year follow up to the Good Friday experiment, about a 34 year follow up to the Concord prison experiment. What I discovered in some ways, I would say is the key to the 60s, what I just told you, but in the follow up to the Good Friday experiment that I did in the 80s for my undergraduate thesis at New College in Sarasota, Florida, I eventually found 19 out of the 20 people. It was just, it was, that was an enormous challenge because their names were all lost and it just took forever, years and years and years to find them all. But I discovered that those people that had the psilocybin experience in the midst of 25 years later with Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan, and if there ever were there a social pressure to disavow the validity of the psychedelic experience, that was then. And instead they affirmed it, that they thought with all of this years of hindsight now looking back, they thought it was a valid mystical experience. But I discovered that one of the persons who had the psilocybin had this experience during the Good Friday service that Reverend Howard Thurman was the minister, he was Martin Luther King's mentor, and Reverend Howard Thurman was the minister at Boston, at Marsh Chapel. Martin Luther King got his PhD at Boston University, and Howard Thurman had spent time with Gandhi, and so he was really kind of this hidden person behind the civil rights movement about nonviolence as their strategy. But he was interested in the political implications of the mystical experience, so he permitted this experiment to take place, and there were 20 divinity students from Andover Newton in the basement, and 10 experimenters, all the people on religion and psychology, like Houston Smith and Walter Eason Clark and Leary and Ram Dass, and others were there as a support part of it. And the sermon was like three hours later, we actually have, three hours long, we actually have the original sermon from the Good Friday experiment from Howard Thurman up on our website. It's incredible, but part of it was tell people there's a man on the cross, and this one person sort of heard that and he thought, okay, I gotta do that. Howard Thurman was such a dynamic speaker, and he said, I gotta tell people there's a man on the cross. And so he said, what am I doing here in this basement chapel listening to this service, I gotta go tell people there's a man on the cross. So he went, he thought he was just going to the bathroom, but he ran out the door, he's running down Commonwealth Avenue, and Houston Smith and Tim Leary go after him, and he had thought that since he should tell somebody, he should tell the president. Like, why not? But then he realized, well, the president's in Washington, I'm, you know, here in Boston, I'll just tell the president of the university. So anyway, he's running down the street, and Leary and Houston Smith go after him, and he doesn't want to go back inside. They finally get him, he's not hit by a car, but they end up giving him a shot of Thorazine. What's Thorazine? Thorazine is like a major anti-psychotic drug. It's a horrible drug, but it knocks people out, tranquilizes them. We would never do that today, you know, we don't abort a difficult experience like that. But in any case, they hid that. That was not part of the write-up of this experiment. So what they did is, in a sense, a little bit exaggerated the benefits. It later became, three years later after the experiment, or four years in Time magazine, it said everybody that got psilocybin had a mystical experience. It wasn't true, not everybody, eight out of the ten did, but not all ten, not this guy. And they minimized the risks. So there was a bit of that. I think Tim was reckless in that way, underplayed the risks and over-promised the benefits. And then the Concord Prison experiment, it turned out that Tim had fudged the data completely, and it wasn't really successful. So I fault him for that. The outside world was doing the opposite. It was exaggerating the risks and blocking research. So he felt justified to fudge the data because the outside world was fudging, in a sense, the response to the... Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So that presents a very nice context. I mean, fuck the government, but I'm glad that somebody is fighting the good fight from within and doing it the right way, which is where you are. So the 80s, let me ask, what is MAPS, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, and what is its mission throughout the years, throughout the decades? Yeah. So MAPS is a non-profit organization. I created it as a non-profit pharmaceutical company. I created it in 86 after DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, criminalized MDMA in 1985. And that was after they started trying to do that in 1984. And as I mentioned, this Terrence McKenna sponsoring, you know, motivating us to do this safety study. So we did that in preparation for this eventual crackdown because MDMA was called ADAM, used as a therapy drug, but it was also beginning to be sold as ecstasy, as a party drug. And that was taking place in public settings and bars. And so it was inevitable that the crackdown would happen. And so I had a non-profit connected to Buckminster Fuller, Earth Metabolic Design Lab, that we used to support this lawsuit against the DEA to block them from criminalizing MDMA. We were winning in the court of public opinion and winning in the court. The DEA freaked out and the emergency scheduled MDMA in 85. The handwriting was on the wall that they were not going to permit the therapeutic use to continue because it gets in the way of the narrative of the drug war and these are terrible drugs. So in 86 is when I started MAPS as a non-profit pharma because the strategy that I realized is that Americans are open to medicines. That tools to ease suffering, that was the opening wedge, the opening door to changing attitudes. And it would be through science, I would say that my religion is more science than anything else. And culture and religion are metaphorical, but often too much they become literal. But I felt that through science, through medicine, there would be a way to bring these drugs back to the surface. And the mission was always this mass mental health, this idea that what we need is to spiritualize humanity. Einstein said, the splitting of the atom has changed everything except our mode of thinking. And hence we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe, which shall be required if mankind is to survive as a whole new mode of thinking. So what is that new mode of thinking? My presumption is that it's more of this mystical sense of thinking that we're all connected. And then if we realize that we're all connected, we're not going to blow up the world. So a lot of people say that, you know, if we could just give LSD all to world leaders, that would be, you know, then they'd have these spiritual experiences, the world would be better. But actually I had a ketamine experience the day after that DMT experience I described with the inner Hitler. This ketamine experience was, I was above and behind Hitler as he was giving a speech, like the Nuremberg rallies kind of thing. And I was trying to think, how do I get into his head? How do I undo what he wants to do? How can we deal with him? And I realized this whole new thing about the Heil Hitler salute. And, you know, he would like push energy out and then everybody would do the salute back to him. And so it's like the one to the many and the many to the one, giving all these people giving away their power. And then how it would just sort of ratchet up in intensity, like these vibrations. And I realized there's no way to get into his head. This idea we've talked about before about you have to be willing. Yes. So what that sort of helped me understand is that the strategy has to be mass mental health. It's not about changing a few leaders. We need to change the mass of humanity to this new mode of thinking, this new spiritual way. So MAPS was a nonprofit pharmaceutical company focused on psychedelics. Big Pharma wasn't doing this work. Government wasn't funding it. So the only source of funds I thought would be through nonprofit donations. And that's been true up until just a couple of years ago now that we have the rise of these for profits. But that's because we've cleared out the regulatory obstacles. We've got more scientific data about the benefits funded through philanthropy. We've changed public opinion. And there's a lot less zeal for the drug war. So all of those things have changed. But at the time, it was mass mental health was the goal. Two tracks. One was drug development. The other was drug policy reform. So that it's not just available to people who have a clinical diagnosis, but people who are personal growth or, you know, they should have access to it as well. I did not know at the time that no drug had ever been made into a medicine by a nonprofit. That was really good. I didn't know that. I might have been a little bit more daunted. And actually, that didn't happen for 13 more years. It happened in 1999. And that was the abortion pill, RU46, that was approved in Europe, but it was controversial. Nobody, no pharmaceutical company would take it. And it was John D. Rockefeller III through the Population Council with the major donor being Warren Buffett. Oh, wow. And the Rockefellers. And the Buffetts and some of the Pritzkers were involved in funding this. So that was the first nonprofit. But the MAPS was designed as, from the very beginning, not academic research into psychedelics, but drug development. And that's a fundamental distinction. And that's why I think we're years ahead now of everybody else in terms of making a psychedelic-assisted therapy into a medicine. Because our goal from the very beginning was not knowledge, not academic research. It was practical. It was drug development. How do we create new social structures? How do we create legal access to these things? Now, in December of 2014, we created the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. So MAPS is a nonprofit. But in our 35 years, we've raised about $110 million in donations. What I didn't know when I started MAPS, and it took me quite a few years, I didn't even know this until about eight, nine years ago, was that in 1984, Ronald Reagan had signed a bill to create incentives for developing drugs that were off patent. So MDMA was invented by Merck in 1912. It's in the public domain. These incentives are called data exclusivity, which means that if you make a drug into a medicine that does no patent protection, nobody can use your data for a period of time to market a generic. And that will effectively be, well, it's five years. You do pediatric studies. You get six months extension. And we are being required, if we succeed in adults, to work with adolescents with PTSD. It blocks a generic competitor from applying until that five and a half years is over. It takes FDA at least six months to review. So more or less six years of data exclusivity, 10 years in Europe is data exclusivity. So the story then became to the donors that you're not going to have to give us money forever because we can make money selling MDMA. But we want to do two revolutionary things, you could say. One is psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, but the other is marketing drugs. When you market it with the profit maximization motive, we end up in the extreme getting the distortions that we have in America, where we have the most expensive health care system in the world per capita, but our outcomes are down like 40 or 50 among the countries, our average outcomes. We don't have a third of the people or so don't have insurance, and it's just very inequitable. So what we're trying to do is show a different way to market drugs, and it's a modification of capitalism that's called the benefit corporation, where you maximize public benefit, not profit. You still make a profit, so selling MDMA for a profit is not something we could keep inside the nonprofit because it's taxable, it's a business. So we've created the MAPS public benefit corporation, which is 100% owned by the nonprofit. So we have a nonprofit that owns a pharma company. And the mission of that pharma company is to maximize not profit, but maximize benefit for society. Yeah, yeah, although there still will be profits, and the profits that we're going to make are going to be used towards the mission of MAPS, which again is this mass mental health and ending the drug war. And in fact, we've hired the Boston Consulting Group to help us plot our commercialization strategy. And so there is some suggestions based, there's so many different assumptions in this, the number of therapists that we train, the price that we set for the MDMA, whether insurance companies will cover it. But there's the possibility of somewhere in the range of three quarters of a billion dollars in profits during this period of data exclusivity. Just from the US. And we're talking about trying to do this research around the world as well. So that's what the benefit corporation is. The benefit corporation is our pharmaceutical arm. We're about 130 people now, somewhere in that fluctuates, but one third of them are in the nonprofit. We do harm reduction, psychedelic harm reduction. We help create programs for people with difficult psychedelic experiences at Burning Man, at festivals all over the world, even in cities. We're now negotiating with the police, the city of Denver, because Denver has made the mushrooms the lowest enforcement priority. Oregon has passed the Oregon psilocybin initiative. So in those areas where maybe more people are going to gravitate to do psychedelics, we want there to be harm reduction so that we don't have bad stories coming out that would change that. So MAPS does the psychedelic harm reduction. We do public education. We do a lot of it. That's what you and I are doing right now. We're doing that now. But also research towards... Well, the research now is done in the benefit corp. In the benefit corp. Yeah. So what happens is people donate to MAPS, get a tax deduction. MAPS transfers the money or you could say invests in the benefit corp. The benefit corp will do the research and then MAPS is the sponsor, but then we will license the sale of MDMA to the benefit corp. Got it. But the research is done with an eye towards creating something that has a big impact versus just research for knowledge sake. Yeah, because I'm interested in political change. The other part of it, which is that the brain is the most complex thing we know in the universe. It's endless. I mean, when are we going to really... Like this idea of will we figure out telepathy? Will we figure out tapping into the collective unconscious? What is the extent of our brain? How does the brain actually work? Do you ask chemistry questions? So if it's just the pursuit of knowledge, that is an endless thing. And how does that end the drug war? How does that help people directly? So that's why we're focused on drug development more than mechanism of action. Before I ask you about one but several really exciting studies, let me ask sort of a personal question for me. So if I wanted to get psychedelics from the MAPS public benefit corporation and explore my own mind, how do I get to do that? And when? You won't be able to. You'll never be able to. This is very unfortunate. Because the reason is because the benefit corp is designed as a pharmaceutical company. So we can only work on clinical indications. So let's say you come to me and you just say, oh, I'm really depressed. Can I get MDMA to overcome my depression or overcome my PTSD? We'll have to do research in those indications. And by when you say me, you mean like a doctor. So this would be prescribed in theory by doctors. This would go through a doctor and the prescription. Okay, let me ask another question. To further answer, so that's where the drug policy arm comes in, the drug policy reform. So you should be able to get access to psychedelics for your own personal growth. But that's not medicine. So that's why we need to medicalize, to have things covered by insurance, to change people's attitudes, the public attitudes. And then we get this subsequent drug policy reform. And we're talking about it in terms of licensed legalization. So my view is you should get a license to do psychedelics. You get a little education stuff. And then you should be able to buy it and do it on your own. So let me rephrase the question in more specific. So when can I, if I happen to have ailments of some kind where the doctor decides that psychedelics could help, when would you be, a loose estimate for you of when a doctor will be able to prescribe to me something from MAPS Public Benefit Co.? And then when for my personal growth and creativity would I be able to get something? So like just looking out, this isn't like guaranteed, but like your vision, your hope for psychedelics in society. Well, the end of 2023, so two and a half years from now, we anticipate FDA approval for the prescription use of MDMA for PTSD. Because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine, there is what's called off-label prescription. What that means, the label is what it's approved for. So the label will say, oh, this is approved for PTSD. But let's say you come in anything else, social anxiety or whatever, you can go to the doctor. They can give it to you. It might not be covered by insurance. They have to be a little bit careful about malpractice. But I think the end of 2023 is when you will be able to do that. Now, there's actually another program, very limited, called Expanded Access, which is compassionate use, which means that, and we have approval for 50 people for compassionate use right now. We think that'll grow. So that's going to open up in about two months. And so those are people with PTSD. They have to be treatment resistant. Nothing has worked for them. And they can access MDMA while we're doing the phase three studies. But they have to pay for it themselves. The sponsor has to pay for all the research. But Expanded Access, because there's no control group, everybody gets the MDMA. People can pay for it themselves. And we think that'll start in a couple months. But it's very limited. It's limited to certain cities. There's also a program called Right to Try, which is passed through Congress. It's similar to this idea of compassionate use, but it cuts the FDA out of it. And patients can negotiate directly with pharma companies to get access to their drugs. That's starting to happen, I think, in Canada now. They're letting people have compassionate access to psilocybin for life-threatening illness, because there has been studies with psilocybin for cancer patients and others with life-threatening illness. As far as your question about when will you be able to access this for personal growth outside of medicine, I'll take that to mean fully legally, where you can just go buy pure drugs somewhere. When will that happen? We already are starting to see the decriminalization in certain areas of plant psychedelics. And we see overall drug decrim that passed in Oregon, so that any drug is now, it's not legal. You can't really fully set up clinics to offer it to people, or there's no legal supply like that. But it's decriminalized. So my sense of things is based a lot on watching what happened with medical marijuana and marijuana legalization. So we're sitting here in Massachusetts where marijuana is legal. But what happened first was medical marijuana. So what we see is that medicalization, by demonstrating that under certain contexts, the risks are much less than the benefits, and then there are benefits. And then people hear stories about people that have gotten better, and then that changes their minds. And then eventually that builds up to why are we throwing people in jail for this? It's just the culture, yeah. So I think that what we're going to have 2023 is MDMA approved by the FDA, chances are. Psilocybin will be a year or two after that. Then what we're going to need is a decade of psychedelic clinics that are going to roll out across America, also other countries as well, thousands of these psychedelic clinics. We already have hundreds of ketamine clinics that are ketamine for depression. More and more people are realizing that ketamine, when it's used with therapy, it's better than when it's not. But the therapists want to be psychedelic therapists. They don't want to be a ketamine therapist or an MDMA therapist. So they'll be cross-trained. So we'll have a decade of these thousands of psychedelic clinics and all these stories of people getting better. And 2035 is when I think that we will move to licensed legalization, which is when you will have the option of just going somewhere. Once you've done this educational stuff, potentially, I also think it would be better to have the opportunity for people to go for free, paid for by tax money, to these clinics, and you have your first experience with psychedelics under supervision. And you know what you're getting into. You've tasked a questionnaire, what the risks are with the drugs. Then you get your license. So 2035 is when I think that'll happen. And the clinics will be sites of these initiations. Yes. And so it'll be a safe environment, just like you said, all the things that are actually maximize the likelihood of a pleasant experience and all those kinds of things. It is a frustratingly slow process. And the FDA being part of that process is very frustrating. Of course, there's benefits. But boy, I wish it could move a lot faster. Yeah. Well, one thing that I've learned from being a parent is that when you have little kids, it seems like they'll be with you forever. But then when they grow up and they go to college and they leave, you look back and like, where did that 20 years ago? So we're still dealing with the legacy of the Civil War and slavery in America. So actually, a 20-year plan is not that long. So while we say it's frustratingly slow and it is, you know, I mean, it's 50 years since the psychedelic 60s. And, you know, when right now it's, you know, it's 36 years since MDMA was criminalized. And you think about all those people that committed suicide from PTSD or from anything else and all those people that could have been helped. If the DEA had accepted the administrative law judge recommendation that MDMA stay in Schedule 3, it's tremendously sad. At the same time, culture evolves slowly. You know, you read the Bible or you read all this stuff. We're not that different from people thousands of years ago. So how are we going to really evolve enough over the next couple of decades so we don't destroy the planet and don't kill each other? That's why I think psychedelics have an important role to play. That's why I've devoted my life to psychedelics. And it is frustratingly slow. And what I said to myself is our whole effort has not been fast enough. Can we talk a little bit about PTSD and MDMA? There's this fascinating paper came out on a fascinating study that you're a part of. That's a phase three study. Can you describe what the study is? Can you describe what phase three means? Can you describe what the findings are and why it's, in fact, so important and impactful? Yeah. This study came out May 10th in Nature Medicine. So one of the highest impact factors in medicine journals. It was tremendous. So to make a drug into a medicine, the first thing you need to do is what are called nonclinical or preclinical studies, meaning safety established in animals. What does the drug do? What are the side effects in animals? Where do you see the risks? And then you negotiate with FDA to do phase one studies. And phase one studies are where you move from animals to humans. And those are more safety studies and trying to describe what the drug does so that you can determine if there is potential medical value there. Certain drugs like cancer drugs are so toxic that you don't have phase one studies in healthy volunteers. It's like phase one slash two where you bring in the patients, but you still are doing sort of dose response safety studies, but you use patients. But most phase one studies are healthy volunteers. Phase two are where you start bringing in the patients and you start experimenting with various different things. The purpose of phase two is really just to design phase three. Now, again, I'm sort of putting out of the picture in another area is mechanism of action. How do these drugs work? Phase two, you're trying to figure out what they do, who your patient population is, what are the risks, who do you include, who do you exclude, what are the doses, what is your treatment, what are your measures. In our case, it was, you know, how do you do a double blind study? That was a big part of phase two. That's a big challenge for psychedelic drugs, any kind of drugs that have a real strong effect. You know, how do you do a double blind study? A double blind study to interrupt would mean that the patient should know, should not be aware whether it's a placebo or not. And the researcher. And the researcher is not aware. And so for that lack of awareness, when the effect is really strong, it's very difficult to do on both the researcher and the patient side. Yes. And sometimes they talk about triple blind. So the other part is the raters that evaluate the symptoms and before and after. So you ideally want triple blind. You want the patients, the researchers, and the evaluators of the outcomes, all of them, not to know what the drug, whether it was drug or placebo, and that's to reduce experiment or bias. So and then then you move to phase three. Once you've figured out how to design the phase three studies and phase three are the large scale, multi-site placebo controlled double blind studies where you must prove safety and efficacy in order to get permission to market the drug. Now, for us, when we started MAPS in 86, as I said, it was one year after the criminalization of MDMA in 85, we had five different protocols that were rejected by the FDA for studying with MDMA. And these were all various phase one studies. They came from Harvard, from UC San Francisco, from the University of Arizona and Albuquerque, New Mexico, all over. And they were all rejected. In 1992, six years after we started, we got the first permission for phase one. And that took us through much of the 90s. Again, things are slow because we have to raise the money through donations. And then in 1999 is when we started the work with PTSD. And that then took us till November 29th, 2016, which is when we had the end of phase two meeting with FDA. So it took 30 years from the start of MAPS to the end of phase two meeting with FDA. And what we had discovered during phase two was several different key points. The drugs that are available right now for PTSD, the SSRIs, Zoloft and Paxil, that have been approved by FDA and regulators in Europe as well, the European Medicines Agency, for PTSD, they work better in women than in men, and they failed in combat-related PTSD. So what we learned is that MDMA-assisted therapy works just as well in men or women, and it works in combat-related PTSD. It works regardless of the cause of PTSD. We also discovered that even though there are stories that people take MDMA at raves and they dance all night and they overheat and they get hyperthermia and they die from overheating, which is true and can happen from pure MDMA, or that sometimes people have heard about needing to cool down. And so they drink water and then while they're dancing all night, and then they drink too much water, and then they dilute their blood and they die from hyponatremia. So there are risks of MDMA, but we discovered that in a therapeutic setting, we can control all those risks, those things don't happen at all. So we discovered safety. We could demonstrate safety. We also figured out that our measure, the CAPS, the Clinician Administrative PTSD Scale, that it's the gold standard all over the world for measuring PTSD symptoms. It's what the FDA and the EMA require. We discovered that it was a good measure for us and that we could show changes in that. The other big thing that we learned is that, and we haven't mentioned this yet, but the work in the 50s and 60s with LSD and psilocybin and the modern research over the last 20 years with psilocybin and classic psychedelics has demonstrated that there's a link between this mystical experience, this unit of mystical experience and therapeutic outcomes for the treatment of addiction, for working with people with life-threatening illnesses, for OCD, for obsessive compulsive disorder. That there's, with the classic psychedelics, both in the 50 years ago and then the research now has been that there's a link between the depth of the mystical experience and therapeutic outcome. What we discovered is that that's not the case for MDMA. That people do score fairly high on the scales of mystical experience. Not as high as they do with the classic psychedelics, but they do score pretty high on average. And a significant number of them have over the cutoff for what would be considered a full mystical experience. So enough to say that we could look at a correlation and we didn't find any. The other thing that we discovered, and this was more humbling, I would say, for me personally, is that my dissertation at the Kennedy School, a big part of it was on the, it's about the regulation of the medical use of psychedelics and marijuana. Big part of my dissertation was how to do the double-blind study. And I thought I'd solved the problem and I persuaded my dissertation committee that I'd solved the problem. And the solution was therapy with low-dose MDMA versus therapy with full-dose MDMA. And everybody knows that they're going to get MDMA. Most of these people have never done it before. They'll be confused about is it full dose or low dose. And then the challenge is to pick a dose that's high enough so that there is this confusion, but not so high that it's so therapeutic that we can't tell the difference between the groups. So we studied zero, meaning inactive placebo, 25 milligrams, 30 milligrams, 40 milligrams, 50 milligrams, 75 milligrams, 100 milligrams, 125, and 150. What we discovered is that my dissertation was wrong and that there is no good solution to the double-blind problem. What we found is that, to our surprise actually, was that 75 milligrams was an effective dose. We didn't think that. I mean, the normal dose is like, full dose is like 125 milligrams, something like that. But 75 milligrams was an effective dose. And we discovered that the lower doses, so I was half right, you could say. The doses of 25, 30, 40, 50, they could produce enough confusion that you could say that they were successful at blinding. Not perfectly, but enough confusion so that people, therapists, couldn't know for sure, so that there was this reduction of bias, you could say. But what we discovered, again, to our surprise, was that the low doses made people uncomfortable. They stimulated them, but they didn't reduce the fear. And so people still got better with the therapy, with low-dose MDMA. But if we gave them therapy with inactive placebo, they did even better than if we gave them therapy with low-dose MDMA. So we call it an antitherapeutic effect. I don't mean to imply that they got worse, but it made people uncomfortable. People didn't like it, but we would still help them make some progress. So we had the blinding, but what it meant by reducing the effect of therapy with inactive placebo is that it would make it easier for us to find a difference between the two groups. And so the real question is, if you can do it with therapy, why bother add a drug? So we went to the FDA, and so this was what we discovered during phase two. We went to the FDA at this end of phase two meeting, and we said, we can give you blinding, but it will make it easier for us to find a difference between the two groups. And so we suggest that we do therapy with inactive placebo versus therapy with full-dose MDMA. That will cause a problem because most people will be able to tell what they've got. Tom Laughrin, a doctor who used to be head of psychiatry products at FDA, is our main advisor. So the first thing he said is that the double-blind fails in practice a lot, even with SSRIs, because there are certain side effects that you have with these drugs. And the doctors who are doing these research, when you're reporting your side effects, they can say, oh, that's probably you got the active drug instead of the placebo. So the double-blind is, in theory, is terrific, but in practice, it doesn't always work quite as well. And so what Tom said is that there are two main approaches that they think are important to reduce bias. The first one is easy to do. It's called random assignment. So sometimes there are studies where you'll treat a bunch of people with something, and some fraction of them will get better and some won't. And then you say, OK, all those who didn't get better, who volunteers to get this new treatment? And then you give them the new treatment. But the people that volunteer are more likely to want to get better. They're not representative sample of everybody that has the disease. So when you have random assignment, everybody is similarly motivated and meets the same inclusion-exclusion criteria. So that's what we told. Of course, we need random assignment. The other part was when the bias double-blind doesn't work as well, then the system of independent raters is especially important of how you do that. So we have over a pool of raters, over 20 of them, and we do this monthly inter-rater reliability tests to make sure that they evaluate this so that they're given a videotape of a PTSD patient, and then they're supposed to rate them according to their symptoms. And then we sort of make sure that we've got this calibrated rater pool. And it's all done by Zoom, by telemedicine, and they're randomly assigned to the next person that needs a rating. So you said 20 raters. Yeah. So we've got like 20 raters. And what we want to do is make it so that each rater sees each patient only once, maybe twice, but not tracking them through the study so that tries to reduce the bias in the raters, that they don't know where this person is in the study. Yes. And so there's a fellow, Bob Temple, who's like the old wise man at the FDA. He's been there since 1972. He was in charge of the Office of Science Policy, and they brought him into the final meeting of this process where we are trying to design phase three. So once FDA said, yes, you can go to phase three, that was November 29, 2016, we then negotiated for eight months on the design of phase three and all of the other information that is going to need. This is fascinating, this process of design. Yeah, it was, you know, to the extent that I have any artistic creativity, it's in protocol design. I really love that. So you enjoy this process. I love it. I love it because it's always tradeoffs and it's, you know, and I acknowledge that we are all biased. And so how do you, there's something beautiful about the scientific process designed to get you to the truth. Especially when that scientific process is trying to get to the truth of the human organism, which is so complicated. So it's very difficult to dissect, to get the strong effects. And when you're analyzing, when you have like raiders, they're watching a video, there's, removing subjectivity from that is very, very challenging. Yeah, very much so. And so we came to this agreement with FDA, though, that we would use this independent raider pool. And so we learned in phase two, again, that the double blind, there was no solution to the double blind problem. And both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency in the end agreed that the best design was therapy with inactive placebo versus therapy with full dose MDMA. And we're accepting the fact that most people will be able to tell whether they got nothing or they got full dose MDMA. Most therapists will be able to tell the difference. But that makes a harder test for us to show a difference between the two groups because we're giving them inactive placebo and not the anti-therapeutic effect of low dose MDMA. So once we started phase three, so then we were able to start in 2018, phase three. The paper in Nature Medicine that just came out was the results of our first phase three study. We came to agreement with FDA that we would do two phase three studies. Each would have 100 persons in them. And what the FDA said to us is that they thought that we could prove efficacy with smaller numbers than they wanted to see for safety. The reason they said that is that in phase two, we had a large effect size. So from a statistical point of view, the bigger of an effect that you're looking for, the fewer number of people you need to get statistical significance. When you're trying to find small differences, you need large numbers of people to sort of work out the noise. So we came to agreement on two 100-person phase three studies. And the idea is that it's very possible that the first part, the first study would show the efficacy because the effect is so strong. Yeah, yeah. And the second, but also safety as well. So one of the things we also realized when you work with a highly stigmatized drug in the midst of still the drug war and prohibition, that we need highly sympathetic subjects. And we need to make the best case we can, which means we need to work with the hardest cases so that this is really needed. And so we end up enrolling people. The first study was chronic, severe PTSD. And unlike many studies of PTSD, we enroll people that have previously attempted suicide. So we have multiple people that have tried to kill themselves that we felt like if we were to exclude them, what are we doing? Those are the people that need it the most. So we came to this agreement with FDA. We're going to work with chronic, severe PTSD patients, including those that attempted suicide. And we would do these two 100-person studies. And we also negotiated what's called an interim analysis. So what that means is that when the study is underway, and often big, big studies, they have this kind of interim analysis where what you do is, and for us, we negotiated when we had 60 percent or 60 people had reached the primary outcome measure and all 100 had been enrolled. Then we would take a look at the data. And if the statistical analysis that we did was showing, you know, based on a certain effect size that we chose based on what we saw in phase two, the interim analysis is for what's called sample size re-estimation. So what it means is if the results aren't as good as you thought they would, you can add more people. And then you'll get statistical significance. It means that your effect isn't as strong as you thought. It'll be harder to get insurance to cover it, but FDA will still approve it. Because FDA also believes that these are group averages. There may be some people that will later figure out respond better than others. So they'll approve it if it's statistically significant, even if it has a low effect size. The SSRIs have low effect size. So we did the interim analysis in March of 2020. And what we discovered, to our delight, was that we did not need to add any subjects. That's all we were told. We weren't told, like, what is the results. We were just told all we were going to get is a number, zero, or you need to add X numbers of people to the study to get statistical significance. That's right around the time that COVID hit and lockdowns happened. And we ended up negotiating with FDA that we would end the study with 90 people instead of 100. It took a while for us to end up doing that. So the paper that we just published is on the results of 90 people. I think it was 46 in the MDMA group, 44 in the placebo group. And what we discovered was that the study worked better than we had even hoped. So the first thing is that you look at statistical significance. You have to get 0.05, which basically means a nickel out of a dollar, a one in 20 chance that the difference between the two groups is due to some random factor rather than to your intervention. And in this case, the placebo group gets therapy and then with inactive placebo, and then the group gets MDMA with active placebo. So you have to get 0.05. There's another measure that the FDA uses sometimes called robust, which means one in a thousand instead of one in 20, one in a thousand. And if you get a robust results, 0.001, and you meet some other criteria, they might agree to approve the drug on the basis of just one phase three study instead of two. Because when you think about it, a one in 20 chance for your first second phase three study, a one in 20 chance for your second phase three study, you multiply that together, it's one in 400, 0.025. That's pretty good. So robust, 0.001 is even better than two independent phase three studies each at 0.05. What we ended up getting was one in 10,000, 0.0001. Outrageous. So that's a measure of both the difference between the two groups and the variability. And so what it meant is that we had minimal variability, that most people who got the MDMA got quite a large amount of benefit from it. And most people who got the placebo were more or less in the same range as well. That's really exciting, by the way. I mean, I suppose it's exciting from a perspective of approval by the FDA. Maybe perhaps that's the way you're seeing it, but it's also exciting because it has a chance to help people that are truly suffering. Yeah. Well, if we can get one in 10,000 in the first phase three study, chances are we can get one in 20 in the second. So it's really going to be about safety for us in the second phase three study. Yeah. Now, you can have a large P value, a large significance, but you could have an effect that's not very significant. It's not clinically significant. You can have statistical significance without clinical significance. And as I said, the more people you get in the study, you can find smaller and smaller differences between two groups. Now, we showed that we had a very large effect size. So effect size is based on- That scale you mentioned? Well, the scale of the effect size is based on standard deviations. So an effect size of one means that your results are one standard deviation away from the norm. That's considered very large. The SSRIs, because they were like 0.3, 0.4 effect size, that's considered small effect size. Medium is starting to be around 0.6. And 0.8 and above are large effect sizes. We had what's called placebo subtracted effect size. There's two different ways to look at it. Placebo subtracted means you kind of look at the difference between your two groups. And what that is for us, since one group had therapy and one had therapy plus MDMA, the placebo subtracted effect size is basically the effect of just the MDMA, because you've kind of washed out the therapy. That was 0.91. So we had a large effect size, which was- Wow. So 0.91 over just the therapy. So over the placebo. Yeah. Now, when we do the within group, meaning the group that just got the MDMA plus therapy, look at their baseline and their outcomes. That's another way to look at it. And that's what's going to actually happen in practice, because people are going to get MDMA plus therapy. That's 2.1 effect size. Two standard deviations away from the norm is enormous effect size. Yeah. The other part is that we had no effect by site, which is very important. So we had 15 sites, two in Israel, two in Canada, 11 throughout the United States. The FDA looks at, is there a site effect? Because what that might mean is maybe you've got all your patients or most of your patients going to this one site, which is these highly experienced therapists. And they're like hippies from way back, and they're super experienced with psychedelics. And they're getting great results, but nobody else gets good results. So we had no effect by site, which means- That's incredible. That we've been able to train all these new therapists. We had about 80 therapists working at all these 15 sites. We also discovered that there's a group that's considered to be very difficult to treat, which is called the dissociative subtype. So when people are traumatized, one of the ways to psychologically survive that is you dissociate. It's like you're not there. Yeah. When you do that, though, it's hard to come back because when you come back, then you get all these painful memories and fearful. And so the extreme of that is called dissociative identity disorder, kind of like schizophrenia, almost dissociative identity. So we let people in who are on the dissociative subtype, and those are considered to be the hardest to treat because the theory is that you need to be ego intact. As I said, the mystical experience is not correlated with therapeutic outcomes. And you need to be talking about what traumatized you and working through that and expressing it, letting it out, not keeping it in. So the dissociative subtype seems like it's harder for them to get back into the event because they're so dissociated. What we showed is that those people did even better on average than everybody else. So that MDMA is integrative. It helps people who are so separate that they make even more rapid progress. So it's almost like the MDMA made it more difficult for them to dissociate. Yes. Yeah. Or you could say it made it easier for them to remember. Yes, exactly. To reverse the dissociation. Yeah. And we find that MDMA enhances memory for the trauma so that you can have these unconscious memories or memories that you cannot remember or that you've suppressed so much, but they distort your view. Your filter of the world is distorted by these fearful memories that the world can't be trusted, people can't be trusted. It's always about to happen. So we find that MDMA increases memory for the trauma, but by reducing the fear, then the memories can come to the surface. Then you can process them, let out the emotions, cry, scream, shake, whatever. And then through this MDMA effect on the amygdala and the hippocampus, it helps you store these memories into long-term storage so that they're not always about to happen. They're in the past. They're part of your story, but they're not the whole story. So we discovered that the dissociative subtype works better. Now, none of this would be enough unless safety. So from a safety perspective, what we discovered is that there was one woman in the study that attempted to kill herself twice during the study. There was another woman that was so worried that she might kill herself, that the therapy brought these things to the surface that she's been pushing away, that she checked herself into a hospital in order to avoid self-harm. At the end of the study, what we learned is both of them were in the placebo group. We didn't have anybody in the MDMA group attempt to kill themselves. So the MDMA is really helpful for giving people a sense of hope and that they can somehow process this. Now, it's not to say that nobody will ever commit suicide. That's our big concern in the second phase three study. As I said, it's more going to be about safety than about efficacy. We think we'll get the efficacy, but we're very concerned about safety. Because we had problems in the first phase three study of somebody trying to kill herself twice in the placebo group, it's the background for having PTSD. So there'd have to be a disproportionate number of people in the MDMA group try to kill themselves or succeed in killing themselves than in the placebo group for the FDA to say, oh, this MDMA, it's too dangerous. We don't think that's going to happen. So the other findings are from safety is that the side effects are transitory. They're minor. They're sweating or jaw clenching or slight temperature increase. And everybody that's been to a rave knows about it. Take an ecstasy. There are some side effects. But they're minor, they're transitory. And there has been this massive problem of during the 80s, the 90s, NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, was trying to say that MDMA was neurotoxic and that you take it and it's going to cause nerve terminal degeneration. It's going to be major brain damage. It's going to be significant functional consequences. And back then they were saying that MDMA is too dangerous. It should never even be researched. Nobody should even get it once because it's poison and brain damage. Well, we no longer believe that. That was exaggerated. That was in service of the drug war. But we've done in phase two neurocognitive tests before and after in two of our different sites and showed no decline in cognitive functioning. So we don't think that there's any neurotoxicity happening in the doses that we use. There's no obvious functional consequences. People are getting better. And the other thing that we've learned in phase two and that we still have to learn from this study. So what we showed is that is the durability of the effect. We showed that 32% of the people that got the therapy without MDMA at two months after the last experimental session no longer had PTSD. Just with the therapy, which is phenomenal because these are on average 14 years PTSD. One third had PTSD over 20 years. And just with the therapy, 32% no longer had PTSD at the two months. However, those people that got MDMA, it was 67% no longer had PTSD, more than twice as good. In phase two and in phase three, we're also going to do the 12-month follow-up. That's not for the FDA. That's not for approvability. That's more for insurance companies. Because this is expensive, a lot of therapy time. If it fades, you know, if it's great results initially, but then it fades after six months, what's the point? And what we showed in phase two is that people keep getting better at the two-month follow-up. They're doing pretty well, but at the 12-month follow-up, they're even better. So it's durable. People have learned how to process trauma. They keep getting better. So we've not reached that point in this phase three study where everybody's got their one-year follow-up. But we have also done three-and-a-half-year follow-ups to some of the groups that were in phase two and showed that it was durable. And we're doing a long-term follow-up now to many of the people in phase two. Some of them treated 15 years ago. So that's all more for the insurance companies. So basically, what we found in the paper that we just published is that it was highly efficacious, highly significant, no effect by sight, works in the hardest cases, and the safety record was great. That's an incredible success, and that's really exciting, especially given that the people who attempted to commit suicide were let into the study. And so these are people who are truly suffering. I mean, that's incredibly exciting. I mean, just to speak to the frustration why things can't move faster, but for what it is, it's incredibly exciting. Is there other studies of this nature that you foresee enabling that same kind of positive impact, whether it's MDMA, for other things like treating addiction, or maybe it's psilocybin for other conditions? Is there something else that's promising? Yeah, I think that what we've discovered I don't think is unique to MDMA. So it's MDMA-assisted psychotherapy. MDMA is ideal for PTSD. Maybe it won't work as well for OCD or other things. It was very strategic why we chose MDMA and why we chose PTSD. But I don't think that the results that we've got are so unique to MDMA-assisted therapy. I think that psilocybin-assisted therapy is going to be great for people with life-threatening illnesses, cancer, you know, who are anxious about dying. It looks like it's really good in the treatment of addiction. Again, these are in combination with sort of the psilocybin tobacco is cognitive behavioral therapy with psilocybin. I think that it's going to be a little bit more difficult, psilocybin for depression. I don't know if it'll be quite as good. You know, there are some biological aspects sometimes to depression, but I think that there'll be really good results for psilocybin for depression. I think it'll be approved. It's considered a breakthrough therapy by the FDA. Ibogaine is phenomenal for opiate addiction, helping people go through withdrawal and then giving them this chance to deal with the material that drives them for addiction. There was Ben Sessa, Dr. Ben Sessa in England did MDMA for alcohol use disorder, and that was really great, the results he got. And it's the case that he ended up basically treating people for trauma. It's the trauma that people run, the emotional challenges that people run from into quieting that pain through drug addiction or alcoholism. So trauma is behind a lot of addiction. I think that we are going to see a revolution in psychiatry and that there will be a lot of conditions that have left a lot of people still suffering, that psychedelic-assisted therapy, different psychedelics, different approaches, but I think that we will see a lot of hope for psychiatry and psychotherapy and that psychedelics will be a big part of changing the practice of psychiatry and psychotherapy. Yeah, this is really, to me, fascinating. So I actually, when I was younger, for the longest time, wanted to be a psychiatrist. Oh. So I was excited by psychotherapy, but then I, perhaps incorrectly, maybe you can correct me, but became more and more cynical because it felt like it was more about prescribing drugs than psychotherapy. I'm not going to correct you. I mean, right now, there is a crisis in psychiatry, that there are so many psychiatrists that are so fed up because they have been pharmaceuticalized, they meet people for 15 minutes, they adjust their medications, this is the way they make the most money, but they've lost the art of talking to people. Yes. And that's why we see that so many young psychiatric residents are so thrilled by psychedelics, that they really want to get back to treating people as individuals, not just a bunch of chemicals. Yeah, that's truly fascinating, because the reason it was appealing to me was a way to study the human mind and to see ways, through talking, that you can make people feel better. Make people better. You know, make people suffer less. And that was really exciting at the time. I ended up then going to AI because then I can understand the mind from that angle. But it's exciting that that could be also revolutionized the field of psychotherapy, take it from its, back to its origins, to where a psychiatrist would be a scholar of the mind. Yeah, well, you know, Freud talked about dreams as the Royal Road to the unconscious. And there was a lot of, you really spent a lot of time with people. Now, right before he died, in his last book, Freud wrote something, and again, this will be a rough paraphrase, but he said that in the future, we may learn about the energies of the brain and there'll be ways with chemicals to influence that that will help the therapeutic process. Yeah. So you could say he was ahead of his time. Yeah. This study paints a fascinating picture of a future where, first for medical applications, but then also in general, psychedelics of various forms could be used by the broader society. Forgive the perhaps ridiculous question, but if much of society, including our politicians, are taking psychedelics and dissolving their ego and going through this whole process, how do you think the world may look different in 20, 30, 50 years? Okay, so I said that I think licensed legalization happens in 2035. And I think by 2050, we will have enough people hopefully spiritualized. We're also talking about, we hear so much in terms of climate change about net zero carbon. So our goal is net zero trauma. When do we have a world with net zero trauma? I mean, right now, we have two sites in Israel. So we help a few people, but the recent war with Gaza has traumatized millions of people on both sides. So we are a long way away from net zero trauma. But that's the hope. And that's, I think, possible. I think humanity as a whole is like lemmings heading over a cliff with climate change and with the nuclear proliferation and just the religious hatreds and more of the retreat to authoritarianism and fundamentalism and tribalism. So I think that there's a very good chance, though, that psychedelics used wisely. It's not just make psychedelics legal and everybody takes them, as you talked about Ted Kaczynski. It's the context that people take it in. But I think that there's a reasonable chance that enough people can sort of, you could say, clean their filters to see people as more similar to them than different, not to label them as the enemy. Stan Grof, again, had this beautiful phrase about transparent to the transcendent. So for our ego, can we be transparent to the transcendent? Because can the filter that we look through the world at be cleaned to, you could say, cleansing the doors of perception? Can it be cleaned to the point where we can see the humanity in everybody and see that one way to say this is that can we get to the point where religions are seen as like languages, where we all have this need to communicate? There's thousands of different languages. We don't say that this language is fundamentally better than this language. This language is the only right language. Everybody must speak English and Russian is bad or German is bad. Maybe we'll get to that point that religions are like that, that there are different cultural backgrounds, different symbol systems, different saints and heroes and messiahs and all this. But that, you know, yeah, Jesus is the son of God, but so is everybody. Or, you know, the Jews are the chosen people, but so is everybody. So can we get there? I think that we can. And I think that we need to to survive the challenges that we're facing. And the hope is that by bringing psychedelics as tools forward and trying to bring the context around them to be one of responsibility rather than just profit maximization and just get as many people to do them from all these for-profit companies. You know, can we and then also drug policy reform and embed knowledge in the society? Can we get to honest drug education? You know, DARE, the Drug Awareness Resistance Education, you know, is fundamentally twisted. I mean, but it's the program that's used in a lot of schools now. So can we get honest drug education, pure drugs, harm reduction and knowledge about therapeutic uses? And on the one hand and more of these thousands of psychedelic clinics, I'm hopeful. And that's our goal. But in this landscape of pharma companies, they make a lot of money. Some people are worried about the impact of those, you know, a big pharma on the landscape of human trauma. Yeah. So there's, of course, some companies could do good, but that's not inherent. Like many of these companies are not optimizing for good, they're optimizing for profit. Exactly. Does this rise of for-profit pharma companies worry you? How do you navigate it? Do we still have for-profit companies that basically do what MAPS does, which is like fight the good fight for the benefit of humanity? Like how do we proceed in this landscape where drugs can make a lot of money? Well, I am concerned. Overall, I think the rise of the for-profit companies we have to realize is a sign of success. That we have overcome the regulatory prohibitions. We've overcome a lot of the public attitudes that are against it. We've demonstrated some success. So the rise of the for-profit companies are a sign of the progress that we've made. On the other hand, turning things over to profit-maximizing companies, the big concern is that they're going to try to minimize the amount of therapy. And make it so the cost is less, so insurance companies are more likely to cover it. And then that they just sell the most drugs. The other thing we've seen as an example of this is ascetamine by Johnson & Johnson for depression. And it's done by a profit-maximizing company. They don't know anything about psychedelic psychotherapy or psychotherapy at all. And so they've gotten approval for ascetamine on the basis of it's just a pharmacological treatment. And it's not delivered with therapy. The results fade pretty quickly. So you need to get more ketamine. And so it's designed in a way to maximize the profits for the pharmaceutical company. But it doesn't maximize patient outcomes. What we're seeing though in these various clinics that are being set up is that a lot of people are realizing that it works better with therapy. And so the clinics are run by people that are therapists. So that when they provide therapy, they're making more money. And then you need less ketamine. Also, ketamine itself, S-ketamine is an isomer of ketamine that's been patented for depression. And they sell it for hundreds of dollars. But ketamine itself is one of the world's essential medicines. It's off patent. It's been around for a long time. It was the main battlefield anesthetic in Vietnam. And it's only a few bucks because it's generic. So a lot of the ketamine clinics are saying, great, thank you, Johnson & Johnson. You've helped demonstrate that ketamine is good for depression. But we're not going to buy it from you. We're going to buy it for a few bucks. And we're going to add therapy to it. Now, there's a bunch of ketamine mills, you could say, that are just prescribing the ketamine. And people are making a lot of money there. So I am worried about that. I think the best thing that we can do is create an alternative narrative, a different kind of example. We can lead by example. We can't make for-profit companies into benefit corporations unless they want to do that. We can't make them to, you know, really maximize patient outcomes. But if we create an example of something that's different, the hope is that people will gravitate towards that and some of the other companies. Like even now we have Exxon and other of these companies, oil companies, saying, oh, we're big into alternative energy. And we're, you know. And that starts with companies that show an example that then communicates to the public that this is something exciting. And then they demand the same of Exxon and so on. The public demands it. And you could say the same thing for the public demanding the big pharma to optimize for benefit versus optimize for profit. And maybe giving power to the therapists, more power to the therapists, more power to the doctors that ultimately want, I think. And incentives are interesting, but I think doctors ultimately care more because they're in direct contact with humans. They want to make people better. It's not, you know, sure they want to make money, but they ultimately want to make people feel better because they get to look at people. And it's so joyful to make people feel better at the end of the day. So giving more power to them is also perhaps one of the ways that you then incentivize the pharma companies that are trying to do good because the doctors will choose those companies. Yeah. Now, the other part of this is drug policy reform. So that if we make it so that you can buy MDMA for 10 or 20 bucks on your own. And we've trained people on here's our therapeutic method. Here is our ways for peer support. Then people have an alternative from buying it from the pharma companies. So most of the for-profit companies have come to this conclusion that drug policy reform is bad for their business model. I think they're making a fundamental mistake. And I think the reason is that the more that we destigmatize this, the more that we sensitize people to this is an approach, even when people can get it on their own and do it with their friends or do it with themselves. There's going to be even more people that say, oh, my God, I've got real serious issues. I would rather go to trained professionals covered by insurance. And I think it'll increase the business. But most of the for-profit companies don't see it that way. And so as a nonprofit that owns a benefit corp, we're not trying to maximize sales or profits. But I do believe that drug policy reform creates this alternative access point for people. And that will help keep the for-profits in check to some extent as well. I love it. Is there – let's put on your wise visionary hat and ask when you look to young folks, is there advice you can give to young people today, whether in high school or college, about career, about life? You've lived quite a nonlinear and fascinating life yourself. Is there advice you can give either on career or more generally on life? Well, I would say what people often hear is that, you know, we're not actually here for that long a period of time. And so to the – and the world is on fire. And whether humanity survives is not clear. And whether – how many species are we going to kill before we figure out not to do that anymore? So I would advise you to really try to develop a combination of what do you need in terms of income for your own survival, but what does the world need in terms of help to make the world better? And, you know, Howard Thurman, who we talked about, who ran the Good Friday experiment, the minister there, he's got a famous quote attributed to him. He says – and this is exactly it to young people. He said, you know, there's nothing particular that you should do, but find what makes you come alive because what the world needs is people that have come alive and are passionate. So I would say that beware of this trap that you need vast resources, that you need all this stuff. You know, I keep thinking of the super wealthy people in first class on the Titanic, you know, as the Titanic is sinking. You know, their money is not going to help them. The Earth is like Titanic. You know, we're sinking, we're destroying the planet, destroying the environment. So you need a certain amount of money to be comfortable, to not be at that edge of survival because once you're at that edge of survival, it's hard to think about anything else. But I'd say to young people, to the extent that you're able to do this, and again, student debt and all this kind of stuff is a big problem there too, but really just try to find this combination of what the world needs and what you need. The other thing to say to young people is life is a lot shorter than you think. And a 20-year plan is not really that long. So if it takes you 20 years to get in a position to do what you want to do, go for it, you know, have long-term plans. The other part that was so important for me to keep doing what I've been doing, basically now it's 49 years that I've sort of been devoting my life on psychedelics since I was 18. When I started, I didn't think it would ever work. I just thought this is the only idea I have in this crazy world. You know, this is what I want to work on. Luckily, I had support from my family that took care of my survival needs so I could do that. But I realized that if my happiness was dependent upon accomplishments, that I might never be happy, that I was able to reframe happiness in terms of effort. You know, so if I'm trying hard to get stuff to be better, whether it's better or not, I can be happy at the end of each day. I tried. And so I think you try to separate out the goals that you have and your happiness to whether you're trying hard. The other thing I would say is that everybody has this humanity within them. So be very careful about dividing the world into us and them. You know, and try to so so one of the things that I've done that has taken a long time because, you know, I feel like, you know, drugs are illegal. I always felt like, you know, the police were the predator and I'm the prey. Yes. But now we're working with the police and the police have tremendous trauma from the work that they do. We have one police officer who is now going. He's a full time police officer. He's also a psychotherapist and he's going through our training program to learn how to give MDMA therapy to other police officers. And I met his police chief a couple of times. He got permission from his police chief to go to the second part of our training program, which is where we give MDMA to therapists who volunteer as a patient. So we have just a couple of weeks ago, dosed the police with MDMA. And so I think this idea of those people that are on the quote other side, try to see through that to their humanity, to what their pains and suffering, what their struggles are to the extent that you can. And that I think and build long term relationships. You never know what's going to come around 20 years from now. So you help some people try to keep these relationships going 20 years from now. Something could could come and and also be persistent. Yeah, I think that's that's been the key to success. I mean, once the FDA or DEA figured out we're not going anywhere, they're going to have to deal with us. Then we started getting some progress. It's a mix of patience and stubbornness that gets things done. Is there something you've figured out through your journey with psychedelics about some of the big why questions about life? Like, what the heck's the value of love? Why does it suck so much that we die? And for some of us, maybe it's the Russian in me, but it's quite terrifying, the notion of it or the biggest why question of them all, which is what's the meaning of it all? Well, yeah, what I've discovered is that we don't need answers to those questions. The fact that we can feel happy, that we can love, that we can have moments of happiness, that's enough. Figuring out these big questions, you can get lost in that. And we all can come up with our answers. What's the meaning of life? Why is there life? Why is there consciousness? But I don't know that we need those answers. What we know is that we're social creatures, that other people can make us happy by certain things, we can make other people happy, that one life is enough. So this other part about why is it so tragic that we die, I don't think it's tragic that we die. So first off, if you believe in this collective unconscious, but we have an impact that lasts. But I think that for me at least, I've been of the view that we should be grateful for death, that death makes life precious, that if we had an infinite amount of time, I mean, I'm a bit of a procrastinator about stuff, particularly things that are really hard to do. And you just don't do it. And then like, where'd the day go? I was going to do this. So if we had infinite life, we never died, would life be precious? Would we do anything? I don't think so. So my parents gave every Jewish New Year, they would make their New Year's card. And one of the quotes was fantastic. It was just, we have to make up for the brevity of life with the intensity of life. Oh man, that is good. Well, the end makes things precious. Death makes life precious. The end of this conversation makes it precious, which is a great way to end. Rick, I wanted to talk to you for a long time. I share, you were very excited about the study. I can now understand exactly why. This is really promising. This is really exciting, gives me hope about the future, even if it doesn't come fast enough. But like you said, you have to be patient and stubborn. Thank you so much for wasting all your valuable time with me today. It's truly an honor to meet you. Not a waste at all. I really appreciate it, this time together. Thank you for listening to this conversation with Rick Doblin. And thank you to Theragun, ExpressVPN, Blinkist, and Asleep. Check them out in the description to support this podcast. And now let me leave you with some words from Terrence McKenna. Nature loves courage. You make the commitment, and nature will respond to that commitment by removing impossible obstacles. Dream the impossible dream, and the world will not grind you under. It will lift you up. This is the trick. This is what all the teachers and philosophers who really counted, who really touched the alchemical gold, this is what they understood. This is the shamanic dance in the waterfall. This is how magic is done. By hurling yourself into the abyss and discovering that it's a feather bed. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/2tUiLxtrLxk

8A-5gIW0-eI

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Harry Cliff: Particle Physics and the Large Hadron Collider | Lex Fridman Podcast #92

The following is a conversation with Harry Cliff, a particle physicist at the University of Cambridge, working on the Large Hadron Collider Beauty Experiment that specializes in investigating the slight differences between matter and antimatter by studying a type of particle called the beauty quark or b quark. In this way, he's part of the group of physicists who are searching for the evidence of new particles that can answer some of the biggest questions in modern physics. He's also an exceptional communicator of science with some of the clearest and most captivating explanations of basic concepts in particle physicists that I've ever heard. So when I visited London, I knew I had to talk to him. And we did this conversation at the Royal Institute Lecture Theater, which has hosted lectures for over two centuries from some of the greatest scientists and science communicators in history, from Michael Faraday to Carl Sagan. This conversation was recorded before the outbreak of the pandemic. For everyone feeling the medical and psychological and financial burden of this crisis, I'm sending love your way. Stay strong. We're in this together. We'll beat this thing. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, review it with five stars on Apple Podcast, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman, spelled F-R-I-D-M-A-N. As usual, I'll do a few minutes of ads now and never any ads in the middle that can break the flow of the conversation. I hope that works for you and doesn't hurt the listening experience. Quick summary of the ads. Two sponsors, ExpressVPN and Cash App. Please consider supporting the podcast by getting ExpressVPN at expressvpn.com slash LexPod and downloading Cash App and using code LexPodcast. This show is presented by Cash App, the number one finance app in the App Store. When you get it, use code LexPodcast. Cash App lets you send money to friends, buy Bitcoin, and invest in the stock market with as little as $1. Since Cash App does fractional share trading, let me mention that the order execution algorithm that works behind the scenes to create the abstraction of the fractional orders is an algorithmic marvel. So big props to the Cash App engineers for solving a hard problem that in the end provides an easy interface that takes a step up to the next layer of abstraction over the stock market, making trading more accessible for new investors and diversification much easier. So again, if you get Cash App from the App Store or Google Play and use the code LexPodcast, you get $10 and Cash App will also donate $10 to Thirst, an organization that is helping advance robotics and STEM education for young people around the world. This show is sponsored by ExpressVPN. Get it at expressvpn.com slash LexPod to get a discount and to support this podcast. I've been using ExpressVPN for many years. I love it. It's easy to use. Press the big power on button and your privacy is protected. And if you like, you can make it look like your location is anywhere else in the world. I might be in Boston now, but I can make it look like I'm in New York, London, Paris, or anywhere else. This has a large number of obvious benefits. Certainly, it allows you to access international versions of streaming websites like the Japanese Netflix or the UK Hulu. ExpressVPN works on any device you can imagine. I use it on Linux, shout out to Ubuntu, Windows, Android, but it's available everywhere else too. Once again, get it at expressvpn.com slash LexPod to get a discount and to support this podcast. And now, here's my conversation with Harry Cliff. Let's start with probably one of the coolest things that human beings have ever created, the Large Hadron Collider, LHC. What is it? How does it work? Okay, so it's essentially this gigantic 27 kilometer circumference particle accelerator. It's this big ring. It's buried about 100 meters underneath the surface in the countryside just outside Geneva in Switzerland. And really what it's for ultimately is to try to understand what are the basic building blocks of the universe. So you can think of it in a way as like a gigantic microscope and the analogy is actually fairly precise. So- Gigantic microscope. Effectively, except it's a microscope that looks at the structure of the vacuum. In order for this kind of thing to study particles, which are the microscopic entities, it has to be huge. Yes. It's a gigantic microscope. What do you mean by studying vacuum? Okay, so I mean, so particle physics as a field is kind of badly named in a way because particles are not the fundamental ingredients of the universe. They're not fundamental at all. So the things that we believe are the real building blocks of the universe are objects, invisible fluid-like objects called quantum fields. So these are fields like the magnetic field around a magnet that exists everywhere in space. They're always there. In fact, actually, it's funny that we're in the wrong institution because this is where the idea of the field was effectively invented by Michael Faraday doing experiments with magnets and coils of wire. So he noticed that, well, it's a very famous experiment that he did where he got a magnet and put on top of it a piece of paper and then sprinkled iron filings. And he found the iron filings arranged themselves into these kind of loops, which was actually mapping out the invisible influence of this magnetic field, which is a thing we've all experienced. We've held a magnet or two poles of magnet and pushed them together and felt this thing, this force pushing back. So these are real physical objects. And the way we think of particles in modern physics is that they are essentially little vibrations, little ripples in these otherwise invisible fields that are everywhere. They fill the whole universe. You know, I don't, I apologize, perhaps for the ridiculous question. Are you comfortable with the idea of the fundamental nature of our reality being fields? Because to me, particles, you know, a bunch of different building blocks makes more sense sort of intellectually, sort of visually, like it seems to, I seem to be able to visualize that kind of idea easier. Are you comfortable psychologically with the idea that the basic building block is not a block, but a field? I think it's, I think it's quite a magical idea. I find it quite appealing. And it's, well, it comes from a misunderstanding of what particles are. So like when you, when we do science at school and we draw a picture of an atom, you draw like, you know, a nucleus with some protons and neutrons, these little spheres in the middle, and then you have some electrons that are like little flies flying around the atom. And that is a completely misleading picture of what an atom is like. It's nothing like that. The electron is not like a little planet orbiting the atom. It's this spread out, wibbly wobbly wave-like thing. And we know we've known that since, you know, the early 20th century, thanks to quantum mechanics. So when we, we carry on using this word particle because sometimes when we do experiments, particles do behave like they're little marbles or little bullets, you know? So in the LHC, when we collide particles together, you'll get, you know, you'll get like hundreds of particles will fly out through the detector and they all take a trajectory and you can see from the detector where they've gone and they look like they're little bullets. So they behave that way, you know, a lot of the time. But when you really study them carefully, you'll see that they are not little spheres. They are these ethereal disturbances in these underlying fields. So this is really how we think nature is, which is surprising, but also I think kind of magic. So, you know, we are, our bodies are basically made up of like little knots of energy in these invisible objects that are all around us. And what is the story of the vacuum when it comes to LHC? So why did you mention the word vacuum? Okay, so if we just, if we go back to like the physics we do know, so atoms are made of electrons, which were discovered a hundred or so years ago. And then in the nucleus of the atom, you have two other types of particles. There's an up, something called an up quark and a down quark. And those three particles make up every atom in the universe. So we think of these as ripples in fields. So there is something called the electron field and every electron in the universe is a ripple moving about in this electron field. So the electron field is all around us, we can't see it, but every electron in our body is a little ripple in this thing that's there all the time. And the quark field is the same. So there's an up quark field and an up quark is a little ripple in the up quark field and the down quark is a little ripple in something else called the down quark field. So these fields are always there. Now, there are potentially, we know about a certain number of fields in what we call the standard model of particle physics. And the most recent one we discovered was the Higgs field. And the way we discovered the Higgs field was to make a little ripple in it. So what the LHC did, it fired two protons into each other very, very hard with enough energy that you could create a disturbance in this Higgs field. And that's what shows up as what we call the Higgs boson. So this particle that everyone was going on about eight or so years ago is proof really, the particle in itself is, I mean, it's interesting, but the thing that's really interesting is the field because it's the Higgs field that we believe is the reason that electrons and quarks have mass. And it's that invisible field that's always there that gives mass to the particles. The Higgs boson is just our way of checking it's there basically. And so the Large Hadron Collider, in order to get that ripple in the Higgs field, you, it requires a huge amount of energy, I suppose. And so that's why you need this huge, that's why size matters here. So maybe there's a million questions here, but let's backtrack. Why does size matter in the context of a particle collider? So why does bigger allow you for higher energy collisions? Right, so the reason, well, it's kind of simple really, which is that there are two types of particle accelerator that you can build. One is circular, which is like the LHC, the other is a great long line. So the advantage of a circular machine is that you can send particles around a ring and you can give them a kick every time they go around. So imagine you have a, there's actually a bit of the LHC that's about only 30 meters long, where you have a bunch of metal boxes, which have oscillating 2 million volt electric fields inside them, which are timed so that when a proton goes through one of these boxes, the field it sees as it approaches is attractive. And then as it leaves the box, it flips and becomes repulsive and the proton gets attracted and kicked out the other side. So it gets a bit faster. So you send it, but then you send it back around again. And it's incredible. Like the timing of that, the synchronization, wait, really? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think there's going to be a multiplicative effect on the questions I have. Okay, let me just take that tangent for a second. The orchestration of that, is that a fundamentally a hardware problem or a software problem? Like how do you get that? I mean, I should first of all say, I'm not an engineer. So the guys, I did not build the LHC. So there are people much, much better at this stuff than I could. For sure, but maybe, but from your sort of intuition, from the echoes of what you understand, what you heard of how it's designed, what's your sense? What's the engineering aspects of it? The acceleration bit is not challenging. Okay, I mean, okay, there is always challenges with everything, but basically you have these, the beams that go around the LHC, the beams of particles are divided into little bunches. So they're called, they're a bit like swarms of bees, if you like. And there are around, I think it's something of the order 2000 bunches spaced around the ring. And they, if you're a given point on the ring, counting bunches, you get 40 million bunches passing you every second. So they come in like, you know, like cars going past in a very fast motorway. So you need to have, if you're electric field that you're using to accelerate the particles, that needs to be timed so that as a bunch of protons arrives, it's got the right sign to attract them and then flips at the right moment. But I think the voltage in those boxes oscillates at hundreds of megahertz. So the beams are like 40 megahertz, but it's oscillating much more quickly than the beam. So I think, you know, it's difficult engineering, but in principle, it's not, you know, a really serious challenge. The bigger problem. There's probably engineers like screaming at you right now. Probably. But I mean, okay. So in terms of coming back to this thing, why is it so big? Well, the reason is you want to get the particles through that accelerating element over and over again. So you want to bring them back round. That's why it's round. The question is why couldn't you make it smaller? Well, the basic answer is that these particles are going unbelievably quickly. So they travel at 99.9999991% of the speed of light in the LHC. And if you think about say driving your car around a corner at high speed, if you go fast, you need a very, you need a lot of friction in the tires to make sure you don't slide off the road. So the limiting factor is how powerful a magnet can you make because it's what we do is magnets are used to bend the particles around the ring. And essentially the LHC when it was designed was designed with the most powerful magnets that could conceivably be built at the time. And so that's your kind of limiting factor. So if you wanted to make the machines smaller, that means a tighter bend. You need to have a more powerful magnet. So it's this toss up between how strong are your magnets versus how big a tunnel can you afford. The bigger the tunnel, the weaker the magnets can be. The smaller the tunnel, the stronger they've got to be. Okay, so maybe can we backtrack to the standard model and say what kind of particles there are, period. And maybe the history of kind of assembling that the standard model of physics and then how that leads up to the hopes and dreams and the accomplishments of the Large Hadron Collider. Yeah, sure, okay. So all of 20th century physics in like five minutes. Yeah, please. Okay, so, okay, the story really begins properly end of the 19th century. The basic view of matter is that matter is made of atoms and the atoms are indestructible, immutable little spheres like the things we were talking about that don't really exist. And there's one atom for every chemical element. So there's an atom for hydrogen, for helium, for carbon, for iron, et cetera, and they're all different. Then in 1897 experiments done at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, which is where I'm still, where I'm based, showed that there are actually smaller particles inside the atom, which eventually became known as electrons. So these are these negatively charged things that go around the outside. A few years later, Ernest Rutherford, very famous nuclear physicist, one of the pioneers of nuclear physics, shows that the atom has a tiny nugget in the center, which we call the nucleus, which is a positively charged object. So then by like 1910, 11, we have this model of the atom that we learn in school, which is you've got a nucleus, electrons go around it. Fast forward a few years, the nucleus, people start doing experiments with radioactivity where they use alpha particles that are spat out of radioactive elements as bullets, and they fire them at other atoms. And by banging things into each other, they see that they can knock bits out of the nucleus. So these things come out called protons, first of all, which are positively charged particles, about 2000 times heavier than the electron. And then 10 years later, more or less, a neutral particle is discovered called the neutron. So those are the three basic building blocks of atoms. You have protons and neutrons in the nucleus that are stuck together by something called the strong force, the strong nuclear force. And you have electrons in orbit around that held in by the electromagnetic force, which is one of the forces of nature. That's sort of where we get to by like 1932, more or less. Then what happens is physics is nice and neat. In 1932, everything looks great, got three particles and all the atoms are made of, that's fine. But then cloud chamber experiments, these are devices that can be used to, the first device is capable of imaging subatomic particles. So you can see their tracks and they're used to study cosmic rays, particles that come from outer space and bang into the atmosphere. And in these experiments, people start to see a whole load of new particles. So they discover for one thing, antimatter, which is the sort of a mirror image of the particles. So we discover that there's also, as well as a negatively charged electron, there's something called a positron, which is a positively charged version of the electron. And there's an anti-proton, which is negatively charged. And then a whole load of other weird particles start to get discovered and no one really knows what they are. This is known as the zoo of particles. Are these discoveries, are not the first theoretical discoveries or are they discoveries in an experiment? So like, yeah, what's the process of discovery for these early sets of particles? It's a mixture. I mean, the early stuff around the atom is really experimentally driven. It's not based on some theory, it's exploration in the lab using equipment. So it's really people just figuring out, getting hands on with the phenomena, figuring out what these things are. And the theory comes a bit later. That's not always the case. So in the discovery of the anti-electron, the positron, that was predicted from quantum mechanics and relativity by a very clever theoretical physicist called Paul Dirac, who was probably the second brightest physicist of the 20th century apart from Einstein, but isn't anywhere near as well known. So he predicted the existence of the anti-electron from basically a combination of the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity. And it was discovered about a year after he made the prediction. What happens when an electron meets a positron? They annihilate each other. So when you bring a particle and its anti-particle together, they react, they just wipe each other out and their mass is turned into energy, usually in the form of photons. So you get light produced. So when you have that kind of situation, why does the universe exist at all if there's matter and antimatter? Oh God, now we're getting into the really big questions. So, depends if you wanna go there now. Yeah, maybe let's go there later. Because I mean, that is a very big question. Yeah, let's take it slow with the standard model. So, okay, so there's matter and antimatter in the 30s. So what else? So matter and antimatter and then a load of new particles start turning up in these cosmic ray experiments, first of all. And they don't seem to be particles that make up atoms. They're something else. They all mostly interact with a strong nuclear force. So they're a bit like protons and neutrons. And by in the 1960s, in America particularly, but also in Europe and Russia, scientists started to build particle accelerators. So these are the forerunners of the LHC. So big ring shaped machines that were, hundreds of meters long, which in those days was enormous. Most physics up until that point had been done in labs in universities, with small bits of kit. So this is a big change. And when these accelerators are built, they start to find they can produce even more of these particles. So I don't know the exact numbers, but by around 1960, there are of order 100 of these things that have been discovered. And physicists are kind of tearing their hair out because physics is all about simplification. And suddenly what was simple has become messy and complicated and everyone sort of wants to understand what's going on. As a quick kind of aside, and probably a really dumb question, but how is it possible to take something like a photon or electron and be able to control it enough, like to be able to do a controlled experiment where you collide it against something else? Yeah. Is that, that seems like an exceptionally difficult engineering challenge, because you mentioned vacuum too. So you basically want to remove every other distraction and really focus on this collision. How difficult of an engineering challenge is that, just to get a sense? And it is very hard. I mean, in the early days, particularly when the first accelerators are being built in like 1932, Ernest Lawrence builds the first, what we call a cyclotron, which is like a little accelerator, this big or so. There's another one- Literally that big? This tiny little thing, yeah. I mean, so most of the first accelerators were what we call fixed target experiments. So you had a ring, you accelerate particles around the ring, and then you fire them out the side into some target. So that makes the kind of, the colliding bit is relatively straightforward because you just fire it, whatever it is you want to fire it at. The hard bit is the steering the beams with the magnetic fields, getting strong enough electric fields to accelerate them, all that kind of stuff. The first colliders where you have two beams colliding head on, that comes later. And I don't think it's done until maybe the 1980s. I'm not entirely sure, but it takes, it's a much harder problem. That's crazy, because you have to like perfectly get them to hit each other. I mean, we're talking about, I mean, what scale, what's the, I mean, the temporal thing is a giant mess, but the spatially, like the size, it's tiny. Well, to give you a sense of the LHC beams, the cross-sectional diameter is, I think, around a dozen or so microns. So, you know, 10 millionths of a meter. And a beam, sorry, just to clarify, a beam contains how many, is it the bunches that you mentioned? Is it multiple part, or is it just one part? Oh, no, no, the bunches contain, say, a hundred billion protons each. So a bunch is, it's not really bunch shaped. They're actually quite long. They're like 30 centimeters long, but thinner than a human hair. So like very, very narrow, long sort of objects. Those are the things. So what happens in the LHC is you steer the beams so that they cross in the middle of the detector. So basically, you have these swarms of protons that are flying through each other. And most of the, sorry, you have a hundred billion coming one way, a hundred billion another way, maybe 10 of them will hit each other. Oh, okay, so this, okay, that makes a lot more sense. That's nice. So you're trying to use sort of, it's like probabilistically, you're not- You can't make a single particle collide with a single other particle. So that's not an efficient way to do it. You'd be waiting a very long time to get anything. Yeah. So you're basically, right, so you're relying on probability to me that some fraction of them are gonna collide. And then you know which, because it's a swarm of the same kind of particle. So it doesn't matter which ones hit each other exactly. I mean, that's not to say it's not hard. You've got a, one of the challenges to make the collisions work is you have to squash these beams to very, very, the basically the narrower they are, the better, because the higher chances of them colliding. If you think about two flocks of birds flying through each other, the birds are all far apart in the flocks. There's not much chance that they'll collide if they're all flying densely together and they're much more likely to collide with each other. So that's the sort of problem. And it's tuning those magnetic fields, getting the magnetic fields powerful enough that you squash the beams and focus them so that you get enough collisions. That's super cool. Do you know how much software is involved here? I mean, it's sort of, I come from the software world and it's fascinating. This seems like, the software is buggy and messy. And so like, you almost don't want to rely on software too much. Like if you do, it has to be like low level, like Fortran style programming. Do you know how much software is in the large Hadron Collider? I mean, it depends at which level, a lot. I mean, the whole thing is obviously computer controlled. So, I mean, I don't know a huge amount about how the software for the actual accelerator works, but I've been in the control center. So that's certain there's this big control room, which is like a bit like a NASA mission control with big banks of desks where the engineers sit and they monitor the LHC, cause you obviously can't be in the tunnel when it's running. So everything's remote. I mean, one sort of anecdote about the sort of software side in 2008, when the LHC first switched on, they had this big launch event and then big press conference party to inaugurate the machine. And about 10 days after that, they were doing some tests and this dramatic event happened where a huge explosion basically took place in a tunnel that destroyed or damaged, badly damaged about half a kilometer of the machine. But the story is the engineers are in the control room that day. One guy told me this story about, basically all these screens they have in the control room started going red. So all these alarms like, kind of in software going off and then they assume that there's something wrong with the software cause there's no way something this catastrophic could have happened. But I mean, when I worked on, when I was a PhD student, one of my jobs was to help to maintain the software that's used to control the detector that we work on. And that was, it's relatively robust, not so you don't want it to be too fancy. You don't want it to sort of fall over too easily. The more clever stuff comes when you're talking about analyzing the data and that's where the sort of, you know. Are we jumping around to like, do we finish with a standard model? We didn't know. We didn't. So we even started talking about quarks. We haven't talked to them yet. No, we got to the messy zoo of particles. Let me, let's go back there if it's okay. Okay, that's fine. Can you take us to the rest of the history of physics in the 20th century? Okay, sure. Okay, so circa 1960, you have this, you have these a hundred or so particles. It's a bit like the periodic table all over again. So you've got like, like having a hundred elements sort of a bit like that. And people start to try to impose some order. So Murray Gelman, he's a theoretical physicist American from New York. He realizes that there are these symmetries in these particles that if you arrange them in certain ways, they relate to each other and he uses these symmetry principles to predict the existence of particles that haven't been discovered, which are then discovered in accelerators. So this starts to suggest there's not just random collections of crap. There's like, you know, actually some order to this underlying it. A little bit later in 1960, again, it's around the 1960s. He proposes along with another physicist called George Zweig that these symmetries arise because just like the patterns in the periodic table arise because atoms are made of electrons and protons, that these patterns are due to the fact that these particles are made of smaller things and they are called quarks. So these are the particles that predicted from theory for a long time, no one really believes they're real. A lot of people think that they're a kind of theoretical convenience that happened to fit the data, but there's no evidence. No one's ever seen a quark in any experiment. And lots of experiments are done to try to find quarks, to try to knock a quark out of a... So the idea, if protons and neutrons say are made of quarks, you should be able to knock a quark out and see the quark. That never happens. And we still have never actually managed to do that. So- Wait, really? No. So the way that it's done in the end is this machine that's built in California at the Stanford lab, Stanford Linear Accelerator, which is essentially a gigantic three kilometer long electron gun, it fires electrons, almost speed of light at protons. And when you do these experiments, what you find is a very high energy, the electrons bounce off small hard objects inside the proton. So it's a bit like taking an X-ray of the proton. You're firing these very light, high energy particles, and they're pinging off little things inside the proton that are like ball bearings, if you like. So you actually, that way, they resolve that there are three things inside the proton, which are quarks, the quarks that Gell-Mann and Zweig had predicted. So that's really the evidence that convinces people that these things are real. The fact that we've never seen one in an experiment directly, they're always stuck inside other particles. And the reason for that is essentially to do with a strong force. The strong force is the force that holds quarks together. And it's so strong, it's impossible to actually liberate a quark. So if you try and pull a quark out of a proton, what actually ends up happening is that the, you kind of create this spring-like bond in the strong force. You imagine two quarks that are held together by a very powerful spring. You pull and pull and pull, more and more energy gets stored in that bond, like stretching a spring. And eventually the tension gets so great, the spring snaps, and the energy in that bond gets turned into two new quarks that go on the broken ends. So you started with two quarks, you end up with four quarks. So you never actually get to take a quark out. You just end up making loads more quarks in the process. So how do we, again, forgive the dumb question, how do we know quarks are real then? Well, A, from these experiments where we can scatter, you fire electrons into the protons. They can burrow into the proton and knock off, and they can bounce off these quarks. So you can see from the angles, the electrons come out. I see, you can infer. You can infer that these things are there. The quark model can also be used. It has a lot of success. You can use it to predict the existence of new particles that hadn't been seen. So, and it basically, there's lots of data basically showing from, you know, when we fire protons at each other at the LHC, a lot of quarks get knocked all over the place. And every time they try and escape from, say, one of their protons, they make a whole jet of quarks that go flying off, as bound up in other sorts of particles made of quarks. So all the sort of the theoretical predictions from the basic theory of the strong force and the quarks all agrees with what we are seeing experiments. We've just never seen an actual quark on its own because unfortunately it's impossible to get them out on their own. So quarks, these crazy smaller things that are hard to imagine are real. So what else? What else is part of the story here? So the other thing that's going on at the time, around the 60s, is an attempt to understand the forces that make these particles interact with each other. So you have the electromagnetic force, which is the force that was sort of discovered to some extent in this room, or at least in this building. So the first, what we call quantum field theory of the electromagnetic force is developed in the 1940s and 50s by Feynman, Richard Feynman amongst other people, Julian Schwinger, Tom Inaga, who come up with the first, what we call a quantum field theory of the electromagnetic force. And this is where this description of, which I gave you at the beginning, that particles are ripples in fields. Well, in this theory, the photon, the particle of light, is described as a ripple in this quantum field called the electromagnetic field. And the attempt then is made to try, well, can we come up with a quantum field theory of the other forces, of the strong force and the weak? The third force, which we haven't discussed, which is the weak force, which is a nuclear force. We don't really experience it in our everyday lives, but it's responsible for radioactive decay. It's the force that allows, you know, and a radioactive atom to turn into a different element, for example. And I don't know if you've explicitly mentioned, but so there's technically four forces. Yes. I guess three of them would be in the standard model, like the weak, the strong, and the electromagnetic, and then there's gravity. And there's gravity, which we don't worry about that because it's too hard. Who cares? No, maybe we bring that up at the end. But yeah, gravity so far, we don't have a quantum theory of, and if you can solve that problem, you'll win a Nobel Prize. Well, we're gonna have to bring up the graviton at some point, I'm gonna ask you, but let's leave that to the side for now. So those three, okay, Feynman, electromagnetic force, the quantum field. Yeah. And where does the weak force come in? So, yeah, well, first of all, I mean, the strong force is the easiest. The strong force is a little bit like the electromagnetic force. It's a force that binds things together. So that's the force that holds quarks together inside the proton, for example. So a quantum field theory of that force is discovered in the, I think it's in the 60s, and it predicts the existence of new force particles called gluons. So gluons are a bit like the photon. The photon is the particle of electromagnetism. Gluons are the particles of the strong force. So there's, just like there's an electromagnetic field, there's something called a gluon field, which is also all around us. So these, some of these particles, I guess, are the force carriers or whatever. They carry the- Well, it depends how you want to think about it. I mean, really the field, the strong force field, the gluon field is the thing that binds the quarks together. The gluons are the little ripples in that field. So that like, in the same way that the photon is a ripple in the electromagnetic field. But the thing that really does the binding is the field. I mean, you may have heard people talk about things like virtual, have you heard the phrase virtual particle? So sometimes in some, if you hear people describing how forces are exchanged between particles, they quite often talk about the idea that if you have an electron and another electron, say, and they're repelling each other through the electromagnetic force, you can think of that as if they're exchanging photons. So they're kind of firing photons backwards and forwards between each other, and that causes them to repel. That photon is then a virtual particle. Yes, that's what we call a virtual particle. In other words, it's not a real thing. It doesn't actually exist. So it's an artifact of the way theorists do calculations. So when they do calculations in quantum field theory, rather than, no one's discovered a way of just treating the whole field. You have to break the field down into simpler things. So you can basically treat the field as if it's made up of lots of these virtual photons, but there's no experiment that you can do that can detect these particles being exchanged. What's really happening in reality is that the electromagnetic field is warped by the charge of the electron, and that causes the force. But the way we do calculations involves particles. So it's a bit confusing, but it's really a mathematical technique. It's not something that corresponds to reality. I mean, that's part, I guess, of the Feynman diagrams. Yes. Is this these virtual particles, okay. That's right, yeah. Some of these have mass, some of them don't. What does that even mean, not to have mass? And maybe you can say, which one of them have mass and which don't? Okay, so- And why is mass important or relevant in this field view of the universe? Well, there are actually only two particles in the standard model that don't have mass, which are the photon and the gluons. So they are massless particles. But the electron, the quarks, and there are a bunch of other particles I haven't discussed. There's something called a muon and a tau, which are basically heavy versions of the electron that are unstable. You can make them in accelerators, but they don't form atoms or anything. They don't exist for long enough. But all the matter particles, there are 12 of them, six quarks, and six, what we call leptons, which includes the electron and its two heavy versions and three neutrinos. All of them have mass. And so do, this is the critical bit. So the weak force, which is the third of these quantum forces, which is one of the hardest to understand, the force particles of that force have very large masses. And there are three of them. They're called the W plus, the W minus, and the Z boson. And they have masses of between 80 and 90 times that of the protons. They're very heavy. They're very heavy things. So they're what, the heaviest, I guess? They're not the heaviest. The heaviest particle is the top quark, which has a mass of about 175-ish protons. So that's really massive. And we don't know why it's so massive. But coming back to the weak force, so the problem in the 60s and 70s was that the reason that the electromagnetic force is a force that we can experience in our everyday life. So if we have a magnet and a piece of metal, you can hold it a meter apart if it's powerful enough and you'll feel a force. Whereas the weak force only becomes apparent when you basically have two particles touching at the scale of a nucleus. So we get to very short distances before this force becomes manifest. It's not, we don't get weak forces going on in this room. We don't notice them. And the reason for that is that the particle, well, the field that transmits the weak force, the particle that's associated with that field has a very large mass, which means that the field dies off very quickly. So as you, whereas an electric charge, if you were to look at the shape of the electromagnetic field it would fall off with this, you have this thing called the inverse square law, which is the idea that the force halves every time you double the distance. No, sorry, it doesn't half, it quarters every time you double the distance between say the two particles. Whereas the weak force kind of, you move a little bit away from the nucleus and just disappears. The reason for that is because these fields, the particles that go with them have a very large mass. But the problem that was, that theorists faced in the 60s was that if you tried to introduce massive force fields, the theory gave you nonsensical answers. So you'd end up with infinite results for a lot of the calculations you tried to do. So the basically, it turned out, it seemed that quantum field theory was incompatible with having massive particles. Not just the force particles actually, but even the electron was a problem. So this is where the Higgs that we sort of alluded to comes in. And the solution was to say, okay, well, actually all the particles in the standard model are mass, they have no mass. So the quarks, the electron, they don't have a mass. Neither do these weak particles, they don't have mass either. What happens is they actually acquire mass through another process. They get it from somewhere else. They don't actually have it intrinsically. So this idea that was introduced by, well, Peter Higgs is the most famous, but actually there are about six people that came up with the idea more or less at the same time, is that you introduce a new quantum field, which is another one of these invisible things that's everywhere. And it's through the interaction with this field that particles get mass. So you can think of, say, an electron in the Higgs field, it kind of Higgs field kind of bunches around the electron. It's sort of a true drawn towards the electron. And that energy that's stored in that field around the electron is what we see as the mass of the electron. But if you could somehow turn off the Higgs field, then all the particles in nature would become massless and fly around at the speed of light. So this idea of the Higgs field allowed other people, other theorists to come up with a, well, it was another, basically a unified theory of the electromagnetic force and the weak force. So once you bring in the Higgs field, you can combine two of the forces into one. So it turns out the electromagnetic force and the weak force are just two aspects of the same fundamental force. And at the LHC, we go to high enough energies that you see these two forces unifying effectively. So first of all, it started as a theoretical notion, like this is something, and then, I mean, wasn't the Higgs called the God particle at some point? It was by a guy trying to sell popular science books, yeah. Yeah, but I mean, I remember, because when I was hearing it, I thought it would, I mean, that would solve a lot of, that unify a lot of our ideas of physics, is what was my notion. But maybe you can speak to that. Is it as big of a leap? Is it a God particle? Is it a Jesus particle? Is it, which, you know, what's the big contribution of Higgs in terms of this unification power? Yeah, I mean, to understand that, it maybe helps to know the history a little bit. So when the, what we call electro weak theory was put together, which is where you unify electromagnetism with the weak force, and the Higgs is involved in all of that. So that theory, which was written in the mid 70s, predicted the existence of four new particles, the W plus boson, the W minus boson, the Z boson, and the Higgs boson. So there were these four particles that came with the theory, that were predicted by the theory. In 1983, 84, the Ws and the Z particles were discovered at an accelerator at CERN called the super proton synchrotron, which was a seven kilometer particle collider. So three of the bits of this theory had already been found. So people were pretty confident from the 80s that the Higgs must exist, because it was a part of this family of particles that this theoretical structure only works if the Higgs is there. So what then happens, so you have this question about why is the LHC the size it is? Well, actually the tunnel that the LHC is in was not built for the LHC. It was built for a previous accelerator called the large electron positron collider. So that began operation in the late 80s, early 90s. They basically, that's when they dug the 27 kilometer tunnel. They put this accelerator into it, the collider that fires electrons and anti electrons at each other, electrons and positrons. So the purpose of that machine was, well, it was actually to look for the Higgs. That was one of the things it was trying to do. It didn't have enough energy to do it in the end. But the main thing it achieved was it studied the W and the Z particles at very high precision. So it made loads of these things. Previously, you can only make a few of them at the previous accelerator. So you could study these really, really precisely. And by studying their properties, you could really test this electroweak theory that had been invented in the 70s and really make sure that it worked. So actually by 1999, when this machine turned off, people knew, well, okay, you never know until you find the thing. But people were really confident this electroweak theory was right. And that the Higgs almost, the Higgs or something very like the Higgs had to exist because otherwise the whole thing doesn't work. It'd be really weird if you could discover and these particles, they all behave exactly as your theory tells you they should, but somehow this key piece of the picture is not there. So in a way, it depends how you look at it. The discovery of the Higgs on its own is obviously a huge achievement in many, both experimentally and theoretically. On the other hand, it's like having a jigsaw puzzle where every piece has been filled in. You have this beautiful image, there's one gap and you kind of know that that piece must be there somewhere, right? So the discovery in itself, although it's important, is not so interesting. It's like a confirmation of the obvious at that point. But what makes it interesting is not that it just completes the standard model, which is a theory that we've known had the basic layout of for 40 years or more now. It's that the Higgs actually is a unique particle. It's very different to any of the other particles in the standard model. And it's a theoretically very troublesome particle. There are a lot of nasty things to do with the Higgs, but also opportunities. So we don't really understand how such an object can exist in the form that it does. So there are lots of reasons for thinking that the Higgs must come with a bunch of other particles or that it's perhaps made of other things. So it's not a fundamental particle, that it's made of smaller things. I can talk about that if you like a bit. That's still a notion, so the Higgs might not be a fundamental particle. There might be some, oh man. So that is an idea. It's not been demonstrated to be true. But I mean, all of these ideas basically come from the fact that, this is a problem that motivated a lot of development in physics in the last 30 years or so. And it's this basic fact that the Higgs field, which is this field that's everywhere in the universe, this is the thing that gives mass to the particles. And the Higgs field is different from all the other fields in that, let's say you take the electromagnetic field, which is, if we actually were to measure the electromagnetic field in this room, we would measure all kinds of stuff going on because there's light, there's gonna be microwaves and radio waves and stuff. But let's say we could go to a really, really remote part of empty space and shield it and put a big box around it and then measure the electromagnetic field in that box. The field would be almost zero, apart from some little quantum fluctuations. But basically it goes to naught. The Higgs field has a value everywhere. So it's a bit like the whole, it's like the entire space has got this energy stored in the Higgs field, which is not zero, it's finite. It's a bit like having the temperature of space raised to some background temperature. And it's that energy that gives mass to the particles. So the reason that electrons and quarks have mass is through the interaction with this energy that's stored in the Higgs field. Now, it turns out that the precise value this energy has has to be very carefully tuned if you want a universe where interesting stuff can happen. So if you push the Higgs field down, it has a tendency to collapse to, well, there's a tendency, if you do your sort of naive calculations, there are basically two possible likely configurations for the Higgs field, which is either it's zero everywhere, in which case you have a universe which is just particles with no mass that can't form atoms and just fly about at the speed of light, or it explodes to an enormous value, what we call the Planck scale, which is the scale of quantum gravity. And at that point, if the Higgs field was that strong, even an electron would become so massive that it would collapse into a black hole. And then you have a universe made of black holes and nothing like us. So it seems that the strength of the Higgs field is to achieve the value that we see requires what we call fine tuning of the laws of physics. You have to fiddle around with the other fields in the standard model and their properties to just get it to this right sort of Goldilocks value that allows atoms to exist. This is deeply fishy. People really dislike this. Well, yeah, I guess, so what would be, so two explanations. One, there's a God that designed this perfectly, and two is there's an infinite number of alternate universes, and we just happen to be in the one in which life is possible. Complexity, so when you say, I mean, life, any kind of complexity, that's not either complete chaos or black holes. I mean, how does that make you feel? What do you make of that? That's such a fascinating notion that this perfectly tuned field that's the same everywhere is there. What do you make of that? Yeah, what do you make of that? I mean, yeah, so you laid out two of the possible explanations. I mean, some will, yeah, I mean, well, someone, some cosmic creator went, yeah, let's fix that to be at the right level. That's one possibility, I guess. It's not a scientifically testable one, but theoretically, I guess, it's possible. Sorry to interrupt, but there could also be not a designer, but couldn't there be just, I guess, I'm not sure what that would be, but some kind of force that, some kind of mechanism by which this kind of field is enforced in order to create complexity. Basically, forces that pull the universe towards an interesting complexity. I mean, yeah, I mean, there are people that have those ideas. I don't really subscribe to them. As I'm saying, it sounds really stupid. No, I mean, there are definitely people that make those kind of arguments. You know, there's ideas that, I think it's Lee Smolin's idea, one, I think, that universes are born inside black holes. And so, universes, they basically have like Darwinian evolution of the universe, where universes give birth to other universes. And if universes where black holes can form are more likely to give birth to more universes, so you end up with universes which have similar laws. I mean, I don't know, whatever. But- Well, I talked to Lee recently on this podcast, and he's a reminder to me that the physics community has like so many interesting characters. Yeah. It's fascinating. Yeah. Anyway, sorry, so- I mean, as an experimentalist, I tend to sort of think, these are interesting ideas, but they're not really testable, so I tend not to think about them very much. So, I mean, going back to the science of this, there is an explanation. There is a possible solution to this problem of the Higgs, which doesn't involve multiverses or creators fiddling about with the laws of physics. If the most popular solution was something called supersymmetry, which is a theory which involves a new type of symmetry of the universe. In fact, it's one of the last types of symmetries that is possible to have that we haven't already seen in nature, which is a symmetry between force particles and matter particles, so what we call fermions, which are the matter particles, and bosons, which are force particles. And if you have supersymmetry, then there is a super partner for every particle in the standard model. And without going into the details, the effect of this basically is that you have a whole bunch of other fields, and these fields cancel out the effect of the standard model fields, and they stabilize the Higgs field at a nice, sensible value. So in supersymmetry, you naturally, without any tinkering about with the constants of nature or anything, you get a Higgs field with a nice value, which is the one we see. So this is one of the reasons, and supersymmetry has also got lots of other things going for it. It predicts the existence of a dark matter particle, which would be great. It potentially suggests that the strong force and the electroweak force unify at high energy. So lots of reasons people thought this was a productive idea. And when the LHC was, just before it was turned on, there was a lot of hype, I guess, a lot of an expectation that we would discover these super partners, because, and particularly the main reason was that if supersymmetry stabilizes the Higgs field at this nice Goldilocks value, these super particles should have a mass around the energy that we're probing at the LHC, around the energy of the Higgs. So it was kind of thought, you discover the Higgs, you probably discover super partners as well. So once you start creating ripples in this Higgs field, you should be able to see these kinds of, you should be, yeah. So these super fields would be there. When I, at the very beginning, I said we're probing the vacuum. What I mean is really that, okay, let's say these super fields exist. The vacuum contains super fields. They're there, these supersymmetric fields. If we hit them hard enough, we can make them vibrate. We see super particles come flying out. That's the sort of, that's the idea. That's the whole point. But we haven't. But we haven't. So, so far at least, I mean, we've had now a decade of data taking at the LHC. No signs of super partners, have supersymmetric particles have been found. In fact, no signs of any physics, any new particles beyond the standard model have been found. So supersymmetry is not the only thing that can do this. There are other theories that involve additional dimensions of space or potentially involve the Higgs boson being made of smaller things, being made of other particles. That's an interesting, I haven't heard that before. That's really, that's an interesting point. Could you maybe linger on that? Like what, what could be, what could the Higgs particle be made of? Well, so the oldest, I think the original ideas about this was these theories called technicolor, which were basically like an analogy with the strong force. So the idea was the Higgs boson was a bound state of two very strongly interacting particles that were a bit like quarks. So like quarks, but I guess higher energy things with a super strong force, so not the strong force, but a new force that was very strong. And the Higgs was a bound state of these objects. And the Higgs would in principle, if that was right, would be the first in a series of technicolor particles. Technicolor, I think, not being a theorist, but it's basically not done very well, particularly since the LHC found the Higgs, that kind of, it rules out, you know, a lot of these technicolor theories, but there are other things that are a bit like technicolor. So there's a theory called partial compositeness, which is an idea that some of my colleagues at Cambridge have worked on, which is a similar sort of idea that the Higgs is a bound state of some strongly interacting particles and that the standard model particles themselves, the more exotic ones like the top quark are also sort of mixtures of these composite particles. So it's a kind of an extension to the standard model, which explains this problem with the Higgs bosons Goldilocks value, but also helps us understand, we're in a situation now, again, a bit like the periodic table where we have six quarks, six leptons in this kind of, you can arrange in this nice table and you can see these columns where the patterns repeat and you go, hmm, okay, maybe there's something deeper going on here. And so this would potentially be something this partial compositeness theory could explain, a sort of enlarge this picture that allows us to see the whole symmetrical pattern and understand what the ingredients, why do we have, so one of the big questions in particle physics is, why are there three copies of the matter particles? So in what we call the first generation, which is what we're made of, there's the electron, the electron neutrino, the up quark and the down quark, they're the most common matter particles in the universe, but then there are copies of these four particles in the second and the third generations, so things like muons and top quarks and other stuff, we don't know why, we see these patterns, we have no idea where it comes from, so that's another big question, can we find out the deeper order that explains this particular periodic table of particles that we see? Is it possible that the deeper order includes like almost a single entity? So like something that I guess like string theory dreams about, is this essentially the dream? Is to discover something simple, beautiful and unifying? Yeah, I mean, that is the dream and I think for some people, for a lot of people, it still is the dream. So there's a great book by Steven Weinberg, who is one of the theoretical physicists who was instrumental in building the standard model, so he came up with some others with the electroweak theory, the theory that unified electromagnetism and the weak force and he wrote this book, I think it was towards the end of the 80s, early 90s, called Dreams of a Final Theory, which is a very lovely, quite short book about this idea of a final unifying theory that brings everything together and I think you get a sense reading his book written at the end of the 80s, early 90s, that there was this feeling that such a theory was coming and that was the time when string theory had been, was very exciting. So string theory, there's been this thing called the super string revolution and theoretical physicists getting very excited, they discovered these theoretical objects, these little vibrating loops of string that in principle, not only was a quantum theory of gravity, but could explain all the particles in the standard model and bring it all together and as you say, you have one object, the string, and you can pluck it and the way it vibrates gives you these different notes, each of which is a different particle. So it's a very lovely idea, but the problem is that, well, there's a few, people discover that mathematics is very difficult. So people have spent three decades or more trying to understand string theory and I think, if you spoke to most string theorists, they would probably freely admit that no one really knows what string theory is yet. I mean, there's been a lot of work, but it's not really understood and the other problem is that string theory mostly makes predictions about physics that occurs at energies far beyond what we will ever be able to probe in the laboratory. Yeah, probably ever. By the way, so sorry, take a million tangents, but is there room for complete innovation of how to build a particle collider that could give us an order of magnitude increase in the kind of energies or do we need to keep just increasing the size of things? I mean, maybe, yeah, I mean, there are ideas, to give you a sense of the gulf that has to be bridged. So the LHC collides particles at an energy of what we call 14 tera electron volts. So that's basically the equivalent of you've accelerated a proton through 14 trillion volts. That gets us to the energies where the Higgs and these weak particles live. They're very massive. The scale where strings become manifest is something called the Planck scale, which I think is of the order 10 to the, hang on, get this right, it's 10 to the 18 giga electron volts. So about 10 to the 15 tera electron volts. So you're talking trillions of times more energy. More than- Yeah, 10 to the 15th or 10 to the 14th larger. Oh, boy, I was- I may be wrong, but it's of that order. It's a very big number. So we're not talking just an order of magnitude increase in energy. We're talking 14 orders of magnitude energy increase. So to give you a sense of what that would look like, were you to build a particle accelerator with today's technology- Bigger or smaller than our solar system? As the size of the galaxy. The galaxy. So you'd need to put a particle accelerator that circled the Milky Way to get to the energies where you would see strings if they exist. So that is a fundamental problem, which is that most of the predictions of the unified, these unified theories, quantum theories of gravity, only make statements that are testable at energies that we will not be able to probe. And barring some unbelievable, you know, completely unexpected technological or scientific breakthrough, which is almost impossible to imagine. You never say never, but it seems very unlikely. Yeah, I can just see the news story. Elon Musk decides to build a particle collider the size of our- It would have to be, we'd have to get together with all our galactic neighbors to pay for it, I think. What is the exciting possibilities of the Large Hadron Collider? What is there to be discovered in this order of magnitude of scale? Is there other bigger efforts on the horizon? In this space, what are the open problems, the exciting possibilities? You mentioned supersymmetry. Yeah, so, well, there are lots of new ideas. Well, there are lots of problems that we're facing. So there's a problem with the Higgs field, which supersymmetry was supposed to solve. There's the fact that 95% of the universe we know from cosmology and astrophysics is invisible, that it's made of dark matter and dark energy, which are really just words for things that we don't know what they are. It's what Donald Rumsfeld called a known unknown. So we know we don't know what they are. Well, that's better than unknown unknown. Yeah, well, there may be some unknown unknowns, but by definition, we don't know what those are. Yeah. But the hope is a particle accelerator could help us make sense of dark energy, dark matter. There's still, there's some hope for that? There's hope for that, yeah. So one of the hopes is the LHC could produce a dark matter particle in its collisions. And it may be that the LHC will still discover new particles, that it might still, supersymmetry could still be there. It's just maybe more difficult to find than we thought originally. And dark matter particles might be being produced, but we're just not looking in the right part of the data for them, that's possible. It might be that we need more data, that these processes are very rare, and we need to collect lots and lots of data before we see them. But I think a lot of people would say now that the chances of the LHC directly discovering new particles in the near future is quite slim. It may be that we need a decade more data before we can see something, or we may not see anything. That's where we are. So, I mean, the physics, the experiments that I work on, so I work on a detector called LHCb, which is one of these four big detectors that are spaced around the ring. And we do slightly different stuff to the big guys. There's two big experiments called Atlas and CMS, 3,000 physicists and scientists and computer scientists on them each. They are the ones that discovered the Higgs, and they look for supersymmetry in dark matter and so on. What we look at are standard model particles called bquarks, which depending on your preferences, either bottom or beauty, we tend to say beauty because it sounds sexier. Yeah. For sure. But these particles are interesting because we can make lots of them. We make billions or hundreds of billions of these things. You can therefore measure their properties very precisely. So you can make these really lovely precision measurements. And what we are doing really is a sort of complimentary thing to the other big experiments, which is, if you think of the sort of analogy they often use is, if you imagine you're in the jungle and you're looking for an elephant, say, and you are a hunter and you're kind of like, let's say there's the elephants very rare. You don't know where in the jungle, the jungle's big. So there's two ways you go about this. Either you can go wandering around the jungle and try and find the elephant. The problem is if the elephant, if there's only one elephant and the jungle's big, the chances of running into it are very small. Or you could look on the ground and see if you see footprints left by the elephant. And if the elephant's moving around, you've got a chance, you've got a chance maybe of seeing the elephant's footprints. If you see the footprints, you go, okay, there's an elephant. I maybe don't know what kind of elephant it is, but I got a sense there's something out there. So that's sort of what we do. We are the footprint people. We are, we're looking for the footprints, the impressions that quantum fields that we haven't managed to directly create the particle of, the effects these quantum fields have on the ordinary standard model fields that we already know about. So these B particles, the way they behave can be influenced by the presence of say super fields or dark matter fields or whatever you like. And then the way they decay and behave can be altered slightly from what our theory tells us they ought to behave. Gotcha. And it's easier to collect huge amounts of data on B quarks. We get billions and billions of these things. You can make very precise measurements. And the only place really at the LHC or in really in high energy physics at the moment where there's fairly compelling evidence that there might be something beyond the standard model is in these B, these beauty quarks decays. Just to clarify, which is the difference between the four experiments, for example, that you mentioned, is it the kind of particles that are being collided? Is it the energies which they're collided? What's the fundamental difference between the different experiments? The collisions are the same. What's different is the design of the detectors. So Atlas and CMS, they're called what are called general purpose detectors. And they are basically barrel shaped machines. And the collisions happen in the middle of the barrel. And the barrel captures all the particles that go flying out in every direction. So in a sphere, effectively, they come flying out and it can record all of those particles. And- What's the, sorry to be interrupting, but what's the mechanism of the recording? Oh, so these detectors, if you've seen pictures of them, they're huge, like Atlas is 25 meters high and 45 meters long. They're vast machines, instruments, I guess you should call them really. They are, they're kind of like onions. So they have layers, concentric layers of detectors, different sorts of detectors. So close into the beam pipe, you have what are called usually made of silicon, they're tracking detectors. So they're little, made of strips of silicon or pixels of silicon. And when a particle goes through the silicon, it gives a little electrical signal and you get these dots, you know, electrical dots through your detector, which allows you to reconstruct the trajectory of the particle. So that's the middle. And then the outsides of these detectors, you have things called calorimeters, which measure the energies of the particles. And then very edge, you have things called muon chambers, which basically these muon particles, which are the heavy version of the electron. They are like high velocity bullets and they can get right to the edge of the detectors. If you see something at the edge, that's a muon. So that's broadly how they work. And all of that is being recorded. That's all being fed out to, you know, computers. Data must be awesome. Okay. So LHCb is different. So we, because we're looking for these be quarks, be quarks tend to be produced along the beam line. So in a collision, the be quark tend to fly sort of close to the beam pipe. So we built a detector that sort of pyramid cone shaped, basically, that just looks in one direction. So we ignore, if you have your collision, stuff goes everywhere. We ignore all the stuff over here and going off sideways. We're just looking in this little region close to the beam pipe where most of these be quarks are made. So. Is there a different aspect of the sensors involved in the collection of the be quark trajectories? There are some differences. So one of the differences is that one of the ways you know you've seen a be quark is that be quarks are actually quite long lived by particle standards. So they live for 1.5 trillionths of a second, which is if you're a fundamental particle is a very long time. Cause you know, the Higgs boson, I think lives for about a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, or maybe even less than that. So these are quite long lived things and they will actually fly a little distance before they decay. So they will fly, you know, a few centimeters, maybe if you're lucky, then they'll decay into other stuff. So what we need to do in the middle of the detector, you want to be able to see, you have your place where the protons crash into each other, and that produces loads of particles that come flying out. So you have loads of lines, loads of tracks that point back to that proton collision. And then you're looking for a couple of other tracks, maybe two or three that point back to a different place that's maybe a few centimeters away from the proton collision. And that's the sign that a little be particle has flown a few centimeters and decayed somewhere else. So we need to be able to very accurately resolve the proton collision from the be particle decay. So the middle of our detector is very sensitive and it gets very close to the collision. So you have this really beautiful, delicate silicon detector that sits, I think it's seven mil millimeters from the beam. And the LHC beam has as much energy as a jumbo jet at takeoff. So it's enough to melt a ton of copper. So you have this furiously powerful thing sitting next, this tiny, delicate, you know, silicon sensor. So those aspects of our detector that are specialized to measure these particular be quarks that we're interested in. And is there, I mean, I remember seeing somewhere that there's some mention of matter and antimatter connected to the be, these beautiful quarks. Is that, what's the connection? Yeah, what's the connection there? Yeah, so there is a connection, which is that when you produce these be particles, it'll be these particles, because you don't see the be quark, you see the thing that be quark is inside. So they're bound up inside what we call beauty particles, where the be quark is joined together with another quark or two, maybe two other quarks, depending on what it is. There are a particular set of these be particles that exhibit this property called oscillation. So if you make a, for the sake of argument, a matter version of one of these be particles, as it travels, because of the magic of quantum mechanics, it oscillates backwards and forwards between its matter and antimatter versions. So it does this weird flipping about backwards and forwards. And what we can use this for is a laboratory for testing the symmetry between matter and antimatter. So if the symmetry between antimatter is precise, it's exact, then we should see these be particles decaying as often as matter as they do as antimatter, because this oscillation should be even, it should spend as much time in each state. But what we actually see is that one of the states, it spends more time and it's more likely to decay in one state than the other. So this gives us a way of testing this fundamental symmetry between matter and antimatter. So what can you, sort of returning to the question we were before about this fundamental symmetry, it seems like if there's perfect symmetry between matter and antimatter, if we have the equal amount of each in our universe, it would just destroy itself. And just like you mentioned, we seem to live in a very unlikely universe where it doesn't destroy itself. So do you have some intuition about why that is? I mean, well, I'm not a theorist. I don't have any particular ideas myself. I mean, I sort of do measurements to try and test these things. But I mean, so in terms of the basic problem is that in the Big Bang, if you use the standard model to figure out what ought to have happened, you should have got equal amounts of matter and antimatter made. Because whenever you make a particle, in our collisions, for example, when we collide stuff together, you make a particle, you make an antiparticle. They always come together. They always annihilate together. So there's no way of making more matter than antimatter that we've discovered so far. So that means in the Big Bang, you get equal amounts of matter and antimatter. As the universe expands and cools down during the Big Bang, not very long after the Big Bang, I think a few seconds after the Big Bang, you have this event called the Great Annihilation, which is where all the particles and antiparticles smack into each other, annihilate, turn into light mostly. And you end up with a universe later on. If that was what happened, then the universe we live in today would be black and empty, apart from some photons, that would be it. So there's stuff in the, there is stuff in the universe. It appears to be just made of matter. So there's this big mystery as to where the, how did this happen? And there are various ideas which all involve sort of physics going on in the first trillionth of a second or so of the Big Bang. So it could be that one possibility is that the Higgs field is somehow implicated in this, that there was this event that took place in the early universe where the Higgs field basically switched on, it acquired its modern value. And when that happened, this caused all the particles to acquire mass. And the universe basically went through a phase transition where you had a hot plasma of massless particles. And then in that plasma, it's almost like a gas turning into droplets of water. You get kind of these little bubbles forming in the universe where the Higgs field has acquired its modern value, the particles have got mass. And this phase transition in some models can cause more mass than antimatter to be produced depending on how matter bounces off these bubbles in the early universe. So that's one idea. There's other ideas to do with neutrinos, that there are exotic types of neutrinos that can decay in a biased way to just matter and not to antimatter. So people are trying to test these ideas. That's what we're trying to do at LHCB. There's neutrino experiments planned that are trying to do these sorts of things as well. So yeah, there are ideas, but at the moment, no clear evidence for which of these ideas might be right. So we're talking about some incredible ideas. By the way, never heard anyone be so eloquent about describing even just the standard model. So I'm in awe just listening. It's interesting just having fun enjoying it. So yes, the theoretical, the particle physics is fascinating here. To me, one of the most fascinating things about the Large Hadron Collider is the human side of it, that a bunch of sort of brilliant people that probably have egos got together and were collaborating together. And countries, I guess, collaborated together for the funds and everything. It's just collaboration everywhere. Could you maybe, I don't know what the right question here to ask, but almost, what's your intuition about how it was possible to make this happen and what are the lessons we should learn for the future of human civilization in terms of our scientific progress? Because it seems like this is a great, great illustration of us working together to do something big. Yeah, I think it's possibly the best example, maybe I can think of, of international collaboration that isn't for some unpleasant purpose, basically. I mean, so when I started out in the field in 2008 as a new PhD student, the LHC was basically finished. So I didn't have to go around asking for money for it or trying to make the case. So I have huge admiration for the people who managed that, because this was a project that was first imagined in the 1970s. In the late 70s was when the first conversations about the LHC were mooted. And it took two and a half decades of campaigning and fundraising and persuasion until they started breaking ground and building the thing in the early noughties in 2000. So, I mean, I think the reason, just from the point of view of the scientists there, I think the reason it works ultimately is that everyone there is there for the same reason, which is, well, in principle at least, they're there because they're interested in the world. They wanna find out what are the basic ingredients of our universe, what are the laws of nature? And so everyone is pulling in the same direction. Of course, everyone has their own things they're interested in, everyone has their own careers to consider. And I wouldn't pretend that there isn't also a lot of competitions. There's this funny thing in these experiments where your collaborators, your 800 collaborators in LHCb, but you're also competitors because you're academics in your various universities and you wanna be the one that gets the paper out on the most exciting new measurements. So there's this funny thing where you're kind of trying to stake out your territory while also collaborating and having to work together to make the experiments work. And it does work amazingly well, actually, considering all of that. And I think there was actually, I think McKinsey or one of these big management consultancy firms went into CERN maybe a decade or so ago to try to understand how these organizations function. Did they figure it out? I don't think they could. I mean, I think one of the things that's interesting, one of the other interesting things about these experiments is they're big operations, like say Atlas has 3000 people. Now there was a person nominally who is the head of Atlas, they're called the spokesperson. And the spokesperson is elected by, usually by the collaboration, but they have no actual power, really. I mean, they can't fire anyone. They're not anyone's boss. So, you know, my boss is a professor at Cambridge, not the head of my experiments. The head of my experiment can't tell me what to do really. And there's all these independent academics who are their own bosses who, you know, so that somehow it nonetheless, by kind of consensus and discussion and lots of meetings, these things do happen and it does get done. It's like the queen here in the UK is the spokesperson. I guess so. No actual power. Except we don't elect her, no. No, we don't elect her. But everybody seems to love her. I don't know, from my outside perspective. But yeah, giant egos, brilliant people. And moving forward, do you think there's- Actually, I would pick up one thing you said just there, just the brilliant people thing. Cause I'm not saying that people aren't great, but I think there is this sort of impression that physicists will have to be brilliant or geniuses, which is not true actually. And, you know, you have to be relatively bright for sure. But, you know, a lot of people, a lot of the most successful experimental physicists are not necessarily the people with the biggest brains. They're the people who, you know, particularly one of the skills that's most important in particle physics is the ability to work with others and to collaborate and exchange ideas and also to work hard. And it's a sort of, often it's more a determination or a sort of other set of skills. It's not just being, you know, kind of some great brain. Yeah. Very true. So, I mean, there's parallels to that in the machine learning world. If you want to solve any real world problems, which I see as the particle accelerators, essentially a real world instantiation of theoretical physics. And for that, you have to not necessarily be brilliant, but be sort of obsessed, systematic, rigorous, sort of unboreable, stubborn, all those kind of qualities that make for a great engineer. So, scientists, purely speaking, the practitioner of the scientific method. So, you're right. But nevertheless, to me, that's brilliant. My dad's a physicist. I argue with him all the time. To me, engineering is the highest form of science. And he thinks that's all nonsense, that the real work is done by the theoretician. So, in fact, we have arguments about like people like Elon Musk, for example, because I think his work is quite brilliant, but he's fundamentally not coming up with any serious breakthroughs. He's just creating in this world, implementing, like making ideas happen that have a huge impact. To me, that's the Edison. That to me is a brilliant work, but to him, it's messy details that somebody will figure out anyway. I mean, I don't know whether you think there is a actual difference in temperament between say a physicist and an engineer, whether it's just what you got interested in. I don't know. I mean, a lot of what experimental physicists do is to some extent engineering. I mean, it's not what I do. I mostly do data stuff, but a lot of people would be called electrical engineers, but they trained as physicists, but they learned electrical engineering, for example, because they were building detectors. So there's not such a clear divide, I think. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, but there does seem to be like, you work with data. There does seem to be a certain, like I love data collection. There might be an OCD element or something that you're more naturally predisposed to as opposed to theory. Like I'm not afraid of data. I love data. And there's a lot of people in machine learning who are more like, they're basically afraid of data collection, afraid of data sets, afraid of all that. They just wanna stay more in the theoretical and they're really good at it space. So I don't know if that's the genetic, that's your upbringing, the way you go to school, but looking into the future of LHC and other colliders. So there's in America, there's whatever it was called, the super, there's a lot of super. Superconducting super collider. Yeah, superconducting. The desertron, yeah. Desertron. Yeah. So that was canceled, the construction of that. Yeah. Which is a sad thing, but what do you think is the future of these efforts? Will a bigger collider be built? Will LHC be expanded? What do you think? Well, in the near future, the LHC is gonna get an upgrade. So that's pretty much confirmed. I think it is confirmed, which is, it's not an energy upgrade. It's what we call a luminosity upgrade. So it basically means increasing the data collection rates. So more collisions per second, basically, because after a few years of data taking, you get this law of diminishing returns where each year's worth of data is a smaller and smaller fraction of the lot you've already got. So to get a real improvement in sensitivity, you need to increase the data rate by an order of magnitude. So that's what this upgrade is gonna do. LHCb, at the moment, the whole detector is basically being rebuilt to allow it to record data at a much larger rate than we could before. So that will make us sensitive to whole loads of new processes that we weren't able to study before. And I mentioned briefly these anomalies that we've seen. So we've seen a bunch of very intriguing anomalies in these b quark decays, which may be hinting at the first signs of this kind of the elephant, the signs of some new quantum field or fields maybe beyond the standard model. It's not yet at the statistical threshold where you can say that you've observed something, but there's lots of anomalies in many measurements that all seem to be consistent with each other. So it's quite interesting. So the upgrade will allow us to really home in on these things and see whether these anomalies are real, because if they are real, and this kind of connects to your point about the next generation of machines, what we will have seen then is, we will have seen the tail end of some quantum field in influencing these b quarks. What we then need to do is to build a bigger collider to actually make the particle of that field. So if these things really do exist. So that would be one argument. I mean, so at the moment, Europe has going through this process of thinking about the strategy for the future. So there are a number of different proposals on the table. One is for a sort of higher energy upgrade of the LHC where you just build more powerful magnets and put them in the same tunnel. That's a sort of cheaper, less ambitious possibility. Most people don't really like it because it's sort of a bit of a dead end, because once you've done that, there's nowhere to go. There's a machine called CLIC, which is a compact linear collider, which is an electron positron collider that uses a novel type of acceleration technology to accelerate at shorter distances. We're still talking kilometers long, but not like a hundred kilometers long. And then probably the project that is I think getting the most support, it'd be interesting to see what happens, something called the Future Circular Collider, which is a really ambitious, long-term, multi-decade project to build a 100 kilometer circumference tunnel under the Geneva region. The LHC would become a kind of feeding machine. It would just feed- So the same area, so there would be a feeder for the- Yeah, so it would kind of, the edge of this machine would be where the LHC is, but it would sort of go under Lake Geneva and round to the Alps basically, since up to the edge of the Geneva basin. So it's basically the biggest, it's the biggest tunnel you can fit in the region based on the geology. A hundred kilometers, wow. Yeah, so it's big. It'd be a long drive if you're, you know, you make experiments on one side, you've got to go back to CERN for lunch, so that would be a pain. But, you know, so this project is, in principle, is actually two accelerators. The first thing you would do is put an electron positron machine in the 100 kilometer tunnel to study the Higgs. So you'd make lots of Higgs bosons, study it really precisely in the hope that you see it misbehaving and doing something it's not supposed to. And then in the much longer term, a hundred, that machine gets taken out, you put in a proton proton machine. So it's like the LHC, but much bigger. And that's the way you start going and looking for dark matter, or you're trying to recreate this phase transition that I talked about in the early universe, where you can see matter, antimatter being made, for example. So lots of things you can do with these machines. The problem is that they will take, you know, the most optimistic, you're not going to have any data from any of these machines until 2040, or, you know, because they take such a long time to build and they're so expensive. So you have to, there'll be a process of R&D design, but also the political case being made. So LHC, what costs a few billion? Depends how you count it. I think most of the sort of more reasonable estimates that take everything into account properly, it's around the sort of 10, 11, 12 billion Euro mark. What would be the future? Sorry, I forgot the name already. Future Circular Collider. Future Circular Collider. Presumably they won't call it that when it's built, because it won't be the future anymore, but I don't know what they'll call it then. Very big Hadron Collider, I don't know. But that will, now I should know the numbers, but I think the whole project is estimated at about 30 billion Euros, but that's money spent over between now and 2070 probably, which is when the last bit of it would be sort of finishing up, I guess. So you're talking a half a century of science coming out of this thing, shared by many countries. So the actual cost, the arguments that are made is that you could make this project fit within the existing budget of CERN, if you didn't do anything else. And CERN, by the way, we didn't mention, what is CERN? CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research. It's an international organization that was established in the 1950s in the wake of the Second World War as a kind of, it was sort of like a scientific Marshall Plan for Europe. The idea was that you bring European science back together for peaceful purposes, because what happened in the 40s was a lot of, particularly a lot of Jewish scientists, but a lot of scientists from Central Europe had fled to the United States and Europe had sort of seen this brain drain. So there was a desire to bring the community back together for a project that wasn't building nasty bombs, but was doing something that was curiosity driven. So, and that has continued since then. So it's kind of a unique organization. It's you, to be a member as a country, you sort of sign up as a member and then you have to pay a fraction of your GDP each year as a subscription. I mean, it's a very small fraction, relatively speaking. I think it's like, I think the UK's contribution is 100 or 200 million quid or something like that a year, which is quite a lot, but not- That's fascinating. I mean, just the whole thing that is possible, it's beautiful. It's a beautiful idea, especially when there's no wars on the line, it's not like we're freaking out, it's we're actually legitimately collaborating to do good science. One of the things I don't think we really mentioned is on the final side, that sort of the data analysis side, is there breakthroughs possible there and the machine learning side, like is there a lot more signal to be mined in more effective ways from the actual raw data? Yeah, a lot of people are looking into that. I mean, so I use machine learning in my data analysis, but pretty naughty, basic stuff, because I'm not a machine learning expert, I'm just a physicist who had to learn to do this stuff for my day job. So what a lot of people do is they use kind of off the shelf packages that you can train to do signal noise. Just clean up all the data. Yeah, but one of the big challenges, the big challenge of the data is A, it's volume, there's huge amounts of data. So the LHC generates, now, okay, I try to remember what the actual numbers are, but if we don't record all our data, we record a tiny fraction of the data. It's like of order one 10,000th or something, I think, is that right? Around that. So it's mostly gets thrown away. You couldn't record all the LHC data because it would fill up every computer in the world in a matter of days, basically. So there's this process that happens on live, on the detector, something called a trigger, which in real time, 40 million times every second, has to make a decision about whether this collision is likely to contain an interesting object, like a Higgs boson or a dark matter particle. And it has to do that very fast. And the software algorithms in the past were quite relatively basic. They did things like measure momentas and energies of particles and put some requirements. So you would say, if there's a particle with an energy above some threshold, then record this collision. But if there isn't, don't. Whereas now the attempt is to get more and more machine learning in at the earliest possible stage. Because- That's cool, at the stage of deciding whether we want to keep this data or not. But also even maybe even lower down than that, which is the point where there's this, so generally how the data is reconstructed is you start off with a digital, a set of digital hits in your detector. So channels saying, did you see something? Did you not see something? That has to be then turned into tracks, particles going in different directions. And that's done by using fits that fit through the data points. And then that's passed to the algorithms that then go, is this interesting or not? What'd be better is you could train in machine learning to just look at the raw hits, the basic, real base level information, not have any of the reconstruction done. And it just goes, and it can learn to do pattern recognition on this strange three-dimensional image that you get. And potentially that's where you could get really big gains because our triggers tend to be quite inefficient because they don't have time to do the full whiz-bang processing to get all the information out that we would like because you have to do the decision very quickly. So if you can come up with some clever machine learning technique, then potentially you can massively increase the amount of useful data you record and get rid of more of the background earlier in the process. Yeah, to me, that's an exciting possibility because then you don't have to build a, sort of you can get a gain without having to, without having to build any hardware, I suppose. Hardware, yeah. Although you need lots of new GPU farms, I guess. So hardware still helps, but the, you know, I got to talk to you. Sort of, I'm not sure how to ask, but you're clearly an incredible science communicator. I don't know if that's the right term, but you're basically a younger Neil deGrasse Tyson with a British accent. So, and you've, I mean, can you say where we are today, actually? Yeah, so today we're in the Royal Institution in London, which is an old, very old organization. It's been around for about 200 years now, I think. Maybe even I should know when it was founded, but sort of early 19th century. It was set up to basically communicate science to the public. So it was one of the first places in the world where scientists, famous scientists would come and give talks. So very famously, Humphry Davy, who you may know of, who was the person who discovered nitrous oxide, he was a very famous chemist and scientist, also discovered electrolysis. So he used to do these fantastic, he was a very charismatic speaker. So he used to appear here, there's a big desk that they usually have in the theater, and he would do demonstrations to the sort of the folk of London back in the early 19th century. And Michael Faraday, who I talked about, who was the person who did so much work on electromagnetism, he lectured here. He also did experiments in the basement. So this place has got a long history of both scientific research, but also communication of scientific research. So you gave a few lectures here, how many, two? I've given a couple of lectures in this theater before. So people should definitely go watch online. It's just the explanation of particle physics, so all the, I mean, it's incredible. Like your lectures are just incredible. I can't sing it enough praise. So it was awesome. But maybe, can you say, what did that feel like? What does it feel like to lecture here, to talk about that? And maybe from a different perspective, more kind of like how the sausage is made, is how do you prepare for that kind of thing? How do you think about communication, the process of communicating these ideas, in a way that's inspiring to what I would say your talks are inspiring to the general audience. You don't actually have to be a scientist. You can still be inspired without really knowing much. You start from the very basics. So what's the preparation process? And then the romantic question is, what did that feel like to perform here? I mean, the profession, yeah. I mean, the process, I mean, the talk, my favorite talk that I gave here was one called Beyond the Higgs, which you can find on the Royal Institution's YouTube channel, which you should go and check out. I mean, and their channel's got loads of great talks with loads of great people as well. I mean, that one, I'd sort of given a version of it many times, so part of it is just practice, right? And actually, I don't have some great theory of how to communicate with people. It's more just that I'm really interested and excited by those ideas, and I like talking about them. And through the process of doing that, I guess I figured out stories that work and explanations that work. When you say practice, you mean legitimately just giving- Just giving talks, yeah. Giving talks, like really. And I started off, you know, when I was a PhD student, doing talks in schools, and I still do that as well some of the time, and doing things. I've even done a bit of stand-up comedy, which was sort of, went reasonably well, even if it was terrifying. And that's on YouTube as well. That's also on, I wouldn't necessarily recommend you check that out. I'm gonna post the links several places to make sure people click on it. But it's basically, I kind of have a story in my head, and I kind of, I have to think about what I want to say. Usually have some images to support what I'm saying, and I get up and do it. And it's not really, I wish there was some kind of, I probably should have some proper process. This probably sounds like I'm just making it up as I go along, and I sort of am. Well, I think the fundamental thing that you said, I think, it's like, I don't know if you know who, a guy named Joe Rogan is. Yes, I do, yeah. So he's also kind of sounds like you in a sense that he's not very introspective about his process, but he's an incredibly engaging conversationalist. And I think one of the things that you and him share that I could see is like a genuine curiosity and passion for the topic. I think that could be systematically cultivated. I'm sure there's a process to it, but you come to it naturally somehow. I think maybe there's something else as well, which is to understand something. There's this quote by Feynman, which I really like, which is, what I cannot create, I do not understand. So like, I'm not particularly super bright. Like, so for me to understand something, I have to break it down into its simplest elements. And that, and if I can then tell people about that, that helps me understand it as well. So I've actually, I've learned to understand physics a lot more from the process of communicating, because it forces you to really scrutinize the ideas that you're communicating. And it often makes you realize you don't really understand the ideas you're talking about. And I'm writing a book at the moment. I had this experience yesterday where I realized I didn't really understand a pretty fundamental theoretical aspect of my own subject. And I had to go and I had to sort of spend a couple of days reading textbooks and thinking about it in order to make sure that the explanation I gave captured the, got us close to what is actually happening in the theory. And to do that, you have to really understand it properly. And- And there's layers to understanding. Like, it seems like the more, there must be some kind of Feynman law. I mean, the more you understand sort of the simply, you're able to really convey the, you know, the essence of the idea, right? So it's like this reverse effect that it's like, the more you understand the simpler, the final thing that you actually convey. And so the more accessible somehow it becomes. That's why Feynman's lectures are really accessible. It was just counterintuitive. Yeah. Although there are some ideas that are very difficult to explain no matter how well or badly you understand them. Like, I still can't really properly explain the Higgs mechanism. Yeah. Because some of these ideas only exist in mathematics really. And the only way to really develop an understanding is to go, unfortunately, into a graduate degree in physics. But you can get kind of a flavor of what's happening, I think. And it's trying to do that in a way that isn't misleading, but also intelligible. So let me ask the romantic question of what to you is the most, perhaps an unfair question, what is the most beautiful idea in physics? One that fills you with awe, is the most surprising, the strangest, the weirdest. There's a lot of different definitions of beauty. And I'm sure there's several for you, but is there something that just jumps to mind that you think is just especially beautiful? There's a specific thing and a more general thing. So maybe the specific thing first, which is when I first came across this as an undergraduate, I found this amazing. So this idea that the forces of nature, electromagnetism's strong force, the weak force, they arise in our theories as a consequence of symmetries. So symmetries in the laws of nature, in the equations essentially, that used to describe these ideas. The process whereby theories come up with these sorts of models is they say, imagine the universe obeys this particular type of symmetry. It's a symmetry that isn't so far removed from a geometrical symmetry, like the rotations of a cube. It's not, you can't think of it quite that way, but it's sort of a similar sort of idea. And you say, okay, if the universe respects this symmetry, you find that you have to introduce a force which has the properties of electromagnetism. Or a different symmetry, you get the strong force, or a different symmetry, you get the weak force. So these interactions seem to come from some deeper, it suggests that they come from some deeper symmetry principle. I mean, depends a bit how you look at it, because it could be that we're actually just recognizing symmetries in the things that we see. But there's something rather lovely about that. But I mean, I suppose a bigger thing that makes me wonder is actually, if you look at the laws of nature, how particles interact when you get really close down, they're basically pretty simple things. They bounce off each other by exchanging through force fields, and they move around in very simple ways. And somehow, these basic ingredients, these few particles that we know about in the forces, creates this universe which is unbelievably complicated and has things like you and me in it, and the Earth and stars that make matter in their cause by the gravitational energy of their own bulk that then gets sprayed into the universe that forms other things. I mean, the fact that there's this incredibly long story that goes right back to the beginning, we can take this story right back to a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, and we can trace the origins of the stuff that we're made from. And it all ultimately comes from these simple ingredients with these simple rules. And the fact you can generate such complexity from that is really mysterious, I think, and strange. And it's not even a question that physicists can really tackle because we are sort of trying to find these really elementary laws. But it turns out that going from elementary laws in a few particles to something even as complicated as a molecule becomes very difficult. So going from a molecule to a human being is a problem that just can't be tackled, at least not at the moment. So- The emergence of complexity from simple rules is so beautiful and so mysterious. And we don't have good mathematics to even try to approach that emergent phenomena. That's why we have chemistry and biology in all the other subjects. Yeah, I guess. I don't think there's a better way to end it, Harry. I can't, I mean, I think I speak for a lot of people that can't wait to see what happens in the next five, 10, 20 years with you. I think you're one of the great communicators of our time. So I hope you continue that and I hope that grows. And I'm definitely a huge fan. So it was an honor to talk to you today. Thanks so much, man. Thanks very much. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Harry Cliff and thank you to our sponsors, ExpressVPN and Cash App. Please consider supporting the podcast by getting ExpressVPN at expressvpn.com slash LexPod and downloading Cash App and using code LexPodcast. If you enjoy this podcast, subscribe on YouTube, review it with Five Stars on Apple Podcast, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman. And now let me leave you with some words from Harry Cliff. You and I are leftovers. Every particle in our bodies is a survivor from an almighty shootout between matter and antimatter that happened a little after the big bang. In fact, only one in a billion particles created at the beginning of time have survived to the present day. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/8A-5gIW0-eI

