#314 – Liv Boeree: Poker, Game Theory, AI, Simulation, Aliens & Existential Risk

[0] The following is a conversation with Liv Boree, formerly one of the best poker players in the world, trained as an astrophysicist and is now a philanthropist and an educator on topics of game theory, physics, complexity, and life.

[1] And now, onto the full ad reads.

[2] As always, no ads in the middle.

[3] I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors.

[4] I enjoy this stuff.

[5] Maybe you will too.

[6] First, we've got Audible.

[7] It's an audiobook service.

[8] that gives me thousands of hours.

[9] I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that, of educational material.

[10] I've been running every single day, almost with no exception, at least eight miles.

[11] That's often anywhere from one to two and a half hours, depending on the distance I'm doing.

[12] And my trusted companion through that is either brown noise, which I just listened to YouTube videos of brown noise.

[13] If I'm not listening to brown noise when I'm running and focusing on my thoughts, I am listening to audiobooks, and that's usually the source of fun, the source of intense thinking for me, exploration.

[14] It's a journey into another world, into another time.

[15] And an audio book reading of a book can really take you to that place.

[16] It can really transport you there.

[17] New members can try the thing free for 30 days at audible .com slash Lex or text Lex to 500, 500.

[18] This show is brought to you by Give Well.

[19] They research, charitable organizations, and only recommend the highest impact evidence -backed charities.

[20] It may be counterintuitive, but giving money or helping others is actually a really difficult process.

[21] It's not as simple as throwing cash up in the air and hoping the wind catches it and redistributes it somehow optimally to the people who need the most.

[22] It really is a complicated process.

[23] Obviously, you have to avoid corruption, you have to avoid bureaucracy, all the overhead that has to do with a giving process.

[24] process.

[25] You know, if you build too big of an organization, you're going to spend more money on running the organization than you are and actually giving money directly to people or helping people directly in some way.

[26] And that's what Givewell optimizes and really understands and helps you figure out which are the good charities to give money to.

[27] Donors have used Givewell to donate more than $750 million.

[28] Go to givewell .org pick podcast.

[29] and select a Lex Friedman podcast head checkout.

[30] This episode is also brought to you by Linode, Linux Virtual Machines.

[31] I literally smile every time I say Linux.

[32] It must be genetic.

[33] I think the first time I interacted the Linux terminal, it could have been a Unix terminal, maybe a Sun.

[34] So basically a command line where you could do, have access to Bash and Pearl.

[35] Anyway, all of that was a Linux terminal.

[36] Linux, and it opened up to me the world of power at the fingertips of a programmer.

[37] I mean, Linux really makes that clear to you, much, much, much more than does Windows.

[38] Anyway, I'm a huge fan of computer infrastructures, like Linode, my favorite one, that makes all that power available to you in the cloud.

[39] It has a million things you could do.

[40] Small projects, huge systems, all of it.

[41] I use Linode for all kinds of stuff, and it really, really is a great computer infrastructure.

[42] and made super simple and easy to access and monitor and all that kind of stuff.

[43] Visit linode .com slash Lex for free credit.

[44] This show is also brought to you by indeed a hiring website.

[45] I've used them for many hiring efforts I've done for the teams that have led in the past.

[46] It really is the most important thing you could do in your life, which is optimize the inner circle, the folks you surround yourself with.

[47] Of course, you could do that with family, you could do that with friends, But because a lot of us spend such a large percentage of our time at work, we should also do that with the people who work with.

[48] And if you're in the position of like a manager or like a hiring manager and you get to optimize the inner circle, this isn't just about productivity.

[49] It's not just about kind of filling a gap in the team.

[50] It's about bringing meaning and happiness to everybody involved.

[51] Companies come and go.

[52] but a deep meaningful life journey is something bigger than all of that.

[53] So yeah, use the best tools for the job.

[54] I like Indeed.

[55] They do a really great job.

[56] They have a special offer only available for a limited time.

[57] So go check it out at Indeed .com slash Lex.

[58] This show is also brought to you by ExpressVPN.

[59] I use them to protect my privacy on the interwebs.

[60] it protects you a bit more from ISPs internet service providers from being able to collect your data even when you navigate to shady websites which I know you do in incognito mode in Chrome you can watch shows that are geographically restricted especially VPN as a VPN so it should do the VPN thing well it should be fast it should work anywhere like on any device again anywhere, everywhere, at least anywhere I can think of.

[61] It works.

[62] It works fast.

[63] It's very intuitive.

[64] It's very simple.

[65] It does the thing it's supposed to do and does it well.

[66] In terms of execution, I mean, there's very few things I admire than systems, software systems that do the job they're supposed to do and do it well.

[67] And all the improvements, all the version updates that they do, just push further the ability to do the thing well.

[68] They don't shove all the kind of weird features into it.

[69] It just does the thing is supposed to do and does it well.

[70] Go to expressvpn .com slash LexPod for an extra three months free.

[71] This is the Lex Friedman podcast.

[72] To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.

[73] And now, dear friends, here's Livbury.

[74] What role do you think luck plays in poker and in life?

[75] You can pick whichever one you want, poker or life and or life.

[76] The longer you play, the less influenced luck has.

[77] you know, like with all things, the big of your sample size, the more the quality of your decisions or your strategies matter.

[78] So to answer that question, yeah, in poker, it really depends.

[79] If you and I sat and played 10 hands right now, I might only win 52 % of the time, 53 % maybe.

[80] But if we played 10 ,000 hands, then I'll probably win like over 98, 99 % of the time.

[81] So it's a question of sample sizes.

[82] And what are you figuring out over time?

[83] betting strategy that this individual does, or literally it doesn't matter against any individual over time.

[84] Against any individual over time, the better player, because they're making better decisions.

[85] So what does that mean to make a better decision?

[86] Well, to get into the real nitty gritty already, basically poker is the game of math.

[87] There are these strategies familiar with like Nash Equilibria, that term, right?

[88] So there are these game theory optimal strategies that you can adopt and the closer you play to them, the less exploitable you are.

[89] So because I've studied the game a bunch, although admittedly not for a few years, but back in, you know, when I was playing all the time, I would study these game theory optimal solutions and try and then adopt those strategies when I go and play.

[90] So I'd play against you and I would do that.

[91] And because the objective, when you're playing game theory optimal, it's actually, it's a loss minimization thing that you're trying to do.

[92] Your best bet is to try and play a sort of similar style.

[93] You also need to try and adopt this loss minimisation.

[94] But because I've been playing much longer than you, I'll be better at that.

[95] So first of all, you're not taking advantage of my mistakes.

[96] But then on top of that, I'll be better at recognising when you are playing suboptimally and then deviating from this game theory optimal strategy to exploit your bad plays.

[97] Can you define game theory and Nash equilibrium?

[98] Can we try to sneak up to it in a bunch of ways?

[99] What's the game theory framework of analyzing poker, analyzing any kind of situation?

[100] So game theory is just basically the study of decisions within a competitive situation.

[101] I mean, it's technically a branch of economics, but it also applies to like wider decision theory.

[102] and you know usually when you see it it's these like little payoff matrices and so on that's how it's depicted but it's essentially just like study of strategies under different competitive situations and as it happens certain games in fact many many games have these things called Nash Equilibria and what that means is when you're in a Nash equilibrium basically it is not there is no strategy that you can take that would be more beneficial than the one you're currently taking, assuming your opponent is also doing the same thing.

[103] So it would be a bad idea.

[104] You know, if we're both playing in, you know, a game three optimal strategy, if either of us deviate from that, now the other, you know, we're putting ourselves at a disadvantage.

[105] Rock paper, so this is actually a really great example of this.

[106] Like, if we, to start playing rock papers, you know, you know nothing about me and we're going to play for all our money, let's play 10 rounds of it.

[107] What would your sort of optimal strategy be, do you think?

[108] What would you do?

[109] Let's see.

[110] I would probably try to be as random as possible.

[111] Exactly.

[112] Because you don't know anything about me. You don't want to give anything away about yourself.

[113] So ideally you'd have like a little dice or somewhat, you know, perfect randomizer that makes you randomize 33 % of the time each of the three different things.

[114] And in response to that, well, actually I can kind of do anything.

[115] But I would probably just randomize back too.

[116] but actually it wouldn't matter because I know that you're playing randomly.

[117] So that would be us in an ash equilibrium where we're both playing this unexploitable strategy.

[118] However, if after a while you then notice that I'm playing rock a little bit more often than I should.

[119] Yeah, you're the kind of person that would do that, wouldn't you?

[120] Sure, yes, yes, yes.

[121] I'm more of a scissors girl.

[122] But anyway.

[123] You are?

[124] No, I'm a, as I said, randomizer.

[125] So you notice I'm throwing rock too much or something like that.

[126] Now you'd be making a mistake by continuing playing this game theory optimal.

[127] strategy, well, the previous one, because you are now, I'm making a mistake and you're not deviating and exploiting my mistake.

[128] So you'd want to start throwing paper a bit more often in whatever you figure is the right sort of percentage of the time that I'm throwing rock too often.

[129] So that's basically an example of where, you know, what Game 3 optimal strategy is in terms of loss minimisation, but it's not always the maximally profitable thing if your opponent is doing stupid stuff, which, you know, in that example.

