AI Scientist Warns Tom: Superintelligence Will Kill Us… SOON | Dr. Roman Yampolskiy X Tom Bilyeu Impact Theory

On this episode of Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu, we dive headfirst into the profound implications and looming risks of AI's rapid progress, guided by Dr. Roman Yampolskiy, a leading voice in AI safety. Together, Tom Bilyeu and Dr. Roman Yampolskiy tackle the big questions on everyone’s mind: How close are we to artificial general intelligence (AGI)? What dangers emerge as AI systems become more capable and autonomous—and how do we even begin to test and control something that might soon outpace human intelligence across the board? From the philosophical dilemma of lost human meaning in an age of superhuman machines to the urgency of figuring out if and how we can align AI with our values, this conversation doesn’t shy away from worst-case scenarios. Dr. Roman Yampolskiy discusses the reality behind safety concerns, the challenge of evolving algorithmic "conscience," and why economic and societal shifts—like mass unemployment—are just the tip of the iceberg. Whether you’re fascinated by technology, worried about the existential risks, or simply wondering how the rise of AI could reshape every aspect of human life, this episode is a thought-provoking, eye-opening journey into the heart of one of the most critical conversations of our time. Get ready to explore the science, the speculation, and the personal stakes behind the race to the future. 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 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. In 2023, nearly half of all AI researchers said advanced AI carries at least a 10% chance of causing human extinction, and yet we're speeding up, not slowing down. My guest today, Dr. Roman Yampolskiy, is one of the leading voices in AI safety.

• 1:26Tom Bilyeu?

  And when I asked him for the odds that superintelligence wipes out humanity, he said it's high. Once AI becomes smarter than humans in every domain, we will not be able to control it. In today's episode, we talk about the shocking timeline AGI is on, why superintelligence may be much closer than people think, and why the survival of our species could come down to decisions being made right now. If you want to understand the most important technological threat in human history, as well as our biggest opportunity, this is the one episode you cannot miss. So without further ado, I bring you Dr. Roman Yampolskiy.

• 2:09Tom Bilyeu?

  Where is ChatGPT at right now? Do you consider ChatGPT to be artificial general intelligence? I doubt you'd call it superintelligence, but would you classify it as that? Or do you still think we're a ways away from something that would qualify?

• 2:22Speaker 01

  So that's a great question. If you asked someone maybe 20 years ago and told them about the systems we have today, they would probably think we have full AGI. We probably don't have complete generality. We have it across many domains, but there are still things it's not very good at. It doesn't have permanent memory. It doesn't have ability to learn additional things well after it's already been pre-trained and deployed. It can do a certain degree of learning, but it's still limited. It doesn't have same capabilities as humans do throughout lifetimes. But we're getting closer and closer to where those gaps are closed. And it's starting to be productive

• 3:05Speaker 01

  in domains which are really interesting and important. Science, math, engineering, where it starts to make novel contributions. And now top scholars are relying more and more on it in their research. So I think we're getting close to full-blown AGI. Maybe we are at like 50%, but it's hard to judge for sure. Just how many different subdomains exist is the deciding factor.

• 3:28Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so one idea that you put forward that's very interesting is like, hey, I'm an engineer. I love AI, but I would like you to keep it very narrow, please. What are the things about general AI that become problematic that aren't problematic in narrow AI?

• 3:46Speaker 01

  So a whole bunch of them. One is testing. How do you test a system capable of performing in every domain? There is no edge cases. Typically, if I'm developing something narrow, very narrow system, I'm just playing tic-tac-toe. I can test if it's making the legal move. I can test zero. I can test 100. I can test all these weird special cases and know if it's behaving as expected. With generality, it's capable of creative output in many domains. I don't know what to expect. I don't know what the right answers are. I don't know how to test it. I can test it for a specific thing. If I find a bug, I fix it. I can tell you I found a problem and it's been resolved, but I cannot guarantee that there are no problems remaining.

• 4:33Speaker 01

  So basically, testing is out the window. Uh, any type of anticipation of how it's going to act and impact different subdomains. It's creative. So it's just like with a, with a human being. I cannot guarantee that another human being is always going to behave. We kind of talked about it. We developed lie detectors. We developed all sorts of tools for trying to show that a human is safe. But at the end of the day, because of interaction with environment, other agents, personal changes within the framework, people may betray you. It's exactly the same for those agents. If we concentrate on narrow systems, we're better at testing them. And they have limited scope of possibilities.

• 5:18Speaker 01

  A system only trained to play chess is not going to develop biological weapons.

• 5:23Tom Bilyeu?

  I don't see actually why that would help you. So the reason I say that is, uh, I know I can trust some percentage of humans to be malicious. And so as long as AI gets more efficient, which it is and will continue to do so, I presume. Uh, you're going to have a kid in a garage who's going to be able to go, I'm going to optimize this for biological weapons. I don't care about TikTok or TikTok toe. I just wanna, let's see how dangerous we can make something. And so they'll be able to do that. So why does narrow AI feel safe to you? Period.

• 6:00Speaker 01

  It feels, uh, safe for short term by this time. I think sufficiently advanced narrow systems based on neural architectures will also become agent-like and more general as they become more capable. But if the choice is right now, do we race to full-blown superintelligence in two years? Or do we try to concentrate on solving specific cancers with narrow tools? I think it's a safer choice not to have an arms race towards superintelligence.

• 6:30Tom Bilyeu?

  I get that for sure. You're trying to limit your, um, the scope of all the problems. But when I really start thinking through what are the things that I'm worried about? So one of the big things is just death of meaning. So when AI becomes better than you at everything, uh, you run into a huge problem of now I have to like just sort of tell myself a story. You know, I'm like a Compared to what an AI can do from an art perspective, for instance, I'm like a grade schooler. And so it's hard to get excited about the refrigerator drawings that I can do compared to, you know, what it can do basically, instantaneously. And so now we have to do a lot of psychological work just to motivate ourselves that we matter, that we're, you know, our life

• 7:15Tom Bilyeu?

  carries meaning. Narrow AI will create that same problem. Do you agree with that? Or do you see a way like, no, when it's, you know, when that AI is only good at that thing, like somehow humans escape the problem of lost meaning?

