马斯克：Neuralink 与人类未来｜莱克斯·弗里德曼播客 #438

0:49Drinking coffee or water? Sure. This supposed to keep you up for like tomorrow afternoon, basically. So what is Nitro? It’s just got a lot of caffeine or something? It’s got nitrogen in it. That’s ridiculous. What we breathe is 78% nitrogen anyway. What do you need to add more for?

1:24Unfortunately, you’re going to eat it. Most people think that they’re breathing oxygen and they’re actually breathing 78% nitrogen. You need like a milk bar, like from Clockwork Orange.

1:44Clockwork Orange? It’s pretty good. It’s demented. Jarring, I’d say. Thanks. Yeah.

2:07Yeah. And we just obviously have our second implant as well. So far, so good. It looks like we’ve got, I think, on the order of 400 electrodes that are providing signals. Yeah. It depends somewhat on the regulatory approval, the rate at which we get regulatory approvals. So, we’re hoping to do 10 by the end of this year, total of 10. So, eight more.

2:54Yeah. Yeah. I think it’s obviously going to get better with each one. I don’t want to jinx it, but it seems to have gone extremely well with the second implant. So, there’s a lot of signal, a lot of electrodes. It’s working very well.

3:18In years, it’s going to be gigantic, because we’ll increase the number of electrodes dramatically. We’ll improve the signal processing. So, even with only roughly, I don’t know, 10, 15% of the electrodes working with Noland, with our first patient, we were able to get to achieve a bit per second. That’s twice the world record. So, I think we’ll start vastly exceeding the world record by orders of magnitude in the years to come. So, start getting to, I don’t know, 100 bits per second, thousand. Maybe if five years from now, we might be at a megabit, faster than any human could possibly communicate by typing, or speaking.

4:16Yeah. And with humans. Provided they have want a Neuralink, too. Otherwise they wont be able to absorb the signals fast enough. Well, I think you could think of it, if you were to slow down communication, how do you feel about that? If you’d only talk at, let’s say one-tenth of normal speed, you’d be like, “Wow, that’s agonizingly slow.”

4:51So, now imagine you could communicate clearly at 10, or 100, or 1,000 times faster than normal.

5:14I usually default to 1.5X. You can do 2X. Well actually, if I’m listening to somebody get to… in 15, 20 minutes, I want to go to sleep, then I’ll do it 1.5X. If I’m paying attention, I’ll do 2X.

5:32But actually, if you actually listen to podcasts, or audiobooks or anything at… If you get used to doing it at 1.5, then one sounds painfully slow.

5:53Well, it depends on the person. You can speak very fast. Like we can communicate very quickly. And also, if you use a wide range of… if your vocabulary is larger, your effective bit rate is higher.

6:07Yeah. Yeah. If there’s a single word that is able to convey something that would normally require, I don’t know, 10 simple words, then you’ve got maybe a 10X compression on your hands. And that’s really like with memes. Memes are like data compression. You’re simultaneously hit with a wide range of symbols that you can interpret, and you get it faster than if it were words, or a simple picture.

6:52Yeah. There’s an entire idea structure that is like an idea template, and then you can add something to that idea template. But somebody has that pre-existing idea template in their head. So, when you add that incremental bit of information, you’re conveying much more than if you just said a few words. It’s everything associated with that meme.

7:19Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Certainly, if you’re anywhere at 10,000 bits per second, that’s vastly faster than any human can communicate right now. If you think what is the average bits per second of a human, it is less than one bit per second over the course of a day. Because there are 86,400 seconds in a day, and you don’t communicate 86,400 tokens in a day. Therefore, your bits per second is less than one, averaged over 24 hours. It’s quite slow.

8:37Yeah. Very lossy, compression, and decompression. And a lot of what your neurons are doing is distilling the concepts down to a small number of symbols, or say syllables that I’m speaking, or keystrokes, whatever the case may be. So, that’s a lot of what your brain computation is doing. Now, there is an argument that that’s actually a healthy thing to do, or a helpful thing to do because as you try to compress complex concepts, you’re perhaps forced to distill what is most essential in those concepts, as opposed to just all the fluff. So, in the process of compression, you distill things down to what matters the most, because you can only say a few things.

