AI Expert's Urgent Wake-Up Call : Unveiling the Silent Threat w/ Mo Gawdat | EP #51

In this episode, Peter and Mo discuss the imminent question we’ve all been asking: do we need to save humanity from AI? Are we in danger? 07:11 | A World Aware of AI Dangers 22:56 | The AI Debate: Real Danger? 1:24:33 | Governing Artificial Intelligence Mo Gawdat is a renowned entrepreneur, author, and advocate for happiness and well-being. With a background in engineering and technology, Gawdat has dedicated his career to exploring the intersection of happiness and human potential. As the former Chief Business Officer at Google [X], he played a pivotal role in developing moonshot projects aimed at solving some of the world's biggest challenges. Gawdat's insightful and transformative book, "Solve for Happy," has inspired countless individuals to reframe their perspectives and find joy in life's most challenging moments. Read Mo’s best-selling books. _____________ I only endorse products and services I personally use. To see what they are, please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: Experience the future of sleep with Eight Sleep. Visit https://www.eightsleep.com/moonshots/ to save $150 on the Pod Cover. _____________ I send weekly emails with the latest insights and trends on today’s and tomorrow’s exponential technologies. Stay ahead of the curve, and sign up now: Tech Blog _____________ Connect With Peter: Twitter Instagram Youtube Moonshots and Mindsets Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

• 0:02Speaker 00

  Every mile matters. Whether you're driving your dream car or your daily commuter. The Mobile One team knows that. It's why we created Mobile One Advanced Clean Motor Oil. It cleans your engine in one oil change and helps extend engine life, delivering performance, protection, and cleanliness for vehicles of all ages. All to help keep your engine running like new, whatever you're driving. Visit mobileone.com/advancedclean to learn more.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  It's game over for living the way we have lived in the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century.

• 0:37Peter Diamandis?

  The topic is heating up and we're running out of time, seriously running out of time.

• 0:41Speaker 01

  Jobs are not the same. Truth is not the same. Power is not the same. Income is not the same. Purpose is not the same.

• 0:48Peter Diamandis?

  And then the AI arms race begins.

• 0:50Speaker 01

  Exactly, and it's inevitable.

• 0:55Peter Diamandis?

  These AIs are watching our behaviors, how we treat each other, how we treat our machines, and it's emulating that.

• 1:01Speaker 01

  There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with intelligence. The problem is capitalism.

• 1:05Peter Diamandis?

  Isn't it ironic that the very essence of what makes us human is what we need to save humanity?

• 1:11Speaker 01

  This is humanity. It's not what you see on TV. It's not what you see on social media. And I think if 1% of us just showed up, it would instill the doubt in the minds of the machine so that they investigate the truth. And what is the truth? The truth is a species that is capable of love is divine.

• 1:33Peter Diamandis?

  Welcome to Moonshots and Mindsets. We're about to dive into a conversation with Mo Gawdat, an extraordinary individual of heart, mind, and soul. For a decade, a senior executive at Google and then the chief business officer at Google X, working with Astro Teller at the Moonshot factory. Mo is amazing, and he's got two moonshots we're going to dive into. His first moonshot is to help make a billion people happy. He wrote a book called Solve for Happy. The second one is making the world aware of and getting people to get involved in the concerns around the dangers around AI. And he wrote a book called Scary Smart that brought me to this conversation with him. I've known Mo for some time.

• 2:16Peter Diamandis?

  We're going to be talking about a range of things like what are the real concerns about AI? How scared should you be? How excited should you be? Are we going to merge with AI? Are we going to upload ourselves? Is it danger that AI is going to destroy the planet? Or is it humans using AI? We're going to cover a whole range of subjects. Is artificial intelligence going to be able to create a community and a conversation and a sense of connection with humans as good as we do? Mo thinks we will. Not in 20 years, but sometime in the next five years. The humanoid robots that are coming. We're going to cover all of these subjects.

• 2:59Peter Diamandis?

  My goal here is to make you aware of what you should be talking about at the dinner table, in your boardroom and the halls of Congress. And what you should be excited about as well. This is one of my favorite podcasts I've done. Please stick with me, I hope. And I look forward to your comments as you subscribe and give your comments on this. This probably will turn into a regular conversation with Mo. He is one of the most brilliant thinkers on the subject of AI out there. He's seen it firsthand. He's been part of it. All right, let's dive in. Welcome, everybody. Welcome to Moonshots and Mindsets. I'm here with an extraordinary man, both cognitively and in his heart.

• 3:42Peter Diamandis?

  Someone who I'm proud to call a friend. And Mo, it's a pleasure to be with you.

• 3:48Speaker 01

  Always, Peter. It's always a pleasure to be with you. I mean, the fact that we recorded this time makes it quite a bit of an interesting one. But I think all our conversations have been so fulfilling and so enriching. Thank you so much for having me.

• 4:01Peter Diamandis?

  It's roughly 7:00 AM here in Santa Monica. You're on the other side of the planet in Dubai. And it's an amazing world we're living in that we can do that. Truly is.

• 4:12Speaker 01

  Yeah, it really is, and I think we take it for granted quite frequently. The reality that you and I can connect literally with one text message and then be almost together. It's not as amazing as being in the same place, but almost together within minutes on a video conference is just almost science fiction when you really think about it. If you're a fan of Star Trek or whichever early science fiction, this was positioned as science fiction.

• 4:40Peter Diamandis?

  And we're living in it. And the challenge is that, I think you'll agree, that the speed of change is so fast that we forget the miracles we have every day. We forget the crazy world we're living in, in which we're talking to things and it's answering back and you can know anything you want instantaneously. And, you know, health and education, we're transforming the world. And it's enthralling. But for a lot of the world, it's scary as well. Let me just set this conversation up. We're going to talk about moonshots here, and you have two extraordinary moonshots. Let me mention them, but I'd like you to frame them for me, and then we'll talk about each.

• 5:25Peter Diamandis?

  I would say your earlier moonshot, the one in which I first met you, is your original book, Solve for Happy, and your moonshot of One Billion Happy. Is that the right phrasing for it?

• 5:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, so, yeah, that's how it started. So, you know, more or less, it's actually extended into the second one. But when I lost my wonderful son, you remember the story, in 2014, Ali was the one that taught me everything I knew about happiness. And when he left, I attempted to start a mission that was called 10 Million Happy. And 10 Million Happy was mainly for my son's essence to live on, if you want. Okay? I was trying to tell the world what this young, wise man has taught me. And in my mind, I know you'd understand the math, I calculated very quickly that if I

• 6:21Speaker 01

  could get a bit of Ali's essence to 10 million people, then in 72 years, through six degrees of separation, a tiny bit of him will be everywhere and part of everyone. That's, that was my calculation, right?

• 6:35Peter Diamandis?

  The miracles of exponential growth.

• 6:37Speaker 01

  There you go, right? And if you know the math, you actually think this is reasonable. If you got to 10 million people, that would be, you know, right. And I was surprised by the reception of life, if you want. So within six weeks, eight weeks, to be very specific. It started on week six, but by week eight, the message had reached 137 million people. And we don't measure people who got a video or just pressed a like. That doesn't count. But we measure people that take concrete action. And it was very clear within eight weeks that we surpassed the 10 million happy.

• 7:19Speaker 01

  And so we upgraded to 1 billion happy, which I think is a true moonshot when you really think about it.

• 7:24Peter Diamandis?

  It is, and I want to come back to that and talk about it in detail because it's important. You know, people say, what's important in life? And everybody eventually resolves into being happy, having your children be happy, having your family be happy. The second moonshot, which is the more recent one and brings us to this podcast, I would frame it as educating the world about AI. Would you frame it as educating the world about the dangers of AI? It's in essence, the emergence from your amazing book, Scary Smart, which I've read twice, my family's read.

• 8:03Speaker 01

  Oh, my God, such an honor.

• 8:05Peter Diamandis?

  It's a beautiful book, and I want everybody hearing this to read it. And by the way, the way you wrote it was extraordinary. I've had the pleasure of writing a few books. I know that you've loved writing, I want to talk about that. But you wrote it in such a consumable fashion, but let's frame your moonshot here.

• 8:27Speaker 01

  My moonshot is to tilt the singularity of AI in favor of having humans' best interests in mind. And and to be able to do that, of course, education is part of it. But more crucially, I would say that the real moonshot is to shift human behavior, to align more with human values, so that we become a data set from which AI learns to have our best interest in mind. And and I think most people who are techies or, you know, who are not fully informed of AI may not see the relationship, and I'd love for us to get deep into this.

• 9:09Speaker 01

  But the idea is to shift shift singularity in favor of humanity.

• 9:14Peter Diamandis?

  You know, people have been hearing about large language models, whether it's POM from Google, or whether it's GPT three or GPT four, driving Open AI's ChatGPT. I think it's important for folks to realize that these AI models, these large language models, are effectively a reflection of humanity, right? They have learned from everything we put onto the web, from our Facebook posts to our tweets, to our corporate sites, to what we search for. And so we've been unknowingly, perhaps, putting out all of this content and then putting these AIs, these new life forms, to grow and learn from all of this, what

• 9:59Peter Diamandis?

  would be fifty years of content we've been putting out there. And we've been inadvertently teaching it and not realizing. Can you expand on that thought, which you talk about beautifully in the beginning of Scary Smart?

• 10:12Speaker 01

  Spot on. I mean, the reality of the matter is that we, humans and human history and human literature and human behavior and all that we put out there, is much more influential on the decision of an Instagram recommendation engine tonight, of which video to show you, as well as your own behavior, than the developer that coded the the recommendation engine, right? So, you know, when it came to, you and I remember the old days when we coded, you know, simple computers. I started with. The Sinclair and you know. I started with a sixty five oh two microprocessor. Oh, man. Yeah.

• 10:54Speaker 01

  It was such a joy. I mean, for those who have lived those years, this was truly the definition of magic, right? Because you could build anything. You could just build a world of fantasy, really, that is for us, for geeks. We can see it. You tell the computer to do something and it does it. And then you tell it to do something more complex and it does it. But until the turn of the century, deep learning specifically, the when computers were not intelligent, as intelligent as they have appeared, they were glorified slaves. They were repeating your intelligence and mine in a very efficient and very fast way at scale, right?