hbtuHtrViPo

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Garry Kasparov: IBM Deep Blue, AlphaZero, and the Limits of AI in Open Systems | AI Podcast Clips

You're lost to IBM Deep Blue in 1997. In my eyes, that is one of the most seminal moments in the history. Again, I apologize for being romanticizing the notion, but in the history of our civilization, because humans as a civilization for centuries saw chess as the peak of what man can accomplish of intellectual mastery. And that moment when a machine could beat a human being was inspiring to just an entire, anyone who cares about science, innovation, an entire generation of AI researchers. And yet, to you that loss, at least if reading your face, seemed like a tragedy, extremely painful, like I said, physically painful. Why? When you look back at your psychology of that loss, why was it so painful? Were you not able to see the seminal nature of that moment? Or was that exactly why it was that painful? As I already said, losing was painful, physically painful. And the match I lost in 1997 was not the first match I lost to a machine. It was the first match I lost, period. Oh, wow. Oh, wow. Yeah. That makes all the difference to me. First time I lost. Now, I lost, and the reason I was so angry that I just, you know, I had suspicions that my loss was not just the result of my bad play. So, though I played quite poorly, you know, just when you started looking at the games today, I made tons of mistakes. But, you know, I had all reasons to believe that, you know, there were other factors that had nothing to do with the game of chess. And that's why I was angry. But look, it was 22 years ago. It's more than the bridge. We can analyze this match and this is with everything you said. I agree with probably one exception, is that considering chess, you know, as the sort of, as a pinnacle of intellectual activities, was our mistake. Because, you know, we just thought, oh, it's a game of the highest intellect. And it's just, you know, you have to be so, you know, intelligent. And you could see things that, you know, the ordinary mortals could not see. It's a game. And all machines had to do in this game is just to make fewer mistakes, not to solve the game, because the game cannot be solved. I mean, according to Gualtian, the number of legal moves is 10 to the 46th power. Too many zeros, you know, just for any computer to finish the job, you know, in the next few billion years. But it doesn't have to. It's all about making fewer mistakes. And I think that's this match, actually, and what's happened afterwards with other games, with Go, with Shogi, with video games, it's a demonstration that machines will always beat humans in what I call closed systems. The moment you build a closed system, no matter how the system is called, chess, Go, Shogi, Dota, machines will prevail simply because they will bring down number of mistakes. Machines don't have to solve it. They just have to, the way they outplay us, it's not by just being more intelligent. It's just by doing something else. But eventually, it's just it's capitalizing on our mistakes. When you look at the chess machines ratings today, and compare this to Magnus Carlsen, it's the same as comparing Ferrari to Usain Bolt. The gap is, I mean, by chess standards is insane. 34, 3500 to 2800, 2850 on Magnus. It's like difference between Magnus and an ordinary player from an open international tournament. It's not because machine understands better than Magnus Carlsen, but simply because it's steady. Machine has steady hand. And I think that is what we have to learn from 1997 experience and from further encounters with computers and sort of the current state of affairs with AlphaZero, beating other machines. The idea that we can compete with computers in so-called intellectual fields, it was wrong from the very beginning. It's just it's, by the way, the 1997 match was not the first victory of machines over. Over grandmasters. Over grandmasters. Yeah. No, actually, I played against first decent chess computers from late 80s. So I played with the prototype of Deep Blue called Deep Thought in 1989, two rapid chess games in New York. I won handily to both games. We played against new chess engines like Fritz and other programs. And then it was Israeli program Junior that appeared in 1995. Yeah. So there were several programs. I lost a few games in Blitz. I lost one match against the computer chess engine in 1994, rapid chess. So I lost one game to Deep Blue in 1996 match, the match I won. Some people tend to forget about it that I won the first match. Yes. But we made a very important psychological mistake thinking that the reason we lost Blitz matches, five minutes games, the reason we lost some of the rapid chess matches, 25 minutes chess, because we didn't have enough time. If you play a longer match, we will not make the same mistakes. Nonsense. So, yeah, we had more time, but we still make mistakes. And machine also has more time. And machines, machine will always, you know, we always be steady and consistent compared to humans' instabilities and inconsistencies. And today we are at the point where nobody talks about, you know, humans playing as machines. Machines can offer handicap to top players and still, you know, will be favored. I think we're just learning that it's no longer human versus machines. It's about human working with machines. That's what I recognized in 1998, just after leaking my wounds and spending one year and just, you know, ruminating. So what's happened in this match? And I knew that though we still could play against the machines. I had two more matches in 2003 playing both deep free and deep junior. Both matches ended as a tie. Though these machines were not weaker, at least, probably stronger than deep blue. And by the way, today, chess app on your mobile phone is probably stronger than deep blue. I'm not speaking about chess engines that are so much superior. And by the way, when you analyze games we played against deep blue in 1997 on your chess engine, they'll be laughing. So this is, and it's also shows us how chess changed because chess commentators, they look at some of our games like game four, game five, brilliant idea. Now you ask Stockfish, you ask Houdini, you ask Commodore, all the leading chess engines. Within 30 seconds, they'll show you how many mistakes both Gary and deep blue made in the game that was trumpeted as the, as a great chess match in 1997. Well, okay. So you've made an interesting, if you can untangle that comment. So now in retrospect, it was a mistake to see chess as the peak of human intellect. Nevertheless, that was done for centuries. So in Europe, because you know, you move to the far East, they will go there. They had shown games, games, some of the games like, you know, board games. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I agree. So if I push back a little bit, so now you say that, okay, but it was a mistake to see chess as the epitome. And now, and then now there's other things, maybe like language, like conversation, like some of the things that in your view is still way out of reach of computers, but inside humans, do you think, can you talk about what those things might be? And do you think just like chess that might fall soon with the same set of approaches, if you look at alpha zero, the same kind of learning approaches as the machines grow in size? No, no, it's not about growing in size. It's about, again, it's about understanding the difference between closed system and open-ended system. So you think that key difference, so the board games are closed in terms of the rules, the actions, the state space, everything is just constrained. You think once you open it, the machines are lost? Not lost, but again, the effectiveness is very different because machine does not understand the moment it's reaching territory of diminishing returns. To put it in a different way, machine doesn't know how to ask right questions. It can ask questions, but it will never tell you which questions are relevant. So it's like about the, it's a direction. So I think it's in human machine relations, we have to consider our role. And many people feel uncomfortable that the territory that belongs to us is shrinking. I'm saying, so what? Eventually we'll belong to the last few decimal points, but it's like having a very powerful gun and all you can do there is slightly alter direction of the bullet, maybe 0.1 degree of this angle. But that means a mile away, 10 meters of target. So we have to recognize that is a certain unique human qualities that machines in a foreseeable future will not be able to reproduce. And the effectiveness of this cooperation, collaboration depends on our understanding what exactly we can bring into the game. So the greatest danger is when we try to interfere with machine superior knowledge. So that's why I always say that sometimes you'd rather have by reading this pictures in radiology, you may probably prefer an experienced nurse than rather than having top professor, because she will not try to interfere with machines understanding. So it's very important to know that if machines knows how to do better things in 95%, 96% of territory, we should not touch it because it's happened. It's like in chess, guys, they do it better. See where we can make the difference. You mentioned AlphaZero. I mean, AlphaZero, it's actually a first step into what you may call AI, because everything that's being called AI today, it's one or another variation of what Claude Shannon characterized as a brute force. It's a type A machine, whether it's Deep Blue, whether it's Watson, and all these modern technologies that are being trumpeted as AI, it's still brute force. All they do, it's they do optimization. They keep improving the way to process human generated data. Now, AlphaZero is the first step towards machine produced knowledge, which is, by the way, it's quite ironic that the first company that championed that was IBM. Oh, it's in backgammon. Interesting. In backgammon. Yes, you should look at IBM. It's a new gammon. It's the scientist called Cesaro. He's still working at IBM. They had in the early 90s. It's the program that played in all the AlphaZero types, so just trying to come up with own strategies. But because of success of Deep Blue, this project had been not abandoned, but just it was put on hold. And now, it's everybody talks about the machines generated knowledge, so as revolutionary. And it is, but there's still many open-ended questions. Yes, AlphaZero generates its own data. Many ideas that AlphaZero generated in chess were quite intriguing. So, I looked at these games with not just with interest, but it was quite exciting to learn how machine could actually juggle all the pieces and just play positions with a broken material balance, sacrificing material, always being ahead of other programs, one or two moves ahead by foreseeing the consequences, not over-calculating because other machines were at least as powerful in calculating. But it's having this unique knowledge based on discovered patterns. After playing 60 million games. Almost something that feels like intuition. Exactly, but there's one problem. Now, the simple question, if AlphaZero faces superior point, let's say another powerful computer accompanied by a human who could help just to discover certain problems, because I already, I looked at many AlphaZero games. I visited their lab, spoke to them, his team, and I know there's certain weaknesses there. Now, if these weaknesses are exposed, then the question is, how many games will it take for AlphaZero to correct it? The answer is hundreds of thousands. Even if it keeps losing, it's just because the whole system is based. Now, imagine you can have a human by just making a few tweaks. Humans are still more flexible. As long as we recognize what is our role, where we can play the most valuable part in this collaboration, it will help us to understand what are the next steps in human-machine collaboration.

https://youtu.be/hbtuHtrViPo

ykY69lSpDdo

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Ray Kurzweil: Singularity, Superintelligence, and Immortality | Lex Fridman Podcast #321

By the time we get to 2045, we'll be able to multiply our intelligence many millions fold, and it's just very hard to imagine what that will be like. The following is a conversation with Ray Kurzweil, author, inventor, and futurist, who has an optimistic view of our future as a human civilization, predicting that exponentially improving technologies will take us to a point of a singularity, beyond which superintelligent artificial intelligence will transform our world in nearly unimaginable ways. 18 years ago, in the book Singularity is Near, he predicted that the onset of the singularity will happen in the year 2045. He still holds to this prediction and estimate. In fact, he's working on a new book on this topic that will hopefully be out next year. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Ray Kurzweil. In your 2005 book titled The Singularity is Near, you predicted that the singularity will happen in 2045. So now, 18 years later, do you still estimate that the singularity will happen on 2045? And maybe first, what is the singularity, the technological singularity, and when will it happen? Singularity is where computers really change our view of what's important and change who we are. But we're getting close to some salient things that will change who we are. A key thing is 2029, when computers will pass the Turing test. And there's also some controversy whether the Turing test is valid. I believe it is. Most people do believe that, but there's some controversy about that. But Stanford got very alarmed at my prediction about 2029. I made this in 1999 in my book. The Age of Spiritual Machines. And then you repeated the prediction in 2005. In 2005. So they held an international conference, you might have been aware of it, of AI experts in 1999 to assess this view. So people gave different predictions, and they took a poll. It was really the first time that AI experts worldwide were polled on this prediction. And the average poll was 100 years. 20% believed it would never happen. And that was the view in 1999. 80% believed it would happen, but not within their lifetimes. There's been so many advances in AI that the poll of AI experts has come down over the years. So a year ago, something called Meticulous, which you may be aware of, assessed different types of experts on the future. They again assessed what AI experts then felt. And they were saying 2042. For the Turing test. For the Turing test. That's what's coming down. And I was still saying 2029. A few weeks ago, they again did another poll, and it was 2030. So AI experts now basically agree with me. I haven't changed at all. I've stayed with 2029. And AI experts now agree with me, but they didn't agree at first. So Alan Turing formulated the Turing test, and... Right. Now, what he said was very little about it. I mean, the 1950 paper where he had articulated the Turing test, there's like a few lines that talk about the Turing test. And it really wasn't very clear how to administer it. And he said if they did it in like 15 minutes, that would be sufficient, which I don't really think is the case. These large language models, now, some people are convinced by it already. I mean, you can talk to it and have a conversation with it. You can actually talk to it for hours. So it requires a little more depth. There's some problems with large language models, which we can talk about. But some people are convinced. Some people are convinced by the Turing test. Now, if somebody passes the Turing test, what are the implications of that? Does that mean that they're sentient, that they're conscious or not? It's not necessarily clear what the implications are. Anyway, I believe 2029, that's six, seven years from now, we'll have something that passes the Turing test, and a valid Turing test, meaning it goes for hours, not just a few minutes. Can you speak to that a little bit? What is your formulation of the Turing test? You've proposed a very difficult version of the Turing test. So what does that look like? Basically, it's just to assess it over several hours, and also have a human judge that's fairly sophisticated on what computers can do and can't do. If you take somebody who's not that sophisticated, or even an average engineer, they may not really assess various aspects of it. So you really want the human to challenge the system. Exactly, exactly. On its ability to do things like common sense reasoning, perhaps. That's actually a key problem with large language models. They don't do these kinds of tests that would involve assessing chains of reasoning. But you can lose track of that. If you talk to them, they actually can talk to you pretty well, and you can be convinced by it. But it's somebody that would really convince you that it's a human, whatever that takes. Maybe it would take days or weeks, but it would really convince you that it's human. Large language models can appear that way. You can read conversations, and they appear pretty good. There are some problems with it. It doesn't do math very well. You can ask, well, how many legs did 10 elephants have? And they'll tell you, well, okay, each elephant has four legs, and it's 10 elephants, so it's 40 legs. And you go, okay, that's pretty good. How many legs do 11 elephants have? And they don't seem to understand the question. Do all humans understand that question? No. That's the key thing. I mean, how advanced a human do you want it to be? But we do expect a human to be able to do multi-chain reasoning, to be able to take a few facts and put them together. Not perfectly. We see that in a lot of polls, that people don't do that perfectly at all. So it's not very well-defined. But it's something where it really would convince you that it's a human. Is your intuition that large language models will not be solely the kind of system that passes the Turing test in 2029? Do we need something else? No, I think it will be a large language model, but they have to go beyond what they're doing now. I think we're getting there. And another key issue is if somebody actually passes the Turing test validly, I would believe they're conscious. And not everybody would say that. It's okay, we can pass the Turing test, but we don't really believe that it's conscious. That's a whole other issue. But if it really passes the Turing test, I would believe that it's conscious. But I don't believe that of large language models today. If it appears to be conscious, that's as good as being conscious, at least for you, in some sense. I mean, consciousness is not something that's scientific. I mean, I believe you're conscious, but it's really just a belief, and we believe that about other humans that at least appear to be conscious. When you go outside of shared human assumption, like, are animals conscious? Some people believe they're not conscious, some people believe they are conscious. And would a machine that acts just like a human be conscious? I mean, I believe it would be. But that's really a philosophical belief. You can't prove it. I can't take an entity and prove that it's conscious. There's nothing that you can do that would indicate that. It's like saying a piece of art is beautiful. You can say it, multiple people can experience a piece of art as beautiful, but you can't prove it. But it's also an extremely important issue. I mean, imagine if you had something where nobody's conscious. The world may as well not exist. And so some people, like say Marvin Rinsky, said, well, consciousness is not logical, it's not scientific, and therefore we should dismiss it, and any talk about consciousness is just not to be believed. But when he actually engaged with somebody who was conscious, he actually acted as if they were conscious. He didn't ignore that. He acted as if consciousness does matter. Exactly. Whereas he said it didn't matter. Well, that's Marvin Rinsky. He's full of contradictions. But that's true of a lot of people as well. But to you, consciousness matters. But to me, it's very important. But I would say it's not a scientific issue. It's a philosophical issue. And people have different views. Some people believe that anything that makes a decision is conscious. So your light switch is conscious. Its level of consciousness is low, it's not very interesting, but that's a consciousness. So a computer that makes a more interesting decision is still at human levels, but it's also conscious and at a higher level than your light switch. So that's one view. There's many different views of what consciousness is. So if a system passes the Turing test, it's not scientific, but in issues of philosophy, things like ethics start to enter the picture. Do you think there would be, we would start contending as a human species about the ethics of turning off such a machine? Yeah. I mean, that's definitely come up. Hasn't come up in reality yet. Yet. But I'm talking about 2029. It's not that many years from now. And so what are our obligations to it? It has a different, I mean, a computer that's conscious, it has a little bit different connotations than a human. We have a continuous consciousness. We're in an entity that does not last forever. Now, actually, a significant portion of humans still exist and are therefore still conscious. But anybody who is over a certain age doesn't exist anymore. That wouldn't be true of a computer program. You could completely turn it off, and then a copy of it could be stored, and you could recreate it. And so it has a different type of validity. You could actually take it back in time. You could eliminate its memory and have it go over again. I mean, it has a different kind of connotation than humans do. Well, perhaps you can do the same thing with humans. It's just that we don't know how to do that yet. It's possible that we figure out all of these things on the machine first. But that doesn't mean the machine isn't conscious. I mean, if you look at the way people react, say, 3CPO or other machines that are conscious in movies, they don't actually present how it's conscious, but we see that they are a machine, and people will believe that they are conscious, and they'll actually worry about it if they get into trouble and so on. So, 2029 is going to be the first year when a major thing happens. Right. And that will shake our civilization to start to consider the role of AI in this world. Yes and no. I mean, this one guy at Google claimed that the machine was conscious. But that's just one person. Right. When it starts to happen to scale. Well, that's exactly right, because most people have not taken that position. I don't take that position. I mean, I've used different things like this, and they don't appear to me to be conscious. As we eliminate various problems of these large language models, more and more people will accept that they're conscious. So, when we get to 2029, I think a large fraction of people will believe that they're conscious. So, it's not going to happen all at once. I believe it will actually happen gradually, and it's already started to happen. And so, that takes us one step closer to the singularity. Another step then is in the 2030s, when we can actually connect our neocortex, which is where we do our thinking, to computers. And I mean, just as this actually gains a lot to being connected to computers that will amplify its abilities. I mean, if this did not have any connection, it would be pretty stupid. It could not answer any of your questions. If you're just listening to this, by the way, Ray's holding up the all-powerful smartphone. So, we're going to do that directly from our brains. I mean, these are pretty good. These already have amplified our intelligence. I'm already much smarter than I would otherwise be if I didn't have this. Because I remember when I first spoke to the Age of Intelligent Machines, there was no way to get information from computers. I actually would go to a library, find a book, find the page that had an information I wanted, and I'd go to the copier, and my most significant information tool was a roll of quarters where I could feed the copier. So, we're already greatly advanced that we have these things. There's a few problems with it. First of all, I constantly put it down, and I don't remember where I put it. I've actually never lost it. But you have to find it, and then you have to turn it on. So, there's a certain amount of steps. It would actually be quite useful if someone would just listen to your conversation and say, oh, that's so-and-so actress, and tell you what you're talking about. So, going from active to passive, where it just permeates your whole life. Yeah, exactly. The way your brain does when you're awake. Your brain is always there. Right. That's something that could actually just about be done today, where you would listen to your conversation, understand what you're saying, understand what you're not missing, and give you that information. But another step is to actually go inside your brain. And there are some prototypes where you can connect your brain. They actually don't have the amount of bandwidth that we need. They can work, but they work fairly slowly. So, if it actually would connect to your neocortex, and the neocortex, which I described in How to Create a Mind, the neocortex is actually, it has different levels. And as you go up the levels, it's kind of like a pyramid. The top level is fairly small. And that's the level where you want to connect these brain extenders. So, I believe that will happen in the 2030s. So, just the way this is greatly amplified by being connected to the cloud, we can connect our own brain to the cloud and just do what we can do by using this machine. Do you think it would look like the brain-computer interface of Neuralink? So, would it be… Well, Neuralink's an attempt to do that. It doesn't have the bandwidth that we need. Yet, right? Right. But I think, I mean, they're going to get permission for this, because there are a lot of people who absolutely need it, because they can't communicate. I know a couple people like that who have ideas, and they cannot move their muscles, and so on. They can't communicate. So, for them, this would be very valuable. But we could all use it. Basically, it'd be… turn us into something that would be like we have a phone, but it would be in our minds. It would be kind of instantaneous. And maybe communication between two people would not require this low-bandwidth mechanism of language. Yes. Of spoken word. Exactly. We don't know what that would be. Although we do know that computers can share information like language instantly. They can share many, many books in a second. So, we could do that as well. If you look at what our brain does, it actually can manipulate different parameters. So, we talk about these large language models. I mean, I had written that it requires a certain amount of information in order to be effective, and that we would not see AI really being effective until it got to that level. And we had large language models that were like 10 billion bytes, didn't work very well. They finally got to 100 billion bytes, and now they work fairly well, and now we're going to a trillion bytes. If you say lambda has 100 billion bytes, what does that mean? Well, what if you had something that had one byte, one parameter? Maybe you want to tell whether or not something's an elephant or not. And so, you put in something that would detect its trunk. If it has a trunk, it's an elephant. If it doesn't have a trunk, it's not an elephant. That would work fairly well. There's a few problems with it, and it really wouldn't be able to tell what a trunk is. But anyway… And maybe other things other than elephants have trunks. You might get really confused. Yeah, exactly. I'm not sure which animals have trunks, but, you know. Plus, how do you define a trunk? But yeah, that's one parameter. You can do okay. So, these things have 100 billion parameters, so they're able to deal with very complex issues. All kinds of trunks. Human beings actually have a little bit more than that, but they're getting to the point where they can emulate humans. If we were able to connect this to our neocortex, we would basically add more of these abilities to make distinctions, and it could ultimately be much smaller, and also be attached to information that we feel is reliable. So, that's where we're headed. So, you think that there will be a merger in the 30s, an increasing amount of merging between the human brain and the AI brain? Exactly. And the AI brain is really an emulation of human beings. I mean, that's why we're creating them. Because human beings act the same way, and this is basically to amplify them. I mean, this amplifies our brain. It's a little bit clumsy to interact with, but it definitely, it's way beyond what we had 15 years ago. But the implementation becomes different, just like a bird versus the airplane. Even though the AI brain is an emulation, it starts adding features we might not otherwise have, like ability to consume a huge amount of information quickly. Like look up thousands of Wikipedia articles in one take. Exactly. And we can get, for example, to issues like simulated biology, where it can simulate many different things at once. I mean, we already had one example of simulated biology, which is the Moderna vaccine. And that's going to be now the way in which we create medications. But they were able to simulate what each example of an mRNA would do to a human being, and they were able to simulate that quite reliably. And we actually simulated billions of different mRNA sequences. And they found the ones that were the best, and they created the vaccine. And they did, and talk about doing that quickly, they did that in two days. Now, how long would a human being take to simulate billions of different mRNA sequences? I don't know that we could do it at all, but it would take many years. They did it in two days. And one of the reasons that people didn't like vaccines is because it was done too quickly. It was done too fast. And they actually included the time it took to test it out, which was 10 months. So they figured, okay, it took 10 months to create this. Actually, it took us two days. And we also will be able to ultimately do the tests in a few days as well. Oh, because we can simulate how the body will respond to it. Yeah. More and more. That's a little bit more complicated because the body has a lot of different elements, and we have to simulate all of that. But that's coming as well. So ultimately, we could create it in a few days and then test it in a few days, and we'd be done. And we can do that with every type of medical insufficiency that we have. So curing all diseases, improving certain functions of the body, supplements, drugs, for recreation, for health, for performance, for productivity, all that kind of stuff. Well, that's where we're headed. Because I mean, right now, we have a very inefficient way of creating these new medications. But we've already shown it. And the Moderna vaccine is actually the best of the vaccines we've had. And it literally took two days to create. And we'll get to the point where we can test it out also quickly. Are you impressed by AlphaFold and the solution to the protein folding, which essentially is simulating, modeling this primitive building block of life, which is a protein, and it's 3D-shaped? It's pretty remarkable that they can actually predict what the 3D shape of these things are. But they did it with the same type of neural net that won, for example, the GO test. So it's all the same. It's all the same. All the same approaches. They took that same thing and just changed the rules to chess. And within a couple of days, it now played a master level of chess greater than any human being. And the same thing then worked for AlphaFold, which no human had done. I mean, human beings could do, the best humans could maybe do 15, 20% of figuring out what the shape would be. And after a few takes, it ultimately did just about 100%. Do you still think the singularity will happen in the future? Mm-hmm. Do you still think the singularity will happen in 2045? And what does that look like? You know, once we can amplify our brain with computers directly, which will happen in the 2030s, that's going to keep growing. It's another whole theme, which is the exponential growth of computing power. Yeah, so looking at price performance of computation from 1939 to 2021. Right, so that starts with the very first computer, actually created by a German during World War II. You might have thought that that might be significant, but actually the Germans didn't think computers were significant, and they completely rejected it. And the second one is also the ZUSA-2. And by the way, we're looking at a plot with the x-axis being the year from 1935 to 2025. And on the y-axis in log scale is computation per second per constant dollar. So dollar normalized to inflation. And it's growing linearly on the log scale, which means it's growing exponentially. The third one was the British computer, which the Allies did take very seriously. And it cracked the German code and enables the British to win the Battle of Britain, which otherwise absolutely would not have happened if they hadn't cracked the code using that computer. But that's an exponential graph, so a straight line on that graph is exponential growth. And you see 80 years of exponential growth. And I would say about every five years, and this happened shortly before the pandemic, people saying, well, they call it Moore's law, which is not the correct, it's not the correct, because it's not all Intel. In fact, this started decades before Intel was even created. It wasn't with transistors formed into a grid. Lex Dossier So it's not just transistor count or transistor size. David Kramer Right. Lex Dossier It's a bunch of different components. David Kramer It started with relays, then went to vacuum tubes, then went to individual transistors, and then to integrated circuits. And integrated circuits actually starts like in the middle of this graph. And it has nothing to do with Intel. Intel actually was a key part of this. But a few years ago, they stopped making the fastest chips. But if you take the fastest chip of any technology in that year, you get this kind of graph. And it's definitely continuing for 80 years. Lex Dossier So you don't think Moore's law, broadly defined, is dead? It's been declared dead multiple times throughout this process. David Kramer I don't like the term Moore's law, because it has nothing to do with Moore or with Intel. But yes, the exponential growth of computing is continuing. And it has never stopped. Lex Dossier From various sources. David Kramer I mean, it went through World War II, it went through global recessions. It's just continuing. And if you continue that out, along with software gains, which is a whole other issue, and they really multiply, whatever you get from software gains, you multiply by the computer gains, you get faster and faster speed. This is actually the fastest computer models that have been created. And that actually expands roughly twice a year. Like every six months, it expands by two. Lex Dossier So we're looking at a plot from 2010 to 2022 on the x-axis is the publication date of the model, and perhaps sometimes the actual paper associated with it, and on the y-axis is training, compute, and flops. So basically, this is looking at the increase in the, not transistors, but the computational power of neural networks. David Kramer Yes, the computational power that created these models. And that's doubled every six months. Lex Dossier Which is even faster than transistor division. David Kramer Yeah. Actually, since it goes faster than the amount of cost, this has actually become a greater investment to create these. But at any rate, by the time we get to 2045, we'll be able to multiply our intelligence many millions fold, and it's just very hard to imagine what that will be like. Lex Dossier And that's the singularity where we can't even imagine. David Kramer Right. That's why we call it the singularity. It's the singularity in physics. Something gets sucked into its singularity, and you can't tell what's going on in there, because no information can get out of it. There's various problems with that, but that's the idea. It's too much beyond what we can imagine. Lex Dossier Do you think it's possible we don't know? David Kramer It's possible we don't notice that what the singularity actually feels like is we just live through it with exponentially increasing cognitive capabilities. And we almost, because everything's moving so quickly, aren't really able to introspect that our life has changed. Lex Dossier Yeah, but I mean, we will have that much greater capacity to understand things, so we should be able to look back. David Kramer Looking at history, understand history. Lex Dossier But we will need people, basically like you and me, to actually think about these things. David Kramer Think about it. But we might be distracted by all the other sources of entertainment and fun, because the exponential power of intellect is growing, but also the— Lex Dossier There'll be a lot of fun. David Kramer The amount of ways you can have, you know— Lex Dossier I mean, we already have a lot of fun with computer games and so on that are really quite remarkable. David Kramer What do you think about the digital world, the metaverse, virtual reality? Will that have a component in this, or will most of our advancement be in physical reality? Lex Dossier Well, that's a little bit like Second Life, although the Second Life actually didn't work very well, because it couldn't actually handle too many people. I don't think the metaverse has come to being. I think there will be something like that. It won't necessarily be from that one company. I mean, there's going to be competitors. But yes, we're going to live increasingly online, particularly if our brains are online. I mean, how could we not be online? David Kramer Do you think it's possible that, given this merger with AI, most of our meaningful interactions will be in this virtual world? Lex Dossier Most of our life. We fall in love, we make friends, we come up with ideas, we do collaborations, we have fun. David Kramer I actually know somebody who's marrying somebody that they never met. I think they just met her briefly before the wedding, but she actually fell in love with this other person, never having met them. And I think the love is real. Lex Dossier That's a beautiful story, but do you think that story is one that might be experienced as opposed to by hundreds of thousands of people, but instead by hundreds of millions of people? David Kramer I mean, it really gives you appreciation for these virtual ways of communicating. And if anybody can do it, then it's really not such a freak story. So I think more and more people will do that. Lex Dossier But that's turning our back on our entire history of evolution. The old days, we used to fall in love by holding hands and sitting by the fire, that kind of stuff. David Kramer Well, I actually have five patents on where you can hold hands, even if you're separated. Lex Dossier Great. So the touch, the sense, it's all just senses. It's all just replicated. David Kramer Yeah, I mean, touch is, it's not just that you're touching someone or not. There's a whole way of doing it, and it's very subtle. But ultimately, we can emulate all of that. Lex Dossier Are you excited by that future? Do you worry about that future? David Kramer I have certain worries about the future, but not virtual touch. Lex Dossier Not that. David Kramer Well, I agree with you, you described six stages in the evolution of information processing in the universe, as you started to describe. Can you maybe talk through some of those stages from the physics and chemistry to DNA and brains, and then to the very end, to the very beautiful end of this process? Lex Dossier Well, it actually gets more rapid. So physics and chemistry, that's how we started. David Kramer So from the very beginning of the universe. Lex Dossier We had lots of electrons and various things traveling around, and that took actually many billions of years. Kind of jumping ahead here to kind of some of the last stages where we have things like love and creativity. It's really quite remarkable that that happens. But finally, physics and chemistry created biology and DNA, and now you had actually one type of molecule that described the cutting edge of this process. And we go from physics and chemistry to biology. And finally, biology created brains. I mean, not everything that's created by biology has a brain, but eventually brains came along. David Kramer And all of this is happening faster and faster. Lex Dossier Yeah. It created increasingly complex organisms. Another key thing is actually not just brains, but our thumb. Because there's a lot of animals with brains even bigger than humans. Elephants have a bigger brain, whales have a bigger brain, but they've not created technology because they don't have a thumb. So that's one of the really key elements in the evolution of humans. David Kramer This physical manipulator device that's useful for puzzle solving and solving. That's useful for puzzle solving in the physical reality. Lex Dossier So I could think, I could look at a tree and go, oh, I could actually trip that branch down and eliminate the leaves and carve a tip on it and it would create technology. And you can't do that if you don't have a thumb. So, thumbs then created technology, and technology also had a memory, and now those memories are competing with the scale and scope of human beings, and ultimately will go beyond it. And then we're gonna merge human technology with human intelligence and understand how human intelligence works, which I think we already do, and we're putting that into our human technology. David Kramer So create the technology inspired by our own intelligence and then that technology supersedes us in terms of its capabilities, and we ride along. Or do you ultimately see it as fun? Lex Dossier And we ride along, but a lot of people don't see that. They say, well, you got humans and you got machines and there's no way we can ultimately compete with humans. And you can already see that. Lee Sedol, who's like the best Go player in the world, says he's not gonna play Go anymore. David Kramer Yeah. Lex Dossier Because playing Go for human, that was like the ultimate in intelligence, because no one else could do that. But now a machine can actually go way beyond him. And so he says, well, there's no point playing it anymore. David Kramer That may be more true for games than it is for life. I think there's a lot of benefit to working together with AI in regular life. So if you were to put a probability on it, is it more likely that we merge with AI or AI replaces us? Lex Dossier A lot of people just think computers come along, they compete with them, we can't really compete, and that's the end of it. As opposed to them increasing our abilities. And if you look at most technology, it increases our abilities. I mean, look at the history of work. Look at what people did 100 years ago. Does any of that exist anymore? Do people, I mean, if you were to predict that all of these jobs would go away, and it would be done by machines, people would say, well, that's gonna be, no one's gonna have jobs. And it's gonna be massive unemployment. But I show in this book that's coming out, the amount of people that are working, even as a percentage of the population, has gone way up. David Kramer We're looking at the x-axis year from 1774 to 2024, and on the y-axis, personal income per capita in constant dollars, and it's growing super linearly, I mean, it's... Leo Yeah, 2021, constant dollars, and it's gone way up. That's not what you were to predict, given that we would predict that all these jobs would go away. David Kramer Yeah. Leo But the reason it's gone up is because we've basically enhanced our own capabilities by using these machines, as opposed to them just competing with us. That's a key way in which we're gonna be able to become far smarter than we are now, by increasing the number of different parameters we can consider in making a decision. David Kramer I was very fortunate, I am very fortunate to be able to get a glimpse preview of your upcoming book, Singularity's Nearer. And one of the themes, outside of just discussing the increasing exponential growth of technology, one of the themes is that things are getting better in all aspects of life. And you talked just about this, so one of the things you're saying is with jobs, so let me just ask about that. There is a big concern that automation, especially powerful AI, will get rid of jobs, that people will lose jobs. And as you were saying, the senses throughout the history of the 20th century, automation did not do that ultimately. And so the question is, will this time be different? Leo Right, that is the question, will this time be different? And it really has to do with how quickly we can merge with this type of intelligence. Whether Lambda or GPT-3 is out there, and maybe it's overcome some of its key problems, and we really haven't enhanced human intelligence, that might be a negative scenario. But I mean, that's why we create technologies, to enhance ourselves. And I believe we will be enhanced. We're not just going to sit here with 300 million modules in our neocortex, we're going to be able to go beyond that. Because that's useful, but we can multiply that by 10, 100, 1,000, a million. And you might think, well, what's the point of doing that? It's like asking somebody that's never heard music, well, what's the value of music? I mean, you can't appreciate it until you've created it. Lex There's some worry that there'll be a wealth disparity, you know, a class or wealth disparity. Only the rich people will be… Basically, the rich people will first have access to this kind of thing, and then because of this kind of thing, because of the ability to merge, will get richer exponentially faster. Peter And I say that's just like cell phones. I mean, there's like four billion cell phones in the world today. In fact, when cell phones first came out, you had to be fairly wealthy. They weren't very inexpensive. You had to have some wealth in order to afford them. Lex Yeah, there were these big, sexy phones. Peter And they didn't work very well. They did almost nothing. So you can only afford these things if you're wealthy at a point where they really don't work very well. Lex So achieving scale and making it inexpensive is part of making the thing work well. Peter Exactly. So these are not totally cheap, but they're pretty cheap. I mean, you can get them for a few hundred dollars. Lex Especially given the kind of things it provides for you. There's a lot of people in the third world that have very little, but they have a smartphone. Peter Yeah, absolutely. Lex And the same will be true with AI. Peter I mean, I see homeless people have their own cell phones. Lex Yeah, so your sense is any kind of advanced technology will take the same trajectory. Peter Right. Ultimately, it becomes cheap and will be affordable. I probably would not be the first person to put something in my brain to connect to computers, because I think it will have limitations. But once it's really perfected, and at that point, it'll be pretty inexpensive, I think it'll be pretty affordable. Lex So in which other ways, as you outline your book, is life getting better? Because I think- Peter Well, I have, I mean, I have 50 charts in there where everything is getting better. Lex I think there's a kind of cynicism about, like, even if you look at extreme poverty, for example. Peter For example, this is actually a poll taken on extreme poverty, and the people were asked, has poverty gotten better or worse? Lex And the options are increased by 50%, increased by 25%, remain the same, decreased by 25%, decreased by 50%. If you're watching this or listening to this, try to vote for yourself. Peter 70% thought it had gotten worse. And that's the general impression. 88% thought it had gotten worse, it remained the same. Only 1% thought it decreased by 50%, and that is the answer. It actually decreased by 50%. Lex So only 1% of people got the right optimistic estimate of how poverty is- Peter Right, and this is the reality. And it's true of almost everything you look at. You don't want to go back 100 years or 50 years. Things were quite miserable then, but we tend not to remember that. Lex So literacy rate increasing over the past few centuries across all the different nations, nearly to 100% across many of the nations in the world. Peter It's gone way up, average years of education have gone way up. Life expectancy is also increasing. Life expectancy was 48 in 1900. Lex And it's over 80 now. Peter And it's going to continue to go up, particularly as we get into more advanced stages of simulated biology. Lex For life expectancy, these trends are the same for at birth, age one, age five, age 10, so it's not just the infant mortality. Peter And I have 50 more graphs in the book about all kinds of things. All kinds of things. Even spread of democracy, which might bring up some sort of controversial issues, it still has gone way up. Lex Well, that one is gone way up, but that one is a bumpy road, right? Peter Exactly. And somebody might represent democracy and go backwards, but we basically had no democracies before the creation of the United States, which was a little over two centuries ago, which in the scale of human history isn't that long. Lex Do you think superintelligence systems will help with democracy? So what is democracy? Democracy is giving a voice to the populace and having their ideas, having their beliefs, having their views represented. Peter Well, I hope so. I mean, we've seen social networks can spread conspiracy theories, which have been quite negative. For example, being against any kind of stuff that would help your health. Lex So those kinds of ideas have, on social media, what you notice is they increase engagement. So dramatic division increases engagement. Do you worry about AI systems that will learn to maximize that division? Peter I mean, I do have some concerns about this, and I have a chapter in the book about the perils of advanced AI. Spreading misinformation on social networks is one of them, but there are many others. Lex What's the one that worries you the most, that we should think about to try to avoid? Peter Well, it's hard to choose. We do have the nuclear power that evolved when I was a child, I remember, and we would actually do these drills against a nuclear war. We'd get under our desks and put our hands behind our heads to protect us from a nuclear war. Seemed to work. We're still around, so. Lex You're protected. Peter But that's still a concern. And I think that's one of the things that I'm worried about. It's still a concern, and there are key dangerous situations that can take place in biology. Someone could create a virus that's very…I mean, we have viruses that are hard to spread, and they can be very dangerous. And we have viruses that are easy to spread, but they're not so dangerous. Somebody could create something that would be very easy to spread and very dangerous, and be very hard to stop. It could be something that would spread without people noticing, because people could get it, they'd have no symptoms, and then everybody would get it, and then symptoms would occur maybe a month later. And that actually doesn't occur normally, because if we were to have a problem with that, we wouldn't exist. So the fact that humans exist means that we don't have viruses that can spread easily and kill us, because otherwise we wouldn't exist. Yeah, viruses don't want to do that. They want to spread and keep the host alive somewhat. So you can describe various dangers with biology. Also nanotechnology, which we actually haven't experienced yet, but there are people that are creating nanotechnology, and I describe that in the book. Now you're excited by the possibilities of nanotechnology, of nanobots, of being able to do things inside our body, inside our mind, that's going to help. What's exciting, what's terrifying about nanobots? What's exciting is that that's a way to communicate with our neocortex, because each neocortex is pretty small, and you need a small entity that can actually get in there and establish a communication channel. And that's going to really be necessary to connect our brains to AI within ourselves, because otherwise it would be hard for us to compete with it. In a high bandwidth way. Yeah, yeah. And that's key, actually, because a lot of the things like Neuralink are really not high bandwidth yet. So nanobots is the way you achieve high bandwidth. How much intelligence would those nanobots have? Yeah, they don't need a lot. Just enough to basically establish a communication channel to one nanobot. So it's primarily about communication. Yeah. Between external computing devices and our biological thinking machine. What worries you about nanobots? Is it similar to with the viruses? Well, I mean, this is the great goo challenge. If you have a nanobot that wanted to create any kind of entity and repeat itself, and was able to operate in a natural environment, it could turn everything into that entity and basically destroy all biological life. So you mentioned nuclear weapons. Yeah. I'd love to hear your opinion about the 21st century and whether you think we might destroy ourselves. And maybe your opinion, if it has changed by looking at what's going on in Ukraine, that we could have a hot war with nuclear powers involved and the tensions building and the seeming forgetting of how terrifying and destructive nuclear weapons are. Do you think humans might destroy ourselves in the 21st century? And if we do, how? And how do we avoid it? I don't think that's going to happen. Despite the terrors of that war, it is a possibility. But I mean, I don't... It's unlikely in your mind. Yeah. Even with the tensions we've had with this one nuclear power plant that's been taken over, it's very tense. But I don't actually see a lot of people worrying that that's going to happen. I think we'll avoid that. We had two nuclear bombs go off in 45. So now we're 77 years later. Yeah, we're doing pretty good. We've never had another one go off through anger. People forget. People forget the lessons of history. Well, yeah, I am worried about it. I mean, that is definitely a challenge. But you believe that we'll make it out and ultimately super intelligent AI will help us make it out as opposed to destroy us? I think so. But we do have to be mindful of these dangers. And there are other dangers besides nuclear weapons. So to get back to merging with AI, will we be able to upload our mind in a computer in a way where we might even transcend the constraints of our bodies? So copy our mind into a computer and leave the body behind? Let me describe one thing I've already done with my father. That's a great story. So we created a technology, This is Public, came out, I think, six years ago, where you could ask any question and the release product, which I think is still on the market, it would read 200,000 books and then find the one sentence in 200,000 books that best answered your question. It's actually quite interesting. You can ask all kinds of questions and you get the best answer in 200,000 books. But I was also able to take it and not go through 200,000 books, but go through a book that I put together, which is basically everything my father had written. So everything he had written, I had gathered, and we created a book. Everything that Frederick Hirschel had written. Now, I didn't think this actually would work that well, because stuff he'd written was stuff about how to lay out. I mean, he directed choral groups and music groups, and he would be laying out how the people should, where they should sit, and how to fund this, and all kinds of things that really didn't seem that interesting. And yet, when you ask a question, it would go through it and it would actually give you a very good answer. So I said, well, who's the most interesting composer in the United States? And he said, well, I don't know. I said, well, who's the most interesting composer? And he said, well, definitely Brahms. And he would go on about how Brahms was fabulous, and talk about the importance of music education. So you could have essentially a question and answer conversation with him. You could have a conversation with him, which was actually more interesting than talking to him, because if you talked to him, he'd be concerned about how they're going to lay out this property to give a choral group. He'd be concerned about the day-to-day versus the big questions. Exactly, yeah. And you did ask about the meaning of life, and he answered, love. Yeah. Do you miss him? Yes, I do. You know, you get used to missing somebody after 52 years, and I didn't really have enough intelligent conversations with him until later in life. In the last few years, he was sick, which meant he was home a lot, and I was actually able to talk to him about different things like music and other things. So I miss that very much. What did you learn about life from your father? What part of him is with you now? He was devoted to music, and when he would create something to music, it put him in a different world. Otherwise, he was very shy, and if people got together, he tended not to interact with people, just because of his shyness. But when he created music, he was like a different person. Do you have that in you? That kind of light that shines? I mean, I got involved with technology at like age five. And you fell in love with it in the same way he did with music? Yeah. I remember this actually happened with my grandmother. She had a manual typewriter, and she wrote a book, One Life is Not Enough, which is actually a good title for a book I might write. But it was about a school she had created. Well, actually, her mother created it. So my mother's mother's mother created the school in 1868, and it was the first school in Europe that provided higher education for girls. It went through 14th grade. If you were a girl and you were lucky enough to get an education at all, it would go through like ninth grade, and many people didn't have any education as a girl. This went through 14th grade. Her mother created it, she took it over, and the book was about the history of the school and her involvement with it. When she presented it to me, I was not so interested in the story of the school. But I was totally amazed with this manual typewriter. I mean, here was something you could put a blank piece of paper into, and you could turn it into something that looked like it came from a book. And you could actually type on it, and it looked like it came from a book. It was just amazing to me. And I could see actually how it worked. And I was also interested in magic. But in magic, if somebody actually knows how it works, the magic goes away. The magic doesn't stay there if you actually understand how it works. But here was technology. I didn't have that word when I was five or six. And the magic was still there for you? The magic was still there, even if you knew how it worked. So, I became totally interested in this, and then went around, collected little pieces of mechanical stuff. I mean, pieces of mechanical objects, from bicycles, from broken radios. I would go through the neighborhood. This was an era where you would allow five or six-year-olds to like, roam through the neighborhood and do this. We don't do that anymore. But I didn't know how to put them together. I said, if I could just figure out how to put these things together, I could solve any problem. And I actually remember talking to these very old girls—I think they were 10—and telling them, if I could just figure this out, we could fly, we could do anything. And they said, well, you have quite an imagination. And then when I was in third grade, so I was like eight, created like a virtual reality theater, where people could come on stage and they could move their arms, and all of it was controlled through one control box. It was all done with mechanical technology. And it was a big hit in my third grade class. And then I went on to do things in junior high school science fairs, and high school science fairs, I won the Westinghouse Science Talent Search. So I mean, I became committed to technology when I was five or six years old. You've talked about how you use lucid dreaming to think, to come up with ideas as a source of creativity. Because you maybe talked through that, maybe the process of how to—you've invented a lot of things. You've came up and thought through some very interesting ideas. What advice would you give, or can you speak to the process of thinking, of how to think, how to think creatively? Well, I mean, sometimes I will think through in a dream and try to interpret that. But I think the key issue that I would tell younger people is to put yourself in the position that what you're trying to create already exists. And then you're explaining, like— How it works. Exactly. That's really interesting. You paint a world that you would like to exist, you think it exists, and reverse engineer that. And then you actually imagine you're giving a speech about how you created this. Well, you'd have to then work backwards, as I said. You created this, well, you'd have to then work backwards as to how you would create it in order to make it work. That's brilliant. And that requires some imagination, too, some first principles thinking. You have to visualize that world. That's really interesting. And generally, when I talk about things we're trying to invent, I would use the present tense as if it already exists. It's not just to give myself that confidence, but everybody else who's working on it. We just have to kind of do all the steps in order to make it actual. How much of a good idea is about timing? How much is it about your genius versus that its time has come? Timing's very important. I mean, that's really why I got into futurism. I wasn't inherently a futurist. That was not really my goal. It's really to figure out when things are feasible. We see that now with large-scale models. The very large-scale models like GPT-3, it started two years ago. Four years ago, it wasn't feasible. In fact, they did create GPT-2, which didn't work. So it required a certain amount of timing, having to do with this exponential growth of computing power. So futurism, in some sense, is a study of timing, trying to understand how the world will evolve, and when will the capacity for certain ideas emerge. And that's become a thing in itself, to try to time things in the future. But really, its original purpose was to time my products. I mean, I did OCR in the 1970s, because OCR doesn't require a lot of computation. Optical character recognition. Yeah, so we were able to do that in the 70s, and I waited till the 80s to address speech recognition, since that requires more computation. So you were thinking through timing when you're developing those things. Yeah. Has its time come? Yeah. And that's how you've developed that brain power to start to think in a futurist sense. How will the world look like in 2045 and work backwards, and how it gets there? But that has become a thing in itself, because looking at what things will be like in the future reflects such dramatic changes in how humans will live. That was worth communicating also. So you developed that muscle of predicting the future, and then apply it broadly, and start to discuss how it changes the world of technology, how it changes the world of human life on Earth. In Danielle, one of your books, you write about someone who has the courage to question assumptions that limit human imagination to solve problems. And you also give advice on how each of us can have this kind of courage. Well, it's good that you picked that quote, because I think that that symbolizes what Danielle is about. Courage. So how can each of us have that courage to question assumptions? I mean, we see that when people can go beyond the current realm and create something that's new. I mean, take Uber, for example. Before that existed, you never thought that that would be feasible. And it did require changes in the way people work. Is there practical advice you give in the book about what each of us can do to be a Danielle? Well, she looks at the situation and tries to imagine how she can overcome various obstacles. And then she goes for it. And she's a very good communicator, so she can communicate these ideas to other people. And there's practical advice of learning to program and recording your life and things of this nature. Become a physicist. So you list a bunch of different suggestions of how to throw yourself into this world. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of an idea how young people can actually change the world by learning all of these different skills. And at the core of that is the belief that you can change the world, that your mind, your body can change the world. Yeah, that's right. And not letting anyone else tell you otherwise. That's very good, exactly. When we upload, the story you told about your dad and having a conversation with him, we're talking about uploading your mind to the computer. Do you think we'll have a future with something you call afterlife? We'll have avatars that mimic increasingly better and better our behavior, our appearance, all that kind of stuff. Even those are perhaps no longer with us. Yes, I mean, we need some information about them. I mean, I think about my father. I have what he wrote. He didn't have a word processor, so he didn't actually write that much. And our memories of him aren't perfect. So how do you even know if you've created something that's satisfactory? Now, you could do a Frederick Kurzweil Turing test. It seems like Frederick Kurzweil to me. But the people who remember him, like me, don't have a perfect memory. Is there such a thing as a perfect memory? Maybe the whole point is for him to make you feel a certain way. Yeah, well, I think that would be the goal. And that's the connection we have with loved ones. It's not really based on very strict definition of truth. It's more about the experiences we share. Yeah. And they get morphed through memory. But ultimately, they make us smile. I think we definitely can do that. And that would be very worthwhile. So do you think we'll have a world of replicants, of copies? There'll be a bunch of Ray Kurzweils. Like I could hang out with one. I can download it for five bucks and have a best friend, Ray. And you, the original copy, wouldn't even know about it. Is that, do you think that world is, first of all, do you think that world is feasible? And do you think there's ethical challenges there? Like how would you feel about me hanging out with Ray Kurzweil and you not knowing about it? Doesn't strike me as a problem. Which you, the original? Would you strike, would that cause a problem for you? No, I enjoy, I would really very much enjoy it. No, not just hanging out with me, but if somebody hanging out with you, a replicant of you. Well, I think I would start, it sounds exciting, but then what if they start doing better than me and take over my friend group? And then, because they may be an imperfect copy, or there may be more social, all these kinds of things. And then I become like the old version that's not nearly as exciting. Maybe they're a copy of the best version of me on a good day. Yeah, but if you hang out with a replicant of me and that turned out to be successful, I'd feel proud of that person because it was based on me. So, but it is a kind of death of this version of you. Well, not necessarily. I mean, you can still be alive, right? But, and you would be, okay, so it's like having kids and you're proud that they've done even more than you were able to do. Yeah, exactly. It does bring up new issues, but it seems like an opportunity. Well, that replicant should probably have the same rights as you do. Well, that gets into a whole issue because when a replicant occurs, they're not necessarily gonna have your rights. And if a replicant occurs to somebody who's already dead, do they have all the obligations and that the original person had? Do they have all the agreements that they had? So. I think you're gonna have to have laws that say, yes, there have to be some kind of agreement that say, yes, there has to be, if you wanna create a replicant, they have to have all the same rights as human rights. Well, you don't know. Someone can create a replicant and say, well, it's a replicant, but I didn't bother getting their rights and so. But that would be illegal, I mean. Like if you do that, you have to do that in the black market. You have to, if you wanna get an official replicant. Okay, it's not so easy. Suppose you create multiple replicants. The original rights maybe for one person and not for a whole group of people. Sure. So there has to be at least one and then all the other ones kind of share the rights. Yeah, I just don't think that's very difficult to conceive for us humans, the idea that this country. If you create a replicant that has certain rights, and that has certain, I mean, I've talked to people about this, including my wife, who would like to get back her father. And she doesn't worry about who has rights to what. She would have somebody that she could visit with and might give her some satisfaction. And she wouldn't care about any of these other rights. What does your wife think about multiple erasures as well? Have you had that discussion? I haven't addressed that with her. I think ultimately that's an important question, loved ones, how they feel about. There's something about love. Well, that's the key thing, right? If the loved one's rejected, it's not gonna work very well. So the loved ones really are the key determinant, whether or not this works or not. But there's also ethical rules. We have to contend with the idea, and we have to contend with that idea with AI. But what's gonna motivate it is, I mean, I talk to people who really miss people who are gone, and they would love to get something back, even if it isn't perfect. And that's what's gonna motivate this. And that person lives on in some form. And the more data we have, the more we're able to reconstruct that person and allow them to live on. Right, right. And eventually, as we go forward, we're gonna have more and more of this data because we're gonna have nanobots that are inside our neocortex, and we're gonna collect a lot of data. In fact, anything that's data is always collected. There is something a little bit sad, which is becoming, or maybe it's hopeful, which is more and more common these days, which when a person passes away, you have their Twitter account, and you have the last tweet they tweeted, like something they- And you can recreate them now with large language models and so on. I mean, you can create somebody that's just like them and can actually continue to communicate. I think that's really exciting because I think in some sense, like if I were to die today, in some sense, I would continue on if I continued tweeting. I tweet, therefore I am. Yeah, well, I mean, that's one of the advantages of a replicant. A replicant, they can recreate the communications of that person. Do you hope, do you think, do you hope humans will become a multi-planetary species? You've talked about the phases, the six epochs, and one of them is reaching out into the stars in part. Yes, but the kind of attempts we're making now to go to other planetary objects doesn't excite me that much because it's not really advancing anything. It's not efficient enough? Yeah, and we're also putting out other human beings, which is a very inefficient way to explore these other objects. What I'm really talking about in the sixth epoch, when the universe wakes up, it's where we can spread our superintelligence throughout the universe. And that doesn't mean sending very soft, squishy creatures like humans. Yeah, the universe wakes up. I mean, we would send intelligence, masses of nanobots, which can then go out and colonize these other parts of the universe. Do you think there's intelligent alien civilizations out there that our bots might meet? My hunch is no. Most people say yes, absolutely. The universe is too big. And they'll cite the Drake equation. And I think in Singularity is Near, I have two analyses of the Drake equation, both with very reasonable assumptions. And one gives you thousands of advanced civilizations in each galaxy. And another one gives you one civilization. And we know of one. A lot of the analyses are forgetting the exponential growth of computation. Because we've gone from where the fastest way I could send a message to somebody was with a pony, which was what, like a century and a half ago? Yeah. To the advanced civilization we have today. And if you've accepted what I've said, go forward a few decades, you're gonna have absolutely fantastic amount of civilization compared to a pony. And that's in a couple hundred years. Yeah, the speed and the scale of information transfer is just growing exponentially. In a blink of an eye. Now think about these other civilizations. They're gonna be spread out at cosmic times. So if something is like ahead of us or behind us, it could be ahead of us or behind us by maybe millions of years, which isn't that much. I mean, the world is billions of years old, 14 billion or something. So even a thousand years, if two or 300 years is enough to go from a pony to fantastic amount of civilization, we would see that. So of other civilizations that have occurred, okay, some might be behind us, but some might be ahead of us. If they're ahead of us, they're ahead of us by thousands, millions of years, and they would be so far beyond us, they would be doing galaxy-wide engineering. Yeah. But we don't see anything doing galaxy-wide engineering. So either they don't exist, or this very universe is a construction of an alien species. We're living inside a video game. Well, that's another explanation that, yes, you've got some teenage kids in another civilization. Yeah, basically. Do you find compelling the simulation hypothesis as a thought experiment that we're living in a simulation? The universe is computational. So we are an example in a computational world. Therefore, it is a simulation. It doesn't necessarily mean an experiment by some high school kid in another world, but it's nonetheless is taking place in a computational world. And everything that's going on is basically a form of computation. So you really have to define what you mean by this whole world being a simulation. Well, then it's the teenager that makes the video game. You know, us humans with our current limited cognitive capability have strived to understand ourselves, and we have created religions, and we have created religions, and we think of God, whatever that is. Do you think God exists? And if so, who is God? I alluded to this before. We started out with lots of particles going around. Yeah. And there's nothing that represents love and creativity, and somehow we've gotten into a world where love actually exists. And that has to do actually with consciousness because you can't have love without consciousness. So to me, that's God. The fact that we have something where love, where you can be devoted to someone else and really feel that love, that's God. And if you look at the Old Testament, it was actually created by several different rabbinics in there. And I think they've identified three of them. One of them dealt with God as a person that you can make deals with, and he gets angry, and he wrecks vengeance on various people. But two of them actually talk about God as a symbol of love and peace and harmony and so forth. That's how they describe God. So that's my view of God, not as a person in the sky that you can make deals with. And it's whatever the magic that goes from basic elements to things like consciousness and love. Do you think one of the things I find extremely beautiful and powerful is cellular automata, which you also touch on. Do you think whatever the heck happens in cellular automata where interesting, complicated objects emerge, God is in there too? The emergence of love in this seemingly primitive world? Well, that's the goal of creating a replicant, is that they would love you and you would love them. There wouldn't be much point of doing it if that didn't happen. But all of it, I guess what I'm saying about cellular automata is, it's primitive building blocks, and they somehow create beautiful things. Is there some deep truth to that about how our universe works? Is the emergence from simple rules, beautiful complex objects can emerge? Is that the thing that made us as we went through all the six phases of reality? That's a good way to look at it. It does make some point to the whole value of having a universe. Do you think about your own mortality? Are you afraid of it? Yes, but I keep going back to my idea of being able to expand human life quickly enough in advance of our getting there, longevity escape velocity, which we're not quite at yet. But I think we're actually pretty close, particularly with, for example, doing simulated biology. I think we can probably get there within, say, by the end of this decade. And that's my goal. Do you hope to achieve the longevity escape velocity? Do you hope to achieve immortality? Well, immortality is hard to say. I can't really come on your program and say that. I've done it, I've achieved immortality, because it's never forever. A long time, a long time of living well. But we'd like to actually advance human life expectancy, advance my life expectancy more than a year every year. And I think we can get there within, by the end of this decade. How do you think we do it? So there's practical things that we can do. I think we do it, so there's practical things in Transcend, the Nine Steps to Living Well Forever, your book, you describe just that. There's practical things like health, exercise, all those things. And then there's- I mean, we live in a body that doesn't last forever. There's no reason why it can't, though. And we're discovering things, I think, that will extend it. But you do have to deal with- I mean, I've got various issues. Went to Mexico 40 years ago, developed salmonella, I created pancreatitis, which gave me a strange form of diabetes. It's not type 1 diabetes, because that's an autoimmune disorder that doesn't last forever. It's not type 2 diabetes, because that's an autoimmune disorder that destroys your pancreas. I don't have that. But it's also not type 2 diabetes, because type 2 diabetes, it's your pancreas works fine, but your cells don't absorb the insulin well. I don't have that either. The pancreatitis I had partially damaged my pancreas, but it was a one-time thing. It didn't continue. And I've learned now how to control it. But so that's just something I had to do in order to continue to exist. This is your particular biological system, you had to figure out a few hacks, and the idea is that science would be able to do that much better, actually. Yeah. So I mean, I do spend a lot of time just tinkering with my own body to keep it going. So I do think I'll last till the end of this decade, and I think we'll achieve longevity, escape velocity. I think that we'll start with people who are very diligent about this. Eventually, it'll become sort of routine that people will be able to do it. So if you're talking about kids today, or even people in their 20s or 30s, that's really not a very serious problem. I have had some discussions with relatives who are like almost 100, and saying, well, we're working on it as quickly as possible, but I don't know if that's gonna work. Is there a case, this is a difficult question, but is there a case to be made against living forever, that a finite life, that mortality is a feature, not a bug, that living a shorter, so dying makes ice cream taste delicious, makes life intensely beautiful more than it otherwise may be? Most people believe that way, except if you present a death of anybody they care about or love, they find that extremely depressing. And I know people who feel that way 20, 30, 40 years later, they still want them back. So I mean, death is not something to celebrate, but we've lived in a world where people just accept this. Life is short, you see it all the time on TV, oh, life's short, you have to take advantage of it. And nobody accepts the fact that you could actually die. Nobody accepts the fact that you could actually go beyond normal lifetimes. But anytime we talk about death or death of a person, even one death is a terrible tragedy. If you have somebody that lives to 100 years old, we still love them in return. And there's no limitation to that. In fact, these kinds of trends are gonna provide greater and greater opportunity for everybody, even if we have more people. So let me ask about an alien species or a super intelligent AI 500 years from now that will look back and remember Ray Kurzweil version zero, before the replicants spread, how do you hope they remember you? In a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy summary of Ray Kurzweil, what do you hope your legacy is? Well, I mean, I do hope to be around, so that's... Some version of you, yes. So... Do you think you'll be the same person around? I mean, am I the same person I was when I was 20 or 10? That's true, that's true. You would be the same person in that same way, but yes, we're different, we're different. All we have of that, all you have of that person is your memories, which are probably distorted in some way. Maybe you just remember the good parts, depending on your psyche. You might focus on the bad parts, might focus on the good parts. Right, but I mean, I'd still have a relationship to the way I was when I was earlier, when I was younger. How will you and the other superintelligent AIs remember you of today, from 500 years ago? What do you hope to be remembered by this version of you, before the singularity? Well, I think it's expressed well in my books, trying to create some new realities that people will accept. I mean, that's something that gives me great pleasure. And greater insight into what makes humans valuable. I'm not the only person who's tempted to comment on that. And optimism that permeates your work. Optimism about the future, about the future. Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it. And optimism that permeates your work, optimism about the future. Because ultimately, that optimism paves the way for building a better future. Yeah, I agree with that. So you asked your dad about the meaning of life, and he said, love, let me ask you the same question. What's the meaning of life? Why are we here? This beautiful journey they were on in phase four, reaching for phase five of this evolution and information processing, why? Well, I think I'd give the same answer as my father. Because if there were no love, and we didn't care about anybody, there'd be no point existing. Love is the meaning of life. The AI version of your dad had a good point. Well, I think that's a beautiful way to end it. Ray, thank you for your work. Thank you for being who you are. Thank you for dreaming about a beautiful future and creating it along the way. And thank you so much for spending a really valuable time with me today. This was awesome. Well, it was my pleasure. And you have some great insights, both into me and into humanity as well. So I appreciate that. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Ray Kurzweil. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Isaac Asimov. It is change, continuous change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision could be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be. This in turn means that our statesmen, our businessmen, our everyman must take on a science fictional way of thinking. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/ykY69lSpDdo

y3cw_9ELpQw

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Andrew Strominger: Black Holes, Quantum Gravity, and Theoretical Physics | Lex Fridman Podcast #359