10:54I think there is some argument for humans as a source of will. Will, yeah. Source of will, or purpose. So if you consider the human mind as being… Essentially there’s the primitive, limbic elements, which basically even reptiles have. And there’s the cortex, the thinking and planning part of the brain. Now, the cortex is much smarter than the limbic system, and yet is largely in service to the limbic system. It’s trying to make the limbic system happy. The sheer amount of compute that’s gone into people trying to get laid is insane, without actually seeking procreation. They’re just literally trying to do this simple motion, and they get a kick out of it. So, this simple, which in the abstract, rather absurd motion, which is sex, the cortex is putting a massive amount of compute into trying to figure out how to do that.

12:00A massive amount. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. There’s no purpose to most sex except hedonistic. It’s a sort of joy, or whatever, dopamine release. Now, once in a while, it’s procreation, but for modern humans, it’s mostly recreational. And so, your cortex, much smarter than your limbic system, is trying to make the limbic system happy, because the limbic system wants to have sex, or wants some tasty food, or whatever the case may be.

13:09Yeah. There’s like gigawatts of compute going into getting laid, of digital compute. This is happening as we speak. Pretty much. Well, it’s one of the things. Certainly, yeah. But what I’m saying is that, yes, is there a use for humans? Well, there’s this fundamental question of what’s the meaning of life? Why do anything at all? And so, if our simple limbic system provides a source of will to do something, that then goes through our cortex, that then goes to our tertiary compute layer, then I don’t know, it might actually be that the AI, in a benign scenario, is simply trying to make the human limbic system happy.

14:11That’s limbic too, I think. Not everybody does. But yeah, sure, some people do.

14:37Sure. Yeah. There are these fairly cerebral, or higher level goals. For me, it’s like, what’s the meaning of life, or understanding the nature of the universe, is of great interest to me, and hopefully to the AI. And that’s the mission of xAI and Grok is understand the universe.

15:27Well, assuming that there are not… They’re solving basic neurological issues that people have. If they’ve got damaged neurons in their spinal cord, or neck, as is the case with our first two patients, then obviously the first order of business is solving fundamental neuron damage in a spinal cord, neck, or in the brain itself. So, our second product is called Blindsight, which is to enable people who are completely blind, lost both eyes, or optic nerve, or just can’t see at all, to be able to see by directly triggering the neurons in the visual cortex.

17:02So, do you have letters and the alphabet? Okay, great. Words? And then eventually you get sagas. So, I think there may be some things to worry about in the future, but the first several years are really just solving basic neurological damage, like for people who have essentially complete or near complete loss from the brain to the body, like Stephen Hawking would be an example, the Neuralink would be incredibly profound, because you can imagine if Stephen Hawking could communicate as fast as we’re communicating, perhaps faster. And that’s certainly possible. Probable, in fact. Likely, I’d say.

17:58The logical thing to do is… Sensible thing to do is to start off solving basic neuron damage issues.

18:11Because there’s obviously some risk with a new device. You can’t get the risk down to zero, it’s not possible. So, you want to have the highest possible reward, given there’s a certain irreducible risk. And if somebody’s able to have a profound improvement in their communication, that’s worth the risk.

18:36Yeah. As you get the risk down. And once the risk is down to… If you have thousands of people that have been using it for years and the risk is minimal, then perhaps at that point you could consider saying, “Okay, let’s aim for augmentation.” Now, I think we’re actually going to aim for augmentation with people who have neuron damage. So we’re not just aiming to give people the communication data rate equivalent to normal humans. We’re aiming to give people who have… A quadriplegic, or maybe have complete loss of the connection to the brain and body, a communication data rate that exceeds normal humans. While we’re in there, why not? Let’s give people superpowers.

