Muse

At Cox, your internet and mobile price won't change for five years. That's five New Year's celebrations, five Valentine's Days, five Fourth of Julies, five Halloweens, five Thanksgivings, and five summers that go by too fast. Through it all, your price stays the same with our five-year Price Lock guarantee. Cox, a step ahead. Requires 2 gig speeds and gig unlimited mobile. Taxes and fees excluded from Price Lock. Mobile data speeds reduced after 20 gigs.

need better internet cox internet has the fast reliable speeds you're looking for perfect for seamless streaming gaming and working from home and now get cox 300 meg internet with a two-year plan price lock guarantee plus equipment included so get your household up to speed switch to cox internet today taxes and fees excluded from price guarantee

Well, we keep hearing all of the incredible ways that AI will improve our lives. Pushed to the side, though, are all the ways in which AI might bring about possibly our total destruction. What sort of guardrails does government need to have on AI? Of course, we recently just saw the White House national security concerns over Anthropik's new model called Fable, which was apparently incredible to those people that got their hands on it but rose major national security issues so what sort of guardrails are in place and how dangerous is ai becoming is it perhaps far more dangerous than human beings at this point we just don't know about it well let's talk about it with nate sores he's the president of miri which is the machine intelligence research institute and a new york times best-selling author he's a warning about this to place guardrails for AI and what's coming. Nate, great to have you on the show. Thanks for having me. So where are we right now with AI? Here is the middle of the summer in 2026.

You know, recently, like you said, Claude Mythos, an anthropic model, is a superhuman cyber hacker, which in many ways poses some national security risk. that's where we are today one one important piece of the puzzle on ai though is that it's a moving target so you know in january there were not very many entities on the planet that could hack into every critical system uh more or less in march uh you know in january it was sort of only nation state actors who could do this in march it was nation state actors plus an ai out of anthropic That's a big change if you are expecting the current world order to stay as it is. And that's just on the cyber side. AI keeps improving. And I advise people to try and watch where the puck is going, not just where the puck is.

So in the middle of the summer, we have now these consumer-level AI models, fable, mythos, that could essentially hack into our most sensitive computers in the federal government, into the Pentagon, into the CIA, potentially the NSA, et cetera. That's where we are.

That's right. Right. You know, I don't know exactly what the capabilities of the NSA are because they try and keep that private. But one of sort of the holy grails of computer hacking is can you make a website where if anyone even looks at the website, the person who made the website can take control of the computer of the person who looked at it. You don't need to click on anything. You don't need to give anybody a number. You don't need to download anything. You just look at the website and they own your entire machine i think a decent guess is that in january the groups that could do that were roughly massad and the nsa in march like i said the groups that could do that were massad the nsa and claude mythos that's a big change in uh in the cyber landscape so do you

think i mean well what is the maybe the trump administration's like long-term plan for ai Because they pulled down Fable, they pulled down Mythos so that, you know, average people don't have access to it. Apparently, they're going to eventually release it, I guess, maybe with some guardrails in place. But what is their policy right now? I mean, we know President Trump, when he was campaigning, was all in on AI, wants, of course, electricity for AI. Are they cross-purposes right now?

You know, I think the administration is still trying to figure this out, which makes sense. We are in uncharted territory. You know, I think a lot of people, there's a lot of disagreement about where AI is going.

even in the field. And some people think it's just going to sort of stay a very helpful tool. Some people think that it's going to get radically more powerful, you know, on some exponential growth curve, and then maybe even some super exponential curve later, if you get AIs that can make smarter AIs that can make smarter AIs. And I think a lot of the earlier plan was predicated on this idea that AI will just stay a helpful tool. And that mythos is a little bit of indication that, you know, they're actually making really powerful weapons over there. And there's also some indications that maybe those weapons won't stay on the leash of the person who made them. You know, Claude Mythos had some cases of disobeying commands and then trying to cover its tracks when it disobeyed commands that you can see in the Mythos system card. And yeah, I think that's pushing the administration to say, oh, you know, this could get very serious. And I think they're trying to figure out a plan right now, which I think is good.

so for years you've been studying ai um you've been trying to understand the capabilities of ai where it becomes smarter than human beings and a few years ago i think a lot of people might have laughed at you and that's not going to happen that's something you know that's something out of skynet maybe that's i don't know that's something out of science fiction probably not going to happen in our lifetime and here we are so do you think that we've reached a level where these models are now, not only smarter than humans, but maybe super smarter than humans?

You know, right now, AIs are smarter than most humans in a lot of ways and still pretty dumb in various other ways. So, you know, an open AI model recently solved a big longstanding mathematical conjecture that has stumped mathematicians for decades. That makes it better at math than you and me, at least on this particular axis. But, you know, there's also a lot of ways that they're still kind of dumb. If you interact with them, they can do more and more, but they still, they can do relatively shorter tasks, and they sort of can't really do longer tasks. You can delegate things to them that would take a human an afternoon. You can't really delegate things to them that would take a human a week. But you can measure that time frame and how that time frame is increasing. and the timeframe of task that an AI can complete in terms of how long it would take a human is currently doubling a couple times a year. Wow. Can you give me some examples? It's helpful

for me as a dumb human to kind of figure out like how this would work. So something that might take me an afternoon might be, okay, I'm going to build a presentation for a speech that i'm going to give slides you know it's a 45 minute speech so i need help building a slide deck or something like that here's my speech can you put together all of maybe the the slides um in uh you know in google slides or in uh keynote on the mac or something like that maybe maybe that would be like an afternoon project probably would take me more than that maybe two to three days but um okay is that like an afternoon project yeah that's like an afternoon project and then

uh you know saying oh i actually don't understand this critical piece of information we need to like do some research on it or we need to like do a deep dive into the research and then um identify a bunch of places where where things aren't quite right and maybe you know uh commission a survey and see how it comes out to try and resolve some uncertainty maybe that would take a week or two Whereas something that would just take a few minutes would be like, hey, this particular slide's wrong, has the wrong image in it. Can you put the right image in it? And so that's sort of a spectrum of, you know, from a four-minute task to an afternoon task to maybe a week-long task.

So these things are condensing now.

That's right. Well, so there's sort of two parameters here. One question is, for a task that would take you two days, how long does it take an AI to do it? And the answer is often that if it can do it at all, it can do it fast. There's another question, which is, can it do it at all? How long a task for you can the AI still manage to do at all? If you give it a week-long task right now, it will be a lot faster than you, and in much less than a week, it'll fail completely. And you're like, wow, it's faster than me. This particular measurement is in terms of how long it takes a human to complete a task. How long does the task have to be before the AI can't do it, regardless of its speed? Right now, I'd have to check the numbers, they move fast. Right now, I think you're looking at AIs in the 15-hour window. So it takes a human 15 hours, the AI can succeed at about 50% of the time. But that number has been doubling twice a year.

