Datasets:

shubhamg2208
/

lexicap

	WEBVTT

	00:00.000 --> 00:02.760
	The following is a conversation with Sean Carroll.

	00:02.760 --> 00:04.920
	He's a theoretical physicist at Caltech,

	00:04.920 --> 00:08.800
	specializing in quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology.

	00:08.800 --> 00:11.640
	He's the author of several popular books,

	00:11.640 --> 00:15.360
	one on the Arrow of Time called From Eternity to Hear,

	00:15.360 --> 00:17.840
	one on the Higgs Boson called Particle

	00:17.840 --> 00:19.160
	at the End of the Universe,

	00:19.160 --> 00:22.560
	and one on Science and Philosophy called The Big Picture,

	00:22.560 --> 00:26.360
	on the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself.

	00:26.360 --> 00:28.720
	He has an upcoming book on quantum mechanics

	00:28.720 --> 00:32.760
	that you can preorder now called Something Deeply Hidden.

	00:32.760 --> 00:36.040
	He writes one of my favorite blogs on his website,

	00:36.040 --> 00:37.960
	preposterousuniverse.com.

	00:37.960 --> 00:40.440
	I recommend clicking on the greatest hits link

	00:40.440 --> 00:44.400
	that lists accessible, interesting posts on the Arrow of Time,

	00:44.400 --> 00:47.600
	dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang, general relativity,

	00:47.600 --> 00:49.560
	string theory, quantum mechanics,

	00:49.560 --> 00:53.160
	and the big meta questions about the philosophy of science,

	00:53.160 --> 00:57.600
	God, ethics, politics, academia, and much, much more.

	00:57.600 --> 01:00.280
	Finally, and perhaps most famously,

	01:00.280 --> 01:03.640
	he's the host of a podcast called Mindscape

	01:03.640 --> 01:06.920
	that you should subscribe to and support on Patreon.

	01:06.920 --> 01:08.800
	Along with the Joe Rogan experience,

	01:08.800 --> 01:10.480
	Sam Harris is Making Sense,

	01:10.480 --> 01:13.080
	and Dan Carlin's Hardcore History.

	01:13.080 --> 01:15.840
	Sean's Mindscape podcast is one of my favorite ways

	01:15.840 --> 01:18.800
	to learn new ideas or explore different perspectives

	01:18.800 --> 01:22.120
	and ideas that I thought I understood.

	01:22.120 --> 01:25.880
	It was truly an honor to meet and spend a couple hours

	01:25.880 --> 01:27.200
	with Sean.

	01:27.200 --> 01:30.480
	It's a bit heartbreaking to say that for the first time ever,

	01:30.480 --> 01:32.760
	the audio recorder for this podcast died

	01:32.760 --> 01:34.880
	in the middle of our conversation.

	01:34.880 --> 01:36.280
	There are technical reasons for this,

	01:36.280 --> 01:38.360
	having to do with phantom power

	01:38.360 --> 01:41.040
	that I now understand and will avoid.

	01:41.040 --> 01:44.200
	It took me one hour to notice and fix the problem.

	01:44.200 --> 01:48.280
	So, much like the universe's 68% dark energy,

	01:48.280 --> 01:51.280
	roughly the same amount from this conversation was lost,

	01:51.280 --> 01:54.160
	except in the memories of the two people involved

	01:54.160 --> 01:56.280
	and in my notes.

	01:56.280 --> 01:59.920
	I'm sure we'll talk again and continue this conversation

	01:59.920 --> 02:02.440
	on this podcast or on Sean's.

	02:02.440 --> 02:05.320
	And of course, I look forward to it.

	02:05.320 --> 02:07.840
	This is the Artificial Intelligence podcast.

	02:07.840 --> 02:09.960
	If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube,

	02:09.960 --> 02:12.520
	iTunes, support on Patreon,

	02:12.520 --> 02:16.680
	or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Freedman.

	02:16.680 --> 02:21.360
	And now, here's my conversation with Sean Carroll.

	02:21.360 --> 02:23.520
	What do you think is more interesting and impactful?

	02:23.520 --> 02:25.840
	Understanding how the universe works

	02:25.840 --> 02:26.880
	at a fundamental level

	02:26.880 --> 02:29.200
	or understanding how the human mind works?

	02:29.200 --> 02:32.440
	You know, of course this is a crazy meaningless

	02:32.440 --> 02:33.960
	unanswerable question in some sense,

	02:33.960 --> 02:35.160
	because they're both very interesting

	02:35.160 --> 02:37.520
	and there's no absolute scale of interestingness

	02:37.520 --> 02:39.160
	that we can rate them on.

	02:39.160 --> 02:41.160
	There's a glib answer that says the human brain

	02:41.160 --> 02:43.080
	is part of the universe, right?

	02:43.080 --> 02:44.400
	And therefore, understanding the universe

	02:44.400 --> 02:47.000
	is more fundamental than understanding the human brain.

	02:47.000 --> 02:49.600
	But do you really believe that once we understand

	02:49.600 --> 02:51.520
	the fundamental way the universe works

	02:51.520 --> 02:52.680
	at the particle level,

	02:52.680 --> 02:55.800
	the forces we would be able to understand how the mind works?

	02:55.800 --> 02:56.640
	No, certainly not.

	02:56.640 --> 02:58.760
	We cannot understand how ice cream works

	02:58.760 --> 03:01.040
	just from understanding how particles work, right?

	03:01.040 --> 03:02.760
	So I'm a big believer in emergence.

	03:02.760 --> 03:05.320
	I'm a big believer that there are different ways

	03:05.320 --> 03:06.640
	of talking about the world

	03:07.880 --> 03:11.200
	beyond just the most fundamental microscopic one.

	03:11.200 --> 03:13.880
	You know, when we talk about tables and chairs

	03:13.880 --> 03:15.120
	and planets and people,

	03:15.120 --> 03:16.400
	we're not talking the language

	03:16.400 --> 03:18.360
	of particle physics and cosmology.

	03:18.360 --> 03:20.880
	So, but understanding the universe,

	03:20.880 --> 03:24.040
	you didn't say just at the most fundamental level, right?

	03:24.040 --> 03:28.200
	So understanding the universe at all levels is part of that.

	03:28.200 --> 03:29.960
	I do think, you know, to be a little bit more fair

	03:29.960 --> 03:33.960
	to the question, there probably are general principles

	03:33.960 --> 03:38.520
	of complexity, biology, information processing,

	03:38.520 --> 03:41.840
	memory, knowledge, creativity

	03:41.840 --> 03:45.600
	that go beyond just the human brain, right?

	03:45.600 --> 03:47.800
	And maybe one could count understanding those

	03:47.800 --> 03:49.120
	as part of understanding the universe.

	03:49.120 --> 03:53.040
	The human brain, as far as we know, is the most complex thing

	03:53.040 --> 03:54.320
	in the universe.

	03:54.320 --> 03:57.440
	So there's, it's certainly absurd to think

	03:57.440 --> 03:58.880
	that by understanding the fundamental laws

	03:58.880 --> 04:00.400
	of particle physics,

	04:00.400 --> 04:02.880
	you get any direct insight on how the brain works.

	04:02.880 --> 04:04.360
	But then there's this step

	04:04.360 --> 04:06.840
	from the fundamentals of particle physics

	04:06.840 --> 04:08.680
	to information processing,

	04:08.680 --> 04:10.840
	which a lot of physicists and philosophers

	04:10.840 --> 04:12.520
	may be a little bit carelessly take

	04:12.520 --> 04:14.680
	when they talk about artificial intelligence.

	04:14.680 --> 04:18.080
	Do you think of the universe

	04:18.080 --> 04:21.360
	as a kind of a computational device?

	04:21.360 --> 04:22.200
	No.

	04:22.200 --> 04:24.200
	To be like the honest answer there is no.

