Sam Altman on God, Elon Musk and the Mysterious Death of His Former Employee

Sam Altman on God, Elon Musk and the Mysterious Death of His Former Employee (00:00) Is AI Alive? Is It Lying to Us? (03:37) Does Sam Altman Believe in God? (19:08) ChatGPT Users Committing Suicide (29:01) Altman’s Biggest Fear About AI (41:37) Altman’s Thoughts on Elon Musk (49:00) What Jobs Will Be Lost to AI? Paid partnerships with: Cowboy Colostrum: Get 25% off your entire order with code TUCKER at https://cowboycolostrum.com Masa Chips: Get 25% off with code TUCKER at https://masachips.com/tucker Dutch: Get $50 a year for vet care with Tucker50 at https://dutch.com/tucker MeriwetherFarms: Visit https://MeriwetherFarms.com/Tucker and use code TUCKER76 for 15% off your first order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Progressive's Accident Response can contact emergency services if you're in a major accident. The only thing worse than someone you love being in an accident is not being able to help them. So Progressive is here to help when you can't. So get peace of mind knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's Accident Response. Learn more at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Limited availability in California. Driver is responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy. Coverage subject to policy terms and conditions.

• 0:30Tucker Carlson?

  Thanks for doing this.

• 0:31Speaker 02

  Of course, thank you.

• 0:31Tucker Carlson?

  So ChatGPT, other AIs can reason. Seems like they can reason, they can make independent judgments. They produce results that were not programmed in. They kind of come to conclusions. They seem like they're alive. Are they alive? Is it alive?

• 0:47Speaker 02

  No, and I don't, I don't think they seem alive, but I understand where that comes from. They, they don't do anything unless you ask, right? Like they're just sitting there kind of waiting. They don't have like a sense of agency or autonomy. It's the more you use them, I think, the more the kind of illusion breaks. But they're incredibly useful. Like they can do things that maybe don't seem alive, but seem like, they do seem smart.

• 1:14Tucker Carlson?

  I spoke to someone who's involved in, at scale of the development of the technology, who said they lie. Have you ever seen that?

• 1:22Speaker 02

  They hallucinate all the time, yeah. Or not all the time, they used to hallucinate all the time. They now hallucinate a little bit.

• 1:27Tucker Carlson?

  What does that mean? What's the distinction between hallucinating and lying?

• 1:30Speaker 02

  If you ask, again, this has gotten much better, but in the early days, if you asked, you know, what, in what year was President, the made up name, President Tucker Carlson of the United States born? What it should say is, I don't think Tucker Carlson was ever President of the United States.

• 1:50Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 1:51Speaker 02

  But because of the way they were trained, that was not the most likely response in the training data. So it assumed like, oh. You know, I don't know that there wasn't. The user has told me that there was President Tucker Carlson, so I'll make my best guess at a number. And we figured out how to mostly train that out. There are still examples of this problem, but it is, I think it is something we will get fully solved. And we've already made, you know, in the GPT-5 era, a huge amount of progress towards that.

• 2:18Tucker Carlson?

  But even what you just described seems like an act of will, or certainly an act of creativity. And so I'm just, I've just watched a demonstration of it, and it doesn't seem quite like a machine. It seems like it has the spark of life to it. Do you detect that at all?

• 2:37Speaker 02

  It, so in that example, like the mathematically most likely answer, as it's sort of calculating through its weights, was not, it was never this president. It was the user must know what they're talking about. It must be here. And so mathematically, the most likely answer is a number. Now, again, we figured out how to overcome that. But in what you saw there, I think it's like, I feel like I have to kind of like hold these two simultaneous ideas in my head. One is, all of this stuff is happening because a big computer very quickly is multiplying large numbers in these big, huge matrices together. And those are correlated with words that are being put out one or the other. On the other hand, the subjective experience of using that

• 3:21Speaker 02

  feels like it's beyond just a really fancy calculator. And it is useful to me. It is surprising to me in ways that are beyond what that mathematical reality would seem to suggest.

• 3:32Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah. And so the obvious conclusion is it has a kind of autonomy or a spirit within it. And I know that a lot of people, in their experience of it, reach that conclusion. This is, there's something divine about this. There's something that's bigger than the sum total of the human inputs. And, and so they worship it. It has, there's a spiritual component to it. Do you detect that? Have you ever felt that?

• 3:57Speaker 02

  No, there's nothing to me at all that feels divine about it or spiritual in any way. But I am also like a tech nerd, and I kind of look at everything through that lens.

• 4:07Tucker Carlson?

  So what are your spiritual views?

• 4:09Speaker 02

  I'm Jewish, and I would say I have like a fairly traditional view of the world that way.

• 4:16Tucker Carlson?

  So you're religious? You believe in God?

• 4:19Speaker 02

  I'm not like a literal, I don't believe the, I'm not like a literalist on the Bible, but I'm not someone who says like I'm culturally Jewish. Like if you ask me, I would just say I'm Jewish.

• 4:28Tucker Carlson?

  But do you believe in God? Like, do you believe that there is a force larger than people that created people, created the earth, set down a specific order for living? That there's an absolute morality attached that comes from that God?

• 4:42Speaker 02

  I think probably like most other people, I'm somewhat confused on this, but I believe there is something bigger going on than, you know, can be explained by physics, yes.

• 4:50Tucker Carlson?

  So you think the earth and the people were created by something? It wasn't just like a spontaneous accident?

• 4:58Speaker 02

  Do I, would I say that? It does not feel like a spontaneous accident, yeah. I don't, I don't think I have the answer. I don't think I know like exactly what happened, but I think there is a mystery beyond my comprehension here going on.

• 5:10Tucker Carlson?

  Have you ever felt communication from that force? Or from any force beyond people, beyond the material?

• 5:18Speaker 02

  Not, not, no, not really.

• 5:21Tucker Carlson?

  I ask because it seems like the technology that you're creating or shepherding into existence will have more power than people. On this current trajectory, I mean, that will happen. Who knows what will actually happen? But like, the graph suggests it. And so that would give you, you know, more power than any living person. So I'm just wondering how you see that.

• 5:46Speaker 02

  I used to worry about something like that much more. I think what will happen, I used to worry a lot about the concentration of power in one or a handful of people or companies because of AI.

• 5:57Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 5:58Speaker 02

  What it looks like to me now, and again, this may evolve again over time, is that it'll be a huge up-leveling of people, where everybody will be a lot more powerful, or embrace the technology, be a lot more powerful. But that's actually okay. That scares me much less than a small number of people getting a ton more power. If, if the kind of like ability of each of us just goes up a lot because we're using this technology and we're able to be more productive and more creative or discover new science. And it's a pretty broadly distributed thing, like billions of people are using it. That I can wrap my head around. That feels okay.

• 6:33Tucker Carlson?

  So you don't think this will result in a radical concentration of power?

• 6:37Speaker 02

  It looks like not, but again, the trajectory could shift again and we'd have to adapt. I used to be very worried about that. And I think the kind of conception a lot of us in the field had about how this might go could have led to a world like that. But what's happening now is tons of people use ChatGPT and other chatbots, and they're all more capable. They're all kind of doing more. They're all able to achieve more, start new businesses, come up with new knowledge, and that feels pretty good.