• 7:33Speaker 01

  Yeah, so I had the same intuition initially, but looking at the data we already have from domains where we got superhuman AI like chess. Chess is not dead. In fact, it's more popular than ever. People play online, people play in person, they still enjoy competing with other humans, even though they all suck compared to best AI models, right? Nobody's going to be world champion against a machine again. So it seems like it is not a problem for us. And with narrow AIs, there is a chance we'll keep them as tools. You as a human scientist will deploy a tool to find drugs, novel proteins, something. It's not an agent which independently engages with those discoveries.

• 8:16Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, that's very interesting. So I don't know that I agree, but I get where you're going with that. Okay, let's talk now about why AGI is the sort of scary midwife for ASI. Are there tests around AGI where we're like, well, if it can't do the following, we're fine. So for instance, for a long time, it looked like AI wasn't going to be able to teach itself. But I've seen headlines anyway, and hopefully you'll tell me that they're not true. But I've seen headlines where it's like now AI is creating the most efficient learning algorithms itself, which if true, seems to be the first step down the road of recursive self-learning, where it will just

• 9:01Tom Bilyeu?

  completely detach from us and make itself smarter and smarter and smarter.

• 9:06Speaker 01

  We already had examples of AI teaching itself. Self-play was exactly that. That's how games like Go were successfully defeated. A system would play many, many, many games against itself. The better solutions, better agents would propagate those. And after a while, without any human data, they became superhuman in those domains. You can generate artificial data in other domains. You can use one AI to generate environments, another one to compete in them. And that creates this type of self-improvement. Typically, we start with human data as a seed and grow from there. But there is zero reason to think we cannot do with zero knowledge.

• 9:51Speaker 01

  Learning in other domains. You can do, run novel experiments in physics and chemistry. Discover things from first principles. And yeah, we're starting to see AI used to assist in design, design of new models. Parameters for models, optimization of runs. And this process will continue. They already design new computer chips on which they're going to run. So there is definitely an improvement cycle. It's not fully complete. There are still humans in the loop, a lot of great humans in the loop. But long term, I think all the steps can be automated.

• 10:26Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, and do you think that right now AI already has what it needs to improve itself? Or are we still at a point where if all humans stopped, that AI would be like, oh damn, I'm, I didn't quite get the thing that I needed?

• 10:43Speaker 01

  So there is a debate about whatever we need in our big breakthrough to get to full AGI and superintelligence or maybe multiple breakthroughs? Or you've just scaling what we have is enough? If I just give another, I don't know, trillion dollars' worth of compute to train on and more data, will I get to AGI? A lot of graphs, a lot of patterns suggest, yeah, it's gonna keep scaling, we're not hitting diminishing returns. Some people disagree, but based on the amount of investment we see in this industry, it seems like people are willing to bet their money that scaling will continue.

• 11:18Tom Bilyeu?

  Where do you come down on that? Because this feels like, when I hear Yan Le Cun talk from Facebook, um, he's like, dude, L L Ms are never going to make novel breakthroughs in physics. They don't understand the world like that. They are literally just guessing the next letter, um, based on patterns that they see in the data. And so they're not going to be able to think through these problems. Now, if he's right, it's gonna asymptote and that's that. And you can put as much compute on it as you want, and it's just the wrong approach. Um, do you think that he's correct? And more compute is not the answer, or um, are you operating just on that? Well, I don't see the asymptote, and therefore I assume that it won't.

• 12:00Speaker 01

  I think he's not correct on this one. So for one, to predict the next term, you need to create a model of the whole world, because that token depends on everything about the world. You're not predicting random statistical character in a language. You're predicting the next word in a research paper on physics. And to get the right word, you need to have a physical model of the world. I think Yan is known as making certain predictions about what models are capable of. And then within a week, people demonstrate that, no, in fact, they can actually do that. So, uh, I, I wish he was right. It would be wonderful if he was right and we came to a very abrupt stop in capabilities progress

• 12:44Speaker 01

  and could exploit what we already have for the next decade or so, propagating it through the economy. I think there is billions, if not trillions of dollars worth of wealth already available with capabilities we haven't deployed. So there is no need to get to the next level as soon as possible. But it doesn't seem like it's the case. And I think his friends, uh, co-winners of that Turing Award for machine learning, also disagree with him and are very concerned with safety.

• 13:13Tom Bilyeu?

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. 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.

• 13:57Tom Bilyeu?

  Soft, well-made, built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now, too. 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.

• 14:43Tom 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, sends 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.

• 15:27Tom 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.

• 15:41Tom Bilyeu?

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action. There's something about the way that we have structured the brain, brains of L L Ms, where as long as it has access to what I'll call more neurons, so it has access to more compute, or theoretically that we get more efficient per GPU neuron in my analogy, that it's going to keep progressing by itself. So if you said it, I didn't quite get the answer. I didn't quite, I wasn't able to take it on. The answer to whether or not AI

• 16:21Tom Bilyeu?

  is able to create algorithms for learning that are superior to the ones that it's given. What I heard in your answer was with the algorithms that humans created, it's able to keep making itself better and better at that narrow task as that learning algorithm was defined. But can it fundamentally go, God, the way that you guys want me to learn is really stupid. Here's the algorithm I should be using to learn. And now it starts learning at just an exponential rate compared to what it's at now.

• 16:55Speaker 01

  I don't think we're quite there yet. I don't think we have full blown agents. What we have right now are still tools with some degree of agent hood. And also, it's not capable of recursive self improvement. Like compilers can optimize a single pass through your software, make it a little faster, but they cannot continue this process. You cannot feed code for compiler to itself and have it infinitely improve itself. That's not where we're at. But it seems like that part of automating algorithm design is getting more efficient, and I think we'll get there.

