#130 – Scott Aaronson: Computational Complexity and Consciousness

Scott Aaronson is a quantum computer scientist. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: – SimpliSafe: https://simplisafe.com/lex and use code LEX to get a free security camera – Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get $200 off – ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free – BetterHelp: https://betterhelp.com/lex and use code LEX to get 10% off EPISODE LINKS: Scott’s Blog: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ Our previous episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX5t8EivCaM PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: – Check out the sponsors above, it’s the best way to support this podcast – Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman – Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman – Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman – LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman – Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LexFridmanPage – Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here’s the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. 00:00 – Introduction 07:46 – Simulation 12:38 – Theories of everything 18:18 – Consciousness 40:32 – Roger Penrose on consciousness 50:44 – Turing test 54:31 – GPT-3 1:03:02 – Universality of computation 1:09:33 – Complexity 1:15:38 – P vs NP 1:27:57 – Complexity of quantum computation 1:40:03 – Pandemic 1:53:49 – Love

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

• 0:00Lex Fridman?

  The following is a conversation with Scott Aaronson, his second time on the podcast. He is a professor at UT Austin, director of the Quantum Information Center, and previously a professor at MIT. Last time, we talked about quantum computing. This time, we talk about computation complexity, consciousness, and theories of everything. I'm recording this intro, as you may be able to tell, in a very strange room in the middle of the night. I'm not really sure how I got here or how I'm going to get out, but Hunter S. Thompson saying, I think, applies to today and the last few days

• 0:44Lex Fridman?

  and actually, the last couple of weeks. "Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow, what a ride.'" So I figured, whatever I'm up to here, and yes, lots of wine is involved. I'm gonna have to improvise, hence this recording. Okay, quick mention of each sponsor, followed by some thoughts related to the episode. First sponsor is SimpliSafe, a home security company I use to monitor and protect my apartment,

• 1:29Lex Fridman?

  though of course, I'm always prepared with a fallback plan,

• 1:35Lex Fridman?

  as a man in this world must always be. Second sponsor is Eight Sleep, a mattress that cools itself, measures heart rate variability, has an app, and has given me yet another reason to look forward to sleep, including the all-important Power Nap. Third sponsor is ExpressVPN, the VPN I've used for many years to protect my privacy on the internet. Finally, the fourth sponsor is BetterHelp. Online therapy when you want to face your demons with a licensed professional, not just by doing David Goggins-like physical challenges like I seem to do on occasion.

• 2:16Lex Fridman?

  Please check out these sponsors in the description to get a discount and to support the podcast. As a side note, let me say that this is the second time I've recorded a conversation outdoors. The first one was with Stephen Wolfram when it was actually sunny out. In this case, it was raining, which is why I found a covered outdoor patio. But I learned a valuable lesson, which is that raindrops can be quite loud on the hard metal surface of a patio cover. I did my best with the audio. I hope it still sounds okay to you. I'm learning, always improving. In fact, as Scott says, if you always win, then you're probably doing something wrong.

• 3:00Lex Fridman?

  To be honest, I get pretty upset with myself when I fail. Small or big, but I've learned that this feeling is priceless. It can be fuel when channeled into concrete plans of how to improve. So if you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube, review it five stars and Apple Podcasts. Follow on Spotify, support it on Patreon or connect with me on Twitter at Lex Fridman. As usual, I'll do a few minutes of ads now and no ads in the middle. I try to make these interesting, but I give you timestamps. So if you skip, please still check out the sponsors by clicking the links in the description. It's the very best way to support this podcast. This show is sponsored by Simply Safe, a home security company.

• 3:45Lex Fridman?

  There are no tricky overpriced contracts. The customer service is amazing. They told me to say the following line, and I shall oblige, even though it's ridiculous. While there are a lot of options out there, there's only one no-brainer, Simply Safe. I personally have no clue about the actual options out there, but this one happens to be great. It's simple, no contracts, 15 bucks a month, easy setup. I have it already set up in my apartment, but of course, I'm also prepared for intruders. One of my favorite movies is Leon or The Professional, which is a movie about a hitman with a minimalist life that resembles my own.

• 4:26Lex Fridman?

  Anyway, go to simplisafe.com/lex to get a free HD camera. Again, that's simplisafe.com/lex. They're a new sponsor and this is a trial run. So you, my dear listeners, know what to do. This show is also sponsored by Eight Sleep and its Pod Pro mattress that you can check out at eightsleep.com/lex to get $200 off. It controls temperature with an app. It's packed with sensors and it can cool down to as low as 55 degrees on each side of the bed separately. Anecdotally, it's been a game changer for me. I have air conditioners and heat, but even then it's hard to get the temperature right.

• 5:10Lex Fridman?

  Like when I'm fasting, I'm usually cold. When I'm fat and stressed, I'm usually hot. Eight Sleep allows me to adjust to that for perfect sleep. A cool bed surface with a warm blanket after a long day of focused work is an amazing feeling. They can track a bunch of metrics like heart rate variability, but cooling alone is honestly worth the money. Anyway, go to eightsleep.com/lex to get $200 off. This show is also sponsored by ExpressVPN. It provides privacy in your cyber life. Without a VPN, your internet service provider can see every site you've ever visited, even when you're browsing in incognito mode, even if you clear your history.

• 5:52Lex Fridman?

  In the United States, they can legally sell your data to ad companies. ExpressVPN prevents them from being able to do all that. I've used it for many years on Windows, Linux and Android, but it's available everywhere else, too. It's fast and easy to use. Go to expressvpn.com/lexpod to get an extra three months free on a one-year package. That's expressvpn.com/lexpod. Finally, this show is sponsored by BetterHelp, spelled H-E-L-P, Help.

• 6:23Lex Fridman?

  They figure out what you need and match you with a licensed professional therapist in under forty-eight hours. I chat with the person on there and enjoy it. Of course, I also regularly talk to David Goggins these days, who is definitely not a licensed professional therapist, but he does help me meet his and my demons and become comfortable to exist in their presence. Everyone is different, but for me, I think suffering is essential for creation. But you can suffer beautifully, in a way that doesn't destroy you. Therapy can help in whatever form that therapy takes, and BetterHelp, I think, is an option worth

• 7:04Lex Fridman?

  trying. They're easy, private, affordable, available worldwide. You can communicate by text anytime and schedule weekly audio and video sessions. Check it out at betterhelp.com/lex to get ten percent off. That's betterhelp.com/lex. And now, here's my conversation with Scott Aronson.

• 7:46Lex Fridman?

  Let's start with the most absurd question, but I've read you write some fascinating stuff about it, so let's go there. Are we living in a simulation?

• 7:55Scott Aaronson?

  What difference does it make, Lex? I mean, I'm serious. What difference?

• 7:59Lex Fridman?

  Because if we are living in a simulation, it raises the question, how real does something have to be in simulation for it to be sufficiently immersive for us humans?

• 8:10Scott Aaronson?

  But I mean, even in principle, how could we ever know if we were in one, right? A perfect simulation, by definition, is something that's indistinguishable from the real thing.

• 8:19Lex Fridman?

  But we didn't say anything about perfect. It could be imperfect.

• 8:21Scott Aaronson?

  No, no, that's, that's right. Well, if, if it was an imperfect simulation, if we could hack it, you know, find a bug in it, then that would be one thing, right? If, if this was like The Matrix and there was a way for me to, you know, do- Do flying Kung Fu moves or something by hacking the simulation? Well, then, you know, we would have to cross that bridge when we came to it, wouldn't we? Right? I mean, at that point, you know, it's it's hard to see the difference between that and just what people would ordinarily refer to as a world with miracles, you know?

• 8:53Lex Fridman?

  What about from a different perspective? Thinking about the universe as a computation, like a program running at a computer?

• 8:59Scott Aaronson?

  Uh huh.

• 8:59Lex Fridman?

  That's kind of a neighboring concept.

• 9:01Scott Aaronson?

  It is. It is an interesting and reasonably well-defined question to ask, is the world computable? You know, does the world satisfy what we would call in CS, the church touring thesis?

• 9:14Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 9:14Scott Aaronson?

  That is, you know, could we take any physical system and simulate it to, you know, any desired precision by a touring machine, you know, given the appropriate input data? Right? And so far, I think the indications are pretty strong that our world does seem to satisfy the church touring thesis. At least if it doesn't, then we haven't yet discovered why not. But now, does that mean that our universe is a simulation? Well, you know, that word seems to suggest that there is some other larger universe in which it is running.

• 9:49Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 9:50Scott Aaronson?

  And the problem there is that if the simulation is perfect, then we're never going to be able to get any direct evidence about that other universe. You know, we will only be able to see the effects of the computation that is running in this universe.

• 10:05Lex Fridman?

  Well, let's imagine analogy. Let's imagine a PC, a personal computer, a computer. Is it possible with the advent of artificial intelligence for the computer to look outside of itself to see, to understand its creator? I mean, that's a simple, is that, is that a ridiculous analogy?

• 10:28Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I mean, with the computers that we actually have, I mean, first of all, we all know that humans have done an imperfect job of, you know, enforcing the abstraction boundaries of computers, right? Like, you may try to confine some program to a playpen, but, you know, as soon as there's one memory allocation error in the C program, then the program has gotten out of that playpen and it can do whatever it wants. Right? This is how most hacks work, you know?

• 10:59Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 10:59Scott Aaronson?

  There's the viruses and worms and exploits. And you know, you would have to imagine that an AI would be able to discover something like that. Now, you know, of course, if we could actually discover some exploit of reality itself, then you know, then this whole, I mean, we, we, then in some sense, we, we, we wouldn't have to philosophize about this, right? This would no longer be a metaphysical conversation. This would just be.

• 11:26Lex Fridman?

  But that's, the question is, what is, what would that hack look like?

• 11:30Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, well, I have no idea. I mean, Peter Schorr, you know, the, you know, very famous person in quantum computing, of course, has joked that maybe the reason why we haven't yet, you know, integrated general relativity in quantum mechanics is that, you know, the part of the universe that depends on both of them was that, was actually left unspecified. And if we ever tried to do an experiment involving the singularity of a black hole or something like that, then you know, the universe would just generate an overflow error or something, right?

• 12:04Lex Fridman?

  A blue screen of death.

• 12:05Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, we would just crash the universe. Now, you know, the, the, the universe, you know, has seemed to hold up pretty well for, you know, 14 billion years, right? So, you know, my, you know, Occam's razor kind of guess has to be that, you know, it will continue to hold up, you know, that the fact that we don't know the laws of physics governing some phenomenon is not a strong sign that probing that phenomenon is going to crash the universe, right? But, you know, of course, I could be wrong.

• 12:38Lex Fridman?

  But do you think on the physics side of things, you know, there's been recently a few folks, Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram, that came out with a theory of everything. I think there's a history of physicists dreaming and working on the unification of all the laws of physics. Do you think it's possible that once we understand?

• 13:00Lex Fridman?

  More physics, not necessarily the unification of the laws, but just understand physics more deeply at the fundamental level. We'll be able to start, you know, I mean, part of this is humorous, but looking to see if there's any bugs in the universe that could be exploited for, you know, traveling at not just the speed of light, but just traveling faster than our current spaceships can travel. All that kind of stuff.

• 13:26Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I mean, to travel faster than our current spaceships could travel, you wouldn't need to find any bug in the universe, right? The known laws of physics, you know, let us go much faster, up to the speed of light. Right? And, you know, when people want to go faster than the speed of light, well, we actually know something about what that would entail. Namely, that, you know, according to relativity, that seems to entail communication backwards in time. Okay, so then you have to worry about closed time like curves and all of that stuff. So, you know, in some sense, we, we sort of know the price that you have to pay for these things, right?

• 14:02Lex Fridman?

  Under the current understanding of physics.

• 14:04Scott Aaronson?

  That's right, that's right. We can't, you know, say that they're impossible, but we, you know, we know that sort of a lot else in physics breaks. Right? So now regarding Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram, like, I wouldn't say that either of them has a theory of everything. I would say that they have ideas that they hope, you know, could someday lead to a theory of everything.

• 14:28Lex Fridman?

  Is that a worthy pursuit?

• 14:29Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I mean, certainly, let's say by theory of everything, you know, we don't literally mean a theory of cats and of baseball and, you know, but we just mean it in the, in the more limited sense of everything. A fundamental theory of physics, right? Of all of the fundamental interactions of physics. Of course, such a theory, even after we had it, you know, would, would leave the entire question of all the emergent behavior, right, you know, to, to be explored. So it's, so it's only everything for a specific definition of everything. Okay, but in that sense, I would say, of course, that's worth pursuing. I mean, that is the entire program of fundamental physics. Right? All of my friends who do quantum gravity,

• 15:13Scott Aaronson?

  who do string theory, who do anything like that, that is what's motivating them.

• 15:18Lex Fridman?

  Yeah, it's funny though, but, I mean, Eric Weinstein talks about this. It is, I don't know much about the physics world, but I know about the AI world and it is a, it is a little bit taboo.