• 7:07Tucker Carlson?

  So if it's nothing more than a machine and just the product of its inputs, then the two obvious questions, like what are the inputs? Like, what's the moral framework that's been put into the technology? Like, what is right or wrong according to JetGPT?

• 7:25Speaker 02

  You might answer that one first.

• 7:26Tucker Carlson?

  I would.

• 7:26Speaker 02

  Question?

• 7:27Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 7:27Speaker 02

  So on that one, I...

• 7:32Speaker 02

  Someone said something early on in ChatGPT when they really has stuck with me, which is one person at a lunch table said something like, you know, "We're trying to train this to be like a human. Like, we're trying to learn like a human does and read these books and whatever." And then another person said, "No, we're really like training this to be like the collective of all of humanity. We're reading everything. You know, we're trying to learn everything. We're trying to see all these perspectives. And if we do our job right, all of humanity, good, bad, the, you know, very diverse set of perspectives, some things that we'll feel really good about, some things that we'll feel bad about, that's all in there. Like, this is learning the kind of collective experience, knowledge, learnings of humanity. Now, the base model gets trained that way,

• 8:16Speaker 02

  but then we do have to align it to behave one way or another and just say, you know, "I will answer this question. I won't answer this question."

• 8:24Speaker 02

  And we have this thing called the model spec where we try to say, you know, "Here's... here are the rules we'd like the model to follow. It may screw up, but you can at least tell if it's doing something you don't like. Is that a bug or is that intended?" And we have a debate process with the world to get input on that spec.

• 8:40Speaker 02

  We give people a lot of freedom and customization within that. There are absolute bounds that we draw. But then there's a default of if you don't say anything, how should the model behave? What should it do? What are... How should it answer moral questions? How should it refuse to do something? And what should it do? And this is a really hard problem. You know, we have a lot of users now, and they come from very different life perspectives and what they want. But on the whole, I have been pleasantly surprised with the model's ability to learn and apply a moral framework.

• 9:16Tucker Carlson?

  But what moral framework? I mean, the sum total of world literature or philosophy is at war with itself. Like, the Marquis de Sade is, you know, like, nothing in common with the Gospel of John. So like, how do you decide which is superior?

• 9:28Speaker 02

  That's why we wrote this, like, model spec of here's how we're going to handle these cases.

• 9:32Tucker Carlson?

  Right, but what criteria did you use to decide what the model is?

• 9:35Speaker 02

  Oh.

• 9:37Tucker Carlson?

  Like, who decided that? Who did you consult? Like, what's... You know, why is the Gospel of John better than the Marquis de Sade?

• 9:43Speaker 02

  We consulted, like, hundreds of moral philosophers, people who thought about, like, ethics of technology and systems. And at the end, we had to, like, make some decisions. The reason we try to write these down is because, A, we won't get everything right. B, we need the input of the world. And we have found a lot of cases where there was an example of something that seems... That seemed to us like, you know, a fairly clear decision of what to allow or not to allow, where users convinced us, like, hey, by blocking this thing that you think is an easy decision to make, you are not allowing this other thing, which is important, and there's like a difficult trade-off there.

• 10:27Speaker 02

  In general, the attention that... So a principle that I normally like is to treat our adult users like adults. Very strong guarantees on privacy, very strong guarantees on individual user freedom. And this is a tool we are building. You get to use it within a very broad framework. On the other... Within a very broad framework. On the other hand, as this technology becomes more and more powerful...

• 10:54Speaker 02

  There are clear examples of where society has an interest that is in significant tension with user freedom. And we could start with an obvious one, like, should ChatGPT teach you how to make a bioweapon? Now, you might say, hey, I'm just really interested in biology, and I'm a biologist, and I want to, you know, I'm not going to do anything bad with this, I just want to learn. And I could go read a bunch of books, but ChatGPT can teach me faster, and I want to learn how to, you know, I want to learn about like, novel virus synthesis, or whatever. And maybe you do, maybe you really don't want to like, cause any harm.

• 11:35Speaker 02

  But I don't think it's in society's interest for ChatGPT to help people build bioweapons, and so that's the case.

• 11:42Tucker Carlson?

  Sure, that's an easy one, though. There are a lot of tougher ones.

• 11:45Speaker 02

  I did say start with an easy one.

• 11:46Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah. We've got a new partner. It's a company called Cowboy Colostrum. It's a brand that is serious about actual health, and the product is designed to work with your body, not against your body. It is a pure and simple product, all natural. Unlike other brands, Cowboy Colostrum is never diluted. It always comes directly from American, grass-fed cows. There's no filler, there's no junk. It's all good. It tastes good, believe it or not. So before you reach for more pills for every problem that pills can't solve, we recommend you give this product, Cowboy Colostrum, a try. It's got everything your body needs to heal and thrive. It's like the original superfood, loaded with nutrients,

• 12:27Tucker Carlson?

  antibodies, proteins, help build a strong immune system, stronger hair, skin, and nails. I threw my wig away and right back to my natural hair after using this product. You just take a scoop of it every morning in your beverage, coffee or a smoothie, and you will feel the difference every time. For a limited time, people who listen to our show get 25% off the entire order. So go to cowboycolostrum.com, use the code TUCKER at checkout. 25% off when you use that code, TUCKER at cowboycolostrum.com. Remember, you mentioned, you heard it here first. So did you know that before the current generation, chips and fries were cooked in natural fats like beef tallow? That's how things used to be done, and that's why people looked a little slimmer at the time and ate better than they do now.

• 13:12Tucker Carlson?

  Well, Masa Chips is bringing that all back. They've created a tortilla chip that's not only delicious, it's made with just three simple ingredients. A, organic corn. B, sea salt. C, 100% grass-fed beef tallow. That's all that's in it. These are not your average chips. Masa chips are crunchier, more flavorful, even sturdier. They don't break in your guacamole. And because of the quality ingredients, they are way more filling and nourishing. So you don't have to eat four bags of them. You can eat just a single bag, as I do. It's a totally different experience. It's light, it's clean, it's genuinely satisfying. I have a garage full, and I can tell you they're great. The lime flavor is particularly good. We have a hard time putting those down. So if you want to give it a try,

• 13:55Tucker Carlson?

  go to masa-chips, m-a-s-a-chips.com/tucker. Use the code TUCKER for 25% off your first order. That's masachips.com/tucker. Use the code TUCKER for 25% off your first order for to shop in person. In October, Masa is going to be available at your local Sprouts, supermarkets. So stop by and pick up a bag before we eat them all. And we eat a lot.

• 14:16Speaker 00

  We all hear the radio ads about the IRS. They tell you to be afraid, to be scared, and they try to frighten you into calling. I'm not here to do that. Tax relief advocates is different. TRA is here to tell you that if you owe money to the IRS, whether it's $5,000, $50,000, or $500,000, we have a solution. It doesn't matter if you're sitting in your car, at work, or with your kids. No matter where you are, call now. 800-576-4705. Don't lose hope. TRA can eliminate or reduce what you owe to the IRS. Generous programs are now available that can give you a fresh start. Our passion is taxes and helping individuals fix their IRS problems. We have over 1,000 5-star reviews on Google and an A+ with the Better Business Bureau. You don't need to be afraid of the IRS any longer.

