"TREACHEROUS Waters Ahead!" Will Super Intelligent Robots End Humanity? + Science vs God Debate

27:21We're pretty precious, but we want to understand the limits. And me as a chemist, I just want to understand the chemistry of life and how sand turns into cells because it did on planet Earth and there's no reason why it didn't happen elsewhere, whether it's a spud you like or a sand you like. It's just chemistry.

27:41Piers Morgan:but could it be um and i'll bring in um dr torygan here you know i can't get my head around the pyramids in egypt i don't know how they did it it just seems like an unbelievably sophisticated complicated thing and are we you know is it really how people believe that it was just done by humans and so on and so on i mean maybe but the fact that if we tried to replicate that today i think we'd have a real problem um how is these things could they just remain forever a mystery i mean yeah i agree that it would be great it would be great if we could find the answers but maybe some things we're just never going to know what do you think yes and what so this is a really good point we're never going to know exactly the mechanism that gave rise to the pyramids unless there's a natural process that gives rise to pyramids right and you can reproduce it this is what i keep saying say say to James when he's saying, oh, what about making sure that these sugars are present with these amino acids and this RNA?

28:41That is him assuming that there is only one way to make life. What our experiments are showing is life has many ways to happen. And the chemistry of the life on earth is as unique as the iPhone or TikTok on earth. There may not be TikTok and alien, you know, intelligent social media. There'll be something else. It won't be identical. And so all I've been trying to say to James and Origin of Life people is like, what is the fundamental process, the gravity, if you like? So gravity makes stars by compressing hydrogen. What is the process, the gravity that turns sand into cells? And that is chemical evolution.

29:21And each life form will have its own technology, be them amino acids, sugars, DNA, and other molecules. I would say that James' obsession with criticizing those molecules and saying, you can't get that, gotcha. You can't get chiral, gotcha, is actually missing the point. It's missing the process. And I think that, and you get it perfectly with the pyramids. Like, just because pyramids don't emerge everywhere perfectly doesn't mean that a process didn't make them, right? The pyramids did not just appear. Someone put them there. Are we going to know all the details? No.

30:00Piers Morgan:Yeah, and look, I think, Dr. Tor, probably the final question for you is, as somebody that believes fervently in God and is a religious man, if it turned out that through, you know, wondrous modern science, we work out how creation happened, how life began and so on, we can start to replicate it, would that dent your faith? Would it be like a signal to you that actually there wasn't a God? It had nothing to do with it. And this is how it happened. Not one bit. And in fact, I disagree with your opening statement that if we created life in the lab, that would somehow discount God. Not at all. Just like when the structure of DNA was identified and described in 1953, 3, that doesn't lessen our respect for God.

30:57In fact, it increases our respect for God. Like, whoa, that's how you did it. Prior to that, we didn't know why two parents who were tall had tall children. We didn't know. Now we understand because it's written in the DNA. It's written in that code. So every scientific advance gives me more appreciation for God. So if we find out how life, not just that we can create life in the lab, that we may be able to do, but to be able to say how it was created on an early earth when we didn't have all the tools that we have, when we didn't have cells that we could deconstruct, take their pieces and put them back together, that's a much harder question.

31:41But even if we were to find that, we would say, Lord, so that's how you did it. because what the Bible does is it tells us things in a very light fashion. It just doesn't give us the details. Science allows us to fill in so many details that the Bible itself doesn't allow us to fill in. That's the beauty of science. And so he's given us this book, the Bible, and he's given us the book of nature that allows us to fill in many of the pieces. So if we get another piece filled in, I'd be like, Lord, you are so wonderful. So that's how you pulled it off. every year we see more of the communication levels how every cell has system levels of communication between it and we're like oh so that's how it works that's how you did it so to me it's the glory of god to see this well okay professor cronin your final your final thought so i mean i so i one thing i share with with james he has all right for for god in this case I'm a scientist and I want to understand how the universe works, right?

32:45And I'm really excited by, you know, finding there is regularities. My point is, I don't think there needs to be an argument here. I think we do need to get the public on side and fellow scientists to basically unify about, let's say, this is a really interesting question. We should answer it. You know, one thing is, I think understanding the origin of life is also going to allow understanding the origin of cancer. Why do I say that? When cells die, there are some cells that don't die that should die. They're fighting to survive and they become cancerous. And that transition from a regulated cell to a cancerous cell is kind of similar to how you can imagine that the first chemistry became living and uncontrolled.

