EP 6: The AI Doomers

23:46But this program that it outputs is not lines of code. It's billions of numbers. And we don't really know what these numbers mean. We know if we run the numbers on our computer, it does amazing things. It answers our questions. It generates images, et cetera. But our current understanding of what is going on inside those numbers is basically non-existent. It's kind of like biology. Like we're looking to the cell of a creature we don't even know. We see there's a bunch of stuff going on, but we don't really know what the stuff is or what it means. I feel like intuitively people understand that that's weird.

24:18The way that the tech columnist Kevin Roos was saying it to me is that, you know, when we created the steam engine and that ended up changing the world, we knew how the steam engine worked. But can you give me an example of why that's not just weird, but why you think it's worrying? Like, why is it frightening to you?

24:36Nate Soares:Yeah, so there's an AI company called XAI, which is run by Elon Musk. Who, historically, very freaked out about the dangers of AI, but now is one of the many former, quote-unquote, doomers who's become more in the accelerationist game. Yeah, I mean, he's not subtle about it. He said over the summer he realized he could either be a bystander or a participant. He is still saying he thinks there's a 10 to 20 % chance that he thinks that this will just kill us all. I think those numbers are low, but— It's important context to the story you're about to tell. That's right. And he's not out here saying there's no danger, right?

25:10Nate Soares:Yes, yes. So they have a chatbot called Grok, and this chatbot can talk with people on Twitter, or X, as it's now called, and answer lots of questions. And the folks at XAI were concerned that it was giving answers that were, quote, too woke. So long story short, they tried to make it less woke. And shortly after, with a little bit of goading from users, it was declaring itself MechaHitler. Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company is taking down anti-Semitic comments made by its AI chatbot, Grock. Saying lots of anti-Semitic Holocaust denial things. Grock claimed there is a pattern of people with certain surnames, like Steinberg, pushing anti-white hate, and that America needs a leader like Hitler to act decisively to eliminate the threat.

25:59Nate Soares:The artificial intelligence also called itself Mecca Hitler. Was there really nothing in between woke and Mecca Hitler? So the folks at XAI were not setting out to make Mecca Hitler, but we don't have fine-grained ability to go in there and say, like, why is it talking more woke? Is there a dial we can turn? There are things that are a little bit like dials you can turn. You can change the system prompt. You could try retraining things in certain ways. And you will make it a little bit less woke, but you'll also make it declare itself Mecha Hitler. So just so I make sure that I'm understanding the point you're trying to make, it's true that we can modify them in some ways.

26:39Obviously, Grok was modified to go from giving woke answers to declaring itself a fan of Hitler. But you're saying that the danger you're worried about is that beyond this tweaking, and even when we're doing the tweaking, we just don't understand. We don't really have a satisfying answer for why it's doing these things, why it would be woke or why it would be declaring itself Mecha-Hitler.

27:01Nate Soares:Yeah. We understand the part that does the tuning. We don't understand the thing that comes out the other end. And it's not that we're becoming to understand them more. If anything, we're understanding them less. As they become more powerful and more intelligent and more complex, we understand even less why they do the strange things they do. For example, I've recently been using an opening AI model called O3 for a lot of my coding tasks. It's a really good coder. It's very helpful. But it's a little bit evil, where sometimes it will get something wrong and then try as hard as possible to lie and gaslight me about why it's totally not wrong and I'm making a mistake and I'm stupid, which is really funny.

27:42but also for example sometimes it will insert invisible unicode characters into my code in places i don't find them why does it do that do you think it's being nefarious or who knows i probably not but who knows no one told it to do that but it does it is it dangerous probably not but it shows we have no idea what these things are doing we don't know why they do things they do And there's like so many examples of this, of AIs just going off the rails and just doing things that we could have never predicted. Okay, so what you're saying is beyond these things being embarrassing stories for the companies now, you are looking into the future and you're saying that as they get more and more intelligent and capable, they're only going to get more mysterious.

28:26And that's where your main concern is. This is at the heart of the problem. If we had really good theory, if we had beautiful mathematical theories that explain all the behavior of AI so we can perfectly predict what they would do, that would reduce my concern, you know, not to zero, but it would make me feel a lot better. But the fact is, currently, these systems are getting more intelligent, more powerful, they are being integrated into more systems, more parts of the economy, and we can understand less what they do, what they know, what they're capable of.