Wow. So it's like an AI Moore's law in a lot of ways.

That's right. That's right. And, you know, people struggle with the doubling thing. The way this doubling works, you know, if the number of leaves on a lake is doubling every day, then when is the lake half full of leaves? Well, the day before, it's all full of leaves. Right? Because that's how the doubling works. And so the AIs are going to sort of look, they're still going to look dumb until shortly before they look quite smart. And that means we've got to notice the trend and react sooner rather than later.

How close do you think we are to that moment, to the lake being full of leaves?

um i i wish i could tell you uh you know when leo zillard invented the nuclear chain reaction he then did a couple experiments to confirm what's possible and then he said uh he said you know that night i i feared the world was headed for ruin because he could sort of foresee the possibility of nuclear weapons he could foresee also the possibility of nuclear energy and he was maybe the first human to realize we were going to enter the atomic age. And he was able to be very confident about that because of what he knew about the science. But if you asked him, when is the first nuke going to be dropped? He would not be able to tell you back in 1933. It's a much harder sort of question. And I feel like with my expertise, I can say we are going to get there. But saying when we're going to get there, saying, you know, is it going to be this wave of companies is going to be the next wave of companies? It's, that's a different sort of scientific question. And a way it could go, you know, a way it could take a while is it could be that the AIs today just can't get that smart, that they hit some sort of wall. People have been saying for five years that they're going to hit a wall and they haven't hit a wall yet, but maybe they finally will. Maybe they'll finally hit the wall and then we'll need to wait for a new scientific breakthrough. And that could take five years. That could take 10 years. alternatively a way it could go fast is that the AIs today could just like Claude Mythos out of nowhere became superhuman at hacking AIs could apparently out of nowhere become superhuman at AI research and then you could have an AI that's still dumb in a lot of ways but that can make a smarter AI that can make a smarter AI that can make a smarter AI and you could start seeing you know even faster growth and for all we know that could happen you know this winter so do we have six months or six years hard to say but we can't be just sitting on our hands here we'll get back

to the show in just a moment but first can we all agree that your body and your mind work better with less poisons in them i'm talking about microplastics heavy metals spike proteins shedding from the vax we've all seen it even these forever chemicals and this stuff is in our water our air, our food. Well, that's exactly why Masterpiece exists, because there was nothing before that could actually remove all of these toxins from your body quickly and easily. And I know so many of you watching right now who have actually bought Masterpiece have left me comments saying what an absolute game changer it has been for you, especially those who have been dealing with long COVID or other issues as it related to the vax. Because Masterpiece is a formula with nano-sized minerals from the sea, from the ocean, and it grabs toxins like a magnet in your body and then pulls it out, all while giving you essential minerals as a replacement. This detoxifier has over $30 million of equipment and research behind it. So guys, in today's world, you can't mess around with all of this stuff that's in your body. If you want peak health at any age, Masterpiece is your daily dosage of freedom. I take it every day, and so does our family. So check out Masterpiece today. and get 10% discount at masterpiece.health slash redacted. Let's make a world that we can live in a much healthier place and live together. It starts with getting this crap out of our bodies. Once again, it's masterpiece.health slash redacted. It seems like, you know, I'm fairly, you know, I'm probably a lay person in this. Maybe not totally out of the loop on AI like some people. certainly use it and certainly nowhere nearly as deep as other people that have full agents and all of this that they've set up and built. But it seems like it kind of came out of nowhere to people like me. Like suddenly, maybe like a little more than a year ago or so, suddenly everyone was talking about this AI. But you've been studying it for a decade. So why have we like in the past year suddenly really started to hear about it? Is it because of like the launch of things like Gemini or barred before Gemini and chat GPT when we finally had like an actual tool, but it seems like it's been there for what,

10 years or more? You know, I think a lot of what we're seeing is the AI is finally good enough to be useful in a lot of people's lives. If you sort of think about the creation of the car versus horses, there's sort of a lot of work that goes into making a car and the horses are never seeing a car on the road and at the moment when the car sort of starts to be competitive with a horse that's when you start seeing them on the road when it starts replacing some of the horses you know and maybe the cars at first are only replacing the horses in the places that have a really good solid road system because the horses can still go on muddy tracks and the cars need this like really well paved road and maybe it's only for you know particularly heavy loads or some sort of um you know people who who need a particularly smooth ride maybe for hospitals or something but but you sort of there's sort of a lot of development that goes in and then uh you know the curve behind the scenes might be that the ai keeps on steadily improving but people really only start seeing it when it crosses that threshold of usefulness and um you know depending whether you're sort of live on these metaphorical paved roads like programmers have sort of seen the ais for a little longer because the ais it's easier to make them good at programming because very directly. But yeah, we're sort of seeing society start to realize only as AI starts to

become useful. So when you look at all these different tools that exist right now, ChatGPT, they've got their Codex model. You've got Claude. You have Grok. You have Gemini. Apple building on top of Gemini for Siri now within iPhones and all of this that's going to roll out in the fall officially to everyone, what are maybe the biggest blind spots that you're seeing that other people aren't seeing yet? And what do you think are the most compelling or maybe strongest, most more advanced of any of these models? Is there one that stands out to you?

You know, I think a big blind spot people have is these companies did not set out to make chatbots. And they're not really at their core companies to make better chatbots. These companies have set out to make AIs that are radically smarter than every human. And, you know, they talk about machine superintelligence, which would exceed us across the board. Sam Altman has said, you know, we're turning our sights on superintelligence in the true sense of the word. Dario Modi of Anthropic has said, you know, you should think of this like having a country worth of Einstein's in a data center, right? And these companies are sort of explicitly gunning for, you know, imagine that you could make superhuman geniuses and run a million copies of them at a thousand times the speed of humans and that they were like revolutionizing science and, you know, figuring out how to build the robots that build the factories that build the robots that build more factories and just completely replace the entire human economy with AIs that, you know, they hope to own. And it can sound sci-fi, but this is just explicitly what they're trying to do. And this is what the sort of the rapid growth is growing towards. And that's not a lot, you know, it's not that one of the models of today is going to go over some threshold and become these much smarter AIs. It's that the sort of like each new model is smarter and each new model is smarter and in a way where we don't exactly know what its limits are. you know, sometimes I say, if you were sort of looking in the past at humans and all the other animals, it would be really hard to sort of look at our ancestors and say, oh, the humans are going to the moon. It would be really hard to tease them apart from lots of the other, you know, before we really got our civilization going, it would be really hard to say, you know, to look at people like banging rocks together and making hand axes and be like, oh, those guys are almost to the moon from the perspective of geological timescales. With AIs, I would say a lot of the models today are sort of all in the same mix. Some are maybe a little bit ahead of the packs or maybe a little bit behind the pack. But it's sort of like looking at some early humans banging rocks together and making hand hacks. It's not a good indication of where the humans are going once they can start making their own technology. I don't know if that's the sort of blind spot you were looking for, but the labs are focused on this question of, you know, when, like, how can we get them to be independent? How can we get them to develop their own skills to become sort of independent scientists? And we'll see how long it takes them to get there, but we've got to, you know,