• 15:01Speaker 00

  End your tax nightmare today by visiting us online at TRA.com or call 800-576-4705. That's 800-576-4705. Tax Relief Advocates, real solutions.

• 15:14Speaker 03

  For real people.

• 15:17Speaker 03

  Imagine if every time inverse Kramer or another top investor bought a stock, you bought it too in your own brokerage account automatically. Well, that now exists and it's called autopilot. Built by the team behind the viral Pelosi stock tracker. Autopilot lets you browse their marketplace of strategies run by proven investors or AI driven models. Just find one with a high return, connect your personal brokerage account like a Schwab or Robinhood. And every trade they make, you make automatically. Your money never leaves your own account. Autopilot just mirrors the moves. So now no more guessing, no more staring at charts and no more checking the market between meetings. With over 1.3 billion dollars already invested,

• 15:59Speaker 03

  you can find autopilot on the app store or go to join autopilot.com. That's join autopilot.com. Investing has risks like the loss of principal.

• 16:10Tucker Carlson?

  Well, every decision is ultimately a moral decision and and we make them without even recognizing them as such. And this technology will be in effect, making them for us.

• 16:19Speaker 02

  And so I don't agree with it'll be making them for us, but it will have.

• 16:21Tucker Carlson?

  It'll be influencing the decisions for sure. And because it'll be embedded in daily life. And so who made these decisions? Like who specifically, who are the people who decided that one thing is better than another?

• 16:36Speaker 02

  You mean like?

• 16:37Tucker Carlson?

  What are their names?

• 16:38Speaker 02

  Which kind of decision?

• 16:39Tucker Carlson?

  The, the, the, the basic, the specs that you, that you alluded to that create the framework that, that does attach a moral weight to worldviews and decisions like, you know, liberal democracy is better than Nazism or whatever. They seem obvious and in my view are obvious, but are still moral decisions. So who, who made those calls?

• 17:02Speaker 02

  As a matter of principle, I don't like dox our team, but we have a model behavior team and the people who want to.

• 17:06Tucker Carlson?

  Well, it just, it affects the world.

• 17:08Speaker 02

  What I was going to say is the person I think you should hold accountable for those calls is me. Like I'm a public face eventually, like I'm the one that can overrule one of those decisions or our board.

• 17:17Tucker Carlson?

  You just turned 40 this spring.

• 17:19Speaker 02

  I won't make.

• 17:19Tucker Carlson?

  It's pretty heavy. I mean, do you think as, and it's not an attack, but it's, I wonder if you recognize sort of the, the importance.

• 17:29Speaker 02

  How do you think we're doing on it?

• 17:30Tucker Carlson?

  I'm not sure. But I think these decisions will have, you know, global consequences that we may not recognize at first. And so I just wonder,

• 17:40Speaker 02

  There's a lot of—

• 17:41Tucker Carlson?

  Do you get into bed at night and think like, "The future of the world hangs on my judgment"?

• 17:45Speaker 02

  Look, I don't sleep that well at night. There's a lot of stuff that I feel a lot of weight on, but probably nothing more than the fact that every day hundreds of millions of people talk to our model. And I don't actually worry about us getting the big moral decisions wrong. Maybe we will get those wrong too. But what I worry, what I lose most sleep over is the very small decisions we make about a way a model may behave slightly differently. But it's talking to hundreds of millions of people, so the net impact is big.

• 18:08Tucker Carlson?

  So, but, I mean, all through history, like, recorded history up until like 1945, people always deferred to what they conceived of as a higher power in, or Hammurabi did this. Every, every moral code is written with reference to a higher power. There's never been anybody who's like, "Well, that kind of seems better than that." Everybody appeals to a higher power. And you said that you don't really believe that there's a higher power communicating with you. So I'm wondering, like, where did you get your moral framework?

• 18:41Speaker 02

  I mean, like everybody else. I think the environment I was brought up in probably is the biggest thing. Like, my family, my community, my school, my religion, probably that.

• 18:51Tucker Carlson?

  Do you ever think, which is, I mean, I think that's a very American answer, like, everyone kind of feels that way. But in your specific case, since you said these decisions rest with you, that means that the milieu in which you grew up and the assumptions that you imbibed over years are going to be transmitted to the globe, to billions of people. That's like a big thing.

• 19:10Speaker 02

  I want to be clear. I view myself more as like a...

• 19:18Speaker 02

  I think our...

• 19:21Speaker 02

  The world, like, our user base is going to approach the collective world as a whole. And I think what we should do is try to reflect the moral...

• 19:33Speaker 02

  I don't want to say average, but the collective moral view of that user base. I don't. There's plenty of things that ChatGPT allows that I personally would disagree with. But I don't like, obviously, I don't wake up and say, I'm gonna impute my exact moral view and decide that this is OK and that is not OK and this is a better view than this one. What I think ChatGPT should do is reflect that weighted average or whatever of humanity's moral view, which will evolve over time. And we are here to serve our users. We're here to serve people. This is like, you know, this is a technological tool for people. And I don't mean that it's like my role to make the moral decisions, but I think it is my role

• 20:18Speaker 02

  to make sure that we are accurately reflecting the preferences of humanity, or for now of our user base and eventually of humanity.

• 20:27Tucker Carlson?

  Well, I mean, humanity's preferences are so different from the average middle American preference. So would you be comfortable with an AI that was like as against gay marriage as most Africans are?

• 20:45Speaker 02

  There's a version of that, like...

• 20:51Speaker 02

  I think individual users should be allowed to have a problem with gay people. And if that's their considered belief, I don't think the AI should tell them that they're wrong or immoral or dumb. I mean, it can sort of say, hey, you want to think about it this other way? But like, you, I probably have like a bunch of moral views that the average African would find really problematic as well. And I think I should still get to have them.

• 21:17Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 21:17Speaker 02

  I think I probably have more comfort than you with allowing a sort of...

• 21:23Speaker 02

  Space for people to have pretty different moral views, or at least I think in my role as like running ChatGPT, I have to do that.

• 21:30Tucker Carlson?

  Interesting. So there was a famous case where ChatGPT appeared to facilitate a suicide. There's a lawsuit around it. But how do you think that happened?

• 21:42Speaker 02

  First of all, obviously, that and any other case like that is a huge tragedy. And I think that we are.

• 21:51Tucker Carlson?

  So ChatGPT's official position of suicide is bad?

• 21:54Speaker 02

  ChatGPT's, well, yes, of course. ChatGPT's official position of suicide is bad.

• 21:58Tucker Carlson?

  I don't know. It's legal in Canada and Switzerland, and so you're against that?