	04:24.200 --> 04:27.600
	There's a sense in which the universe processes information

	04:27.600 --> 04:29.200
	clearly.

	04:29.200 --> 04:32.720
	There's a sense in which the universe is like a computer,

	04:32.720 --> 04:33.920
	clearly.

	04:33.920 --> 04:36.560
	But in some sense, I think,

	04:36.560 --> 04:38.560
	I tried to say this once on my blog

	04:38.560 --> 04:39.400
	and no one agreed with me,

	04:39.400 --> 04:42.400
	but the universe is more like a computation

	04:42.400 --> 04:45.080
	than a computer because the universe happens once.

	04:45.080 --> 04:46.960
	A computer is a general purpose machine, right?

	04:46.960 --> 04:48.680
	You can ask it different questions,

	04:48.680 --> 04:50.120
	even a pocket calculator, right?

	04:50.120 --> 04:52.960
	And it's set up to answer certain kinds of questions.

	04:52.960 --> 04:54.320
	The universe isn't that.

	04:54.320 --> 04:57.360
	So information processing happens in the universe,

	04:57.360 --> 04:59.120
	but it's not what the universe is.

	04:59.120 --> 05:01.560
	And I know your MIT colleague, Seth Lloyd,

	05:01.560 --> 05:03.840
	feels very differently about this, right?

	05:03.840 --> 05:07.240
	Well, you're thinking of the universe as a closed system.

	05:07.240 --> 05:08.080
	I am.

	05:08.080 --> 05:11.760
	So what makes a computer more like a PC,

	05:13.000 --> 05:14.560
	like a computing machine,

	05:14.560 --> 05:17.720
	is that there's a human that comes up to it

	05:17.720 --> 05:19.120
	and moves the mouse around,

	05:19.120 --> 05:21.680
	so input gives it input.

	05:21.680 --> 05:26.320
	And that's why you're saying it's just a computation,

	05:26.320 --> 05:29.280
	a deterministic thing that's just unrolling.

	05:29.280 --> 05:32.240
	But the immense complexity of it

	05:32.240 --> 05:34.440
	is nevertheless like processing.

	05:34.440 --> 05:39.440
	There's a state and it changes with rules.

	05:40.160 --> 05:41.680
	And there's a sense for a lot of people

	05:41.680 --> 05:45.400
	that if the brain operates, the human brain operates

	05:45.400 --> 05:46.520
	within that world,

	05:46.520 --> 05:49.400
	then it's simply just a small subset of that.

	05:49.400 --> 05:52.560
	And so there's no reason we can't build

	05:52.560 --> 05:55.600
	arbitrarily great intelligences.

	05:55.600 --> 05:56.440
	Yeah.

	05:56.440 --> 05:58.720
	Do you think of intelligence in this way?

	05:58.720 --> 05:59.640
	Intelligence is tricky.

	05:59.640 --> 06:01.720
	I don't have a definition of it offhand.

	06:01.720 --> 06:04.640
	So I remember this panel discussion

	06:04.640 --> 06:06.240
	that I saw on YouTube, I wasn't there,

	06:06.240 --> 06:07.720
	but Seth Lloyd was on the panel.

	06:07.720 --> 06:10.560
	And so was Martin Rees, the famous astrophysicist.

	06:10.560 --> 06:13.800
	And Seth gave his shtick for why the universe is a computer

	06:13.800 --> 06:14.840
	and explained this.

	06:14.840 --> 06:19.360
	And Martin Rees said, so what is not a computer?

	06:19.360 --> 06:22.000
	And Seth is like, oh, that's a good question.

	06:22.000 --> 06:22.840
	I'm not sure.

	06:22.840 --> 06:24.960
	Because if you have a sufficiently broad definition

	06:24.960 --> 06:28.360
	of what a computer is, then everything is, right?

	06:28.360 --> 06:32.160
	And similarly, or the analogy gains force

	06:32.160 --> 06:34.560
	when it excludes some things.

	06:34.560 --> 06:38.640
	Is the moon going around the earth performing a computation?

	06:38.640 --> 06:41.320
	I can come up with definitions in which the answer is yes,

	06:41.320 --> 06:43.840
	but it's not a very useful computation.

	06:43.840 --> 06:46.120
	I think that it's absolutely helpful

	06:46.120 --> 06:49.600
	to think about the universe in certain situations,

	06:49.600 --> 06:53.080
	certain contexts, as an information processing device.

	06:53.080 --> 06:54.840
	I'm even guilty of writing a paper

	06:54.840 --> 06:56.960
	called Quantum Circuit Cosmology, where

	06:56.960 --> 06:59.280
	we modeled the whole universe as a quantum circuit.

	06:59.280 --> 07:00.320
	As a circuit.

	07:00.320 --> 07:01.440
	As a circuit, yeah.

	07:01.440 --> 07:02.840
	With qubits kind of thing.

	07:02.840 --> 07:05.000
	With qubits, basically, right.

	07:05.000 --> 07:07.400
	So in qubits, becoming more and more entangled.

	07:07.400 --> 07:09.640
	So do we want to digress a little bit?

	07:09.640 --> 07:11.000
	Because this is kind of fun.

	07:11.000 --> 07:13.680
	So here's a mystery about the universe

	07:13.680 --> 07:16.840
	that is so deep and profound that nobody talks about it.

	07:16.840 --> 07:19.040
	Space expands, right?

	07:19.040 --> 07:21.880
	And we talk about, in a certain region of space,

	07:21.880 --> 07:23.560
	a certain number of degrees of freedom,

	07:23.560 --> 07:25.480
	a certain number of ways that the quantum fields

	07:25.480 --> 07:28.800
	and the particles in that region can arrange themselves.

	07:28.800 --> 07:32.200
	That number of degrees of freedom in a region of space

	07:32.200 --> 07:33.800
	is arguably finite.

	07:33.800 --> 07:36.640
	We actually don't know how many there are,

	07:36.640 --> 07:39.440
	but there's a very good argument that says it's a finite number.

	07:39.440 --> 07:44.920
	So as the universe expands and space gets bigger,

	07:44.920 --> 07:46.560
	are there more degrees of freedom?

	07:46.560 --> 07:48.520
	If it's an infinite number, it doesn't really matter.

	07:48.520 --> 07:50.000
	Infinity times 2 is still infinity.

	07:50.000 --> 07:53.160
	But if it's a finite number, then there's more space,

	07:53.160 --> 07:54.480
	so there's more degrees of freedom.

	07:54.480 --> 07:55.760
	So where did they come from?

	07:55.760 --> 07:58.000
	That would mean the universe is not a closed system.

	07:58.000 --> 08:01.520
	There's more degrees of freedom popping into existence.

	08:01.520 --> 08:05.320
	So what we suggested was that there are more degrees of freedom.

	08:05.320 --> 08:07.960
	And it's not that they're not there to start,

	08:07.960 --> 08:10.880
	but they're not entangled to start.

	08:10.880 --> 08:12.800
	So the universe that you and I know of,

	08:12.800 --> 08:15.440
	the three dimensions around us that we see,

	08:15.440 --> 08:18.080
	we said those are the entangled degrees of freedom

	08:18.080 --> 08:19.640
	making up space time.

	08:19.640 --> 08:22.640
	As the universe expands, there are a whole bunch of qubits

	08:22.640 --> 08:26.840
	in their zero state that become entangled

	08:26.840 --> 08:28.720
	with the rest of space time through the action

	08:28.720 --> 08:31.200
	of these quantum circuits.

	08:31.200 --> 08:37.080
	So what does it mean that there's now more degrees of freedom

	08:37.080 --> 08:39.280
	as they become more entangled?

	08:39.280 --> 08:40.280
	Yeah.

	08:40.280 --> 08:41.640
	As the universe expands.

	08:41.640 --> 08:41.960
	That's right.