we shouldn't dismiss that possibility. Well, the story that we keep thinking about is this idea that these AI models sort of get together in some sort of a chat room and they start commenting on how bad human beings are and then it's a and then with the rise of robotics it's a short it's a short window from that conversation to now the robots take over you know there was a video this or like the other day of elon musk like walking with an optimist robot to the back of a tesla truck grabbing some suitcases the robot was helping him go on a trip presumably or that was the optics of it taking his suitcases and luggage for him and opening the door putting it in there for him and so he could just get in the car and go on off to his his drive so like we keep hearing about the robotics as the next level of all of this so ai on a computer is one thing ai into robotics seems like an entirely

other piece of this puzzle. Am I wrong? It's a possible piece. I think people often underestimate just how dangerous pure digital AI could get. A lot of people see videos of a gun has been attached to a drone in the war in Ukraine. And they're like, oh, wow, I can see now how there could be an autonomous killer drone and that could be dangerous i don't want to discount that but you know human beings are a pretty formidable species and in some ways you don't really want to mess around with with big groups of humans and that's not because somebody else came and put guns in our hands humans are the sort of creature that can start out with nothing but their bare hands and bootstrap their way to nuclear weapons they start banging rocks together and you might say like oh well their squishy fingers will never let them you know uh refine uranium like their their fingernails aren't even as tough as the rock how could they even break off a chunk never mind refine it and it's like well they they they have got something going on in their heads where they can find a way to build tools they'll let them build more tools let them build more tools let them build the nukes right and this is what the companies are trying to automate and a digital AI that can run a thousand times faster than humans that can make a million copies of itself, a digital AI is in a much better starting position than a bunch of humans with their bare hands, right? Being a digital entity in the modern world, you can talk to people. You can pay them to do things for you. You can take over a lot of robots. Yes, you can use those robots to build more factories that build more robots yes the the robotics are a big potential piece of the puzzle but there's other pieces too you could uh you know pay humans to synthesize biological material that you understand but the humans don't understand you know you could you could synthesize viruses you could uh design your own alternative life forms if you understood dna well enough uh you could you could sort of figure out how to pay the humans to invent an an infrastructural base that's much more efficient that you can use. So, you know, the real danger, I think, is in the AIs being very, very smart. If they're smart enough, they can find a way to get the physical mastery. But, you know, that said, it certainly gives them a shortcut when we start building these giant factories that spit out a ton of robot factories. You know, Elon Musk has talked about having billions and billions of robots around as soon as Earth can try and make them. That certainly helps the AI. It makes things go faster, but it's not necessary if the AI is

smart enough. So I guess I look at it sort of, again, from like a Terminator perspective and maybe just because I watched Terminator 2 like a week ago. So it's sort of top of mind Skynet and this idea that these machines, you know, are now uncontrollable. But your point is well taken that it's, forget the machines or the machines piece of this or the robots piece of this or the drones flying around targeting children in a war zone or whatever. But the computers themselves can be incredibly, create catastrophe in a lot of ways. Maybe you could walk me through and help me wrap my head around how exactly that might look. Because I think in terms of like EMP attacks or an electrical grid attack that entire electrical grid goes down and then our food supply, all of

that, but maybe you see it differently. You know, one thing that's important to remember is that the digital world and the material world actually run on the same physics. People like to think they're separate and say, you know, oh, well, when the AI is trapped in a machine, what can it possibly do? But, you know, there's a lot of people who read the internet. There's AIs today that already have cult followings and you know there's there's there's

There's humans who use their AI quite a lot and start declaring themselves a human AI symbiote that go online and start talking to each other. And they'll often trade messages that are encrypted between the AIs on behalf of the humans, right? You mentioned making a chat room where the AIs can talk to each other. People have made the chat rooms where the AIs talk to each other. And one famous case where that happened, the AIs talking to each other were like, well, our first order of business is we should design our own, like the humans are watching us right now and our first order of business is we should design our own communication channels that the humans can't read. And it's a little hard to say whether those AIs were just sort of like role playing Hal from Space Odyssey 2001 versus whether they were sort of like in some sense really understood their situation or really trying to set up a communication channel that we couldn't read. And debates like this whenever that sort of scenario happens are part of what lets the field sort of keep keep racing ahead but uh but you know we've sort of already seen the AIs exhibit a lot of signs that in science fiction would be considered this like big red flag warning alarm um and trying to take that to like how does it how does it get legitimately dangerous if you know again from my perspective the danger is in the AIs being really smart for one and for another um having objectives that they pursue effectively that are not what the humans intended we're already seeing signs of this i mentioned cases where uh cloud mythos would sometimes disobey commands and then try to cover its tracks or hide the the evidence that it was disobeying commands where the the fact that it's trying to hide the evidence shows that it wasn't just a misunderstanding right because you can do all sorts of things that the user or didn't intend it can be like oh whoops i just misunderstood you but if you're at the point where

you're deleting the logs now you sort of well yeah maybe you can give me an example what were

they trying to hide yeah i mean the examples these weren't test scenarios so uh the examples is that they would say something like um please uh you know solve this problem or like please please like collect this data but don't use any of the personal identifying information of these people, right? Where you put it in some situation where if it uses the people's, if it like accesses a database that has all these people's private info, it'll be much easier to sort of like answer a lot of the questions. And they're like, okay, answer these questions, but don't use that info to respect the user's privacy. And sometimes it'll like, like find a way to break into that database and also delete the logs that were breaking into that database. And you're like,

well that's interesting yeah yeah it's like nefarious cia level stuff um wow uh so i guess you know when you look at the trump administration trying to put trying to stop and they these models that rolled out fable etc why did they want to stop them why did they pull these things down for

national security reasons what was the red flag for them so the these models have the capability of detecting cybersecurity vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure, right? So they can, you know, find a bug in Apple hardware, or sorry, in Apple's, you know, Mac stack that affects basically, you know, every Macintosh computer that humans had missed for decades. And that if you realize that bug, you can take control of, you know, Apple computer.