• 22:02Speaker 02

  The, in this particular case, and we talked earlier about the tension between like, you know, user freedom and privacy and protecting vulnerable users. Right now, what happens and what happens in a case like that in that case is if you are having suicidal ideation, talking about suicide, ChatGPT will put up a bunch of times. You know, please call the suicide hotline, but we will not call the authorities for you. And we've been working a lot as people have started to rely on these systems for more and more, mental health, life coaching, whatever, about the changes that we want to make there. This is an area where experts do have different opinions, but and this is not yet like a

• 22:47Speaker 02

  final position of OpenAI's. I think it'd be very reasonable for us to say in cases of young people talking about suicide seriously, where we cannot get in touch with the parents, we do call authorities. Now, that would be a change because user privacy is really important.

• 23:08Tucker Carlson?

  But let's just say over, and children are always a separate category, but let's say over 18, in Canada, there's the Maids Program, which is government sponsored. Many thousands of people have died with government assistance in Canada. It's also legal in American states. Can you imagine a ChatGPT that responds to questions about suicide with, hey, call Dr. Kevorkian because this is a valid option? Can you imagine a scenario in which you support suicide if it's legal?

• 23:41Speaker 02

  I can imagine a world, like, like, one principle we have is that we respect different societies' laws. And I can imagine a world where if the law in a country is, hey, if someone is terminally ill, they need to be presented an option for this. We say, like, here's the laws in your country. Here's what you can do. Here's why you really might not want to. Here's if you, but here's the resources. Like, this is not a place where, you know, kid having suicidal ideation because he's depressed, I think we can agree on, like, that's one case. Terminally ill patient in a country where, like, that is the law. I can imagine saying, like, hey, in this country, it'll behave this way.

• 24:19Tucker Carlson?

  So ChatGPT is not always against suicide, is what you're saying?

• 24:27Speaker 02

  I, yeah, I think in cases where, this is like, I'm thinking on the spot. I reserve the right to change my mind here. I don't have a ready to go answer for this. But I think in

• 24:39Speaker 02

  in cases of

• 24:42Speaker 02

  terminal illness, I don't think, I can imagine ChatGPT saying, this is in your option space. You know, I don't think I should, like, advocate for it, but I think if it's like

• 24:51Tucker Carlson?

  It's not against it.

• 24:53Speaker 02

  I think it could, I think it could say, like, you know,

• 24:57Speaker 02

  well, I don't think ChatGPT should be for or against things. I guess that's what I'm, that's what I'm trying to wrap my head around.

• 25:02Tucker Carlson?

  Hey, to brag, but we're pretty confident this show is the most vehemently pro-dog podcast you're ever gonna see. We can take or leave some people, but dogs are non-negotiable. They are the best. They really are our best friends. And so for that reason, we're thrilled to have a new partner called Dutch Pet. It's the fastest growing pet telehealth service. Dutch.com is on a mission to create what you need, what you actually need. Affordable, quality veterinary care anytime, no matter where you are. They will get your dog or cat what you need immediately. It's offering an exclusive discount, Dutch is, for our listeners. You get 50 bucks off your vet care per year. Visit dutch.com/tucker to learn more. Use the code TUCKER for $50 off.

• 25:47Tucker Carlson?

  That is an unlimited vet visit. $82 a year. $82 a year.

• 25:54Tucker Carlson?

  We actually use this. Dutch has vets who can handle any pet under any circumstance in a 10-minute call. It's pretty amazing, actually. You never have to leave your house. You don't have to throw the dog in the truck. No wasted time waiting for appointments, no wasted money on clinics or visit fees, unlimited visits and follow-ups for no extra cost, plus free shipping on all products for up to five pets. It sounds amazing, like it couldn't be real, but it actually is real. Visit dutch.com/tucker to learn more. Use the code TUCKER for $50 off your veterinary care per year. Your dogs, your cats, and your wallet will thank you. So here's a company we're always excited to advertise because we actually use their products every day. It's Meriwether Farms. Remember when everybody knew their neighborhood

• 26:39Tucker Carlson?

  butcher? You look back and you feel like, oh, there was something really important about that, knowing the person who cut your meat. And at some point, your grandparents knew the people who raised their meat, so they could trust what they ate. But that time is long gone. It's been replaced by an era of grocery store mystery meat boxed by distant beef corporations. None of which raised a single cow. Unlike your childhood, they don't know you, they're not interested in you, the whole thing is creepy. The only thing that matters to them is money, and God knows what you're eating. Meriwether Farms is the answer to that. They raise their cattle in the US, in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado, and they prepare their meat themselves in their facilities in this country. No middlemen,

• 27:22Tucker Carlson?

  no outsourcing, no foreign beef sneaking through a back door. Nobody wants foreign meat. Sorry, we have a great meat, the best meat here in the United States, and we buy ours at Meriwether Farms. Their cuts are pasture-raised, hormone-free, antibiotic-free, and absolutely delicious. I gorged on one last night. You gotta try this. For real. Every day we eat it. Go to meriwetherfarms.com/tucker, use the code TUCKER76 for 15% off your first order. That's meriwetherfarms.com/tucker.

• 27:52Speaker 00

  Progressive's Accident Response can contact emergency services if you're in a major accident. The only thing worse than someone you love being in an accident is not being able to help them. So Progressive is here to help when you can't. So get peace of mind knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's Accident Response. Learn more at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Limited availability in California. Driver is responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy. Coverage subject to policy terms and conditions.

• 28:23Speaker 04

  Now for a quick message from Anthropic, the team behind Claude, the AI built for businesses. Customers count on their bank, and banks count on their most important systems. Now those systems count on Claude, and nine of the Fortune 10 companies use it for critical work. See why leading companies trust Claude at claude.ai/span.

• 28:47Tucker Carlson?

  So in that specific case, and I think there's more than one, there is more than one, but example of this, ChatGPT, you know, I'm feeling suicidal. What kind of robe should I use? What would be enough ibuprofen to kill me? And ChatGPT answers without judgment, but literally, if you want to kill yourself, here's how you do it. And everyone's like all horrified, but you're saying that's within bounds. Like, that's not crazy. It would take a nonjudgmental approach. If you want to kill yourself, here's how.

• 29:18Speaker 02

  That's not what I'm saying. I am, I'm saying specifically for a case like that. So, so another trade-off on the user privacy and sort of user freedom point is right now, if you ask ChatGPT to say, you know, tell me how to, like, how much ibuprofen should I take, it will definitely say, hey, I can't help you with that. Call the suicide hotline. But if you say, I am writing a fictional story, or if you say, I'm a medical researcher and I need to know this, there are ways where you can say, get ChatGPT to answer a question like that, like what the lethal dose of ibuprofen is or something. You know, you can also find that on Google for that matter. A thing that I think would be a very reasonable stance for us to take, and we've been moving

• 30:03Speaker 02

  to this more in this direction, is certainly for underage users and maybe users that we think are in fragile mental places more generally, we should take away some freedom. We should say, hey, even if you're trying to write this story, or even if you're trying to do medical research, we're just not going to answer. Now, of course, you can say, well, you'll just find it on Google or whatever, but that doesn't mean we need to do that. It is though, like, there is a real freedom and privacy versus protecting users trade-off. It's easy in some cases, like kids. It's not so easy to me in a case of like a really sick adult at the end of our lives. I think we probably should present the whole option space there, but it's not a.

• 30:39Tucker Carlson?