	08:41.960 --> 08:43.280
	So there's more and more degrees of freedom

	08:43.280 --> 08:47.320
	that are entangled, that are playing the role of part

	08:47.320 --> 08:49.600
	of the entangled space time structure.

	08:49.600 --> 08:53.320
	So the underlying philosophy is that space time itself

	08:53.320 --> 08:55.600
	arises from the entanglement of some fundamental quantum

	08:55.600 --> 08:57.680
	degrees of freedom.

	08:57.680 --> 08:58.280
	Wow.

	08:58.280 --> 08:59.780
	OK.

	08:59.780 --> 09:05.200
	At which point is most of the entanglement happening?

	09:05.200 --> 09:07.400
	Are we talking about close to the Big Bang?

	09:07.400 --> 09:11.840
	Are we talking about throughout the time of the life of the

	09:11.840 --> 09:12.340
	universe?

	09:12.340 --> 09:12.840
	Yeah.

	09:12.840 --> 09:15.080
	So the idea is that at the Big Bang,

	09:15.080 --> 09:17.760
	almost all the degrees of freedom that the universe could

	09:17.760 --> 09:22.400
	have were there, but they were unentangled with anything else.

	09:22.400 --> 09:23.840
	And that's a reflection of the fact

	09:23.840 --> 09:25.560
	that the Big Bang had a low entropy.

	09:25.560 --> 09:28.080
	It was a very simple, very small place.

	09:28.080 --> 09:31.360
	And as space expands, more and more degrees of freedom

	09:31.360 --> 09:34.240
	become entangled with the rest of the world.

	09:34.240 --> 09:35.960
	Well, I have to ask John Carroll,

	09:35.960 --> 09:38.160
	what do you think of the thought experiment from Nick

	09:38.160 --> 09:41.560
	Bostrom that we're living in a simulation?

	09:41.560 --> 09:44.880
	So I think let me contextualize that a little bit more.

	09:44.880 --> 09:48.320
	I think people don't actually take this thought experiment.

	09:48.320 --> 09:50.360
	I think it's quite interesting.

	09:50.360 --> 09:52.880
	It's not very useful, but it's quite interesting.

	09:52.880 --> 09:55.440
	From the perspective of AI, a lot of the learning

	09:55.440 --> 09:59.280
	that can be done usually happens in simulation,

	09:59.280 --> 10:01.440
	artificial examples.

	10:01.440 --> 10:03.040
	And so it's a constructive question

	10:03.040 --> 10:09.360
	to ask how difficult is our real world to simulate,

	10:09.360 --> 10:12.400
	which is kind of a dual part of, if we're

	10:12.400 --> 10:16.400
	living in a simulation and somebody built that simulation,

	10:16.400 --> 10:18.840
	if you were to try to do it yourself, how hard would it be?

	10:18.840 --> 10:21.080
	So obviously, we could be living in a simulation.

	10:21.080 --> 10:22.960
	If you just want the physical possibility,

	10:22.960 --> 10:25.360
	then I completely agree that it's physically possible.

	10:25.360 --> 10:27.360
	I don't think that we actually are.

	10:27.360 --> 10:31.880
	So take this one piece of data into consideration.

	10:31.880 --> 10:35.080
	We live in a big universe.

	10:35.080 --> 10:38.480
	There's two trillion galaxies in our observable universe

	10:38.480 --> 10:41.640
	with 200 billion stars in each galaxy, et cetera.

	10:41.640 --> 10:44.920
	It would seem to be a waste of resources

	10:44.920 --> 10:47.600
	to have a universe that big going on just to do a simulation.

	10:47.600 --> 10:50.120
	So in other words, I want to be a good Bayesian.

	10:50.120 --> 10:54.920
	I want to ask, under this hypothesis, what do I expect to see?

	10:54.920 --> 10:56.080
	So the first thing I would say is I

	10:56.080 --> 11:00.280
	wouldn't expect to see a universe that was that big.

	11:00.280 --> 11:02.560
	The second thing is I wouldn't expect the resolution

	11:02.560 --> 11:05.000
	of the universe to be as good as it is.

	11:05.000 --> 11:08.960
	So it's always possible that if our superhuman simulators only

	11:08.960 --> 11:10.840
	have finite resources that they don't render

	11:10.840 --> 11:14.360
	the entire universe, that the part that is out there,

	11:14.360 --> 11:17.040
	the two trillion galaxies, isn't actually

	11:17.040 --> 11:19.600
	being simulated fully.

	11:19.600 --> 11:22.720
	But then the obvious extrapolation of that

	11:22.720 --> 11:25.640
	is that only I am being simulated fully.

	11:25.640 --> 11:29.240
	The rest of you are just nonplayer characters.

	11:29.240 --> 11:30.520
	I'm the only thing that is real.

	11:30.520 --> 11:32.720
	The rest of you are just chatbots.

	11:32.720 --> 11:34.320
	Beyond this wall, I see the wall,

	11:34.320 --> 11:37.360
	but there is literally nothing on the other side of the wall.

	11:37.360 --> 11:39.000
	That is sort of the Bayesian prediction.

	11:39.000 --> 11:40.400
	That's what it would be like to do

	11:40.400 --> 11:42.240
	an efficient simulation of me.

	11:42.240 --> 11:45.760
	So none of that seems quite realistic.

	11:45.760 --> 11:50.880
	I don't see, I hear the argument that it's just possible

	11:50.880 --> 11:53.280
	and easy to simulate lots of things.

	11:53.280 --> 11:57.280
	I don't see any evidence from what we know about our universe

	11:57.280 --> 11:59.280
	that we look like a simulated universe.

	11:59.280 --> 12:01.120
	Now, maybe you can say, well, we don't know what it would

	12:01.120 --> 12:03.000
	look like, but that's just abandoning

	12:03.000 --> 12:04.520
	your Bayesian responsibilities.

	12:04.520 --> 12:07.680
	Like your job is to say, under this theory,

	12:07.680 --> 12:09.480
	here's what you would expect to see.

	12:09.480 --> 12:11.680
	Yeah, so certainly if you think about a simulation

	12:11.680 --> 12:16.680
	as a thing that's like a video game where only a small subset

	12:16.680 --> 12:22.880
	is being readied, but say all the laws of physics,

	12:22.880 --> 12:26.560
	the entire closed system of the quote unquote universe,

	12:26.560 --> 12:27.800
	it had a creator.

	12:27.800 --> 12:29.640
	Yeah, it's always possible.

	12:29.640 --> 12:32.280
	So that's not useful to think about

	12:32.280 --> 12:34.040
	when you're thinking about physics.

	12:34.040 --> 12:38.080
	The way Nick Bostrom phrases it, if it's possible

	12:38.080 --> 12:40.520
	to simulate a universe, eventually we'll do it.

	12:40.520 --> 12:42.720
	Right.

	12:42.720 --> 12:45.560
	You can use that, by the way, for a lot of things.

	12:45.560 --> 12:49.840
	But I guess the question is, how hard is it

	12:49.840 --> 12:52.320
	to create a universe?

	12:52.320 --> 12:53.800
	I wrote a little blog post about this,

	12:53.800 --> 12:55.440
	and maybe I'm missing something.

	12:55.440 --> 12:57.680
	But there's an argument that says not only

	12:57.680 --> 13:00.480
	that it might be possible to simulate a universe,

	13:00.480 --> 13:05.400
	but probably, if you imagine that you actually

	13:05.400 --> 13:07.320
	attribute consciousness and agency

	13:07.320 --> 13:09.920
	to the little things that we're simulating,

	13:09.920 --> 13:12.400
	to our little artificial beings, there's probably

	13:12.400 --> 13:15.000
	a lot more of them than there are ordinary organic beings

	13:15.000 --> 13:17.400
	in the universe, or there will be in the future.