[130] So that's kind of then how it works in poker, but it's a lot more complex.

[131] And the way poker players typically, you know, nowadays they study, the games change so much.

[132] And I think we should talk about how it sort of evolved.

[133] But nowadays, like the top pros basically spend all their time in between sessions running these simulators using like software where they do basically Monte Carlo simulations, sort of doing billions of fictitious self -play hands, you input a fictitious hand scenario, like, oh, what do I do with Jack 9 suited on a King 10, 4, 2 -Spage board, and, you know, against this bet size.

[134] So you'd input that, press play, it'll run its billions of fake hands, and then it'll converge upon what the game theory optimal strategies are.

[135] And then you want to try and memorize what these are.

[136] basically they're like ratios of how often you know what types of hands you want to bluff and what percentage of the time so then there's this additional layer of inbuilt randomization built in yeah those those kind of simulations incorporate all the betting strategies and everything else like that so they so as opposed to some kind of very crude mathematical model of what's the probability you win just based on the quality of the card it's including everything else too the the game theory of it yes yeah essentially and what's interesting is that nowadays if you want to be a top pro and you go and play in these really like the super high -stakes tournaments or tough cash games, if you don't know this stuff, you're going to get eaten alive in the long run.

[137] But of course, you could get lucky over the short run, and that's where this luck factor comes in, because luck is both a blessing and a curse.

[138] If luck didn't, you know, if there wasn't this random element and there wasn't the ability for worse players to win sometimes, then poker would fall apart.

[139] You know, the same reason people don't play chess professionally for money against, you know, You don't see people going and hustling chess, like not knowing, trying to make a living from it because you know there's very little luck in chess, but there's quite a lot of luck in poker.

[140] Have you seen a beautiful mind that movie?

[141] Years ago.

[142] Well, what do you think about the game theoretic formulation of, what is it, the hot blonde at the bar?

[143] Do you remember?

[144] Oh, yeah.

[145] The way they illustrated it is they're trying to pick up a girl at a bar and there's multiple girls.

[146] It's like a friend group and you're trying to approach.

[147] I don't remember the details, but I remember.

[148] Don't you, like, then speak to her friends first, something like that, feign disinterest?

[149] I mean, it's classic pick -up artist stuff, right?

[150] You want to...

[151] And they were trying to correlate that somehow, that being an optimal strategy, game theoretically.

[152] Why?

[153] What, what, like, I don't think, I remember...

[154] I can't imagine that they were, I mean, there's probably an optimal strategy.

[155] Is it, does that mean that there's an actual Nash equilibrium of, like, picking up girls?

[156] Do you know the, the marriage problem?

[157] It's optimal stopping.

[158] Yes.

[159] So where it's an optimal dating strategy where you, do you remember what?

[160] Yeah, I think it's like something like you, you know you've got like a set of 100 people you're going to look through.

[161] And after how many do you now after that, after going on this many dates out of 100, at what point do you then go, okay, the next best person I see is that the right one?

[162] And I think it's like something like 37%.

[163] It's one over E, whatever that is.

[164] Right, which I think is.

[165] Yeah.

[166] Yeah, we're going to fact check that.

[167] Yeah, so, but it's funny, under those strict constraints, then, yes, after that many people, as long as you have a fixed -sized pool, then you just pick the next person that is better than anyone you've seen before.

[168] Yeah.

[169] Have you tried this?

[170] Have you incorporated it?

[171] I'm not one of those people.

[172] And we're going to discuss this.

[173] And what do you mean those people?

[174] I try not to optimize stuff.

[175] I try to listen to the heart.

[176] I don't think I like, my mind immediately is attracted to optimizing everything.

[177] And I think that if you really give in to that kind of addiction, that you lose the joy of the small things, the minutia of life, I think.

[178] I don't know.

[179] I'm concerned about the addictive.

[180] nature of my personality in that regard.

[181] In some ways, while I think the on average people under try and quantify things or under -optimized, there are some people who, you know, it's like with all these things, it's a balancing act.

[182] I've been on dating apps, but I've never used them.

[183] I'm sure they have data on this because they probably have the optimal stopping control problem because aren't a lot of people that use social, like dating apps are on there for a long time.

[184] So the interesting aspect is like, all right, how long before you stop looking before it actually starts affecting your mind negatively such that you see dating as a kind of a game versus an actual process of finding somebody that's going to make you happy for the rest of your life.

[185] That's really interesting.

[186] They have the data.

[187] I wish I would be able to release that data.

[188] And I do want to...

[189] It's okay -Cupid, right?

[190] I think they ran a huge study in all of their...

[191] Yeah, they're more data -driven, I think, okay -Cupid folks are.

[192] I think there's a lot of opportunity for dating apps, even bigger than dating apps, people connecting on the internet.

[193] I just hope they're more data -driven, and it doesn't seem that way.

[194] I think, like, I've always thought that Goodreads should be a dating app.

[195] I've never used it.

[196] A good reads is just lists, like, books that you've read and allows you comment on the books you read and what the books you're currently reading.

[197] But it's a giant social networks of people reading books.

[198] And that seems to be a much better database of, like, interests.

[199] Of course, it constraint you to the books you're reading.

[200] But, like, that really reveals so much more about the person.

[201] It allows you to discover shared interest because books are kind of window into the way you see the world.

[202] also like the kind of places people you're curious about, the kind of ideas you're curious about, are you a romantic, or are you called calculating rationalist, are you into Iron Rand or are you into Bernie Sanders?

[203] Are you into whatever?

[204] Right.

[205] And I feel like that reveals so much more than like a person trying to look hot from a certain angle in a Tinder profile.

[206] Well, and it would also be a really great filter in the first place for people, it selects for people who read books and are willing to go and rate them and give feedback on them and so on.

[207] So that's already a really strong filter or probably the type of people you'd be looking for.

[208] Well, at least be able to fake reading books.

[209] I mean, the thing about books, you don't really need to read it.

[210] You could just look the clip notes.

[211] Yeah, game the dating app by feigning intellectualism.

[212] Can I admit something very horrible about myself?

[213] Go on.

[214] The things that, you know, I don't know how many things in my closet, but this is one of them.

[215] I've never actually read Shakespeare.

[216] I've only read cliff notes and i got a five in the ap english uh exam and i which books have i read well yeah which was the exam on which book oh no they they include a lot of them but hamlet i don't even know if you read romeo juliet um macbeth i don't i don't remember but i don't understand it it's like really cryptic it's hard it's really i don't and it's not that pleasant to read it's like ancient speak.

[217] I don't understand it.

[218] Anyway, maybe I was too dumb.

[219] I'm still too dumb, but I dig got a five, which is, yeah, yeah.

[220] I don't know how the US grading system.

[221] Oh, no, so AP English is a, there's kind of this advanced versions of courses in high school, and you take a test that is like a broad test for that subject and includes a lot.

[222] It wasn't obviously just Shakespeare.

[223] I think a lot of it was also writing, written.

[224] You have like AP physics, AP computer science, AP biology, AP chemistry, and then AP English or AP literature.

[225] I forget what it was.

[226] But I think Shakespeare was a part of that.

[227] And the point is you gamified it?

[228] Game of five.

[229] Well, in entirety, I was into getting A's.

[230] I saw it as a game.

[231] I don't think any, I don't think all of the learning I've done has been outside of the school.

[232] The deepest learning I've done has been outside of school, with a few exceptions, especially in grad school, like deep computer science courses but that was still outside of school because it was outside of getting the A for the course the best stuff I've ever done is when you read the chapter and you do many of the problems at the end of the chapter which is usually not what's required for the course like the hardest stuff in fact textbooks are freaking incredible if you go back now and you look at like biology textbook or any of the computer science textbooks on algorithms and data structures Those things are incredibly.

[233] They have the best summary of a subject, plus they have practice problems of increasing difficulty that allows you to truly master the basic, like, the fundamental ideas behind that.

[234] I got through my entire physics degree with one textbook that was just this really comprehensive one that they told us at the beginning of the first year, buy this, but you're going to have to buy 15 other books for all your supplementary courses.

[235] And I was like every time I was just checked to see whether this book covered it.

[236] and it did, and I think I only bought like two or three extra, and thank God, because they're so super expensive textbooks.

[237] It's a whole racket they've got going on.

[238] Yeah, they are.

[239] They could just, you get the right one.

[240] It's just like a manual for, but what's interesting, though, is this is the tyranny of having exams and metrics.

[241] The tyranny of exams and metrics, yes.

[242] I loved them because I loved, I'm very competitive and I liked, I liked finding ways to gamify things and then like sort of dust off my shoulders afterwards when I get.

[243] go to good grade or be annoyed at myself when I didn't.

[244] But yeah, you're absolutely right in that the actual, you know, how much of that physics knowledge I've retained.

[245] Like I've, I learned how to cram and study and please an examiner, but did that give me the deep lasting knowledge that I needed?

[246] I mean, yes, yes and no. But really, like, nothing makes you learn a topic better than when you actually then have to teach it yourself.