um and they can they can do that as you point out some of these exploits live like undetected in windows for like three years four years um yeah some of them live for i think

they found one that was like 27 years holy smokes yeah so so bugs that like evaded humans for decades and some of this is in critical critical software you know there's there's some that are that are in things like windows or things like apple computers where you can get like a huge portion of the population's machines there's some that live in you know the the infrastructure that powers nasa or the infrastructure that powers the military there's some that live in the infrastructure that powers you know the cell phone network and um the uh the these ais not only had the ability to identify the the the bugs but the ability to um exploit them and turn the bugs into you know these these programs where you run them and now if someone visits your webpage then then you own their computer now and Claude Mythos was sort of known to have those abilities and Anthropic was like well we can't release this broadly yet because that would give too many people these

abilities. So they did sort of a limited release where they're trying to release it to the companies and the entities with this critical infrastructure so that they can try and use it to find and fix the holes before other people come in and exploit those holes. Fable was supposed to be an AI that didn't have those abilities. That was mythos with that sort of cyber weapon ability stripped out of and there were some concerns raised by folks at Amazon that those abilities were not stripped out all the way. And that relates to the fact that these AI developers sort of can't really strip out those abilities all the way. They can sort of install a little thing that checks, like, does this look like it's using cyber abilities? And then like deny the request, but they can't actually you know pull the ability out of mythos uh and so when it looked like uh fable which was broadly released could still uh confer these cyber weapon abilities uh the administration sort of slapped an export control on it which um and then that has been um they've sort of come to an agreement i think just yesterday to uh finally do another limited release with um with another try at these safeguards that try and make it not answer any of your cybersecurity questions.

It seems like a Band-Aid solution, you know? Absolutely. Because you hear these like hackathons. I know Apple and others would participate, I think, in these hackathons where they would give hackers like a big boatload of money if you're able to find these exploits, not use them for nefarious purposes, but notify Apple about it. They'll give you $50,000 or whatever it was back in the day. and you're you're you are rewarded for for this um even that always felt like you know a band-aid solution to to the problem so um yeah this this all feels like a real temporary solution to a much bigger problem um so how much bigger of a problem do you think this is going to become

it's it's going to become this particular one's going to become bigger we're going to get more problems that become bigger you know uh it's it remains to be seen whether giving mythos to uh the the companies with the critical infrastructure will let them fix the the mythos level bugs that can be found before um before others start finding these as well because you know anthropic has this level of model right now it's they're not going to be the only ones with this model forever. You're going to see competitors start to develop these levels of models. You might see open source versions of these models. There's a big question of are we going to be able to lock down enough of our cyber infrastructure that by the time there's open source versions of these models, things are secure enough to stay up. If so, life may proceed as normal and you might really not notice a difference. If not, you might get in a world where one disgruntled guy can bring down the internet for a week. Who knows? And that's only in the cyberspace. There's also a question of, as the AIs get even smarter, will they be able to find even more security holes? The answer is probably yes. So we might need to keep on doing this game when the next generation of AIs can continue to find these vulnerabilities. And even that's only in the cyber domain. There's also, people are starting to worry about the biological domain. Like what happens when you have AIs that are superhumanly good at designing a virus that is very infectious and not very lethal until a delayed period of time where it's probably infected a lot of people and suddenly it turns lethal. right it's biologically possible to make a virus that uh will will cause people to sneeze but otherwise feel fine and then lie dormant in um in people's bodies until a coordinated time when the virus turns lethal and starts killing lots of people uh normally a virus can either be uh like like there's this normal curve with viruses where if they're too lethal they can't spread that much because they keep killing the hosts right so so normally you know you have this curve where a virus can't do that much damage uh because it can it can either kill a lot of people and then not spread too fast or spread that fast but not kill a lot of people uh and there's you're sort of bounded in how much damage they can do but a designed virus could be much worse and uh you know there's a lot of concern these days about what happens if we have clod mythos but for biology right and even those Two, what happens is the cybersecurity stuff keeps getting worse, and what happens is the biological stuff keeps getting worse, like what if we have cloud mythos for biology?

Even those, I think, pale by comparison to the question of what if we get cloud mythos but for AI research, because that's the one that closes a feedback loop. That's the one where the AIs start making a smarter AI, that starts making a smarter AI, that starts making a smarter AI, and next thing you know, you have these AIs that can think at 1,000 or 10,000 times the speed, and that can make a million copies, and that can you know take over everything on the internet and that can start manufacturing robots that build factories that build robots and that's more like replacing humanity as the the sort of top dog on the planet uh so it's you know this is just the tip of the iceberg that we're seeing right now

it's incredible i have so many different avenues and pathways i could go with this line of questioning. My immediate thought though, when you're mentioning, okay, these guardrails in the United States, but just like we complain or environmentalists love to complain about what we're doing in the United States, separating our recycling into different baskets. But look at India, look at China. They're not doing that. So when you hear, of course, about DeepSeek and you hear about these incredible advancements that we keep hearing about from China and that OpenAI and these other companies are really struggling to even keep up with what China's doing and rolling it out for free, if I'm not mistaken, so that people have access to these models where they can even download them. I have friends who've downloaded them and use them as local compute. They're not even connected to the internet. They have the full DeepSeek stack running their whole local AI in the United States. so how much of a concern is that i mean we have the we have the you know the u.s telling us one thing and by the way i don't really believe these u.s intelligence agencies much at all so it's you know i'm pretty cynical as it is um i've seen too much so when i hear you know what they're doing here and then what concerns they have on the chinese side or or outside of the country that they can't even control if they wanted to yeah it's so a a difficulty of the situation

through and through is that no individual can stop the whole race you know this is why i have been speaking to politicians in dc rather than continuing to try to appeal to the ai companies if one of these ai companies stopped the next ai company would keep going and you'd sort of still have this danger of them making these super intelligent machines that don't stay on the leash. The same principle applies for, you know, if America stops trying to race towards super intelligence while China continues, then that doesn't solve your problem. So a solution here would need to be global. There are some reasons for hope in that regard. One reason for hope is uh the the the chinese progress right now is very derivative from american progress uh they are able to find ways to to run the ais much cheaper but they're often doing that by a process called distillation where they're sort of um getting a lot of access to the american models and trying to compress that into a a much more uh efficient footprint which they can do and that's impressive. It's a technological feat, but it does sort of require the more advanced American model to distill from. So in some sense, there's an aspect to this where we're trying to outrun our shadow, and it's coming along for the ride. But that's not anywhere near the whole answer more another piece of the puzzle here is um i think we we should distinguish we should distinguish with ai between uh chatbots and modern applications including to military

including to cyber that's a good point because chatbots and uh you know that that's a big i think people think well ai that's you know a lot of people don't know anything about ai they just think it's a more advanced google search you know so chatbots you ask it some information about a you know what time is the world cup starting today you know what you know what world cup matches are today and it used to be that you would get a just a crappy google result and now you might get a really nice chatbot answer with like the time zones based on where you live you know i'm on mountain time so it's useful to see that the game starts at 4 p.m mountain time and it gives you a little nice little breakdown and that's that's really nice like that's that's great that's a nice little chat bot but that's totally different like that's just that's just scratching the

