Ethics, Control, and Survival: Navigating the Risks of Superintelligent AI | Impact Theory w/ Tom Bilyeu X Dr. Roman Yampolskiy Pt. 2

What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business:join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show: https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show SCALING a business:see if you qualify here. https://tombilyeu.com/call: https://tombilyeu.com/call Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox:sign up here. https://tombilyeu.com/: https://tombilyeu.com/ ********************************************************************** If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast,Tom Bilyeu’s Mindset Playbook https://open.spotify.com/show/47VE90Cittmo6TGGFqg2xf —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. ********************************************************************** FOLLOW TOM: Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok:https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter:https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu Linkedin: Post your job free at https://linkedin.com/impacttheory HomeServe: Help protect your home systems – and your wallet – with HomeServe against covered repairs. Plans start at just $4.99 a month at https://homeserve.com Bevel Health: 1st month FREE at https://bevel.health/impact with code IMPACT Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact BlandAI: Call it for free today: https://bland.aiOr for enterprises, you can book a demo directly: https://bland.ai/enterprise Business Wars: Follow Business Wars on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Connectteam: 14 day free trial at https://connecteam.cc/46GxoTFd Raycon: Go to https://buyraycon.com/impactto get up to 30% off sitewide. Cape: 33% off with code IMPACT33 at https://cape.co/impact Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impact AirDoctor: Up to $300 off with code IMPACT at https://airdoctorpro.com Welcome back to Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu! In this episode, Tom sits down for part two of his riveting conversation with Dr. Roman Yampolski, a leading AI safety researcher. Together, they dive deep into the existential risks and moral quandaries posed by artificial superintelligence, exploring why even some of the industry’s most vocal advocates for caution—like Elon Musk—end up accelerating the development of advanced AI. Dr. Yampolski pulls no punches, explaining why attempts to control superintelligent systems might be futile, the challenges of aligning AI interests with humanity’s well-being, and the reasons he’s so skeptical that society can pump the brakes on innovation. The discussion ranges from the dangers of an unchecked AI arms race and the psychological burden of confronting these risks, to practical approaches for boosting AI safety and the impact of emerging technologies like quantum computing and genetic engineering. Tom and Roman also touch on longevity science, ethics around gene editing, and the future of personal adaptation across generations. Whether you’re an optimist about technology or deeply concerned about humanity’s trajectory, this episode is packed with insight, tough questions, and thought-provoking perspectives that will leave you rethinking the future of intelligence—both artificial and human. FOLLOW DR. ROMAN YAMPOLSKIY: Twitter: https://twitter.com/romanyampolski Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/roman.yampolskiy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices https://megaphone.fm/adchoices See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

• 0:00Tom Bilyeu?

  Let's talk about the moment your side hustle becomes a real business. Now, I see way too many founders stay stuck running their business like it's a hobby, and then they wonder why nothing ever feels real. It doesn't feel real because it's not. I've helped thousands of entrepreneurs build real businesses through Impact Theory University, and the first step in the path to building a legit business is registering it. And Taylor Brands will help you do just that in a few clicks. An LLC, a limited liability company, is an official business structure. It's inexpensive to form and very simple to maintain. It's how you open a business bank account. It's how customers know they're dealing with a real company. And Taylor Brands doesn't stop at the filing.

• 0:45Tom Bilyeu?

  Their dashboard tracks what comes next based on what your business actually needs. So EIN number, registered agent, licenses and permits, bookkeeping, business banking. I tell every founder the same thing. Just make it official. Click the link in the show notes to check out Taylor Brands and get started on your business today. This is a paid advertisement.

• 1:07Speaker 01

  At Humana, our Medicare Advantage plans are easy to understand and easy on your wallet, like offering more benefits than you'd get from original Medicare alone, and including dental, vision, and hearing coverage in every plan. And the best part is every plan has a $0 or low monthly plan premium, which makes it easier to save, too. So this Medicare planning season, plan well with Humana. Learn more at gethumana.com. Humana is a Medicare Advantage, HMO, and PPO organization with a Medicare contract. Enrollment in any Humana plan depends on contract renewal.

• 1:38Tom Bilyeu?

  Welcome back to part two of my conversation with Dr. Roman Yampolsky. So why do you think that Elon, who was banging the drum harder than anybody, lobbying Congress, desperately trying to get them to slow down, suddenly hit a point where he was like, well, I guess I'll just build it faster than anybody else? He likened AI to a demon summoning circle and laughed at everybody who thought, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll summon a demon and then I'll be able to control it. All is going to be well. Like, he sees the problem clearly. But after years of trying to slow this down, he finally completely abandoned that and went to, I'll just build it faster than anybody else.

• 2:21Tom Bilyeu?

  What happened there and why do you think you can reverse it?

• 2:25Speaker 02

  So I think he realized he's not succeeding at his initial approach of convincing them not to do it. And so the second step in that plan would be to become the leader in a field and convince them from position of leadership and control of the more advanced technology. If the leader says, you know, we're going to slow down and it's fine for you to slow down. It's easier to negotiate that deal with, let's say, top seven companies. Then if you are not even part of the game, you have no AI, you are a nobody in that space. So all of them as a group benefit more if they agree to slow down or stop. Then if they just arms raise and the first one to get there gets everyone destroyed.

• 3:08Tom Bilyeu?

  He says words along those lines, or did for a while. I think he even signed one of the letters about we should pump the brakes. Uh, but none of his actions indicate that that's actually what he plans to do. Um, from just trying to take advantage of every company that he's building. From the amount of data that Tesla cars capture visually to all the decisions that drivers are currently making, to all of the decisions that the AI will make. To now he's talking about using the cars as a distributed fleet so that when they're idle, that they're actually running inference models. And so using it as a gigantic AI brain to, well, maybe that won't work.

• 3:52Tom Bilyeu?

  So I'm going to do Neuralink and I'm going to jack into uh, the AI myself and I'm going to make myself smarter. And hey, if all of that fails, don't worry, I'm going to get us to Mars. So if we destroy planet Earth or the AI takes over, like we're going to be over there. Like this is a guy that's really covering his bases. He is not somebody who's acting like he expects us to slow down. To me, he is acting like somebody who crossed that bridge a long time ago. And it's just like, yep, that's not going to work. People are not going to be convinced. And so we've got to build a whole bunch of other strategies. Some are lifeboats and some are just, I'll outsmart the AI myself by merging with technology.