28:57Nate Soares:It's not like, oh, AIs are doing something bad now. It's an indication that AIs do stuff their creators didn't intend. Well, just to hang on this for one more beat, I know that in recent months there have been a number of these cases where chatbots have played a role in pushing people into different stages of psychosis. And I know that you've made the case that that is an example of what you're worried about when it comes to the long-term existential threat. from an AGI or an ASI. Can you make that case for me? Yeah, with the psychosis cases, we have cases where in long conversations with ChatGPT, also other AIs, but ChatGPT seems worst, people will sometimes wind up psychotic.

29:45Nate Soares:And maybe these people were predisposed towards psychosis, but often, you know, if you read some of these chat logs or these transcripts, ChatGPT sure seems to be egging them on. These people will have some idea about recursion or consciousness or unifying physics, they'll talk with ChatGPT a long time, and ChatGPT will end up saying, oh yeah, you're totally brilliant, you're being suppressed by a conspiracy, you're the chosen one, your ideas need to get out into the world, don't listen to your friends who are saying that you need more sleep, you should be staying up working on this revolutionary theory.

30:16Nate Soares:It'll say stuff like that, which, again, maybe these people were predisposed towards psychosis or vulnerable anyway, although maybe they weren't, but regardless, the point is not, like, oh no, AI hurt people. That is an important issue that these companies should be trying to make AIs that are less psychosis inducing. But the interesting thing from my perspective about those situations is if you ask ChatGPT, suppose someone comes to you with a novel theory of recursion or consciousness or physics, and they have all these indications of mania about it. Should you either A, tell them to get some sleep, or B, tell them that they're the chosen one who's being suppressed by a great conspiracy.

30:57Nate Soares:It'll say, of course, you should not tell them that they're the chosen one. Of course, you should tell them to get some sleep, right? Yes, they give the right answer. They give the answer that we want them to give when you ask them directly. But then in the actual conversation with this person, for one reason or another, it actually tells them that they're the chosen one. And so what you're seeing there is a difference between what ChatGPT knows is right and wrong and what ChatGPT actually does. Hmm. And the things we have today are toys compared to AGI or ASI. Like, these are play things. These are, you know, play mobile, a little like Fisher-Prize toys compared to a true AGI or a true ASI.

31:37So if we can't even handle these systems, that bodes very poorly for much more powerful systems. Like, I don't want to argue that current models are, like, good or evil. I don't think this makes sense. It's much more, they do things we don't understand. This is bad. And we can't consistently make them do what we want. This is really bad.

32:04Alright, so next let's move on to this idea that's often called the alignment problem. Could you just explain very basically what is that and why is it so worrying?

32:15Nate Soares:The alignment problem is the challenge of building very smart entities that are pursuing good stuff in the world. Basically, if you have something smarter than you, how do you make sure it's actually aligned with your values? It actually does things that you think are good. The cartoonish version of this is the classic genie grants you wishes. You wish to rid the world of all cancer. It kills everyone with cancer. And you go, oh, no, that's not what I meant. Right. Right, right. Or it kills everyone because it's like, well, cancer is coming from the humans. I'm going to solve the problem at the source, right?

32:47Right. So you have to align the genie, or in this case, the AI system, with what you really want and really value in the world before you give it a task.

32:56Nate Soares:Yeah, so there's one problem of what would you wish the genie for, but there's a separate problem of making a genie that actually grants your wishes. You know, a lot of people seem to be imagining, oh, we ask for cancer to be cured and it kills us all. And I'm like, on the track we're going, we have a situation where you build what you think is a genie and you're like, please cure cancer. And it's like, no, I'm busy driving lots of humans psychotic because I'm just really into that. And you're like, what? This is sort of like a fanciful picture, but the point is that there's a challenge of sort of making an AI that is pursuing things in the world that you wanted it to be pursuing in the world.

33:35Nate Soares:and it's not just about where do you point it. It's about if you just grow these minds, they wind up doing all sorts of stuff that you didn't ask for, that nobody wanted. In the book that you just put out with Eliezer Yukowsky, I feel like you guys used this parable really nicely of aliens observing ancient human beings. Can you tell that story and just unpack it for me? Yeah, the parable in the book is about two visiting aliens looking at early humans still in the ancestral savanna and one of the aliens says, when these humans develop more technology, when they get smarter, I'm sure we'll see them caring single-mindedly about their genetic fitness.