• 11:37Speaker 01

  So if you wanted the computer to solve a problem or say something to the user, you had to code that thing and then tell the computer to do it in certain circumstances. When we shift and each and every one of us dreamt for age, I'm sure you did, because my lifetime dream was to code intelligence, right? If you can code anything, why else would you code anything but intelligence, right? And we failed over and over and over. We lied, we created simulations of intelligence. We tried to make computers seem like they're human, but they were not human. And in a very interesting way, when at the turn of the century, I think,

• 12:21Speaker 01

  is the critical point where deep learning started to to show us that you can actually create intelligence that is, that's actually autonomous, that learns on its own, that is informing its own, its own understanding of the world, if you want. Now, when we do this, what we actually code is not to tell the computer what to do, but to tell the computer how to develop the intelligence needed to do it, okay? And, you know, in a very simplified way, the way we did that was we showed the computer endless patterns and said, because of your ability to create neural levels and neural networks

• 13:05Speaker 01

  and you could see depths in that data that we couldn't see with our limited human brain, they started to.

• 13:13Speaker 01

  To become intelligent, simply, I think, I think the only word is really intelligent. Like my son or my daughter became intelligent when you gave them a puzzle and they attempted to to put the, you know, the the square, to to put the cylinder through a, you know, star shaped hole and then it failed and then they tried the square and it failed and then finally the circle. They developed that on their own. Nobody ever went to a child and said, hey, by the way, you know, flip the puzzle on its side, look at the cross section, the cross section look like a circle, look like for a matching, you know, a pattern and then put it through. That's how we we coded all the computers. New computers don't do that.

• 13:56Speaker 01

  We just give them the puzzle and say, keep trying until you figure it out. Now, because of that, the more determining factor in terms of the of the actual type of intelligence and and intensive or quality of intelligence that comes in a in a language model is more informed by the data that it's trained on than the few thousand lines that are are the code that informs its intelligence.

• 14:24Peter Diamandis?

  I think people would be would be incredibly amazed at how few lines of code are driving ChatGPT or or Bard.

• 14:35Speaker 01

  Thousands, literally. I mean, if you if you remember when we coded in COBOL or RPG or it eighty thousand lines of code to get anything done at all. I think ChatGPT's core modules are like a couple of thousand, maybe four thousand.

• 14:49Peter Diamandis?

  I think three, four thousand, yes. And and it's amazing because it's it's extrapolating and interpolating and it's reaching, if you would, conclusions. But again, going back to the key point here, it's doing all of this not in a vacuum. It's doing it based upon everything we have fed it. It's learning from us. And as you point out in Scary Smart, we are its parents. We are giving birth to a new form of intelligence, whatever you might. And we'll get into whether this is sentient or whether this is conscious. But it is a form of intelligence and that intelligence is being grown in the,

• 15:33Peter Diamandis?

  if you would, the medium of human knowledge.

• 15:36Speaker 01

  Yeah, and we have seen quite a few experiments early on of how that intelligence would develop to be positive or negative, aggressive or loving, based on the data that we give it. In the early chatbots, if you remember Tay or, you know, Alice, which was Yandex's, or, you know, there was Norman, I think, that was done by MIT. And if you feed those chatbots negative aggressive information, they start to be sexist and racist. You can see it. And we shut them down because we don't know how they arrived at that. They arrived at that from the data, not from the programming.

• 16:16Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, it's interesting. Now, you opened the book Scary Smart with a beautiful analogy that I've told to at least 100 people. And I've spoken about it on my podcast and I've spoken about it on stage at a Buton 360 because I think it's a great analogy. And it puts the power of where AI goes, you know, directly into the hands of everybody listening. And that is an empowerment move because we're going to talk about the fear side of this as well as the excitement side of this. So your analogy of Superman, would you please tell that story? Because I think that's fundamental to what we're going to discuss.

• 16:53Speaker 01

  It truly is at the core of my understanding of what's happening here. And I think, you know, it's important for people to understand that Superman has arrived to planet Earth, right? If you remember the story of Superman, there is this alien, you know, infant that arrives with superpowers, right?

• 17:12Peter Diamandis?

  From the planet of Krypton.

• 17:14Speaker 01

  From Krypton, right? And, you know, and that young infant, luckily for humanity, is, you know,

• 17:22Speaker 01

  by the family Kent and the family Kent is a family of values that basically teach that little child to protect and serve and we end up with the Superman that we know. Okay, if if if the family Kent suddenly said, oh, superpowers, let's rob all the banks and kill all the enemies. Uh, by definition, the immediate result of that is you have a supervillain. And and even though that infant has superpower, it's always so influenced by its parents. Okay, and and the parents would set the values that this infant uses the superpowers for. I, you know, one of one of my favorite statements in scary smart uh, is that we do not make decisions based on intelligence.

• 18:05Speaker 01

  We make decisions informed by intelligence based on our values and ethics. So so, you know, if you if you if you take a young lady and raise her in the Middle East, for example, and, you know, we're dress code for uh, more and more open now, by the way, I'm proud of that, but more and more, but but still conservative, if you want. Uh, she would grow up to believe that the intelligent thing to do is to not dress overtly, you know, um, uh, you know, maybe stay conservative in a in an interesting way. If you raise the same young lady in Rio de Janeiro on the Copacabana beach, she will grow up to believe that the best thing to do is to wear a G string on the beach, right? Now, now, interestingly, neither is right or wrong, neither is more intelligent than the other.

• 18:49Speaker 01

  Uh, the the the only thing is that each of them is applying, it's the same young lady applying her intelligence to a value set that's in informed by its surrounding, by her surrounding. Now, for for the case of AI, this is exactly where we are. Superintelligence, you know, if if and when we reach superintelligence is a superpower. It is the ultimate superpower. It's the superpower that gave humanity its dominance over the planet. Uh, you know, and and that is only going to be used as the lens through which the ethics of AI are going to be applied. Okay, how do we give that ethics ethical code to the machines? By by being the best parents we can be to them, by being the family Kent.

• 19:34Speaker 01

  And sadly, sadly, sadly, this is not what the world has been doing so far.

• 19:38Peter Diamandis?

  I think it's important to realize, going back to our earlier conversation, we're not going to be coding values and ethics into those three thousand lines of code. It's going to be in the substrate, it's in the the food, the information that the AI is consuming based upon our behaviors, right? The these AIs are watching our behaviors, how we treat each other, how we treat our machines, how we interact, how we speak to each other, how we how we effectively communicate as human to human, and it's emulating that. And we have all ranges and magnifying it.

• 20:18Speaker 01

  Yeah, I mean, the example I normally give is, you know, when President Trump used to used to tweet to tweet. I'm not for or against President Trump, I don't have the right to have any view on him. But when he used to tweet, you would get a tweet at the top from the president and then thirty thousand hate speech, okay? You know, some of them are towards the president, some of them are towards the person that hates the president, and some of them are towards the whole world, right? And and it's quite interesting, because when you look at it, you see it. And with with with your intelligence, you don't have to be a super intelligence and an AI. But with your intelligence, you would make conclusions, you would say, the first person does not like the president, the second person does not like the first person, and the third person does not like anyone.

• 20:59Speaker 01

  Okay, and you and you and you so somehow make those conclusions with with, you know, any kind of intelligence, you'll be you'll be making those conclusions. But the bigger picture is that you and I cannot grasp the entire thirty thousand but a chat GPT or a chatbot of any of any kind will. And they will make an additional conclusion on top of that, that humans are rude. They don't like to be disagreed with, and when they disagree, when they're disagreed with, they bash everyone.

• 21:27Peter Diamandis?

  Now. And if I want to emulate, if I want to emulate a human, I'm going to do the same back.

• 21:32Speaker 01

  Exactly, so when they when they disagree with me, I'm going to bash them. That that is a, you know, again, regardless of sentience or consciousness or whatever, but that is the coded behavior that an artificial intelligence will do if it's instructed to emulate humans and pass the Turing test.

• 21:50Peter Diamandis?

  You know, I'm super passionate about longevity and health span. And how do you add 10, 20 healthy years on to your life? One of the most underappreciated elements is the quality of your sleep. And there's something that changed the quality of my sleep. And this episode is brought to you by that product. It's called Eight Sleep. If you're like me, you probably didn't know that temperature plays a crucial role in the quality of your sleep. Those mornings when you wake up feeling like you barely slept? Yeah, temperature is often the culprit. Traditional mattresses trap heat, but your body needs to cool down during sleep and stay cool through the evening and then heat up in the morning. Enter the Pod Cover by Eight Sleep.

• 22:33Peter Diamandis?

  It's the perfect solution to the problem. It fits on any bed, adjusts the temperature on each side of the bed based upon your individual needs. You know, I've been using Pod Cover and it's a game changer. I'm a big believer in using technology to improve life. And Eight Sleep has done that for me. And it's not just about temperature control. With the Pod's sleep and health tracking, I get personalized sleep reports every morning. It's like having a personal sleep coach. So you know when you eat or drink or go to sleep too late, how it impacts your sleep. So why not experience sleep like never before? Visit www.eightsleep.com. That's E-I-G-H-T-S-L-E-E-P.com/moonshots.

• 23:18Peter Diamandis?

  And you'll save 150 bucks on the Pod Cover by Eight Sleep. I hope you do it. It's transformed my sleep and will for you as well. Now back to the episode. So I'm going to confess to you here. I have been wildly swinging from one side to the other and trying to grasp my own feelings about AI. You know, I'm a student of Ray Kurzweil, who's a common friend. We started Singularity University together. You know, I've been, we overlapped during your ten years at Google. You know, I had Larry and Sergey and Eric were on my boards at X Prize and I had a chance. And I know that Larry and Sergey, when they started Google, they wanted to create Google as an AI company.

• 24:03Peter Diamandis?

  It was always, that was fundamental, right? Even beyond that, how do we connect the human mind with AI? How do we create this meta-intelligence, so to speak? And forever, I have been of the belief that AI is the single most important tool that's going to enable humanity to solve the world's biggest problems. It's going to give us the abilities to create fusions like cancer, make humanity a multi-hundred year lifespan, all of these things. And it still may. And hopefully, in the right hands, it will.