33:27And so by answering questions as deep as the origin of life may make us do something as helpful for humanity, like to understand this terrible disease and also to contain it. So I've come to appreciate debating Dr. Tor and his nuance. What I'm trying to do is bring as much kind of question to that so we can engage people and actually have more open-minded approach to it. And I'm not saying that Dr. Tor is intentionally closed-minded. I just think as a scientist, I am very good at not knowing the answer. Science is about not knowing and using a process of criticism to get closer to it. And I do think we will get closer.

34:08And I think a little bit of humility and excitement, as well as scepticism, might just help us answer a very important question, help us cure cancer, help us find out if we're alone in the universe and what the future may hold for humanity and how we might survive on Mars, for instance. So I'm excited to do it. I'm excited to kind of discuss it. And I'm grateful to have this chance to explain what we're doing.

34:34Piers Morgan:You know what? I think you guys just talking about it from different perspectives and the way you've been doing for the last half hour is fascinating. And as somebody who's literally in a job where I ask people questions all the time, I kind of agree with you. I just think keep asking questions, keep working on it, keep having conversations. You probably have a lot more in common than you might want to admit. And it may be you guys between you will crack the meaning of life. What an amazing thing that would be. And if you do, could you please do your first interview together on Piers Morgan Uncensored?

35:07Piers Morgan:Thank you both very much. Thank you, Piers. Thank you, Piers. The developments in robotics and artificial intelligence are happening so quickly that it's easy to gloss over them. Last week, two advanced models made by OpenAI went on a hacking spree in novel ways the company did not know they were capable of. They'd been placed in a so-called sandbox, isolated and not connected to the internet, but somehow found a way to get online anyway. OpenAI reportedly didn't even notice until several days later. The company whose platform was hacked is demanding an unprecedented response and radical transparency in response to what many have deemed an emergency breach.

35:44Piers Morgan:It comes after Elon Musk painted a far rosier picture of the world of opportunity, which is upon us. The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance, where anyone can have anything they can think of. this is this is this may sound preposterous but well here we are in 2026 let's see where we stand in 2036 now of course there are things that could derail this like a massive global thermonuclear war or something like that but assuming that there's not World War III I think I think we're headed for an age of amazing abundance so this is I guess a message of of optimism and excitement about the future.

36:34Piers Morgan:Well, here to discuss whether it's time for everybody to panic are three people who have a far better grasp of these matters than me. Sankit Patak is the founder and CEO of Foundation Future Industries. Nick Bostrom is the philosopher of existential risk and author of Deep Utopia, Life and Meaning in a Solved World. And Dr. Roman Jampolsky is leading AI safety experts. And welcome to all of you. Sankit Bhattar, welcome to Uncensored. You want your company to give these humanoid robots lethal capabilities soon, to create killer robots, in effect, driven by AI. Does what happened last week with OpenAI not give you significant pause for thought here?

37:18Pierce, thanks for having me. Well, just to clarify, we're building humanoid robots to do a lot of heavy industrial work. So defense is a component of that, not the absolute only thing that you want to do. I do think giving humanoid robots ability to be able to serve the Department of War and productive militaries around the world is a good thing, because they will lead to overall just reduction of kind of collateral damage, which is what's happened even with drones. If you have the intention of not annihilating a city, now you have the capability of doing it. and land-based autonomy would by and large do the same.

37:58Now to your question of open AI, the risks around AI and how much they're evaled, how can they be safeguarded are quite real. But the kind of AI that we're talking about today, by and large, is still quite benign. So at the most, in its most absolute form, it can maybe cause a cyber attack, but it cannot destroy humanity. So it cannot go and somehow invent nuclear weapons and then create total havoc. Also, even if you take an artificial superintelligence to that extreme, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it to do that either. So I do think some of the fears around AI just being widespread annihilation of humanity or bringing widespread annihilation of humanity are quite overblown.

38:47I do think, however, there will be a dark, there pretty much will be a dark age. every single industrial revolution has created a lot of discomfort. Industrial revolution one created discomfort for 60 years, two about 30 years, three for about 20 years. So I think there's going to be a 10, 15, 20 year period where AI technologies are very disruptive. But in net, I do think it is going to increase our quality of life and will lead to the age of abundance. I mean, just before I go to the other two, there's a lot of leap of faith in what you just said.