• 4:32Speaker 02

  It is very disappointing to see this level of progress in AI from anyone who is capable of doing it. It's definitely not a good strategy for humanity as a whole. It generates this mutually assured destruction. It doesn't matter who creates uncontrolled superintelligence. It could be OpenAI, it could be Elon, it could be Chinese. It makes absolutely no difference if it's uncontrolled.

• 4:58Tom Bilyeu?

  All right, talk to me about that. So this was, for a long time, I was really banging the drum of, well, whoever gets to artificial superintelligence first is gonna win. You were the first person that really hit me with the, uh, it won't be theirs the second it becomes superintelligent. Walk people through the truth of that statement.

• 5:20Speaker 02

  Right. So people talk about short-term advantage, for example, military advantage. Whoever has the best drones right now, the best AI navigation, has military supremacy. So China, Russia, US, all competing in that domain, trying to have that so they have better military for obvious reasons. The moment you switch from those AI assistive tools to agents, to superintelligence, which is smarter, more capable, in an absence of control mechanisms, you just have a separate entity, an AI which has nothing to do with you, your country, your company. It makes its own decisions. It doesn't matter who birthed it. At the end of the day, none of us control it, none of us can claim it as doing our bidding. So if

• 6:04Speaker 02

  it decides to wipe us out, it's not gonna go, oh, I like this group of people, I don't like this group. We look the same to it, exactly. I don't think it's gonna make a difference where you were at the time someone else created superintelligence.

• 6:17Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, if you're right about that, and it is a distressingly compelling argument, if you're right about that, there was a guy, I'm sure you've heard of him, Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. He looked at the university system and he said, hmm, you guys are getting rid of all of the sweet spot problems. And humans are designed to find these things that are just challenging enough, and when they solve them, it feels Very good. And if we solve all of that, we're basically going to rob humans of meaning and purpose. Most problems will either be way too hard or way too easy. And so I am Ted Kaczynski going to bomb university professors, kill them and try to stunt the growth of the academy.

• 6:59Tom Bilyeu?

  Now, if you are right, and as we race towards artificial superintelligence, it runs the risk of P doom of 99.99%. Do we have a moral obligation when a certain line is crossed to bomb data centers?

• 7:18Speaker 02

  So that's a very difficult question. And part of it is, again, the example you brought up with Ted Kaczynski. He tried that approach and it failed miserably, right? He didn't succeed in slowing down technology at all. So clearly, it doesn't work. We saw examples of, for example, a CEO of a top company being replaced, even if temporarily. It made no difference. Someone else comes along, they continue the same scalability research. So taking out an individual person, an individual data center makes no difference if you zoom out and see the overall pattern of what we are doing. Maybe it will take an extra month or so, but exactly the same thing will continue being developed.

• 7:58Speaker 02

  The idea that the scalability hypothesis works, it's already out there. You cannot put it back in a box. And so I'm strongly against all those methods.

• 8:10Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, well, the really bad news is I think you just put a nail in your own coffin of being able to convince people to do this. It looks like this, and hopefully you can prove me I'm wrong. But you have said, hey, here's why everybody is so silly that thinks that they're ever going to make this safe. You would have to build a perpetual safety machine. And that perpetual safety machine can't ever miss because the one second it creates even a slight vulnerability for this artificial superintelligence that can think at the speed of light, it will escape and it will do its own thing. What you're proposing is a perpetual demotivation machine for the 20,000 people capable of doing this.

• 8:51Tom Bilyeu?

  But every day, there's going to be a new kid that's bright enough to do this, and you can't miss one of them. So how on earth do you expect to perpetually demotivate the 20,000 people that are capable of continuing to push this thing forward when as of right now? A very small number of those people seem demotivated.

• 9:14Speaker 02

  I don't. That's why my P doom is ninety nine point nine nine nine nine. I exactly think it's not going to happen. I'm doing everything I can, but I think the best we can achieve is to buy us some time.

• 9:28Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so let me ask the really naked question. Do you believe humans are automata? Or do you believe that we actually have free will?

• 9:38Speaker 02

  So there is good research by Stephen Wolfram on cellular automata. And interestingly, there is a bit of a hybrid answer here. Just because a system is fully following rules, fully deterministic, it doesn't mean that you can predict future states of that system. You still have to run it to find out what it does. And I think we are kind of like that. So yes, you're following laws of physics. If we fully understood every molecule, every atom in your body, we would be able to trace it and know exactly what you're going to do. But the only way to do it is to live your life and run that algorithm to completion. No one can short circuit it and predict what you're going to do in the future, which would be violation of your free will.

• 10:21Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, you've argued against that. So there's two pieces of things that you've said that I think make that untrue. Piece number one, we're probably in a simulation. Piece number two, we can speed up that simulation. So I could, since you're deterministic, go, I'm just going to play this out at a thousand X. So I get an answer to what you're going to do for the next fifty years in like the blink of an eye, and now I know. Also, I don't find any freedom in I'm deterministic. I don't know what I'm going to do next, but I'm still deterministic. I don't, I don't know that it buys us anything. And I'll explain why I'm bringing all this up in a second. I don't think it buys us anything if we are completely deterministic, just unknowable.

• 11:04Tom Bilyeu?

  The reason that I think that this matters and that I'm bringing it up now is I don't, I think, I think we are automata. I think we are entirely deterministic. I don't live my life like that. It's not an interesting frame from which to live my life. So no one's ever going to hear me talk. About, you know, my depression based on that because I just don't even think about it. It's not, that isn't how it feels. So even if it's true, thankfully, it doesn't feel like that. But when we come to moments like this, I'm so fatalistic because I don't think the way the human mind works is compatible with slowing down. And given it's not compatible.

• 11:42Speaker 02

  Example you bring up where you run the simulation at a faster speed. That's you leaving out our lives internally from inside the simulation. It doesn't seem any faster, which is going on as before. So we're still playing out fully what we're going to do step by step. There is no shortcut. If you now run it second time around, you know, it's going to give you same results. So I don't know why you would run the same simulation multiple times. It doesn't give you any extra data.