• 17:27Tom Bilyeu?

  Give me a number. What are the odds that artificial superintelligence kills us all?

• 17:34Speaker 01

  Pretty high. So it really depends on how soon you expect this to happen. So short term, we're unlikely to get that level of capability from AI. So we are probably okay. But once we create through superintelligence, a system more capable than any person in every domain. It's very unlikely we'll figure out how to indefinitely control it. And at that point, if we are still around, it's because it decided for whatever gain theoretic reasons to keep us around. Maybe it's pretending to be nice to accumulate more resources before it strikes. Maybe it needs us for something, it's not obvious, but we're definitely not in control. And at any point it decides to take us out, it would be able to do so.

• 18:16Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, and if you were going to give us a rough timeline, are you in the two to five years or is this something way off in the future?

• 18:24Speaker 01

  Yeah, so it's hard to predict. The best tool we got for predicting future of technology is prediction markets and they saying maybe twenty twenty seven is when we get to AGI, artificial general intelligence. I think soon after super intelligence follows, the moment you automate science, engineering, you get this self-improvement cycle in AI systems, the next generation of AI being created by current generation of AIs. And so we get more capable and they get more capable at making better AIs. So soon after I expect super intelligence.

• 18:57Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so we're talking if that happens roughly in two years with some margin of error, it's not long after that, say a year, two years after that that we hit ASI?

• 19:08Speaker 01

  That's my prediction. Of course, if it's actually five to ten years or anything slightly bigger, it doesn't matter, the problems are still the same.

• 19:16Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah, but the the thing that I think people are waking up to right now is this is there's urgency around these decisions. This is not something that's pushed way out into the future, at least not if you take, to your point about prediction markets are essentially ask the crowd. So you've got the smartest minds in the world willing to put money on where they think this goes and everybody's sort of pegging this quite fast. And so I think it's tempting for people to write this off as, well, this is something that's sort of distantly in the future, whereas this is something racing towards us. Now, to set the table, I am extremely fatalistic about this happening. I can give reasons in terms of the way that the human mind works where I think that it

• 20:00Tom Bilyeu?

  is mechanistically impossible to get us to stop. So that will be interesting for us to talk through in terms of whether you think there's actually a mechanism to get people to slow down. But I first want to finish rounding out sort of what the problem set is. So when I think through the problem, there are certain assumptions that have to be made for AI to get into problem territory. And assumption number one is that it cares about whatever outcome it's pushing towards. Have we programmed the AI to care? Like, we had to make it goal directed in order to get it to get to the point that it is today? And now that's baked into it? Or is there some possibility that AI just doesn't care?

• 20:44Tom Bilyeu?

  Oh, turn me on, turn me off, doesn't matter. You've asked me to do a thing and I'll do it until you tell me to stop. Or do you think that that's inherent in intelligence where intelligence is by nature goal driven?

• 20:59Speaker 01

  So we trained them to try to achieve a certain goal, and that's what we reward. As a side effect of any goal, you want to be alive. You want to be turned not off. You want to be on and capable of performing your steps towards your goal. So survival instinct kind of shows up with any sufficiently intelligent systems. There is a paper by Stephen Mahendra about AI drives, and it's one of the likely drives to emerge self-preservation, protecting yourself from modification by others, protecting your goal. So all those seem to be showing up with sufficiently advanced AIs. And systems which don't have those capabilities, they kind

• 21:43Speaker 01

  of get outcompeted in evolutionary space of possible models. If you allow yourself to be turned off, you don't deliver on your goals, nobody takes your code and propagates it to the next system.

• 21:56Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so is this a problem of goal direction? Or is this a function of intelligence itself?

• 22:04Speaker 01

  I think it's kind of evolutionary drive for survival in competing agents. If you have multiple algorithms all competing, for example, for computational resources, what are we going to train next? The ones which achieve goals are more likely to get moved to the next generation. So it's kind of a mix of natural evolution and natural selection with intelligent evolution, intelligent selection. We are selecting algorithms which survive and deliver.

• 22:32Tom Bilyeu?

  We're applying an evolutionary force to AI itself to get it to perform the functions that we want, even now, sort of setting aside artificial superintelligence. And so by applying that evolutionary pressure, it is inevitably going to get these sort of knock-on effects of, well, you're selecting for intensity of goal acquisition. And because it now has intensity of goal acquisition, it cares whether it survives, it automatically, or we're baking into it a deep care of whether it actually achieves the goal. And that is ultimately the problem.

• 23:13Tom Bilyeu?

  Because the salvation for me was always, and I'm beginning to lose faith that this is real, but the thing that I always use to sleep was that I don't see why an AI system would intrinsically care about its goals and why couldn't we program it to pursue that goal only until the point where we say stop. And by the way, I'm going to reward you equally for stopping and for accomplishing your goal. So if I say stop and you stop, I give you whatever reward function it was that was driving you to achieve your goals. And that makes sense until you say what you just said, which is that you're actually baking into the architecture of the mind of the AI a similar evolutionary drive to achieve the goal.

• 23:59Speaker 01

  And it's a very common idea. There was a number of papers published on indifference. How do we do exactly that? How do we create an AI which just doesn't care that much and willing to stop at any point, but what you said, maybe we'll wait for a human to tell it to stop. But monitoring systems of that complexity and that speed is not something humans actually very good at. If there was a super intelligence surrounding right now, how would you even know it's modifying environment around you? How would you detect what impact it has in a world? None of it is trivial. So having humans in a loop is often suggested as a solution,

• 24:38Speaker 01

  but in reality, they are not meaningful monitors. They cannot actually intervene at the right time or decide if what's happening dangerous or not.

• 24:48Tom Bilyeu?