19:27Yeah. At first, the vision restoration will be low res, because you have to say, “How many neurons can you put in there, and trigger?” And you can do things where you adjust the electric field. So, even if you’ve got, say 10,000 neurons, it’s not just 10,000 pixels, because you can adjust the field between the neurons, and do them in patterns in order to have say, 10,000 electrodes, effectively give you, I don’t know, maybe like having a megapixel, or a 10 megapixel situation. And then over time, I think you get to higher resolution than human eyes. And you could also see in different wavelengths. So, like Geordi La Forge from Star Trek, he had the thing. Do you want to see it in radar? No problem. You could see ultraviolet, infrared, eagle vision, whatever you want.

20:35Is that a serious question? Well, I guess technically it is. Yeah. Yeah, is this DMT in there, or something? Wait, wait. Have you said much about it, the ayahuasca stuff? Okay. Well, why don’t you spill the beans? Let me turn the tables on you. You’re in the jungle. Yeah. It must’ve been crazy.

21:13Things are going to look pretty wild. Just don’t go hugging an Anaconda or something. Snakes and Ladders. Okay. Damn. Okay. That sounds like a lot. Is normal to just one cup? Or… Okay. Wait. Like right off the bat, or did you work your way up to it? Did you just jump in at the deep end?

21:59It wasn’t like a revelation. Nine cups, you went to Pluto, I think. Deep space. That’s what people [inaudible 00:22:26]. That’s what everyone says. Yeah, exactly. Just a pure soul.

22:52That’s cool. That sounds awesome. When’s the demon coming? Space travel to where? Okay.

23:49Did you go past the Milky Way? Okay. You’re like intergalactic. Okay. Dang. Sure. Did you see an alien?

24:15Zero aliens? Sounds good. Was there anything scary at all? Sure. Like Puff the Magic Dragon. Yeah. I mean, the jungle’s kind of scary. Sure. Okay.

25:39And you were way out in the jungle. Like 10 miles outside of Rio or something. You’re in deep Amazon. Wow. Cool. Probably. Yeah.

26:18Yeah, I mean, Neuralink, it’s really a generalized input-output device. It’s reading electrical signals, and generating electrical signals, and I mean, everything that you’ve ever experienced in your whole life, smell, emotions, all of those are electrical signals. So, it’s kind of weird to think that your entire life experience is distilled down to electrical signals for neurons, but that is in fact the case. Or I mean, that’s at least what all the evidence points to. So, I mean, if you trigger the right neuron, you could trigger a particular scent. You could certainly make things glow. I mean, do pretty much anything. I mean, really, you can think of the brain as a biological computer.

26:18So, if there are certain say, chips or elements of that biological computer that are broken, let’s say your ability to… If you’ve got a stroke, that if you’ve had a stroke, that means some part of your brain is damaged. Let’s say it’s speech generation, or the ability to move your left hand. That’s the kind of thing that a Neuralink could solve.

28:30Yeah, you could say like, create the most probable set of memories based on all the information you have about that person. You could then… It would be probabilistic restoration of memory. Now, we’re getting pretty esoteric here.

28:53Sure. Yeah. Well, I mean, what are we but our memories? And what is death? But the loss of memory, loss of information? If you could say, well, if you could run a thought experiment, what if you were disintegrated painlessly, and then reintegrated a moment later, like teleportation, I guess? Provided there’s no information loss, the fact that your one body was disintegrated is irrelevant.

29:43Death is fundamentally the loss of information, the loss of memory. Yeah.

30:13It’s an idea that may help with AI safety. Certainly, I wouldn’t want to claim it’s some panacea, or that it’s a sure thing, but I mean, many years ago I was thinking like, “Well, what would inhibit alignment of collective human will with artificial intelligence?” And the low data rate of humans, especially our slow output rate would necessarily, just because the communication is so slow, would diminish the link between humans and computers. The more you are a tree, the less you know what the tree is. Let’s say you look at this plant or whatever, and hey, I’d really like to make that plant happy, but it’s not saying a lot.

31:21Yeah. We could better align collective human will with AI if the output rate especially was dramatically increased. And I think there’s potential to increase the output rate by, I don’t know, three, maybe six, maybe more orders of magnitude. So, it’s better than the current situation.