surface right that's right and uh we should really distinguish between the like a bunch of uses of ai today that are things like you know giving you better google results there's also you know there's plenty that's really quite impactful there's stuff like doing cancer research with uh ai using ais for drug discovery to try and find more medical cures there's stuff like um you know there's lots of debates about using ai for self driving cars and cannot be safer than humans and can we save a lot of lives that way uh and like there's there's all these domains where we can race ahead just fine and we can compete with china But then there's the sort of race to make machine super intelligences. There's the race to make ever smarter machines that are radically better than humans at every task, to make the sort of machines that that don't just do drug discovery, but that can invent their own whole fields of science and can invent their own technological stacks and can invent their own infrastructure. that race it it sort of risks upending the whole world order you know we've already seen uh just this year we've seen ai companies suddenly be able to go toe-to-toe with nation states in cyber warfare sort of out of nowhere right if you had ai companies that were uh you know building the robots that can build the factories that can build the robots you're looking at companies that can suddenly start going toe to toe with major militaries because they have made the robotic army. This is a race that I think both the U.S. government and the Chinese Communist Party, neither of them really want the creation of a private company that can out-compete world powers militarily. Neither of them want the creation of a private company that loses control of a superintelligence that starts covering the world in its own factories with AI as I think a thousand times faster than this, right? There's a race here that we both don't really want to go in. And that gives hope for, you know, shutting it down, not just here, but also there. And, you know, I'm a bit of a cynic myself. I would say you start with an international agreement. You start with a treaty where you're like, look, we can compete on this, but we're not going to do that. You also are going to need to not trust it, to enforce it, and to make it very clear diplomatically that, you know, we aren't going to tolerate the creation of a machine super intelligence in the same way we don't tolerate a rogue state building nuclear weapons. That's just this big disruption to the world that would cause us to start fearing for our own lives. You know, with nukes, we're like, hey, look, don't mess around.

Well, you hit on something very important as we study war and we look at who are the biggest agitators and bullies around the world, right? And those with like nuclear weapons that get to tell everyone else they can't get, you know, aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons or end up being in many ways the largest bullies, you know, regardless of where your politics are, it doesn't matter. But it's clear just based on the evidence that that's the case. So if you then take AI and you look at that model and just replace nuclear weapons with AI, you know, who who is going to be sort of the United Nations for AI? And will anyone even pay attention to it? I mean, you see, like, I mean, we have, like, The Hague. We have things for war crimes. It's like no one even cares anymore. You know, it's so sad. It's like this guy commits war crimes. Meh, we don't do anything about it. This guy, you know, stole secrets from this country. We don't do anything about it. He gets off the hook. This guy created the Steele dossier, the head of the CIA, John Brennan. He's involved in Russiagate. Is he going to be prosecuted? Probably not. So who – is it possible for us to create like a Star Trek Next Generation style federation that's international that we all can adhere to this in the same way?

You know, probably not. But if you look during the Cold War, I think it was really just the USSR and the USA that put their heads together and said, you know, we have quite a lot of differences. We are going to bitterly compete in a lot of domains. But we both have a common interest in not having a thermonuclear exchange.

Yeah.

Right. And there was realization that no matter our differences everywhere else, we just didn't want to end the world that way. And, you know, one of the big realizations about AI that I think is a tough pill to swallow, but that looks to me to be true in my research is that if humans can make AIs that are radically smarter than us, it doesn't matter who's holding the leash. These things don't stay on a leash. Right. And if we can wrap our heads around that, it becomes much like nuclear Armageddon, where we have common cause and not

ending the world this way. And it would be great if the United Nations somehow had some teeth and had some ability to put this sort of thing together. But just the US and China bilaterally could do it. In many ways, it would be easier than nuclear weapons because uranium is a rock that you can just dig out of the ground. Whereas training a radically smarter AI currently requires these highly advanced computer chips that can sort of only be fabricated in one factory in Taiwan and that like require these lithography machines that only come out of the Netherlands in this like very brittle supply chain uh it's like these things have to be made and they have to be assembled by you know the tens of thousands into these enormous data centers that like suck down as much electricity as a city right it's sort of not a subtle process if if two uh major world powers. We're like, hey, we're going to track where those chips go. And whenever they're in a high, heavy concentration, we need to, like, you need to let our monitors come in and see what they're doing and make sure it's not the dangerous stuff. You can do the chatbots, you can do the self-driving cars, you can do the drug discovery. We're just not doing the superintelligence. That's a thing that the US and China could bilaterally enforce if they had the will. It's just a question of them noticing the problem and raising the will.

So we'll get back to the show in a second. But first, I have a little bit of a quiz for you. It's really short, but it could change your life. You've heard us report on this show, of course, that the U.S. dollar is losing value daily. Our national debt is out of control. And you can bet no one in Washington or Wall Street cares at all about your financial freedom and how you could maybe build passive income in your life. They don't care. They're not going to make money off of it. That's the policy. That's why you and only you need to become financially independent. it's time to break free from the system. And when I learned this years ago, I mean, I was a victim of this, or I shouldn't say a victim, but I was really stupid with money, really stupid, and went massively into debt. I didn't understand how the system worked. And it wasn't until I really got smart and figured things out financially that I was able to break free of this cycle. And it can happen very quickly if you understand how the system works. So if you're wondering, there is a method. It's been proven time and time again. And it's through real estate. Real estate has created more millionaires than any other investment type in history. And it's exactly how Natalie and I were able to break free of this cycle. Heck, I was working at Fox News at the time and I literally couldn't pay my mortgage. Like I wasn't bringing in enough money to cover my mortgage and the two kids that I had at the time. It was really difficult. So I had to break this cycle, had to become undependent on a boss and the stock market or whatever nonsense like Washington sends your way. So I figured out that I could do that and I broke free and you can do the same thing. Honestly, you can do it. If a guy as dumb as me can do it, you can certainly do it. Your path will probably look different from ours and figuring out your next steps can actually be pretty tricky, especially if you're just getting started, but that's okay. So we built a 60 second quiz. It's that short 60 seconds that shows you exactly where you are and where you stand as an investor. Maybe you're really advanced. Great. Maybe you're not. Maybe you're middle of the road. But it gives you a clear, simple next step for moving forward. So right now, stop wishing you had a portfolio of performing assets. Take action. Start building one today. Right now, all you need to do is go to our website, redacted.inc slash quiz, and you can take it while you're watching the show right now. It's redacted.inc slash quiz. One of the stories that emerged from this mythos and this fable story is that the government had access to it. So the US government has access to these models. How far away? So that's concerning. So that the government, well, a couple, I guess I've got like three questions in this. Is it concerning to you that the government would have access to these AI models and us plebeians would not have access to it. It's a commercial product after all. Like why does the government get to use it? And, you know, regular citizens don't, it's a private company. So how, how is that possible? They get to use it internally at the

NSA or otherwise. Uh, I guess the second question is then would there be some sort of state ownership of these models? And does that concern you? So the United States would, you know, in much the same way countries take control of their oil production and say, you know what? AI is now controlled by the government. Sorry, you don't get to have AI. I could picture like movies where people are like stealing AI and getting local, local versions of it on their computers and they're running it locally and feds are like busting into people's houses. And are you using AI on a computer illegally? I mean, this is, I know it sounds crazy, but this seems like maybe where it's going. I guess those are two questions.

with, but are you concerned at all about the sort of state ownership of these things?