A black hole is a mirror. And the way it's a mirror is if light, a photon, bounces off your face towards the black hole and it goes straight to the black hole, just falls in, you never see it again. But if it just misses the black hole, it'll swing around the back and come back to you. And you see yourself from the photon that went around the back of the black hole. But not only can that happen, the black hole, the photon can swing around twice and come back. So you actually see an infinite number of copies of yourself. The following is a conversation with Andrew Strominger, theoretical physicist at Harvard, whose research seeks to shed light on the unification of fundamental laws of nature, the origin of the universe, and the quantum structure of black holes and event horizons. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Andrew Strominger. You are part of the Harvard Black Hole Initiative, which has theoretical physicists, experimentalists, and even philosophers. So let me ask the big question. What is a black hole from a theoretical, from an experimental, maybe even from a philosophical perspective? So a black hole is defined, theoretically, as a region of space-time from which light can never escape. Therefore, it's black. Now, that's just the starting point. Many weird things follow from that basic definition, but that is the basic definition. What is light? It can't escape from a black hole. Well, light is the stuff that comes out of the sun, that stuff that goes into your eyes. Light is one of the stuff that disappears when the lights go off. This is stuff that appears when the lights come on. Of course, I could give you a mathematical definition, or a physical mathematical definition, but I think it's something that we all understand very intuitively what is light. Black holes, on the other hand, we don't understand intuitively. They're very weird. And one of the questions is, about black holes, which I think you were alluding to, is why doesn't light get out, or how is it that there can be a region of space-time from which light can't escape? It definitely happens. We've seen those regions. We have spectacular pictures, especially in the last several years of those regions. They're there. In fact, they're up in the sky, thousands or millions of them. We don't yet know how many. But the proper explanation of why light doesn't escape from a black hole is still a matter of some debate. And one explanation, which perhaps Einstein might have given, is that light carries energy. You know it carries energy because we have photocells, and we can take the light from the sun and collect it, turn it into electricity. So there's energy in light. And anything that carries energy is subject to a gravitational pull. Gravity will pull at anything with energy. Now it turns out that the gravitational pull exerted by an object is proportional to its mass. And so if you get enough mass in a small enough region, you can prevent light from escaping. And let me flesh that out a little more. If you're on the Earth, and you're on a rocket ship leaving the surface of the Earth, and if we ignore the friction from the air, if your rocket accelerates up to 11 kilometers per second, that's escape velocity. And if there were no friction, you could just continue forever to the next galaxy. On the moon, which has less mass, it's only seven kilometers per second. So but going in the other direction, if you have enough mass in one place, the escape velocity can become the speed of light. If you shine light straight up away from the Earth, it doesn't have too much trouble. It's going way above the escape velocity. But if you have enough mass there, even light can't escape the escape velocity. And according to Einstein's theory of relativity, there is an absolute speed limit in the universe, the speed of light, and nothing makes any sense. Nothing could be self-consistent if there were objects that could exceed light speed. And so in these very, very massive regions of space-time, even light cannot escape. And the interesting thing is Einstein himself didn't think that these objects, we call the black holes, could exist. But let me actually linger on this. Yeah, that's incredibly interesting. There's a lot of interesting things here. First, the speed limit. How wild is it to you, if you put yourself in the mind in the time of Einstein before him, to come up with a speed limit, that there is a speed limit, and that speed limit is the speed of light? How difficult of an idea is that? You said from a mathematical physics perspective, everything just kind of falls into place, but he wasn't, perhaps, maybe initially had the luxury to think mathematically, he had to come up with it intuitively, yes? So how counterintuitive is this notion to you? Is it still crazy? No, no. It's a very funny thing in physics. The best discoveries seem completely obvious in retrospect. Even my own discoveries, which of course are far lesser than Einstein's, but many of my papers, many of my collaborators get all confused. We'll try to understand something, we say we've got to solve this problem, we'll get all confused, finally we'll solve it, we'll get it all together, and then we'll, all of a sudden, everything will fall into place, we'll explain it, and then we'll look back at our discussions for the proceedings of months, and literally be unable to reconstruct how confused we were, and how we could ever have thought of it any other way. So not only can I not fathom how confused Einstein was before he, when he started thinking about the issues, I can't even reconstruct my own confusion from two weeks ago. So the really beautiful ideas in physics have this very hard to get yourself back into the mindset. Of course, Einstein was confused about many, many things. It doesn't matter if you're a physicist. It's not how many things you got wrong. It's not the ratio of how many you got wrong to how many you got right. It's the number that you got right. So Einstein didn't believe black holes existed, even though he predicted them, and I went and I read that paper which he wrote. Einstein wrote down his field equations in 1915, and Schwarzschild solved them and discovered the black hole solution three or four months later, in very early 1916, and 25 years later, Einstein wrote a paper. So with 25 years to think about what this solution means, wrote a paper in which he said that black holes didn't exist, and I'm like, well, if one of my students in my general relativity course wrote this, I wouldn't pass them. You get a C-, oh, you wouldn't pass them, okay. All right. Get a C-, okay. Same thing with gravity waves. He didn't believe. Oh, he didn't believe in gravitational waves either? He went back and forth, but he wrote a paper in, I think, 34 saying that gravity waves didn't exist because people were very confused about what a coordinate transformation is, and in fact, this confusion about what a coordinate transformation is has persisted, and we actually think we're on the edge of solving it 100 years later. 100 years later. Well, what is coordinate transformation, as it was 100 years ago to today? Let's imagine I want to draw a map with pictures of all the states and the mountains, and then I want to draw the weather forecast, what the temperatures are gonna be all over the country, and I do that using one set of weather stations, and I number the weather stations, and you have some other set of weather stations, and you do the same thing, so the coordinates are the locations of the weather stations. They're how we describe where the things are. At the end of the day, we should draw the same map. That is coordinate invariance, and if we're telling somebody, we're gonna tell somebody at a real physical operation, we want you to stay as dry as possible on your drive from here to California, we should give them exactly the same route. No matter which weather stations we use or how we, it's a very trivial, the labeling of points is an artifact and not in the real physics. So it turns out that that's almost true, but not quite. There's some subtleties to it. The statement that you should always have the same, give at least the same kind of trajectory, the same kind of instructions, no matter the weather stations. Yeah, yeah, there's some very delicate subtleties to that, which began to be noticed in the 50s. It's mostly true, but when you have a space-time with edges, it gets very tricky how you label the edges. And space-time in terms of space or in terms of time, in terms of everything, just space-time? Either one, space or time. That gets very tricky. And Einstein didn't have it right. And in fact, he had an earlier version of general relativity in 1914, which he was very excited about, which was wrong, gave, it wasn't fully coordinate invariant, it was only partially coordinate invariant. It was wrong. It gave the wrong answer for bending light to the sun by a factor of two. There was an expedition sent out to measure it during World War I. They were captured before they could measure it. And that gave Einstein four more years to clean his act up, by which time he'd gotten it right. So it's a very tricky business. But once it's all laid out, it's clear. Then why do you think Einstein didn't believe his own equations and didn't think that black holes are real? Why was that such a difficult idea for him? Well, something very interesting happens in Schwarzschild's solution of the Einstein equation. I think his reasoning was ultimately wrong, but let me explain to you what it was. At the center of the black hole, behind the horizon, in a region that nobody can see and live to tell about it, as the center of the black hole, there's a singularity, and if you pass the horizon, you go into the singularity, you get crushed, and that's the end of everything. Now, the word singularity means that, it just means that Einstein's equations break down. They become infinite. You write them down, you put them on the computer. When the computer hits that singularity, it crashes. Everything becomes infinite, there's two. So the equations are just no good there. Now, that's actually not a bad thing. It's a really good thing, and let me explain why. So it's an odd thing that Maxwell's theory and Newton's theory never exhibit this phenomenon. You write them down, you can solve them exactly. They're really, Newton's theory of gravity, they're really very simple theories. You can solve them, well, you can't solve the three-body problem, but you can certainly solve a lot of things about them. Nevertheless, there was never any reason, even though Maxwell and Newton perhaps fell for this trap, there were never any reason to think that these equations were exact, and there's no equation. Well, there's some equations that we've written down that we still think are exact. Some people still think are exact. My view is that there's no exact equation. Everything is an approximation. Everything is an approximation. And you're trying to get as close as possible. Yeah. So you're saying objective truth doesn't exist in this world? The internet's gonna be very mad at you. We could discuss that, but that's a different thing. We wouldn't say Newton's theory was wrong. It had very, very small corrections, incredibly small corrections. It's actually a puzzle why they're so small. So if you watch the precession of Mercury's perihelion, this was the first indication of something going wrong. According to Newton's theory, Mercury has an elliptical orbit. The long part of it moves around as other planets come by and perturb it and so on. And so this was measured by Le Verrier in 1859, and he compared theory and experiment, and he found out that the perihelion precess moves around the sun once every 233 centuries instead of every 231 centuries. Okay, now this is the wonderful thing about science. Why was this guy? I mean, you don't get any idea how much work this is. But of course, he made one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science without even knowing what good it was gonna be. So that's how small, that was the first sign that there was something wrong with Newton. Now, so the corrections to Newton's law are very, very small, but they're definitely there. The corrections to electromagnetism, they're mostly, the ones that we see are mostly coming from quantum effects. And, um. So the corrections for Maxwell's equations is when you get super tiny, and then the corrections for Newton's laws of gravity is when you get super big. That's when you require corrections. That's true, but I would phrase it as saying when it's super accurate. You know, if you look at the Bohr atom, Maxwell electromagnetism is not a very good approximation to the force between the proton and the electron. The quantum mechanics, if you didn't have quantum mechanics, the electron would spiral into the proton, and the atom would collapse. It's quantum, you know, so that's a huge correction there. So every theory gets corrected as we learn more. There'd just be no reason to suppose that it should be otherwise. Well, how is this related to the singularity? Why the singularity is uncomfortable? So when you hit the singularity, you know that you need some improvement to Einstein's theory of gravity. And that improvement, we understand what kind of things that improvement should involve. It should involve quantum mechanics, quantum effects become important there. It's a small thing. And we don't understand exactly what the theory is, but we know there's no reason to think, you know, Einstein's theory was invented to describe weakly curved things, the solar system, and so on. It's incredibly robust that we now see that it works very well near the horizons of around black holes and so on. So it's a good thing that the theory drives itself, that it predicts its own demise. Newton's gravity had its demise. There were regimes in which it wasn't valid. Maxwell's electromagnetism had its demise. There was regimes in which quantum effects greatly modified the equations. But general relativity all on its own found a system which originally was fine would perversely wander off into a configuration in which Einstein's equations no longer applied. So to you, the edges of the theory are wonderful. The failures of the theory. The edges are wonderful because that keeps us in business. So one of the things you said, I think, in your TED Talk, that the fact that quantum mechanics and relativity don't describe everything and then they clash is wonderful. I forget the adjective you used, but it was something like this. So why is that? Why is that interesting? Do you in that same way that there's contradictions that create discovery? There's no question in my mind, of course, many people would disagree with me, that now is the most wonderful time to be a physicist. So people look back at, it's a classical thing to say among physicists, I wish it were 1920. Quantum mechanics had been just understood. There was the periodic table. But in fact, that was such a rich thing that, well, so that what lot of exciting stuff happened around 1920. It took a whole century to sort out the new insights that we got. Especially adding some experimental stuff into the bunch, actually making observations and integrating all the data. All the computers also help with visualizations and all that kind of stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was a whole sort of wonderful century. I mean, the seed of general relativity was the incompatibility of Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field with Newton's laws of gravity. They were incompatible because if you look at Maxwell's theory, there's a contradiction if anything goes faster than the speed of light. But Newton's theory of gravity, the gravitational field, the gravitational force is instantaneously transmitted across the entire universe. So you could, if you had a friend in another galaxy with a very sensitive measuring device that could measure the gravitational field, they could just take this cup of coffee and move it up and down in Morse code and they could get the message instantaneously over another galaxy. That leads to all kinds of contradictions. It's not self-consistent. It was exactly in resolving those contradictions that Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity and it's fascinating how this contradiction, which seems like maybe it's kind of a technical thing, led to a whole new vision of the universe. Now, let's not get fooled because lots of contradictions are technical things. We haven't set up the, we run into other kinds of contradictions that are technical and they don't seem to, we understood something wrong, we made a mistake, we set up our equations in the wrong way, we didn't translate the formalisms. As opposed to revealing some deep mystery that's yet to be uncovered. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so we're never very sure which are the really important ones. But to you, the difference between quantum mechanics and general relativity, the tension, the contradiction there seems to hint at some deeper, deeper thing that's going to be discovered in the century. Yes, because that one has been understood since the 50s, Pauli was the first person to notice it and Hawking in the early 70s gave it a really much more visceral form. And people have been hurling themselves at it, trying to reduce it to some technicality but nobody has succeeded. And the efforts to understand it have led to all kinds of interesting relations between quantum systems and applications to other fields and so on. Well, let's actually jump around, so we'll return to black holes, I have a million questions there. But let's go into this unification, the battle against the contradictions and the tensions between the theories of physics. What is quantum gravity? Maybe what is the standard model of physics? What is quantum mechanics? What is general relativity? What's quantum gravity? What are all the different unification efforts? Okay, so. Again, five questions. Yeah, it's a theory that describes everything with astonishing accuracy. It's the most accurate theory in the history of human thought. Theory and experiment have been successfully compared to 16 decimal place. We have that stenciled on the door where I work. It's an amazing feat of the human mind. It describes the electromagnetic interaction, unifies the electromagnetic interaction with the so-called weak interaction, which you need some good tools to even view the weak interaction. And then there's the strong interaction, which binds the quarks into protons. And the forces between them are mediated by something called Yang-Mills theory, which is a beautiful mathematical generalization of electromagnetism, in which the analogs of the photons themselves carry charge. And so this, the final piece of this, of the standard model, everything in the standard model has been observed. Its properties have been measured. The final particle to be observed was the Higgs particle, observed like over a decade ago. So Higgs was already a decade ago. I think it is, yeah. Wow, time flies. But you better check me on that, yeah. That's true, but so much fun has been happening. So much fun has been happening. And so that's all pretty well understood. There are some things that might or might not, around the edges of that, dark matter, neutrino masses, some sort of fine points or things we haven't quite measured perfectly and so on. But it's largely a very complete theory. And we don't expect anything very new conceptually in the completion of that. Anything contradictory by new. Because can't you- Anything contradictory, yeah. I'll have some wild questions for you on that front. But yeah, anything that, yeah. Because there's no gaps. It's so accurate, so precise in its predictions, it's hard to imagine something completely new. And it was all based on something called, let me not explain what it is, let me just throw out the buzzword, renormalizable quantum field theory. They all fall in the category of renormalizable quantum field theory. I'm gonna throw that at a bar later to impress the girls. Good luck. Thank you. They all fall under that rubric. Gravity will not put that suit on. So the force of gravity cannot be tamed by the same renormalizable quantum field theory to which all the other forces so eagerly submitted. What is the effort of quantum gravity? What are the different efforts to have these two dance together effectively, to try to unify the standard model and general relativity, any kind of model of gravity? Sort of the one fully consistent model that we have that reconciles, that sort of tames gravity and reconciles it with quantum mechanics is string theory and its cousins. And we don't know what, or if in any sense, string theory describes the world, the physical world, but we do know that it is a consistent reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity, and moreover, one which is able to incorporate particles and forces like the ones we see around us. So it hasn't been ruled out as an actual sort of unified theory of nature, but there also isn't a, in my view, some people would disagree with me, but there isn't a reasonable possibility that we would be able to do an experiment in the foreseeable future, which would be sort of a yes or no to string theory. Okay, so you've been there from the early days of string theory. You've seen its developments. What are some interesting developments? What do you see as also the future of string theory? And what is string theory? Well, the basic idea which emerged in the early 70s was that if you take the notion of a particle and you literally replace it by a little loop of string, the strings are sort of softer than particles. What do you mean by softer? Well, you know, if you hit a particle, if there were a particle on this table, a big one, and you hit it, you might bruise yourself. Okay. But if there was a string on the table, you would probably just push it around. And the source of the infinities in quantum field theory is that when particles hit each other, it's a little bit of a jarring effect. And I've never described it this way before, but it's actually scientifically accurate. But if you throw strings at each other, it's a little more friendly. One thing I can't explain is how wonderfully precise all the mathematics is that goes into describing string theory. We don't just wave our hands and throw strings around. And, you know, there's some very compelling mathematical equations that describe it. Now, what was realized in the early 70s is that if you replace particles by strings, these infinities go away and you get a consistent theory of gravity without the infinities. And that may sound a little trivial, but at that point, it had already been 15 years that people had been searching around for any kind of theory that could do this. And it was actually found kind of by accident. And there are a lot of accidental discoveries in this subject. Now, at the same time, it was believed then that string theory was an interesting sort of toy model for putting quantum mechanics and general relativity together on paper, but that it couldn't describe some of the very idiosyncratic phenomena that pertain to our own universe, in particular, the form of so-called parity violation. Our world is- Oh, another term for the bar later tonight. Yeah, yeah. Parity violation. So if you go to the bar and- I already got the renormalizable quantum field theory. And you look in the mirror across the bar, the universe that you see in the mirror is not identical. You would be able to tell if you show the lady in the bar a photograph that shows both the mirror and you. There's a difference. If she's smart enough, she'll be able to tell which one is the real world and which one is you. Now, she would have to do some very precise measurements. Yes. And if the photograph was too grainy, it might not be possible, but in principle, it's possible. Why is this interesting? Does this mean that there is some not perfect determinism? Or what does that mean? There's some uncertainty? No, it's a very interesting feature of the real world that it isn't parity of invariant. In string theory, it was thought could not tolerate that. And then it was learned in the mid-'80s that not only could it tolerate that, but if you did things in the right way, you could construct a world involving strings that reconciled quantum mechanics and general relativity, which looked more or less like the world that we live in. And now, that isn't to say that string theory predicted our world. It just meant that it was consistent, that the hypothesis that string theory describes our world can't be ruled out from the get-go. And it is also the only proposal for a complete theory that would describe our world. Still, nobody will believe it until there's some kind of direct experiment. And I don't even believe it myself. Sure, which is a good place to be mentally as a physicist, right? I mean, Einstein didn't believe his own equations, right, with the black hole. Okay. Well, then when he was wrong about that, I don't know if he was wrong about that. But you might be wrong too, right? So do you think string theory is dead if you were to bet all your money on the future of string theory? I think it's a logical error to think that string theory is either right or wrong or dead or alive. What it is is a stepping stone. And an analogy I like to draw is Yang-Mills theory, which I mentioned a few minutes ago in the context of standard model. Yang-Mills theory was discovered by Yang and Mills in the 50s, and they thought that the symmetry of Yang and Mills theory described the relationship between the proton and the neutron. That's why they invented it. That turned out to be completely wrong. It does, however, describe everything else in the standard model. And it had a kind of inevitability. They had some of the right pieces, but not the other ones. Sure. They didn't have it quite in the right context. And it had an inevitability to it, and it eventually sort of found its place. And it's also true of Einstein's theory of general relativity. You know, he had the wrong version of it in 1914, and he was missing some pieces. And you wouldn't say that his early version was right or wrong. He'd understood the equivalence principle. He'd understood spacetime curvature. He just didn't have everything. I mean, technically, you would have to say it was wrong. And technically, you would have to say Yang and Mills were wrong. And I guess in that sense, I would believe just odds are. We always keep finding new wrinkles. Odds are we're gonna find new wrinkles in string theory, and technically, what we call string theory now isn't quite right, but. We're always going to be wrong, but hopefully a little bit less wrong every time. Exactly. And I would bet the farm, as they say. Do you have a farm? I say that much more seriously, because not only do I have a farm, but we just renovated it. So before I renovated, so before I renovated, betting at the farm, my wife and I spent five years renovating it before. You were much looser with that statement, but now it really means something. Now it really means something. And I would bet the farm on the guess that 100 years from now, string theory will be viewed as a stepping stone towards a greater understanding of nature. And it would, I mean, another thing that I didn't mention about string theory is, of course, we knew that it solved the infinities problem, and then we later learned that it also solved Hawking's puzzle about what's inside of a black hole. And you put in one assumption, you get five things out, somehow you're doing something right. Probably not everything, but there's some good signposts. And there've been a lot of good signposts like that. It is also a mathematical toolkit, and you've used it. You've used it with Kamran Vafa. Maybe we can sneak our way back from string theory into black holes. What was the idea that you and Kamran Vafa developed with the holographic principle and string theory? What were you able to discover through string theory about black holes, or that connects us back to the reality of black holes? Yeah, so that is a very interesting story. I was interested in black holes before I was interested in string theory. I was sort of a reluctance string theorist in the beginning. I thought I had to learn it because people were talking about it. But once I studied it, I grew to love it. First, I did it in a sort of dutiful way. These people say they've claimed quantum gravity. I ought to read their papers at least. And then the more I read them, the more interested I got, and I began to see. They phrased it in a very clumsy way. The description of string theory was very clumsy. Mathematically clumsy, or just the interpretation? Mathematically clumsy, yeah. It was all correct, but mathematically clumsy. But it often happens that in all kinds of branches of physics that people start working on it really hard and they sort of dream about it and live it and breathe it. And they begin to see inner relationships and they see a beauty that is really there. They're not deceived. They're really seeing something that exists. But if you just kind of look at it, you can't grasp it all in the beginning. And so our understanding of string theory in 1985 was almost all about weakly coupled waves of strings colliding and so on. We didn't know how to describe a big thing like a black hole in string theory. Of course, we could show that strings in theory in some limit reproduced Einstein's theory of general relativity and corrected it, but we couldn't do any better with black holes than before my work with Kummer. We couldn't do any better than Einstein and Schwarzschild had done. Now, one of the puzzles, if you look at the Hawking's headstone and also Boltzmann's headstone and you put them together, you get a formula for, and they're really central equations in 20th century physics. I don't think there are many equations that made it to headstones. And they're really central equations and you put them together and you get a formula for the number of gigabytes in a black hole. Now, in Schwarzschild's description, the black hole is literally a hole in space and there's no place to store the gigabytes. And it's not too hard to, and this really was Wheeler and Bekenstein and Wheeler, Bekenstein and Hawking to come to the conclusion that if there isn't a sense in which a black hole can store some large number of gigabytes, that quantum mechanics and gravity can't be consistent. We gotta go there a little bit. So how is it possible, when we say gigabytes, there's some information. So black holes can store information. How is this thing that sucks up all light and it's supposed to basically be super homogeneous and boring, how is that actually able to store information? Where does it store information? On the inside, on the surface? Where, where is, and what's information? I'm liking this ask five questions to see which one you actually answer. I'm gonna ask you a question. I'm gonna ask you a question. I should try to memorize them and answer each one in order just to answer them. I don't know, I don't know what I'm doing. I'm desperately trying to figure it out as we go along here. So Einstein's black hole is a short-circuited black hole. They can't store information. Stuff goes in there and it just keeps flying and it goes to the singularity and it's gone. However, Einstein's theory is not exact. It has corrections. And string theory tells you what those corrections are. And so you should be able to find some way of, some alternate way of describing the black hole that enables you to understand where the gigabytes are stored. So what Hawking and Bekenstein really did was they showed that physics is inconsistent unless a black hole can store a number of gigabytes proportional to its area divided by four times Newton's constant times Planck's constant. And that's another wild idea. You said area, not volume. Exactly. And that's the holographic principle. The universe is so weird. That's the holographic principle. That's called the holographic principle, that it's the area. We're just jumping around. What is the holographic principle? What does that mean? Is there some kind of weird projection going on? What the heck? Well, I was just before I came here writing an introduction to a paper and the first sentence was, the as yet imprecisely defined holographic principle. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So nobody knows exactly what it is, but roughly speaking, it says just what we were alluding to that really all the information that is in some volume of space time can be stored on the boundary of that region. So this is not just about black holes, it's about any area of space time. Any area of space time. However, we've made sense of the holographic principle for black holes. We've made sense of the holographic principle for something which could be called anti-de Sitter space, which could be thought of as a giant, as a black hole turned into a whole universe. And we don't really understand how to talk about the holographic principle for either flat space, which we appear to live in, or asymptotically de Sitter space, which astronomers tell us we actually live in as the universe continues to expand. So it's one of the huge problems in physics is to apply or even formulate the holographic principle for more realistic, well, black holes are realistic, we see them, but yeah, in more general context. So a more general statement of the holographic principle. What's the difference between flat space and asymptotic de Sitter space? So flat space is just an approximation of the world we live in. So de Sitter space, asymptotic, I wonder what that even means, meaning like asymptotic over what? Okay, so for thousands of years, until the last half of the 20th, well, sorry, until the 20th century, we thought space-time was flat. Can you elaborate on flat? What do we mean by flat? Well, like the surface of this table is flat. Let me just give an intuitive explanation. Surface of the table is flat, but the surface of a basketball is curved. So the universe itself could be flat like the surface of a table, or it could be curved like a basketball, which actually has a positive curvature. And then there's another kind of curvature called the negative curvature. And curvature can be even weirder because that kind of curvature I've just described is the curvature of space, but Einstein taught us that we really live in a space-time continuum, so we can have curvature in a way that mixes up space and time. And that's kind of hard to visualize. Because you have to step, what, a couple of dimensions up, so it's hard to? You have to step a couple, but even if you have flat space and it's expanding in time, you know, we could imagine we're sitting here, this room, good approximation, it's flat, but imagine we suddenly start getting further and further apart. Then space is flat, but it's expanding, which means that space-time is curved. Ultimately, it's about space-time. Okay, so what's the Sitter and Anti-Sitter space? The three simplest space-times are flat space-time, which we call Minkowski space-time, and negatively curved space-time, Anti-to-Sitter space, and positively curved space-time, to-Sitter space. And so astronomers think that on large scales, even though for thousands of years we hadn't noticed it, beginning with Hubble, we started to notice that space-time was curved. Space is expanding in time means that space-time is curved. And the nature of this curvature is affected by the matter in it, because matter itself causes the curvature of space-time. But as it expands, the matter gets more and more diluted, and one might ask, when it's all diluted away, is space-time still curved? And astronomers believe they've done precise enough measurements to determine this, and they believe that the answer is yes. The universe is now expanding. Eventually all the matter in it will be expanded away, but it will continue to expand because, well, they would call it the dark energy, Einstein would call it a cosmological constant. In any case, in the far future, matter will be expanded away and will be left with empty to-Sitter space. Okay, so there's this cosmological, Einstein's cosmological constant that now hides this thing that we don't understand called dark energy. What's dark energy? What's your best guess at what this thing is? Why do we think it's there? It's because it comes from the astronomers. Dark energy is synonymous with positive cosmological constant. And we think it's there because the astronomers have told us it's there. And they know what they're doing. And we don't know what the heck it is. It's a really, really hard measurement, but they really know what they're doing. And we have no friggin' idea why it's there. Another big mystery. Another reason it's fun to be a physicist. And if it is there, why should it be so small? Why should there be so little? Why should it have hid itself from us? Why shouldn't there be enough of it to substantially curve the space between us and the moon? Why did there have to be such a small amount that only the crazy best astronomers in the world could find it? Well, can't the same thing be said about all the constants? All of the, can't that be said about gravity? Can't that be said about the speed of light? Like, why is the speed of light so slow? So fast. So slow. Relative to the size of the universe, can't it be faster? Or no? Well, the speed of light is a funny one, because you could always choose units in which the speed of light is one. You know, we measure it in kilometers per second, and it's 186,000, or miles per second, it's 186,000 miles per second. But if we use different units, then we could make it one. But you can make dimensionless ratios. So, you know, you could say, why is the time scale set by the expansion of the universe so large compared to the time scale of a human life, or so large compared to the time scale for a neutron to decay, you know? Yeah, yeah, I mean, ultimately, the temporal reference frame here is a human life. Maybe. Isn't that the important thing for us, descendants of apes? Isn't that a really important aspect of physics? Like, because we kind of experience the world, we intuit the world through the eyes of these biological organisms. I mean, I guess mathematics helps you escape that for time, but ultimately, isn't that how you wonder about the world? Absolutely. That like a human life time is only 100 years? Because if you think of everything, if you're able to think in, I don't know, in billions of years, then maybe everything looks way different. Maybe universes are born and die, and maybe all of these physical phenomena become much more intuitive than we see at the grand scale of general relativity. Well, that is one of the, a little off the track here, but that certainly is one of the nice things about being a physicist is you spend a lot of time thinking about insides of black holes and billions of years in the future, and it sort of gets you away from the day-to-day into another fantastic realm. But I was answering your question about how there could be information in a black hole. Yes. So Einstein only gave us an approximate description, and we now have a theory that corrects it, string theory. And now sort of was the moment of truth. Well, when we first discovered string theory, we knew from the get-go that string theory would correct what Einstein said, just like Einstein corrected what Newton said. But we didn't understand it well enough to actually compute the correction, to compute how many gigabytes there were. And sometime in the early 90s, we began to understand the mathematics of string theory better and better, and it came to the point where it was clear that this was something we might be able to compute. And it was a kind of moment of truth for string theory because if it hadn't given the answer that Bekenstein and Hawking said it had to give for consistency, string theory itself would have been inconsistent and we wouldn't be doing this interview. Wow. That's a very dramatic statement, yes. That's not the most dramatic thing. I mean, okay, that's very life and death. You mean like, because string theory was central to your work at that time? Is that what you mean? Well, string theory would have been inconsistent. Yeah, okay. So string theory would have been inconsistent. But those inconsistencies can give birth to other theories, like you said. The inconsistency, right, something else could have happened. It would have been a major change in the way we think about string theory, and it was a good thing that one supposition that the world is made of strings solves two problems, not one. It solves the infinity problem and it solved the Hawking's problem. And also the way that it did it was very beautiful. It gave an alternate description. So alternate description of things are very common. I mean, we could, to take a simple example, this bottle of water here is 90% full. I could say it's 90% full. I could also say it's 10% empty. Those are obviously the same statement. And it's trivial to see that they're the same, but there are many statements that can be made in mathematics and mathematical physics that are equivalent but might take years to understand that they're equivalent and might take the invention or discovery of whole new fields of mathematics to prove they're equivalent. And this was one of those. We found an alternate description of certain black holes in string theory, which we could prove was equivalent. And it was a description of the black hole as a hologram that can be thought of, a holographic plate that could be thought of as sitting on the surface of the black hole. And the interior of the black hole itself sort of arises as a projection, or the near horizon region of the black hole arises as a projection of that holographic plate. So the two descriptions were the hologram, the three-dimensional image, and the holographic plate. And the hologram is what Einstein discovered, and the holographic plate is what we discovered. And this idea that you could describe things very, very concretely in string theory in these two different languages, of course, took off and was applied to many different contexts within string theory. So you mentioned the infinity problem and the Hawking problem. Which Hawking problem? That the black hole destroys information, or which Hawking problem are we talking about? Well, there's really two Hawking problems. They're very closely related. One is, how does the black hole store the information? And that is the one that we solved in some cases. So it's sort of like your smartphone, how does it store its 64 gigabytes? Well, you rip the cover off and you count the chips and there's 64 of them, each with a gigabyte, and you know there's 64 gigabytes. But that does not solve the problem of how you get information in and out of your smartphone. You have to understand a lot more about the Wi-Fi and the internet and the cellular. And that's where Hawking radiation, this prediction, it starts to come to. That's where Hawking radiation comes in. And that problem of how the information gets in and out, you can't, you couldn't have explained how information gets in and out of an iPhone without first explaining how it's stored in the first place. So just to clarify, the storage is on the plate? Is on the plate. On the holographic plate, and then it projects somehow inside the. The bulk, the space-time is the hologram. The hologram, man, I mean, do you have an intuitive, when you sit late at night and you stare at the stars, do you have an intuitive understanding of what a holographic plate is? Like that there's two dimension, no projections that store information? How a black hole could store information on a holographic plate, I think we do understand in great mathematical detail and also intuitively. And it's very much like an ordinary hologram where you have a holographic plate and it contains all the information. You shine a light through it and you get an image which looks three-dimensional. Yeah, but why should there be a holographic plate? Why should there be? Yeah, why? That is the great thing about being a theoretical physicist is anybody can very quickly stump you with a going to the next level of whys. Yeah, whys is kind of, oh, I can just keep asking, yeah. Yeah, you could just keep asking and it won't take you very long to. So the trick in being a theoretical physics is finding the questions that you can answer. Sure. So the questions that we think we might be able to answer now and we've partially answered is that there is a holographic explanation for certain kinds of things in string theory. Sure. We've answered that. Now we'd like to take what we've learned and that's what I've mostly been doing for the last 15, 20 years. I haven't really been working so much on string theory proper. I've been sort of taking the lessons that we learned in string theory and trying to apply them to the real world assuming only what we know for sure about the real world. So on this topic, you co-authored a paper with Stephen Hawking called Soft Hair on Black Holes. Yes. That makes the argument against Hawking's original prediction that black holes destroy information. Can you explain this paper? Yes. And the title. Yeah. Okay, so first of all, the hair on black holes is a word that was coined by the greatest phrase master in the history of physics, John Wheeler, invented the word black hole. And he also said that, he made the statement that black holes have no hair. That is, every black hole in the universe is described just by its mass and spin. They can also rotate as was later shown by Kerr. And this is very much unlike a star, right? Every star of the same mass is different in a multitude of different ways. Different chemical compositions, different motions of the individual molecules. Every star in the universe, even of the same mass, is different in many, many different ways. Black holes are all the same. And that means when you throw some, in Einstein's description of them, which we think must be corrected. And if you throw something into a black hole, it gets sucked in. And if you throw in a red book or a blue book, the black hole gets a little bigger, but there's no way within Einstein's theory of telling how they're different. And that was one of the assumptions that Hawking made in his 1974, 75 papers in which he concluded that black holes destroy information. You can throw encyclopedias, thesis defenses, the Library of Congress. It doesn't matter, it's going to behave exactly the same uniform way. Yeah, so what Hawking and I showed, and also Malcolm Perry, is that one has to be very careful about what happens at the boundary of the black hole. And this gets back to something I mentioned earlier about when two things which are related by a coordinate transformation are and are not equivalent. And what we showed is that there are very subtle imprints when you throw something into a black hole. There are very subtle imprints left on the horizon of the black hole, which you can read off at least partially what went in. And so this invalidates Steven's original argument that the information is destroyed. And that's the soft hair. That's the soft hair, right. So, and soft is a word that is used in physics for things which have very low energy. And these things actually carry no energy. There are things in the universe which carry no energy. You said, I think to Sean Carroll, by the way, everyone should go check out Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast, it's incredible. And Sean Carroll's an incredible person. I think you said there, maybe in a paper, I have a quote. You said that a soft particle is a particle that has zero energy, just like you said now. And when the energy goes to zero, because the energy is proportionate to the wavelength, it's also spread over an infinitely large distance. If you like, it's spread over the whole universe. It somehow runs off to the boundary. What we learned from that is that if you add a zero energy particle to the vacuum, you get a new state. And so there are infinitely many vacua, plural for vacuum, which can be thought of as being different from one another by the addition of soft photons or soft gravitons. Can you elaborate on this wild idea? If you like, it spreads over the whole universe. When the energy goes to zero, because the energy is proportionate to the wavelength, it also spreads over an infinitely large distance. If you like, it's spread over the whole universe. Can you explain these soft gravitons and photons? Yeah, so the soft gravitons and photons have been known about since the 60s, but exactly what we're supposed to do with them or how we're supposed to think about them, I think has been well understood only recently. And in quantum mechanics, the energy of a particle is proportional to Planck's constant times its wavelength. So when the energy goes to zero, the wavelength goes to infinity. Now, if something has zero energy and it's spread all over the universe, in what sense is it actually there? That's been the confusing thing. To make a precise statement about when something is and isn't there. Now, the simplest way of seeing, so people might have taken the point of view that if it has zero energy and is spread all over the universe, it's not there, we can ignore it. But if you do this, you'll get into trouble. And one of the ways that you'll get into trouble is that even though it has zero energy, it doesn't have zero angular momentum. If it's a photon, it always has angular momentum one. If it's a graviton, it's angular momentum two. So you can't say that the state of the system with the zero energy photon should be identified with the one without the zero energy photon that we can just ignore them, because then you will conclude that angular momentum is not conserved. And if angular momentum is not conserved, things won't be consistent. And of course, you can have a lot of these things, and typically you do get a lot of them. And when you, you can actually do a calculation that shows that every time you scatter two particles, you create an infinite number of them. Infinite number of the soft photons and gravitons. Of the zero energy ones, yeah. And so these are, and they're somehow everywhere. They're everywhere. But they also contain information, or they're able to store information. And they're able to store information. They're able to store an arbitrary large amount of information. So what we pointed out is, so what these things really do, one way of thinking of them is they rush off to the edges of the universe, spreading out all over the space. It's like saying they rush off to the energy edge of the universe. And that includes, if the interior of the black hole is not considered part of the universe, that includes the edge of the black hole. So we need to set up our description of physics so that all the things that are conserved are still conserved in the way that we're describing them. And that will not be true if we ignore these things. We have to keep careful track of these things. And people had been sloppy about that. And we learned how to be very precise and careful about it. And once you're being precise, you can actually answer this kind of very problematic thing that Hawking suggested, that black holes destroy information. Well, what we showed is that there's an error in the argument that all black holes are the same because they hadn't kept track of these, these very subtle things. And whether or not this is the key error in the argument remains to be seen, or whether this is a technical point. Yes, but it is an error. It is an error. And Hawking obviously agreed with it. Hawking agreed with it. And he was sure that this was the, he was sure that this was. This was a critical error. That this was the critical error and that understanding this would get us the whole story. And that could well be. What was it like working with Stephen Hawking on this particular problem? Because it's kind of a whole journey, right? Well, you know, I love the guy. He's so passionate about physics. He just, yeah. His oneness with the problem and the, I mean, it's. So his mind is all occupied by the world that's. Yeah. And let me tell you, there's a lot of other things with his illness and with his celebrity and a lot of other things. A lot of distractions pulling at his mind. He's still there. He's still right there. I remember him churning down tea with Lady Gaga so we could spend another hour on paper. That's right. That, my friends, is dedication. What did you learn about physics? What did you learn about life from having worked with Stephen Hawking? Well, he was one of my great teachers. Of course, he's older than me. And I was reading his textbooks in graduate school. And I learned a lot about relativity from him. I learned about passion for a problem. I learned about not caring what other people think. You know, physics is an interesting culture, even if you make a great discovery like Hawking did, people don't believe everything you say. In fact, people love to disagree. It's a culture that cherishes disagreement. And so, you know, he kept ahead with what he believed in and sometimes he was right and sometimes he was wrong. Do you feel pressure from the community? So, for example, with string theory, it was very popular for a time. There's a bit of criticism, or it's less popular now. Do you feel the forces of the community as it moves in and out of different fields? Or do you try to stay, like how difficult is it to stay intellectually and mathematically independent from the community? Personally, I'm lucky. I'm well-equipped for that. And when I started out in graduate school, the problem of quantum gravity was not considered interesting. He still did it anyway. I still did it anyway. I'm a little bit of a contrarian, I guess, and I think that has served me well. And people are always sort of disagreeing with me and they're usually right, but I'm right enough. And like you said, the contradiction ultimately paves the path of discovery. Yeah. Let me ask you just on this tension, we've been dancing between physics and mathematics. What to you is an interesting line you can draw between the two? You have done some very complicated mathematics in your life to explore the laws of nature. What's the difference between physics and mathematics to you? Well, I love math. I think my first love is physics, and the math that I've done, I've done to, because it was needed. In service of physics. In service of physics, but then, of course, in the heat of it, it has its own appeal. In the heat of it, I like it. Sure. It has its own appeal and I certainly enjoyed it. And ultimately, I would like to think, I wouldn't say I believe, but I would like to think that there's no difference between physics and mathematics, that all mathematics is realized in the physical world and all physics has a firm mathematical basis, that they're really the same thing. I mean, why would there be math that had no physical manifestation? It seems a little odd, right? You have two kinds of math, some that are relevant to the real world. Well, they don't have to be contradictory, but you can have, can't you not have mathematical objects that are not at all connected to the physical world? So, I mean, this is to the question of is math discovered or invented? So, to you, math is discovered. And there's a deep linkage between the two. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you find at all compelling these ideas, like something like Max Tegmark, where our universe is actually a fundamentally mathematical object, that math is, our universe is mathematical, fundamentally mathematical in nature? My expertise is a physicist doesn't add anything to that. It's not really, you know, physics is, you know, I was once very interested in philosophy, and, you know, physics, physics, I like questions that can be answered, that it's not obvious what the answer is, and that you can find an answer to the question, and everybody will agree what the answer is, and that there's an algorithm for getting there. Not that these other questions aren't interesting, and they don't somehow have a way of presenting themselves, but to me, the interesting thing is to, is motion in what we know, is learning more, and understanding things that we didn't understand before, things that seemed totally confusing, having them seem obvious, that's wonderful. So, I think that those questions are there. I mean, I would even go further, you know, the whole multiverse, I don't think there's too much concrete we're ever gonna be able to say about it. This is fascinating, because you spend so much time in string theory, which is devoid from a connection to the physical world for a long time. Like, not devoid, but it travels in a mathematical world that seems to be beautiful and consistent, and seems to indicate that it could be a good model of the laws of nature, but it's still traveling independently, because it's very difficult to experimentally verify. But there's a promise laden in it, in the same way multiverse, or you can have a lot of kind of very far out there questions where your gut and instinct and intuition says that maybe in 50, 100, 200 years, you'll be able to actually have strong experimental validation, right? I think that with string theory, I don't think it's likely that we could measure it, but we could get lucky. In other words, just to take an example, about 10 or 20 years ago, it was thought that they had seen a string in the sky, and that it was seen by doubled stars that were gravitationally lensed around the gravitational field produced by some long string. There was a line of double lens. Now, the signal went away, okay? But people were hoping that they'd seen a string, and it could be a fundamental string that had somehow gotten stretched, and that would be some evidence for string theory. There was also BICEP2, which the experiment was wrong, but it could have happened. It could have happened that we got lucky, and this experiment was able to make direct measurements. Certainly would have been measurements of quantum gravity if not string theory. So it's a very logical possibility that we could get experimental evidence from string. That is a very different thing than saying, do this experiment, here's a billion dollars, and after you do it, we'll know whether or not strings are real. But I think it's a crucial difference. It's measurable in principle, and we don't see how to get from here to there. If we see how to get from here to there, in my eyes, it's boring, right? So when I was a graduate student, they knew how to measure the Higgs boson. Took 40 years, but they didn't, not to say that stuff is boring. I don't want to say that stuff is boring. But when Magellan set out, he didn't know he could get around the world. There was no map. So I don't know how we're gonna connect in a concrete way all these ideas of string theory to the real world. And when I started out in graduate school, I said, what is the most interesting problem that there might be, the deepest, most interesting problem that there might be progress on in 60 years? And I think it could be, that in another 30 years, that maybe we'll learn that we have understood how black holes store information. That doesn't seem wild, that we're able to abstract what we learned from string theory and show that it's operative. And I mean, the Bose-Einstein condensate, they did, when Bose and Einstein predicted it, when was that, the 30s maybe, early 30s, there were 20 orders of magnitude that were needed in order to, in improvement, in order to measure it. And they did, 50 years later. So, and you couldn't have guessed how that had happened, how they could have gotten that. And it could happen that we, I don't think we're gonna see the heterotic string spectrum at an accelerator, but it could be that things come around in an interesting way, and somehow it comes together. And the fact that we can't see to the end isn't a reason not to do it. You know, we're just, you know, what did they do when they were trying to find the specific, right? They just, they took every route. They just tried everything. And that's what we're doing. And we're taking, and I'm taking the one that my nose tells me is the best, you know? And other people are taking other ones, and that's good, because we need every person taking every route. And, you know, if somebody on another route finds something that looks really promising, you know, I'm gonna make a portage over the mountain and get on their stream, you know? So, the fact that you don't see the experiment now isn't, to me, a reason to give up on what I view as the most fundamental paradox in 20th century, in present physics, 20th, 21st century physics. Absolutely, you can see that it's possible. You just don't know the way. But that's what I mean, why some of the philosophical questions could be formulated in a way that's explorable scientifically. So, some of the stuff we've talked about, but, you know, for example, this topic that's become more okay to talk about, which is the topic of consciousness. You know, to me, as an artificial intelligence person, that's a very practically interesting topic. But there's also philosophers. Sean Carroll loves to argue against them. But there's some philosophers that are panpsychists. I'm not against philosophers, it's just not as fun. I don't. It's not as fun, all right. But they start a little flame of a fire going that some of those flames, I think, eventually become physics. So, eventually become something that can really, like, having them around is really important because you'll discover something by modeling and exploring black holes that's really weird. And having these ideas around, like the ideas of panpsychists that consciousness could be a fundamental force of nature. Just even having that crazy idea, swimming around in the background, could really spark something where that you were missing something completely. And it's just, that's where the philosophy done right, I think, is very useful. That's where even the, you know, these thought experiments, which is very fun in the sort of the tech sci-fi world that we live in a simulation. That, you know, taking a perspective of the universe as a computer, as a computational system that processes information, which is a pretty intuitive notion, but you can just even reframing it that way for yourself could really open up some different way of thinking. Could be. And then you have, I don't know if you're familiar with Stephen Wolfram's work of like cellular automata and complexity. Yeah, I did a podcast with Stephen. With Stephen, that's awesome. I mean, to me, forget physics, forget all that. Cellular automata make no sense. They're so beautiful. They're so, they're from simple rules you can create complexity. I just don't think, you know, he wrote a book, A New Kind of Science, basically hinting at, which a lot of people have hinted at, is like we don't have a good way to talk about these objects. We can't figure out what is happening here. These simple, these trivial rules can create incredible complexity. He's totally right about that, yeah. And physicists, I guess, don't know what to do with that. Don't know what to do with cellular automata. Because you can describe the simple rules that govern the system, but how complexity can emerge, like incredible complexity. Yeah. Of course, Wolfram's version of that is that physicists will never be able to describe it. Right, yeah, exactly. He tries to prove that it's impossible. What do you make of that? What do you make about the tension of being a physicist and potentially not being able to, it's like Freud or somebody that maybe, Sigmund Freud, that maybe you'll never be able to actually describe the human psyche. Is that a possibility for you? That you will never be able to get to the core, fundamental description of the laws of nature? Yeah, so I had this conversation with Weinberg. Yeah, how'd it go? So Weinberg has this book called Dreams of a Final Theory. Yeah. And I had this conversation with him. I said, why do you think there's ever gonna be a final theory? Why should there ever be a final theory? I mean, what does that mean? Do physics departments shut down? We've solved everything. And doesn't it seem that every time we answer some old questions, we'll just find new ones, and that it will just keep going on forever and ever? He said, well, that's what they used to say about the Nile. They were never gonna find the end. Then one day, they found it. Yeah. So I don't know. String theory doesn't look like a candidate to me for a final theory. As it stands now. It doesn't get to the bottom of the well, to the sides, and to the whole thing. Yeah, it seems to me that even if we kind of solved it, and we did experiments, there still would be more questions, like why are there four dimensions instead of six? It doesn't seem to have anything in it that would explain that. You can always hope that there's something that we don't know about string theory that will explain it, but it still doesn't look like it's gonna answer every question. And why is there one time, not two? Why is there, it doesn't seem like it's, I don't even know what it would mean to answer every question. Well, to answer every question, obviously, so when you refer to the theory of everything, you'll be able to have a, if it exists, it would be a theory that allows you to predict precisely the behavior of objects in the universe, and their movement, right? What about them, their movement? Yeah. Like precisely, no matter the object. Right, that's true. So that would be a really interesting state of affairs if we could predict everything, but not necessarily understand everything. So for example, let's just forget about gravity. I mean, we're not too far from that situation. If we forget about gravity, the standard model, in principle, given a big enough computer, predicts almost everything. But if you look at the standard model, it's kind of a laundry list, with neutrino masses and all that stuff. There are hundreds of free parameters. Where do they come from? Is there an organizing principle? Is there some further unification? Sure. So being able to predict everything is not the only goal that physicists have. So on the way to trying to predict, you're trying to understand. That's actually probably the goal, is to understand. Yeah. Right, we're more interested in understanding than actually doing the predictions, but the predictions are more, focusing on how to make predictions is a good way to improve your understanding, because you know you've understood it if you can do the predictions. Yeah, one of the interesting things that might come to a head with is artificial intelligence. There's an increasing use of AI in physics. We might live in a world where AI would be able to predict perfectly what's happening. And so, as physicists, you'll have to come to the fact that you're actually not that interested in prediction. I mean, it's very useful, but you're interested in really understanding the deep laws of nature versus a perfect predictor. Yeah. Like you wanna play chess. But even within AI, AI people are trying to understand what it is that the AI bots have learned in order to produce whatever they produce. For sure, but you still don't understand deeply, especially because they're getting, especially language models, if you're paying attention, the systems that are able to generate text, they're able to have conversations, which had GPTs, the recent manifestation of that. They just seem to know everything. They're trained on the internet. They seem to be very, very good at something that looks like reasoning. They're able to generate, you can ask them questions, they can answer questions. It just feels like this thing is intelligent. And I could just see that being possible with physics. You ask any kind of physical question and they'll be able to, very precise, about a particular star system or a particular black hole. And you'll say, well, these are the numbers you see. It'll perfectly predict. And then, sure, you can understand how the neural network is, the architecture is structured. Actually, for most of them now, they're very simple. You can understand what data is trained on. Huge amount of data. You're getting a huge amount of data from a very nice telescope or something. And then, but it seems to predict everything perfectly. How a banana falls when you throw it. Everything is perfectly predicted. You still don't have a deep understanding of what governs the whole thing. And maybe you can ask it a question and it'll be some kind of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy type answer. It's a funny world we live in. Of course, it's also possible that there's no such deep, simple, governing laws of nature behind the whole thing. I mean, there's something in us humans. It's possible that wants it there to be, but doesn't have to be, right? Again, you already bet the farm. But if you were to have a second farm, do you think there is a theory of everything that we might get at? So simple laws that govern the whole thing. I don't, I don't, honestly, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident that if there is, we won't get to it in my lifetime. I don't think we're near it. But doesn't it feel like there, like the fact that we have the laws we do, they're relatively simple already. That's kind of incredible. It's just, there seems to be, there seems to be simple laws that govern things, right? By a theory of everything, you mean theory, a theory of, of everything, an algorithm to predict everything. But a simple algorithm. A relatively simple algorithm to predict everything. So for me, it would be a sad day if we arrived at that without answering some deeper questions. Sure, of course, it definitely is. But the question, yes. But one of the questions before we arrive there, we can ask, does such a destination even exist? So, because asking the question and the possible answers and the process of trying to answer that question is in itself super interesting. Is it even possible to get there where there's an equals mc squared type of, there's a function, okay, you can have many parameters, but a finite number of parameter function that can predict a lot of things about our universe. Well, okay, but just to sort of throw one thing in, in order to answer every question, we would need a theory of the origin of the universe. And that is a huge task, right? And the fact that the universe seems to have a beginning defies everything we know and love, right? Because one of the basic principles of physics is determinism, that the past follows from, the present follows from the past, the future follows from the present, so on. But if you have the origin of the universe, if you have a big bang, that means before that there was nothing. You can't have a theory in which something follows from nothing. So somehow- Sounds like you don't like singularities. Well- I thought for somebody that works with black holes, you would get used to them by now. No, no, I like this because it's so hard to understand. I like it because it's hard to understand, but it's really challenging us. I don't think we're close to solving that problem. And string theory has basically had nothing, there's been almost nothing interesting said about that in the last many decades. So string theory hasn't really looked at the big bang. It hasn't really tried to get to the origin. Not successfully. There aren't compelling papers that lots of people have read that, people have taken it up and tried to go at it, but there aren't compelling. String theory doesn't seem to have a trick that helps us with that puzzle. Do you think we'll be able to sneak up to the origin of the universe, like reverse engineer it from experimental, from theoretical perspective? Okay, if we can, what would be the trajectory? You've already gotten yourself in trouble, because you used the word reverse engineer. So if you're gonna reverse engineer, that means you forward engineering means that you take the present and determine the future. Reverse engineering means that you take the present and determine the past. Estimate the past, but yes, sure. But if the past was nothing, how are you ever gonna reverse engineer to nothing? That's hard to do. Run up against the nothing, right? Until have mathematical models that break down nicely to where you can actually start to infer things. Let's work on it. No, but do you think that that... Maybe, but people have tried to do things like that. Yeah, and have not succeeded. It's not something that we're getting A pluses in. Sure. Let's pretend we live in a world where in 100 years we have an answer to that. What would that answer look like? What department is that from? What fields led us there? Not what fields, what set of ideas in theoretical physics? Is it experimental, is it theoretical? What can you imagine could have possibly lead us there? Is it through gravitational waves and some kind of observations there? Is it investigation of black holes? Is it simulation of universes? Is it maybe we start creating black holes somehow? I don't know. Maybe some kind of high energy physics type of experiments? Well, I have some late night ideas about that that aren't really ready for prime time. Okay, sure. But you have some ideas. Yeah, yeah, but, and many people do. It could be that some of the advances in quantum information theory are important in that they kind of go beyond taking quantum systems and just replicating themselves, but combining them with others. Do you think, since you highlighted the issue with time and the origin of the universe, do you think time is fundamental or emergent? I think ultimately it has to be emergent. Yeah, what does it mean for time to be emergent? Well, let's review what it means for space to be emergent. Yes. What it means for space to be emergent is that you have a holographic plate and you shine some light that's moving in space and it produces an image which contains an extra spatial dimension and time just goes along for the ride. So what we'd like to do, and indeed there is some rather concrete work in this direction, though again, I would say, even within our stringing community we're not getting A pluses on these efforts, but what we'd like to do is to see examples in which the extra space-time dimension is time. In other words, usually what we understand very well mathematically is how to take systems in some number of space-time dimensions and rewrite them as a plate in fewer space dimensions. What we'd like to do is to take systems with one time and some number of space dimensions and to rewrite them as a system that had only space dimensions in it, had no time evolution. And there's some fairly concrete ideas about how to do that, but they're not universally accepted even within the stringy community. But isn't it wild to you? Yes. For it to be emergent? Yes. How do we intuit these kinds of ideas as human beings for whom space and time seems as fundamental as apples and oranges? Well, they're both illusions. Okay. They're both illusions, even time. You co-authored a paper titled Photon Rings Around Warped Black Holes. First of all, whoever writes your paper titles, you like the soft hair and the term black hole and the big bang, you're very good at coming up with titles yourself. Anyway, you co-authored a paper titled Photon Rings Around Warped Black Holes. In it, you write, quote, recent work has identified a number of emergent symmetries related to the intricate self-similar structure of the photon ring. So what are photon rings? What are some interesting characteristics of a photon ring? So that was a paper with Dan Kopitz and Alex Lipsaska that just came out. And this paper is kind of a wonderful example of what happens when you start to talk to people who are way out of your comfort zone of know different stuff and look at the world a different way. And some two or three years ago, I'm part of this, the Black Hole Initiative, and I'm also part of this Event Horizon Telescope collaboration that took the famous, though I had nothing to do with the experiment, but that took the famous picture of the donut of M87. And through conversations with them, which started out in an effort to understand the image that they'd seen. So it's a great thing for somebody like me, a theoretical physicist, lost, seemingly lost in string land, to be presented with an actual picture of a black hole. And asked what? And to be asked what can we learn from this? So with some help from Michael Johnson, Alex Lipsaska, and a bunch of other people at the Event Horizon collaboration, we came up with a fantastic, beautiful answer using Einstein's theory, that is both shaping the future of, now it is shaping the future of improved black hole photographs. What do you wanna concentrate on in the photograph? You just point it at the sky and click? No, you don't do that. You optimize for various features. And it's both shaping that, and in the process of talking to them and thinking about how light behaves around a black hole, black holes just have so many magic tricks, and they do so many weird things. And the photon ring is among the weirdest of them. We understood this photon ring, and in the process of this, we said, hey, this photon ring has gotta be telling us something about the puzzle of where the holographic plate is outside of a ordinary astrophysical black hole. And we nailed it for the stringy black holes, but they have a somewhat different character. What's a stringy black hole? The black holes that describe a string theory? The black holes that are contained in string theory, and they have different structure in them. Well, but actually, can we step back? So what was the light in the image taken in 2019? Not taken in 2019, presented in 2019. So here's the puzzle. What they really saw, so the black holes tend to gather stuff that swirls around it. Yeah. And they don't know what that stuff is made of, they don't know what its temperature is, they don't know what kind of magnetic fields there are around there. So the form of the image has a lot of unknowns in it that it's dependent on many other things other than the geometry of the black hole. So most of what you're learning is about the stuff. Now the stuff, the swirling stuff, the hot swirling stuff is interesting as hell, but it's not as interesting as the black hole, which are the most, in my view, the most interesting things in the universe. So you don't wanna just learn about the stuff, you wanna learn about the black hole that it's swirling around. So one of the, at the very first step, at the very primitive level, this is just a big leap for human civilization to be able to see a black hole and the way you can see it is because there's stuff around it. But you don't get to learn much about the black hole, you get to learn more about the stuff just from the image. Yeah, but you're not gonna learn about the details before you've even seen it. Because there's too many parameters, there's too many variables that govern the stuff. Yeah, so then we found a very wonderful way to learn about the black hole and here's how it works. A black hole is a mirror. And the way it's a mirror is if light, a photon, bounces off your face towards the black hole and it goes straight to the black hole, just falls in, you never see it again. Mm-hmm. But if it just misses the black hole, it'll swing around the back and come back to you. Yeah. And you see yourself from the photon that went around the back of the black hole. But not only can that happen, the black hole, the photon can swing around twice and come back. So you actually see an infinite number of copies of yourself. Like with a little bit of a delay. With a little bit of a delay, right. This is awesome. Yeah, and in fact. I mean, we're not used to an object that bends light like that, right? Yeah, yeah. So you're gonna get some trippy effects. And in fact, one of my students has made a really awesome computer animation of this, which I'm gonna show at a public lecture in a couple weeks where the audience will see infinitely many copies of themselves swirling around the black hole. So a black hole is like a hall of mirrors. Like an apartment store where you go and there's the three mirrors and you see infinitely many copies of yourself. Yeah. Think of the black hole as the mirror. And you go in there with your clothes. If you wanna know about your clothes, you just look at the direct image. You're not learning anything about the configuration of mirrors. But the relation of the image you see in front of you to the one you see at the side and the next one and so on depends only on the mirrors. It doesn't matter what clothes you're wearing. So you can go there a thousand times wearing different clothes, but each time there will be the same relation between the subsequent images. And that is how we're gonna learn about the black holes. We're gonna take the stuff that is swirling around and we're gonna tease out the subsequent images and look at their relation. And there's some very beautiful, really beautiful mathematics, which we were surprised to realize with the volumes and volumes of papers on black holes and their properties, this particular, because it was a physical question that had never been asked in exactly this way. So basically you're looking at the- The relation between the subsequent images. But those are ultimately formed by photons that are swirling around. Photons that are orbiting. So the photon ring are the photons that orbit around. And beyond, so like orbit and lose orbit. Like they, are they, like, so, wow, and that starts to give you, what can you possibly figure out mathematically about the black hole? Can you, the geometry of it? Does the spin of it? The geometry, the spin, and you can verify things behaving. You know, we have never seen a region of space-time with such high curvature. I mean, the region around a black hole is crazy. It's not like in this room. The curvature is everything, you know? You spend probably enough time with the math and the photons. Can you put yourself in that space? So we're like having a conversation in pretty peaceful, comfortable, flat space. Are you able to put yourself in a place around a black hole? Yeah, I'm able to imagine that kind of thing, yeah. So for example, and actually there's a wonderful movie, Interstellar. Yeah. And in that movie, you know, Kip Thorne, of course, is a great theoretical physicist, experimental, who later won the Nobel Prize for LIGO. And that movie is very accurate scientifically. And there's some funny statements in there that of the, you know, 100 million people who saw that movie, there can't be more than 10 or 20 understood about why Matthew McConaughey is ejecting the trash in a certain direction in order to. But you know, for example, if I were a spinning black hole right here, if I was spinning fast enough, you wouldn't be able to stay still there. You'd have to be orbiting around like that, you know? You'd have to have your microphone on a rotating. But I wonder what the actual experience is, because I mean, space itself is curved. Well, if space gets very curved, you get crushed. You know, your body gets ripped apart because the forces are different on different parts. Sure, okay, so that would be. But it can be less curved so that the curvature is very noticeable, but you're not ripped apart. The fact that this was just nonchalantly stated is just beautiful. Like two biological systems discussing which level of curvature is required to rip apart said biological system. Very well. So you propose in the paper that a photon ring of a warped black hole is indeed part of the black hole hologram. A photon ring of a warped black hole is indeed part of the black hole hologram. So what can you intuit about the hologram and the holographic plate from looking at the photon rings? Well, this paper is exploring a new idea. It's not making a new discovery, so to speak. It's exploring an idea and the ins and outs of it and what might work and what might not. And this photon ring, somehow everybody always thought that the holographic plate sat at the horizon of the black hole. Right. And that the quantum system that describes the black hole is inside the horizon. And in fact, we think it's plausible and we give some evidence in some soluble examples, in this case, in an example in one lower dimension where we can handle the equations better, that the quantum system that describes the black hole should correspond to a region of space-time which includes the photon ring. So it's bigger. So that would be the holographic plate. So all of this? That would be the holographic plate. All of that? I mean, we didn't prove this. We put it out there. It hadn't really been considered previously. We put it out there and it does seem more plausible than the idea that it sits literally at the horizon. And it is a big outstanding problem of how you have a holographic reconstruction of black holes like M87. Do you think there could be further experimental data that helps explore some of these ideas that you have for photon rings and holographic plates through imaging and through high and high resolution images and also just more and more data? I wish so, but I don't think so. But what I think already has happened and will continue to happen is that there are many different ways that theorists and observers can interact. The gold standard is the theorist makes a prediction, the observer measures it and confirms it, or the observer makes a discovery and the theorist explains it. But there's a lot less than that, which is really kind of the bread and butter of, those are dramatic moments when that happens, right? Those are once in a lifetime moments when that happens. But the bread and butter is more when, and it has already happened, they came to us and said, what is the interesting theoretical things we can understand in this swirl around the black hole? And we gave an answer and then that in turn jogged us to think about the holographic principle in the context of M87 a little bit differently. And so it's a useful, and in the same vein, it's useful to talk to the philosophers and it's useful to talk to the mathematicians and a lot of, you gotta, we just gotta, we don't know where we're going, we just gotta do everything. Let me ask you another sort of philosophical type question, but not really actually. It seems that thought experiments are used, so it's not just mathematics that makes progress in theoretical physics, but thought experiments do. They did for Einstein as well. They did for a lot of great physicists throughout history. Over the years, how's your ability to generate thought experiments? Or just your intuition about some of these weird things like quantum mechanics or string theory or quantum gravity or yeah, even general relativity. How's your intuition improved over the years? Have you been able to make progress? The hard part in physics is most problems are either doable, most problems that are theoretical, calculation that a theoretical physicist would do, there's no end of problems whose answer is uninteresting, can be solved, but the answer is uninteresting. There's also no end of problems that are very interesting, some of which you've asked me, but we don't have a clue how to solve them. And when first presented with a problem, almost every problem is one or the other. It's the jackpot when you find one that isn't one or the other. And... It seems like there's a gray area between the two, right? That's where you should be looking. Well, I wouldn't describe it as a gray area. I would describe it as a knife edge. It's a very small area. There isn't a huge area with a sign. Here lie problems that are doable and people wanna know the answer. In some deep sense, that's where timing is everything with physics, with science, with discovery. With timing. I mean, I think earlier in my career, I erred more on the side of problems that were not solvable. The ambition of youth. Yeah. What made you fall in love with physics at first? If we can go back to the early days. You said black holes were there in the beginning. But what made you, do you remember what really made you fall in love? You know, I wanted to reach nirvana and I sort of realized that wasn't gonna happen. And then after that, I wanted to know the meaning of life and I realized I probably wasn't gonna figure that out. And then I wanted to understand justice and socialism and world things and couldn't figure those out either. And the simplest. Smaller and smaller problems. Smaller and smaller problems. I mean, most of this stuff, I'm talking about adolescence. But it was the biggest problem that I thought that there was a prospect of, but not 100%, you know? And I was definitely ready to spend my life in the wilderness knocking my head against the wall. But I haven't had to. I haven't solved them, but I've said enough interesting things that you're interviewing me. So I'm not in the wilderness, but yeah, so. Do you remember the early days? Do you feel nostalgic when you think back to the ideas, the circumstances that led down, that led you down this, the path towards black holes, towards theoretical physics, towards the tools of physics, towards this really fascinating world of theoretical physics? Well, I wouldn't add nostalgia to it because it's not like a summer in Italy or something. It's like there's results that are there, that people are, and that's what's so gratifying. I mean, of course one's name disappears from these things, unless you're Einstein or Newton or something. People are not gonna remember my name in 50 years. Almost, basically every name will be forgotten in hundreds of years, yeah. Yeah. Are you able to, by the way, love the idea, the exploration of ideas themselves without the names, the recognition, the names? That's what I'm saying. So I have not, I hope someday, but I have not. There are some experiments now to verify some of my predictions about properties of gravity and so on, but I have not. Most of what I've done is in the, it could happen still. It's still a logical possibility that everything having to do with string theory and, I mean, as we mentioned, I'm betting the farm that it's not, but it is indeed a logical possibility that people will say, can you believe Lex Fridman interviewed Elon Musk and Kenya West and then he interviewed Strominger, who was working on this theory that just completely went into the, completely went into the toilet. I'm gonna make, I'm gonna get, with a wife I don't have, I'm gonna make a public statement should be on stage, I'll say, I'm really sorry I made this giant mistake of platforming this wild-eyed physicist that believed for decades in the power of theoretical physics, yes. No, like you said. So that could happen, it could happen, it could happen. And of course, if that couldn't happen, it wouldn't be real exploration, right? Absolutely. And so, but I, you know, I do take a lot of satisfaction that some of the things I discovered are at the minimum mathematical truths and they're still, so you don't have that sort of nostalgic feeling of it being something that was gone and I'm still making discoveries now that I'm as excited about. We'll see if they hold the test of time, that stand the test of time that these other ones did, but that I'm as excited about as I was about those when I made them. I am easily excitable, as my friends will tell you. Well, one interesting thing about you is. And I have been very excited about things which turned out to be completely wrong, you know? Well, that's, the excitement is a precondition for breakthroughs, but you're also somebody, like you said, you don't have a cynical view of the modern state of physics. No. So there's a lot of people that glorify the early days of string theory and all the discoveries that were made and the 20s and so on. Yeah, people are always, yeah, yeah, yeah. But you're saying this to you might be one of, if not the most exciting times to be a theoretical physicist. Like when the alien civilizations, 500 years from now, that visit Earth will look back, they'll think the 21st century, some of the biggest discoveries ever were made in the 21st century. Yeah, I mean, when they have a measurement of string theory, the fun's over. Then we have to go on to something new, you know? No, there's deep, there's going to be deep, the fun is over. Oh, man. But there is an end to the Nile, right? I mean, there's. Is there? Who told you? Some Weinberg guy. Let me ask you another trippy out there question. So again, perhaps unanswerable from a physics perspective, but do you wonder about alien civilizations? Do you wonder about other intelligent beings out there making up their own math and physics trying to figure out the world? Do you think they're out there? It is hard to understand why there would, given that there's so many planets, and of course there's Drake's formula, and we don't exactly know what the, but I mean, I think Fermi's paradox, that, you know, is a real paradox, and I think there probably are, and I think it's very exciting that we might find some, it's a logical possibility that we could learn about it. I mean, to me, it's super interesting to think about aliens from a perspective of physics, because so any intelligent civilization is going to be contending with the ideas, just trying to understand the world around it. So I think that the universe is filled with alien civilizations. So they all have their physicists, right? They all have their, they're all trying to understand the world around them, and it's just interesting to me to imagine all these different perspectives, all these different Einsteins. Like trying to make sense of like. Though they might be more different than we think. They might be different in a way that we haven't even thought of. Like smarter or different? Just different, something that we don't even, we're not even able to describe now. We just haven't thought of it, you know? Yeah. Yeah, this is a really frustrating thing when we think from me as an AI person, you start to think about what is intelligence, what is consciousness, and you start to sometimes, again, evening thoughts is how little we understand, how narrow our thinking is about these concepts. Yeah, yeah. That it could be intelligence, could be, something could be intelligent and be very different. Intelligent in a very different way that we won't be able to detect because we're not keeping an open mind, open enough mind. And that's kind of sad because to me, there's also just a strong possibility that aliens or something like alien intelligence or some fascinating, beautiful physical phenomena are all around us, and we're too dumb to see it for now. Or too close-minded to see it. There's something we're just deeply missing. Whether it's like fundamental limitations of our cognitive abilities, or just because our tools are too primitive right now. Or like the way we, it's like you said, the idea seemed trivial once you figured it all out, looking back. Yeah. But that kind of makes me sad because there could be so much beauty in the world that we're not seeing because we're too dumb. There surely is. And that's, I guess, the process of science and physics is to keep exploring, to keep exploring, to find the thing that will in a century seem obvious. Well, it's something we know for sure. I mean, the brain we don't really understand, and that's gotta be some fabulously beautiful story. I'm hoping some of that story will be written through the process of trying to build a brain, so the process of engineering intelligence, not just the neuroscience perspective of just looking at the brain, but trying to create it. But yeah, that story hasn't been written almost at all. We're just at the early days of figuring that one out. But see, like you said, that math is discovered, so aliens should at least have the same math as us, right? I think so. Maybe different symbols? Oh, well, they might have discovered different, they might have discovered it differently, and they might have had a different idea of what a proof is. Sure, yeah. We're very like black and white with the proof thing. Maybe they're looser. Right, well, so you can know something is true. First of all, you never know something is true with 100% uncertainty. I mean, you might have had a blackout, just to be, it's never 100%, right? You might have had a momentary lapse of consciousness, the key step in the proof, and nobody read it, whatever. Okay, so you never know for sure. But you can have a preponderance of evidence, which makes it, and preponderance of evidence is not accepted very much in mathematics. And that was sort of how the famous Ramanujan work, he worked, he had formulas which he guessed at, and then he gathered a preponderance of evidence that you were sure they were true. So there might be, or something completely different. They might function in a very different way. Let me ask you kind of a heavy question for a physicist, but one on nuclear weapons. Just in general, what do you think about nuclear weapons where, like philosophical level, where brilliant physicists and brilliant engineering leads to things that can destroy human civilization? So like some of the ideas that you're working on have power when engineered into machines, into systems. Is there some aspect of you that worries about that? I don't know what the brilliant had to do with it, because of course, Oppenheimer and all that, okay, they did it really fast, but if you didn't have Oppenheimer, I mean, would all have happened anyway? It had a reality of its own. The possibility of making a nuclear, it didn't depend on the fact that the physicists who built it were brilliant. Maybe that sped it up by a year or two years, but by now we'd have nuclear weapons. It's something that. So the ideas have momentum, that they're unstoppable. Right, the possibility of making nuclear weapons was discovered, right? It was there before. It's not like somebody made it, right? Without Picasso, there would never have been a Guernica, but without Oppenheimer, there would surely have still been an atom bomb. But timing matters, right? Timing's very important. There's a guy with a mustache. Of course, of course. Of course, the timing mattered there, but I, yeah. Okay, I mean, you could try to make a case for stopping. No, no, no, no, it's the case of carrying the burden of the responsibility of the power of ideas when manifested into systems. So it's not a game. It's not just a game of fun mathematics. It's the same with artificial intelligence. You have this, a lot of people in AI, in a lot of people in the AI community, it's a fascinating, fun puzzle, how to make systems more and more intelligent, how to, you have a bunch of benchmarks, you try to make them perform better and better and better, and all of a sudden, you have a system that's able to outsmart people. It's now able to be used in geopolitics. It's able to create super intelligent bots that are able to, at scale, control the belief of a population of people, and now you can have world wars. You can have a lot of really risky instabilities. They're incredible, they really are incredible. And so, there is some responsibility. This is not sort of, it's a beauty and a terror to these ideas, you know? Yeah. At that moment, it was certainly a question for Oppenheimer and everybody who participated in that. What is the responsible way to serve society when you're sort of accidentally in this position of being at the forefront of a development that has a huge impact on society? I don't see my work, a likelihood of having a huge impact on the development of society itself, but if I were you, working on AI, I think that there is a possibility there, and that it is, as a responsible scientist, that it's really not a good thing to say, I'm just the scientist here and I'm figuring out what's possible, because you're in a role where you have more of a podium to influence things than other people, and it's your responsibility as a citizen of the planet, or let me phrase it a little less shooty. You have an opportunity as a citizen of the planet to make the world a better place, which it would be sad to bypass. Yeah, it's a nice world we got going. It'd be nice to keep it going for a little bit longer. Andrew, I'm really honored that you sit down with me. This is, thank you for your work. Thank you for your time. Well, it was a really great conversation. I really enjoyed it. You really covered a lot. I can't believe you're able to discuss at this level on so many different topics, so it's a pleasure. It was super fun, thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Andrew Strominger. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Werner Heisenberg. Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/y3cw_9ELpQw

8EguLJgkc54

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Chris Voss: FBI Hostage Negotiator | Lex Fridman Podcast #364

a crazy thing in the kidnap business. We used to get asked by FBI leadership, when is this gonna be over? And the answer would be when the bad guys feel like they've gotten everything they can. Now dissecting that statement, you're talking about when they feel like they got everything they can. So the key to kidnapping negotiations are the feelings of the bad guys. We're talking about feelings, kidnappers' feelings. Which drives everything, doesn't matter what human endeavor it is. The following is a conversation with Chris Voss, former FBI hostage and crisis negotiator, and author of Never Split the Difference, Negotiating As If Your Life Depended on It. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Chris Voss. Chris. What is it like negotiating for a hostage with a kidnapper? What is the toughest part of that process? The toughest part is if it looks bad from the beginning. And you gotta engage in the process anyway. What are the factors that make it bad? That makes you nervous, that if you were to observe a situation where there's general negotiation or it's a hostage negotiation, what makes you think that this is going to be difficult? If they wanna make it look like they're negotiating, but they're not. Like in the 2004 time frame, Al-Qaeda in Iraq was executing people on camera for the publicity. And they wanted to make it look like they were negotiating. So they'd come on and they'd say, if you don't get all the women out of, Iraqi women out of the jails in Iraq in 72 hours, we're gonna kill a hostage. That was one of the demands in one of the cases in that time frame. Now, first of all, even if we'd have been willing, the US government, the coalition would have been willing to do that. It wouldn't have been able to happen in 72 hours. So is it an impossible ask from the beginning? And so then that looks really bad. Like they're trying to make it look like they're talking reasonably, but they're not. So your hostage is in bad shape there. If they've made a demand that you just, even if you wanted to do, you couldn't do. So then what makes that very difficult is, in kidnappings especially, you're working with family members, you're coaching people. Bad guys are in touch with family members, or if they're not directly in touch with family members, the other thing that Al-Qaeda was doing at that time was, they didn't give us a way to talk to them. They're making statements in the media, but then not leaving their phone number, if you will. So that's one more thing. Like they're intentionally blocking you. They're asking you to do something you can't do. They're not giving you a way to talk to them. So you gotta get with the family and discuss with the family how you're gonna approach things. Now the family definitely wants to know, is this gonna help? So a bunch of cases like that in that timeframe. And you gotta be honest with them. It's a long shot. Our chances here are slim and none. And when it's slim and none, I'll take slim, but it's still very, very slim. And there were a number of people that were killed in that timeframe before the tide finally got turned. And it was hard dealing with families at the time. Can you negotiate in public versus like a direct channel and private? Oh yeah. Bad guys pick the media. They're making statements in the media. So, and that's a big clue. Their channel of choice tells you an awful lot. And if they're choosing the media, then that means there's people they're trying to appeal to. That means in their view, there's such a thing as good media. So if there's good media, there's bad media. How do you make it bad? And we made it bad for them. It just, unfortunately, it had to go through a number of iterations before they got the message and quit. In that negotiation, do you think about the value of human life? Is there a dollar figure? Is there, how do you enumerate, not enumerate, quantify the value of human life? Yeah, that's like beauty seen in the eye of the beholder. So that was the first lesson on any hostage negotiation, really any negotiation. Like it doesn't matter what it is to you, matters what it is to the other side. One of the things, especially in your conversation I listened to with Andrew. By the way, you guys, another thing I really liked about that conversation, first of all, I think the world of him. Andrew Huberman. Yeah, Andrew Huberman. And you released it on my birthday, I appreciate that. So it's a nice birthday present to me. I tried to type it perfectly just for you, yeah. Yeah, nice job, thank you. But empathy is in the eye of the beholder. And it's in every negotiation, whether it's over a car, a house, collaboration in your company with the bad guys. How does the other side see it? Now, the nice thing about kidnapping for ransom, if there's an actual ransom demand, it's an actual demand, is it's a mercenary's business. They're gonna take what they could get. And they tend to be really good at figuring out how much money somebody has. So, and again, I'll keep drawing business analogies. You're looking for a job with an employer. There's a market price of the job, and then there's what the employer can pay you. Now, maybe the market price of the job market's 150 grand. Employer can pay you 120, but it's a great job. You know, we were talking about Elon a minute ago. If he was a good kid, like I'd work minimum wage to follow him around. You know, that would be worth it. What are the value other than the dollars? And how hard is it to get the dollars? And how quickly can you get to them? These are all things that the bad guys are good, in kidnapping, are good at figuring out. So, the value of human life to them is gonna be what can they get. A crazy thing in the kidnap business. We used to get asked by FBI leadership, when is this gonna be over? And the answer would be, when the bad guys feel like they've gotten everything they can. Now, dissecting that statement, you're talking about when they feel like they got everything they can. So, the key to kidnapping negotiations are the feelings of the bad guys. We're talking about feelings, kidnappers' feelings. Which drives everything. Doesn't matter what human endeavor it is. So, it's not reason, it's emotion. There's no such thing as reason. I should say, for a little bit of context, I just talked yesterday with a guy named Sam Harris. Yeah. I don't know if you know Sam. But Sam, and because I was preparing for a conversation with you, I talked to him about empathy versus reason. And he lands heavily on reason. Yeah. Empathy is somewhere between useless and erroneous and leads you astray and is not effective. That reason is the only way forward. Well, let's draw some fine lines there. The two fine lines I would draw is, first, what is your definition of empathy? And then secondly, how do people actually make up their minds? And I'm gonna flip it, I'm gonna go with how people make up their minds. You make up your mind based on what you care about, period. That makes reason emotion-based. Yeah. What do you care about? You start with what you care about. You see some guy swimming out off the coast of the ocean and you see a shark coming up behind him. Who are you cheering for? If it's Adolf Hitler out there, you're cheering for the shark. You might actually feel bad for the shark because it's gonna taste bad. Who do you care about? You mean the human will taste bad? Yeah, he eats Adolf Hitler. You're gonna leave a bad taste in your mouth, even if you're a shark. So you're making up your mind on every circumstance that's based on what you care about. So then what does that do to reason? Your reason is based on what you care about from the beginning. Now then, empathy. If you define it as sympathy, which it was never meant to be sympathy, ever. Ever. Etymology, I think is the word. I keep getting etymology and entomology mixed up. Etymology being, right, where words came from, the origin, entomology being bugs. Got it. So I like etymology. Where did something come from? Also like entomology. Anyway, etymology. My understanding from my research, the original definition of empathy was an interpretation of a German word where people were trying to figure out what the artist was trying to convey. It was about assessing art. And so it was always about understanding where somebody was coming from, but not sharing necessarily that same thing. So then when I was with the FBI and I first started collaborating with Harvard, Bob Mnookin wrote a book, Beyond Winning, second chapter is the Tension Between Empathy and Assertiveness. Still the best chapter on empathy I've ever read anywhere. And Bob writes in his book, Bob was the head of the program on negotiation. He's also agreed to be interviewed for a documentary about me and my company that hasn't been released yet, but it should be released sometime this year. What's the name of the documentary? Tactical Empathy. Good name. So Bob's definition of empathy said not agreeing or even liking the other side. Don't even gotta like them, don't gotta agree with them. Just straight understanding where they're coming from and articulating it, which requires no agreement whatsoever. That becomes a very powerful tool, like ridiculously powerful. And if sympathy or compassion or agreement are not included, you can be empathic with anybody. I was thinking about this when I was getting ready to sit down and talk to you, because you use the word empathy a lot. Putin. I can be empathic with Putin, easy. It's easy. I don't agree with where he's coming from. I don't agree with his methodology. Early on, Ukraine-Russian War, I saw an article that was very dismissive of Russia. That said, Russia's basically Europe's gas station. And I thought, all right. So if you're in charge and the way you feed your people is via an industry that the entire world is trying to quit, the whole world is trying to get out of fossil fuels. If that's how you feed your people, if you don't come up with an answer to that, the people that you've taken responsibility for are gonna die alone in the cold and the dark. They're gonna freeze and they're gonna die. All right, so that doesn't mean that I agree with where he's coming from or any of his means. But how does this guy see things in his distorted world? You're never gonna get through to somebody like that in a conversation unless you can demonstrate to them you understand where they're coming from, whether or not you agree. Early 90s, last century. I'm a last century guy, I'm an old dude. I refer to myself as a last century guy. Also a deeply flawed human. So terrorist case, New York City, civilian court. Terrorism does not have to be tried in military tribunals. That's a very bad idea. It was always bad. The FBI was always against it. I'm getting ready. We have Muslims testifying in open court against a legitimate Muslim cleric. The guy that was on trial had the credentials as a legitimate Muslim cleric. The people that were testifying against him didn't think he should be advocating murder of innocent people. We'd sit down with them, Arab Muslims, Egyptians, mostly. And I would say to them, you believe that there's been a succession of American governments for the last 200 years that are anti-Islamic. And they'd shake their head and go, yeah. And that'd be the start of the conversation. That's empathy. You believe this to be the case. I never said I agreed. I never said I disagreed. But I'd showed them that I wasn't afraid of their beliefs. I was so unafraid of them that I was willing to just state them and not disagree or contradict. Because I would say that and then I'd shut up and let them react. And I never had to say, here's why you're wrong. I never gave my point of view. Every single one of them that testified, that's empathy. Not agreeing with where the other side is coming from. I'm not sure how Sam would define it, but common vernacular is it's sympathy and it's compassion. And that's when it becomes useless. And there's a gray area, maybe you can comment on it, is sometimes a drop of compassion helps make that empathy more effective in the conversation. So you're just saying you believe X doesn't quite form a strong of a bond with the other person. You're imagining it doesn't. You may be right, yes, I'm imagining it doesn't. I'm imagining you need to show that you're on the same side. That you need to signal a little bit about your actual beliefs, at least in that moment. Even if that signaling is not as deep as it sounds. But at first, basically patting the person on the back and saying we're on the same side, brother. You know, that's what most people, when they're really learning the concept, that's the basic human reaction. Yeah. And in application, especially in highly adversarial situations. Like, I need a regular guy, Muslim, but how's that guy gonna say, buy it, if I like, you know, dude, I'm on your side. I've been there, I feel you. No, no, no, no, no, no. People get conned by that so much. Like if we're on opposite sides of the table and I try to act like I'm not on the opposite side of the table, that makes me disingenuous. So I would rather be honest. You know, my currency's integrity. And at some point in time, if you go like, you know where I'm coming from? My answer's gonna be like, look, I can agree on maybe where we're going, but if we're talking about, you know, am I on your side now? As a human being, I wanna see you survive and thrive. Not at my expense. I think the world is full of opportunity. I'm optimistic. I got more than enough reason for saying that. It's enough for here for both of us. So I got no problem with you getting yours. You know, just don't take it out of my hide. And I'm gonna be honest about it, about both of those things. I'm not interested in you taking it out of my hide. I think there's plenty here for both of us. Now, I don't need to be on your side, except in a human sense, but do I have to side with you over the war? No. Or how we're distributing the stock, or how much you get paid, or how much you make off this car. I think people, my experience as a layman, is that empathy's not got a downside. That you don't need me to act like I'm on your side for us to make a great deal. Well, we'll talk about two things, a great deal and a great conversation. Right. They're often going to be the same thing, but at times, they're going to be different. That's, you mentioned Vladimir Putin. There is some Zoom level at which you do wanna say we're on the same side. You said the human level. It's possible to say, kind of Zoom out, and say that we're all in this together. Not we Slavic people, we Europeans, but we human beings. We're on the same planet. Same planet. Right. Several years ago, and his name has evidently been mud now, but he was very nice to me, lawyer here in town named Tom Girardi. And no shortage of bad reporting on him now. I have absolutely no idea if any of it's true. I do know that in my interaction with him, he was always a gentleman to me and was very generous. When he'd get into conversations with people, he'd always say, let's look at 10 years from now where we could both be in a phenomenal place together. Now, let's work our way back from there. That's a good line. Yeah, and then I saw him do it in simulations. I was teaching at USC. We were at a function together, and a gentleman at the time told me who he was and he was really influential. So I walked up to the guy, Colt, and I said, hey, I'm coming to talk to my class at USC. He didn't know me other than the fact that we had a mutual acquaintance, and he graciously consented to come in. And he said, what do you want me to talk about? And I said, look, dude, just from your success here, it doesn't matter what you talk about. Either I'm gonna agree or I'm gonna disagree or I'm gonna learn from it. My students are gonna learn from it. So students wanna role play with him. They dispute, let's do a negotiation. Every single time, you go to pick a point in the future where we're both happy 10 years, 20 years from now, and let's work our way back. Now, hostage negotiator, same thing. I call into a bank. Bad guy picks up on the phone, and I'm gonna say, I want you to live. I wanna see you survive this. Whatever else goes with that, let's pick a point in the future that we're both good with, and then we work our way back. And people make also, we were talking before about emotion and what you care about, people make their decisions based on a vision of the future. Like without question. I think there's a Hindu temple in the United States that has been or being assembled the same way that the Hindu temples were in India a thousand years ago, by hand, volunteers, by hand. These people are knocking themselves on for a place in paradise, a vision of the future. What you will go through today, if the future portends what you want, you'll go through incredible things today. So it's a vision of the future. So you have to try to paint a vision of the future that the person you're negotiating with will like. Just tough to do. Let's find out what their vision of the future is, and then remove yourself as a threat. Sure. You know, if we can collaborate together, at all, if you think that I could do anything at all to help you to that point, and you know, integrity's my currency, I'm not gonna lie to you, which gets back before, did I lie to you about whether or not I'm on your side? You know, right now, at the moment, we're on opposite sides of the fence. That's not gonna stop us from being together in the future. Inside, you're gonna say, well, you didn't lie to me about today, maybe you won't lie to me about tomorrow. So going back to world leaders, for example, whether it's Vladimir Zelensky or Vladimir Putin, you don't think it closes off their mind to show that you have a different opinion? Dependent upon when you showed it. Is that, are you arguing from the beginning, or are you displaying understanding from the beginning? I don't think it stops you from being adversarial. There was a thing about Manoukian's chapter in his book, the tension between empathy and assertiveness. I remember reading that name of the chapter, thinking like, eh, you know, in my business, there is no tension, and then I got into it, and I read, I thought, this is a red herring. He's drawing people in, because his entire chapter is that empathy puts you in a position to assert, and that there is no tension. It's a sequencing issue. And that's why, again, I think it was written for lawyers. Yeah, sequencing issue. The timing is everything. So you emphasize the importance of, in terms of sequencing, and priority of listening, of truly listening to the other person. I'm sorry, what'd you say? That was a bad joke, sorry. I forgot. Ha ha ha! Your timing is just perfect. How do you listen? How do you truly listen to another human being? How do you notice them? How do you really hear them? I always hated the term active listening. If anything, it's proactive. And as soon as you start to try to anticipate where somebody's going, you're dialed in more. Because along the way, either you're congratulating yourself for being right, or when suddenly they say something that surprises you, you really notice it. Like, that's not what I expected. You're dialed in, you're listening. So it's proactive. And then one of the reasons, you know, we named the book Tactical Empathy. Named the book, never split the difference, but we're talking about tactical empathy. Calibrated emotional intelligence. What's it calibrated by? First, it was experienced as hostage negotiators, and we've come to find out that our experience as hostage negotiators is backed up by neuroscience. Another reason why I listen to Andrew Huberman's podcast all the time, heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy on the neuroscience. And so then, emotional intelligence calibrated by what we know about neuroscience. What do we know about neuroscience? And I'll talk about it from a layman's perspective, and to even say we is an arrogant thing, you know, human beings. I didn't do the research. I'm scooping up as much of it as I can as a layman. The brain's largely negative. I think there's ample evidence. People will argue with you as to what the wiring is and what does what, and the limbic system, and all of that, but the brain is basically 75% negative. As a layman, I make that contention, number one. Number two, the best way to deactivate negativity is by calling it out. And I could say, look, I don't want you to be offended by what I'm getting ready to say. That's a denial. Your guard is up, you're getting ready to get mad. If I say, what I'm getting ready to say is probably gonna offend you. Now you relax a little bit, and you go, all right, what is it? And then I say it, whatever it is, and you're gonna be like, oh, that wasn't that bad. Because we knew from hostage negotiation by calling out the negativity, deactivate it, and then a number of neuroscience experiments have been done right and left by calling out negativity, deactivating the negativity. Calling out ahead of time, so like acknowledging that this is, that this is, ahead of time, that this is going to hurt. The experiments that I've seen have been when the negativity was inflicted, and then having a person that it was being inflicted upon, simply identify it. Just identify. Yeah, what are you feeling? I'm angry, and the anger goes away. It's tough because I've had a few, and again, we're dancing between things, but I've had a few conversations where anger arose in the guests I spoke with. Yeah. And I'm not sure identifying it. That's like leaning into it and going into the depths. Because that's going to the depths of some emotional, psychological thing they're going through that I'm not sure I want to explore that iceberg with the little ship we got. It's a, you have to decide. Do you want to avoid it, or do you want to lean into it? It's a tough choice. It's the elephant in the room. It is an elephant in the room. It is an elephant, especially when, I think that's the big difference between conversations and negotiations. Negotiation ultimately is looking for closure and resolution. I think general conversations like this is more exploring. There's not necessarily a goal. Like if you were to put, like if I had to put a goal for this conversation, there's no real goal. It's curiously exploring ideas. So that gives you freedom to not call out the elephant. For time, you could be like, all right, let's go to the next room, get a snack, and come back to the elephant. Right. All right, so I'd make a tiny adjustment on the negotiation definition. Sure. Because you said, I think, seeking closure. You used two words, and closure was one of them. Goals, maybe another. Well, yeah, what is negotiation? Well, I would say seeking collaboration. And because closure kind of puts a little bit of a finality to it, and a real problem in any negotiation is always implementation. That's why we say yes, I say yes is nothing without how. And yes, at its very best, is only temporary aspiration. It's aspirational. It's usually counterfeit. So if you're looking for, huh? That's a good line. Yes is usually counterfeit. It's aspirational without the how. Yeah. It's just a good line. Thank you. I've been working on it. I was practicing in front of the mirror for a few minutes. You're doing pretty good. You got a bright future ahead of you. You should write a book or something, right? Yeah. Your book is excellent, by the way. Thanks, appreciate that. What am I doing here, anyway? This, on Earth, in general? On you, with you. I don't know. We're collaborating. Why me, though? Why'd you wanna talk to me? I've heard you speak in a few places. I was like, this is a fascinating human. I think on Clubhouse and different places. And I listen to some YouTube stuff. And this is just, you meet people that are interesting. That's what I love doing with this podcast, is just exploring the mind of an interesting person. You notice people. I think, yeah. Sometimes it's like a homeless person outside of 7-Eleven. I notice, who are you? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's fascinating. It doesn't, I don't look at the resumes and the credentials and stuff like that. It's just being able to notice a person. As I've been leafing through the different choices of the podcast, the young lady that OnlyFans and the sex workers, that's a fascinating human being. Like, I wanna know what makes that person tech, at 1,000%. The fascinating thing about her is her worldview is almost entirely different than mine. And that's always interesting to talk to a person who just is happy, flourishing, but sees the world and the set of values she has is completely different. And is also not argumentative, is accepting of other worldviews. It's beautiful to explore that. Yeah, no kidding, I would agree. And then, yeah, thought-provoking. Because I consider myself, the word I was looking for before was abundant. I think it's an abundant world. So I'm pretty optimistic. I consider myself, I don't know, happy exactly describes it. But yeah, so then, if I'm happy, optimistic, abundant, I got a worldview, and then you run into somebody that has a vastly different worldview, and they're happy and they think it's abundant too. And you're like, what is going on in your head? Or mine, or what am I missing? Yeah, so that's fascinating. And the pie grows, which is useful for kinda negotiation when you paint a picture of a future, if you're optimistic about that future, there's a kinda feeling like we're both gonna win here. Exactly. And that's easy. We live in a world where both people can win. Yeah, and in point of fact, that's the case. Although a lot of people want us to think otherwise, mostly because of the negativity that I was talking about before. So the brain is generally cynical. Yeah, my description of it is the pessimistic caveman survived. And we're descendants of the pessimists. The optimistic guy got eaten by a saber-toothed tiger. Yeah, but on the flip side, the optimists seem to be the ones that actually build stuff these days. There's the switch. Like, so at what point in time do we catch on? Because the difference between survival and success mindset, the success mindset is highly optimistic. So where do we switch, or how do we stay switched from survival to success? That's the challenge. Yeah, somewhere we stopped being eaten by saber-toothed tigers and started building bridges and buildings and computers and companies. We started to experience. We got enough data back to collaborate. And we stopped listening to our amygdala and we started listening to our gut. Let me just return briefly to terrorists. What do you think about the policy of not negotiating with terrorists? Well, that's not the policy, first of all. Now, everybody thinks that's the policy. It hasn't been the policy since 2002 when Bush 43 signed a National Security Presidential Directive, NSPD, the time it was NSPD 12, which basically said, we won't make concessions. That doesn't mean we won't talk. So I'm in Colombia at the same time and I have been intimately involved with the signing of him signing that document. I knew exactly what it said and he didn't inherit it from somebody else. He signed it. And I'm in Colombia and the number two in the embassy says, last night on TV, the President of the United States said, we don't negotiate with terrorists. Are you calling a President of the United States a liar? And I remember thinking like, all right, so, he probably said that and that's not on the document that he signed. So I said, look, I'm familiar with what he signed and that's not what it says. Well, you know, and so the argument, but that's always been the soundbite that everybody likes. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Depends upon your definition of negotiation. If it's just communication, we negotiate with them all the time, number one. Number two, like every President has made some boneheaded deal with the bad guys. Like Obama released five high-level Taliban leaders from Guantanamo in exchange for an AWOL soldier that we immediately threw in jail. And I thought that was a horrible deal. And that's putting terrorists back on the battlefield. And then Trump turned around and topped it by putting 5,000 terrorists back on the battlefield. So we haven't had a President that has stuck to that on either side of the aisle since people started throwing that out as a soundbite. What do you think of that negotiation? Forget terrorists, but the global negotiation, like with Vladimir Putin, the recent negotiation over prisoners, the exchange, the Britney Gardner. Is there a way to do that negotiation successfully? First of all, I agree with the idea that she was wrongfully detained and she didn't deserve to be in jail. And that US government, there should be no second-class citizens ever. And whether you're a WNBA player or you're just some bonehead that walked into the wrong situation, your government should not abandon you ever, ever. Now what they do in the meantime, there should have been a negotiation. They were desperate to make a deal at a bad time. They'd been offered far better deals than prisoner swaps earlier and turned them down. And then he gets turned up, and thank God for Britney Gardner that the public got enough attention, they kept pressure on the administration, they made a deal. Now governments wanna make those kind of deals, that's fine, as long as it, because that was basically a political negotiation. You're putting 5,000 Taliban back on a battlefield, that ain't negotiating with another government. You're putting five of them back on a battlefield, that ain't negotiating with another government. That's directly contradicting this thing that you claimed, and those were all bad deals. Now was the Britney Garner thing a bad deal? I think it was great for her. If I was in the middle of it, it would have been better. And she still would have come home. Yeah, there's some technical aspects of that negotiation. What do you think is the value, just to linger on it, of meeting in person for the negotiation? I think it's a great idea. Can I just follow that tangent along? There's a war in Ukraine now. It's been going on over a year. It's, for me personally, given my life stories, is a deeply personal one, and I'm returning back to that area of the world that was there. Volodymyr Zelensky said he doesn't wanna talk to Vladimir Putin. Do you think they could get in a room together? And say you were there in a room with Putin and Zelensky, and Biden is sitting in the back drinking a cocktail, or maybe he is at the table participating. How is it possible through negotiation, through the art of conversation, to find peace in this very tense geopolitical conflict? I think it's eminently possible. I think getting people together in person has always been a good idea. Now, who's getting them together, under what circumstances, and how many times you're getting them together? The documentary, The Human Factor, about the Mideast peace negotiations, mostly through the 90s, mostly into the Clinton administration, got kicked off under Bush 41, and then the documentary continues through Trump, but just touching, basically, on it. But they're getting Arafat and the different Israeli prime ministers together in person, and these guys do not wanna talk to each other, and depending upon the prime minister, the mere thought of being on the same planet with Arafat was offensive. And they started getting these guys together in person regularly, and they started seeing each other as human beings. And they started realizing that there was enough room on the planet for them, and that people dying was stupid. And they would slowly work things out by getting these guys together in person. So how long does it take? Who's hosting it? But it's a good idea. But the skill of achieving that thing that you talk about a lot, which is empathy, and I would say, in that case, not just empathy, but empathy plus, you might disagree with this, but a drop of compassion in there? I think compassion is helpful, but it's not essential. Like, if you just know where I'm coming from, the feeling of being understood. Yeah, heard and understood, that's powerful. Is, yeah, and again, I know I picked the vast majority of this up on Andrew's podcast, but I picked it up in other places, because early on, when we were putting a book together, Tal Roz, the writer, my son, uncredited co-author, so the book's really a collaboration between me, my son, Brandon, and Tal Roz. And we're driving for that's right. You know, when somebody feels like what you've said is completely their position, they say that's right. Not you're right, but that's right. So Tal says, you know, I think what's happening here is you're triggering a subtle epiphany in somebody. So I'm like, all right, I'll buy that. So I start looking up the neuroscience of the feeling of epiphany, getting a hit of oxytocin and serotonin. Oxytocin is a bonding drug. You bond to me. I don't bond to you. When you feel completely understood by me, you bond to me. Serotonin, then in one of the relationship podcasts that I'm listening to on Andrew, it says oxytocin inclines people to tell the truth. You're more honest. All right, so you feel deeply understood by me, you bond to me, and you start getting more honest with me. Serotonin, the neurochemical satisfaction. Epiphany, you feel oxytocin and serotonin. Being understood. All right, I got you bonding to me, I got you being more honest with me, and I got you feeling more satisfied so you want less. What more do you want out of a negotiation? Of course, there's already with leaders and great negotiators, there's walls built up, defense mechanisms against that. All right, you're resisting this basic chemistry, but yes, you should have that. You should work towards that kind of empathy. And I personally believe, I don't actually understand why, but I've observed it time and time again, but getting in a room together and really talking, whether privately or publicly, but really talking. And like this, so I'll comment on this. So right now, this is being recorded, and a few folks will hear this, but when you really do a good job of this kind of conversation, you forget there's cameras. And that's much better than there being even a third person in the room. But often when world leaders meet, there's press or there's others in the room. Man to man or man to woman, you have to meet in a saloon, just the two of you and talk. There's some intimacy and power to that, to achieve that if you're also willing to couple that with empathy, to really hear the other person. I don't know what that is. That's like a deep, deep intimacy that happens. And I think there's actually, because we get asked this in a Black Swan group all the time, like how didn't, you know, Zoom, that's bad, because you don't have the same visual feedback on Zoom. And that's not true. Like you and I, I see you from the waist up right now. If we were on Zoom, I'd be looking at you from the waist up. I'm not wearing pants, yeah, for the internet. I apologize for that. Sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah. You only see a small portion. Usually, that's usually where I go. But anyway. I'm glad we're both at ridiculous sentences. I appreciate it. But what makes this different in person? I actually think, I think there's energy that we don't have the instrumentation to define yet. And I think that there's a feel. I think there's an actual energetic feel that changes. And just because we don't, again, just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it's not there. Yeah, I would love to figure out what that is. Folks that are working on virtual reality are trying to figure out what that is. During the pandemic, everybody was on Zoom. Zoom and Microsoft, everybody was trying to figure out how do we replicate that. I'm trying to understand how to replicate that because it sure is not fun to travel across the world just to talk to Snowden or Putin or Zelensky. I'd love to do it over Zoom. But it's not the same. It's not the same. No, it's not the same. I'd go in a room with Putin. You would go in a room with Putin? I would, yeah, 1,000%. I'd get a that's right out of him. That's right. Well, first you would give him a that's right, probably. Ah, getting and giving. See, and here's the issue that trips everybody up in negotiation. The difference between hearing and speaking, the same words are vastly different. And what I'm looking for is the responses I'm getting out of you. Because if you can't, first, that's right especially, like if you can't appreciate what that really means, hearing it is unsatisfying. So those two words are really important to you. You talk about this in your book. What does that's right mean? Why is it important? Well, it means that what you just heard you think is unequivocably the truth. Like it's dead on, it hit the target, it's a bullseye. And there's been a topic of discussion, especially between my son and I a lot, like what happens? This oxytocin bonding moment. And his contention has always been like, Donald Trump is the poster child of what it means. Because Donald Trump's an address in an audience, he's in a debate with Hillary or he's giving a speech someplace. And when the people that are devoted to him, when they believe that what he's just said is completely right, it's insightful. They look at him or they look at the TV and they go, that's right. And it's what people say when they're bought in to what they just heard. Now, if you're not convinced of the way that Donald Trump's followers are bonded to him, and he also just like this, in my view, destroys the idea of common ground. Because when he first started to run for president, the pundits all said, he's a New Yorker. Nobody in the Republican Party is gonna like him. It's middle America, it's blue collar, it's regular common folks, factory workers. They're not gonna like Trump because he's from New York and he went to Wharton, he's an Ivy Leaguer and he's a son of a wealthy real estate mogul and he had a million dollars handed to him when he got out of college. He's born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The rank and file Republicans are never gonna accept this guy, based on common ground. Look how smart that was. Look how smart that was. Do you think he's a good negotiator? Do you think Donald Trump is a good negotiator? No, I think he's a great marketer. If you look at his negotiation track record, all right, so I started following Donald Trump in the 80s when I was in New York. I'm a last century guy, he's a last century guy. We've got mutual acquaintances. The minister that married him to Marla Maples was a friend of mine, a close friend of mine, and in 1998, I threw a fundraiser in his apartment at Trump Tower that he attended. So no shortage of mutual friends, we went to the same church, still have mutual acquaintances, friends. I don't know, I've watched his track record in negotiation history, which is exactly his track record with North Korea. Where are we with North Korea? What was the deal that he made with North Korea? See, your answer is the same as everybody else's. Well, I remember it started out with a lot of fanfare, but I don't know what happened, because nothing ever happens. It's more public fanfare, so marketing-minded presentation of the message. Starts out with a bang, if he doesn't cut the deal in a short period, a really short period of time, he moves on, and everybody wonders what had happened because there was so much fanfare at the beginning. Now, at the beginning, him even opening that dialogue with North Korea was masterful. I was such a fan, when you got a president of the United States that is willing to sit down and talk with the leader of another nation, when every other president, all their advisors are saying, the leader of North Korea is beneath you, you cannot dignify him by responding to him directly, and consequently, the Trump administration inherits a can of worms that has been simmering for 30 years. He didn't get a sense of that, and he opened up a dialogue where nobody else was capable of opening a dialogue, and then it just went away. Nobody knows what happened. And there was no deal made. Now, great negotiators make deals. What do you think about these accusations that he's a narcissist? If you're a narcissist, does that help you or hurt you? Is there a more popular term these days than narcissist? Like, everybody's a narcissist. Everybody you don't like is a narcissist. Like the homeless guy down on the corner, he's a narcissist, that's why he's there. Yeah, it's lost meaning for you a little bit? Yeah, and first of all, most psychological terms, as a hostage negotiator, and really, we were never into psychology, and we steered away from it, because psychology, at best, is a soft science. If it's not informed these days, if it's not informed by real studies or neuroscience, the guys that I'm impressed with these days, psychologists, neuroscientists, now I'm interested in that guy or gal. But then, psychology convention. Do you get them all together and they all agree? No. But also, the interesting thing about psychology is each individual person is way more complicated than the category psychology tries to create. And there's something about the human brain. The moment you classify somebody as a narcissist, or depressed, or bipolar, or insane in any kind of way, for some reason, you give yourself a convenient excuse not to see them as a complicated human being, to empathize with them. I had that when I was talking to, I did an interview with Kanye West, and then there's a lot of popular opinions about him being mentally unwell and so on. And I felt that that kind of way of thinking is a very convenient way of thinking, to ignore the fact that he's a human being that, again, wants to be understood and heard. And that's the only way you can have that conversation. Yeah, I agree completely. That's right. I feel so close to you now. I'm sorry. It might be because I'm not wearing pants. All right, so what were we? You're funnier than I am. That bothers me. All right. I'll say something stupid soon enough. Don't worry about it. But you said we were talking about terrorists and not negotiating with terrorists. Is there something? Nice job going all the way back to where that rabbit hole started. There's where Alice in Wonderland right now. Is there something about walking away of not negotiating? Is there power in that? All right, so it depends upon whether or not you're doing it with integrity or a tactic to start with. And then also, hostage negotiators are successful 93% of the time, kind of across the board. Which means that 7% of the time is gonna go bad. And that was my old boss Gary Nesner. I learned so much from Gary. But a phrase that he used over and over and over again until I finally worked the case and went bad was this is gonna be the best chance of success. Best chance of success. And then something went bad, and I remember thinking like, well, best chance of success is no guarantee of success. So your question is, are there negotiations you should walk away from? If you got no shot at success, then don't negotiate. And you have to accept the fact there's some deals you're never gonna make. We teach in my company, it's not a sin to not get the deal, it's a sin to take a long time to not get the deal. And Gary, in his infinite wisdom, they realized that there was something called suicide by cop. And that it might have, Gary was very much into clusters of behavior. He kept us away from psychological terms, and there would be clusters of behavior that would be high-risk indicators. And he wrote a block of instruction called high-risk indicators, which meant if you start seeing this stuff show up, this thing's probably going bad. And you're gonna need to recognize that from the very beginning and adjust accordingly. And it's the same way in business and personal life. I'm talking to the head of a marketing company I have tremendous respect for. I admire what this guy and his company does. Started from scratch. He borrowed space in the back of a drugstore to start his company. And now it's hugely successful. And he's laying out to me that he finally had to confront a potential client and walk away from him. And he said, how do you think I handle this? My answer was 1,000% correct. And as a matter of fact, the behavior that he indicated, he's a type, and you should have walked away sooner than you did. Because this guy was playing you the whole time. Al-Qaeda, 2004, they're playing us. They're not negotiating. We called them out on it. We don't think you're negotiating. You wouldn't say it exactly like that, but that was absolutely the approach. Confront people on their behavior in a respectful way. And signal that you're willing to walk away. And mean it, 1,000%. And mean it. Isn't that terrifying? I mean, it's scary, because you don't want to really walk away. Or do you have to really want to walk away? Well, this gets core values, your view of reality. If it's an abundant world, it's not scary to walk away. If it's a finite world with limited opportunities, then it's horrifying. But you have to use that worldview to be willing to actually walk away. Yeah. It could be walking away from a lot of money. It could be walking away from something that's gonna hurt people. Because if you lose a hostage. Yeah, well, but if they're not gonna let the hostage out. Yeah. Suicide by cop, they ain't letting them go. The 7%, how do most negotiations fail? The bad guys were never there to make a deal in the first place. If it was suicide by cop. If they were there to, if they're on a killing journey, it's an Israeli phrase. If they're on a killing journey, and the actions that they're currently engaged in are part of that killing journey. Killing journey. Is there advice you can give about, you mentioned Israel, Palestine, the Middle East. Taking on a few conversations on that topic, is there hope for that part of the world? And from that hope, is there some advice you could lend? Yeah, I think there's hope. There's, then I got friends on both sides. And also, when I got my, after I left the FBI, most people listening to this probably not gonna remember who Rodney Dangerfield was. Oh, come on. But he's a comedian. Still doesn't get any respect, yeah. Yeah, yeah, and. New Yorker? Is he a New Yorker? I think he was a New Yorker. Or that jersey or something, yeah. Yeah, and he did a movie a long time ago called Back to School. He went back to school. He was an old guy, Back to School. So I went back to school after I left the FBI. I did get a master's at Harvard Kennedy. And that's where I'm running across people on both sides of that. And when they could talk, they said, let's start from the promise that we both sides want a better life for our kids. Which is this version that I was telling you earlier from Tom Girardi. Let's pick a point in the future that we're both happy with. And they found that they could talk. All right, so it might not be better for us. How do we make it better for our kids? And that's where the hope derives from. Because I think both sides ultimately want it to be better for their kids, which is why they still engage in interactions, and which is why I think the leadership, regardless of how compromised they might be on either side, there are few straight players in the game in the Middle East, or anywhere for that matter. But they want a better future for their kids. You get people to agree that you want a better future for your kids, and then you start talking about, well, how do we work our way back from that? And then, all right, so we got a mutual point in the future. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are also, for me, interesting. Because you mentioned Clubhouse about almost two years ago now, when Israel was shelling Gaza. They hit the UPI office. They were hitting, they got fed up with the rocket attacks from Hamas. And of course, Hamas is putting rockets in the UPI office, or the AP office, whichever press office it was there. How's that office gonna be there otherwise? Hamas is running a show. You're not gonna run that office unless you let them store weapons there. That's just part of the game. And are they gonna store them in specially designated ammunition dumps? No, they're gonna put them in schools, they're gonna put them in hospitals, they're gonna put them in all places that when Israel hits them, they're gonna look really bad. So after a while, Israel gets fed up, and they start shelling Gaza, and they're hitting these places. Friend of mine, Nicole Benham, is hosting rooms on Clubhouse, and she says, you gotta come on. The vitriol is killing me. These are all turning into screaming matches. Nobody's talking to anybody. I said, all right, cool, we'll go on, we'll do it. And watch, we won't have a single argument. We'll invite people on from both sides. There was one rule. Before you started to describe what you thought of the other side, you had to say, before I disagree with you, here's what I think your position is. And you gotta continue to state the other side's position until they agree that you've gotten it. Now, what happened? No agreement and no arguments. That was what we were really going for. We wanted to show that people on both sides, in one of their emotional timeframes, if your only requirement was you had to state the other side's position first, nobody got out of control. Did it work? That's exactly what happened. We wanted to show people that you can have conversations that do not devolve into screaming matches with vitriol, talking about how you're dedicated to the destruction of the other side. Just first, see if you can outline where they're coming from. That's really impressive because I've just, having seen on Clubhouse, people, which part of the reason I liked Clubhouse, you get to hear voices from all sides, they were emotionally intense. Yeah. It was, I mean, I'm sweating just in the buildup of your story here. I thought it could go to hell, but you're saying it kind of worked. Not one person lost control. Now, of the two sides, the people that were speaking on behalf of the Israelis were a little better at articulating supportive positions for the Palestinians. Most of the people who wanna speak up on behalf of the Palestinians, they just, they wanna start it like, you're doing this, and I'd say, no, no, no, no, no, you can go there, just not yet. Before you go there, you can say that all you want. Before you go there, you've gotta try to articulate to them where they're coming from. They gotta tell you you got it right. And what would consistently happen is there's a leveling out of a person to try to see the other side's perspective and articulate it. It's enormously beneficial to the person who's trying to do it, which was really the point that we were trying to make. It's a really interesting exercise, I mean, by way of advice. So if it works at clubhouse, for people who don't know, that's a voice app where you can be anonymous. So it's really regular people, but regular people who can also be anonymous. It's just, it can be chaos. If it works there, that's really interesting. For when you sit down for a conversation and cross the table from somebody, don't have them even steel man the other side. Have them just state the other side. Just explain your understanding of it. That's it. And every now and then I would jump in. Somebody's supporting Israel, whoever the heck they were, and they'd say a couple things. And the Palestinian guy would be like, or gal, or supportive of them, would say, you know, you missed some stuff. And I'd say, let me jump in. First of all, I know what the Nakba is. The Nakba is a catastrophe. That's the day Israel was born. You, you know, for the rest of the world, it's the birth of Israel, for you it's the Nakba. I said, you've got members of your family that is still walking around carrying keys to the front door of the house they abandoned. And they'd be like, yeah. And I'd say, you feel bad that, in point of fact, that in World War II, the world stood back and watched while the Nazis threw the Jews off a building. The only problem was they landed on you. And they'd be like, yeah. That's where they're coming from. So articulating, you know, deeply what the other side feels is transformative for both people involved in the process. What's the toughest negotiation you've ever been a part of, or maybe observed or heard of? What's a difficult case that just stands out to you? Or maybe just one of many. Well, the stuff we went through with Al-Qaeda in and around Iraq, Iraq and Saudi, first one was in Saudi in 2004 timeframe. The hardest part about that was working with family members and not deceiving them about the possibility outcome. Yeah, how do you talk to family members? Is that part of the negotiation? Yeah, empathy, learning empathy the hard way. And then being able to take it up to higher levels. Because at its base level, a guy that we're working with now that's coaching us in the US and is a business partner, his name is Jonathan Smith, he pointed out to us that there's a Shu Ha Rui concept. Are you familiar with Shu Ha Rui? It's a martial arts concept. And Shu is do it exactly as the master's telling you to do it. Wax on, wax off, karate kid stuff. Ha is when you've done the repetitions enough times, you're getting a feel for it, and you begin to see the same lessons coming from other masters. You're seeing the same things show up in other places. And at the re-level, you're still in the discipline, but you're making up your own rules. It's almost a flow state. And you don't realize that you're making up your own rules. And if somebody asks you where you learned that, you'd probably say, my sensei taught it to me. My master taught it to me. This will come back around to negotiating with families pretty quick. We did this once because there's a bunch of people that we coach, business people that are scared of the amount of money that they're losing if we're not coaching them regularly. One of these guys, Michael, we're interviewing him for a social media posting about two years ago, and Michael says, yeah, you gotta gather data with your eyes. And I went, ooh, I like that. I said, where did you hear that before? And he goes, I don't know, I heard it from you, I think. And I was like, no, no, no, no. I'd have remembered saying that. Yeah. That's the first time I've heard that. He's in re. So what's this got to do with families? Empathy at its base level and a shoe level, I learned it on a suicide hotline, is saying like, you sound angry. I'm just calling out the elephant in the room. Your emotions, what's driving you? I'm throwing a label on your affect. And I'm saying you sound, or it sounds like you are, because that's the basic karate kid wax on, wax off approach. Now, there are a lot of hostage negotiators that'll tell you empathy doesn't work at home. Not true. They've never gotten out of shoe. You're getting ready to talk to your significant other, and you want to go someplace that you know is going to make her angry. You want to go do something. Now, that's real negotiation right there. You could say to her, you sound angry, in which case she's going to blow up because her reaction is, you made me angry, bozo. Can you act like you're an innocent third party or that you were independent of how I feel bad? And you learn a little bit more, and you say the high level is, this is probably going to make you angry. And then what I did with families, I knew how they felt before I walked in the door. I knew that they were scared to death. You find out that your husband, your father, your brother, has been grabbed by Al-Qaeda, who are in the business of chopping people's heads off, you're going to be horrified. I can't walk into them and go like, you sound angry. Of course I'm angry, you idiot. But knowing what they are, I used to walk into families' houses, and I'd say, I know you're angry. Now what do the circumstances dictate that they should also feel? They're going to feel abandoned by their government. They're going to feel totally alone. They're going to be scared, and they're going to be angry because they feel the government abandoned them. Now, there in point of fact, is this an accurate statement? That their loved one voluntarily went into a war zone and voluntarily went someplace their government told them not to go? Are the facts that the government abandoned them? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, the government tried to get them to not go, and they went anyway. But that doesn't change how they felt in a moment. And I'd walk into a house and I'd go, I know you're angry. I know you feel abandoned and alone, and I know you're horrified, and I know you feel the United States government has abandoned you. And they would look at me and go like, yeah. What do we do now? Now we're ready to rock. Is there, with Al Qaeda or in general, is there a language barrier too? It could be just barriers of different communication styles. I mean, you got like a New Yorker way about it. That might make somebody from like, I don't know, Laguna Beach uncomfortable. Do you feel that language barrier in communication is that language and communication style in itself creating a barrier? You got a barrier when you think that your way is the way. Sure, that's the biggest barrier. Yeah, and that happens all the time. When people talk about, what about cross-cultural negotiations? What hand do I gotta shake hands with so that I can get my way? Well, if you strip it all down, we're all basically the same blank slate when we were born. Everybody's got a limbic system. Everybody's limbic system works pretty much the same way. People are driven by the same sorts of decisions. How does this affect my future? What am I at risk of losing? How does this affect my identity? You're not a kind of kidnapper. You're a New York City businessman. You're a tobacco farmer in the South. All making those same decisions based on those same things. So as soon as I start to navigate that, and I tailor my approach, which is what empathy is, to how you see things. So I can be the biggest goofball ever from if you live in the South, yeah, maybe I'm a New Yorker, or I'm somebody from LA, or somebody from Chicago. But my geography is foreign to you, but as soon as I start dialing in on how you see things, suddenly you're listening. What about the three voices you talk about? The different voices you can use in that communication? Right, the assertive voice, direct and honest. I'm a natural born assertive. Natural born? I thought we're all blank slate. Is your born? Yeah, well, stop catching me on what I said. How dare you accuse me of what I've said? To quote Bono, I stand accused of what I've said, the things I've said. That's a good line. He's got a few good lines. Yeah. So assertive voice, you're born that way. Which one, what are the other ones? Analyst. You're an analyst. And I can tell you're assertive. Yeah. What's an analyst voice? Well, an analyst is close to the- Smarter? More thoughtful? No, as a matter of fact. Look, you ever do a decision tree? Yeah. See, you like it too, don't you? So decision trees, I'm a computer scientist, so I like mathematical, systematic ways of seeing the world. He's an analyst. You think Donald Trump would ever say that? Unlikely. Well, is he more the assertive kind? He's a natural born assertive, yeah. Are all New Yorkers like this? Is there something in the water? No, that's the craziest thing. I mean, there's an affect that a city can have. Yeah, and New York's Northeast, not just New York, but the Northeast is a little more, the affect of the area, of the culture of the area. The individuals still boil down into the three types, cross the board. What's the third one? Accommodator, smiling, optimistic, hopeful. I'm a thousand percent convinced that the phrase hope is not a strategy is designed at people's frustration over a third of the population being accommodators that are hope-driven. I hope this works out. And they're very relationship, on the surface, they're very relationship oriented. They tend to appear to be very positive, and they are, but it's really built around hope. And the idea is you can adopt these three voices. You can, yeah, you can learn them. They're all learnable. Analysts are often mistaken for accommodators, because as you said before, analysts are more introspective, more analytical. They're looking at the systems at work. And if they like to learn, they notice that accommodators make more deals than they make. They also notice that there's a higher failure rate of the deals, but since they notice stuff and they think about it, they catch on faster than assertives do that the pleasant nature of an accommodator contributes strongly to them making deals. Like my daughter-in-law is an analyst. You know, another descriptor we have in that an analyst are assassins. You know, an analyst will snipe you from 1,000 yards out in the middle of the night, and you never know what hits you, and they're really happy with that. But how has assertiveness, the assertive voice served you in negotiation? Poorly. The assertive voice is almost always counterproductive. It feels like getting hit in the face with a brick. And that's almost always counterproductive. So for me to be more effective, especially in a negotiation, I'll need to slow down and smile. You know, I heard that Teddy Roosevelt was a good negotiator and that he was extremely stubborn. And perhaps the right term for that would be assertive, but he picked his battles. Is there some value to holding strong to principles? So I don't even know if that's probably the opposite of empathy. Are there times when you can just stick, be extremely stubborn to your principles? To win a negotiation? Oh, we do it all the time. We just, you know, we're just nice about it. Okay, it helps to be nice, you're saying. Well, yes, because I need you to hear me. And the assertive tone of voice, so when we do our training, typically we do an exercise called 60 seconds or she dies. And I play the bad guy bank robber, and I ask you to be the hostage negotiator. And your job is to, I'll give you the four real world constraints, and then you're gonna try and negotiate me out of the bank. Now we're doing this, now the first voice that I always use in that exercise is the assertive voice, which is the commanding voice. It's the voice that all police officers are taught to use in the street. Issue loud and clear commands. To me, I don't feel like I'm attacking you. I just feel like I'm being direct and honest and clear. You on the other hand feel attacked. Now we're doing this exercise in Austin, couple of years ago. The first participant has an Apple watch on. He tells us afterwards that sitting still, not even answering, when he first gets hit in the face with the assertive voice, his heart rate jumped to 170, which is a typical fight or flight reaction. I come at you like I'm fighting you. Your fight flight mechanisms all kick into gear, which clouds your thinking. You're automatically dumber in the moment. So if I wanna make a great long-term deal with you, highly profitable, I'm agnostic to you being profitable. You be profitable, well that's fine. I'm here to make money for me. But me making you dumber will always hurt me. Me making you feel attacked will always hurt me. So there's never a value in being, in you making me afraid. There's never a long-term value in it. That's another thing that Tal Roz, when we were writing a book, braced me on. Because he said, there's scientific data out there that's called strategic umbrage. Well, there's data. Well, whether or not it's scientific, I would call that into question. But he said, there's studies out there that show that strategic umbrage works. And another thing that I also enjoy, you probably get tired of me saying wonderful things about Andrew. He taught me. There's never enough wonderful things to say about the great Andrew Huberman, the host of the Huberman Lab Podcast that everybody should subscribe to. You should talk to Andrew. He's a great guy. You're funnier than he is, though, I'll give you that. Hear that, Andrew? He's funny accidentally. He makes me laugh all the time, not when he's trying to be funny. He's a really, he's one of the people in this world that's truly legit. He's a really strong scientist and a really strong communicator and a good human being. And those together don't come often, and it's nice to see. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, he's a treasure, national treasure. Anyway, you were saying? Well, he sort of taught me how to think about data and studies and science, and also from different books that he's turned me on to. It's really helped me think about this stuff. So the studies about strategic umbrage were done, the ones that I've seen, that show it's effective. There were simulated negotiations with college students. Now, here's the problem with that. A simulated negotiation with a college student, college students are gonna sit down as part of their assignment. They're gonna sit down one time. They're gonna sit down for 45 minutes, and they're gonna think that if they didn't come to a deal at all, that they failed. And there's no ongoing implementation. There's just a deal, and then they walk away of a pretend situation. So they got no actual real skin in the game. There's no deal on Earth. Do you sit down and come to an agreement in 45 minutes and never see each other again, because there's the implementation of the deal, even if it's only payment. So the data is flawed based on the way it was collected. It's a highly flawed study. And all data is flawed, as you know, as a scientist. You just gotta be aware of what the flaws are and decide whether or not that destroys the study, or what do you think? Take a look at the data. There's no such thing as perfect data. Look at the data, see what you think of it. The data that says that strategic umbrage works is based on flawed circumstances. Can you explain strategic umbrage? Getting mad, scaring the other side into a deal. Getting mad at using anger strategically to bully the other side into an agreement. What do you think? That's nice to hear, in some sense. It's nice to hear that empathy is the right way in almost all situations. Best chance is success. Not that it works every time, just it works more than anything else does. What is the technique of mirroring? There's a lot of cool stuff in your book that just kinda jump around. What's mirroring? Mirroring is like, it's one of the most fun skills because it's the simplest to execute. You just repeat one to three-ish words of what somebody said, usually the last one to three words. What I've found about it is the people that really like mirroring love it because it's so simple and so effortless and invisible. They typically, for lack of a better term, tend to be both high IQ and high EQ. Like, I'm not a high IQ guy. I'm an average dude. I like to think that I can learn in EQ, emotional intelligence, is a skill you can build, and I'm always working on building it. But a lot of really regular, average people will be like, mirroring, that's stupid. I'm not doing that. And I don't know why they don't like it. But when I find somebody that loves to mirror, I'll always ask them, how'd you score on IQ? And typically, their IQ's pretty high. Now, I don't know why that combination attracts people to mirroring, because there's nine skills, eight from hostage negotiation, and the ninth really was tone of voice, and we just define that as a skill. And each one is different and focuses on different components of the conversation. And a lot of people don't like to mirror. They found it so awkward. Like, I'm not particularly strong on mirroring. I gotta do it intentionally. I'm good at labeling. But does it almost always work? Oh, yeah. Yeah, it feels maybe awkward, but it's true. There's gotta be ways to signal that you're truly listening. That's part of it. I think you can do body language. Yeah, there's a lot of ways to signal that, but mirroring is probably just this trivial little hack. It kinda is. You know, there's a situation. I had a conversation with Stephen Kodkin. He's this historian, and he would say my name a lot throughout the conversation. He would be like, well, you have to understand, Lex, is that, and for some reason, that was making me feel really good. I was like, he cares about me. And I wonder if that key, if everyone has that key, that could be the name, just using people's name could be powerful. Using the name is really context-driven. It can be extremely powerful with someone who's genuine, and it comes across in their demeanor, and it's used in a way that you can tell is meant to encourage you as opposed to exploit you. Sure. And the people that are really into exploiting will also use it and do the same thing. So you have to avoid using the things that people that are exploiters, manipulators use, because it might signal to others that this person is trying to trick me. Gotta be very conscious of it, yeah. What's labeling that you mentioned, the thing you like? Well, I said earlier, that old progression from you sound angry to this is probably gonna make you angry to I know you're angry. Labeling is hanging a label on an emotion or an affect, and then just calling it out. Is that almost always good? Could it be a source of frustration when a person's being angry and you kinda put a label on it? Call out the elephant. Is it possible that that will lead to escalation of that feeling versus a resolution? Well, what would make it bad? Like if I'm pointing out like that blatantly obvious, like if I say, look, I need you to get up and go down to the bank and make the deposit. Let's say I'm talking to somebody who works in my company. I need you to get on the phone with this person and make the appointment. And they go, sounds like you want me to talk to this person. Yeah. That would be annoying. If it's just so absurdly obvious that there's no insight in your label at all. And as soon as you're demonstrating an awareness or a subtlety or an insight, either to you or to them, now we're making progress. So the only time a label could ever potentially be counterproductive is like if you weren't actually listening and the label indicates that you're not listening. You know, I'm teaching at USC and I'm teaching labels and one of the kids in a class, he just wants to take the skills and make his deals and just hustle them. And he's just looking for a hustle. So he writes up a paper about, you know, he goes, there's some malls, I think over by Palm Springs or someplace, some malls, a lot of people go to buy suits. So he goes in there and he immediately starts the bargaining that my book teaches with no empathy. And he's like, throws a price to the guy and the guy's like, no. And he throws another price to the guy and the guy's like, no. And then he says to the guy behind the counter, sounds like we can make a deal. Like, no, it doesn't. I just shot down everything that you just said. If anything, it sounds like we're never gonna make a deal. But he tried to use this label for manipulation. Now, the guy didn't get mad on the other side, but it's like, clearly this dude is not listening to me. And at the core of everything, you have a bunch of like, you know, almost like hacks, like techniques you can use, but at the core of it is empathy. At the core of it is empathy, yeah. That's the main thing, you can be able to just sit there and listen. And perceive. Yeah, and look for insights. You know what, I like silence. Or like, you're both sitting there chilling with a drink, looking up at the stars. There's a moment, the silence makes you kind of zoom out, realize you're in this together. As opposed to playing a game, or some kind of like chess game of negotiation, you're in it together. I don't know, there's some intimacy to the silence. And like, if I, I'll ask a question and just let the other person sit there in silence before they answer, or vice versa. They ask me a question, I sit there in silence. That's a big, feels like a big intimate thing. Yes, and the other two types, until they've experienced that, are afraid of it. And what I'm actually gonna do is, for whatever reason, I'm really comfortable with silence, I think, because I've experienced its effectiveness. And also my son, Brandon, he's the king of dynamic silence. Like, he coaches people, he says, go silent, count thousands to yourself. Don't stop till you run out of numbers. That's a good line. He's also good, full of good lines. He is, that he is. And so, there's so much to it. But the other two types are natural wiring against it until they've experienced it. And you know, your gut intuition's giving you data once you've experienced it. But your amygdala's kicking into gear, again, sorry, I realize it's more complicated than that, until you've experienced it. So, accommodators, hope-based. How do they signal fury? The silent treatment. So when you go silent, they're scared to death you're furious because that's how they indicate it. The assertive thinks they use the analyst when silent because you want them to talk some more. When a point of fact, you're either, you're thinking or, and I love your description, the feeling of intimacy in silence and experiencing the moment. Because I'm actually gonna factor that into trying to get, the accommodators love shared intimacy. They would love to experience a moment. And I can see that being very compelling than be willing to cross that chasm and experience silence and see how it works for them. Yeah, it's nerve-wracking, which is why it's intimate. Because you start thinking, what's the other person thinking? Are we actually gonna do this? Are we gonna sit here for 10 seconds and count? I mean, there's tricks to it, I guess, like Brendan says is to, could just count it out and realize through data that there's intimacy to it. I had a friend of mine, he lost his voice because he was singing, so he couldn't, the doctor said he can't talk for a week just to heal the voice, the vocal cords. But he hung out with other people, with friends, and didn't talk to them. He just hung out and he said it was really intimate. They both didn't talk to each other. They just sat there and enjoyed time together. I don't know, it's a wake-up call. It's a thing to try, maybe, with people in your life. Just hang out and don't say anything. Like, as an experiment, don't say anything the entire day. But spend time with them. Or try, yeah, definitely. It's interesting. I haven't tried it myself. It seems, it's kind of like a silent retreat, but more active as part of regular everyday life. Anyway. Is there other interesting techniques we can talk about here? So, for example, creating the illusion of control. Yeah, it's principally by asking what and how questions. Because people love to tell others what to do or how to do it. It does a lot. That was really the way when the book was first written that we really thought about what and how questions. Is it giving the other side the illusion of control? And there's a lot more to it than that, that we've discovered. I mean, it triggers deep thinking, it wears people down. Deep thinking can be exhausting. And you want, so what's the role of exhaustion in negotiation? Is that ultimately what? You gotta be careful with that. Some people exhaust intentionally. One of my negotiation heroes, a guy now who's unfortunately suffering from dementia and Alzheimer's, John Domenico Pico is the UN hostage negotiators that got all the Western hostages out of Beirut in the 80s. And he wrote a book called Man Without a Gun. And I'm acquainted with Johnny. At this point in time, I don't think he has any memory of who I am at all. But he writes in his book, one of the great secrets of negotiation is exhausting the other side. Political negotiations, that could be Johnny, was very deferential. It was in the middle of, in the 80s, leading up to about 1986-ish. Every negotiation involving warring parties in the Middle East that you can imagine. He was in Cyprus, he was in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. The Iranian government had tremendous trust in him as a Westerner, a representative of the UN. Got all the Westerners out of Beirut. And he was just ridiculously patient. And which the other side would often find exhausting. So exhaustion can be a component of finding resolution in a negotiation. If it tamps down the negative emotions, often exhaustion will tamp down negative emotions. The real trick is really getting negative emotions out of the way, because you're dumber in a negative frame of mind. So the goal is always positive emotion, as you talk about. That's what you're always chasing together. I think so, yeah. And that's what the that's right is about. Yes. Whatever you're triggering, whatever the chemistry you're triggering in your brain, you're like, yeah, yeah, we're doing good here. I think so, long term, for long term success. Absolutely. How is the word fair used and abused? The F-bomb. The F-bomb, as you call it. How is it used and abused in negotiation? It's usually used, it's most frequently used as a weapon. It's abused as a point of manipulation. It's what people say when they feel backed into a corner and they can't come up with any legitimate reason as to why they're being backed into a corner. Like nobody uses the word F, the F-bomb, nobody uses the word fair when they've got criteria to back them up. So consequently, when somebody starts dropping it, you got to realize the other side's got no legitimate outside criteria. They're feeling very vulnerable. They can't explain it, but they feel defensive. And it saying, hey, look, I've given you a fair offer is a way for me to knock you off your game. If you're not aware of it. So a lot of cutthroat negotiators are going to use it on you to knock you off your game. The NFL strike probably now, it's been a good 10 years ago. And maybe even longer than that. One of the sticking points was the owners were not opening their books to the players. The players wanted to see the numbers. And in order to not open their books, they just sent a rep to the press conference saying, we've given players a fair offer. Well, if it was fair, you'd open your books. Yeah. If you gave them a fair offer and it was justified by what was in your books, you'd open them to prove your point. So what ends up happening though, that well, the owners gave the players a fair offer starts to get picked up in the media. And then it starts getting repeated. And now that different people on a player's side are going like, yeah, maybe they have given us a fair offer. It caused people to be insecure about their own position. It's an enormously powerful word that can be used and abused. And it almost always comes up in every negotiation. It's shocking the number of times it comes up with people who don't really understand how or why it's coming up. So usually it's a signal of a not a good place in the negotiation. Without question, I'm completely convinced that if the person is using the word as a means of getting what they want, then either accidentally or on purpose, either in their gut or they know they got a bad position or their gut is afraid that they are. Do I use the word? What I'll say is, I want you to feel like I've treated you fairly. And if at any given point in time you think I'm not treating you fairly, I want you to stop me and we're gonna address it. Big ridiculous question, but how do you close the deal? How do you take the negotiation to its end? Is the implementation ultimately? You gotta pivot to agreed upon implementation to really move out of the negotiation. And I may say, how do you wanna proceed? And if you don't know, I might say, no more into question, is it a ridiculous idea if I share with you some ideas of how to proceed? And then you agree on the actual steps and that's the implementation. It's not just the philosophical agreement, it's actual steps. The big problem in all negotiations is a lack of discussion of next steps. That's deep. Who's the best negotiator you've ever met? Yeah, actually probably my son, Brandon. Yeah? Yeah, he's ridiculously talented. I mean, he's ridiculously talented. And yeah, he's, you know, and what was it, Coral's book, The Talent Code, says that people just noticed it and started getting good at it. There's no such thing as a child prodigy. Just got interested when they were a kid. I mean, Brandon started learning how to negotiate when he was two years old. And he's been in it and immersed in it, you know, since he could make complete sentences, even before he could make complete sentences. He's ridiculously talented. What's his future? What's he want to do? He's gonna, he has been involved, he run and built my company. And now he's gonna be an affiliated licensee, run his own operation. He's pretty much gonna end up doing very much, he's gonna open his entrepreneurial opportunities to do whatever he wants and not have his dad say no. Yeah. And do a better job than his dad. Most likely. Yeah. Okay. Do you see some of the techniques that you talk about as manipulative? Manipulation is whether or not I'm trying to exploit you or hurt you. Am I trying to manipulate a bank robber into letting me save his life? Yeah. So manipulation is like, what am I trying to do to you? Yeah. So you don't see the negative connotation. If you're trying to bring a better future, it's not manipulation? It's not, if I'm trying to bring a better future, if I'm being genuine and honest, like I compliment you. Yeah. If my compliment is genuine, that's not manipulation. But if I think, you got a pair of shoes that are the dumbest looking things I've ever seen. And I go, wow, those are great shoes. Now that's manipulation. So there's guys like Warren Buffett who are big on integrity and honesty. What's the role of lying in effective? Lying is a bad idea. Lying is just a bad idea for a variety of reasons. First of all, there's a really good chance the other side is a better liar than you are. They're gonna spot it right off the bat. Yeah. Secondly, they could be luring you into a trap to see if you will lie. Thirdly, the chances are they're gonna find out that you lied to them. Eventually, it's really high. And then the penalties and the taxes are gonna be way higher than what you had in the first place. So long-term, you wanna have a reputation of somebody with integrity. And the more you lie, the harder it is to maintain that reputation. Yeah, exactly. And we're just gonna get out. Yeah. So what's the, we can just return to that question. What's the difference between a good conversation and a good negotiation? Can we, because I think just reading your work, listening to you, there's a sense I have that the thing we're doing now and just conversation on podcasts and so on is different than negotiation. It feels like the purpose is different. And yet, having some of the same awareness of the value of empathy is extremely important. But it feels like the goals are different. Or no? Really close, fine line. I mean, I ruled in here, not having any expectations, not looking for anything other than to have an interesting conversation. And to hear what was behind the questions that you were asking me and what interests you. And then also your description of silence and the power of silence, something I'm gonna take away as a learning point and help learn to teach others. But I didn't come in here, I suppose a negotiation is when we're both aware of a problem we're trying to solve. Right, there's no problem in the room to solve, except maybe like the human condition. And insight. You know, wisdom. Insight. Learn. How do you train to become better at negotiating? In business, in life? Yeah, just small stakes practice for high stakes results. I mean, decide what kind of negotiating resonates with you. I mean. What's that mean? Small stakes practice for high stakes or small stakes? So small, little, incremental, like picking up girls at a bar? What are we talking about? Well, it can be. For some people, that's high stakes practice. Well, you know, labeling mirrors. What are the basic tools of great negotiation? Labeling, mirroring, paraphrasing, summarizing. So you start labeling a mirror people that you just have regular interactions with just to gain a feel for whether or not you can read somebody's affect or how accurate your read is to get better at it. And so, you know, label the lift driver or the grocery store clerk or the person behind the airline counter at the airport. So putting a label on their affect. Or throwing something at them that, because negotiation's a perishable skill. Emotional intelligence is perishable. So seeing if you can indicate that you understand their label. One of my favorite labels to throw out on somebody, which, you know, maybe re-level, I might look at somebody who looks distressed and I'll go, tough day? I'll go, I'm not gonna be able to get to the counter. So several years ago, I'm at the counter at LAX. Well, I'm waiting in line to get to the counter. And a lady behind the counter is clearly making a point to not meet my eyes so that I don't approach. And she looks, and so like, you know, when you're next in line and they're making sure that you don't meet eyes. I go, all right, so they're having a bad day. So I walk up and as soon as I approach the counter, I go, tough day? And she kinda snaps around. And she goes, no, no, no, how can I help you? And goes out of her way to help me. Now I'm practicing, but I also know it made her feel better. It relieved some of the stress. So now I'm going through TSA. Wanna look for people who are having a tough day. It's a good place to find them. It's a good place to find them, practice. And I'm rolling through the line and I realize I haven't tossed a label out on any one of these guys. And there's this guy watching the bags come out of the x-ray machine. And he's just kinda got an indifferent look on his face. And I go, tough day? And he kinda goes, I can see from his body language, like, no. And I go, just another day, huh? And he goes, yeah, just another day. You know, he felt seen, but I missed, and I'm practicing, and I'm trying to stay sharp. So these are the small. Just a few words, with just a few words, you're trying to like quickly localize the effect. And put a label on it. Very, very, very analytically said, thank you. Not letting it go. I love it. I love it. I love it. Does the same apply to just conversation in general? Just how to get better at conversation? I think a lot of people struggle. They have insecurities, they have anxiety about conversation. As funny as this to say, I have a lot of anxiety about conversation. Is that, you basically do the same kind of practice, practice some of the techniques in your book? Yeah, genuinely. Just trying to make sure you heard somebody out. Yeah. What's the best conversation you've ever been in? Except this one, of course. Wow. What, I mean, not the best conversation, but what stands out to you? As conversation that changed you as a person, maybe? Well, there's probably been a lot of them along the way. I mean, but one that I remember on a regular basis, actually there's two. But when I was in the Bureau, I'm at Quantico, I'm there for an in-service, there's another guy from New York, a buddy of mine named Lionel. And we're both trying to decide whether or not we want to be, try to get into profiling or negotiation. Because they're both about human dynamics and both of us really like human dynamics. And we're sitting around talking about it and we're talking about several things and he labels me. And I knew he didn't know what he was doing, I think he was just, he had picked it up. And I'd been talking about my family, quite a few things. And he said to me, and I never said this directly, that we were close. But he said to me, it sounds like your family's really close. And I can remember in a moment, like this feeling, just like I felt great in the moment. I mean, what he said just drew together everything that I'd been saying and nailed the essence of it. And I have a very clear recollection of how good that felt in the moment. So a couple years later, I'm on a suicide hotline. Now I got this line in the back of my head. Line, technique, reaction, read, whatever you want to call it. Guy calls in on a hotline and I could tell the dude is rattled by his tone of voice. I mean, just amped up. And he goes, you know, I'm just trying to put a lid on the day, I need your help putting a lid on the day, I gotta put a lid on the day. And I go, you sound anxious. And he goes, yeah. And he came down a little bit. And he was a guy that was, he was telling me about, he was battling a disease of paranoia. And he's gonna go on a car trip with his family the next day. And he knew that on the car trip, he was gonna twist himself into knots. And so the night before, he's twisting himself into knots. And he's laying out everything that he's done to try to beat paranoia and how much his family's helping him. And he's going on a car trip with the family because they're gonna take him to see a doctor. And so I hit him with the same thing that my buddy Lionel said. I said, it sounds like your family's close. He goes, yeah, we are close. And he leveled out a little bit more. And then he started ticking off all the things that he was doing to try to beat paranoia. And he sounded determined. And so I said, you sound determined. And he goes, yeah, I am determined. I'll be fine tomorrow, thanks. And that was all I said. So those two conversations, which are overlapping conversations, those two things really stick out in my mind. Do those things, through all the different negotiations and conversations you've had, do they kind of echo throughout? Like you basically, because when you empathize with other human beings, you start to realize we're all the same. And so you can start to pick little phrases here and there that you've heard from other little experiences that were all about, like we all want to be, to be close with other human beings. We all want love. The world, I think we're all deeply lonely inside. I'm looking for connection. We're just, if we're honest about it. And so all humans have that same, all the same different components of, oh, it makes them tick. So do you kind of see yourself basically just saying the same things to connect with another human being? Yeah, there aren't that many different things that we're looking for understanding on or connection on or satisfaction of. There just aren't that many of them, regardless. And so yeah, you're looking for it to manifest itself in some form or another, and you're willing to take a guess on whether or not that's what you're saying or hearing. What advice would you give to me to be better at these conversations? To me and to other people that do kind of interviews and podcasts and so on. Wow. I really care about empathy as well. Is there kind of, is a lifelong journey in this process? Yeah, well, I would advise you to take that approach, which is the approach that you're taking. You care about it, you're very curious about it. You see it as a lifelong journey, you're fascinated by it. You enjoy learning about it. And you definitely do see it as a lifelong journey, as opposed to, this is what I can, if I can acquire this, then I can manipulate people. No, I mean, I fall in love with people I talk to. There's a kind of deep connection, it lingers with you. Especially when I'm preparing. The more material there is in a person, the more you get to fall in love with them ahead of time. They think you get to really understand, not understand, but. What I mean by fall in love is. Well, appreciate, huh? Appreciate, but also become deeply curious. That's what I mean by fall in love. You appreciate the things you know, but you start to see, like Alice in Wonderland, you start to see that there's all this cool stuff you can learn if you keep interacting with them. And then when you show up and you actually meet, you realize, it's like more and more and more and more. It's like in physics, the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know. And it's like, it's really exciting. And then it can also be heartbreaking because you have to say goodbye. Goodbye, I hate goodbyes. I hate goodbyes. Seems terminal, right? Yeah, it makes, it reminds me that I'm gonna die one day. Like things end, good things end, it sucks. But then it makes the moment more delicious, you know, that you do get to spend together. Yeah. Yeah, okay, I just wanna, I completely forgot. I wanted to ask you about this, the 738 55% rule. This is really interesting. Does this, is there at all truth to it? That 7% of a message is conveyed from the words used, 38% from the tone of voice, and 55% from body language. Is there really truth to that? All right, so Albert Mehrabian, I think is the name of the UCLA professor that originally proposed the 738 55 ratio and discussed it in terms of that it wasn't the message, but how much, he called it liking. Like are you, not that you're, the meaning is coming across, but you're liking of the message. And so it's been extrapolated heavily by people like me to this meaning of the meaning in 738 55, from liking to the meaning. What I've seen regularly is people that communicate verbally if their speakers, Tony Robbins, 738 55 guy, he throws the ratio out there. Go, that's it exactly. That's exactly how the message comes across. This is how we gotta balance it. This is how we gotta do it. Those that communicate principally in writing, the meaning of the words are much more important to them. So they're deeply uncomfortable with seven being the words. Because the content, the words, the meaning of the words, when you're writing, it's so important that you hate to poo-poo it that way. So I, first of all, I 1000% believe it's an accurate ratio, but the real critical issue is, not what the ratio of those three things are, it's what's the message when they're out of line? Like what's the message when the tone of voice is out of line with the words? Like it don't matter what your ratio is. You got a problem if their tone does not match their words. And that's hard to really put a measure on exactly. Even in writing, there's a tone. I mean, it's not just, even in writing, it's not just the words. There's the words, but there's like a style underneath the whole thing. And there's something like body language, the presentation of the whole thing. I mean, yeah, I'm a big fan of constraint mediums of communication, which writing is, or voice, like Clubhouse. There's a personality to a human being when you just hear their voice. It's not just, you could say it's the tone of voice, but there's like, you can like, what is it? The imagination fills in the rest. Like when I'm listening to somebody, I'm like, I'm imagining some amorphous being, right, doing things. When they get angry, I'm imagining anger. I don't know what exactly I'm visualizing. Well, and so you may be thinking of a funny story because we were talking about your buddy Elon before. And I told you about, you know, that I'd interacted with some of the senior executives. So I know that they love working with him, and I think he's an interesting guy, and they realize that he can be funny, and he jokes around. So they're telling me, they're on this conference call, just words, and a guy on the other end of the line says something, you know, that was wrong but wasn't bad. And so they said, they're on a phone, and Elon goes, you're fired. And then everybody in the room with him can see that he's joking. But the person on the other side can't, and they all go, wait, wait, wait, wait, they can't see your look on your face right now. You gotta stop, you gotta stop, because the guy on the other side is dying right now. He doesn't realize you're joking. So there were the words and the tone of voice, but it lacked the visual to go with it. Nevertheless, it was probably funny. I'm sure it was very funny at the time. Maybe not to him. Just as interesting to ask, I don't know if you're following along the developments of large language models, there's been something called Chad GPT. There's just more and more sophisticated and effective and impressive chatbots, essentially, that can talk. And they're becoming more and more human-like. Do you think it's possible in the future that AI will be able to be better negotiators than humans? Do you think about that kind of stuff? Well, so definition of better versus less flawed. Chatbots have been out there for a long time, and probably about five years ago now, a company approached us because they were doing a negotiation chatbot. And they said two things. First of all, I said, why are you talking to us? Said, well, in point of fact, we already spoke to the people that are teaching, quote, the Harvard methodology, and the rational approach to negotiation just doesn't work. Rational approach just does not work. Our chatbots are not getting anywhere. But we're showing in around about 80% of the interactions a higher success outcome with these chatbots. And they showed me what they were doing, and it was still a lot deeply flawed emotional intelligence-wise, but the reason why that they were having higher success rates is the chatbots were never in a bad mood. And you could reach out for a chatbot in the middle of the night. So if you were talking to somebody that was never upset and was always available, then you're gonna have a higher success rate. Negotiations go bad when people are in a negative frame of mind. So the natural ability of a chatbot to be positive is just going to give you a higher success rate. Yeah, and they're not gonna get mad and argue with you. You know, you say to a chatbot, you know, your price is too high. A chatbot is designed to come back with a smiley face. Yeah. You say to a person, your price is too high, they go, how dare you? I'm trying to make a living. You know, they're gonna go off the deep end. Unfortunately or fortunately, I think the way chatbots are going now, they will come back negative because they're becoming more and more human-like. That's the whole point. To be able to pass the Turing test, you have to be negative. You have to be an asshole. You have to have boundaries. You have to be insecure. You have to have some uncertainty. Well, it's the difference between having boundaries and being negative. Like I can, you threw a proposal to me. You know, before I say no, I'm gonna say, look, I'm sorry, that just doesn't work for me. I'm gonna set up a real clear boundary without being negative. Sure. So, a lot of people really struggle with setting boundaries without being negative, without name-calling, without indignation, without getting upset. But see, there's a, when you are, when you show that you're not getting upset, I'm not just seeing that. I'm seeing a flawed human that has underneath it a temper, underneath it the ability to get upset, but chooses not to get upset. And a chatbot has to demonstrate that. So, it's not just going to be cold and be this kind of corporate, blank, empty, sort of like vapid creature that just says, oh, thank you, thank you for saying that. No, it's basically, you have to, the chatbot has to be able to be mean and choose not to be. Interesting, I don't know. Maybe not. I'd be willing to see that play out and see how it plays out. But I guess what I'm saying is to be a good negotiator, you have to have the capacity to be a bad person and choose not to. Really? I think so. See, I think you just gotta have the capacity to set a boundary and stick to it. Interesting, because I think it's hard for me to trust a person who's not aware of their own demons. Because if you say you don't have any demons, if you don't have any flaws, I can't trust you. Yeah, well, first of all, it's a lie, right? So, somebody's lying. Right. This is back to lying. Yes, so you have to have a self-awareness about that. But to be able to control it, demonstrate to be able to control it. I mean, this is humans, I just think humans, intelligent, effective humans, they're able to do this well. And chatbots are not yet. And they're moving in that direction. So, it makes me think about what is actually required for effective negotiation. That's what AI systems do, is they make you ask yourself, what is it that makes humans special? Any discipline. What is it that makes humans special at chess and Go, games, which AI systems are able to beat humans at now? What is it that makes them effective at negotiation? What does it make them effective at at something that's extremely difficult, which is navigating physical spaces? So, doing things that we take for granted, like making yourself a cup of coffee, is exceptionally difficult problem for robots. Because of all the complexities involved in navigating physical reality. We have so much common sense reasoning built in, just about how gravity works, about how objects move, what kind of objects there are in the world. It's really difficult to describe, because it all seems so damn trivial, but it's not trivial. Because a lot of that we just learn as babies. We keep running into things, and we'll learn about that. And so, AI systems help us understand what is it that makes humans really, what is the wisdom we have in our heads? And negotiation, to me, is super interesting. Because negotiation is not, it's about business, it's about geopolitics, it's about running government. It's basically negotiating how do we, the different policies, different bills, and programs, and so on. How do we allocate money? How do we reallocate resources? All that kind of stuff. That seems like AI, in the future, could be better at that. But maybe not. Maybe you have to be a messy, weird, insecure, uncertain human, and debate each other, and yell at each other on Twitter. Maybe you have to have the red and the blue teams that yell at each other, in the process of figuring out what is true. Maybe AI systems will not be able to do that, and figure out the full mess of human civilization. Yeah, interesting. Well, I mean, the two thoughts that I had along the way was, I mean, anytime you're talking about systems, or scaling, you know, you're talking, my belief is, chatbots, systems, things that don't require decision making, just following the instructions, at least 80% of what's going on. Now, the remaining percentage, whatever it is, does it require the human interaction, and what's required? Like, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not like, I am not pro-conflict, and I also know that there's a case to be made in the creative world, that some of the best thinking came out of conflict. Reading interviews of Bono, you too. You know, their admiration for some of the Beatles' best music came when they were fighting with each other. And the song One, Octoon, which is, I believe from the album, Octoon Baby. Those guys were fighting. I mean, they were on the verge of breaking up. And their appreciation that conflict could create something beautiful. And then when I was in the crisis negotiation unit, you know, my last seven years in the FBI, there was a guy that, named Vince, brilliant dude, brilliant, brilliant negotiator. And he and I used to argue all the time. And then when we had a change in the guy who was in charge, the guy who was in charge took me off to the side, and he's like, you know, I can't take you and Vince fighting all the time. And I said, well, I got news for you. I think we come up with much better stuff as a result of our battles. And he said, you know, Vince said the same thing to me. And I'm like, so if we don't have a problem fighting, why do you have a problem? But you know, there is something there that sometimes the most difficult insights, you rack your brains as to why someone is so dug in on something that you think is so wrong. Yeah, maybe there's something to it. I think there's something to it. There's something about conflict, even drama, that might be a feature, not a bug of our society. Interesting. Do you think there will always be war in the world? Yeah. So there will always be a need for negotiators and negotiating. Well, as it turns out. Why do you think there will always be war? What's your intuition about human nature there? Yeah, just because we're basically 75% negative. And then, for lack of a better term, I call it two lines of code. Like, somewhere when you, everybody, when we were little, somebody planted in two lines into our head. We don't know when it got in there. But somebody said something to us that stuck. And there are a lot of people that had some really negative garbage dumped in their brain when they were little. And just based on the numbers, what kind of opportunity they were given afterwards, did they ever have an epiphany moment when they genuinely believed they can get themselves out of it. Like, what is it, one of Joe Dispenza's book is breaking the habit of being yourself. Yeah. You know, like, how do you get at that two lines of code that either mean or well-intentioned, but stupidly speaking, adult said to you at the wrong moment and planted in your brain? Like, the chances of everybody on Earth getting that out, even a majority of people on Earth getting that out of their heads is really small. What advice would you give to a young person today about how to have a career they could be proud of or a life? Maybe somebody in high school, college, trying to figure out their way in this world. It's probably a take on a cliche of do what you love. But if you figure out your ideals and pursue your ideals and stick to them when it costs you. Like, a guy I admire very much, Michael McGill, runs this Operation Crisp video in Atlanta. In one of his talks, he would say, core values are what you stick to that costs you money. It's not a value that really matters to you unless it's costing you. And stick to your values. Now, when I was in the FBI, I worked really hard at, you know, the number one core mission of the FBI is protect and defend the American people. So I could pursue that value at all times, which I did, or I could follow the rules. You don't have time to do both. Ha ha, when did you know you fall in love? Like, when did you fall in love with whatever this process is that is negotiating? I think it was in a conversation on the suicide hotline that I was telling you about earlier with the guy who was paranoid. When I thought, I can have that significant of an impact on another human being in this short of a period of time. That's really cool. How hard is it to talk somebody off the ledge? So this question, it's a big question. Why the hell live at all? How do you have that kind of deeply philosophical, deeply psychological, and also practical conversation with somebody and convince them they should stick around? Well, it's more clearing the clutter in their head and let them make up their own mind. That was what volunteering on a suicide hotline was really about. Just let me see how quickly I can clear out the clutter in your head, if you're willing to have it cleared out. Like, did you call here because you were actually looking for help? Or did you call here to fulfill some other agenda? So, are you willing to clear the clutter in your head? Not everybody is. So once you clear out the clutter, there's at least a somewhat hopeful chance that you'll continue for another day. Yeah. If you step back, very few people that commit suicide physically are up against it that hard. Like, most of them, by and large, are pretty intact physically human beings. They're struggling with emotional stuff. But it's an emotional issue. It's not a physical issue. So if you were to be a complete mercenary, like, a guy I'm a very big fan of, a guy named Mark Pollack, a born great athlete, lost his eyesight and then became paralyzed. Like, he's an emotional leader. He's about helping people thrive and live great lives. Like, Mark was born, he was a spectacular athlete. And first he lost his sight in one eye, then he lost his sight in the other eye, and then he fell out a window in a tragic experience. Like, if there was ever a dude that was saying, like, living sucks, you know, and if there's any doubt in my mind, something worse happens to me every few years. But Mark's about being alive and inspiring other people. So the hard part with navigating with somebody who's tossing it in because there's a chemical imbalance, or it's the way they're interpreting the world. There's clutter in their head. Like, can you help clear that clutter in their head? And help them, by themselves, inspire them to reinterpret that world as one worth living in. Yeah. Yeah. What do you think is the meaning of life, Boss Boss? Why live? What's a good reason? Well, I have very strong religious beliefs. Spiritual. You know, I don't, 1,000%, if you were to try to confine me in a box, I'd be a Christian. I have tremendous respect for the Jewish, I don't think any religion's got it nailed, exactly. Again, I keep mentioning, I'm kind of a Bono Christian. I think Bono's like, what? And I'm gonna butcher it, but my belief in Jesus is what I've got after Christianity leaves the room. You know, the dogma of man's application of spiritual beliefs. So, but that being said, I truly believe that my life was a gift and there's a purpose here. And you know, for my creator decided that I woke up in the morning because he still had some cool, interesting things for me to do. And you have gratitude for having the opportunity to live that day. Yeah. Well, you do one heck of a good job at living those days. I really appreciate your work. I appreciate the person you are. Thank you for just everything you've done today for just being empathic, honestly. You're a great listener, you're a great conversationalist. It's just an honor to meet you and to talk to you. This was really awesome, Chris. It was my pleasure. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Chris Voss. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from John F. Kennedy. "'Let us never negotiate out of fear, "'but let us never fear to negotiate.'" Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/8EguLJgkc54