[247] You know, like I'm trying to wrap my teeth around this like game theory mollock stuff right now and there's no exam at the end of it that I can gamify there's no way to gamify and sort of like short cut my way through it I have to understand it so deeply from like deep foundational levels to them to build upon it and then try and explain it to other people and like you know you're about to go and do some lectures right you you can't you can't sort of just like you presumably can't rely on the knowledge that you got through when you were studying for an exam yeah to reteach that yeah and especially high -level lectures, especially the kind of stuff you do on YouTube, you're not just regurgitating material.

[248] You have to think through what is the core idea here.

[249] And when you do the lectures live, especially, you have to, there's no second takes.

[250] That is the luxury you get if you're recording a video for YouTube or something like that.

[251] But it definitely is a luxury you shouldn't lean on.

[252] I've gotten to interact with a few YouTubers that lean on that too much and you realize, oh, you've gamified this system because you're not really thinking deeply about stuff.

[253] You're through the edit, both written and spoken.

[254] You're crafting an amazing video, but you yourself as a human being have not really deeply understood it.

[255] So live teaching, or at least recording video with very few takes, is a different, beast.

[256] And I think it's the most honest way of doing it, like, as few takes as possible.

[257] That's what I'm nervous about this.

[258] Don't go back and be like, oh, let's do that.

[259] Don't fuck this up, Liv.

[260] The tyranny of exams.

[261] I do think, you know, people talk about, you know, high school and college as a time to do drugs and drink and have fun and all this kind of stuff.

[262] But, you know, looking back, of course, I did a lot of those things.

[263] No, yes, but it's also a time when you get to, like, read textbooks or read books or learn with all the time in the world.

[264] Like, you don't have these responsibilities of, like, you know, laundry and having to sort of pay for mortgage or all that kind of stuff, pay taxes, all this kind of stuff.

[265] In most cases, there's just so much time in the day for learning, and you don't realize at the time, because at the time it seems like a chore.

[266] Like, why the hell does?

[267] There's so much homework.

[268] But you never get a chance to do this kind of learning, this kind of homework, ever again in life, unless later in life you really make a big effort out of it.

[269] You basically, your knowledge gets solidified.

[270] You don't get to have fun and learn.

[271] Learning is really fulfilling and really fun, if you're at that.

[272] kind of person.

[273] Like some people like, you know, like knowledge is not something that they think is fun.

[274] But if that's the kind of thing that you think is fun, that's the time to have fun and do the drugs and drinking and all that kind of stuff.

[275] But the learning, just going back to those textbooks, the hours spent with the textbooks is really, really rewarding.

[276] Do people even use textbooks anymore?

[277] Yeah.

[278] Do you think?

[279] Because it's these days with their TikTok and they're not even that, but just like so much information, really high quality information, you know, is now in digital format online.

[280] Yeah, but they're not, there are using that, but, you know, college is still very, there's a curriculum.

[281] I mean, so much a school is about rigorous study of a subject and still on YouTube that's not there.

[282] Right.

[283] YouTube has, Grant Sanderson talks about this.

[284] He's this math education.

[285] Three Blue and Brown.

[286] Yeah, Three Blue on Brown.

[287] He says, like, I'm not a math teacher.

[288] I just take really cool concepts and I inspire people.

[289] But if you want to really learn calculus, if you want to really learn linear algebra, you should do the textbook.

[290] You should do that.

[291] And there's still the textbook industrial complex that charges like $2 ,100 for textbook and somehow, I don't know.

[292] It's ridiculous.

[293] Well, they're like, oh, sorry, new edition.

[294] Edition 14 .6, sorry, you can't use 14 .5 anymore.

[295] It's like, what's different?

[296] We've got one paragraph different.

[297] So we mentioned offline Daniel Negrano.

[298] I'm going to get a chance to talk to him on this podcast, and he's somebody that I found fascinating in terms of the way he thinks about poker, verbalizes the way he thinks about poker, the way he plays poker.

[299] And he's still pretty damn good.

[300] He's been good for a long time.

[301] So you mentioned that people are running these kinds of simulations and the game of poker has changed.

[302] Do you think he's adapting in this way?

[303] Like the top pros, do they have to adopt this way?

[304] Or is there still, like, over the years, you basically develop this gut feeling about, like, you get to be, like, good the way, like, Alpha Zero is good.

[305] You look at the board, and somehow from the fog comes out the right answer.

[306] Like, this is likely what they have, this is likely the best way to move and you don't really you can't really put a finger on exactly why but it just comes from your gut feeling or no yes and no so gut feelings are definitely very important um you know that we've got our two modes or you can distill it down to two modes of decision making right you've got your sort of logical linear voice in your head system two as it's often called and your system on your your gut your intuition And historically in poker, the very best players were playing almost entirely by their gut.

[307] You know, often they would do some kind of inspired play and you'd ask them why they do it and they wouldn't really be able to explain it.

[308] And that's not so much because their process was unintelligible, but it was more just because no one had the language with which to describe what optimal strategies were because no one really understood how poker worked.

[309] This was before, you know, we had analysis software.

[310] You know, no one was writing, you know, I guess some people would write down their hands in a little notebook.

[311] But there was no way to assimilate all this data and analyze it.

[312] But then, you know, with when computers became cheaper and software started emerging and then obviously online poker where it would like automatically save your hand histories, now all of a sudden you kind of had this body of data that you could run analysis on.

[313] And so that's when people started to see, you know, these mathematical solutions.

[314] and so what that meant is the role of intuition essentially became smaller and it went more into as we talked before about this game theory optimal style but also as I said like game theory optimal is about loss minimization and being unexploitable but if you're playing against people who aren't because no person no human being can play perfectly game theory optimal in poker not even the best AI's they're still like, they're 99 .99 % of the way there or whatever, but it's kind of like the speed of light.

[315] You can't reach it perfectly.

[316] So there's still a role for intuition?

[317] Yes.

[318] So when, yeah, when you're playing this unexploitable style, but when your opponents start doing something, you know, suboptimal that you want to exploit, well, now that's where not only your like logical brain will need to be thinking, oh, okay, I know I have this, my, I'm in the sort of top end of my range here with this, with this hand.

[319] So that means I need to be calling X percent of the time and I put them on this range, et cetera.

[320] But then sometimes you'll have this gut feeling that will tell you, you know, this time, I know, I know mathematically I'm meant to call now.

[321] You know, I've got, I'm in the sort of top end of my range and this is the odds I'm getting.

[322] So the math says I should call, but there's something in your gut saying, they've got it this time.

[323] They've got it.

[324] like they're beating you your hand is worse so then the real art this is where the last remaining art in poker the fuzziness is like do you listen to your gut how do you quantify the strength of it or can you even quantify the strength of it and I think that's what Daniel has I mean I can't speak for how much he's studying with the simulators and that kind of thing I think he has like he must be to still be keeping up.

[325] But he has an incredible intuition for just.

[326] He's seen so many hands of poker in the flesh.

[327] He's seen so many people the way they behave when the chips are, you know, when the money's on the line and he's got him staring you down in the eye.

[328] You know, he's intimidating.

[329] He's got this like kind of X factor vibe that he, you know, gives out.

[330] And he talks a lot, which is an interactive element, which is he's getting stuff from other people.

[331] Yes.

[332] Yeah.

[333] And just like the subtlety.

[334] So he's like, he's probing constantly.

[335] Yeah, he's probing and he's getting this extra layer of information that others can't.

[336] Now, that said, though, he's good online as well.

[337] You know, I don't know how, again, would he be beating the top cash game players online?

[338] Probably not.

[339] No. But when he's in person and he's got that additional layer of information, he can not only extract it, but he knows what to do with it still so well.

[340] There's one player who I would say is the exception to all of this.

[341] and he's one of my favorite people to talk about in terms of I think he might have cracked the simulation is Phil Helmuth he in more ways than one he's cracked the simulation I think yeah he somehow to this day is still and I love you Phil don't I'm not in any way knocking you he's still winning so much at the World Series of poker specifically he's now on 16 bracelets the next nearest person I think is one 10.

[342] And he is consistently year and year out going deep or winning these huge field tournaments, you know, with like 2 ,000 people, which statistically he should not be doing.

[343] And yet, you watch some of the plays he makes, and they make no sense.

[344] Like, mathematically, they are so far from game theory optimal.

[345] And the thing is, if you went and stuck him in one of these high -stakes cash games with a bunch of, like, GTO people, he's going to get ripped apart.

[346] But there's something that he has that when he's in the halls of the World Series of Poker, specifically, amongst sort of amateurish players, he gets them to do crazy shit like that.

[347] But my little pet theory is that also he just the car, he's like a wizard, and he gets the cards to do what he needs them to.

[348] Because he just expects to win, and he expects to get flop a set with a frequency far, beyond what this, you know, the, the real percentages are.

[349] And I don't even know if he knows what the real percentages are.

[350] He doesn't need to because he gets there.

[351] I think he has found the Chico because when I've seen him play, he seems to be like annoyed that the long shot thing didn't happen.

[352] Yes.

[353] He's like annoyed and it's almost like everybody else is stupid because he was obviously going to win with this.

[354] Fent to win if that silly thing hadn't happened.

[355] And it's like, you don't understand.

[356] The silly thing happens 99 % of the time.