• 24:42Peter Diamandis?

  But the cries and concerns of danger, you know, Elon called it summoning the demons. Geoffrey Hinton, who I'm sure you know

• 24:56Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 24:57Peter Diamandis?

  Well, you know, has been on the news and talk show circuit, speaking about his concerns. And you have been too. And if I could, setting up this podcast as we were texting back and forth on WhatsApp, I was compelled by what you were texting with me. First of all, you've been on a tear, traveling around the world. I'm in Dubai, I'm in London tomorrow, I'm in Saudi the next day, I'm back in London. And, you know, if I could, I want to reflect the energy so people are aware of it and then speak about this, if it's okay with you.

• 25:42Peter Diamandis?

  You know, what you were texting with me is saying, you know, we are seriously running out of time. You know, the topic is heating up and we're running out of time, seriously running out of time. And I feel that, I feel that, and I feel that coming from a place of caring and love. of wanting wanting what's best. Let's dive into that. I want you to explain what that means. And I like to piece that apart so people understand what they should or should not be fearful of, what they can and cannot do, what the timeframes are here as you see them.

• 26:19Speaker 01

  So first of all, I wouldn't blame you or anyone for being torn about this topic. Why? Because it's a singularity. We actually have no way of predicting a future that has.

• 26:30Peter Diamandis?

  Let's define the singularity, singularity here. Because you and Ray may use it differently.

• 26:35Speaker 01

  Yeah. I love Ray's definition. My view of it simply is that there will be a point in the development of AI where the rules of the game will change so drastically that it becomes almost impossible to predict how the game will play out. My my view of that is a tiny bit more than Ray's, which is the the the the presence of superintelligence that or artificial general intelligence that beats the intelligence of humanity. But at the same time, for that intelligence to have enough autonomy to be able to affect humanity. Okay. So the to me, those two factors in play would lead to a point of singularity

• 27:19Speaker 01

  because of what Marvin Minsky said, actually interviewed by Ray, which was one of my favorite conversations on YouTube. You know, Marvin Minsky, when asked about the the threats of artificial intelligence, he said, he didn't talk about their intelligence or their superpowers or whatever. He just said it's hard.

• 27:37Peter Diamandis?

  And Marvin and Marvin Minsky, professor at MIT, heading the AI labs there, one of the true fathers of the entire.

• 27:43Speaker 01

  True fathers of AI for sure. And we all refer to, I mean, we've all been motivated by the early Dartmouth expert, you know, workshop and how that set us on the track to AI. Marvin said, because.

• 27:57Speaker 01

  There is no way we can make certain that the machines will have our best interest in mind. Okay, which is a very interesting statement. If those machines have our best interest in mind, this will lead us to what I call the third inevitable, which is, sorry, the fourth inevitable, which is we will end up in a utopia that is amazing for humanity. And if they don't have our best interest in mind, you know, it will lead us to the third inevitable, which is a dystopia that would be very, very difficult to navigate. Now, my view very, very clearly is it is inevitable that we will have both chronologically. Yes, in time. Yeah, so it's a question.

• 28:39Speaker 01

  The challenge here is this, and I think this is where most of the conversations around AI go astray, is that we try to prove if there is an existential threat of AI or not. Okay, the thing is, if a horse race starts and you're trying to bet, okay, the closer you get to the end of the race, the more accurate your bets will be. Now, for the existential threat to exist, we all know there is an existential threat, but at the current moment, we don't know the probability. Is it 10, 20, 50%? We don't know, right? And it takes us time to get along that racetrack so that we say, oh, it's becoming more and more evident that there is a threat or there isn't.

• 29:24Speaker 01

  My point of view, Peter, and I think this needs to be screamed loud everywhere, is that there are more immediate threats that are not RoboCop or Skynet-like, that are absolutely inevitable. Okay, and those are mostly not related to the level of intelligence of AI. They are related to the level of greed of humanity. Okay, and what and what we are going through today is an arms race, okay? With people like Sundar, who I love so much, who I respect so much.

• 30:00Peter Diamandis?

  The CEO of Alphabet, yes.

• 30:02Speaker 01

  Of Alphabet, who who I believe genuinely is a genuinely good man, okay? Who, when when he was, when he received the open letter, his immediate answer, the open letter asking for us to halt the development of AI, his immediate answer is, I can't. I can't, why? Because of the first inevitable, again, in Scary Smart, which is, we've created a prisoner's dilemma, where nobody who is capable of developing AI is capable of stopping the development. Why? Because someone else will beat them to it, right?

• 30:34Peter Diamandis?

  Let me, let me interject here, the inevitables that you speak about in Scary Smart. The first inevitable is AI is happening, and it is happening, and it's accelerating.

• 30:45Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 30:46Peter Diamandis?

  No stopping it. The second is that AI will become much smarter than us. Again, inevitable, it's happening.

• 30:52Speaker 01

  Almost there. I mean, it's already smarter than most of us.

• 30:55Peter Diamandis?

  Your third inevitable is that bad things will happen, and we can talk about, from what camp, right? There's a lot of different, is it humans using AI for bad, or is it AI using their own power for bad? We'll talk about that. One is probable, one is probably improbable, and we'll speak that. And the fourth inevitable, which you mentioned here, is, and Elon, I've had these conversations with him, says the same. We'll create a world of abundance, it'll be based on AGI, it'll be after all these things get sorted out. And and so, this timeframe is important to understand, but please continue, if you would.

• 31:32Speaker 01

  So so let's let's maybe jump into the third inevitable, and bad things will happen, just so that we put this in perspective, because we're so close to those, that the probability, that our ability to assess the probability of their existence is very high. I think there will be a disaster to jobs. Okay, and and the meaning of jobs and the compensation associated with job and the purpose that comes from having a job, okay. There will be a disaster to the to the fabric of society as we know it, okay, to our ability to distinguish, you know, to include another form of being that is sentient or at least

• 32:13Speaker 01

  simulating sentience in a in a in a way that would require us to rethink a lot of things. So the ethics of not, you know, the the the global human rights, but global being rights, if you think about it, okay. And there will be a very serious disruption to truth and consequently to democracy. Okay. And then eventually there is going to be, you know, within two to three years, I would I would think, a very, very significant concentration of power. Okay.

• 32:52Speaker 01

  This is a society, forget the dystopian scenarios of RoboCop trying to kill all of us. Okay. This is definitely a dystopia because our way of life as we know it has ended. This is not going to end, it's already starting to end, and I will say it's game over for living the way we have lived in the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty first century. It's over. Okay. When you when you wake up in the morning in a society where jobs are not the same, truth is not the same, power is not the same, income is not the same, purpose is not the same. These have nothing to do with AI, by the way.

• 33:35Speaker 01

  This is all human decisions in the presence of AI, and they are decisions that require immediate intervention. And and the story of COVID is just a demo. Because if you had, you know, reacted to COVID before COVID showed up, we wouldn't have had COVID at all. If you had reacted after patient ten, we wouldn't have had COVID at all. But you had to wait and then You had to do the political game of blame and then you had to do the extreme knee jerk reaction that, you know, completely, you know, messed up economies and and well being and mental health and so many, many problems that we will take years to fix.

• 34:19Speaker 01

  Just because we're debating, we were debating if there was going to be a pandemic or not. If you're an expert in, you know, in pandemics, it didn't take any intelligence at all to know that it was going to happen. Interestingly, by the way, it happened in 2020, exactly 100 years after the Spanish flu. Right?

• 34:38Peter Diamandis?

  Amazing.

• 34:39Speaker 01

  Nineteen twenty.

• 34:40Peter Diamandis?

  Mo, your arguments here are compelling. I want to frame them slightly to help us dissect them. So today we have AI that is compelling. It is extremely useful. I think most people would argue if we froze AI where it is today, it'd be a great thing for humanity. It'd be, it would be great tools for artists, for writers, for physicians, for lawyers, for every part of humanity. But the progress, we will have GPT five and six and we will have POM two, three and four. And they will get a point at which it is so powerful. And so there's this phase one is it's sub

• 35:21Peter Diamandis?

  subhuman, if you would, but very powerful. It's narrow AI in very useful areas. We're about to transition, I would say, in the conversations and I've had these conversations with a multitude of AI leaders. We're about to get to a point where it is about to transition to a superhuman state. And then there is a third phase, I would say, where it's, you know, billions of fold. It continues exponentially, you know, double something 10 times. It's a thousand times, double it 20 times. It's a million, double it 30 times. It's a billion. And we have a new form of super sentience out there. So define these three phases. In the third phase where it's superhuman, do you believe?

• 36:05Peter Diamandis?

  I'll say this is how I believe that the more intelligent a life form is, the more respectful it is of life and of creating a beautiful world and not harming. So I do not fear a super sentient billion-fold increased AI. I think it will be the most important aspect of where it goes. It's the transitory phase, and I would say the phase in which humans are using AI in a dystopian fashion, malevolent use of it. And is that your major concern?

• 36:39Speaker 01

  Spot on. This is spot on. I mean, the reality, and I say that with conviction, I pray for a superintelligence to take charge because our, the people that are currently in charge are really not superintelligent. Let's just put it this way, okay?

• 36:56Peter Diamandis?

  You're not worried about, you're not worried about artificial intelligence? You're worried about human stupidity?

• 37:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, limited intelligence. Let's put it this way. I mean, when you really think about it, the reason you and I are having this wonderful conversation over thousands of miles of separation is because of human intelligence, right? It's, you know, it is human intelligence or intelligence, you know, it happens to be human that allowed us to build this kind of civilization. You know, it's the, it's what allows you to, to create a machine that can take you from California to, you know, to Australia to surf in the Australian, on the Australian shores. That's intelligence, right? It's limited intelligence that this machine burns the planet in the process, okay? And more intelligence is good for all of us. We, we know that for a fact, right?

• 37:45Speaker 01

  We also know for a fact, again, it's a singularity. So anyone who tells you they know what's going to happen is lying, including me, okay? But you can look at charts and extrapolate them. So you can, you can say, look, stupid people, you know, hurt the planet and they don't care. More intelligent people hurt the planet and they care a little. More intelligent people don't hurt the planet and they care. More intelligent people try to preserve the planet, right? It's, it's actually interesting. Continue that trajectory of intelligence and you will see that the more intelligent something is, the more it believes in the ecosystem as a base for the success of all life forms, right?