J1lN9zkK_k0

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Aaron Smith-Levin: Scientology | Lex Fridman Podcast #361

If Scientology was just getting auditing when you wanted, about the subjects you wanted, and you could take it or leave it, that would be fine. It's the fact that it's part and parcel to this entire organization and this entire experience that has, as a part of that experience, taking everything from you, demanding everything from you, controlling who you can speak with, controlling who you can have relationships with, who you have to erase from your life. This is where, and it's hard to place one pinpoint on, this is where Scientology goes wrong. It's really hard to do that, because the good parts of Scientology and the bad parts of Scientology are all just Scientology. The following is a conversation with Aaron Smith-Levin, a former Scientologist raised in Scientology and have worked in the organization full-time for many years as a staff member and a C-Org member, including the job of training Scientology auditors. Today, he educates the public about Scientology on his YouTube channel called Growing Up in Scientology. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Aaron Smith-Levin. Let's do a full overview of Scientology, its ideas, how it operates, how it wields its power and influence, and let's start at the very basics. What is Scientology? Scientology is a belief system created by L. Ron Hubbard that does fundamentally believe that we are all immortal spiritual beings called thetans, that we have native godlike potential, that there is nothing more powerful in the universe than a thetan. So godlike is quite literal here. And that through various decisions thetans have made, they have fallen away from their native godlike power to falling down to a state where most thetans aren't even aware that they are thetans, aren't even aware that they ever have lived before or have these powers, and that thetans are now in a state where they're trapped in bodies, trapped here on Earth, trapped in this prison of a physical universe, trapped on this prison of a planet, and that only Scientology can restore a thetan to its native state. Are these multiple beings? Like is there one thetan inside of me that's trapped in this prison? Well, the thing would be you. The thing would be me. The thetan is you. But I'm presumably limited in some fundamental way, so this thetan that is me is limited. So there's like eight billion thetans on the planet. There's one primary thetan animating each body. Later in Scientology you learn there's actually like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of like sick, unconscious, half-dead thetans stuck to you that are now an additional cause of problems for you. But fundamentally at the lower levels, the non-confidential levels, there's just one thetan per body. So I mean it's an interesting idea. I just would like to kind of explore the philosophy of that. So there's a being that's all-powerful that's immortal, and its projection, its manifestation on this Earth is fundamentally limited. And you're trying to, the process of Scientology is the process of letting go of those limitations. You know, that's an interesting idea. I mean a lot of religions have this kind of idea that there's, not just religions, but like we have the capacity as human beings to achieve greatness in all kinds of ways. And that's the question we have with our cognitive abilities. We start with an embryo and build up and into this organism and like this world of opportunities before us, what are we capable of? And the idea that we're capable of almost anything is a really powerful one. And there's a lot of religions, there's a lot of philosophies, there's a lot of advice, self-help that kind of explore those ideas. And so it seems like with Scientology, the application of this religious philosophy means that we're limited, and we'll have to break through those limitations. And there's a process to break through those limitations. That would be correct. So what can make it challenging to adequately and completely describe Scientology in the beginning is what Scientologists believe actually changes as they progress further into or further up in Scientology. So the explanation is that I've given it is pretty consistent with what you would get at the lowest levels, right? You're a Thetan, I'm a Thetan, everyone's a Thetan. And we have a reactive mind. L. Ron Hubbard would say the reactive mind is a collection of these recordings, mental recordings of any moments of pain and unconsciousness you've ever had in your life. It's like the subconscious mind. It's always recording in moments of pain and unconsciousness and that these recordings, L. Ron Hubbard called them engrams. Now, when L. Ron Hubbard first wrote Dianetics in 1950, this was before Scientology came along a couple of years later, right? So in 1950, when he wrote Dianetics, it wasn't a spiritual endeavor. It was supposed to be a mental health, a science of mental health. So as of that time, the earliest engram you could have was the incident of birth, being born was an engram. And technically in Dianetics, he said you could have prenatal engrams, like when you're still in the womb. But there was no concept of past lives as of 1950 version of Dianetics, right? And so the idea there was that the reactive mind is essentially a stimulus response mechanism created through evolution millions of years ago to protect the individual from things that would harm them. In other words, things that would bring about pain and unconsciousness. So you have these recordings of things that hurt you, create pain and unconsciousness, and in present time, these things will react upon you in a way to cause you to avoid similar things reacting upon you in a subconscious, unconscious way. So the reactive mind protects you from the trauma that is inside your subconscious mind. Yes, and the idea is we've now, as human beings, evolved to a state where it no longer serves us beneficially, it only serves us negatively. This was Hubbard's theory. And he said so you can get rid of these engrams by basically recalling them and going over them again and again using Dianetics auditing therapy. And if you get back to the moment of birth and erase the earliest engram, all the other subsequent engrams on the chain would vanish. Oh, nice, so there's a chain. Earlier, similar, earlier, similar, earlier, similar, earlier, similar. Okay, so that gives you a pretty good understanding of how L. Ron Hubbard thought of the mind because that carries on, has applicability later on in Scientology. I mean, that's a pretty powerful model of the mind. I mean, Freud had similar conceptions that a lot of our traumas are grounded in sort of poor formulation of sexuality or imperfect formulation of sexuality in early childhood, something like this. And then we're trying to figure out the puzzle, whatever we formed in early childhood. I mean, it's similar, similar kind of. It is similar. That's probably what Hubbard took it from. In the early days of Dianetics, before he decided psychiatry was evil, he actually credited Sigmund Freud with some of the shoulders he was standing on in writing Dianetics. So he still admired psychiatry at that time. So that's an interesting moment of Dianetics. So what else? You mentioned Dianetics, auditing was there too. So if we just, before Scientology, what are the ideas that formed what we know as Dianetics? As I've just described, that is the fundamental. That is pretty much the nuts and bolts of Dianetics. Was it applied? Was it applied often? Oh yeah, no, that's what Dianetics in the early days was all about, was just auditing. Auditing is the process of the one-on-one counseling, recall a moment of pain and unconsciousness, run through the engram over and over and over again, find something earlier, similar. That is Dianetics auditing. One of the main things that changed with Scientology is that birth or prenatal engrams were no longer the earliest engrams on the chain. The idea is you have to get the earliest engram on the chain for the later ones to blow, which is a race. And so, but all of a sudden now, with the addition of an immortal spiritual being into the equation, well now the earliest incident could be trillions of years ago in other galaxies and universes. Other universes, so before the origin of this universe? Yes. Is there a model of physics integrated in any of this? No. The model is you have the physical universe, and then above that you have the theta universe. So we used the word thetan earlier. So in Scientology they also use the word theta. I don't know, theta's just basically thetan power. Thetans collectively. So Hubbard would say you have the theta universe, which is senior to the physical universe, and creates the physical universe. And remember, I said native godlike potentials. So we're not talking about the god who created the Earth. We're just, like Scientologists don't believe in a god, but we'll get into that later. We're talking about just creating universes. Like just think like Matrix. Like just, when I say creating a universe, essentially just creating different thetan simulations. But it sounds like a little bit more like the ideas of Plato, which is there's these platonic forms, there's abstract forms that are bigger, more general than our particular reality here. And those forms are used to construct the reality. Well, I grew up in a cult, so I'm not familiar with the works of Plato. You can't use that as an excuse for everything. I would like to, you know, non-jokingly steal man the case, because a lot of philosophies, a lot of religions, a lot of even scientific endeavors are a little bit full of uncertainty. You can call it bullshit, but you're on unsteady ground because we're surrounded by mystery. And you have to take these ideas somewhat seriously and see where those ideas go wrong. This happens with communism, this happens with capitalism. These ideas sound beautiful in their ideal forms, and then they somehow go wrong, and some go more wrong than others. And so I don't think sort of, it's easy to sort of caricature and make fun of the ideas. I think if we take them seriously, you'll start to understand, like when you're in it, it was serious. It can be very convincing. It's, you know, the devil is going to be a charismatic person. He's not going to be a caricature or ridiculous person. So that helps us understand which ideas will sound appealing, but will become dangerous. I totally agree, in fact, it's one of the thrusts I have on my channel, is wanting to talk about Scientology in a way that would actually resonate with current Scientologists, not just resonate with former Scientologists. I want people who are still in to be able to hear how I talk about it and go, wow, he's being really fair and really accurate. He's not just a hater, you know what I mean? If you look at the, you know, let's take one of the worst places on earth is North Korea. You have Kim Jong-un, and the reality is there's a lot of citizens of that nation that deeply love the leader, because they've grew up in that way, and you, I mean, through fear, through all kinds of manipulation, through propaganda and so on, they're not allowed to love members of their own family. They're not allowed to have romantic love. They're only allowed to have love for the leader, and to reach those people, you have to empathize with the fact that, in their eyes, in some sense, this is a great man. This is a God, a messianic figure. You can't just make fun of the ridiculousness of the situation, that there's this pudgy person waltzing around, creating propaganda. Like, how is this? With a funny haircut. With a funny haircut. Like, it's so easy, Hitler too, to make fun of, to make a caricature of the person, but this is a real person, a real person that influenced the minds of millions of people. In the case of Hitler, you know, tens of millions of people, and created a huge amount of suffering, not because of the caricature version, but because he was a charismatic leader. He was somebody that people deeply, deeply loved, and that just, I mean, with the abuse of any kind of ideology, this happens over and over, and so, yeah, it's interesting, because Scientology is so close to the core of what is America, because so many Americans are involved with it, so it's interesting to study the beauty and the power of the ideas that underlie it, and where things go wrong. Yeah, and I'll just say, it's interesting to note, you would never get a representative of the Church of Scientology to sit down and have a conversation with you, and even be as fair and accurate about Scientology as I'm going to be, which is noteworthy. Do you honestly, deeply believe that's the case? There's not going to be a high-level official that would sit down for a conversation? No. I disagree with you. I hope you're right. Because I think that, given the current dynamics of what's happening, I think in order to save, from their perspective, in order to save the Church of Scientology, they have to be transparent and authentic, basically still mend their case, but better. You would think so. Well, we'll talk about the other ways you could do that, which is through manipulation, through propaganda, through controlled media, and all that kind of stuff. They paint themselves into a corner of not being able to send a representative out into the world to speak honestly about it, because you're literally not allowed to. So, when faced, you know, if you're just sitting down with an entertainment journalist, a representative might be able to fudge their way through an interview, but sitting down for a long-form format interview with someone who is gonna ask them about Zinu and the body thetans and Leah Remini and Lisa McPherson, that's a no-go zone. So, I'm representing why it will never happen, but shit, I would tune in for that interview. I mean, I hope you do get someone. You don't think David Miscavige would sit down for an interview? I would love to be wrong. You know, in general, journalists in these kinds of situations can attack in a way that doesn't empathize and doesn't come from a place of deep knowledge and understanding, and I think it's possible to have serious conversations with people like that in an empathetic way, but it's also in a challenging way. I think there's a huge amount of trust required, and obviously for a very secretive organization, the amount of trust, yes, might be too much required. Anyone over there, if they've done their homework, knows you're gonna be as fair as anyone in the world's going to be, and yet, there's simply things they're not allowed to talk about, and they're not even allowed to say, I'm not allowed to talk about it. So, that's a fundamental part of the church of Scientology is the secrecy. Yeah. So, that's where you're trained as you go up through the ranks is secrecy, secrecy. It's not even a matter of training. It's that there's an entire, the entire upper half of Scientology's bridge is simply confidential. I mean, and I never even did those levels when I was in Scientology. I didn't learn what Scientologists actually believe on those upper levels until after I got out of Scientology, and I was fricking born and raised in it. Let's go there. Let's go to your personal story. So, you've spent 30 years in Scientology. Yeah, I was four years old when my mom got in. And then about seven years ago, I got out, and you're on what, YouTube channel now, and you're an educator. So, I was four years old when my mom got introduced to Scientology, and she got in really fast, really quick. So, I was 12 years old when I was taken out of school and started officially full-time working for Scientology. Okay, so, in various capacities, I worked for them from the ages of 12 to the age of 26. Okay, so, and then I was 34 when I officially parted ways with Scientology, which was really more them officially parting ways with me, but we can get into all that later. That's just kinda how Scientology does it. And what do you do now in terms of Scientology? So, now I run, growing up in Scientology, the YouTube channel, but what I primarily do is I help run an organization that helps people who are escaping from Scientology. I'm the vice president of the Aftermath Foundation. And we created the foundation after the television show, Leo Remini, Scientology in the Aftermath. And there was such an outpouring of support from non-Scientologists all over the world. What can we do to help people leave Scientology? That we decided to create a foundation, and it's been incredibly successful. We've helped people escape from all regions and echelons of Scientology. What we've accomplished is far beyond what we actually envisioned would be possible. It's been a huge success. So, we'll talk about the negative aspect, the abuses of power, but let's just explore the ideas a little bit more. So, the public facing three fundamental truths of Scientology, maybe correct me if I'm wrong. Man is an immortal spiritual being, like we said with Thetans. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime, so infinite memory backwards. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized. The capabilities are unlimited. Yeah, so when I say godlike, I really just mean, you know, Thanos, like unlimited. Scientologists don't believe in a god. So, when I say godlike, I just mean the most powerful entity, the creator, the prime mover unmoved, except we are all that. You know, a Thetan in Scientology, a Thetan has no position in space or time. A Thetan does not actually exist in the physical universe. It might choose to locate itself in the physical universe, right, and then forget that it made that decision and then sort of get caught and trapped in the physical universe, but that once the Thetan is restored to its native powers, everything you see here in the physical universe is just a Thetan playing a game. Like, literally, we are in a simulation right now of some Thetan. So, like, physics doesn't have to make sense when we're talking about it this way. Like, technically, you're a Thetan, I'm a Thetan, we're here, but this could also all just be another Thetan's game. So, Thetan's all the way down. Yeah, it's just, Thetan's everywhere, Thetan's, it all comes down to the Thetan. Is there an idea of a god? Because I read there's a kind of, there is a sense of a supreme being. Is that basically the Thetan that's at the core, at the bottom of it all? Yes. Not defined, undefined. Correct. Scientology has this concept of the dynamics, how Ron Hubbard breaks life into eight different dynamics, and the dynamic meaning a thrust towards survival. So, he would say, you know, the first dynamic is you, yourself. Second dynamic is your family. Third dynamic is any other group that you're a part of other than your family. Fourth dynamic is all humankind. The fifth dynamic is plant and animal life, all non-human life. Sixth dynamic is the physical world. Seventh dynamic is sort of like spirituality, collectively, Thetans, us as Thetans. And the eighth dynamic, Ron Hubbard says, Scientology doesn't deal with the eighth dynamic, but we recognize that people have this idea of a supreme being, and so Scientology says, you can call the eighth dynamic the supreme being dynamic, but we call it infinity. Just the allness of everything without having to define it. And then they sort of do a little dance, and they're like, Scientology, the purpose of Scientology is to get you to the point where you have your own understandings or realizations about the nature of the eighth dynamic. We don't tell you what you have to believe about that. And technically speaking, that is true. Technically speaking, that is true. There's no point in Scientology where they sit you down and say you're now required to revoke your belief in a supreme being. It's just that everything in Scientology is inconsistent with a belief in the supreme being. You can still find Scientologists who through cognitive dissonance will tell you they believe in a supreme being. Mostly they're lying to you. How is this inconsistent with a supreme being? Because like Thetans could- Because Thetans have created everything, not God. Okay, so Thetans created, they're also a creative force, they're not just the force that runs everything. Right. But can't those be just the fingertips of a God? Sure, the only way you could reconcile a supreme being is if you say a single supreme being created all Theta. Yeah. Like the spiritual Big Bang. But that's not what most people think when they talk about God. They're talking about a creator of- The physical universe. Yes. There's no Theta. Right. I mean, even as I've described Scientology so far, none of what I've said is something I even subject to ridicule. This is pretty common sense stuff, actually. I mean, if you believe in spirituality or spirits at all, there's nothing I've described so far that's crazy. Yeah. You know, believing in past lives isn't particularly unique or special. Right. The fact that Scientology does this little dance of pretending to believe in a God, I mean, it's even like a PR line. Scientology representatives will tell you you can be a Christian and be a Scientologist. Well, let me tell you what. Christians don't believe in past lives and lives on other galaxies and planets and universes. And Scientology knows that. Scientology knows you can't be a Christian and be a Scientologist, but they will say that. It's just an example of sort of the fundamental baked in dishonesty. Because it's so important to Scientology on the organizational level to have tax exempt status, I wonder, do you know the process of what it takes to prove that an organization is a religion? While going through that process with the IRS, for the second time, by the way, Scientology actually had tax exemption in the early days and the IRS pulled it and then they got it back in 1993. While going through that process again, the IRS actually took issue with the fact that Scientology was claiming you could be a Scientologist and a member of another religion. The IRS actually said, pump the brakes there. If you're gonna say that, we're gonna say you're not a religion. And they actually put in writing to the IRS, no, no, no, no, no, no, that's not what we meant. That's not what we meant. We meant in the beginning, you can be both. But eventually, you just have to be a Scientologist. So you mentioned the eight dynamics, but you also mentioned survival. So that seems to be a core principle that human existence is about survival. Can you elaborate what is meant by survival? Are we talking about the survival of the human species, survival of the individual humans, survival of the manifestation of thetans in human form? What's survival? So it would be all of that because survival is the dominant force across all the dynamics. That, I mean, L. Ron Hubbard, it was either Dianetics or Science of Survival. He says he discovered the principle upon which all life exists, and that is all life, no matter what it is trying to do, are you ready, Lex? It's trying to survive. That's pretty powerful. That's pretty powerful. See, here's the thing. Is it? No, I gotta tell you, I gotta. You might get me back in, Lex. No, I'm not trying to get you back in. I'm trying to get you to take seriously the power of the ideas behind Scientology because I think those ideas are not bad ideas. They resonate with a lot of ideas throughout philosophy, throughout religions, throughout the history of human civilization. The interesting aspect is how it goes wrong. But here's the thing, Lex, here's the thing. It is consistent with prior efforts or studies. It's just that L. Ron Hubbard said this was a watershed breakthrough, that it was being discovered for the first time. That's kind of what I'm mocking, really. Yeah, but you can mock Nietzsche for saying man is will to power. You can mock Freud. But did he claim to be the first person to ever say it? Well, Nietzsche, he had a bit of an ego, and he's full of contradictions, but I'm pretty sure the implied thing is that he was the first to say it. There's a lot of scientists. There's one of the people I really admire, Stephen Wolfram, who wrote a book called A New Kind of Science that explores complex systems and cellular automata and these mathematical systems that have been explored before. But he boldly kind of defined, I am presenting to you a whole new way to look at the world. And if you just set a little bit of the ego behind that aside, there's actually beautiful ideas in there. They have, of course, been done before and explored before. But sometimes people declare this is the coolest. That's the only thing I'm really mocking is that this discovery that life is trying to survive is greater than the discovery of fire. Okay, I mean, it gets a little silly, but that's fine. We can agree that the fact that life is trying to survive has meaning and is meaningful and is valuable, and it's true. I mean, life is trying to survive. Also, there's a non-trivial definition of what is life here. So this idea of a thing that permeates through lifetimes, through people, there's some fabric that is bigger than the individual biological bags of meat. That's a philosophically interesting idea, of course, if it's not grounded in a little bit more physical reality, then it becomes a little too woo-woo. And the way L. Ron Hubbard in Scientology defines survival is very much intertwined with how they define ethics. Ethics, anything to be ethical is pro-survival. To be unethical is counter-survival. But we were talking about just the concept of the dynamics, like what does survival refer to? And it actually does refer to all of them, but just keep in mind, when it comes to the seventh dynamic, thetans collectively, involved in here is the idea that a thetan cannot die. There's no such thing as killing a thetan. A thetan can only survive. And so, anyway, this concept of the dynamics is one of the most fundamental and important concepts in Scientology. But because I mentioned that it also gets tied up with ethics, and this probably speaks to what you were just talking about, is you can have the ideas and the concepts, and you can have how do they go wrong, because they hold that Scientology, applying Scientology, getting people into Scientology, is the key to basically saving every spiritual being in existence. When you're analyzing what is ethical, it becomes whatever's good for Scientology becomes, by definition, ethical. Because anything that's good for Scientology, which is a third dynamic, is inherently good for all the dynamics. So that's where you get the ends justifying the means to do anything possible, use any means necessary to forward the aims of Scientology. That's kind of where a lot of Soviet implementation of communism went wrong, is the ends justify the means. The equality, the justice for the workers, if we have to kill, murder, imprison, censor, in the name of that, then it's for the greater good in the long term to achieve the ideal of communism. In some respects, Scientology created a near perfect communist experiment in its C organization. What is it, from everyone according to their ability to each according to their need or something like that? Scientology's C organization is damn near a perfect communist experiment. Coming from someone who doesn't necessarily know what a perfect communist experiment really is, because I grew up in a cult, Lex. You can't keep using it as an excuse. It's a funny tagline I use in my videos. I like it. But it is interesting that an organization that is so hyper-capitalist and so money hungry and is known to be very wealthy, at its core, is run by this group of C org members that live a communist lifestyle. We're gonna jump around. Let's go, what is C org? What is C organization? What is this organization? The C organization is the most dedicated version, the most dedicated brand of Scientologists. So there's three echelons of Scientologists. There's public, who just live normal lives in the real world and they pay to do Scientology courses and auditing. Then there's staff members, who also live in the real world, but work on two and a half year contracts or five year contracts at their local Scientology organization. And then once they finish their contract, their debt is paid or whatever. And then there's the C org members. These are the guys who sign the billion year contracts. They don't have lives in the outside world. They don't own property. They live in Scientology provided housing. They eat in Scientology run cafeterias. Is there an actual contract that says a billion years? It's symbolic, but yes. Okay. Like, no, it's not a legally enforceable contract. They haven't succeeded in enforcing it in any subsequent lifetimes yet. Marriage contracts should be like that. A billion year. Not until death do us part, but a billion years, it really makes it very concrete of what you're signing up for. Yeah, those are the billion year guys. You hear a lot about the billion year contract, the billion year contract. That's the C org. And all of Scientology management, international management, middle management, continental management, and even some lower level service orgs, are composed 100% of C org members. You're not allowed to marry or date someone who's not in the C org. You're also not allowed to have children. With anybody outside of C org or in general, you're not allowed to have children? C org members are not allowed to have children unless they leave the C org. If you, you're expected to have an abortion and stay in the C org, because it's the greatest good for Scientology, if you accidentally get pregnant. Interesting, because it distracts from the focus of the work. Yeah. What about sexual relations? Only once married, but that's why people get married after like three days. You're like, hey you, you look, you look all right, let's get married. Are you allowed to have divorce? Yeah, you get divorced a lot in the C org. I've known people who get married and divorced three times by the age of 25. Oh wow. Because in the C org, getting married is practically like dating. Right. Also, unless you're married, you're living in dorms with a bunch of other people. So in order to get your own room, you also have to get married. So there's many benefits. Oh wow, okay. So you mentioned communism, in which way, because is there a hierarchy inside C org? Is there a redistribution of influence, position, money, power inside C org? Everyone in the C org makes $50 a week. Everybody, except David Miscavige, but. Right. And some, some posts might have a cash bonus incentive structure, but fundamentally their pay is $50 a week. So, so even the head of a big Scientology organization is getting 50 bucks a week. Are celebrities also part of C org? Or no, not usually. So this is really the management layer. So what's the idea behind $50 a week? Is that basically live a humble life? They don't have to give you anything at all. It's just, oh, you mean like, what's the idea behind not paying? Yeah, basically not paying. Everything you need is already being provided for you. You're not here for the money. You're working all the time anyway. It's not like you don't have days off. I mean, you're, you're, you're working all the time. There's, there's not, it's, there's no concept of the weekends. There's no, oh, thank God it's Friday. Friday is just another day. And how are the position, the tasks, the jobs allocated within the C org? What do you mean? Like, like what kind of tasks you're doing? What kind of stuff you're doing? It's very similar to just any other business. As far as you can have your human resources, you can have your sales, you can have your accounting, your operations, your quality control. It's just that in Scientology, your operations is delivering courses and auditing. So your operations and your quality control where most of the activity occurs as far as delivering Scientology. And then you've got your, you'd call it business development but that's just bringing in new members, right? So the, the, the function of Scientology's organization is very, very comparable to a normal business in the normal world. So let's talk about the products of this business, auditing and courses. So what's auditing? So auditing is, so we described earlier, Dianetics auditing. Scientology auditing is very similar to that. So at first glance, it looks like psychotherapy, a kind of therapy. All Scientology auditing is going to look like that. It's one-on-one talk therapy. You're in a room by yourselves, no distraction, no noise. One-on-one? Yeah. So like this? Yeah, but, and in Scientology, they have what's called an e-meter. Right. Almost all auditing employs the use of an e-meter. What's an e-meter? So an e-meter is a device that just measures the resistance to a small electrical flow. Except Scientologists believe that this e-meter can be used to simply direct the progress of an auditing session to determine whether the auditing has reached a good satisfactory conclusion. All auditing sessions have to end on a satisfactory conclusion. Like that's the job of the auditor. You don't just, it's not like, sorry, the session sucked, see you next week. It's not like that. Every auditing session has to end on a positive note. And if it doesn't, there's corrections to be made. So the e-meter. What does it look like visually? Oh, you can pull it up. Pull up mark eight, e-meter mark eight. So there's a few dials. Yeah. There's basic information about time and duration, I'm presuming, and then a dial that just goes zero to something. Okay, so let's say that the meter's in front of me and you're the one holding the cans. I'm holding the cans, so you're doing the auditing of me. Yeah. Okay, I'm holding the cans. No, literally, in the beginning of an auditing session, when you're calibrating the sensitivity of the e-meter, you do a can squeeze. So I go, squeeze the cans, please. Okay, so I'm just squeezing the cans. Yeah, and I'm just changing the sensitivity, because when you squeeze the cans, I want to get about a one-third of a dial drop on the needle. The idea is, if the needle's too sensitive, then every time you shift around in your chair, the needle's gonna bounce all over the place. So you're trying to set the sensitivity of this thing. And that's all, the knob there on the bottom to the left, that's the sensitivity knob. And that determines just how sensitive the needle's gonna be. And the bigger dial is called the tone arm, and that is changing, I wanna say voltage or current, but I'm not intending, I'm gonna get one of those words is wrong, right? But it is a real device. It's a real device. That you can actually calibrate to probably, you know, get an outcome that you want. Yeah, so here's even how just a, how a Scientology auditor believes it works. You're holding the cans, there's a tiny little battery in that e-meter that's sending, you're completing the circuit when you pick up the cans, right? So you got a little thing going there. And that needle will respond to your physical movement, but that's not what we want. We want you to sit the hell still so that we can read this thing when I'm asking you questions, okay? So you're sitting there still, very still. As still as you can, comfortable, right? And I'm gonna go, is there something you're withholding from me? And what I'm looking for is right when I say at the end of me, I'm looking for the needle to dip to the right. Having a needle, even if it's kind of random, can really be like a catalyst for a conversation. That's what it's used for, except it's an enforced conversation. So I'll give you a really good example of this. So you're holding the cans. Say, is there anything you're withholding from me? And I get an instant read. And I go, is there anything you're withholding from me? You're gonna go, I don't think so. And I don't see the needle. No, you don't see the needle. I go, well, what did you think of when I asked you the question? Now, if you've already had a lot of auditing, you know how this goes. It means I got an instant read and we're not going to move on until this question gets resolved. Okay, so you're gonna go, I don't know what I was thinking of. And then I'm gonna be like, take a look and I'll help you out here. I'll try to steer you. Okay, so I'm looking to get roughly the same read while you're thinking about whatever. I'm going, what was that? What was that right there? And you can start digging to what? You can start, I just want an answer to the question. Okay. And I can go to memory. Yeah, and you can give me any answer you want. There's no way for me to know if you're giving me the right answer, but I want you to give me something. If you say you can't give me anything, I'm gonna keep using the emitter until you give me something. Okay, so let's say you give me something. I'm gonna get all the details about that. And until like time, place, form, and event, I want to know everything that happened. I want to know all the details. And by the way, I'm writing all this down. So I'm taking notes of everything you're telling me that it's a bad thing that you did that you haven't told me about. Okay, so I'm keeping notes. When you represent to me that you've told me everything there is to tell, I'm looking for the needle to give like a smooth back and forth motion like this. And Scientology calls that a floating needle. That means in Scientology land, we're done with that. So now I might go back to check the question. Okay, good, I'll check the question again. Is there anything you're withholding from me? Ooh, if I get another read, we gotta go through the process again. Okay, if you tell me I've told you everything and I don't get a floating needle, I've gotta go, okay, is there an earlier similar thing? Have you basically done an earlier similar thing? Is there an earlier similar time you haven't told someone something? Or is there an earlier similar thing that you did to the thing that you just told me? We're gonna keep going earlier similar, earlier similar, earlier similar until I get a floating needle. And that's where, explaining it this way, you can see how no matter what the specific auditing session happens to be about, there's still the potential in any auditing session that you're going into past lives. Just because you have to go earlier similar until you get a floating needle. Okay, now here's how Scientologists think the e-meter actually works. Meaning, why does the e-meter work? So we talked before about these mental pictures, right, these recordings. Okay, well we spoke about engrams, just recordings of pain and unconsciousness. Well, Scientology would hold the bad recordings aren't the only recordings that you have. Those are just the recordings in your reactive mind. You also have an analytical mind, which is just your conscious memory, conscious recording of everything from present time to the last 76 trillion years. And Hubbard would say that these memories are actually a perfectly detailed recording. And he says like 56 perceptions or something. And that it's perfect. And you can access that information, you just have trouble doing so. Okay, so he says that these recordings, these mental pictures, have actual electrical charge and mass. Now you asked before, is there any actual physics in this? I don't know, where are you supposed to store the pictures of your last 76 trillion years that have charge and mass? I don't see it. But Hubbard says it's there. Okay, so he says that these things have mass, and when you recall them or put attention on them, you create an electrical flow, which maybe through magnetic fields or whatever, impinges upon the electrical flow of the E-meter and it shows up as a read on the needle. That's how Scientologists believe that's why the needle reads. Now cynics would say the needle only reads on palm sweat and movement. Well, I know that's not true. Right, I can't tell you everything the needle does read on. But I can tell you it's not just moving your hands and sweaty hands. It does correlate to thoughts probably. Some way, some how. Because if it didn't correlate to thoughts, then this process would be way too inefficient. Because there's going to be a bunch of people who are just not, you're not gonna get the, what is it called, the floating needle. Like no matter what. I can't explain to you how you get a floating needle. But it sure as hell isn't hand sweat, and it sure as hell isn't squeezing the cans. Right, so eventually most people will get to the floating needle. And somehow. You get floating needles. There probably is a feedback mechanism that each person realizes how their mind and body, yeah, because you want a resolution, right? It's probably a. You want your needle to float. For both people. Yes. And it's probably a great experience when you're like, yes, it's a gamified feeling, right? Well, when you're training on how to use the e-meter, there are drills where you practice generating with your mind various needle reactions. So, you know, there is a drill where you sit there and you consciously try to create a floating needle by recalling happy thoughts. You go to your happy place. And at the end of every auditing session, you actually have to go to a third party, sit down in front of an e-meter, and verify that your needle's floating. Nice. Every single auditing session not only has to end on a floating needle, but then you have to go to someone else and have the floating needle verified. Any Scientologist who's a seasoned recipient of auditing knows how to make their needle float at the examiner. Well, I gotta be honest, though. This process, again, sorry to be sort of going there, but it feels like this is a very rigorous talk therapy session. Is there good aspects to this? Sure. A lot of people find auditing very helpful. I mean, I've heard some describe it as quite thoroughly addictive. Me, personally, I never enjoyed getting auditing. That's probably more a function of having been raised in it, and it was never something I wanted to do. It was something that was forced on me as a child. And also, I was never, I don't like talking about private secret stuff. Like, you kinda have to want to be an open book to honestly and thoroughly participate in an auditing session. Because there's not necessarily a belief that this is gonna be private. There's no expectation of privacy, but there's no expectation that your stuff's gonna be leaked for blackmail, either. I mean, you trust the people in the organization. Even despite rumors and stuff like that, but the rumors are coming from people that are lying to you, essentially. If you're a Scientologist, and you're participating in an auditing session, you know that anyone in the organization has the ability to know the stuff that you talk. It's not like, oh my God, I'm only telling my auditor because I think no one's ever gonna know. You know that people know, but you also trust the organization. How quickly does it go to past memories? For people who are seasoned, they actually like going past life. I hated it. I would make sure, I was really good at making my needle float. I didn't want to have some auditor, because I never believed in the past life memories. So I didn't want to be in that impassable, reach an impasse in an auditing session where I was being asked for something I couldn't provide. Because I knew this auditing session has to end on a good point. But Scientologists enjoy, for the most part, going, they call it whole track. Whole track is past life. Going whole track. Your time track, they call it the time track, is your whole memory, but whole track refers to anything past life. So going whole track, or deep whole track, with high reality. Meaning, it's not like, oh, I have a fuzzy memory and I'm not sure if it's real. Like, your real seasoned Scientologists are like, oh yeah, I was on this planet at this time, circling this star, and this is what I was eating for breakfast. Fascinating. Before the origin of life on Earth. So billions of years ago, on a distant planet where you were eating for breakfast. Or other universes. I wonder if that's a nice shortcut to sneak up to actual trauma that happened to you as a therapy device. I just, so putting Scientology aside, I'm thinking about, as a technique for therapy, discussing, basically, some people have trauma, and one of the things you do with therapy is bring the trauma to the surface, that's the stuff that happened to you in childhood. Maybe it's a more convenient thing to do to kind of map that indirectly onto a fictitious telling of what happened to you, something like that trauma on a distant planet elsewhere. Could be a nice way to sneak up to it. Yeah, and it goes both flows there. Not just things that have happened to you, but things that you've done. So you could be being asked for, you'd be going back to, I wiped out a civilization. I committed genocide on this race on this planet. Oh wow. Oh yeah. But so you can actually take on a whole new guilt. Oh yeah. So, okay, all right, you might actually take on a lot more guilt than I go of. Because if you feel like that self-critical aspect of the brain, boy, because my brain is really self-critical. So I could see myself manufacturing, if I was forced to over time, some kind of story where I did genocide a whole population of like Pluto or something at a distant, is somewhere in Alpha Centauri. Yeah, so I mean. And now I walk around with that guilt. Wait, I'm actually a horrible person. So imagine though, if you had not only are you looking at, you know, if someone's being self-critical, trying to identify destructive patterns of behavior in your present life, but what if you really internalize the fact that I haven't only been this way for 40 years. I've been this way for 40 trillion years. Yeah. But Scientology would argue that as a Thetan, you're inherently good. All Thetans are basically good. So the goal of the auditing procedure there would be essentially to figure out, find the moment, find what it was that caused you to make that shift as a being to dramatize, you know, evil intentions and stuff like that. So even if you're going whole track, looking at all the horrible things you've done, the goal is to find like, well, what happened just prior to that? What was like the prior confusion? And what did you misunderstand just before that and whatnot? So the goal is basically, so Scientologists, after a lot of auditing, are also convinced that they have fixed the reason for any non-optimum conduct. And underlying this is a belief that at the core, we're all good. Yes. There's a lot of really powerful ideas in Scientology, which is so interesting that it goes wrong. Okay, what about the training you mentioned? The training of the auditor, that's really interesting. So how lengthy is that process? It can take years. I mean, one of that question I wanna ask is, are people in Sea Org, like as an auditor, do you believe everything? How much, is there a crisis of faith that creeps in? In religion, you have a crisis of faith when you start to wonder, like, does God even exist? So in this case, how often do you start to doubt that some of the core beliefs of Scientology are false? Scientology would say that Scientology is not about beliefs. It's about application of the techniques of Scientology auditing to improve someone's spiritual awareness and ability. So the belief level of Scientology is pretty much the stuff we've already discussed. The effectiveness of the auditing process. So the effectiveness of the auditing process, this is one of the things Hubbard says, is that standard tech, standard Scientology, they call it the tech, the technology of how to deliver auditing, standard tech, works 100% of the time when applied 100% correctly. Well, that's kind of unfalsifiable, right? Because any time it doesn't work. It wasn't applied correctly. Exactly. That's a nice little escape hatch to pull on having a crisis of faith. It didn't work. Well, then obviously it wasn't applied correctly. That's where quality control comes in. Their job is to nitpick, and you can always find one thing that wasn't done correctly. Communism didn't work because it wasn't implemented correctly. It's always an escape hatch with ideologies. That's right. That's right. I would probably argue that auditors are not in a position of having many crisis of faith, because actually they're usually seeing people, for the most part, improve in some ways through the process of auditing. Now, auditing can create a state of somewhat of a euphoric state. You feel great. You're just blown out of your head. You feel on top of the world. I've had that in some of my auditing. As an auditor, sorry? No, as a person receiving auditing. And so my point is that as an auditor doing a lot of auditing, you're gonna have someone in front of you called the pre-clear, is the person in front of you who's getting the auditing, called the PC or the pre-clear. They see over and over and over again these PCs having these sort of euphoric states and floating needles, and I feel great and fantastic. No, thanks, you saved my life, and da-da-da-da-da. I've always said, if people didn't find Scientology helpful nobody would ever stay in Scientology. Right. And so auditors are pretty much the ones doing the heavy lifting of what it even means to be a Scientologist. Those guys aren't the ones that you end up having crisis of faith. I mean, doing Scientology, auditing, it doesn't require that you just have faith that you believe something. You just have to go through these motions. And Scientologists, one of the reasons Scientologists think this is all scientific is because it's like, I don't care if you believe why this works. I care how you feel at the end of an auditing session. And empirically speaking, like anecdotal data is it actually seems to improve people's lives within the context, so taking the outside world out of it, within this particular organization, you're actually measurably seeing improvement. Yes. Is that to some degree real? Because like, if you look at a book like Animal Farm, where the pigs start to rule the other animals and over time, the life of the animals gets worse and worse and worse while the pigs keep saying that it's actually getting better and better and better. Again, communism, same thing. The rationing is getting worse and worse and worse, less and less food, but there's constant reporting that there's more and more food. We're winning, hashtag. I would argue that what you've just described could be an identical description of what it feels like and what it means to go up Scientology's bridge to total freedom. You are reinforcing to yourself that everything's getting better and better and better, and you'd be like, you don't spend time with your family anymore, you're broke, even though you make a lot of money, you're always stressed, you're at the beck and call of these people who seem to run your lives. Like, how a Scientologist feels about their own life is, it's very interesting to compare that to how that person's life looks to their non-Scientology family members. I get contacted by a lot of people who've never been in Scientology, but they're like, I got a family member who's really deep, and can you help me understand some things, why is this person's life like this? Why is this person's life like this? So, I don't wanna say that Scientologists do not actually, I don't wanna say, oh, it's all in their heads, they think they're being helped, but they're really not. That doesn't feel honest, you know? But it's this thing where if Scientology was just getting auditing when you wanted, about the subjects you wanted, and you could take it or leave it, that would be fine. It's the fact that it's part and parcel to this entire organization and this entire experience that has, as a part of that experience, taking everything from you, demanding everything from you, controlling who you can speak with, controlling who you can have relationships with, who you have to erase from your life. This is where, and it's hard to place one pinpoint on this is where Scientology goes wrong. It's really hard to do that, because the good parts of Scientology and the bad parts of Scientology are all just Scientology. Yeah, so there's definition of what's bad for you, and it's probably in the beginning is bad for you. This almost just sounds like a template of a toxic relationship. You know, there's a bunch of stuff in this world that is just not good for you, so the authoritarian says, like, I'm just protecting you by blocking you off from those negative things, and they are probably negative things, but then this freedom starts closing in to where you can't no longer speak freely, think freely, act freely, and there's some, I mean, that's why sort of power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That person doing the controlling actually starts getting that dopamine rush of the controller that's exciting, and it's a vicious negative cycle. So you start out, it starts out good, because he's trying to do good for the person, but then it somehow goes to shit. Yeah. So what are the aspects that are often controlled about a person who's in Scientology, especially C-WORK? Well, information control, access to the internet, access to any information critical of Scientology. Is some internet access allowed? Public Scientologists has no restrictions to their access to the internet. They're just not allowed to read anything critical of Scientology. Oh, okay, so they're supposed to self-control what they read or not, and what's the explanation? Is it always assumed that anything critical of Scientology is a lie? Mm-hmm. They really push this thing that unless you've been in a Scientology organization yourself, or unless you've actually been a Scientologist, you couldn't possibly know the truth about Scientology. If you're only getting information from people who aren't members or former members, then you couldn't possibly be getting the correct information. Now, they don't realize the math there doesn't make sense. If you can find out the true information by becoming and being a Scientologist, then that means you can get the correct information from a former Scientologist because they traveled that path and they got the correct information. So they still create this, they try to create this unfalsifiable loop where unless you are personally doing it, you don't have correct information. And you go, well, what about the people who did personally do it, got the correct information, left, and are now sharing that with others? Well, no, those are lies. Well, okay, so just anything you don't like is a lie then. And you go, yeah, pretty much. That's kind of how it works. So what about the control of negative information on the internet? What, like, the actual operations? I've, you know, preparing, I should admit, I don't know too much about Scientology. I was doing a bunch of reading, and the Wikipedia page on Scientology, interestingly enough, is not that negative about Scientology. So it made me ask, you have to be a little bit careful how you consume stuff from Wikipedia. You have to consider, because money can buy things there. There's certain special interests and so on. But it made me wonder, like with a lot of controversial topics, what is true? And where do I look, where do I go for truth? So how much deliberate action is there to control what is true on the internet by Scientology? Well, these days, they've pretty much, I think, thrown in the towel. But the Scientology middle management was editing Wikipedia so often from IP addresses that were traced back to the Scientology buildings that Wikipedia locked them out from any IP addresses associated with Scientology from being able to edit it. It's like, Scientology was so infatuated with trying to control the information. And in the early days of the internet, they had a certain degree of success with that. It's just hopeless these days. The scale, the scale is not there. But actually, I'm very surprised how bot farms, how effective that can be at a very small scale. If you just pay 100 people to spread narratives. But the reason that's effective is you can kind of create conspiracy theories that create chaos and nobody knows what is true, that bot farms can do. But actually, really nicely controlling a narrative is hard. So to create chaos, it's easier to do. To basically say, do PR control is very hard. Yeah, so especially on the internet, especially when the critical eye is there, the internet can smell bullshit, which is one of the really, really powerful thing about the internet. And I gotta tell you, it's one of the reasons I do my YouTube channel. It's one of the reasons I decided to upload every day. I've uploaded every day for the last six months. I just wanted there to be a nonstop flow of information of any kind and any variety, as long as it's fair and balanced, intelligent, interesting that Scientologists who stumble upon the internet will go, oh, look, someone's talking about my thing. Let's see what they got going on. And I know this guy. The fact that Scientology crushes so much information, before YouTube, before, I have the only big Scientology channel, and that only got big in the last six months. Okay, so before that, there were channels, there was things, but it's almost like it took a lot of, people felt like it took a lot of bravery and courage to say something on the internet about Scientology. And so people would pop up, and there weren't very many voices. And I was like, I want this to be prolific. I want to be prolific. I want to have 30 or 40 other channels being prolific so that Scientology couldn't possibly successfully control the narrative about it. Have you been personally attacked? AaronSmith11.com is a website created by the Church of Scientology. Have you seen it? No. What kind of content is on there? Oh, Aaron's abusive father and a horrible husband and the worst staff member we've ever had. Oh, I openly talk about it, because I think the fact that Scientology even does things like that is fucking hilarious. And anything they try to do to me, the way I think about it is, you know you're just giving me an opportunity to turn the mirror back on you and show everyone how horrible you are. Does it stick? No. So you find that there is ineffective. It's completely ineffective. They're so over the top. And I'll tell you how the website even came into being. So I was on the first season of Leah Remini's Scientology in the Aftermath. Every single person who participated in that show got a website. It's just that everyone else's website is like, whoismarkhedley.com, whoismikerinder.com. Well, I bought whoisaaronsmith11.com, but I was too stupid to buy Aaron, I didn't buy AaronSmith11.com. So I'm actually the only one who has a website in their name. Oh, nice. Yeah. And I'm like, I could probably get a lawyer to get it back for me, but I'm like, why? I want everyone to see what a nasty, petty, disgusting organization that this is. And nobody believes anything Scientology says anyway. Does the general public know that it comes from Scientology? Pull it up. It says right on the bottom, copyright 2000 whatever, Church of Scientology International. Like they didn't even try to hide it. AaronSmith11.com. Yeah. A man with no moral compass. Aaron Smith, who is he really? Aaron Smith 11, a man with no moral compass. Read about Aaron Smith Levin's, an angry man spreading hate from the internet's shadows. Open mouth shot. And you're saying like at the, wow, there's testimonies. Oh, there's videos from former coworkers. The slightest thing just sets him off and he just goes totally nuts. Well, that one is true. I didn't understand why you slapped me before the interview. I felt that. I got links to everyone else's website on the bottom. It's so funny. Who is, okay. But like 2021 Church of Scientology International all rights reserved. Here's an example of just Scientology's complete lack of self-awareness. So me and Mike Rinder, we went and have these on like a house flip project, right? You know, we were. Wait, Mike Rinder? You know Mike Rinder. Do I? He gave me a bobblehead of the guy. I don't know him. I was just, I would like to talk to him about him, but this, there's a very fine gentleman here with a bobblehead. The reason we created the bobblehead is because on Mike Rinder's hate site, Scientology created a gif or a gif. How do you say it? What's the right way to say it? The correct way is gif. Gif, good. Scientology created a gif of Mike Rinder as a bobblehead. It was an insult like, oh, all he does is sit next to Leah Remini and go, yes, Leah, yes, Leah. And so they made a gif of him with a bobblehead. So we were like, we're gonna make Mike Rinder bobbleheads and we're gonna sell them on the spshop.com to raise money for the Aftermath Foundation. I love it. Yeah. Go out and buy. Yeah, go to thefcreshop.com and get yourself a Mike Rinder bobblehead. Now look, now that my profile's getting a little higher, this head was made to bobble. Like this smooth, shiny head needs its own bobblehead now. It does, 100% does. I can't believe it doesn't exist. So, but let me show you. So here's what's happening here. We just hired some day laborers off of what, like Craigslist or something. Yeah. So what Scientology did was they had a private investigator stake out the house flip project. They were clearly running license plates of anyone who visited the property because otherwise how would they find out the laborers' names, do background checks on them to find out they had criminal records? And they published this as if it's gonna reflect negatively on me. Oh, we hired someone to do work who had a criminal record? Who gives a shit? Do you know one of the biggest problems people with records have is finding employment. There's nothing bad about hiring someone who's got a criminal record. It doesn't reflect negatively on me, but it shows you what they think about those people. It shows you what they think about people who are trying to put their lives back together and maybe actually work for a living. And it also shows that they're surveilling us. They don't realize that putting this up, they're publishing information that they could only have if they're surveilling me and Mike, and it doesn't occur to them, maybe we shouldn't put that up. Just the general process, sad to say, of journalism where they're looking for any kind of dirt and they're trying to conjure up a story, and there's something about drama and negative stories that get clicks and so on. So this is a general process. The more, especially the more celebrity you become, the more of these kinds of attacks come and they look for any kind of thing that could be, it doesn't even have to be facts. It could be just asking who is he really. Seems to have traction on the internet. What is the actual truth of the man you keep claiming you are, of the good man you keep claiming you are? It's fascinating. But sometimes that can be effective. But I think if you're being transparent and authentic and just putting yourself out there completely and your story completely, then that's the best way to fight it. That's the other reason to be prolific on the internet, right? The reason Joe Rogan can't get canceled is because anyone can watch thousands of hours of the authentic Joe Rogan. You can't misrepresent him because he spent thousands of hours representing himself genuinely. Yeah, the nice thing when you're representing yourself genuinely, you should be a good person. So if you're a good person, then the internet will know. They can smell out the bullshit. Who is David Miscavige? It's even like, because you said L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology. Yeah. Let's go to the story of how we transitioned from that to David Miscavige. The current leader of Scientology. He was actually not selected by L. Ron Hubbard to take over, but ended up usurping power and taking over. This sounds like Stalin and Trotsky and communism, similar story. It's the person, oftentimes in these situation, it's not the natural successor to power. It's the one that takes power. Right. I think the quote, sometimes it gets attributed to David Miscavige is, power is not given, it is assumed. Something like that. The last six years of L. Ron Hubbard's life, he was often a seclusion, essentially hiding from lawsuits. Now, by the time Hubbard went off into seclusion, Miscavige had sort of already risen up through the ranks of the C organization. Now, Miscavige was like a teenager, either like 11, 12, 13, something like that. Miscavige was not born into Scientology, but he was a young boy when his father got into Scientology. So Miscavige did start working as a C org member. So there's one organization that existed to essentially serve Hubbard directly and to represent his interests. And that was called the Commodore. He was the Commodore of the C organization. The Commodore's Messenger's organization, we're gonna call it the CMO. Miscavige started working for the CMO pretty early on in his C org career, by the way, as did Mike Rinder, mini Mike. And so he just became known as a doer, like a guy who'll get it done. No excuses, no stops, get it done. So he had made a name for himself in the CMO around the time, by the time Hubbard went off into seclusion. Now, when he went off into seclusion, he took two other CMO, or I'm gonna call them messengers, Commodore's Messengers. He took two other messengers with him, Pat and Annie Broker. Now, it has been said by people, Mike, Mike Rinder has told me, he goes, the reason Pat and Annie went off with LRH isn't necessarily because he desperately wanted them to, but partly because we could afford to let them go. We didn't necessarily need them. And between the two of them, Annie was the one who was like a really compassionate person, intelligent person, caring person. Was there a possible trajectory of this world where she was the one that took over? Yes, in fact, Pat and Annie Broker were the two people that were supposed to take over, okay? But because Pat and Annie were with Hubbard in seclusion, Miscavige basically had the complete run of the operation without any oversight from Hubbard. The only way any information would get from Scientology World to Hubbard is Miscavige and Pat Broker would meet at a confidential location, and Miscavige would give Broker any information he wanted to go to LRH. So if Miscavige wanted to get rid of somebody, all he had to do was feed LRH false information that this person had been caught doing something treasonous. And then he would get in response some order from L. Ron Hubbard to get rid of this person. So are there so many similarities between various communist regimes and fascist regimes? Well, Hitler did the same thing when he became the Supreme Leader. He had to take power. Yeah, he had to wait for the president to die, but the whole time there's a control on information and a slow aggregation of power. Of course, with nations it's different because if you control the military, you control a lot. So you have to also get the generals on your side and so on. But I'm sure in this situation, there is similar kind of dynamics. You have to get certain people on your side, control the flow of information, let the original founder, the original leader die off, and make sure that you are the one that's left with the power. Right. So whereas Pat and Annie are off with LRH, all of Scientology's attorneys and accountants and lobbyists and whatever, they all know Dave. Dave's the one they deal with. So LRH passes away, Pat and Annie make this appearance. Nobody knows Pat and Annie. Everybody knows Dave. And so he ended up getting rid of Pat and Annie. This is a very short, perhaps slightly bastardized version of it, of Miscavige basically. They had been ushering just suitcases of cash to L. Ron Hubbard during this time. And so you have Miscavige handing boatloads of cash to Pat Broker. Pat would do crazy things like hide the money in the walls of houses and dig pits and everything. So Miscavige basically threatened to turn Pat Broker over to the IRS for tax evasion. Pat Broker's still alive. Is he a Scientologist or no? No, he basically went away and kept his mouth shut. She died a handful of years ago. She stayed a loyal Sea Org member until the very end. But literally, Miscavige put her on menial tasks. She had no authority whatsoever. She was just put on menial tasks, washing dishes, but not really, groundskeeper, just stupid low-level assistant, paper pusher stuff. She never operated with any actual authority, even though she was supposed to be the one to take over her and Pat. So on David Miscavige, difficult question, but can you make both the case that he is a good man who's misunderstood and the case that he's not a good man? First of all, I believe that Miscavige is a true believer in Scientology. I do believe that. That's a really important question. Do you think he believes in all the things and all of that? He definitely believes in that. I think he believes in Scientology, but in a different way than all other Scientologists because he's aware of a lot more information, damaging information about L. Ron Hubbard and the true story of Scientology than most people. So his version of belief is different. I'll give you one example here. So Scientology's bridge to total freedom goes up to what they call OT8, Operating Theta and Level Eight. Scientologists have all been told that L. Ron Hubbard, before he passed, finished, completed, putting together OT9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. It's just sitting in the vault, waiting to be released. This is part of the Scientology belief system because remember, I said going up Scientology's bridge to total freedom is how you're supposed to get back to your native godlike state. Well, all the Scientologists in the world who've already done OT8 know that they haven't gotten there, but they still believe in Scientology because they're told there's more. But wait, there's more. Miscavige knows there is no more. So Miscavige knows the fundamental promise of being able to achieve full Operating Thetan is a lie. He knows L. Ron Hubbard didn't accomplish that, so therefore, no one else is going to accomplish it as well. If L. Ron Hubbard had accomplished it, Miscavige knows, well, he didn't write it up, he didn't leave instructions for how anyone else would accomplish it. So no matter what, Miscavige knows that the fundamental promise, that what Scientology is saying, they will be able to deliver to mankind is a lie. Now, it's gonna sound like I'm contradicting myself because it sounds like I'm saying, well, he knows it's bullshit. I think he believes that L. Ron Hubbard just failed to finish his work, and he's kind of hoping L. Ron Hubbard's gonna come back to finish the job because L. Ron Hubbard did tell the people at the International Management Base, at least a core of them, that he was coming back. Now, we know that David Miscavige believed this because right around the 21-year mark, he was supposed to come back like 21 years after he died. Right around the 21-year mark, David Miscavige was getting busy putting some things in place that had to get done in case L. Ron Hubbard came back. So we know he at least believed to that level. Do you believe that L. Ron Hubbard can sort of enter his own body? No, that's not how it works in Scientology. Okay, so you can't have a transfer of thetans. If you were full OT, you could. Can you describe the OT again? So OT levels, OT one, two, three, four, five to the eight. What are they? How do you get to level one? I'm gonna answer this question by first connecting some dots. Yes. Okay. We spoke earlier in the interview about achieving your native godlike state. That in Scientology is called native state. Okay, native state and full operating thetan mean the exact same thing. Okay, because at native state, you are a fully operating thetan. You know, operating meaning operating in your full capacity. So OT means operating thetan. So the upper confidential half of Scientology's bridge are called the OT levels, the operating thetan levels. And these, and remember, they're confidential. So most Scientologists have not done these levels. They don't know what's on them. It is on these levels that you learn about the zenu in the body thetan story. Can you describe zenu please? We spoke earlier about how at the lower non-confidential levels of Scientology's bridge, Hubbard is saying that what's wrong with you is your reactive mind. Yes. Okay. Well, in Scientology, once you've gotten rid of your reactive mind, that is what's called the state of clear. Okay, so after you finish state of clear, the next thing on the bridge is the OT levels. Well, if you've already gotten rid of your active mind, what the heck are you supposed to do now? Well, now L. Ron Hubbard says, okay, first, what was wrong with you was just your reactive mind. But now the next thing you have to resolve, the next thing that's wrong with you is you actually have tens of thousands of thetans stuck to your body, and they all have their own reactive minds. Oh, wow. You have to audit the thetans. How do you audit the thetans? Are these like different shades of your inner mind, and you just have to try to access them somehow? You use the E-meter, just like we spoke about, except now you've got a divider that separates the cans so they don't short circuit, and you hold both cans in one hand, and you have the E-meter in front of you. So now you're auditing yourself. You're telepathically talking to the thetans that are stuck to you. You are thinking the commands instead of saying them out loud, and you sort of do drills where you practice looking for E-meter reads at the instant you have a thought. You're telepathically auditing spirits that L. Ron Hubbard says are stuck to your body. Does this sound like a recipe for a mental breakdown? Or a heck of a mental journey. Wherever that leads, it could lead anywhere. It'd probably lead to a very bad place, right? Very often does. And you combine that with the fact that Scientology is against any forms of mental help or health outside of Scientology, and you have a recipe for disaster. Now, you might go, where did all these spirits come from that are stuck to your body? This is where Xenu comes into play. So Hubbard says that 75 million years ago, Xenu was basically a dictator. The Galactic Confederation is like 70-something or 80-something planets somewhere in the Milky Way, and Xenu was like a dictator, an overlord for either one of these planets or the whole system. And they had a population problem. And Xenu was like, we need to get rid of half the people. So we called them all in for tax audits. Alvin Hubbard didn't like the IRS, so of course the story has to do with tax audits. Okay, called them all in for tax audits, said, psych bitches, froze them in glycol, loaded them up on space planes, flew them to Earth. Remember, the story has to be Earth because the story is What's Wrong With Us? Flew them to Earth, dropped them in volcanoes, blew them up with hydrogen bombs, and then captured them with like spirit magnets. I'm making up words, because, okay. And these disembodied spirits of these people that got blown up have just been blown in the wind here on Earth, and they attach themselves to things, and they can be in the environment, and they stick to bodies and everything. And they all have reactive minds. So at Scientology's upper levels, if you get sick or you have cancer or there's something wrong with you, Scientology will say, that's one of your body things. You need to get some auditing to fix the body things. So this story, you do it with a kind of bit of a chuckle. But when done seriously, so it's just told in a serious way. Or written down, and you read it. By most accounts, Scientologists struggle when they read this for the first time, because this is not consistent with what Scientologists are hoping for is on the OT levels. They're hoping for some real life-changing magic. The way these things are described and sold, they're, remember, they're hoping that these OT levels are gonna give them the ability to go completely independent of their body at will. Exteriorize from your body, go back into your body. I have some real spirit powers. So first it's kind of a shock. But then you still probably believe, you hope. And you might turn into, on yourself, self-critical that this is, I'm just not strong enough yet. Yeah, because also part of Scientology, remember, it works 100% of the time when used 100% correctly. And if it doesn't, it could be because something's not being done right, but it also could be because you're doing bad things that you're not telling people about. Like if you're committing present time, overts, crimes, sins, Scientologists would be like, that's part of the reason auditing isn't working on you, is because you're committing criminal behavior that you're not being honest about. So every Scientologist is sort of incentivized to make auditing work on them, okay? Now Lex, this is where it gets a little crazy. On OT-3, you learn about the OT, the body thing for the first time. When you finish OT-3, you attest to having achieved the state of having no more body things. And then you start OT-4, and he's like, psych, you got more, you got more BTs, except those other BTs, they had drug problems, and that's why you couldn't find them the first time. So we're gonna do something a little different here, do something a little different there. Gotta get rid of these BTs that were addicted to drugs, okay? Then you finish OT-4, and you're thinking, man, I hope we get to the good stuff soon. And then you get to OT-5, and he's like, psych, you got more BTs! You couldn't find these BTs, because they were all bunched up together in clusters, and first you have to break up the clusters, and then you can get rid of the BTs, and you're like, okay, gotta do that. And this was all L. Ron Hubbard approved. Yeah, this is from L. Ron Hubbard. And then, after you finish OT-5, you get rid of all the BT clusters. OT-6 is just a training course to teach how to audit OT-7. Well, OT-7 is now more BTs, except it's in the environment and stuff. You're trying to locate BTs. You can find them on your body, but it's just more BTs. Okay, and then OT-8 is, remember we talked about in all these auditing sessions throughout the entire Scientology bridge, you have people who've run hundreds or thousands of past life whole track incidents. These memories have become part of their self-identity of who they even think they are. OT-8, you go through all these past life recalls, and essentially, I'm oversimplifying this a little bit, he goes, psych, all those past life memories weren't yours. They were your BTs. And he goes, now that you've discovered this, now you know who you are not, and you are ready to find out who you really are. Well, now you're supposed to find out who you really are on OT-9 and 10. Those don't exist. Do we know they don't exist? Yes. In fact, the whole story of how that became known is part of how David Miscavige was able to get rid of Pat Broker and take over power, because it was believed that Pat Broker was in possession of the upper unreleased OT levels. And when Miscavige determined that he was not, and there weren't, in fact, any levels, that was a bad day to be David Miscavige, because he now knew he had something on his hands he could not get himself out of. He's like, oh. So there's no gap for faith to seep in, that there is a level nine and 10, 11, and 12. Oh, the faith is there. Scientologists believe that these things do exist. Yeah. L. Ron Hubbard didn't leave anything behind. Does David Miscavige believe they exist? Oh, no, he knows they don't exist. No, but. When I say exist, oh, I don't mean do advanced levels of spiritual awareness exist. When I said it, it means did L. Ron Hubbard write down what anyone is supposed to do that's called OT nine. That doesn't exist. So you're saying David Miscavige believes that they can be written down, so they exist sort of in a platonic sense, and L. Ron Hubbard is the only one that can write it down? Yes. So his faith is really deep. Oh, you mean his faith that only L. Ron Hubbard could have ever been the one to do it? Yeah. Yes. The full principles, beliefs of Scientology, he is, do you have, are you sure he believes? That what exactly? Everything about Scientology that is true. To the best of my ability to know that, I believe it to be true. Like, I'll give you some all even stupid examples. Like Mike Renders told a story where at the International Base, Miscavige actually had like a copper contraption built into the ground, like grounded into the ground, to come out where you could hold it, and he had something he sort of came up with to, your BT, it could ground your BTs. Could get your BTs that if you were feeling over-stimulated or something. I'm probably slightly bastardizing this story, but he came up with this as a great idea, something to help someone de-stimulate if their BTs were getting a little too overactive. Now, so that's a stupid story that's sort of like, well, it shows you he believes in the concept of BTs, of his creating little rods to get rid of them, to ground them into the earth. Well, he could be conjuring up the stories because he understands the power of myth and narrative and so on to inspire. Sure. But like, but also if we look at history, both with, this is the interesting thing because I've been reading a lot about Hitler and Stalin, and it seems like both of them in different ways believed in the stories they were telling. Even when the stories, this is the fascinating, especially with Hitler and propaganda, where they were literally conjured up at first, but then you start to believe your own propaganda. With Stalin, I think what he always believed is the bigger ideal of pure communism and anything justifies the journey to communism because it will ultimately be good for humanity to achieve the state of pure communism. And then he's a godlike figure that can bring humanity there. But like, with Hitler, it's interesting because there's constant propaganda that he knows is not true. A little bit, there's gotta be doubt, but then he like, all doubt is removed very quickly. Yeah. I guess humans are just, this is how they operate. Yeah. The conversation about David Miscavige gets really interesting because I could give you a, if I wanted to make the argument that he didn't believe, I could give you a dozen examples to make that argument. I just happen to think that he believes in a different way, whereas your average Scientologist believes that Alvaron Hubbard was practically infallible, that he thought of everything in advance, he took care of everything before he left, and Miscavige still believes in like the main structure of this thing, but he's like, oh shit, it's falling to me to figure out how to actually make this thing happen. I think Miscavige sees himself as someone who has to a certain degree had to go back and fix Alvaron Hubbard's mistakes. Do you think he sees himself as doing good for the world? I do. What about for the people of Scientology? I think in his own way, he does. I don't think he wakes up thinking he's screwing Scientologists. I think he sees everyone else as screwing him. I think he sees that it is his job to expand Scientology throughout the world and accomplish the aims of Scientology, and he sees that it's not happening, and he thinks if everyone else would just stop, if everyone else would get out of his way and stop creating problems for him, it would happen. I do think he sees himself as someone who is doing good. I think that's fair to say. I think the evidence shows that. What about the effects of clearly power and influence that he's had and money? Yeah, without question, that has served as a corrupting force. It has. Without question. Have you seen sort of evidence of that, that he's changed over time? After the 1993 IRS exemption that Scientology won back, and this information comes from Mike Rinder, that's when David Miscavige, as soon as the checks on his power were removed, Miscavige's behavior changed markedly. Can you tell the story of Shelley Miscavige and the mystery surrounding her? I saw that there is quite a bit of mystery. Yeah. So Shelley Miscavige, for many years, held the job of her post in the C organization was David Miscavige's assistant. That was her post. It's important to truly understand that and what that means, because the fact that she was Miscavige's wife is meaningless. And this is something that's hard to, for regular people in the regular world, to truly grasp how meaningless it is in Scientology. For C-org members who are spouses, it means nothing. Your role matters more within C-org. Your role's the only thing that matters. So let's say if Shelley was married to Dave, but she worked in a different organization. She would never be seen with him ever, publicly ever. Wouldn't travel with him, wouldn't go to events with him, nothing. Sometime around 2006, 2007, and I'm very oversimplifying this, okay? Shelley basically pissed off Dave to the point where he's like, okay, I'm done with you. I'm gonna take you off of your post, okay? At that point, she was reassigned to another confidential Scientology base up in Twin Peaks, California. Why am I, the reason I'm providing this type of detail is because we hear that Shelley's missing. Yeah. Okay, well, you realize the same people who report that Shelley's missing are also the same people who will tell you exactly where she is. Okay, she works at this secretive CST, Church of Spiritual Technology base out in Twin Peaks, California. I have personal confirmation that she was seen and spoken with by someone who knew her well in, I'll say 2019. Shelley Miscavige is missing in the sense that she hasn't been seen with David Miscavige since about 2006. But because she's no longer his assistant, you would never see her with him. As opposed to like the mystery of a person that might be murdered, this is more of a reallocation within the organization. Certain people who cover Scientology, who have published stories where Shelley's Miscavige's family member told a story to another family member, who told the story to a friend, who told the story to a former Scientologist, who told the story to a journalist, who published the story, has created the impression that some of Shelley Miscavige's family members are actually talking to the press, when in fact that has never occurred. And so the very people who are publishing about Shelley Miscavige missing have contributed to the fact that Shelley Miscavige does no longer speak to those family members, because she thinks they're talking to the press, when they never have. It's pretty messed up. It's sad that she, because those family members would be a way for her to recover, to flourish as a human being, to escape. Yeah. So I believe the information that I have, that I verified, I'm the one representing it's true without revealing my sources. That Shelley was still actively in touch regularly with family members outside of the C organization since about, until about 2014. So I mean regularly. Okay. So there's no question about her safety during that period. And then someone else who knew Shelley very well, did see her and actually have a conversation with her in a public place in 2019 or 2020. Now somebody could still come along and be like, how do we know she's okay? It's been three years. Yeah, okay. You can say that about anybody. You know, there's the nature of working in the highest levels of Scientology management at these super secretive bases. It's a very weird and unique situation. It has isolation baked in. How is secrecy enforced? Why is everybody holding on to their stories so intensely? People that are within the organization, like it's hard to leak information. Oh, they wouldn't wanna leak. They're true believers. They see, like there's sort of a conspiracy theory that runs right through all of Scientology, which is that Scientology represents like an existential threat to the powers that really control this planet. Do they have a face to the powers that really control? Do they have names to it? Like who's controlling? It's Zeno's homies. Well, I'm sure that's not what they say. Zeno embodied in- It's actually sort of a multifaceted conspiracy in that on the one hand, L. Ron Hubbard points his fingers at like the international bankers, which has shades of antisemitism to it. And then the IRS is going to be quickly baked in or no? The IRS, no, the IRS is so low on the totem pole as far as the, I mean, the international bankers, he would say runs everything. Got it. But use that these bankers also use big pharma and big psych to control the population. And Scientology is famously against pharma and psych. And so this is sort of how L. Ron Hubbard characterizes like this big war between Scientology that's trying to set everyone free and big pharma and big psych that's trying to enslave everyone on the planet. Yeah, controlling their mind, controlling their body through chemicals and- And who controls the press, big pharma and big psych. So there's a lot of correlation to other kinds of conspiracy theories. Yeah. Oh, that's fascinating. But you asked the question where, why would all these people hold onto their stories? They don't, they would never want to leak. Like by even anyone who would want to leak would not even want to be a Scientologist anymore. Like if you truly believe, if you truly believe in Scientology and you got your shoulder to the wheel and you're a C-Ark member, you think Scientology is literally the only thing that can save every being on this planet from a fate of eternal amnesia and slavery. Yeah. Right? And so it's like, I mean, you've seen the Matrix, right? So you've got everyone, once you're unplugged from the Matrix and you realize, yeah, you can get plugged back in and live your nice life, but you're a slave. That's how Scientologists see this planet. They actually, they refer to Earth as a prison planet. Just on an individual level, how is it possible to reach a person like that? Is there something you could say to that? Like what's the journey of reaching a person like that? I personally, because when I was in those shoes, I say there's nothing anybody could have said to me to get me to change how I felt and thought about Scientology. It's almost foolproof that the more evidence you try to present that there's something wrong with what Scientology is doing, the more you're just working for the psychs. Yeah. You know, it's very, very difficult. I mean, most people who leave Scientology leave because they have had some personal experience that was just such a grave injustice that it just pushed them beyond the point of what they were willing to experience. Very rare, I'm not sure I've really ever heard a story of someone going, yeah, I just woke up, I just gradually realized it was all BS and drifted away. It's usually like, no, I really believed and they treated me so horribly, I almost had no choice but to leave. And then the stories get pretty crazy. Meaning you don't care what's true anymore, you just have to leave. Yeah. With the unpleasant feeling, the suffering. Yeah, and this sort of goes back to the conversation we're having about, well, does Miscavige really believe? And I said I could make an argument for the fact that he doesn't, right? Because I go, it wouldn't be that hard to change the way Scientology treats people just a little bit and you'd probably stop losing anyone because Scientologists already believe to such a strong degree, you have to be pretty fricking horrible to people to make them leave. And that's where you go, well, does Miscavige even want Scientology to expand? Because if he was really being clever about it, it seems like he could at least stop the bleeding and yet he doesn't. So that's where you make the argument, well, if he doesn't, then he must not want to. So his mind is corrupted to the point where he's not able to actually be a good businessman, essentially. It seems that way. The numbers of Scientologists have been going down and down and down since the early 90s. Is there a good, I mean, it's very difficult to get to this number, but is there a good estimate of what the current number of Scientologists, of practicing Scientologists is? Oh yeah, I did a video about this. It's actually quite easy to get to the number. It's not more than 35,000 in the entire world. And that's being very generous and charitable. I was intentionally generous. I broke it all down in a spreadsheet and everything. Can you give some insights of how you get that info? Sure, there's about 175 to 200 Scientology organizations in the world. Anybody who's ever worked at these organizations know there's not more than 35 to 50 staff members per org. There's not more than one to 200 public Scientologists per org. I broke down the number of SEERG members who'd be working at every continental management unit, middle management, international management. I broke down the mission network. And I was generous. I mean, my numbers were like, if L. Ron Hubbard came back and they were doing an event, L. Ron Hubbard was coming back and announcing OT nine and 10 how many Scientologists could we scrape together in every city to come to this event? It wasn't more than 35,000. Now contrast that to what Scientology says. Millions, 10 million people. Is this less people than there used to be? Yeah, at its peak it was about 100,000 active members. But never the millions. Never, no. Has David Miscavige used violence? Has there, in your understanding of it, in your estimation, sort of harassment, assault, and actual, I don't know how to define assault, but violence? Oh yeah, dozens of former SEERG members from the international base have told stories of being assaulted by Miscavige. In fact, Mike Rinder is probably the one person who's been assaulted by Miscavige more than anyone else. He's personally probably been assaulted dozens of times. Who is Mike Rinder? So Mike Rinder, one of the highest ranking executives in Scientology. The author. There you go, a billion years. Of a billion years. It really is a fantastic book. Because Lex, the guy was born and raised in Scientology and worked personally with L. Ron Hubbard and worked personally with David Miscavige for decades. Doesn't get much more insider than that. A candid and deeply felt memoir of a life lost to false belief and courageously regained. Lawrence Wright. A billion years, my escape from a life in the highest ranks of Scientology, Mike Rinder. It's a fantastic book. He also narrates his own audiobook too. I know you like the audiobooks, that's how I listen to it. So Mike, famously, I just said a moment ago, like someone who's treated so horribly, even though he still believes in Scientology, he had no choice but to leave. And he tells the story in that book and he still believed in Scientology for years after he escaped. For years. Because there's this thing called the Independent Scientology Movement or the Free Zone or whatever. There are people who do Scientology outside of the Church of Scientology. There's just not many of them. But Mike was one of those people who was actually doing Scientology even after he left. Now he no longer believes in that anymore and he doesn't do it. But even though he still believed, even though everything he knew was what he was leaving behind, he still had to leave it behind. And by the way, I just opened a random page and he says, when I signed on for Sea Org in Adelaide in 1973, the recruiter promised I would train as a Scientology executive under the direct tutelage of Hubbard on the Apollo. So this is another thing I should probably ask you about. Oh, we could go for days. I was also told that after I learned all I needed to learn at the foot of the Master, I would return to Australia to help expand Scientology in my home country. So what was the thing that really broke him? The final thing is when he got to a point where he was no longer being forced to lie to protect L. Ron Hubbard. He was now being forced to lie to protect David Miscavige. And specifically, it was about the allegations of having been assaulted by Miscavige. Mike Rinder was at some event, it might have been a grand opening for a building, a Scientology building in London, and I believe it was John Sweeney, at that time a BBC journalist, who stuck a camera and a microphone in Mike's face. Is it true David Miscavige assaulted, is it true? And Mike denied it on camera. And then turned around and to himself is like, this is what my life has been reduced to? Lying to protect David Miscavige? This used to be about L. Ron Hubbard. This used to be about Scientology. Now it's about protecting this douchebag? And Miscavige had just issued orders that was gonna send Mike off to Australia. Like Miscavige is sadistic. That is without question. Sadistic meaning? He enjoys inflicting pain upon others. So he very specifically was gonna tell Mike, tell Rinder, or tell that cocksucker, we're shipping him off to Australia. He's never gonna see his wife and his kids again, essentially. And that's when Mike was like, they were the only reason I hadn't already left. So if I follow the orders, I'm gonna lose him. If I leave Scientology, I'm gonna lose him. At least if I leave Scientology, I'll be free of something. It's fucking sad. And he still believed Scientology to some degree after he left, is what you're saying? Yeah. Has he spoken about what it took to let go of believing in Scientology? Yeah, he does a very good job talking about all of this in the book. And it took him like four or five years to get that book done. Like it's a polished version. It's a polished version of his story. And I think Mike's about getting ready to start his own YouTube channel, so that'll be a lot of fun. Actually, Mike comes on my channel all the time. Yeah, you guys do a thing together, right? Yeah, we do Three Amigos with me and Mike Rinder and Mark Hedley. That's why I gave you Mark's book, because I thought maybe you would know him from our little Three Amigos, our Mondays with Mike and Mark videos. Mark Hedley, blown for good behind the iron curtain of Scientology. So he escaped from the International Base on a motorcycle. It's a wild story. Nice. I won't even try to do it justice. Who's a better writer of the two of them? You're not gonna get me there. I'm trying to be investigative journalist for once. Mike and Mark are both on the board of the Aftermath Foundation with me. Who's better looking? No, I'm just kidding. It's one of my justifications for just putting up content every day is every video is just an excuse to, in some little way, promote the Aftermath Foundation. And I do that again, one, to genuinely help people escape, and two, because I know it drives David Miscavige crazy. If you look in your own heart, is there anger there? I don't think it's anger. I don't hate Scientology. I don't hate David Miscavige. I don't even hate my experience in Scientology. Do you able to accept the good from your experience? Yeah, absolutely. But it's also the only path that I traveled. So I tend, okay, a little less so these days, but earlier in life, I tended to attribute all positive characteristics in me to Scientology, because in my simplistic way of thinking, I was like, what else could it possibly be attributed to? That's a very black and white way of seeing things. Well, it's a beautiful way to see life. No matter what happens to you, you attribute, like you focus on the positive, and you feel like sometimes people have traumatic experiences with parents and so on. And if you focus on the positive, it's a good way to let go of the trauma associated with it. True. But like another example would be like, I didn't go to school, like I stopped going to school in the seventh grade, but people go, but you sound so smart. And what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to say, well, it's because of Scientology? Like, how do I answer that question? Like, if it's the only path I traveled, how do I answer that question? I don't necessarily wanna give Scientology credit, but what the hell am I supposed to point to? Sure. I mean, you said you kind of enjoy, I mean, part of it is you joking and trolling, that you enjoy knowing that your YouTube channel drives David Miscavige crazy. I mean, what, that means you still, I mean, there is a joy you have. There is a joy, I'm not gonna deny that. I don't know what to make of that. Cause there's a, I suppose there's an intimacy when you're part of a tribe of that kind. It's almost like, let me try to frame it. I wasn't trying to get kicked out of Scientology. I was trying to not get kicked out of Scientology. So what happened first, first my mom got kicked out for basically talking some smack about David Miscavige. And then they go to me and they go, okay, you've got a disconnect from your mom or you're gonna get kicked out. And I lied about that. I was like, okay, I'll disconnect. But I never did. For a couple of years, I lied my ass off about it. Eventually they were like, this guy's gonna keep lying to us, right? And they're like, yeah. Like, all right, you're out. So then they go to my wife, say you gotta divorce your husband or you're gonna get kicked out. And she goes, no. That's a hell of a statement from her. It's gonna get harder from here. So I'm not quite sure how to. Okay, I'll try to get, I'll try to do my best. You don't seem like a man who's afraid of hard things. Okay, so she's like, no. So then they go to her parents and they say, you've got to disconnect from your daughter and your three granddaughters or you're gonna get kicked out. But they have three other kids who are Scientologists, who have spouses who are Scientologists, who have grandkids. So I feel like up until that point, everybody was sort of making a decision for themselves and what would be best for themselves until they get to her parents. And then they're like, which grandkids are we gonna lose? Okay. At the part where they were trying to get me to disconnect from my mom, there were hours that I spent talking to them going, you know, guys, there's another way. It doesn't have to go this way. There's another way that ends well for all of us. And that wasn't even considered. And I go, like, they created this monster. And that's a fact. And that's why I take joy in it. When people ask me, is Scientology a destructive cult? I don't even have to get into all the academic discussions of what's a religion and what's a cult and what's the difference. I go, as long as they destroy families like that, they're a cult. So they cut people off deliberately, one by one. And it doesn't have to be that way. Right. And why is it that way? I mean, it started with L. Ron Hubbard laying out a policy framework, a policy structure that if interpreted and applied in the worst possible way, with the worst possible judgment, can be abused in that way. I would make the argument that if an anti-broker had taken over, that Scientology policy does have enough little caveats baked into it that even the policies about disconnection could be interpreted and implemented in a non-destructive way. There is room for judgment and discretion. And Miscavige has just created the worst possible version of Scientology, and that's where you sort of get that argument of, does he even want Scientology to succeed? Because he seems to be hell-bent on making sure that he doesn't. And I don't want to see him make it succeed, but it does bring that question up of like, what are his motivations? Can he not see that he's destroying the thing he's supposed to be expanding? That's also, you know, there's ways to measure cost. And that would probably be the most costly aspect of Scientology, is the suffering associated with the separating of families. Yeah. I mean, that's actually just puts, makes it very concrete what we value in human life, is the connection to our loved ones. Like everything else doesn't matter. Like getting 50 bucks a week, like that, like getting money stolen from you, getting the truth stolen from you, none of that compares. You can even frame that as the good. There could be a lot of positives, whatever, in the tribe, but separating families, separating loved ones, that's the destructive thing. So no hate, though. No, I genuinely don't hate them. Do you forgive them? 100%. There's no one I look at in Scientology that I go, how dare you? If I was in their shoes, having to, you know, operate under David Miscavige's orders, I would have done the same thing, and I would have loved it, truthfully. I don't blame any of them. I mean, I take the opposite approach. If they knew what I knew, they'd be doing what I'm doing. If they knew what I knew and believed it, they'd be doing what I'm doing. They're not dumb. It's not dumb people in Scientology. They're ambitious, they're dreamers, they got hope, they're driven, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. And it's one of the reasons I like putting up content on my channel, so they can see, hey, like if you're a Scientologist, you look at it and you go, hey, he seems like he's doing well, he's happy, he's a positive guy, he's a good communicator, he knows what he's talking about, he's not lying, he's not exaggerating. I don't exaggerate anything on my channel. I don't make up anything. And this actually comes from an experience I had from 1998 to 2000. I was living in LA. I sort of had a two-year period in my life where I actually had almost no contact with Scientology. And during that time, I found my way onto the internet. And there was a website, it might have been ESMB, X Scientology message, but whatever it was, it was, at that time, the main source of critical information about Scientology on the internet. And I looked at it. And remember, I was still a true believer. And I looked at this, and it was so offensive, insulting, hyperbolic, exaggerated, and I was like, oh, just a bunch of bullshit. I was in Scientology for 16 more years. If what I had seen on the internet about critical of Scientology, if what I had seen when I had seen it was something that actually resonated with me, that I was like, oh, that I believed was true, that seemed credible, I would have gotten out of Scientology 16 years earlier. So I was like, how can I help create an experience on the internet that if a Scientologist stumbles upon it, it will resonate with them instead of repelling them? And that is exactly what I have set out to do and what I believe I've accomplished. There's the content, the message, but also just showing that you can be happy outside of Scientology. Exactly. You can have a fulfilling life, you can be a good man. Yeah. All that. What benefit do you think Tom Cruise gets from Scientology? So why is he still in Scientology? He genuinely loves it. And also Miscavige does, there's one celebrity who does have the most unique experience in Scientology, and that is Tom. Scientology hires all of Tom's staff. All of Tom's staff are subject to interrogations by Scientology, not only in the hiring process, but during the employment. David Miscavige on Scientology runs Tom Cruise's life and his production company and his household staff. Do you imagine there's some personal connection there where they're just, they like each other a lot? Best friends. I mean, it's them against the world is how they see it. I think it's pretty easy to see how that works between the two of them. I think this idea of them against the world, us against the world, is a really powerful, intimate, like I kinda see like friendships and relationships that way. That, I mean, not in a dark sense, but it's like, the world is full of cruelty and absurdity and unfairness and so on, and it's nice to huddle together like the penguins in March of the Penguins against the cold. 100%. And they're just like, and so, especially with the ideology of Scientology, this idea that you can be anything, you can essentially, I mean, you can manifest it, essentially, through like believing it, and you don't really put it into those words, but believing that you're a god is a really like inspiring, positive thing to think. If they could figure out how to do all that without destroying families and bankrupting its members, they might actually have a future. That's why, like it's funny, because sometimes I feel like it's like, like I'm rooting for them to like succeed and do it right, and I'm not, but it's an interesting academic discussion to have of like, we can all see how much people sacrifice in the names of belief and religion. We can see how much Scientologists sacrifice based on what they already believe. If you would just start treating people less horribly, you know what I'm saying? It might actually have a future. Not that I want it to. It seems like this dark lesson of human nature that they, like, there's something about, you know, to use the word cults, that you just stop seeing reality for what it is. There's a lot of things that could make this a better organization that's actually helping people flourish and be a little bit more like loose about membership, not dividing families, not causing suffering, not causing financial harm, but actually inspiring people and helping people. But then maybe it fundamentally changes what the organization is. And maybe that means somebody like David Miscavige loses power too, which might be very difficult, or people that are close to him lose power, and people hold onto power. So whatever the human force is here, it seems to become worse and worse over time. What about, oh, let me ask a conspiracy question. Is there a chance that Tom Cruise is being blackmailed, that there's information from auditing? No? So that kind of stuff is not, that's very conspiratorial. I've actually come out and said definitively, I do not know of a single person who stays in Scientology because they're afraid of being blackmailed. It's just not a thing. It's just not a thing. Does Scientology have enough information to blackmail someone if they wanted to? Well, sure. I mean, and it doesn't even have to be true. It could just be lies. Who cares? Who knows? Scientology can say whatever the hell they want. So that's the thing, it doesn't even have to be true. And actually, that would be the argument against blackmailing. Like in order for Scientology to blackmail you with that information, they'd actually have to represent that, yes, he really did tell us this. And it's like, well, then why are you spilling secrets of members, right? It sets a bad precedent. What are some of the sins according to Scientology? Most of the sins from a Scientology perspective are just doing or saying anything that brings disrepute to Scientology itself, right? Remember, it's not like Christianity where there's rules. If you break this rule, you're not getting into heaven. Yeah. Because Scientology doesn't think about things that way. Oh, there's the drug. You can't do drugs, right? You can't do drugs. And you can't take any psychotropic medications. And no medications almost at all? You're allowed to take medications. It's just, there's no rules expressly prohibiting it. It's just most Scientologists tend not to. You can take Advil, but many Scientologists won't. Okay. You just can't take anything prescribed by a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or any drugs that are psychotropic drugs. I mean, SSRIs are considered probably the closest thing to pure evil in the world of Scientology. What about, weird question, what about sex? Is there boundaries on what's? There used to not be. It's become very puritanical in the last many decades, for a reason I can't actually explain. Like, miscavige does seem to be infatuated with controlling sex. Like, that is one thing about miscavige version of Scientology that's gotten very strange. I mean, L. Ron Hubbard even specifically wrote a policy that says we are no longer going to regulate in any way the bedroom activities of people. He literally said, from this point on, no one is allowed to be subject to any justice actions of any kind whatsoever for anything they do in their sexual lives. But that still did not give permission for gay relationships. That was still referring to straight stuff. And monogamous only. Can you do open marriages and open relationships? According to L. Ron Hubbard policy, you can. Yeah, but you know. I think he wrote that policy before he created the C organization, and then what happened is, this is actually how this came into effect. He created the C organization, you had a lot of people on a ship, and everybody was just banging each other, and it created just a nightmare of personal relationship. It was making production impossible. Not because everybody was spending so much time banging, but because everybody was so upset about who was banging who. Yeah, yeah. I mean, sex and that kind of dynamic is really, I mean, humans do what humans do, and then there's drama and all of that. It's understandable, because everybody's so intimate. It's a closed tribe. It makes sense to limit sex. Otherwise, it becomes a sex cult, which a lot of them end up becoming. On that topic, would you classify Scientology as a cult? 100%. But not because I'm fully conversant with the academic differentiations between what's a religion and what's a cult. I mean, Scientology would say, well, all small new religions are cults, and I don't know, that's probably true. Some people would say, all religions are cults, and I'd be like, depends on how you define religion, and it depends on how you define cult. But I just fall back on my thing of like, if you're destroying families and bankrupting your members, you're a cult. That's how I look at it. Us versus them, and the them could be your family, could be your loved ones. That's deeply destructive, and one of the things you would probably throw into the definition of a cult is something that's actually destructive. Because I do a lot of stuff that's cult-like, like jiu-jitsu. There's a lot of really close-knit tribes, but there's no negative toxicity to it. There's no divide, there's no divisions. Or if there is, it's more, boy, try being a fan of a certain soccer team and then becoming a fan of another soccer team. That's hardcore. And like, phew. Ha ha ha ha. But I'll tell you, I train jiu-jitsu as well, and I have found that community of people to be one of the most loving and helpful group of people ever. Shout out to John Keller at Gracie Baja Clearwater. No, but seriously, it's one of the reasons I continue to do it, despite my back, my hip, my shoulder. It's like, it's just such a cool group of guys. Goes on. Ha ha ha. Houston, I think it was much more divisive in the beginning from the Brazilian roots. One of the things that's really hard is the team-oriented. Like, if you're this team, you're ride or die with this team. And there's no, there's the Crianches, they go to another team. And I think that aspect, that was actually a turnoff for me in the beginning, that the toxicity of that. Because I understand that a little bit for the elites, for the highest of the highest. That there is, I like the brotherhood and the loyalty of the people, like the Olympic gold medalists, the best in the world, yes. But for recreational fun, I guess this is ultimately about the camaraderie of all human beings together, not some, whatever label you put on yourself. I don't think we actually talked about the organization itself. We talked about tax-exempt status, which is really important. We talked about some of the control, like through the propaganda control of what's out there. It's actually interesting that you said that Scientology has pretty much lost the battle with the internet at this point. Oh yeah. Which is kind of inspiring that it's hard to defeat the internet. But then there's bots that are, I think if you're sophisticated, I'm not sure that's true. But if you're not sophisticated. It's kind of remarkable they haven't been able to capitalize on these bot armies. Because there's one thing that they have, it's a lot of tax-free money that they got nothing else better to do. Yeah, right, they can invest. They should give you a call. They just don't have the right people, apparently. But that said, how do they wield influence with government agencies? You've talked about the local police enforcement, also federal agencies, anything. That is the one way they effectively put their money to use, is lobbyists and attorneys, judges. Very rarely have they ever been able just to get a politician on their side. It's the behind-the-scenes people. Greta Van Susteren's a very high-level, long-term Scientologist. And her husband, I always get it wrong, it's either Jim Cole or John Cole, I always get it wrong. He's a very powerful attorney who wields a lot of influence behind the scenes. And that's just one example. The reason why that's an interesting example is because he's actually a Scientologist, and he travels in those circles. Scientology, though, its money goes to good use by hiring non-Scientologists, retired judges, attorneys, lobbyists. It really is how they get almost anything done. Miscavige himself is not hobnobbing and glad-hanging and shaking hands and meeting these folks. It's the non-Scientologist professionals who work behind the scenes on Scientology's behalf. Can you describe the dynamics of how that actually happens? Like, why would the police department work on behalf of Scientology? I meant more the courts and regulators, not the police department. But, well, for example, it can come down to something as simple as this. In Clearwater, Scientology hires Clearwater police to do off-duty work for them. They pay like three times their normal off-duty rate. So they will, even though I'm not aware of anyone on the Clearwater PD who's actually a Scientologist, they basically end up with, they would call them allies or safe points, right? People who will literally operate as Scientology spies. You know, someone comes in and files a report about some child sex case. Someone in the Clearwater PD is calling Sarah Heller at the Office of Special Affairs at the Flank-Ladden base to let her know, hey, heads up, we got a thing coming in. And then Scientology can run around and go talk to all the Scientologists who have knowledge about this and either get them out of Clearwater, you know. So it's not like a direct, explicit corruption, but more just friends and coworkers integrated deeply in the community. Yeah, I call it soft corruption. So another example, you have the mayor of Clearwater, Frank Hebert. Well, he used to, when he won his recent election, he stepped down from some of these nonprofits that he served on. But the nonprofits that he served on also gets millions of dollars of donations from some of Scientology's richest Clearwater members, right? You have one of the mayor's best friends, Joe Burdette, literally a paid lobbyist for Scientology. So that creates a chilling effect on anyone who's gonna be talking smack about Scientology because his friends are on their damn payroll. So I call it soft corruption. It's not illegal. It's not illegal. But it's how Scientology wields influence. And what's ironic is that a lot of these people who work on Scientology's behalf actually secretly hate Scientology. They kind of see through it, but it's part of the community. I mean, it's deeply integrated in the community and there's financial leverage. Are you ever afraid? I mean, afraid for your well-being, afraid for your ability to function in society because of the pressures from Scientology? No. Is that because you're genetically malfunctioning or mentally, or is there speaking out as a kind of protection? I think it's one of those things that once you've seen behind the curtain and you see the Wizard of Oz, it's just a silly man. You just don't have any fear. Now, it's one of these things, like people will say, oh, you're so brave. And I go, eh, what's that quote? Bravery is being a soldier and being afraid and going in any way. It's not brave to run in if you don't think nothing's gonna happen to you. I'm just trying to, I do not hold myself up as an example of bravery because it's not like, oh, they could destroy me, but I don't care. No, there's not a damn thing they can do to me. And that's one of the reasons I continue to put out content every day. So just basically go, hey, still here. I dare you to try to do something about it, but you can't. And hope that that also serves as kind of an example for other people to go, if this schmo can do it and they can't do anything else to him, then maybe I can do it too. Because I would love it. I would love there to be 20 channels where former Scientologists talk about their experience. I mean, that is bravery because what happens is fear seeps in even if it's not grounded in reality. But at the same time, like my grandfather who fought in World War II, I mean, the story is, I mean, he was very convinced and sure most of the people he fought alongside with died. He was a machine gunner, but he believed that bullets can't hit him. Right? That's what he said? Well, you know, he was right. Right? Because he survived. So there's some sense like you're- Survivor bias. That he's like, just like you are. I was like, I'm not brave. I just, the bullets can't hit me. I mean, there's a dark kind of truth to that. There's some, you know, it's like a, it's a feedback loop where if you have the confidence and you push on forward and you're brave in that way to not let fear seep in and affect you, it actually gives you less things to be scared about. And I mean, but that initial few steps might be for people, it might be a very difficult step to take to talk about it publicly. The fear was knowing how the family was gonna be destroyed and trying to prevent that. I was terrified of that happening, but it happened. There's nothing left to be afraid of. And that's kind of the thing, like they created this beast. And the same is true for Mark Hedley. The same is true for Mike Rinder. I said, they've essentially created a Scientology proof virus, Scientology resistant strain by throwing everything they have at us for so many years. They have just through natural selection, created people who just do not give a damn about anything they could or would do. And maybe there is something a little wrong with me. Cause when I get a phone call from someone like, I just got this phone call about you. And it's clear that it's Scientology PIs doing work behind the scenes. I get really excited. I get really excited. I don't get nervous. I'm like, oh no, it's happening. I'm like, oh yeah, this is gonna be exciting. I'm like, okay. Because everything they try to do to me, I'm gonna figure out how to reflect it back on them and make them look ridiculous. And that pales in comparison to the separating from family. Exactly. Is there parts of your family that you've lost because of Scientology? Just, yeah. If you... Most of my episode on the Lee Remedy in the Aftermath show was talking about me and my twin brother. It's just a pretty horrible story. It's just a pretty horrible story. So I do have a younger brother who's still in Scientology and disconnected from me, but I never had much of a relationship with that brother, really, to begin with. But my twin brother died when I was like 23 or 24. And that was without any question, a direct result of our Scientology experience. He died in a car accident that wasn't technically his fault or anything. He wasn't even the one driving. But the specific fact of his death was not, meaning the fact and the fact that he was dead wasn't specifically because of Scientology. But our story and where our relationship got to and how he was even in a position of having something like that happen to him is directly attributable to Scientology. Do you think about him, miss him? Is part of what you're doing in memory of him? Yeah, for sure. I mean, I don't know. I don't know if I miss him. Yeah, for sure. Man, this is such a- I mean, we were identical twins. Can you imagine two of me? I could barely handle one. I love it. Losing him, would that be the darkest moment in this whole journey of Scientology for you? Two moments would equal the darkest moment. It would be that and also just the period of six, nine, 12 months of impending doom, knowing that my wife's whole family was gonna be obliterated and that there's nothing we could do about it. And kind of telling ourselves every step of the way it wasn't really gonna happen, you know? And I really felt like, you ever watch the Ozarks? I felt like Marty Bird. Now, this was happening before the Ozarks, but when I watched the Ozarks and I see that character, the entire world is crumbling down around him and all he can, all he did like, all right, what's the next step? I watch Marty Bird and I go, that's my fucking spirit animal. Because you can only control what you can control. And you can't keep Scientology from destroying your family. And literally, like, it's funny, I mention this show a lot because I watch that and I go like, that's exactly how I felt, you know? I talk about this six months or nine, 12 months, whatever it was, of impending doom. It's not like I was an emotional wreck during that time. You know, in private I was, but it's not like I was just freaking out. It was like, the sun's gonna come up tomorrow and the world's gonna keep spinning. I can't control it, this is hard, I can't believe this is happening. But tomorrow's a new day. I've never personally, even at the darkest times, I've never experienced anything that I would characterize as depression, certainly not ever any suicidal thoughts or anything. Even in the darkest of times, and again, this one thing I go, is it because of Scientology or is it just me? There really is an emotional detachment. There almost has to be. And it's a cold calculation. What are my options? What do I do here? And then once I figure out the answer to that question, I'm actually quite chipper and happy. You know, like that's sort of my default. Like, you could give me six horrible options. Once I figure out the best of those six, I'm gonna feel like I just had a pretty good day. That's brilliant. Because just watching Ozarks is so stressful. It is, right? So stressful watching it. And he usually finds a way, and usually it is a set of really bad options, and it's one of the bad options, but it's the best of the bad options. And he almost gets pissed off at everyone around him for being so pouty about it. Yeah. Oh, I'll never watch that show again, the same way again. Oh, that's beautiful. But you know, it's like, it's still simmering there right under the surface, like pretty damn close to the surface, but it's still simmering. They're right under the surface, like pretty damn close to the surface. Do you know what I mean? Yeah. And people sometimes ask about recovery and whatnot, and like, what does that look like? And what does that mean? And it sort of goes back to kind of the emotional detachment, is I go, what the fuck does recovery even mean? If you're an alcoholic and you're recovering, you know what that means. I used to drink, I don't drink now. Well, I used to be an occult and I'm not an occult now. How else am I supposed to feel about this for someone to be like, it seems like you've recovered. What the fuck does that even mean? Like, I'm sure some academic has an answer to that question. I'm not someone who particularly, I don't spend any time thinking about that. My recovery is success and a little bit of trolling and revenge, but mostly success. You know, what does it mean to be a recovered former cult member? What, you don't cry when people ask you about your brother? I don't know what it means. I've never had therapy, but not because I'm still like against it from Scientology. I just like, I'm not gonna pay to talk to someone. Do you know where else I could do that, Scientology. Now, I know there's a lot of people going like, oh boy. I know there's a lot, I'm not shitting on therapy. I would rather have a beer with my friend and talk about this shit than talk to a professional for $200 an hour. That's the kind of therapy, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, listen, that's the part of the reason I do this podcast, is talking to people that you care about, that you're close with, it's a really powerful, powerful thing. But yeah, I don't know what recovery looks like. And success to you is defined, just be, find happiness. Find happiness outside the closed bubble that defines what happiness looks like on Scientology. If I can make my kids happy, that's success to me. What advice would you give to your kids on how to live a life they can be proud of? Travel the world. Travel the world. Get rid of friends who don't push you up and don't celebrate your success. It's hard to give that advice to young children, because kids are always so catty. But honestly, it's like, when I see, that really is, I just think, not just advice to my kids, but some of the best advice to anybody. If you've got anyone around you who doesn't celebrate your success, just spend less time with those people. Surround yourself with people who actually want to celebrate your success and push you to succeed. I think that's true. I think it's even more important at a young age, because if at a young age you get used to being around people who kind of take joy and tear you down, then that's what you become accustomed to. Yeah. You know? And I just think, you know, having friends who love you and support you is just about the closest thing to the true meaning of life. And who believe in you, who believe in your potential. And some of those ideas underlie the good parts of Scientology. Yeah. And, except there's a lot of dark parts of Scientology that separate you from the people that believe in you and that love you. Well, this was a beautiful conversation. You're a beautiful human being who came full of gifts. And I mean, I genuinely, first of all, you're an inspiring human being, but most importantly, I can't wait until I can purchase a bobblehead on the store. So I can keep that inspiration on my desk, on desktop. Aaron, thank you so much for talking to me. Thank you for being you, for being brave. I know you said you're not, but thank you for being brave, for talking about this. You're an inspiration and you help a lot of people. Thank you, brother. Thanks for having me. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Aaron Smith Levin. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Ralph Waldo Emerson. Be not the slave of your own past. Plunge into the sublime seas, dive deep and swim far. So you will come back with new self-respect, with new power, and with an advanced experience that will explain and overlook the old. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/J1lN9zkK_k0