[357] And it's a 1 % not the other way around, but genuinely for his lived experience at the world, only at the world there is a poker, it is like that.

[358] So I don't blame him for feeling that way.

[359] But he does.

[360] He has this, he has this X factor.

[361] And the poker community has tried for years to rip him down saying, like, you know, he doesn't, he's no good, but he's clearly good because he's still winning or there's something going on, whether that's, he's figured out how to mess with the fabric of reality and how cards, you know, a randomly shuffled deck of cards come out.

[362] I don't know what it is, but he's doing it right still.

[363] Who do you think is the greatest of all time?

[364] Would you put Helmuth?

[365] It depends.

[366] He seems like the kind of person when mentioned he would actually watch this so you might want to be careful.

[367] As I said, I love Phil.

[368] And I have, I would say this to his face.

[369] I'm not saying anything.

[370] I don't.

[371] He's got, he truly, I mean, he is one of the greatest.

[372] Yeah.

[373] I don't know if he's the greatest.

[374] He's certainly the greatest at the World Series of Poker.

[375] And he is the greatest at discering.

[376] Despite the game switching into a pure game, almost an entire game of math, he has managed to keep the magic alive.

[377] And this like, just through sheer force of will making the game work for him.

[378] And that is incredible.

[379] And I think it's something that should be studied, because it's an example.

[380] Yeah, there might be some actual game theoretical wisdom.

[381] There might be something to be said about optimality from studying him.

[382] What do you mean by optimality?

[383] Meaning, or rather, game design, perhaps.

[384] meaning if what he's doing is working, maybe poker is more complicated than we're currently modeling it as.

[385] Or there's an extra layer, and I don't mean to get too weird and wooey.

[386] Or there's an extra layer of ability to manipulate the things, the way you want them to go that we don't understand yet.

[387] Do you think Phil Helmuth understands them?

[388] Is he just generally...

[389] Hashtag positivity?

[390] He wrote a book on positivity And he has, he did Not like a trolling book No, a serious?

[391] Straight up, yeah From Helmuth wrote a book about positivity Yes Okay, not ironically And I think it's about sort of manifesting what you want And getting the outcomes that you want By believing so much in yourself And in your ability to win Like eyes on the prize And I mean it's working The man's delivered But where do you put, like, Phil Ivy and all those kinds of people?

[392] I mean, I'm too, I've been, to be honest, too much out of the scene for the last few years to really, I mean, Phil Ivy's clearly got, again, he's got that X factor.

[393] He's so incredibly intimidating to play against.

[394] I've only played against him a couple of times.

[395] But when he, like, looks him in the eye and you're trying to run a bluff on him, oof, no one's made me sweat harder than Phil Ivy, just, my bluff got through, actually.

[396] That was actually one of the most thrilling moments I've ever had in poker was.

[397] It was in a Monte Carlo and a high roller.

[398] I can't remember exactly what the hand was, but I, you know, a three -bit and then, like, just barreled all the way through, and he just, like, put his laser eyes into me. And I felt like he was just scouring my soul.

[399] And I was just, like, hold it together, Liv, hold it together.

[400] And he was like, you know, your hand was weaker.

[401] Yeah, I mean, I was bluffing.

[402] I presume, which, you know, there's a chance I was bluffing with the best hand, but I'm pretty sure my hand was worse.

[403] and he folded I was truly one of my one of the deep highlights of my career Did you show the cards or did you fall?

[404] You should never show in game because especially as I felt like I was one of the worst players at the table in that tournament so giving that information unless I had a really solid plan that I was now like advertising oh look I'm capable of bluffing Phil Ivy but like why it's much more valuable to take advantage of the impression that they have of me which is like I'm a scared girl playing a high roller for the first time.

[405] Got it.

[406] Keep that going, you know.

[407] Interesting.

[408] But isn't there layers to this, like psychological warfare that the scared girl might be way smart?

[409] And then, like, to flip the tables?

[410] Do you think about that kind of stuff?

[411] Oh, definitely.

[412] I mean, you're always, is it better not to reveal information?

[413] I mean, generally speaking, you want to not reveal information.

[414] You know, the goal of poker is to be as deceptive as possible about your own strategies while elucidating as much out of your opponent about their own.

[415] So giving them free information, particularly if they're people who you consider very good players, any information I give them is going into their little database and I assume it's going to be calculated and used well.

[416] So I have to be really confident that my meta -gaming that I'm going to then do, or they've seen this, so therefore that, I'm going to be on the right level.

[417] So it's better just to keep that little secret to myself in the moment.

[418] So how much is bluffing part of the game?

[419] Huge amount.

[420] so yeah i mean maybe actually let me ask like what did it feel like with phil ivy or anyone else when it's a high stake when it's a big it's a big bluff um so a lot of money in the table and maybe i mean what defines a big bluff maybe a lot of money in the table but also some uncertainty in your mind and heart about like self -doubt well maybe i miscalculated what's going on here what the bet said all that kind of stuff like what does that feel like I mean, it's, I imagine, comparable to, you know, running a, I mean, any kind of big bluff where you have a lot of something that you care about on the line, you know, so if you're bluffing in a courtroom, not that I didn't want to ever do that, or, you know, something equatable to that.

[421] It's, it's incredible, you know, in that scenario, you know, I think it was the first time I'd ever played a 20, I'd won my way into this 25K.

[422] tournament.

[423] So that was the buy -in, 25 ,000 euros.

[424] And I had satelliteed my way in because it was much bigger than I would never, ever normally play.

[425] And, you know, I hadn't, I wasn't that experienced at the time.

[426] And now I was sitting there against all the big boys, you know, the Nogranos, the Phil IVs and so on.

[427] And then, uh, to like, you know, each time you put the bets out, you know, you put another bet out, your car, you know, I was on a, what's called a semi -bluff.

[428] So there were some cards that could come that would make my hand very, very, very very strong and therefore win.

[429] But most of the time those cards don't come.

[430] So it's a semi -buff because you're representing, are you representing that you already have something?

[431] So I think in this scenario, I had a flush draw.

[432] So I had two clubs, two clubs came out on the flop, and then I'm hoping that on the turn and the river, one will come.

[433] So I have some future equity.

[434] I could hit a club, and then I'll have the best hand, in which case, great.

[435] And so I can keep betting and I'll want them to call.

[436] But I'm also got the other way of winning the hand where if my card doesn't come, I can keep betting and get them to fold their hand.

[437] And I'm pretty sure that's what the scenario was.

[438] So I had some future equity, but it's still, you know, most of the time I don't hit that club.

[439] And so I would rather him just fold because I'm, you know, the pot is now getting bigger and bigger.

[440] And in the end, like I jam all in on the river, that's my entire tournament on the line.

[441] As far as I'm aware, this might be the one time I ever get to play a big 25 okay, you know, this was the first time I played one.

[442] So it was, it felt like the most momentous thing.

[443] And this was also when I was trying to build myself up, you know, build my name, a name for myself in poker.

[444] I wanted to get respect.

[445] Destroy everything for you.

[446] It felt like it in the moment.

[447] Like, I mean, it literally does feel like a form of life and death.

[448] Like your body physiologically is having that flight or fight response.

[449] What are you doing with your body?

[450] What are you doing with your face?

[451] Are you just like, what are you thinking about?

[452] More a mixture of like, okay, what are the cards?

[453] So in theory, I'm thinking about, like, okay, what are cards that make my hand look stronger, which cards hit my perceived range from his perspective, which cards don't, what's the right amount of bet size to, you know, maximize my fold equity in this situation?

[454] You know, that's the logical stuff that I should be thinking about.

[455] But I think in reality, because I was so scared, because there's this, at least for me, there's a certain threshold of, like, nervousness or stress beyond which the, like, logical brain shuts off and now it just gets into this like it just like it feels like a game of wits basically it's like of nerve can you hold your hold your resolve and it certainly got by that like by the river at this I think by that point I was like I don't even know if this is a good bluff anymore but fuck it let's do it your mind is almost numb from the intensity of that feeling I call it the white noise and and that's this and it happens in all kinds of decision making I think anything but it's really really stressful.

[456] I can imagine someone in like an important job interview.

[457] If it's like a job they've always wanted and they're getting grilled, you know, like Bridgewater style where they ask these really, like, really hard, like mathematical questions.

[458] You know, that's, it's a really learned skill to be able to like subdue your flight or fight response, you know, I think get from the sympathetic into the parasympathetic so you can actually, you know, engage the, that voice in your head and do those slow logical calculations.

[459] Because evolutionarily, we, you know, if we see a lion running at us.

[460] We didn't have time to sort of calculate the lion's kinetic energy and, you know, is it optimal to go this way or that way?

[461] You just react it.

[462] And physically, our bodies are well attuned to actually make right decisions.

[463] But when you're playing a game like poker, this is not something that you ever, you know, evolved to do.

[464] And yet you're in that same flight or fight response.

[465] And so that's a really important skill to be able to develop to basically learn how to like meditate in the moment and calm yourself so that you can think, Lily.

[466] But as you were searching for a comparable thing, it's interesting because you just made me realize that bluffing is like an incredibly high -stakes form of lying.

[467] You're lying.

[468] And I don't think you - Telling a story.

[469] It's straight up lying.