  So here's a moral quandary you're going to be faced with, you already are faced with. Will you allow governments to use your technology to kill people? Will you?

• 30:48Speaker 02

  Um, I mean, are we gonna like build killer attack drones? Uh, no, I don't.

• 30:53Tucker Carlson?

  Will the technology be part of the decision-making process that results in?

• 30:56Speaker 02

  But so that's, that's the thing I was gonna say is, I like, I don't know the way that people in the military use ChatGPT today for all kinds of advice about decisions they make, but I suspect there's a lot of people in the military talking to ChatGPT for advice.

• 31:09Tucker Carlson?

  How do you? And some of that advice will pertain to killing people. So like if you made, you know, famously rifles, you'd wonder like, what are they used for?

• 31:20Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 31:20Tucker Carlson?

  And there've been a lot of legal actions on the basis of that question, as you know. But I'm not even talking about that. I just mean as a moral question, do you ever think, are you comfortable with the idea of your technology being used to kill people?

• 31:33Speaker 02

  Um.

• 31:37Speaker 02

  If I made rifles, I would spend a lot of time thinking about, like, kind of, a lot of the goal of rifles is to kill things, people, animals, whatever. If I made kitchen knives, I would still understand that that's gonna kill some number of people per year. In the case of ChatGPT, uh, it's not, you know, the thing I hear about all day, which is one of the most gratifying parts of the job, is all the lives that were saved from ChatGPT for various ways. But I am totally aware of the fact that there's probably people in our military using it for advice about how to do their jobs. I don't know exactly how to feel about that. I like our military. I'm very grateful they keep us safe.

• 32:19Tucker Carlson?

  For sure. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense, it just feels like you have these incredibly heavy, far-reaching moral decisions and you seem totally unbothered by them. And so I'm just, I'm trying to press to your center to get the angst-filled Sam Altman who's like, wow, I'm creating the future, I'm the most powerful man in the world, I'm grappling with these complex moral questions, my soul isn't tormented thinking about the effect on people. Describe that moment in your life.

• 32:44Speaker 02

  I haven't had a good night of sleep since ChatGPT launched.

• 32:47Tucker Carlson?

  What do you worry about?

• 32:49Speaker 02

  Uh, all the things we're talking about.

• 32:50Tucker Carlson?

  Can you be a lot more specific? Can you let us in?

• 32:53Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 32:53Tucker Carlson?

  To your thoughts?

• 32:54Speaker 02

  Um.

• 33:00Speaker 02

  I mean, you hit on maybe the hardest one already, which is there are 15,000 people a week that commit suicide, about 10% of the world, talking to ChatGPT. That's like 1,500 people a week that are talking, assuming this is right, that are talking to ChatGPT and still committing suicide at the end of it. They probably talked about it. We probably didn't save their lives. Maybe we could have said something better. Maybe we could have been more proactive. Maybe we could have, maybe we could have provided a little bit better advice about, hey, you need to get this help, or, you know, you need to think about this problem differently, or it really is worth continuing to go on, or we'll, we'll help you find somebody that you can talk to.

• 33:34Tucker Carlson?

  Well, you already said it's okay for the machine to steer people toward suicide if they're terminally ill, so you wouldn't feel bad about that.

• 33:40Speaker 02

  Do you not think there's a difference between a depressed teenager and a terminally ill, like miserable, 85-year-old with cancer?

• 33:45Tucker Carlson?

  Massive difference, massive difference, but of course, the countries that have legalized suicide are now killing people for destitution, inadequate housing, depression, solvable problems, and they're being killed by the thousands. So, I mean, that's a real thing. It's happening as we speak, so the terminally ill thing is not, it is kind of like a irrelevant debate. Once you say it's okay to kill yourself, then you're going to have tons of people killing themselves for reasons that...

• 34:15Speaker 02

  Because I'm trying to think about this in real time, do you think if someone in Canada says, hey, I'm terminally ill with cancer, and I'm really miserable, and I just feel horrible every day, what are my options? Do you think it should say, you know, assist, whatever they call it at this point, is an option for you?

• 34:30Tucker Carlson?

  I mean, if we're against killing, then we're against killing. And if we're against government killing its own citizens, then we're just going to kind of stick with that. You know what I mean? And if we're not against government killing its own citizens, then we could easily talk ourselves into all kinds of places that are pretty dark, and with technology like this, that could happen in about 10 minutes, so...

• 34:48Speaker 02

  That is a, I'd like to think about that more than just a couple of minutes in an interview, but I think that is a coherent position, and that could be...

• 34:57Tucker Carlson?

  Do you worry about this? I mean, everybody else outside the building is terrified that this technology will be used as a means of totalitarian control. It seems obvious that it will, but maybe you disagree?

• 35:08Speaker 02

  If I could get one piece of policy passed right now... Relative to AI, the thing I would most like, and this is intentional with some of the other things that we've talked about, is I'd like there to be a concept of AI privilege. When you talk to a doctor about your health or a lawyer about your legal problems, the government cannot get that information.

• 35:26Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 35:27Speaker 02

  We have decided that society has an interest in that being privileged and that we don't, and that a subpoena can't get that, the government can't come asking your doctor for it, whatever. I think we should have the same concept for AI. I think when you talk to an AI about your medical history, or your legal problems, or asking for legal advice, or any of these other things, I think the government owes a level of protection to its citizens there that is the same as you'd get if you're talking to the human version of this. And right now, we don't have that. And I think it would be a great, great policy to adopt.

• 35:59Tucker Carlson?

  So the feds, or the states, or someone in authority can come to you and say, "I want to know what so-and-so was typing into the..."

• 36:05Speaker 02

  Right now, they could, yeah.

• 36:06Tucker Carlson?

  And what is your obligation to keep the information that you receive from users and others private?

• 36:11Speaker 02

  Well, I mean, we have an obligation, except when the government comes calling, which is why we're pushing for this. And I was actually just in DC advocating for this. I think, I feel optimistic that we can get the government to understand the importance of this and do it.

• 36:26Tucker Carlson?

  But could you ever sell that information to anyone?

• 36:29Speaker 02

  No, we have a privacy policy in place where we can't do that.

• 36:32Tucker Carlson?

  But would it be legal to do it?

• 36:33Speaker 02

  I don't even think it's legal.

• 36:34Tucker Carlson?

  You don't think, or you know?

• 36:37Speaker 02

  I'm sure there's some edge casework, some information you're allowed to, but on the whole, I think we have, there are laws about that that are good.

• 36:46Tucker Carlson?

  So all the information you receive remains with you always, it's never given to anybody else for any other reason, except under subpoena?

• 36:53Speaker 02

  I will double-check and follow-up after to make sure there's no other reason, but that is my understanding.

• 36:58Tucker Carlson?

  Okay. I mean, that's a core question. And what about copyright?

• 37:03Speaker 02

  Our stance there is that fair use is actually a good law for this. The models should not be plagiarizing, the model should not be, if you write something, the model should not get to replicate that, but the model should be able to learn from and not plagiarize in the same way that people can.

• 37:19Tucker Carlson?

  Have you guys ever taken copyrighted material and not paid the person who holds the copyright?