SFxIazwNP_0

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Alien Debate: Sara Walker and Lee Cronin | Lex Fridman Podcast #279

I don't know what it's like to be an alien. I would like to know. Two alien civilizations coexisting on a planet. What's that look like exactly? When you see them and they see you, you're assuming they have vision, they have the ability to construct in 3D and in time. There's a lot of assumptions we're making. What human level intelligence has done is quite different. It's not just that we remember states that the universe has existed in before, it's that we can imagine ones that have never existed, and we can actually make them come into existence. You can travel back in time sometimes. You travel forward in time to travel back. The following is a conversation with Sarah Walker and Lee Cronin. They have each been on this podcast once before individually, and now for their second time, they're here together. Sarah is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. Lee is a chemist. If I may say so, the real life manifestation of Rick from Rick and Morty. They both are interested in how life originates and develops both life here on earth and alien life, including intelligent alien civilizations out there in the cosmos. They are colleagues and friends who love to explore, disagree, and debate nuanced points about alien life. And so we're calling this an alien debate. Very few questions to me are as fascinating as what do aliens look like? How do we recognize them? How do we talk to them? And how do we make sense of life here on earth in the context of all possible life forms that are out there? Treating these questions with the seriousness and rigor they deserve is what I hope to do with this conversation and future ones like it. Our world is shrouded in mystery. We must first be humble to acknowledge this, and then be brave and be bold in diving in and trying to figure things out anyway. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Sarah Walker and Lee Cronin. First of all, welcome back, Sarah. Welcome back, Lee. You guys, I'm a huge fan of yours. You're incredible people. I should say thank you to Sarah for wearing really awesome boots. We'll probably overlay a picture later on, but why the hell didn't you dress up, Lee? No, I'm just kidding. This is me dressed up. You were saying that you're pink, that your thing is pink, my thing is black and white, the simplicity of it. Where's the pink? When did the pink, when did it hit you that pink is your color? I became pink about, I don't know, actually, maybe 2017. Did you know me when you first? I think I met you pre-pink. Yeah, yeah. So about 2017, I think, I just decided I was boring and I needed to make a statement. And red was too bright, so I went pink, salmon pink. Well, I think you were always pink, you just found yourself in 2017. There's an amazing photo of him where there's like everybody in their black gown and he's just wearing the pink pants. Oh, that was at the Wagon and University. It's totally nuts. 100 year anniversary, they got me to give the plenary and they didn't find that outfit for me, so they're all wearing these silly hats and these gowns and there was me dressed up in pink, looking like a complete idiot. We're definitely going to have to find that picture and overlay it big full screen, slow motion. All right, let's talk about aliens. We'll find places we disagree and places we agree. Life, intelligence, consciousness, universe, all of that. Let's start with a tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson stating his skepticism about aliens wanting to visit Earth. Quote, how egocentric of us to think that space aliens who have mastered interstellar travel across the galaxy would give, pardon the French, would give a shit about humans on Earth. So let me ask you, would aliens care about visiting Earth, observing, communicating with humans? Let's take a perspective of aliens, maybe Sarah, first. Are we interesting in the whole spectrum of life in the universe? I'm completely biased, at least as far as I think right now, we're the most interesting thing in the universe. So I would expect, based on the intrinsic curiosity that we have and how much I think that's deeply related to the physics of what we are, that other intelligent aliens would want to seek out examples of the phenomena they are to understand themselves better. I think that's kind of a natural thing to want to do. I don't think there's any kind of judgment on it being a lesser being or not. It's like saying you have nothing to learn by talking to a baby. You have lots to learn, probably more than you do talking to somebody that's 90. So yeah, so I think they absolutely would. So whatever the phenomena is that is human, there would be an inkling of the same kind of phenomena within alien species and they would be seeking that same. I think there's gotta be some features of us that are universal and I think the ones that are most interesting, and I hope I live in an interesting universe, are the ones that are driven by our curiosity and the fact that our intelligence allows us to do things that the universe wouldn't be able to do without things like us existing. We're going to define a lot of terms. One of them is interesting. Yes. That's a very interesting term to try to define. Lee, what do you think? Are humans interesting for aliens? Let's take it from our perspective. We want to go find aliens as a species quite desperately. So if we put the shoe on the other foot, of course we're interesting. But I'm wondering, and assuming that we're at the right technological capabilities to go searching for aliens, then that's interesting. So what I mean is, if there needs to be a massive leap in technology that we don't have, how will aliens prioritize coming to Earth and other places? But I do think that they would come and find us because they'd want to find out about our culture, what things are universal. I mean, I'm a chemist, so I would say, well, is the chemistry universal? Right? Are the creatures that we're going to find making all this commotion, are they made of the same stuff? What does their science look like? Are they off planet yet? I guess there's... So I think that Neil deGrasse Tyson is being slightly pessimistic and maybe trying to play the tune that the universe is vast and it's not worth them coming here. I don't think that, but I just worry that maybe we don't have the ability to talk to them, we don't have the universal translator, we don't have the right physics. But sure, they should come. We are interesting. I want to know if they exist. It would make it easier if they just came. So again, I'm going to use your tweets like it's Shakespeare and analyze it. So Sarah tweeted, thinking about aliens, thinking about aliens. So how much do you think aliens are thinking about other aliens, including humans? So you said we humans want to visit, like we're longing to connect with aliens. Why is that? Can you introspect that? Is that an obvious thing that we should be... Like, what are we hoping to understand by meeting aliens exactly? Asking as an introvert, I ask myself this all the time, why go out on a Friday night to meet people? What are you hoping to find? I think the curiosity. So when I saw Sarah put that tweet, I think I answered it actually as well, which was, we are thinking about trying to make contact. So they almost certainly are, but maybe there's a number of classes. There are those aliens that have not yet made contact with other aliens like us. Those aliens have made contact with us. And then there's the aliens that have made contact with just one other alien, and maybe it's an anticlimax and slime. And aliens that have made contact with not just one set of intelligent species, but several. That must be amazing, actually. Literally, there are some place in the universe, there must be one alien civilization that's not made contact with not one, but two other intelligent civilizations. So they must be thinking about it. There must be entire degree courses on aliens, thinking about aliens and universal cultural norms. Do you think they will survive the meeting? And by the way, Lee did respond saying that's all the universe wants. So Sarah said, thinking about aliens, thinking about aliens. Lee said, that's all the universe wants. And then Sarah responded, cheeky universe we live in. So cheeky is a cheeky version of the word interesting, all of which we'll try to define mathematically. He might be harder than interesting. Because there's humor in that too. Yes. I think there's a mathematical definition of humor, but we'll talk about that in a bit. Oh, interesting. Yeah, sure there is, yeah. So if you're a graduate student alien looking at multiple alien civilizations, do you think they survive the encounters? I think there's a tendency to anthropomorphize a lot of the discussions about alien life, which is a really big challenge. So usually when I'm trying to think about these problems, I don't try to think about us as humans, but us as an example of phenomena that exists in the universe that we have yet to explain. And it doesn't seem to be the case that if I think about the features, I would argue are most universal about that phenomena, that there's any reason to think that a first encounter with another lineage or example of life would be antagonistic. I think, yeah. And I think there's this kind of assumption. I mean, going back to Neil deGrasse Tyson's quote, I mean, it kind of bothers me because there's a, I mean, I'm a physicist, so I know we have a lot of egos about how much we can describe the world, but that there's this, like, because we understand fundamental physics so well, we understand alien life and we can kind of extrapolate. And I just think that we don't. And the quest there is really, you know, really to understand something totally new about the universe. And that thing just happens to be us. Luke I agree. I agree. There's something else more profound. I think Neil was just being, again, he's just trying to stir the pot. I would say from a contingency point of view, I want to know, how many ways does the universe build structures, build memories, right? And then I want to know if those memories can interact with each other. And if you have two different origins of life and then origins of intelligence, and then these things become conscious, surely you want to go and talk to them and figure out what commonalities you share. And it might be that we're just unable to conceive of what they're going to look like. They're just going to be completely different, you know, infrastructure, but surely we'll want to go and find out a map. And surely curiosity is a property that evolution has made on earth. And I can't see any reason that it won't happen elsewhere because curiosity probably exists because we want to find innovations in the environment. We want to use that information to help our technology. And also curiosity is like planning for the future. Are they going to fight us? Are we going to be able to trade with them? So I think that Neil's just, I don't know, maybe, you know, I mean, give a shit. I think that's really down on earth, right? Matthew How would aliens categorize humans, do you think? Luke How would we, so let's put it the other way around. Matthew Slime category. Luke Maybe, no, no, no. Maybe we could, the thing is a bit odd, right? Look at Instagram, Twitter, all these people taking selfies. I mean, does the universe, is the ultimate state of consciousness thinking beings that take photographs themselves and upload them to an internet with other thinking beings looking at each other's photos. So I think that they will be Amelia What's wrong with that? Luke I did not say there was anything wrong with it. Matthew It's consciousness manifested at scale. Selfies, Instagram. Amelia It's like the mirror test at scale. Luke Yeah, I do think that curiosity is really the driving force of why we have our technology, right? If we weren't curious, we wouldn't go out, left the cave. So I think that Neil's got it completely wrong, in fact, actually, of course, they'd want to come here. It doesn't mean they are coming here. We've seen evidence for that. I guess we can argue about that, right? But I think that we want, I desperately, and I know that Sarah does too, but I won't speak for you, you're here, you can, I desperately want to have missions to look for life in the solar system right now. I want to map life over the solar system. And I want to understand how we can go and find life as quickly as possible at the nearest stars. And also at the same time, do it in the lab just to compensate, you know, so sure. Sarah Yeah, I just one more point on this. If you think about sort of what's driven the most like features of our own evolution as a species, you could and try to map that to alien species. I always think like optimism is what's going to get us furthest. And so I think a lot of people always think that it's like war and conflict is going to be the way that alien species will expand out into the cosmos. But if you just look at how we're doing it, and how we talk about it, it's always our future in space is always, you know, built from narratives of optimism. And so it seems to me that if intelligence does get out in the universe, that it's going to be more optimism and curiosity driving it than war and conflict because those things end up crushing you. So there might be some selective filter. Of course, this is me being an optimist. I'm a half half full kind of person, but Matthew Is it obvious that curiosity, not obvious, but what do you think is curiosity, a more powerful force in the universe than violence and the will to power? So because you said you frame curiosity as a way to also plan on how to avoid violence, which is an interesting frame of curiosity. But I could also argue that violence is a pretty productive way to operate in the world, which is like, that's one way to protect yourself. The best defense is offense. I'm not qualified to answer this, but I'll have a go. I think violence, that's not what I, that's the summary of this podcast. I would, yeah, maybe I would, let's not call it violence, but I call it erasure. So if you think about the way evolution works all the way, obviously corporate assembly theory, but I won't. So if you say you build curiosity allows you to open up avenues, new graphs, right? So new features you can play, what, what the ability to erase those things allows you to start again and do some pruning. So the universe, I think curiosity gets you furthest curiosity, gets you rockets that land, it gets you robots that can make drugs. It gets you poetry and art and communication. And then, you know, I often think, wouldn't it be great in bureaucracy to have another world war, not literally a world war now, please no world war, but a, the equivalent. So we get, remove all the admin bureaucracy, right? All the admin violence, get rid of it and start again. Do you know what I mean? Because you get layers and you get redundant systems built. So actually a reset, so let's not call it violence, a reset in some aspects of our culture and our technology allows us to then build more important things without the, cause how many, you know, how many cookies do I have to click on? How many things, how many, how many extra clicks do I have in the future of my life that I could remove? And a bit of a reset would, would allow us to, to, to start again. And maybe that's how I suppose our encounter with aliens will be. Maybe they will fight with us and say, ah, we're not as excited by you as we thought. We'll just get rid of you. So they might want to reset earth. Yeah. Why not? To be like, let's see how the evolution runs again. This seems like a, they've, uh, uh, there's nothing new happening here. They're observing for a while. This is just not, let's keep it more fun. Let's start with a fish again. I like how you equated violence to, um, resetting your cookies. I suppose that's the kind of violence in this, this, this modern world where words are violence, resetting cookies. I don't know where that came from. I'm completely, yeah. It's poetic, uh, really. Okay. So let's talk about life. What is life? What is non-life? What is the line between life and non-life? And maybe at any point we can pull in ideas of assembly theory. Like how do we start to try to define life? And for people, uh, listening, so Sarah identifies as a physicist and Lee identifies as a chemist. Of course, they are very interdisciplinary in nature in general, but, um, so what is life? Yeah. Yeah. I love asking that question cause it's so absurdly big. I know. I love it. Um, it's my own question. It's my absolute favorite question in the whole universe. Um, so I think I have three ways of describing it right now. Um, and I like to say all three of them cause people latch onto different facets of them. And so the whole idea of, of what Lee and I are trying to work on is not to try to define life, but to try to find a more fundamental theory that explains what the phenomena we call life. And then it should explain certain attributes and you end up having a really different framing than way people usually talk. So the way I, I talk about it three different ways. Um, life is how information structures matter across space and time. Um, life is, uh, I don't know, this one's from you actually simple machines constructing more complex machines. Um, and the other one is the physics of existence, so to speak, which is life is the mechanism the universe has to explore the space of what's possible. Um, that's my favorite. So can I, yeah, yeah. Can I add onto that? Okay. Can you say the physics one again? Uh, physics of existence. Yeah. The physics of existence. I don't know what to call it. You know, like if you think of all the things that could exist, only certain things do exist. And I think life is basically the universe's mechanism of bringing things into physically existing in the, in the moment now. Yeah. Yeah. And what's, what's another one? We were debating this the other day. So if you think about universe that has nothing in it, that's kind of hard to conceive of, right? Because this is where the physicists really go wrong. Like think of a universe with nothing in it. They can't. And you think non-existence is really hard to think. Non-existent. Yeah. And then you think of universe with everything in it, that's really hard. And you just, you just have this white blob, right? It's just everything. But the fact we have to discrete stuff in the universe beyond say planet. So you've got stars, space, planet stuff, right? The boring stuff. But I would define life. We'll say that life is where there are architectures, any architectures, and we should stop fixating on what the bill is building the architectures to start with. And the fact that the universe has discrete things in it is completely mind-blowing. If you think about it for one second, the fact there's any objects at all that, and there's, because for me, the object is a proxy for a machine that built it. Some information being moved around, actuation, sensing, getting resource and building these objects. So for me, everyone's been obsessing about the machine, but I'm like, forget the machine. Let's see the objects. And I think in a way that assembly theory, we realized maybe a few months ago that assembly theory actually does account for the soul and the objects, not mystically like say Sheldrake's morphic resonance or Leibniz's monodology, seeing souls in things. But when you see an object, and I've said this before, but this object is evidence of thought. And then there's a lineage of those objects. So I think what is fascinating is that you put it much more elegantly, but the barrier between life and non-life is accruing enough memories to then actuate. So what that means is there are contingency, there are things that happen in the universe get trapped, these memories then have a causal effect on the future. And then when you get those concentrated in a machine, and you're actually able in real time, able to integrate the past, the present with the future and do stuff, that's when you are most alive. You being the machine. Yes. Wait a minute, but why is the object? So one of the ways to define life, as Sarah said, is simple machines creating complex machines. So there's a million questions there. So how the hell does a simple machine create a complex machine? Mutation. So this is what we were talking about at the beginning, you have a minimum replicator, so a molecule. So this is what I was trying to convince Sarah of the mechanism, get there years ago, I think, but then you've been building on it and saying, you have a molecule that can copy itself, but then there has to be some variability, otherwise it's not going to get more functional. So you need to add bits on. So you have a minimum molecule that can copy itself, but then it can add bits on and that can be copied as well. And those add-ons can give you additional function to be able to acquire more stuff to exist. So existence is weird, but the fact that there is existence is why there is life. And that's why I realized a few days ago that there must be, that's why alien life must be everywhere, because there is existence. Is there like a conservation of cheeky stuff happening? So like, how can you keep injecting more complex things? Like, doesn't the machine that creates the object need to be as, or more powerful than the things it creates? So how can you get complexity from simplicity? So the way you get complexity from simplicity is that you, I'm just making this up, but this is kind of my notion, and you have a large volume of stuff. So you're able to get seeds, if you like, random cues from the environment. So you just use those objects to basically write on your tape, ones and zeros, whatever. And that is necessarily rich, complex, okay? But it has a low assembliness, but even though it has a high assembly number, we can talk about that. But then when you start to then integrate that all into a smaller volume, as over time, and you become more autonomous, you then make the transition. I don't know what you think about that. I think the easiest way to think about it is actually, which I know is a concept you hate, but I also hate, which is entropy, but people are more familiar with entropy than what we talk about in assembly theory. And also the idea that, say physics as we know it, involves objects that don't exist across time, or as we would say, low memory objects. So one of the key distinctions that- Low memory objects. Yeah. So physics is all- Physicists are low memory objects. Low memory objects. Quick clip. But- Physicists are creators of low memory objects, or manipulators of low memory objects. Yep, absolutely. It's a very nice way. Putting it, okay, sorry, go ahead. Sorry to keep interrupting. No, no, it's fine. I like it too. It's very funny. But I think it's a good way of phrasing it because I think this kind of idea we have in assembly theory is that physics as we know it has basically removed time as being a physical observable of an object. And the argument I would make is that when you look at things like water bottles or us, we're actually things that exist that have a large extent in time. So we actually have a physical size in time and we measure that with something called the assembly index in molecules, but presumably everyone should have sort of a- Do you want to explain what assembly- Yeah, let's- You know what? Let's step back and start at the beginning. What is assembly theory? Lee sent me some slides. There's a big sexy paper coming out probably in the there's a big sexy paper coming out probably, maybe, I don't know. We've almost finished it. Almost, almost finished it. That's also a summary of science. We're almost done. Yes. Well, no, no, we're almost done. It's the history of science. We are ready to start an interesting discussion with our peers. Right. You're the machine that created the object and we'll see what the object takes us. Yeah. All right. So what is assembly theory? Yeah. Well, I think the easiest way for people to understand it is to think about assembly in molecules. Although the theory is very general, it doesn't just apply to molecules. And this was really Lee's insight. So it's kind of funny that I'm explaining it, but- I'll mark you. Okay. All right. You're ready? I'm ready. I'm ready. You have to tell me where I get the check marks minus, but- It's your theory as well. Yeah, I know. But imagine a molecule and then you can break the molecule apart into elementary building blocks. They happen to be bonds. And then you can think of all the ways for molecular assembly theory. You can think of all the ways of building up the original molecule. So there's all these paths that you can assemble it. And the sort of rules of assembly is you can use pieces that have been generated already. So it has this kind of recursive property to it. And so that's where kind of memory comes into assembly theory. And then the assembly index is the shortest path in that space. So it's supposed to be the minimal amount of history that the universe has to undergo in order to assemble that particular object. And the reason that this is significant is we figured out how to measure that with a mass spec in the lab. And we had this conjecture that if that minimal number of steps was sufficiently large, it would indicate that you required a machine or a system that had information about how to assemble that specific object because the combinatorial space of possibilities is getting exponentially large as the assembly index is increasing. So just, sorry to interrupt, but so that means there's a sufficiently high assembly index that if observed in an object is an indicator that something lifelike created it? Or is the object itself lifelike? Both. But you might want to make the distinction that a water bottle is not life, but it would still be a signature that you were in that domain of physics. And I might be alive. So. So there would be potentially a lot of arguments about where the line, at which assembly index does interesting stuff start to happen? The point is we can make all the arguments, but it should be experimentally observable. And Lee can talk more about that part of it. But the point I want to make about it is there was always this intuition that I had that there should be some complexity threshold in the universe above which you would start to say whatever physics governs life actually becomes operative. And I think about it a little bit like we have Planck's constant, which, you know, and we have the fine structure constant. And then this sort of assembly threshold is basically another sort of potentially constant of nature. It might depend on specific features of the system, which we debate about sometimes. But then when you're past that, you have to have some other explanation than the current explanations we have in physics, because now you're in high memory. Things actually require time for them to exist, and time becomes a physical variable. So the path to the creation of the object is the memory. So you need to consider that. Yeah, but the point is that's a feature of the object. So when I think of all the things in this room, you know, we see the projection of them as a water bottle, but assembly theory would say that this is a causal graph of all the ways the universe can create this thing. That's what it is as an object. And we're all interacting a causal graph. And most of the creativity in the biosphere is because a lot of the objects that exist now are huge in their structure across time, four billion years of evolution to get to us. And so- Is it possible to look at me and infer the history that led to me? If you- Me as a human- You as an individual might be hard. You as a representative of a population of objects that have high assembly with similar causal history and structure that you can communicate with, i.e. other humans, you can infer a lot probably. Yeah, also with- Which we do genomically even. I mean, it's not like we have a lot of information in us. We can reconstruct histories from assembly saying something slightly deeper. Yeah, one thing to add, I mean, it's not just about the object, but the objects that occur. And not just objects with high assembly number, because you can have random things that have a high assembly number, but there must be a number of identical copies. So you know you're getting away from the random, because you could take a snapshot. This is why I hate entropy. I love entropy when used correctly. But the problem with entropy is you have to have a labeler. And so you can label the beginning and the end, the start and the finish. What you can do in assembly is say, oh, I have a number of objects in abundance. They all have these features. And then you can infer. And one of the things that we debated a lot, particularly during lockdown, because I almost went insane trying to crush the, produce the assembly equation. So we came up with the assembly equation. I had, just imagine this. So you have this string where, oh, actually it makes me sick trying to remember. It was so, it did my head in for a long time. Dramatic. Yeah, because I couldn't, so if you just have a string of say words, say, you know, a series of words, series of letters. So you just have AA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and you find that object and you just have four A's, four B's, four C's, four D's together. Boom. Then, and that really, that you measured that. So you physically measured that string of letters. Then what you could do is you can infer sub graphs of maybe the four A's, the four B's, the four C's and the four C's, but you don't see them in the real world. You just infer them. And I really got stuck with that because there's a problem to try and work out what's the difference between a long, you know, physical object and this assembly space of the objects that we realized the best way to put that is infer in time. So although we can't infer your entire history, we know at some point the four A's were made, the four B's was made, the four C's were made, the four D's were made, and they all got added together. And that's one really interesting thing that's come out of the theory. But the killer, when we knew we were going beyond standard complexity theories, was incredibly successful, is that we realized we could start to measure these things for real across domains. So the assembly index is actually an intrinsic property of all stuff that you can break into components. Particularly molecules are good because you can break them up into smaller molecules, into atoms. The challenge will be making that more general across all the domains, but we're working on it right now. And I think the theory will do that. So components, domains. So you're talking about basically measuring the complexity of an object in what biology, chemistry, physics, that's what you mean by domains. If tests are sociology computers, complexity of memes, you know, memes. Yep. What was that ideas? Yeah, I mean, so one of the- Ideas are objects in assembly theory. Yeah. They are. They're physical things. They're just pictures of the causal graph. I mean, the fact I can talk to you right now is because we're exchanging structure of our assembly space. So conversation is the exchanging structures in assembly space. What is assembly space? When I started working on Origins of Life, I was writing about something called top-down causation, which a lot of philosophers are interested in, and people that worry about the mind-body problem. But the whole idea is, you know, if we have, you know, the microscopic world of physics is causally complete, it seems like there's no room for higher level causes, like our thoughts to actually have any impact on the world. And that seems problematic when you get to studying life and mind, because it does seem that, quote unquote, emergent properties do matter to matter. And then there's this other sort of paradoxical situation where information looks like it's disembodied. So we talk about information like it can just move from any physical system to any other physical system, and it doesn't require, like you don't have to specify anything about the substrate to talk about information. And then there's also the way we talk about mathematics is also disembodied, right? Like the platonic world of forms. And I think all of those things are hinting that we really don't know how to think about abstractions as physical things. And really, I think what assembly theory is pointing to is what we're missing there is the dimension of time. And if you actually look at an object being extended across time, what we call information and the things that look abstract are things that are entangled in the histories of those objects. They're features of the overlapping assembly space. So they look abstract because they're not, you know, part of the current structure, but they're part of the structure if you thought about it as like the philosophical concept of a hyperobject, an object that's too big in time for us to actually to resolve. And so I think information's physical, it's just physical in time, not in space. Too hyperobject, too difficult for us to resolve. So we're supposed to think about of life as this thing that stretches through time, and there's a causation chain that led to that thing. And then you're trying to measure something with the assembly index about properties of that. The assembly index is the ordering, like you could think of it as like a partial ordering of all the things that can happen. So in thermodynamics, we coarse-grain things by temperature and pressure. In assembly theory, we coarse-grain by the number of copies of an object and the assembly index, which is basically, if you think of the space of all possible things, it's like a depth of how far you've gone into that space and how much time was required to get there. In the shortest possible version. Not average, because can't you just 3D print? You're going to kill me with that question. Not 3D. Can't you always 3D print the thing? That's like a cabin in the heart. No, because I had such fights. So Sarah's team and my team are writing this paper at the moment. It's so funny. I think we kind of share the, at the beginning, you were like, no, that's not right. Oh, yeah, that's right. And we're doing this for a bit. And then the problem is when you build a theory and build the intuition, there's some certain features of the theory that almost felt like I was being religious about saying, right, you have to do this. A good assembly theorist does this, does this, does this. And Sarah's postdoc, Daniel, and my postdoc, Abhishek, and they were both brilliant, but they were like, no, we don't buy that. And I was like, it is. They were like, well, Lee, actually, I thought you're the first to say that, you know, if you can't explain it, it doesn't, and you can't do an experiment that doesn't exist. And that saved me. And I said to Abhishek, Abhishek's my postdoc in Glasgow, Daniel is Sarah's postdoc in ASU. I was like, I have the experimental data. So when I basically take the molecules and chop them up in the mass spec, the assembly number is never the average, it's always the shortest. It's an intrinsic property. And then the penny dropped for Abhishek. So, okay. So I had these things that we had to believe to start with, or to trust, and then we've done the math and it comes out and they now have the shortest path, actually, it's up, it explains why the shortest path. Here's why the shortest path is important, not the average. The shortest path needs you to identify when the universe has basically got a memory, not an average. So what you want to be able to do is to say, what is the minimum number of features that I want to be able to see in the universe? When I find those features, I know the universe has had a coherent memory and is basically alive. And so that gives you the lower bound. So that's like, of course, there's going to be other paths. We can be more ridiculous, right? We can have other parts, but it's just the minimum. So probabilistically, at the beginning, because assembly theory was built as a measure for biosignatures, I needed to go there. And then I realized it was intrinsic. And then Sarah realized it was intrinsic and these hyper objects were coming and we were kind of fusing that notions together. And then the team were like, yeah, but if I have enough energy and I have enough resources, I might not take the shortest path. I might go a bit longer. I might take a really long path because it allows me then to do something else. So what you can do is, let's say I've got two different objects, A and B, and they both have different shortest paths to get them. But then, if you want to make A and B together, they will have a compromise. So in the joint assembly space, that might be an average, but actually it's the shortest way you can make both A and B with a minimum amount of resource in time. So suddenly you then layer these things up. And so the average becomes not important, but as you literally overlap those sets, you get a new shortest path. And so what we realized time and time again, when we're doing the math, the shortest path is intrinsic, is fundamental, and is measurable, which is kind of mind-blowing. So what we're talking about, some basic ingredients, maybe we'll talk about that, what those basic ingredients could be and how many steps, when you say shortest path, how many steps it takes to turn those basic ingredients into the final meal. So how to make a pizza, what's the shortest way to make a pizza? Or a pie. Or a pie. An apple pie, that's right. And a pizza and a pie together. From scratch. So there's a lot of ways. There's the shortest way, and you take the full spectrum of ways, and there's probably an average duration for a noob to make an apple pie. Is the average interesting still? If you measure the average length of the path to assemble a thing, does that tell you something about the way nature usually does it? Versus something fundamental about the object, which I think is what you're aiming at with the assembly index. Yeah, I mean, look, we all have to quantify things. The minimum path gives you the lower bounds, you know you're detecting something, you know you're inferring something. The average tells you about really how the objects are existing in the ecosystem or the technology, and there has to be more paths explored, because then you can happen upon other memories, and then condense them down. I'm not making too much sense, but if you look at, say, let's just say, I mean maybe we're going to get to alien civilizations later, right? But I would argue very strongly that alien civilization A and alien civilization B, they're different assembly spaces. So they're kind of going to be a bit messed up if they happen upon one another, only when they find some joint overlap in their technology, because if aliens come to us and they don't share any of the causal graph, but hopefully they share the periodic table and bonds and things, that we're going to have to really think about the language to talk to us aliens by inferring, by using assembly theory to infer their language, their technology, and other bits and bobs. And the shortest path will help you do that quickly. All right, so all aliens in this causality graphs have a common ancestor in the- If the building blocks are the same, which means they live in the same universe as us. So in this- It depends on how far back in time you go, though. But the universe has all the same building blocks. Yeah. And we have to assume that. So there's not different classes of causality graphs, right? No. The universe doesn't just say, like, here, you get the red causality graph, and you get the blue one. These basic ingredients, and they're geographically constrained, or constrained in space or time, or something like that. They're constrained in time, because only by the virtue of the fact that you need enough time to have passed for some things to exist. Sure. So the universe has to be big enough in time for some things. So just at one point on the shortest path versus the average path, which I think we'll get to this, is you had a nice way of saying it's like the minimal compression is the shortest path for the universe to produce that. But it's also like the first time in the ordering of events that you might expect to see that object. But the average path tells you something about the actual steps that were realized, and that becomes an emergent property of that object's interaction with other objects. So it's not an intrinsic feature of that object, it's a feature of the interactions with other things. And so one of the nice features of assembly is you've basically gotten rid of- you just look at the things that exist and you've gotten rid of the mechanisms for constructing them in some sense. Like the machines are not as important in the current construction of the theory, although I would like to bridge it to some ideas about constructors. But then you can only communicate with things as Lee was saying if you have some overlap in the past history. So if you had an alien species that had absolutely no overlap, then there would be no means of communication. But as we become- as we progress further and further in time and more things become possible because the assembly spaces are larger, because you can have a larger assembly space in terms of index and also just the size of the space because it's exponentially growing, then more things can happen in the future. And the example I like to give is actually when we made first contact with gravitational waves because that's an alien phenomenon that's been permeating our planet, not alien in life phenomenon, but alien like something we had never knew existed. It's been like we're- there's gravitational waves rippling through this room right now. But we had to advance to the level of Einstein writing down his theory of relativity and then 100 years of technological development to even quote unquote see that phenomena. So the- okay, to see that phenomena, our causal graph have to start intersecting. Yeah, we needed the idea to emerge first, the abstraction, right? And then we had to build the technology that could actually observe features of that abstraction. So the nice promising thing is over time the graph can grow so it can start overlapping eventually. Yeah, so the interesting feature of that graph is there was an event, you know, 1.4 billion years away of a black hole merger that we detected on our detector. And, you know, now suddenly we're connected through this communication channel with this distant event in our universe that, you know, if you think about 1.4 billion years ago, it was happening on this planet or even further back in time that, you know, there's common physics underlying all those events. But even for those two events to communicate- Now I understand what you were going on about the other week. Yeah, I'm sorry. It's a really abstract example. But- Your causal graphs are now overlapping. Well, let's just say now our causal graphs are overlapping in the deep past. Oh, I like it. So you made it- I totally missed it. The 1.6 billion. You made a connection with it. No, I do like that. You know, you can tell me what your epiphany is now. That's good. And I should get the jokes before 30 seconds after. Oh, I get it now. No, it's all right. I'm slow. The joke from two minutes ago. I'm slow on the uptake here. I wasn't able to comprehend what you were talking about when saying the channel communicating to the past. But what you're saying is we were able to infer what happened 1.4 billion years ago. We detected the gravity wave. I mean, I think it's amazing that, you know, at that time we weren't even- we were just becoming multicellular, right? It's like insane. And then we progress from multicellularity through to technology and built the detector and then we just extrapolate backwards. So although we didn't do anything back to the graph back in time, we understood this existence then overlapped going forward. Well, that's because our graphs are larger. Yeah, but that means that has a consequence. That has a consequence. One of the things I was trying to say is like I'm- I think, I don't know, Sarah might be, she can correct me, information first and I'm a object first kind of guy. So I mean, there's things that get constructed. There has to be this transition in random constructions. So when the object that's being constructed by the process bakes in that memory and those memories then add on and add on and add on. So as it becomes more competent and life is about taking those memories and compressing them, increasing their autonomy. And so I think that, you know, like the cell that we have in biology on earth is our way of doing that. That really the maximum ability to take memories and to act on the future. Oh, I think that's mathematics. No, mathematics doesn't exist. No, but that's the point. The point is that abstractions do exist. They're real physical things. We call them abstractions, but the point about mathematics that I think is- so I don't disagree. I think you're object first and I'm information first, but I think I'm only information first in the sense that I think the thing that we need to explain is what abstractions are and what they are as physical things. Because of all of human history, we've thought that there were these properties that are disembodied, exist outside of the universe. And really they do exist in the universe and we just don't understand what their physics is. So I think mathematics is a really good example. We do theoretical physics with math, but imagine doing physics of math and then thinking about math as a physical object. And math is super interesting. I think this is why we think it describes reality so well because it's the most copyable kind of information. It retains its properties when you move it between physical media, which means that it's very deep. And so it seems to describe the universe really well, but it probably is because it's information that's very deep in our past. And it's just, we invented a way of communicating it very effectively between us. Isn't math more fundamental? Isn't the assembly of the graph, isn't basically, I'm going to sound, I sound completely boring. It's like math, assembly theory invented math, but it did. It has to be. Okay. So what is math exactly? It's a nice simplification, a simple description of what? So we have a computer scientist, a physicist and a chemist here. I think the chemist is going to define math and you guys can correct me. Go for it. I would say- Lay it on us, Lee. We're ready. I think the ability to label objects and place them into classes and then do operations on the objects is what math is. So on that point, what does it mean to be object first versus information first? So what's the difference between object and information when you get to that low fundamental level? Well, I might change my view. So I'm stuff first, the stuff. And then when stuff becomes objects, it has to invent information. And then the information acts on more stuff and becomes more objects. So I think there is a transition to information that occurs when you go from stuff to objects. Really? I just mean time though. Yeah. Information is emergent? Not emergent. Information is actionable memories from the universe. So when memories become actionable, that's information. But there's always memory, but it's not actionable. Yeah. And then it's not information. Great. And actionable is what? You can create- You can use it. If you can't use it, then it's not information. If you can't transmit it, if it doesn't have any causal consequence- Falls in the forest. I don't understand. Why is that not information? It's not information. It's stuff happening, but it's not causal. Yeah. We can- This is cool. It's happening. No, no, but- The happening requires information. No, no, no, no, no. Stuff is always happening. No. This is where the physicists and the mathematicians get themselves in a loop, because I think the universe, I mean, I think say Max Tegmark is very playful and say like, the universe is just math. Well, the universe is just math, then we might as well not bother having any conversation because the conversation is already written. We just might as well go to the future and say, can you just give us the conversation? It's happened already. So I think the problem is that mathematicians are so successful at labeling stuff and so successful understanding of stuff through those labels, they forget that actually those labels had to emerge and that information had to be built on those memories. So memory in the universe, so constraints, graph, when they become actionable and the graph can loop back on itself or interact with other graphs and they can intersect, those memories become actionable and therefore their information. And I think you just changed my mind on something pretty big, but I don't have a pen, so I'm going to write it down later. But roughly the idea is like you've got these two graphs of objects of stuff, they have memories and then when they intersect and then they can act on each other, that's maybe the mechanism by which information is then, so then you can then abstract. So when one graph can then build another graph and say, hey, you don't have to go through all the nonsense we had to go through, here's literally the way to do it. Stuff always comes first, but then when stuff builds the abstraction, the abstraction can be then teleported onto other stuff. Abstractions is the looping back. Yeah. Okay. Am I making, I don't know, I got stuck. Yeah, so first God made stuff. Then after that, when you start to be able to form abstractions, that's when- God is the memory the universe can remember. God is the memory the universe can remember. Otherwise there's no- Someone's going to be deciphering that statement hundreds of years from now. What does that mean? What does that mean by this? Don't diss my one-liners. It took me 15 seconds to come up with that. I don't know what it means. What does it mean? Okay, wait, we need to, how do we get onto this? We were time, causality, mathematics. So what is mathematics in this picture of stuff, objects, memory, and information? What exactly is mathematics? It's the most efficient labeling scheme that you can apply to lots of different graphs. Well, the labeling scheme doesn't make it sound useful. Can I try? Yeah, sure, please. Have you rejected my definition of mathematics? I'm shocked. No, I'm sorry. But it's correct. Go on, sorry. Excellent. No, I mean, I think we have a problem, right? Because we can't not be us, like we're stuck in the shells we are and we're trying to observe the world. And so mathematics looks like it has certain properties. And I guess the thought experiment I find is useful is to try to imagine if you were outside of us looking at us as physical systems using mathematics, what would be the specific features you associate to the property of understanding mathematics and being able to implement it in the universe, right? And when you do that, mathematics seems to have some really interesting properties relative to other kinds of abstraction we might talk about, like language or artistic expression. One of those properties is the one I mentioned already, that is really easy to copy between physical media. So if I give you a mathematical statement, you almost immediately know what I mean. If I tell you the sky is blue, you might say, is it gold ball blue? Is it azure blue? What color blue do you mean? And you have a harder time visualizing what I actually mean. So mathematics carries a lot of meaning with it when it's copied between physical systems. It's also the reason we use it to communicate with computers. And then the second one is it retains its property of actually what it can do in the universe when it's copied. So the example I like to give there is think about like Newton's law of gravitation. It's actually, it's a compressed regularity of a bunch of phenomena that we observe in the universe, but then that information actually is a causal in a sense that it allows us to do things we wouldn't be able to do without that particular knowledge and that particular abstraction. And in this case, like launch satellites to space or send people to Mars or whatever it is. So if you look at us from the outside and you say, what is it for physical systems to invent a thing called mathematics and then to use and then it to become a physical observable, mathematics is kind of like the universally copyable information that allows new possibility spaces to be open in the future, because it allows this kind of ability to map one physical system to another and actually understand that the general principle. Yeah. So is it helping the overlap of causal graphs then by mapping? Oh, I think that's the explanation for what it is in terms of the physical theory of assembly would be some feature of the structure of the assembly spaces of causal graphs and their relationship to each other. So for example, and I mean, this is things that we're going to have to work out over the next few years. I mean, we're in totally uncharted conceptual territory here, but as is usual, diving off the deep end. But I would expect that we would be able to come up with a theory of like, why is it that some physical systems can communicate with each other? Like language, language is basically because we're objects extended over time. And some of the history of that assembly space actually overlaps. And when we communicate, it's because we actually have shared structure in our causal history. Let me have another quick go at this. Right. So I think we all agree. So I think we take mathematics for granted because we've gone through this chain, right. We all share a language now. Okay. And we can, well, we share lang, so we have languages that we can make interoperable. And so whether you're speaking, I don't know, all the different dialects of Chinese, all the different dialects of English, French, German, whatever, you can interconvert them. The interesting thing about mathematics now is that everybody on planet earth, every human being and computers share that common language. That language was constructed by a process in time. So what I'm trying to say is assembly invented math is those, those right from the, you know, mathematics didn't occur. It didn't exist before life. Abstraction was invented by life, right? That doesn't mean that the universe wasn't capable of mathematical things. Wait, wait a minute. Can we just ask that, that old famous question is math invented or discovered? So when you say assembly invented or whatever, uh, you, you, it means this is simply as a mathematical theory, but sorry. Right. Are we arguing? Exactly. Are we arguing now? That's what it sounds like. Are we discovering? No. Oh, well, yes and no. I would say, you call mathematics a language. I would say that, like, I'm pretty sure that, um, there, there are some very common seeds of mathematics in the universe, right? But actually not the mathematics that we are finding now is not discovered. It's invented. And, but even though, I think those two terms are very triggering and I don't think they're necessarily useful because I think that what people do, the mathematicians that say, oh, mathematics was discovered because they live in a universe where there is no time and it just all exists. But what I'm saying is, and I think in the same way you can create, let's say I'm going to go and create and make a piece of art. Did I make that piece of art or did I discover it? Like inventing the airplane? Did I invent the airplane? Let's stick with the airplane. The airplane is a good one. I, let's say I'm, did I discover the airplane? Well, in a way the universe discovered the airplane because it just chucked a load of atoms together and load of random human beings want to do stuff. And then we, we discover the airplane in the space of possibilities. But here's the thing. When the space of possibilities is so vast, infinite almost, and you're able to actualize one of those in an object, then you are inventing it. So in mathematics, because there are infinite number of theorems, the fact you're actually pulling, there's no difference between inventing a mathematical structure and inventing the airplane. They're the same thing, but that doesn't mean that now the airplane exists in the universe. It's something weird about the universe that, you know, so I think that the more, this is the thing that I can probably, the more memory required for the object, the more invented it is. So when a mathematical theorem has a, has a, needs more bytes to store it, the more invented it is and the less bytes, the more discovered it is. But everything then is invented. It's just more or less invented. Absolutely. Okay. The universe has to generate everything as it goes. Yeah. And it wasn't there in the beginning. And the way we're thinking it, when you're thinking about the difference between invented and discovered is because we're throwing away all the memory. Yeah. So if you start to think in terms of causality and time, then those things become the same. Everything is invented. And the idea is to make everything intrinsic to the universe. So I think one of the features of assembly theory is we don't want to have external observers. There's been this long tradition in physics of trying to describe the universe from the outside and not the inside. And the universe has to generate everything itself if you do it from the inside. Assembly theory describes how the universe builds itself. Did it take you 15 seconds to say that? Yeah. To come up with that also? No, I've thought about that before. Okay. That's a good line. It's like, Are you making fun of me? No, I'm not making fun. I'm having fun. There's a difference. Oh, that's good. All right. I'm not all intimidated. And there's a causal history to that fun. You mentioned that there's no way to communicate with aliens until there's overlap in the causal graph. Communication includes being able to see them. And like, what are we, this is the question is, is communication any kind of detection? And if so, what do aliens look like as you get more and more overlap on the causal graph? You're assuming, let's assume that, so when you see them and they see you, you're assuming they have vision. They have the ability to construct in 3D and in time. That's a lot of assumptions we're making. What detection? All right, let's step back. So yes, okay. You're right. So when in the English language, when we say the word see, we mean visually, they show up to a party and it's like, oh, wow, that's an alien. That's visual. That's 3D. That's okay. And that's also assuming scale, spatial scale of something that's visible to you. So it can't be microscopic or it can't be so big that you don't even realize that's an entity. Okay. But other kinds of detection too. I would make it more abstract and go down. I was thinking this morning about how to rewrite the Arecibo message in assembly theory, and also to abandon binary. Because I don't think aliens necessarily, why should they have binary? Well, they have some basic elements with which to do information exchange. Well, let's make it more fundamental, more universal. So we need to think about what is a universal way of making a memory, and then we should re-encode Arecibo in that way. What's more basic than zeros and ones? Well, it's really difficult to get out of that causal chain because we're so, so let's embrace the idea of zero for a moment. It took human beings a long time to come up with the idea of zero. Now you've got the idea of zero, you can't throw it away. It's so useful. To discover the idea of zero. To discover or invent. I don't know, but it took a long time. So it was invented. That's right. Yeah. I think zero was invented. Exactly. So it's not a given that aliens know what zero is. They just have the one. Massive assumption. It's a useful discovery. You're saying if you break the causal chain, there might be some other more efficient way of representing. That's why I want to meet him and ask him. For a shortcut. But you won't be able to ask him until. So I interrupted you and I think you're making a good point. I was just going to say, well, look. Thank you. Sorry. Rather than saying. Please internet, tweet at him for the rude interruptions. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, it's okay. Maybe it's change. How do we, so, oh, I don't know what it's like to be an alien. I would like to know. Okay. What is the full spectrum of what aliens might look like to us? Now that we've laid this all on the table of like, all right, so there has to be some overlap in this causal chain that led to them. What are we looking for? What do you think we should be looking for? So you mentioned mass spec measuring certain objects that aliens could create or are aliens themselves. We show up to a planet or maybe not a planet, or maybe what, what the, what the hell is the basic object we're trying to measure the assembly index of. Let's cut ourselves a break. Let's assume that they are, they, they're metabolized. They've got an energy source and they're, they've, they're a size that we can recognize. Let's give our cut ourselves a break. Cause it could be aliens that are so big. We won't recognize we're seeing them. There might be aliens that are so small. We don't yet have the ability to, you know, we don't have microscopes that can see, you know, far enough away that just won't be able to see them. So what's a good range? So let's just make a range. Let's just be very anthropocentric and say, we're going to look for aliens, roughly our size and technology our size, because we, we know it's possible on earth. Right? I mean, a reasonable thing to do would be to, to find exoplanets that in the same zone as earth in terms of heat and stuff, and then say, Hey, if this is like same kind of gravity, same kind of stuff, we could reasonably assume that the alien life there might use a similar kind of physical infrastructure. And then we're good. So then, then you're, then, then your question becomes really relevant and say, right, let's use vision, sound touch. And so, okay, that's really nice. So that if there's a lot of aliens out there, that there's a good likelihood, if you match to the planet, that they're going to be in the same spatial and temporal operating in the same spatial temporal domain as humans. Okay. Well, then that what, what, what did they look like visually? What do they sound like? What are they? Oh God, this sounds creepy. Tastes like, what does it smell like? Smell like, that's the sounds like our clubhouse. And he's like, can we have sex of aliens? Which was basically me saying, but it wasn't actually about sex. It was about is our chemistry compatible, right? Is there some, yeah. Yeah. Can, can, can we, um, yeah. Are they edible too? That could be very edible. They could be delicious. That's why I want to see some aliens, right? Because I think, are there, I think evolution, um, I mean, evolution exploits symmetry, right? Because why, why generate memory? Why generate storage, the need for storage space when you can use symmetry? So, and symmetry is quite maybe quite effective in allowing you to mechanically design stuff, right? So maybe alien, it could, you could be, would be reasonable to assume that aliens could have, they could be bipedal. They could be symmetric in the same way. Might have a couple of eyes or a couple of sensors. We can make, make them perhaps there's this whole zoo of different aliens out there and we'll never get to be able to classify some of the weird aliens we can't interact with because they have made it such weird stuff. But we are just going to look at we're going to find aliens that look most like us. Why not? Because those are the first ones we're likely to see. Yeah. Yeah. But I think it's really hard to imagine what the space of aliens is because the space is huge. Because, you know, like one of the arguments that you can make about why life emerges in chemistry is because chemistry is the first scale in terms of like, you know, building up objects from elementary objects, um, that the number of possible things that could exist is larger than the universe can possibly make all at once. Right? So, um, so you imagine you have two planets and they're cooking some geochemistry. You know, our planet invented one kind of biochemistry and presumably as you start building up the complexity of the molecules, the chances of the overlap in those trajectories, those causal chains being built up is probably very low. Um, and it gets lower and lower as it gets further advanced along its evolutionary path. So I think it's very difficult to imagine predicting the technologies that aliens are going to have. I mean, it's, it's so, it's, you're looking at basically planets have kind of convergent chemistry, but there's some variability. And then you're looking basically at the outgrowth into the possibility space for chemistry. So do you think we would detect the technology, the objects created by aliens before we detect aliens? Possibly. So when you're talking about measuring assembly index, um, don't you think we would detect the garbage first, like at the outskirts of alien civilizations, is this is going to be trash? Uh, I think I would come back to Arecibo, the Arecibo message sent from the Arecibo telescope built by Drake, I think, and Sagan. How's Arecibo spelled? A R E C I B O. Yes. That's the telescope that sent the message that you're talking about. So that message was sent where? It was beamed, it beamed at a star, a specific star. Um, and it was sent out many years ago. Um, and what they did, so this is why I was pushing on binary. It's a binary message. I think it's a semi prime length number of characters. So I think 20, 73 by 23, I think. And it basically represents human bit proton, um, binary human beings, DNA, male and female. And it's, it's really cool. But I'm just wondering if, um, it could be done not making any, because it's made assumptions that aliens speak binary. Why make that assumption? Why not just assume that if the difference between physics, chemistry, and biology is the amount of memory that's in state that's recordable by the substrates, then surely the universal thing, my, I'm going to make some sacrilegious statement, which I think is pretty awesome, um, for people to argue with. So this is, uh, we're looking at an image where it's the, the, the entirety of the message encoded in binary. And then there's a probably interpretation of different parts of that image. There's a, there's a person, um, there's green parts. It looks like, uh, for people just listening, like a Tetris game of Tetris. So it's encoding in minimal ways, a bunch of cool information, probably. Representing all of us. So at the top, it's kind of teaching us how to count and then it all goes all the way down teaching you chemistry and then just says, but it makes so many assumptions. And I think if we can actually, so look, I think, I mean, Sarah's much more eloquent expressing this, but I'll have a go and you can correct it if you want, which is like, um, we, one of the things that Sarah has had a profound effect on the way I look at the origin of life. And this is one of the reasons why we're working together because we don't really care about the origin of life. We want to make life, make aliens and find aliens, make aliens, find aliens. I think we might have to make aliens in the lab before we find aliens in the universe. Right? I think that would be a cool way to do it. So what is it about the universe that creates aliens? Well, it's selection through assembly theory, creating memories, because when you create memories, you can then command your domain. You can basically do stuff. You can command matter. So we need to find a way by understanding what life is of how the minimal way to command matter, how that would emerge in the universe. And if we want to communicate, I mean, maybe we don't want to necessarily uniformly communicate. What I would do perhaps if I had is I would send out lots of probes away from earth to have this magic way of communicating with aliens, get them quite a far away from earth, plausibly deniable, and then send out the message that would then attract all the aliens and then basically work out if they were a friend or foe and how they want to hang out. The messages being something that has to do with the memories? Yes. The assembly version of Arecibo, so that everyone in the universe that has been understands what life is. So aliens need to work out what they are. Once they've worked out what they are, they then can work out how to encode what they are, and then they can go out and send messages. It's like the universal Rosetta Stone for life in the universe is working out how to is working out how the memories are built. I don't know, Sarah, you have any, well, whether you would agree with that. No, I wanted to raise a different point, which is about the fact that we can't see the aliens yet because we haven't gotten the technology. And presumably we think assembly theory is the right way of doing it. But I don't think that we know how to go from the kind of data you're describing, Lex, like visual data or smell to construct the assembly spaces yet. And in some ways, I think that the problem of life detection really is the same problem at the foundations of AI that we don't understand how to get machines to see causal graphs, to see reality in terms of causation. And so I think assembly and AI are going to intersect in interesting ways, hopefully. But the sort of key point, and I've been trying to make this argument more recently, and might write an essay on it, is people talk about the great filter, which is, again, this like doomsday thing that people want to say there's no aliens out there because something terrible happened to them. And it matters whether that's in our past or our future as to the longevity of our species, presumably, which is why people find it interesting. But I think it's not a physical filter. It's not like things go extinct. I think it's literally we don't have the technology to see them. And you could see that with microscopes. I mean, we didn't know there were microbes on this table. We didn't know there were microbes on this table for, or tables for thousands of years, or telescopes. Like there's so much of the universe we can't see. And then basically what we have done as a species is outsource our physical perceptions to technology, building microscopes based on our eyes, and building seismometers based on our sense of feelings, like feel earthquakes and things. And AI is basically we're trying to outsource what's actually happening in our thinking apparatus into machines now, into technological devices. And maybe that's the key technology that's going to allow us to see things like us and see the universe in a totally different way. But you kind of mentioned the great filter. Do you think there's a way through technology to stop being able to see stuff? So can you take a step backwards? I think so, yeah. Did you imply that with the great, so like? Well, no, I mean, I think there's a great perceptual filter in the sense that a example of life evolving on a planet over billions of years has to acquire a certain amount of knowledge and technology to actually recognize the phenomena that it is. Well, that's the sense I have is when you talk with physicists, engineers in general, there's this kind of idea that we have most of the tools already just to hear the signal. But to me, it feels like we don't have any of the tools to see the signal. No, we don't know what we're doing. Yeah, I agree. That's the biggest, like to hear. We don't have the tools to really hear, to see. Yeah. Aliens are everywhere. We just don't have the... Exactly. Yeah, well, that's... I mean, I got this in part actually because you were like, last time I was here, you were like, look at the carpet. You know, could it, like if you had an alien detector, would the carpet be aliens? I mean, I think we really don't. It would be, but the aliens would nevertheless have a high assembly index or produce things of a high assembly index. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And those things of a high assembly index, you have to have a detector that can recognize high assembly index in all its forms. Yeah. Yes. That's it. That's it. Take data, construct assembly space. Yes. Patterns, basically. So one way to think about high assembly index is interesting patterns of basic ingredients. I can give you an example, because I mean, in molecules, we've been talking about in objects, but we're also trying to do it in spatial trajectories. Like imagine you're just, like I always get bothered by the fact that like, when you look at birds flocking, you can describe that with like a simple Boy's model or like, you know, people use spin glass to describe animal behavior, and those are like really simple physics models. Yet you're looking at a system that you know has agency and there's intelligence in those birds. And I, and basically, like, you can't help but think there must be some statistical signatures of the fact that they're, those are, that's a group of agents versus, you know, like, I don't know, you know, the physics example, maybe like, I don't know, Brownian motion or something. And so what we're trying to do is actually apply assembly to trajectory data to try to say there's a minimal amount of causal history to build up certain trajectories for observed agents that's like an agency detector for behavior. Yeah. Do you think it's possible to do some like, like Boids or those kinds of things, like artificial, like cellular automata, play with those ideas with assembly, with assembly theory? Have you found any useful, really simple mathematical, like simulation tools that allow you to play with these concepts? So like one, of course, you're doing mass spec in this physical space with, with chemistry, but it just seems, well, I mean, computer science person, maybe it seems easier to just, I agree with you. and sexier in terms of tweeting visual information on Twitter or Instagram, more importantly, to play like, here's an organism of a low assembly index, and here's an organism of a high assembly index and let's watch them create more and more memories and more and more complex objects. And so like, and mathematically you get to observe what that looks like to build up an intuition, what assembly index is like. We are building a toolkit right now. So I think it's a really good idea, but what we've got to do is I'm kind of still obsessed with the infrastructure required. And one of the reasons why I was pushing on information and mathematics when human beings, when human being, we take a lot of the infrastructure for granted. And, and I think we have to strip that back a bit for going forward, but you're absolutely right. I would agree that I think the, the fact that we exist in the universe, this is like, I can see that lots of people would disagree with the statement, but I don't think, I don't think Sarah will, but I don't know. The fact that objects exist. I don't think anyone on earth can just, will disagree that objects can exist elsewhere. Right. But they will disagree that life can exist elsewhere. But what perhaps I'm trying to say is that the, the, the acquisition, the universe's ability to acquire memory is the very first step for building life. And that must be, that's so easy to happen. So therefore alien life is everywhere because all alien life is, is those memories being compressed and minimalized and the alien equivalent of the cell working. So I think that we will build new technologies to find aliens. Um, but we, we need to understand what we are first and how we go from physics to chemistry to biology. The most interesting thing, as you're saying, to these two organisms, different assemblies is when you get into biology, biology gets more and more weird, more and more contingent where physics is from the chemistry is less weird because the rules of chemistry is small and the rules of biology, and then going away to physics where you have a lot of weirdness and then going away to physics where you have a very nicely tangible number of ways of arranging things. And I think assembly theory just helps you appreciate that. And so once we get there, my dream is that we are just going to be able to suddenly are, I mean, I'm, I mean, I'm maybe just being really arrogant here. I'm not mean to be arrogant. It's just, again, I've just got this hammer called assembly and everything's a nail. But I think that once we crack it, we'll be able to use assembly theory plus telescopes to find aliens. Mm-hmm. Do you have, Sarah, do you have disagreements with Lee on the number of aliens that are out there? So, and- I do, actually, yeah. Well- And what they look like. So any of the things we've been talking about, is there nuanced, it's always nice to discover wisdom through nuanced disagreement. Yeah, I don't wholly disagree, but I think, but I do think I disagree. It's kind of, there's nuance there. But Lee- You can disagree. No, it's fine. It is nuanced, right? So you made the point earlier that you think, you know, once we discover what alien life, what life is, we'll see alien life everywhere. And I think I agree on some levels in the sense that I think the physics that governs us is universal. But I don't know how far I would go to say, to say that we're a likely phenomena, because we don't understand all of the features of the transition at the origin of life, which we would just say in assembly, as you go from the no memory physics to, there's like a critical transition around the assembly index where assemblyness starts to increase. And that's what we call the evolution of the biosphere and complexification of the biosphere. So there's a principle of increasing assemblyness, or that goes back to what I was saying at the very beginning about the physics of the possible, that the universe basically gets in this mode of trying to make as much possibilities as possible. Now, how often that transition happens, that you get the kind of cascading effect that we get in our biosphere, I think we don't know. If we did, we would know the likelihood of life in the universe. And a lot of people want to say life is common, but I don't think that we can say that yet till we have the empirical data, which I think you would agree with. But then there's this other kind of thought experiment I have, which I don't like, but I did have it, which is, you know, if life emerges on one planet and you get this real high density of things that can exist on that planet, is it sort of dominating the density of creation that the universe can actually generate? So like if you're thinking about counting entropy, right, like the universe has a certain amount of stuff in it, and then, you know, assembly is kind of like an entropic principle, it's not entropy. But the idea is that now transformations among stuff or the actual physical histories of things now become things that you have to count as far as saying that these things exist and we're increasing the number of things that exist. And if you think about that cosmologically, maybe Earth is sucking up all the life potential of the whole universe, I don't know. But I have- How's that, can you explain that a little bit? Why can't any one geographical region suck up the creative capacity of the universe? Well, just like- No. I know it's a ridiculous thought. I don't actually agree with it, but it was just a thought experiment. I love that you can have thoughts that you don't like and don't agree with, but you have to think through them anyway. Yeah. Because the human mind is fascinating. Yeah, I think these sort of counterfactual thought experiments are really good when you're trying to build new theories, because you have to think through all the consequences. And there are people that want to try to account for, say, the degrees of freedom on our planet in cosmological inventories of, you know, talking about the entropy of the universe and, you know, and when we're thinking about like cosmological arrow of time and things like that. Now, I think those are pretty superficial proposals as they stand now, but assembly would give you a way of counting it. And then the question is, if there's a certain maximal capacity of the universe's speed of generating stuff, which Lee always has this argument that assembly is about time, the universe is generating more states. Really, what it's generating is more assembly possibilities. And then dark energy might be one manifestation of that, that the universe is accelerating its expansion because that makes more physical space. And what's happening on our planet is it's accelerating in the expansion of possible things that exist. And maybe the universe just has a maximal rate of what it can do to generate things. And then if there is a maximal rate, maybe only a certain number of planets can actually do that or there's a trade-off about the pace of growth on certain planets versus others. I have a million questions there, but do you have thoughts on? Just a quick, yeah, I'll just say something very quick. It's a thought experiment. No, it's good. I think I get it. I think I get it. So, what I want to say is, when I mean aliens are everywhere, I mean, memories are the prerequisite for aliens via selection and then concentration of selection when selection becomes autonomous. So, what I would love to do is to build, say, a magical telescope that was a memory- Magical. Magical one. Yeah, sorry, a real one that would be a memory detector to see selection. So, you could get to exoplanets and say, that exoplanet looks like there's lots of selection going on there. Maybe there's evolution and maybe there's going to be life. So, what I'm just trying to say is narrow down the regions of space. We can say there's definitely evidence of memory as high assembly there, or not high assembly because that would be life, but where it's capable of happening. Then that would also help us frame the search for aliens. I don't know how likely it is to make the transition to cells and all the other things. I think you're right, but I think that we just need to get more data. Well, I didn't like the thought experiment because I don't like the idea that if the universe has a maximal limit on the amount it can generate per unit time, that our existence is actually precluding the existence of other things. Well, I'll just say one thing. But I think that's probably true anyway because of the resource limitations. So, I don't like your thought experiment because I think it's wrong. Well, no, no, I do like the thought experiment. So, what you're trying to say is there is a chain of events that goes back that's manifestly culminated with life on Earth. And you're not saying that life isn't possible elsewhere. You say that there has been these number of contingent things that have happened that have allowed life to emerge here. That doesn't mean that life can't emerge elsewhere, but you're saying that the intersection of events may be concentrated here, right? And I think there's... Not exactly. It's more like, you know, if you look at, say, the causal graphs are fundamental, maybe space is an emergent property, which is consistent with some proposals in quantum gravity, but also how we talk about things in assembly theory. Then the universe is causal graphs generating more structure in causal graphs, right? So, this is how the universe is unfolding. And maybe there's a cap on the rate of generation, like there's only so much stuff that gets made per update of the universe. And then if there's a lot of stuff being made in a particular region that happens to look the same locally, spatially, that's an after effect of the fact that the whole causal graph is updating. Yeah, I don't know that. I think that that doesn't work. I don't think it works either, but I don't have a good argument in my mind about it. But I do like the idea of the capacity that universe... because you've got a number of states. Yeah, we can come back to it. Well, let me ask you real quick, like, why does different, like, local pockets of the universe start remembering stuff? How does memory emerge exactly? So, at the origin of the universe, it was very forgetful. That's when the physicists were happiest. There's low memory objects, which is like ultra low memory objects, which is what the definition of stuff. Okay. And so how does memory emerge? How does, which is, how does this, the temporal stickiness of objects emerge? I'm going to take a very chemocentric point of view, because I can't imagine any other way of doing it. You could think of other ways, maybe, but I would say heterogeneity in matter is where the memory... So, you must have enough different ways of rearranging matter for there to be a memory. So, what that means is if you've got particles colliding in a box, let's just take some elements in a box. Those elements can combine in a combinatorial set of ways. So, there's a combinatorial explosion of the number of molecules or minerals or solid objects, bonds being made. Because there's such a large number, the population of different objects that are possible, this goes back to assembly theory, where assembly theory, there's four types of universes, right? So, you've got basically, and this is what one was up earlier, where one universe where you've just got everything as possible. So, you can take all the atoms and combine them and make everything. Then you've got basically what is the assembly combinatorial, where you basically have to accrue information in steps. Then you've got assembly observed, right? And then you've got the object assembly going back. So, what I'm trying to say is if you can take atoms and make bonds, let's say you take a nitrogen atom and add it to a carbon atom, you find an amino acid. Then you add another carbon atom on in a particular configuration, then another one, all different molecules, they all represent different histories. So, I would say for me right now, the most simple route into life seems to be through recording memories and chemistry. But that doesn't mean there can't be other ways, there can't be other emergent effects. But I think if you can make bonds and lots of different bonds, and those molecules can have a causal effect on the future. So, imagine a box of atoms and then you combine those atoms in some way. So, you make molecule A from a load of atoms and then molecule A can go back to the box and influence the box. Then you make A prime or AB or ABC and that process keeps going and that's where the memories come from, is that heterogeneity in the universe from bonding. I don't know if that makes any sense. And it's beginning to flourish at the chemistry level. Yeah. So, the physicists have no, like not enough. Yeah, I mean- They're like desperately begging for more freedom and heterogeneous components to play with. Yeah, that's exactly it. What do you think about that, Sarah? I mentioned already, I think it's significant that whatever physics governs life emerges actually in chemistry. It's not relevant at the subatomic scale or even at the atomic scale. It's in, well, atomic scale because chemistry. But like when you get into this combinatorial diversity that you get from combining things on the periodic table, that's when selection actually matters or the fact that some things can exist and others can't exist actually starts to matter. So, I think of it like you don't study gravity inside the atomic nucleus. You study it in terms of large-scale structure of the universe or black holes or things like that. And whatever we're talking about as physics of information or physics of assembly becomes relevant at a certain scale of reality. And the transition that you're talking about, I would think of as just when you get a sufficient density in terms of the assembly space of like the relationship of the overlap and the and the assembly space, which is like a feature of common memory, there is this transition to assembly-dominated physics, whatever that is. Oh, like when we're talking about, and we're trying to map out exactly what that transition looks like. We're pretty sure, you know, of some of its features, but we haven't done all of the. LARSON Do you think if you were there in the early universe, you would have been able to predict the emergence of chemistry and biology? And I ask that because at this stage as humans, do you think we can possibly predict the length of memory that might be able to be formed later on in this pocket of the universe? Like how complex is, what is the ceiling of assembly? BLAIR I think as much time as you have in the past is how much you can predict in the future, because that is actually physical in the system. And you have to have enough time for features of that structure to exist. LARSON Wait, let me push back on that. Isn't there somewhere in the universe that's like a shortest path that's been, that stretches all the way to the beginning? BLAIR Yeah. LARSON That's building some giant monster? BLAIR Maybe, yeah. LARSON Yeah, so you can't predict the monster. BLAIR The universe has as much memory as the largest assembly object in the universe. LARSON Right, but so you can't predict? BLAIR You can't predict any deeper than that, no. LARSON Right, so I guess what I'm saying is, what intuition do you have about complexity living in the world that you have today? Right, because you just, you can, I mean, I guess how long, does it get more fun? BLAIR Well, you couldn't have predicted it. LARSON Isn't there going to be at some point, because there's a heat death in the universe, isn't there going to be a point of the most, of the highest assembly of object, with the highest probability being generated? BLAIR When is the universe going to be the most fun, and can we free ourselves and then live then? LARSON Exactly. Will you know when you're having the most fun, that this is the best time, you're in your prime? Are you going to do what everyone does, which is deny that you're in your prime, and the best years are still ahead of you? BLAIR I don't know, what option do you have? I mean, the problem is, there's a lots of really interesting features here. I just want to mention one thing that might be, is I do think assembly theory applies all the way back to subatomic particles. And I also think that cosmological selection might have been actually, there might have been, I would say it's a really boring bit, but it's really important if you're a cosmologist, that universes have gone through. Was it Lee Smolin who proposed this, maybe? That there is this, that basically the universe evolves, you've got the wrong constants, we'll start again. And the most productive constants, where you can allow particles to form in a certain way, propagate to the next universe, and we go again. So actually selection goes all the way back, and there's this cycle of universes. And now this universe has been selected because life can occur, and it carries on. But I've really butchered that. There is a much more... LUCAS So there's some aspect where through the selection process, there's parameters that are being fine-tuned, and we happen to be living in one where there's some level of fine-tuning. Is there, given that, can you still man the case that we humans are alone in the universe, we're the highest assembly index object in the universe? SIMON Yeah, I can, I guess. Sad though. I mean, so from a... LUCAS Is it possible? SIMON Yes, it's possible. Let's assume... Well, we know... I mean, it's possible. So let me... So okay, so there is a particular set of elements on Earth, and a particular ratio, and the right gravitational constant, and the right viscosity, you know, of stuff being able to move around, the right distance from our sun, the right number of events where we have a moon, the Earth is rotating, the late heavy bombardment produced a lot of... brought in the right stuff, and Mars was cooking up, you know, the right molecules first. So it was habitable before Earth, it was actually doing the combinatorial search, and before Mars kind of became unhabitable, it seeded Earth with the right molecular replicators, and there was just the right stuff on Earth, and that's how the miracle of life occurred. Although I find I'm very uncomfortable with that, because actually, because life came so quickly in the Earth's past. But that doesn't mean that life is easy elsewhere, it just might mean that... because chemistry is actually not a long-term thing, chemistry can happen quickly, so maybe going on with the steel manning of the argument to say, actually, the fact that life emerged quickly doesn't mean that life is easy, it just means that the chemistry was right on Earth, and Earth is very special, and that's why there's no life anywhere else in the universe. Yeah, so Sarah mentioned this kind of cascading thing, so what if that's the reason we're lucky, is that we got to have a rare cascading of... like an accelerating cascading effect in terms of the complexity of things. So like, maybe most of the universe is trying to get sticky with the memory, and it's not able to really form it, and then we got really lucky in that, and it has nothing... like there's a lot of Earth-like conditions, let's say, but it's just, you really, really have to get lucky on this. But I'm doing experiments right now, in fact, experiments that Sarah and I are working on, because we have some joint funding for this, where we're seeing that the universe can get sticky really quickly. Now, of course, we're being very anthropocentric, we're using laboratory tools, we're using theory, but actually, the phenomena of selection, the process of developing heterogeneity, we can do in the lab. We're just seeing the very first hints of it, and wouldn't it be great if we can start to pin down a bit more precisely, becoming good Bayesianists for this, for the origin of life and the emergence of life, to finding out what kind of chemistries we really need to look for. And I'm becoming increasingly confident we'll be able to do that in the next few years. Make life in the lab, or make some selection in the lab, from inorganic stuff, from sand, from rocks, from dead stuff, from moon. Wouldn't it be great to get stuff from the moon, put it in our origin of life experiment, and make moon life, and restrict ourselves to interesting self-replicating stuff that we find on the moon? Well, Sarah, what do you think about this approach of engineering life in order to understand life? So, building life in the machine. Yeah, so, I mean, Lee and I are trying right now to build the vision for a large institute or experimental program, basically, to do this problem. But I think of it as like, we need to simulate a planet. So, like, the Large Hadron Collider was supposed to be simulating conditions just after the Big Bang. Lee's built a lot of technology in his lab to do these kind of selection engines. But the question you're asking is, how many experiments do you need to run? What volume of chemical space do you need to explore before you actually see an event? And I like to make an analogy to one of my favorite particle physics experiments, which is Super Kamiakande that's looking for the decay of the proton. So, this is something that we predicted theoretically, but we've never observed in our universe. And basically, what they're doing is every time they don't see a proton decay event, they have a longer bound on the lifetime of a proton. So, imagine we built an experiment with the idea in mind of trying to simulate planetary conditions, physically simulate. You can't simulate original life in a computer. You have to do it in an experiment. Simulate enough planetary conditions to explore the space of what's possible and bound the probability for an original life event. Even if you're not observing it, you can talk about the probability. But we hopefully, life is not exponentially rare, and we would then be able to evolve in an automated system, alien life in the lab. And if we can do that, then we understand the physics as well as we understand what we can do in particle accelerators. So, keep expanding physically the simulation, the physical simulation, until something happens. Yeah, or just build a big enough volume of chemical experiments and evolve them. When you say volume, you mean like literally volume. I mean physical volume in terms of space, but I actually mean volume in terms of the combinatorial space of chemistry. How do you nicely control the combinatorial exploration the search space such that it's always like you keep grabbing the low-hanging fruit? Yeah, how do you build a search engine for chemistry? I think it's explained really well. We should carry on doing this. I should pretend the physics, be the physicist, you be the chemist. No, so the way to do it is, I will always play a joke, because I like writing grants to ask for money to do cool stuff. Years ago, I started wanting to build. So, I built this robot in my lab called the Chemputer, which is this robot you can program to do chemistry. Now, I've made a programming language for the Chemputer and made it operate chemical equipment. Originally, I wrote grants to say, hey, I want to make an origin of life system, and no one would give me any money for this. They said, what? This is ridiculous. Why are you wanting to make? It's really hard. It takes forever. You're not a very good origin of life chemist anyway. Why would we give you any money? And so, I turned it around and said, can you instead, can you give me money to make robots, to make molecules that are interesting? And everyone went, yeah, okay, you can do that. And that's, so actually, the funny thing is, the Chemputer project, which I have in my lab, which is, very briefly, it's just basically, it's like literally an automated test tube, and we've made a programming language for the test tube, which is cool, has come, has literally came from this. I went to my lab one day, I said, I want to make a search engine to get the origin of life, because I don't have a planet. And I thought about doing it in a microfluidic format. So microfluidic is very nano, very small channels in device, where you can basically have all the pipes lit up, produced by lithography, and you can have a chamber, maybe say, between say 10 and 100 microns in volume, and we slot them all together like Lego, and we can make an origin of life system. And I could never get it to work. And I realized I had to make, do chemistry at the kind of test tube level. What you want to be able to do, yeah, it goes back to that tweet in 1981. 1981, the Chemputer, we're looking at a tweet from Lee. In 1981, the Chemputer was a distant dream. And oh wow, this is the scientist looking back, it is the young boy who dreamed. In 2018, it was realized, spelled in a British way, realized. Yeah, I'm starting to get all zed, but not. So now there's a system that does the physical manifestation or whatever the programming language, the spec tells you to do. Yeah, well, in 1981, I got my first computer, ZX81. What was the computer? ZX81. ZX81. Sinclair ZX81. It was, and I got a chemistry set. I got a chemistry set. And I like the chemistry set and I like the computer and I just wanted to put them together. I thought, wouldn't it be cool if I could just use the computer to control the chemistry set? And obviously that was insane. And I was like, you know, eight years old, right? Nine years old, going on nine years old. And then I invented the Chemputer just because I wanted to build this origin of life grid, right, which is like literally a billion test tubes connected together in real time and real space, basically throwing a chemical dice, throw dice, throw dice, throw dice, you're going to get lucky. And that's what we, I think Sarah and I have been thinking very deeply about because, you know, there's more money being spent on the origin of the gravity or looking at the Higgs boson than the origin of life, right? And the origin of life is the, I think the biggest question, or not the biggest question, it is a big question. Let's put it that way. It is the biggest question. You're okay saying that. Okay, all right. Isn't it possible once you figure out the origin of life that that's not going to solve, that's not actually going to solve the question of what is life? Like, isn't it? Because you're kind of putting a lot of- Yeah, I think that's the same problem. But you're putting, is it possible that you're putting too many, too much bets into this origin part? Maybe the origin thing isn't, isn't there always a turtle underneath the turtle? Isn't it a stack of turtles? Because then if you create it in the lab, maybe you need some other stuff. Well, that's not the thing about the origin. Like, in the lab, there's still memory. Yeah, yes. Right. The experiment is already the product of evolution. Right, in some maybe really deep way, not an obvious way, in some very deep way. So maybe the haters are always going to be like, well, you have to reconstruct the fold. You have to build it from scratch. Fortunately for us, the haters are not aware of that argument. Well, no, I know. You're the one making that argument usually. I just think that if we create life in the lab, it's not obvious that you'll get to the deep, deep understanding of necessarily what is the line between life and non-life? No, I think so. There's so much here. I'm just like playing devil's advocate. So much here. But let me play devil's advocate back in a previous conversation, right, and say, yeah, I will. Why not? Why not? I've got time. Yeah, let's go. Cellular automata. Yes. Cellular automata, these very, very simple things where you color squares black or white and implement rules and play them in time. And you can get these very, very complex patterns coming out. You know, there's nice rules. There are true and complete rules. And I would argue that cellular automata don't really exist on their own. They have to exist in a computing device. If that, whether it's computing devices, a piece of paper, an abstraction, a mathematician drawing a grid or a framework. Now, so I would argue CAs are beautiful things, simple going complex, but the complexity is all borrowed from the lithography, the numbers, right? Now let's take the same argument with the chemistry experiment, origin of life. Kat, what you need to be able to do is go out, and I'm inspired to do this, to go out and look for CAs occur in nature. You know, let's kind of, let's find some CAs that just emerge in our universe. And for people just to interrupt, for people just listening and in general, I think what we're looking at is a cellular automata, where again, as Lee described, there is just binary black or white squares, and they only have local information, and they're born and they die. And you would think nothing interesting would emerge, but actually what we're looking at is something that I believe is called glider guns, or a glider gun, which is moving objects in this multi-cell space that look like they're organisms, that have much more information, that have much more complexity than the individual building components, in fact, look like they have a long-term memory, while the individual components don't seem like they have any memory at all, which is fascinating. The argument here is that has to exist on all this layer of infrastructure, right? And though it looks simple. And then what I would make, the argument I would make if I were you, say, well, I think CAs are really simple and everywhere, is say, show me how they emerge in a substrate. Now, let's go to the origin of life, machine. I don't think we want to do the origin of life, just any origin is good. So what we do, so we literally have our sand shaker, shake the sand, like massive grid of chemistry experiments, shaking sand, shaking whatever. And then because we know what we've put in, so we know how we've cheated, in the same way with CA, we know how we've cheated, we know the number of operations needed, we know how big a grid we want to get this. If we could then say, okay, how can we generate this recipe in the lab and make a life form? What were the, what contingency did we need to put in? And we're upfront about how we cheated, okay? Say, oh, you had to shake it, it was a periodic, planet rotates, stride comes in and out. So, and then we can start to basically say, okay, how difficult is it for these features to be found? And then we can look for exoplanets and other features. So I think Sarah's absolutely right. We want to explain to people we're cheating. In fact, we have to cheat. No one has given, I'm good at writing grants, I used to be, I'm not very good right now, I keep getting rejected, but I'm writing a grant for a planet in a hundred million years, no grant funder is going to give me that, but maybe money to make a kind of a grid, a computer grid, origin of life, computer grid. In physical space. In physical space and just do it. So Sarah said something, which is you can't simulate the origin of life in a computer. So like in simulation, why not? What were your, you said it very confidently. So is it possible? And why would it be very difficult? Like what's your intuition there? I think it's very difficult right now because we don't know the physics, but if you go based on principles of assembly theory and you think every molecule is actually a very large causal graph, not just the molecule, then you have to simulate all the features of those causal graphs. And I think it becomes computationally intractable. You might as well just build the experiment. Because you have in the physical space, you have all the objects with all the memories. Yes. And in the computer, you would have to copy them or reconstruct them. Yes. That's a beautifully put, and I would say that lots of people, you just don't have enough resources. It's easier to actually do the physical experiment because we are literally, I would view the physical experiment almost like a computational experiment. We're just basically, we're just outsourcing all the matrix. And on your point about the experiment being also an example of life, it's almost like you want to design, it's like all of us are lineages of propagating information across time. And so everything we do becomes part of life because it's part of that causal chain. So it's like you want to try to pinch off as much as you can of the information from your causal chain that goes into the experiment, but you can't pinch off all of it to move it to a different timeline. It's always gonna be part of your timeline. But at least if you can control how much information you put in, you can try to see how much does that particular trajectory you set up start generating its own assembly. So you know where it starts, and then you want to try to see it take off on its own when you've tried to pinch it off as much as possible. Got it. Quick pause, bath and break. Yes. All right, cool. And now we're back. All right, we talked about the early days of the universe when there was just stuff and no memory, not even causality. I think Lee at least implied the causality is emergent somehow. We could discuss this. What happened before this all originated? What's outside the universe? Defined by zero. Okay, so it's not relevant, not understandable. Is it useful to even ask the question? No. Because it's so hard? No, it's not hard. It's just not a question. If I can't do an experiment or even think of an experiment, the question doesn't exist. Well, no, you can't think of a lot of experiments, no offense. What I mean is if I can't... Because your causality graph is... Like, this is what we've been talking about. It's like, there is limits to your ability to construct experiments. I agree, but I was trying to be facetious and I'm trying to make a point. As I think that if there is a causal bottleneck through which information can't propagate in principle, then it's very hard to think of an experiment, even in principle, even one that's beyond my mediocre intellect, right? Which is fine. I'm happy to accept that. But this is one of the things I actually do think there was something before the Big Bang, because I would say that I think the Big Bang just couldn't occur and create time. Time created the Big Bang. But... So there was time before the Big Bang? Yeah. There was no space, but there was time? Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, I'm just making that stuff up just to make all the physicists happy. But I think it's... Do you think that would make them happy? Because they would be quite upset, actually. Why would they be upset? Because they would say that time can't exist before the Big Bang. Yeah. I mean, this goes back to an argument that you might not want to have the argument here. I was talking to Sarah earlier today about an argument we had about time a long time ago. Long time in time. And what I would... It's like, I think there is this thing called time or state creation. The universe is creating states and it's outside of space, but they create space. So what I mean is, you can imagine there are states being created all the time. And there is this thing called time. Time is a clock, which you can use to measure when things happen. But that doesn't mean, because you can't measure something, that states aren't being created. And so you might locally refer to the Big Bang, and the Big Bang occurred at some point when those states were there. Probably there had to be enough states for the Big Bang to occur. And then... But I think that there is something wrong with our conception of how the universe was created and the Big Bang, because we don't really get time. Because again, I don't want to become boring and sound like a broken record, but time is a real thing. And until I can really explain that more elegantly, I'm just going to get into more trouble. We're going to talk about time because time is a useful measuring device for experiments, but also time is an idea. All that, okay. But let me first ask Sarah, is like, what do you think? Is it a useful question to ask what happened before the Big Bang? Is it a useful question to ask what's outside the universe? So I would think about it as the Big Bang is an event that we reconstructed as probably happening in the past of our universe based on current observational data. And so the way I like to think about it is, we exist locally in something called a universe. So, and going back to like the physics of existence, we exist locally in the space of all things that could exist. And we can infer certain properties of the structure of where we exist locally. And one of the properties that we've inferred in the past is that there is a thing we call the Big Bang. There's some signatures of our local environment that indicate that there was a very low information event that started our universe. I think that's actually just an artifact of the structure of the assembly of the universe. The assembly space that when you start losing all the memory in the objects, it looks like what we call a Big Bang. So I think it makes sense to talk about where you are locally. I think it makes sense to talk about counterfactual possibilities, what could exist outside the universe in the sense that they become part of our reasoning and therefore part of our causal chain of things that we can do. So like the multiverse in my mind exists, but it doesn't exist as a multiverse of possible universes. It exists as an idea in our minds that allows us to reason about how physics works and then to do physics differently because we reason about it that way. So I always like to re-center it on things exist, but they don't always exist like we think they exist. So when we're thinking about things outside the universe, they absolutely exist because we're thinking about them, but they don't look like the projections in our minds. They're something else. And something you said just gave me an idea to go back to your question. If there was caught, I mean, if something caused the Big Bang, if there was some memory or some artifact of that, then of course, to answer your question, it's worth going back to that because that would imply there is something beyond that barrier, that filter. Yeah. And that's what you were saying, I guess, right? Right. I'm agnostic to what exists outside the universe. I just don't think that, like, I think the most interesting things for us to be doing are finding explanations that allow us to do more, like that optimism. So I tend to draw the boundary on questions I ask as being scientific ones, because I find that that's where the most creative potential is to impact the future trajectory of what we're doing on this planet. It's interesting to think about the Big Bang is basically from our current perspective of what we're able to detect, it's the time when things were forgotten. Yes. It's the time of the reset. From our limited perspective. And so the question is, is it useful to ever study the thing that was forgotten? Or should we focus just on the memories that are still there? Well, the point I was trying to make about the experiment is I was trying to say both things. And I think perhaps yes, from the following point of view, if you could then imagine what was forgotten and then work forwards, you will have different consequences. So then it becomes testable. So as long as we can find tests, and it's definitely worth thinking about. What I don't like is when physicists say, what happened before the Big Bang and before, before, before, without giving me any credible conjecture about what we would, how would we know the difference? But the way you've framed it is quite nice. I like that. It's like, what have we forgotten? Is there a room for God in assembly theory? Who's God? I like arguments for a necessary being better than God. Well, I think I said it earlier. What's a necessary being? Like something that has to exist. Oh, so you like, I mean, you like the shortest path. Like does God need? No, no, no. I mean, I, well, you can go back to like Thomas Aquinas and arguments for the existence of God. But I think most of the interesting theological arguments are always about whether something has to exist or there was a first thing that had to exist. But I think there's a lot of logical loopholes in those kinds of arguments. Well, so God here, meaning the machine that creates, that generates the stuff. But God, so what I was trying to say earlier is- Isn't that just the universe? Yeah, yeah. Well, yeah. Well, but I, there's a difference between, I sort of imagine like a black box, like a machine. Yeah. That's, then I would be more comfortable calling that God. Cause it's a machine. You go into a room and there's a thing with a button. Yeah. I don't like the great programmer in the sky version. Can I, yeah, but if it's more kind of, like I don't like to think of, if you look at a cellular automata, if it's the cells and the rules, that doesn't feel like God that generates a bunch of stuff. But if there's a machine like that does, that runs the cellular automata and set the rules, then that feels like God. That sort of, in terms of terminology. So I wonder if there's like a machine that's required to generate this universe. That's very sort of important for running this in the lab. So, as I said earlier, I think I said this earlier, that I can't remember the phrase, but something like, I mean, does God exist in our universe? Yes. Where does God exist? God at least exists in the abstraction in our minds. Particularly of people who have religious faith they believe in. But let's then take your, but you're talking a little bit more about generic say, well, is there a mechanism beyond the universe you're calling God? I would say God did not exist at the beginning, but he or she does now. Because I'm saying the mechanism- Well, you don't know if he didn't exist in the beginning. So like, this could be us in our minds trying to, like just listening to gravitational waves, detecting gravitational waves. It's the same thing as us trying to go back further and further into our memories to try to understand the machines that make up us. And so it's possible that we're trying to grasp at possible kind of, what kind of machines could create. There's always a tweet. There's always a tweet. If the universe is a computer, then God must have built it because computers need creators. There you go. And then Yoshua Bach replied, since there's something rather than nothing, perhaps existence is the default. If existence is the default, then many computers exist. Creator gods are necessary computers, unnecessarily computers too. I'm very confused by that. But that's an interesting idea that existence is the default versus non-existence. I agree with that, but the rest is- Lee responds, perhaps this reasoning is incomplete. That's how scientists talk trash each other on Twitter, apparently. Which part don't you agree with? When he said if existence is default, then many computers exist. This comes back to the inventor and discovery argument. I would say the universe at the beginning wasn't capable of computation because there wasn't enough technology, enough states. So what you're saying is if God is a mechanism- So I might actually agree, but then the thing is, lots of people see God as more than a mechanism. For me, God could be the causal graph in assembly theory that creates all the stuff and the memories we know. And the fact that we can even relate to each other is because we have the same, we share that heritage. And why we love each other or we like to see God in each other is, it's just, we know we have a shared existence. So if the God is the mechanism that created this whole thing, I think a lot of people see God, in a religious sense, as that mechanism also being able to communicate with the objects it creates. And if it's just the mechanism, it won't be able to communicate with objects it creates. It can only create, it can't interact. Well, there's versions of God that create the universe and then left. You know? Yeah, like spark. For some religions, but- The first spark, yeah. Yeah, but I think I liked your analogy of the machine and the rules, right? But I think part of the problem is, I mean, we have this conception that we can disentangle the rules from the physical substrate, right? And that's the whole thing about software and hardware being separate, or the way Newton wrote his laws, that there was some, you know, like they exist outside the universe. They're not actually a feature of the universe. They don't have to emerge out of the universe itself. So I think if you merge your two views, then it gets back to the God is the universe. And then I think the deeper question is, why does it seem like there's meaning and purpose? And if I think about the features of the universe that give it the most meaning and purpose, those are what we would call the living components of the universe. So if you wanted to say, God is a physically real thing, which you were saying is like an emergent property of our minds, but I would just say, you know, the way the universe creates meaning and purpose, there is really a physics there. It's not like a illusory thing. And that is just what the physics of life is. It's a little bit more. So is it possible that we've forgotten much of the mechanisms that created the universe? Mm-hmm. So like, so basically, you know, whatever God is that mechanism, we just leave parts of that behind. Well, but the universe is constantly generating itself. So if God is that mechanism, it would be that that would still be active today. I don't believe I like I'm agnostic, but if I recall the things I believe in God in the way that some people talk about God, I would say that God is, you know, like in the universe now, it's not an absent thing. So I think there's a mislabeling here because you're, I mean, I mean, I'm a professional idiot, actually. But, but, um, um, You should put that on your CV. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Professionally, not recreationally or amateur, but professionally. I think for it, I would say if you were talking about God, I mean, again, I'm way out, way out of my depth here. And I'm almost feeling, you know, I feel quite uncomfortable articulating, but I'll try. For me, a lot of people that think of God as a consciousness of reasoning entity that actually has causal power and you're human, like, and you're, and so you're like, then you're saying like gravity could be God or time could be God. I mean, I think for me, for my conception of time is probably as fundamental as God because it gave rise to human intelligence and consciousness in which we can have this abstract notion of God. So I think that you're maybe talking about God in a very mechanistic kind of unsophisticated sense, whereas other people would say that God is more sophisticated and got all this, you know, feelings and love and, you know, and this abstracting ability. So is that what, or do you mean that? Do you mean God as in this conscious entity that decided to flick the universe into existence? Well, one of the features that God would have is the ability to flick the universe into existence. I, you know, like Windows 95, I don't know if God is Windows 95 or Windows XP or Windows 10. I don't know the full feature set. Okay. So you, at the very least, you have to flick the universe into existence. And then other features might include ability to interact with that universe in interesting ways. And then how do you interact with the universe in interesting ways? You have to be able to speak the language of its different components. So in order to interact with humans, you have to know how to act human-like. So, I don't know, but it seems like whatever mechanism created the universe might want to also generate local pockets of mechanisms that can interact with that. You could make a joke. Inject. God was lonely? Yeah, it was lonely. I mean, it could be just a teenager and another just playing a video game. Yeah, maybe. Well, I was going to say, I mean, I don't, so this is referring to our origin of life engine. It's like, I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean I don't want to be one. Right. Because I want to make a universe and make a life form. But that may be rude to people who have, you know, dear religious beliefs. What I mean by that is, if we are able to create an entirely new life form, different chemistry, different culture, what does it make up? It makes us good. By that definition, it makes us gods, right? Well, there is. I mean, like when you have children, you're like, one of the magical things of that is you're kind of mini gods. I mean, first of all, from a child's perspective, parents are gods for quite a while. And then, I mean, in a positive sense, there's a magic to it. That's why I love robotics, is you instill life into something. And that makes you feel godlike in a sort of positive way. Being a creator is a positive thing. A creator. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And on a small scale. And then God would be a creator at the largest possible scale, I suppose. Okay. You mentioned offline the Assembletron. Assemblytron. Assemblytron. Yep. What's an Assemblytron? This is an early idea of something you're thinking about. So Sarah's team, well, I think Sarah's team are interested in using AI to understand life. My team is. And I'm wondering if we could apply the principles of assembly theory, that is, the causal structure that you get with assembly theory, and hybridize it and make a new type of Assemblytron. Hybridize it and make a new type of neuron, if you like. I mean, there are causal neural networks out there, but they are not quite the architectural art that I would like. I would like to associate memory bits with, basically, I'd like to make a, rather than have an ASIC for neural networks, I want to make an ASIC for assembly networks. Can you say that again? Assembly networks. So what is a thing with an input and output, and it's like a neural network type of a thing, what does it do exactly? What's the input? What's the output? So in this case, say if you're talking about a general neural network, I mean, in general neural network, you can train it on any sort of data, right, depending on the framework, whether it's like text or image data or whatnot. And that's fine, but there's no causal structure associated with that data. Now just imagine, rather than, let's say we're going to classify a difference between cat and dog, right, classic cat and dog neural network. What about if the system understood the assembly space that created the cat and the dog? And rather than guessing what was happening and training on those images and not understanding those features, you could imagine going back a step and doing the training, going back a step, back a step, back a step. And I wonder if that is actually the origin of intelligence or how we'll crack intelligence. Because we'll create the entire graph of events and be able to kind of look at cause and effect across those graphs. I'm explaining it really badly, but it's a gene of an idea and I'm guessing very smart, very rich people in AI are already doing this. Trying to not generate cats and dogs, but trying to generate things of high assembly index. Yeah. And I think, and also using causal graphs in neural networks and machine learning and deep learning, maybe building a new architecture. I'm just wondering, is there something we can get out of assembly theory that allows us to rebuild current machine learning architectures to give causation more cheaply? I mean, I don't know if that's what you're, we've been inventing this for a little while, but we're trying to finish the theory paper first before we do anything else. Yeah. You also want to have say goal-directed behavior in neural networks, then assembly theory is a good framework for doing that. Daniel's been thinking about that a lot. And I think it's a really interesting idea that you can map concepts from how neural networks learn to thinking about goal-directed behavior as a learning process, that you're learning a specific goal, the universe is learning a goal when it generates a particular structure and that you can map that physical structure in a neural network. What's the goal? Well, in a neural network, you're designing the goal. And in biology, I mean, people are not supposed to use teleological language in biology, which is ridiculous, but because goals are real things, they're just post-selected. So you can talk about goals after the fact. Once a goal emerges in the universe, that physical entity has a goal. But Lee and I came up with a test for, like a Turing test for goal-directed behavior based on the idea of assembly. We have to formalize this still, but I would like to write a paper on it. But the basic idea is if you had two systems that were completely equivalent, like in the instantaneous physical experimental setup, so Lee has to figure out how to do this, but there was something that would be different in their future. And there was a symmetry breaking you observe in the present based on that possibility of that future outcome, then you could say that that system had some representation of some kind of goal in mind about what it wanted to do in the future. And so goals are interesting because they don't exist as instantaneous things. They exist across time, which is one of the reasons that assembly theories may be more naturally able to account for the existence of goals. So goals are, they only exist in time or they manifest themselves in time through, you said symmetry breaking. So it's almost like imagine, like if representations in your mind are real, right? And you can imagine future possibilities, but imagine everything else is physically equivalent. And the only thing that you actually change your decision based on is what you model as being the future outcome. Then somehow that representation in your mind of the future outcome becomes causal to what you're doing now. So it's kind of like retrocausal effect, but it's not actually retrocausal. It's just that your assembly space is actually includes those possibilities as part of the structure. It's just, you're not observing all the features of the assembly space in the current moment. Well, the possibilities exist, but they don't become a goal until they're realized. So one of the features of assembly space that's super interesting, and it's easier to envision with like Legos, for example, is if you're thinking about an assembly space, you can't observe the entire assembly space in any instant in time. So if you imagine a stack of Legos and you want to look at the assembly space of a stack of Legos, you have to break the Legos apart. And then you look at all the possible ways of building up the original object. So now you have in your mind the goal of building that object and you have all the possible ways of doing it. And those are actual physical features of that object, but that object doesn't always exist. What exists is the possibility of generating it. Right. And the possibilities are always infinite. Well, for that particular object, you know, it has a well-defined assembly space. And I guess what I'm saying is that object is the assembly space, but you actually have to unpack that object across time to view that feature of it. It's only an observable across time. The term goal is such an important and difficult to explain concept, right? Because what you want is a way, it's like, I think only conscious beings can have conscious goals. Everything else is doing selection. But selection does invent goals. And in a way that the way that biology reinterprets the past in the present is kind of helps you to understand there was a goal in the past now, right? It's kind of like goals only exist back in time. So first of all, only conscious beings can have conscious goals. I'm not even going to touch that one. Why? Go for it. Come on. What were the line between conscious goals and non-conscious goals? Exactly. Right. And also maybe just on top of that, you said a Turing test for goal-directed behavior. What's the Turing test potentially look like? So if you've got two objects, we were thinking about this. So we actually got some funding to work to get on two teams. So I'm trying to do, and part of this is I'm trying to do a bit of theory and Sarah is teaching me a bit of theory and Sarah is trying to design experiments and I'm teaching experiments. I think it's really good for us to have that to say, when would a, so that's good. I like this. I'm sure we usually Dan Dennett essay. Yeah. And I can explain why we wouldn't want to call it a Turing test after. But yeah. So Dan Dennett wrote this really nice essay about herding cats and free will inflation. I love the title. The title is so brilliant. I think that's the actual title. That's the title, yeah. Herding cats and free will inflation. Yeah. Something like that. I mean, it's not, maybe not. And so. No, I think that's right. So if you've got a, let's imagine you've got two objects on a hillside. Okay. And this happens to be a snowy hill. And let's just say you see an object go rolling down the hill or you, and the rock goes down the hill, but the start goes to the end. How do you know that object's had a goal? Now you unveil the object and you'll see it's actually a skier. And the skier starts at the top and goes down the bottom. Great. Then you look at the rock, rock rolls down the hill, goes to the bottom. How can you tell the difference between the two? So, and what Dan says is like, well, this is clear the skier's in control. And the, and because they're adjusting the trajectory, so there's some updating going on. Then the only way you could really do that is you put the skier back to the top of the hill again. They would tend to start roughly in the same space and probably go take all that complex set of trajectories and end up pretty much at the same finish point, right? With plus or minus a few metres. Whereas if it was just a random rock going down to a random trajectory, that wouldn't happen. And so what Sarah and I were kind of doing when we were writing this grant, we were like, we need to somehow instantiate the skier and the rock in an experiment and then say, okay, when does the object, when it, so for an object to have a goal, it has to have an update, it has to have some sensing and some kind of, you know, inbuilt actuation to respond to the environment. And, and then we just have to iterate on that. And maybe Sarah, you can then fill in the Turing test part. Well, yeah, I guess the motivation for me was slightly different. So I get really frustrated about conversations about consciousness as most people do. You know, and a lot of people are, which is not necessarily related to, to free will directly or to this goal directed behaviour. But I think there's a whole set of bundled and related topics here. But I think for me, I was, you know, everybody's always interested in explaining intrinsic experience and quantifying intrinsic experience. And there's all sorts of problems with that because you can never actually be another physical system. So you can't know what it's like to be another physical system. So I always thought there must be some way of getting at this problem about if an agent or an entity is conscious, or at least has internal representations, and those are real physical things that there, it must have causal consequences. So the way I would ask the question of consciousness is not, you know, what is it like intrinsically? But if, if things have intrinsic experience, is there any observable difference from the outside about the kind of causation that that physical system would enact in? And for me, the most interesting thing that humans do is have imagination. So like we can imagine rockets centuries before we build them. They've become real physical things because we imagine them. And people might disentangle that from conscious experience. But I think a lot of the sort of imagination we do is actually a conscious process. So then this becomes a question of if I were observing systems, and I said, one had an internal representation, which is slightly different than a conscious experience, obviously. So I'm entangling some concepts, but it's a loose set of thought experiments. Then how, and I, and I set them up in a physically equivalent situation. Would it be the case that there would be experimental observables associated with it? And that, that became the idea of trying to actually measure for internal representation or conscious. So Turing basically didn't want to do that. You just wanted the machine that could emulate and trick you into having the behavior, but never dealt with the internal experience because he didn't know how to do that. And I guess I was wondering, is there a way to set up the experiment where you could actually test for that? For imagination that led to the thing. That there was something internal going on, some kind of inner world, as people say. But I, or you could say, you know, like it actually is an agent. It's making decisions. It has an internal representation. And whether you say that's experience or not is a different thing. But at least the feature that there's some abstraction it's doing. That's not obvious from looking at the physical substrates. Do you think it's possible to do that kind of thing? One of the compelling things about the Turing test is that, you know, defining intelligent, defining any complicated concept as a thing, like observing it from the surface and not caring about what's going on deep inside. Because how do you know? That's the point. So the idea is exactly that. So what we're trying to do, the Turing test for goal-directedness is literally, take some objects that clearly don't have any internal representation, grains of sand blowing on the beach or something, right? And I know a crab wandering around on the beach and then generating an experiment where we literally, the experiment generates an entity that literally has no internal representation to sand. But like, these are oil droplets, actually, what I've got in mind, a robot that makes oil droplets. But then what we want to try and do is train the oil droplets to be like crabs. Give them an internal representation. Give them the ability to integrate information from the environment so they remember the past, are in the present, and can imagine a future. And in a very limited way, their kind of game engine, their limited simulation of the world allows them to then make a decision. They're objects across time. So then you would run a bunch of crabs, like over and over and over and over? How many crabs are there? How many, is there, what's, because you have to have a large number of crabs, what is your theory say? Is there a mathematical? We're working on it. I mean, this is literally- Limit, crab limit. There's literally a- Excellent. There's literally a- What's the herding cats have to do? Oh, that's random, wait. What's cats in the title by Daniel Dennett, Herding Cats and the Free Will Inflation? So- What does herding cats mean? What does free will inflation mean? So this, I love this essay. Because it explained to me how I can live in a deterministic universe, but have not free will, but have freedom, you know? And also it helped me explain that time needed to be a real thing in this universe. So what basically Dan was saying here is like, how do you, these cats appear to just do what they want, right? And if you live in a deterministic universe, why do the cats do these things? You know, aren't they just, isn't it all obvious? And how does free will inflate the universe? And for me, I mean, probably I love the essay because my interpretation of the essay in assembly theory makes complete sense. Because you need an expanding universe in assembly theory to create novelty that you search for, that then when you find something interesting and you keep doing it because it's cool and it gives you an advantage, then it appears in the past to be a goal. So what does in assembly theory, the expansion of the universe look like? What are we talking about? Why does the expansion of the universe give you more possibilities of novelty and cool stuff? So for me, I don't think about the universe as a whole. So for me, I don't think about the universe in terms of Big Bang in space. I think about it in terms of the big memory expansion. You only have the ability to store one bit of information, so then you can't do very much. So what the universe has been doing since forever, it's been increasing the size of its RAM. So like one megabyte, two megabyte, three megabyte, four megabytes, all the way up. And so the more RAM you have, the more you can remember about the past, which allows you to do cooler things in the future. So if you can remember how to launch a rocket, then you might be able to imagine how to land a rocket and then relaunch, re-land and carry on. And so you're able to expand the space and remember the past. And so that's why I think it's very important. But not a perfect memory. It's an interesting question whether there's some forgetting that happens that might increase. Is the expansion of the forgetting at some point accelerate faster than the remembering? I think that that's a very important thing that probably intelligence does and we're going to learn in machine learning about. Because you want machine learning right now or artificial intelligence right now doesn't have memory right, but you want the ability to, or not for if you want to get to human like consciousness, you need to have the ability I suppose to remember stuff and then to select, selectively forget stuff so you can re-remember it and compress it. Arguably the way that we come up with new physical laws. Yeah, sorry, you were conformed. No, no, I just wanted to. I think that there is a great deal to be gained from having the ability to remember things, but then when you forget them, you can then have it, you can basically do the simulation again and work out if you get to that compressed representation. So that it's in cycles. So cycles of remembering and forgetting are probably important, but there shouldn't be excuse to have a universe with no memory in it. The universe is going to remember that it forgot, but just not tell you. I'm looking at this paper and it's talking about a puppet controlling a puppet controlling a puppet controlling a puppet controlling a puppet controlling a puppet. Conceptually easy to understand, but physically impossible. It's physically impossible. It's predicting a fair coin toss. I don't know what he's talking about, but there's pictures of puppets controlling puppets. Let me ask you, there's a few things I want to ask, but we brought up time quite a bit. You guys tweet about time quite a bit. What is time in all of this? We kind of mentioned it a bunch. Is it not important at all in terms of, is it just a word? Should we be talking about causality mostly? Like, so what do you think? We've talked about like memories. Is that the fundamental thing that we should be thinking about? And time is just a useful measurement device or something like that? Well, there's different concepts of time, right? So I think in assembly theory, when we're talking about time, we're talking about the ordering of things. So that's the causal graph part. And so then the fundamental structure of the universe is that there is a certain ordering and certain things can't happen until other things happen. But usually when we colloquially talk about time, we're talking about the flow of time. And I guess Lee and I were actually debating about this this morning. So in talking on it, walking on the river here, which is a very lovely spot for talking about time. But that the, you know, when the universe is updating, it's transitioning between things that exist now and things that exist now. That's really the flow of time. So there's, you have to separate out those concepts at bare minimum. And then there's also an arrow of time that people talk about in physics, which is that time doesn't appear to have a directionality in fundamental physics, but it does to us, right? Like we can't go backwards in time. And usually we, you know, that would be explained in physics in terms of, well, there's a cosmological arrow of time, but there's also the thermodynamic arrow of time of increasing entropy. But what we would say in assembly theory is that there is a clear directionality. The universe only runs in one direction, which is why some things, it's easy to make, if the universe runs in one direction, it's easy to make processes look reversible. For example, if they have no memory, they're easy to run forward and backwards, which is why the laws of physics that we have now look the way they do, because they involve objects that have no memory. But when you get to things like us, it becomes very clear that the universe has a directionality associated to it. So it's not reversible at all. It's the no man ever steps in the same river. I just have to bring that up because you walk on the river. No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. So it's not reversible. No, but reversibility is an emergent property. So we think of the reversibility laws as being fundamental and the irreversibility as being emergent. But I think what we would say from how we think about it, and certainly it's easy to give the case for our perception of time, but also what's happening in biological evolution, you can make things reversible, but it requires work to do it. And it requires certain machines to run it forward and backward. And Chiara Marletto is working on some interesting ideas on constructor theory related to that, which is a totally different set of ideas. You can travel back in time sometimes. Yes. You can't travel actually back in time, but you could reconstruct things that have existed in the past. You're always moving forward in time, but you can cycle through. Can I clarify what you just said? Quickly, you travel forward in time to travel back. Yes. Thank you. That really clarified it. Well, no, what Sarah is saying is you don't go back in time. You recreate what happened in the past in the future and inspect it again. So in that local pocket of time, it's as if you travel back in time. So how's that not traveling back in time? Because you're not going back to your same self back in time. You are creating that in the future. But everything else is the same as it was in the past. No, no, no, no. It's not in registry. I mean, it goes back to the big question. I'm saying, I mean, this is something I was trying to look up today when we first had this discussion and I was talking to Sarah on Skype and said, by the way, time is the fundamental thing in the universe. She almost hung up on me. Right. But you can even, I mean, if you want to make an analogy to computation, and I think Charles Bennett actually has a paper on this, like about reversible computation and reversible Turing machines. In order to make it reversible, you have to store memory to run the process backwards. So time is always running forward in that because you have to write the memory. You can't erase the memory. You can erase the memory, but the point, when you go back to zero, right? But the whole point is that in order to have a process that even runs in both directions, you have to start talking about memory to store the information to run it backwards. I got it. So you can't really then, you can't have it exactly how it was in the past. Exactly. You have extra stuff, extra baggage always. Okay. A really important thing I want to say on this, I think if I try and get it right, is to say that if you can think that the universe is expanding in terms of the number of boxes that it has to store states, right? And this is where the directionality of the universe comes from, everything comes from. You could erase what's in those boxes, but the fact you've now got so many boxes at time now in this present, there's more of those boxes than there were in the past. But the boxes aren't physical boxes. It's not space or time. Why is the number of boxes always expanding? It's very hard to imagine this because we live in space. So what I'm saying, which is I think probably correct, is that we just, let's just imagine for a second, there is a non-local situation, but there are these things called states and that the universe, irrespective of whether you measure anything, there is a universal, let's call it a clock or a state creator. Maybe we can call it, maybe you can call it God, but let's call it a state creator where the universe is expanding in the number of states it has. Why are you saying it's expanding though? Is that obvious that it's expanding? It's obvious because that's where the, because we, we, we- That's a source of novelty. It's a source of novelty and it also explains why the universe is not predictable. How do you know it's not predictable? I just like interrupting you. Sorry, it's fun. Because you're struggling. I'm struggling because I'm trying to be as concrete as possible and not sound like I'm insane. And I'm not insane. It's obvious because you, I'm a chemist. So as a chemist, I grew into the world understanding irreversibility. Irreversibility is all I knew. And when people start telling me the universe is actually reversible, it's a magic trick. We can use time to do it. So what I mean is that the second law is really the magical. But why does it need to be magical? The universe is just asymmetric. All I'm saying is the universe is asymmetric in the state production and we can erase those states, but we just have more computational power. So what I'm saying is that the universe's deterministic horizon, this is one of the reasons we can't live in a simulation, by the way. You can't live in a simulation. The irreversibility? Yeah, so basically every time you try and simulate the universe, you know, I live in a simulation, the universe is expanded in states. You're like, oh, damn it, I need to make my computer bigger again. And every time you try and contain the universe in the computation, because it's got bigger in number of states. And so I'm saying the fact the universe has novelty in it is going to turn out experimentally to be proof that time, as I've labeled it, is fundamental and exists as a physical thing that creates space. Okay, so if you can prove that novelty is always being created, you're saying that it's possible to also then prove that it's always expanding in the state space. Those are things that have to be proven. That's what we're working on experiments for, yeah. And you're trying to, like, by looking at the sliver of reality, show that there's always novelty being generated. Yeah, because if we go and live in a universe that the conventional physicists would live in, it's a big lookup table of stuff and everything exists. I want to prove that that book doesn't exist, it's continuously being added pages on. So all I'm saying, if the universe is a book, we started, the universe at the beginning only had no pages, or had one page, another page, another page, whereas the physicists would now say all the pages exist, and we could in principle access them. I'm saying that is fundamentally incorrect. Do you know what's written in this book? The free will question. Is there room for free will in this view of the universe as generating novelty and getting greater and greater assembly structures built, Sarah? Yes. Okay. Done. Next question. What's the source of free will in this? I think it depends on what you mean by free will. Yeah, well, please. I think what I'm interested in, as far as the phenomena of free will, is do we have individual autonomy and agency, and when I do things, is it really me, or is it my atoms that did it? That's the part that's interesting to me. I guess there's also the determinism versus randomness part. But the way I think about it is each of us are a thread, or an assembly space through this giant possibility space, and it's like we're moving on our own trajectory through that space, and that is defined by our history, so we're sort of causally contingent on our past. But also because of the sort of intersection of novelty generation, it's not completely predetermined by the past. And so then you have the causal control of the determinism part, that you are your causal history and there's some determinism from that past, but there's also room for creativity. And I think it's actually necessary that something like free will exists if the universe is gonna be as creative as possible. Because if I were an all-intelligent being inventing a universe, and I wanted it to have maximal number of interesting things happen, again, we should come up with the metric of interesting, but generating... Assembly. Yes, I know. Generating maximal possibilities, then I would want the agents to have free will, because it means that they're more individual. Each entity actually is a different causal force in the universe, and it's intrinsic and local property of that system. There's a greater number of distributed agents? Are you always creating more and more individuality? Kind of. I would say you're creating more causal power, but... So causal power, the word consciousness. Is the causal power somehow correlated with consciousness? That's why I have this conception of consciousness being related to imagination, because the more that we can imagine can happen, and the more counterfactual possibilities you have in mind, the more you can actually implement. And somehow free will is also at the intersection of the counterfactual becoming the actual. So can you elaborate on that a little bit, that consciousness is imagination? I don't know exactly how to articulate it, and I'm sure people will aim at certain things that I'm saying, but I think the language is really imprecise, so I'm not the best way to... It's really interesting, like what is imagination, and what role does it play in the human experience, in experience of any agent? I love imagination. I think it's like the most amazing thing we do. But I guess one way I would think about it is, we talked about the transition to life being the universe acquiring memory, and life does something really interesting. It's just something about biology generally. They remember states of the past to adapt to things that happen in the future. So the longer life has evolved on this planet, the deeper that past is, the more memory we have, the more kinds of organisms and things. But what human level intelligence has done is quite different. It's not just that we remember states that the universe has existed in before, it's that we can imagine ones that have never existed, and we can actually make them come into existence. And I think that's the most unique feature about the transition to whatever we are, from what life on this planet has been doing for the last four billion years. And I think it's deeply related to the phenomena we call consciousness. Yeah, I was going to just agree with that. I think that consciousness is the ability to generate those counterfactuals. Now whether you can say, you know, are there degrees of consciousness? And I mean, I'm sorry, panpsychics, but electrons don't have counterfactuals, although they do have some kind of, they are able to search a space and pathways. But I think that there is a very concrete, there's a very specific property that humans have, and I don't know if it's unique to humans. I mean, maybe dogs can do it and birds can do it, right? And where they are basically solving a problem, because consciousness was invented, or this abstraction was invented by evolution for a specific reason. And so look, one of the reasons why I came to the conclusion that time was fundamental was actually because Sarah and I had a completely different... The most heated debate on Skype chat ever. No, no, no, no. No, we're stopping. No, I know it goes back to the free will thing. So I think that, although I've changed my view a bit because there's some really interesting physicists out there who talks about how the measurement problem in Newtonian space, I don't want to go there just now because I think I'll mess it up, but briefly, I could not see how we can have free will. I mean, this is really boring because this is a well-trodden path, but not so boring. I suppose it's kind of, we just want to be precise. If the universe is deterministic, how can we have free will? So Sarah's a physicist. I think she can show that most of the laws we have are deterministic to some degree. Some mechanics onto Newtonian stuff. And yet there's Sarah telling me she believes in free will. I'm like, your belief system is broken here, right? Because you're demanding free will in a deterministic universe. And then I realised that I agreed with her that I do think that free will is a thing because we are able to search for novelty. And then that's where I came to the conclusion that time, the universe is expanding in terms of novelty. And it goes back to that Dan Dennett essay that we're talking about, the free will inflation. So the past, it did not exist in the past. The past exists in the present. What I mean is like, there was no past, there is only present. So that means you are the sum total, everything that occurs in the past is manifestly here in the present. And then you have this little echo state in your consciousness because you're able to imagine something without actualisation. But the fact you imagine it, that occurs in electrons and potassium ion flows in your neural network in your brain. Maybe consciousness is just the present. So somehow you imagine that and then by imagining, oh, that's good, yeah. I'm going to make a robot to do this thing and program it. And then you physically then go and do it. So that changes the future. Sorry. What's imagination? Does it require the past? Does it require the future? Does it require memory? Does it only exist in the moment? So imagination is probably, it's an instantaneous readout of what's going on. You can maybe, your subconscious brain has been generating all the bits for it. But no, imagination occurs when you, in your game engine, you remember the past and you integrate sensory to the present and you try and work out what you want to do in the future. And then you go and make that happen. So the imagination is this, it's like, asking what imagination is about, asking what surfing is. You can see, you can surfboard, surfer, wave coming in. When you're on that wave and you're surfing, that's where the imagination is. I think imagination is just accessing things that aren't the present moment in the present moment. So I'm sitting here and I'm looking at the table and I can imagine the river and things or whatever it was. And so it seems to be that it's our ability to access things that aren't present. But so conjure up worlds, some of them might be akin to something that happened to you recently. Right, but they don't have to be things that actually happened in your past. And I think this gets back to assembly theory. The way I would think about imagination from an assembly theoretic standpoint is I'm a giant causal graph and I exist in a present moment as a particular configuration of Sarah. But there's a lot of, I carry a lot of evolutionary baggage. I have that whole causal history and I can access parts of it. Now when you talk about getting to something as complex as us, having as large an assembly space as us, there's ways of, like there's a lot of things in that causal graph that have ever actually never existed in the past history of the universe. Because like the universe got big enough to contain the three of us in this room in time, but not all the features of each one of us individually have come into existence as physical objects we would recognize as individual objects. This goes back to your point that we actually have to explain why things actually even look like objects and aren't just a shmear of mess. And just on the free will in physics thing, when you were talking, I just want to bring this up because I think it's a really interesting viewpoint that Nicholas Jisen has that, you know, like we want to use the laws of physics and then say you can't have free will. And his point is you have to have free will in order to even choose to set up an experiment to test the laws of physics. So in some sense, free will should be more fundamental than physics is because to even do science, there's some assumption that the agents have free will. And I always thought it was really perplexing that, you know, physics wants to remove agency because the idea that I could do an experiment here on this part of Earth and then I can move somewhere else and prepare an identically prepared experiment, run an experiment again, seems to imply something about the structure of our universe that is not encoded in the laws that we're testing in those experiments. So this kind of dream of physics that you can do multiple experiments, different locations and then validate each other, you're saying that's an illusion? No, I'm saying that requires decision making and free will to be a real thing, I think. Like I think the fact that we can do science is not arbitrary. And I think people, you know, the standard canon in physics would be, well, you could trace all of that back to the initial condition of the universe, but the whole point of science is I can imagine doing the experiment and I can do it and then I can do it again and again and again all over the planet. So your imagination is somehow fundamentally generative of novelty. Yes. So it's not like the universe could have predicted the things you imagined. Imagination super, so coming back to novelty, I think novelty can exist outside of imagination but it supercharges it, it's another transition I think. I mean I would say, I mean this may be a boring statement but I would say the fact that- I'm not sure. Sorry? I'm not sure, these are hard questions. Yeah, I mean I think the fact that objects exist is yet another proof that time is fundamental and novelty exists, right? Because I think, again, if you ask a physicist to write down an infinite Bible of the universe, let's call it the Bible, the- The book? Yeah, well, I mean- That book that we're adding pages to? The mathematical universe, whether you're Max Tegmark or Sean Carroll or Frank Wilczek or Stephen Wolfram, okay? Yeah. I like that book. Yeah, I love it too. There's lots of pretty pictures. It's really interesting that they cope with the enormity of the universe by saying, well, it's all there, mathematics, it all exists, right? And I would say that that's why I'm excited about the future of the universe because it, although it is somehow dependent upon the past, it is not constrained just by the past, which is kind of mad. Yeah, that's what free will is. It's not constrained by the past. It's dependent on the past, this moment, it's not just dependent, this moment is the past and yet it has the capacity to generate a totally unpredictable future. I mean, the other thing I would say that's super important for human beings, right? Human beings have actually very little causal control in the future. I realized this the other week. Oh, the immediate future, you mean. Yeah, yeah, so what happened, so this is what I think it is. The way, by reinterpreting your past, I mean, talk about from a kind of cognitive, psychological cognitive point of view, by reinterpreting your past in your current mind, you can actually help you shape your future again. You have much more freedom to interpret your past, to act in the present, to change your future than you do to change your future. It may sound weird, so I'm saying to everybody, imagine your past, think about your past, reinterpret your past in the nicest way you can, then imagine what you can do next or imagine your past in a more negative way and what you do next and look at those two counterfactuals. They're different. Yeah, it's fascinating. I mean, Daniel Kahneman talks about this, that most of our life is lived in our memories. It's interesting because you can essentially, in imagination, choose the life you live. So maybe free will exists in imagination. Choices are made in your imagination and that results in you basically able to control how the future unrolls because you're like, imagining, reinterpreting constantly the things that happen to you. Exactly. So if you want to increase your amount of free will, those people that have most, I don't think everyone has equal amounts of agency because of our sad constraints, whether you know, happenstance, health, economic, born in a certain place, right? But those of us that have the ability to go back and reinterpret our past and use that to change the future are the ones that exert most agency in the present. And I want to achieve higher degrees of agency and enable everyone else to do that as well, to have more fun in the universe. Then we'll hit that peak, the maximum fun point. I don't think there's ever going to be a maximum fun point. I think the wonderful thing about the future is there's always going to be more fun. Yeah, you, I think again, going back to Twitter, I think you lead tweeted something about being a life maximalist, that you want to maximize the number of life, the amount of life in the universe. So, and you know, that's the more general version of that goal is to maximize the amount of fun in the universe because life is a subset of fun. There are all kinds of, I suppose they're either correlated or exactly equal. I don't know. Anyway, speaking of fun, let me ask you about alien sightings. So there's been quite a bit of UFO sightings and all that kind of stuff. What do you think would be the first time when humans sight aliens, see aliens in a sort of unquestionable way? This extremely strong and arguable way we've made contact with aliens. Sarah, what would it look like? Obviously the space of possibility is huge here, but if you were to kind of look into the future, what would that look like? Would it be inklings of UFOs here and there that slowly unravel a mystery or would it be like an obvious overwhelming signal? So I think we have an obsession with making contact with events. So what I mean by that is, you know, like people have a UFO sighting, they make contact. And I always think, you know, what's interesting to me about the UFO narratives right now is not that I have a disbelief about what people are experiencing or feeling, but like the discussion right now is sort of at the level of modern mythology. Aliens are our mythos in modern culture. And when you treat it like that, then I want to think about when do things that we traditionally only regularize through mythology actually become things that become standard knowledge. So, you know, like it used to be, you know, variations in the climate were described by some kind of gods or something. And now it's like, you know, our technology picks up an anomaly or someone sees something, we say it's aliens. And I think the real thing is it's not contact with events, but like first contact is actually contact with knowledge of the phenomena or the explanation. And so this is very subtle and very abstract, but when does it become something that we actually understand what it is that we're talking about? That's first contact. It's not- Would you make the myth, would you give credit to the myth, the mythology as first contact? I think, yes. I think it's the rudimentary that we have some understanding that there's a phenomena that we have to understand and regularize. So I think- To understand that there is weather. Yes. You have to construct a mythology around that weather. It's something that's controllable. Right. Yeah, like this is- I see mythology basically as like baby knowledge. Right. And it could be that, you know, although there's lots of alien sight, so-called alien sightings, right? So there is a number of things you can do. You could just dismiss them and say they're not true, they're kind of made up. Or you say, well, there's something interesting here, right? We keep seeing a commonality, right? We see the same phenomena again and again and again. Also there's this interesting thing about human imagination. Even if they are, let's not say made up, but misappropriated kind of other inputs, the fact that human consciousness is capable of imagining contact with aliens, does that not tell us about something about where we are in our position, in our culture, in our technology? It tells us about where in time we are. Could it be that we're making contact with- Let's say that- So let's say, let's take the most miserable version, there are no aliens in the universe, life is only on Earth. That then, the interpretation of that is we're desperate to kind of understand why we're the only life in the universe, right? The other one is, the other most extreme is that aliens are visiting all the time and we just, you know, we're just not able to capture them coherently. Or there's a big conspiracy and, you know, there's Area 51 and there are lizards everywhere and there's that. So I'm kind of in favor of the idea that maybe humanity is waking up to the idea that we aren't alone in the universe and we're just running the simulation and we're seeing some evidence. You know, we don't know what life is yet. We do have some anomalies out there. We can't explain everything. And over time, you know, we will start to unpack that. One very plausible thing we might do, which might be boring for the average alien observer or believes that aliens, as in intelligent aliens, are visiting Earth, it could be that we might go to the outer solar system and find a new type of life that has completely new chemistry. Bring these cells back to Earth where you could say in my hand, on Earth, here's RNA, DNA and proteins and look, cells self-replicating. From Titan, we got this new set of molecules, new set of cells and we feed it stuff and it grows. That, for me, if we were able to do that, would be like the most, that would be my UFO sign. That's a good test. So you feed it and it grows. We've made, so not until you know how to feed the thing, it grows somehow. We can make a comic book, you know, the tiger that came for tea, the alien that came for tea. What would you say is between the two of you is the biggest disagreement about alien life out there? Is it from the basic framework of thinking about what is life to maybe what aliens look like to alien civilizations to UFO sightings? What would you think? So I would say the biggest one is that the emergence of life does not have to be, it can't just happen once on the planet. It could be two or more life forms present on the planet at once. And I think Sarah doesn't agree with that. I think that's like logically inconsistent. That's really polite. You're saying it's nonsense. How likely is that? So the idea that, what does it look like? Let's imagine two alien civilizations coexisting on a planet. What's that look like exactly? So I would say, I think I've got to get around your argument. Let's say that on this planet, there's lots of available chemistry and one life form emerges based on carbon and interacts and there's an ecosystem based on carbon and there's an orthogonal and so it's planetary phenomena, which is what you, I think, right? But there's also one that carries on silicon and because there's enough energy and there's enough stuff that these life forms might not actually necessarily compete evolutionarily. Yeah, but they would have to not interact at all because they're going to be co-constructing each other's causal chain. I think that's where you just got me. So there's no overlap in terms of their causal chains or a very limited overlap. Yeah, so I think the only way I can get away with that is to say, right, life could emerge on a planet underneath and okay. The lizard people under the crust of the Earth. I think, I think, I think, let's go, I think, but look, as you can see, we disagree. I think Sarah actually has convinced me because of that life is a planetary phenomena, the emergence of life is a planetary phenomena and actually because of the way evolution selection works, that nothing occurs in isolation. The causal chains interact. So there is a common, there's a consensus model for life on the Earth. But you don't think you can place aliens from elsewhere onto the, can't you just place multiple alien civilizations on one planet? Right, but I think, so you can take two original life events that were independent and co-mingle them, but I don't think when you're talking about, when you look at the interaction of that structure, it's like the same idea as like an experiment being an example of life, right? That's a really abstract and subtle concept. And I guess what I'm saying is life is information propagating through matter. So once you start having things interacting, they in some sense co-mingle and they become part of the same chain. So, I say the co-mingling starts quickly. We proceed to co-mingle quickly. Right, right. So you could say, so the question is then, the more interesting question is are there two distinct origins events? And I still think that there's reasons that on a single planet you would have one origins event because of the time scales of cycling of geochemistry on a planet and also the fact that I don't think that the origin of life happens in a pool and like radiates outward through evolutionary processes. I think it's a multi-scale phenomenon. It happens at the level of individual molecules interacting, collections of molecules interacting and entire planetary scale cycles. So life as we know it has always been multi-scale and there's brilliant examples of individual mutations at the genome level changing global climate, right? So there's a tight coupling between things that happen at the largest scale or planetary scale and the smallest scale that life mediates. But it still might be difficult within something you would call as a single alien civilization, you know, different, there's species and stuff. But I think what- Yeah. And they might not be able to communicate. But you're asking about life, not species, right? So- But what's the difference between one living civilization? This is almost like a category question. Yeah. Versus species. Right. Because it can be very different. Right. Like, do evolution, because there's like island, like literally islands that you can evolve different kinds of turtles and stuff. Yeah. And they can- So I guess what I'm saying is- Weird in different ways. If you look at the structure of two interacting living things, populations, and you look in their past and they have independent origins for their causal chain, then you would say one was alien, you know, they have different independent origins events. But if you look at their future by virtue of the fact they're interacting, their causal chains have become commingled so that in the future they are not independent. Right. Right. So that's why you would even define them as alien. So the structure across time is two examples of life become one example of life because life is the entire structure across time. Right. But there could be a lot of variation with this. Yeah. So the question we're all interested in is how many independent origins of a complexifying causal chain are there in the universe? But the idea of origin is easy for you to define? Because like when the species split in the evolutionary process and you get like a dolphin versus a human or Neanderthal versus Homo sapien, isn't there- Let me make a distinction here quickly. So I think, sorry to interrupt, what we're saying, I mean, Sarah won that argument because I think she's right. Once the causal chains interact and going forward, so we're talking about a number of things. Let's go all the way back before origin of life. Origin of life- On Earth. On Earth. Chemistry emerges. So there's all these, I would say there's probably mechanistically, the chemistry is desperately trying to find any way to get replicators. The ribosome kind of was really rubbish at the beginning and it just competed, competed, and competed and it got better and better. Ribosome suddenly, that was a technology. The ribosome is the technology that boom, allowed evolution to start. So why I interrupted you is say that once evolution has started using that technology, then you can speciate. And I was trying to, and I think what Sarah said was convinced me of, because I was like, no, we can have lots of different chemistry, shadow biosphere on Earth. She's like, no, no, no, you have to have this, you have to get to this minimum evolutionary machine. And then when that occurs, speciation occurs. Exactly what you say, dolphins, humans, everything on Earth. But when you're looking at aliens or alien life, there's not going to be two different types of chemistry because they compete, they compete and interact and cooperate because the causal chains overlap. One might kill the other, one might combine with the other, and then you go on and then you have this kind of, this average, and sure, there might be respeciation. It might be you have two types of emerging chemistry. It almost looks like the origin of life on Earth required two different pre-life forms, the peptide world and the RNA world. Somehow they got together, and by combining, you got the ribosome. And that was the minimum competent entity for evolution. And would all alien civilizations have an evolutionary process on a planet? So that's one of the, it's almost the definition of life. To create all those memories, you have to have something like- Things have to change in time. But there has to be selection. That's like an efficient, there's no other way to do it. No. Well, never say never because soon as I say that- That's the part that depresses me though, going back to the earlier discussion on violence and things. And I don't know where I, somebody was tweeting about this recently, but how much stuff had to die. Maybe it was you. Yeah. Yeah. So, I guess, I don't know. We're talking about life, and I guess a lot of murder had to occur. Right. So selection means things had to be weeded out, right? Well, we can celebrate that. Death makes way for the two of us. Yeah. I mean, and also, one of the most interesting features of major extinction events in the history of our planet is how much novelty emerged immediately after. And of course, a lot of people make arguments, we wouldn't be here if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct. So in some ways, we can attribute our existence to all of that. But I guess I was just wondering, if I was going to build a universe myself, in the most optimistic way, would I retain that feature? But it does seem to be a universe- I think you have to. I mean, I think we're probably being over-anthropomorphizing. I remember watching the blue, I think it was the Blue Planet, David Attenborough was showing these seals, and because of climate change, some seals were falling off a cliff. And how tragic that was. I was like, I was saying to my son, that's pretty cool. Look at those ones down there, they've obviously got some kind of mutations, some, and they're not doing that daft thing. And so that poor gene will be weeded out. Of course, at the individual level, it looks tragic. And of course, as human beings, we have the ability to abstract, and we empathize. We don't want to cause suffering on other human beings, and we should retain that. But we shouldn't look back in time and say, you know, how many butterflies had to die? I remember, if you think about the caterpillar become the chrysalis, and then the butterfly getting out, how many, if that suffering, we call it suffering, if that process of pruning had not occurred, we have no butterflies. So none of the butterfly beauty in the world without all that pruning. So pruning is required, but we shouldn't empathize and feel sorry for the biological entities. Because that seems to be a backwards way of looking at it. What we should do is project forward and maybe think about what values we have across our species and our ecosystem and our fellow human beings. You know, now that we know that animals suffer at some level, think about humane farming. When we find that plants can in fact are conscious and can think and have pain, then we'll do humane gardening. Until that point, we won't do it, right? I like this. Famous chemist endorses the majestic nature of murder. That's the title. I didn't say that. I have a hard time with it, though. I think the way you put it is kind of... But it's the reality of... It is beautiful. You know, there's an Instagram account called Nature's Metal. And I keep following it and unfollowing it because I can't handle it for prolonged periods of time. We evolve together, you die alone. Yeah. We evolve together, but you die alone. You live alone, too. It's the Gatsby thing. I don't know. We evolve together. Where's the together? The together is the murder. The population. And the sex. I just tried to... Sex and murder. My romantic vision of it to try to make me happy, Sarah, instead of sad, Sarah. I talk in third person when I think very abstractly, sorry. This whole certain things can coexist, so the universe is trying to maximize existence. But there's some things that just aren't the most productive trajectory together. But it doesn't mean that they don't exist on another timeline or another chain somewhere else. Maybe you would call that then some kind of multiverse or things. But what am I saying? I think you can't go down a level. I'm just making stuff up to make myself feel better. I don't understand. It is illogical. And we need... No, I know. If you look at bacteria, if you look at virus, just the number of organisms that are constantly... Looking at bacteria, they're just dying nonstop. It's like a slaughter. Right. Well, and this goes back to the conversation about God. There's the whole thing about why is the universe enables suffering? Individuals don't exist, right? So for this, if you think about life as an entity on earth, right? Let's just go back a second. I mean, I like to... I'll be ludicrous for a second. I don't exist. You don't exist, right? But the actions you do, the product of evolution exists, right? The objects you create exist quantitatively in the real world. If you then understand life on earth or alien life or any life in the universe as this integrated entity where you need cells in your body to die, otherwise you'd just get really big and you wouldn't be able to walk around, right? So you do. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I think... It's the patterns that persist, not the physical thing. And of course, we place immense values on fellow human beings. And I'm majestic professor does like other individual human beings. Now you're talking in third person too. I know. So death, would you say, I mean, because you said evolution is a fundamental part of life. So death is a fundamental part of life. Yeah. It might right now, it might not be in the future. We might hack some aspects of death and we'll evolve in different ways. But isn't there, I think Sarah mentioned like this life density. Can't that become a problem? Like too much bureaucracy, too much baggage builds up, like you need to keep erasing stuff. I think it's okay that we dissipate. I don't think of it like... Dissipate, yes. No, but I mean, we're so fixated on ourselves as individuals and agents. And we were talking about this last night actually over dinner, but an individual persists for a certain amount of time. But what you wanna do, if you're really concerned with immortality is not to live indefinitely as an individual, but maximize your causal impact. So like, what are the traces of you that are left? And you're still a real, I always think of Einstein, like for a period of time, he was a real physical thing we would identify as a human. And now we just see echoes of that human in all of the ways that we talk about his causal impact or frankly, right, is another great example. How many Easter eggs could you leave in the future? It's like, oh, I got you. So I guess the question is, how much do you wanna control the localization of certain features of say, a packet of propagating information we might call a person and keep them localized to one individual physical structure? Or do you wanna, is there a time when that just becomes a dissipated feature of the society that it once existed in? And I'm okay with the dissipated feature, because I just think that makes more room for more creativity in the future. So you mentioned engineering life in the lab. Let me take you to computer science world. What about robots? So is it possible to engineer, so you're really talking about like engineering life at the chemistry level. But do you think it's possible to engineer life at the like humanoid level, at the dog level, or is that, like at which level can we instill the magic of life into inanimate stuff? No, I think you could do it at every level. I just think that we're particularly interested in chemistry because it's the origin of life transition that presumably, or at least that's how I feel about it, it's gonna give you the most interesting or deepest insights into the physics. But presumably everything that we do and build is an example of life, and the question is just how much do you wanna take from things that we have now and put them into like examples of life and copy them into machines? I saw that there was this tweet again. I think you were at the Mars conference and you were hanging out with a humanoid robot? Yes. That was a fun time. Making lots of new friends at Mars 2020. Did you guys color match ahead of time with the robot, or did that accidentally happen? Accidentally, I went up and I wanted to say hi. Turquoise, would that be the correct name for the color? I think so. We didn't color coordinate our outfits. Well, you didn't, maybe the robot did. The robot probably did. Much more stylish. So for people who are just listening, there's a picture of Sarah standing next to a humanoid robot. I guess you like them with a small head and perfect vision. Actually no, I just- I did the perfect, there's a lidar. No, I mean, I think I was just deeply interested because- Sorry to interrupt, was it manual control? Was it actually stabilizing itself? Oh no, it was walking around. Oh, nice. Yeah. It was pretty impressive. I mean, actually there's some videos online of Jeff Bezos walking with one of those across the lawn nearby there. This is great. Yeah. I wasn't invited. Yeah, but there you go. See? That's incredible, isn't it? Yeah. So you look at the walking robot, where did the idea for walking come from? It was invented by evolution, right? And us as human beings, able to conceptualize and design and engineer, the cause will change. So that robot is evidence of life. And so I think what's going to happen is we want to find where the spark comes from mechanistically. How can you literally go from sand to cells? So that's the first transition I think. There are a number of problems we want to do. Make life in a lab. Great. Then we want to make life in a lab and want to suddenly start to make intelligent life or life that can start to solve abstract problems. And then we want to make life that is conscious. In that order? I think it has to happen that order. Getting towards this artificial general intelligence. I think that artificial general intelligence can't exist in a vacuum. It has to have a causal chain all the way back to Luca, right? And so the question I think, I really like the question is to say, is our pursuit of more and more life like? I know you like robots, you want to project into them, you want to interact with them. I think if you have a robot dog and the robot dog does everything you expect of a normal dog and you can't tell the difference, you're not really going to ask the question anymore if it's a real dog or not. Or if it's got a personality, you're interacting with it. And so I think what would be interesting would be to kind of understand the computational architecture, how that evolves, because you could then teleport the personality from one object to the other and say, right, does it act the same? And I think that as we go along, we're going to get better and better at integrating our consciousness into machines. Well, let me ask you that question just to linger on it. I would call that a living conscious thing, potentially. I as a human allegedly, but would you as a person try to define life? If you pass the Turing test, are you a life form? One of the reasons I walked up to the robot was because I wanted to meet the robot. And so it felt like I was, and I base a lot of my interaction with reality on emotion and feeling, but how do you feel about an interaction? And I always love your point about is it enough to have that shared experience with a robot? So walking up to it, does it feel like you're interacting with a living thing? And it did to an extent, but in some degrees, it feels like you're interacting with a baby living thing. So I think our relationship with technology, in particular the robots we build, is really interesting because basically they exist as objects in our future in some sense. We're a much older evolutionary lineage than robots are, but we're all part of the same causal chain. And presumably, they're kind of in their infancy. So it's almost like you're looking at the future of life when you're looking at them, but it hasn't really become life in a full manifestation of whatever it is that they're going to become. And the example of the walking robot was super interesting, but they also had a dolphin that they put in the pool at the cocktail party at Mars, and it looked just like a real dolphin swimming in the pool. And it's in this kind of uncanny valley because, and I was having this conversation with a gentleman named Mutu who was super perceptive, but he was basically saying it made him feel really uncomfortable. The dolphin. Yeah. And I think a lot of people would have that response, and I guess my point about it is it is kind of interesting because you're basically trying to make a thing that you think is non-living mimic a living thing. And so the thought experiment I would want to run in that case is imagine we replaced every living thing on Earth with a robot equivalent, like all the dolphins and things. And in some sense, then you're making, if you think that the robots aren't experiencing reality for example in the way that a biologically evolved thing would, you're basically making the philosophical zombie argument become real. And basically building reality into a simulation because you've made everything quote unquote fake in some sense. You've replaced everything with a physical simulation of it. So as opposed to being excited by the possibility of creating something new, you're terrified of humans being replaced. I was just trying to run what would be the absolute thought experiment, but I don't think that scenario would actually play out. I guess what I think is weird for why we feel this kind of uncanny valley interacting with something like the robot dolphin is we're looking at an object we know is kind of in the future in the sense of if everything's ordered in time, but it's borrowing from a structure that we have common history with. And it's basically copying in a kind of superficial way things from one part of the causal chain to another. Yeah. Well, that's a video. I never believed it was real. They look so real. And obviously the technology was developed for movies. But I think we're confusing our emotional response and understanding the causal chain of how we got there, right? Because the philosophical zombie argument thinks about objects just appearing, right? You're facsimiled in some way, whereas there is the causal, the chain of events that caused the dolphin to be built with for human being. Yeah. Would a philosophical zombie still have a high assembly index? Yeah. Because it can't be philosophical zombies can't like Boltzmann brains just can't appear out of nowhere. Well, I guess my question would be in that scenario where you built all the robots and replace everything on earth with robots with the biosphere be as creative under that scenario or not. Yeah. Are there quantitative differences you would notice over time? And it's not obvious either way, right? It's not obvious right now because we don't really we don't understand we haven't built into machines how we work. So that's I think that there are one of the big missing things that I think that we're both looking for. Right. It's a cute robot. But the point Sarah is that the biosphere won't be as creative if you did it right now. No, of course. I think that's why people don't like it. But in the future, we will be able to solve the problem of origin of life, intelligence and consciousness because they exist in physical substrates. We just don't understand enough about the material substrate and the causal chain. But I'm very confident we will get to an AGI but it won't be what people think it won't be solution won't be a we'll get fooled a lot. And so GPT-3 is getting better at fooling us and GPT-153 might really fool us, but it won't have the magic we're looking for. It won't be a creative, but it will help us understand the differences between what we know. Because isn't that what love is being fooled? Like what? Why? Why are you not giving much value to the emotional connection with objects with with robots with humans? Emotion is a thing which happens when your expectation function is dashed and something else happens. Right? I mean, that's what emotion is. Is that what love is too? Yeah. You were expecting one thing and something else happened. Yeah. I don't know. I don't think that's true either. Well, what is it then? I think no emotion. I'm sorry, emotion is that. But I think love is just fulfilling your purpose. No, but I mean, look, look, look. Like whatever that means. I mean, really, so you know, OK, so when are you happiest? It's like when you're all right. All right. Let me go back if you want. If you want me to follow your bliss, let me define love quickly. OK, go for it in terms of assembly space. Right. OK, excellent. I didn't think I'd be doing this today. I can't wait till Assembly Theory 101 is taught in the second lecture is Assembly Theory of Love. No, no, but actually, but it's being surprised. The expectation is being broken. I'm just I'm not go for it. I'm not. I want to hear you. I'm not an emotional being. OK, so let's talk. So we'll talk about emotion. But love is more complex. Is love is a very complex set of emotions together and logical stuff. But if you've got this thing, this person is on this causal chain that has this empathy for this other thing. Love is being able to project ahead in your assembly space and work out what you're the person you're in love with has a need for and to do that for them without selflessly. Right. Because you can project ahead what they're going to need and they are there and maybe you can see someone is going to fall over and you catch them before they fall over. Or maybe you can anticipate that someone's going to be hungry and without helping you, you just help them. That's what it sounds like. Empathy. But it's more complex than that. Right. It's more complex. It's more about not just empathy. It's understanding. It's about kind of sharing that experience. Expression of love, though, that's not what it's like to feel love, like feeling love is like I like I think it's like when you're aligned with things that you feel like are your purpose or your reason for existing. So if you have those feelings towards a robot, why is that robot? I mean, because you said that the AGI will build an AGI, but it won't. There'll be a fundamental difference in AGI. I don't think we'll build it. It's going to merge from our technology. I think you guys all are doing the same thing. I just said that GPT, that we do not correctly capture the causal chain that we have. Within GPT. Yeah, within AI. Don't you think it captures, because GPT-3 is fundamentally trained on a corpus of knowledge, you know, like the Internet. Don't you think it gets better and better and better at capturing the memory of all of the... It will be better at fooling you. And at some point you won't care. But when it comes, my guess, this is a quick, this is what I was getting to right before we got, I got in the love trap. Love trap. Like Lee Cronin in the love trap. Sounds like a good band name. Sad. Okay. Sad. Assembly space of sad. No. Is that so sure, but I think there are other features that allow, that we pull on innovation that allow us to do more than what we just see in GPT-3. So if you're being fooled there. So I think what I mean is human beings have this ability to be surprising and creative. Whereas is it Dali, this thing, or if you take GPT-3 is not going to create a new verb. Shakespeare created new verbs. You're like, wow. And that required Shakespeare to think outside of language in a different domain. So I think having that connections across multiple domains is what you need for AGI. Yeah. I think you need, I don't know if there's any limitations to GPT and not being able to be cross domain. The number one problem is it's instantiated in a resource limited substrate and that we don't in Silicon. The architectures used for training for learning is about fooling. It's not about understanding. And I think that there is some understanding that we have that is not yet symbolically representable. Language, learning language and using language seems to be fundamentally about fooling, not understanding. Why do you use language exactly? I might disagree with that quite fundamentally actually. But I don't, I'm not sure I understand how I make a coherent argument for that. My feeling is that there is comprehension in reality, in our consciousness below language. And we use those for language for all sorts of expressions and we don't yet understand that there's a gap. We will get there. But I'm saying, wouldn't it be interesting, it's a bit like saying, could I facsimile you or Sarah into a new human being? And let's just say I could copy all your atoms and the positions of all your atoms and electrons into this other person, they would be you. The answer is no. And it's quite easy to show using assembly theory because actually the feature space that you have, that graph, the only way to copy you is to create you on that graph. So everything that's happened to you in your past, we have to have a faithful record for. If you want another copy of Lex, you have to do the exact thing. Want another copy of Sarah, want another copy of Lee, the exact past has to be replicated. Let me push back on that a little bit. That's maybe from an assembly theory perspective, but I don't think it's that difficult to recreate a version of me, like a clone, that would make everybody exactly equally as happy. Like they wouldn't care which one. And like there's two of me and then they get to pick which one and they'll kill either one, they'll be fine. As long as they're forced to kill. They'll be fine, but here's what will happen is, let's say we make artificial Lex and everyone's like, wow, so cool. It looks the same, interact. Then there'll be this battle of like, right, we're going to tell the difference. We're going to basically keep nudging Lex and artificial Lex until we get novelty from one and we'll kill the other one. And I think thank God- But you're not, novelty is a fuzzy concept. That's the whole problem of novelty. So I will define novelty, it's not fuzzy. Novelty is the ability for you to create architectures that are, or create an architecture. So let's say you've got a corpus of architectures known, you can write down, you've got some distance measure. And then I create a new one and the distance measure is so far away from what you'd expected. There's no linear algebra going to get there. It's like, that is creativity. And we don't know how to do that yet on any level. Well, I was also thinking about like your argument about free will, like you wouldn't be able to know it was, it doesn't work instantaneously. It's not like a micro level thing, but more a macro level thing over the scale of trajectories or longer term decisions. So if you think that the novelty manifests over those longer timescales, it might be the two Lex's diverge quite a bit over certain timescales of their behavior. But nobody would notice the difference. They might not. And the universe, the earth won't notice the difference. The universe won't notice. The universe would notice the difference. No, the universe doesn't know about its novelty that's being generated. That's the whole point of novelty. Yeah, but this is what selection is, right? It's like taking nearly equivalent ones and then deciding, like the universe selects, right? So whatever selection is, selects some things to persist in time. Yeah, it's going to select the artificial one just because it likes that one better. Well, you're mixing up two arguments here. So let's go back a second. What are you basing this argument on, Lex? I'm just saying that I kind of don't think, because Lee said that it's not possible, like if you copy every single molecule in a person's body, that it's not going to be the same person. That they won't have the same assembly index. It won't be the same person. I just don't, I think copying, you can compress. Not only do I disagree with that. I think you can even compress a person down to some, where you can fool the universe. I'm saying, let me restate it. It is not possible to copy somebody unless you copy the causal history. Also, you can't have two identical, I mean, actually, I really like the idea that everything in the universe is unique. So even if like there were two Lex's. I know you like that idea because you're human and you think you're unique. Yeah, exactly. But also I can make a logical argument for it, that even if we could copy all of your molecules and all their positions, the other you would be there and you have a different position in space. You're distinguishable. Yeah, the other thing I was going to add. How unique are you just by the position in space, really? Sure, but then how much does that light translation of Lex sitting there affect the future? I see, but wait a minute. Is part of the definition of something being interesting is how much it affects the future? Yes. Yes. But let me come back to that. Don't you agree? I think I would agree. One point quickly that you were making. Sure. I think I probably agree. Yes. There's two Lex's, right? There's a robot Lex that you just basically, it is a charade. It's a facsimile. It's just coded to emulate you. Are you robot Lex? I wouldn't know, right? That's the point. I wouldn't know. That's a very important point here because he's ducking and diving between this. So if I facsimile you into a robot, then your robot might be, would be a representation of you now, but fundamentally be boring because you go and have other ideas. If however you built an architecture that itself is capable of generating novelty, you would diverge in your causal chain and you'd both be equally interesting to interact with. We don't know that mechanism. All I'm trying to say is we don't yet know that mechanism. We do not know the mechanism that generates novelty. And at the moment in our AIs, we are emulating, we are not generating. You don't think we're sneaking up on that? Do you think it's a fun one? No, no. There is no ghost in the machine. And I want there to be one. I want the same thing you want. Sorry, I was- I know you want that as a human because everything you just said makes you feel more special. I want to be, no, no, no, screw my specialness. I just want to be surprised. If I- You don't think a robot can surprise you. If you can produce an algorithm instantiated in a robot that surprised me, I will have one of those robots. It'll be brilliant. But they won't surprise me. But why is it a problem to think that humans are special? Maybe it's not the special, you're right. It's the better than. Yes. Because then you start to not recognize the magic in other life forms that you either have created or you have observed. Because I just think there is magic in legged robots moving about and they are full of surprises. Yeah. So this- And personality. Yeah. So I'm a little- I know why you like cellular automata, right? But the specialness in your robot comes from the roboticist that built it. Yeah. It's part of the lineage. And so that's fine. I'm happy with that. What I felt like looking at the standing robot was I was looking at four billion years of evolution. Yeah. Right. If it wasn't- Yeah. So I think I'm happy. I mean, I'm happy we're going to coexist. I'm just saying you're going to get more excitement. There's something missing in our understanding of intelligence. Intelligence isn't just training. The way the neural network is conceived right now is great and it's lovely and it'll be breathable and we'll argue forever. But you want to know, wouldn't it be great if I said, look, I know how to invent an architecture and I can give it a soul. And what I mean by a soul is some, I know for real that there is internal reference. As soon as I not fake internal reference. And if we could generate that mechanism for internal reference, that's why our goal direct- That's why you have to- We can do that.... develop a test for goal directness. Get that goal directness. You would love that robot more than the one that's just made to look like it does because you'll have more fun with it because you better generate search other problems, get more novelty. Hell, you'd be able to fall in love with that robot for real, but not the one that's faking it. What about fake it till you make it? Well, I think a lot of people fall in love with fake humans. It's nice to fall in love with something that's full of novelty, yes. I could imagine all kinds of robots that I would want to have a close relationship with. And I don't mean like sexual, I mean like intimacy. I just don't think that novelty generation is such a special... Okay, there's like mathematical novelty or something like that, and then there's just humans being surprised. And I think we're easily surprised. That's fine, but that's- But you don't think that's a good definition of novelty? No, that's good. I'm happy to be surprised, but not globally surprised because someone else... I really want, I was one of the scientists, I really want to be the first to be surprised about something and the first thing in the universe to create that novelty and to know for sure that that novelty has never occurred anywhere else. That's a real buzz. Is there a way to really know that? You have to have a really big look up table. You're never going to know for sure, right? That's one of the hard things about being a scientist searching for this type of novelty. Maybe that's why mathematicians love discovery, but actually they are creating. And then when they create a new mathematical structure that they can then... You can write code to work out whether that structure exists before. That's almost why I would love to have been a mathematician from that regard, to invent new math that really I know pretty much for sure does not exist anywhere else in the universe because it's so contingent. Right, but this gets into, you said a few times that I still really don't understand how you actually plan to do this, to build an experiment that detects how the universe is generating novelty or that time is the mechanism. So the problem that we all have, which I think is what Lex is pushing against, is if I build the experiment, you don't know what you put into it. So you don't know what... Unless you can quantify everything you put in, all of your agency, all the boundary conditions, you don't know if you somehow biased it in some way. So is the novelty actually intrinsic to that experiment or to that robot or is it something you gave it but you didn't realize you could give it? It's going to asymptote towards that, right? You're never going to know for sure, but you can start to take out... You can use good Bayesian approaches and just keep updating and updating and updating until you point... So you want to bound on how much novelty generation could be. Yeah. Got it. So the ability to generate novelty is correlated with high assembly index? With assembly index? Yeah. Yeah. Because the space of possibilities is bigger. So that's the key. This could be a good... So I have a running joke of why Lex is single. This could be a good part four. So what you're looking for in a robot partner is ability to generate novelty. And that's, I suppose you would say it's a good definition of intelligence too. Boy is novelty a fuzzy concept. Is creativity better? Yeah, I mean, that's all pretty fuzzy. It's kind of the same. Maybe that's why aliens haven't come yet is because we're not creating enough novelty. There's some kind of a hierarchy of novelty in the universe. Well, I think novelty is like things surprise you, right? So it's a very passive thing. But I guess what I meant by saying creativity is I think it's much more active. You think there's a mechanism of the things that exist are generating the creativity. Novelty seems to be there's some spontaneous production and it's completely decoupled from the things that exist. No, I understand. I see. I see what you're saying because it's really, really good. Creativity is the mechanism and novelty is the observable. Novelty could just be surprise. Your model of the world was broken and not necessarily in a positive way. That's surprise. So three things now. Let's go back. That's cool. Right. Let's go. You've got surprise, which is basically, I mean, I'm surprised all the time because I don't read very much. I'm pretty dumb. I was like, oh, wow. I often used to invent new scientific ideas and I was really surprised by that. And then when looking at literature properly, and it's there. So surprise, that's to the extent that you don't have full information. Creativity the act of pushing on that kind of on the causal structure and novelty, which is measuring that degree. Right. So I think that's pretty well defined in that regard. So you want your robot. I mean, and in the end, that's why actually the way the Internet and the printing press share some. I actually think creativity has dropped a bit since the Internet, because everyone's just regurgitating stuff. But of course, now it's beginning to accelerate again because everyone is using this tool to be creative. And boom, it's exploding. I think that's what happens when you create these new technologies. That's really helpful. There's a difference between novelty and surprise. OK. I think I was thinking about surprise. If you give me a toy that surprises me for a bit, it'd be great. Robot surprises me. An experiment that surprises you. Yeah, I mean, that's why I love doing experiments, because I can't. It's still exciting. Surprise is exciting. Even negative surprise. Like some people love drama in relationships. It's like, why the hell? Why did you do this? That can be exciting. I can imagine companies selling updates to their companion robots that just basically generate negative surprise just to spice things up a bit. Yeah, it's the push and pull. That's one of the components of love. As you said, love is a complicated thing. Oh, beauty. I wanted to mention this, because you also tweeted. I think this was Sarah. No, it might have been Lee. I don't remember. But it was a survey published in Nature showing that scientists find... That's me, yeah. Yeah. Anyway, there's a plot. This is published in Nature of what scientists find beautiful in their work, and it separates biologists and physicists. It'd be nice if you showed the full plot. And there's simplicity, elegance, hidden order, inner logic of systems, symmetry, complexity, harmony, and so on. Is there any interesting things that stand out to you? I think the fact that biologists like complexity and pleasing colors. Oh, there's pleasing colors on there? Yeah. Or shapes. Or shapes. And then physicists obviously love simplicity above all else. Simplicity and elegance. They love symmetry, and then biologists love complexity. Well, they just love a little bit less. They love everything a little bit less, but complexity a little bit more. A little bit more. That's so interesting. And pleasing colors or shapes. Do you think it's a useful... I forget what your tweet was, that this is missing some of the... No, it's because I think about how explanations become causal to our future. So I have this whole philosophy that the theories we build and the way we describe reality should have the largest breadth of possibilities for the future of what we can accomplish. So in some sense, it's not like Occam's razor is not for simplicity, it's for optimism or the kind of future you can build. And so I think you have to think this way when you're thinking about life and alien life because ultimately we're trying to build... I mean, science is just basically our narratives about reality. And now you're building a narrative that is what we are as physical systems. It seems to me it needs to be as positive as possible because it's basically going to shape the future trajectory where we're going. And we don't use that as a heuristic in theory building because we think theories are about predicting features of the world, not causing them. But if you look at the history of all of the development of human thought, it's caused the things that happen next. So it's not just about looking at the world and observing it, it's about actually that feedback loop that's missing and it's not in any of those categories. What do you think is the most beautiful idea in the physics of life, in the chemistry of life, in this... Through all your exploration with assembly theory, what is the thing that made you step back and say, this idea is beautiful or potentially beautiful? For me, it's that the universe is a creative place. I guess I want to think, and whether it's true or not, is that we are special in some way and it's not like an arbitrary, added on, epiphenomenal, ad hoc feature of the universe that we exist, but it's something deep and intrinsic to the structure of reality. And to me, the most beautiful ideas that come out of that is that the reason we exist is for the universe to generate more things and to think about itself and use that as a mechanism for creating more stuff. That's for me. So, the life that this, however common it is, is an intrinsic part, is a fundamental part of this universe, at least, that we live in. I think so. I mean, it's always interesting to me because we have theories of quantum mechanics and gravity and they're supposed to be our most fundamental theories right now. And they describe things like the interaction of massive bodies or the way that charges accelerate or all these kind of features, and they're these really deep theories and they tell us a lot about how reality works, but they're completely agnostic to our existence. And I can't help but think that whatever describes us has to be even deeper than that. And I think incorporating memory, I guess, or causality, whatever the term you want to use, into the physics view of the world might be taking a step in that direction. That's the easiest way to do it. It's the cleanest, so here we go again with the physicist, I'm a physicist. The cleanest, I was going to say the simplest, most elegant way of resolving all of the kind of ways that we have these paradoxes associated with life. It's not that life is not, current physics is not incompatible with life, but it doesn't explain life. And then you want to know where are the explanatory gaps. And this idea that we have in assembly that time is fundamental and objects actually are extended in time and have physical extent in time is the cleanest way of resolving a lot of the explanatory gaps. So I've been, I struggle with assembly theory for many years because I could see this gap. And I think when I first met Sarah and we realized we were kind of talking about the same problem, but we understood another language. It was quite hilarious actually, because it's like, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I think it sounds right. So for me, the most beautiful thing about assembly theory is I realized the assembly theory explains why the universe, why life is a universe developing a memory. But not only that poetically, I could actually go and measure it. And I was like, holy shit, we would just, we physically measured this thing, this abstract thing, and we could measure it. And not only could we measure it, but we can then start to quantify the causal consequences. And because, I mean, I think as a kind of inventing this together with Sarah and her team, I thought there was a quite a high chance that, we're doing science. There's such a high probability we're wrong. And I remember kind of trying to go to hard physicists, mathematicians, complexity theorists, and everyone just kind of giving me such a hard time about it. And said, you know, this is kind of, you've just done this, you've just done that. You've just recapitulated an old theory. And I was unable, I lacked the language to really explain. And I had to, it was a real struggle. So this realisation that life, what life does, that physics cannot understand or chemistry, is the universe develops a memory that's causally actionable. And then we can measure it, but it isn't just one thing. There is this intrinsic property of all the objects in the universe. Like I've said before, but, you know, me holding up this water bottle, it isn't any other water bottle, but it is a sum total of all the water bottles that have existed, right? And will likely change the future of water bottles and for other objects. So it's this kind of, so for me, assembly theory explains the soul in stuff. The monology. But it is, monology is not like Sheldrake's morphic resonance, where we have this kind of wooey thing permeating the universe. It is the interaction of objects, of other objects. And some objects have more instantaneous causal power, that's life, living things. And some objects are the instantaneous output of that causal power, dead objects, but they are part of the lineage. And that for me is fascinating and really beautiful. And I think that even if we're determined to be totally wrong, I think it will help us help, hopefully understand what life is and go and detect life elsewhere and make life in the lab. How does that make you feel, by the way? Does it make you feel less special that you're so deeply integrated, interconnected to the lineage? I mean, I can on one level, I just wanted in my life as a scientist, I wanted to have an interesting idea just once or an original idea. I mean, it was like, you know, so I think that was cool that we had this idea and we were playing with it. And I think also that I kind of, I mean, it took me ages to realize that Sarah had also had the same kind of form, coming towards the same formulation, just from a completely different point. But no, it makes me feel special. And it also makes me feel connected to the universe. It also makes me feel not just humble about, you know, being a living object in the universe, but the fact that it makes me really optimistic about what the universe is going to do in the future. Because we're not just isolated phenomena, we are connected. I will be able to have, you know, one of my small objectives in life is to change the future of the universe in some profound way just by existing. Yeah, that's not ambitious at all. I think it's also good because it makes me feel less lonely. Because I just realized I'm not like, I mean, I'm a unique assembly structure, but I have so much overlap with the other entities I interact with that we're not completely individual, right? And yet, your existence does have a huge amount of impact on how this whole thing unrolls on the future of the world. As individuals, that's, yeah. But I was going to say- Local packets of agency. I think we all have a profound impact on the future, some more than others, right? All human beings, all life. And I mean, that's why I think it's a privilege in a way for, you know, to say, to assert some degree of ego and agency. You know, I'm going to make a computer or make an origin life machine or we're going to do this thing. But actually, it's just like, you know, life's probably living. If there is a God or there's a soul in everything, it's probably laughing at us going, I fool these guys by giving them ego. So they strive for this stuff and look what it does for the assembly space of the universe. And there's always a possibility that science can't answer all of it. So that part's challenging for me. There might be a limit to this thing. Let me ask you a bunch of ridiculous questions and I demand relatively short answers. Lee, what's the scariest thing you've ever done? Or what's a scary thing that pops to mind? Giving seminars in front of other scientists. Yeah, that is terrifying. I could, if I had more time, I would ask you about the most embarrassing, but we'll spare you. What about you, Sarah? Scariest thing? Up there, some of the scary things you've done. Actually, the scariest for me was deciding I wanted to get divorced because it was like a totally radical, like, life transformation. Yeah, because we had been married for a really long time. And I think it was just so much like, I realized like so much of my individual agency I didn't realize I had before. And that was just really like scary, like empowering, scary, but like terrifying. Like you were living in a kind of one way for your whole life and then you realize your life could be a different way. And yeah, there's a between humans. I mean, that's the beautiful thing about love is the connection you have, but it's also becomes a dependency and breaking that. Whether it's a mentor, with your parents, your close friends. It's almost like waking up, like just there's a different reality. Yeah, that was scary. Reinventing yourself. Okay, if you could, Lee, maybe I'll actually alternate. Sarah, if you could be someone else for a day, someone alive today, you haven't met yet, or maybe you could do one who you've met, who would it be? Kim Kardashian. No joke. The woman's brilliant. I would just like to experience, like, I just, I think she's got such an interesting and very deep understanding of social reality. But you also said you have a appreciation, a love for fashion. I do. But that's actually the same, like, I just think it's really interesting because we live in a social reality which is completely artificially constructed. And some people are really genius about moving through that. And I think she's particularly good at it. I wonder if she's good at understanding it, if she's- I think it's very deeply intrinsic to her. So I don't know if she has- She's like surfing a wave. How much cognitive awareness she has of it or how strategic it is. But I think it's deeply fascinating. So I guess that's the first one that comes to mind. What about you, Lee? If you could be somebody for a day? Don't say Yoshi Bak. Don't say Kim Kardashian. Yeah, right. Those two are off the table. Off the table. No, I was going to say I would like to be a- does it have to be here today? I was going to say I'd like to be the latest arm processor. I would like to be the latest arm processor. I'd like to understand- I would like to know what it feels like to basically- You like being objects. I like being- I've always obsessed with being objects ever since I was a kid. What's the best part of being an arm processor for a day? I mean, I'd like to understand how I access my memory, what I anticipate is coming next in clock cycles. What about how it feels like? Yeah, I want to know how it feels like to be- To be useful. To be- Thanks for that. All right. If, Lee, if everyone on earth disappeared and it was just you left, what would your days look like? What would you do? You're just left to impress. Nobody probably can't really do any real science at scale. What would you do with your remaining days? Every possible tool I could and put it in my workshop and just make stuff. So try to make stuff. Just try and make stuff. Make companions. I'm probably not making companions. Probably, yeah. Probably just- In the physical space. Yeah. What about you, Sarah? What would you- When you're just left alone on earth, you're the last person- No animals in this scenario? Nothing? No living beings. No plants? No plants. Oh, interesting. I was going to say I would just, I would try to walk the entire planet, at least all the land mass. Well, that's true. So you probably don't know if there's stuff. You could be searching for plants or other humans or- What would I eat? It's a- It's a very unrealistic scenario. You just have daily just allotment- No, but I would just walk all the time. Of Soylent. I don't know why I- Just walk. That's just became to my- You're the explorer. I would just walk. And I guess I would make a goal of covering all of the entire earth. Because what else are you going to do with your time? What's an item on your bucket list, Sarah, that you haven't done yet but you hope to do? Skydiving. Travel to space. I don't know. You know, it's funny with my bucket list. I only know it was on my bucket list once I check it off. Once you check it off. So your bucket list is like a fog. It's like a mystery. Yeah. And you're almost by doing it. Yeah. So it's very subconsciously driven. So it's in your subconscious in there. I think so. You're bringing it to the surface. I think most of the steering of our agency is in our subconscious anyway. So I just kind of go with the flow. But I guess- No, seriously. Yeah, no, I get it. I don't know. I guess I- But I would like to go in a submarine, like to the bottom of the ocean. I think that'd be really cool. To the bottom of the ocean. Are you captivated by the mystery of the ocean? Like how low? I am. Yeah. What about you, Lee? What item on your bucket list? I don't have a bucket list, but I'll just make one. I would love to take a computer to the moon or Mars and make drugs off world. Be the first chemist to make drugs off world. The first drug manufacturer in space. Yeah. Why not? Do they have to be somehow like be able to habitate, like be able to survive on that particular space? What's the connection between being on Mars and doing manufacturing? I just would like to be there. I would like to take the ability to have command and control over chemicals programmatically off earth to somewhere else in the universe. That just seems like you like difficulty engineering problems. Before I die, if I can do that, that's great. Would you travel to space before you die? Yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'd love to go into space, but not just to be a tourist. I want to take science experiment in space and do a thing in space that had never been done before. That's a real possibility. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that's why there's no point in listing things I can't do. Yeah. All right. What small act of kindness were you once shown that you will never forget? Small act of kindness, not big. Somebody was just kind to you. Somebody did something sweet. When I was a PhD student, someone helped me out with just, I was basically, I needed a computer. I needed some power, computation power, and someone took pity on me and helped me and gave me, I was really touched. They didn't have to. And they were actually quite, they were disabled scientists. They had other things to do rather than help some random PhD student. Gave me access, taught me a lot of stuff. Yeah. Actually, when you're a grad student or when you're a student, when you're a student, the younger it is, the better. The attention, the support, the love you get from an older person, a teacher, something like that is super powerful. It's fascinating. And from the perspective of the teacher, they might not realize the impact they have, but that little bit, those few words, a little bit of help can have a lot of impact. What about you, Sarah? Somebody give you a free Starbucks at some point? I love free Starbucks. I like it when you're in the line at Starbucks and somebody buys your coffee in front of you and then you buy the next one. I love those. But that's not my example. I love that too. Those are great. I'm happy. And then my kids get all excited when we do it, when we go in. We're the first ones in line doing it. I guess I can use a similar example about just being a student. So Paul Davies is a very well-known theoretical physicist. He was generous enough with his time to take me on as a postdoc. But before I became his postdoc, he invited me to a workshop at Arizona State University Beyond Center and took a walk with me around campus just to talk about ideas after. And I think there were two things that were completely generous about that. One is Paul's philosophy is always interacting with young people. You interact with a mind in the room. It doesn't matter how well-known or whatever. It's like you evaluate the person for the person. But he also gave me a book, The Eerie Silence, that he had written. He wrote in it, this is how E.E. gets to E.T., which was Enantiomeric Excess, which I worked on as a PhD student, was the origin of homochirality, all the way up to what the book was about, which was are we alone in the universe and is there intelligent life out there? And it was just so much about the questions I wanted to ask. It was just everything about, it was just really, really kind. Like that it's okay to ask these questions. Yeah. I think a lot of my career is mostly his encouragement to ask deep questions. He gave me the space to do it in ways that a lot of previous mentors had. I've had a good experience with mentors, but it was like go off the deep end, ask the hardest questions and I think that's the best gift you can give somebody. What would you, because you're both fascinating minds and non, I would say non-standard in the best possible way. Is there advice you can give to young folks how to be non-standard, how to stand out, novelty, how to generate novelty? That's what I want on my tombstone, I have one. He generated novelty. No, no, how to. Oh, how to. How still. I just love doing science and so when I was younger, I was just wanted to, I mean I'm still not sure I'm a real scientist, right? So I want to try. So my advice for the young people is just, if you love asking questions, then don't be afraid to ask the question, even if it pisses people off, because if you piss people off, you're probably asking the right question. What I would say though is don't do what I did, which is just piss everyone off. Try and work out how to, you know, I think if other people are challenged by your questions, you will get not only respect, but people will give you, create space for you because you're doing something really new. I really try to create space in my academic career, my team, really try and praise them and push them to do new things. So my advice is try to do new things, get feedback, and the universe will help you. Because the universe likes novelty. I think so. I think so, right? This one will keep them around. What about you, Sarah? You too like to ask the really out there big questions. Yeah, because I have a strong passion for them. So I think it goes back to the love. Like if you're doing the thing you're supposed to be doing, you should really love it. So I always tell people that they should do the thing they're most passionate about. But I think a flip side of that is that's when you become, not to sound cheesy, but like your best version of yourself. So I guess like for me, as I become more successful in my career, I feel like I can be more myself as an individual. And so there's this, I've always been following the questions I'm most interested in, which very early on I was discouraged from doing by many people because they thought they were unanswerable questions. And I always just thought, well, if no one's even trying to answer them, of course they're going to be unanswerable. And then that was kind of an odd viewpoint. But the more I found my way in that space, the more I also made a space for myself as a person, because you're basically generating the niche that you want to exist in. And so I think that's part of it, is not just to follow your passion, but also think about like who do you want to be and create that? Yeah. Who am I? Who do you want to be? I mean, yeah, play temporally with it. Yeah, who am I now? Who do I want to be now? But who do I want to be in the future? They're not decoupled. Yeah. I always wonder if that's like, if I become something, am I finding myself or am I creating myself? Yeah. And I think those are somehow the same kind of thing. I do feel often like I was always meant to be this kind of thing. But is that created or discovered? I don't know. But basically go towards that direction. If you were abducted by aliens, Sarah. Excellent. I'm waiting. They can come find me. They're on a spaceship. And then they somehow figured out the language you speak and ask you, what are you? Explain yourself. Not you, Sarah, but the species. Life on earth, like we don't have time. We're busy grad students from another planet. What's interesting about human civilization? What's interesting about you? You specifically too. They could be very kind of personal and kind of pushy. And yeah. How would you begin to describe? Okay. I have one. Because, you know, obviously I self-identify as a scientist and a physicist, but intrinsically I feel more like an artist. But it's almost like you're an artist that you don't know what you're painting yet. And I guess I feel like that's humanity, like in some sense. We're creating something I think is profound and potentially very beautiful in existence of the universe. But we're just so night, like not night, we're just early. We're early. We're young. We don't know what we're doing yet. Yeah. What's with the nuclear weapons is a big question too. Like what are you guys? What are we doing with them? This creativity that you talk, it sounds very nice, but it's, you're seeming to- We're making things that are- Like very destructive and like the rockets. This seems very aggressive. Yeah, I know. This is my blinders on. I don't know. I mean, it goes back to the whole conversation about suffering. I have a hard time regularizing certain aspects of reality into what I want to envision. And that's obviously problematic. But, you know, nuclear power has also given us a lot of good things. So- So both, that's human nature. Both human beings and the technology we create has the capacity for evil and the capacity for good. Yeah, we can't all be good all the time. I mean, there's like this huge misnomer that you need to be liked by everyone universally. And obviously that's like an ideal, but it's physically impossible. You can't get a group of people in a room and have everyone like each other all the time. So I think that kind of tension is actually really important that we have different aesthetics, different goals, and sometimes conflict comes out of that. Yeah. Speaking of which, do you, Lee, and Yosha Bach ever say anything nice to each other? Or is it always conflict? We never have conflict. We argue, but I don't think they argue, arguments are bad. It's love. I mean, I think the problem I have, not problem, I think- Here we go. And he's not here to defend himself. No, it's just I don't necessarily understand the- I mean, he's just talking at such a high level. I'm a dimwit. So I think a lot of our conflict is not conflict. We actually have a, I think, I mean, I can't speak for Yosha, I have a deep appreciation for him. He's brilliant. But I think I'm kind of frustrated and I'm trying to, he thinks the universe is a computer and I want to turn the universe into a computer. Yeah. That's a small disagreement. So how would you defend your life to an alien when you're being abducted? Would you focus on the specifics of your life? No, no, no. I would be, I would try and be as random as possible and try and confuse them. Oh, good. Good. Excellent. That might be the wiser choice. The Easter eggs in reality. No, I mean, if aliens abducted me- Would you play dumb? No, no, no. I would try and be as random as possible. I would try and do something that would surprise the hell out of them, which I thought, I mean, probably risky, they might kill me, but I think that might be funny. Yeah, they might want to study you for prolonged periods of time. My reasoning is if I wanted to stay alive, okay, so if the thing is, if I wasn't going back to earth and the job was to stay alive, if I could be as surprising as possible, they'd keep me around like a pet, right? Petly on the alien's fishbowl. So you'd be okay being a pet? Well, no, but I mean- The last human that survives would just be a pet to the aliens. I don't know, but I mean, I think that might be fun because then I might get some feedback from their curiosity, but yeah. Let me ask you this question. Given our conversation has a very different meaning, not a more profound meaning perhaps, but would you rather lose all of your old memories or never be able to make new ones? I would have to lose all my old memories. Again, it's the novelty. What about you, Sarah? I'm the same because I don't think, it's about the future experience, right? And in some sense, like you were saying earlier, most of our lived experience is actually in our memories. So if you can't generate new memories, it's like you're not alive anymore. That's it. What comforts you on bad days? When you look at human civilization, when you look at your own life, what gives you hope or makes you feel good about what we're doing about life at the small scale of you as a human and at the big scale of us as a human civilization, maybe the big scale of the universe? Children, my kids, but I also mean that in a grand sense of like, not a grand, but like future minds in some sense. So for me, like the most bleak movie ever, people worry about apocalyptic things like AI, existential risk, and climate change, which children of men, the whole premise of the movie was there can be no children born on the entire planet. And the youngest person on the planet is like 18 years old or something. Like can you imagine a world without children? It's just, it's harrowing. That's the scariest thing. So I think what gives me hope is always youth and the hope of children and the possibilities of the future they see. And they grow up in a completely different reality than adults do. And I think we have a hard time seeing what their reality actually looks like. But I think most of the time it's super interesting. Yeah, they have dreams, they have imagination. They have this kind of excitement. So it's so cool. It's so fun to watch. And yeah, you feel like you're almost getting in the way of all that imagination. What about you, Lee? What gives you hope? So when I go back to my eight-year-old self, the thing that I dreamed of as my eight-year-old self was this world in which technology became programmable and there was internet and I get information and I would expand my consciousness by just getting access to everything that was going on. And this happened in my lifetime. I mean, we really do have that. I mean, okay, there's some bad things. There's TikTok, everyone just, whatever, all the bad things about social media. But I think, I mean, I can't quite believe my luck being born now. So amazing. Being able to program reality in some way. Yeah. And the thing that I really find fascinating about human beings is just how ingenious they are. Whether it's from my kids, my research group, my peers, other companies, just how ingenious everyone is. And I'm pretty sure humanity has a, or our causal chain in which humanity is a vital part in the future is going to have a lot of fun. And I'm just, yeah, it's just mind-blowing just to watch. And so humans are ingenious and I hope to help them be more ingenious if I can. Well, what gives me hope, what makes me feel good on bad days is the existence of wild minds like yours, novelty generators, assembly structures that generate novelty and do so beautifully and then tweet about it. Sarah, this, I really, really enjoy talking to you. I enjoy following you. I'm a huge fan. Sarah Lee, I hope to talk to you many times in the future, maybe with your Shabak. You're just incredible people. Thank you for everything you do. You're awesome. Thank you for talking today. Really, really appreciate it. Thanks. Yeah, brilliant to be here. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Sarah Walker and Lee Cronin. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. Now let me leave you with some words from Arthur C. Clarke. Two possibilities exist. Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. And let me, if I may, add to that by saying that both possibilities, at least to me, are both terrifying and exciting. And keeping these two feelings in my heart is a fun way to explore, to wander, to think, and to live, always a little bit on the edge of madness. Thank you for listening. And I hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/SFxIazwNP_0