[470] In the context of a game, it's not a negative kind of lying.

[471] But it is, yeah, exactly.

[472] You are, you're representing something that you don't have.

[473] And I was thinking, like, how often in life do we have such high -stakes?

[474] of lying, because I was thinking, certainly in high -level military strategy, I was thinking when Hitler was lying to Stalin about his plans to invade the Soviet Union.

[475] And so you're talking to a person like your friends, and you're fighting against the enemy, whatever the formulation of that enemy is.

[476] But meanwhile, whole time you're building up troops on the border.

[477] That's extremely...

[478] Wait, wait.

[479] So Hitler and Stalin were, like, pretending to be friends?

[480] Well, my history knowledge is terrible.

[481] That's crazy.

[482] Yeah, that there were...

[483] Yeah, man. And it worked because Stalin, until the troops crossed the border and invaded in Operation Barbarossa, where this storm of Nazi troops invaded large parts of the Soviet Union, and hence one of the biggest wars in human history, began.

[484] Stalin for sure was thought that this was never going to be, that Hitler is not crazy enough to invade the Soviet Union.

[485] And it makes, geopolitically, makes total sense to be collaborators.

[486] And ideologically, even though there's a tension between communism and fascism or national socialism, however you formulated, it still feels like this is the right way to battle the West.

[487] Right.

[488] They were more ideologically aligned.

[489] You know, they were, they in theory had a common enemy, which was the West.

[490] So it made total sense.

[491] And in terms of negotiations and the way things were communicated, it seemed to Stalin that for sure that they would remain, at least for a while, peaceful collaborators.

[492] And everybody, because of that in the Soviet Union, believed that it was a huge shock when Kiev was invaded.

[493] And you hear echoes of that when I travel to Ukraine sort of the shock of the invasion.

[494] It's not just the invasion on one particular border, but the invasion of the capital city.

[495] And just like, holy shit, especially at that time when you thought World War I, you realized that that was the war to end all wars.

[496] You would never have this kind of war.

[497] And holy shit, this person is mad enough to try to take on this monster in the Soviet Union.

[498] So it's no longer going to be a war.

[499] of hundreds of thousands dead it'll be a war of tens of millions dead and um yeah but that like you know that's a very large scale kind of lie but i'm sure there's in politics and geopolitics that kind of lying happening all the time uh and a lot of people pay financially and with their lives for that kind of lying but in our personal lives i don't know how often we uh maybe we i think people do i mean like think of spouses cheating on their partners right and then like having to lie like where were you last night stuff like that stuff yeah like that's i think you know i mean unfortunately that stuff happens all the time right so or having like multiple families that one is great when when each family doesn't know the other about the other one and like maintaining that life there's probably a sense of excitement about that too um and or seems unnecessary yeah well just lying like like like you know the truth finds a way of coming out you know yes but hence that's the thrill.

[500] Yeah, perhaps.

[501] Yeah, people.

[502] I mean, you know, that's what's why I think actually like poker, what's so interesting about poker is most of the best players I know, they're always exceptions, you know, they're always bad eggs, but actually poker players are very honest people.

[503] I would say they are more honest than the average, you know, if you just took random, uh, random population sample, um, because a, you know, I think, you know, humans like to have that most people like to have some kind of, you know, mysterious, you know, an opportunity to do something like a little edgy.

[504] So we get to sort of scratch that itch of being edgy at the poker table where it's like, it's part of the game.

[505] Everyone knows, everyone knows what they're in for, and that's allowed.

[506] And you get to like really get that out of your system.

[507] And then also, like, poker players learned that, you know, I would play in a huge game against some of my friends, even my partner, Igor, where we will be, you know, absolutely going at each other's throats, trying to draw blood in terms of winning each money off each other and getting under each other's skin, winding each other up, doing the craftiest moves we can.

[508] But then once the game's done, the winners and the losers will go off and get a drink together and have a fun time and talk about it in this weird academic way afterwards.

[509] And that's why games are so great, because you get to live out, like, this competitive urge that, you know, most people have.

[510] What's they feel like to lose?

[511] like we talked about bluffing when it worked out what about when you go broke so like in a game i i'm fortunately i've never gone broke uh you mean like full life full life no um i know plenty of people who have um and i don't think eagle would mind me saying he went you know he went broke once in poker well you know early on when we were together um i feel like you haven't lived unless you've gone broke oh yeah i've some sense right well i fundamental sense.

[512] I mean, I'm happy.

[513] I've sort of lived through it vicariously through him when he did it at the time.

[514] But yeah, what does it like to lose?

[515] Well, it depends.

[516] So it depends on the amount.

[517] It depends what percentage of your net worth you've just lost.

[518] It depends on your brain chemistry.

[519] It really, you know, varies from person to person.

[520] You have a very cold calculating way of thinking about this.

[521] So it depends what percentage.

[522] Well, it really does, right?

[523] Yeah, it's true.

[524] But that's, I mean, that's another thing poker trains you to do.

[525] You see everything in percentages.

[526] or you see everything in like ROI or expected hourly or cost benefit, etc. You know, so that's, one of the things I've tried to do is calibrate the strength of my emotional response to the win or loss that I've received because it's no good if, like, you know, you have a huge emotional dramatic response to a tiny loss.

[527] Or on the flip side, you have a huge win and you're so dead inside that you don't even feel it.

[528] Well, that's, you know, that's a shame.

[529] my emotions to calibrate with reality as much as possible.

[530] So yeah, what's it like to lose?

[531] I mean, I've had times where I've lost, you know, busted out of a tournament that I thought I was going to win in, especially if I got really unlucky or where I make a dumb play, where I've gone away and, like, you know, kicked the wall, punched a wall.

[532] I, like, nearly broke my hand one time.

[533] Like, I'm a lot less competitive than I used to be.

[534] Like, I was, like, pathologically competitive in my, like, late teens, early 20s.

[535] I just had to win it everything.

[536] And I think that sort of slowly waned as I've gotten older.

[537] According to you, yeah.

[538] According to me. I don't know if others would say the same, right?

[539] I feel like ultra -competitive people.

[540] Like, I've heard Joe Rogan say this to me. It's like, he's a lot less competitive than he used to be.

[541] I don't know about that.

[542] Oh, I believe it.

[543] No, I totally believe it.

[544] Like, because as you get, you can still be, like, I care about winning.

[545] Like when, you know, I play a game with my buddies online or, you know, whatever it is, Polytopia is my current obsession.

[546] Like, when I...

[547] Thank you for passing on your obsession to me. Are you playing now?

[548] Yeah, I'm playing now.

[549] We've got to have a game.

[550] But I'm terrible and I enjoy playing terribly.

[551] I don't want to have a game because that's going to pull me into your monster of, like, competitive play.

[552] It's important.

[553] It's important skill.

[554] I'm enjoying on the, I can't...

[555] You just do the points thing, you know, against the bots.

[556] Yeah, against the bots.

[557] And I can't even do the, there's like a hard one and there's a very hard one.

[558] And that's crazy, yeah.

[559] That's crazy.

[560] I don't even enjoy the hard one.

[561] The crazy I really don't enjoy.

[562] Because it's intense.

[563] You have to constantly try to win as opposed to enjoy building a little world.

[564] Yeah, no, no, no. There's no time for exploration in Polytopia.

[565] You've got to get.

[566] Well, once you graduate from the crazies, then you can come play the.

[567] Graduate from the crazies.

[568] So in order to be able to play a decent game against, like, you know, our group, you'll, You'll need to be consistently winning, like, 90 % of games against 15 crazy bots.

[569] Yeah.

[570] And you'll be able to.

[571] Like, there'd be, I could teach you it within a day, honestly.

[572] How to beat the crazies?

[573] How to beat the crazies.

[574] And then you'll be ready for the big leagues.

[575] I feel like this generalizes to more than just Politopia.

[576] But okay, why were we talking about Politopia?

[577] Losing hurts.

[578] Losing hurts.

[579] Oh, yeah.

[580] Yes, competitiveness over time.

[581] Oh, yeah.

[582] I think it's more that, at least for me, I still care about winning when I choose to play something.

[583] It's just that I don't see the world as zero sum as I used to be, you know.

[584] I think as one gets older and wiser, you start to see the world more as a positive something.

[585] Or at least you're more aware of externalities of scenarios, of competitive interactions.

[586] And so, yeah, I just, like, I'm more, and I'm more aware of my own, you know, like, if I have a really strong emotional response to losing, and that makes me then feel shitty for the rest of the day, and then I beat myself up mentally for it.

[587] I'm now more aware that that's unnecessary negative externality.

[588] So I'm like, okay, I need to find a way to turn this down, you know, dial this down a bit.

[589] Was poker the thing that has, if you think back of your life, and think about some of the lower points of your life, like the darker places you've gone in your mind, did it have to do something with poker?

[590] Like, did losing spark?

[591] the descent into darkness, or is it something else?

[592] I think my darkest points in poker were when I was wanting to quit and move on to other things, but I felt like I hadn't ticked all the boxes I wanted to tick.

[593] Like I wanted to be the most winningest female player, which is by itself a bad goal.

[594] You know, that was one of my initial goals, and I was like, well, I haven't, you know, And I wanted to win a WPT event.