31:49Yeah. Yeah, I do. Yeah. If it’s extremely safe, and you can have superhuman abilities, and let’s say you can upload your memories, so you wouldn’t lose memories, then I think probably a lot of people would choose to have it. It would supersede the cell phone, for example. I mean, the biggest problem that say, a phone has, is trying to figure out what you want. That’s why you’ve got auto complete, and you’ve got output, which is all the pixels on the screen, but from the perspective of the human, the output is so frigging slow. Desktop or phone is desperately just trying to understand what you want. And there’s an eternity between every keystroke from a computer standpoint.

33:12Yeah. So, if you had computers that are doing trillions of instructions per second, and a whole second went by, I mean, that’s a trillion things it could have done.

33:35Yeah. We would be something different. I mean, some sort of futuristic cyborg, I mean, we’re obviously talking about, by the way, it’s not like around the corner. You asked me what the distant future is. Maybe this is… It’s not super far away, but 10, 15 years, that kind of thing.

34:02Probably less than 10 years. It depends on what you want to do. A thousand BPS, wow.

34:26Well, we feel pretty confident that I think maybe within the next year or two, that someone with a Neuralink implant will be able to outperform a pro gamer.

34:41Because the reaction time would be faster. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For AI, that means you’ve got to have the most powerful training compute, and the rate of improvement of training compute has to be- And the rate of improvement of training compute has to be faster than everyone else, or you will not win. Your AI will be worse.

35:15Well, hopefully end of this year. If we’re lucky. Yeah. I mean, they all matter. It’s sort of like saying, let’s say it’s a Formula 1 race, what matters more, the car or the driver? I mean, they both matter. If a car is not fast, then if, let’s say, it’s half the horsepower of your competitors, the best driver will still lose. If it’s twice the horsepower, then probably even a mediocre driver will still win. So, the training compute is kind of like the engine, this horsepower of the engine. So, really, you want to try to do the best on that. And then, it’s how efficiently do you use that training compute, and how efficiently do you do the inference, the use of the AI? So, obviously, that comes down to human talent. And then, what unique access to data do you have? That also plays a role.

36:31Yeah. I mean, I think most of the leading AI companies have already scraped all the Twitter data. Not I think. They have. So, on a go forward basis, what’s useful is the fact that it’s up to the second, because that’s hard for them to scrape in real time. So, there’s an immediacy advantage that Grok has already. I think with Tesla and the real time video coming from several million cars, ultimately tens of millions of cars with Optimus, there might be hundreds of millions of Optimus robots, maybe billions, learning a tremendous amount from the real world. That’s the biggest source of data, I think, ultimately, is Optimus, probably. Optimus is going to be the biggest source of data.

37:22Because reality scales. Reality scales to the scale of reality. It’s actually humbling to see how little data humans have actually been able to accumulate. Really, if you say how many trillions of usable tokens have humans generated, where on a non-duplicative… Discounting spam and repetitive stuff, it’s not a huge number. You run out pretty quickly.

38:00Right. Yeah. I mean, the Optimus robot can pick up the cup and see, did it pick up the cup in the right way? Did it, say, go pour water in the cup? Did the water go in the cup or not go in the cups? Did it spill water or not? Simple stuff like that. But it can do that at scale times a billion, so generate useful data from reality, so cause and effect stuff.

38:40It’s the same as cars, really. I mean, global capacity for vehicles is about 100 million a year, and it could be higher. It’s just that the demand is on the order of 100 million a year. And then, there’s roughly two billion vehicles that are in use in some way, which makes sense because the life of a vehicle is about 20 years. So, at steady state, you can have 100 million vehicles produced a year with a two billion vehicle fleet, roughly. Now, for humanoid robots, the utility is much greater. So, my guess is humanoid robots are more like at a billion plus per year.

39:20Well, I think it is. Yes. So, a walk in the park. I mean, Optimus, currently, would struggle to walk in the park. I mean, it can walk in a park. The park is not too difficult, but it will be able to walk over a wide range of terrain.