KBZP4rLk6bk

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Robin Hanson: Alien Civilizations, UFOs, and the Future of Humanity | Lex Fridman Podcast #292

we can actually figure out where are the aliens out there in space-time by being clever about the few things we can see, one of which is our current date. And so now that you have this living cosmology, we can tell the story that the universe starts out empty, and then at some point, things like us appear, very primitive, and then some of those stop being quiet and expand, and then for a few billion years, they expand, and then they meet each other, and then for the next hundred billion years, they commune with each other. That is, the usual models of cosmology say that in roughly 100, 150 billion years, the expansion of the universe will happen so much that all you'll have left is some galaxy clusters that are sort of disconnected from each other. But before then, they will interact. There will be this community of all the grabby alien civilizations, and each one of them will hear about and even meet thousands of others. And we might hope to join them someday and become part of that community. The following is a conversation with Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, and one of the most fascinating, wild, fearless, and fun minds I've ever gotten a chance to accompany for a time in exploring questions of human nature, human civilization, and alien life out there in our impossibly big universe. He is the co-author of a book titled, The Elephant in the Brain, Hidden Motives in Everyday Life, The Age of M, Work, Love, and Life When Robots Rule the Earth, and a fascinating recent paper I recommend on, quote, grabby aliens, titled, If Loud Aliens Explain Human Earliness, Quiet Aliens Are Also Rare. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. Support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Robin Hanson. You are working on a book about, quote, grabby aliens. This is a technical term, like the Big Bang. So what are grabby aliens? Grabby aliens expand fast into the universe and they change stuff. That's the key concept. So if they were out there, we would notice. That's the key idea. So the question is, where are the grabby aliens? So Fermi's question is, where are the aliens? And we could vary that in two terms, right? Where are the quiet, hard to see aliens? And where are the big, loud grabby aliens? So it's actually hard to say where all the quiet ones are, right? There could be a lot of them out there because they're not doing much. They're not making a big difference in the world. But the grabby aliens, by definition, are the ones you would see. We don't know exactly what they do with where they went, but the idea is they're in some sort of competitive world where each part of them is trying to grab more stuff and do something with it. And, you know, almost surely whatever is the most competitive thing to do with all the stuff they grab isn't to leave it alone the way it started, right? So we humans, when we go around the earth and use stuff, we change it. We turn a forest into a farmland. Turn a harbor into a city. So the idea is aliens would do something with it. And so we're not exactly sure what it would look like, but it would look different. So somewhere in the sky, we would see big spheres of different activity where things had been changed because they had been there. Expanding spheres, right? So as you expand, you aggressively interact and change the environment. So the word grabby versus loud, you're using them sometimes synonymously, sometimes not. Grabby to me is a little bit more aggressive. What does it mean to be loud? What does it mean to be grabby? What's the difference? And loud in what way? Is it visual? Is it sound? Is it some other physical phenomena like gravitational waves? What are you using this kind of in a broad philosophical sense? Or there's a specific thing that it means to be loud in this universe of ours? My co-authors and I put together a paper with a particular mathematical model. And so we use the term grabby aliens to describe that more particular model. And the idea is it's a more particular model of the general concept of loud. So loud would just be the general idea that they would be really obvious. So grabby is the technical term. Is it in the title of the paper? It's in the body. The title is actually about loud and quiet. Right. So the idea is you want to distinguish your particular model of things from the general category of things everybody else might talk about. So that's how we distinguish. The paper title is If Loud Aliens Explain Human Earliness, Quiet Aliens Are Also Rare. If life on Earth, God, this is such a good abstract. If life on Earth had to achieve N hard steps to reach humanity's level, then the chance of this event rose as time to the nth power. So we'll talk about power, we'll talk about linear increase. So what is the technical definition of grabby? How do you envision grabbyness? And why are, in contrast with humans, why aren't humans grabby? So like where's that line? Is it well definable? What is grabby? What is not grabby? We have a mathematical model of the distribution of advanced civilizations, i.e. aliens, in space and time. That model has three parameters, and we can set each one of those parameters from data, and therefore we claim this is actually what we know about where they are in space-time. So the key idea is they appear at some point in space-time, and then after some short delay, they start expanding, and they expand at some speed. And the speed is one of those parameters. That's one of the three. And the other two parameters are about how they appear in time. That is, they appear at random places, and they appear in time according to a power law, and that power law has two parameters, and we can fit each of those parameters to data. And so then we can say, now we know. We know the distribution of advanced civilizations in space and time. So we are right now a new civilization, and we have not yet started to expand. But plausibly, we would start to do that within, say, 10 million years of the current moment. That's plenty of time. And 10 million years is a really short duration in the history of the universe. So we are, at the moment, a sort of random sample of the kind of times at which an advanced civilization might appear, because we may or may not become grabby, but if we do, we'll do it soon. And so our current date is a sample, and that gives us one of the other parameters. The second parameter is the constant in front of the power law, and that's going to be the power law, and that's arrived from our current date. P.H. So power law, what is the N in the power law? That's the more complicated thing to explain. Right. Advanced life appeared by going through a sequence of hard steps. So starting with very simple life, and here we are at the end of this process at pretty advanced life, and so we had to go through some intermediate steps, such as sexual selection, photosynthesis, multicellular animals, and the idea is that each of those steps was hard. Evolution just took a long time searching in a big space of possibilities to find each of those steps, and the challenge was to achieve all of those steps by a deadline of when the planets would no longer host simple life. And so Earth has been really lucky, compared to all the other billions of planets out there, and that we managed to achieve all these steps in the short time of the five billion years that Earth can support simple life. So not all steps, but a lot of them, because we don't know how many steps there are before you start the expansion. So these are all the steps from the birth of life to the initiation of major expansion. Right, so we're pretty sure that it would happen really soon so that it couldn't be the same sort of a hard step as the last one, so in terms of taking a long time. So when we look at the history of Earth, we look at the durations of the major things that have happened, that suggests that there's roughly, say, six hard steps that happened, say, between three and 12, and that we have just achieved the last one that would take a long time. Which is? Well, we don't know. Oh, okay. But whatever it is, we've just achieved the last one. Are we talking about humans or aliens here? So let's talk about some of these steps. So Earth is really special in some way. We don't exactly know the level of specialness. We don't really know which steps were the hardest or not, because we just have a sample of one, but you're saying that there's three to 12 steps that we have to go through to get to where we are that are hard steps, hard to find by something that took a long time and is unlikely. There's a lot of ways to fail. There's a lot more ways to fail than to succeed. The first step would be sort of the very simplest form of life of any sort. And then we don't know whether that first sort is the first sort that we see in the historical record or not. But then some other steps are, say, the development of photosynthesis, the development of sexual reproduction. There's the development of eukaryotic cells, which are certain kind of complicated cells that seems to have only appeared once. And then there's multicellularity, that is, multiple cells coming together to large organisms like us. And in this statistical model of trying to fit all these steps into a finite window, the model actually predicts that these steps could be of varying difficulties. That is, they could each take different amounts of time on average. But if you're lucky enough that they all appear at a very short time, then the durations between them will be roughly equal. And the time remaining left over in the rest of the window will also be the same length. So we at the moment have roughly a billion years left on Earth until simple life like us would no longer be possible. Life appeared roughly 400 million years after the very first time when life was possible at the very beginning. So those two numbers right there give you the rough estimate of six hard steps. Just to build up an intuition here, so we're trying to create a simple mathematical model of how life emerges and expands in the universe. And there's a section in this paper, how many hard steps, question mark. Right. The two most plausibly diagnostic Earth durations seem to be the one remaining after now before Earth becomes uninhabitable for complex life. So you estimate how long Earth lasts, how many hard steps. There's windows for doing different hard steps. And you can sort of like queuing theory, mathematically estimate of like the solution or the passing of the hard steps or the taking of the hard steps. Sort of like coldly mathematical look. If life, pre-expansionary life requires n number of steps, what is the probability of taking those steps on an Earth that lasts a billion years or two billion years or five billion years or ten billion years? And you say solving for E using the observed durations of 1.1 and 0.4 then gives E values of 3.9 and 12.5, range 5.7 to 26, suggesting a middle estimate of at least six. That's where you said six hard steps. Right. Just to get to where we are. Right. We started at the bottom, now we're here. That took six steps on average. The key point is on average, these things on any one random planet would take trillions or trillions of years, just a really long time. And so we're really lucky that they all happened really fast in a short time before our window closed. And the chance of that happening in that short window goes as that time period to the power of the number of steps. And so that was where the power we talked about. The power we talked about before it came from. And so that means in the history of the universe, we should overall roughly expect advanced life to appear as a power law in time. So that very early on, there was very little chance of anything appearing. And then later on, as things appear, other things are appearing somewhat closer to them in time because they're all going as this power law. What is the power law? Can we, for people who are not math inclined, can you describe what a power law is? So say the function x is linear and x squared is quadratic. So it's the power of two. If we make x to the three, that's cubic or the power of three. And so x to the sixth is the power of six. And so we'd say life appears in the universe on a planet like Earth in that proportion to the time that it's been ready for life to appear. And that over the universe in general, it'll appear at roughly a power law like that. What is the x? But what is n? Is it the number of hard steps? Yes, the number of hard steps. So that's the idea. So it's like if you're gambling and you're doubling up every time, this is the probability you just keep winning. So it gets very unlikely very quickly. And so we're the result of this unlikely chain of successes. It's actually a lot like cancer. So the dominant model of cancer in an organism like each of us is that we have all these cells. And in order to become cancerous, a single cell has to go through a number of mutations. And these are very unlikely mutations. And so any one cell is very unlikely to have all these mutations happen by the time your life spans over. But we have enough cells in our body that the chance of any one cell producing cancer by the end of your life is actually pretty high, more like 40%. And so the chance of cancer appearing in your lifetime also goes as a power law, this power of the number of mutations that's required for any one cell in your body to become cancerous. So the longer you live, the likely you are to have cancer cells. And the power is also roughly 6. That is, the chance of you getting cancer is roughly the power of 6 of the time you've been since you were born. It is perhaps not lost on people that you're comparing your life span to. Comparing power laws of the survival or the arrival of the human species to cancerous cells. The same mathematical model, but of course, we might have a different value assumption about the two outcomes. But of course, from the point of view of cancer, it's more similar. From the point of view of cancer, it's a win-win. We both get to thrive, I suppose. It is interesting to take the point of view of all kinds of life forms on Earth, of viruses, of bacteria. They have a very different view. It's like the Instagram channel, Nature is Metal. Right. The ethic under which nature operates doesn't often coincide, correlate with human morals. It seems cold and machine-like in the selection process that it performs. I am an analyst. I'm a scholar, an intellectual. And I feel I should carefully distinguish predicting what's likely to happen and then evaluating or judging what I think would be better to happen. It's a little dangerous to mix those up too closely because then we can have wishful thinking. And so I try typically to just analyze what seems likely to happen regardless of whether I like it or that we do anything about it. And then once you see a rough picture of what's likely to happen if we do nothing, then we can ask, well, what might we prefer? And ask, where could the levers be to move it at least a little toward what we might prefer? It's good. That's a useful, but often doing that just analysis of what's likely to happen if we do nothing offends many people. They find that dehumanizing or cold or metal, as you say, to just say, well, this is what's likely to happen. And it's not your favorite. Sorry. But maybe we can do something. But maybe we can't do that much. This is very interesting, that the cold analysis, whether it's geopolitics, whether it's medicine, whether it's economics, sometimes it's a little bit of both. Sometimes misses some very specific aspect of human condition. For example, when you look at a doctor and the act of a doctor helping a single patient, if you do the analysis of that doctor's time and cost of the medicine or the surgery or the transportation of the patient, this is the Paul Farmer question, is it worth spending 10, 20, $30,000 on this one patient? When you look at all the people that are suffering in the world, that money could be spent so much better. And yet there's something about human nature that wants to help the person in front of you. And that is actually the right thing to do, despite the analysis. And sometimes when you do the analysis, there's something about the human mind that allows you to not take that leap, that irrational leap to act in this way, that the analysis explains it away. Well, it's like, for example, the US government, the DOT, Department of Transportation, puts a value of, I think, like $9 million on a human life. And the moment you put that number on a human life, you can start thinking, well, okay, I can start making decisions about this or that with a sort of cold economic perspective. And then you might lose, you might deviate from a deeper truth of what it means to be human somehow. So you have to dance, because then if you put too much weight on the anecdotal evidence on these kinds of human emotions, then you're going to lose, you could also probably more likely deviate from truth. But there's something about that cold analysis. Like, I've been listening to a lot of people coldly analyze wars, war in Yemen, war in Syria, Israel-Palestine, war in Ukraine. And there's something lost when you do a cold analysis of why something happened. When you talk about energy, talking about sort of conflict, competition over resources, when you talk about geopolitics, sort of models of geopolitics and why a certain war happened, you lose something about the suffering that happens. I don't know. It's an interesting thing because you're both, you're exceptionally good at models in all domains, literally. But also there's a humanity to you. So it's an interesting dance. I don't know if you can comment on that dance. CB Sure, it's definitely true as you say that for many people, if you are accurate in your judgment of say, for a medical patient, right, what's the chance that this treatment might help and what's the cost and compare those to each other. And you might say, this looks like a lot of cost for a small medical gain. And at that point, knowing that fact that might take the air out of your sails, you might not be willing to do the thing that maybe you feel is right anyway, which is still to pay for it. And then somebody knowing that might want to keep that news from you, not tell you about the low chance of success or the high cost in order to save you this tension, this awkward moment where you might fail to do what they and you think is right. But I think the higher calling, the higher standard to hold you to, which many people can be held to, is to say, I will look at things accurately, I will know the truth, and then I will also do the right thing with it. I will be at peace with my judgment about what the right thing is in terms of the truth. I don't need to be lied to in order to figure out what the right thing to do is. And I think if you do think you need to be lied to in order to figure out what the right thing to do is, you're at a great disadvantage because then people will be lying to you, you will be lying to yourself, and you won't be as effective at achieving whatever good you were trying to achieve. But getting the data, getting the facts is step one, not the final step. Absolutely. So it's, I would say, having a good model, getting the good data is step one, and it's a burden. Because you can't just use that data to arrive at sort of the easy, convenient thing. You have to really deeply think about what is the right thing. You can't use, so the dark aspect of data, of models, is you can use it to excuse away actions that aren't ethical. You can use data to basically excuse away anything. But not looking at data lets you excuse yourself to pretend and think that you're doing good when you're not. Exactly. But it is a burden. It is a burden, it doesn't excuse you from still being human and deeply thinking about what is right. That very kind of gray area, that very subjective area, that's part of the human condition. But let us return for a time to aliens. So you started to define sort of the model, the parameters of grabbiness. Right. Or the, as we approach grabbiness. So what happens? So again, there was three parameters. Yes. There's the speed at which they expand, there's the rate at which they appear in time, and that rate has a constant and a power. So we've talked about the history of life on Earth suggests that power is around six, but maybe three to 12. We can say that constant comes from our current date, sort of sets the overall rate. And the speed, which is the last parameter, comes from the fact that when we look in the sky, we don't see them. So the model predicts very strongly that if they were expanding slowly, say 1% of the speed of light, our sky would be full of vast spheres that were full of activity. That is, at a random time when a civilization is first appearing, if it looks out into its sky, it would see many other grabby alien civilizations in the sky. And they would be much bigger than the full moon. They'd be huge spheres in the sky, and they would be visibly different. We don't see them. Can we pause for a second? Okay. There's a bunch of hard steps that Earth had to pass to arrive at this place we are currently, which we're starting to launch rockets out into space. We're kind of starting to expand. A bit. Right. Very slowly. Okay. But this is like the birth. If you look at the entirety of the history of Earth, we're now at this precipice of like expansion. We could. We might not choose to, but if we do, we will do it in the next 10 million years. 10 million. Wow. 10 million. Wow. Time flies when you're having fun. 10 million is like a thousand. I was thinking more like a short time on the cosmological scale. So that is, it might be only a thousand, but the point is, even if it's up to 10 million, that hardly makes any difference to the model. So I might as well give you 10 million. This makes me feel, I was so stressed about planning what I'm gonna do today, and now. Right. You've got plenty of time. Plenty of time. I just need to be generating some offspring quickly here. Okay. So, and there's this moment, this 10 million year gap or window when we start expanding. And you're saying, okay, so this is an interesting moment where there's a bunch of other alien civilizations that might, at some history of the universe, arrived at this moment we're here. They passed all the hard steps. There's a model for how likely it is that that happens. And then they start expanding. And you think of an expansion as almost like a few years. Right, that's when you say speed, we're talking about the speed of the radius growth. Exactly. Like the surface, how fast the surface. Okay. And so you're saying that there is some speed for that expansion, average speed, and then we can play with that parameter. And if that speed is super slow, then maybe that explains why we haven't seen anything. If it's super fast, well, It would be if the slow would create the puzzle. It's slow predicts we will be super fast. would create the puzzle, it's slow predicts we would see them, but we don't see them. Okay. And so the way to explain that is that they're fast. So the idea is, if they're moving really fast, then we don't see them until they're almost here. Okay, this is counterintuitive. All right, hold on a second. So I think this works best when I say a bunch of dumb things. Okay. And then you elucidate the full complexity and the beauty of the dumbness. Okay. So there's these spheres out there in the universe that are made visible because they're sort of using a lot of energy. So they're generating a lot of light. They're changing things. They're changing things and change would be visible a long way off. Yes. They would take apart stars, rearrange them, restructure galaxies. They would just all kinds of big, huge stuff. Okay. If they're expanding slowly, we would see a lot of them because the universe is old, is old enough to where we would see them. That is, we're assuming we're just typical, maybe at the 50th percentile of them. So like half of them have appeared so far, the other half will still appear later. And the math of our best estimate is that they appear roughly once per million galaxies, and we would meet them in roughly a billion years if we expanded out to meet them. So we're looking at a Grabby Aliens model, 3D sim. Right. That's the actual name of the video. By the time we get to 13.8 billion years, the fun begins. Okay. So this is, we're watching a three-dimensional sphere rotating, I presume that's the universe and then the Grabby Aliens are expanding and filling that universe with all kinds of fun. Pretty soon it's all full. It's full. So that's how the Grabby Aliens come in contact, first of all, with other aliens, and then with us humans. The following is a simulation of the Grabby Aliens model of alien civilizations. Civilizations are born that expand outwards at constant speed. A spherical region of space is shown. By the time we get to 13.8 billion years, this sphere will be about 3,000 times as wide as the distance from the Milky Way to Andromeda. Okay. This is fun. It's huge. Okay, it's huge. All right. So why don't we see, we're one little tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny dot in that giant, giant sphere. Right. Why don't we see any of the Grabby Aliens? It depends on how fast they expand. So you could see that if they expanded at the speed of light, you wouldn't see them until they were here. So like out there, if somebody is destroying the universe with a vacuum decay, there's this, you know, doomsday scenario where somebody somewhere could change the vacuum of the universe and that would expand at the speed of light and basically destroy everything it hit. But you'd never see that until it got here because it's expanding at the speed of light. If you're spending really slow, then you see it from a long way off. So the fact we don't see anything in the sky tells us they're expanding fast, say over a third the speed of light. And that's really, really fast. But that's what you have to believe if we look out and you don't see anything. Now you might say, well, how, maybe I just don't want to believe this whole model. Why should I believe this whole model at all? And our best evidence why you should believe this model is our early date. We are right now, almost 14 billion years into the universe on a planet around a star that's roughly 5 billion years old. But the average star out there will last roughly 5 trillion years. That is a thousand times longer. And remember that power law, it says that the chance of advanced life appearing on a planet goes as the power of sixth of the time. So if a planet lasts a thousand times longer, then the chance of it appearing on that planet, if everything would stay empty, at least is a thousand to the sixth power or 10 to the 18. So enormous, overwhelming chance that if the universe would just say, sit and empty and waiting for advanced life to appear, when it would appear would be way at the end of all these planet lifetimes. That is the long planets near the end of the lifetime, trillions of years into the future. But we're really early compared to that. And our explanation is at the moment, as you saw in the video, the universe is filling up in roughly a billion years, it'll all be full. And at that point, it's too late for advanced life to show up. So you had to show up now before that deadline. Okay, can we break that apart a little bit? Okay. Or linger on some of the things you said. So with the power law, the things we've done on earth, the model you have says that it's very unlikely, like we're lucky SOBs. Is that mathematically correct to say? We're crazy early. That is when early means like- In the history of the universe. In the history, okay. So given this model, how do we make sense of that? If we're super, can we just be the lucky ones? Well, 10 to the 18 lucky, how lucky do you feel? So, you know, that's pretty lucky, right? You know, 10 to the 18 is a billion billion. So then if you were just being honest and humble, that means, what does that mean? It means one of the assumptions that calculated this crazy early must be wrong. That's what it means. So the key assumption we suggest is that the universe would stay empty. So most life would appear like a thousand times longer later than now, if everything would stay empty, waiting for it to appear. So what does non-empty mean? So the gravity aliens are filling the universe right now, roughly at the moment they filled half of the universe and they've changed it. And when they fill everything, it's too late for stuff like us to appear. But wait, hold on a second. Did anyone help us get lucky? If it's so difficult, what, how do, like, what? So it's like cancer, right? There's all these cells, each of which randomly does or doesn't get cancer. And eventually some cell gets cancer and, you know, we were one of those. But hold on a second. Okay. But we got it early. Early compared to the prediction with an assumption that's wrong. That's, so that's how we do a lot of, you know, theoretical analysis. You have a model that makes a prediction that's wrong, then that helps you reject that model. Okay. Let's try to understand exactly where the wrong is. So the assumption is that the universe is empty, stays empty, stays empty, and waits until this advanced life appears in trillions of years. That is, if the universe would just stay empty, if there was just, you know, nobody else out there, then when you should expect advanced life to appear, if you're the only one in the universe, when should you expect to appear? You should expect to appear trillions of years in the future. I see. Right, right. So this is a very sort of nuanced mathematical assumption. I don't think we can intuit it cleanly with words. But if you assume that you're just, that the universe stays empty and you're waiting for one life civilization to pop up, then it's gonna, it should happen very late, much later than now. And if you look at Earth, the way things happen on Earth, it happened much, much, much, much, much earlier than it was supposed to according to this model, if you take the initial assumption. Therefore, you can say, well, the initial assumption of the universe staying empty is very unlikely. Right. And the other alternative theory is the universe is filling up and will fill up soon. And so we are typical for the origin date of things that can appear before the deadline. Before the deadline. Okay, it's filling up. So why don't we see anything if it's filling up? Because they're expanding really fast. Close to the speed of light. Exactly. So we will only see it when it's here. Almost here. Okay. What are the ways in which we might see a quickly expanding? This is both exciting and terrifying. It is terrifying. It's like watching a truck, like driving at you at 100 miles an hour. And so we would see spheres in the sky, at least one sphere in the sky, growing very rapidly. And like, very rapidly. Right? Yes, very rapidly. So we're not, so there's, you know, different, because we were just talking about 10 million years. This would be. You might see it 10 million years in advance coming. I mean, you still might have a long warning. Or again, the universe is 14 billion years old. The typical origin times of these things are spread over several billion years. So the chance of one originating at a, you know, very close to you in time is very low. So it still might take millions of years from the time you see it, from the time it gets here, a million years, zero years to be terrified of this fast sphere coming at you. But coming at you very fast. So if they're traveling close to the speed of light. But they're coming from a long way away. So remember, the rate at which they appear is one per million galaxies. Right. So they're roughly 100 galaxies away. I see. So the delta between the speed of light and their actual travel speed is very important. Right. So if they're going at, say, half the speed of light, we'll have a long time. Then, yeah. But what if they're traveling exactly at a speed of light? Then we see them like. Then we wouldn't have much warning. But that's less likely. Well, we can't exclude it. And they could also be somehow traveling faster than the speed of light. But I think we can exclude. Because if they could go faster than the speed of light, then they would just already be everywhere. So in a universe where you can travel faster than the speed of light, you can go backwards in space time. So any time you appeared anywhere in space time, you could just fill up everything. Yeah. And so anybody in the future who ever appeared, they would have been here by now. Can you exclude the possibility that those kinds of aliens aren't already here? Well, you have. We should have a different discussion of that. Right. So let's actually leave that. Let's leave that discussion aside just to linger and understand the Grabe alien expansion, which is beautiful and fascinating. OK, so there's these giant expanding spheres of alien civilizations. Now, when those spheres collide, mathematically, it's very likely that we're not the first collision of Grabe alien civilizations. I suppose is one way to say it. So there's like the first time the spheres touch each other, recognize each other, they meet. They recognize each other first before they meet. They see each other coming. They see each other coming. And then so there's a bunch of them. There's a combinatorial thing where they start seeing each other coming. And then there's a third neighbor. It's like, what the hell? And then there's a fourth one. OK, so what does that, you think, look like? What lessons from human nature does the only data we have? What can you draw? So the story of the history of the universe here is what I would call a living cosmology. So what I'm excited about, in part, by this model is that it lets us tell a story of cosmology where there are actors who have agendas. So most ancient peoples, they had cosmologies, stories they told about where the universe came from and where it's going and what's happening out there. And their stories, they like to have agents and actors, gods or something out there doing things. And lately, our favorite cosmology is dead, kind of boring. We're the only activity we know about or see, and everything else just looks dead and empty. But this is now telling us, no, that's not quite right. At the moment, the universe is filling up. And in a few billion years, it'll be all full. And from then on, the history of the universe will be the universe full of aliens. LUKE Yeah, so that's a really good reminder, a really good way to think about cosmologies. We're surrounded by a vast darkness, and we don't know what's going on in that darkness until the light from whatever generate lights arrives here. So we kind of, yeah, we look up at the sky, okay, there's stars, oh, they're pretty. But you don't think about the giant expanding spheres of aliens. PAUL Right, because you don't see them, but now our date, looking at the clock, if you're clever, the clock tells you. So I like the analogy with the ancient Greeks. So you might think that an ancient Greek, you know, staring at the universe couldn't possibly tell how far away the sun was or how far away the moon is or how big the earth is. That all you can see is just big things in the sky, you can't tell. But they were clever enough, actually, to be able to figure out the size of the earth and the distance to the moon and the sun and the size of the moon and sun, that is, they could figure those things out, actually, by being clever enough. And so similarly, we can actually figure out where are the aliens out there in space-time by being clever about the few things we can see, one of which is our current date. And so now that you have this living cosmology, we can tell the story that the universe starts out empty, and then at some point, things like us appear, very primitive, and then some of those stop being quiet and expand. And then for a few billion years, they expand, and then they meet each other. And then for the next 100 billion years, they commune with each other. That is, the usual models of cosmology say that in roughly 100, 150 billion years, the expansion of the universe will happen so much that all you'll have left is some galaxy clusters that are sort of disconnected from each other. But before then, for the next 100 billion years, they will interact. There will be this community of all the grabby alien civilizations, and each one of them will hear about and even meet thousands of others. And we might hope to join them someday and become part of that community. That's an interesting thing to aspire to. Yes, interesting is an interesting word. Is the universe of alien civilizations defined by war as much or more than war-defined human history? I would say it's defined by competition. And then the question is how much competition implies war. So up until recently, competition defined life on Earth. Yes. Competition between species and organisms and among humans, competitions among individuals and communities, and that competition often took the form of war in the last 10,000 years. Many people now are hoping or even expecting to sort of suppress and end competition in human affairs. They regulate business competition, they prevent military competition. And that's a future I think a lot of people will like to continue and strengthen. People will like to have something close to world government or world governance or at least a world community. And they will like to suppress war and any forms of business and personal competition over the coming centuries. And they may like that so much that they prevent interstellar colonization, which would become the end of that era. That is, interstellar colonization would just return severe competition to human or our descendant affairs. And many civilizations may prefer that and ours may prefer that. But if they choose to allow interstellar colonization, they will have chosen to allow competition to return with great force. That is, there's really not much of a way to centrally govern a rapidly expanding sphere of civilization. And so I think one of the most solid things we can predict about Gravelians is they have accepted competition and they have internal competition. And therefore, they have the potential for competition when they meet each other at the borders. But whether that's military competition is more of an open question. So military meaning physically destructive. Right. So there's a lot to say there. So one idea that you kind of proposed is progress might be maximized through competition, through some kind of healthy competition, some definition of healthy. So like constructive, not destructive competition. So like we would likely grab the alien civilizations would be likely defined by competition because they can expand faster because they competition allows innovation and sort of the battle of ideas. The way I would take the logic is to say, you know, competition just happens if you can't coordinate to stop it. And you probably can't coordinate to stop it in an expanding interstellar wave. So competition is a fundamental force in the universe. It has been so far, and it would be within an expanding Gravielian civilization. But we today have the chance, many people think and hope of greatly controlling and limiting competition within our civilization for a while. And that's an interesting choice, whether to allow competition to sort of regain its full force or whether to suppress and manage it. Well, one of the open questions that has been raised in the past less than 100 years is whether our desire to lessen the destructive nature of competition or the destructive kind of competition will be outpaced by the destructive power of our weapons. Sort of if nuclear weapons and weapons of that kind become more destructive than our desire for peace, then all it takes is one asshole at the party to ruin the party. It takes one asshole to make a delay, but not that much of a delay on the cosmological scales we're talking about. So you could still party on. Even a vast nuclear war, if it happened here right now on Earth, it would not kill all humans. Yes. And it certainly wouldn't kill all life. And so human civilization would return within 100,000 years. So all the history of atrocities, and if you look at the Black Plague, which is not human cause atrocities or whatever. There were a lot of military atrocities in history, absolutely. In the 20th century. Those challenges to think about human nature, but the cosmic scale of time and space, they do not stop the human spirit, essentially. The humanity goes on. Through all the atrocities, it goes on. Life goes on. Most likely. So even a nuclear war isn't enough to destroy us or to stop our potential from expanding. But we could institute a regime of global governance that limited competition, including military and business competition of sorts, and that could prevent our expansion. Of course, to play devil's advocate, global governance is centralized power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. One of the aspects of competition that's been very productive is not letting any one person, any one country, any one center of power become absolutely powerful. Because that's another lesson, is it seems to corrupt. There's something about ego and the human mind that seems to be corrupted by power. So when you say global governance, that terrifies me more than the possibility of war, because it's- I think people will be less terrified than you are right now. And let me try to paint the picture from their point of view. This isn't my point of view, but I think it's going to be a widely shared point of view. Yes. This is two devil's advocates arguing. Two devils. Okay. So for the last half century and into the continuing future, we actually have had a strong elite global community that shares a lot of values and beliefs and has created a lot of convergence in global policy. So if you look at electromagnetic spectrum or medical experiments or pandemic policy or nuclear power energy or regulating airplanes or just in a wide range of area, in fact, the world has very similar regulations and rules everywhere. And it's not a coincidence because they are part of a world community where people get together at places like Davos, et cetera, where world elites want to be respected by other world elites and they have a convergence of opinion. And that produces something like global governance, but without a global center. And this is sort of what human mobs or communities have done for a long time. That is, humans can coordinate together on shared behavior without a center by having gossip and reputation within a community of elites. And that is what we have been doing and are likely to do a lot more of. So, for example, you know, one of the things that's happening, say, with the war in Ukraine is that this world community of elites has decided that they disapprove of the Russian invasion and they are coordinating to pull resources together from all around the world in order to oppose it. And they are proud of that, sharing that opinion and their feel that they are morally justified in their stance there. And that's the kind of event that actually brings world elite communities together, where they come together and they push a particular policy and position that they share and that they achieve successes. And the same sort of passion animates global elites with respect to, say, global warming or global poverty and other sorts of things. And they are, in fact, making progress on those sorts of things through shared global community of elites. And in some sense, they are slowly walking toward global governance, slowly strengthening various world institutions of governance, but cautiously, carefully watching out for the possibility of a single power that might corrupt it. I think a lot of people over the coming centuries will look at that history and like it. It's an interesting thought. And thank you for playing that devil's advocate there. But I think the elites too easily lose touch of the morals that the best of human nature and power corrupts. Sure, but- And everything you just said- If their view is the one that determines what happens, their view may still end up there, even if you or I might criticize it from that point of view. From a perspective of minimizing human suffering, elites can use topics of the war in Ukraine and climate change and all of those things to sell an idea to the world. And with disregard to the amount of suffering it causes, their actual actions. So you can tell all kinds of narratives. That's the way propaganda works. Hitler really sold the idea that everything Germany is doing is either it's the victim is defending itself against the cruelty of the world, and it's actually trying to bring out about a better world. So every power center thinks they're doing good. And so this is the positive of competition, of having multiple power centers. This kind of gathering of elites makes me very, very, very nervous. The dinners, the meetings in the closed rooms. I don't know. Another- But remember, we talked about separating our cold analysis of what's likely or possible from what we prefer. And so this isn't exactly enough time for that. We might say, I would recommend we don't go this route of a strong world governance, because I would say it'll preclude this possibility of becoming rabbi aliens, of filling the nearest million galaxies for the next billion years with vast amounts of activity and interest and value of life out there. That's the thing we would lose by deciding that we wouldn't expand, that we would stay here and keep our comfortable shared governance. So you think that global governance makes it more likely or less likely that we expand out into the universe? Less. Okay. So this is the key point. Right. So screw the elites. Right. So if we want to expand- wait, do we want to expand? So again, I want to separate my neutral analysis from my evaluation and say, first of all, I have an analysis that tells us this is a key choice that we will face, and that it's a key choice other aliens have faced out there. And it could be that only one in 10 or one in 100 civilizations chooses to expand, and the rest of them stay quiet. And that's how it goes out there. And we face that choice too. And it'll happen sometime in the next 10 million years, maybe the next thousand. But the key thing to notice from our point of view is that even though you might like our global governance, you might like the fact that we've come together, we no longer have massive wars, and we no longer have destructive competition, and that we could continue that. The cost of continuing that would be to prevent interstellar colonization. That is, once you allow interstellar colonization, then you've lost control of those colonies, and whatever they change into, they could come back here and compete with you back here as a result of having lost control. And I think if people value that global governance and global community and regulation and all the things it can do enough, they would then want to prevent interstellar colonization. I want to have a conversation with those people. I believe that both for humanity, for the good of humanity, for what I believe is good in humanity, and for expansion, exploration, innovation, distributing the centers of power is very beneficial. So this whole meeting of elites, and I've been very fortunate to meet quite a large number of elites. They make me nervous, because it's easy to lose touch of reality. I'm nervous about that in myself, to make sure that you never lose touch as you get sort of older, wiser, you know how you generally get disrespectful of kids, kids these days. No, the kids are, their culture is beautiful. Okay, but I think we should hear a stronger case for their position, so I'm gonna play that one. For the elites. Yes, well, for the limiting of expansion and for the regulation of behavior. So just, okay, can I linger on that? Sure. So you're saying those two are connected. So the human civilization and alien civilizations come to a crossroads. They have to decide, do we want to expand or not? And connected to that, do we want to give a lot of power to a central elite, or do we want to distribute the power centers, which is naturally connected to the expansion? When you expand, you distribute the power. If say, over the next thousand years, we fill up the solar system, right? We go out from Earth and we colonize Mars and we change a lot of things. Within a solar system, still, everything is within reach. That is, if there's a rebellious colony around Neptune, you can throw rocks at it and smash it and teach them discipline, okay? How'd that work for the British? Central control over the solar system is feasible. But once you let it escape the solar system, it's no longer feasible. But if you have a solar system that doesn't have a central control, maybe broken into a thousand different political units in the solar system, then any one part of that that allows interstellar colonization, and it happens. That is, interstellar colonization happens when only one party chooses to do it and is able to do it. And that's what it's there for. So we can just say, in a world of competition, if interstellar colonization is possible, it will happen and then competition will continue. And that will sort of ensure the continuation of competition into the indefinite future. And competition, we don't know. But competition could take violent forms or productive forms. And the case I was going to make is that I think one of the things that most scares people about competition is not just that it creates holocausts and death on massive scales, is that it's likely to change who we are and what we value. Yes. So this is the other thing with power. As we grow, as human civilization grows, becomes multi-planetary, multi-solar system potentially, how does that change us, do you think? I think the more you think about it, the more you realize it can change us a lot. So first of all, I would say- This is pretty dark, by the way. Well, it's pretty dark. Let's just be honest. Right. Well, I'm trying to get you there. But I think the first thing you should say, if you look at history, just human history over the last 10,000 years, if you really understood what people were like a long time ago, you'd realize they were really quite different. Ancient cultures created people who were really quite different. Most historical fiction lies to you about that. It often offers you modern characters in an ancient world. But if you actually study history, you will see just how different they were and how differently they thought. And they've changed a lot, many times, and they've changed a lot across time. So I think the most obvious prediction about the future is, even if you only have the mechanisms of change we've seen in the past, you should still expect a lot of change in the future. But we have a lot bigger mechanisms for change in the future than we had in the past. So I have this book called The Age of M, Work, Love, and Life, and Robots Rule the Earth. And it's about what happens if brain emulations become possible. So a brain emulation is where you take an actual human brain and you scan it in fine spatial and chemical detail to create a computer simulation of that brain. And then those computer simulations of brains are basically citizens in a new world. They work and they vote and they fall in love and they get mad and they lie to each other. And this is a whole new world. And my book is about analyzing how that world is different than our world, basically using competition as my key lever of analysis. That is, if that world remains competitive, then I can figure out how they change in that world, what they do differently than we do. And it's very different. And it's different in ways that are shocking sometimes to many people, and ways some people don't like. I think it's an okay world, but I have to admit, it's quite different. And that's just one technology. If we add, you know, dozens more technologies, changes into the future, you know, we should just expect it's possible to become very different than who we are. I mean, in the space of all possible minds, our minds are a particular architecture, a particular structure, a particular set of habits, and they are only, you know, one piece in a vast space of possibilities. The space of possible minds is really huge. So, yeah, let's linger on the space of possible minds for a moment, just to sort of humble ourselves. How peculiar our peculiarities are. Like the fact that we like a particular kind of sex, and the fact that we eat food through one hole, and poop through another hole, and that seems to be a fundamental aspect of life, is very important to us. And that life is finite in a certain kind of way. We have a meat vehicle. So death is very important to us. I wonder which aspects are fundamental, or would be common throughout human history, and also throughout, sorry, throughout history of life on Earth, and throughout other kinds of lives. Like what is really useful? You mentioned competition, seems to be one fundamental thing. So I've tried to do analysis of where our distant descendants might go, in terms of what are robust features we could predict about our descendants. So again, I have this analysis of sort of the next generation, so the next era after ours. If you think of human history as having three eras so far, right? There was the forager era, the farmer era, and the industry era. Then my attempt in Age of M is to analyze the next era after that. And it's very different, but of course there could be more and more eras after that. So analyzing a particular scenario and thinking it through is one way to try to see how different the future could be, but that doesn't give you some sort of sense of what's typical. But I have tried to analyze what's typical, and so I have two predictions I think I can make pretty solidly. One thing is that we know at the moment that humans discount the future rapidly. So we discount the future in terms of caring about consequences, roughly a factor of two per generation. And there's a solid evolutionary analysis why sexual creatures would do that, because basically your descendants only share half of your genes, and your descendants are a generation away. So we only care about our grandchildren. Basically that's a factor of four later, because it's later. So this actually explains typical interest rates in the economy, that is, interest rates are greatly influenced by our discount rates, and we basically discount the future by a factor of two per generation. But that's a side effect of the way our preferences evolved as sexually selected creatures. We should expect that in the longer run, creatures will evolve who don't discount the future. They will care about the long run, and they will therefore not neglect the long run. So for example, for things like global warming or things like that, at the moment many commenters are sad that basically ordinary people don't seem to care much, market prices don't seem to care much, and for ordinary people it doesn't really impact them much, because humans don't care much about the long-term future. Futurists find it hard to motivate people and to engage people about the long-term future, because they just don't care that much. But that's a side effect of this particular way that our preferences evolved about the future, and so in the future they will neglect the future less. And that's an interesting thing that we can predict robustly. Eventually, maybe a few centuries, maybe longer, eventually our descendants will care about the future. Can you speak to the intuition behind that? Is it useful to think more about the future? Right. If evolution rewards creatures for having many descendants, then if you have decisions that influence how many descendants you have, then that would be good if you made those decisions, but in order to do that you'll have to care about them. You'll have to care about that future. To push back, that's if you're trying to maximize the number of descendants. But the nice thing about not caring too much about the long-term future is you're more likely to take big risks, or you're less risk-averse. And it's possible that both evolution and just life in the universe rewards the risk-takers. Well, we actually have analysis of the ideal risk preferences, too. So there's literature on ideal preferences that evolution should promote. And for example, there's literature on competing investment funds and what the managers of those funds should care about in terms of risk, various kinds of risks, and in terms of discounting. And so managers of investment funds should basically have logarithmic risk, i.e., in shared risk, in correlated risk, but be very risk-neutral with respect to uncorrelated risk. So that's a feature that's predicted to happen about individual personal choices in biology and also for investment funds. So that's also something we can say about the long run. What's correlated and uncorrelated risk? If there's something that would affect all of your descendants, then if you take that risk, you might have more descendants, but you might have zero. And that's just really bad to have zero descendants. But an uncorrelated risk would be a risk that some of your descendants would suffer, but others wouldn't. And then you have a portfolio of descendants, and so that portfolio ensures you against problems with any one of them. LUIS So I like the idea of portfolio of descendants. And we'll talk about portfolios with your idea of, you briefly mentioned, we'll return there with M, E-M, the age of E-M, work, love, and life when robots rule the earth. E-M, by the way, is emulated minds. So this, one of the— M is short for emulations. M is short for emulations, and it's kind of an idea of how we might create artificial minds, artificial copies of minds, or human-like intelligences. I have another dramatic prediction I can make about long-term preferences. Yes. Which is, at the moment, we reproduce as the result of a hodgepodge of preferences that aren't very well integrated, but sort of in our ancestral environment, induce us to reproduce. So we have preferences over being sleepy and hungry and thirsty and wanting to have sex and wanting to be excited, excitement, et cetera, right? And so in our ancestral environment, the packages of preferences that we evolved to have did induce us to have more descendants. That's why we're here. But those packages of preferences are not a robust way to promote having more descendants. They were tied to our ancestral environment, which is no longer true. So that's one of the reasons we are now having a big fertility decline, because in our current environment, our ancestral preferences are not inducing us to have a lot of kids, which is, from evolution's point of view, a big mistake. We can predict that in the longer run, there will arise creatures who just abstractly know that what they want is more descendants. That's a very robust way to have more descendants, is to have that as your direct preference. First of all, your thinking is so clear. I love it. So mathematical, and thank you for thinking so clear with me and bearing with my interruptions and going on the tangents when we go there. So you're just clearly saying that successful long-term civilizations will prefer to have descendants, more descendants. Not just prefer, consciously and abstractly prefer. That is, it won't be the indirect consequence of other preference. It will just be the thing they know they want. There will be a president in the future that says, we must have more sex. We must have more descendants and do whatever it takes to do that. We must go to the moon and do the other things. Not because they're easy, but because they're hard. But instead of the moon, let's have lots of sex. But there's a lot of ways to have descendants, right? Right. So that's the whole point. As the world gets more complicated and there are many possible strategies, it's having that as your abstract preference that will force you to think through those possibilities and pick the one that's most effective. So just to clarify, descendants doesn't necessarily mean the narrow definition of descendants, meaning humans having sex and then having babies. Exactly. You can have artificial intelligence systems that, in whom you instill some capability of cognition and perhaps even consciousness. You can also create through genetics and biology clones of yourself or slightly modified clones, thousands of them. So all kinds of descendants. It could be descendants in the space of ideas too, for somehow we no longer exist in this meat vehicle. It's now just like whatever the definition of a life form is, you have descendants of those life forms. Yes, and they will be thoughtful about that. They will have thought about what counts as a descendant and that'll be important to them to have the right concept. So the they there is very interesting, who the they are. Right. But the key thing is we're making predictions that I think are somewhat robust about what our distant descendants will be like. Another thing I think you would automatically accept is they will almost entirely be artificial. And I think that would be the obvious prediction about any aliens we would meet. That is, they would long since have given up reproducing biologically. Well, it's all, it's like organic or something. It's all real. It might be squishy and made out of hydrocarbons, but it would be artificial in the sense of made in factories with designs on CAD things, right? Factories with scale economies. So the factories we have made on earth today have much larger scale economies than the factories in ourselves. So the factories in ourselves are, there are marvels, but they don't achieve very many scale economies. They're tiny little factories. But they're all factories. Yes. Factories on top of factories. So everything, the factories on top of the- Factories that are designed is different than sort of the factories that have evolved. I think the nature of the word design is very interesting to uncover there. But let me, in terms of aliens, let me go, let me analyze your Twitter like it's Shakespeare. Okay. There's a tweet that says, define hello, in quotes, alien civilizations as one that might in the next million years identify humans as intelligent and civilized, travel to earth and say hello by making their presence and advanced abilities known to us. The next 15 polls, this is a Twitter thread. The next 15 polls ask about such hello aliens. And what these polls ask is your Twitter followers, what they think those aliens will be like certain particular qualities. So poll number one is what percent of hello aliens evolved from biological species with two main genders? And you know, the popular vote is above 80%. So most of them have two genders. What do you think about that? I'll ask you about some of these because they're so interesting. It's such an interesting question. It is a fun set of questions. Yes, a fun set of questions. So the genders as we look through evolutionary history, what's the usefulness of that as opposed to having just one or like millions? So there's a question in evolution of life on earth. There are very few species that have more than two genders. There are some, but there aren't very many. But there's an enormous number of species that do have two genders, much more than one. And so there's a literature on why did multiple genders evolve? And that's sort of what's the point of having males and females versus hermaphrodites? So most plants are hermaphrodites. That is, they would mate male, female, but each plant can be either role. And then most animals have chosen to split into males and females. And then they're differentiating the two genders. And there's an interesting set of questions about why that happens. Because you can do selection. You basically have like one gender competes for the affection of other and there's sexual partnership that creates the offspring. So there's sexual selection. It's nice to have like a, to a party, it's nice to have dance partners. And then you get, each one gets to choose based on certain characteristics. And that's an efficient mechanism for adapting to the environment, being successfully adapted to the environment. It does look like there's an advantage in, if you have males, then the males can take higher variance. And so there can be stronger selection among the males in terms of weeding out genetic mutations because the males have higher variance in their mating success. Sure. Okay. Question number two, what percent of hello aliens evolved from land animals as opposed to plants or ocean slash air organisms? By the way, I did recently see that there's only 10% of species on earth are in the ocean. So there's a lot more variety on land. There is. It's interesting. So why is that? I can't even, I can't even intuit exactly why that would be. Maybe survival on land is harder. And so you get a lot more- The story that I understand is it's about small niches. So speciation can be promoted by having multiple different species. So in the ocean, species are larger. That is, there are more creatures in each species because the ocean environments don't vary as much. So if you're good in one place, you're good in many other places. But on land, and especially in rivers, rivers contain an enormous percentage of the kinds of species on land, you see, because they vary so much from place to place. And so a species can be good in one place and then other species can't really compete because they came from a different place where things are different. So it's a remarkable fact, actually, that speciation promotes evolution in the long run. So evolution has happened on land because there have been more species on land, because each species has been smaller. And that's actually a warning about something called rot that I've thought a lot about, which is one of the problems with even a world government, which is large systems of software today just consistently rot and decay with time and have to be replaced. And that plausibly also is a problem for other large systems, including biological systems, legal systems, regulatory systems. And it seems like large species actually don't evolve as effectively as small ones do. And that's an important thing to notice about that. And that's actually different from ordinary sort of evolution in economies on earth in the last few centuries, say. On earth, the more technical evolution and economic growth happens in larger integrated cities and nations. But in biology, it's the other way around. More evolution happened in the fragmented species. Yeah, it's such a nuanced discussion because you can also push back in terms of nations and at least companies. It's like large companies seem to evolve less effectively. There is something that, you know, they have more resources, more, they don't even have better resilience. And when you look at the scale of decades and centuries, it seems like a lot of large companies die. But still large economies do better. Like large cities grow better than small cities. Large integrated economies like the United States or the European Union do better than small fragmented ones. So yeah, sure. That's a very interesting long discussion. But so most of the people, and obviously votes on Twitter represent the absolute objective truth of things. So most, but an interesting question about oceans is that, okay, remember I told you about how most planets would last for trillions of years and then be later, right? So people have tried to explain why life appeared on Earth by saying, oh, all those planets are going to be unqualified for life because of various problems. That is, they're around smaller stars, which last longer and smaller stars have some things like more solar flares, maybe more tidal locking. But almost all of these problems with longer lived planets aren't problems for ocean worlds. And a large fraction of planets out there are ocean worlds. So if life can appear on an ocean world, then that pretty much ensures that these planets that last a very long time could have advanced life because most, there's a huge fraction of ocean worlds. So that's actually an open question. So when you say, sorry, when you say life appear, you're kind of saying life and intelligent life. So that's an open question, is land, and that's I suppose the question behind the Twitter poll, which is a grabby alien civilization that comes to say hello. What's the chance that they first began their early steps, the difficult steps they took on land? What do you think? 80%, most people on Twitter think it's very likely on land. What do you think? I think people are discounting ocean worlds too much. That is, I think people tend to assume that whatever we did must be the only way it's possible and I think people aren't giving enough credit for other possible paths. Dolphins, Waterworld, by the way, people criticize that movie. I love that movie. Kevin Costner can do me no wrong. Okay, next question. What percent of hello aliens once had a nuclear war with greater than 10 nukes fired in anger? So not in incompetence and as an accident. Intentional firing of nukes and less than 20% was the most popular vote. That just seems wrong to me. So like, I wonder what, so most people think once you get nukes, we're not gonna fire them. They believe in the power of the game. I think they're assuming that if you had a nuclear war, then that would just end civilization for good. I think that's the thinking. That's the main thing. Right, and I think that's just wrong. I think you could rise again after a nuclear war. It might take 10,000 years or 100,000 years, but it could rise again. So what do you think about mutually assured destruction as a force to prevent people from firing nuclear weapons? That's a question that I knew to a terrifying degree has been raised now and what's going on. I mean, clearly it has had an effect. The question is just how strong an effect for how long? I mean, clearly we have not gone wild with nuclear war and clearly the devastation that you would get if you initiated a nuclear war is part of the reasons people have been reluctant to start a war. The question is just how reliably will that ensure the absence of a war? Yeah, the night is still young. Exactly. This has been 70 years or whatever it's been. I mean, but what do you think? Do you think we'll see nuclear war in the century? I don't know if in the century, but it's the sort of thing that's likely to happen eventually. That's a very loose statement. Okay, I understand. Now this is where I pull you out of your mathematical model and ask a human question. Do you think this particular human question- I think we've been lucky that it hasn't happened so far. But what is the nature of nuclear war? Let's think about this. There's dictators, there's democracies, miscommunication. How do wars start? World War I, World War II. So the biggest datum here is that we've had an enormous decline in major war over the last century. So that has to be taken into account. So the problem is, war is a process that has a very long tail. That is, there are rare, very large wars. So the average war is much worse than the median war because of this long tail. And that makes it hard to identify trends over time. So the median war has clearly gone way down in the last century, that a median rate of war. But it could be that's because the tail has gotten thicker, and in fact, the average war is just as bad, but most wars are going to be big wars. So that's the thing we're not so sure about. There's no strong data on wars with one, because of the destructive nature of the weapons, kill hundreds of millions of people. There's no data on this. So but we can start intuiting. But we can see that the power law, we can do a power law fit to the rate of wars, and it's a power law with a thick tail. So it's one of those things that you should expect most of the damage to be in the few biggest ones. So that's also true for pandemics and a few other things. For pandemics, most of the damage is in the few biggest ones. So the median pandemics of ours less than the average that you should expect in the future. But those that fitting of data is very questionable, because everything you said is correct. The question is like, what can we infer about the future of civilization, threatening pandemics or nuclear war from studying the history of the 20th century? So like, you can't just fit it to the data, the rate of wars and the destructive nature of war. Like that's not how nuclear war will happen. Nuclear war happens with two assholes or idiots that have access to a button. Small wars happen that way too. No, I understand that. But that's, it's very important. Small wars aside, it's very important to understand the dynamics, the human dynamics, and the geopolitics of the way nuclear war happens in order to predict how we can minimize the chance of... It is a common and useful intellectual strategy to take something that could be really big or, but is often very small and fit the distribution of the data, small things, which you have a lot of them and then ask, do I believe the big things are really that different? Right. I see. So sometimes it's reasonable to say like, say with tornadoes or even pandemics or something, the underlying process might not be that different. But that's a high positive. It might not be. The fact that mutual short destruction seems to work to some degree shows you that to some degree is different than the small wars. So it's a really important question to understand is, are humans capable, one human, like how many humans on earth, if I give them a button now, say you pressing this button will kill everyone on earth, everyone, right? How many humans will press that button? I want to know those numbers, like day to day, minute to minute, how many people have that much irresponsibility, evil, incompetence, ignorance, whatever word you want to assign, there's a lot of dynamics in the psychology that leads you to press that button, but how many? My intuition is the number, the more destructive that press of a button, the fewer humans you find and that number gets very close to zero very quickly, especially people have access to such a button. But that's perhaps a hope than a reality. And unfortunately we don't have good data on this, which is like how destructive are humans willing to be? So I think part of this just has to think about asking what your timescales you're looking at, right? So if you say, if you look at the history of war, we've had a lot of wars pretty consistently over many centuries. So if you ask, will we have a nuclear war in the next 50 years? I might say, well, probably not. If I say 500 or 5,000 years, like if the same sort of risks are underlying and they just continue, then you have to add that up over time and think the risk is getting a lot larger the longer a timescale we're looking at. But okay, let's generalize nuclear war because what I was more referring to is something that kills more than 20% of humans on earth and injures or makes the other 80% suffer horribly, survive but suffer. That's what I was referring to. So when you look at 500 years from now, that might not be nuclear war, that might be something else. That's that kind of has that destructive effect. And I don't know, these feel like novel questions in the history of humanity. I just don't know. I think since nuclear weapons, this has been engineering pandemics, for example, robotics, so nanobots. It just seems like a real new possibility that we have to contend with it, we don't have good models or from my perspective. So if you look on say the last thousand years or 10,000 years, we could say we've seen a certain rate at which people are willing to make big destruction in terms of war. And if you're willing to project that data forward, that I think like if you want to ask over periods of thousands or tens of thousands of years, you would have a reasonable data set. So the key question is what's changed lately? And so a big question of which I've given a lot of thought to what are the major changes that seem to have happened in culture and human attitudes over the last few centuries and what's our best explanation for those so that we can project them forward into the future. And I have a story about that, which is the story that we have been drifting back toward forager attitudes in the last few centuries as we get rich. So the idea is we spent a million years being a forager and that was a very sort of standard lifestyle that we know a lot about. Foragers live in small bands, they make decisions cooperatively, they share food, they don't have much property, et cetera. And humans like that. And then 10,000 years ago, farming became possible, but it was only possible because we were plastic enough to really change our culture. Farming styles and cultures are very different. They have slavery, they have war, they have property, they have inequality, they have kings, they stay in one place instead of wandering, they don't have as much diversity of experience or food, they have more disease. Farming life is just very different. But humans were able to sort of introduce conformity and religion and all sorts of things to become just a very different kind of creature as farmers. Farmers are just really different than foragers in terms of their values and their lives. But the pressures that made foragers into farmers were a part mediated by poverty. Farmers are poor and if they deviated from the farming norms that people around them supported they were quite at risk of starving to death. And then in the last few centuries, we've gotten rich. And as we've gotten rich, the social pressures that turned foragers into farmers have become less persuasive to us. So for example, a farming young woman who was told, if you have a child out of wedlock, you and your child may starve, that was a credible threat. She would see actual examples around her to make that a believable threat. Today, if you say to a young woman, you shouldn't have a child out of wedlock, she will see other young women around her doing okay that way. We're all rich enough to be able to afford that sort of a thing. And therefore, she's more inclined often to go with her inclinations, her sort of more natural inclinations about such things rather than to be pressured to follow the official farming norms of that you shouldn't do that sort of thing. And all through our lives, we have been drifting back toward forager attitudes because we've been getting rich. And so aside from at work, which is an exception, but elsewhere, I think this explains trends toward less slavery, more democracy, less religion, less fertility, more promiscuity, more travel, more art, more leisure, fewer work hours. All of these trends are basically explained by becoming more forager-like. And much science fiction celebrates this. Star Trek or the culture novels, people like this image that we are moving toward this world where basically like foragers, we're peaceful, we share, we make decisions collectively, we have a lot of free time, we are into art. So forager is a word and it's a loaded word because it's connected to what life was actually like at that time. As you mentioned, we sometimes don't do a good job of telling accurately what life was like back then. But you're saying if it's not exactly like foragers, it rhymes in some fundamental way. You also said peaceful. Is it obvious that a forager with a nuclear weapon would be peaceful? I don't know if that's 100% obvious. So we know, again, we know a fair bit about what foragers' lives were like. The main sort of violence they had would be sexual jealousy. They were relatively promiscuous and so there'd be a lot of jealousy. But they did not have organized wars with each other. That is, they were at peace with their neighboring forager bands. They didn't have property in land or even in people. They didn't really have marriage. And so they were, in fact, peaceful. When you think about large-scale wars, they don't start large-scale wars. They didn't have coordinated large-scale wars in the way chimpanzees do. Now chimpanzees do have wars between one tribe of chimpanzees and others, but human foragers do not. Farmers returned to that, of course, the more chimpanzee-like styles. Well, that's a hopeful message. If we could return real quick to the Hello Aliens Twitter thread, one of them is really interesting about language. What percent of Hello Aliens would be able to talk to us in our language? This is the question of communication. It actually gets to the nature of language. It also gets to the nature of how advanced you expect them to be. So I think some people see that we have advanced over the last thousands of years, and we aren't reaching any sort of limit. And so they tend to assume it could go on forever. And I actually tend to think that within, say, 10 million years, we will sort of max out on technology. We'll sort of learn everything that's feasible to know, for the most part. And then obstacles to understanding would more be about cultural differences, like ways in which different places have just chosen to do things differently. And so then the question is, is it even possible to communicate across some cultural distances? And I might think, yeah, I could imagine some maybe advanced aliens who have just become so weird and different from each other, they can't communicate with each other. But we're probably pretty simple compared to them. So I would think, sure, if they wanted to, they could communicate with us. So it's the simplicity of the recipient. I tend to just to push back. Let's explore the possibility where that's not the case. Can we communicate with ants? I find that this idea that we're not very good at communicating in general. Oh, you're saying, all right, I see. You're saying once you get orders of magnitude better at communicating. Unless they had maxed out on all communication technology in general, and they just understood in general how to communicate with lots of things, and had done that for millions of years. But you have to be able to, this is so interesting, as somebody who cares a lot about empathy and imagining how other people feel, communication requires empathy, meaning you have to truly understand how the other person, the other organism sees the world. It's like a four-dimensional species talking to two-dimensional species. It's not as trivial as, to me at least, as it might at first seem. So let me reverse my position a little, because I'll say, well, the hello aliens question really combines two different scenarios that we're slipping over. So one scenario would be that the hello aliens would be like grabby aliens. They would be just fully advanced. They would have been expanding for millions of years. They would have a very advanced civilization. And then they would finally be arriving here after a billion years, perhaps, of expanding, in which case they're going to be crazy advanced at some maximum level. But the hello aliens about aliens we might meet soon, which might be sort of UFO aliens, and UFO aliens probably are not grabby aliens. How do you get here if you're not a grabby alien? Well, they would have to be able to travel. So they would not be expansive. So the road trip doesn't count as grabby. So we're talking about expanding the comfortable colony. The question is, if UFOs, some of them are aliens, what kind of aliens would they be? This is sort of the key question you have to ask in order to try to interpret that scenario. The key fact we would know is that they are here right now, but the universe around us is not full of an alien civilization. So that says right off the bat that they chose not to allow massive expansion of a grabby civilization. Is it possible that they chose it, but we just don't see them yet? These are the stragglers, the journeymen, the... So the timing coincidence is, it's almost surely if they are here now, they are much older than us. They are many millions of years older than us. And so they could have filled the galaxy in that last millions of years if they had wanted to. That is, they couldn't just be right at the edge. Very unlikely. Most likely they would have been around waiting for us for a long time. They could have come here anytime in the last millions of years, and they just chose... They've been waiting around for this, or they just chose to come recently. But the timing coincidence, it would be crazy unlikely that they just happened to be able to get here, say, in the last hundred years. They would no doubt have been able to get here far earlier than that. Again, we don't know. So this is a fringe like UFO sightings on Earth. We don't know if this kind of increase in sightings have anything to do with actual visitations. I'm just talking about the timing. They arose at some point in space time. And it's very unlikely that that was just at a point that they could just barely get here recently. Almost surely they could have gotten here much earlier. And well, throughout the stretch of several billion years that Earth existed, they could have been here often. Exactly. So they could have therefore filled the galaxy long time ago if they had wanted to. Let's push back on that. The question to me is, isn't it possible that the expansion of a civilization is much harder than the travel? The sphere of the reachable is different than the sphere of the colonized. So isn't it possible that the sphere of places where the stragglers go, the different people that journey out, the explorers, is much, much larger and grows much faster than the civilization? So in which case they would visit us. There's a lot of visitors, the grad students of the civilization. They're exploring, they're collecting the data, but we're not yet going to see them. By yet, I mean across millions of years. The time delay between when the first thing might arrive and then when colonists could arrive in mass and do a mass amount of work is cosmologically short. In human history, of course, sure, there might be a century between that, but a century is just a tiny amount of time on the scales we're talking about. So this is, in computer science, ant colony optimization. It's true for ants. So it's like when the first ant shows up, it's likely, and if there's anything of value, it's likely the other ants will follow quickly. Yeah. Relatively short. It's also true that traveling over very long distances, probably one of the main ways to make that feasible is that you land somewhere, you colonize a bit, you create new resources that can then allow you to go farther. Many short hops as opposed to a giant long journey. But those hops require that you are able to start a colonization of sorts along those hops, right? You have to be able to stop somewhere, make it into a way station such that you can then support you moving farther. So what do you think of, there's been a lot of UFO sightings, what do you think about those UFO sightings and what do you think if any of them are of extraterrestrial origin and we don't see giant civilizations out in the sky, how do you make sense of that then? I want to do some clearing of throats, which is what people like to do on this topic, right? They want to make sure you understand they're saying this and not that, right? So I would say the analysis needs both a prior and a likelihood. So the prior is, what are the scenarios that are at all plausible in terms of what we know about the universe and then the likelihood is the particular actual sightings, like how hard are those to explain through various means. I will establish myself as somewhat of an expert on the prior. I would say my studies and the things I've studied make me an expert and I should stand up and have an opinion on that and be able to explain it. The likelihood, however, is not my area of expertise. That is, I'm not a pilot, I don't do atmospheric studies of things I haven't studied in detail, the various kinds of atmospheric phenomena or whatever that might be used to explain the particular sightings. I can just say from my amateur stance, the sightings look damn puzzling. They do not look easy to dismiss. The attempts I've seen to easily dismiss them seem to me to fail. It seems like these are pretty puzzling, weird stuff that deserve an expert's attention in terms of considering asking what the likelihood is. So analogy I would make is a murder trial, okay? On average, if we say what's the chance any one person murdered another person as a prior probability, maybe one in a thousand people get murdered, maybe each person has a thousand people around them who could plausibly have done it. So the prior probability of a murder is one in a million. But we allow murder trials because often evidence is sufficient to overcome a one in a million prior because the evidence is often strong enough, right? My rough guess for the UFOs as aliens scenario, at least some of them, is the prior is roughly one in a thousand, much higher than the usual murder trial, plenty high enough that strong physical evidence could put you over the top to think it's more likely than not. But I'm not an expert on that physical evidence. I'm going to leave that part to someone else. I'm going to say the prior is pretty high. This isn't a crazy scenario. So then I can elaborate on where my prior comes from. What scenario could make most sense of this data? My scenario to make sense has two main parts. First is panspermia siblings. So panspermia is the hypothesized process by which life might have arrived on Earth from elsewhere. And a plausible time for that, I mean, it would have to happen very early in Earth's history because we see life early in history. And a plausible time could have been during the stellar nursery where the sun was born with many other stars in the same close proximity with lots of rocks flying around, able to move things from one place to another. If a rock with life on it from some rock with planet with life came into that stellar nursery, it plausibly could have seeded many planets in that stellar nursery all at the same time. They're all born at the same time in the same place, pretty close to each other, lots of rocks flying around. So a panspermia scenario would then create siblings, i.e. there would be, say, a few thousand other planets out there. So after the nursery forms, it drifts, it separates, they drift apart. And so out there in the galaxy, there would now be a bunch of other stars all formed at the same time, and we can actually spot them in terms of their spectrum. And they would have then started on the same path of life as we did with that life being seeded, but they would move at different rates. And most likely, most of them would never reach an advanced level before the deadline, but maybe one other did, and maybe it did before us. So if they did, they could know all of this, and they could go searching for their siblings. That is, they could look in the sky for the other stars that match the spectrum that matches the spectrum that came from this nursery. They could identify their sibling stars in the galaxy, the thousand of them, and those would be of special interest to them, because they would think, well, life might be on those. And they could go looking for them. Can we just, such a brilliant mathematical, philosophical, physical, biological idea of panspermia siblings, because we all started at a similar time in this local pocket of the universe. And so that changes a lot of the math. And so that would make, create this correlation between when advanced life might appear. No longer just random independent spaces in space-time. There'd be this cluster, perhaps. And that allows interaction between elements of the cluster, yes. Some grabby alien civilizations, like kind of primitive alien civilizations like us with others, and they might be a little bit ahead. That's so fascinating. They would probably be a lot ahead. So the puzzle is, if they happen before us, they probably happened hundreds of millions of years before us. But less than a billion. Less than a billion, but still plenty of time that they could have become grabby and filled the galaxy and gone beyond. So there'd be plenty, so the fact is they chose not to become grabby. That would have to be the interpretation. If we have panspermia siblings- Plenty of time to become grabby, you said. So they should be fine. Yes, they had plenty of time and they chose not to. Are we sure about this? So again, a hundred million years is enough? A hundred million, so I told you before that I said within 10 million years, our descendants will become grabby or not. And they'll have that choice, okay. And so they clearly more than 10 million years earlier than us, so they chose not to. But still go on vacation, look around, just not grabby. If they chose not to expand, that's going to have to be a rule they set to not allow any part of themselves to do it. If they let any little ship fly away with the ability to create a colony, the game's over. Then they have prevented, then the universe becomes grabby from their origin with this one colony, right? So in order to prevent their civilization being grabby, they have to have a rule they enforce pretty strongly that no part of them can ever try to do that. Through a global authoritarian regime or through something that's internal to them, meaning it's part of the nature of life that it doesn't want, as like a political officer in the brain or whatever. Yes, there's something in human nature that prevents you from what, or like alien nature that as you get more advanced, you become lazier and lazier in terms of exploration and expansion. So I would say they would have to have enforced a rule against expanding, and that rule would probably make them reluctant to let people leave very far. Any one vacation trip far away could risk an expansion from this vacation trip. So they would probably have a pretty tight lid on just allowing any travel out from their origin in order to enforce this rule. But then we also know, well, they would have chosen to come here. So clearly they made an exception from their general rule to say, okay, but an expedition to Earth, that should be allowed. It could be intentional exception or incompetent exception. But if incompetent, then they couldn't maintain this over a hundred million years, this policy of not allowing any expansion. So we have to see they have successfully, they not just had a policy to try, they succeeded over a hundred million years in preventing the expansion. That's a substantial competence. Let me think about this. You don't think there could be a barrier in a hundred million years, you don't think there could be a barrier to like technological barrier to becoming expansionary? Imagine the Europeans that tried to prevent anybody from leaving Europe to go to the new world. And imagine what it would have taken to make that happen over a hundred million years. Yeah, it's impossible. They would have to have very strict, you know, guards at the borders saying, no, you can't go. But just to clarify, you're not suggesting that's actually possible. I am suggesting it's possible. I don't know how you keep, in my silly human brain, maybe it's a brain that values freedom, but I don't know how you can keep, no matter how much force, no matter how much censorship or control or so on, I just don't know how you can keep people from exploring into the mysterious into the unknown. You're thinking of people, we're talking aliens. So remember, there's a vast space of different possible social creatures they could have evolved from, different kinds of cultures they could be in, different kinds of threats. I mean, there are many things, as you talked about, that most of us would feel very reluctant to do. Yes. This isn't one of those, but. How, if the UFO sightings represent alien visitors, how the heck are they getting here under the Panspermia siblings? So Panspermia siblings is one part of the scenario, which is that's where they came from. And from that, we can conclude they had this rule against expansion and they've successfully enforced that. That also creates a plausible agenda for why they would be here, that is to enforce that rule on us. That is, if we go out and expanding, then we have defeated the purpose of this rule they set up. Interesting. Right? So they would be here to convince us to not expand. Convince in quotes. Right? Through various mechanisms. So obviously one thing we conclude is they didn't just destroy us. That would have been completely possible, right? So the fact that they're here and we are not destroyed means that they chose not to destroy us. They have some degree of empathy or whatever their morals are that would make them reluctant to just destroy us. They would rather persuade us. Destroy their brethren. And so they may have been, there's a difference between arrival and observation. They may have been observing for a very long time. And they arrived to try to, not to try, I don't think to try, to ensure that we don't become grabby. Which is because we can see that they did not, they must have enforced a ruling against that. And they are therefore here to, that's a plausible interpretation. Why they would risk this expedition when they clearly don't risk very many expeditions over this long period. To allow this one exception because otherwise if they don't, we may become grabby. And they could have just destroyed us but they didn't. And they're closely monitoring the technological advancing of civilization. Like what nuclear weapons is one thing, alright cool. That might have less to do with nuclear weapons and more with nuclear energy. Maybe they're monitoring fusion closely. Like how clever are these apes getting? So no doubt they have a button that if we get too uppity or risky they can push the button and ensure that we don't expand. But they'd rather do it some other way. So now that explains why they're here and why they aren't out there. There's another thing that we need to explain. There's another key data we need to explain about UFOs if we're gonna have a hypothesis that explains them. And this is something many people have noticed. Which is they had two extreme options they could have chosen and didn't choose. They could have either just remained completely invisible. Clearly an advanced civilization could have been completely invisible. There's no reason they need to fly around and be noticed. They could just be in orbit in dark satellites that are completely invisible to us watching whatever they want to watch. That would be well within their abilities. That's one thing they could have done. The other thing they could do is just show up and land on the White House lawn as they say and shake hands. Like make themselves really obvious. They could have done either of those and they didn't do either of those. That's the next thing you need to explain about UFOs as aliens. Why would they take this intermediate approach, hanging out near the edge of visibility with somewhat impressive mechanisms but not walking up and introducing themselves nor just being completely invisible. So, okay, a lot of questions there. So one, do you think it's obvious where the White House is or the White House lawn? Well, it's obvious where there are concentrations of humans that you could go up and introduce. But is humans the most interesting thing about Earth? Yeah. Are you sure about this? Because if they're worried about an expansion, then they would be worried about a civilization that could be capable of expansion. Obviously humans are the civilization on Earth that's by far the closest to being able to expand. I just don't know if aliens obviously see humans, like the individual humans, like the organ of the meat vehicles as the center of focus for observing a life on a planet. They're supposed to be really smart and advanced. Like this shouldn't be that hard for them. But I think we're actually the dumb ones because we think humans are the important things. But it could be our ideas. It could be something about our technologies. That's mediated with us. It's correlated with us. No, we make it seem like it's mediated by us humans. But the focus for alien civilizations might be the AI systems or the technologies themselves. That might be the organism. Humans are like, human is the food, the source of the organism that's under observation versus like... So what they wanted to have close contact with was something that was closely near humans, then they would be contacting those. And we would just incidentally see, but we would still see. But don't you think that isn't it possible, taking their perspective, isn't it possible that they would want to interact with some fundamental aspect that they're interested in without interfering with it? And that's actually a very... No matter how advanced you are, it's very difficult to do. But that's puzzling. So I mean, the prototypical UFO observation is a shiny, big object in the sky that has very rapid acceleration and no apparent surfaces for using air to manipulate its speed. And the question is, why that? Again, for example, if they just wanted to talk to our computer systems, they could move some sort of a little probe that connects to a wire and reads and sends bits there. They don't need a shiny thing flying in the sky. I don't think they would be, they are or would be looking for the right way to communicate, the right language to communicate. Everything you just said, looking at the computer systems, I mean, that's not a trivial thing. Coming up with a signal that us humans would not freak out too much about, but also understand might not be that trivial. How would you talk to the ants? Well, so not freak out a part is another interesting constraint. So again, I said, like the two obvious strategies are just to remain completely invisible and watch, which would be quite feasible or to just directly interact, let's come out and be really very direct, right? I mean, there's big things that you can see around, there's big cities, there's aircraft carriers, there's lots of, if you want to just find a big thing and come right up to it and like tap it on the shoulder or whatever, that would be quite feasible and they're not doing that. So my hypothesis is that one of the other questions there was, do they have a status hierarchy and I think most animals on earth who are social animals have status hierarchy and they would reasonably presume that we have a status hierarchy. Take me to your leader. Well, I would say their strategy is to be impressive and sort of get us to see them at the top of our status hierarchy. That's how, for example, we domesticate dogs, right? We convince dogs we're the leader of their pack, right? And we domesticate many animals that way, but as we just swap into the top of their status hierarchy and we say, we're your top status animal, so you should do what we say, you should follow our lead. So the idea that would be, they are going to get us to do what they want by being top status. You know, all through history, kings and emperors, et cetera, have tried to impress their citizens and other people by having the bigger palace, the bigger parade, the bigger crown and diamonds, right? Whatever, maybe building a bigger pyramid, et cetera. It's a very well-established trend to just be high status by being more impressive than the rest. To push back when there's an order of several orders of magnitude of power differential, asymmetry of power. I feel like that status hierarchy no longer applies. It's like mimetic theory. Most emperors are several orders of magnitude more powerful than any one member of their empire. Let's increase that by even more. So if I'm interacting with ants, I no longer feel like I need to establish my power with ants. I actually want to lessen, I want to lower myself to the ants. I want to become the lowest possible ant so that they would welcome me. So I'm less concerned about them worshipping me, I'm more concerned about them welcoming me, integrating me into their world. It is important that you be non-threatening and that you be local. So I think, for example, if the aliens had done something really big in the sky, you know, a hundred light years away, that would be there, not here. And that could seem threatening. So I think their strategy to be the high status would have to be to be visible, but to be here and non-threatening. I just don't know if it's obvious how to do that. Take your own perspective. You see a planet with relatively intelligent, complex structures being formed. Like yeah, life forms. You could see this under, in Titan or something like that. You know, Europa. You start to see not just primitive bacterial life, but multicellular life and it seems to form some very complicated cellular colonies, structures that they're dynamic. There's a lot of stuff going on. Some gigantic cellular automata type of construct. How do you make yourself known to them in an impressive fashion without destroying it? Like we know how to destroy potentially. Right. So if you go touch stuff, you're likely to hurt it, right? There's a good risk of hurting something by getting too close and touching it and interacting, right? Yeah, like landing on a White House lawn. Right. So the claim is that their current strategy of hanging out at the periphery of our vision and just being very clearly physically impressive with very clear physically impressive abilities is at least a plausible strategy they might use to impress us and convince us sort of we're at the top of their status hierarchy. And I would say if they came closer, not only would they risk hurting us in ways that they couldn't really understand, but more plausibly, they would reveal things about themselves we would hate. If you look at how we treat other civilizations on Earth and other people, we are generally interested in foreigners and people from other plant lands, and we were generally interested in their varying cult customs, et cetera, until we find out that they do something that violates our moral norms, and then we hate them. And these are aliens, for God's sakes, right? There's just going to be something about them that we hate. They eat babies, who knows what it is. Something they don't think is offensive, but that they think we might find, and so they would be risking a lot by revealing a lot about themselves. We would find something we hated. Interesting, but do you resonate at all with mimetic theory where we only feel this way about things that are very close to us? So aliens are sufficiently different to where we'll be like fascinated, terrified or fascinated, but not like annoyed. Right, but if they want to be at the top of our status hierarchy to get us to follow them, they can't be too distant. They have to be close enough that we would see them that way. Pretend to be close enough, right, and not reveal much, that mystery, that old Clint Eastwood cowboy say less. I mean, the point is, we're clever enough that we can figure out their agenda. That is just from the fact that we're here. If we see that they're here, we can figure out, oh, they want us not to expand. And look, they are this huge power, and they're very impressive, and a lot of us don't want to expand, so that could easily tip us over the edge toward, we already wanted to not expand, we already wanted to be able to regulate and have a central community, and here are these very advanced, smart aliens who have survived for 100 million years, and they're telling us not to expand either. This is brilliant. I love this so much. Returning to panspermia siblings, just to clarify one thing, in that framework, who originated? Who planted it? Could it be a grabby alien civilization that planted the siblings, or no? The simple scenario is that life started on some other planet billions of years ago, and it went through part of the stages of evolution to advanced life, but not all the way to advanced life. And then some rock hit it, grabbed a piece of it on the rock, and that rock drifted for maybe a million years until it happened upon the stellar nursery, where it then seeded many stars. And something about that life, without being super advanced, it was nevertheless resilient to the harsh conditions of space. There's some graphs that I've been impressed by that show sort of the level of genetic information in various kinds of life on the history of Earth. And basically, we are now more complex than the earlier life, but the earlier life was still pretty damn complex. And so if you actually project this log graph in history, it looks like it was many billions of years ago when you get down to zero, so plausibly you could say there was just a lot of evolution that had to happen before you could get to the simplest life we've ever seen in history of life on Earth. It was still pretty damn complicated. And so that's always been this puzzle. How could life get to this enormously complicated level in the short period it seems to at the beginning of Earth history? So it's only 300 million years at most, it appeared, and then it was really complicated at that point. So Panspermia allows you to explain that complexity by saying, well, it's been another five billion years on another planet, going through lots of earlier stages where it was working its way up to the level of complexity you see at the beginning of Earth. We'll try to talk about other ideas of the origin of life, but let me return to UFO sightings. Is there other explanations that are possible outside of Panspermia siblings that can explain no-grabby aliens in the sky and yet alien arrival on Earth? Well, the other categories of explanations that most people will use is, well, first of all, just mistakes, like you're confusing something ordinary for something mysterious, or some sort of secret organization, like our government is secretly messing with us and trying to do a false flag ops or whatever. They're trying to convince the Russians or the Chinese that there might be aliens and scare them into not attacking or something, right? Because the history of World War II, say, the US government did all these big fake operations where they were faking a lot of big things in order to mess with people. So that's a possibility. The government's been lying and faking things and paying people to lie about what they saw, et cetera. That's a plausible set of explanations for the range of sightings seen. Then another explanation people offer is some other hidden organization on Earth or some secret organization somewhere that has much more advanced capabilities than anybody's given it credit for. For some reason, it's been keeping secret. They all sound somewhat implausible, but again, we're looking for maybe one in a thousand sort of priors. Question is, could they be in that level of plausibility? Can we just linger on this, so you've, first of all, you've written, talked about, thought about so many different topics. You're an incredible mind and I just thank you for sitting down today. I'm almost like at a loss of which place we explore, but let me on this topic ask about conspiracy theories. You've written about institutions, authorities. But this is a bit of a therapy session, but what do we make of conspiracy theories? The phrase itself is pushing you in a direction, right? So clearly in history, we have had many large coordinated keepings of secrets, right? Say the Manhattan Project, right? And there was what, hundreds of thousands of people working on that over many years, but they kept it a secret, right? Basically many large military operations have kept things secrets over even decades with many thousands of people involved. So clearly it's possible to keep some things secret over time periods, but the more people you involve and the more time you are assuming and the more, the less centralized an organization or the less discipline they have, the harder it gets to believe. But we're just trying to calibrate basically in our minds, which kind of secrets can be kept by which groups over what time periods for what purposes, right? But let me, I don't have enough data. So I'm somebody, I hang out with people and I love people. I love all things really. And I just, I think that most people, even the assholes, have the capacity to be good and they're beautiful and I enjoy them. So the kind of data my brain, whatever the chemistry of my brain is that sees the beautiful in things is maybe collecting a subset of data that doesn't allow me to intuit the competence that humans are able to achieve in constructing a conspiracy theory. So for example, one thing that people often talk about is like intelligence agencies, this like broad thing they say, the CIA, the FSB, the different, the British intelligence. I've fortunate or unfortunate enough never gotten a chance that I know of to talk to any member of those intelligence agencies, nor like take a peek behind the curtain or the first curtain. I don't know how many levels of curtains there are. And so I don't, I can't intuit, but my interaction was with government. I was funded by DOD and DARPA and I've interacted, been to the Pentagon. Like with all due respect to my friends, lovely friends in government and there are a lot of incredible people, but there is a very giant bureaucracy that sometimes suffocates the ingenuity of the human spirit is one way I can put it. Meaning they are, I just, it's difficult for me to imagine extreme competence at a scale of hundreds or thousands of human beings. Now that doesn't mean that's my very anecdotal data of the situation. And so I try to build up my intuition about centralized system of government, how much conspiracies possible, how much the intelligence agencies or some other source can generate sufficiently robust propaganda that controls the populace. If you look at World War II, as you mentioned, there've been extremely powerful propaganda machines on the side of Nazi Germany, on the side of the Soviet Union, on the side of the United States and all these different mechanisms. Sometimes they control the free press through social pressures. Sometimes they control the press through the threat of violence, you know, as you do in authoritarian regimes. Sometimes it's like deliberately the dictator like writing the news, the headlines and literally announcing it. And something about human psychology forces you to embrace the narrative and believe the narrative and at scale that becomes reality when the initial spark was just the propaganda thought in a single individual's mind. So I can't necessarily intuit of what's possible, but I'm skeptical of the power of human institutions to construct conspiracy theories that cause suffering at scale, especially in this modern age when information is becoming more and more accessible by the populace. Anyway, I don't know if you can elucidate for us. But you said it's called suffering at scale, but of course, say during wartime, the people who are managing the various conspiracies like D-Day or Manhattan Project, they thought that their conspiracy was avoiding harm rather than causing harm. So if you can get a lot of people to think that supporting the conspiracy is helpful, then a lot more might do that. And there's just a lot of things that people just don't want to see. So if you can make your conspiracy the sort of thing that people wouldn't want to talk about anyway, even if they knew about it, you're most of the way there. So I have learned over the years many things that most ordinary people should be interested in but somehow don't know, even though the data has been very widespread. So I have this book, The Elephant in the Brain, and one of the chapters is there on medicine. And basically, most people seem ignorant of the very basic fact that when we do randomized trials where we give some people more medicine than others, the people who get more medicine are not healthier. Just overall, in general, just like induce somebody to get more medicine because you just give them more budget to buy medicine, say. Not a specific medicine, just the whole category. And you would think that would be something most people should know about medicine. You might even think that would be a conspiracy theory to think that would be hidden, but in fact, most people never learn that fact. So just to clarify, just a general high-level statement, the more medicine you take, the less healthy you are. Randomized experiments don't find that fact. Do not find that more medicine makes you more healthy. There's just no connection. In randomized experiments, there's no relationship between more medicine and being healthier. So it's not a negative relationship, but it's just no relationship. And so the conspiracy theory would say that the businesses that sell you medicine don't want you to know that fact, and then you're saying that there's also part of this is that people just don't wanna know. They just don't wanna know. And so they don't learn this. So I've lived in the Washington area for several decades now, reading the Washington Post regularly. Every week there was a special section on health and medicine. It never was mentioned in that section of the paper in all the 20 years I read that. So do you think there is some truth to this caricatured blue pill, red pill, where most people don't want to know the truth? There are many things about which people don't want to know certain kinds of truths. That is, bad-looking truths, truths that are discouraging, truths that sort of take away the justification for things they feel passionate about. Do you think that's a bad aspect of human nature, that's something we should try to overcome? Well, as we discussed, my first priority is to just tell people about it, to do the analysis and the cold facts of what's actually happening, and then to try to be careful about how we can improve. So our book, The Elephant in the Brain, co-authored with Kevin Simler, is about hidden motives in everyday life, and our first priority there is just to explain to you what are the things that you are not looking at, that you are reluctant to look at. And many people try to take that book as a self-help book, where they're trying to improve themselves and make sure they look at more things, and that often goes badly because it's harder to actually do that than you think. And so we at least want you to know that this truth is available if you want to learn about it. It's the Nietzsche, if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. Let's talk about this Elephant in the Brain. Amazing book. The Elephant in the Room is, quote, an important issue that people are reluctant to acknowledge or address a social taboo. The Elephant in the Brain is an important but unacknowledged feature of how our mind works and introspective taboo. You describe selfishness and self-deception as the core, or some of the core elephants, some of the elephants, elephant offspring in the brain. Selfishness and self-deception. All right. Can you explain, can you explain why these are the taboos in our brain that we don't want to acknowledge to ourselves? Your conscious mind, the one that's listening to me that I'm talking to at the moment, you like to think of yourself as the president or king of your mind, ruling over all that you see, issuing commands that immediately obeyed. You are instead better understood as the press secretary of your brain. You don't make decisions, you justify them to an audience. That's what your conscious mind is for. You watch what you're doing and you try to come up with stories that explain what you're doing so that you can avoid accusations of violating norms. Humans, compared to most other animals, have norms, and this allows us to manage larger groups with our morals and norms about what we should or shouldn't be doing. This is so important to us that we needed to be constantly watching what we were doing in order to make sure we had a good story to avoid norm violations. So many norms are about motives. So if I hit you on purpose, that's a big violation. If I hit you accidentally, that's okay. I need to be able to explain why it was an accident and not on purpose. So where does that need come from for your own self-preservation? Right. So humans have norms, and we have the norm that if we see anybody violating a norm, we need to tell other people and then coordinate to make them stop and punish them for violating. So such benefits are strong enough and severe enough that we each want to avoid being successfully accused of violating norms. So for example, hitting someone on purpose is a big, clear norm violation. If we do it consistently, we may be thrown out of the group, and that would mean we would die. Okay? So we need to be able to convince people we are not going around hitting people on purpose. If somebody happens to be at the other end of our fist and their face connects, that was an accident, and we need to be able to explain that. And similarly for many other norms humans have, we are serious about these norms and we don't want people to violate them. We find them violating, we're going to accuse them. But many norms have a motive component, and so we are trying to explain ourselves and make sure we have a good motive story about everything we do, which is why we're constantly trying to explain what we're doing, and that's what your conscious mind is doing. It is trying to make sure you've got a good motive story for everything you're doing. And that's why you don't know why you really do things. What you know is what the good story is about why you've been doing things. And that's the self-deception, and you're saying that there is a machine, the actual dictator is selfish. And then you're just the press secretary who's desperately doesn't want to get fired and is justifying all of the decisions of the dictator, and that's the self-deception. Right. Now, most people actually are willing to believe that this is true in the abstract. So our book has been classified as psychology, and it was reviewed by psychologists, and the basic way that psychology referees and reviewers responded is to say, this is well-known. Most people accept that there's a fair bit of self-deception. But they don't want to accept it about themselves directly. Well, they don't want to accept it about the particular topics that we talk about. So people accept the idea in the abstract that they might be self-deceived or that they might not be honest about various things, but that hasn't penetrated into the literatures where people are explaining particular things like why we go to school, why we go to the doctor, why we vote, et cetera. So our book is mainly about 10 areas of life and explaining about, in each area, what our actual motives there are. And people who study those things have not admitted that hidden motives are explaining those particular areas. So they haven't taken the leap from theoretical psychology to actual public policy. Exactly. And economics and all that kind of stuff. So let me just linger on this and bring up my old friends, Zingman Freud and Carl Jung. So how vast is this landscape of the unconscious mind, the power and the scope of the dictator? Is it only dark there? Is it some light? Is there some love? The vast majority of what's happening in your head, you are unaware of. So in a literal sense, the unconscious, the aspects of your mind that you're not conscious of is the overwhelming majority. But that's just true in a literal engineering sense. Your mind is doing lots of low-level things, and you just can't be consciously aware of all that low-level stuff. But there's plenty of room there for lots of things you're not aware of. But can we try to shine a light at the things we're unaware of, specifically, now again staying with the philosophical psychology side for a moment. Can you shine a light in the Jungian shadow? What's going on there? What is this machine like? What level of thoughts are happening there? Is it something that we can even interpret? If we somehow could visualize it, is it something that's human interpretable, or is it just a kind of chaos of monitoring different systems in the body, making sure you're happy, making sure you're fed all those kind of basic forces that form abstractions on top of each other, and they're not introspective at all? We humans are social creatures. Plausibly being social is the main reason we have these unusually large brains. Therefore most of our brain is devoted to being social. And so the things we are very obsessed with and constantly paying attention to are, how do I look to others? What would others think of me if they knew these various things they might learn about me? So that's close to being fundamental to what it means to be human, is caring what others think. Right. And not trying to present a story that would be okay for what other things, but we're very constantly thinking, what do other people think? So let me ask you this question then about you, Robin Hanson, who many places, sometimes for fun, sometimes as a basic statement of principle, likes to disagree with what the majority of people think. So how do you explain, how are you self-deceiving yourself in this task? And how are you being self, how's your, like, why is the dictator manipulating you inside your head to be self-critical? Like there's norms, why do you want to stand out in this way? Why do you want to challenge the norms in this way? Almost by definition, I can't tell you what I'm deceiving myself about, but the more practical strategy that's quite feasible is to ask about what are typical things that most people deceive themselves about, and then to own up to those particular things. Sure. What's a good one? So for example, I can very much acknowledge that I would like to be well thought of, that I would be seeking attention and glory and praise from my intellectual work, and that would be a major agenda driving my intellectual attempts. So if there were topics that other people would find less interesting, I might be less interested in those for that reason, for example. I might want to find topics where other people are interested, and I might want to go for the glory of finding a big insight rather than a small one, and maybe one that was especially surprising. That's also, of course, consistent with some more ideal concept of what an intellectual should be. But most intellectuals are relatively risk-averse. They are in some local intellectual tradition, and they are adding to that, and they are staying conforming to the sort of usual assumptions and usual accepted beliefs and practices of a particular area so that they can be accepted in that area and treated as part of the community. And you might think for the purpose of the larger intellectual project of understanding the world better, people should be less eager to just add a little bit to some tradition, and they should be looking for what's neglected between the major traditions and major questions. They should be looking for assumptions maybe we're making that are wrong. They should be looking at ways, things that are very surprising, like things that would be, you would have thought a priori unlikely that once you are convinced of it, you find that to be very important and a big update, right? So you could say that one motivation I might have is less motivated to be sort of comfortably accepted into some particular intellectual community and more willing to just go for these more fundamental long shots that should be very important if you could find them. Which would, if you can find them, would get you appreciated across a larger number of people across the longer time span of history. So like maybe the small local community will say you suck, you must conform, but the larger community will see the brilliance of you breaking out of the cage of the small conformity into a larger cage. It's always a bigger, there's always a bigger cage and then you'll be remembered by more. Yeah, also that explains your choice of colorful shirt that looks great in a black background so you definitely stand out. Now of course, you know, you could say, well, you could get all this attention by making false claims of dramatic improvement and then wouldn't that be much easier than actually working through all the details to make true claims. Let me ask the press secretary, why not? So of course you spoke several times about how much you value truth and the pursuit of truth. That's a very nice narrative. Hitler and Stalin also talked about the value of truth. Do you worry when you introspect as broadly as all humans might that it becomes a drug, this being a martyr, being the person who points out that the emperor wears no clothes, even when the emperor is obviously dressed, just to be the person who points out that the emperor is wearing no clothes? Do you think about that? So I think the standards you hold yourself to are dependent on the audience you have in mind. So if you think of your audience as relatively easily fooled or relatively gullible, then you won't bother to generate more complicated, deep, you know, arguments and structures and evidence to persuade somebody who has higher standards because why bother? You can get away with something much easier. And of course, if you are, say, a salesperson, you know, you make money on sales, then you don't need to convince the top few percent of the most sharp customers. You can just go for the bottom 60 percent of the most gullible customers and make plenty of sales, right? So I think intellectuals have to vary. One of the main ways intellectuals vary is in who is their audience in their mind. Who are they trying to impress? Is it the people down the hall? Is it the people who are reading their Twitter feed? Is it their parents? Is it their high school teacher? Or is it Einstein and Freud and Socrates, right? So I think those of us who are especially arrogant, especially think that we're really big shot or have a chance at being a really big shot, we were naturally going to pick the big shot audience that we can. We're going to be trying to impress Socrates and Einstein. Is that why you hang out with Tyler Cohen a lot and try to convince him and stuff? You know, and you might think, you know, from the point of view of just making money or having sex or other sorts of things, this is misdirected energy, right? Trying to impress the very most highest quality minds, that's such a small sample and they can't do that much for you anyway. So I might well have had more, you know, ordinary success in life, be more popular, invited to more parties, make more money if I had targeted a lower tier set of intellectuals with the standards they have. But for some reason, I decided early on that Einstein was my audience or people like him, and I was going to impress them. Yeah, I mean, you pick your set of motivations. You know, convincing, impressing Tyler Cohen is not going to help you get laid, trust me, I tried. All right. What are some notable sort of effects of the elephant in the brain in everyday life? So you mentioned when we try to apply that to economics, to public policy, so when we think about medicine, education, all those kinds of things, what are some things that would... Well, the key thing is medicine is much less useful health-wise than you think. So you know, if you were focused on your health, you would care a lot less about it. And if you were focused on other people's health, you would also care a lot less about it. But if medicine is, as we suggest, more about showing that you care and let other people showing that they care about you, then a lot of priority on medicine can make sense. So that was our very earliest discussion in the podcast. We were talking about, you know, should you give people a lot of medicine when it's not very effective? And then the answer then is, well, if that's the way that you show that you care about them, and you really want them to know you care, then maybe that's what you need to do if you can't find a cheaper, more effective substitute. So if we actually just pause on that for a little bit, how do we start to untangle the full set of self-deception happening in the space of medicine? We have a method that we use in our book that is what I recommend for people to use in all these sorts of topics. The straightforward method is first, don't look at yourself. Look at other people. Look at broad patterns of behavior in other people, and then ask, what are the various theories we could have to explain these patterns of behavior? And then just do the simple matching, which theory better matches the behavior they have. And the last step is to assume that's true of you too. Don't assume you're an exception. If you happen to be an exception, that won't go so well, but nevertheless, on average, you aren't very well positioned to judge if you're an exception. So look at what other people do, explain what other people do, and assume that's you too. But also, in the case of medicine, there's several parties to consider. So there's the individual person that's receiving the medicine, there's the doctors that are prescribing the medicine, there's drug companies that are selling drugs, there are governments that have regulations that are lobbyists. So you can build up a network of categories of humans in this, and they each play their role. So how do you introspect, sort of analyze the system at a system scale versus at the individual scale? So it turns out that in general, it's usually much easier to explain producer behavior than consumer behavior. That is, the drug companies or the doctors have relatively clear incentives to give the customers whatever they want. And similarly, say governments in democratic countries have the incentive to give the voters what they want. So that focuses your attention on the patient and the voter in this equation, and saying, what do they want? They would be driving the rest of the system. Whatever they want, the other parties are willing to give them in order to get paid. So now we're looking for puzzles in patient and voter behavior. What are they choosing, and why do they choose that? And how much exactly? And then we can explain that potentially, again, returning to the producer, but the producer being incentivized to manipulate the decision-making processes of the voter and the consumer. So in almost every industry, producers are in general happy to lie and exaggerate in order to get more customers. This is true of auto repair as much as human body repair and medicine. So the differences between these industries can't be explained by the willingness of the producers to give customers what they want or to do various things that we have to, again, go to the customers. Why are customers treating body repair different than auto repair? Yeah, and that potentially requires a lot of thinking, a lot of data collection, and potentially looking at historical data too, because things don't just happen overnight. Over time, there's trends. In principle, it does, but actually it's a lot easier than you might think. I think the biggest limitation is just the willingness to consider alternative hypotheses. So many of the patterns that you need to rely on are actually pretty obvious, simple patterns. You just have to notice them and ask yourself, how can I explain those? Often you don't need to look at the most subtle, most difficult statistical evidence that might be out there. The simplest patterns are often enough. All right, so there's a fundamental statement about self-deception in the book. There's the application of that, like what you did in medicine. Can you steel man the argument that many of the foundational ideas in the book are wrong? Meaning there's two that you just made, which is it can be a lot simpler than it looks. Can you steel man the case that it's case by case, it's always super complicated, like it's a complex system, it's very difficult to have a simple model about, it's very difficult in that respect. And the other one is that the human brain isn't not just about self-deception, that there's a lot of motivations at play, and we are able to really introspect our own mind. And what's on the surface of the conscious is actually quite a good representation of what's going on in the brain, and you're not deceiving yourself. You're able to actually arrive to deeply think about where your mind stands and what you think about the world. And it's less about impressing people and more about being a free-thinking individual. Peter T. Leeson So when a child tries to explain why they don't have their homework assignment, they are sometimes inclined to say, the dog ate my homework. They almost never say, the dragon ate my homework. The reason is, the dragon is a completely implausible explanation. Almost always when we make excuses for things, we choose things that are at least in some degree plausible. It could perhaps have happened. That's an obstacle for any explanation of a hidden motive or a hidden feature of human behavior. If people are pretending one thing while really doing another, they're usually going to pick as a pretense something that's somewhat plausible. That's going to be an obstacle to proving that hypothesis if you are focused on the local data that a person would typically have if they were challenged. So if you're just looking at one kid and his lack of homework, maybe you can't tell whether his dog ate his homework or not. If you happen to know he doesn't have a dog, you might have more confidence. You will need to have a wider range of evidence than a typical person would when they're encountering that actual excuse in order to see past the excuse. That will just be a general feature of it. If I say, there's this usual story about where we go to the doctor and then there's this other explanation, it'll be true that you'll have to look at wider data in order to see that because people don't usually offer excuses unless in the local context of their excuse, they can get away with it. That is, it's hard to tell. In the case of medicine, I have to point you to larger sets of data. But in many areas of academia, including health economics, the researchers there also want to support the usual points of view. So they will have selection effects in their publications and their analysis whereby if they're getting a result too much contrary to the usual point of view everybody wants to have, they will file drawer that paper or redo the analysis until they get an answer that's more to people's liking. So that means in the health economics literature, there are plenty of people who will claim that in fact we have evidence that medicine is effective. And when I respond, I will have to point you to our most reliable evidence and ask you to consider the possibility that the literature is biased in that when the evidence isn't as reliable, when they have more degrees of freedom in order to get the answer they want, they do tend to get the answer they want. But when we get to the kind of evidence that's much harder to mess with, that's where we will see the truth be more revealed. So with respect to medicine, we have millions of papers published in medicine over the years, most of which give the impression that medicine is useful. There's a small literature on randomized experiments of the aggregate effects of medicine, where there's maybe a few half dozen or so papers, where it would be the hardest to hide it because it's such a straightforward experiment done in a straightforward way that it's hard to manipulate. And that's where I will point you to, to show you that there's relatively little correlation between health and medicine. But even then, people could try to save the phenomenon and say, well, it's not hidden motives, it's just ignorance. They could say, for example, you know, medicine's complicated, most people don't know the literature, therefore they can be excused for ignorance. They are just ignorantly assuming that medicine is effective. It's not that they have some other motive that they're trying to achieve. And then I will have to do, you know, as with a conspiracy theory analysis, I'm saying, well, like, how long has this misperception been going on? How consistently has it happened around the world and across time? And I would have to say, look, you know, if we're talking about, say, a recent new product, like Segway scooters or something, I could say not so many people have seen them or used them. Maybe they could be confused about their value. If we're talking about a product that's been around for thousands of years, used in roughly the same way all across the world, and we see the same pattern over and over again, this sort of ignorance mistake just doesn't work so well. It also is a question of how much of the self-deception is prevalent versus foundational. Because there's a kind of implied thing where it's foundational to human nature versus just a common pitfall. This is a question I have. So like maybe human progress is made by people who don't fall into the self-deception. It's like it's a baser aspect of human nature, but then you escape it easily if you're motivated. The motivational hypotheses about the self-deceptions are in terms of how it makes you look to the people around you. Again, the press secretary. So the story would be most people want to look good to the people around them. Therefore, most people present themselves in ways that help them look good to the people around them. That's sufficient to say there would be a lot of it. It doesn't need to be 100%. There's enough variety in people and in circumstances that sometimes taking a contrarian strategy can be in the interest of some minority of the people. So I might, for example, say that that's a strategy I've taken. I've decided that being contrarian on these things could be winning for me in that there's a room for a small number of people like me who have these sort of messages who can then get more attention, even if there's not room for most people to do that. And that can be explaining sort of the variety. Similarly, you might say, look, just look at the most obvious things. Most people would like to look good in the sense of physically. You look good right now. You're wearing a nice suit. You have a haircut. You shaved. I cut my own hair, by the way. Okay. Well, that's all the more impressive. That's a counter-argument for your claim that most people want to look good. So clearly, if we look at most people and their physical appearance, clearly most people are trying to look somewhat nice, right? They shower, they shave, they comb their hair. But we certainly see some people around who are not trying to look so nice, right? Is that a big challenge, the hypothesis that people want to look nice? Not that much, right? We can see in those particular people's context more particular reasons why they've chosen to be an exception to the more general rule. So the general rule does reveal something foundational, generally. That's the way things work. Let me ask you, you wrote a blog post about the accuracy of authorities, since we're talking about this, especially in medicine. Just looking around us, especially during this time of the pandemic, there's been a growing distrust of authorities, of institutions, even the institution of science itself. What are the pros and cons of authorities, would you say? So what's nice about authorities? What's nice about institutions? And what are their pitfalls? One standard function of authority is as something you can defer to respectively without needing to seem too submissive or ignorant or gullible. That is, when you're asking, what should I act on or what belief should I act on? You might be worried if I chose something too contrarian, too weird, too speculative, that would make me look bad. So I would just choose something very conservative. So maybe an authority lets you choose something a little less conservative because the authority is your authorization. The authority will let you do it, and somebody says, why did you do that thing? And they say, the authority authorized it. The authority tells me I should do this. Why aren't you doing it? So the authority is often pushing for the conservative. Well, no, the authority can do more. I mean, so for example, we just think about, I don't know, in a pandemic even, you could just think, I'll just stay home and close all the doors, or I'll just ignore it. You could just think of just some very simple strategy that might be defensible if there were no authorities. And authorities might be able to know more than that. They might be able to look at some evidence, draw a more context-dependent conclusion, declare it as the authority's opinion, and then other people might follow that. And that could be better than doing nothing. So you mentioned WHO, the world's most beloved organization. So this is me speaking in general. WHO and CDC has been kind of, depending on degrees and details, just not behaving as I would have imagined in the best possible evolution of human civilization, authorities should act. They seem to have failed in some fundamental way in terms of leadership in a difficult time for our society. Can you say what are the pros and cons of this particular authority? So again, if there were no authorities whatsoever, no accepted authorities, then people would sort of have to sort of randomly pick different local authorities who would conflict with each other, and then they'd be fighting each other about that, or just not believe anybody and just do some initial default action that you would always do without responding to context. So the potential gain of an authority is that they could know more than just basic ignorance, and if people followed them, they could both be more informed than ignorance and all doing the same thing, so they're each protected from being accused or complained about. That's the idea of an authority. That would be the good idea. What's the con of that? Okay. How does that go wrong? So the con is that if you think of yourself as the authority and asking, what's my best strategy as an authority, it's unfortunately not to be maximally informative. So you might think the ideal authority would not just tell you more than ignorance. It would tell you as much as possible. Okay. It would give you as much detail as you could possibly listen to and manage to assimilate, and it would update that as frequently as possible or as frequently as you were able to listen and assimilate, and that would be the maximally informative authority. The problem is there's a conflict between being an authority or being seen as an authority and being maximally informative. That was the point of my blog post that you're pointing out to here. That is, if you look at it from their point of view, they won't long remain the perceived authority if they are too incautious about how they use that authority, and one of the ways to be incautious would be to be too informative. Okay. That's still in the pro column for me, because you're talking about the tensions that are very data-driven and very honest, and I would hope that authorities struggle with that, how much information to provide to people to maximize outcomes. Now I'm generally somebody that believes more information is better because I trust in the intelligence of people, but I'd like to mention a bigger con on authorities, which is the human question. This comes back to global government and so on, is that there's humans that sit in chairs during meetings, and those authorities, they have different titles. Humans form hierarchies, and sometimes those titles get to your head a little bit, and you start to want to think, how do I preserve my control over this authority, as opposed to thinking through what is the mission of the authority, what is the mission of WHO and the other such organization, and how do I maximize the implementation of that mission? You start to think, well, I kind of like sitting in this big chair at the head of the table. I'd like to sit there for another few years, or better yet, I want to be remembered as the person who in a time of crisis was at the head of this authority and did a lot of good things. So you stop trying to do good under what good means, given the mission of the authority, and you start to try to carve a narrative, to manipulate the narrative. First in the meeting room, everybody around you, just a small little story you tell yourself, the new interns, the managers, throughout the whole hierarchy of the company. Okay, once everybody in the company or in the organization believes this narrative, now you start to control the release of information, not because you're trying to maximize outcomes, but because you're trying to maximize the effectiveness of the narrative that you are truly a great representative of this authority in human history. And I just feel like those human forces, whenever you have an authority, it starts getting to people's heads. One of the most, me as a scientist, one of the most disappointing things to see during the pandemic is the use of authority from colleagues of mine to roll their eyes, to dismiss other human beings just because they got a PhD, just because they're an assistant associate full faculty, just because they are deputy head of X organization, NIH, whatever the heck the organization is, just because they got an award of some kind. At a conference, they won a Best Paper award seven years ago, and then somebody shook their hand and gave them a medal, maybe it was a president, and it's been 20, 30 years that people have been patting them on the back saying how special they are, especially when they're controlling money and getting sucked up from other scientists who really want the money in a self-deception kind of way. They don't actually really care about your performance. And all of that gets to your head, and no longer are you the authority that's trying to do good and lessen the suffering in the world. You become an authority that just wants to maximize, self-preserve yourself in a sitting on a throne of power. So this is core to sort of what it is to be an economist. I'm a professor of economics. There you go, with the authority again. No, so it's about saying we often have a situation where we see a world of behavior, and then we see ways in which particular behaviors are not sort of maximally socially useful. And we have a variety of reactions to that. So one kind of reaction is to sort of morally blame each individual for not doing the maximally socially useful thing, under perhaps the idea that people could be identified and shamed for that and maybe induced into doing the better thing if only enough people were calling them out on it, right? But another way to think about it is to think that people sit in institutions with certain stable institutional structures, and that institutions create particular incentives for individuals, and that individuals are typically doing whatever is in their local interest in the context of that institution. And then, you know, perhaps to less blame individuals for winning their local institutional game and more blaming the world for having the wrong institutions. So economists are often like wondering what are the institutions we could have instead of the ones we have, and which of them might promote better behavior. And this is a common thing we do all across human behavior is to think of what are the institutions we're in and what are the alternative variations we could imagine, and then to say which institutions would be most productive. I would agree with you that our information institutions, that is, the institutions by which we collect information and aggregate it and share it with people, are especially broken in the sense of far from the ideal of what would be the most cost-effective way to collect and share information. But then the challenge is to try to produce better institutions. And as an academic, I'm aware that academia is particularly broken in the sense that we give people incentives to do research that's not very interesting or important because basically they're being impressive. And we actually care more about whether academics are impressive than whether they're interesting or useful. And I'm happy to go into detail with lots of different known institutions and their known institutional failings, ways in which those institutions produce incentives that are mistaken. And that was the point of the post we started with talking about the authorities. If I need to be seen as an authority, that's at odds with my being informative, and I might choose to be the authority instead of being informative because that's my institutional incentives. And if I may, I'd like to, given that beautiful picture of incentives and individuals that you just painted, let me just apologize for a couple of things. One, I often put too much blame on leaders of institutions versus the incentives that govern those institutions. And as a result of that, I believe too critical of Anthony Fauci, too emotional about my criticism of Anthony Fauci. And I'd like to apologize for that because I think there's deeper truths to think about. There's deeper incentives to think about. That said, I do sort of, I'm a romantic creature by nature. I romanticize Winston Churchill, and when I think about Nazi Germany, I think about Hitler more than I do about the individual people of Nazi Germany. You think about leaders, you think about individuals, not necessarily the parameters, the incentives that govern the system that, because it's harder. It's harder to think deeply about the models from which those individuals arise, but that's the right thing to do. But also, I don't apologize for being emotional sometimes and being... I'm happy to blame the individual leaders in the sense that, you know, I might say, you should be trying to reform these institutions if you're just there to get promoted and look good at being at the top. Maybe I can blame you for your motives and your priorities in there, but I can understand why the people at the top would be the people who are selected for having the priority of primarily trying to get to the top. I get that. But can I maybe ask you about particular universities that have received, like science has received an increase in distrust overall as an institution, which breaks my heart because I think science is beautiful as a, maybe not as an institution, but as one of the things, one of the journeys that humans have taken on. The other one is university. I think university is actually a place, for me at least, in the way I see it, is a place of freedom of exploring ideas, scientific ideas, engineering ideas, more than a corporate, more than a company, more than a lot of domains in life. It's not just in its ideal, but it's in its implementation, a place where you can be a kid for your whole life and play with ideas. And I think with all the criticism that universities still not currently receive, I don't think that criticism is representative of universities. They focus on very anecdotal evidence of particular departments, particular people, but I still feel like there's a lot of place for freedom of thought. At least MIT, at least in the fields I care about, in particular kind of science, particular kind of technical fields, mathematics, computer science, physics, engineering, so robotics, artificial intelligence, this is a place where you get to be a kid. Yet there is bureaucracy that's rising up. There's more rules, there's more meetings, and there's more administration, having PowerPoint presentations, which to me, you should be more of a renegade explorer of ideas. And meetings destroy, they suffocate that radical thought that happens when you're an undergraduate student and you can do all kinds of wild things when you're a graduate student. Anyway, all that to say, you've thought about this aspect too. Is there something positive, insightful you could say about how we can make for better universities in the decades to come, this particular institution? How can we improve them? I hear that centuries ago, many scientists and intellectuals were aristocrats. They had time and could, if they chose, choose to be intellectuals. It's a feature of the combination that they had some source of resources that allowed them leisure and that the kind of competition they were faced in among aristocrats allowed that sort of a self-indulgence or self-pursuit, at least at some point in their lives. So the analogous observation is that university professors often have sort of the freedom and space to do a wide range of things, and I am certainly enjoying that as a tenured professor. You're a really, sorry to interrupt, a really good representative of that. Just the exploration you're doing, the depth of thought, most people are afraid to do the kind of broad thinking that you're doing, which is great. The fact that that can happen is a combination of these two things analogously. One is that we have fierce competition to become a tenured professor, but then once you become tenured, we give you the freedom to do what you like. And that's a happenstance. It didn't have to be that way. And in many other walks of life, even though people have a lot of resources, et cetera, they don't have that kind of freedom set up. So I think I'm kind of lucky that tenure exists and that I'm enjoying it. But I can't be too enthusiastic about this unless I can approve of sort of the source of the resources that's paying for all this. So for the aristocrat, if you thought they stole it in war or something, you wouldn't be so pleased. Whereas if you thought they had earned it or their ancestors had earned this money that they were spending as an aristocrat, then you could be more okay with that. So for universities, I have to ask, where are the main sources of resources that are going to the universities, and are they getting their money's worth? Are they getting a good value for that payment? So first of all, there's students, and the question is, are students getting good value for their education? And each person is getting value in the sense that they are identified and shown to be a more capable person, which is then worth more salary as an employee later. But there is a case for saying there's a big waste to the system because we aren't actually changing the students or educating them. We're more sorting them or labeling them. And that's a very expensive process to produce that outcome, and part of the expense is the freedom from tenure, I guess. So I feel like I can't be too proud of that because it's basically a tax on all these young students to pay this enormous amount of money in order to be labeled as better, whereas I feel like we should be able to find cheaper ways of doing that. The other main customer is researcher patrons, like the government or other foundations. And then the question is, are they getting their money worth out of the money they're paying for research to happen? And my analysis is they don't actually care about the research progress. They are mainly buying an affiliation with credentialed impressiveness on the part of the researchers. They mainly pay money to researchers who are impressive and have impressive affiliations, and they don't really much care what research project happens as a result. Is that a cynical – so there's a deep truth to that cynical perspective. Is there a less cynical perspective that they do care about the long-term investment into the progress of science and humanity? They might personally care, but they're stuck in an equilibrium wherein they – basically most foundations like governments or research – like the Ford Foundation, they are – the individuals there are rated based on the prestige they bring to that organization. And even if they might personally want to produce more intellectual progress, they are in a competitive game where they don't have tenure, and they need to produce this prestige. And so once they give grant money to prestigious people, that is the thing that shows that they have achieved prestige for the organization, and that's what they need to do in order to retain their position. And you do hope that there's a correlation between prestige and actual competence? Of course there is a correlation. The question is just could we do this better some other way? Yes. I think it's almost – I think it's pretty clear we could. What is harder to do is move the world to a new equilibrium where we do that instead. What are the components of the better ways to do it? Is it money? So how – the sources of money and how the money is allocated to give the individual researchers freedom? Years ago I started studying this topic exactly because this was my issue, and this was many decades ago now, and I spent a long time, and my best guess still is prediction markets, betting markets. So if you as a research patron want to know the answer to a particular question, like what's the mass of the electron neutrino, then what you can do is just subsidize a betting market in that question, and that will induce more research into answering that question because the people who then answer that question can then make money in that betting market with the new information they gain. So that's a robust way to induce more information on a topic. If you want to induce an accomplishment, you can create prizes, and there's of course a long history of prizes to induce accomplishments. And we moved away from prizes, even though we once used them far more often than we did today, and there's a history to that. And for the customers who want to be affiliated with impressive academics, which is what most of the customers want – students, journalists, and patrons – I think there's a better way of doing that, which I just wrote about in my second most recent blog post. Can you explain? Sure. What we're doing today is we take sort of acceptance by other academics recently as our best indication of their deserved prestige. That is, recent publications, recent job affiliation, institutional affiliations, recent invitations to speak, recent grants. We are today taking other impressive academics' recent choices to affiliate with them as our best guesstimate of their prestige. I would say we could do better by creating betting markets in what the distant future will judge to have been their deserved prestige, looking back on them. I think most intellectuals, for example, think that if we look back two centuries – say, to intellectuals from two centuries ago – and try to look in detail at their research and how it influenced future research and which path it was on, we could much more accurately judge their actual deserved prestige. That is, who was actually on the right track, who actually helped, which will be different than what people at the time judged using the immediate indications of the time of which position they had or which publications they had or things like that. In this way, if you think from the perspective of multiple centuries, you would higher prioritize true novelty, you would disregard the temporal proximity, like how recent the thing is, and you would think, like, what is the brave, the bold, the big, novel idea that this – and you would actually – You would be able to rate that because you could see the path with which ideas took, which things had dead ends, which led to what other followings. You could, looking back centuries later, have a much better estimate of who actually had what long-term effects on intellectual progress. So my proposal is we actually pay people in several centuries to do this historical analysis. We have prediction markets today where we buy and sell assets which will later off pay off in terms of those final evaluations. So now we'll be inducing people today to make their best estimate of those things by actually looking at the details of people and setting the prices according. So my proposal would be we rate people today on those prices today. So instead of looking at their list of publications or affiliations, you look at the actual price of assets that represent people's best guess of what the future will say about them. That's brilliant. So this concept of idea futures, can you elaborate what this would entail? I've been elaborating two versions of it here. So one is if there's a particular question, say, the mass of the electron neutrino, and what you as a patron want to do is get an answer to that question, then what you would do is subsidize a betting market in that question under the assumption that eventually we'll just know the answer and we can pay off the bets that way. And that is a plausible assumption for many kinds of concrete intellectual questions like what's the mass of the electron neutrino. In this hypothetical world that you're constructing that may be a real world, do you mean literally financial? Yes, literal. Very literal. Very cash. Very direct and literal. Yes. Or crypto. Crypto is money. So the idea would be research labs would be for profit. They would have as their expense paying researchers to study things and then their profit would come from using the insights the researchers gains to trade in these financial markets. Just like hedge funds today make money by paying researchers to study firms and then making their profits by trading on that insight in the ordinary financial market. And the market would, if it's efficient, would be able to become better and better predicting the powerful ideas that the individual is able to generate. The variance around the mass of the electron neutrino would decrease with time as we learned that value of that parameter better and any other parameters that we wanted to estimate. You don't think those markets would also respond to recency of prestige and all those kinds of things? Well, they would respond, but the question is if they might respond incorrectly, but if you think they're doing it incorrectly, you have a profit opportunity where you can go fix it. So we'd be inviting everybody to ask whether they can find any biases or errors in the current ways in which people are estimating these things from whatever clues they have. Right, there's a big incentive for the correction mechanism. In academia currently, there's not, it's the safe choice to go with the prestige and there's no... Even if you privately think that the prestige is overrated. Even if you think strongly that it's overrated. Right, but still you don't have an incentive to defy that publicly. You're going to lose a lot unless you're a contrarian that writes brilliant blogs and then you could talk about it. Right. I mean, initially this was my initial concept of having these betting markets on these key parameters. What I then realized over time was that that's more what people pretend to care about. What they really mostly care about is just who's how good. And that's what most of the system is built on is trying to rate people and rank them. And so I designed this other alternative based on historical evaluation centuries later, just about who's how good, because that's what I think most of the customers really care about. Customers, I like the word customers here, humans. Right, well every major area of life, which has specialists who get paid to do that thing, must have some customers from elsewhere who are paying for it. Well, who are the customers for the mass of the neutrino? Yes, I understand a sense people who are willing to pay for a thing. That's an important thing to understand about anything, who are the customers, and what's the product, like medicine, education, academia, military, etc. That's part of the hidden motives analysis. Often people have a thing they say about what the product is and who the customer is, and maybe you need to dig a little deeper to find out what's really going on. Or a lot deeper. You've written that you seek out quote view quakes. You're able as an intelligent black box word generating machine, you're able to generate a lot of sexy words. I like it. I love it. View quakes, which are insights which dramatically changed my worldview, your worldview. You write, I loved science fiction as a child, studied physics and artificial intelligence for a long time each. And now study economics and political science. All fields full of such insights. So let me ask, what are some view quakes or a beautiful surprising idea to you from each of those fields? Physics, AI, economics, political science. I know it's a tough question. Something that springs to mind about physics, for example, that just is beautiful. Right from the beginning, say, special relativity was a big surprise. Most of us have a simple concept of time and it seems perfectly adequate for everything we've ever seen. And to have it explained to you that you need to sort of have a mixture concept of time and space where you put it into the space time construct, how it looks different from different perspectives. That was quite a shock. And that was such a shock that it makes you think, what else do I know that isn't the way it seems? Certainly quantum mechanics is certainly another enormous shock in terms of from your point. You have this idea that there's a space and then there's particles at points and maybe fields in between. And quantum mechanics is just a whole different representation. It looks nothing like what you would have thought as sort of the basic representation of the physical world. And that was quite a surprise. What would you say is the catalyst for the view quake in theoretical physics in the 20th century? Where does that come from? So the interesting thing about Einstein, it seems like a lot of that came from almost thought experiments. It wasn't almost experimentally driven. Actually I don't know the full story of quantum mechanics, how much of it is experiment, like where, if you look at the full trace of idea generation there, of all the weird stuff that falls out of quantum mechanics, how much of that was the experimentalists, how much was it the theoreticians? But usually in theoretical physics, the theories lead the way. So maybe can you elucidate, what is the catalyst for these? The remarkable thing about physics and about many other areas of academic intellectual life is that it just seems way overdetermined. That is, if it hadn't been for Einstein or if it hadn't been for Heisenberg, certainly within a half a century, somebody else would have come up with essentially the same things. Is that something you believe? Yeah. Is that something? Yes. So I think when you look at sort of just the history of physics and the history of other areas, some areas like that, there's just this enormous convergence, that the different kind of evidence that was being collected was so redundant in the sense that so many different things revealed the same things that eventually you just kind of have to accept it because it just gets obvious. So if you look at the details, of course, Einstein did it for somebody else and it's well worth celebrating Einstein for that. And we, by celebrating the particular people who did something first or came across something first, we are encouraging all the rest to move a little faster, to try to push us all a little faster, which is great. But I still think we would have gotten roughly to the same place within a half century. So sometimes people are special because of how much longer it would have taken. Some people say general relativity would have taken longer without Einstein than other things. I mean, Heisenberg quantum mechanics, I mean, there were several different formulations of quantum mechanics all around the same few years, means no one of them made that much of a difference. We would have had pretty much the same thing regardless of which of them did it exactly when. Nevertheless, I'm happy to celebrate them all. But this is a choice I make in my research. That is, when there's an area where there's lots of people working together, who are sort of scoping each other and getting a result just before somebody else does, you ask, well, how much of a difference would I make there? At most, I could make something happen a few months before somebody else. And so I'm less worried about them missing things. So when I'm trying to help the world, like doing research, I'm looking for neglected things. I'm looking for things that nobody's doing it. If I didn't do it, nobody would do it. Nobody would do it in the next 10, 20 years kind of thing. Same with general relativity, just, you know, who would do it? It might take another 10, 20, 30, 50 years. So that's the place where you can have the biggest impact, is finding the things that nobody would do unless you did them. And then that's when you get the big view quake, the insight. So what about artificial intelligence? Would it be the EMs, the emulated minds? What idea, whether that struck you in the shower one day, or are they you just observed? Clearly the biggest view quake in artificial intelligence is the realization of just how complicated our human minds are. So most people who come to artificial intelligence from other fields or from relative ignorance, a very common phenomenon, which you must be familiar with, is that they come up with some concept and then they think that must be it. Once we implement this new concept, we will have it. We will have full human level or higher artificial intelligence, right? And they're just not appreciating just how big the problem is, how long the road is, just how much is involved, because that's actually hard to appreciate when we just think it seems really simple. And studying artificial intelligence, going through many particular problems, looking in each problem, all the different things you need to be able to do to solve a problem like that, makes you realize all the things your minds are doing that you are not aware of. That's that vast subconscious that you're not aware of. That's the biggest view quake from artificial intelligence by far for most people who study artificial intelligence, is to see just how hard it is. I think that's a good point. But I think it's a very early view quake. It's when the stunning Kruger crashes hard. It's the first realization that humans are actually quite incredible. The human mind, the human body is quite incredible. There's a lot of different parts to it. But then, see, it's already been so long for me that I've experienced that view quake that for me, I now experience the view quakes of, holy shit, this little thing is actually quite powerful. Like neural networks, I'm amazed. Because you've become a lot more cynical after that first view quake of like, this is so hard. Like evolution did some incredible work to create the human mind. But then you realize, just because you have, you've talked about a bunch of simple models, that simple things can actually be extremely powerful, that maybe emulating the human mind is extremely difficult. But you can go a long way with a large neural network. You can go a long way with a dumb solution. It's that Stuart Russell thing with the reinforcement learning. Holy crap, you can go quite a long way with a simple thing. But we still have a very long road to go. But nevertheless. I can't. I refuse to sort of know. The road is full of surprises. So long is an interesting, like you said, with the six hard steps that humans have to take to arrive at where we are from the origin of life on Earth. So it's long maybe in the statistical improbability of the steps that have to be taken. But in terms of how quickly those steps could be taken, I don't know if my intuition says if it's hundreds of years away or if it's a couple of years away. I prefer to measure- Pretty confidence at least a decade. And mildly confidence at least three decades. I can steel man either direction. I prefer to measure that journey in Elon Musk's. That's a new- We don't get Elon Musk very often, so that's a long timescale. For now, I don't know. Maybe you can clone or maybe multiply. I don't even know what Elon Musk, what that is. What is that? That's a good question. Exactly. Well, that's an excellent question. How does that fit into the model of the three parameters that are required for becoming a grabby alien civilization? That's the question of how much any individual makes in the long path of civilization over time. Yes. And it's a favorite topic of historians and people to try to focus on individuals and how much of a difference they make. And certainly some individuals make a substantial difference in the modest term, right? Like certainly without Hitler being Hitler in the role he took, European history would have taken a different path for a while there. But if we're looking over many centuries longer term things, most individuals do fade in their individual influence. So, I mean- Even Einstein. Even Einstein, no matter how sexy your hair is, you will also be forgotten in the long arc of history. So, you said at least 10 years. So, let's talk a little bit about this AI point of how we achieve, how hard is the problem of solving intelligence by engineering artificial intelligence that achieves human-level, human-like qualities that we associate with intelligence? How hard is this? What are the different trajectories that take us there? One way to think about it is in terms of the scope of the technology space you're talking about. So, let's take the biggest possible scope, all of human technology, right? The entire human economy. So, the entire economy is composed of many industries, each of which have many products with many different technologies supporting each one. At that scale, I think we can accept that most innovations are a small fraction of the total. That is, usually you have relatively gradual overall progress, and that individual innovations that have a substantial effect, that total are rare, and their total effect is still a small percentage of the total economy, right? There's very few individual innovations that made a substantial difference to the whole economy, right? What are we talking? Steam engine, shipping containers, a few things. Shipping containers deserves to be up there with steam engines, honestly. Can you say exactly why shipping containers? Shipping containers revolutionized shipping. Shipping is very important. Isn't that a shipping containers, so you're saying you wouldn't have some of the magic of the supply chain, all that, without shipping containers? Made a big difference, absolutely. Interesting. That's something we'll look into. We shouldn't take that tangent, although I'm tempted to. But anyway, so there's a few, just a few innovations. Right. So, at the scale of the whole economy, right? Now, as you move down to a much smaller scale, you will see individual innovations having a bigger effect, right? So, if you look at, I don't know, lawnmowers or something, I don't know about the innovations lawnmower, but there were probably like steps where you just had a new kind of lawnmower and that made a big difference to mowing lawns because you're focusing on a smaller part of the whole technology space, right? So, and you know, sometimes like military technology, there's a lot of military technologies, a lot of small ones, but every once in a while, a particular military weapon like makes a big difference. But still, even so, mostly overall, they're making modest differences to something that's increasing relatively. Like US military is the strongest in the world consistently for a while. No one weapon in the last 70 years has like made a big difference in terms of the overall prominence of the US military, right? Because that's just saying, even though every once in a while, even in recent Soviet hyper missiles or whatever they are, they aren't changing the overall balance dramatically, right? So when we get to AI, now I can frame the question, how big is AI? Basically if, so one way of thinking about AI is it's just all mental tasks. And then you ask what fraction of tasks are mental tasks? And then I go a lot. And then if I think of AI as like half of everything, then I think, well, it's got to be composed of lots of parts where any one innovation is only a small impact, right? Now if you think, no, no, no, AI is like AGI. And then you think AGI is a small thing, right? There's only a small number of key innovations that will enable it. Now you're thinking there could be a bigger chunk that you might find that would have a bigger impact. So the way I would ask you to frame these things in terms of the chunkiness of different areas of technology, in part in terms of how big they are. If you take 10 chunky areas and you add them together, the total is less chunky. Yeah. But don't you, are you able until you solve the fundamental core parts of the problem to estimate the chunkiness of that problem? Well if you have a history of prior chunkiness, that could be your best estimate for future chunkiness. So for example, I mean, even at the level of the world economy, right? We've had this, what, 10,000 years of civilization. Well, that's only a short time. You might say, oh, that doesn't predict future chunkiness. But it looks relatively steady and consistent. We can say even in computer science, we've had 70 years of computer science. We have enough data to look at chunkiness of computer science. Like when were there algorithms or approaches that made a big chunky difference? And how large a fraction of those was that? And I'd say mostly in computer science, most innovation has been relatively small chunks. The bigger chunks have been rare. Well this is the interesting thing. This is about AI and just algorithms in general is, you know, page rank. So Google's, right? So sometimes it's a simple algorithm that by itself is not that useful, but the scale of context, and in a context that's scalable, like depending on the, yeah, depending on the context, it's all of a sudden the power is revealed. And there's something, I guess that's the nature of chunkiness, is that you could, things that can reach a lot of people simply can be quite chunky. So one standard story about algorithms is to say algorithms have a fixed cost plus a marginal cost. And so in history, when you had computers that were very small, you tried, all the algorithms had low fixed costs, and you look for the best of those. But over time as computers got bigger, you could afford to do larger fixed costs and try those. And some of those had more effective algorithms in terms of their marginal cost. And that, in fact, you know, that roughly explains the long-term history where in fact the rate of algorithmic improvement is about the same as the rate of hardware improvement, which is a remarkable coincidence. But it would be explained by saying, well, there's all these better algorithms you can't try until you have a big enough computer to pay the fixed cost of doing some trials to find out if that algorithm actually saves you on the marginal cost. And so that's an explanation for this relatively continuous history where, so we have a good story about why hardware is so continuous, right? And you might think, why would software be so continuous with the hardware? But if there's a distribution of algorithms in terms of their fixed costs, and it's, say, spread out in a wide log-normal distribution, then we could be sort of marching through that log-normal distribution, trying out algorithms with larger fixed costs and finding the ones that have lower marginal costs. So would you say AGI, human-level AI, even EM, M, emulated minds, is chunky? Like a few breakthroughs can take this. So an M is by its nature chunky in the sense that if you have an emulated brain and you're 25% effective at emulating it, that's crap. That's nothing. You pretty much need to emulate a full human brain. Is that obvious? Is that obvious that it's 25%? I think it's pretty obvious. I'm talking about like, you know, so the key thing is you're emulating various brain cells, and so you have to emulate the input-output pattern of those cells. So if you get that pattern somewhat close, but not close enough, then the whole system just doesn't have the overall behavior you're looking for, right? But it could have functionally some of the power of the overall system. So there'll be some threshold. The point is, when you get close enough, then it goes over the threshold. It's like taking a computer chip and deleting every 1% of the gates, right? No, that's very chunky. But the hope is that the emulating the human brain, I mean, the human brain itself is not a huge problem. Right, so it has a certain level of redundancy and a certain level of robustness. And so there's some threshold. When you get close to that level of redundancy and robustness, then it starts to work. But until you get to that level, it's just going to be crap, right? It's going to be just a big thing that isn't working well. So we can be pretty sure that emulations is a big chunk in an economic sense, right? At some point, you'll be able to make one that's actually effective in enabling substituting for humans, and then that will be this huge economic product that people will try to buy like crazy. Now, you'll bring a lot of value to people's lives, so they'll be willing to pay for it. But it could be that the first emulation costs a billion dollars each, right? And then we have them, but we can't really use them, they're too expensive. And then the cost slowly comes down, and now we have less of a chunky adoption, right? That as the cost comes down, then we use more and more of them in more and more contexts, and that's a more continuous curve. So it's only if the first emulations are relatively cheap that you get more sudden disruption to society. And that could happen if sort of the algorithm is the last thing you figure out how to do or something. What about robots that capture some magic in terms of social connection? The robots, like we have a robot dog on the carpet right there, robots that are able to capture some magic of human connection as they interact with humans, but are not emulating the brain. What about those? How far away? So we're thinking about chunkiness or distance now. So if you ask how chunky is the task of making an emulatable robot or something. Which chunkiness and time are correlated. Right, but it's about how far away it is or how suddenly it would happen. Chunkiness is how suddenly, and difficulty is just how far away it is. But it could be a continuous difficulty. It could just be far away, but we'll slowly steadily get there. Or there could be these thresholds where we reach a threshold and suddenly we can do a lot better. Yeah, that's a good question for both. I tend to believe that all of it, not just the M, but AGI too is chunky. And human level intelligence embodied in robots is also chunky. The history of computer science and chunkiness so far seems to be my rough best guess for the chunkiness of AGI. It is chunky. It's modestly chunky. Not that chunky. Right. I'm not sure. Our ability to use computers to do many things in the economy has been moving relatively steadily. Overall, in terms of our use of computers in society, they have been relatively steadily improving for 70 years. No, but I would say that's the hard way. Okay. Okay, I would have to really think about that because neural networks are quite surprising. Sure, but every once in a while we have a new thing that's surprising. But if you stand back, we see something like that every 10 years or so. Some new innovations. The progress is gradual. It just has a big effect. So moderately chunky. Huh. Yeah. But the history of the level of disruption we've seen in the past would be a rough estimate of the level of disruption in the future. Unless the future is we're going to hit a chunky territory, much chunkier than we've seen in the past. Well, I do think there's a, it's like a Kuhnian revolution type. It seems like the data, especially on AI, is difficult to reason with because it's so recent. It's such a recent field. AI has been around for 50 years. I mean, 50, 60, 70, 80 years being recent. Okay. That's how I'm... It's enough time to see a lot of trends. A lot of trends. A few trends. I think the internet, computing, there's really a lot of interesting stuff that's happened over the past 30 years that I think the possibility of revolutions is likelier than it was in the... I think for the last 70 years, there have always been a lot of things that looked like they had a potential for revolution. So we can't reason well about this. I mean, we can reason well by looking at the past trends. I would say the past trend is roughly your best guess for the future. No, but if I look back at the things that might've looked like revolutions in the 70s and 80s and 90s, they are less like the revolutions that appear to be happening now or the capacity of revolution that appear to be there now. First of all, there's a lot more money to be made. So there's a lot more incentive for markets to do a lot of kind of innovation, it seems like in the AI space. But then again, there's a history of winters and summers and so on. So maybe we're just like riding a nice wave right now. One of the biggest issues is the difference between impressive demos and commercial value. So often through the history of AI, we saw very impressive demos that never really translated much into commercial value. Somebody who works on and cares about autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles, tell me about it. And there again, we return to the number of Elon Musks per Earth per year generated. It's the M, coincidentally, same initials as the M. Very suspicious, very suspicious. We're gonna have to look into that. All right, two more fields that I would like to force and twist your arm to look for view quakes and for beautiful ideas, economics. What is a beautiful idea to you about economics? You've mentioned a lot of them. Sure, so as you said before, there's gonna be the first view cake most people encounter that makes the biggest difference on average in the world, because that's the only thing most people ever see is the first one. And so with AI, the first one is just how big the problem is. But once you get past that, you'll find others. Certainly for economics, the first one is just the power of markets. You might have thought it was just really hard to figure out how to optimize in a big, complicated space, and markets just do a good first pass for an awful lot of stuff. And they're really quite robust and powerful. And that's just quite the view crake, where you just say, you know, just let up. If you want to get in the ballpark, just let a market handle it and step back. And that's true for a wide range of things. It's not true for everything, but it's a very good first approximation. Most people's intuitions for how they should limit markets are actually messing them up. They're that good in a sense, right? Most people, when you go, I don't know if we want to trust that. Well, you should be trusting that. What about, what are markets? Just a couple of words. So the idea is if people want something, then let other companies form to try to supply that thing. Let those people pay for their cost of whatever they're making and try to offer that product to those people. And many people, many such firms enter that industry and let the customers decide which ones they want. And if the firm goes out of business, let it go bankrupt and let other people invest in whichever ventures they want to try to attract customers to their version of the product. And that just works for a wide range of products and services. And through all of this, there's a free exchange of information too. There's a hope that there's no manipulation of information and so on. Even when those things happen, still just the simple market solution is usually better than the things you'll try to do to fix it. The alternative. That's a view, Craig. It's surprising. It's not what you would have initially thought. That's one of the great, I guess, inventions of human civilization that trust the markets. Now another view, Craig, that I learned in my research that's not all of economics, but something more specialized, is the rationality of disagreement. That is, basically people who are trying to believe what's true in a complicated situation would not actually disagree. And of course, humans disagree all the time. So it was quite a striking fact for me to learn in grad school that actually rational agents would not knowingly disagree. And so that makes disagreement more puzzling and it makes you less willing to disagree. Humans are to some degree rational and are able to... Their priorities are different than just figuring out the truth. Which might not be the same as being irrational. That's another tangent that could take an hour. In the space of human affairs, political science, what is a beautiful, foundational, interesting idea to you, a view, Craig, in the space of political science? The main thing that goes wrong in politics is people not agreeing on what the best thing to do is. That's a wrong thing. So that's what goes wrong. That is, when you say what's fundamentally behind most political failures, it's that people are ignorant of what the consequences of policy is. And that's surprising because it's actually feasible to solve that problem, which we aren't solving. So it's a bug, not a feature, that there's an inability to arrive at a consensus. So most political systems, if everybody looked to some authority, say, on a question, and that authority told them the answer, then most political systems are capable of just doing that thing. That is. And so it's the failure to have trustworthy authorities that is sort of the underlying failure behind most political failure. We failed, we have bad, we invade Iraq, say, when we don't have an authority to tell us that's a really stupid thing to do. And it is possible to create more informative, trustworthy authorities. That's a remarkable fact about the world of institutions, that we could do that, but we aren't. Yeah, so that's surprising. We could, and we aren't. Another big viewcrank about politics is from the elephant in the brain, that most people, when they're interacting with politics, they say they want to make the world better, make their city better, their country better, and that's not their priority. What is it? They want to show loyalty to their allies. They want to show their people they're on their side. Yes. There are various tribes they're in, that's their primary priority, and they do accomplish that. And the tribes are usually color-coded, conveniently enough. What would you say, you know, it's the Churchill question, democracy is the crappiest form of government, but it's the best one we got. What's the best form of government for this, our seven billion human civilization, and the maybe as we get farther and farther, you mentioned a lot of stuff that's fascinating about human history as we become more forager-like, and looking out beyond, what's the best form of government in the next 50, 100 years as we become a multi-planetary species? So the key failing is that we have existing political institutions and related institutions, like media institutions and other authority institutions, and these institutions sit in a vast space of possible institutions. And the key failing, we're just not exploring that space. So I have made my proposals in that space, and I think I can identify many promising solutions, and many other people have made many other promising proposals in that space, but the key thing is we're just not pursuing those proposals. We're not trying them out on small scales, we're not doing tests, we're not exploring the space of these options. That is the key thing we're failing to do. And if we did that, I am confident we would find much better institutions than the one we're using now, but we would have to actually try. So a lot of those topics, I do hope we get a chance to talk again. You're a fascinating human being, so I'm skipping a lot of tangents on purpose that I would love to take. You're such a brilliant person on so many different topics. Let me take a stroll into the deep human psyche of Robin Hanson himself. So first- May not be that deep. I might just be all on the surface. What you see, what you get, there might not be much hiding behind it. Some of the fun is on the surface. I actually think this is true of many of the most successful, most interesting people you see in the world. That is, they have put so much effort into the surface that they've constructed, and that's where they put all their energy. So somebody might be a statesman or an actor or something else, and people want to interview them and they want to say, like, what do you behind the scenes? What do you do in your free time? You know what? Those people don't have free time. They don't have another life behind the scenes. They put all their energy into that surface, the one we admire, the one we're fascinated by, and they kind of have to make up the stuff behind the scenes to supply it for you, but it's not really there. Well, there's several ways of phrasing this. One of it is authenticity, which is if you become the thing you are on the surface, if the depths mirror the surface, then that's what authenticity is. You're not hiding something. You're not concealing something. To push back on the idea of actors, they actually have often a manufactured surface that they put on and they try on different masks, and the depths are very different from the surface, and that's actually what makes them very not interesting to interview. If you're an actor who actually lives the role that you play, so like, I don't know, a Clint Eastwood type character who clearly represents the cowboy, I mean, at least rhymes or echoes the person you play on the surface, that's authenticity. Some people are typecasts and they have basically one persona. They play in all of their movies and TV shows, and so those people, it probably is the actual person persona that they are, or it has become that over time. Clint Eastwood would be one. I think of Tom Hanks as another. I think they just always play the same person. And you and I are just both surface players. You're the fun, brilliant thinker, and I am the suit-wearing idiot full of silly questions. That said, let's put on your wise sage hat and ask you, what advice would you give to young people today in high school and college about life, about how to live a successful life in career or just in general that they can be proud of? Most young people, when they actually ask you that question, what they usually mean is how can I be successful by usual standards. I'm not very good at giving advice about that because that's not how I tried to live my life. So I would more flip it around and say, you live in a rich society. You will have a long life. You have many resources available to you. Whatever career you take, you'll have plenty of time to make progress on something else. Yes, it might be better if you find a way to combine your career and your interests in a way that gives you more time and energy, but there are often big compromises there as well. So if you have a passion about some topic or some thing that you think just is worth pursuing, you can just do it. You don't need other people's approval. And you can just start doing whatever it is you think is worth doing. It might take you decades, but decades are enough to make enormous progress on most all interesting things. And don't worry about the commitment of it. I mean, that's a lot of what people worry about is, well, there's so many options, and if I choose a thing and I stick with it, I sacrifice all the other paths I could have taken. So I switched my career at the age of 34 with two kids, age zero and two, went back to grad school in social science after being a software, research software engineer. So it's quite possible to change your mind later in life. How can you have an age of zero? Well, shot in less than one. Okay. Oh, oh, you indexed with zero. I got it. Okay. Right. Like people also ask what to read, and I say textbooks. Until you've read lots of textbooks or maybe review articles, I'm not so sure you should be reading blog posts and Twitter feeds and even podcasts. I would say at the beginning, read the, you know, this is our best, humanity's best summary of how to learn things is crammed into textbooks. Especially the ones on like introduction to biology. Yeah, everything, introduction to everything. Just read all the books. Algorithms. Read as many textbooks as you can stomach, and then maybe if you want to know more about a subject, find review articles. You don't need to read the latest stuff for most topics. Yeah. And actually textbooks often have the prettiest pictures. There you go. And depending on the field, if it's technical, then doing the homework problems at the end, it's actually extremely, extremely useful. Extremely powerful way to understand something if you allow it. You know, I actually think of like high school and college, which you kind of remind me of. People don't often think of it that way, but you will almost not again get an opportunity to spend the time with a fundamental subject. Read lots of stuff. And like, you know, and everybody's forcing you, like everybody wants you to do it. And like you'll never get that chance again to sit there, even though it's outside of your interest, biology. Like in high school I took AP biology, AP chemistry. I'm thinking of subjects I never again really visited seriously. And it was so nice to be forced into anatomy and physiology, to be forced into that world, to stay with it, to look at the pretty pictures, to certain moments to actually for a moment enjoy the beauty of these, of like how a cell works and all those kinds of things. And somehow that stays, like the ripples of that fascination, that stays with you even if you never do those, even if you never utilize those learnings in your actual work. A common problem, at least of many young people I meet, is that they're like feeling idealistic and altruistic, but in a rush. So the usual human tradition that goes back hundreds of thousands of years is that people's productivity rises with time and maybe peaks around the age of 40 or 50. The age of 40, 50 is when you will be having the highest income, you will have the most contacts, you will sort of be wise about how the world works. Expect to have your biggest impact then. Before then, you can have impacts, but you're also mainly building up your resources and abilities. That's the usual human trajectory, expect that to be true of you too. Don't be in such a rush to accomplish enormous things at the age of 18 or whatever. You might as well practice trying to do things, but that's mostly about learning how to do things by practicing. There's a lot of things you can't do unless you just keep trying them. And when all else fails, try to maximize the number of offspring however way you can. That's certainly something I've neglected. I would tell my younger version of myself, try to have more descendants. Yes, absolutely. It matters more than I realized at the time. Both in terms of making copies of yourself in mutated form and just the joy of raising them? Sure. I mean, the meaning even. In the literature on the value people get out of life, there's a key distinction between happiness and meaning. So happiness is how do you feel right now about right now, and meaning is how do you feel about your whole life. And many things that produce happiness don't produce meaning as reliably, and if you have to choose between them, you'd rather have meaning. Meaning goes along with sacrificing happiness sometimes. Children are an example of that. You get a lot more meaning out of children, even if they're a lot more work. Why do you think kids, children are so magical? Like raising kids. I would love to have kids, and whenever I work with robots, there's some of the same magic when there's an entity that comes to life. And in that case, I'm not trying to draw too many parallels, but there is some echo to it, which is when you program a robot, there's some aspect of your intellect that is now instilled in this other moving being that's kind of magical. Why do you think that's magical? And you said happiness and meaning as opposed to a short term. Meaningful. Why is it meaningful? It's over-determined. I can give you several different reasons, all of which is sufficient. And so the question is, we don't know which ones are the correct reasons. Such a technical, it's over-determined, look it up. So I meet a lot of people interested in the future, interested in thinking about the future. They're thinking about how can I influence the future, but overwhelmingly in history so far, the main way people have influenced the future is by having children. Overwhelmingly. And that's just not an incidental fact. You are built for that. That is, you're the sequence of thousands of generations, each of which successfully had a descendant. And that affected who you are. You just have to expect, and it's true that who you are is built to be, expect to have a child, to want to have a child, to have that be a natural and meaningful interaction for you. And it's just true. It's just one of those things you just should have expected, and it's not a surprise. Well, to push back and sort of, in terms of influencing the future, as we get more and more technology, more and more of us are able to influence the future in all kinds of other ways. Right. Being a teacher, educator. Even so, though, still most of our influence in the future has probably happened being kids, even though we've accumulated more ways, other ways to do it. You mean at scale. I guess the depth of influence, like really how much effort, how much of yourself you really put in other human beings. Do you mean both the raising of a kid, or do you mean raw genetic information? Well, both, but raw genetics is probably more than half of it. More than half. More than half. Even in this modern world? Yeah. Genetics. Let me ask some dark, difficult questions if I might. Let's take a stroll into that place that may or may not exist, according to you. What's the darkest place you've ever gone to in your mind, in your life? A dark time, a challenging time in your life that you had to overcome? Probably just feeling strongly rejected. And so I'm apparently somewhat emotionally scarred by just being very rejection-averse, which must have happened because some rejections were just very scarring. At a scale, in what kinds of communities? Did the individual scale? I mean, lots of different scales, yeah. Many different scales. Still, that rejection stings. Hold on a second. But you are a contrarian thinker. You challenge the norms. If you were scarred by rejection, why welcome it in so many ways at a much larger scale constantly with your ideas? It could be that I'm just stupid, or that I've just categorized them differently than I should or something. Most rejection that I've faced hasn't been because of my intellectual ideas. So the intellectual ideas haven't been the thing to risk the rejection. The one that, the things that challenge your mind, taking you to a dark place, are the more psychological rejections. You just asked me what took me to a dark place. You didn't specify it as an intellectual dark place, I guess. You just meant like what... So intellectual is disjoint, or at least at a more surface level than something emotional. Yeah, I would just think there are times in your life when you're just in a dark place and that can have many different causes. Most intellectuals are still just people, and most of the things that will affect them are the kinds of things that affect people. They aren't that different necessarily. That's going to be true for, I presume, most basketball players are still just people. If you ask them what was the worst part of their life, it's going to be this kind of thing that was the worst part of life for most people. So rejection early in life? Yeah, I think, I mean, not in grade school probably, but yeah, sort of being a young nerdy guy and feeling not in much demand or interest or later on, lots of different kinds of rejection. Yeah, but I think that's, you know, most of us like to pretend we don't that much need other people, we don't care what they think. It's a common sort of stance if somebody rejects you, I didn't care about them anyway, but I think to be honest, people really do care. Yeah, we do seek that connection, that love. What do you think is the role of love in the human condition? Opacity, in part. That is, love is one of those things where we know at some level it's important to us, but it's not very clearly shown to us exactly how or why or in what ways. There are some kinds of things we want where we can just clearly see that we want it, right? We know when we're thirsty and we know why we're thirsty and we know what to do about being thirsty and we know when it's over that we're no longer thirsty. Love isn't like that. What do we seek from this? We're drawn to it, but we do not understand why we're drawn exactly, because it's not just affection, because if it was just affection, we don't seem to be drawn to pure affection. We don't seem to be drawn to somebody who's like a servant. We don't seem to be necessarily drawn to somebody that satisfies all your needs or something like that. So it's clearly something we want or need, but we're not exactly very clear about it, and that is kind of important to it. I've also noticed there are some kinds of things you can't imagine very well. So if you imagine a situation, there's some aspects of the situation that you can imagine it being bright or dim, you can imagine it being windy, or you can imagine it being hot or cold, but there's some aspects about your emotional stance in a situation that's actually just hard to imagine or even remember. You can often remember an emotion only when you're in a similar sort of emotion situation, and otherwise you just can't bring the emotion to your mind, and you can't even imagine it. So there's certain kinds of emotions you can have, and when you're in that emotion, you can know that you have it, and you can have a name and it's associated, but later on I tell you, remember joy, and it doesn't come to mind. You're not able to replay it. Right. And it's sort of a reason why we're, one of the reasons that pushes us to reconsume it and reproduce it is that we can't reimagine it. It's interesting, because there's a Daniel Kahneman type of thing of reliving memories, because I'm able to summon some aspect of that emotion again by thinking of that situation from which that emotion came. So like a certain song, you can listen to it, and you can feel the same way you felt the first time you remember that song associated with a certain emotion. Right, but you need to remember that situation in some sort of complete package. Yes. You can't just take one part off of it, and then if you get the whole package again, if you remember the whole feeling. Yes, or some fundamental aspect of that whole experience that arouse, from which the feeling arose. And actually the feeling is probably different in some way. It could be more pleasant or less pleasant than the feeling you felt originally, and that morphs over time every time you replay that memory. It is interesting. You're not able to replay the feeling perfectly. You don't remember the feeling, you remember the facts of the events. So there's a sense in which over time we expand our vocabulary as a community of language, and that allows us to sort of have more feelings and know that we are feeling them. Because you can have a feeling but not have a word for it, and then you don't know how to categorize it or even what it is, and whether it's the same as something else. But once you have a word for it, you can sort of pull it together more easily. And so I think over time we are having a richer palette of feelings, because we have more words for them. What has been a painful loss in your life? Maybe somebody or something that's no longer in your life, but played an important part of your life. Youth? That's a concept. No, it has to be... But I was once younger. I had health and I had vitality and I was insomer. I mean, you know, I've lost that over time. Do you see that as a different person? Maybe you've lost that person. Certainly, yes, absolutely I'm a different person than I was when I was younger, and I'm not who... I don't even remember exactly what he was. So I don't remember as many things from the past as many people do. So in some sense I've just lost a lot of my history by not remembering it. But does that... And I'm not that person anymore. That person's gone and I don't have any of their abilities. Is it a painful loss though? Yeah. Or is it a... Why is it painful? Because you're wiser, you're... I mean, there's so many things that are beneficial to getting older. Right, but... Or you just call it getting older. I just was this person and I felt assured that I could continue to be that person. And you're no longer that person. And he's gone and I'm not him anymore. And he died without fanfare or a funeral. And that the person you are today talking to me, that person will be changed too. Yes. And so maybe in 20 years he won't be there anymore. And a future person, you have to... We'll look back. For M's this will be less of a problem. For M's they would be able to save an archived copy of themselves at each different age. And they could turn it on periodically and go back and talk to it. So replay. You think some of that will be... So with emulated minds, with M's, there's a digital cloning that happens. And do you think that makes you less special if you're clonable? Does that make you the experience of life? The experience of a moment, the scarcity of that moment, the scarcity of that experience, isn't that a fundamental part of what makes that experience so delicious, so rich of feeling? I think if you think of a song that lots of people listen to that are copies all over the world, we're gonna call that a more special song. Yeah. Yeah. So, there's a perspective on copying and cloning where you're just scaling happiness versus degrading. I mean, each copy of a song is less special if there are many copies, but the song itself is more special if there are many copies. So you're actually spreading the happiness, even if it diminishes over a larger number of people, it's scale and that increases the overall happiness in the world. And then you're able to do that with multiple songs. Is a person who has an identical twin more or less special? Well, the problem with identical twins is, you know, it's like just two with M's... But two is different than one. But I think an identical twin's life is richer for having this other identical twin, somebody who understands them better than anybody else can. From the point of view of an identical twin, I think they have a richer life for being part of this couple, each of which is very similar. Now, if you said, will the world, you know, if we lose one of the identical twins, will the world miss it as much because you've got the other one and they're pretty similar? Maybe from the rest of the world's point of view, they suffer less of a loss when they lose one of the identical twins. But from the point of view of the identical twin themselves, their life is enriched by having a twin. See, but the identical twin copying happens at the place of birth. That's different than copying after you've done some of the environment, like the nurture at the teenage or in the 20s after going to college. Yes, that'll be an interesting thing for M's to find out, all the different ways that they can have different relationships to different people who have different degrees of similarity to them in time. Yeah, yeah, man. But it seems like a rich space to explore, and I don't feel sorry for them. This sounds like an interesting world to live in. And there could be some ethical conundrums there. There will be many new choices to make that they don't make now. And I discussed that in the book Age of M. Like, say you have a lover and you make a copy of yourself, but the lover doesn't make a copy. Well now, which one of you, or are both still related to the lover? Socially entitled to show up. Yes, so you'll have to make choices then when you split yourself, which of you inherit which unique things. Yeah, and of course there'll be an equivalent increase in lawyers. Well, I guess you can clone the lawyers to help manage some of these negotiations of how to split property. The nature of owning, I mean, property is connected to individuals, right? You only really need lawyers for this with an inefficient, awkward law that is not very transparent and able to do things. So for example, an operating system of a computer is a law for that computer. When the operating system is simple and clean, you don't need to hire a lawyer to make a key choice with the operating system. You don't need a human in the loop. You just make a choice. If there's a lot of rules, yeah. So ideally we want a legal system that makes the common choices easy and not require much overhead. And that's what the digitization of things further and further enables that. So the loss of a younger self. What about the loss of your life overall? Do you ponder your death, your mortality? Are you afraid of it? I am a cryonics customer. That's what this little tag around my deck says. It says that if you find me in a medical situation, you should call these people to enable the cryonics transfer. So I am taking a long shot chance at living a much longer life. Can you explain what cryonics is? So when medical science gives up on me in this world, instead of burning me or letting worms eat me, they will freeze me or at least freeze my head. And there is damage that happens in the process of freezing the head. But once it's frozen, it won't change for a very long time. Chemically, it'll just be completely exactly the same. So future technology might be able to revive me. And in fact, I would be mainly counting on the brain emulation scenario, which doesn't require reviving my entire biological body. It means I would be in a computer simulation. And so I think I've got at least a 5% shot at that. And that's immortality. Are you... Can you still be... But most likely it won't happen, and therefore I'm sad that it won't happen. Do you think immortality is something that you would like to have? Well, I mean, just like infinity, you can't know until forever, which means never, right? So all you can really... The better choice is at each moment, do you want to keep going? No, I would like at every moment to have the option to keep going. The interesting thing about human experience is that the way you phrase it is exactly right. At every moment, I would like to keep going. But the thing that happens, you know, leave them wanting more of whatever that phrase is. The thing that happens is over time, it's possible for certain experiences to become bland, and you become tired of them. And that actually makes life really unpleasant. Sorry, makes that experience really unpleasant. And perhaps you can generalize that to life itself, if you have a long enough horizon. And so... Might happen, but might as well wait and find out. But then you're ending on suffering, you know? So in the world of brain emulations, I have more options. You can return yourself to... I can make copies of myself, archive copies at various ages, and at a later age, I could decide that I'd rather replace myself with a new copy from a younger age. So does brain emulation still operate in physical space? So can we do... What do you think about the metaverse and operating in virtual reality? So we can conjure up, not just emulate, not just your own brain and body, but the entirety of the environment? Well, most brain emulations will in fact, spost most of their time in virtual reality. But they wouldn't think of it as virtual reality, they would just think of it as their usual reality. I mean, the thing to notice, I think, in our world, most of us spend most time indoors. And indoors, we are surrounded by walls covered with paint, and floors covered with tile or rugs. Most of our environment is artificial. It's constructed to be convenient for us, it's not the natural world that was there before. Virtual reality is basically just like that. It is the environment that's comfortable and convenient for you. But when it's that environment for you, it's real for you. Just like the room you're in right now, most likely, is very real for you. You're not focused on the fact that the paint is hiding the actual studs behind the wall and the actual wires and pipes and everything else. The fact that we're hiding that from you doesn't make it fake or unreal. What are the chances that we're actually in the very kind of system that you're describing where the environment and the brain is being emulated and you're just replaying an experience when you were first did a podcast with Lex after. And now, the person that originally launched this already did hundreds of podcasts with Lex. This is just the first time. And you like this time because there's so much uncertainty. There's nerves, it could have gone in any direction. At the moment, we don't have the technical ability to create that emulation. So we'd have to be postulating that in the future we have that ability and then they choose to evaluate this moment now. Don't you think we could be in the simulation of that exact experience right now? We wouldn't be able to know? So one scenario would be this never really happened. This only happens as a reconstruction later on. That's different than the scenario that this did happen the first time and now it's happening again as a reconstruction. That second scenario is harder to put together because it requires this coincidence where between the two times we produce the ability to do it. No, but don't you think replay of memories? Power replay of memories is something that might be a possible thing in the future. So you're saying it's harder than conjure up things from scratch? It's certainly possible. So the main way I would think about it is in terms of the demand for simulation versus other kinds of things. So I've given this a lot of thought because I first wrote about this long ago when Bostrom first wrote his papers about simulation argument and I wrote about how to live in a simulation. And so the key issue is the fraction of creatures in the universe that are really experiencing what you appear to be really experiencing relative to the fraction that are experiencing it in a simulation way, i.e. simulated. So then the key parameter is at any one moment in time, creatures at that time, most of them are presumably really experiencing what they're experiencing, but some fraction of them are experiencing some past time where that past time is being remembered via their simulation. So to figure out this ratio, what we need to think about is basically two functions. One is how fast in time does the number of creatures grow? And then how fast in time does the interest in the past decline? Because at any one time, people will be simulating different periods in the past with different emphasis based on- That's exactly the way you think so much. That's exactly right, yeah. So if the first function grows slower than the second one declines, then in fact your chances of being simulated are low. So the key question is how fast does interest in the past decline relative to the rate at which the population grows with time? Does this correlate to, you earlier suggested that the interest in the future increases over time. Are those correlated, interest in the future versus interest in the past? Like why are we interested in the past? But the simple way to do it is, as you know, Google Ngrams has a way to type in a word and see how interest in it declines or rises over time, right? You can just type in a year and get the answer for that. If you type in a particular year, like 1900 or 1950, you can see with Google Ngram how interest in that year increased up until that date and decreased after it. And you can see that interest in a date declines faster than does the population grow with time. That is brilliant. That is so interesting. And so you have the answer. Wow. And that was your argument against, not against, to this particular aspect of the simulation, how much past simulation there will be, replay of past memories. First of all, if we assume that like simulation of the past is a small fraction of all the creatures at that moment, right? And then it's about how fast. Now, some people have argued plausibly that maybe most interest in the past falls with this fast function, but some unusual category of interest in the past won't fall that fast quickly, and then that eventually would dominate. So that's a other hypothesis. Some category. So that very outlier specific kind of, yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like really popular kinds of memories. Like probably sex. In a trillion years, there's some small research institute that tries to randomly select from all possible people in history or something to simulate. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the question is how big is this research institute and how big is the future in a trillion years, right? And that would be hard to say. But if we just look at the ordinary process by which people simulate recent, so if you look at, I think it's also true for movies and plays and video games, overwhelmingly they're interested in the recent past. There's very few video games where you play someone in the Roman Empire. Even fewer where you play someone in the ancient Egyptian Empire. Yeah, just different. It's just declined very quickly. But every once in a while, that's brought back. But yeah, you're right. I mean, just if you look at the mass of entertainment, movies and games, it's focusing on the present recent past. And maybe some, I mean, where does science fiction fit into this because it's sort of, what is science fiction? I mean, it's a mix of the past and the present and some kind of manipulation of that to make it more efficient for us to ask deep philosophical questions about humanity. So the closest genre to science fiction is clearly fantasy. Fantasy and science fiction in many bookstores and even Netflix or whatever categories, they're just lumped together. Yeah. And they have a similar function so that the function of fantasy is more transparent than the function of science fiction. So use that as your guide. What's fantasy for? It's just to take away the constraints of the ordinary world and imagine stories with much fewer constraints. That's what fantasy is. You're much less constrained. What's the purpose to remove constraints? Is it to escape from the harshness of the constraints of the real world or is it to just remove constraints in order to explore some, get a deeper understanding of our world? What is it? I mean, why do people read fantasy? I'm not a cheap fantasy reading kind of person. So I need to... One story that it sounds plausible to me is that there are sort of these deep story structures that we love and we want to realize and then many details of the world get in their way. Fantasy takes all those obstacles out of the way and lets you tell the essential hero story or the essential love story, whatever essential story you want to tell. The reality and constraints are not in the way. And so science fiction can be thought of as like fantasy except you're not willing to admit that it can't be true. So the future gives the excuse of saying, well, it could happen. You accept some more reality constraints for the illusion at least that maybe it could really happen. Maybe it could happen and that it stimulates the imagination. The imagination is something really interesting about human beings and it seems also to be an important part of creating really special things is to be able to first imagine them. With you and Nick Bostrom, where do you land on the simulation and all the mathematical ways of thinking it and just the thought experiment of it? Are we living in a simulation? That was the just discussion we just had. That is, you should grant the possibility of being a simulation. You shouldn't be 100% confident that you're not. You should certainly grant a small probability. The question is how large is that probability? Are you saying we would be, I misunderstood because I thought our discussion was about replaying things that have already happened. Right, but the whole question is right now, is that what I am? Am I actually a replay from some distant future? But it doesn't necessarily need to be a replay. It could be a totally new. You don't have to be an NPC. Right, but clearly I'm in a certain era with a certain kind of world around me. So either this is a complete fantasy or it's a past of somebody else in the future. No, it could be a complete fantasy though. It could be, right, but then you have to talk about what's the frank fraction of complete fantasies, right? I would say it's easier to generate a fantasy than to replay a memory, right? Sure, but if we just look at the entire history of everything, we should say sure, but most things are real, most things aren't fantasies. Therefore the chance that my thing is real, right? So the simulation argument works stronger about sort of the past. We say, ah, but there's more future people than there are today. So you being in the past of the future makes you special relative to them, which makes you more likely to be in a simulation, right? If we're just taking the full count and saying in all creatures ever, what percentage are in simulations? Probably no more than 10%. So what's a good argument for that? That most things are real? Yeah. Because as Bostrom says the other way, right? In a competitive world, in a world where people like have to work and have to get things done, then they have a limited budget for leisure. And so, you know, leisure things are less common than work things like real things, right? That's just... But if you look at the stretch of history in the universe, doesn't the ratio of leisure increase? Isn't that the forger? Right, but now we're looking at the fraction of leisure, which takes the form of something where the person doing the leisure doesn't realize it. Now there can be some fraction of that, but that's much smaller, right? Yeah. Clueless forgers. Or somebody is clueless in the process of supporting this leisure, right? It might not be the person leisuring, somebody, their supporting character or something, but still, that's gotta be a pretty small fraction of leisure. You mentioned that children are one of the things that are a source of meaning, broadly speaking. And let me ask the big question, what's the meaning of this whole thing? The Robin, meaning of life. What is the meaning of life? We talked about alien civilizations, but this is the one we got. Where are the aliens? Where are the human? Seem to be conscious, be able to introspect. What's why? Why are we here? This is the thing I told you before about how we can predict that future creatures will be different from us. We, our preferences are this amalgam of various sorts of random sort of patched together preferences about thirst and sex and sleep and attention and all these sorts of things. So we don't understand that very well. It's not very transparent and it's a mess, right? That is the source of our motivation. That is how we were made and how we are induced to do things. But we can't summarize it very well and we don't even understand it very well. That's who we are. And often we find ourselves in a situation where we don't feel very motivated. We don't know why. And other situations we find ourselves very motivated and we don't know why either. And so that's the nature of being a human of the sort that we are, because even though we can think abstractly and reason abstractly, this package of motivations is just opaque and a mess. And that's what it means to be a human today and the motivation. We can't very well tell the meaning of our life. It is this mess. But our descendants will be different. They will actually know exactly what they want and it will be to have more descendants. That will be the meaning for them. Well, it's funny that you have the certainty. You have more certainty, you have more transparency about our descendants than you do about your own self. So it's really interesting to think, as you mentioned this about love, that something that's fundamental about love is this opaqueness, that we're not able to really introspect what the heck it is, or all the feelings, the complex feelings involved. And that's true about many of our motivations. And that's what it means to be human of the 20th and the 21st century variety. Why is that not a feature that we will choose to persist in civilization then? This opaqueness, put another way, mystery, maintaining a sense of mystery about ourselves and about those around us. Maybe that's a really nice thing to have. Maybe. But, so, I mean, this is the fundamental issue in analyzing the future. What will set the future? One theory about what will set the future is what do we want the future to be? So under that theory, we should sit and talk about what we want the future to be, have some conferences, have some conventions, you know, discussion things, vote on it maybe, and then hand out off to the implementation people to make the future the way we've decided it should be. That's not the actual process that's changed the world over history up to this point. It has not been the result of us deciding what we want and making it happen. In our individual lives, we can do that. We might decide what career we want or where we want to live, who we want to live with. In our individual lives, we often do slowly make our lives better according to our plan and our things. But that's not the whole world. The whole world so far has mostly been a competitive world where things happen if anybody anywhere chooses to adopt them and they have an advantage. And then it spreads and other people are forced to adopt it by competitive pressures. So that's the kind of analysis I can use to predict the future. And I do use that to predict the future. It doesn't tell us it'll be a future we like. It just tells us what it'll be. It'll be one where we're trying to maximize the number of our descendants. And we know that abstractly and directly. And it's not opaque. With some probability that's non-zero that will lead us to become grabby in expanding aggressively out into the cosmos until we meet other aliens. The timing isn't clear. We might become grabby and then this happens. These are—grabbiness and this are both the result of competition, but it's less clear which happens first. Does this future excite you or scare you? How do you feel about this whole thing? Well, again, I told you compared to sort of a dead cosmology, at least it's energizing and having a living story with real actors and characters and agendas, right? Yeah. And that's one hell of a fun universe to live in. Rami, you're one of the most fascinating, fun people to talk to. Brilliant, humble, systematic in your analysis. Hold on to my wallet here. What's he looking for? I already stole your wallet long ago. I really, really appreciate you spend your valuable time with me. I hope we get a chance to talk many more times in the future. Thank you so much for sitting down. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Robin Hanson. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Ray Bradbury. We are an impossibility in an impossible universe. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/KBZP4rLk6bk