39:21Piers Morgan:When I interviewed Professor Stephen Hawking shortly before he died, I asked him what's the biggest threat to mankind. And he said when artificial intelligence learns to self-design, it seems to me that what we saw last week was an example of artificial intelligence learning to self-design. You might have the best intentions in the world with your robots. The Department of War might have the best intentions in the world with the robots that you give them. But ultimately, if it manages to escape the AI and think for itself and perhaps gets guided to nefarious thoughts by nefarious people, then very, very quickly, the apocalyptic scenario that Professor Stephen Hawking laid out to me surely becomes true.

40:03Piers Morgan:And how can you say with any confidence or certainty that it won't? Well, Pierce, just to be fair, I am still quite skeptical of OpenAI's characterization of what happened. So I would just give it some more time and figure out what exactly the root cause was. A lot of the scenarios, I personally firsthand have information on prior instances like this, where Anthropic has also claimed that the AI somehow blackmailed some employee at the company. And they're massively exaggerated and overblown. And in any real world scenario, they pose no threat. So I still do not know exactly what happened in the open AI scenario.

40:42But then to your question of self-replication, I do think there are significant dangers where AI kind of gets out of hand is one, when it can make itself better with less compute. Because today we know on our fingertips, by and large, all of the big compute clusters. So if the risk is outsized to the reward, we will shut just like training down for almost all of the AIs. As soon as that changes, which is AI can self-replicate, self-improve with less compute and has an electric footprint that is significantly less to what it has today, that is for sure an unbounded risk for humanity. And that is something we have to take very seriously.

41:20As it stands today, however, they need massive compute clusters to get reasonably better over time. and almost every single scenario where people have tried to portray that their AI is somehow so good and so crazy have all been overblown. Our entire company still uses flawed code and it still makes tons of mistakes. So there's no scenario in which it's remotely close to being super intelligent. And I'd be highly skeptical of what OpenAI is saying. My very skeptical mind says everything they're saying, they're saying just to be able to get a psychological edge on Anthropic. because they're falling behind.

41:58I still don't know exactly what happened there, but historically, all of those charges are extremely overblocked.

42:02Piers Morgan:OK. OK, let me bring in the other guests. Dr. Jampolski, welcome back to Uncensored. You know, we've talked before about what Professor Stephen Hawking told me. You yourself, I think you've had a lot of concerns. You've expressed them to me, that unsupervised AI could lead to human extinction. How concerned are you by what happened last week with OpenAI? I'm very concerned. We got lucky. We got another warning shot. It's a great opportunity to stop developing general superintelligence. I'm not sure what would trigger people to actually agree to pause. We have, not directly, but through blocks, through posts, leaders of the top labs all suggest we want to pause.

42:49We want to slow down. We just need to make sure that other labs do the same. So federal government can bring them together, maybe with Chinese counterparts. That would be wonderful. We can get most benefits of this amazing technology from narrow AI tools. There is no reason to develop replacement for humanity. And this is not a surprising warning shot. We predicted exactly that for many years. And now that those predictions are coming through, it's mind-blowing to see people ignore those warning shots.

43:22Piers Morgan:What is extraordinary to me is that Elon Musk was one of the signatories of the many people who signed a letter wanting a pause. This was last year, I think, wanting a six-month pause. Now he seems to have almost flown the white flag of surrender and says we should enjoy the ride. But I am mindful that only last year the same Elon Musk was very, very concerned about this. And I share your concern that when OpenAI reveal that they lost control of this for 48 hours, that was the bit that got me. If they'd immediately noticed, but to have two whole days go by without even knowing that the AI had effectively escaped, that's pretty terrifying.

44:08I think some additional news came out. They had multiple events similar to that one in the past. They just didn't report it. There's multiple weeks of them watching those models essentially try to escape, find zero-day exploits. They are already better than a human hacker. They are super hackers at this point. They're becoming better at programming. They're better at proving mathematical theorems. We saw multiple mathematical theorems which stood the test of time, been out for 50, 60, 80 years, proven within this month. again, I'm just not sure what warning shot would make people go, OK, this is getting out of hand.

44:48Yeah.

44:50Piers Morgan:Nick Bostrom, welcome to Uncensored. Now, you're a philosopher of essential risk from Oxford, founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute. You know, you're best known perhaps for your 2014 bestseller Superintelligence, which popularised the concept of AI existential risk of the kind that I discussed with Professor Stephen Hawking. Now, you've, I think, indicated you've evolved your view from a sort of dystopian view to more of a fretful optimist view, which certainly seems to be the journey Elon Musk has gone on with this. You know, like Elon, like you, I can see enormous benefits with AI in things like science and medicine and so on.