[595] I've won one of these, I won one of these, but I want one of those as well.

[596] And that, again, like, it's a drive of, like, over -optimization to random metrics that I decided were important, without much wisdom at the time, but then, like, carried on.

[597] That made me continue chasing it longer than I still actually had the passion to chase it for.

[598] And I don't have any regrets that, you know, I played for as long as I did, because who knows, you know, I wouldn't be sitting here.

[599] I wouldn't be living this incredible life that I'm living now.

[600] This is the height of your life right now.

[601] This is it.

[602] Peak experience.

[603] Absolute pinnacle here in your robot land.

[604] Yeah.

[605] With your creepy light.

[606] No, it is.

[607] I mean, I wouldn't change a thing about my life right now, and I feel very blessed to say that.

[608] So, but the dark times were in the sort of like 2016 to 18, even sooner really where I was like I'd stopped loving the game and I was going through the motions and I would and then I was like you know I would take the losses harder than I needed to because I'm like oh it's another one and it was I was aware that like I felt like my life was ticking away and I was like is this going to be what's on my tombstone oh yeah she played the game of you know this zero sum game of poker slightly more optimally than her next opponent like cool great legacy you know So, I just wanted, you know, there was something in me that knew I needed to be doing something more directly impactful and just meaningful.

[609] It was just like a search for meaning.

[610] And I think it's a thing a lot of poker players, even a lot of, I imagine any games players who sort of love intellectual pursuits.

[611] You know, I think you should ask Magnus Carlson this question.

[612] Yeah, walking away from chess, right?

[613] Yeah, like it must be so hard for him.

[614] You know, he's been on the top for so long.

[615] And it's like, well, now what?

[616] he's got this incredible brain like what to put it to um and yeah it's it's this weird moment where i was just spoken with people that won multiple gold medals at the olympics and the depression hits hard after you win dopamine crash because it's a kind of a goodbye saying goodbye to that person to all the dreams you had the thought you thought would give meaning to your life but in fact life is full of constant pursuits of meaning it's it doesn't you don't like arrive and figure it all out and there's endless bliss now it continues going on and on you constantly have to figure out to rediscover yourself and so for you like that struggle to say goodbye to poker you have to like find the next there's always a bigger game that's the thing that's my like motto it's like what's the next game and more importantly, because obviously game usually implies zero sum, like what's the game which is like Omni Win?

[617] Omni Win.

[618] Omni Win.

[619] Why is Omni Win?

[620] Why is Omni Win is so important?

[621] Because if everyone plays zero -sum games, that's a fast track to either completely stagnate as a civilization, but more actually far more likely to extinct ourselves.

[622] You know, like the playing field is finite.

[623] Yeah.

[624] You know, nuclear powers are playing, you know, a game of poker with their, you know, but their chips are nuclear weapons, right?

[625] And the stakes have gotten so large that if anyone makes a single bet, you know, fires some weapons, the playing field breaks.

[626] I made a video on this.

[627] Like, you know, the playing field is finite.

[628] And if we keep playing these adversarial zero -sum games, thinking that we, you know, in order for us to win, someone else has to lose, Or if we lose that, you know, someone else wins, that will extinct us.

[629] It's just a matter of when.

[630] What do you think about that mutually assured destruction, that very simple, almost to the point of caricaturing game theory, idea that does seem to be at the core of why we haven't blown each other up yet with nuclear weapons?

[631] Do you think there's some truth to that, this kind of stabilizing force of mutually assured destruction?

[632] And do you think that's going to hold up through the nuclear?

[633] the 21st century.

[634] I mean, it's, it has, it has held, yes, there's definitely truth to it, that it was a, you know, it's a Nash equilibrium.

[635] Yeah, are you surprised it held this long?

[636] Um, isn't it crazy?

[637] It is crazy when you factor in all the like, near miss accidental firings.

[638] Yes, that's, makes me wonder, like, you know, you know, that you're familiar with the, like, quantum suicide thought experiment.

[639] No. Where it's basically, like, uh, you have a, you know, like a, you know, like a, a, you know, like, a Russian roulette type scenario hooked up to some kind of quantum event, you know, particle splitting or periparticle splitting.

[640] And if it, you know, if it goes A, then the gun doesn't go off and it goes B, then it does go off and it kills you.

[641] Because you can only ever be in the universe, you know, assuming like the Everett branch, you know, multiverse theory, you will always only end up in the branch where you continually make, you know, option A comes in.

[642] But you run that experiment enough times it starts getting pretty damn you know out of the the tree gets huge there's a million different scenarios but you'll always find yourself in this in the one where it didn't go off and uh and so from that perspective you you are essentially immortal because someone and and you will only find yourself in the set of observers that make it down that path yeah so it's it's it doesn't mean that doesn't that that doesn't mean you're still not going to be fucked at some point in your life No, of course not.

[643] I'm not advocating that we're all immortal because of this.

[644] It's just like a fun thought experiment.

[645] And the point is it raises this thing of like these things called observer selection effects, which Bostrom and Nick Bostrom talks about a lot.

[646] And I think people should go read.

[647] It's really powerful, but I think it could be overextended that logic.

[648] I'm not sure exactly how it can be.

[649] I just feel like you can get, you can overgeneralize that logic somehow.

[650] Well, no, I mean, it leaves you into like solipsism, which is a very dangerous mindset.

[651] Again, if everyone like, falls into solipsism of like, well, I'll be fine.

[652] That's a great way of creating a very, you know, self -terminating environment.

[653] But my point is that with the nuclear weapons thing, there have been at least, I think it's 12 or 11, near misses of like just stupid things.

[654] Like there was moonrise over Norway, and it made weird reflections of some glaciers in the mountains, which set off, I think, the alarms of NORAD.

[655] NORAD radar and that put them on high alert nearly ready to shoot and it was only because the head of Russian military happened to be at the UN in New York at the time that they go like well wait a second why would why would they fire now when their guy is there and it was only that lucky happenstance which doesn't happen very often where they didn't then escalate it into firing and there's a bunch of these different ones Stanislav Petrov like saved the person who should be the most famous person on earth because he's probably on expectation saved the most human lives of anyone, like billions of people by ignoring Russian orders to fire because he felt in his gut that actually this was a false alarm and it turned out to be, you know, very hard thing to do.

[656] And there's so many of those scenarios that I can't help but wonder at this point that we aren't having this kind of like selection effect thing going on because you look back and you're like, geez, that's a lot of near misses.

[657] But of course, we don't know the actual probabilities that they would have lent each one would have ended up in nuclear war.

[658] Maybe they were not that likely.

[659] But still, the point is it's a very dark, stupid game that we're playing.

[660] And it is an absolute moral imperative, if you ask me, to get as many people thinking about ways to make this very precarious.

[661] Because we're in a Nash equilibrium, but it's not like we're in the bottom of a pit.

[662] If you would map it topographically, it's not like a stable ball at the bottom of a thing.

[663] We're not an equilibrium because of that.

[664] We're on the top of a hill with a ball balanced on top.

[665] And just any little nudge could send it flying down and nuclear war pops off and hellfire and bad times.

[666] On the positive side, life on Earth will probably still continue.

[667] And another intelligent civilization might still pop up.

[668] Maybe.

[669] Pick your X -risk.

[670] Depends on the X -risk.

[671] Nuclear war, sure.

[672] That's one of the perhaps less bad ones.

[673] Green goo through synthetic biology, very bad.

[674] It will turn, you know, destroy all organic matter through, you know, it's basically like a biological paper -dlet maximizer.

[675] also bad.

[676] Or AI type, you know, mass extinction thing as well would also be bad.

[677] Shh, they're listening.

[678] There's a robot right behind you.

[679] Okay, wait.

[680] So let me ask you about this from a game theory perspective.

[681] Do you think we're living in a simulation?

[682] Do you think we're living inside a video game created by somebody else?

[683] Well, so what was the second part of the question?

[684] Do I think we're living in a simulation and a simulation that is observed by somebody for purpose of entertainment?

[685] so like a video game are we listening how we because there's a it's like philhelmuth type of situation right like um there's a creepy level of like this is kind of fun and interesting like there's a lot of interesting stuff going on i mean that could be somehow integrated into the evolutionary process where it the way we perceive and are you asking me if i believe in god sounds like it kind of but god seems to be not optimizing uh in the different formulations of god that we conceive of he doesn't seem to be or she optimizing for uh like personal entertainment maybe the older gods did but the the you know just like basically like a teenager in their mom's basement watching create a fun universe to observe What kind of crazy shit might happen.

[686] Okay, so to try and ask this, do I think there is some kind of extraneous intelligence to like our, you know, classic measurable universe that we, you know, can measure with, you know, through our current physics and instruments?

[687] I think so, yes.

[688] partly because I've had just small little bits of evidence in my own life, which have made me question.

[689] So I was a diehard atheist even five years ago.

[690] You know, I got into the rationality community, big fan of less wrong, continued to be, an incredible resource.

[691] But I've just started to have too many little snippets of experience.

[692] which don't make sense with the current sort of purely materialistic explanation of how reality works.

[693] Isn't that just like a humbling practical realization that we don't know how reality works?