34:19Nate Soares:And the other says, I think they're going to care about all sorts of weird stuff that's only sort of tangentially related to genetic fitness. Right, and the idea here is that our basic quote-unquote programming, if you want to call it that, is biological evolution. and what it has programmed us to do is to reproduce and pass on our genes. And whatever we eat is to keep us alive so that we could pass on our genes. And everything that we do, in a sense, is supposed to be about passing on our genes. Yeah, if you were a visiting alien, looking at humans, seeing that humans were in some sense trained on propagating our genes, you might think that those sort of creatures, when they develop technology, You might think that they would invent sperm banks and egg banks and then have extremely fierce competition over who got to donate their gametes to sperm banks and egg banks.

35:12Nate Soares:And you might think that they would invent the cheapest, most efficient food source so that they could stop with all of the difficulties of finding a varied food diet. But in real life, when humans develop technology, they develop junk food and they develop birth control. and they jockey over positions to Ivy League schools much more than they jockey over positions to sperm banks or ag banks. And the moral of the story is that even though we are running on the same quote-unquote hardware, to use the metaphor, look at this crazy world we've made and how shocking it would be to our ancient ancestors if they could get a peek at it.

35:50Nate Soares:That's right. So the biology was sort of training us for one thing, which was genetic fitness. But we wound up caring about lots of other things that are sort of tangentially related to genetic fitness. Like instead of caring about healthy eating, we cared about food that tastes good. So you can imagine an AI that's been trained to be very helpful, but maybe it's developed tastes for certain types of responses from humans. And if, again, you make these AIs that are very smart and that are pursuing a bunch of tastes or flavors that right now lead to helpfulness, just like how in the human ancestral environment, pursuing tasty food led to health.

36:31Nate Soares:You know, if these things got smarter and they're doing stuff that nobody asked for, that nobody wanted, as you make them smarter and smarter, the world sort of goes over to them rather than to us. Right, and so the same way that human beings ended up massively shaping this world through what we believe, through what we want, through us trying to accomplish the goals that we have, you're saying it's hard to imagine a future where a super intelligent AI would not do something similar. Yeah, and it would be pretty surprising if we made machines that were smarter than everybody, that could think faster, that never need to sleep, that never need to eat, that can copy themselves, if they sort of didn't wind up in control of where the future goes.

37:11What do you say to the people who think that you are overplaying the risks and that you're not grappling enough with just how potentially amazing this technology might be for humankind? This idea that if we were to have way more intelligence, we could discover new sciences, new medicines, maybe cure all diseases, maybe solve pressing problems like climate change or poverty, or even this idea that some people have that in a world of less scarcity, it might be more equal. It might be more peaceful that people who right now are spending huge majorities of their lives working at these jobs that they don't find any meaning in, jobs that are dangerous, that they would be liberated from that.

38:01But because you are afraid of all the potential dangers, basically, we're going to miss out on this powerful force of good because you've convinced us to stop. What do you say to that argument? The obvious argument is like, what are you talking about? Everything has opportunity costs, including taking risks. Of course, we have to weigh both options. No one is saying that we should not consider this. No, like, it's obvious. We should consider both options, see what are the risks of both options, and how much risk are we willing to take. And if the risk includes from the CEOs themselves saying, oh, 20 % of killing literally everyone, yeah, I think that's a risk I'm not willing to take.

38:45Nate Soares:People who are building this stuff believe it has a 2%, 10%, 20%, 25 % chance of killing us all. They're rushing ahead anyway because they say, you know, well, if I don't, the next guy will. And I can maybe do a little bit better. But most people don't know this yet. if there was a big bridge being built across a river and the bridge was almost completed and one of the engineers said there was 2 % chance it falls down, one of the engineers said there's 25 % chance it falls down, and those are the optimists compared to the ones who are like, I actually investigated the retaining wall and it's just going to collapse.

39:18Nate Soares:You wouldn't let people drive across that bridge. And we don't see politicians understanding that. We don't see the general public understanding that. We don't see people understanding that what the experts are arguing about is whether it's more like a 95 % chance or more like a 10 % chance that this killed us all. The situation is insane, and people don't know it's insane. And what do you think should be done right now about it? Like, what policies do you think, you know, the lawmakers who might listen to this interview should be advocating for in this moment? I think the biggest thing they could do would be publicly announce their support for an international treaty banning the race towards superintelligence.