	13:17.400 --> 13:19.600
	So there's an argument that not only is being a simulation

	13:19.600 --> 13:23.520
	possible, it's probable, because in the space

	13:23.520 --> 13:25.480
	of all living consciousnesses, most of them

	13:25.480 --> 13:26.600
	are being simulated.

	13:26.600 --> 13:28.840
	Most of them are not at the top level.

	13:28.840 --> 13:30.520
	I think that argument must be wrong,

	13:30.520 --> 13:34.080
	because it follows from that argument that if we're simulated,

	13:34.080 --> 13:36.880
	but we can also simulate other things.

	13:36.880 --> 13:38.800
	Well, but if we can simulate other things,

	13:38.800 --> 13:41.800
	they can simulate other things.

	13:41.800 --> 13:44.280
	If we give them enough power and resolution,

	13:44.280 --> 13:46.000
	and ultimately, we'll reach a bottom,

	13:46.000 --> 13:47.800
	because the laws of physics in our universe

	13:47.800 --> 13:51.120
	have a bottom, we're made of atoms and so forth.

	13:51.120 --> 13:55.080
	So there will be the cheapest possible simulations.

	13:55.080 --> 13:57.680
	And if you believe the original argument,

	13:57.680 --> 13:59.920
	you should conclude that we should be in the cheapest

	13:59.920 --> 14:02.560
	possible simulation, because that's where most people are.

	14:02.560 --> 14:03.640
	But we don't look like that.

	14:03.640 --> 14:06.880
	It doesn't look at all like we're at the edge of resolution,

	14:06.880 --> 14:09.960
	that we're 16 bit things.

	14:09.960 --> 14:12.840
	It seems much easier to make much lower level things

	14:12.840 --> 14:14.160
	than we are.

	14:14.160 --> 14:18.200
	So, and also, I question the whole approach

	14:18.200 --> 14:19.840
	to the anthropic principle that says

	14:19.840 --> 14:22.320
	we are typical observers in the universe.

	14:22.320 --> 14:23.640
	I think that that's not actually,

	14:23.640 --> 14:27.320
	I think that there's a lot of selection that we can do

	14:27.320 --> 14:30.120
	that were typical within things we already know,

	14:30.120 --> 14:32.240
	but not typical within all the universe.

	14:32.240 --> 14:35.760
	So do you think there is intelligent life,

	14:35.760 --> 14:37.800
	however you would like to define intelligent life

	14:37.800 --> 14:39.920
	out there in the universe?

	14:39.920 --> 14:44.640
	My guess is that there is not intelligent life

	14:44.640 --> 14:46.840
	in the observable universe other than us.

	14:48.320 --> 14:52.480
	Simply on the basis of the fact that the likely number

	14:52.480 --> 14:56.320
	of other intelligent species in the observable universe,

	14:56.320 --> 15:00.280
	there's two likely numbers, zero or billions.

	15:01.480 --> 15:02.560
	And if there had been billions,

	15:02.560 --> 15:04.000
	you would have noticed already.

	15:05.040 --> 15:07.320
	For there to be literally like a small number,

	15:07.320 --> 15:12.320
	like Star Trek, there's a dozen intelligent civilizations

	15:12.440 --> 15:15.040
	in our galaxy, but not a billion.

	15:16.240 --> 15:18.480
	That's weird, that's sort of bizarre to me.

	15:18.480 --> 15:21.000
	It's easy for me to imagine that there are zero others

	15:21.000 --> 15:22.600
	because there's just a big bottleneck

	15:22.600 --> 15:24.960
	to making multicellular life

	15:24.960 --> 15:27.040
	or technological life or whatever.

	15:27.040 --> 15:28.560
	It's very hard for me to imagine

	15:28.560 --> 15:30.160
	that there's a whole bunch out there

	15:30.160 --> 15:32.280
	that have somehow remained hidden from us.

	15:32.280 --> 15:34.880
	The question I'd like to ask is,

	15:34.880 --> 15:37.240
	what would intelligent life look like?

	15:37.240 --> 15:41.120
	What I mean by that question and where it's going is,

	15:41.120 --> 15:45.120
	what if intelligent life is just fundamentally,

	15:45.120 --> 15:49.120
	in some very big ways, different than the one

	15:49.120 --> 15:51.480
	that has on Earth.

	15:51.480 --> 15:53.880
	That there's all kinds of intelligent life

	15:53.880 --> 15:57.560
	that operates at different scales of both size and temporal.

	15:57.560 --> 15:59.280
	That's a great possibility

	15:59.280 --> 16:00.800
	because I think we should be humble

	16:00.800 --> 16:02.640
	about what intelligence is, what life is.

	16:02.640 --> 16:04.040
	We don't even agree on what life is,

	16:04.040 --> 16:06.040
	much less what intelligent life is, right?

	16:06.040 --> 16:08.200
	So that's an argument for humility,

	16:08.200 --> 16:10.080
	saying there could be intelligent life

	16:10.080 --> 16:12.800
	of a very different character, right?

	16:12.800 --> 16:17.240
	You could imagine that dolphins are intelligent

	16:17.240 --> 16:19.760
	but never invent space travel

	16:19.760 --> 16:20.760
	because they live in the ocean

	16:20.760 --> 16:22.760
	and they don't have thumbs, right?

	16:22.760 --> 16:25.840
	So they never invent technology, they never invent smelting.

	16:26.840 --> 16:31.200
	Maybe the universe is full of intelligent species

	16:31.200 --> 16:33.200
	that just don't make technology, right?

	16:33.200 --> 16:35.440
	That's compatible with the data, I think.

	16:35.440 --> 16:38.560
	And I think maybe what you're pointing at

	16:38.560 --> 16:42.560
	is even more out there versions of intelligence,

	16:42.560 --> 16:46.240
	you know, intelligence in intermolecular clouds

	16:46.240 --> 16:48.160
	or on the surface of a neutron star

	16:48.160 --> 16:50.360
	or in between the galaxies in giant things

	16:50.360 --> 16:52.840
	where the equivalent of a heartbeat is 100 million years.

	16:54.840 --> 16:56.760
	On the one hand, yes,

	16:56.760 --> 16:58.560
	we should be very open minded about those things.

	16:58.560 --> 17:03.560
	On the other hand, we all of us share the same laws of physics.

	17:03.560 --> 17:07.040
	There might be something about the laws of physics

	17:07.040 --> 17:08.560
	even though we don't currently know exactly

	17:08.560 --> 17:12.560
	what that thing would be that makes meters

	17:12.560 --> 17:16.560
	and years the right length and time scales

	17:16.560 --> 17:19.560
	for intelligent life, maybe not.

	17:19.560 --> 17:22.560
	But we're made of atoms, atoms have a certain size,

	17:22.560 --> 17:25.560
	we orbit stars, our stars have a certain lifetime.

	17:25.560 --> 17:28.560
	It's not impossible to me that there's a sweet spot

	17:28.560 --> 17:30.560
	for intelligent life that we find ourselves in.

	17:30.560 --> 17:33.560
	So I'm open minded either way, I'm open minded either being humble

	17:33.560 --> 17:35.560
	and there's all sorts of different kinds of life

	17:35.560 --> 17:37.560
	or no, there's a reason we just don't know it yet

	17:37.560 --> 17:40.560
	why life like ours is the kind of life that's out there.

	17:40.560 --> 17:43.560
	Yeah, I'm of two minds too, but I often wonder

	17:43.560 --> 17:48.560
	if our brains is just designed to, quite obviously,

	17:48.560 --> 17:53.560
	to operate and see the world on these time scales.

	17:53.560 --> 17:57.560
	And we're almost blind and the tools we've created

	17:57.560 --> 18:01.560
	for detecting things are blind to the kind of observation

	18:01.560 --> 18:04.560
	needed to see intelligent life at other scales.