• 15:30Lex Fridman?

  To talk about AGI, for example, on the AI side. So really, to talk about the big dream of the community, I would say. Because it seems so far away, it's almost taboo to bring it up. Because, you know, it's seen as the kind of people that dream about creating a truly superhuman level intelligence. That's really far out there. People, because we're not even close to that. And it feels like the same thing is true for the physics community.

• 15:58Scott Aaronson?

  I mean, Stephen Hawking certainly talked constantly about theory of everything, right?

• 16:06Scott Aaronson?

  You know, I mean, I mean, people, you know, use those terms who were, you know, some of the most respected people in the, in the, in the whole world of physics, right? But I mean, I think that the distinction that I would make is that people might react badly if you use the term in a way that suggests that, that you, you know, thinking about it for five minutes have come up with this major new insight about it.

• 16:28Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 16:29Scott Aaronson?

  Right?

• 16:30Lex Fridman?

  It's, it's difficult. Stephen Hawking is, is a, not a great example because I think you can do whatever the heck you want when you get to that level. And I certainly see like senior faculty, you know, that, you know, at that point, that's one of the nice things about getting older is you stop giving a damn. But to me as a whole, they tend to roll their eyes very quickly at stuff that's outside the quote unquote mainstream.

• 16:57Scott Aaronson?

  Well, well, let me, let me put it this way. I mean, if you asked, you know, Ed Witten, let's say, who is, you know, you might consider a leader of the string community and thus, you know, very, very mainstream in a certain sense, but he would have no hesitation in saying, you know, of course, you know, they're looking for a, you know, a, you know, a unified description of nature, of, you know, of general relativity, of quantum mechanics, of all the fundamental interactions of nature, right? Now, you know, whether people would call that a theory of everything, whether they would use that, that term, that might vary. You know, Lenny Susskind would definitely have no problem telling you that, you know, if that's what we want, right?

• 17:38Lex Fridman?

  For me, who loves human Beings and psychology, it's kind of ridiculous to say a theory that unifies the laws of physics gets you to understand everything. I would say you're not even close to understanding everything.

• 17:52Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, right. Well, yeah, I mean, the word everything is a little ambiguous here, right? Because, you know, and then people will get into debates about, you know, reductionism versus emergentism and blah, blah, blah. And so in not wanting to say theory of everything, people might just be trying to short circuit that debate. And say, you know, look, you know, yes, we want a fundamental theory of, you know, the particles and interactions of nature.

• 18:18Lex Fridman?

  Let me bring up the next topic that people don't want to mention, although they're getting more comfortable with it, is consciousness. You mentioned that you have a talk on consciousness that I watched five minutes of, but the internet connection was really bad.

• 18:29Scott Aaronson?

  Was this my talk about, you know, refuting the integrated information theory?

• 18:34Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 18:34Scott Aaronson?

  Which was this particular account of consciousness that, yeah, I think one can just show it doesn't work.

• 18:39Lex Fridman?

  So let me.

• 18:40Scott Aaronson?

  Much harder to say what does work.

• 18:41Lex Fridman?

  What does work, yeah.

• 18:42Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 18:42Lex Fridman?

  Let me ask, maybe it'd be nice to comment on, you talk about also like the semi-hard problem of consciousness or like almost hard problem or kind of hard.

• 18:52Scott Aaronson?

  Pretty, pretty hard problem, I think I call it.

• 18:54Lex Fridman?

  So maybe can you talk about that, their idea of, of the approach to modeling consciousness? And why you don't find it convincing? What is it, first of all?

• 19:06Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, well, so, so what I called the pretty hard problem of consciousness, this is my term, although many other people have said something equivalent to this, okay? But it's just, you know, the, the, the problem of, you know, giving an account of just which physical systems are conscious and which are not, or, you know, if there are degrees of consciousness, then quantifying how conscious a given system is.

• 19:33Lex Fridman?

  Oh, awesome. So that's the pretty hard.

• 19:34Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, that's what I mean.

• 19:36Lex Fridman?

  That's it. I'm adopting it. I love it. That's a good, a good ring to it.

• 19:39Scott Aaronson?

  And so, you know, the infamous hard problem of consciousness is to explain how something like consciousness could arise at all, you know, in a material universe, right? Or, you know, why does it ever feel like anything to, to experience anything, right? And, you know, so I'm trying to distinguish from that problem, right? And say, you know, no, okay, I am, I would merely settle for an account that could say, you know, Is a fetus conscious? You know, if so, at which trimester? You know, is a, uh, is a dog conscious? You know, what about a frog?

• 20:13Lex Fridman?

  Right? Or, or even as a precondition, you take that both these things are conscious. Tell me which is more conscious?

• 20:19Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, for example, yes. Yeah, yeah. I mean, if consciousness is some multi-dimensional vector, well, just tell me in which respects these things are conscious and in which respect they aren't. Right? And, you know, and have some principled way to do it where you're not, you know, carving out exceptions for things that you like or don't like, but could somehow take a description of an arbitrary physical system. And then just based on the physical properties of that system, or the informational properties, or how it's connected, or something like that, just in principle, calculate, you know, its degree of consciousness. Right? I mean, this, this, this would be the kind of thing that we would need, you know, if

• 21:01Scott Aaronson?

  we wanted to address questions like, you know, what does it take for a machine to be conscious? Right? Or when, or, you know, when, when, when should we regard AIs as being conscious? So now this IIT, this Integrated Information Theory, uh, which has been put forward by uh, Giulio Tenoni and a bunch of his, uh, collaborators over the last decade or two. Uh, this is noteworthy, I guess, as a direct attempt to answer that question, to, you know, answer the, to address the pretty hard problem. Right? And they give a, a criterion that's just based on how a system is connected.

• 21:45Scott Aaronson?

  So you, so it's up to you to sort of abstract a system like a brain or a microchip as a collection of components that are connected to each other by some pattern of connections, you know, and, and to specify how the components can influence each other. You know, like where the inputs go, you know, where they affect the outputs. But then, once you've specified that, then they give this quantity that they call phi, you know, the Greek letter phi. And the definition of phi has actually changed over time. It changes from one paper to another. But in all of the variations, it involves something about what we in computer science would call graph expansion.

• 22:26Scott Aaronson?

  So basically, what this means is that they want, in order to get a large value of fee, it should not be possible to take your system and partition it into two components that are only weakly connected to each other. Okay, so whenever we take our system and sort of try to split it up into two, then there should be lots and lots of connections going between the two components.

• 22:50Lex Fridman?

  Okay, well, I understand what that means on a graph. Do they formalize what, how to construct such a graph or data structure, whatever? Or is this, one of the criticism I've heard you kind of say is that a lot of the very interesting specifics are usually communicated through like natural language, like, like through words. So it's like the details aren't always clear.

• 23:14Scott Aaronson?

  Well, it's true. I mean, they, they, they have nothing even resembling a derivation of this fee. Okay, so what they do is they state a whole bunch of postulates, you know, axioms that they think that consciousness should satisfy. And then there's some verbal discussion and then at some point fee appears.

• 23:34Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 23:34Scott Aaronson?

  Right? And this, this was what the first thing that really made the hair stand on my neck, to be honest, because they are acting as if there's a derivation. They're acting as if, you know, you're supposed to think that this is a derivation and there's nothing even remotely resembling a derivation. They just pull the fee out of a hat completely.

• 23:53Lex Fridman?

  So is one of the key criticisms to you is that details are missing? Or is there something more fundamental?

• 23:57Scott Aaronson?

  That's not even the key criticism. That's just, that's just a side point.

• 24:00Lex Fridman?

  Yeah, got it.

• 24:01Scott Aaronson?

  The, the core of it is that I think that the, you know, that they want to say that a system is more conscious the larger its value of fee. And I think that that is obvious nonsense. Okay, as soon as you think about it for like a minute, as soon as you think about it in terms of, could I construct a system that had an enormous value of fee, like, you know, even larger than the brain has, but that is just implementing an error correcting code, you know, doing nothing that we would associate with, you know, intelligence or consciousness or any of it? The answer is yes. It is easy. Easy to do that, right?

• 24:37Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 24:37Scott Aaronson?

  And so I wrote blog posts just making this point that yeah, it's easy to do that. Now, you know, Tenoni's response to that was actually kind of incredible, right? I mean, I admired it in a way because instead of disputing any of it, he just bit the bullet in the sense, you know, he was one of the the most audacious bullet bitings I've ever seen in my career. Okay. He said, okay, then, fine. You know, this system that just applies this error correcting code, it's conscious. You know, and if it has a much larger value of fee than you or me, it's much more conscious than you or me.

• 25:14Lex Fridman?

  Interesting.

• 25:14Scott Aaronson?

  You know, you, we just have to accept what the theory says because, you know, science is not about confirming our intuitions. It's about challenging them. And, you know, this is what my theory predicts that this thing is conscious and, you know, or super duper conscious and how are you going to prove me wrong?

• 25:31Lex Fridman?

  See, I would, so the way I would argue against your blog post is I would say, yes, sure, you're right in general. But for naturally arising systems developed through the process of evolution on Earth, the, this rule of the larger fee being associated, being associated with more consciousness is correct.

• 25:50Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah. So that's not what he said at all.

• 25:52Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 25:52Scott Aaronson?

  Right? Because he wants this to be completely general, right?

• 25:55Lex Fridman?

  So we can apply it to even computers.

• 25:57Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, I mean, I mean, the, the whole interest of the theory is the, you know, the hope that it could be completely general, apply to aliens, to computers, to uh, animals, coma patients, to any of it, right?

• 26:10Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 26:10Scott Aaronson?

  And, uh, so, so, so he just said, well, you know, Scott is relying on his intuition, but you know, I'm relying on this theory. And, you know, to me, it was almost like, you know, are we being serious here? Like, like, like, you know, like, like, okay. It, it, yes, in science, we try to learn highly non-intuitive things. But what we do is we first test the theory on cases where we already know the answer.

• 26:37Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 26:38Scott Aaronson?

  Right? Like if we, if someone had a new theory of temperature, right? Then, you know, maybe we could check that it says that boiling water is hotter than ice. And then if it says that the sun is hotter than anything, you know, you've ever experienced, then maybe we we trust that extrapolation, right? But like this, this theory, like if, if, you know, it's now saying that, you know, a gigantic grid, like regular grid of exclusive orgates can be way more conscious than a, you know, a person or than than any animal can be, you know, even if it, you know, is, you know, is, is, is so uniform that it might as well just be a blank wall, right?

• 27:21Scott Aaronson?

  And, and so now the point is, if this theory is sort of getting wrong, the question is a blank wall, you know, more conscious than a person, then I would say, what is, what is there for it to get right?

• 27:31Lex Fridman?

  So your sense is a blank wall is not more conscious than a human being?

• 27:37Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, I mean, I mean, I mean, you could say that I am taking that as one of my axioms. I'm saying, I'm saying that if a theory of consciousness is, is getting that wrong, then whatever it is talking about, at that point, I, I am not going to call it consciousness. I'm going to use a different word.

• 27:56Lex Fridman?

  You have to use a different word. I mean, it's also, it's possible, just like with intelligence, that us humans conveniently define these very difficult to understand concepts in a very human-centric way.

• 28:06Scott Aaronson?

  That's right.

• 28:07Lex Fridman?

  Just like the Turing test really seems to define intelligence as a thing that's human-like.

• 28:12Scott Aaronson?

  Right, but I would say that with any concept, you know, there's, you know, like we, we, we first need to define it, right? And a definition is only a good definition if it matches what we thought we were talking about, you know, prior to having a definition, right? And I would say that, you know, phi as a definition of consciousness fails that test. That is my argument.

• 28:38Lex Fridman?

  So, okay, then let's, so let's take a further step. So you mentioned that the universe might be a Turing machine, so like, it might be computation.

• 28:46Scott Aaronson?

  Or simulatable by one, anyway.

• 28:48Lex Fridman?

  Simulatable by one. So, do you, what's your sense about consciousness? Do you think consciousness is computation? That we don't need to go to any place outside of the computable universe? To, you know, to understand consciousness, to build consciousness, to measure consciousness, all those kinds of things.

• 29:09Scott Aaronson?

  I don't know. These are what, you know, have been called the vertiginous questions, right? There's the questions like, like, you know, you get a feeling of vertigo when thinking about them, right? I mean, I certainly feel like I am conscious in a way that is not reducible to computation, but why should you believe me? Right? I mean, and if you said the same to me, then why should I believe you?

• 29:35Lex Fridman?

  But as computer scientists,

• 29:36Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 29:36Lex Fridman?

  I feel like a computer could be, could achieve human level intelligence. But, and that's actually a feeling and a hope. That's not a scientific belief. It's just we've built up enough intuition, the same kind of intuition you use in your blog. You know, that's what scientists do. They, I mean, some of it is a scientific method, but some of it is just damn good intuition. I don't have a good intuition about consciousness.