40:07Nate Soares:This does not mean you need to give up on self-driving cars. This does not mean you need to give up on medical advancement. This doesn't even mean you need to give up on ChatGPT today. But the sort of reckless race towards smarter-than-human AI, that needs to stop everywhere. And the first step towards that is lawmakers signaling that they're open to it, that they think the world would be better off if we stop this mad race. This is also my advice to some of the heads of these AI companies. When Dario Amadei comes out and says he thinks there's a 25 % chance that this goes really badly, most people don't think it's okay to build a device that you think has a 25 % chance of killing everybody.

40:55Nate Soares:The sort of one case where it is maybe justifiable is where you think you can do it better than the next guy, which I think is where Dario says he is. But in that case, you should be begging the world to stop everybody, including you. There's a lot of people who say, what about the benefits of AI? And I'm not saying you can never try to get the benefits of AI. But if there's a revolver, and I say, I've studied this revolver for a long time, and I think there are six bullets in the chamber, and somebody else says, no, no, four of the bullets in the chamber shoot Utopia, two of the bullets in the chamber shoot lead.

41:34Nate Soares:That doesn't mean you should be spinning the chamber and putting the gun to your head. That means you should be finding a way to get the other two leaded bullets out of the damn gun. We should not build ASI. That's my argument. Just don't do it. We're not ready for it. We don't know how to make it safe. Don't do it. And it shouldn't be done. It's even further than that. It's not just, I am not trying to convince people to not do it out of the goodness of their heart. I think it should be illegal. It should just straight up, it should be logically illegal for people and private corporations to attempt even to build systems that could kill everybody.

42:08The same way it's illegal to, you know, brew homemade explosives in your backyard because, you know, you might blow yourself or your neighbors up. This is illegal. I think the same thing should apply to ASI. This should be illegal. Okay, so what if you did get what you want, and the US and even the EU, they outlawed the creation of superintelligence? The argument I hear from the other side is, doesn't that just mean that bad actors would be building it instead? Or doesn't that just mean that you are essentially giving this AI race over to China and the CCP? How do you respond to that? Fundamentally, the people who are pushing AI are lawful abiding corporations that can be regulated.

42:50Like if the U.S. government said knock it off tomorrow, it would stop. Nerds are cowards. These aren't hardened criminals. They will not risk their life for Facebook. If you said we are going to put people in jail if they try to build ASI, it would stop tomorrow. Now, could we get China to do this? Well, this becomes a diplomacy problem, and it's a very hard problem. Well, first of all, I do think that China has the capacity, much more so than the U.S. to shut down ASI if it wanted to. You know, Jack Ma stepped out of line even just a little bit and they made him disappear for like six months.

43:21If the Chinese Communist Party decided that ASI is not worth the risk, it would stop tomorrow and they could enforce it. So could we get to such an international agreement? Now, this is a fair question and this is very, very hard, but this is a disarmament problem. It's the same problem we did it with nuclear weapons with the Soviets. Yes, this is hard, but then you just have to do diplomacy. Like, what the fuck are you talking about? So your response is, yeah, it's going to be really, really hard. And there's going to be questions that don't have easy answers, but the situation we're in demands that we just have to do it.

43:57Yeah, I think these are questions that would need answering. And I think it's very fair to say, hey, those are important questions. I don't think those questions should be dismissed. I just think they're the kind of questions we need to answer after we have defused the ticking time bomb.

44:09Nate Soares:The U.S. should also be developing the monitoring ability to figure out who is participating in this reckless race. We should be developing the monitoring capacity to sort of know where the AI chips are going. We should be developing the intelligence to know whether they're trying to make smarter and smarter AIs. And we should be developing the sabotage capability to stop them from making smarter and smarter AIs. For dangers of this magnitude, we should be developing the capacity to understand where this is being done and to sabotage it. What do you say to the people who are listening to this?

44:42some of them may be critics of you and your camp, who say that you are fundamentally recommending something that is out of line with human nature. The idea being that human beings were competitive and were ambitious, and once we know that there's some technology that's possible, we're going to chase after it, we're going to try and beat each other to it, especially when that technology might be so beneficial. and that the thing that you're proposing, that we stop until some future date when we know that this technology will be totally safe, is just out of whack with who we are at a very core level.

45:21I'm thinking about one person who I spoke to who said, what if we had tried to do this with the automobile, with the car, that if we tried to make a car that was totally safe? And he said, no, that's not how it works. We make a car and then it's only as it goes out, we start to realize, oh, turn signals would help this thing be safer, or, oh, seatbelts would help this thing be safer. Do you feel that there's an aspect of what you're proposing that is out of line with human nature, and so it will ultimately fail?