39:45Yeah, yeah. It can already do that. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, there’s going to be an immense amount of engineering just going into the hand. The hand, it might be close to half of all the engineering in Optimus. From an electromechanical standpoint, the hand is probably roughly half of the engineering.

40:21Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you start really thinking about your hand and how it works. The sensory control homunculus is where you have humongous hands. So I mean, your hands, the actuators, the muscles of your hand are almost overwhelmingly in your forearm. So, your forearm has the muscles that actually control your hand. There’s a few small muscles in the hand itself, but your hand is really like a skeleton meat puppet and with cables. So, the muscles that control your fingers are in your forearm, and they go through the carpal tunnel, which is that you’ve got a little collection of bones and a tiny tunnel that these cables, the tendons go through, and those tendons are mostly what move your hands.

41:26Yeah. So the current Optimus, we tried putting the actuators in the hand itself. Then you sort of end up having these- … yeah, giant hands that look weird. And then, they don’t actually have enough degrees of freedom or enough strength. So then you realize, “Oh, okay, that’s why you got to put the actuators in the forearm.” And just like a human, you’ve got to run cables through a narrow tunnel to operate the fingers. And then, there’s also a reason for not having all the fingers the same length. So, it wouldn’t be expensive from an energy or evolutionary standpoint to have all your fingers be the same length. So, why not do the same length?

42:04Because it’s actually better to have different lengths. Your dexterity is better if you’ve got fingers that are different lengths. There are more things you can do and your dexterity is actually better if your fingers are a different length. There’s a reason we’ve got a little finger. Why not have a little finger that’s bigger?

42:22Because it helps you with fine motor skills. It does. But if you lost your little finger, you’d have noticeably less dexterity.

42:42It’s actually going to be quite complicated. The as possible part is it’s quite a high bar. If you want to have a humanoid robot that can do things that a human can do, actually, it’s a very high bar. So, our new arm has 22 degrees of freedom instead of 11 and has, like I said, the actuators in the forearm. And all the actuators are designed from scratch, from physics first principles. The sensors are all designed from scratch. And we’ll continue to put a tremendous amount of engineering effort into improving the hand. By hand, I mean the entire forearm, from elbow forward, is really the hand. So, that’s incredibly difficult engineering, actually. And so, the simplest possible version of a humanoid robot that can do even most, perhaps not all, of what a human can do is actually still very complicated. It’s not simple. It’s very difficult.

44:08Well, it’s easy to say ‘simplify,’ and it’s very difficult to do it. I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run kind of as a mantra, which is to first question the requirements, make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree. So, you want to start off by reducing the number of requirements, and no matter how smart the person is who gave you those requirements, they’re still dumb to some degree. You have to start there, because, otherwise, you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question. So, try to make the question the least wrong possible. That’s what question the requirements means.

46:14Yeah. First try to delete it. Yeah. No. Actually, what generally makes people uneasy is that at least some of the things that you delete, you will put back in. But going back to sort of where our limbic system can steer us wrong is that we tend to remember, with sometimes a jarring level of pain, where we deleted something that we subsequently needed. And so, people will remember that one time they forgot to put in this thing three years ago, and that caused them trouble. And so, they overcorrect, and then they put too much stuff in there and overcomplicate things. So, you actually have to say, “Look, we’re deliberately going to delete more than we should.” At least one in 10 things, we’re going to add back in.

47:18Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. And I tell them in advance, “Yeah, some of the things that we delete, we’re going to put back in.” People get a little shook by that, but it makes sense because if you’re so conservative as to never have to put anything back in, you obviously have a lot of stuff that isn’t needed. So, you got to overcorrect. This is, I would say, like a cortical override to a limbic instinct.

47:50Yeah. There’s a step four as well, which is any given thing can be sped up. However fast you think it can be done, whatever the speed it’s being done, it can be done faster. But you shouldn’t speed things up until you’ve tried to delete it and optimize. Although, you’re speeding up something that… Speeding up something that shouldn’t exist is absurd.