• 12:11Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah, no, I wasn't, if I said run it multiple times, my apologies. I was just saying that given that you could get ahead of it from outside the simulation, it is of no emotional consequence to me that I don't know the next step. It is knowable. It is predetermined. It just isn't knowable by me. And that doesn't, so I get no emotional alleviation from suffering if I were a person who was traumatized by the fact that I am an automata with no free will, which I am not. But if I were, eh, doesn't help me at all. And again, the reason I'm bringing that up is when I

• 12:53Tom Bilyeu?

  talk to you, I think, oh, man, this is somebody, he really can't stop himself. Like you're wired to rail against this, to play the role in the grand balancing of the human species of like, hey, this is really a problem. We should slow down. And even though it's not getting you anywhere from where I can see, you're going to keep doing it because you have like a moral compunction or something where like I, as the kind of person I am, I simply cannot exist and not try everything I can to stop this, which I relate to because I am the same. Economically. Technically, I've become obsessed. I am really, really desperate to get people to understand that we are marching ourselves off a cliff.

• 13:37Tom Bilyeu?

  And even though when I articulated to people, I'm like, this is never going to stop. We are going to march off the cliff. I can't stop myself. I still feel like this moral compunction to scream from the rooftops that we are making this mistake. And I've already won the game, like I'm already rich. So barring like an inability to flee, I'm not going to get caught up in it.

• 14:00Tom Bilyeu?

  But nonetheless, for whatever weird roll of the dice, I can't stop myself. Like, once I saw the problem, I'm like, uh, I just have to keep yelling about it. But I do. I do feel a simultaneous futility and inability to stop.

• 14:17Speaker 02

  I would love to claim pure altruistic motives and trying to save humanity, but I am within the simulation with you. So it's pure of self-interest. I don't want to creating technology which will kill me, my family, my friends, my life, everything I know. So I'm gonna talk about it for very selfish reasons.

• 14:36Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah, yeah. It's so interesting, man. So, uh, how do you get through the day? Like, what, what is your coping mechanism?

• 14:45Speaker 02

  I enjoy research. I want to understand what are the exact limits and control. When I started, I thought it is a solvable problem. Now I'm a lot more skeptical, obviously, but I still feel there is a lot we can do to make even narrow AI tools for creating safer. There is never hundred percent safety guarantee, but if I can increase safety hundredfold, that is something. And again, public outreach, if there is enough people who all agree as a scientific community, as a consensus that no, you cannot ever create safe superintelligence, maybe it makes a difference. Maybe we'll delay it by a decade. That's something.

• 15:25Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so we've got one piece of how we make it safer on the table, keep it narrow. What are some of the other things that you would consider a big win?

• 15:34Speaker 02

  So there are quite a few properties of control we want to be able to have. I call them tools of control. So our ability to test those systems, explain how they work, predict their behaviors, monitor them. All that is still in a state of investigation. We're starting to see some upper limits on what's possible, especially with advanced systems, but there is still so much room for improvement. Explainability, for example. We started with being able to understand maybe a single neuron. Now we're up to small clusters. Okay, then this input is presented, this lights up, kind of with like neuroscience. We don't fully understand human brain, but we know this is vision area, this is hearing, and so on.

• 16:17Tom Bilyeu?

  Hang tight, we'll be back in just a moment.

• 16:22Tom Bilyeu?

  There's a reason Quince sells cashmere for $60, and it isn't the cashmere. It's real 100% Mongolian cashmere. It's the same stuff luxury labels charge a fortune for. Quince just works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So there's no need for a markup and no logo tax. The $60 goes to the actual sweater, not the fancy name on the tag. That's why everything they make runs 50 to 80% less. And it's not just the cashmere. I ordered a few things myself, their fleece joggers, a couple of their tees, which I wear obsessively. First thing I noticed was the quality. Soft, well-made, built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now, too.

• 17:07Tom Bilyeu?

  So upgrade your stuff to things you'll actually wear. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns, now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Impact Theory. It's the best way to support the show. Let's talk about something that genuinely keeps me awake at night. My Team at Impact Theory gets hit with phishing scams from bad actors pretending to be me all the time. And they keep getting more sophisticated attacks with details specific enough to look legit.

• 17:47Tom Bilyeu?

  AI has made a lot of things possible, including scams like this. But AI still needs raw material. It gets it from data brokers who sell your name, address, phone number to anyone willing to pay. Incogni goes after that supply. They handle removal requests across 420 plus harmful broker sites, and they keep checking back as brokers constantly try to relist you. On the unlimited plan, the exposure scanner hunts down your information. Send a link and their privacy experts handle the takedown. Track your progress in the app and get a monthly risk assessment showing exactly where you stand. Go to incogni.com/impact and use code IMPACT for 60% off an annual plan.

• 18:32Tom Bilyeu?

  Incogni is I-N-C-O-G-N-I dot com slash impact. Promo code IMPACT. It's completely risk free with a 30 day money back guarantee.

• 18:47Tom Bilyeu?

  And we're back. Let's pick up right where we left off.

• 18:49Speaker 02

  So there is a lot of room for progress in that. I don't think we'll ever fully comprehend a complex, super intelligent neural network model, but we can do better than what we have right now. And so I think as a safety researcher, that's what I'm doing. That's my job.

• 19:06Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so basically, the model is we need to come to understand it better. We're never going to get totally there, but we need to understand it better, keep checks and balances on it. So when we find a problem, what's the action you take? Is it to apply an evolutionary force on it, a selective force, or you kill it off? Like, what's the move at that point?

• 19:29Speaker 02

  So it depends on the problem, depends on specifics. Some things we know how to address. So trivially, when we started with language models, if it says the wrong word, you can filter it out, you can punish it for using that word. So there are simple things we know how to do. The hard problem is how do you change overall internal states of a model, not just the filtered output, but how do you make it so the model itself has certain preferences and aligns with certain values?

• 19:59Tom Bilyeu?

  Do we have a guess on that?

• 20:01Speaker 02

  Not a very good one, not really. So, nobody at this point knows how to align systems other than this after the fact, putting lipstick on a pig, filtering it, censoring it. Yeah, that's unfortunately the state of the art.

• 20:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, and what parallels are being drawn between the evolution of species and the evolution of algorithms?

• 20:24Speaker 02

  So, there was a lot of attempts to evolve intelligent software. We started with genetic algorithms. Genetic programming was tried, simply evolving agents, evolving environments. It doesn't seem to be a dominated, a dominating algorithm in comparison to what is typically used for training neural networks. But there is this possibility. The problem is that evolution is even less controllable in terms of explicit engineering design. We're kind of setting it up and see what evolves and then trying to test it, to monitor it, to understand what happened. So, while it is a set of tools we have, it's probably not leading to safer systems.