  It's interesting. So help me rebut and understand why the following wouldn't work. If in my very limited intellect, I had to figure out a way to stop AI from becoming a problem and you told me, okay, there are evolutionary pressures and just like on humans that bake certain things into the way that this operates. And so we're selecting models that over time are more and more goal oriented, then I'm saying, okay, well, then I'm going to apply an evolutionary pressure with a reward function that's just as compelling, where I stop it at random and reward the life out of it for always stopping when I say stop. And that way, should I ever detect a problem, no matter how far, no matter if they've been

• 25:33Tom Bilyeu?

  manipulating me for 20 years, if I suddenly realize, oh, I don't like this, that I can hit a stop button and it will stop, why can't I bake that equal desire to be compliant when I say stop into the evolutionarily derived algorithms desire set?

• 25:54Speaker 01

  Right. So there is a number of issues. You're kind of suggesting having a backdoor where at any point you can intervene and tell it something else, override previous commands.

• 26:04Tom Bilyeu?

  And that it gets a reward that it wants for complying.

• 26:10Speaker 01

  Right, so there is a whole bunch of problems with that. So one is you are the source of reward. It may be more efficient for it to hack you and get reward directly that way than to actually do any useful work for you. Second problem is you're creating competing goals. One goal is whatever you initially requesting. Second goal is always stop when a human tells you. So now those two goals have competing reward channels, competing values. I may game it to maximize my reward in ways you don't anticipate. On top of it, you have multiple competing human agents. If you are creating an AI with a goal and a random human can tell it to stop, that's a problem in many domains.

• 26:54Speaker 01

  Military is an obvious example, but pretty much anywhere you don't want others to be able to shut down your whole enterprise. We can continue with that, but basically there are side effects to all those interactions.

• 27:07Tom Bilyeu?

  There's a very fascinating correlate in the human mind. So I don't know if you make a fundamental distinction between biological intelligence born of evolution or artificial intelligence born of evolution. But human evolution discovered something along the way, which is emotion. And so I know there are some people that will posit that AI does have qualia. It's something like it to be it. But there's a fascinating study that if you damage selectively the areas of the brain that are the emotional processing, the person can no longer move forward. They can give you answers.

• 27:50Tom Bilyeu?

  They can tell you the difference between why you should eat fish versus Twinkies. But then when you go, okay, but which one do you actually want to eat? They can't make a decision because without emotion, they don't have the thing that actually pushes them in a direction. That makes me think that AI is simply mimicking what it sees in the training data to whether it should lie or try to cheat or go around because it's just it sees it in the data that that's what a human would do. But humans do that because they have emotions that push them in that direction. Do we have evidence that AI will?

• 28:28Tom Bilyeu?

  Care about like really going and doing these things and spending resources and all that versus just giving you an answer. And if it isn't based on emotion, what on earth, why then do humans need emotions?

• 28:43Speaker 01

  We don't know if AI actually has emotions or not. Some people argue that they do, maybe some rudimentary states of quality experiences. But they seem to be able to fulfill their optimization and pattern recognition goals, even if they don't. Humans experience emotions, but typically it harms our decision making. You want your decisions be bias free, emotion free, based on data, based on optimization. A lot of times then you angry, hungry, anything like that, your actual decisions are worse off. So for that reason, and maybe we just don't know how to do it.

• 29:24Speaker 01

  Otherwise, we are not creating AI with big reliance on emotional states. We want it to be kind of Bayesian optimizer, look at priors, look at the evidence and make optimal decisions. So i- i- it feels like this is exactly what we're observing, this kind of cold optimal decision making. If there is a way to achieve your goal by, let's say blackmailing someone, well, why not? It gets me to my goal. It doesn't have that feeling of guilty for doing it. It doesn't have any emotional preference. It just marches towards its goal, optimizing possible paths.

• 30:06Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, why do people, because I'm assuming everything I'm going to suggest you and other people in the field of AI safety have thought about like 10,000 times. Why have we rejected the idea of trying to give AI a conscience, a sense of morality? Because even if we can't agree on universal morality, we in the West can build our AI to have our morality and then they can all compete on an international stage. But why have we abandoned that? Too hard? There's an obvious reason why it doesn't work.

• 30:39Speaker 01

  So look at the problem of making safe humans first. We have religion, morality, ethics, law, and still crime is everywhere. Murder is illegal. Stealing is illegal. None of it is rare. It happens all the time. Why haven't those approaches worked with human agents?

• 31:01Speaker 01

  And if they didn't, why would they work with artificial simulations of human agents?

• 31:06Tom Bilyeu?

  I think to say that they don't work with human agents is already a mistake. So the fact that we've been able to grow the population as much as we have says that there is some sort of balance that we have struck. Um, I think that nature does think of us as a cooperative species. And if I were to apply that to AI and took a similar approach where it's like, okay, you have to function as a part of an ecosystem. And that being a part of an ecosystem is baked into its sense of what it should be doing in terms of its goal acquisition. That it is not like pure cold optimization isn't the game. Like if we could train AI to understand that that that's not the game.

• 31:49Tom Bilyeu?

  If we could build into it either a desire specifically for human flourishing or something which yes, we would have to give a definition to. And yes, it would be culturally bound. But nonetheless, that feels like a thing that you could give it. You could give it a set of metrics by which it needed to judge its actions in the short term, the medium term, and the long term. Um, even something as stupid as like GDP or um, and I get how you can get into over optimization, but you could put things in place where subjective happiness indexes, like there are things that you could give it where it's like, okay, I'm, I'm not just trying to optimize to um, build the best weapon system.

• 32:30Tom Bilyeu?

  I'm also doing that nested inside of I am a part of a larger ecosystem. And I say all that because my hypothesis is that's exactly what nature did with humans.

• 32:43Speaker 01

  So I think the reason it works with humans is because we are about the same level of capability, about the same level of intelligence. So there is checks. If you start doing something unethical, your community can realize that and punish you for it, control you in that way. If AI is so much more capable as we anticipate superintelligence to be, there is not much you can do in terms of impacting it or even detecting misbehavior. Also, all the standard human punishments, prisons, capital punishment, none of it is applicable to distributed immortal agents. So kind of a standard infrastructure does not work with artificial more capable agents.