48:35Yeah. Yeah, it’s very. It’s like, “Wow, I really wasted a lot of effort there.” Well, yeah, it’s not working yet, so I don’t want to pop the champagne corks. In fact, I have a call in a few hours with the Memphis team because we’re having some power fluctuation issues. So yeah, when you do synchronized training, when you have all these computers that are training, where the training is synchronized at the millisecond level, it’s like having an orchestra. And the orchestra can go loud to silent very quickly at subsecond level, and then, the electrical system freaks out about that. If you suddenly see giant shifts, 10, 20 megawatts several times a second, this is not what electrical systems are expecting to see.

49:56Yeah. So, today’s problem is dealing with extreme power jitter. Yeah. Last week. Yeah. Yeah. We finally got training going at, oddly enough, roughly 4:20 a.m. last Monday. Yeah. I mean, maybe it was at 4:22 or something. Yeah. Well, exactly. It just loves it.

50:52Yeah. So, look, whatever the people at the front lines are doing, I try to do it at least a few times myself. So connecting fiber optic cables, diagnosing a faulty connection. That tends to be the limiting factor for large training clusters is the cabling. There’s so many cables. For a coherent training system, where you’ve got RDMA, remote direct memory access, the whole thing is like one giant brain. So, you’ve got any-to-any connection. So, any GPU can talk to any GPU out of 100,000. That is a crazy cable layout.

51:39Yeah. Yeah. But, I mean, the human brain also has… A massive amount of the brain tissue is the cables. So they get the gray matter, which is the compute, and then the white matter, which is cables. A big percentage of your brain is just cables.

52:22It’s possible. What do you define as AGI? Just keep moving the goalposts? Oh, yeah. Well, I think that, generally, people would call that ASI, artificial super intelligence. But there are these thresholds where you could say at some point the AI is smarter than any single human. And then, you’ve got eight billion humans, and actually, each human is machine augmented via their computers. So, it’s a much higher bar to compete with eight billion machine augmented humans. That’s a whole bunch of orders of magnitude more. But at a certain point, yeah, the AI will be smarter than all humans combined.

53:35Yeah, absolutely. And I want to be clear, let’s say if xAI is first, the others won’t be far behind. I mean, they might be six months behind, or a year, maybe. Not even that.

54:00So, I mean, I thought about AI, essentially, for a long time, and the thing that at least my biological neural net comes up with as being the most important thing is adherence to truth, whether that truth is politically correct or not. So, I think if you force AIs to lie or train them to lie, you’re really asking for trouble, even if that lie is done with good intentions. So, you saw issues with ChatGPT and Gemini and whatnot. Like, you asked Gemini for an image of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and it shows a group of diverse women. Now, that’s factually untrue.

57:30Yeah. Yet they’re real examples of- … AI that was released to the public. That went through QA, presumably, and still said insane things, and produced insane images. No, it’s not. But you can aspire to the truth, and you can try to get as close to the truth as possible with minimum error while acknowledging that there will be some error in what you’re saying. So, this is how physics works. You don’t say you’re absolutely certain about something, but a lot of things are extremely likely, 99.99999% likely to be true. So, aspiring to the truth is very important. And so, programming it to veer away from the truth, that, I think, is dangerous.

58:44And the internet, at this point, is polluted with so much AI generated data, it’s insane. Actually, there’s a thing now, if you want to search the internet, you can say, “Google, but exclude anything after 2023.” It will actually often give you better results because there’s so much. The explosion of AI generated material is crazy. So in training Grok, we have to go through the data and say like, “Hey…” We actually have to apply AI to the data to say, “Is this data most likely correct or most likely not?” before we feed it into the training system.

59:37Yeah. Grok 3 is going to be next level. I mean, what people are currently seeing with Grok is kind of baby Grok. It’s baby Grok right now. But baby Grok is still pretty good. But it’s an order of magnitude less sophisticated than GPT-4. It’s now Grok 2, which finished training, I don’t know, six weeks ago or thereabouts. Grok 2 will be a giant improvement. And then Grok 3 will be, I don’t know, order of magnitude better than Grok 2.

1:00:25Hopefully. I mean, this is the goal. I mean, we may fail at this goal. That’s the aspiration.