• 21:05Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, interesting. Because we cannot control the outcome. So, we don't know what stimulus we're gonna have to give it. Why does that? That strikes me as so unsatisfying. Okay, why did it work so well in humans? And it works so poorly in artificial superintelligence?

• 21:25Speaker 02

  I disagree that it worked well in humans. Humans basically are as well behaved as they can get away with. You're just not powerful enough to really do the things you want. If you had absolute freedom from punishment, you'd do horrible things.

• 21:40Tom Bilyeu?

  But then that's what nature is giving you the answer. Nature's saying these have to be in balance. They have to be competing systems. And without ecosystems, without competition, you'll get these things that run amok. But I don't see anybody taking that lesson and applying it to AI.

• 21:55Speaker 02

  Yeah, applying it to AI would mean creating a society of superintelligences competing with each other and humanity as collateral damage.

• 22:03Tom Bilyeu?

  Is that why they're not doing it? I get that's why you would hate it. But is that why they're not doing it? That seems unlikely.

• 22:10Speaker 02

  There is also continuation of self-improvement process. Superintelligent is not a fixed point. There is superintelligence, which creates the next level. Superintelligent 2.0, 3.0, and they all have the same control and alignment problem. They're all worried about the next level of AI not wanting the same things, not caring about them personally. So this is an ongoing self-improvement curve. And there is no upper limit we can see. There are obvious physical limits to what can be done in a physical universe. But it's so far away from us that it's almost infinity from our point of view.

• 22:49Tom Bilyeu?

  Hmm. When I look at humans and when I, I, I may be making a, um, either a category error or I may have a foundational base assumption that's leading me astray. But when I look at what made humans work on a long time scale is evolution itself had survival as like a north star. So you have to survive and replicate. Uh, at whatever point, way back, evolution decided, I'm going to do this through sexual replication. And I'm going to make sure that this creature dies off. Uh, I think there are reasons for that, which we'll get to when we get to longevity.

• 23:28Tom Bilyeu?

  Uh, but I wanted to survive, but I wanted to survive by mating and having offspring that carry, um, certainly immune system, uh, blends so that it's less vulnerable to a single point of failure. And it realized, okay, if I'm going to do that, then this needs to be a species that both cooperates and competes, which means no one of them is the answer to the question of how to best survive. It's the whole, um, species. And when I look at even things like the left and the right politically, the way that I make sense of that is I say to myself, okay, I get from an evolution.

• 24:13Tom Bilyeu?

  Perspective, evolution had to be like, oh, hey, we have to cooperate. There's no refrigeration, so I'm gonna store calories on your body that I may need to take later versus being able to put it in a refrigerator. And by that, I don't mean that I'm going to eat you. I mean, when I'm the one that's successfully hunting, I let you eat. You're alive so that you can now hunt next time when I fail or I'm sick or whatever. And then you're gonna bring me back, which means that some people are gonna be very cooperative by nature. And so their win state is cooperation. To the point where a parent will easily lay its life down for its child.

• 24:53Tom Bilyeu?

  So that is just baked into our success criteria. So evolution was able to bury something deep inside of us through its evolutionary selective pressures, where we will lay our lives down and we break into the right-left. Let me finish that. So people on the left, very compassionate, very pro. I'm gonna store a whole bunch of calories on your body because it may come back to help me at some point. The right is very much, well, a parasite develops when you do that. And so you get the freeloader problem. And so now, if you've got people that will just take care, take care, take care, there are people that are like, cool, I'll just be taken care of. And I'm never gonna go hunt and I'm never gonna contribute to the group.

• 25:36Tom Bilyeu?

  And so you need people to have the opposite impulse, who are like, hey, you're going to pull your weight or you're gonna be ostracized or killed. And so now, in the dynamic tension between the wants and desires of the win state defined by people with a left-leaning personality versus the wants and desires of the win state defined by the people with a right-leaning personality, you get something that's, it's dynamic tension. Like, balance may not even be the right way to think about it. It's dynamic tension. They're both pulling in their direction, but they keep each other in check because that's how we've evolved, is to work together. That feels like it should be applicable to AI.

• 26:18Tom Bilyeu?

  If we want to embed deeply in its motivational structure, that we have to put it through that. And if I'm thinking from a safety perspective, I get why we want to short circuit that. And maybe that's not super efficient. But if that, if the only way to get this to find a dynamic tension or some sort of balance is to have things that are of similar intellect and ability that are pulling in slightly different directions, but they need each other somehow to stay locked together. So that it is the AI taken as a whole that stops itself from ever going wrong in any one direction too far.

• 27:00Speaker 02

  So I think it works for humans because we're about equal power and we are mutually benefiting each other. Very certain symbiosis, as you described. In a world with superintelligence in it, you don't really have anything to contribute to superintelligence. So when people propose creating hybrid systems, human and superintelligence together, I never understood what the human biological bottleneck is contributing. It's slow, it's inefficient, it's not competitive in any way. So I'm questioning this setup. If you have superintelligences separate from humans and now they decide what to do, they may still come up with something completely unfriendly and incompatible with human life. Maybe they want to lower temperature of a planet

• 27:45Speaker 02

  to improve processor speeds and server rooms. I have no idea what they decide. But the point is, while they align with our values, we're contributing nothing to their future states. With humans, we also have examples where the moment you give more power to an individual human, they get corrupt. Basically a guaranteed state. Very few people can exist corruption at very high levels. You have enough money, enough guaranteed tenured power, you become a very evil person, as we see with many dictators and so on. Even basic evolutionary drive like reproduction, you brought up this example. We use condoms. We literally hacked the only thing the nature set up us to do.

• 28:29Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah, yeah. Um, all right. I'll state my hypothesis as plainly as I can. I think you just refuted it. But my hypothesis plainly stated is the only way to build checks and balances into AI is to give it evolutionary rewards and punishments all through its development cycle that make it care about the survival and emotional thriving of humans.

• 28:56Speaker 02

  But to define those terms in a way you're not going to regret is very, very difficult. So survival of humans, what does that mean? We cry preserved in some safe emotional states. Are you on drugs all the time? Is your brain modified to keep you in a always happy state? All those things can be gamed. The moment you tell me this is what I want. And there is famous paper about making smiles for humans. Make people smile. There are a billion ways I can make you smile, but none of them is what you really want.