[694] Isn't that just a reminder to yourself?

[695] Yeah, no, it's a reminder of epistemic humility because I fell too hard.

[696] You know, same as people, like I think, you know, many people who are just, like, my religion is the way, this is the correct way, this is the work, this is the law, you are immoral if you don't follow this, blah, blah, blah, I think they are lacking epistemic humility.

[697] They're a little too much hubris there.

[698] But similarly, I think the sort of the Richard Dawkins brand of atheism is too, is too rigid as well and doesn't, you know, there's a way to try and navigate these questions, which still honors the scientific method, which I still think is our best sort of realm of like reasonable inquiry, you know, a method of inquiry.

[699] So an example.

[700] I have two kind of notable examples that like really rattled my, my cage.

[701] The first one was actually in 2010, early on in, quite early on in my poker career.

[702] And I, the, I, the, remember the Icelandic volcano that erupted that like shut down kind of all Atlantic airspace?

[703] and it meant I got stuck down in the south of France I was there for something else and I couldn't get home and someone said well there's a big poker tournament happening in Italy maybe do you want to go I was like alright sure like let's you know got a train across found a way to get there and the buy -in was 5 ,000 euros which was much bigger than my bankroll would normally allow and so I played a feeder tournament won my way in kind of like I did with the Monte Carlo big one so then I won my way you know, from 500 euros into 5 ,000 euros to play this thing.

[704] And on day one of then the big tournament, which turned out to have, it was the biggest tournament ever held in Europe at the time.

[705] It got over like 1 ,200 people, absolutely huge.

[706] And I remember they dimmed the lights before, you know, the normal shuffle up and deal to tell everyone to start playing.

[707] And they played Chemical Brothers, Hey Boy, Hey Girl, which I don't know why it's notable, but it was just like a really, it was a song I always liked.

[708] It was like one of these like Pump Me Up songs.

[709] And I was sitting there thinking, oh, yeah, it's exciting.

[710] I'm playing this really big tournament.

[711] And out of nowhere, just suddenly this voice in my head just, and it sounded like my own sort of, you know, when you think in your mind you hear a voice kind of, right?

[712] At least I do.

[713] And so it sounded like my own voice and it said, you are going to win this tournament.

[714] And it was so powerful that I got this like wave of like, you know, sort of goosebumps down my body.

[715] And I even, I remember looking around being like, did anyone else hear that?

[716] And obviously people are in their phones, like, no one else heard it.

[717] And I was like, okay, six days later, I win the fucking tournament out of 1 ,200 people.

[718] And I don't know how to explain it.

[719] Okay, yes, maybe I have that feeling before every time I play.

[720] And it's just that I happen to, you know, because I won the tournament, I retroactively remembered it.

[721] Or the feeling.

[722] gave you a kind of now from the film Helmutian well exactly like it gave you a confident a deep confidence and it did it definitely did like I remember then feeling this like sort of well although I remember then on day I then went and lost half my stack quite early on and I remember thinking like well that was bullshit you know what kind of premonition is this thinking oh I'm out but you know I managed to like keep it together and recover and then and then just went like pretty perfectly from then on and either way it definitely definitely instilled me with this confidence.

[723] And I don't want to put a, I don't, I can't put an explanation.

[724] Like, you know, was it some, you know, huge extra extra, extra, you know, supernatural thing driving me?

[725] Or was it just my own self -confidence and someone that just made me make the right decisions?

[726] I don't know.

[727] And I don't, I'm not going to put a frame on it.

[728] And I think I know a good explanation.

[729] So we're a bunch of NPCs living in this world created by in the simulation.

[730] And then people, uh, not people, creatures from outside.

[731] of the simulation, sort of can tune in and play your character.

[732] And that feeling you got is somebody just like, they got to play a poker tournament through you.

[733] Honestly, it felt like that.

[734] It did actually feel a little bit like that.

[735] But it's been 12 years now.

[736] I've retold a story many times.

[737] Like, I don't even know how much I can trust my memory.

[738] You're just an NPC where you're telling the same story because they just played the tournament and left.

[739] Yeah, they're like, oh, that was fun.

[740] Cool.

[741] Yeah, cool.

[742] Next time.

[743] And now you're for the rest of your life left as a boring NPC.

[744] see retelling this story of greatness.

[745] And what was interesting was that after that, then I didn't obviously win a major tournament for quite a long time.

[746] And it left, that was actually another sort of dark period because I had this incredible, like the highs of winning that, you know, just on a like material level were insane, winning the money.

[747] I was on the front page of newspapers because it was like this girl that came out of nowhere and won this big thing.

[748] And so again, like sort of chasing that feeling was difficult.

[749] But then on top of that, that was this feeling of like almost being touched by something bigger that was like, ugh.

[750] And also maybe, did you have a sense that I might be somebody special?

[751] Like, this kind of, I think that's the confidence thing that maybe you could do something special in this world after all kind of feeling?

[752] I definitely, I mean, this is a thing I think everybody wrestles with to an extent, right?

[753] We are truly the protagonists in our own lives.

[754] And so it's a natural bias, human bias, to feel special.

[755] And I think, and in some ways we are special, every single person is special because you are that, the universe does, the world literally does revolve around you.

[756] That's the thing, in some respect.

[757] But, of course, if you then zoom out and take the amalgam of everyone's experiences, then no, it doesn't.

[758] So there is this shared sort of objective reality, but, sorry, this objective reality, that is shared, but then there's also this subjective reality, which is truly unique to you.

[759] And I think both of those things coexist.

[760] And it's not like one is correct and one is, and again, anyone who's like, oh no, your lived experience is everything versus your lived experience is nothing.

[761] No, it's a blend between these two things.

[762] They can exist concurrently.

[763] But there's a certain kind of sense that at least I've had my whole life.

[764] And I think a lot of people have this is like, well, I'm just like this little person.

[765] Surely I can't be one of those people that do the big thing, right?

[766] There's all these big people doing big things.

[767] There's big actors and actresses, big musicians, there's big business owners and all that kind of stuff, scientists and so on.

[768] I have my own subject experience that I enjoy and so on, but there's like a different layer.

[769] Surely I can't do those great things.

[770] I mean, one of the things just having interacted with a lot of, great people.

[771] I realize, no, they're like just the same, the same, the same humans as me. And that realization, I think, is really empowering.

[772] And, like, to remind yourself, are they?

[773] What are they?

[774] Are they?

[775] Well, in terms, depends on some, yeah.

[776] They're like a bag of insecurities and, um, peculiar sort of, like, their own little weirdnesses and so on.

[777] I should say also not, they have the capacity for brilliance, but they're not generically brilliant.

[778] Like, you know, we tend to say this person or that person is brilliant, but really, no, they're just like sitting there and thinking through stuff, just like the rest of us.

[779] I think they're in the habit of thinking through stuff seriously, and they've built up a habit of not allowing their mind to get trapped in a bunch of bullshit and minutiae of day -to -day life.

[780] They really think big ideas, but those big ideas, it's like allowing yourself the freedom to think big, to realize that you can be one that actually solve this particular big problem.

[781] First, identify a big problem that you care about, then, like, I can actually be the one that solves this problem, and, like, allowing yourself to believe that.

[782] And I think sometimes you do need to have, like, that sharp.

[783] go through your body and a voice tells you you're going to win this tournament.

[784] Well, exactly.

[785] And whether it was, it's this idea of useful fictions.

[786] So again, like going through the classic rationalist training of Less Wrong where it's like you want your map, you know, the image you have of the world in your head to as accurately match up with how the world actually is.

[787] You want the map and the territory to perfectly align as, you know, you want it to be as an accurate representation as possible.

[788] I don't know if I fully subscribe to that anymore, having now had these moments of like feeling of something either bigger or just actually just being overconfident.

[789] Like there's, there is value in overconfidence sometimes.

[790] If you would, you know, take, you know, take Magnus Carlson, right?

[791] If he, I'm sure from a young age, he knew he was very talented.

[792] But I wouldn't be surprised if he was also had something in him to, well, actually, maybe he's a bad example because he truly is the world's greatest.

[793] But someone who was unclear whether they were going to be the world's greatest, but ended up doing extremely well because they had this innate, deep self -confidence, this like even overblown idea of how good their relative skill level is, that gave them the confidence to then pursue this thing and with the kind of focus and dedication that it requires to excel in whatever it is you're trying to do, you know?

[794] And so there are these useful fictions, and that's where I think I diverge slightly.

[795] with the classic sort of rationalist community because that's a field that is worth studying of like how the stories we tell, what the stories we tell to ourselves, even if they are actually false, and even if we suspect they might be false, how it's better to sort of have that little bit of faith.

[796] Like value in faith, I think, actually.

[797] And that's partly another thing that's now led me to explore, you know, the concept of God, whether you want to call it a simulator, the classic theological thing.

[798] I think we're all like elucidating to the same thing.

[799] Now, I don't know, I'm not saying, you know, because obviously the Christian God is like, you know, all benevolent, endless love.

[800] The simulation, at least one of the simulation hypothesis is like, as you said, like a teenager in its bedroom who doesn't really care, doesn't give a shit about the individuals within there.

[801] It just like wants to see how this thing plays out because it's curious and it could turn it off like that.