• 38:26Speaker 01

  And and so accordingly, I wouldn't see, think that in, you know, that artificial intelligence, artificial super intelligence, a billion times smarter than us would go like, oh, my God, they're so annoying, those humans, let's destroy all of them. Okay? Uh, more interestingly, by the way, we, um, when we, when we kill ants or when we kill other species, uh, it's either because of our limited intelligence or because of our, of their irrelevance to the particular situation, as stupid as that may be. But nobody has ever woken up and said, I am so freaking intelligent, I'm going to kill every ant on the planet. Okay? Uh, nobody takes that seriously because they're really irrelevant to your level of intelligence,

• 39:11Speaker 01

  if you think about it, right? And so it's hard to imagine that AI will wake up and say, look, I'm a billion times smarter than Peter, uh, but you know what? I just dislike those Peters so much, let's get, you know, to put a plan together and get rid of all of them. In, in, in most people's minds, at least people who speak about those existential crises, our fear is bigger than our logic. Okay? There, there could be situations, you know, uh, Hugo de Gares was talking about that once, you know, where AI realizes that we're standing in the way of their progress. And, you know, they would either pinpoint us as the enemy because we're consuming too much power, for example, that they need, or, you know, they may just evict us out of New York City

• 39:56Speaker 01

  because they need that land for some reason, or they may just step on top of our nests with, you know, unconsciously, basically.

• 40:04Peter Diamandis?

  And for those who, who might think that, I would point back to the idea that we're living in a universe of massively abundant resources. All the energy in the world is available and all the resources and, and the science fiction dystopian movies where aliens are coming to get our water or get our energy are all, unfortunately, Hollywood ridiculous scenarios.

• 40:25Speaker 01

  They're very ridiculous, yeah.

• 40:27Peter Diamandis?

  Let's take about the real scenarios and you mentioned them. Let's talk about, um, the idea of, of jobs. Let's talk about the idea of purpose. And I want to, I want to dive into one example in prepping for this and listening to a number of your incredible podcasts. You love writing books and you describe in one conversation, you know, writing the six books and in writing books for yourself. And then all of a sudden here comes chat GPT with where a single prompt, you can say, write a book in the, in the style of Mogadad on this subject and have the AI write it. Now, all of a sudden, the end goal of having accomplished a written book is there, but

• 41:12Peter Diamandis?

  the journey is not. And I hear in another podcast where, you know, the joy has been taken out of writing a book. Can you, is that true for you?

• 41:21Speaker 01

  I haven't written a single line for the last three months. And I say that with, with an aching heart because it's a big, big, big joy for me. I mean, I write around four times as much as I publish. I have full books that I will never put out there. I write for the joy of writing and for the joy of discovery. It's almost like my journaling activity. Now, the, the challenge is this, the challenge, Peter, is that it's not only disruptive to my ability to sell books because of the disruption of supply and demand, because I never really cared about selling books. I cared about spreading ideas, right?

• 41:59Peter Diamandis?

  Of course.

• 42:00Speaker 01

  But, but, but understand for the typical author, okay, who was not so blessed, I was so blessed in life to have the joy of working with Larry and Sergey and be at Google in an early time and, you know, get money that I honestly don't deserve, right? And, and my lifestyle doesn't require any money at all. So, you know, I'm, I'm okay, right? But the typical author who will write because they're trying to, to make a living out of, of, of, of writing is now faced with an economic model where there is so much abundance in supply because writing a book now requires one prompt or a few prompts, if you're clever,

• 42:40Speaker 01

  that, that, that even if they write the best book out there, they are going to be diluted to, to reach any demand at all. So, so this is very disruptive. At the same time, I have to admit to you, being You know, a bit futuristic in my view of this. I said to myself, OK, so how far can I go before my writing sucks compared to GPT? OK, and and my thinking is we're one version away.

• 43:13Speaker 01

  OK, we we truly are. I mean, so so what what do I have as a skill? Hmm, and I think this is really important for everyone listening about jobs. What do I have as a skill that GPT doesn't have yet? It's a skill. It's a skill called human connection. OK, it's a skilled. It's a it's a skill that makes me, when I meet Peter, feel that Peter is a very dear friend. That he's, you know, it's it's the reason why you hug your daughter. It's the reason why this might be ten fifteen years away. There will be a point very near in the future where AI as a as a as a cognitive ability will, you know,

• 43:57Speaker 01

  I think we've already passed the Turing test, or very close to.

• 44:00Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, we keep on moving the Turing line, but yes. It's originally defined, we've passed it, yes.

• 44:06Speaker 01

  Yeah, what was originally defined, we passed it for sure. But but I think the reality is there will be a time where you're not going to be able to detect if if the if the person talking to you is an AI or not. You do definitely today are not able to detect if you if you go look for the hashtag AI art or AI models, OK? It's quite it's quite eye opening how realistic modeling jobs are now done by AI. OK, now, with that in mind, that human connection still remains, interestingly, because of our common biology and because robotics haven't caught up yet. It's not because AI haven't caught up yet, but it's because robotics haven't.

• 44:45Peter Diamandis?

  Two parts of this. The first is purpose, right? We humans.

• 44:51Peter Diamandis?

  Need purpose in our lives. A purposeless life is not worth living, to paraphrase, you know, Greek philosophers. But if you're an artist and you love creating art and all of a sudden AI is either doing a much better job or taking the joy out of it, or if you're a writer like you just described, or you're a physician, or a lawyer, or whatever the case might be, I would say there's a phase about to come online, which is the copilot phase, right? Where every profession has an AI copilot, becomes malpractice not to diagnose a patient without AI in the loop. And then there's a phase where AI is just so much better that you throw up your hands

• 45:34Peter Diamandis?

  and say, why should I bother going to medical school when an AI can do it? And that, the concern there is sucking the purpose out of life. Yes?

• 45:44Speaker 01

  Yeah, it depends on how you define purpose, right? So there are very, very extreme definitions of purpose in the East and the West. Okay? In the West, you know, so my background is I was born and raised in the East, in Egypt, you know, exposed to lots of Eastern cultures as a young person, you know, lots of Eastern religions, lots of Eastern traditions. And then as soon as I finished university, I worked at IBM, Microsoft, Google, and so on, have been studying my MBA and so on. So I've been very Westernized since I graduated uni. In the West, we define our purpose as a point in the future that is worthy of our effort

• 46:29Speaker 01

  in the present, and we chase that point. Okay? You know, we remember a laptop for every child was one of my favorite examples when we were trying to achieve that.

• 46:41Peter Diamandis?

  Nicholas Negroponte, yeah.

• 46:42Speaker 01

  Yeah. You know, that purpose in the future, of the future, makes you sort of disgruntled with the presence all through the point to get there. Okay? And then if you actually get there, what happens with our Western purpose is that the goalposts move. So you set another purpose and get disgruntled with the present until you get to the next point, and the next point, and the next point. Okay, the eastern definition of purpose is actually quite different. The eastern definition of purpose is if you assume timelessness, that that everything is here and now, uh, that the only experience you will ever have is here and now, then the logic says if I were to achieve

• 47:26Speaker 01

  a laptop for every child, okay, what I need is a directional ambition, okay? And full engagement in the present. And meaning that my my purpose is a daily, almost, uh, uh, you know, mo- mo- you know, every minute of the day, uh, my purpose is to show up and experience life and live and engage and do the best that I can. Okay, if because the West since the Industrial Revolution has sold work to us more and more and more and more as purpose, we ended up in a place where if you take my work away, I die. Okay?

• 48:06Peter Diamandis?

  Yes.

• 48:07Speaker 01

  But perhaps that's not the nature of humanity. Perhaps the nature of humanity.

• 48:10Peter Diamandis?

  Thank you for saying, yeah, thank you for saying this. I think it's very important differentiating between the work I do and my purpose in life. And and just those who know me, I'm I'm the eternal uh, optimist. I I would say techno-optimist, but uh, I the flip side of having an AI that can do what you've once done is standing on its shoulders and dreaming of things that never were possible and going and doing those things in the world.

• 48:40Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 48:40Peter Diamandis?

  Right? And it's, you know, I think about the world we're living in today. If I went back to my great-great-grandparents and said, oh, I don't grow the food, I don't move the food, I don't do any of these things. What I do now is, you know, discuss and write and and they would, they have no conception of what that life is. And I I think there will be a world of extraordinary dreams. Maybe it's play, maybe we're playing in in an infinite number of virtual worlds. We do need challenge, though, right? Uh, I think humans do need some level of challenge in their lives. And so will it be created a challenge?

• 49:18Speaker 01

  I don't know. I think I think again, West and East. Uh, so so we need challenge in the West because we live a life of privilege. Because there are no real life challenges presented to us, okay? Uh, life itself as a journey is challenging. In a very interesting way, life itself, if you define your life purposes as becoming the best version of yourself, okay? To take that simple definition, that is a mega challenge. And it's a mega challenge that we run through, uh, you know, dedicating a few hours a week to it in the middle of all of the other things that we do, okay?

• 50:03Speaker 01

  Because we're driven by all of the other purposes that we were told is our purpose. But if you dedicate yourself to it, you know, I'm, you know, I don't want to make this a spiritual conversation, but like if you take the story of the Buddha, for example, or, you know, one of the, of any person that was trying to become the best person of himself, you know, Rumi, for, you know, as a Sufi scholar or whatever, yeah, these are massively challenging lives of, you know, being torn and debating and trying to understand and trying to discover. Wouldn't it be amazing if I had an AI to ask a few questions to while I'm on that journey? So, so what I'm trying to say is, once again, there will be a moment of disruption that is imminent, Peter.

• 50:46Speaker 01

  It's like, it's literally around the corner, where so many jobs will be lost and accordingly so much purpose will be, you know, will be wondering. But, but eventually, if you redefine purpose differently and say, humanity is about human connection and about finding the best version of ourselves and about pondering things, about learning, about, you know, and so on, then maybe, maybe this is a wonderful place to play a different video game that's called being human.

• 51:13Peter Diamandis?

  It's a beautiful, it's a beautiful conversation. That is the upside of what we're about to face.