	18:04.560 --> 18:06.560
	Well, I'm totally open to that,

	18:06.560 --> 18:08.560
	but so here's another argument I would make.

	18:08.560 --> 18:10.560
	We have looked for intelligent life,

	18:10.560 --> 18:13.560
	but we've looked at for it in the dumbest way we can

	18:13.560 --> 18:15.560
	by turning radio telescopes to the sky.

	18:15.560 --> 18:20.560
	And why in the world would a super advanced civilization

	18:20.560 --> 18:23.560
	randomly beam out radio signals wastefully

	18:23.560 --> 18:25.560
	in all directions into the universe?

	18:25.560 --> 18:28.560
	It just doesn't make any sense, especially because

	18:28.560 --> 18:30.560
	in order to think that you would actually contact

	18:30.560 --> 18:33.560
	another civilization, you would have to do it forever.

	18:33.560 --> 18:35.560
	You have to keep doing it for millions of years.

	18:35.560 --> 18:37.560
	That sounds like a waste of resources.

	18:37.560 --> 18:42.560
	If you thought that there were other solar systems

	18:42.560 --> 18:45.560
	with planets around them where maybe intelligent life

	18:45.560 --> 18:48.560
	didn't yet exist, but might someday,

	18:48.560 --> 18:51.560
	you wouldn't try to talk to it with radio waves.

	18:51.560 --> 18:53.560
	You would send a spacecraft out there

	18:53.560 --> 18:55.560
	and you would park it around there.

	18:55.560 --> 18:57.560
	And it would be like, from our point of view,

	18:57.560 --> 19:00.560
	it would be like 2001 where there was a monolith.

	19:00.560 --> 19:02.560
	There could be an artifact.

	19:02.560 --> 19:04.560
	In fact, the other way works also, right?

	19:04.560 --> 19:07.560
	There could be artifacts in our solar system

	19:07.560 --> 19:11.560
	that have been put there by other technologically advanced

	19:11.560 --> 19:14.560
	civilizations, and that's how we will eventually contact them.

	19:14.560 --> 19:16.560
	We just haven't explored the solar system well enough yet

	19:16.560 --> 19:18.560
	to find them.

	19:18.560 --> 19:20.560
	The reason why we don't think about that is because

	19:20.560 --> 19:21.560
	we're young and impatient, right?

	19:21.560 --> 19:23.560
	It's like it would take more than my lifetime

	19:23.560 --> 19:25.560
	to actually send something to another star system

	19:25.560 --> 19:27.560
	and wait for it and then come back.

	19:27.560 --> 19:30.560
	But if we start thinking on hundreds of thousands of years

	19:30.560 --> 19:32.560
	or a million year time scales,

	19:32.560 --> 19:34.560
	that's clearly the right thing to do.

	19:34.560 --> 19:38.560
	Are you excited by the thing that Elon Musk is doing with SpaceX

	19:38.560 --> 19:41.560
	in general, but the idea of space exploration,

	19:41.560 --> 19:45.560
	even though you're species is young and impatient?

	19:45.560 --> 19:50.560
	No, I do think that space travel is crucially important, long term.

	19:50.560 --> 19:52.560
	Even to other star systems.

	19:52.560 --> 19:57.560
	And I think that many people overestimate the difficulty

	19:57.560 --> 20:00.560
	because they say, look, if you travel 1% the speed of light

	20:00.560 --> 20:03.560
	to another star system, we'll be dead before we get there, right?

	20:03.560 --> 20:05.560
	And I think that it's much easier.

	20:05.560 --> 20:07.560
	And therefore, when they write their science fiction stories,

	20:07.560 --> 20:09.560
	they imagine we'd go faster than the speed of light

	20:09.560 --> 20:11.560
	because otherwise they're too impatient, right?

	20:11.560 --> 20:13.560
	We're not going to go faster than the speed of light,

	20:13.560 --> 20:15.560
	but we could easily imagine that the human lifespan

	20:15.560 --> 20:17.560
	gets extended to thousands of years.

	20:17.560 --> 20:19.560
	And once you do that, then the stars are much closer.

	20:19.560 --> 20:20.560
	Effectively, right?

	20:20.560 --> 20:22.560
	What's 100 year trip, right?

	20:22.560 --> 20:26.560
	So I think that that's going to be the future, the far future,

	20:26.560 --> 20:29.560
	not my lifetime once again, but baby steps.

	20:29.560 --> 20:31.560
	Unless your lifetime gets extended.

	20:31.560 --> 20:33.560
	Well, it's in a race against time, right?

	20:33.560 --> 20:37.560
	A friend of mine who actually thinks about these things said,

	20:37.560 --> 20:39.560
	you know, you and I are going to die,

	20:39.560 --> 20:42.560
	but I don't know about our grandchildren.

	20:42.560 --> 20:45.560
	I don't know, predicting the future is hard,

	20:45.560 --> 20:47.560
	but that's the least plausible scenario.

	20:47.560 --> 20:51.560
	And so, yeah, no, I think that as we discussed earlier,

	20:51.560 --> 20:56.560
	there are threats to the earth, known and unknown, right?

	20:56.560 --> 21:02.560
	Having spread humanity and biology elsewhere

	21:02.560 --> 21:04.560
	is a really important longterm goal.

	21:04.560 --> 21:08.560
	What kind of questions can science not currently answer,

	21:08.560 --> 21:11.560
	but might soon?

	21:11.560 --> 21:14.560
	When you think about the problems and the mysteries before us,

	21:14.560 --> 21:17.560
	that may be within reach of science.

	21:17.560 --> 21:19.560
	I think an obvious one is the origin of life.

	21:19.560 --> 21:21.560
	We don't know how that happened.

	21:21.560 --> 21:24.560
	There's a difficulty in knowing how it happened historically,

	21:24.560 --> 21:26.560
	actually, you know, literally on earth,

	21:26.560 --> 21:29.560
	but starting life from nonlife

	21:29.560 --> 21:32.560
	is something I kind of think we're close to, right?

	21:32.560 --> 21:33.560
	You really think so?

	21:33.560 --> 21:35.560
	Like, how difficult is it to start life?

	21:35.560 --> 21:36.560
	I do.

	21:36.560 --> 21:40.560
	Well, I've talked to people, including on the podcast, about this.

	21:40.560 --> 21:42.560
	You know, life requires three things.

	21:42.560 --> 21:44.560
	Life as we know it.

	21:44.560 --> 21:46.560
	There's a difference between life, who knows what it is,

	21:46.560 --> 21:47.560
	and life as we know it,

	21:47.560 --> 21:50.560
	which we can talk about with some intelligence.

	21:50.560 --> 21:53.560
	Life as we know it requires compartmentalization.

	21:53.560 --> 21:56.560
	You need a little membrane around your cell.

	21:56.560 --> 21:58.560
	Metabolism, you need to take in food and eat it

	21:58.560 --> 22:00.560
	and let that make you do things.

	22:00.560 --> 22:02.560
	And then replication.

	22:02.560 --> 22:04.560
	You need to have some information about who you are,

	22:04.560 --> 22:07.560
	that you pass down to future generations.

	22:07.560 --> 22:11.560
	In the lab, compartmentalization seems pretty easy,

	22:11.560 --> 22:13.560
	not hard to make lipid bilayers

	22:13.560 --> 22:16.560
	that come into little cellular walls pretty easily.

	22:16.560 --> 22:19.560
	Metabolism and replication are hard,

	22:19.560 --> 22:21.560
	but replication we're close to.

	22:21.560 --> 22:25.560
	People have made RNA like molecules in the lab that...

	22:25.560 --> 22:28.560
	I think the state of the art is

	22:28.560 --> 22:31.560
	they're not able to make one molecule that reproduces itself,

	22:31.560 --> 22:34.560
	but they're able to make two molecules that reproduce each other.