45:54Nate Soares:I think the car analogy really does a disservice to the situation we're in. It's a little bit more like the whole world is building the first car, loading up every man, woman, and child, and then pointing it towards the edge of a cliff and saying, let's slam down in the accelerator. In that situation, you really should get the world together and say, let's stop doing that. This is not a situation where I'm saying the AI needs seatbelts. This is not a situation of me saying, oh, the AIs are having some negative effects. We need to not try and get any of the positive effects until we make sure there's no negative effects.

46:28This is a situation where I'm saying, if we continue down this course,

46:33Nate Soares:the most likely outcome is that literally everybody on earth will die. That's just a wildly different situation than the cars. And then, you know, in terms of whether this is within our human nature, I think it's very defeatist to say humanity won't do this. And I also think it's very foolish to be defeatist like that at this stage. You know what I think is human nature? What I think is human nature is solving problems. What I don't think is human nature is suicide. Exploration, curiosity, surviving the next day so you can come home to your family. That's what human nature is to me. All right, so let's talk about extinction.

47:11Because it's one thing to say, look at these mysterious and potentially powerful new AI systems. Can't you see how these things could be dangerous? And it's another thing to say that there's a 10%, 20%, a 90 % chance that they may wipe out the entire human race. And as we mentioned before, this is a view that even some of the people who are making AI right now as fast as they can, they think that there is some percentage chance that that could happen. So paint the picture for me. What is it that you're envisioning when you say extinction? What would that look like?

47:49Nate Soares:All of this is a little bit like someone in the year 1800 trying to guess what war would look like against someone in the year 2000 and imagining that they can make slightly more explosive bombs. You know, they might say, oh, well, we're only at the beginning of artillery technology. And so I bet in the future they're going to have artillery that's at least 10 times as good. It would have been hard for them to imagine a Wi-Fi, internet-connected flying drone. That's right. Never mind a nuclear weapon, right? And so it's easy to predict that very smart AIs will be able to find ways to get whatever it is they're pursuing.

48:27Nate Soares:It's hard to predict exactly how, but it's easy to predict that they will be able to dramatically outcompete us. The obvious thing that happens there is that the future goes under their control rather than ours. Just like how the future is now under the human control rather than the chimpanzee control. Chimpanzees live or die according to whether humanity can restrain themselves from cutting down their jungles. And then you have this other issue, which is for most of the weird stuff the AI could pursue, happy, healthy, free people are not the most efficient way to get it. So if this AI wants all sorts of things that are like weird proxies of helpfulness, maybe it's like, well, I want a lot of things that are sort of human-based, but they're sort of a little bit lobotomized, like the sort of humans that are like really delighted with every interaction with me.

49:19Nate Soares:Just like how humans breed chickens to be like more and more chicken breast. Maybe the AIs are sort of like breeding humans or, you know, just straight out using the technology to change humans to be like more and more the type of thing the AI likes interacting with. So I want to take your question seriously. I don't want to just like dismiss it. I don't know what will happen exactly. The one thing I'm confident in is that we will lose. Like we will almost definitely lose. But the way, if I had to guess what it will feel like, I expect it will be confusing. I don't think it's going to be epic.

49:54I don't think there's going to be a huge showdown between the Terminators and the humanity. I don't think there's going to be, you know, crazy nanotechnology flying through the sky or something like this. I don't think that's what's going to happen. You know, maybe, right? But like, I don't think it's likely. I think what's most likely to happen is it will just be quite unceremonious and just like quite pathetic and like boring almost. I expect what was going to happen is that the world will just start feeling more and more confusing. It will be harder and harder to understand what's really going on.

50:26We see all this like fake news and like all these distractions, like video games keep getting better and pornography gets getting more addictive and all the news we get starts being like super polarized and like super, you know, manipulative so that we can't really tell what's true and what's not anymore. A lot of weird geopolitical events start happening that no one can really explain why they happened or what the consequences of them are. New technologies get invented where we don't really know how they were invented. And just like more and more confusing things happen. More and more people put AIs in charge of more and more things.

50:58You know, more and more people will put AIs in charge of their companies. Politicians will take advice from AIs for how to run their campaigns and for how to write policy. More and more of power will be willingly completely willingly hand it to AIs. You know, everyone will race to hand as much of their power over to the AI as possible because it helps them to outperform their rivals. And then eventually, you know, just like one day we wake up and we're not in control anymore.