• 30:01Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah. I'm not sure that anyone does or has in the, you know, 2,500 years that these things have been discussed, Lex.

• 30:09Lex Fridman?

  But do you think we will? Like one of the, I got a chance to attend, can't wait to hear your opinion on this, but attend the Neuralink event. And one of the dreams there is to, you know, basically push neuroscience forward. And the hope in neuroscience is that we can inspect the machinery from which all this fun stuff emerges and see, are we going to notice something special, some special sauce from which something like consciousness or cognition emerges?

• 30:38Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, well, it's clear that we've learned an enormous amount about neuroscience. We've learned an enormous amount about computation, you know, about machine learning, about AI, how to get it to work. We've learned an enormous amount about the Underpinnings of the physical world, you know, and you know, from one point of view, that's like an enormous distance that we've traveled along the road to understanding consciousness. From another point of view, you know, the distance still to be traveled on the road, you know, maybe seems no shorter than it was at the beginning.

• 31:11Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 31:11Scott Aaronson?

  Right? So it's very hard to say. I mean, you know, these are questions like, like in, in, in sort of trying to have a theory of consciousness, there is sort of a problem where it feels like it's not just that we don't know how to make progress, it's that it's hard to specify what could even count as progress.

• 31:28Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 31:29Scott Aaronson?

  Because no matter what scientific theory someone proposed, someone else could come along and say, well, you've just talked about the mechanism. You haven't said anything about what breathes fire into the mechanism.

• 31:40Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 31:41Scott Aaronson?

  What really makes there something that it's like to be it. And that seems like an objection that you could always raise.

• 31:46Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 31:46Scott Aaronson?

  No matter, you know, how much someone elucidated the details of how the brain works.

• 31:51Lex Fridman?

  Okay, let's go touring test and Lomner Prize. I have this intuition, call me crazy, but we, that a machine to pass the Turing test in its full, whatever the spirit of it is, we can talk about how to formulate the perfect Turing test, that that machine has to be conscious, or we at least have to, I have a very low bar of what consciousness is. I tend to, I tend to think that the emulation of consciousness is as good as consciousness. So like consciousness is just a dance, a social, a social shortcut, like a nice useful tool. But I tend to connect intelligence and consciousness together. So by, by that,

• 32:34Lex Fridman?

  do you, maybe just to ask, what, what role does consciousness play, do you think it passed in the Turing test?

• 32:43Scott Aaronson?

  Well, look, I mean, it's almost tautologically true that if we had a machine that passed the Turing test, then it would be emulating consciousness. Right? So if your position is that, you know, emulation of consciousness is consciousness, then, you know, by, by definition, any machine that passed the Turing test would be conscious.

• 33:01Lex Fridman?

  But it's a.

• 33:03Scott Aaronson?

  But I mean, you know, that you could say that, you know, that that is just a way to rephrase the original question, you know, is an emulation of consciousness, you know, necessarily conscious, right? And you can, you know, I hear, I'm not saying anything new that hasn't been debated ad nauseam in the literature. Okay. But, you know, you could imagine some very hard cases, like imagine a machine that passed the Turing test, but that did so just by an enormous cosmological sized lookup table that just cached every possible conversation that could be had.

• 33:35Lex Fridman?

  The old Chinese room.

• 33:36Scott Aaronson?

  Well, yeah, but, but this is, I mean, I mean, the Chinese room actually would be doing some computation, at least in Searl's version, right? Here, I'm just talking about a table lookup. Okay, now, it's true that for conversations of a reasonable length, this, you know, lookup table would be so enormous, it wouldn't even fit in the observable universe. Okay, but supposing that you could build a big enough lookup table and then just, you know, pass the Turing test just by looking up what the person said, right? Are you going to regard that as conscious?

• 34:08Lex Fridman?

  Okay, let me try to make this

• 34:10Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 34:10Lex Fridman?

  formal and then you can shut it down. I think that the emulation of something is that something if there exists in that system, a black box that's full of mystery. So like,

• 34:25Scott Aaronson?

  Full of mystery to whom?

• 34:27Lex Fridman?

  To human inspectors.

• 34:29Scott Aaronson?

  So does that mean that consciousness is relative to the observer? Like, could something be conscious for us, but not conscious for an alien that understood better what was happening inside the black box?

• 34:39Lex Fridman?

  Yes. So that if inside the black box is just a lookup table, the alien that saw that would say this is not conscious. To us, another way to phrase the black box is layers of abstraction, which make it very difficult to see to the actually underlying functionality of the system. And then we observe just the abstraction. And so it looks like magic to us. But once we understand the inner machinery, it stops being magic. And so like, that's a prerequisite is that you can't know how it works, or some part of it. Because then there has to be in our human mind, entry point for the magic.

• 35:18Lex Fridman?

  So that's a formal definition of this.

• 35:21Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, well, look, I mean, I explored a view in this essay I wrote called "The Ghost and the Quantum Touring Machine" seven years ago that is related to that, except that I did not want to have consciousness be relative to the observer, right? Because I think that, you know, if consciousness means anything, it is something that is experienced by the entity that is conscious, right? You know, like, I don't need you to tell me that I'm conscious, right? Nor do you need me to tell you that you are, right? So, but basically, what I explored there is, you know, are there aspects of a system like a brain that

• 36:02Scott Aaronson?

  just could not be predicted even with arbitrarily advanced future technologies?

• 36:07Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 36:07Scott Aaronson?

  It's because of chaos combined with quantum mechanical uncertainty, you know, and things like that. I mean, that actually could be a property of the brain, you know, if true, that would distinguish it in a principled way, at least from any currently existing computer. Not from any possible computer, but from... Yeah, yeah.

• 36:27Lex Fridman?

  This is a thought experiment. So, if I gave you information that you're in the entire history of your life, basically explain away free will with a lookup table. Say that this was all predetermined, that everything you experienced is already being predetermined. Wouldn't that take away your consciousness? Wouldn't you yourself... Wouldn't the experience of the world change for you in a way that's... You can't take back...

• 36:53Scott Aaronson?

  Well, let me put it this way. If you could do like in a Greek tragedy, where, you know, you would just write down a prediction for what I'm going to do, and then maybe you put the prediction in a sealed box, and maybe, you know, you open it later and you show that you knew everything I was going to do. Or, you know, of course, the even creepier version would be, you tell me the prediction, and then I try to falsify it, and my very effort to falsify it makes it come true, right? Let's even forget that, you know, that version, as convenient as it is for fiction writers, right?

• 37:26Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 37:27Scott Aaronson?

  Just do the version where you put the prediction into a sealed envelope. Okay, but if you could reliably predict everything that I was going to do. I'm not sure that that would destroy my sense of being conscious. But I think it really would destroy my sense of having free will. You know, and much, much more than any philosophical conversation could possibly do that. Right? And so I think it becomes extremely interesting to ask, you know, could such predictions be done? You know, even in principle, is it consistent with the laws of physics? To make such predictions, to get enough data about someone that you could actually generate such predictions

• 38:07Scott Aaronson?

  without having to kill them in the process to, you know, slice their brain up into little slivers or something.

• 38:13Lex Fridman?

  I mean theoretically possible, right?

• 38:14Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I don't know. I mean, I mean, it might be possible, but only at the cost of destroying the person. Right? I mean, it depends on how low you have to go in sort of the substrate. Like if there was a nice digital abstraction layer. If you could think of each neuron as a kind of transistor computing a digital function. Then you could imagine some nano robots that would go in and would just scan the state of each transistor. You know, of each neuron and then, you know, make a, a good enough copy. Right? But if it was actually important to get down to the molecular or the atomic level. Then, you know, eventually you would be up against quantum effects. You would be up against the unclonability of quantum states.

• 38:58Scott Aaronson?

  So I think it's a question of how good of a replica, how good does the replica have to be? Before you're going to count it as actually a copy of you or as being able to predict your actions.

• 39:10Lex Fridman?

  That's a totally open question.

• 39:11Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, and, and especially once we say that, well, look, maybe there, there's no way to, you know, to make a deterministic prediction because, you know, there's all, there, you know, we know that there's noise buffeting the brain around, presumably even quantum mechanical uncertainty. You know, affecting the sodium ion channels, for example, whether they open or they close.

• 39:34Scott Aaronson?

  You know, there's no reason why over a certain time scale that shouldn't be amplified, just like we imagine happens with the weather or with any other, you know, chaotic system. So if that stuff is important, right, then, you know, we would say, well, you know, you can't, you know, you're never going to be able to make an accurate enough copy. But now the hard part is, well, what if someone can make a copy that sort of no one else can tell apart from you, right? It says the same kinds of things that you would have said, maybe not exactly the same things, because we agree that there's noise, but it says the same kinds of things.

• 40:17Scott Aaronson?

  And maybe you alone would say, no, I know that that's not me, you know, it doesn't share my, I haven't felt my consciousness leap over to that other thing. I still feel it localized in this version, right? Then why should anyone else believe you?

• 40:31Lex Fridman?

  What are your thoughts? I'd be curious. You're a really good person to ask, which is Penrose's, Roger Penrose's work on consciousness, saying that there, you know, there is some, with axons and so on, there might be some biological places where quantum mechanics can come into play and through that create consciousness somehow.

• 40:51Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah. Okay, well, um.

• 40:53Lex Fridman?

  Familiar with his work?

• 40:54Scott Aaronson?

  Of course. You know, I read Penrose's books as a teenager. They had a huge impact on me. Five or six years ago, I had the privilege to actually talk these things over with Penrose, you know, at some length at a conference in Minnesota. And, you know, he is, you know, an amazing personality. I admire the fact that he was even raising such audacious questions at all. But, you know, to answer your question, I think the first thing we need to get clear on is that he is not merely saying that quantum mechanics is relevant to consciousness, right? That would be like, you know, that would be tame compared to what he is saying, right? He is saying that, you know, even quantum mechanics is not good enough, right?

• 41:37Scott Aaronson?

  Because if, supposing, for example, that the brain were a quantum computer, I mean, that's still a computer. You know, in fact, a quantum computer can be simulated by an ordinary computer. It might merely need exponentially more time in order to do so, right? So that's simply not good enough for him. Okay, so what he wants is for the brain to be a quantum gravitational computer. Or, or, uh, uh, he wants the brain to be exploiting as yet unknown laws of quantum gravity, okay, which would, which would be uncomputable.

• 42:10Lex Fridman?

  Uncomputable. That's the key point.

• 42:12Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, yes, yes. That would be literally uncomputable. And I've asked him, you know, to clarify this, but uncomputable, even if you had an oracle for the halting problem, or, you know, and, and, or, you know, as high up as you want to go in the sort of high, the usual hierarchy of uncomputability. He wants to go beyond all of that. Okay, so, so, you know, just, just to be clear, like, you know, if, if we're keeping count of how many speculations, you know, there's probably like at least five or six of them, right? There's first of all, that there is some quantum gravity theory that would involve this kind of uncomputability, right? Most people who study quantum gravity would not agree with that. They would say that what we've learned, you know, what little we know about quantum gravity

• 42:57Scott Aaronson?

  from the, this ADS-CFT correspondence, for example, has been very much consistent with the broad idea of nature being computable, right? But, uh, but all right, but, but supposing that he's right about that, then, you know, what most physicists would say is that whatever new phenomena there are in quantum gravity, you know, they might be relevant at the singularities of black holes, they might be relevant at the big bang, uh, they are plainly not relevant to something like the brain, you know, that is operating at ordinary temperatures, you know, with, uh, ordinary chemistry and, you

• 43:39Scott Aaronson?

  know, the, the, the physics underlying the brain, they, they would say that we have, you know, the fundamental physics of the brain, they would say that we've pretty much completely known for, for generations now, right? Uh, because, you know, quantum field theory lets us sort of parameterize our ignorance, right? I mean, Sean Carroll has made this case and, you know, in great detail, right? That sort of whatever new effects are coming from quantum gravity, you know, they are sort of screened off by quantum field theory, right? And this is- This brings us to the whole idea of effective theories. Right. But like we have, you know, in like in the standard model of elementary particles.

• 44:20Scott Aaronson?

  Right. We have a quantum field theory that seems totally adequate for all of the terrestrial phenomena. Right. The only things that it doesn't, you know, explain are, well, first of all, you know, the details of gravity, if you were to probe it like at, at, you know, extremes of, you know, curvature or like incredibly small distances. It doesn't explain dark matter. It doesn't explain black hole singularities. Right. But these are all very exotic things, very, you know, far removed from our life on earth. Right. So for Penrose to be right, he needs, you know, these phenomena to somehow affect the brain. He needs the brain to contain antenna that are sensitive to this To black holes.

• 45:04Scott Aaronson?

  To this as yet unknown physics. Right. And then he needs a modification of quantum mechanics. Okay. So he needs quantum mechanics to actually be wrong. Okay. He needs, what he wants is what he calls an objective reduction mechanism or an objective collapse. So this is the idea that once quantum states get large enough, then they somehow spontaneously collapse. Right. That, you know, and this is an idea that lots of people have explored. You know, there's something called the GRW proposal that tries to, you know, say something along those lines. You know, and these are theories that actually make testable predictions.