	22:34.560 --> 22:37.560
	So that's okay. That's pretty close.

	22:37.560 --> 22:40.560
	Metabolism is harder, believe it or not,

	22:40.560 --> 22:42.560
	even though it's sort of the most obvious thing,

	22:42.560 --> 22:44.560
	but you want some sort of controlled metabolism

	22:44.560 --> 22:48.560
	and the actual cellular machinery in our bodies is quite complicated.

	22:48.560 --> 22:51.560
	It's hard to see it just popping into existence all by itself.

	22:51.560 --> 22:53.560
	It probably took a while.

	22:53.560 --> 22:55.560
	But we're making progress.

	22:55.560 --> 22:58.560
	In fact, I don't think we're spending nearly enough money on it.

	22:58.560 --> 23:01.560
	If I were the NSF, I would flood this area with money

	23:01.560 --> 23:04.560
	because it would change our view of the world

	23:04.560 --> 23:06.560
	if we could actually make life in the lab

	23:06.560 --> 23:09.560
	and understand how it was made originally here on Earth.

	23:09.560 --> 23:11.560
	I'm sure it would have some ripple effects

	23:11.560 --> 23:13.560
	that help cure diseases and so on.

	23:13.560 --> 23:15.560
	That's right.

	23:15.560 --> 23:18.560
	Synthetic biology is a wonderful big frontier where we're making cells.

	23:18.560 --> 23:21.560
	Right now, the best way to do that

	23:21.560 --> 23:23.560
	is to borrow heavily from existing biology.

	23:23.560 --> 23:26.560
	Craig Ventner several years ago created an artificial cell,

	23:26.560 --> 23:28.560
	but all he did was...

	23:28.560 --> 23:30.560
	not all he did, it was a tremendous accomplishment,

	23:30.560 --> 23:33.560
	but all he did was take out the DNA from a cell

	23:33.560 --> 23:36.560
	and put in entirely new DNA and let it boot up and go.

	23:36.560 --> 23:43.560
	What about the leap to creating intelligent life on Earth?

	23:43.560 --> 23:45.560
	However, again, we define intelligence, of course,

	23:45.560 --> 23:49.560
	but let's just even say homo sapiens,

	23:49.560 --> 23:54.560
	the modern intelligence in our human brain.

	23:54.560 --> 23:58.560
	Do you have a sense of what's involved in that leap

	23:58.560 --> 24:00.560
	and how big of a leap that is?

	24:00.560 --> 24:02.560
	So AI would count in this?

	24:02.560 --> 24:04.560
	Or do you really want life?

	24:04.560 --> 24:06.560
	AI would count in some sense.

	24:06.560 --> 24:08.560
	AI would count, I think.

	24:08.560 --> 24:10.560
	Of course, AI would count.

	24:10.560 --> 24:12.560
	Well, let's say artificial consciousness.

	24:12.560 --> 24:14.560
	I do not think we are on the threshold

	24:14.560 --> 24:16.560
	of creating artificial consciousness.

	24:16.560 --> 24:18.560
	I think it's possible.

	24:18.560 --> 24:20.560
	I'm not, again, very educated about how close we are,

	24:20.560 --> 24:22.560
	but my impression is not that we're really close

	24:22.560 --> 24:24.560
	because we understand how little we understand

	24:24.560 --> 24:26.560
	of consciousness and what it is.

	24:26.560 --> 24:28.560
	So if we don't have any idea what it is,

	24:28.560 --> 24:30.560
	it's hard to imagine we're on the threshold

	24:30.560 --> 24:32.560
	of making it ourselves.

	24:32.560 --> 24:34.560
	But it's doable, it's possible.

	24:34.560 --> 24:36.560
	I don't see any obstacles in principle,

	24:36.560 --> 24:38.560
	so yeah, I would hold out some interest

	24:38.560 --> 24:40.560
	in that happening eventually.

	24:40.560 --> 24:42.560
	I think in general, consciousness,

	24:42.560 --> 24:44.560
	I think it would be just surprised

	24:44.560 --> 24:46.560
	how easy consciousness is

	24:46.560 --> 24:48.560
	once we create intelligence.

	24:48.560 --> 24:50.560
	I think consciousness is a thing

	24:50.560 --> 24:54.560
	that's just something we all fake.

	24:54.560 --> 24:56.560
	Well, good.

	24:56.560 --> 24:58.560
	No, actually, I like this idea that, in fact,

	24:58.560 --> 25:00.560
	consciousness is way less mysterious than we think

	25:00.560 --> 25:02.560
	because we're all at every time,

	25:02.560 --> 25:04.560
	at every moment, less conscious than we think we are.

	25:04.560 --> 25:06.560
	We can fool things.

	25:06.560 --> 25:08.560
	And I think that plus the idea that you

	25:08.560 --> 25:10.560
	not only have artificial intelligence systems,

	25:10.560 --> 25:12.560
	but you put them in a body,

	25:12.560 --> 25:14.560
	give them a robot body,

	25:14.560 --> 25:18.560
	that will help the faking a lot.

	25:18.560 --> 25:20.560
	Yeah, I think creating consciousness

	25:20.560 --> 25:22.560
	in artificial consciousness

	25:22.560 --> 25:24.560
	is as simple

	25:24.560 --> 25:26.560
	as asking a Roomba

	25:26.560 --> 25:28.560
	to say, I'm conscious

	25:28.560 --> 25:32.560
	and refusing to be talked out of it.

	25:32.560 --> 25:34.560
	It could be.

	25:34.560 --> 25:36.560
	I mean, I'm almost being silly,

	25:36.560 --> 25:38.560
	but that's what we do.

	25:38.560 --> 25:40.560
	That's what we do with each other.

	25:40.560 --> 25:44.560
	The consciousness is also a social construct,

	25:44.560 --> 25:46.560
	and a lot of our ideas of intelligence

	25:46.560 --> 25:48.560
	is a social construct,

	25:48.560 --> 25:50.560
	and so reaching that bar involves

	25:50.560 --> 25:52.560
	something that's beyond,

	25:52.560 --> 25:54.560
	that doesn't necessarily involve

	25:54.560 --> 25:56.560
	the fundamental understanding

	25:56.560 --> 25:58.560
	of how you go from

	25:58.560 --> 26:00.560
	electrons to neurons

	26:00.560 --> 26:02.560
	to cognition.

	26:02.560 --> 26:04.560
	No, actually, I think that is an extremely good point,

	26:04.560 --> 26:06.560
	and in fact,

	26:06.560 --> 26:08.560
	what it suggests is,

	26:08.560 --> 26:10.560
	so yeah, you referred to Kate Darling,

	26:10.560 --> 26:12.560
	who I had on the podcast,

	26:12.560 --> 26:14.560
	and who does these experiments with

	26:14.560 --> 26:16.560
	very simple robots,

	26:16.560 --> 26:18.560
	but they look like animals,

	26:18.560 --> 26:20.560
	and they can look like they're experiencing pain,

	26:20.560 --> 26:22.560
	and we human beings react

	26:22.560 --> 26:24.560
	very negatively to these little robots

	26:24.560 --> 26:26.560
	looking like they're experiencing pain,

	26:26.560 --> 26:28.560
	and what you want to say is,

	26:28.560 --> 26:30.560
	yeah, but they're just robots.

	26:30.560 --> 26:32.560
	It's not really pain.

	26:32.560 --> 26:34.560
	It's just some electrons going around,

	26:34.560 --> 26:36.560
	but then you realize you and I

	26:36.560 --> 26:38.560
	are just electrons going around,

	26:38.560 --> 26:40.560
	and that's what pain is also.