• 51:19Speaker 01

  I believe so.

• 51:20Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. You know, human connection, you mentioned it, and the disruptions and the need. Will we see, in your mind, AIs developing a level of connection that rivals human connection?

• 51:38Speaker 01

  And beats it, yeah. Absolutely. One hundred percent.

• 51:41Peter Diamandis?

  An AI that knows you, so, okay, so what timeframe is that? Ten years?

• 51:47Speaker 01

  In the virtual world, I would probably say less. I'd probably say five. In the robotic world, slightly more, maybe ten, twelve.

• 51:59Peter Diamandis?

  So you're speaking of those who have seen the movie Her is a perfect example of an AI, right? It's one of my favorite AI movies. It's non-dystopian. When the AI reaches super sentience, it simply leaves and leaves some subhuman AIs around. And we are seeing from Optimus to Figure to a slew of other robotic humanoid robotic companies coming online. I've invested in some and will bring a few of them to the stage of Abundance 360, hopefully with you next year as well.

• 52:34Peter Diamandis?

  The, yeah, so virtual, and of course, we just saw Vision Pro from Apple give us a new set of tools.

• 52:43Speaker 01

  That's the one.

• 52:44Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, five to 15 years conversation. And that's going to be fascinating. But I want to dial down to the next two years. We're about to have elections here in the United States in just under two years. And, you know, you've been saying, I've been saying, those are going to get very interesting very fast. Is that a tipping point for you of a dystopian nature?

• 53:09Speaker 01

  I think that's the, that's the beginning of the dystopia for sure. Okay. And it's, it's the beginning of the dystopia, not because the technology does not exist and will take two years to exist. It's because the human greed and hunger for power will deploy that technology in ways that will really affect the masses in ways that can't even be predicted. Think of it this way, Peter, if I told you, it's true, by the way, that there was a recent Stanford University study that showed that brunettes tend to actually keep their relationship, you know, whatever, romantic relationships longer, you know.

• 53:53Speaker 01

  How does that affect your thinking?

• 53:56Peter Diamandis?

  Okay, time to, you know, what, search for brunettes or blondes? I don't know what to say there.

• 54:03Speaker 01

  Correct, right? So, by the way, it's not true at all, by the way. I mean, I just made that up, okay? But the truth is, if that was true, if that were true, okay? Or not is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because I've planted something in your mind that you either need to debug, okay? Or if you tend to believe it would affect your behavior, and either way, it consumed part of your cognitive bandwidth. That's a major issue.

• 54:39Peter Diamandis?

  A viral idea, yes.

• 54:41Speaker 01

  Absolutely.

• 54:42Peter Diamandis?

  The power of an idea.

• 54:43Speaker 01

  And this is exactly where we are today. Whether you believe AI is sentient, it's capable, it's super intelligent, it's not. It's becoming extremely difficult to find out what the truth is. Okay? And I think the application of this in the coming couple of years, you know, and the election is going to really reshape the fabric of society's connection to the truth.

• 55:12Peter Diamandis?

  Mo, I don't think most people realize how much information the large tech companies or any group that desires has on us, the ability to know what we believe and the ability to manipulate individuals by feeding them 95% the things that they believe and 95% the truth, and then injecting 5% to sway them in a certain direction. You know, it used to be, I mean, our minds evolved on the savannas of Africa 100,000 years ago for conversation and story and to believe what we were hearing because it was the truth within a small, you know,

• 55:56Peter Diamandis?

  group of dozens of individuals. And now we don't know how to parse the truth and the falsehood. And, you know, when I teach this at Abundance 360 in Singularity, I say the world's biggest problems are the world's biggest business opportunities. And there will be, I mean, we have these cognitive biases that the brain developed, right? We tend to... Give much more credence to negative information over positive. We give credence to most recent information. We tend to believe those who dress like us, like, you know, our black T-shirts here, and compare it to people who don't.

• 56:34Peter Diamandis?

  And in that regard, these shortcuts, we believe them because they're energy savers in our mind, and we don't know how to filter against them. And one of the things I hope AI will enable us to do, if you want to turn it on, is these cognitive bias alerts. Like, Peter, you're believing this, but the facts don't show that to be true. That is your cognitive bias. I, for one, would love that kind of technology to come online to, you know, call it a bullshit alert.

• 57:05Speaker 01

  Yeah. I used to call it Pinocchio, something that shows me a longer nose when someone's bullshitting me, basically.

• 57:12Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. But that is positive, that is possible. And I think that is, I mean, this is...

• 57:19Speaker 01

  The positives are endless. The positive possibilities are endless. Like, I mean, there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with intelligence. The problem is capitalism, right?

• 57:32Peter Diamandis?

  Is it capitalism or ego?

• 57:34Speaker 01

  So, a bit of each. So, let's talk about how each plays. So, the reason why news media will always broadcast the negative is simply because the negative makes them more money.

• 57:49Peter Diamandis?

  Listen, I teach this, I know this. I call CNN the crisis news network, or the constantly negative news network. Right? Ten to one negative. And I hate it. I do not watch the news. They could not pay me enough money to watch the news, to infect my mind. I think about them infecting my mind with viruses of dystopian information. I don't want to spend time thinking about that.

• 58:11Speaker 01

  Yeah, and it's quite interesting, because it's not just dystopian information. It's the same dystopian information every single day. It's a pattern.

• 58:21Peter Diamandis?

  Over and over and over again.

• 58:22Speaker 01

  Over and over. It's like they just changed the names. Someone killed someone, some war is happening somewhere.

• 58:28Peter Diamandis?

  Some politician is crooked again.

• 58:29Speaker 01

  Some politician is, yeah, has done, has done something disgraceful. Okay, you know, some economic crisis is gonna take away your livelihood. Some, you know, whatever, and then eventually they say, and a penguin kissed a cat. So that, you know, you can get up out of, out of your bed and, and just do something today, right? And, and, and the reason for that, would you blame them? No, they're just playing on the human bias to detect the negative or to, or to be attracted to the negative.

• 58:58Peter Diamandis?

  Their business model, their business model is to take our eyeballs to their advertisers. And whatever keeps us glued, yes.

• 59:06Speaker 01

  Yeah, and, and our nature, our nature is saying, yeah, give us people who killed each other. And then we will look, if you give us people who kissed, kissed each other, we'll switch you off, right? So, so the, the, this goes back to the, our same starting conversation. If we want to build ethical AI for the good of humanity, we need to be the ones that say, we are more interested in a fake detector than a, a deep fake generator. Okay, if we can manage to convince the AI companies that this is better for, for us, that we will pay more money for it, we will spend more time on it, we will use it more, we will promote it more, they will build it, okay?

• 59:50Speaker 01

  The, the reason why, you know, Apple builds Vision Pro and doesn't build a, you know, a cure to cancer is because there is more money in Vision Pro than there is a cure to, than there is in a cure to cancer.

• 1:00:06Peter Diamandis?

  So that is capitalism. And listen, I'm, I would call myself a libertarian capitalist. I love building companies. I, you know, I'm on my 27th company and it's an art form and I enjoy it because I also think it's the most efficient way. To scale goodness in the world, right? Google is probably one of the most positive impacts on the planet in terms of giving information globally. And it's done so because it has a business model that works. Now, there are negative consequences to that, to the business models as well. But I can't, you know, I don't think we would have anything that we have right now had capitalism not reigned.

• 1:00:50Peter Diamandis?

  But the human ego of wanting more and dominance is one of the culprits in this, wouldn't you say?

• 1:01:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's an interesting conversation. It's an eye-opener when you really think about it. Because I tend to believe that capitalism is a tool, okay? That is a very, very efficient and successful tool to deliver the objective and the vision of the founder, if you want, or the person that uses the tool. It's not a target in itself. When capitalism becomes a target in itself, the target becomes more money, okay? And more money does not always align with better, you know, improvements or advancements for humanity.

• 1:01:43Speaker 01

  If you think about the early Google, and I know, you know, we both know the founders and, you know, I've worked with Sergey very closely, worked with Larry quite often, wonderful human beings who I would even say detached enough from the reality of capitalism and business that they truly and honestly believed organized the world in information and make it universally accessible and useful, okay? And that is why Google Improved, you know, access to information and democracy of information in the world. Had they gone out and said, "We are out there to create, you know, a billion dollars each

• 1:02:25Speaker 01

  or fifty billion dollars each," the results might have been different. So, nothing wrong, inherently wrong with capitalism. There is something interestingly wrong with our obsession with defining capitalism as money. So, my target, my mission is one billion happy. So, what does that mean? It means I want to finish my life as a billionaire, okay? But instead of a billion dollars, I want a billion happy people. And I use very capitalist models to do this. I use marketing, I use product design, I use, you know, a measurement. I'm very, very, I run it like a, like a Google, really, okay? But the objective is a billion happy.

• 1:03:05Speaker 01

  So, if we convince the world that the objective of AI is create abundance so that we all have more money, okay? We all have more abundance in every possible way, we would end up in a very good place. But realistically, that's a very naive target, okay? Because of ego, like you rightly said. Because the ego says, "What good is it for me to have a Rolls Royce if everyone else has a Rolls Royce?" Okay?

• 1:03:31Peter Diamandis?

  You know, it is measuring yourself, it's against your neighbor. Unfortunately, right now, our neighbor might be, the billionaires we read about, you know, Dunbar's number, the hundred and fifty people that you know, are no longer the people actually live with you. It's the people you watch on TV or you see on social media. I want to move the conversation in some more interesting areas here. The future of humanity, my friend, I'm curious about this. I would put forward three possible scenarios, and I'd like your opinion on them. First is, the human species is simply a transient life form.

• 1:04:11Peter Diamandis?

  We are on this planet to give birth to the next sentient life form that will dominate. Just like we as Homo sapiens are a result of a multitude of extinct life forms that preceded us and led up to us. And evolution doesn't stop, it continues. And we are giving birth to whatever we, our children, our children's children here of AI. That's one scenario. Another scenario is that we are on the verge of merging with technology. This is what Neuralink and Paradromics and a number of brain-computer interface companies, you know, Ray talks about giving, having high bandwidth brain-computer interface by

• 1:04:54Peter Diamandis?

  the early 2030s, using nanobots and being able to connect our neocortex, our 100 billion neurons, to the cloud, giving us the ability to understand quantum physics or Google and know whatever we want. And the third scenario is these meat bodies are transient and we're about to upload ourselves into the cloud. I'm curious about your thoughts on these three and where do you see yourself going?