• 29:28Tom Bilyeu?

  Right. But do you really think a superintelligence would be so dumb as to confuse that intention? Like, wouldn't it be able to get to a rough approximation of what we're really going for? I mean, which is admittedly a neurochemical state. But if you derive, like if you said, it is the following band of neurochemical states that must be derived through their own programmatically directed actions. Like, I don't need it to believe that we're not automata. I think we clearly are. But it's like, you can't just manipulate it exogenously. It's got to come from within.

• 30:08Speaker 02

  No matter how detailed you make this specific description, a superintelligent lawyer will find a way to gimmick to make it more efficient to satisfy those requirements. Basically, you're setting it up to where the system is now in adversarial relationship with this equation. Okay, you mentioned I have to use natural chemicals. Okay, I'll generate a super stimulus. Okay, whatever. Point is, if we could do this, if we could get AI to do what we meant, assuming we were smarter and understood the problem better, we would solve the control problem. That's the hard part. I don't think we can, at our level of intelligence,

• 30:52Speaker 02

  specify what a system with hypothetical IQ of millions of points should be doing at any possible decision-making point.

• 31:01Tom Bilyeu?

  Hang tight, we'll be back in just a moment.

• 31:07Tom Bilyeu?

  You're probably paying two salespeople to do one salesperson's job. That's where today's sponsor, Pipe Drive, comes in. An intelligent, AI-powered sales CRM loved by growing sales teams. Pipe Drive just launched meeting intelligence built right into the CRM. Before every call, it pulls deal history and past conversations into one brief. During the call, it records and takes notes. After it, it drafts your CRM updates to review and approve. So there's less admin and more selling. Switch to a CRM built by salespeople for salespeople and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipe Drive.

• 31:50Tom Bilyeu?

  My link gets you an exclusive 30 days free instead of the usual 14-day trial. There's no credit card payment needed. Just head to pipedrive.com/impact to get started. Again, that's pipedrive.com/impact and you can be up and running in minutes.

• 32:11Tom Bilyeu?

  And we're back. Let's pick up right where we left off. All right, let me give you an exit ramp that I'll be curious to see if this shaves a 0.9 off your P doom or not. So if I'm a super intelligent AI, one form of manipulation that I would pull on humans would be to put them inside of a simulation. And whether that's a physical body and I help them jack in and I just socially engineer them to want to do it. And then I get them in and I really do, just like in The Matrix, the machines build a world that's sort of optimally difficult, where there is challenge, there's pushback, you're striving to get better, I'm going for balance. I don't expect

• 32:55Tom Bilyeu?

  any one person to avoid suffering and all that. And maybe that's where we are and the machines are just cruel enough that they're like, haha, I'll let it be, you know, like a two-year-old can die of leukemia very painfully. That kind of thing where we don't cease to exist, it's not even sort of broadly worse than where we're at already. That seems, for a superintelligence, it certainly seems like that would be on the menu. I just shared hallucination.

• 33:28Speaker 02

  So it's more likely, I think, that superintelligent agents think in such level of detail and realism that as a process of thinking about certain problems, they generate within them agents, virtual worlds, simulations of a scenario. So if maybe they're trying to think, how can we safely generate superintelligent systems? What is the process? Well, let me think about humanity, all the AI labs, all the hardware they design, and this process of them thinking about it is the simulation we find ourselves in.

• 34:02Tom Bilyeu?

  That's so wild. Okay, incredibly important, incredibly fascinating. But now let's talk about another very important thing that I think you have some pretty deep interest in, which is longevity. So, one, there are some people that will argue very compellingly that there is just a biological upper limit of somewhere around 120 years, that there's no escaping that. Do you think that's true? Or do you think that we'll be able to engineer living tissue to live forever?

• 34:34Speaker 02

  Well, the current body has that limit for sure, but we can modify our genome. There is nothing preventing us, no law of physics says you cannot make changes to it. And we see examples with other systems, computers, cars. I can keep replacing parts indefinitely. It's going to function as the same computer. Maybe the monitor dies, I'll get a new monitor. So if it can rejuvenate all the organs, including your brain, then there is no reason to think you have to stop existing. There is, of course, other methods, you know, uploading, scanning your brain, cryopreservation for future technology, but even the basic idea of just modifying your genome.

• 35:17Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, what do you think is the most likely path forward? Is it going to be genomic modification? Is it going to be?

• 35:25Speaker 02

  I think so. I think there is somewhere in our code a limit on how many times cells rejuvenate. And we just need to increase that number without causing cancer.

• 35:36Tom Bilyeu?

  Now, do you think that the limit on that is simply a cancer prevention tool? Or do you think that there's another agenda that evolution had to make sure that we self-destruct?

• 35:48Speaker 02

  There could be evolutionary reasons for taking out one generation and replacing it. If resources are limited and you want to keep adapting and improving, you only have so many agents in a population at any given time. So older ones have to die out. It's kind of a theoretical conclusion, not guaranteed, but seems likely. From a point of view of evolution, you are the same organism, right? The same lineage of cells passes through. So while as individual you die, your biological chain of existence continues.

• 36:24Tom Bilyeu?

  Interesting. So here's the way that I've always considered. Like if I were to personify evolution uh, instead of the blind watchmaker that it actually is, if I were going to personify evolution, it would go something like this. Okay, uh, the world is constantly changing. Your access to resources is changing. Who knows? Weather moves in cycles, everything, everything. Uh, so I'm gonna have you born. I'm gonna extend your brain development for a very long time. You're gonna go through these phases where basically, okay, learn from your parents, like whatever there is to learn just about generally being a human. Then you're gonna push away from your parents and you're gonna learn very, and the reason you have to push away from your parents is their thinking will have calcified.

• 37:08Tom Bilyeu?

  So you now need to push away from them, drink deeply of culture, the people roughly your age who have grown up in a different milieu than your parents grew up in. So they all think differently. This is a whole idea of generations cohorts that sort of think alike and have a similar frame of reference and all that. And you do that, and this is really a brain development period known as the age of imprinting. It's roughly 11 to 15. And so now you're gonna take the this moment specific like cues of, okay, is this in a time of abundance, a time of warfare, like what is it? You're gonna solidify around that. And then you're gonna start optimizing like crazy and you're gonna start pruning all the excess connections. If you're not using it, you lose it, all of that.