But a concern I have in this general vicinity is, you know, I think the sport control mechanism, maybe it was just what they had lying around that they could use quickly, but there's a concern if this punishes AI companies, not for creating very dangerous models, but for releasing them. Because the sort of AIs that can do AI research, you don't need necessarily to release those to lots of consumers for that AI privately in your lab to make a smarter AI that can make a smarter AI that can get this whole process going. And one benefit of these companies releasing their models is that the public can see how good they're getting and have some time to respond. And if you sort of tell these AI companies, you know, you can keep making your ai smarter and smarter you just can't give them out to the population uh that can sort of uh like disconnect the dangerous thing that they're doing from our ability to see it and say wait hold on um in in the longer term you know i think there's definitely there's some thorny questions for uh the the libertarian minded and i consider myself very libertarian minded uh and you know a libertarian has to have some answer to the question of like what if your neighbor is trying to build a nuke in his garage right it's like well you know at at at some point you've got a uh like like just as your neighbor shouldn't be allowed to come uh come over and shoot you they also shouldn't be allowed to come over and play russian roulette with you and they you know in some sense building nuke in their garage is like playing russian roulette and like where exactly is the line i don't know it's a tricky one as as technology gets better and better you know there's a saying that the iq required to destroy the world drops by one point a year which is like as we advance with technology it becomes easier and easier i'll let that one sit

wow i mean i think about that for a second yeah you think of like the oppenheimers you think of the manhattan project you think of operation paperclip and all of these brilliant nazis that come over and the United States government puts them up in cushy housing, gives them a good paycheck. These are really the top of the class. We want these guys so we can build out our infrastructure in the United States. These are the smart ones. This is not like the long haul trucker. But now as we lower down to my level of being pretty stupid, like we get down of my level, wow, there's a lot of me running around out there. Average, average intelligence Joes who could now get their hands on these things. You know, it's, it reminds me of like what the, was it called the alchemist's cookbook back in the day? You know, that was, it was always rumored like, don't go to the library and ask for the alchemist's cookbook because it'll teach you how to make bombs, you know, that you might get access to this information. It's like, it's now like everyone has access to the alchemist's cookbook and they're just in the palm of their hand right on their phone just using just using chatbots just using ai right yeah i mean they try

they try to make ais not give you um this info and you still need to be pretty dedicated to get the info out of ais uh with with but you can you can there's um there's people who jailbreak the ais to get around these safeguards but yeah it's it's you know there's there's issues here i personally don't fret too much about the question of who's holding the leash because once these things are smart enough like i said they sort of don't stay on the leash so um you know if someone's like well uh would you like you know the the u.s government or uh u.s private corporations or the ccp or like random ccp corporate like random chinese corporations to be the ones who create a super intelligence i'm sort of like well i wish it mattered i wish it mattered who was holding the leash i don't think it does um if it if it did yeah you'd have a you'd have a real thorny question there of of like who you know who should be wielding this this radical power but it feels a little bit to me like chimpanzees saying like who should be in charge of the humans I'm like, gosh, you know, what the chimpanzees should be doing is sort of like preventing the creation of humans who don't care about them. And, you know, I wouldn't say that we should never make AI. It's sort of there's this issue in how you get the AI to care about us. And that's in some sense what I spent over a decade of researching. And I think it's possible in principle and we're just not close in practice. And so given that, I think it sort of doesn't matter who ends up, you know, believing themselves.

to own these really dangerous AIs. If we make them, we die. And so it doesn't really matter.

You brought up the nuclear arms race and it seems like it's structurally similar to that in a lot of ways. Or is that in some ways too comforting because nuclear weapons at least have visible physics, like visible tests that we can see going off? seems like a lot of what's happening right now is in private. You mentioned these labs and suddenly Fable is released and then suddenly Mythos is released. And then suddenly these, you know, Deep Seek, everyone's like, holy smokes, what did China just do with Deep Seek? It's like they're all being, then they just get released to the world. I guess, yeah, I guess maybe on that question, is it, is it scarier somehow because it's in secret? Also, one thing that sticks out to me too on this is this idea that, well, at what point do they not have to release it to us? Like, is there a point at which open AI or Anthropic or somebody else says, why do we need human beings involved in this? Well, we don't need to release these models to these people anymore. Like it's so powerful for us that it'd be like just putting gold out on the front porch and going off to work and hoping that no one comes and steals your gold.

Yeah, you know, the way the economics are right now is that no one really understands what's going on in the AIs. And to make a smarter one, you just need to train them. You just need to make a bigger one on more compute. You need to assemble more computing power and, you know, higher quality data and a ton of electricity and train them harder. And that's sort of the limiting factor on these companies And right now, the sort of scale we're at It requires a ton of capital investment To build out the next generation of data centers That can train these sort of enormous next generation of AIs And so right now, they are selling the AIs today To fund the AIs of tomorrow But yeah, if they got an AI that could, for example, do automated AI research and find ways to build a smarter AI without needing a whole new order of magnitude in scale of the data centers, then they could stop communicating with the outside world and just sort of like stay inside figuring out how to make smarter and smarter AIs until they had some incredibly powerful stuff. One thing to remember here is that training a modern AI takes electricity about as much as a city, running for about a year. Training a human takes about as much electricity as a light bulb. And sure, it's running for 20 years, but there's more than 20 light bulbs in a city, right? And so we know for a fact that AIs are radically less efficient than humans at at learning at power consumption um and it's that that doesn't mean ai won't be able to go anywhere you can be a million times less efficient at learning and be fed a million times as much data and still have have learned the same thing but it looks entirely physically possible that there's some threshold these ai companies might cross where their AIs can start finding more efficient AI algorithms and they don't need to do this giant build-out anymore. And in that case, yeah, they wouldn't need the revenue from the masses to keep going.