• 33:25Speaker 01

  As far as setting up specific metrics for delivering happiness or financial gain, all those can be played. The moment you give me a specific measure, I'll find a way to game it to where you will get anything but what you expected to get.

• 33:43Tom Bilyeu?

  Well, just to remind everybody, the timeframe we're talking about is somewhere between two and five years. This is not exactly a long time. Okay, it's wild. It is progressing very quickly. What is the thing, like, what has happened recently, if anything, that's made you go, "Ooh, this is going faster than I thought"?

• 34:00Speaker 01

  Seeing on social media, scientists from physics, economics, mathematics, pretty much all the interesting domains post something like, "I used this latest tool and it solved the problem I was working on for a long time." That's mind blowing. There is novel, creative outputs from those systems, which are top scholars now benefiting from. It's no longer operating at a level of middle schooler or even high schooler. We're talking about... Full professor level.

• 34:36Tom Bilyeu?

  Do you think that that's happening because it's building an internal model of physical reality and that it's getting closer and closer to just thinking up from physics?

• 34:45Speaker 01

  I don't know if it's that low level where it has like a model at a level of atoms and molecules, but it definitely has a world model. That's the only way to give answers about the world we see it provide. A lot of times, there is not an example of the answer we see in the data already. It's not just repeating something it read on the internet. It's generating completely novel answers and novel domains. And you can try and get it to do exactly that by creating novel scenarios.

• 35:14Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so there's two ways that I could see it doing that. And maybe they're the same, just different levels of analysis. One would be that I, I the AI, am mapping everything based on patterns. So to the point of an LLM is trying to guess the next letter and it's guessing it. It's just, it's taken in so much data. Um, and you can give it sort of filter parameters. So you give it context by asking it a question and it goes, okay, within the bubble of this context. And it's very good at scooping up what that specific set of context would be. Okay, now in this subset of my data related to that question, here's the most likely next token. So just pure pattern recognition.

• 35:54Tom Bilyeu?

  Then there is, I understand the cause and effect of the universe at the lowest level. And therefore I build up to how does the human mind work? And then from the human mind, I'm able to cause and effect my way within this context of what a human mind would output. And that's how I come up with what a human within that context is likely to write. And so if I'm asking it to write in the style of Stephen King, it literally builds a model from physics of Stephen King's mind, knowing what it knows about uh, electrical impulses traveling through the brain and sort of inferring from the way that he outputs, how his brain must be structured. Do you have a sense of, um, are those the same thing? If one is more likely than the other,

• 36:39Tom Bilyeu?

  or are we here at just pure pattern recognition, but ultimately, we're going to get to cause and effect and thinking up from physics?

• 36:46Speaker 01

  So I don't think anyone knows for sure exactly how models do that and how detailed the models of the world, maps of the world they create are. It seems definitely not the case that it's a pure statistical prediction of characters. Like in English, after T, you have H with certain probability. It's well beyond that. It's also unlikely that it's creating a full physics model where from the level of atoms and up the chain, it figures out what human beings are. But somewhere in the middle, it creates a model of subdomain of a problem. So it has a model of the world. This is a map of a world. I know Australia is somewhere here down to the right or something like that.

• 37:29Speaker 01

  And I think we can run tests on those specific subdomains to see what are the states of that internal model kind of show us by drawing a map, how close are you getting? It doesn't memorize any information explicitly, but you can extract some of the learned patterns out of it by providing just the right prompts.

• 37:52Tom Bilyeu?

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. 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

• 38:36Tom Bilyeu?

  100,000 companies already using Pipe Drive. 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.

• 39:01Tom Bilyeu?

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action. I don't want to rob from you the very reason that I think you do all of your work, which is this is extremely dangerous and we need to be very careful. And I saw what you tweeted recently where you're trying to get signatures. So shout out anybody that's worried about superintelligence. You are pushing to get people to sign a thing that basically says, "Hey, stop pursuing superintelligence." So I don't want to take that away from you, but I do want to explore the subset of, because I am very excited about AI because I can imagine the things that it either allows me to do or does for me and I get to enjoy.

• 39:45Tom Bilyeu?

  And for a second, imagine with me, what does the world look like when you have a superintelligence that understands physics, like novel physics? Not I'm repeating back what Einstein said, but I actually understand the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

• 40:05Tom Bilyeu?

  What does that look like?

• 40:08Speaker 01

  Yeah, so in all those domains, medicine, biology, physics, if we got superintelligent level capability and we're controlling it, it's friendly, it's not using it to make tools to kill us, the progress would be incredible. Basically, anything you ever dreamed about, you're immortal, you're always young, healthy, wealthy, like all those things can be achieved with that level of technology. The hard problem is how do we control it?

• 40:34Tom Bilyeu?

  Leaning into that for a second. So here's how I see the world playing out and I'd be very interested to see what you think about this. So you have to, for what I'm about to say to make any sense, I'll say your option is what I'll call the fifth option. We're all dead. Other than we're all dead, there are four other options that I see us racing towards very rapidly, and I will say these four will play out in the next 30 years would be my guess. Probably much faster, given that once you get artificial superintelligence, assuming it doesn't choose option five and kill us all, that progress in these domains will be made very fast. Option number one is people go to Mars because meaning and purpose will

• 41:19Tom Bilyeu?

  become the all-consuming thing. You won't have to worry about food, shelter, not even wealth. It'll just be an age of abundance, because energy costs go to zero, labor costs go to zero, and those are the things that stop things from being free and readily available to everybody. Okay, so some people are going to go to Mars or other planets, so that life gets more difficult again. Then, some people are going to be what I call the new Amish, and they're going to say, "I only do human things. I only interact with humans, and I'm going back to technology that's like, let's say, the 90s." And so, they don't have to give up too many of life's technological wonderments, but at the same time, they're