• 45:47Scott Aaronson?

  Right. Which is a nice feature that they have. But, you know, the very fact that they're testable may mean that in the, you know, in the, in the coming decades, we may well be able to test these theories and show that they're, they're, they're wrong. Right. You know, we may be able to test some of Penrose's ideas. If not, not his ideas about consciousness, but at least his ideas that about an objective collapse of quantum states. Right. And people have actually, like Dick Baumeister, have actually been working to try to do these experiments. They haven't been able to do it yet to test Penrose's proposal. Okay. But Penrose would need more than just an objective collapse of quantum states, which would already be the biggest development in physics for a century since quantum mechanics itself. Okay. He would need

• 46:32Scott Aaronson?

  For consciousness to somehow be able to influence the direction of the collapse.

• 46:38Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 46:38Scott Aaronson?

  So that it wouldn't be completely random, but that, you know, your dispositions would somehow influence the quantum state to collapse more likely this way or that way. Okay?

• 46:49Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 46:49Scott Aaronson?

  Finally, Penrose, you know, says that all of this has to be true because of an argument that he makes based on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Okay?

• 46:58Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 46:58Scott Aaronson?

  Now, like, I would say, the overwhelming majority of computer scientists and mathematicians who have thought about this, I don't think that Gödel's incompleteness theorem can do what he needs it to do here, right? I don't think that that argument is sound. Okay? But that is, you know, that is sort of the tower that you have to ascend to if you're going to go where Penrose goes.

• 47:20Lex Fridman?

  And the intuition he uses with the incompleteness theorem is that basically that there's important stuff that's not computable?

• 47:27Scott Aaronson?

  Uh, no, it's not. It's not just that, because, I mean, everyone agrees that there are problems that are uncomputable, right? That's a mathematical theorem, right? That, but what Penrose wants to say is that, uh, you know, the, um, you know, for example, there are statements, uh, you know, for, you know, given any, uh, formal system, you know, for doing math, right, there will be true statements of arithmetic that that formal system, you know, if it's adequate for math at all, if it's consistent and so on, will not be able to prove. A famous example being the statement that that system itself is consistent, right?

• 48:05Lex Fridman?

  You're right.

• 48:06Scott Aaronson?

  Uh, no, you know, good formal system can actually prove its own consistency. That can only be done from a stronger formal system, which then can't prove its own consistency and so on forever. Okay? That's Gödel's theorem. But now, why is that relevant to, uh, consciousness, right? Uh, well, you know, I mean, I mean, the, the idea that it might have something to do with consciousness is an old one. Gödel himself apparently thought that it did.

• 48:32Lex Fridman?

  Oh, really?

• 48:32Scott Aaronson?

  Um, you know, uh, Lucas, uh, um, um, um, thought so, I think, in the 60s. And Penrose is really just, you know, sort of updating what What they and others had said, I mean, you know, the idea that Gödel's theorem could have something to do with consciousness was, you know, in 1950, when Alan Turing wrote his article about the Turing test, he already, you know, was writing about that as like an old and well-known idea and as one that he, as a wrong one that he wanted to dispense with. Yeah. Okay, but the basic problem with this idea is, you know, Penrose wants to say that, and all of his predecessors here, you know, want to say that, you know, even though,

• 49:15Scott Aaronson?

  you know, this given formal system cannot prove its own consistency, we as humans, sort of looking at it from the outside, can just somehow see its consistency. Right? And the, you know, the rejoinder to that, you know, from the very beginning has been, well, can we really? Yeah. I mean, maybe, you know, maybe, maybe he, Penrose, can, but, you know, can the rest of us? Yeah. Right? And, you know, I noticed that, you know, I mean, it is perfectly plausible to imagine a computer that could say, you know, it would not be limited to working within a single formal system, right?

• 49:56Scott Aaronson?

  They could say, I am now going to adopt the hypothesis that this, that my formal system is consistent. Right. And I'm now going to see what can be done from that stronger vantage point and so on. And, you know, and I'm going to add new axioms to my system. Totally plausible. There's absolutely, Gödel's theorem has nothing to say about, against an AI that could repeatedly add new axioms. All it says is that there is no absolute guarantee that when the AI adds new axioms that it will always be right. Right. Okay? And, you know, and that's, of course, the point that Penrose pounces on, but the reply is obvious. And, you know, it's one that Alan Turing made 70 years ago. And we, we don't have an absolute guarantee that we're right when we add a new axiom. Right.

• 50:41Scott Aaronson?

  We never have, and plausibly, we never will.

• 50:44Lex Fridman?

  So on Alan Turing, you took part in the Lubner Prize?

• 50:48Scott Aaronson?

  Uh, not really, no.

• 50:49Lex Fridman?

  Or it was a-

• 50:49Scott Aaronson?

  I didn't. I mean, there was this, uh, uh, kind of ridiculous claim that was made, uh, some, almost a decade ago about a chatbot called Eugene Guzman.

• 51:01Lex Fridman?

  I guess you didn't participate as a judge in the Lubner Prize.

• 51:04Scott Aaronson?

  I didn't, no.

• 51:04Lex Fridman?

  But you participated as a judge in that, I guess it was an exhibition event or something like that, or with Eugene, uh-

• 51:11Scott Aaronson?

  Eugene Guzman, that was just me writing a blog post because some journalist called me to ask about it.

• 51:17Lex Fridman?

  Did you ever chat with him?

• 51:18Scott Aaronson?

  I did chat with Eugene Guzman. I mean, it was available on the web, the chat-

• 51:22Lex Fridman?

  Oh, interesting. I didn't-

• 51:23Scott Aaronson?

  So, yeah. So, all, all that happened was that, uh, so, you know, a bunch of journalists started writing breathless articles about, you know, what an, you know, first chatbot that passes the Turing test, right? And it was this thing called Eugene Guzman that was supposed to simulate a 13-year-old boy.

• 51:40Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 51:40Scott Aaronson?

  And, um, you know, and apparently someone had done some test where, you know, people couldn't, you know, you know, were, were less than perfect, let's say, distinguishing it from a human. And they said, "Well, if you look at Turing's paper and you look at, you know, the percentages that he, that he talked about, then, you know, it seems like we're past that threshold," right? And, you know, I had a sort of, you know, different way to look at it, instead of the legalistic way. Like, let's just try the actual thing out, and let's see what it can do with questions like, you know, "Is Mount Everest bigger than a shoebox?" Okay? Or just, you know, like, the most obvious questions, right? And then, and, you know, and the answer is, "Well, it just kind of parries you because it doesn't

• 52:25Scott Aaronson?

  know what you're talking about," right?

• 52:26Lex Fridman?

  So, just to clarify, exactly in which way they're obvious? They're obvious in the sense that you convert the sentences into the meaning of the objects they represent, and then do some basic obvious, we mean, your common sense reasoning with the objects that the sentences represent.

• 52:44Scott Aaronson?

  Uh, right, right. It was not able to answer, you know, or even intelligently respond to basic common sense questions. But let me say something stronger than that. There was a famous chatbot in the 60s called Eliza. Right that you know that managed to actually fool you know a lot of people right or people would pour their hearts out into this Eliza because it simulated a therapist right and most of what it would do is it would just throw back at you whatever you said right and this turned out to be incredibly effective right uh maybe you know therapists know this this is you know one of their tricks but uh it um you know it it really had some people

• 53:25Scott Aaronson?

  convinced uh but you know this this thing was just like I think it was literally just a few hundred lines of Lisp code right it was not only was it not intelligent it wasn't especially sophisticated it was like a it was a simple little hobbyist program and Eugene Guzman from what I could see was not a significant advance compared to uh Eliza right so so and and that was that was really the point I was making and and this was you know you didn't in some sense you didn't need a like a computer science professor to sort of say this like anyone who was looking at it and who just had you know an ounce of sense could have said the same thing right but because you know these journalists were call you know

• 54:10Scott Aaronson?

  calling me you know like the first thing I said was uh well you don't know you know I I'm a quantum computing person I'm not an AI person you know you shouldn't ask me then they said look you can go here and you can try it out I said all right all right so I'll try it out um but now you know this whole discussion I mean it got a whole lot more interesting in just the last few months

• 54:31Lex Fridman?

  Yeah I'd love to hear your thoughts about GPT

• 54:33Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah yeah in the last in the last few months we've had you know we've we've the world has now seen a chat engine or a text engine I should say called GPT three um that you know I think it's still you know it does not pass a Turing test you know there are no real claims that it passes the Turing test right you know this is comes out of the group at OpenAI and you know they're you know they've been relatively careful in what they've claimed about the system but I think this this this

• 55:06Scott Aaronson?

  As clearly as Eugene Guzman was not in advance over Eliza, it is equally clear that this is a major advance over Eliza, or really over anything that the world has seen before. This is a text engine that can come up with kind of on-topic, you know, reasonable sounding completions to just about anything that you ask. You can ask it to write a poem about topic X in the style of Poet Y, and it will have a go at that. And it will do, you know, not a great job, not an amazing job, but, you know, a passable job. You know, definitely, you know, as good as, you know,

• 55:48Scott Aaronson?

  you know, in many cases, I would say better than I would have done, right? You know, you can ask it to write, you know, an essay, like a student essay, about pretty much any topic, and it will get something that I am pretty sure would get at least a B minus, you know, in the most, you know, high school or even college classes, right? And, you know, in some sense, you know, the way that it did this, the way that it achieves this, you know, Scott Alexander of the, you know, the much mourned blog Slate Star Codex had a wonderful way of putting it. He said that "they basically just ground up the entire internet into a slurry." Okay?

• 56:26Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 56:26Scott Aaronson?

  And, you know, and I, to tell you the truth, I had wondered for a while why nobody had tried that, right? Like, why not write a chatbot by just doing deep learning over a corpus consisting of the entire web, right? And so, so, so now they finally have done that, right? And, you know, the results are very impressive. You know, it's not clear that, you know, people can argue about whether this is truly a step toward general AI or not, but this is an amazing capability that, you know, we didn't have a few years ago. That, you know, if a few years ago, if you had told me that we would have it now, that would have surprised me.

• 57:09Scott Aaronson?

  And I think that anyone who denies that is just not engaging with what's there.

• 57:13Lex Fridman?

  So their model, it takes a large part of the internet and compresses it in a small number of parameters relative to the size of the internet, and is able to, without

• 57:26Lex Fridman?

  Fine tuning, do a basic kind of a querying mechanism, just like you described, where you specify a kind of poet and then you want to write a poem. And it somehow is able to do basically a lookup on the internet of relevant things. I mean, that's what.

• 57:40Scott Aaronson?

  I mean, I mean, I mean.

• 57:42Lex Fridman?

  How else do you explain it?

• 57:43Scott Aaronson?

  Well, OK, I mean, I mean, I mean, the the training involved, you know, massive amounts of data from the internet and actually took lots and lots of computer power, lots of electricity, right? You know, there are some some very prosaic reasons why this wasn't done earlier, right?

• 57:58Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 57:58Scott Aaronson?

  But, you know, it costs some tens of millions of dollars, I think, you know, just for.

• 58:03Lex Fridman?

  But approximately like a few million dollars.

• 58:05Scott Aaronson?

  Oh, OK, OK. Oh, really? OK.

• 58:07Lex Fridman?

  It's more like four or five.

• 58:09Scott Aaronson?

  Oh, all right, all right. Thank you. I mean, as they as they scale it up, you know, it will.

• 58:13Lex Fridman?

  It'll cost, but then the the hope is cost comes down and all that kind of stuff.

• 58:17Scott Aaronson?

  Uh huh. But basically, you know, it is a neural net, you know, so I mean, I mean, or what's now called a deep net, but you know, they're basically the same thing, right? So it's a it's a form of, you know, a algorithm that people have known about for decades, right? But it is constantly trying to solve the problem, predict the next word, right? So it's just trying to predict what comes next. It's not trying to decide what what it should say, what ought to be true. It's trying to predict what someone who had said all of the words up to the preceding one would say next.

• 58:56Lex Fridman?

  Although to push back on that, that's how it's trained.

• 58:59Scott Aaronson?

  That's right.

• 58:59Lex Fridman?

  But it's arguable.

• 59:00Scott Aaronson?

  No, of course.

• 59:01Lex Fridman?

  Arguable.

• 59:01Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 59:02Lex Fridman?

  That our very cognition could be a mechanism as that simple.

• 59:06Scott Aaronson?

  Oh, of course, of course. I never said that it wasn't.

• 59:08Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 59:09Scott Aaronson?

  But, yeah. But I mean, I mean, and sometimes that that is, you know, if there is a deep philosophical question that's raised by GPT three, then that is it, right? Are we doing anything other than, you know, this predictive processing, just trying to constantly trying to fill in a blank of what would come next after what we just said up to this point? Is that what I'm doing right now?