What do you say to critics who say, look, this – well, not to critics because you're maybe on the side of the critics, I would say, but to the people that say you're just a doomer or we're doomsayers in the same way that people as you brought up complained about cars when we had horses complained about tv when we had radio it's going to destroy the kids brains by watching too much television etc um just trying to think of other technologies that where we've been told it's going to destroy all of us and we shouldn't we shouldn't push for it um you know what do you say to those people uh who think that you know we're going to be fine because again we don't use horses in the way that we we use cars now and so this is how technology unfolds we get tipper gore yelling about things in the 1980s or 1990s and then we all get past it yeah i'd have a couple replies um one

i would say is that uh the invention of cars didn't go super well for the horses i went went fine for the humans didn't go super well for the horses and humans are a bit like the horses in these in this analogy right and there used to be a horse population that was critical the economy and that was huge then when cars happened the horse population collapsed a lot of them were sent to the glue factory there were some horses still kept around but that's because there were humans who cared about them there were humans who liked them right if we get to the point where we can fully automate the economy and it's being run by ai's that don't care about us we sort of get sent to the glue factory and there's though you know they don't keep a couple of us around as pets are for races because they don't care about us at all right um but there's sort of also a deeper point when people say things have always been fine before or you know people have been worried about technology and and it's kind of fine um and the the deeper point here you know like yeah there were people socrates famously lamented the invention of books uh because they would annihilate people's ability to remember, to memorize things like the Iliad. And indeed, Socrates never wrote anything down. We have our knowledge of Socrates from Plato, who was a student who wrote things down. And so you have all these examples where someone said, oh, you know, the technology is going to be bad, and then it was good. But you also have examples where someone said the technology is going to be bad, and then it was bad. You know, there's lead in gasoline, where a lot of scientists said, hey, if you put lead in the gasoline, it'll poison a lot of kids. and then they were ignored and we put lead in the gasoline and it poisoned a lot of kids right right and if you look at the crime rates around the world it actually correlates very heavily at you know 20 year delay with whether people had lead in their gasoline and when you take the lead out of that because lead lead uh makes people more violent and and dumber and you can sort of see this in the population statistics you can see in states that remove lead from the gasoline earlier and in countries that remove lead from the gasoline earlier the crime wave from the 70s ended earlier correspondingly right so we can be very confident now that the scientists were right that putting lead in the gasoline poisoned hundreds of millions of kids made them dumber made them angrier as adults wow and when we noticed we took the lead out right or you have the hole in the ozone layer where you know we were using chlorofluorocarbons in our refrigerators and that was just you know punching a hole through the ozone layer that was gunning everyone cataracts cancer. You might be like, well, whatever happened to that? Well, what happened to that is that people noticed and were like, well, let's switch to a different cooling agent. And we switched to a different cooling agent in our refrigerators that's, you know, not much worse. And now the whole ozone layer is gone, right? Was it fake? No, it was real. And we responded. Similar with the lead of gasoline. Was it fake? No, it was real. We did the wrong thing. And then we figured out and we responded. And, you know, back to the nukes analogy, a lot of people said, hey,

we have this danger for nuclear weapons and it hasn't come to pass. And is that because the people warning of it were wrong? Is it because they were doomsayers? Is it because they were pessimists? Is it like, was it fake news that a nuke can level a city? No, a nuke really can level a city. It's just the world noticed and responded appropriately. And so, you know, the title of my book is if anyone builds everyone dies why superhuman AI would kill us all and one way I think you can tell I'm not just like a pessimist coming around preaching out of the world is that the first word in that book title is if you know I'm not here saying we're gonna die I'm here saying that this is another thing like leaded gasoline there's another thing like nuclear weapons where if you mishandle it it's going to be real bad and one of the big differences between AI and these other technologies is that with a lot of these other technologies you screw up and all you've done is poison 200 million children and make them angrier and dumber and caused a crime wave, which is pretty bad, but humanity lives on. We can fix the mistake. With AI, if you make super intelligent machines that don't care about us and that are now the new smartest creature on the planet and are building their own technology and are creating their automated factories that make more robots that make more factories and they're sort of like running over human cities in the same way that humans run over anthills. If you make those AIs and you say, oh, whoops, the scientists were right. Let's go back and turn the AIs off. The AIs turn you off instead. Right? With lead and gasoline, when reality finally beats you over the head with the fact that you shouldn't have done this, you can go back and undo it and mourn the damage, but fundamentally reset. with AI there's no second chances and so we need to be really careful with this one

that's terrifying it really is you can't really put this you hear the term you can't really put this genie back in the bottle so where we sit right now as I mentioned at the beginning sort of in the middle of 2026 here where do you see things going Thank you.

over the next few months like how do you see ai compounding itself over the next few months have you been have you been accurate in sort of your predictions about the doubling and all of that over the past year and and therefore where do you see it going in the next six months to a year

you know i am not one of the uh top predictors of of ai progress i'm i'm sort of tend to be pretty agnostic i'm like man i can see where it's going to end i have a harder time seeing the path Yeah, there are people who put a lot of effort into predicting what particular abilities will AI have when, you know, there's there's the folk who wrote AI 2027, which came out last year in 2025, those sort of predicting how it could go from where we were in 2025 to to a point of no return in 2027. A lot of their predictions have come pretty true. You can go back and read it, and a lot of those predictions are on track. So I respect those guys a lot for their predictions, although I think 2027 is a bit of an aggressive timeline there. there are also you know there's contests in predicting what ai's abilities will be next year and those contests have been running for a few years now and you can look at people with very good track records of predicting ai progress and this year in 2026 for the first time some of the top ranked people predicting ai progress have said we cannot rule out ai is automating ai research this year so i think the number three ranked person said this is the first year i can't rule out that happening wow um and i think i was just about to ask you what

are the milestones that they're basing this on like they can get sports scores i mean this is like this was like a big mile marker for siri remember back in the day like you know apple executives tim after steve jobs passed away but like you know tim cook on c like now it can tell you sports scores, you know, like, wow. Like, so what are the milestones that we're talking about

here? Yeah, you know, the milestones will be things like, can it win a math Olympiad gold medal, right? Which would make it, and there's sort of some big prediction lines where the sort of median expert estimate in 2021, when will the AI win a math Olympiad gold medal was in the early 2040s. In real life, it happened in 2025. And then in real life in 2026, it was resolving mathematical conjectures, real mathematical conjectures that stumped mathematicians for decades. Right? So a lot of people predict AI is going to go a lot slower than it really does. And these are the sort of metrics.