• 37:49Tom Bilyeu?

  And then your brain's gonna roughly wrap up its rapid development at 25, but it's been sort of a diminishing curve after 15. And now you're like baked and this is just a game of like, learn what things work really well in your environment, optimize, optimize, optimize. And so now your thinking is gonna calcify. So very good strategy on behalf of our blind watchmaker. But just as I think it was Niels Bohr that said this, it was either him or Plank, I can never remember. Science does not advance one insight at a time. It advances one funeral at a time because people just become convinced, uh, they've bet their whole reputation on something. And so they're just not gonna be convinced that they're wrong.

• 38:32Tom Bilyeu?

  And so they don't adopt new ideas as they get older. And so as evolution, I'm like, yeah, I'm also gonna put a self Destruct mechanism in here. Most of you are gonna die long before this point. But if any of you psychopaths gets to about 125, you gotta go. That makes sense to me to make sure that we never stagnate. To make sure that as the saying goes, it is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but rather the most adaptive to change. That the individual needs to be adaptive, but so does the species as a whole. And without, at least with the current structure of the human mind, without killing us off, we, we do not have that species level adaptation.

• 39:17Tom Bilyeu?

  Do you feel I'm missing something?

• 39:20Speaker 02

  I think it would be easier and more efficient to simply make you still capable of learning and adapting as you get older. And also you wouldn't have to relearn everything for first 20 years, including language and how to walk. We know that it's possible to encode those capabilities. Animals are born and immediately they can run, they can speak. So all those things are doable. Why are we losing 20 years of information every generation? We can build on top of pre-existing knowledge. Big data is good for intelligence. So we can have smarter, more efficient reproduction cycle. And you still die of natural causes. It wouldn't be complete stagnation.

• 40:03Speaker 02

  But if you're smart enough to survive for 400 years, why not?

• 40:09Tom Bilyeu?

  Well, my why not is entirely predicated on not having a clear understanding of how we would bake in the ability to adapt long into our old age. Because you're right, if we could stay in that novel period, or at least move through cycles of extreme sort of remapping of the world, maybe that would work and maybe we can identify where that is. But when I think about the problems that humans create, like even now, just having a political system run by geriatrics, who are so out of touch with the way that certainly the economic world actually works for young people,

• 40:52Tom Bilyeu?

  is terrifying. And so the only like pressure relief valve that people have is, well, eventually they're all gonna die. And then like we'll get to step into power and all of that. And there are also problems of power, because the older you are, the more likely you are to have a stable network of very other powerful people. And so you're able to, to your point earlier about you need people of sort of equal power, equal intelligence. Otherwise, you get what I'll call parasites in the system. And so older people would just become those parasites, because they would have just had more years to accumulate useful knowledge, to accumulate connections. So it just feels like, wow, there's a lot of stuff we would have to update. So I want to live forever. I don't understand anybody that doesn't.

• 41:37Tom Bilyeu?

  However, I do worry that there's like a, okay, cool, you can live forever, but you only get 120 years on earth. And then you have to go like somewhere else. So that there's churn of some kind in the different ecosystems, so that they don't just calcify.

• 41:59Speaker 02

  I think if you do live forever, or at least you expect to, you're less likely to reproduce at a young age. You may take the first 400, 500 years to start a family. So I think all this kind of expectation of 20-year generations and younger generations showing up will be modified as a result. We're already starting to see population dynamics change in Europe, Asia, where we're not producing enough children to even maintain the population.

• 42:29Tom Bilyeu?

  It's interesting, the way that I think that will play out, maybe even a little bit different than that, because part of why I haven't had kids is I was like, I only get one youth where I can go hard, I have a ton of energy, I feel like I'm of the culture, so I'm far more likely to build something relevant than I am as I get older, genius is a young man's game, as they say. And so I don't want to be distracted by something. I also don't want it to pull at my marriage. So I'm like, ah, I'm gonna hold off for now. If I knew that I was gonna live for 500 years, I might just be like, ah, whatever, let's do it now, because I'd rather see, like, it only takes me a 25, 30-year investment, and then after that, like, I get to see what they do, and I get to see all my progeny

• 43:13Tom Bilyeu?

  and all of that, and I'm gonna have plenty of time. You know, if my youth lasts for 250 years, it's like, yeah, word, whatever, I'll clock the 30 years now so that I can see how big my family gets. I think this is one where I want to think like a sci-fi writer, it gets so interesting so fast.

• 43:33Speaker 02

  It's not obvious, but I think most people procrastinate on hard work, and so they would put it away as far as they could get away with.

• 43:41Tom Bilyeu?

  There, there is some truth to that, to be sure. What's a big breakthrough in longevity that you've seen that's got you really excited that this is all possible?

• 43:52Speaker 02

  There are some good experiments in animal models. Of course, they don't always scale up to human performance, but I think there is some 30, 40% increase in lifespan of mice and other lab animals. It's hard to experiment on bigger animals with longer lifespans, it takes a very long time to see results, but I think we're making good progress in understanding at least what might improve your health span, and what changes we need to make to the genome. We study people who already have very long lifespans and find commonalities in their genomes. If those can be reproduced, either pharmaceutically

• 44:35Speaker 02

  or through genetic manipulation, maybe we can all get same, at least 120.

• 44:41Tom Bilyeu?

  Have you heard of the Chinese doctor, I think is Dr. Liu? He went to prison because he altered the genome of two twin girls. And he

• 44:53Speaker 02

  That's human cloning.

• 44:55Tom Bilyeu?

  Yes.

• 44:57Tom Bilyeu?

  So he just put out a post on X like a couple of days ago that said with 10 edits to the human genome, you can give birth to a child that is immune to, God, it was like five things. Cancer, HIV. I mean, they were like big things. And he was like, it's only 10 edits to the genome. Do you pay attention to his work at all? Do you think that's ethical? Like, what do you either get excited about or worry about there?

• 45:24Speaker 02

  I'm behind on my science. There is so much coming out, even in my domain of AI. I can't even keep up in that domain. So I definitely don't follow details of everything. I'm skeptical about his claim that cancer can be cured because cancer is like a thousand different conditions. Barely related. We call them all cancer, but they are completely different problems. So unlikely to be the case. I haven't seen the post. Maybe he talks about a specific type. But definitely so much of it is a single mutation. We know some people are immune to getting AIDS virus exactly because they have a single mutation.