• 59:32Lex Fridman?

  Is it possible, so the intuition that a lot of people have, well, look, this thing is not going to be able to reason, the mountain Everest question. Do you think it's possible that GPT five, six and seven would be able to, with this exact same process, begin to do something that looks like, is indistinguishable to us humans from reasoning?

• 59:55Scott Aaronson?

  I mean, the truth is that we don't really know what the limits are, right?

• 59:58Lex Fridman?

  Right, exactly.

• 59:59Scott Aaronson?

  Because, you know, what we've seen so far is that, you know, GPT three was basically the same thing as GPT two, but just with, you know, a much larger network, you know, more training time, bigger training corpus, right? And it was, you know, very noticeably better, right? Than its immediate predecessor. So, you know, we don't know where you hit the ceiling here, right? I mean, that's the, that's the amazing part and maybe also the scary part, right? That, you know, now my guess would be that, that, you know, at some point, like, there has to be diminishing returns. Like, it can't be that simple, can it? Right? But I, I, I wish that I had more to base that guess on.

• 1:00:43Lex Fridman?

  Right. Yeah, I mean, some people say that there will be a limitation on the, we're going to hit a limit on the amount of data that's on the internet.

• 1:00:50Scott Aaronson?

  Yes, yeah, so, so sure. So, so there's certainly that limit. I mean, there's also, you know, like, if you are looking for questions that will stump GPT three, right? You can come up with some without, you know, like, you know, even getting it to learn how to balance parentheses, right? Like, it can, you know, it doesn't do such a great job, right? You know, like, like, you know, and, you know, and its failures are ironic, right? Like, like, basic arithmetic, right? And you think, and you think, you know, isn't that what computers are supposed to be best at? Isn't that where computers already had us beat a century ago?

• 1:01:26Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:01:27Scott Aaronson?

  Right? And, you know, and yet that's where GPT three struggles, right? But it's It's amazing, you know, that it's almost like a young child in that way, right? That, uh, um, but, but somehow, you know, because it is just trying to predict what, what comes next, it doesn't know when it should stop doing that and start doing something very different, like some more exact logical reasoning, right? And so, so, you know, the, uh, you know, you, one, one is naturally led to guess that our brain sort of has some element of predictive processing, but that it's coupled to other mechanisms, right? That it's coupled to, you know, first of all, visual reasoning, which GPT-3 also doesn't have any of, right?

• 1:02:10Lex Fridman?

  Although there's some demonstration that there's a lot of promise there.

• 1:02:13Scott Aaronson?

  That's, oh, yeah, it can complete images. That's right.

• 1:02:16Lex Fridman?

  And using exact same kind of transformer mechanisms to like watch videos on YouTube. And so the same, uh, the same self-supervised mechanism to be able to, it'd be fascinating to think what kind of completions you could do.

• 1:02:29Scott Aaronson?

  Oh, yeah, no, absolutely. Although like if we ask it to like, you know, a word problem that involve reasoning about the locations of things in space, I don't think it does such a great job on those, right? To take an example. And so, so the, the guess would be, well, you know, humans have a lot of predictive processing, a lot of just filling in the blanks, but we also have these other mechanisms that we can couple to, or that we can sort of call as subroutines when we need to. And that maybe, maybe, you know, to, to go further, that, that one would, one would want to integrate other forms of reasoning.

• 1:03:02Lex Fridman?

  Let me go on another topic that is amazing, uh, which is complexity. What, uh, and then start with the most absurdly romantic question of what's the most beautiful idea in the computer science or theoretical computer science to you? Like what just early on in your life or in general have captivated you and just grabbed you?

• 1:03:24Scott Aaronson?

  I think I'm gonna have to go with the idea of universality. Uh, you know, if you're really asking for the most beautiful. I mean, uh, so universality is the idea that, you know, you put together a few simple operations, like.

• 1:03:40Scott Aaronson?

  In the case of Boolean logic, that might be the AND gate, the OR gate, the NOT gate. Right. And then your first guess is, okay, this is a good start. But obviously, as I want to do more complicated things, I'm going to need more complicated building blocks to express that. Right? And that was actually my guess when I first learned what programming was. I mean, when I was, you know, an adolescent and I, someone showed me, uh, Apple Basic and, and, you know, GW Basic.

• 1:04:09Lex Fridman?

  Oh, wow.

• 1:04:10Scott Aaronson?

  If any, anyone listening remembers that. Okay. But, uh, you know, I thought, okay, well now, you know, I mean, I thought, I felt like, um, this is a revelation, you know, it's like finding out where babies come from. It's like that level of, you know, why didn't anyone tell me this before? Right. But I thought, okay, this is just the beginning. Now I know how to write a basic program. But to, you know, really write a, an interesting program, like a, you know, a video game, which had always been my, my dream as a kid to, you know, create my own Nintendo games. Right. That, you know, but, I mean, obviously I'm going to need to learn some way more complicated form of programming than that. Okay. But, you know, eventually I learned this incredible idea of universality.

• 1:04:52Scott Aaronson?

  And that says that no, you throw in a few rules and then you can, you already have enough to express everything. Okay. So for example, the AND, the OR and the NOT gate can all, or in fact, even just the AND and the NOT gate, or even just, even just the NAND gate, for example, uh, is already enough to express any Boolean function on any number of bits. You just have to string together enough of them.

• 1:05:17Lex Fridman?

  You can build a universe with NAND gates.

• 1:05:19Scott Aaronson?

  You can build the universe out of NAND gates. Yeah. Uh, you know, the, the simple instructions of BASIC are already enough, at least in principle, you know, if we ignore details like how much memory can be accessed and stuff like that, that is enough to express what could be expressed by any programming language whatsoever. And the way to prove that is very simple. We simply need to show that in BASIC or whatever, we could write a, an interpreter or a compiler for whatever is other programming language we care about, like C or, or Java or whatever. And as soon as we had done that, then ipso facto, anything that's expressible in C or Java is also expressible in BASIC. Okay. And

• 1:06:03Scott Aaronson?

  So this idea of universality, you know, goes back at least to Alan Turing in the 1930s, when, you know, he wrote down this incredibly simple pared-down model of a computer, the Turing machine, right, which, you know, he pared down the instruction set to just read a symbol, you know, go, write a symbol, move to the left, move to the right, halt, change your internal state, right? That's it. Okay? And anybody proved that, you know, this could simulate all kinds of other things. You know, and so, so in fact, today, we would say, well, we would call it a Turing universal

• 1:06:44Scott Aaronson?

  model of computation that is, you know, just as, it has just the same expressive power that BASIC or Java or C++ or any of those other languages have, because anything in those other languages could be compiled down to Turing machine. Now Turing also proved a different related thing, which is that there is a single Turing machine that can simulate any other Turing machine, if you just describe that other machine on its tape, right? And likewise, there is a single Turing machine that will run any C program, you know, if you just put it on its tape. That's, that's a second meaning of universality.

• 1:07:26Lex Fridman?

  First of all, that he couldn't visualize it, and that was in the 30s, I think.

• 1:07:30Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, the 30s, that's right.

• 1:07:31Lex Fridman?

  That's before computers really, I mean, I don't know how, I wonder what that felt like, you know, learning that there's no Santa Claus or something. Because I don't know if that's empowering or paralyzing, because it doesn't give you any, it's like, you can't write a software engineering book and make that the first chapter and say, we're done.

• 1:07:56Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I mean, I mean, right. I mean, I mean, in one sense, it was this enormous flattening of the universe.

• 1:08:02Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 1:08:02Scott Aaronson?

  Right. I had imagined that there was going to be some infinite hierarchy of more and more powerful programming languages, you know, and then I kicked myself for, you know, for having such a stupid idea. But apparently, Gödel had had the same conjecture in the 30s.

• 1:08:17Lex Fridman?

  Oh, good.

• 1:08:17Scott Aaronson?

  And then, you know.

• 1:08:18Lex Fridman?

  You're in good company.

• 1:08:19Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah. And then, and then, and then Gödel read Turing's paper, and he kicked himself. And he said, yeah, I was completely wrong about that.

• 1:08:26Lex Fridman?

  Interesting.

• 1:08:27Scott Aaronson?

  But, um, but, you know, I had thought that, you know, maybe, maybe where I can contribute will be to invent a new, more powerful programming language that lets you express things that could never be expressed in BASIC.

• 1:08:39Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:08:39Scott Aaronson?

  Right. And, you know, and, you know, how would you do that? Obviously, you couldn't do it itself in BASIC, right? But, uh, but, you know, there is this incredible flattening that happens once you learn what is universality. But then it's also, um, uh, like, um, an opportunity, because it means, once you know these rules, then, you know, the sky is the limit, right? Then you have kind of the same weapons at your disposal that the world's greatest programmer has. It's now all just a question of how you wield them.

• 1:09:09Lex Fridman?

  Right, exactly. But so, every problem is solvable, but some problems are harder than others. And

• 1:09:16Scott Aaronson?

  Well, yeah, there's the question of how much time, you know, of how hard is it to write a program? And then there's also the questions of what resources does the program need? You know, how much time, how much memory? Those are much more complicated questions, of course, ones that we're still struggling with today.

• 1:09:32Lex Fridman?

  Exactly. So you've, I don't know if you created Complexity Zoo, or?

• 1:09:36Scott Aaronson?

  I did create the Complexity Zoo.

• 1:09:38Lex Fridman?

  What is it? What's Complexity?

• 1:09:40Scott Aaronson?

  Oh, all right, all right, all right. Complexity theory is the study of sort of the inherent resources needed to solve computational problems. Okay, so, uh, it's easiest to give an example. Uh, like, uh, let's say we want to, um, add two, two numbers, right? If I want to add them, uh, um, you know, if the numbers are twice as long, then it only, it will take me twice as long to add. Them, but only twice as long, right? It's no worse than that.

• 1:10:10Lex Fridman?

  Or a computer.

• 1:10:11Scott Aaronson?

  For a computer or for a person, we're using pencil and paper for that matter.

• 1:10:14Lex Fridman?

  If you have a good algorithm.

• 1:10:16Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, that's right. You can have an inefficient algorithm. If you just use the elementary school algorithm of just carrying, you know, then it takes time that is linear in the length of the numbers, right? Now multiplication, if you use the elementary school algorithm is harder because you have to multiply each digit of the first number by each digit of the second one.

• 1:10:36Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:10:36Scott Aaronson?

  You know, and then deal with all the carries. So that's what we call a quadratic time algorithm, right? If the numbers become twice as long, now you need four times as much time. Okay, so now, as it turns out, we, uh, uh, uh, people discovered much faster ways to multiply numbers using computers. And today we know how to multiply two numbers that are N digits long using a number of steps that's nearly linear in N. These are questions you can ask, but now let's think about a different thing that people, you know, they've encountered in elementary school, a factoring a number. Okay, take a number and find its prime factors, right? And here, you know, if I give you a number with 10 digits,

• 1:11:22Scott Aaronson?

  I ask you for its prime factors. Well, maybe it's even, so you know that two is a factor. You know, maybe it ends in zero, so you know that 10 is a factor, right? But, you know, other than a few obvious things like that, you know, if the prime factors are all very large, then it's not clear how you even get started, right? You know, you, it seems like you have to do an exhaustive search among an enormous number of factors. Now, um, and, and as many people might know, uh, the, uh, for, for, for better or worse, the, uh, security, you know, of most of the encryption that we currently use to protect the internet is based on the belief, and this is not a theorem, it's a belief, that, uh, that, that factoring is an inherently hard problem

• 1:12:07Scott Aaronson?

  for our computers. We do know algorithms that are better than just trial division, than just trying all the possible divisors, uh, but they are still basically exponential.

• 1:12:19Lex Fridman?

  And exponential is hard.

• 1:12:21Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, exactly. So the fastest algorithms that anyone has discovered, at least publicly discovered, you know, I'm assuming that the NSA doesn't know something better.

• 1:12:31Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:12:31Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, but they take time that basically grows exponentially with the cube root of the size of the number that you're factoring, right? So that cube root, that's the part that takes all the cleverness, okay? But there's still an exponential, there's still an exponentiality there. But what that means is that like, when people use a thousand bit keys for their cryptography, that can probably be broken using the resources of the NSA or the world's other intelligence agencies. You know, people have done analyses that say, you know, with a few hundred million dollars of computer power, they could totally do this. And if you look at the documents that Snowden released, you know, it looks a lot like they are doing that or something like that.

• 1:13:14Scott Aaronson?

  It would kind of be surprising if they weren't, okay? But, you know, if that's true, then in some ways, that's reassuring. Because if that's the best that they can do, then that would say that they can't break 2000 bit numbers.

• 1:13:27Lex Fridman?

  Right, exactly.

• 1:13:28Scott Aaronson?

  Right, then 2000 bit numbers would be beyond what even they could do.

• 1:13:32Lex Fridman?