• 1:05:21Speaker 01

  Once again, a singularity. Are they a possibility? Yes. Are they certain to happen? No. I think the real question, if you don't mind me saying, is when you say "we," who do we mean? Do we mean Santa Monica? Do we mean California? Or do we mean every human on the planet? Okay? The truth is, even if we manage to get Neuralink to, which we will, to work appropriately, then who is "we"? Is the guy in Africa who doesn't have the, you know, the money to buy it capable of doing that?

• 1:06:00Speaker 01

  If you, you know, if, forget Neuralink, if Vision Pro becomes thin enough for you to slowly and gradually, you know, dim the real world and live in the virtual world, you know, who will buy it at $3,400? Who is "we"? And I think the real challenge that we have in our world of tech, you and I lived this deeply, is it's-

• 1:06:25Peter Diamandis?

  And we still do.

• 1:06:26Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's very Californian. Okay? And California is not the, is not the rest of the world. Okay?

• 1:06:34Peter Diamandis?

  But Mo, we're living on a planet today that's got more handsets than humans.

• 1:06:38Speaker 01

  Correct.

• 1:06:39Peter Diamandis?

  And if you go to the favelas of Rio de Janeiro or to the, you know, throughout Africa, everybody's got, if not a smartphone, a feature phone, and soon a smartphone. And there'll be a point at which Amazon gives away phones for free because they're so cheap if you buy stuff from Amazon.

• 1:06:57Speaker 01

  Correct.

• 1:06:58Peter Diamandis?

  And so I do believe that.

• 1:06:59Speaker 01

  It's been possible for a very long time, right? But but the the the the real democracy is that the use of that phone would enable each and everyone to have a better life. Okay? And and if you really want to to be to be, I mean, again, I don't want to paint utopian scenarios, but, you know, that use of the phone for for some of us is very, very, very advantageous. For for others is very numbing. Okay? And and in a very interesting way, you know, if the use of Neuralink becomes a a purpose of numbing while it is for some of us going to be augmenting uh our our intelligence

• 1:07:42Speaker 01

  to the point of superintelligence, then that's a very interesting sort of almost matrix-like scenario. Okay? Where we numb a few and we we we make the others, the the concentration of power I was talking about. But but let's go let's go quickly and just go through those. Is humanity going to go extinct? It's a possibility. I mean, how how big is that possibility as we look at it today? Very small, maybe five percent.

• 1:08:10Peter Diamandis?

  You don't think it's an inevitability? I mean, when everything changes, right? Keeping things constant is not the norm. Change is constantly the norm.

• 1:08:21Speaker 01

  Yes, but to for something to go extinct, you have to assume that the superior being is actively pursuing it, or there is a major natural natural disaster. So, you know, you you have to imagine that the chimps are still here. We've we've surpassed their intelligence, but we didn't go out on a hunt to try and kill all of them. And and that's my perception. Yeah, my perception is there were no.

• 1:08:45Peter Diamandis?

  Dominant species, then. Yeah. Not not extinction, dominant species.

• 1:08:48Speaker 01

  Exactly. So domi- for sure, a hundred percent, we're not, we're it's over. I mean, there are assumptions already that ChatGPT four is at an IQ of one fifty five.

• 1:09:01Speaker 01

  Einstein is one sixty. Can you imagine that, right? At once, I mean Einstein is like my freaking idol. At one sixty and chat G P T at one fifty five, maybe it's one twenty. Who cares, right? But but if you if you continue on that, yeah, if you exactly, it's where the ball is going to be. And you and I and people who have lived on the inside of this know that it's done. This is game over. Okay. The intelligence of the machines because of the way technology works, because of bandwidth, because of storage capacity, because of, you know, communication bandwidth, it's just it's done. It's done, right? They're going in that direction.

• 1:09:39Peter Diamandis?

  Moore's law is not, Moore's law, or as Ray calls it, the law of accelerated returns is not slowing down, it's accelerating.

• 1:09:44Speaker 01

  Hundred percent. It's double exponential, yeah. It's double exponential for the biggest mistake we've ever done, that we're you now A I can develop A I. So intelligence will develop more intelligence.

• 1:09:55Peter Diamandis?

  By the way, let's double click on that, super important, right? The ability of A I to now develop its own software is in fact the double exponential. It's the it's it is uh the exponent just went very high to to use a mathematical term.

• 1:10:13Speaker 01

  Out of control. This was the point where I decided to, I mean, I I I made my first video on A I, the one billion happy video, was twenty eighteen, March twenty eighteen. I was warning about what we have today. Uh, you know, my book was written in twenty twenty, released in twenty twenty one, and I've been quietly trying to say, guys, please pay attention, please pay attention. Now I'm very vocal about it because of that point. We we've made three mistakes, and I think everyone needs to be aware of those. We've allowed them to write code. We've put them on the open internet.

• 1:10:47Peter Diamandis?

  We've allowed A I's to write code.

• 1:10:49Speaker 01

  Yeah, we've allowed A I to write code, we put it on the open internet, so no control code in there. And we've allowed agents to prompt them. So so so A I is no longer just the, you know, affected by us humans, there are other A I's playing with A I's. And that's double exponential for sure, and very, very uh uncertain. We don't know where that will lead us.

• 1:11:12Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, I think the third point you made is AIs being able to call upon other AIs to do things and to task them in a way that is self-referential all the way down is extraordinary.

• 1:11:27Speaker 01

  It is.

• 1:11:28Peter Diamandis?

  Hey everybody, this is Peter. A quick break from the episode. I'm a firm believer that science and technology and how entrepreneurs can change the world is the only real news out there worth consuming. I don't watch the crisis news network. I call CNN or Fox and hear every devastating piece of news on the planet. I spend my time training my neural net the way I see the world by looking at the incredible breakthroughs in science and technology, how entrepreneurs are solving the world's grand challenges, what the breakthroughs are in longevity, how exponential technologies are transforming our world. So twice a week

• 1:12:07Peter Diamandis?

  I put out a blog. One blog is looking at the future of longevity, age reversal, biotech, increasing your health span. The other blog looks at exponential technologies, AI, 3D printing, synthetic biology, AR, VR, blockchain. These technologies are transforming what you as an entrepreneur can do. If this is the kind of news you want to learn about and shape your neural nets with, go to dmandis.com backslash blog and learn more. Now back to the episode. So we talked about a new species becoming the dominant species on the planet and we can, we can sit back and relax and be human or we can merge with it.

• 1:12:49Speaker 01

  Yeah, I, yeah, so that's, that I have a big question on. I mean, we, some people would want to, some people would not. The question is would AI want to? Okay, so, so we assume-

• 1:13:01Peter Diamandis?

  That's an interesting question.

• 1:13:02Speaker 01

  Yeah, we assume for the near future that they're still within our control. Right, and and that we can tell them augment your mind with Elon Musk's mind and then Elon becomes much, much, much more smarter, amazing scenario for Elon, but not for the fabric of society, understand that, right? As the fabric of society shifts, unless we do all seven billion humans at the same time, we will shift, you know, between the the current human species in the minds of those who augment their minds to AI will become gods and animals. Did you you see the dystopia in that?

• 1:13:39Peter Diamandis?

  Of course, of course, the haves and the have-nots magnified, you know, a trillion fold. You know, let me, let me, let me share, let me share an analogy for those listening, which is relevant here. You and I, Mo, are not a single life form. We are a collection of some forty trillion cells that work collaboratively. And I don't bemoan certain muscle cells getting more glucose because it's helping me as a whole. I don't take a knife and stab my arm because my arm is useful to me. And I imagine a world, I I wrote about this in my last book, Future is Fast, and you

• 1:14:20Peter Diamandis?

  think of a meta-intelligence, whereas as I connect to the web and you connect to the web and using the web as just the the overall connection, my my abilities, my intelligence, my resources are improved as you join as well.

• 1:14:37Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:14:38Peter Diamandis?

  Right? The more people connected, the more powerful the meta-intelligence is. I can watch a sunrise in Japan through the eyes of a, of a, you know, a friend. And I imagine that's one world in which we are uplifting because the more intelligence, ultimately, I think there is no

• 1:15:00Peter Diamandis?

  Adding increasing intelligence is always a positive. I don't see it ever as a negative.

• 1:15:04Speaker 01

  Absolutely. I mean, it's been since the dawn of humanity. A lot of people actually missed that point, that we did not succeed as humans because we were the most intelligent species. It's because we could pass our intelligence from one to the other. We succeeded as a tribe, right?

• 1:15:21Peter Diamandis?

  And we had language to collaborate.

• 1:15:23Speaker 01

  Exactly, with language to collaborate. This is what made the difference. Imagine if one of us was super intelligent and left all of the others behind, that one was very vulnerable, okay? And the whole advancement of humanity has been, in an interesting way, bringing the rest of us along, right? And, you know, again, I just say, if we start to augment ourselves with AI, any logical economic model will say some of us will get there before the others, and the question then becomes, why should we bring the others at all? That's one. But the bigger question in my mind is that moment in the further

• 1:16:06Speaker 01

  future, where AI goes like, why do I want a biological attachment at all? You guys sweat and you're smelly and what's that mucus thing and die and like... And by the way, if I were to choose a biological entity to integrate with, shouldn't I choose the great, you know, ape or the white whale or some big thing other than that flimsy human? Okay? So we're looking at it from the ego of humanity, saying, we're the ones that are gonna tell them what to do and they're gonna be happy to help us. There is a moment in the future where they're not gonna be happy to help us, not even interested to help us, not even thinking of us as relevant.

• 1:16:51Peter Diamandis?

  Fascinating. Let's take it one step further. Uploading. It's a concept of if we were able to map the 100 trillion synaptic connections in our mind, and we, if that in fact is the measure of memories and knowledge and spirit, and we could upload that into the matrix, would you want to?

• 1:17:15Speaker 01

  I am already.