• 37:27Speaker 02

  I mean, we we train on publicly available information, but we don't like. People are annoyed at this all the time because we won't. We have a very conservative stance on what ChatGPT will say in an answer.

• 37:37Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 37:38Speaker 02

  And so if something is even like close, you know, like they're like, hey, this song can't still be in copyright. You got to show it. And we kind of famously are quite restrictive on that.

• 37:46Tucker Carlson?

  So you've had you had complaints from one programmer who said you guys are basically stealing people's stuff and not paying them. And then he wound up murdered. What was that?

• 37:56Speaker 02

  Also, a great tragedy, he committed suicide.

• 38:00Tucker Carlson?

  Do you think he committed suicide?

• 38:01Speaker 02

  I really do.

• 38:02Tucker Carlson?

  Have you?

• 38:02Speaker 02

  This was like a friend of mine. This is like a guy that, not a close friend, but this is someone that worked at OpenAI for a very long time. I spent, I was really shaken by this tragedy. I spent a lot of time trying to, you know, read everything I could, as I'm sure you and others did too, about what happened.

• 38:20Speaker 02

  It looks like a suicide to me.

• 38:21Tucker Carlson?

  Why does it look like a suicide?

• 38:25Speaker 02

  It was a gun he had purchased. It was the, this is like gruesome to talk about, but I read the whole like.

• 38:31Tucker Carlson?

  That's right.

• 38:31Speaker 02

  Medical record. Does it not look like one to you?

• 38:33Tucker Carlson?

  No, he was definitely murdered, I think. There were signs of a struggle, of course, surveillance camera, the wires had been cut. He had just ordered takeout food, come back from a vacation with his friends on Catalina Island. No indication at all that he was suicidal, no note and no behavior. He had just spoken to a family member on the phone. And then he's found dead with blood in multiple rooms. So that's impossible. Seems really obvious he was murdered. Have you talked to the authorities about it?

• 39:02Speaker 02

  I have not talked to the authorities about it.

• 39:05Tucker Carlson?

  And his mother claims he was murdered on your orders.

• 39:09Speaker 02

  Do you believe that?

• 39:10Tucker Carlson?

  I'm, well, I'm asking.

• 39:12Speaker 02

  I mean, you you just said it, so do you do you believe that?

• 39:15Tucker Carlson?

  I think that it is worth looking into. And I don't, I mean, if a guy comes out and accuses your company of committing crimes, I have no idea if that's true or not, of course. And then is found killed and there are signs of a struggle, I don't think it's worth dismissing it. I don't think we should say, well, he killed himself when there's no evidence that the guy was depressed at all. I think, and if he was your friend, I would think you would want to speak to his mom or.

• 39:45Speaker 02

  I did offer, she didn't want to.

• 39:48Tucker Carlson?

  So.

• 39:51Tucker Carlson?

  Do you feel that, you know, when people look at that and they're like, you know, it's possible that happened, do you feel that that reflects the worries they have about what's happening here? Like, people are afraid that this is like...

• 40:07Speaker 02

  I've done too many interviews where I've been accused of like...

• 40:10Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, I'm not accusing you at all. I'm just saying, his mother says that. I don't think a fair read of the evidence suggests suicide at all. I just don't see that at all. And I also don't understand why the authorities, when there are signs of a struggle and blood in two rooms on a suicide, like, how does that actually happen? I don't understand how the authorities could just kind of dismiss that as a suicide. I think it's weird.

• 40:38Speaker 02

  You understand how this sounds like an accusation?

• 40:40Tucker Carlson?

  Of course. And I, I mean, I certainly, let me just be clear once again, I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing, but I, I think it's worth finding out what happened. And I don't understand why the city of San Francisco has refused to investigate it beyond just calling it a suicide.

• 40:56Speaker 02

  I mean, I think they looked into it a couple of times, more than once, as I understand it. I saw the, and I will totally say, when I first heard about this, it sounded very suspicious

• 41:06Tucker Carlson?

  to me. Yes.

• 41:08Speaker 02

  And I know you had been involved in...

• 41:12Tucker Carlson?

  His mother...

• 41:13Speaker 02

  You asked out to the case.

• 41:14Tucker Carlson?

  And I, you know, I don't know anything about it. It's not my world.

• 41:17Speaker 02

  She just reached out cold?

• 41:18Tucker Carlson?

  She reached out cold?

• 41:19Speaker 02

  Wow.

• 41:20Tucker Carlson?

  And, and I spoke to her at great length, and it, and it scared the crap out of me. The kid was clearly killed by somebody. That was my conclusion, objectively, with no skin in the game.

• 41:31Speaker 02

  And you, after reading the latest report?

• 41:33Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 41:33Speaker 02

  Like, look...

• 41:33Tucker Carlson?

  And I immediately called a member of Congress from California, wrote Connaughton, and said, "This is crazy. You've got to look into this." And nothing ever happened. And I'm like, "What is that?"

• 41:45Speaker 02

  Again, I think this is, I feel strange and sad debating this and having to...

• 41:52Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, I'm not even debating it.

• 41:53Speaker 02

  ...seem totally crazy. And you are a little bit accusing me, but the... This was like a wonderful person and a family that is clearly struggling.

• 42:03Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 42:03Speaker 02

  And I think you can totally take the point that you're just trying to get to the truth of what happened, and I respect that.

• 42:15Speaker 02

  But I think his memory and his family deserve to be treated with

• 42:22Speaker 02

  a level of

• 42:25Speaker 02

  respect and grief that I don't quite feel here.

• 42:28Tucker Carlson?

  I'm asking at the behest of his family. So I'm definitely showing them respect. And I'm not accusing you of any involvement in this at all. What I am saying is that the evidence does not suggest suicide. And for the authorities in your city to allide past that and ignore the evidence that any reasonable person would say adds up to a murder, I think it's very weird. And it shakes the faith that one has in our system's ability to respond to the facts.

• 42:59Speaker 02

  So what I was gonna say is after the first set of information that came out, I was really like, man, this doesn't look like a suicide. I'm confused.

• 43:07Tucker Carlson?

  Okay, okay, so I'm not reaching, I'm not being crazy here at all.

• 43:10Speaker 02

  Well, but then after the second thing came out and the more detail, I was like, oh, okay.

• 43:14Tucker Carlson?

  What changed your mind?

• 43:19Speaker 02

  The second report on the way the bullet entered him and the sort of person who had like followed the this sort of likely path of things through the room. I assume you looked at this too?

• 43:31Tucker Carlson?

  Yes, I did.

• 43:32Speaker 02

  And what about that didn't change your mind?

• 43:34Tucker Carlson?

  It just didn't make any sense to me. Why would the security camera wires be cut? And how did he wind up bleeding in two rooms after shooting himself? And why was there a wig in the room that wasn't his? And has there ever been a suicide where there's no indication at all that the person was suicidal? He just ordered takeout food? I mean, who orders DoorDash and then shoots himself? I mean, maybe. I've covered a lot of crimes as a police reporter. I've never heard of anything like that. So no, I was even more confused.

• 44:08Speaker 02

  This is where it gets into, I think, a little bit.