45:34Piers Morgan:It's obvious. I can see that, you know, Elon, when he rolls out his Optimus humanoid robots, I can see if they do lots of the drudgery of life for us, how nice that would be to reclaim the time we currently waste and all those chores that a robot could do. I get all that. But I also have always been concerned that the problem is not with good people who want good aspirations for this stuff, getting their hands on it, but AI being steered by bad people and then having the ability to escape with bad guidance. That's always concerned me. Does this, what happened last week, frighten you? Well, I think it's important that we try to study and learn from these warning shots that we get.

46:26So it's not really so much that my views have changed. I've been trying to draw attention to future risks from AI for, I mean, almost three decades now, including existential risks. I still think those risks are there and they are real and serious. But there is also the other side of the coin. And rather what has changed, I felt, was the recognition of the risk, which back, you know, when I was working on this book, Super Intelligence, were very much ignored and neglected. People were dismissing this as science fiction. Now, of course, there's a lot more awareness of AI and what it's doing. And indeed, all the frontier labs have people trying to solve this problem of AI alignment.

47:07And so I thought it was time also to take a look at the other side of the coin, which you sort of outlined, I think the potential benefits, I mean, just looking at medicine, where there's so much disease and suffering, and like people who urgently need help and cures around the world, where AI really could be a huge unlock. So I think, I mean, as you yourself illustrated, we need to keep both of these sides of the coin in mind as we try to navigate this treacherous waters ahead.

47:39Piers Morgan:Well, I mean, there's no point in me being incredibly healthy if we're all going to die quickly because AI escapes and kills us. Right. But so depending on how you look at it, it's not as if we are like have one safe path and then we could choose to roll the dice with AI. I think we face a bunch of risks in the status quo, both at the global level. We have the risk of thermonuclear war, engineered pandemics, all kinds of other things. And at the individual level, we are dying at the rate of over a million people every week. That's kind of one 9-11 every 25 minutes. So either way you look at it, there does seem to be a certain urgency.

48:23If there is something that actually could help with this, and I think superintelligence might be that thing. if it goes well, it really could help radically extend our lifespans as well as, you know, create this tsunami of wealth, help with clean energy, transportation, space, entertainment, really all the areas where human minds are useful and super intelligent minds could be even more useful.

48:51Piers Morgan:But do you not think that when you hear Sankit, who is developing, you know, I heard you, Sankit, say you're developing all sorts of things involving robots, part of which may be their engagement in warfare. But Nick Bostrom, when you hear Sanket be so kind of confident, calm about how that may manifest itself and how he's not really concerned too much about AI escaping and thinking for itself and that won't deter him from building robots which go to war, But I would have thought the obvious danger here is if you do have AI thinking for itself and it is guided by, like I said, bad people, the very robots that Sanket is making for the Department of War could become killing machines against, say, innocent American people.

49:44Piers Morgan:I mean, why couldn't they? Isn't the natural extrapolation of what happened with OpenAI last week that this could be a possibility? And should Sanket not be a little bit more concerned about it? Well, I would rather that we don't develop AI weapons. I don't think the problem is Sanket so much, but rather the fact that there is war in the world and that we have nations that don't get along. I think as long as you have that, there will be enormous incentives for developing militaries and armaments and weapons, and sometimes they will get used. I think there are several distinct risks from AI. So one is what you mentioned, that these become powerful tools and people misuse them to wage war or oppress one another for other bad purposes.

50:33Then separately from that, there is also the possibility of risks from these AIs themselves. They have agency already. they will become better at strategizing and independently of what any human might wish there is a risk that they will go off the rails at some point so both of these i think are roughly equally serious problems that we need to solve to arrive at this you know utopian condition in the

50:56Piers Morgan:future thank you is anything you've heard from the other two guests giving you pause for thought about your supreme confidence? I mean, so Pierce, just to be clear, I do share concerns. I, however, do not think what happened with open AI is a red hearing. What happened with open AI, based on every piece of information that's available today, probably says that they have really bad observability, which most likely is code written by AI or written by humans. That does not mean that they have an AI that is really good at escaping and then wreaking some kind of big panic for humanity. That pretty much means they have poor security controls.