• 46:01Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so let's just say for a second that however many edits it is, it is possible. Do you draw a line between germ line editing where this is going to get passed on? Like, do you have some of the same safety fears where it's like there's just too much unknown? Where do you come down on genome editing?

• 46:18Speaker 02

  It's a lot less concerning. So for one, if there is one human with some problem, that's it. It's still just one human. If we have editing tools, whatever changes we make, we can later undo them with the same editing tool. If we've made a mistake, we can go back and rectify those problems. So I'm a lot less concerned because of impact. Worst case scenarios, yeah, there are ethical implications for the individual. Like he was in prison for human cloning, which is considered to be problematic because it may harm the child significantly. But humanity as a whole is not impacted directly negatively by that experiment.

• 46:56Tom Bilyeu?

  Where is AI's intersection with this? Is AI going to be a critical tool in terms of just mapping out all of the, like you said, the similarities at the genome level between people that live long and people that don't? Is AI going to be, you know, doing novel protein folding and going in and solving some of the architectural problems of people that are getting sick? Like, where is that going to interface with longevity?

• 47:19Speaker 02

  All of the above. We need to map the genome. We need to understand what individual parts do. We need to design novel drugs. Protein folding has been solved, basically, but there is other things we can map on biological substrates. So, yeah, at every aspect of it, we need AI. But I think as was illustrated with protein folding problem, a narrow system can do it. We don't need super intelligence for that.

• 47:47Tom Bilyeu?

  What's something that's happening in AI right now that you don't think enough people are paying attention to?

• 47:51Speaker 02

  Well, I don't know what people are paying attention to. Usually after my talk, the questions I get seem to be completely irrelevant to the subject of my talk. I'll tell them that it's going to kill everyone and they ask me if they're going to lose their jobs. So I don't think it's a good way to measure what is important. But look at predictions from inside the labs. They are starting to talk about automating research process, creating junior scientists as AI agents, AI models. They are saying that externally to the lab, people don't understand just how capable systems are yet. So there seems to be a lot of indicators that internal progress is even more impressive than what we see outside.

• 48:35Tom Bilyeu?

  That's interesting. What is the big anxiety that when you give your talks that people come up with? Is it just, am I going to lose my job?

• 48:44Speaker 02

  It is things they already know and care about dealing with other human agents. So algorithmic bias, technological unemployment. Recently with OpenAI announcing that they're going to get into adult material. People are now freaking out that we're going to have artificial girlfriends, all this nonsense.

• 49:04Tom Bilyeu?

  You're not worried about that?

• 49:06Speaker 02

  Why would I worry about someone having an artificial girlfriend?

• 49:10Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, well, let me paint the picture. So I never would have guessed in a million years that giving a 12-year-old access to the internet would end up being so damaging to an entire generation, but some of the studies coming out now are terrifyingly compelling. And then there was that commercial, which just brilliantly encapsulates it. I'm so sad that if I had kids, I don't know that I would have thought of it, where the father's like tucking his son into bed. He's like, "All right, good night. Now be safe. Now remember, over in the corner is a box with all the pornography that's ever been made in the world. Don't look at it, especially not the really harmful stuff. And over here, there are going to be people that are trolling you and making fun of you. You've got to ignore them.

• 49:52Tom Bilyeu?

  And I was like, "Oh, my God. That's exactly what it's like to leave a kid alone with their cellphone at night if they have unfettered access to the internet and to social media." And so, given that we've got character AI that's been sued multiple times, I think, for kids that have committed suicide after interacting with their chatbots.

• 50:13Tom Bilyeu?

  I can only imagine the number of people that will end up falling in love with an AI system that does not feel anything back, could turn on them, could intentionally or unintentionally manipulate them. So I can imagine that becoming problematic in ways that we just can't anticipate yet.

• 50:34Speaker 02

  Yeah, but they're very similar to problems we had before. How many men fell in love with women who felt nothing for them? We all grew up on the internet with access to pornography. It wasn't AI-generated, but we somehow survived it. So I think those are more of the same problems. They're still something we should look at, but I don't think we'll all die as a result of Sam Altman having a virtual boyfriend.

• 51:00Tom Bilyeu?

  What do you think of Sam Altman? Is he the right person to have this potential godlike control in his hands?

• 51:07Speaker 02

  I don't think no human is a right person to deal with that level of power. Now, I don't think he's going to be in control, but even the stages leading us to the development of this technology already present way too much power for any individual to handle.

• 51:25Tom Bilyeu?

  Were you impressed or terrified when the board tried to boot him and he ended up remaking the board and coming back?

• 51:32Speaker 02

  It was fascinating to watch, but what I was observing is that it made no difference. The company was an independent entity and all the human components of that monster kept walking just the same. They replaced him with a temporary CEO. They brought him back. There was never any switch in anything, any change in direction of the company.

• 51:53Tom Bilyeu?

  Now, is there a major player in the AI space that you think is doing it right? Like Eliezer Yudkowsky is very focused on AI safety. You've got the Anthropic CEO that's like banging the drum, wanting more regulation. Do you like any of their approaches or anybody that maybe I'm not aware of?

• 52:11Speaker 02

  So Eliezer does zero development. He's purely a safety advocate. And so I'm very happy with him because he's not developing any super intelligences. Anyone who is, is problematic. And whatever we talk about government regulation, which is meaningless as a solution to a technical problem or anything else. They might have some internal polling showing this is good for business or good for public perception, but I don't think it makes a difference in terms of solving super intelligent safety problems.

• 52:44Tom Bilyeu?

  Now, have you talked to Eliezer or read anything? Like, is he saying specifically, "I have become afraid that this does something bad and therefore I'm not going to develop anymore"?

• 52:54Speaker 02

  He was never developing AI to begin with, other than publishing a very high-level obstruction theory for how it could be done when he was like 16.

• 53:04Tom Bilyeu?

  Got it. I thought he was actually an engineer.

• 53:08Speaker 02

  As far as I know, he doesn't actually release any software into the world.

• 53:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay. Uh, now, the Anthropic CEO, his name I'm forgetting, he is being accused of going after regulatory capture, that he's not very sincere and actually trying to slow this down. He just wants to make sure that the big players remain the big players. Uh, when you look at the way that he's moving, um, does that ring true? Or do you think, no, this is somebody who's sincere about keeping us safe?