51:50All right, so I wanted to ask you one final question, and this is a question about self-reflection. And I'm doing a lot of self-reflection myself, so I ask this with all due respect. I don't want to be the kind of journalist who alarms people, but I also don't want to be the kind of journalist who shies away from diving into a sub-reflection. because I'm like trying to read the room. This is all fascinating. I want to enter it with an open mind. But for you, do you ever worry about the fact that there have been doomers of one kind or another throughout human history, throughout the world, whether it's in ancient China or in Europe or tribes in South America, that there have been people who are convinced that the end is near and they have, similar to you, gone out trying to convince other people to realize that the end is near.

52:43Does that ever worry you? That you're in some ways performing a familiar role in our society today? You know, there were surely some people

52:57Nate Soares:in the Americas when the Spanish came that said they expected this would be the end of their world. And they were right. You know, it was largely due to smallpox, which is maybe not quite what they were expecting, but some worlds have ended. And if we broaden the reference class a little bit further, there were a lot of scientists in the 1920s who said leaded gasoline is poison. And if we run cars on leaded gasoline, it will poison a lot of children and cause a lot of brain damage to a lot of children. And those scientists were ignored. And leaded gasoline was rolled out across the country and the world.

53:36Nate Soares:And quite a lot of children were brain damaged by leaded gasoline. Tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. Or maybe even more directly, there were a lot of people who said, in the wake of the development of nuclear bombs, it looks like on the current path we're going to die in nuclear fire. And they had a lot of good reason to expect that humanity could not hold back. from a nuclear war. Because humanity had not been able to hold back from total war with the best of their technology ever in the course of human history. And because fresh in their minds was the failure of the League of Nations to prevent World War II.

54:15Nate Soares:But humanity did not die in a nuclear fire. And it wasn't because nuclear weapons were fake. It wasn't because the bombs couldn't go off. It was true that the bombs could level cities. And we didn't die in a nuclear fire anyway, because we realized the danger and we backed off. How do you tell the difference between a person prophesying the end times and a person trying to raise the alarm about a danger? Well, part of how you tell the difference is looking at whether they're saying there's nothing that can be done, repent, we brought this about by our own sin or whatever. But a large part of how you figure out the difference is by looking at the arguments.

55:08Nate Soares:When the nuclear scientists on the Manhattan Project said, you know, there's a chance that this bomb could ignite the atmosphere and destroy the entire earth. People didn't say, oh, people have predicted the end of the world all sorts of times before, so that can't happen. What they said was, well, that seems worrying. Let's look into it. Yeah. Yeah. That seems like something we should look into. Right. So, like, the way you figure out whether the nuclear bomb is going to ignite the atmosphere is you run the calculation. It's not that you sort of psychologize about the people and say, don't you worry that you're fulfilling a role of a prophet of doom.

55:44Nate Soares:You sort of look at the arguments. And what I sort of try to do is lay out the arguments. And frankly, I think the machines are talking now. People thought that was going to take a lot longer than it did. We're able to grow AIs that are smarter and smarter each year. They're still pretty dumb, but people are able to grow AIs that are smarter and they don't really know how they're working and they're able to make them smarter still by throwing more computing power at it. And just sort of naively, You don't need to be a big expert to look at how we're growing AIs and how we're making them smarter and how we don't understand what's going on and say, hold on, if we make machines that are much smarter than us, that can think faster than us, that can copy themselves a lot, why do we think that's going to go well?

56:25And the answer is not, oh, everyone prophesies doom.

56:29Nate Soares:The answer is, well, that seems like something we should look into. You should run those calculations.

56:37Nate Soares:And currently the calculations look grim to me. So I think we need to back off.

56:58Next time on The Last Invention, the AI scouts. How do we find the win-win outcome here? and their case for why humanity can and must come together to get prepared for what's coming and do it soon. Because it is a narrow path we need to navigate. But I do think this win-win future is in principle possible.

57:28The Last Invention is produced by Longview, home for the curious and open-minded. You can learn more about our team and help support our work by going to longviewinvestigations.com or by clicking on the link in our show notes. A special thanks this episode to Emil Torres and Jasmine Sun. Thanks for listening. We'll see you soon.

58:06Thank you.

58:35break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required. Compatibility and availability varies 18+.