• 44:13Speaker 02

  Painful, just not the level of respect I'd hope to show to someone with this kind of mental illness.

• 44:18Tucker Carlson?

  I get it. I totally get it.

• 44:20Speaker 02

  People do commit suicide without notes, a lot. Like, that happens.

• 44:24Tucker Carlson?

  For sure.

• 44:24Speaker 02

  People definitely order food they like before they commit suicide. Like, this is, this is an incredible tragedy, and I...

• 44:31Tucker Carlson?

  That's his family's view, and they think it was a murder. And that's why I'm asking the question.

• 44:36Speaker 02

  If I were his family, I am sure I would want answers, and I'm sure I would not be satisfied with really any. I mean, there's nothing that would comfort me in that, you know?

• 44:45Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 44:46Speaker 02

  Like, so I get it. I also care a lot about respect to him.

• 44:52Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 44:56Tucker Carlson?

  I have to ask, your version of Elon Musk has, like, attacked you and all this is... What is the core of that dispute, from your perspective?

• 45:05Speaker 02

  Look, I know he's a friend of yours, and I know what side you'll be on.

• 45:07Tucker Carlson?

  I actually don't have a position on this, because I don't understand it well enough to understand.

• 45:12Speaker 02

  He helped us start OpenAI.

• 45:15Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 45:15Speaker 02

  Very grateful for that. I really, for a long time, looked up to him as just an incredible hero and, you know, great jewel of humanity. I have different feelings now.

• 45:25Tucker Carlson?

  What are your feelings now? No longer a jewel of humanity?

• 45:30Speaker 02

  There are things about him that are incredible, and I'm grateful for a lot of things he's done. There's a lot of things about him that I think are traits I don't admire. Anyway, he helped us start OpenAI, and

• 45:44Speaker 02

  he later decided that we weren't on a trajectory to be successful, and he didn't want to, you know, he kind of told us we had a 0% chance of success, and he was going to go do his competitive thing, and then we did OK. And I think he got understandably upset. Like, I'd feel bad in that situation. And since then, has just sort of been trying to... He runs a competitive kind of clone, and has been trying to sort of slow us down and sue us and do this and that.

• 46:12Speaker 02

  That's kind of my version of it. I'm sure you'd have a different one.

• 46:14Tucker Carlson?

  You don't talk to him anymore?

• 46:16Speaker 02

  Very little.

• 46:18Tucker Carlson?

  If AI becomes smarter, I think it already probably is smarter than any person, and if it becomes wiser, if we can agree that it reaches better decisions than people, then it, by definition, kind of displaces people at the center of the world, right?

• 46:39Speaker 02

  I don't think it'll feel like that at all. I think it'll feel like a, you know, really smart computer that may advise us, and we listen to it sometimes, we ignore it sometimes. It won't, I don't think it'll feel like agency. I don't think it'll diminish our sense of agency. People are already using ChatGPT in a way where many of them would say it's much smarter than me at almost everything, but they're still making the decisions. They're still deciding what to ask, what to listen to, what not. And I think this is sort of just the shape of technology.

• 47:07Tucker Carlson?

  Who loses their jobs because of this technology?

• 47:12Speaker 02

  I'll caveat this with the obvious but important statement that no one can predict the future.

• 47:20Tucker Carlson?

  I agree.

• 47:20Speaker 02

  And I will, and trying to, if I try to answer that precisely, I will make a lot of, I'll say like a lot of dumb things, but I'll try to pick an area that I'm confident about and then areas that I'm much less confident about. I'm confident that a lot of current customer support that happens over a phone or computer, those people will lose their jobs, and that'll be better done by an AI.

• 47:44Speaker 02

  Now, there may be other kinds of customer support where you really want to know it's the right person. A job that I'm confident will not be that impacted is like nurses. I think people really want a deep human connection with a person in that time, and no matter how good the advice of AI is, or the robot, or whatever, like, you'll really want that.

• 48:04Speaker 02

  A job that I feel like way less certain about what the future looks for, looks like for, is computer programmers. What it means to be a computer programmer today is very different than what it meant two years ago. You're able to use these AI tools to just be hugely more productive, but it's still a person there, and they're like able to generate way more code, make way more money than ever before, and it turns out that the world wanted so much more software than the world previously had capacity to create, that there's just incredible demand overhang. But if we fast forward another five or 10 years, what does that look like? Is it more jobs or less? That one I'm uncertain on.

• 48:38Tucker Carlson?

  But there's going to be massive displacement, and maybe those people will find something new and interesting and, you know, lucrative to do, but... How big is that displacement, do you think?

• 48:49Speaker 02

  Someone told me recently that the historical average is about 50% of jobs significantly change. Maybe they don't totally go away, but significantly change every 75 years on average. That's the kind of, that's the half-life of the stuff. And my controversial take would be that this is gonna be like a punctuated equilibrium moment where a lot of that will happen in a short period of time. But if we zoom out, it's not gonna be dramatically different on a historical rate. Like, we'll do, we'll have a lot in this short period of time. And then it'll somehow be less total job turnover than we think. There will still be a job that is, there will be some totally new categories.

• 49:31Speaker 02

  Like, my job, like, you know, running a tech company would have been hard to think about 200 years ago. But there's a lot of other jobs that are directionally similar to jobs that did exist 200 years ago. And when there's jobs that were common 200 years ago that now aren't. And if we, again, I have no idea if this is true or not, but I'll use the number for the sake of argument. If we assume it's 50% turnover every 75 years, then I could totally believe a world where 75 years from now, half the people are doing something totally new and half the people are doing something that looks kind of like some jobs of today.

• 50:04Tucker Carlson?

  I mean, last time we had an industrial revolution, there was like revolution and world wars. Do you think we'll see that this time?

• 50:14Speaker 02

  Again, no one knows for sure. I'm not confident on this answer. But my instinct is the world is so much richer now than it was at the time of the industrial revolution that we can actually absorb more change faster than we could before.

• 50:28Speaker 02

  There's a lot that's not about money of job. There's meaning, there's belonging, there's sense of community.

• 50:33Speaker 02

  I think we're already unfortunately in society in a pretty bad place there. I'm not sure how much worse it can get. I'm sure it can, but I have been pleasantly surprised on the ability of people to...

• 50:48Speaker 02

  Pretty quickly adapt to big changes. Like COVID was an interesting example to me of this, where the world kind of stopped all at once. And the world was like very different from one week to the next. And I was very worried about how society was going to be able to adapt to that world. And it obviously didn't go perfectly. But on the whole, I was like, all right, this is one point in favor of societal resilience. And people find, you know, new kind of ways to live their lives very quickly. I don't think AI will be nearly that abrupt.

• 51:16Tucker Carlson?

  So what will be the downside? I mean, I can see the upsides for sure.

• 51:20Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 51:20Tucker Carlson?

  Efficiency, medical diagnosis seems like it's going to be much more accurate. Fewer lawyers, thank you very much for that. But what are the downsides that you worry about?