  They haven't found an efficient algorithm. That's where all the worries and the concerns of quantum computing came in, that there could be some kind of shortcut around that.

• 1:13:40Scott Aaronson?

  Right, so complexity theory is a, you know, is a huge part of, let's say, the theoretical core of computer science. You know, it started in the 60s and 70s as, you know, sort of an autonomous field. So it was, you know, already, you know, I mean, you know, it was well-developed even by the time that I was born. Okay, but I, in 2002, I made a website called The Complexity Zoo, to answer your question, where I just tried to catalog the different complexity classes, which are classes of problems that are solvable with different kinds of resources.

• 1:14:19Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 1:14:20Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, so these are kind of, you know, you could think of complexity classes as like being almost to theoretical computer science, like what the elements are to chemistry, right? They're sort of, you know, they're our most basic objects in a certain way.

• 1:14:36Lex Fridman?

  I feel like the elements. Have a characteristic to them where you can't just add an infinite number.

• 1:14:44Scott Aaronson?

  Well, you could, but beyond a certain point, they become unstable. Right, right. So it's like, you know, in theory, you can have atoms with, you know, and look, look, I mean, I mean, I mean, a neutron star, you know, is a nucleus with, you know, unhold billions of neutrons in it, of hadrons in it. Okay, but, you know, for sort of normal atoms, right? Probably you can't get much above 100, you know, atomic weight 150 or so, or sorry, sorry. I mean, I mean, but beyond 150 or so protons without it, you know, very quickly fissioning. With complexity classes, well, yeah, you can have an infinity of complexity classes.

• 1:15:28Scott Aaronson?

  But, you know, maybe there's only a finite number of them that are particularly interesting, right? Just like with anything else, you know, you, you care about some more than about others.

• 1:15:38Lex Fridman?

  So what kind of interesting classes are there?

• 1:15:40Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:15:41Lex Fridman?

  I mean, you could have just maybe say, what are the, if you take any kind of computer science class, what are the classes you learn?

• 1:15:48Scott Aaronson?

  Good. Let me, let me tell you sort of the, the, the biggest ones, the ones that you would learn first. So, you know, first of all, there is P. That's what it's called. Okay. It stands for polynomial time. And this is just the class of all of the problems that you could solve with a conventional computer, like your iPhone or your laptop, you know, by a completely deterministic algorithm, right? Using a number of steps that grows only like the size of the input raised to some fixed power. Okay. So if your algorithm is linear time, like, you know, for adding numbers, okay, that, that problem is in P.

• 1:16:29Scott Aaronson?

  If you have an algorithm that's quadratic time, like the elementary school algorithm for multiplying two numbers, that's also in P. Even if it was the size of the input to the 10th power or to the 50th power, well, that wouldn't be very good in practice. But, you know, formally, we would still count that. That would still be in P. Okay. But if your algorithm takes exponential time, meaning like if every time I add one more.

• 1:16:57Scott Aaronson?

  Data point to your input, if the time that needed by the algorithm doubles, if you need time like 2 to the power of the amount of input data, then that is, that we call an exponential time algorithm. Okay. And that is not polynomial. Okay. So P is all of the problems that have some polynomial time algorithm. Okay. So that includes most of what we do with our computers on a day to day basis. You know, all the, you know, sorting, basic arithmetic, you know, whatever is going on in your email reader or in Angry Birds. Okay. It's all, it's all in P. Then the next super important class is called NP. That stands for non deterministic polynomial. Okay.

• 1:17:42Scott Aaronson?

  Does not stand for not polynomial, which is a common confusion. But NP was basically all of the problems where if there is a solution, then it is easy to check the solution if someone shows it to you. Okay. So actually, a perfect example of a problem in NP is factoring, the one I told you about before. Like if I gave you a number with thousands of digits and I told you that it, you know, I asked you, does this, does this have at least three non trivial divisors, right? That might be a super hard problem to solve, right? Might take you millions of years using any algorithm that's known, at least running on our existing computers.

• 1:18:27Scott Aaronson?

  Okay. But if I simply showed you the divisors, I said, here are three divisors of this number, then it would be very easy for you to ask your computer to just check each one and see if it works. Just divide it in, see if there's any remainder, right? And if they all go in, then you've checked, well, I guess there were. Right? So.

• 1:18:49Scott Aaronson?

  So any problem where, you know, wherever there's a solution, there is a short witness that can be easily like a polynomial size witness that can be checked in polynomial time, that we call an NP problem.

• 1:19:03Lex Fridman?

  Okay. Beautiful.

• 1:19:04Scott Aaronson?

  And yeah, so, so every problem that's in P is also in NP. Right. Because, you know, you could always just ignore the witness and just, you know, if a problem is in P, you can just solve it yourself.

• 1:19:15Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 1:19:16Scott Aaronson?

  Okay. But now, the, in some sense, the central, you know, mystery of theoretical computer science is, is every NP problem in P. So if you can easily check the answer to a computational problem, does that mean that you can also easily find the answer?

• 1:19:33Lex Fridman?

  Even though there's all these problems that appear to be very difficult to find the answer, it's still an open question whether a good answer exists.

• 1:19:42Scott Aaronson?

  So what's your- Because no one has proven that there's no way to do it.

• 1:19:45Lex Fridman?

  It's arguably the most, I don't know, the most famous, the most maybe interesting, maybe you disagree with that, problem in theoretical computer science. So what's your-

• 1:19:55Scott Aaronson?

  The most famous, for sure.

• 1:19:57Lex Fridman?

  P equals NP.

• 1:19:58Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:19:58Lex Fridman?

  If you were to bet all your money, where do you put your money?

• 1:20:01Scott Aaronson?

  That's an easy one. P is not equal to NP.

• 1:20:03Lex Fridman?

  Okay.

• 1:20:03Scott Aaronson?

  So I like to say that if we were physicists, we would have just declared that to be a law of nature. You know, just like, just like thermodynamics-

• 1:20:10Lex Fridman?

  That's hilarious.

• 1:20:11Scott Aaronson?

  Given ourselves Nobel prizes for its discovery. Yeah, yeah, no, and look, if later, if later it turned out that we were wrong, we just give ourselves more Nobel-

• 1:20:18Lex Fridman?

  Another Nobel prize.

• 1:20:19Scott Aaronson?

  More Nobel prizes. Yeah. I mean, you know, but yeah, because we're-

• 1:20:23Lex Fridman?

  So harsh, but so true.

• 1:20:25Scott Aaronson?

  I mean, no, I mean, I mean, I mean, it's really just because we are mathematicians or descended from mathematicians, you know, we have to call things conjectures that other people would just call empirical facts or discoveries, right?

• 1:20:38Lex Fridman?

  Okay.

• 1:20:39Scott Aaronson?

  But one shouldn't read more into the difference in, in language, you know, about the underlying truth.

• 1:20:44Lex Fridman?

  So, okay, so you're a good investor and good spender of money. So then let me ask-

• 1:20:48Scott Aaronson?

  I don't know that.

• 1:20:48Lex Fridman?

  Let me ask another way.

• 1:20:50Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:20:50Lex Fridman?

  Is it possible at all? And what would that look like if P indeed equals NP?

• 1:20:56Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I do think that it's possible. I mean, in fact, you know, when people really pressed me on my blog for what odds would I put, I put, you know, 2% or 3% odds.

• 1:21:06Lex Fridman?

  Wow, that's pretty good.

• 1:21:07Scott Aaronson?

  That P equals NP. Yeah, just be, well, because, you know, when, when P, I mean, I mean, you really have to think about like, if there were 50, you know, mysteries like P versus NP, and if I made a guess about every single one of them, would I expect to be right 50 times? Right? And the truthful answer is no.

• 1:21:25Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:21:26Scott Aaronson?

  So, you know, and, and, and that's what you really mean in saying that, you know, you have, you know, better than 98% odds for something. Okay, but, um, so, so, yeah, you know, I mean, there could certainly be surprises. And look, if P equals NP, well, then there would be the further question of, you know, is the algorithm actually efficient in practice? Right? I mean, Don Knuth, who I know that you, you've interviewed as well, right? He likes to conjecture that P equals NP, but that the algorithm is so inefficient that it doesn't matter anyway. Right? Now, I, I don't know, I've listened to him say that. I don't know whether he says that just because he has an actual reason for thinking it's true, or just because it sounds cool.

• 1:22:10Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:22:10Scott Aaronson?

  But, um, but, you know, that, that's a logical possibility, right? That the algorithm could be n to the 10,000 time, or it could even just be n squared time, but with a leading constant of, it could be a Google times n squared, or something like that. And in that case, the fact that P equals NP, well, it would, it would, uh, you know, ravage the whole theory of complexity. We would have to, you know, rebuild from the ground up. But in practical terms, it might mean very little, right? If the algorithm was too inefficient to run. If the algorithm could actually be run in practice, like if, if it had small enough constants, you know, to, or if you could improve it to where it had small enough

• 1:22:53Scott Aaronson?

  constants that it was efficient in practice, then that would change the world. Okay.

• 1:22:58Lex Fridman?

  You think it would have, like, what kind of impact?

• 1:23:00Scott Aaronson?

  Well, okay, I mean, I mean, here's an example. I mean, you could, well, okay, just for starters, you could break basically all of the encryption that people use to protect the internet.

• 1:23:09Lex Fridman?

  That's just for starters.

• 1:23:10Scott Aaronson?

  You could, you could break Bitcoin and every other cryptocurrency, or, you know, mine as much Bitcoin as you wanted, right? Uh, you know, become a, you know, become a, a super duper billionaire, right? And then, and then plot your next move.

• 1:23:24Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 1:23:24Scott Aaronson?

  Okay.

• 1:23:25Lex Fridman?

  That's just for starters.

• 1:23:26Scott Aaronson?

  Right, right, right, right. Now, your, your, your next move might be something like, you know, you now have like a theoretically optimal way to train any neural network, to find parameters for any neural network, right? So you could now say, like, is there any small neural network that generates the entire content of Wikipedia? Right? If, you know, and now the question is not, can you find it? The question has been reduced to, does that exist or not?

• 1:23:51Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 1:23:52Scott Aaronson?

  If it does exist, then the answer would be yes, you can find it. Okay? If, if, if you had this algorithm in your hands, okay? You could ask your computer, you know, I mean, I mean, P versus NP is one of these seven problems that carries this million dollar prize from the Clay Foundation. You know, if you solve it, uh, you know, and others are the Riemann hypothesis, uh, the Punkeray conjecture, which was solved, although the solver turned down the prize, right? And, uh, and, and, and four others. But what I like to say, the way that we can see that P versus NP is the biggest of all of these questions, is that if you had this fast algorithm, then you could solve all seven of them. Okay? You just ask your computer, you know, is there a short proof of the Riemann hypothesis? Right?

• 1:24:36Scott Aaronson?

  You know, that, that a machine could, in a language where a machine could verify it? And provided that such a proof exists, then your computer finds it in a short amount of time without having to do a brute force search. Okay, so I mean, I mean, those are the stakes of what we're talking about. But I hope that also helps to give your listeners some intuition of why I and most of my colleagues would put our money on P not equaling NP.

• 1:25:01Lex Fridman?

  Is it possible, I apologize, this is a really dumb question, but is it possible to, that a proof will come out that P equals NP, but an algorithm that makes P equals NP is impossible to find? Is that like crazy?

• 1:25:18Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, well, well, if P equals NP, it would mean that there is such an algorithm.

• 1:25:23Lex Fridman?

  That it exists, yeah.

• 1:25:24Scott Aaronson?

  But, um, um...

• 1:25:27Scott Aaronson?

  You know, it would mean that it exists. Now, you know, in practice, normally, the way that we would prove anything like that would be by finding the algorithm.

• 1:25:35Lex Fridman?

  By finding one algorithm.

• 1:25:36Scott Aaronson?

  But there is such a thing as a non-constructive proof that an algorithm exists. You know, this is really only reared its head, I think, a few times in the history of our field. Right? But, you know, it is theoretically possible that such a thing could happen. But, you know, there are, even here, there are some amusing observations that one could make. So there is this famous observation of Leonid Levin, who was, you know, one of the original discoverers of NP completeness. Right? And he said, well, consider the following algorithm that like I guarantee will solve the NP problems efficiently, just as provided that P equals NP. Okay? Here is what it does.

• 1:26:19Scott Aaronson?

  It just runs, you know, it enumerates every possible algorithm in a gigantic infinite list.

• 1:26:25Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:26:25Scott Aaronson?

  Right? From like alphabetical order.

• 1:26:28Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:26:28Scott Aaronson?

  You know, and many of them maybe won't even compile. So we just ignore those. Okay? But now we just, you know, run the first algorithm. Then we run the second algorithm. We run the first one a little bit more. Then we run the first three algorithms for a while. We run the first four for a while. This is called dovetailing, by the way. This is a known trick in theoretical computer science. Okay? But we do it in such a way that, you know, whatever is the algorithm out there in our list that solves NP complete, you know, the NP problems efficiently will eventually hit that one. Right? And now the key is that whenever we hit that one, you know, it, you know, by assumption, it has to solve the problem, has to find a solution.