WgytXF0SPh0

UCSHZKyawb77ixDdsGog4iWA

Bishop Robert Barron: Christianity and the Catholic Church | Lex Fridman Podcast #304

When we're beyond good and evil, you know, and all that's left is the will to power, then why are we surprised that the powerful rise and that they use the powerless for their purposes? When we forget ideas like equality and rights, which are grounded in God, why are we surprised that death camps follow? The following is a conversation with Bishop Robert Barron, founder of Word on Fire and one of the greatest educators in the world on the beauty and wisdom within Catholicism, Christianity, and religious faith in general. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Bishop Robert Barron. Let's start with the big question. Who is God? According to Christianity, according to Catholicism, who's God? I'll give you Thomas Aquinas' definition. God is ipsum esse subsistens. God is the subsistent act of to be itself. Another way to state that in Aquinas is God is that reality, unique, absolutely unique, in which essence and existence coincide. To be God is to be to be. Those are all ways of talking about what we mean by God. They are kind of gnomic, and that's on purpose. There's almost a Zen Koan kind of quality about the way we talk about God. I'm saying something that's substantive, but it's more in like a via negativa mode. It's more like what God is not because there's nothing in the world that would correspond to those descriptions. So anything in the world would be a being of some type or an event of some type, some particular mode of existence. And God is not an entity in the world. In fact, I would say that's the fundamental mistake that atheists old and new make all the time, is they think of God as a big being. When Aquinas says that God is not in any genus, even the genus of being, that's one of the strangest remarks in the whole tradition, but it's really interesting. So you say, well, at the very least, God must be a being, right? And Aquinas' answer is no, he's not in the genus of being. So we talk about God being beyond being and so on. To say in God, essence and existence coincide is to say God's very nature is to be. And that can't be true of any contingent thing in the world. So what I'm doing there is I'm gesturing the way the tradition does toward God, using language that's at the same time philosophically precise and gnomic. It's both accurate. It's true. In God, essence and existence coincide. What God is is the same as God's active to be. But now what does that mean? I'm not quite sure because nothing in our ordinary experience corresponds to that. Everything in our experience is a being of some type. So it's existence received according to the mode of some essence. That's not true of God, which is why he can't be found in the world. And that's, as I say, the fundamental mistake is, oh, I guess theists are those that believe there's this being alongside the other beings in the universe. And then atheists say, oh, no, there is no such being. And that's precisely wrong. That's just a category error. Dawkins, I think, cites Bertrand Russell to the effect that proving the non-existence of God is a bit like proving the non-existence of a China teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. No, that's precisely what God is not, some entity that is sort of hidden among the other entities of the universe. God is the reason why there's a contingent realm at all. That's the way to put it. In more theological language, God's the creator of all things. So if God is outside of our world, is it possible for us to visualize, to comprehend, to know God? Not utterly, of course. And I would say our knowledge begins always in this world, begins in ordinary experience. But I think we can, through metaphysical analysis, through philosophical reasoning, can come to some knowledge of a reality which is transcendent to our experience. So we gesture toward it. I always like Aquinas, who says the language about God that we use is analogical. So it's not univocal, meaning what I say about that can or about this bottle, I can say about God. No, that makes God an entity. At the same time, it's not simply equivocal. So if I say, well, that thing is and God is, I mean totally different things. No, no, I mean something analogous. So to be God is to be to be. So the real meaning of being is the being of God. The being of that thing or this thing or the being of galaxies or subatomic particles would be analogous to God's manner of being. So on that basis, I can make some statements. I can theorize. And even at the limit, as you suggest, I can visualize. So we have metaphors for God. And the Bible is replete with those, right? God is a rock. God's like a lion. God's like this and that. The Bible will sometimes imagine God as a human being walking around. Now, only the crudest fundamentalism would say, well, that's a univocal, accurate description of God. It's an image that's an image that's catching something of God's manner of being. – Then what does it mean to believe in God? So there's a word, and we'll have to limit ourselves to human interpretable words today. There's a word called faith. What does faith mean? So if we can't really directly know God, we kind of sneak up to the idea of God with metaphors. – Better, he sneaks up on us. Because I like the language of grace. God's action comes first. So if I stay perfectly within the realm of I'm seeking with my kind of eagle eyes and my inquiring mind, I'm not going to find God that way. I might find a path that opens up. But I would say finally God finds me. And I think then the language of faith begins to make more sense. I'm with Paul Tillich, though, the Protestant theologian, said the most misunderstood word in the religious vocabulary is faith. Because he said the way we take it usually is something subrational. I have proof of this. I really know this. And I only kind of believe that. That's just a personal opinion or impression. But that's to identify faith with the kind of infrarational. And that's not it. I mean, I don't want something infrarational. I don't want superstition or childish credulity. So authentic faith is the darkness beyond reason and the far side of reason. It's super irrational, not infrarational. And that's a very important move. At the limit of what I can know, at the limit of my striving and my vision, there's this horizon that opens up. And I think that's true even in ordinary ways of knowing. There's a kind of a horizon that lures us beyond what I've got. Faith has to do more with that kind of darkness rather than a darkness prior to reason. The darkness beyond the horizon prior to reason, first of all, the poetry of your language is incredible, to be to be. I have a million questions. Yeah, go ahead. I do too. I miss. So first of all, let me just jump around. You mentioned to be to be a few times. Yeah. What does that mean? Well, to be me is to be a human being, right? To be this is to be a table. To be this is to be a microphone. So I'll use Aquinas' language. It's the act of being poured, if you want, into the receptacle of some essential principle. So it's got an ontological structure. It's an existent. It's a thing that exists, but it's existing in a limited way according to essential principle. God, what's God? What's God's name? What kind of being is he? We'll go back to Moses now. When the Israelites asked me, what's your name? What shall I tell them? And he says, famously, I am who I am. But see, Aquinas reads that as a very accurate remark. So Moses is wondering, okay, there's a lot of gods and there's a lot of things, a lot of entities. Which one are you? You got to be one of them. So tell me your name. In philosophical language, give me the essence that receives your act of existing, right? And God's answer blows the mind of Moses and the whole tradition. I am who I am. To be God is to be. So I'm not this or that. I'm not up or down. I'm not here or there. God is that whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere, as the mystics put it. Now, can I get a clear and distinct idea of that? No. And in a way, that's the whole point. If I could, I'd be talking about a being of some kind. So to be God is to be, to be is to, and that's, Moses, take off your sandals. You're on holy ground. So I'm going to go over confidently and find out what this thing is, this burning bush. I'm going to find out. No, no, no. Take off your shoes. You're on holy ground because you're not in charge here. You're not in command because if you got shoes on, you can walk wherever you want. You can walk with confidence, but you take your shoes off, you're much more vulnerable. And that's appropriate when you're talking about God. But here's another interesting one. I didn't think about the burning bush in this connection before, but it's a bush that's on fire, but not consumed. Beings are competitive with each other. And so these can't be in the same place at the same time, these two beings, they're mutually exclusive if you want. But as God comes close to a creature, he doesn't destroy it or consume it, but the creature becomes more beautiful and more radiant. And see, compare it to the classical gods and goddesses. When they come bursting into life and experience, things are incinerated and people give way and they're overwhelmed. Then there's this biblical idea of God comes close and sets things on fire, but doesn't burn them up. And that's because he's not a competitive being in the world. If he were a big being, then he'd be competing for space, so to speak, on the same ontological grid. But he's not like that. So God can come close and we come more fully alive. Now we're starting to gesture toward the incarnation, I mean, the central Christian doctrine that God can actually become a human without overwhelming the human he becomes. So I mean, that's kind of the next step. But the basic idea of God is non-competitively transcendent to the world. That's another way to get at it. Non-competitively transcendent to the world, so it's beyond being, it's the source of being. Right. Let me make it maybe more imagistic. I think a really good analogy would be author to book. So like Tolkien or someone that writes one of these big sprawling novels, and Tolkien's good too because he creates a whole world. He creates a new nature, a new language, new history, all that. Think of the thousands of characters and the plots and subplots and all of it. Tolkien is utterly responsible for every bit of that story. Every character, every plot, every subplot, every description, he's completely responsible. He's involved in every nook and cranny of it. But he's not in the story. He's not in the book. You're not going to find him as a character in the book. So that's the category mistake of the atheist in a way is, I'm looking for God, he's a character in the story somewhere. No, he's the author of the story, mysteriously present to every aspect of the story, but not a character in it. Right. He is deeply in the story somehow. He's present, but he's not... Even if he is a character, he's not really... The full embodiment is not a character. And people inside the book can't really know about the author. Right. No, right. Well, see, Augustine says God is simultaneously intimior intimio meo et superior sumo meo. He's closer to me than I am to myself, and he's higher than anything I could possibly imagine at the same time. But see, once you get the insight that God is the sheer act of to be, well, of course that's true. So right now, God is sustaining us in existence. True. Aquinas says God is in all things by essence, presence, and power, and most intimately so. And he's nowhere in this room. Okay, well, where's God? He's nowhere in this room. He's totalitare alitere, we say. He's totally other. Same time. But once you crack that code, though, I think you see it of why that would be true. And see, now I'm getting from more philosophical language to more mystical language, because all the mystics talk that way in these high paradoxes about God's availability and unavailability. I've often thought in the Bible, story after story, God can neither be grasped nor hidden from. So the first sinful instinct is to grasp at God's. I've got him. I understand him. I can manipulate him. No, no, no. Story after story is told you can't do that. Well, then the other extreme of the sinner, all right, then I'm going to run from God. I'm going to avoid God. Jonah and the whale, so he has the call from God. And he said, no, no, I'm going to refuse that. I'm going to run as far away. I'm going to go to Tarshish, which meant Timbuktu for them, at the end of the world. God's got the whale, swallows him up and brings him right back where God wants him. It's a poetic way of saying you can't escape the press of God. At the same time, Tower of Babel, I'm going to build a tower up to God. I'm going to grab hold of God. No, no, no, you can't do either. So live in the space in between those two things, which would be the space of friendship with God, falling in love with God is neither grasping nor hiding from God. You mentioned, again, a lot of beautiful poetic things. You mentioned grace. Yeah. You mentioned sin. You mentioned incarnation. Is there a philosophical, pragmatic way to start talking about the pillars of Christianity? What are the defining things that make Christianity to you and broadly speaking to those that follow the religion? In a way, what we're doing so far is a necessary propodutic because we're talking about God. What makes Christianity distinctive, of course, is the claim of the incarnation. So we come up out of Judaism. We come up out of this great monotheistic tradition. And the Bible itself and all the great commentators within Judaism, I think, would agree with this basic theistic stuff that I've been talking about. Take Moses Maimonides, for example. Now, what makes Christianity distinct? This supremely weird claim that God becomes one of us. God becomes a creature, but without ceasing to be God and without overwhelming the integrity of the creature he becomes. What we see in the burning bush, that principle which obtains across the board. So the closer God comes to me, the more radiant I become. But take that now to the nth degree would be what we mean by the incarnation, the incarnation of the Son of God becoming a creature in such a way as to make humanity radiant and beautiful. That's the pillar of Christianity. It's the incarnation. And what follows from that is the redemption of all of reality. So not just of human beings, but in becoming a creature, God divinizes the world. The Greek fathers always said God became human, that humans might become God. And that's a good way to sum up, I think, the essence of Christianity. Why is this such an important thing? So it's a distinctive thing, but why is it so important philosophically to what it means to be a Christian? What impact did that have on our world, on human civilization, on human nature, on our morals of why live, what to live for, and the meaning of it all? Why is incarnation so important? Well, I think it's massively important because it's the divinization principle that God wants to divinize His creation and sort of in this concentrated point of Jesus of Nazareth. But then we talk about the mystical body of Jesus. So that goes right back to Paul. As we're grafted onto Christ, we talk about that as the church, we become like cells and molecules and an organism. That's the church. It's not an organization. That's a deformation of ecclesiology. The church is this organism that begins with Jesus, and then He's drawing all of humanity, but ultimately all of nature, all of creation to Himself. When the Son of Man is lifted up, He will draw all things to Himself, that idea of the gathering in of a scattered creation. So in that way, it's at the heart of it. Then there's all kinds of things. If God becomes human, that means there's a dignity to humanity, which goes beyond anything any humanist of any stripe has ever said, ancient, medieval, modern, contemporary. Christianity is the greatest humanism imaginable. God became one of us in order to divinize us. The goal of my life is not just to be a good person, not just to be materially successful, not just to be a member of society. The goal of my life is to become a participant in the divine nature. I don't think there is a humanism greater than that, even conceivably. That's where I think humanism is profoundly influenced by the incarnation. Just our notion of God is non-competitive to us. That's so important because I think in so many systems from mythology onward, you have these competitive understandings of God. When Jesus says to His disciples the night before He dies, I no longer call you servants but friends, it's an extraordinary moment because every God who's ever been served, well, that's the best we can hope for is that we'll be the servant of God. I've tried to obey you, Lord. I'll try to do what you want. But when Jesus says, I no longer call you servants or slaves, He would have said in the Greek there, but friends, I don't know. I can't imagine anything greater than that, becoming God's friend. That's a call to become one with God. It's possible to become one with God. Now, I should mention, you're one of the greatest religious communicators I've ever experienced. A huge number of people are fans of yours. You've done a lot of great conversations. You've done Reddit AMAs, which is a very unique, bold, brave thing. On one of them, somebody asked, what's the most challenging of the seven deadly sins? So first, what are the seven deadly sins? What do they have to do with Christianity? How essential, how crucial they are to the religion? And what's the most challenging in our modern day? Yeah, to name them, pride, envy, anger, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust are the seven deadly sins. We're called capital sins sometimes, from Copeland. They're the head sins from which things tend to flow. The most fundamental is pride. Probably most people today, if you talk about vice or you talk about a deadly sin, they would think about lust. But the classical authors, including Dante, who does this pictorially, that's the least of the deadly sins is lust, because it's the one that's most dependent upon the body and its passions and so on. The most important is pride. Pride is the deadliest of deadly sins. And it's very simple to see why. Pride is the... Augustine calls it incurvatus in se. I'm caved in around myself, like a black hole, right, to get into the scientific. But the black hole to me is a great symbol, that it's so heavy that it draws everything, including light. Nothing can escape from it. See, that's the sinner. We're all sinners. We're like black holes, that we draw everything into ourselves. So as a sinner, and I'll confess I'm a sinner, the temptation is, okay, this is the Bishop Barron moment, and I'm drawing you now into my world and so on. What that does is it kills us off and it darkens life, and it makes it small and heavy and awful. But see, compared to the contrasting thing is when you're lost in a moment, you're not concerned about the impression I'm making, you're not concerned about drawing the world into yourself, you're not concerned about this monkey on my back that's always telling me, look good and sound right. But you're lost in something. You're just talking to a friend and the two of you together are discovering something true or beautiful. You're lost in a movie or you're lost in a book. Those are the best moments in life. Those are the best because they're the least prideful moments, right? That's when the light comes out. I become radiant because I'm overcoming this tendency to fall in on myself. Dante is so good because the way he pictures Satan in Divine Comedy, and he's at the center of the earth, so like a black hole that way, he's at the center of gravity, he's at the heaviest place. And there's not fire where he is, but ice, which is a much, much better image that you're frozen in place and you're stuck. And he's got wings, right? And they used to be angel wings because he's an angel, but now they're like bat wings for Dante and they're flapping. And all they're doing is making the world around him colder because he's ice, he's stuck in his own iciness. And then he's beating his wings over the ice and making everyone else colder. It's a great image. And then he has, this is cool too, he has three faces, Satan, because he's the simulacrum of the Trinity. So every sinner thinks he's God. So I pretend I'm God. So he's got the three faces. And from all six eyes, he weeps. Also from all three mouths, he's chewing a sinner. He's got Cassius, Brutus, and Judas in the three mouths, the three traitors. But I thought it's just a great image of all of us sinners is we're stuck, it's heavy, it's cold, we're chewing on our past resentments, we're weeping in our sadness, and we're making the world around us colder. It's beautiful. It's a great... So that's pride. See, that's an image of pride because Satan, that's his great sin, pride, which is why he needed Michael, right? Mikael, who's like God. So the great challenge to him, which we need all the time, is someone to say, wait a minute, wait a minute, you're not God. But the minute we say, I'm God, black hole, I now cave in on myself. I suck everything into myself and I turn into Dante's Satan. So that's a great image. That's pride. That's the most fundamental. That's the uber capital sin. All the other ones flow from that in a way. So in general, empathy, humility, compassion, love thy neighbor is the way to fight the sin of pride. Right. Which is why the masters tend to say, this was Bernard, Saint Bernard, was asked, what are the three most important virtues? And he said, humilitas, humilitas, and humilitas, because it's the opposite of pride. But they're bringing acquaintance in again, because we think, humility, I'm no good. That's not what it means at all. It means what I was describing before. When you're just lost in something, you're just lost in it. My image, I live out in Santa Barbara and I like to walk on the beach out there, and there's a section of the beach where they let the dogs run free without leashes. And when you see a dog and he's well cared for and his master's right there, and the master's throwing the tennis ball into the surf, and the dog goes galloping out into the surf, and he gets it with a big smile and comes running back, that's humility. That's an image of heaven, because he's just lost in that moment. He doesn't care about impressing anybody, doesn't care about what people think of him. He's just lost in it. That's it. That's heaven. And those moments in our life, when we get that, it's a little hint of paradise. But the trouble is most of us live, frankly, most of the time in various levels of hell, and we're dealing with these deadly sins. Envy flows from pride, because if I'm prideful, I'm a black hole, I'm in curvatus in se, I'm collapsed in, what am I really going to be concerned about? That guy's getting more attention than I am. That guy's richer than I am. That lady, she's got a bigger reputation than I do. And why don't I have that? So envy is a very close daughter of pride. Anger flows from that. Why do I get angry? The dog isn't getting angry on the beach when he's running after the tennis ball, but I get angry all the time, sputter with anger when things aren't going my way, and you're insulting me, and you're not doing what I want, and I'm being hurt, my reputation. So anger flows from pride. All of them do. All of the deadly sins do. So you said, I'm a sinner. So we're all sinners. Yeah. And you mentioned Satan. Where's the, so there's heaven and hell, there's God and Satan. Where's the line between what it means to be good and not good enough? Or I hesitate to use the word sort of evil, but maybe overwhelmingly sinful. Where's the line between hell and heaven? Think of them as limit concepts, maybe. They're like heuristic devices. So heaven would name this ultimate friendship with God. So think of the dog on the beach who is just, he's fallen in love with his environment, with his master, with the surf. He's just lost in it. He's forgotten himself. He's transcended himself and is now lost in the wonder of the beauty of that place. Now, imagine the limit of that is the friendship with God that we talked about, that I become the friend of God. I become so forgetful of myself, so lost in the beauty and truth and goodness of God that I found beatitudo, right? I found joy, the beatific vision, we call it. That's the limit case. That's where we're tending. That's where God wants us to go. Think of hell as a limit case in the opposite direction. That's curvatus in se. That's the black hole. And we're all sinners, meaning we're somewhere on that spectrum. We have good days and bad days, and we have good moments and bad moments, and I can be drawn toward sin. What's God's purpose in Christianity's reading is to bring us out of that. Now, where did he go? He went all the way into it to get us out of it. It's like pulling a sock back out. Sock's inside out. You have to go all the way in and pull it back out. And so God had to go all the way down. And there's the trajectory of the incarnation. Though he was in the form of God, and this is St. Paul, Jesus did not deem equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but rather emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. But then he was known to be of human estate, and he accepted even death, death on a cross. And so Paul imagines that the incarnation's this downward journey. In order to get all of us, all of us who were stuck, were stuck in our sin. And so again, Paul says he became sin on the cross. It's a really, really powerful idea. He wasn't a sinner, because then he'd need to be saved too. He's not a sinner, but he entered into our dysfunction in order to pull us back out of it. So that's a really powerful message, an embodiment sort of educating the world about sin. That said, day to day, there's like oscillations in terms of how much each human sins, and there's a struggle against that. So that dog that loses himself on the beach may have had a lot of sex with other dogs leading up to that. That was, may have been not the best dog he could be leading up to that. So how, if it's a math equation, what does the final calculation look like in terms of ending up in heaven? What does it mean to live a good life in the end? Is it the average amount of sin you do is low? Are you allowed to make mistakes? Yeah. The metric is love, right? And love is not a fixed number. It's an act of the will to will the good of the other. That's Aquinas again, to will the good of the other as other. And see, that's the anti-black hole principle. Will the good of the other as other. As other. See, because if I'm willing your good because it's good for me, so I guess, it's good for you that I'm on this program, I guess. I'm willing your good, but that's because it's going to be down to my benefit. That's just an indirect egotism. That's why I see love is really rare and strange, that I really want what's good for you as other. So not connected to the black hole tendency of my own prideful ego. When I've broken that, I've forgotten self, and I've moved into the space of your own good. That's what love is. Now, God wants us to be, by this, they will know that you're my disciples, that you love one another, Jesus says. So that's it. Now, I mean, life is ups and downs and back and forth, and we're better or worse at that. The point of a church is to graft us onto Christ, that we might become more and more conformed to love. But the final calculus, I'll leave that to God. But use love as the metric. At the end of the day, when you examine your conscience, did I will the good of the other today? How effective was I at that? And be, just like Ignatius of Loyola, be brutally honest. Or was I just willing someone's good because it was good for me? Where were those moments where I was like the dog on the beach? See, and as you play it the way, not so much God, the lawgiver surveying, and you did three of those and four. It's God wants us to be fully alive. St. Irenaeus is one of my great heroes, ancient patristic figure. And his famous line is, Gloria de homo vivens, right? The glory of God is a human being fully alive. And that gets us over this sort of obsession with the legalism and did I do enough? And is that, that's a big enough sin? And God wants us fully alive. The key to that is willing the good of the other. He died that we might come to a richer appropriation of that. So to be fully alive is to be in love with the world or to love the world deeply. And what love means is the other. It's the humility, yeah, getting out of yourself. That somehow is not that's not even selfless because the word selfless requires her to be a self. It's almost like just letting go. Yeah, I might talk about like a gift of self that you yourself aware, but you give a gift of yourself. Yourself becomes not a magnet drawing things into itself, but it becomes a radiant source of life for others. I think Mother Teresa would have had a keen sense of herself, it seems to me, but it was to light other people up so that they might be a radiant, that's the game. So you probably articulate it that way too. Yeah, I love love. It's such an interesting thing. But we have to be hard nosed about it. Like your friend Dostoevsky, love is a harsh and dreadful thing. It's not a feeling. And our culture is so sentimentalized love that it's having warm feelings or doing what people want. And that's not it at all. Love is always correlated to the order of the good. Because if I'm willing the good of the other, I have to know what that good is. So a parent doesn't give the kid whatever she wants. Well, that's not love, that's indulgence or that's sentimentality. But I have to know what the goods really are if I'm going to will them for you. Yeah, in some sense, you're absolutely right. A component of love is the struggle to know the other. It's the struggle to understand. I mean, that's what I mean by empathy. It's not Valentine's Day romantic gifts. It's a struggle. It's like trying to understand, trying to perturb your own mind and that of another human being to try to figure out who they are, what they want, what makes them happy, what are they afraid of, what are they hoping for. And it's like a dance, a dance of conversation, a dance of just shared experiences and all that kind of stuff. And all of that requires for you to be, I guess, yeah, empathize. Imagine yourself in their place and then love that person when you're living inside that person. Yeah. Several minutes ago about the pillars of Christianity. So we talked about God, talked about incarnation, but you're getting now to a third key one, namely the Trinity. Because we're monotheists, but we don't think God is monolithically one. We think God is a play of persons. And the Father from all eternity by a great mental act forms his interior word, as Aquinas puts it. And that's the logos, that's the verbum, that's the word by which the Father knows himself. And we call it the Son. So the imago, it's the image of the Father. But then see the great thing is that imago is not like just a dead image on a mirror or a dead image at a pond or something. It's a full reflection of the Father's being. He's one in being with the Father. Therefore, the Son has everything the Father has except being the Father. But that means that the two of them look at each other and they're just crazy in love with each other because the Father is the fullness of being, the Son is the fullness of being. And they're so crazy in love with each other that they... This is Fulton Sheen put it this way, that there's this... They just love each other with this sigh. And we call that the Spiritus Sanctus, that's the holy breath, the holy sigh of love between the Father and the Son. And that's one being, one essence we say of God, but in these three persons, but all your language of dance and play and community, the Greek fathers talked about perichoresis, which means God, the three persons sit in a choir together. So they sing together. And that's why I see Christianity is unique in this claim that God is love. So every religion will say God loves in some way, love is an attribute of God, or love is a thing that God does sometimes. But Christianity is unique in all the religions in saying that God is love. And somehow the Holy Trinity embodies that idea. I mean, that philosophically has always been confusing to me, what it means to be three things and at the same time be one God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. What is this dance between these three? How do you visualize, how do you understand this? This very fascinating, essential thing for Christianity? The first thing I'd say is what we already have been sort of talking about, is if you say God is love, and most people probably say, yeah, I like that. That's a good idea. God is love. But it's very peculiar because if He is love, there has to be in His unity a lover, a beloved, and the love that they share. Otherwise, He isn't love by His very essence. He would love, it would be an attribute of God or an action of God. But if it's His very nature, there has to be lover, beloved, and love shared. And the tradition eventually came to see that. The image I was using before of the Father, His imago, the Son, well, that's born of God's infinite mind. So of course God has an image of Himself. Heck, I've got an image of myself. That's something I can pull off as a puny little creature. God in His infinity has a perfect imago of Himself. And they have to fall in love with each other. What else can they do? Because they're in the presence of infinite good. And so it has to follow that you then have the shared love that connects them. And that's how we generate, if you want, this idea of the three persons and God. Let me ask you about the Church. One of the defining characteristics of Catholicism is the Catholic Church. What is the Catholic Church? I would say it's the mystical body of Jesus. So as I said before, it's not an organization. If we do it that way, we're going to miss it. It's got organizational elements to it. So I'm a bishop, I'm an office holder within the Church. But the Church is an organism, not an organization. So it's a organism of interconnected cells, as I said, namely all of the baptized gathered around Christ in a mystical union. That's the Church. But there's buildings, there's titles. Sure. Because it manifests itself institutionally then. But so are the sort of heavy things about that all have to do with pride? Yeah, sure. Whatever is corrupting it. The sexiness of the buildings. Yeah. No, whatever is corrupting the Church, of course, it comes from pride, from sin. And one thing I like about the New Testament is so clear on that. I mean, Paul is in his little tiny communities. So before there was a Vatican or dioceses or anything, Paul is in these little tiny communities of Christians, like in Corinth and Ephesus. What's the one thing we know about them? Is they fought with each other. Because Paul's always upbraiding them and telling them, come on, would you people get it together? And who's bewitched you? And so from the beginning, we've been fighting with each other because we're made up of sinners. So one thing we do in Catholic ecclesiology is the official name for the study of the Church is to talk about the treasure and earthen vessels. Paul's language again. The treasure is Christ. The treasure is the love he's bequeathed to the world. That's the treasure that we have. But it's always held in these really fragile vessels, namely us. And so it's going to be marked by corruption and stupidity and pride and everything else. Luke Well, nevertheless, there's a hierarchy. There's titles and so on. If we remove pride from the picture, so the best possible interpretation of the hierarchy that makes up this one organism, this living organism, what's the role of the Pope, for example? What is the role of a bishop, for example? What is the role of the hierarchy in terms of the broader vision of Christianity, Catholicism as a religion? David I'm a devotee of this guy named Johann Adolf Müller, who was a theologian early part of the 19th century. And he was part of the kind of romantic movement. And he said the purpose of the Pope is to symbolize and embody and draw together the unity of the entire Church. So he's the personal symbol of the unity of the Church. Who's a bishop? The bishop is the personal symbol of the unity of a diocese. Who's a pastor of a parish? He's the personal symbol of the unity of that parish. So he understood it not so much organizationally as organically again. It was like that around which the pattern organizes itself. And if you don't have that unifying figure, the community will kind of separate. And you see that all the time. Without headship, we would say. So it's more symbolic and organic than it is organizational. Lex So symbols for community, but there's such fascinating peculiarities to each individual symbol. There's different characteristics that make up the different people. They have different ways of communicating. They have different hopes and fears and all that kind of stuff. If they're all symbols, what's the role of the different peculiarities of those symbols of being an inspiring uniter versus maybe a stronger type of more judgmental kind of communicator, all that kind of stuff? I mean, can you maybe speak to the human part of these symbols? David Yeah. Well, I might just shift to another image of shepherd. So that's a classic biblical image. And as a bishop, I walk around with this thing called a crozier, which is a shepherd's staff. So it's the symbol of the bishop's office. And the crozier, though, is a kind of in-your-face thing in a way, because it's got... The end of it was meant to hold off wild animals, and then the crook part of it was meant to bring sheep back to the fold. So I walk in with that, and people, oh, this is nice. Oh, look at the bishop coming in. But that's a kind of in-your-face symbol that I'm here to defend the church against predators, and I'm also here to draw people in who are wandering too far away. So that's okay. I mean, that's part of the role of the hierarchy and the pope and bishops and pastors. Pastor just means shepherd, right? So I'm the shepherd of a parish. So that's okay. It's not like just all sunshine and light and what a pretty image. The one who embodies the unity of the community is also the shepherd. Okay. But again, leaning on the human thing, the church is an institution. And I don't know if you've heard, but there is an element of power that corrupts. An absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the old saying goes. Let me ask you something else that came up on the Reddit, AMA. Mega churches and the prosperity gospel. You've mentioned that you may not be a fan. What are your views on this? And what are your views in general of money and power corrupting the heads of these institutions? I don't like the prosperity gospel because the gospel is about Jesus' journey into radical self-forgetfulness on the cross. And he never makes a promise of earthly well-being. Can you explain what the prosperity gospel is? Yeah. The view that if I follow Jesus and I follow God with great trust that I will be rewarded with wealth and position and status in this world. It might be God's will that I get that. But Aquinas said this, if I look at a very sinful person, I say, God, he's got a great house and he's richer than I am and all that. Aquinas says, yeah, but maybe that's a punishment because maybe all that is leading him away from God. And actually that's God's way of punishing him. And the fact that you don't have wealth in a big house is actually a great gift to you because now it frees you for doing God's will. So we can't read God's favor in worldly terms. I would say God's favor is, am I awakened to deeper love? Then I know that I'm finding God's favor. Now God might decide, sure, I want you to have this and that. I want to provide this to you. Fine. Then I say, thank you, Lord. How can I use it as an instrument of love? All the masters talk about detachment. And that's another reason I don't like the prosperity gospel is though I'm getting attached now to all these material advantages. And I'm even seeing them as a sign of God's favor. Let go of all that. You let go of it and use it as a vehicle of love. So if you're rich, the right question is, okay, Lord, why did you allow me to become rich? So that what can I do? How can my riches be an expression of love? If I'm popular, if I'm healthy, okay, why am I popular? Why am I healthy? How can I use that for your good? I'm sick in bed. I'm suffering. Okay, Lord, how can I use that as an expression of love? So I'd rather measure it that way than through worldly success. That's why I'm against the prosperity gospel. Okay. So there is a don't seek worldly possessions, but whatever happens to you, good or bad, seek how that could be used to increase the amount of love in the world. Right. The image I love for this is the wheel of fortune, which is a device in a lot of the Gothic cathedrals. And it's this great circle, right? This wheel at the top of it is a king. And then it turns this way and the king has lost his crown and the bottom is a pauper. And then over here is a guy climbing up to power. Right. And then in the middle is a depiction of Christ. And the idea is very simple, but very profound that the wheel is life. Sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down. Sometimes you have power and popularity and prestige. Other times you're losing it, you're going down. Other times you've got none of it. Other times you're coming back up. Okay. Don't live on the rim of the wheel. It'll make you crazy. Every point on the rim of the wheel is a point of anxiety. Where you should live is the center of the wheel, where Christ is. Right. Because that's the link now to the eternity of God. That's the point of love, where love can flow through you to the world. And then you can look at the wheel. You're a Beatles fan, right? I think I discovered that. I love the Beatles. And the song that always comes to my mind when I think of that image is John Lennon at the end of his life. So a guy that, I mean, rode the wheel of fortune like crazy. He was at the top of the world in every way. And then Beatles break up and he kind of loses it. And then he's at the lost weekend in the 70s at the very bottom. When he died, he was just kind of coming back up again. But the song I always think of is watching the wheels, right? I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round. I really love to watch them roll because I'm no longer riding on the merry-go-round. That's right out of the medieval mystics, that he's not riding on the wheel. He's just watching it go round and round. That's the point of, the Greeks call it apatheia, and the Latins call it indifference. Not like I'm blasé, it just means I'm detached from success, failure, less success, more success. I'm detached from that. I'm sitting here watching the wheels go round and round because I'm not riding on it anymore. The mystics have always made that transition. Let me ask you a difficult question about the darker side of human nature, of human power, of institutions. What's your view on the long history and widespread reports of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests? So this is a difficult topic, but maybe an important one to shine a light on. Yeah, it's awful. And it's been a problem. Go back to Peter Damian, back in the 11th century, was talking about it. So it's been a problem. And whenever really sinful human beings have been in close proximity to children, we find this issue. Has it been around the church? Yes. Has it surfaced in a kind of sickening way in the last 30 years? Absolutely. I'm glad the church has made important strides, and it has. Back in 2002, there was a thing called the Dallas Accords, where the bishops of America put a lot of these protocols in place that really have been effective at ameliorating this problem. The numbers spiked in the 70s and 80s, and that's been demonstrated over and over again. And then they fell dramatically after that. So that's not to excuse anything, but it's to say I think progress has been made with it. What's the impulse to secrecy? Yeah, well, to protect institutions. That's always a sinful instinct. Not altogether. I mean, sure, an institution is worth protecting, but if it reaches the point where you're indifferent to people's well-being, then you're in trouble. So institutions' role should be transparent and honest with the sins of its members and of itself. Sure, yeah. So maybe you can speak to the fact, as a priest, a bishop, as part of Catholicism, you're not allowed to marry, you're not allowed to have sex, you're sworn to celibacy. What is behind that idea? What is the sort of, we've talked about some broad stroke ideas of love, what's behind the idea of celibacy? And that's a good way to get at it. It's a path of love. So the Church is always in favor of inculcating love. Marriage is a path of love, but so is celibacy. St. Paul talks about someone who is preoccupied with the things of this world and family, and those who are free from that are freer for doing the work of God. So that's kind of a pragmatic justification for celibacy. And we still, I think, take that seriously. I look at my own life, I mean, celibacy has enabled me to do all kinds of things and go places and minister in a way that I could not if I had been married. So I get it, I get the pragmatic side. But I'm more interested in the sort of mystical side of it. Remember, Jesus was challenged about the person who had a whole series of husbands and then they all died. And so in heaven, which husband will the wife have? And his answer is, in heaven, people don't marry and they're not given in marriage. There's a higher way of love. It's a more radical way of love. It's not tied to a particular, but I think through God is tied to everybody. The celibate, and this has been from the beginning of the Church, not as a law, but there were celibates from the very beginning of the Church, including Jesus, of course, and Paul. They sense something, that that way of living mystically anticipates the way we'll love in heaven. It's a sign even now within this world of how we will all love in heaven. So in that way, it's a bit like pacifists. I'm glad there are pacifists in the Church. And I've known some very powerful witnesses to pacifism. I'm glad they're pacifists because they witness even now to how we will be in heaven when every tear is wiped away and we beat our swords into plowshares and heaven's a place of radical peace, that some people even now live it. At the same time, I'm glad not everyone's a pacifist because I would hold with the Church to just war theory, that there's sometimes all we can do in this finite world is to fight, manifest wickedness. So... And just in the same way there's just sex. Well, no, right. I'm glad there are celibates, but I'm glad not everyone's a celibate. I wouldn't want that. I mean, because married love is a marvelous expression of the divine love. So that's why it's good there are some, and it's always been a small number. The actual experience of it, would you, the spiritual nature of it, is it similar to fasting? So I've been enjoying fasting recently, so not eating for several days, that kind of stuff. And that somehow brings you even deeper. I'm in general in love with everything, with nature and everything. I see the beauty in the world. But there's a greater intensity to that when you're fasting, for example. Yeah, I might use the language of sublimation or redirection of energy and all that. I think that's true. There's a certain sublimation of energies into prayer, into mysticism, into ministry, a redirection of energies. So it's meant to be life enhancing. The same way fasting is. It's meant ultimately to be life enhancing and make you healthier and happier. So celibacy is a path of love. And I think it does involve a certain redirection of energies. I would say that. Don't you think, do you think it's a heavy burden for some humans to bear, some priests to bear? Is that the thing, given the sexual abuse scandal, is that the thing that breaks humans? No, I wouldn't tie that to celibacy. And that's been demonstrated over and over again. There's a priest named Andrew Greeley, who was a priest from my home diocese of Chicago. And Andy did a lot of research. He was a sociologist of religion. Did a lot of research into that very question. And there really is not a correlation between celibacy per se and the sexual abuse of children or of anybody. So I wouldn't make that correlation. So bad people, sinful people are going to do what they're going to do. I think people who have a tendency toward abusing children sexually are drawn to situations where they get ready access to kids and they get institutional cover. So that's the only thing I can go through the list of, from sports and Boy Scouts, et cetera. And that's been proven again and again. So I would tie it more to that. I wouldn't tie it to celibacy. So the challenge, of course, is all kinds of, you said institutional cover. There's all kinds of institutions that cover for people that do evil onto the world, that do sinful things onto the world. But there's something about the church, which is, as an organism, is supposed to be an embodiment of good in this world, of love in this world. And it breaks people's hearts to see this kind of, even a small amount, this kind of thing happen within the church. It wakes you up to the cruelty, the absurdity of the world sometimes. It's back to the question of why do bad things happen to good people? Why does God allow this kind of thing to happen? And sort of maybe unanswerable question. Do you have an answer to that question? I can gesture toward it using rather abstract language, which is true enough. It's completely emotionally unsatisfying, but it's naming it truthfully enough. And it goes back to Augustine, which is God permits evil to bring about a greater good. Now, again, I know how unsatisfying that sort of spare, austere language can sound, but it gets us off the horns of a dilemma. You know, Aquinas, when he lays out a question, he always has the objections first. So is there a God? Well, objection one, objection two, objection three. And he's really, talk about steel manning an argument. Aquinas is great at that. One of the really steel manned arguments, is that the right grammatical form? What's the past participle about the steel man? But one of the best arguments, he formulates it this way. If one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. And as an example from his medieval physics, he goes, if there were an infinite heat, there'd be no cold, right? But God is described as infinitely good. Therefore, if God exists, there should be no evil, but there is evil. Therefore, God does not exist. That's a darn good argument. That's a really persuasive argument. And I think, I've done this for a long time in apologetics and in sort of higher philosophy, that's the best argument against God. But here's something, before I press ahead with it, something I find really interesting. I think the three best arguments against God all come from within the religious tradition, namely the book of Job. So Job, he's great. I mean, he's a great guy. He does everything right. He's God's great servant and he's punished in every possible way. He has every possible suffering. Aquinas' argument from the Summa, and then to your friend and mine, Dostoevsky. I think in the Brothers Karamazov, Ivan's argument, when he's trying to wreck the faith of Alyosha. And it's these examples drawn, they think, from Dostoevsky, from the headlines of his own time, of the most abject cruelty to children, like an innocent child being made to suffer. How in God's name could that happen if God exists and he's all good? So I get it. But see, the book of Job, Thomas Aquinas, Dostoevsky, these are all profoundly believing people. Like when I hear Stephen Fry, the famously atheist writer, he will bring out this argument with great authority. He does, of children with bone cancer and worms that go into the eyes of children and blind them before they kill them. But he's been preceded by the author of Job, Thomas Aquinas, and Dostoevsky, who stood right, think of Job, in the whirlwind. He stands there in the whirlwind. So you can't blame the Christian tradition for not dealing with this problem, for brushing it under the carpet. It has stood in the whirlwind of this problem. It's still a difficult problem to deal with, that there's all this cruelty of the world. There's a lot of example through history, just in my own family history with the Soviet Union, with Stalin, the atrocities that Stalin has brought onto the people of the Soviet Union throughout the 20th century is nearly immeasurable. And yet, when you look at the entirety of human history, you will see progress, not just the Soviet Union, but the entirety of the civilization throughout the 20th century, and Stalin has a role to play. There's a dark aspect to somehow evil that helps us make progress. And I don't know how to put that in the calculation. On a local scale, I want to alleviate suffering. I'm probably a heavily lean pacifist, not out of weakness, but out of strength. But man, it does seem that history is sprinkled with evil, and that evil does somehow nudge us towards good. Yes, sometimes we can see it. And that's where the idea comes from. That evil's permitted to bring about some greater good, and we can sometimes really see it. Can we always see it? No. In fact, typically, we don't see it. But now you bring another factor into this, which is the difference between our minds and God's mind. So our minds, I mean, look, even they're remarkably capacious, but they take in a tiny, tiny, tiny swath of space and time. And even our eyes can take in so much of the light spectrum, and these little ape sensorium that we have that can just take in a little tiny bit of reality, really. How are we ever in a position to say, oh, no, there's no possible good that would ever come from that? Even the greatest evil that Dostoevsky can conjure up and Stephen Fry. Still, how could we have the arrogance to say I know there's no good that could ever come from that. I know there's no morally justifiable reason why God would ever permit that. Because I think that's hubris to the nth degree for us to say that. And that's the assumption behind this claim that God can permit evil to bring about a greater good. Now, God understands it. But we're like little kids, like a four-year-old, and their parents make a decision, and we say, why in the world would you do this to me? This is my pastoral experience. Years ago, there was a young father, and his son was like three or something. And he was in the hospital or something, I forgot what it was, but he had to undergo surgery. So after the surgery, he's in great pain, this poor kid, this three-year-old kid. And the dad was there with him, holding his hand. And the son, he's in great pain, holding his hand. And the son, this is what the father told me, he said, he's looking at me like, what gives here? I mean, why would you, you love me, I've always assumed that, and yet you're presiding over this somehow, you're approving of this and doing nothing to get me out of it. And he said the kid couldn't articulate that, but his eyes did. And the father said, it was just killing me because I knew I couldn't explain it to him. And it's true. I mean, he could vaguely gesture toward, but the kid didn't understand surgery and cutting his body and taking things out of it, and that this was going to make him much better in the long run. But I remember thinking, that's a great metaphor for us vis-a-vis God is, here's God, infinitely loving God, who's with us all the time. And we say, what are you doing? Why aren't you taking this away from me? And the answer, I mean, ultimately is trust. Trust me, trust me, trust me, surrender to me. And when we don't, that's, we get in trouble with the old pride and the hubris and all that kind of stuff. Yeah. No, but trust me when I tell you, I mean, I completely get it in my own life. And as a priest, you're dealing with suffering all the time with people in pain all the time. I remember as a young priest, there was a policeman in our parish, so he had a gun, and inexplicably, no one had any clue. He got up one night, shot his son to death, and then shot himself. This is my parish. So I went to the wake, I remember, I show up, and I'm this young 27-year-old goofball priest, I have my Roman collar on, and I walk in, and there were two coffins. There are two coffins in the room, there's the son and the father. And the mother was there, and she went like this to me, like, she saw me, like, okay, you're the religious guy here. Yeah. What? And just by instinct, I went like that too. I went like, I don't know what to tell you. I can't, I don't have an answer for you. But I was there, and I'm not saying to pat myself on the back. It's just, that's where the church goes, because Jesus went there. Now we're gesturing toward a more theological response. The first one's more austerely philosophical, God permits evil to bring about a good. But the theological response is, that's where Christ went, is he went all the way down. He went all the way down into our suffering. And see the cross as the limit case of evil, humiliation and cruelty and institutional injustice and psychological suffering and spiritual suffering and death, it's all there. And that's where the Son of God went. And I would say that's why as a priest, I went there. That's my job, is to go to those places. So that's the ultimate answer to the problem. So there is, we can't comprehend it, but there is meaning to the suffering and the injustice. We trust it because we know on other grounds of God's existence. See, I would resist the claim that, well, this is such a knockdown argument, so now we know there is no God. I would say, no, there are all kinds of other rational warrants for God. And so I know that God exists. I know that God is infinite love, and now I got to square that with this experience. And the way I do that is by a trusting confidence that God knows what He's about. And again, I know how inadequate that always seems to anyone who's suffering, including myself, when I'm in great suffering. But I think that's the best that we've done in the great tradition. So if you were to steel man the case against God or the existence of God, you find the most convincing argument is there's evil in the world, therefore there's no God. There's too much of it. If I were to steel man that argument, I'd do what Stephen Fry does. I would do what Dostoevsky's Ivan does. I would do exactly that. I would say there's just too much. And then if you want to keep pressing it, animal suffering. So we talk about human suffering, but the suffering of animals over the eons and so on, isn't there just too much suffering to be reconciled with an infinitely good God? And that's, again, Thomas Aquinas. I've just used his very steel-manned argument. You mentioned that, again, on Reddit, somebody asked who your favorite communicator of atheist ideas was, and you mentioned Christopher Hitchens. Yeah. Are there other ideas for atheism that you find particularly challenging? Well, that's the one, is the problem of evil. The other objection in Aquinas, which has a lot of contemporary resonance, is can't we just explain everything through natural causes? Why would you have to invoke a cause beyond the causes in the world? So as I'm trying to explain, let's say, for Aquinas, motion, causality, finality, can't I just do that with natural causes? Wouldn't that suffice to explain it? So I get when naturalists are speaking, or people that are pure materialists, they'll just say, no, that's perfectly adequate. A scientific account of reality is utterly adequate to our experience. So I would steel-man that and say, well, show me why we need something more. And to do that, you got to get out of Plato's cave, it seems to me. Because my objection to naturalism is it's staying within the realm of the immediately, empirically observable, and making the mistake of saying that's all there is to being. That's all there is that needs to be explained. And long before we get to religion, just stay with Plato. The first step out of the cave, if you combine it now with the parable of the line, is mathematical objects. And I'm with those, the many people that would say, mathematics is an experience of the immaterial. I've stepped out of a merely empirical, physical, naturalistic world. The minute I understand a pure number, or a pure equation, or a pure mathematical relationship, which would obtain in any possible world, which are not tied to space and time, that's a first step out of the cave. And then that leads to the more metaphysical reflections. For example, on the nature of being. I mean, so I could talk about this thing as a physical object, and I can analyze it at all kinds of levels, and follow all the scientists up and down through this thing. And fine, fine. But I'm still in Plato's cave. I'm still looking at the flickering images on the wall. But when I step out of that into the mathematical realm, I have entered a different realm of being, seems to me. Luke Do you think it's possible for the cave to expand so large that it encompasses the whole world? Meaning, is it possible that we're just clueless right now in terms of, scientifically speaking, with most of the world we haven't figured out yet? But do you think it's possible through science to know God, to look outside the world? So it's fundamentally the limit of the empirical scientific method is that we can't know some of these very big questions. David No, I love the science. I'm not a scientist, and I was never all that good at science. I was more humanities guy. But I love and respect the sciences, but I hate scientism. And scientism is rampant today, with especially young people. The reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. And I'm a vehement opponent of that. There are dimensions of being that are not capturable through a scientific method of mere observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, et cetera. As great as that is, as wonderful as that is, but it's still, I think, within Plato's cave. And that's not to say it's not real. It's just at a relatively low level of reality. You step out of Plato's cave when you go into the pure mathematics. Luke That's right. You know that article, I just came across it recently and discovered this whole literature around it, is Eugene Wigner's article in 1960 called the Unreasonable Applicability of Mathematics to the Physical Sciences. I think that's the title of it. David Or Effectiveness or something like that. Luke Something like that, yeah. But what's so cool is he's not a religious man. He was a kind of a secular Jew. But yet he uses the word miracle like eight times in that article. Because he just is so impressed by the fact that high complex mathematics describes so accurately the physical world and can be used to create things and to manipulate. And why should that be true? There's something very weirdly mysterious about that relationship. And I would say it's because you stepped into a higher order of being which is inclusive of a lower level of being. That's the Platonic approach, is that as you move, now I'm going to a different metaphor, you move to higher levels, they're inclusive of the lower levels. David Yeah, there's some magic there that seems to, at least in our current understanding of science, to be not quite capturable. Even consciousness, the idea of consciousness. Luke Can I ask you, where do you think the laws of nature come from? Sort of the Wigner question, where does the deep mathematical structure of things come from? How do you explain that? David The mathematical structure or the fact that the structure is somehow pleasing and beautiful. Because those are different. Those are two different... Luke Do the first one. I'm just curious, where do you think it comes from? David I tend to believe even in terms of physics, we don't really know what's going on. There's so, so, so much more to be discovered. We're walking around in the dark trying to figure out a lot of puzzles here and there. And we're patting ourselves on the back and how many puzzles we've discovered so far. Even Gato's incompleteness theorem, what are the limits of mathematics, axiomatic systems? I don't know what is the purpose of mathematics. What is the power of mathematics? Is it just a useful tool to study the world around us or is it something deeper that we're just discovering? All I know from my emotional perspective, now I am an engineer, I'm a robotics AI person. From an emotional perspective, I just find the whole thing beautiful. Luke Yeah, but that's really cool to me. That's a very interesting clue. See, one of the arguments for God is based on the intelligibility of the world. It's like Wigner, it's a very peculiar fact, it seems to me, that the world is so radically intelligible. Why should that be true? Why should it be the case that being has this intelligible structure to it? So it corresponds to an inquiring mind. So Aquinas can say that the intelligible in act is the intellect in act. There's some deep correspondence between this and that. I'm with Wigner. That's, I think, really weird and unreasonable and strange. Now, my answer is because the creator of the universe is a great mind and has stamped the world with intelligibility. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and all things came to be through the word. We shouldn't picture that so much. It's gesturing in this very powerful direction. There's an intelligence that has imbued the world with intelligibility. And we discover that. Peter There's something about the simplicity of the way the world works that's where the beauty comes from. And yes, there's something profound to the mechanism, whatever that is, God that brought that to be. David They thought it into being, that the world has been... When the Bible says that God said, let there be light, and there was light, God said... Well, again, we don't literalize the poetry, but it's very rich that God spoke the world into being. So that means it's been imbued with intelligibility from the beginning. They say that the condition for the possibility of the Western physical sciences was a basically Christian idea, namely that the world is not God. Therefore, I can analyze it, experiment upon it. I don't divinize it. I don't have a mystical relation to the world. It's not God. But secondly, that it's absolutely, in every nook and cranny, intelligible. And those two ideas are correlated to the idea of creation. So it's been created. It's not God. It's other than God. But yet it's touched in every dimension by God's mind. And when those two things are in place, the sciences get underway. I don't worship the world anymore, but I'm also utterly confident I can come to know it. And those are theological ideas. Matthew Well, we live in this world, so we can solve quite a lot of problems of this world by making the assumption that this world is fully understandable. And we don't need to worry about what's outside the world in some sense in order to build bridges and rockets and computers and all that kind of stuff. It's only when we get to the questions that are deeper about why we're here at all, what does it mean to be good, all those kinds of things do we need to reach outside of this world. David Well, can I introduce another one? So I talked about mathematics. I think it's stepping out of a cave. It's stepping out of just the purely empirical world. But the very fact that we use a word like universe, to me, is very interesting. Even if you say multiple universes, to me, it's like, well, whatever the whole is, the totality. Universum, turn toward the one. Why would we call it that? Why wouldn't we just call it an aggregate? It's just an aggregate of stuff. It's an aggregate of all. But we call it a universe. And my answer from the classical metaphysical tradition is, it's the intuition of being. So I immediately experience things here, the color and shape, and I can measure them. But when I've really stepped out of the cave, and I've now engaged beyond mathematics even, I'm now into metaphysical reflection. I'm interested not just in this thing as an object and how it's colored and shaped and what its atoms and quarks and all that are. That's fine. But I'm interested now in, what does it mean to say this thing is real? So what makes this a being? And then what are the characteristics of being? So now from Aristotle to Heidegger, this question of the nature of being. But see, I would say we call it a universe because it's turned toward the one of being. It's this intuition that whatever, from quarks to galaxies to whatever, give me a billion other universes, it would still be existence. It's turned toward the one, that being unites our experience. And so now I'm at the metaphysical level of analysis. I've taken another step out of the cave. In Plato's language, I'm at the formal level now, beyond mathematics level of forms. And the formal is inclusive of the mathematical, which is inclusive of the physical. And I think that's Eugene Wigner, is that the mathematical includes the physical. It is metaphysically prior to it. But here we are sitting in the physical trying to make sense of why the unreasonable effectiveness of the thing that's beyond, which is the mathematics. My answer is God. And I don't know a better answer. And as I read Wigner, he wasn't ready to say that, but I think the language is gesturing. I was reading someone recently, some very well known physicist who said his answer to Wigner's question is that whoever is responsible for the universe must be a mathematician. And I thought, yeah, that's right. Let me ask you about Jordan Peterson. You had a great conversation with him. He has a complicated and nuanced view of faith or faith period. He has said that he believes in Jesus, the person and the myth and some of the full richness and complexity that you've talked about. But he's surprised by his faith. He's not sure what to make of it. He's almost like a meta struggling with what the heck is faith means. He's a super powerful intellect that can't compute the faith that he's experiencing. So what are some interesting differences between the two of you or some commonalities in terms of your understanding of faith? He's a very interesting guy. I've had a couple of conversations with him. And I do think he's moving in the direction of faith. And his lectures in the Bible are very fine, I think. He reminds me of the church fathers because the church fathers would have looked at the, they call it the moral sense of the scripture. Peterson probably called the psychological meaning. But I think he's doing a lot of that. As I read him and talk to him, I think he's at a Kantian level in regard to Jesus. What I mean there is for Kant, Jesus is, it's not so much the historical Jesus, this figure from long ago. It's Jesus as an archetype of the moral life. He says he's the image of the person perfectly pleasing to God. And so Jesus inhabits our moral imagination as a heuristic, as a goal that we're tending toward. But the historical person of Jesus for Kant is like, well, let's not fuss about that so much. It's this figure. And as I read Peterson, especially, and talk to him, I think he's there with the archetype of Jesus. And even language of live as though God exists, that's the als ob of Kant, the kind of as if attitude. And where I press him when we talk is in the direction of, no, that's not Christianity yet. I mean, that's enlightenment moral philosophy. But Christianity is very interested in this historical figure and very interested that God really became one of us. And he's not just an archetype of the moral life. He's someone, he's a person who's invaded our world and gone all the way to the bottom of sin and thereby saved us. So the facticity of Jesus and then the resurrection. So Peterson will talk about the resurrection as a myth and all that, and you can find that in different cultures, et cetera. But Christianity is saying something else. So in Christianity, when we're talking about who is Jesus, it's not just an archetype. Right. It's not just a myth. It's a historical figure and the very grounded fact that God became one of us is fundamental to this idea of what Christianity is, what it means to be a Christian. It's the sin and the love that came here down to earth. It means we can be one with God. So that's essential. It's not just an archetype. That's right. It always strikes me the difference between, let's say, mythic expressions and the New Testament is read someone like Carl Jung and then Joseph Campbell, whom he influenced, and then now Jordan Peterson, who's very Jungian, and this sort of archetypal reading of the scriptures. And great. I mean, I think it's very interesting and there's a lot going on there. There's a sort of calmness though about it. Like, yeah, interesting. And that's in this culture and that culture, and it's the form of the moral life. And I understand all that. Then you read the New Testament. Whatever those people are talking about, it's not that. They are grabbing you by the shoulders and shaking you to get your attention, to tell you about something that happened to them. Right. Like the resurrection, the myth of the dying and rising God and how powerful it is and shaping our consciousness. That's fascinating. That's not the New Testament. The New Testament is, did you hear? Jesus of Nazareth, whom they put to death, God raised him from the dead, and he was seen by 500, and he was seen by Peter. And then lastly, I saw him. That's how Paul talks. It's not the detached psychologist musing on archetypal things. And I think that makes a huge difference when it comes to Christianity. The intensity of the historical details are essential here. So if you look at Hitler and Nazi Germany, it's not enough to say, well, power corrupts. And sometimes, so looking at the archetype of Hitler, it's much, much more important, much more powerful to look at the details of how he came to power, what are the ways he did evil onto the world. And then you can get really intense about your struggle with some of the complexities of human nature and power on institutions and all that kind of stuff. So the historical nature of the Bible in the New Testament— We're an historical religion. —is important. We generate philosophical reflection. We can find common ground with archetypal thinking and all that. We can. And the church fathers used Greek philosophy, and Aquinas uses Aristotle, and all that's great. But we're an historical religion, and that matters immensely. Is the Bible the literal word of God? How do you make sense of the words that make up the Bible? I think the best way to get at the Bible is to think of it as a library, not a book. So it's a collection of books, right, from a wide variety of periods, different authors, different audiences, and different genre. So in the Bible, you find poetry, you find song, you find something like history, not in our sense, but something like history. You find gospel, which is its own genre. You find epistolary literature like Paul. You find apocalyptic. There's all this in the Bible. So is the Bible literally the word of God? It's like saying, is the library literally true? It depends on what section you're in, right? So parts of like 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, a number of places in the Old Testament. Are there elements of the historical in there? Sure. But it's theologically interpreted history. It's not like our sense of history of, give me 10,000 footnotes, and I'm going to look at all the source material I can possibly find. It's more like ancient history, like Herodotus, people like that. But then there's poetry, and there's myth, and there's legend, and there's song, and all that stuff in the Bible. So God breathes through all of it, I would say. He inspired all of it, right? Inspirare. He's breathing through all of it. God is speaking through all of it, but he speaks in different voices. He uses different human instruments, and he uses different genre and different types of language. So we have to be sensitive to that when we're interpreting the Bible. So the different instruments are more or less, some are more perfect than others in terms of- No, I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say more perfect. I'd say they're just different. It's like a symphony, and God's like a conductor, and there's all kinds of different instruments in the orchestra. And he loves to breathe through the Psalms. I prayed the Psalms this morning. I do every day in my office. Those are songs. They probably were literally sung, most of them, at one point. He breathes through apocalyptic. We're reading the book of Revelation now in the Easter season, and it's this wild and wooly book. It should be filmed by Spielberg or somebody today. And he speaks through the gospels. The gospels correspond in genre to what I call ancient biography. That's the genre of the gospels. It's wrong to call them like mythic or simply literary. They're like ancient biographies. You have the Pauline letters, which are about particular cities that Paul was visiting and particular people he knew. So you just gotta be sensitive to the genre all the time. Let's return back to human institutions and talk about history of human civilization and politics. So one question to ask is, was America founded as a Christian nation in your view? What, if we look at the Declaration of Independence, what did the words mean? We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It seems like God is breathing through those words too. Yeah, I think so. The founders, it would be some kind of combination of deism. Certainly Christianity is coming up through them, enlightenment, rationalism, all in kind of a mix. So you're not going to find in our founding fathers simply a Thomas Aquinas or like a purely classically Christian understanding. It's Christianity in those various expressions. Because actually, I would see the Enlightenment as a sort of child of Christianity. We could talk about that. But having said all that, yes, I think they are expressing at least the residue of a once deeply integrated Christian sense of things, that our rights are not created by the government. They're not doled out by the government. They come from God. And the other thing I find really interesting is equality. Because look in classical philosophy, political philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, it's not equality. For them, it's our inequality that's really interesting. So Plato divides us into these three classes. And Aristotle says only a tiny little coterie of property males of sufficient education should be in the political life. The rest should all be in private life. And then some are suited for slavery. So he divides us dramatically, same with Cicero and so on. Where does this come from, this weird idea that we're all equal? I mean, how? We're not equal in beauty, not equal in strength, we're not equal in moral attainment, we're not equal in intelligence. So what is it? And I think the residue especially comes through in that little word, that all men are created equal. That's our equality, that we're all equally children of God. So take God out of the picture, I think we are going to slide rapidly into an embrace of inequality. Now, in the classical world, yes, but heck, look at the 20th century. I mean, when God is excluded in a very systematic way, I think you saw the suspension of rights and the suspension of equality like mad. So I think it's very important that God is in the picture and that we're a nation under God. It matters enormously. That's not pious boilerplate. That's at the rational foundations of our democracy. LBW So do you think Nietzsche was onto something with the idea, looking into the 20th century, that God is dead? That there is a cultural distancing from a belief in God? AC Yeah, you know, I'd be somewhat sympathetic to Jordan Peterson's reading of Nietzsche there. Namely, it's not Nietzsche crowing from the mountaintop, hey, God is dead. It's more of a lament, you know, God is dead and we've killed him. And what will happen in the wake of that? And I think, yeah, much of the totalitarianism of the 20th century follows from that questioning of God and the dismissal of God from public life. So I would be sympathetic with that. When we're beyond good and evil, you know, and all that's left is the will to power, and then why are we surprised that the powerful rise and that they use the power less for their purposes? When we forget ideas like equality and rights, which are grounded in God, why are we surprised that death camps follow? So I think there's a correlation there for sure. LBW I don't know, I believe that there's a capacity to do good in all of us and a capacity to do evil, and there's something that tends towards good, whatever that is. I tend to think that if that community, that love that we talked about, they find each other, they find the good. If you don't constrain the resources, if you don't push them, if you don't artificially create conflict through power centers and evil charismatic leaders, then people will be good to each other. And whether that's God or some other source of deep moral meaning, that seems to be essential for a functioning civilization. And it's hard, I mean, that's what humans are. We're searching for what that God is, what that means. You know what that triggers in my mind? I wonder if you agree with this, that the modern sciences drew their strength from their narrowness. What I mean there is they almost completely bracketed formal and final causality in the Aristotelian sense, and they focused on efficient and material causality. And that gave, as I say, great strength, but from the narrowness of focus. But for Aristotle, the more important causes are the final and the formal causes. And so final causality there, what's drawing us? So for Aristotle, he'd look at someone like me and say, okay, you have an intelligible structure, and that leads you to seek certain things for the perfection of that structure. And fair enough, I think that's right. So I seek the good. Right now, I'm seeking the good of being with you. I said, yeah, I'll sit down with Lex Friedman, and we'll talk about deep and important things. That's the good I sought this morning when I woke up. Now, why am I seeking that? Well, for a higher reason, a higher good, because as part of my work, my ministry is to the church reaching out beyond itself to the wider culture. And okay, well, why do you want that? Well, because I want to bring more and more people into what I think is beautiful and true and good in the church. Well, how come you want that? Well, because a long time ago, I was kind of myself brought into that realm and find it very compelling. Yeah, but then why do you want that? Well, because ultimately, I want to be friends with God. Now, I've given you one example there, but any act of the will, it seems to me, has to be analyzed that way. The will seeks something. It seeks the good, right, by definition. But the good always nests like a Russian doll in a higher good, right, which then nests in a still higher good until you come, this is Aquinas, to some, in this sense, uncaused cause, an uncaused final cause. There has to be some sumum bonum, right, some supreme good that you're looking for. And that's God, by the way. That's another, I think, rational path to God is every single moment of every day, we are implicitly seeking God. So with your Word on Fire ministries and the website and the communication efforts, what is the thing you're seeking? Just you, if we can pause and for a brief moment, allow you to be prideful. Or, I'm of course just joking, but what is your local efforts, your small little pocket of the world with small in quotes, with Word on Fire? Yeah, it's just using the media, especially the new media, the social media, to get the gospel out. So I started, what, 20-some years ago, just on a radio show in Chicago, 5.15 on Sunday morning. I had a 15-minute sermon show. And I asked the people in this parish I was at, I said, I need $50,000 to get on for 15 minutes at 5.15 on Sunday morning. And they all laughed when I proposed that, but they gave me the money. So that's how I got started, just doing a sermon on the radio. And then it branched off into video stuff and TV. And then I did a documentary. I went all over the world and kind of told the story of Catholicism. So that's how we started. And now I'm using all the new media and social media. But what I really love, what we're doing today is something I really like, which is having a conversation outside of just the narrow Catholic world or even the narrow Christian world, but to look out to the wider culture and who's talking about interesting things and how can the church engage there? So that's the purpose of Word on Fire. Is it overwhelming to face so many different sort of atheists, then complex thinkers like Jordan Peterson and some of the more political style thinkers that you've spoken with? Is that, what is it, Dave Rubin, who's also has a way different worldview as well? Is that terrifying? Is that exciting to you? Is it challenging? Yeah, maybe all of the above, but more exciting. I would say I like doing that. I was a teacher for a long time. I taught in the seminary for like 20 years. And so I've been engaging these questions for a long time. I'm a writer. I've written about 20 some books. And I write some at a popular level. I write some at a high academic level. And I like doing all that. So I love those ideas. I love those questions. Love engaging people. And I find my own experience, you do run into, of course, a lot of the vitriol and kind of just stupidity and all that online. And I get it. And religion is such a magnet for people's hostility for different reasons. So I get that. Like Reddit, we talked about, you have to wade through swamps of obscenity and everything. But I do it and I like it and it's worthwhile because in that Reddit experience, so many of the issues that preoccupy young people, I can name them for you exactly what they are. When it comes to religion, how do you know there's a God? So the God question. Secondly, why is there so much suffering in the world? Third question, why do you think your religion is the right religion? Fourth, why are you so mean to gay people? So those are the four things that I found again and again come up when dealing with young people. I've told my brother bishops and priests about that. I said, structure your adult education programs or structure your youth outreach around those four questions. Well, let me ask you about gay marriage. How do we make sense of the love between a man and a man and a woman and a woman and the institution of marriage? We love friendship and friendship is at the heart of things. And so nothing wrong with friendship between a man and a man, a woman and a woman. But go back to Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas about natural finalities and intelligible forms that there's a certain form to human being, which includes the physical and includes the sexual. It has a proper finality. And so we'd recognize that finality is twofold, both unitive and procreative. And so those two, we recognize as the appropriate expression of human sexuality. So that's why the church holds to sex between a man and a woman within the context of marriage is the right expression. We reach out to everybody in love and in respect and deep understanding and seeking to understand their lives from the inside. So I mean, all of that, I agree with the bridge building that we need to do to people like in the gay community and people in gay marriage and so on. So the church holds to the intelligible structure, if you want, of human sexuality, and it reaches out to real human beings always in an attitude of invitation and love and so on. So it's somewhere in there that the church takes its stance. And so there's probably variation in the stances that it takes. So you're saying the institution of marriage is about the unitive, which is like the friendship, the deep connection between two humans, and the procreative, so being able to have children and all that kind of stuff. It's interesting. So is our gay couple seen as sinful? So does the church acknowledge the love that's the deep love that's possible between a man and a woman? I think so, which is why the church says in its official teaching, it's the physical expression, let's say, of sexual passion between two men that is problematic, not their friendship, not their love for each other. So I think, yeah, we confirm the first. Well, let me ask you another difficult topic that's just happening... Unlike the other ones we talked about. Unlike the other ones we talked about that's going on in the news now. As we sit here today, the Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights in a draft majority opinion, striking down the landmark Roe versus Wade decision. What are your thoughts on this? First of all, the human institution of the Supreme Court making these decisions throughout its history, and second of all, just the idea, the really powerful, the controversial, the difficult idea of abortion. Yeah, I mean, I'm against abortion. I'm pro-life. The church recognizes from the moment of conception, we're dealing with a human life that's worthy of respect and protection, especially as you see the unfolding of that person across a pregnancy. But at every stage, we recognize the beauty and the dignity of that human being. And so we stand opposed to this, the outright killing of the innocent. So that's the church's view. Again, reaching out always in love and understanding and compassion to those who are dealing, and believe me, every single pastor, every single priest understands that because we deal with people all the time who are in these painful situations. But that's the moral side of it. The legal side, I think Roe v. Wade was terribly decided. I think one of the worst expressions of American law since the Dredge Scott decision. So I stand in favor while returning Roe v. Wade and Casey. I think they were terrible. The Casey decision is instructive to me, that it belongs to the nature of freedom, that decision says, to determine the meaning of one's own life. And I don't get the language exactly right, but end of the universe. It gives this staggering scope to our freedom, that we can determine the meaning. See, but that's repugnant to everything we're doing. We're doing it to determine the meaning. See, but that's repugnant to everything we've just talked about. That I'm inventing the meaning of my life and of the universe. And so Casey, though, was instructive in a way because it tips its hat toward the problem culturally, is that I think in my freedom, I can determine everything. My choice is all that matters. And I would say, no, your choice should be correlated to the order of the good. It's not sovereign. It doesn't reign sovereignly over being and it makes its own decisions. So I think Casey was terrible law and it was backing up Roe v. Wade, which is terrible law. So I'm in favor of the overturning of those. I've spoken out that many times. Now it'll return it to the individual states. It's not going to solve the problem. The individual states will have to decide. I just heard yesterday, we were up in Sacramento, the bishops having our annual meeting. And so we got the word from the governor and the legislators that they're going to push for a constitutional amendment in California. So basically to make any attempt to limit abortion in any way, just illegal. I think that's barbaric. So I stand radically opposed to that. It's such an interesting line, because if you believe that there's a... It's a line that struggles with the question of what does it mean to be a living being or to give life to something. Because if you believe that at the moment of conception, you're basically creating a human life, then abortion is murder. And then if you don't, if you don't, then it's a sort of basic biological choice that's not taking away of a life. And the gap between those two beliefs is so vast that it's hard and yet so fundamental to the question of what it means to be alive and the fundamental question about the respect for human life and human dignity. It's interesting to see. And also about freedom too. All of those things are mixed in there. It's a beautiful struggle. Maybe the freedom is the most important. The freedom run amok. In classical philosophy and theology, freedom is not self-determination. Freedom is the disciplining of desire so as to make the achievement of the good first possible and then effortless. You know what I'm saying? So modern freedom, and the roots of that are people like William of Ockham in the late middle ages. Freedom means I hover above the yes and the no. Do I do yes or no? And I'm the sovereign subject of that choice. And on no basis I will say yes or no. I'm like Louis XIV or I'm like Stalin or something. But Aquinas wouldn't have recognized that as freedom. For him, I got this desire in me. I've got this will. And it's pushing toward the good. But the trouble is I got so many attachments and I'm so stupid and I'm so conditioned by my sin that I can't achieve it. So I need to be disciplined in my desire so as to make that achievement possible and then effortless. So right now I'm freely speaking English to you. And you had the experience, and I've had it too, of learning a foreign language. And don't you feel unfree? You know, like when you're struggling with a language. When I was over in Paris doing my doctoral work, and I was okay with French, but my first time in a seminar, and there's all these intelligent francophones around the table, and they're all just, and I'm trying to say my little thing in my awkward French. And I felt unfree because my desire wasn't directed. But then over time, I became freer and freer speaker of French. I was ordered more to the good. That's a better understanding of freedom than sort of sovereign self-determination. But our country is now, I think, really in the grip of that. I decide. And that's where the Nietzschean thing comes to my mind of the will to power. I'm beyond good and evil. It's just up to me to decide. God help us. No, it's the values that we intuit around us, intellectual, moral, and aesthetic, the values. Think of the dog on the beach again. And that you get ordered to those by your education, by your family, by your religion. And that's beautiful. That makes you free. I can freely enter into this. So this sovereign self-determination business, that's not my game. The values come in part from the tradition carried through the generations. Let me ask you to put on your wise hat and give advice to young folks. So high school and college, thinking about what to do with their life, career. There's so many options out there. How can they have a career they can be proud of, or even just a life they can be proud of? I think I'd say, find something you're good at, because that's from God. It's a gift that God's given you. And then dedicate it to love. You know what I'm saying? So you're good at science, or math, or sports, or whatever. Okay, I'm going to use that now for my aggrandizement, for my wealth, for my privileges, and to become famous. No, no, no. Find what you're good at, but now dedicate it to willing the good of the other. So use your science, and use your mathematics, and use your sports, and use your musicianship to benefit the world. That's what I'd say to them. So find what you're good at. That's from God. That's a tricky one, finding what you're good at, because it's not just raw skill. It's also what you connect with. And it's also this iterative process of, if you want to add love to the world, you have to see how can you be effective at doing that. So it's not just the things you're good at. There's like, I'm good at building bridges out of toothpicks. I'm not exactly sure that's going to be useful for the world. Then again, to push back on that, the joy brings me, maybe somehow the joy radiates out. Yeah, but you're good at what you're doing right now, and you've dedicated that to bringing more light and illumination and joy to the world. But that was a searching, that's a process of trying stuff and figuring it out. And ultimately, yes, asking the question, how is this making the world at all better at every step of the way, as opposed to enriching yourself and all those kinds of things? Right. I think that's the name of the game. But it's tricky. And if we don't have moral mentors and intellectual mentors, it becomes hard. And if you tell a kid, that's deadly to me, just decide for yourself, just off you go, and you make your own choices. Your choice has to be disciplined, and your desire has got to be directed. Then you'll find your creative path. Everyone does it in its own way. But it's a guided choice. Your freedom is not sovereign, it's a guided freedom. So in the struggle and the suffering you've seen in the world, let me ask you the question of death. How often do you think about your own mortality? Every day. And one, are you afraid of it, the uncertainty of it? And what do you think happens after you die? Sure, I'm afraid of it. I mean, because I don't know what's next. I mean, I can't know it the way I know you. So of course I'm afraid of it. And I think of it every day. That's true. My prayer life compels me. We have this, the Hail Mary prayer. So you pray the rosary, now and at the hour of our death, amen. Now and at the hour of our death, amen. Now at the hour of our death, amen. You pray the whole rosary, 50 times, you remind yourself of your own death. But I do, I think about it because it's the ultimate limit. It's why it's beguiled every artist and writer and philosopher. It's the ultimate limit question. But yeah, sure, I'm afraid of it because it's the unknown. What do I think happens? I think I'm drawn into the deeper embrace of God's love. And that's stating it kind of in a more poetic way. Do you know John Polkinghorne's work? Do you know that name? John Polkinghorne was a very interesting, he just died recently. He was a Cambridge University particle physicist, right? High, high level scientist, who at midlife became an Anglican priest. He left his job at Cambridge and went to the seminary and became an Anglican priest, right? And then wrote, I think, some of the best stuff on science and religion, because he really knew the science from the inside. Here's Polkinghorne's account that I've always found persuasive. He said, what survives after we die? So this body clearly dies and goes into the ground or it's burned up or it goes away, right? But what's preserved? And he says, what Aristotle would have called the form, Polkinghorne calls it the pattern. So the pattern that's organized, the matter that's made me up over all these years, that's obviously not the same as it was, even, I mean, you would know, how often does it all change, all your atoms and cells. And there was the little Bobby Baron, who was growing up in Birmingham, Michigan. I can have a picture of him. And then there's me. And I say, oh, that's the same person. Well, I mean, clearly not materially speaking, not at all, completely different. But there's a unity to whatever that pattern is by which all of that materiality has been kind of organized. So Polkinghorne says, I think that pattern is remembered by God. And remember is the wrong word, so it's like derivative. I mean, it's known by God. And so God can therefore re-embody me according to that pattern at a higher pitch, what we call the resurrected body. So Paul talks about a spiritual body. Body for sure, because he believes in the resurrection of Jesus. But it's not a body like ours from this world. It's a body at a higher pitch. So something, some pattern that's there persists. Pattern persists in the mind of God and then is used as the ground of the re-embodiment of me. So it's not like I've just become a platonic form. I'm going to be re-embodied because the Christian hope is not for platonic escape of soul from matter. That's never the Christian hope. It's for the resurrection of the body, we say. And you say, what a fantastic idea. Well, I don't know. I mean, this body is being reconstituted all the time according to this pattern, right? It's not the same matter. And so might there be another sort of higher material that is organized according to the same pattern, which has been remembered by God? So therefore we can hang on to the language of body and soul if you want, or matter and form. But it's the form remembered by God and then reconstituted in an embodied way by God that we call heaven, the heavenly state. That's what I hope for. That's my Christian faith, my Christian hope. Let me ask you about the big question of meaning. We've talked about it in different directions, from different perspectives. What's the meaning of our existence here on earth? What's the meaning of life? Love. God is love. And the purpose of my life is to become God's friend. And that means I'm more conformed to love. And so my life finds meaning in the measure that I become more on fire with the divine love. I'm like the burning bush, is to become more and more radiant with the presence of God. That's what gives life meaning. Meaning is to live in a purposive relationship to a value, I would say. So there's all kinds of values, as I say, moral, aesthetic, intellectual values. And when I have a purposive relationship, like so right now you and I, we have a purposive relationship to the value of, let's say, finding out the truth of things, and we're speaking together to seek that. Well, good. What's the ultimate value? The value of values is God, the supreme good, the supremely knowable, the supremely intelligible is God. And so to be conformed to God is to have a fully meaningful life. And who's God? God is love. So that's where I would fit the package together that way. You're adding a lot of love to this world, which is something I deeply appreciate, and that you would sit down with me, given how valuable your time is, is a huge honor. Thank you so much for talking to me. My great pleasure. I loved it. Lex, thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Bishop Robert Barron. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Bishop Robert Barron himself, which reminds me of the Dostoevsky line spoken through Prince Mishkin that, quote, beauty will save the world. Robert says, begin with the beautiful, which leads to the good, which leads you to truth. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

https://youtu.be/WgytXF0SPh0