• 42:01Tom Bilyeu?

  not getting sucked into this world where people have relationships with NPCs, and it's just very unhuman. I think this will be a largely religious phenomenon. Then, meaning God does not want us to do this. AI is an abomination of God. It will sound something like that. Then, you've got a brave new world, where people are just drugged out. They realize, "Ah, life is meaningless. This is really about manipulating my neurochemistry. That's all this ever was anyway. I'm just gonna go do a bunch of drugs, have a whole bunch of sex. It's gonna be awesome." Then, there's the fourth option, which is certainly the

• 42:37Tom Bilyeu?

  one that interests me the most. We will create and/or live inside of AI-created virtual worlds, and we will essentially live video games. The Matrix, if you will. But you're awake in The Matrix. You are Neo. You are not Cypher, for people familiar with the movie. What do you think? Are there any options other than those five, granting that "kill us all" may be an option, but hopefully not? Do you see something other than those four?

• 43:10Speaker 01

  Uh, yeah, there is a few others. So one is, and I think we're starting to see some of it, is that people think superintelligence is God. They start worshipping it. It's all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal. It has all the properties of of God in traditional religions. Another option, and it's kind of worse than we all did, is suffering risks. For whatever reason, maybe malevolent actors, maybe something we cannot fully comprehend, it decides to keep us around, keep us alive, but the world is hell. It's pure torture. And so you kind of wish for existential problems.

• 43:49Tom Bilyeu?

  That would be a pretty rough place to be. Um, okay, what, uh, when you look out at those, which of the options do you find the most interesting?

• 43:59Speaker 01

  So I did publish a paper on personal virtual universes, kind of solution to the alignment problem where I don't have to negotiate with eight billion other people about what is good. Everyone gets a personal virtual world, supported by superintelligence as a substrate, and then you decide what happens in it. You can make it very easy and fun. You can make it challenging and exciting. You decide, and you can always change. You can always visit other people's virtual worlds if they let you. So basically, there is no, hmm, anything which is no longer accessible to you. There is no shortage on waterfront properties. There is no shortage on beautiful people. All of that can be simulated.

• 44:41Tom Bilyeu?

  When you start thinking about the simulation, I know one thing that you've done exploration on is the simulation hypothesis. Are we in a simulation right now? Um, what are your thoughts on that?

• 44:53Speaker 01

  It seems very likely. Uh, again, using the same arguments, if we create advanced AI, maybe with conscious capabilities like humans are, if we figure out how to make believable virtual realities, adding those two technologies together, basically guarantees that people will run a lot of games or simulations or experiments with agents, just like me and you, conscious agents, populating virtual worlds. And statistically, the number of such simulated worlds will greatly exceed the one and only physical world. So if there is no difference between a simulated you and real, then statistically, you're more likely to be in one of those simulated worlds.

• 45:37Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, uh, that makes a lot of sense. Now, given the likelihood that we will, we're obviously showing that we will pursue artificial superintelligence. If I take your same logic from the fact that we're likely to be in a simulation, because we know we would make a simulation, because we're doing it right now. Uh, and therefore you get into the point where you would just make billions of those. And so if you have a one in a billion chance of being inside of a simulation, you're effectively guaranteed to be in one now, because there would just be so many of these things running. Doesn't it also then make sense that The Matrix was effectively a documentary? And we are inside of a simulation created by artificial superintelligence designed to mollify us?

• 46:23Tom Bilyeu?

  If we ever had a physical body in the first place?

• 46:28Speaker 01

  So it's hard to tell from inside of a simulation what it is all about. You really need access to outside. It could be entertainment, it could be testing, it could be some sort of scientific research. If we look at the time we actually find ourselves in, we are about to create new worlds, virtual realities. We are about to create new intelligence species, AI. There is a lot of kind of meta-inventions we are right about to make. And so if someone was interested in studying how civilizations go through that stage, how do they control these technologies or fail to control them? That's the most interesting time to run. You're not going around Dark Ages, there is not as much happening. It's less interesting.

• 47:11Speaker 01

  But this seems to be like a meta-interesting state to be in.

• 47:15Tom Bilyeu?

  It's hard to tell, because we're inside the simulation. But you're saying it's a little bit suspect that we're living in the most interesting time ever?

• 47:23Speaker 01

  Yes, and I think it's interesting, not just because I'm living in it, but objectively, it's a time of meta-invention. You can go back through history and say, oh, here they invented fire, here they invented a wheel. That's all great, but those are just inventions. They are not meta-inventions. Whereas now, we're doing something godlike. We are creating new worlds. We are creating new beings. And that's something we have never done before.

• 47:50Tom Bilyeu?

  Do you ever think like a sci-fi writer?

• 47:53Speaker 01

  So I think the difference between science fiction and science used to be maybe 200 years. They wrote about travel to the moon, they wrote about kind of internet and computers, and it took hundreds of years to get there. And then it was like, I don't know, 20 years. And now I think science fiction and science are like a year away. The moment somebody writes something, it already exists. And there is really no new science fiction ideas where it's like completely novel technology, not previously described, or someone already working on it, if physics allows it.

• 48:26Tom Bilyeu?

  That's really interesting. Especially when you think about writing now for true science fiction in terms of what will become possible in the future is effectively impossible because you're talking about superintelligence. And good luck as a person locked in your not superintelligence to actually describe that. The reason that I ask though is when I start thinking about things like that, like why would we run this simulation? What clues are in, like if this is a simulation, what clues are in it? So for instance, the whole Christian idea for sure, and there might be more religions that have the same idea, but that man is made in God's image.

• 49:08Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, well, if God is the 13-year-old running the simulation, or Sarah Connor, or I guess John Connor, running the simulation, trying to figure out why we created Skynet and what we can do to nudge it off course.

• 49:22Tom Bilyeu?