• 1:27:12Scott Aaronson?

  And once it claims to find a solution, then we can check that ourself. Right? Because there, these are NP problems.

• 1:27:19Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:27:19Scott Aaronson?

  Then we can check it. Now, this is utterly impractical. All right? You know, you'd have to do this enormous exhaustive search among all the algorithms. But from a certain theoretical standpoint, that is merely a constant prefactor.

• 1:27:33Lex Fridman?

  It's at least possible.

• 1:27:34Scott Aaronson?

  That's merely a multiplier of your running time. So there are tricks like that one can do to say that in some sense, the algorithm would have to be constructive. But you know, in the human sense, you know, it is possible that to, you know, it's conceivable that one could prove such a thing via a non-constructive method. Is that likely? I don't think so, first, not personally.

• 1:27:57Lex Fridman?

  So that's P and P, but the complexity zoo is full of wonderful creatures.

• 1:28:02Scott Aaronson?

  Well, it's got about 500 of them.

• 1:28:04Lex Fridman?

  500. So how do you get, yeah, yeah, how do you get more?

• 1:28:09Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah. Well, okay. I mean, I mean, just for starters, there is everything that we could do with a conventional computer with a polynomial amount of memory. Okay, but possibly an exponential amount of time because we get to reuse the same memory over and over again. Okay, that is called P-space. Okay, and that's actually a, we think, an even larger class than NP. Okay, well, P is contained in NP, which is contained in P-space. And we think that those containments are strict.

• 1:28:42Lex Fridman?

  And the constraint there is on the memory, the memory has to grow with, pol exponentially with the size of the problem.

• 1:28:48Scott Aaronson?

  That's right, that's right. But in P-space, we now have interesting things that were not in NP, like as a famous example, you know, from a given position in chess, you know, does white or black have the win? Let's say, assuming, provided that the game lasts only for a reasonable number of moves.

• 1:29:07Lex Fridman?

  Oh, interesting.

• 1:29:08Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, or likewise for Go. Okay, and, you know, even for the generalizations of these games to arbitrary-sized boards. Right, because with an eight-by-eight board, you could say that's just a constant-sized problem. You just, you know, in principle, you just solve it in O of one time. Right, but, so we really mean the, the generalizations of, you know, games to arbitrary-sized boards here. Or another thing in P-space would be, like, I give you some really hard constraint satisfaction problem, like, you know, a, you know, traveling salesperson, or, you know, packing boxes into the trunk of your car, or something like that. And I ask not just, is there a solution, which would be an NP problem, but I ask, how many solutions are there?

• 1:29:52Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, that, you know, count the number of valid solutions.

• 1:29:58Scott Aaronson?

  That that that actually gives those problems lie in a complexity class called sharp P. Or like it looks like hashtag like hashtag P.

• 1:30:07Lex Fridman?

  Got it.

• 1:30:07Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, which sits between NP and P space. There's all the problems that you can do in exponential time. Okay, that's called EXP. So, um, and by the way, uh, it it it was proven in the 60s that EXP is larger than P. Okay, so we know that much. We know that there are problems that are solvable in exponential time that are not solvable in polynomial time. Okay, in fact, we even know we know that there are problems that are solvable in N cubed time that are not solvable in N squared time.

• 1:30:42Lex Fridman?

  And that those don't help us with the controversy between P and NP.

• 1:30:45Scott Aaronson?

  Unfortunately, it it seems not, or certainly not yet. Right? The the the the techniques that we use to establish those things, they're very, very related to how Turing proved the unsolvability of the halting problem. But they seem to break down when we're comparing two different resources like time versus space. Or like, you know, P versus NP. Okay, but you know, I mean, there's there's what you can do with a randomized algorithm, right? That can sometimes, you know, with some has some probability of making a mistake. That's called BPP, bounded error probabilistic polynomial time. And then, of course, there's one that's very close to my own heart. What you can efficiently do do in polynomial time using a quantum computer.

• 1:31:29Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, and that's called BQP. Right? And so, you know.

• 1:31:34Lex Fridman?

  What's understood about that class?

• 1:31:35Scott Aaronson?

  Okay, so P is contained in BPP, which is contained in BQP, which is contained in P space. Okay, so anything you can, in fact, in in like in something very similar to sharp P. BQP is basically, you know, well, it's contained in like P with the magic power to solve sharp P problems.

• 1:31:56Lex Fridman?

  Why is BQP contained in P-space?

• 1:32:00Scott Aaronson?

  Oh, that's an excellent question. So, there is, well, I mean, one has to prove that. Okay, but the proof, you could, you could think of it as using Richard Feynman's picture of quantum mechanics, which is that you can always, you know, we haven't really talked about quantum mechanics in this, in this conversation. We, we did in our previous.

• 1:32:24Lex Fridman?

  Yeah, we did last time.

• 1:32:25Scott Aaronson?

  But yeah, we did last time. Okay, but, but basically, you could always think of a quantum computation as like a branching tree of possibilities, where each, each possible path that you could take through, you know, your, the space, has a complex number attached to it, called an amplitude. Okay, and now, the rule is, you know, when you make a measurement at the end, will you see a random answer? Okay, but quantum mechanics is all about calculating the probability that you're going to see one potential answer versus another one, right? And the rule for calculating the probability that you'll see some answer, is that you have

• 1:33:06Scott Aaronson?

  to add up the amplitudes for all of the paths that could have led to that answer. And then, you know, that's a complex number, so that, you know, how could that be a probability? Then you take the squared absolute value of the result. That gives you a number between zero and one. Okay, so, I just, I just summarized quantum mechanics in like 30 seconds. Okay, but, but now, you know, what, what this already tells us, is that anything I can do with a quantum computer, I could simulate with a classical computer, if I only have exponentially more time. Okay, and why is that? Because if I have exponential time, I could just write down this entire branching tree, and just explicitly calculate each

• 1:33:50Scott Aaronson?

  of these amplitudes. Right? You know, that will be very inefficient, but it will work. Right? It's enough to show that quantum computers could not solve the halting problem, or you know, they could never do anything that is literally uncomputable in Turing sense. Okay, but now, as I said, there is even a stronger result, which says that BQP is contained in P-space. The way that we prove that is that we say, if all I want is to calculate the probability of some particular output happening, you know, which is all I need to simulate a quantum computer, really, then I don't need to write down the entire quantum state, which is an exponentially large object. All I need to

• 1:34:32Scott Aaronson?

  do is just calculate what is the amplitude for that final state, and to do that, I just have to sum up all the amplitudes that lead to that state. Okay, so that's an exponentially large sum, but I can calculate it just reusing the same memory over and over for each term in the sum.

• 1:34:51Lex Fridman?

  And hence the P, in the P-space.

• 1:34:53Scott Aaronson?

  Hence the P-space.

• 1:34:54Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:34:54Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:34:55Lex Fridman?

  So what, out of that whole complexity zoo, and it could be BQP, what do you find is the most, the class that captured your heart the most? The most beautiful class is just, yeah.

• 1:35:09Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I used as my email address, [email protected], just because bqp slash qpoly, well, you know, amazingly, no one had taken it.

• 1:35:21Lex Fridman?

  Amazing.

• 1:35:22Scott Aaronson?

  But, you know, but this is a class that I was involved in sort of defining, proving the first theorems about in 2003 or so. So it was kind of close to my heart. But this is like, if we extended BQP, which is the class of everything we can do efficiently with a quantum computer, to allow quantum advice, which means, imagine that you had some special initial state, okay, that could somehow help you do computation, and maybe...

• 1:35:54Scott Aaronson?

  Such a state would be exponentially hard to prepare. Okay, but you know, maybe somehow these states were formed in the big bang or something, and they've just been sitting around ever since, right? If you found one, and if this state could be like ultra-power, there are no limits on how powerful it could be, except that this state doesn't know in advance which input you've got, right? It only knows the size of your input. You know, and that's BQP slash Q poly. So that's, that's one that I just personally happen to love. Okay, but you know, if you're asking like, what's the, you know, there's, there's a class that I think is, is, is way more beautiful than, you know, or fundamental than a lot of people, even within this, this field, realize that it is.

• 1:36:39Scott Aaronson?

  That class is called SDK or statistical zero knowledge. And you know, there's a very, very easy way to define this class, which is to say, suppose that I have two algorithms that each sample from probability distributions, right? So each one just outputs random samples according to, you know, possibly different distributions. And now the question I ask is, you know, you know, let's say distributions over strings of n bits, you know, so over an exponentially large space. Now I ask, are these two distributions close or far as probability distributions? Okay, any problem that can be reduced to that, you know, that can be put into that form is an SDK problem.

• 1:37:24Scott Aaronson?

  And the way that this class was originally discovered was completely different from that and was kind of more complicated. It was discovered as the class of all of the problems that have a certain kind of what's called zero knowledge proof. The zero knowledge proofs are one of the central ideas in cryptography. You know, Shafi Goldwasser and Silvio Maccoli won the Turing Award for, you know, inventing them. And they're at the core of even some, some cryptocurrencies that, you know, people, people use nowadays, but.

• 1:37:57Scott Aaronson?

  There are zero knowledge proofs or ways of proving to someone that something is true, like, you know, that there is a solution to this, you know, optimization problem, or that these two graphs are isomorphic to each other or something, but without revealing why it's true, without revealing anything about why it's true. Okay? SCK is all of the problems for which there is such a proof that doesn't rely on any cryptography. Okay? And if you wonder, like, how could such a thing possibly exist, right? Well, like, imagine that I had two graphs and I wanted to convince you that these two graphs are not isomorphic, meaning, you know, I cannot permute one of them so that it's

• 1:38:42Scott Aaronson?

  the same as the other one, right? You know, that might be a very hard statement to prove, like, I might need, you know, you might have to do a very exhaustive enumeration of, you know, all the different permutations before you were convinced that it was true. But what if there were some all-knowing wizard that said to you, "Look, I'll tell you what, just pick one of the graphs randomly, then randomly permute it, then send it to me, and I will tell you which graph you started with." Okay? And I will do that every single time. Right?

• 1:39:13Lex Fridman?

  Let me blow that in. Okay, that's, I got it, I got it.

• 1:39:16Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, and let's say that that wizard did that 100 times and it was right every time.

• 1:39:21Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:39:22Scott Aaronson?

  Right? Now, if the graphs were isomorphic, then, you know, it would have been flipping a coin each time, right? It would have had only a 1 and 2 to the 100 power chance of, you know, of guessing right each time. But, you know, so, so if it's right every time, then now you're statistically convinced that these graphs are not isomorphic, even though you've learned nothing new about why they aren't.

• 1:39:43Lex Fridman?

  So fascinating.

• 1:39:44Scott Aaronson?

  Right? So, yeah, so, so SCK is all of the problems that have protocols like that one, but it has this beautiful other characterization. It's shown up again and again in my, in my own work and, you know, a lot of people's work, and I think that it really is one of the most fundamental classes, it's just that people didn't realize that when it was first discovered.

• 1:40:03Lex Fridman?

  So, we're living in the middle of a pandemic currently.

• 1:40:06Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:40:07Lex Fridman?

  How has... Your life been changed, or no, better to ask, like, how has your perspective of the world changed with this world-changing event of a pandemic overtaking the entire world?

• 1:40:19Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, well, I mean, I mean, all of our lives have changed, you know, like, I guess, as with no other event since I was born, you know, you would have to go back to World War II for something, I think, of this magnitude, you know, on, you know, the way that we live our lives. As for how it has changed my worldview, I think that the, the failure of institutions, you know, like, like, like the CDC, like, you know, other institutions that we sort of thought were, were trustworthy, like a lot of the media, was staggering, was, was absolutely breathtaking. It is something that I would not have predicted, right? I think I, I wrote

• 1:41:00Scott Aaronson?

  on my blog that, you know, the, you know, it's, it's, it's fascinating to like re-watch the movie Contagion from a decade ago, right, that correctly foresaw so many aspects of, you know, what was going on, you know, a, an airborne, you know, virus originates in China, spreads to, you know, much of the world, you know, shuts everything down until a vaccine can be developed, you know, everyone has to stay at home, you know, you know, it gets, you know, an enormous number of things right, okay? But the one thing that they could not imagine, you know, is that like in this movie, everyone from the government is like hyper competent, hyper, you know, dedicated to the public good, right?

• 1:41:45Lex Fridman?

  The best of the best.

• 1:41:45Scott Aaronson?

  You know, yeah, they're, they're the best of the best, you know, they could, you know, and, and there are these conspiracy theorists, right, who think, you know, you know, this is all fake news, there's no, there's not really a pandemic, and those are some random people on the internet who the hyper competent government people have to, you know, oppose, right? They, you know, in, in trying to envision the worst thing that could happen, like, you know, the, the, there was a failure of imagination, the movie makers did not imagine that the conspiracy theorists and the, you know, and the incompetence in the nutcases would have captured our institutions and be the ones actually running things.