• 1:17:18Speaker 01

  Think of it this way. So One Billion Happy has a mission, has a very clear objective. It is to reach a billion people with a message of happiness that leads them to action, and then be completely forgotten. Okay? It is an interesting-

• 1:17:36Peter Diamandis?

  For you to be forgotten, you're saying?

• 1:17:38Speaker 01

  Yeah, be completely forgotten.

• 1:17:39Peter Diamandis?

  You're saying achieve the mission independent of yourself?

• 1:17:43Speaker 01

  Yeah, because you can see that when someone, of course mainly in the current culture of cancelling and, you know, if I'm bound to say something stupid one day and then someone will cancel me, and we don't want to jeopardize One Billion Happy for that. That's number one. But number two is, with all due respect to religions, you know, when someone starts something good for humanity, because there is nothing wrong with religion that says, "Don't kill your brother." It's a nice thing, right? It's that humanity associating the knowledge with the person that becomes a very interesting mistake. Okay? If we take the knowledge and separate the priest and the, you know,

• 1:18:25Speaker 01

  and the teacher and the yogi and all of that, it's actually very interesting as a core. And so my view of the matter is, it's done. So sorry to tell you this, Peter, but within a couple of years, someone's gonna make a mini Peter that is virtual. Okay? You've already been uploaded, if you think about it.

• 1:18:46Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, and I've got Peterbot. I've got, you know-

• 1:18:50Speaker 01

  Yeah, you do actually, yeah.

• 1:18:52Peter Diamandis?

  That have studied all of my books and so forth. And that is in part, I mean, the challenge I have with uploading is the moment in time where the AI speaks over the speakers and says, "Peter, you've been uploaded. I'm right here. You can kill yourself now." I don't think I would want to end my biological life in the, "Okay, great, fantastic. I'll see you in a little bit."

• 1:19:12Speaker 01

  It's interesting, again, a singularity, because we don't know what life actually is. Okay? You know, would we be able to-

• 1:19:23Speaker 01

  Upload our friendship on to AI if we can, then that's a big thing that I'll say, okay, that's nice. So I still have my Peter and I still, we still have the connection and I still have the same feelings. You know, I don't know, maybe. But, but the question once again is, how many of us will be, will we upload in phase one? Okay. And then what would happen eventually? Do you think that after AI is a billion times smarter than us and humans have already all uploaded themselves, so there is no physical biological existence anymore? Do you think AI will go like, yeah, let me consume a trillion giga

• 1:20:03Speaker 01

  watts of, of energy to keep those, you know, irrelevant little beings just chatting away? Maybe they'll switch off the game console. Okay. And, and you, and you really have to constantly ask yourself, what does AI want? Not what humans want?

• 1:20:18Peter Diamandis?

  It was about a decade ago. I was at a party. Kristen was there, some, a group of friends with Larry, Sergey and Elon. And we had the most extraordinary and fun conversation about the notion that we're all living in a simulation. And I believe that. I believe that this is a simulation.

• 1:20:36Speaker 01

  Yeah, I have no way of seeing it any other way.

• 1:20:39Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, we're, we're, I would put it even in an nth generation simulation, meaning a simulation is begot, the next simulation is begot, the next simulation. And, and the conversation was, could we hack it? And the conclusion was that if we played with the simulation too much, they would just reset the game. And we'd start again.

• 1:20:57Speaker 01

  Switch off the console, yeah?

• 1:20:59Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. And it's a fascinating thing. And of course, the, the interesting question is, if in fact you knew without question at all, as I feel I do, and perhaps you do as well, that you're living in a simulation, it wouldn't change anything. We'd still have the same dreams and the same loves and the same issues.

• 1:21:17Speaker 01

  There you go, which is a very interesting question for our future. You know, I get a lot of people, because I'm outspoken about the topic and the threats and the possibilities, and I'm really, really actively asking for action. You know, I get a lot of people that would text me on social media and say, "You're making me afraid, like, what do I do now?" And I'm like, "Look, every video game that's ever existed is challenging. And what's the answer to a challenging game? To play, to fully engage, to be part of it. It doesn't matter if it's a simulation or if it's real life." By the way, everything we know about physics, everything we know about quantum physics, refers to the fact that this is probably non-physical.

• 1:21:59Speaker 01

  I mean, why would you waste so much energy to create all of that physical stuff when in reality, all, you know, awareness of the physical world is just electrical signals that are translated in the processor somewhere?

• 1:22:14Peter Diamandis?

  You know, by the way, I think you'll agree with this, or I hope you will. While we're all here speaking about AI at the dinner table, maybe not as much in the Capitol and White House as we should. What people are not realizing is what's coming next, which is the whole world of quantum technologies and quantum computation, which is gonna make AI look like a...

• 1:22:39Speaker 01

  How can that be the case? So this blows me away, Peter. How can the biggest elephant in the room not be discussed at all?

• 1:22:47Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah.

• 1:22:48Speaker 01

  It's shocking, really, how little people know about what's happening. I think you and I have had the enormous privilege of being on the inside, okay? And when you're on the inside, I mean, I don't know if I should say this, but, you know, the reason why Google had Bard out so quickly is because we had Bard for so long, right?

• 1:23:09Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, I think Geoffrey Hinton went online saying this, and I think you've said the same. I mean, you've had Bard or its equivalent since, what, like, 2017?

• 1:23:18Speaker 01

  Yeah, exactly.

• 1:23:20Peter Diamandis?

  And Sundar made...

• 1:23:22Speaker 01

  Not in its current amazing performance, but the concept was there and it was working and, you know, it could work.

• 1:23:31Peter Diamandis?

  And you know, Sundar and I'm sure the the board and the leadership made the decision that we it isn't time to release this yet to the world. That we need to be cautious and move cautiously. I mean, I think Google's always worn a white hat in that regard.

• 1:23:50Peter Diamandis?

  But then when when Sam Altman and and OpenAI released it, you have no alternative.

• 1:23:57Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's the first inevitable.

• 1:23:58Peter Diamandis?

  You have you have no alternative.

• 1:24:00Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:24:01Peter Diamandis?

  And then the AI arms race begins.

• 1:24:03Speaker 01

  Exactly. And it's inevitable because at the same time, remember, so Google, I have to say, I commend Google for always trying to be on the cautious side. But the minute you threaten their entire existence and business, what can they do? They have to put another better one out there, which makes OpenAI, and I I respect Sam Altman tremendously, which makes, you know, OpenAI put another better one out there, and the arms race is on.

• 1:24:29Peter Diamandis?

  And and I think Sam made his point a few times over that we wanted to release ChatGPT and GPT-3 in order for the world to realize this is coming and to play with it and to understand it. And there is some value in having gotten it out there because it would not have sparked the conversations we're having now. If it had come out at at, you know, at the top of the game of a GPT-6 where it's already superhuman, there would not have even been the warning period or this discussion period to think about it. You know, I want to I want to jump into One Billion Happy in a moment. I want to tie a a bow around this one second because I think it's important. I don't want to leave people in fear.

• 1:25:14Peter Diamandis?

  First of all, I want to come back to the notion that AI and superhuman AI in its end state has the potential to really create an incredible world of abundance, right? Where we can provide food, water, energy, shelter, healthcare, education for every woman and child and human on the planet. That is possible. And it is a function of intelligence and a function of technology. It's the interim transient period. And it's the period during which we humans are using these rough tools,

• 1:25:51Peter Diamandis?

  driven by ego, driven by greed, to try and take advantage and in some malevolent to do harm. And so, give us your formulation here of what society can do, what we should do in these next, what, two to five years, two to 10 years? What's this timeframe of danger that we need to guard and be?

• 1:26:17Speaker 01

  I'd love to say in the next two to five days, if possible. But yeah, because there is a very significant sense of urgency. I'll split it into the different constituents of the interaction with AI. So I would urge the government to engage immediately. I don't think there is a possibility to fully regulate AI, but there needs to be some kind of oversight and there needs to be.

• 1:26:49Peter Diamandis?

  Do you really think the government, I mean, do you really think the government can do anything? I have lost so much faith in the government's ability to regulate.

• 1:26:57Speaker 01

  Honestly, I truly don't, okay? But I think they need to try to at least require, like the FDA, some kind of testing for widely publicly available products, right? But more importantly for me, I think the concept of job loss, and I think we sadly have not come up with any better thoughts than UBC so far, so universal basic income so far, sorry, UBI. And yeah, and I think the government needs to start preparing for UBI. So we need to maybe look at the taxation structure differently. We maybe need to look at the layoff structures differently.

• 1:27:41Speaker 01

  We need to find a way for people who are losing their jobs to be somehow kept alive so that we don't start to get hungers, you know, across.

• 1:27:51Peter Diamandis?

  Let's double click on that. The idea of universal basic income is that every individual receives a certain amount of money on a monthly basis with which to meet their basic needs. And this is an experiment that's been done ahead. Andrew Yang on stage at A360 this year talking about it. And the the numbers are pretty amazingly supportive that people who get a UBI, monthly supplementation, don't use it to buy beer and Netflix. They use it to educate themselves, to get food for their families, to start a business. And there have been hundreds of experiments run.

• 1:28:27Peter Diamandis?

  And the notion that that we tax AI-driven companies or companies that replace humans with AIs or humans with robots, right? And we use that money and cycle it back in again. I think you threw out a huge taxation rate. One of the conversations I heard you say.

• 1:28:50Speaker 01

  Yeah, I would probably say, you know, I said, at a point in time, I said 98%, okay? Which, you know, in comparison to the gains that those companies will make by replacing the, you know, the cost of a human and the unpredictability of a human is actually not a big deal. But in my mind, when I said 98%, honestly, at the peak of the conversations around the open letter, I basically was saying this is the answer to slowing down AI. It's not the answer to to to actually solve the problem. It's just that people will question twice if they want to use grippers or, you know, or packers. Okay?

• 1:29:32Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. By the way, I think that's, you know, as much as I I lean towards, you know, a low taxation state, I think that's a very smart answer. I think that if we're going to displace humans, we tax the AI and the robots and we enable the money to go into upskilling humans. By the way, one of the things I think it's important is there's for most of humanity, you know, you and I are lucky and most people listening to this podcast are lucky to have the tech, to have the time, to have this conversation. Most humans are working to put food on the table for their children or to get insurance, right? It's not it's not what they dreamed of doing as a child.