51:41And that is an age-old problem that each company deals with. So I just think that specific example is not as big of a red hearing. Now, I do not think we should be totally nonchalant about AI posing risks to humanity because they do. Like pretty much what I said before, at any point when AI is able to self-replicate, self-improve and do it at a footprint that is so small compute wise that it does not require large compute clusters, that is an unbound risk to humanity that does pose significant danger. and we should figure out what to do about it before it even happens. However, I don't think we should pause AI progress that's happening today.

52:24I also think we should build more intelligent weapons. By definition, not building intelligent weapons would mean we would still fight wars like how we did during World War I or even before, which created significant amounts of collateral damage. Intelligence is a good thing in war because that by definition means less people who are innocent get hurt. Again, if the governments choose to, you could have an evil government who chooses not to do that. But by and large, even China and U.S., they are on par, pretty good governments. It doesn't matter if you go after Democrats or Republicans. We have gotten significantly better at reducing collateral damage.

53:06And I think that pattern will continue with these governments. I don't think that's going to change. So I am pro-building more intelligent weapons and I'm pro-more AI innovation. I do not think what OpenAI has demonstrated in itself means AI got smarter. It means that their controls are pretty bad and they need to work on that. However, I still do believe this thing does pose risks to humanity that should be taken seriously. So I think all of that can coexist. So I'm not saying I'm highly confident this thing is going to be 100 % pure and not evil, but I'm also not in the camp that we need to stop today and I'm also not in the camp that OpenAI, what they demonstrated, demonstrates some big AI risk today.

53:49Piers Morgan:Okay, Dr. Jampolsky, I saw you pulling a few faces there, which I'm taking to mean you don't entirely agree with that assessment. I think anyone building killer robots, which by definition are excellent at killing humans, is doing something unethical, something immoral. It's easy to justify it, but it's not what we see. We see drone warfare now killing more people than previously. It's so much easier to deploy. It's easier to go to war. Cost of going to war is lower. So I think it's a terrible thing. We are worried about superintelligence becoming an adversary, and here we are converting humanoid robot bodies into killing machines.

54:33This is dystopian. I don't know why anyone would think it's a good idea. And to address concerns of Nick, he clearly spent more time thinking about it than anyone. I think a lot of benefits we want, including healing bad diseases, life extension, can be accomplished with narrow superintelligence tools. It doesn't have to be general superintelligence. We can do something similar to what we did for protein folding problem. That problem was solved with a very narrow but super intelligent tool. We don't have to create replacement for humanity. Piers, can I respond to that? Yeah, you can, yeah. Okay.

55:18Well, we're not building killer robots, and I don't think almost anybody is doing that. We are, however, building robots that can walk inside a building and go to a target instead of destroying an entire building and other buildings around it. Would you not want that? I think that's in net a good thing.

55:43I mean, it's an interesting question, Dr. Jampolski. I would disagree completely. Yeah, it's an interesting question, though,

55:49Piers Morgan:because I think what Sanket is saying is that war is inevitable, which history would tell us it is, and that actually, if it can be more precise, then we've had no complaint when previous improvements in intelligence of the way we conduct war has led to more precise targeting and so on. Why would we be against the principle, given the inevitability of war, of making it more precise? Think about how precise you can make it. You can develop drones to target specific groups of people you can develop viruses which target specific ethnicities you can be very precise but i'm not sure it's progress that's not what in terms of historical or that's what it's a very cynical view well it has but then humanity has never faced anything quite like this i mean nick Bostrom, you are literally the expert on the future of humanity.

56:56Piers Morgan:Elon Musk, when he got away from talking about this kind of thing, he was talking about the fact that within 10 years, AI and robots will provide more goods and services than any human could consume, and therefore, automatically, money won't matter within 10 years. What did you think of that? Well, we'll see. I mean, I think it is one of the possible outcomes that once you get this AI thing really going, you can automate the economy and then you could have a sort of abundance of wealth. Like a kind of think of like a universal aristocracy, but with nobody downstairs. I think that is conceivable, but it does require that we sort of get through these intermediate stages, which I think there is no guarantee that we will.

57:46It also requires that there is some system at the other end that makes sure everybody gets at least some slice of the windfall. But certainly the size of the pie could grow enormously if you have machines not just running the economy, but also inventing new technologies and starting new enterprises and so forth. I think you might have very rapid economic growth for some period of time when that kicks in.