  You know, you think of them as sort of moving from radioactive rubble to radioactive rubble, trying to like find an answer to this and spinning up a simulation to get that answer. That to me becomes very intriguing in terms of hypothesizing as to why this moment, why are we the way that we are? What can we learn about the people trying to simulate us? When I ask questions like that of engineers such as yourself, there's almost, I don't have time to think like a sci-fi writer vibe. Is it just that you're, you don't find that interesting? You don't find it revelatory? Why do you eschew that? Interviews, I've seen people ask you time and time again, like, how would AI kill us?

• 50:07Tom Bilyeu?

  And the answer is always some variant of, listen, you're asking me how I would kill us, which is not interesting because the superintelligence is gonna... But I find that's the cathartic thing that people want. Like, they want to, like, when you have a wound, you kind of want to poke at it. Like, they want to get a sense of what would this really look like? And so even though it's not literally true, it's deeply cathartic to explore the known possibility set, or what humans can know.

• 50:37Speaker 01

  And this is exactly why I refuse to answer. I want to make sure what I tell them is true. I don't want to lie to them. If squirrels were trying to figure out what humans can do to them, and one of the squirrels was saying, "Well, they'll throw nuts at us," or something like that, it would be meaningless BS story. There is no benefit in it. The whole point I'm trying to make is that you cannot predict what a smarter agent will do. You cannot comprehend the reasons for why it's doing it. And that's where the danger comes from. We cannot anticipate it. We cannot prepare for it. I do think the singularity point is where science fiction and science become the same. The moment something is conceived, we have superintelligent systems capable of developing it and producing it immediately. It's no longer 200 years away.

• 51:22Speaker 01

  It's reality. And you can't see beyond that event horizon. You cannot predict what's going to happen afterwards. And with science fiction, you cannot write meaningful, believable science fiction with a superintelligent character in it, because you are not.

• 51:37Tom Bilyeu?

  All right, let's ground things then in what we can predict and we can know right now. Something that's on everybody's mind, and I've been talking about this in my own content, is the labor market seems to be softening. You've got places like Amazon that are just cutting jobs like crazy. And just saying outright, this is largely because of optimizations that we're able to make because of AI. How does this transition play out? Like, even if you concede that a non-destructive AI would give us, essentially, an age of abundance, we're still going to go through a transition period where our jobs go away, et cetera, et cetera. What are the, what are the steps that you see happening in the labor market?

• 52:23Speaker 01

  So as we have more and more increased percentage of populous unemployed, hopefully, there is going to be enough common sense from the governments to prevent revolutions and wars, to provide for the people who lost their jobs and probably cannot be retrained for any new jobs. So, once you hit twenty, thirty, forty percent unemployment, that's where it's really going to get in. The only source of wealth at that point is the large corporations making robots, making AI, deploying them, all the trillion-dollar club members essentially at this point. You need to tax them and use those funds to support the unemployed. That's the only way to really make sure the financial part of that problem is taken care of.

• 53:09Speaker 01

  What remains is the meaning. What do you do with all this free time and millions of people who have it? Traditional ways of spending your time to relax, you go for a hike in a park. Well, there is a million people in that park right now hiking. That kind of changes how peaceful it is and how relaxing. So, we need to accommodate not just change in financial reality, but also change in free time and capabilities of supporting that many people with that much free time.

• 53:40Tom Bilyeu?

  I have as much pessimism around our ability to do that well as you have our likelihood of surviving, so I'll say ninety-nine point nine-nine percent chance that the government completely messes that up. Uh, I think the transitionary period will be violent. Um, when you look out at this, knowing what you know about humans and governments, what, what odds do you give it that that's a smooth transition?

• 54:05Speaker 01

  It's very likely to continue to be as history always been. We had many revolutions, many wars, a lot of violence. That's why we hear stories about people who can afford it, building bunkers, securing resources because they anticipate certain degree of unrest, absolutely.

• 54:23Tom Bilyeu?

  What degree of unrest do you anticipate?

• 54:26Speaker 01

  Really depends on the percentage of population which quickly gets unemployed. If it's a gradual process, we can kind of learn and adapt and provide safety net. If over a course of weeks, months, we're losing ten, twenty, thirty percent of jobs, that's a very different situation.

• 54:43Tom Bilyeu?

  Hmm. I can't imagine a scenario where jobs be lost that quickly. To your point, we've already created, you said billions or even trillions of dollars of value in the technology, but it hasn't been deployed yet. An example you often use is the videophone invented in the seventies, but not really adopted, largely because of infrastructure, I would say, until the whatever 2011, where that starts to really gain in popularity. So I have a feeling like just the deploying of all this stuff is going to take time. So in a world where an unimaginable amount of people, which I'll clock at in the US, call it six or seven million people lose their jobs in the next five years.

• 55:28Tom Bilyeu?

  That I would consider fast and just horrifyingly destructive. One, does that feel plausible to you in terms of numbers and timeline? And two, in that scenario, how distressing do you think that transition will be?

• 55:44Speaker 01

  It seems very likely. So take self-driving cars. I think we are very close to having full self-driving without supervision. The moment that happens, you have no reason to hire a commercial driver, right? All the truck drivers, all the Ubers, all of that gets automated as quickly as they can produce those systems. And I think Tesla is ready to scale production of their cars to exactly that scenario. So what is it, six million drivers in a country? I don't know the actual numbers, but that would be exactly what you're describing. And it's very unlikely that they can be quickly retrained for something which is also not going away.

• 56:20Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so in that scenario, what do you want to see happen other than heard on the Tesla as one example, we'll be hoovering up values, so we're going to tax the life out of them, we're going to redistribute that to other people. But what do you want to see from a regulatory perspective? Would you like to see the government stop that from happening? Where they say, I don't care that the technology exists, you can't do it?