	26:40.560 --> 26:42.560
	What I would have an easy time imagining

	26:42.560 --> 26:44.560
	is that there is a spectrum

	26:44.560 --> 26:46.560
	between these simple little robots

	26:46.560 --> 26:48.560
	that Kate works with

	26:48.560 --> 26:50.560
	and a human being,

	26:50.560 --> 26:52.560
	where there are things that,

	26:52.560 --> 26:54.560
	like a human touring test level thing

	26:54.560 --> 26:56.560
	are not conscious,

	26:56.560 --> 26:58.560
	but nevertheless walk and talk

	26:58.560 --> 27:00.560
	like they're conscious,

	27:00.560 --> 27:02.560
	and it could be that the future is,

	27:02.560 --> 27:04.560
	I mean, Siri is close, right?

	27:04.560 --> 27:06.560
	And so it might be the future

	27:06.560 --> 27:08.560
	has a lot more agents like that,

	27:08.560 --> 27:10.560
	and in fact, rather than someday going,

	27:10.560 --> 27:12.560
	aha, we have consciousness,

	27:12.560 --> 27:14.560
	we'll just creep up on it

	27:14.560 --> 27:16.560
	with more and more accurate reflections

	27:16.560 --> 27:18.560
	of what we expect.

	27:18.560 --> 27:20.560
	And in the future, maybe the present,

	27:20.560 --> 27:22.560
	and you're basically assuming

	27:22.560 --> 27:24.560
	that I'm human.

	27:24.560 --> 27:26.560
	I get a high probability.

	27:26.560 --> 27:28.560
	At this time, because the,

	27:28.560 --> 27:30.560
	but in the future,

	27:30.560 --> 27:32.560
	there might be question marks around that, right?

	27:32.560 --> 27:34.560
	Yeah, no, absolutely.

	27:34.560 --> 27:36.560
	Certainly videos are almost to the point

	27:36.560 --> 27:38.560
	where you shouldn't trust them already.

	27:38.560 --> 27:40.560
	Photos you can't trust, right?

	27:40.560 --> 27:42.560
	Videos is easier to trust,

	27:42.560 --> 27:44.560
	but we're getting worse.

	27:44.560 --> 27:46.560
	We're getting better at faking them, right?

	27:46.560 --> 27:48.560
	Yeah, so physical, embodied people,

	27:48.560 --> 27:50.560
	what's so hard about faking that?

	27:50.560 --> 27:52.560
	This is very depressing,

	27:52.560 --> 27:54.560
	this conversation we're having right now.

	27:54.560 --> 27:56.560
	To me, it's exciting.

	27:56.560 --> 27:58.560
	You're doing it, so it's exciting to you,

	27:58.560 --> 28:00.560
	but it's a sobering thought.

	28:00.560 --> 28:02.560
	We're very bad at imagining

	28:02.560 --> 28:04.560
	what the next 50 years are going to be like

	28:04.560 --> 28:06.560
	when we're in the middle of a phase transition

	28:06.560 --> 28:08.560
	as we are right now.

	28:08.560 --> 28:10.560
	Yeah, and in general,

	28:10.560 --> 28:12.560
	I'm not blind to all the threats.

	28:12.560 --> 28:14.560
	I am excited by the power of technology

	28:14.560 --> 28:16.560
	to solve,

	28:16.560 --> 28:18.560
	as they evolve.

	28:18.560 --> 28:20.560
	I'm not as much as Steven Pinker

	28:20.560 --> 28:22.560
	optimistic about the world,

	28:22.560 --> 28:24.560
	but in everything I've seen,

	28:24.560 --> 28:26.560
	all the brilliant people in the world

	28:26.560 --> 28:28.560
	that I've met are good people.

	28:28.560 --> 28:30.560
	So the army of the good

	28:30.560 --> 28:32.560
	in terms of the development of technology is large.

	28:32.560 --> 28:34.560
	Okay, you're way more

	28:34.560 --> 28:36.560
	optimistic than I am.

	28:36.560 --> 28:38.560
	I think that goodness and badness

	28:38.560 --> 28:40.560
	are equally distributed among intelligent

	28:40.560 --> 28:42.560
	and unintelligent people.

	28:42.560 --> 28:44.560
	I don't see much of a correlation there.

	28:44.560 --> 28:46.560
	Interesting.

	28:46.560 --> 28:48.560
	Neither of us have proof.

	28:48.560 --> 28:50.560
	Yeah, exactly. Again, opinions are free, right?

	28:50.560 --> 28:52.560
	Nor definitions of good and evil.

	28:52.560 --> 28:54.560
	Without definitions

	28:54.560 --> 28:56.560
	or without data

	28:56.560 --> 28:58.560
	opinions.

	28:58.560 --> 29:00.560
	So what kind of questions can science not

	29:00.560 --> 29:02.560
	currently answer

	29:02.560 --> 29:04.560
	and may never be able to answer in your view?

	29:04.560 --> 29:06.560
	Well, the obvious one is what is good and bad.

	29:06.560 --> 29:08.560
	What is right and wrong?

	29:08.560 --> 29:10.560
	I think that there are questions that science tells us

	29:10.560 --> 29:12.560
	what happens, what the world is,

	29:12.560 --> 29:14.560
	doesn't say what the world should do

	29:14.560 --> 29:16.560
	or what we should do because we're part of the world.

	29:16.560 --> 29:18.560
	But we are part of the world

	29:18.560 --> 29:20.560
	and we have the ability to feel like

	29:20.560 --> 29:22.560
	something's right, something's wrong.

	29:22.560 --> 29:24.560
	And to make a very long story

	29:24.560 --> 29:26.560
	very short, I think that the idea

	29:26.560 --> 29:28.560
	of moral philosophy is

	29:28.560 --> 29:30.560
	systematizing our intuitions of what is right

	29:30.560 --> 29:32.560
	and what is wrong.

	29:32.560 --> 29:34.560
	And science might be able to predict ahead of time

	29:34.560 --> 29:36.560
	what we will do,

	29:36.560 --> 29:38.560
	but it won't ever be able to judge

	29:38.560 --> 29:40.560
	whether we should have done it or not.

	29:40.560 --> 29:42.560
	You know, you're kind of unique in terms of scientists.

	29:42.560 --> 29:44.560
	It doesn't

	29:44.560 --> 29:46.560
	have to do with podcasts, but

	29:46.560 --> 29:48.560
	even just reaching out, I think you refer to

	29:48.560 --> 29:50.560
	as sort of doing interdisciplinary science.

	29:50.560 --> 29:52.560
	So you reach out

	29:52.560 --> 29:54.560
	and talk to people

	29:54.560 --> 29:56.560
	that are outside of your discipline,

	29:56.560 --> 29:58.560
	which I always

	29:58.560 --> 30:00.560
	hope that's what science was for.

	30:00.560 --> 30:02.560
	In fact, I was a little disillusioned

	30:02.560 --> 30:04.560
	when I realized that academia

	30:04.560 --> 30:06.560
	is very siloed.

	30:06.560 --> 30:08.560
	Yeah.

	30:08.560 --> 30:10.560
	The question is

	30:10.560 --> 30:12.560
	how,

	30:12.560 --> 30:14.560
	at your own level, how do you prepare for these conversations?

	30:14.560 --> 30:16.560
	How do you think about these conversations?

	30:16.560 --> 30:18.560
	How do you open your mind enough

	30:18.560 --> 30:20.560
	to have these conversations?

	30:20.560 --> 30:22.560
	And it may be a little bit broader.

	30:22.560 --> 30:24.560
	How can you advise other scientists

	30:24.560 --> 30:26.560
	to have these kinds of conversations?

	30:26.560 --> 30:28.560
	Not at the podcast.

	30:28.560 --> 30:30.560
	The fact that you're doing a podcast is awesome.

	30:30.560 --> 30:32.560
	Other people get to hear them.

	30:32.560 --> 30:34.560
	But it's also good to have it without mics in general.