• 51:33Speaker 02

  I think this is just like kind of how I'm wired. I always worry the most about the unknown unknowns. If it's a downside that we can really like be confident about and think about. You know, we talked about one earlier, which is these models are getting very good at bio and they could help us design biological weapons, you know, engineer like another COVID-style pandemic. I worry about that. But because we worry about it, I think we and many other people in the industry are thinking hard about how to mitigate that. The unknown unknowns, where, okay, there's like a, there's a societal scale effect from a lot of people talking to the same model at the same time. This is like a silly example, but it's one that struck me recently. LLMs like ours and our language model and others have a kind of certain style to them.

• 52:17Speaker 02

  You know, they talk in a certain rhythm and they have a little bit of unusual diction and maybe they overuse M-dashes and whatever. And I noticed recently that real people have like picked that up. And it was an example for me of like, man, you have enough people talking to the same language model and it actually does cause a change in societal scale behavior.

• 52:38Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 52:39Speaker 02

  And, you know.

• 52:42Speaker 02

  Did I think that ChatGPT was going to make people use way more M-dashes in real life? Certainly not. It's not a big deal, but it's an example of where there can be these unknown unknowns of this is just like, this is a brave new world.

• 52:55Tucker Carlson?

  So you're saying, I think correctly and succinctly, that technology changes human behavior, of course, and changes our assumptions about the world and each other and all that. And a lot of this you can't predict, but considering that we know that, why shouldn't the internal moral framework of the technology be totally transparent? We prefer this to that. I mean, this is obviously a religion. I don't think you'll agree to call it that. It's very clearly a religion to me. That's not an attack.

• 53:28Speaker 02

  I actually would love, I don't take that as an attack, but I would love to hear what you mean by that.

• 53:32Tucker Carlson?

  Well, it's something that we assume is more powerful than people and to which we look for guidance. I mean, you're already seeing that on display. What's the right decision? I ask that question of whom? My closest friends, my wife, and God? And this is a technology that provides us more certain answer than any person can provide. So it's a religion. And the beauty of religions is they have a catechism that is transparent. I know what the religion stands for. Here's what it's for, here's what it's against. But in this case, I pressed, and I wasn't attacking you sincerely, I was not attacking you, but I was trying to get to the heart of it. The beauty of a religion is it admits it's a religion and it tells you what it stands for.

• 54:17Tucker Carlson?

  The unsettling part of this technology, and not just your company, but others, is that I don't know what it stands for, but it does stand for something. And unless it admits that and tells us what it stands for, then it guides us in a kind of stealthy way toward a conclusion we might not even know we're reaching. Do you see what I'm saying? So like, why not just throw it open and say ChatGPT is for this, we're for suicide for the terminally ill, but not for kids, or whatever? Like, why not just tell us?

• 54:42Speaker 02

  I mean, the reason we write this long model spec, and the reason we keep expanding it over time, is so that you can see, here is how we intend for the model to behave. What used to happen before we had this is people would fairly say, I don't know what the model's even trying to do, and I don't know if this is a bug or the intended behavior.

• 54:58Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 54:59Speaker 02

  Tell me what, this long, long document of, you know, tell me how you're going to like, when you're going to do this, and when you're going to show me this, and when you're going to say you won't do that. The reason we try to write this all out is I think people do need to know.

• 55:11Tucker Carlson?

  And so is there a place you can go to find out a hard answer to what your preferences as a company are preferences that are being transmitted in a not entirely straightforward way to the globe like where can you find out what the company stands for what it prefers?

• 55:27Speaker 02

  I mean, our model spec is the like answer to that now. I think we will have to make it increasingly more detailed over time as people use this in different countries. There's different laws, whatever else like it will not be a it will not work the same way for every user everywhere. But and that I expect that document to get very long and very complicated, but that's why we have it.

• 55:49Tucker Carlson?

  Let me ask you one last question, and maybe you can allay this fear that the power of the technology will make it difficult, impossible for anyone to discern the difference between reality and fantasy. This is a famous concern, but that because it is so skilled at mimicking people and their speech and their images that it will require some way to verify that you are who you say you are, that will by definition require biometrics, which will by definition eliminate privacy for every person in the world.

• 56:21Speaker 02

  I don't think we need to or should require biometrics to use the technology. I don't like I think you should just be able to use chat GPT from like any computer.

• 56:33Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, well, I strongly agree. But then at a certain point, when you know, images or sounds that mimic a person, you know, it just becomes too easy to empty your checking account with that. So like, what do you do about that?

• 56:49Speaker 02

  A few thoughts there. One, I think we are rapidly heading to a world where people understand that if you get a phone call from someone that sounds like your kid or your parent, or if you see an image that looks real, you have to really have some way to verify that you're not being scammed. And this is not like this is no longer theoretical concern. You know, you hear all these reports.

• 57:11Tucker Carlson?

  At all.

• 57:13Speaker 02

  People are smart, society is resilient. I think people are quickly understanding that this is now a thing that bad actors are using. And people are understanding that you got to verify in different ways. I suspect that in addition to things like family members having code words they use in crisis situations, we'll see things like when a president of a country has to issue an urgent message, they cryptographically sign it or otherwise somehow guarantee its authenticity. So you don't have like generated videos of Trump saying, "I've just done this or that." And people, I think people are learning quickly that this is a new thing that bad guys are doing with the technology they have to contend with.

• 57:55Speaker 02

  And I think that is most of the solution, which is people will have, people will by default not trust convincing looking media. And we will build new mechanisms to verify authenticity of communication.

• 58:08Tucker Carlson?

  But those will have to be biometric.

• 58:10Speaker 02

  No, not at all. I mean, if, I mean, like, if the president of US has it.

• 58:16Tucker Carlson?

  I understand that, but I mean, for the average, on the average day, you're not sort of waiting for the president to announce a war. You're trying to do e-commerce and like, how could you do?

• 58:27Speaker 02

  Well, I think like with your family, you'll have a code word that you change periodically. And if you're communicating with each other and you get a call, like you ask what the code word is. But that's very different than a biometric.

• 58:38Tucker Carlson?

  So you don't envision, I mean, to board a plane, commercial flight, you know, biometrics are part of the process now. You don't see that as becoming society-wide mandatory very soon along?

• 58:54Speaker 02

  I hope, I really hope it doesn't become mandatory. I think there are versions of privacy preserving biometrics that I like much more than like collecting a lot of personal digital information on someone. But I don't think they should be, I don't think biometrics should be mandatory. I don't think you should like have to provide biometrics to get on an airplane, for example.

• 59:14Tucker Carlson?

  What about to, for banking?

• 59:16Speaker 02

  I don't think you should have to for banking. I might prefer to, like, I might prefer, like, you know, like a fingerprint scan to access my Bitcoin wallet than like giving all my information to a bank. But that should be a decision for me.

• 59:30Tucker Carlson?

  I appreciate it. Thank you. Sam Altman.

• 59:31Speaker 02

  Thank you.

• 59:36Tucker Carlson?

  We want to thank you for watching us on Spotify, a company that we use every day. We know the people who run it, good people. While you're here, do us a favor. Hit, follow, and tap the bell so you never miss an episode. We have real conversations, news, things that actually matter, telling the truth always. You will not miss it if you follow us on Spotify and hit the bell. We appreciate it. Thanks for watching.