1:00:42Yeah. I think it’s important that whatever AI wins, it’s a maximum truth seeking AI that is not forced to lie for political correctness, or, well, for any reason, really, political, anything. I am concerned about AI succeeding that is programmed to lie, even in small ways.

1:01:17To become very big ways. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Yeah, sure. I’ll stop in.

1:01:47Well, I think people tend to take, say, an endorsement as, well, I agree with everything that person has ever done their entire life 100% wholeheartedly, and that’s not going to be true of anyone. But we have to pick. We’ve got two choices, really, for who’s president. And it’s not just who’s president, but the entire administrative structure changes over. And I thought Trump displayed courage under fire, objectively. He’s just got shot. He’s got blood streaming down his face, and he’s fist pumping, saying, “Fight.” That’s impressive. You can’t feign bravery in a situation like that. Most people would be ducking because there could be a second shooter. You don’t know.

1:04:58I mean, there’s a sort of age-old debate in history, like is history determined by these fundamental tides, or is it determined by the captain of the ship? It’s both, really. I mean, there are tides, but it also matters who’s captain of the ship. So, it’s a false dichotomy, essentially. I mean, there are certainly tides, the tides of history. There are real tides of history, and these tides are often technologically driven. If you say like the Gutenberg press, the widespread availability of books as a result of a printing press, that was a massive tide of history, and independent of any ruler. But in stormy times, you want the best possible captain of the ship.

1:06:01The Lessons of History. Yeah. Yeah, over the years. Yeah. Well, I mean in terms of dating civilization, the start of civilization, I think the start of writing, in my view, that’s what I think is probably the right starting point to date civilization. And from that standpoint, civilization has been around for about 5,500 years when writing was invented by the ancient Sumerians, who are gone now, but the ancient Sumerians. In terms of getting a lot of firsts, those ancient Sumerians really have a long list of firsts. It’s pretty wild. In fact, Durant goes through the list of like, “You want to see firsts? We’ll show you firsts.” The Sumerians were just ass kickers.

1:08:17Very early. Many. So many rises and falls of empires. So many. Yeah, exactly. I mean, only a tiny fraction, probably less than 1% of what was ever written in history is available to us now. I mean, if they didn’t literally chisel it in stone or put it in a clay tablet, we don’t have it. I mean, there’s some small amount of papyrus scrolls that were recovered that are thousands of years old, because they were deep inside a pyramid and weren’t affected by moisture. But other than that, it’s really got to be in a clay tablet or chiseled. So, the vast majority of stuff was not chiseled because it takes a while to chisel things. So, that’s why we’ve got tiny, tiny fraction of the information from history. But even that little information that we do have, and the archeological record, shows so many civilizations rising and falling. It’s wild.

1:09:31Yeah. I mean, the basics of human nature are more or less the same. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you do tend to see the same patterns, similar patterns for civilizations, where they go through a life cycle, like an organism, just like a human is a zygote, fetus, baby, toddler, teenager, eventually gets old.

1:10:01… Eventually gets old and dies. The civilizations go through a life cycle. No civilization will last forever.

1:10:28Well, the single biggest thing that is often actually not mentioned in history books, but Durant does mention it, is the birthright. So perhaps to some, a counterintuitive thing happens when civilizations are winning for too long, the birth rate declines. It can often decline quite rapidly. We’re seeing that throughout the world today. Currently, South Korea is, I think maybe the lowest fertility rate, but there are many others that are close to it. It’s like 0.8 I think. If the birth rate doesn’t decline further, South Korea will lose roughly 60% of its population. But every year that birth rate is dropping, and this is true through most of the world. I don’t mean to single out South Korea, it’s been happening throughout the world. So as soon as any given civilization reaches a level of prosperity, the birth rate drops.

1:12:49Well, I’m saying that’s- At a fundamental level, if a civilization does not at least maintain its numbers, it’ll disappear.