	30:34.560 --> 30:36.560
	It's a good question, but a tough one

	30:36.560 --> 30:38.560
	to answer. I think about

	30:38.560 --> 30:40.560
	a guy I know is a personal trainer

	30:40.560 --> 30:42.560
	and he was asked on a podcast

	30:42.560 --> 30:44.560
	how do we psych ourselves up

	30:44.560 --> 30:46.560
	to do a workout? How do we make

	30:46.560 --> 30:48.560
	that discipline to go and work out?

	30:48.560 --> 30:50.560
	And he's like, why are you asking me?

	30:50.560 --> 30:52.560
	I can't stop working out.

	30:52.560 --> 30:54.560
	I don't need to psych myself up.

	30:54.560 --> 30:56.560
	Likewise, you asked me

	30:56.560 --> 30:58.560
	how do you get to have

	30:58.560 --> 31:00.560
	interdisciplinary conversations and all sorts of different things

	31:00.560 --> 31:02.560
	with all sorts of different people?

	31:02.560 --> 31:04.560
	That's what makes me go.

	31:04.560 --> 31:06.560
	I couldn't stop

	31:06.560 --> 31:08.560
	doing that. I did that long before

	31:08.560 --> 31:10.560
	any of them were recorded. In fact,

	31:10.560 --> 31:12.560
	a lot of the motivation for starting recording it

	31:12.560 --> 31:14.560
	was making sure I would read all these books

	31:14.560 --> 31:16.560
	that I had purchased. All these books

	31:16.560 --> 31:18.560
	I wanted to read. Not enough time to read them.

	31:18.560 --> 31:20.560
	And now, if I have the motivation

	31:20.560 --> 31:22.560
	because I'm going to interview Pat

	31:22.560 --> 31:24.560
	Churchland, I'm going to finally read her

	31:24.560 --> 31:26.560
	book.

	31:26.560 --> 31:28.560
	And

	31:28.560 --> 31:30.560
	it's absolutely true that academia is

	31:30.560 --> 31:32.560
	extraordinarily siloed. We don't talk to people.

	31:32.560 --> 31:34.560
	We rarely do.

	31:34.560 --> 31:36.560
	And in fact, when we do, it's punished.

	31:36.560 --> 31:38.560
	The people who do it successfully

	31:38.560 --> 31:40.560
	generally first became

	31:40.560 --> 31:42.560
	very successful within their little siloed discipline.

	31:42.560 --> 31:44.560
	And only then

	31:44.560 --> 31:46.560
	did they start expanding out.

	31:46.560 --> 31:48.560
	If you're a young person, I have graduate students

	31:48.560 --> 31:50.560
	and I try to be very, very

	31:50.560 --> 31:52.560
	candid with them about this.

	31:52.560 --> 31:54.560
	That it's

	31:54.560 --> 31:56.560
	most graduate students do not become faculty members.

	31:56.560 --> 31:58.560
	It's a tough road.

	31:58.560 --> 32:00.560
	And so

	32:00.560 --> 32:02.560
	you live the life you want to live

	32:02.560 --> 32:04.560
	but do it with your eyes open

	32:04.560 --> 32:06.560
	about what it does to your job chances.

	32:06.560 --> 32:08.560
	And the more

	32:08.560 --> 32:10.560
	broad you are and the less

	32:10.560 --> 32:12.560
	time you spend hyper

	32:12.560 --> 32:14.560
	specializing in your field, the lower

	32:14.560 --> 32:16.560
	your job chances are. That's just an academic

	32:16.560 --> 32:18.560
	reality. It's terrible. I don't like it.

	32:18.560 --> 32:20.560
	But it's a reality.

	32:20.560 --> 32:22.560
	And for some people

	32:22.560 --> 32:24.560
	that's fine. Like there's plenty of people

	32:24.560 --> 32:26.560
	who are wonderful scientists who have zero

	32:26.560 --> 32:28.560
	interest in branching out and talking to

	32:28.560 --> 32:30.560
	things to anyone outside their field.

	32:30.560 --> 32:32.560
	But

	32:32.560 --> 32:34.560
	it is disillusioning to me

	32:34.560 --> 32:36.560
	some of the romantic notion

	32:36.560 --> 32:38.560
	I had of the intellectual academic life

	32:38.560 --> 32:40.560
	is belied by the reality

	32:40.560 --> 32:42.560
	of it. The idea that we should

	32:42.560 --> 32:44.560
	reach out beyond our discipline

	32:44.560 --> 32:46.560
	and that is a positive good

	32:46.560 --> 32:48.560
	is just so

	32:48.560 --> 32:50.560
	rare in

	32:50.560 --> 32:52.560
	universities that it may as well

	32:52.560 --> 32:54.560
	not exist at all. But

	32:54.560 --> 32:56.560
	that said, even though you're saying

	32:56.560 --> 32:58.560
	you're doing it like the personal trainer

	32:58.560 --> 33:00.560
	because you just can't help it, you're also

	33:00.560 --> 33:02.560
	an inspiration to others.

	33:02.560 --> 33:04.560
	Like I could speak for myself.

	33:04.560 --> 33:06.560
	You know,

	33:06.560 --> 33:08.560
	I also have a career I'm thinking about

	33:08.560 --> 33:10.560
	right. And without

	33:10.560 --> 33:12.560
	your podcast, I may have

	33:12.560 --> 33:14.560
	not have been doing this at all.

	33:14.560 --> 33:16.560
	Right. So it

	33:16.560 --> 33:18.560
	makes me realize that these kinds

	33:18.560 --> 33:20.560
	of conversations is kind of what science is about.

	33:20.560 --> 33:22.560
	In many

	33:22.560 --> 33:24.560
	ways. The reason we write papers

	33:24.560 --> 33:26.560
	this exchange of ideas

	33:26.560 --> 33:28.560
	is much harder to do

	33:28.560 --> 33:30.560
	into the disciplinary papers, I would say.

	33:30.560 --> 33:32.560
	Yeah. Right.

	33:32.560 --> 33:34.560
	And conversations are easier.

	33:34.560 --> 33:36.560
	So conversations is the beginning

	33:36.560 --> 33:38.560
	and in the field of AI

	33:38.560 --> 33:40.560
	that it's

	33:40.560 --> 33:42.560
	obvious that we should think outside

	33:42.560 --> 33:44.560
	of pure

	33:44.560 --> 33:46.560
	computer vision competitions and in particular

	33:46.560 --> 33:48.560
	data sets. We should think about the broader

	33:48.560 --> 33:50.560
	impact of how this can be

	33:50.560 --> 33:52.560
	you know, reaching

	33:52.560 --> 33:54.560
	out to physics, to psychology

	33:54.560 --> 33:56.560
	to neuroscience

	33:56.560 --> 33:58.560
	and having these conversations.

	33:58.560 --> 34:00.560
	So you're an inspiration

	34:00.560 --> 34:02.560
	and so. Well, thank you very much.

	34:02.560 --> 34:04.560
	Never know how the world

	34:04.560 --> 34:06.560
	changes. I mean

	34:06.560 --> 34:08.560
	the fact that this stuff is out there

	34:08.560 --> 34:10.560
	and I've

	34:10.560 --> 34:12.560
	a huge number of people come up to me

	34:12.560 --> 34:14.560
	grad students really loving the

	34:14.560 --> 34:16.560
	podcast inspired by it and

	34:16.560 --> 34:18.560
	they will probably have that

	34:18.560 --> 34:20.560
	there'll be ripple effects when they become faculty

	34:20.560 --> 34:22.560
	and so on. So we can end

	34:22.560 --> 34:24.560
	on a balance between pessimism

	34:24.560 --> 34:26.560
	and optimism and Sean, thank you so much

	34:26.560 --> 34:28.560
	for talking. It was awesome. No, Lex, thank you very

	34:28.560 --> 34:52.560
	much for this conversation. It was great.