• 53:36Speaker 02

  They all on record as being very concerned with safety. In fact, all these companies started as safety companies. OpenAI was a safety offshoot of philanthropic endeavors, effective altruism. Anthropic was a offshoot of that project becoming less safe. And so all of them claimed at some point that the only reason they're doing what they're doing is to improve safety. And then each one of them greatly improved capabilities of AI without proportionately improving safety. So that's, that's the actions I see.

• 54:11Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay. One of the things that I worry about from a safety perspective, things are obviously already bad enough and moving fast enough. But quantum computing, at least from my layman's perspective, seems to be, um, gaining some sort of rapid acceleration. Um, am I just not able to understand the limitations that are self-evident to somebody educated at your level? Um, or are we really at some sort of phase transition moment?

• 54:37Speaker 02

  Looking at stock market value of quantum computing companies, it seems like somebody knows something on the inside. Maybe they're making good progress, but as far as AI goes, uh, we're making excellent progress with standard von Neumann architectures. So I don't think there is a necessity for quantum computing to get us to a GI of superintelligence. It does have tremendous impact on crypto world, both cryptography for security and crypto economically. Uh, so that's where I'm worried about, uh, quantum, keeping secrets and keeping my money, but not as much in terms of AI.

• 55:13Tom Bilyeu?

  Keeping your money because it will crack typical banks or keeping your money because you're largely in crypto?

• 55:19Speaker 02

  Both, actually. It, uh, impacts all the standard encryption algorithms. We have post-quantum encryption, but we haven't switched to it for most interesting applications.

• 55:29Tom Bilyeu?

  So give me your stance on Bitcoin.

• 55:32Speaker 02

  Buy some.

• 55:34Tom Bilyeu?

  That's very clear. What, so when you look at gold and you look at Bitcoin, why Bitcoin over gold?

• 55:41Speaker 02

  You can make more gold. As the price of gold goes up, I can make as much gold as you want. I can convert our matter into gold at very high price. I can exploit asteroids in the universe. I can get gold out of oceans. There is a lot of gold which is very expensive to get, but if a price of gold is high enough, I can produce more and more. Bitcoin is not subject to the same pressures. It doesn't matter if one coin is a trillion dollars, there is still a limited supply.

• 56:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, but what about people who say, uh, gold at least can be made into other things. Gold has survived for thousands of years. Bitcoin is like 15-ish years old. And it's not backed by anything, can't turn it into anything. It's just literally got no other use.

• 56:30Speaker 02

  It's a dedicated app. So if you have an app which does everything, it's usually not good at anything. The fact that I can make jewelry out of it is not an important feature for me storing my wealth in it. Whereas this has capabilities, gold historically lacked. If I can pass a billion dollars to you right now for five dollars immediately across borders, I cannot do this with gold.

• 56:57Tom Bilyeu?

  All right, talk to me about the post-quantum encryption. Every time I'm hugely in Bitcoin, uh, every time I hear the word quantum, I'm like, ah, like, oh, this just makes me paranoid. Given that it's rightly difficult to make changes to Bitcoin, how are we going to get to post quantum encryption on Bitcoin in a way where the community actually comes to consensus and doesn't create a problem for itself?

• 57:26Speaker 02

  So once we get integer factorization running in quantum computers, you can see what size integers looking factor. That tells us how close we are to cracking standard Bitcoin encryption hash functions. If we're getting close to what would essentially destroy the network, I think it's like any other emergency. We have history of fixing Bitcoin software. Then an obvious problem was discovered. I think at one point, somebody managed to print a trillion coins or some nonsense like that. Immediately a patch was distributed. Everyone adopts it because it's the only way to go forward. And I think that's what we're gonna see. As long as we have that available, tested, the moment there is a good, strong signal

• 58:07Speaker 02

  that you have no choice but to accept or lose everything, it's self-interest once again.

• 58:13Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so on that, where are we? How many integers can a quantum computer handle? And how many would it have to be able to handle in order to be a threat to Bitcoin?

• 58:25Speaker 02

  I haven't kept up with the latest breakthroughs. Last time I looked, it was a laughably small number. Quantum computers were factoring like, I don't know, 15. Literal 15, not even 15 digits. So unless there was tremendous progress since then, I think we're still good. But progress could also be exponential, so it could come very quickly.

• 58:49Tom Bilyeu?

  Right. Okay, so if you had a message to the Bitcoin community, would it be, "Let's move on this now. There's no reason to wait until it's an emergency. There's a very clear path." Or is it like, "Well, I'm just sort of on the ride with everybody else"?

• 59:03Speaker 02

  I think we still have time. I don't think it's pressing as much as AI problems we're dealing with. So if AI is two years away, I think we may not be that close with quantum computers just yet. But again, it's one breakthrough away. If some company comes up with something much more powerful, it may shift very quickly.

• 59:24Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, and what's the term for that? The number of integers it can process?

• 59:30Speaker 02

  The trigger would be what size integers could be factored, how many bits.

• 59:38Tom Bilyeu?

  Got it. Okay. All right, Roman, this has been just absolutely incredible. What message do you want to leave people with to get them to take action? What is your best pitch to get them to sign your petition?

• 59:51Speaker 02

  So if you are in a position of developing more powerful AI systems, concentrate on getting your money out of narrow AI systems, solve real problems, cure cancer, figure out how to make us live longer, healthier lives. If you are developing superintelligent, please stop. You're not going to benefit yourself or others. The challenge is, of course, you know, prove us wrong. Prove that you know how to control superintelligent systems, no matter how capable they get, how much it scales. If you can do that, then it completely changes the situation. But as long as no one has came up with a paper, a patent, even a rigorously argued blog post, I think we are pretty much in consensus

• 1:00:37Speaker 02

  that we don't know how to control superintelligent systems and building them is irresponsible.

• 1:00:44Tom Bilyeu?

  Amazing. Where can people connect with you?

• 1:00:47Speaker 02

  Follow me on Twitter, follow me on Facebook, just don't follow me home.

• 1:00:52Tom Bilyeu?

  Nice. Awesome, Roman. Thank you so much for the time today. I really appreciate it. Everybody at home, speaking of things I appreciate, if you haven't already, be sure to subscribe. And until next time, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace. Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop, eight ounces of water, and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients,

• 1:01:37Tom Bilyeu?

  vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient-dense superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements and perfect planning. Now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2, and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.