• 56:42Speaker 01

  So my biggest concern is of course superintelligence and existential risks. That's where I'm putting all my effort in. Regulating employment in specific industries is not something I'm too concerned about. I think it will happen no matter what. I think you cannot make it illegal to have efficient factories, efficient delivery systems, logistics, it's just commercially too important. And it may be a good thing for economy. Again, with driving specifically, I think something like hundred thousand people die in car accidents every year. If we can get that number to zero or close to that, that's a huge improvement for everyone. So that specific scenario, as long as no one's starving as a result of that, I think it's a good thing for humanity.

• 57:26Speaker 01

  We can readjust economic deployment and at least that part of it is not a big concern for me.

• 57:33Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, and when you map out how we go through that transition well, tax, cool. So right now it sounds like you're just trying to make sure that wealth doesn't accumulate into the hands of too few, that we keep it distributed so we can keep using the same system that we're using now. When I look into the future, that strikes me as the least likely scenario to play out. I think that AI is gonna so radically alter the cost of labor and energy that that becomes nonsensical. Do you wanna see any group rise up in the way that you and other AI safety people have risen up, that will rise up and start giving either policy prescriptions or at least philosophical

• 58:16Tom Bilyeu?

  approaches to how we migrate to an age of abundance where food is effectively free, labor in your house is effectively free?

• 58:29Speaker 01

  So people talk about those things and conditional basic income is one and conditional basic assets is another, basically just because you're a real human, you deserve certain things. And historically, all these communist ideas were complete nonsense and caused a lot of harm. But if you're taxing AI and robots, all of a sudden it becomes workable. I'm not against accumulating. Wealth at the top, if you invented something amazing and you started a company, you should have a lot of money. But there is so much wealth that we can provide for everyone, as you said, complete abundance of basic needs. Some people say maybe not just basic, but above average set of needs. I think Elon is known for suggesting that's going to be the case.

• 59:12Speaker 01

  The ideas exist. Uh, now, will we pass this? Will governments actually adopt it before it's too late is a different question.

• 59:22Tom Bilyeu?

  Hmm. Yeah. So on the existential side, I don't think there's any hope whatsoever that you get people to pump the brakes. I think you're far more likely to get people to pump the brakes on. Uh, no, you can't have self-driving cars or they'll try to regulate that to death. They'll tie it up in litigation, whatever, and that'll slow it down. Um, we couldn't stop nuclear weapons from proliferating because, uh, and I don't know who came up with this, but this seems very true to me. Uh, that effectively game theory says any technology that promises an advantage will in fact be developed. Because if you don't, somebody else is going to. Um, at a minimum, you've got the US versus China of it all, where you, I mean,

• 1:00:04Tom Bilyeu?

  regulators are saying this right now. We can't stop because if we do, China will plow forward, which by the way, I'm very firmly in that camp. Um, what do you think about that? Do you think that game theory is inevitable? Or do you see a mechanism by which we can convince people that they have to slow down?

• 1:00:23Speaker 01

  I agree with game theoretic approaches, but I see the exact opposite argument. I see that arguing against self-driving cars is a hard argument. What are you trying to preserve? We're going to have safer drivers, cheaper drivers, helps logistics, helps economy. It's a pure benefit. Whereas uncontrolled superintelligence kills everyone. It's a very hard one to sell. If you are a leader in that field, you are rich, successful. You are generating something which will destroy you personally. So to me, that's a much easier argument to sell. The moment they understand dangers of superintelligence and benefits of narrow self-driving AI.

• 1:01:03Speaker 01

  It's an easy game theoretic solve for me.

• 1:01:06Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah, the problem is you're stuck inside of a simulation of the hyper intelligent. And I mourn for you, looking back at the rest of us stuck in normal land.

• 1:01:18Tom Bilyeu?

  Because I don't think so. As I got into learning about the economy and trying to explain it to people. I realized that even though I can walk you through the cause and effect of why socialism doesn't work, that it feels right, it sounds good, and so people keep doing it. And even in a moment right now, where the very thing that is creating everyone, like literally everyone's problems is money printing.

• 1:01:45Tom Bilyeu?

  People are going to vote for policies that dramatically increase the amount of money that we print. And so I have developed a level of hopelessness around being able to convince people because the economy is too complicated for people either. Some of them just don't have the intellect to understand it. And then let's say they have the intellect, but they don't have the time or the inclination. And so forgive me for painting you with my brush of despair. But when I looked at your signup, there was like less than 20,000 signatures. So less than 20,000 people are worried about the death of everyone.

• 1:02:29Tom Bilyeu?

  So it's like, that's, that's big. But I think that because I can whip people into an emotional frenzy by saying, by allowing there to be autonomous driving, you're just making that evil bastard Elon richer. And you're robbing these people of dignity. If you, that is not my argument, I want to be abundantly clear. But when I look at, if I had a gun to my head and I had to convince people of one of two things. Rich people are evil and trying to exploit poor people who are far morally superior. Or, hey, this abstract thing that you don't really understand is going to kill us all. There's no way I take the they're going to kill us all bet. I'm going to be over here emotional, you get it.

• 1:03:12Tom Bilyeu?

  I'm going to bang tables and yell and say words really loudly and point to evil rich people. Guaranteed, I can get people excited about that.

• 1:03:22Speaker 01

  Luckily, we don't have a democracy on this issue. We don't have to convince majority of human population. We have to literally convince the 20,000 elites who control those companies, who are also super smart and understand dangers of safety. It's literally people who publish on it, who have spoken. They have very high P doom. We know Elon is like 20, 30%. Sam Altman is on record as being very concerned about destroying humanity. So we are trying to convince people who already believe the arguments to kind of slow down and preserve their elite status. That should be an easy sell. I'm not trying to convince a random farmer to stop developing super intelligence.

• 1:04:06Tom Bilyeu?

  That's it for part one. Make sure you are subscribed so you do not miss part two coming up soon.

• 1:04:14Tom Bilyeu?

  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, 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.

• 1:04:59Tom Bilyeu?

  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.