• 1:42:23Lex Fridman?

  So you had a certain, I, I love competence in all walks of life. I love, I get so much energy, I'm so excited, but people do amazing job, and I, like you, Well, maybe you can clarify, but I had maybe not intuition, but I hope that government at its best could be ultra competent. What, first of all, two questions, like, how do you explain the lack of confidence? And the other, maybe on the positive side, how can we build a more competent government?

• 1:42:52Scott Aaronson?

  Well, there's an election in two months. I mean,

• 1:42:55Lex Fridman?

  But you have a faith that the election

• 1:42:57Scott Aaronson?

  I, you know, it's not going to fix everything, but you know, it's like, I feel like there is a ship that is sinking and you could at least stop the sinking. But, you know, I think that there are, there are much, much deeper problems. I mean, I think that, you know, it is, it is plausible to me that, you know, a lot of the, the failures, you know, with the CDC, with some of the other health agencies even, you know, you know, predate Trump, you know, predate the, you know, right wing populism that has sort of taken over much of the world now. And, you know, I think that, you know, it was, is, you know, it is very, I'm, I'm actually, you know, I've actually been strongly in favor

• 1:43:41Scott Aaronson?

  of, you know, rushing vaccines of, you know, I thought that we could have done, you know, human, human challenge trials, you know, which were not done, right? We could have, you know, like, had, you know, volunteers, you know, to actually, you know, be, you know, get vaccines, get, you know, exposed to COVID.

• 1:44:01Lex Fridman?

  So innovative ways of accelerating what we've done previously over a long

• 1:44:06Scott Aaronson?

  I thought that, you know, each, each month that you, that, that a vaccine is, is closer is like trillions of dollars.

• 1:44:12Lex Fridman?

  Are you surprised?

• 1:44:13Scott Aaronson?

  For civilization and of course lives, you know, at least, you know, hundreds of thousands of lives.

• 1:44:18Lex Fridman?

  Are you surprised that it's taken this long? We still don't have a plan. There's still not a feeling like anyone is actually doing anything in terms of Elevating like any kind of plan. So you there's a bunch of stuff this vaccine, but you could also do a testing infrastructure where

• 1:44:33Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:44:34Lex Fridman?

  Everybody's tested nonstop with contact tracing, all that kind of.

• 1:44:36Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I mean, I I'm as surprised as almost everyone else. I mean, this is a historic failure. It is one of the biggest failures in the 240 year history of the United States. Right. And we should be, you know, crystal clear about that.

• 1:44:51Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:44:51Scott Aaronson?

  And, you know, one thing that I think has been missing, you know, even even from the more competent side is like, you know, is sort of the the World War Two mentality, right? The, you know, the mentality of, you know, let's just, you know, you know, if if if we can, by breaking a whole bunch of rules, you know, get a vaccine and, you know, and even half the amount of time as we thought, then let's just do that because, you know, you know, like, like, we have to, we have to weigh all of the moral qualms we have about doing that against the moral qualms of not doing it.

• 1:45:29Lex Fridman?

  And one key little aspect of that, that's deeply important to me, and we'll go in that topic next, is the World War Two mentality wasn't just about, you know, breaking all the rules to get the job done. There was a togetherness to it.

• 1:45:42Scott Aaronson?

  Yes.

• 1:45:43Lex Fridman?

  So I would, if I were president right now, it seems quite elementary to unite the country because we're facing a crisis. It's easy to make the virus the enemy. And it's very surprising to me that the division has increased as opposed to decreased.

• 1:46:02Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:46:03Lex Fridman?

  That's that's heartbreaking.

• 1:46:04Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, well, look, I mean, it's been said by others that this is the first time in the country's history that we have a president who does not even pretend to, you know, want to unite the country, right?

• 1:46:15Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:46:15Scott Aaronson?

  You know, I mean, I mean, I mean, Lincoln, who fought a civil war, you know, you know, said he wanted to unite the country, right? You know, and and I do, I do worry enormously about what happens if the results of this election are contested, you know? And, you know, will there be violence as a result of that? And will we have a clear path of succession? And, you know, look, I mean, you know, this is all, we're, we're going to find out the answers to this in two months. And if none of that happens, maybe I'll look foolish, but I am willing to go on the record and say, I am terrified about that.

• 1:46:50Lex Fridman?

  Yeah, I've been reading the the rise and fall of the Third Reich. There's it's it's difficult. So if I can, this, this is like one little voice. Just to put out there that I think November will be a really critical month for people to breathe and put love out there. Do not, you know, anger in those in that context, no matter who wins, no matter what is said, will destroy our country, may destroy our country, may destroy the world because of the power of the countries. So it's really important to be patient, loving, empathetic. Like, one of the things that troubles me is that even people on the left are unable to have a love and respect for people who voted for Trump.

• 1:47:33Lex Fridman?

  They can't imagine that there's good people that could vote for the opposite side. And that's

• 1:47:38Scott Aaronson?

  Oh, I know there are because I know some of them.

• 1:47:40Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 1:47:41Scott Aaronson?

  Right? I mean, you know, it's still, you know, maybe it baffles me, but you know, I know such people.

• 1:47:47Lex Fridman?

  Let me ask you this. It's also heartbreaking to me on the topic of cancel culture. So in the machine learning community, I've seen it a little bit, that there's

• 1:47:57Lex Fridman?

  aggressive attacking of people who are trying to have a nuanced conversation about things.

• 1:48:04Lex Fridman?

  And it's troubling because it feels like nuanced conversation is the only way to talk about difficult topics. And when there's a thought police and speech police on any nuanced conversation that everybody has to like in an animal farm chant that racism is bad and sexism is bad, which is things that everybody believes. And they're, they can't possibly say anything nuanced. It feels like it goes against any kind of progress from my kind of shallow perspective. But you've written a little bit about cancel culture. Do you have thoughts that are

• 1:48:39Scott Aaronson?

  Well, look, I mean, I mean, I mean, to say that I am opposed to, you know, the this trend of of cancellations or of, you know, shouting people down rather than engaging them. That would be a massive understatement, right? And I feel like, you know, I have Put my money where my mouth is, you know, not as much as some people have, but you know, I've, I've tried to do something. I mean, I have defended, you know, some unpopular people and unpopular, you know, ideas on my blog. I've, you know, tried to defend, you know, norms of, of, of, of open discourse of, you know, reasoning with our opponents, even when I've been shouted down for that on social media, you know, called a racist,

• 1:49:24Scott Aaronson?

  called a sexist, all of those things. And which, by the way, I should say, you know, I would be perfectly happy to, you know, say, you know, if we had time to say, you know, you know, 10,000 times, you know, my hatred of racism, of sexism, of homophobia, right? But what I don't want to do is to cede to some particular political faction, the right to define exactly what is meant by those terms. To say, well, then you have to agree with all of these other extremely contentious positions, or else you are a misogynist, or else you are a racist, right? I say that, well, no, you know, you know,

• 1:50:03Scott Aaronson?

  don't like, don't I, or, you know, don't people like me also get a say in the discussion about, you know, what is racism, about what is going to be the most effective to combat racism, right? And, you know, this, this, this cancellation mentality, I think, is spectacularly ineffective at its own professed gall of, you know, combating racism and sexism.

• 1:50:28Lex Fridman?

  What's a positive way out? So I, I try to, I don't know if you've seen what I do on Twitter, but I, on Twitter, I mostly, in my whole, in my life, I've, actually, it's who I am to the core. It's like, I really focus on the positive, and I try to put love out there in the world.

• 1:50:46Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:50:46Lex Fridman?

  And still. I get attacked and I look at that and I wonder like.

• 1:50:52Scott Aaronson?

  You too? I didn't know.

• 1:50:53Lex Fridman?

  Like, I haven't actually said anything difficult and nuanced. You talk about somebody like Steven Pinker.

• 1:51:00Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:51:01Lex Fridman?

  Who, I actually don't know the full range of things that that he's attacked for, but he tries to say difficult. He tries to be thoughtful about difficult topics.

• 1:51:11Scott Aaronson?

  He does.

• 1:51:11Lex Fridman?

  And obviously, he just gets slaughtered by.

• 1:51:15Scott Aaronson?

  Well, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, yes, but it's also amazing how well Steve has withstood it. I mean, he just survived that attempt to cancel him just a couple of months ago, right?

• 1:51:26Lex Fridman?

  Psychologically, he survives it too, which worries me because I don't think I can.

• 1:51:31Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, I I've gotten to know Steve a bit. He is incredibly unperturbed by this stuff. And I admire that and I envy it. I wish that I could be like that. I mean, my impulse when I'm getting attacked is I just want to engage every single like anonymous person on Twitter and Reddit who is saying mean stuff about me. And I wanted to say, well, look, can we just talk this over for an hour? And then, you know, you'll see that I'm not that bad. You know, sometimes that even works. The problem is then there's the, you know, the 20,000 other ones.

• 1:52:03Lex Fridman?

  And that's not, but psychologically, does that wear on you?

• 1:52:06Scott Aaronson?

  It does. It does. But yeah, I mean, in terms of what is the solution? I mean, I wish I knew, right? And so, you know, in a certain way, these problems are maybe harder than P versus NP, right? I mean, you know, but but I think that part of it has to be for, you know, that I think that there's a lot of sort of silent support for what I'll call the the the open discourse side, the, you know, reasonable enlightenment side. And I think that that that support has to become less silent, right? I think that a lot of people that sort of, you know, like, agree that, oh, you know, a lot of these cancellations and attacks are ridiculous, but are just afraid to say so, right? Or else they'll get they'll get shouted down as well, right?

• 1:52:51Scott Aaronson?

  That's just the standard witch hunt dynamic, which, you know, of course, this, you know, this faction understands and. ...to its great advantage. But, you know, more people just, you know, said, you know, like, we're not going to stand for this. Right? You know, no, you know, this is, this is, you know, we're, guess what? We're against racism too, but you know, this, you know, what you're doing is ridiculous. Right? You know, and, and the hard part is like, it takes a lot of mental energy. It takes a lot of time, you know, even if you feel like you're not going to be canceled or, you know, you're staying on the safe side. Like, it takes a lot of time to, to, to phrase things in exactly the right way and to, you know, respond to everything people say.

• 1:53:35Scott Aaronson?

  So, but I think that, you know, the more people speak up than, you know, from, from, from all political persuasions, you know, from like all, you know, walks of life, then, you know, the, the, the easier it is to move forward.

• 1:53:49Lex Fridman?

  Since we've been talking about love, can you, last time I talked to you about the meaning of life a little bit, but here has, it's a weird question to ask a computer scientist, but has love for other human beings, for, for things, for the world around you, played an important role in your life? Have you, you know, it's easy for a world-class computer scientist, you could even call yourself like a physicist, everything to be lost in the books. Is the connection to other humans, love for other humans played an important role?

• 1:54:27Scott Aaronson?

  I love my kids. I love my wife. I love my parents.

• 1:54:34Scott Aaronson?

  You know, I am probably not, not different from most people in, in loving their families and, and in that being very important in my life. Now, I should remind you that, you know, I am a theoretical computer scientist. If you're looking for deep insight about the nature of love, you're probably looking in the wrong place to ask me. But, but sure, it's been important.

• 1:55:01Lex Fridman?

  But is it, is there something from a computer science perspective to be said about love? Is there, or is that? Is that even beyond into the realm of beyond the realm of consciousness?

• 1:55:11Scott Aaronson?

  There was, there was this great cartoon, I think it was one of the classic XKCDs, where it's, it shows like a heart and it's like, you know, squaring the heart, taking the Fourier transform of the heart, you know, integrating the heart, you know, you know, each, each thing. And then it says, you know, my normal approach is useless here.

• 1:55:34Lex Fridman?

  I'm so glad I asked this question. I think there's no better way to, to end this. I hope we get a chance to talk again. This has been amazing. Cool experiment to do it outside.

• 1:55:43Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah.

• 1:55:43Lex Fridman?

  Really glad you made it out.

• 1:55:44Scott Aaronson?

  Yeah, well, I appreciate it a lot. It's been a pleasure and I'm glad you were able to come out to Austin.

• 1:55:49Lex Fridman?

  Thanks. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Scott Aronson and thank you to our sponsors, Eight Sleep, SimpliSafe, ExpressVPN, and BetterHelp. Please check out these sponsors in the description to get a discount and to support this podcast. If you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube, review it with five stars on Apple Podcasts, follow on Spotify, support on Patreon, or connect with me on Twitter at Lex Fridman. And now let me leave you with some words from Scott Aronson that I also gave to you in the introduction, which is, if you always win, then you're probably doing something wrong.

• 1:56:31Lex Fridman?

  Thank you for listening and for putting up with the intro and outro in this strange room in the middle of nowhere, in this very strange chaos of a time we're all in. And I very much hope to see you next time in many more ways than one.