1:13:07Well, I mean there’s this hedonistic sex, which is… That’s neither her nor there. It’s- It doesn’t produce kids. Well, what matters… I mean, Durant makes this very clear because he’s looked at one civilization after another and they all went through the same cycle. When the civilization was under stress, the birth rate was high. But as soon as there were no external enemies or they had an extended period of prosperity, the birth rate inevitably dropped. Every time. I don’t believe there’s a single exception.

1:13:49Yeah. I mean, at a base level, no humans, no humanity. Yeah, absolutely. But at a basic level, if you do not at least maintain your numbers, if you’re below replacement rate and that trend continues, you will eventually disappear. It’s just elementary. Now then obviously you also want to try to avoid massive wars. If there’s a global thermonuclear war, probably we’re all toast, radioactive toast. So we want to try to avoid those things. Then there’s a thing that happens over time with any given civilization, which is that the laws and regulations accumulate. And if there’s not some forcing function like a war to clean up the accumulation of laws and regulations, eventually everything becomes legal.

1:15:57I have discussed with Trump the idea of a government deficiency commission. And I would be willing to be part of that commission. The antibody reaction would be very strong. So you really have to… You’re attacking the matrix at that point. The matrix will fight back.

1:16:29Me? Attacked? Yeah, there is a lot. I mean, every day another psyop. I need my tinfoil hat.

1:16:55Oh yeah, that’s a daily occurrence. So I mean, it does get me down at times. I mean, it makes me sad. But I mean at some point you have to sort of say, look, the attacks are by people that actually don’t know me and they’re trying to generate clicks. So if you can sort of detach yourself somewhat emotionally, which is not easy, and say, okay look, this is not actually from someone that knows me or, they’re literally just writing to get impressions and clicks. Then I guess it doesn’t hurt as much. It’s not quite water off a duck’s back. Maybe it’s like acid off a duck’s back.

1:17:58A measure of success, I’d say, how many useful things can I get done? Yeah, maximize utility, area under the code of usefulness. Very difficult to be useful at scale.

1:18:28Well, time is the true currency. So it is tough to say what is the best allocation time? I mean, there are often… Say if you look at say Tesla, Tesla this year will do over a hundred billion in revenue. So that’s $2 billion a week. If I make slightly better decisions, I can affect the outcome by a billion dollars. So then I try to do the best decisions I can. And on balance, at least compared to the competition, pretty good decisions. But the marginal value of a better decision can easily be, in the course of an hour, a hundred million dollars.

1:19:29Yeah. Well, I think you have to look at it on a percentage basis because if you look at it in absolute terms, it’s just… I would never get any sleep. It would just be like, I need to just keep working and work my brain harder. And I’m not trying to get as much as possible out of this meat computer. So it’s not… It’s pretty hard, because you can just work all the time. And at any given point, like I said, a slightly better decision could be a hundred million dollars impact for Tesla or SpaceX for that matter. But it is wild when considering the marginal value of time can be a hundred million dollars an hour at times, or more.

1:20:22It has to be to some degree. If I’m sad, if I’m depressed, I make worse decisions. So if I have zero recreational time, then I make worse decisions. So I don’t know a lot, but it’s above zero. I mean, my motivation if I’ve got a religion of any kind is a religion of curiosity, of trying to understand. It’s really the mission of Grok, understand the universe. I’m trying to understand the universe, or at least set things in motion such that at some point civilization understands the universe far better than we do today.

1:24:44Digital super intelligence is possibly a great filter. I hope it isn’t, but it might be. Guys like say Jeff Hinton would say, he invented a number of the key principles in artificial intelligence. I think he puts the probability of AI annihilation around 10% to 20%, something like that. So look on the bright side, it’s 80% likely to be great. But I think AI risk mitigation is important. Being a multi-planet species would be a massive risk mitigation. And I do want to once again emphasize the importance of having enough children to sustain our numbers, and not plummet into population collapse, which is currently happening. Population collapse is a real and current thing.

1:26:49Great. Hope you do. No time like the present. No, it’s like unskilled labor.

1:27:45There will be billions of robots. That seems virtual certainty.

1:28:00You’re welcome. Go forth and multiply.