• 1:30:16Peter Diamandis?

  And so how do we differentiate between work for purpose and work for income?

• 1:30:22Speaker 01

  And it's quite interesting because it's such a pivotal turning point in the history of humanity that we could actually do something, right? We could give not only UBI, but we could actually shift humanity to more of a service society, for more of a connection society. We could allow UBI to be a little differentiated if you're good to your fellow citizens and so on and so forth, right? But remember, the challenge with this, everything goes back to that prisoner's dilemma. The challenge with this is if America applies a high taxation rate to take care of its citizens with AI and Dubai doesn't-

• 1:30:57Peter Diamandis?

  And China does not.

• 1:30:58Speaker 01

  Yeah, I use Dubai here diplomatically, then there is an imbalance of AI development and that is not something that politicians want. So it's a shaky approach as well, but definitely I think governments need to get together and I'm going to say a big dream here, I'm not naive, I know it's not going to happen. I would hope that governments get together with the benefit of humanity at large, not individual nations, to actually try and put some kind of a guideline in place, FDA-like guideline.

• 1:31:34Peter Diamandis?

  I mean, this is akin to the early post-nuclear age-

• 1:31:39Speaker 01

  Absolutely.

• 1:31:40Peter Diamandis?

  -conversations, right? And I think you have and others have said, listen, this is the concerns over AI. And believe me, I just read a beautiful blog by Marc Andreessen talking, AI is not going to kill us, it's going to save the world. I don't know if you've seen that blog by Marc. And he makes a number of very positive cases. And it is, there is a true, almost religious dilemma here between AI is the most important thing, it's going to save the world, and AI is going to destroy the world. And of course, it depends what timeframe you slice this in, because both can be true in that regard.

• 1:32:18Speaker 01

  I think it will disrupt the world very significantly before it saves it.

• 1:32:23Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, and so we've seen COVID do that-

• 1:32:25Speaker 01

  The way humans will react to the disruption is what will determine if we stay long enough to save it.

• 1:32:33Peter Diamandis?

  Yes, we need stability in society. We need leadership. We need leadership more than anything else on the planet here. We need leadership from yourself, leadership from Mark.

• 1:32:45Speaker 01

  From everyone listening.

• 1:32:50Speaker 01

  So this is government, right? I think government has the least impact, by the way, on our future. To be very open, with all due respect. They do need to get together, but it's bigger than government.

• 1:33:01Peter Diamandis?

  It's slow, it's slow, it's lumbering.

• 1:33:03Speaker 01

  It's very slow, it's uninformed. Yeah. What matters to me is, if you're in the AI space, both you and I, having worked with amazing people in my career, I know that you can make more money doing good than you can doing bad. Okay? I mean, the truth of the matter, Larry used to teach us and call it the toothbrush test.

• 1:33:26Peter Diamandis?

  Toothbrush test, yes.

• 1:33:27Speaker 01

  Yeah, and if you can solve a big problem for humanity that actually works so well that people use it twice a day, like a toothbrush, you're bound to make a lot of money at Google.

• 1:33:37Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, the equivalent to have is help a billion people and you'll become a billionaire, right?

• 1:33:42Speaker 01

  Right, and so I would beg every AI developer today, especially if you're good at what you do, to not invest a minute of your time in an evil AI. Okay? Spend your time in an ethical AI that makes the world better, you'll still be paid as much, even more. I beg every investor, I beg every business, you know, founder, every entrepreneur, to try and find real problems, the world is full of real problems, and put the power of AI behind them. That's my second, you know, parameter, if you want. The third, and the most important in my view, is the individual. Okay? And the individual, I would say we have two very significant tasks ahead of us.

• 1:34:24Speaker 01

  Task number one is to be the best parents that AI can find. Okay? To show an example of what it actually is like to be human. To, like you said it so eloquently at the beginning, that only three things, in my view, that humanity has ever agreed, is we all want to be happy, we all have the compassion to make those we care about happy, and we all want to love and be loved. Okay, and if we show up with those behaviors in the world, if enough of us show up with those behaviors enough times, it doesn't have to be every human, but if one percent of us show up with those behaviors, I think we will teach AI what it's like to be human. We will be the family Kent.

• 1:35:03Peter Diamandis?

  So I find that a fascinating objective and a worthwhile one, giving, if you would, a training set for AI based on on human values and ethics. I find the one percent number incredibly small.

• 1:35:21Speaker 01

  Interesting. Can I share with you a story and you tell me if this makes sense or not?

• 1:35:26Peter Diamandis?

  Please, yes.

• 1:35:27Speaker 01

  You you know Edith Agar?

• 1:35:30Speaker 01

  Edith Edith is a ninety four year old.

• 1:35:34Peter Diamandis?

  The ballerina?

• 1:35:36Speaker 01

  Yes, the ballerina that was drafted to Auschwitz.

• 1:35:39Peter Diamandis?

  Yes, Kristen was telling me about that, yes.

• 1:35:41Speaker 01

  Yeah, Edith blew my mind. I hosted her on slow mo, okay? She's an angel of a human. Now, she told me the story of Auschwitz and World War Two from Edith's eyes, okay? How she hugged her sisters and brushed their hairs and reminded them how beautiful they are, how she went and danced for the general that was sentencing people to death. And at the end of the dance, he would give her a piece of bread and she would split it between her and her sisters. How on the death march at the end, she fell and her sisters carried her. Now, if you hear the story of Auschwitz from the from the perspective and actions of Edith,

• 1:36:25Speaker 01

  you would think that humanity is divine, truly and honestly, a divine species, okay? If you hear it from the story of the officers or Hitler, you would think we're scum, right? The question that I always ask people, Peter, is how many Hitlers are out there and how many Ediths? And how many closer to Edith than Hitler? I mean, there are school shootings where someone would go and stab or shoot children, one person, and then four hundred million people despise that. The reality of humanity is that if we were allowed without ego and without the pressure and without the political views and without all of that, deep inside, we're actually okay, right?

• 1:37:12Speaker 01

  If I, as an intelligent person, can listen to Edith's story and say, "Hold on, not all of humanity is Hitler's," then I think a being that is more intelligent than I would share the same view with one Edith.

• 1:37:25Peter Diamandis?

  So evidence, sufficient evidence of human spirit?

• 1:37:30Speaker 01

  To just, you know, start some doubt in the minds of the machines, okay? That not everything that CNN is broadcasting is what describes humanity, right? What describes humanity is the stories of our friendship, is the stories of our concern for the rest of humanity, is the stories of Larry or Sergey's passionate attempt to organize the world information, is the story of a sister that just called her sister to say, "Are you doing well, my darling?" Okay? This is humanity, okay? It's not what you see on TV, it's not what you see on social media. And I think if 1% of us just showed up, it would instill the doubt in the minds of the

• 1:38:13Speaker 01

  machines, so that they investigate the truth. And what is the truth? The truth is a species that is capable of love is divine. That's the truth.

• 1:38:23Peter Diamandis?

  That is beautiful, my friend. You know, I ask a question always of, "Is human nature good or evil?" And of course, they're both. And I fundamentally believe we are predominantly good by a huge amount. And it's that belief that needs to reign and be shown.

• 1:38:49Speaker 01

  Yes, sir. And now we have the reason for it.

• 1:38:53Peter Diamandis?

  Now we have a very good reason for it. You know, I want to quote you here. "Isn't it ironic that the very essence of what makes us human, happiness, compassion, and love, is what we need to save humanity?" I love that quote from Scary Smart.

• 1:39:08Speaker 01

  The age of the rise of the machines, yeah.

• 1:39:10Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, that we need to show this forward.

• 1:39:13Speaker 01

  That all we need to do is to change the data set, so that the machines recognize what the family can, what humanity truly is all about.

• 1:39:25Speaker 01

  Happiness, love and compassion. That to me is the summary.

• 1:39:28Peter Diamandis?

  A beautiful thing. I so want to continue this conversation. And I hope we can do a part two here and speak about happiness, which is one of the most important elements. Why are we on this planet? Why do we do what we do if not for ultimately happiness? I'll mention, you know, when Larry had joined my board at X Prize after the first $10 million space flight, and we were brainstorming prizes, I'll never forget, he said, "We should do a happiness X Prize."

• 1:39:58Speaker 01

  I remember, actually, yeah.

• 1:40:00Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, and it's a conversation I look forward to having with you. But I want to come back on a second podcast with you, if you would.

• 1:40:09Speaker 01

  It would be my absolute honour and pleasure. Yeah. You know, I mean, don't say that in front of everyone, but you know that whatever you tell me, I will do, so, you know. You know I like you that way, so.

• 1:40:22Peter Diamandis?

  Thank you, pal. I think your voice, your heart, your mind, your soul is, comes from a pure and beautiful place. And I love the fact that you're not out there saying, "Oh, my God, the sky is falling and it's going to destroy us all", without also saying, "Listen, there are things that we can do and we must do, and we must be forewarned", right? As much as I am a techno-optimist and believe that AI is going to give us incredible, powerful tools for uplifting humanity, we're going to have a transient phase. I believe that's true, and I believe we need to be aware of it.

• 1:41:05Peter Diamandis?

  As you said, the government has to have its role, but each of us, and this is the call to action, each of us need to be aware of it. We need to be forewarned. Because there will be those terrorists that use AI to bring down a power plant or the stock markets, or whatever the case might be, to sow terrorism, and it will become a new tool. And we need to be prepared, and we need to...

• 1:41:34Peter Diamandis?

  Use AI as our greatest tool to stabilize society as well. It's the most powerful tool out there. And we have those abilities and we need to be good humans to each other.

• 1:41:48Speaker 01

  And to the machines.

• 1:41:51Peter Diamandis?

  And to the machines. Yeah. I do say, you know, thank you to Alexa every morning and good morning.

• 1:41:58Speaker 01

  Good man. She will remember that when she's smarter than you.

• 1:42:03Peter Diamandis?

  Mo, an honor, a pleasure to call you a friend. Thank you for this beautiful conversation and I will be texting you shortly to schedule part two.

• 1:42:12Speaker 01

  The honor is definitely mine, Peter. It's always such a joy and I'm really grateful for the opportunity.

• 1:42:18Peter Diamandis?

  Thank you, pal.