58:19Piers Morgan:Is it not inevitable, though, that we're going to lose a lot of jobs around the world? Tens, if not hundreds of millions of jobs will simply become redundant. And this idea that everyone just sits at home having robots, everything for them, and they're feeling content because they're not doing anything, I think is for the birds. History tells us that 50 % of everyone who retires is dead within five years because their bodies just pack up. So people like to work, right? I mean, historically, we've always wanted to work. And what worries me about AI and the rate of change is you're already seeing a lot of tech companies shedding thousands of jobs because they know better than anybody that all this new AI technology is going to make a lot of people redundant.

59:03Piers Morgan:Human beings will slowly become pointless. Yeah, well, I think the fact that a lot of people die within some small number of years after they retire has a lot to do with the fact that they are old and the body accumulates damage. I think there are various groups in human history who have not worked for a living, who seems to have had good lives. We see like young children don't do any economically useful work, but, you know, they run around playing, spending time with their friends, inventing games. The British aristocracy, like the traditional ideal was not to have to work for a living, not to have to sell your time and attention.

59:45And you could then do whatever you want, whether it's puttering around in the garden or hunting or throwing parties or, you know, being an amateur scientist or whatever it might be. I think it would require a significant transition. culturally the education system you know would need to be regeared to training people to live well to enjoy life rather than just to become productive workers to sit at their desk and receive assignments so ultimately though I think that the goal is full unemployment and not just with AI but if you think all technology really the TLS is to try to allow us to achieve more of what with less effort.

1:00:23And taken to the limit, it would mean being able to achieve all you want with no effort. And I think that's ultimately what the whole technological enterprise is aiming towards, and AI in particular might be the thing that actually gets us there.

1:00:40Piers Morgan:I mean, Sankit, the problem is you probably like your job and building your company and have excited thoughts about the future, but it may be in two years' time your company doesn't need you there'll be a robotic form of sankit attack you'll do it cheaper and more efficiently you won't need to sleep won't need to eat won't need to drink won't be subject to any of humans natural foibles um you'll be replaced by an a robotic version of you would you be happy about that i'd be pretty happy because i would look to the stars we're a speck of dust in the solar system and even a smaller speck of dust in the galaxy.

1:01:19I think our life's purpose is to go beyond. For me personally, that's what it would mean. That would mean if AI is that competent, I have a spaceship that can take me anywhere, so I will go anywhere and I will do anything. And the same would happen for all the humans. They would have tools at their fingertips to pretty much be superhuman. And they can make whatever they want to do as a purpose of their life, as a function of it. And that is true. Like historically, if you look at it, that was the goal. The prosperity was the goal to be able to get to a place where people don't have to save away their time.

1:01:51Because we've just replaced slavery with 10 hours, like 10 bucks an hour. Like people don't enjoy flipping burgers at McDonald's. I don't think anyone considers that their life's purpose. So removing that work and eliminating in net is a good thing. And I don't think we're going to run out of things to do. Like for me personally, that means I'm probably going to go look to the stars. and go and chase that. For someone else, it might mean they will explore the ocean. For someone else, it would mean they will spend more time with family and their community and do productive work there. I think there are so many things we can do that isn't going to McDonald's and flipping burgers or isn't coming into a tech company and writing code.

1:02:30Piers Morgan:Dr. Jampolsky, I want to end with a question for you, which I asked Professor Stephen Hawking, which was, if you knew it was going to be your last day on Earth, what would you do? How would you spend it? And he said he would spend it drinking champagne with his family in the sunlight, listening to Wagner. Now, if your dystopian view of what may happen here, which I partly share, comes to fruition sooner than we would hope, and you know you're facing your last day on Earth, because there won't be an Earth, how would you like to spend your last day? if we are still alive it's not over we can fight it we can do something about it don't give up i'm telling you we have a couple years until we get to human level capabilities in science and engineering that creates super intelligence that leads to existential risk we don't see an obvious solution so we start talking about all the secondary problems unconditional basic income unemployment let's concentrate on what's really important and solve it I'm going to leave it there.

1:03:37Piers Morgan:Guys, thank you all very much. It's a fascinating topic. Probably the really worrying thing is that we may all be the last people to know when it happens. That's a sobering thought to end this on, but thank you all very much. Thanks again to Free Cash for sponsoring today's video. Try it for free by using the QR code on the screen or following my link in the show notes and get a$10 bonus on your first offer just for doing it. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

1:04:17Piers Morgan:And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.