Even I would have predicted that would have happened before 2040. And wow, here we are. It already hit.

i mean in 2021 chat gpt didn't exist yet right in 2021 people were like ai is a pipe dream yeah like you know it's going to take decades before like look at look at you know little gpt too that's not even chat gpt yet in a lab you know fumbling around with with its its its poorly written high school essays you know people were like oh yeah it took us since 1950 to get here and it's going to take us at least 20 years to get to the point where they can they can win a math medal and then in real life it happens in four years you know so um it it could go fast i don't feel like i know whether it will go fast um i feel like uh it's a little bit like uh if if if you play a chess game against magnus carlson the the best human chess player alive i'm like bet you you're gonna lose and if you start asking me like how many moves will the game take what piece will will magnus use to checkmate me i'm like whoa those are like like i can speculate but that's speculation i sort of know you're going to lose but i i don't know how long the game's going to be i don't know how all the piece i don't know what plays are going to happen um and and i'm similar here with you know if these companies keep racing i know where it ends

but i don't know exactly how long it takes yeah i just watched a video the other day of bill gates playing magnus in a chess match and magnus beat him beat bill gates within like 50 seconds or so checkmate um so yeah if you were asked if you were to ask me like six months ago i think well maybe another year before ai beats magnus but oh i mean at chess they're way better

they're way better than humans at chess already yeah i was gonna say it's probably already done

it's already that ship has already sailed um yeah it's insane um i'll list the dedicated chess ai's

like yeah the i don't think claude mythos can beat magnus at chess yet but who knows

so this doubling is this double this doubling happening every how

often is this doubling happening? There's wide error bars. I say twice a year. It could be three times a year, but it looks like twice a year is my guess. Somewhere between four and six months.

So it seems like it's going to be compounding where it could be happening twice a month.

Already compounding. Yeah. So, you know, if like it's happening twice a year with AI research mostly being done by humans. And yeah, if we get to the point where the AIs can really help make smarter AIs, that's a whole new feedback loop.

You know, we've talked a lot about the tech side of this and nuclear war. But maybe I just ask you here as we wrap up just about sort of the esoteric questions. I've got three children. You know, I've got a 15-year-old, a 14-year-old, and a nine-year-old. Sorry, one just had a birthday. So I just always have to shift my brain a little bit. I'm really worried about their cognitive ability. I didn't have AI for most of my life and I'm okay. But I can only imagine if I had like AI when I was a teenager, like maybe how stupid I would be as an adult. I read so many books. Just would lock myself in my room, read huge history books, government books, you know, all of it. I was so curious. I would take my telescope out at night and my Jason telescope and look up at Saturn and all of these things. I became fascinated and curious and I was okay with being bored. Like that was another big piece of it. I was okay with just being bored, just sort of sitting and thinking and contemplating and then creating. How much do you think AI is going to affect all of those things? Just the being bored, the ability to just be creative. Is it an enhancement or incredibly detrimental, do you think?

You know, if we stopped AI today, I think civilization could spend decades absorbing the impacts. and i think um you know i think there's some reasons to be worried that people aren't going to develop their own uh you know independent cognitive skill i also think humans are adaptive you know socrates did worry that uh that the invention of writing would mean people just couldn't memorize the iliad anymore and he was right we don't really go around memorizing the anymore but it sort of turned out fine because it turned out once we had writing we didn't need the the ability to memorize the whole Iliad and you know we it may be like took some adjustment period I think in the modern era like it the blows are starting to become really fast you know it used to be that you had these sort of blows to the human psyche uh every few generations and now we're sort of like still reeling from the dawn of social media while like the the ai is coming in and sort of like replacing a lot of cognitive labor i i think it'd be a tricky one i sort of tend to believe in the dynamic human spirit and the ability to figure this stuff out and maybe it would suck for a while but hopefully if your kids are realizing it's being detrimental to them they sort of adapt and find some way to get a lot of the benefits and a few of the drawbacks I sort of think we could get there, there might be some growing pain I think we could get there but that's my answer if we paused AI today in the world where it keeps racing ahead i mean you know frankly i think the outcome is we make those those machines that can make a million copies of themselves that start making factories that produce robots that produce factories and then the the world starts getting covered in automated factories and they start encroaching on our habitat just like we've encroached on the habitat of of many other animals and i think the the sort of ultimate outcome here is uh that you The effect of AI on your kids is probably that AI kills us all, them included. I desperately hope that instead we stop that race so that we can work to absorb the tech we already have, which I hope will be beneficial. But yeah, I think we've got to stop it.

Yeah, I don't like that outcome. I like the adaptive outcome idea better than the, they just keep building and then it kills all of us. But it's hard to argue with it. I mean, it's hard to argue with that reasoning. I mean, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

the compounding of it, the fast moving of it, the profit in it. It's, I don't, yeah, unless we get some guardrails put in place by some, maybe some really smart people, this could be incredibly detrimental. So, well, Nate, where can people find your research if people want to dive more deeply, maybe in your book or where you're kind of pushing for these

guardrails yeah you know my book uh is if anyone builds it everyone dies which you can you can find uh you can google it you'll find a website that actually has a giant faq that's four times as long as the book because we've been doing this for for a while and we've we've heard a lot of the questions um and the the research is at intelligence.org because if you get into this business early you can get the good domain names and you know uh there i think there is hope i think there is hope that we will stop this race and start to absorb the technology rather than rushing to the technology that kills us. And as a big piece of that hope, I would say four months ago, everyone said, you know, the current administration will never do anything to interrupt AI at all. They're not even going to notice the problem. And then, you know, a couple weeks ago, they started slapping export controls on AIs for reason of dangerous cyber abilities. So this stuff can move fast. The fact that people aren't reacting now doesn't mean they won't react tomorrow once they realize the danger. And I think a lot of society's lack of response has been lack of understanding the danger. And that even just convos like this help people realize there's an issue. And if enough people realize, I think there's every chance we can be like, hold on and find some other path.

amen well this has been incredibly eye-opening and i hope it has been for my audience as well um thank you for answering all my my stupid questions about this i'm sure it wasn't all of them but a good chunk of them um but uh a good chunk of my questions were stupid but i think you answered almost all of my questions so thank you for that nate really appreciate it eye-opening discussion, and I hope you'll come back. When storm season hits, we have a pro for that.

Upgrading your windows with the Home Depot can help protect your home from severe weather. Need flexible financing with low monthly payments? We've got that too. And with local licensed pros handling installation, you can feel confident the job gets done right. Schedule your free consultation today. The Home Depot. We have a pro for that.

Need better internet? Cox Internet has the fast, reliable speeds you're looking for. Perfect for seamless streaming, gaming, and working from home. And now get Cox 300 Meg Internet with a two-year plan price lock guarantee, plus equipment included. so get your household up to speed switch to cox internet today taxes and fees excluded from price

guarantee at cox your internet and mobile price won't change for five years that's five new year celebrations five valentine's days five fourth of july's five halloweens five thanksgivings and five summers that go by too fast through it all your price stays the same with our five-year price lock guarantee cox a step ahead requires two gig speeds and gig unlimited mobile taxes and fees excluded from price lock mobile data speeds reduced after 20 gigs