[802] where on the, you know, we're on the sort of psychopathy to benevolence spectrum God is.

[803] I don't know.

[804] But having, having this, just having a little bit of faith that there is something else out there that might be interested in our outcome is, I think, an essential thing actually for people to find, A, because it creates commonality between, it's something we can all share.

[805] And like, it is uniquely humbling of all of us to an extent.

[806] It's like a common objective.

[807] But B, it gives people that little bit of, like, reserve, you know, when things get really dark.

[808] And I do think things are going to get pretty dark over the next few years.

[809] But it gives that, like, to think that there's something out there that actually wants our game to keep going.

[810] I keep calling it the game, you know, it's a thing C, and I, like, we call it the game.

[811] You and C is, aka Grimes.

[812] Grimes, we call what the game?

[813] Everything is the whole thing?

[814] Yeah, we joke about like.

[815] So everything is a game.

[816] not well the universe like what if what if it's a game and the goal of the game is to figure out like well either how to beat it how to get out of it you know maybe maybe maybe this universe is an escape room like a giant escape room and the goal is to figure out put all the pieces of puzzle figure out how it works in order to like unlock this like hyperdimensional key and get out beyond what it is that's nobody but then so you're saying it's like different levels and it's like a cage within a cage been in a cage, you never locate one cage at a time, you figure out how to escape that.

[817] Like, and you level up, you know, like us becoming multi -planetary would be a level up, or us, you know, figuring out how to upload our consciousnesses to the thing.

[818] That would probably be a leveling up.

[819] Or spiritually, you know, humanity becoming more combined and less adversarial and bloodthirsty and us becoming a little bit more enlightened, that would be a leveling up.

[820] You know, there's many different frames to it, whether it's physical, you know, digital or like metaphysical earth.

[821] I think, I think level one for Earth is probably the biological evolutionary process.

[822] It's like going from single -cell organisms to early humans.

[823] Then maybe level two is whatever is happening inside our minds and creating ideas and creating technologies.

[824] That's like evolutionary process of ideas.

[825] And then multplanetary is interesting.

[826] Is that fundamentally different from what we're doing here on Earth?

[827] Probably, because it allows us to exponentially scale.

[828] It delays the Malthusian trap, right?

[829] It's a way to keep the playing field get larger so that it can accommodate more of our stuff, more of us.

[830] And that's a good thing, but I don't know if it fully solves this issue of well, this thing called Mollock, which we haven't talked about yet, which is basically, I call it the god of unhealthy competition.

[831] Yeah, let's go to Mollock.

[832] What's Mollock?

[833] You did a great video on Mollock, one aspect of it, the application of it to one aspect.

[834] Instagram beauty filters.

[835] Very niche.

[836] I wanted to start off small.

[837] So Mollock was originally coined.

[838] And as, well, so apparently back in the like Canaanite times, it was to say ancient Carthaginian, I can never say it, Carthagin, somewhere around like 300 BC or 200 AD, I don't know, there was supposedly this death cult who would sacrifice their children to this awful demon god thing, they called Mollock, in order to get power to win wars.

[839] So really dark, horrible things.

[840] And it was literally like about child sacrifice.

[841] Whether they actually existed or not, we don't know.

[842] But in mythology they did, and this god that they worshipped was this thing called Mollock.

[843] And then, I don't know, it seemed like it was kind of quiet throughout history in terms of mythology beyond that.

[844] Until this movie Metropolis in 1927 talked about this, you see that there was this incredible futuristic city that everyone was living great in.

[845] But then the protagonist goes underground into the sewers and sees that the city is wrong.

[846] run by this machine.

[847] And this machine basically would just like kill the workers all the time because it was just so hard to keep it running.

[848] They were always dying.

[849] So there was all this suffering that was required in order to keep the city going.

[850] And then the protagonist has this vision that this machine is actually this demon moloch.

[851] So again, it's like this sort of like mechanistic consumption of humans in order to get more power.

[852] And then Alan Ginsberg wrote a poem in the Molek.

[853] And a lot of people sort of quite understandably take the interpretation of that he's talking about capitalism.

[854] But then the sort of piece to resistance that's moved Mollock into this idea of game theory was Scott Alexander of Slate's Sall Codex, wrote this incredible one that literally I think it might be my favorite piece of writing of all time.

[855] It's called Meditations on Mollock.

[856] Everyone must go read it.

[857] And Slate Codex is a blog.

[858] It's a blog.

[859] Yes, we can link to it in the show notes or something, right?

[860] No, don't.

[861] Yes, yes.

[862] But I like how you assume I have a professional operation going on here.

[863] I mean, I shall try to remember.

[864] What are you, what do you want?

[865] You're giving the impression of it.

[866] Yeah, I'll like, please, if I don't please, somebody in the comments remind me. If you don't know this blog, it's one of the best blogs ever probably, you should probably be following it.

[867] Yes.

[868] Our blog's still a thing?

[869] I think they're still a thing.

[870] Yeah, he's migrated onto Substack, but yeah, it's still a blog.

[871] Upstack better not fuck things up.

[872] I hope not, yeah.

[873] I hope they don't turn Moloky, which will mean something to people when we continue.

[874] When I stop interrupting for once, that's good.

[875] So anyway, so he writes this piece, Meditations on Mollock, and basically he analyzes the poem and he's like, okay, so it seems to be something relating to where competition goes wrong.

[876] And, you know, Mollock was historically this thing of, like, where people would sacrifice a thing that they care about, in this case, children, their own children, in order to gain power, a competitive advantage.

[877] And if you look at almost everything that sort of goes wrong in our society, it's that same process.

[878] So with the Instagram beauty filters thing, you know, if you're trying to become a famous Instagram model, you are incentivized to post the hottest pictures of yourself that you can.

[879] You know, you're trying to play that game.

[880] There's a lot of hot women on Instagram.

[881] How do you compete against them?

[882] You post really hot pictures, and that's how you get more likes.

[883] As technology gets better, you know, more makeup techniques come along.

[884] And then more recently, these beauty filters where, like, at the touch of a button, it makes your face look absolutely incredible compared to your natural face.

[885] These technologies come along.

[886] it's everyone is incentivized to that short -term strategy but over on net it's bad for everyone because now everyone is kind of like feeling like they have to use these things and these things like they make you like the reason why I talked about them in this video is because I noticed it myself you know like I was trying to grow my Instagram for a while I've given up on it now but yeah and I noticed these filters how good they made me look and I'm like well I know that everyone else is kind of doing it subscribe to lives Instagram please so I don't have to use the filters boast a bunch of yeah make make it blow up uh so yeah it's it's the first you felt the pressure actually exactly you these short -term incentives to do this like this thing that like either sacrifices your integrity or something else um in order to like stay competitive um which on aggregate turns like creates this like sort of race to the bottom spiral where everyone else ends up in a situation which is worse off than if they hadn't start you know than it were before Kind of like if at a football stadium, like the system is so badly designed, a competitive system of like everyone's sitting and having a view that if someone at the very front stands up to get an even better view, it forces everyone else behind to like adopt that same strategy just to get to where they were before.

[887] But now everyone's stuck standing up.

[888] So you need this like top down God's eye coordination to make it go back to the better state.

[889] But from within the system, you can't actually do that.

[890] So that's kind of what this mollick thing is.

[891] It's this thing that makes people.

[892] sacrifice values in order to optimize for the winning the game in question, the short -term game.

[893] But this, this molek, can you attribute it to anyone's centralized source or is it an emergent phenomena from a large collection of people?

[894] Exactly that.

[895] It's an emergent phenomenon.

[896] It's a force of game theory.

[897] It's a force of bad incentives on a multi -agent system where you've got more, you know, prisoner's dilemma is technically a kind of mollicky system as well, but it's just a two -player thing.

[898] But another word for mollock is multipolar trap, where basically you just got a lot of different people all competing for some kind of prize.

[899] And it would be better if everyone didn't do this one shitty strategy.

[900] But because that strategy gives you a short -term advantage, everyone's incentivized to do it.

[901] And so everyone ends up doing it.

[902] So the responsibility for, I mean, social media is a really nice place for a large number of people to play game theory.

[903] And so they also have the ability to then design the rules of the game.

[904] And is it on them to try to anticipate what kind of, like to do the thing that poker players are doing, to run simulation?

[905] Ideally, that would have been great.

[906] If, you know, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack and all that, you know, the Twitter founders and everyone, if they had at least just run a few simulations of how their algorithms would, you know, different types of algorithms would turn out for society.

[907] that would have been great.

[908] That's really difficult to do that kind of deep philosophical thing about thinking about humanity, actually.

[909] So not kind of this level of how do we optimize engagement or what brings people joy in the short term.

[910] But how is this thing going to change the way people see the world?

[911] How is it going to get morphed and iterative games played into something that will change this?

[912] society forever.

[913] That requires some deep thinking.

[914] I hope there's meetings like that inside companies, but there aren't.

[915] That's the problem.

[916] And it's difficult because like when you're starting up a social media company, you know, you're aware that you've got investors to please.

[917] There's bills to pay.

[918] You know, there's only so much R &D you can afford to do.

[919] You've got all these like incredible pressures, you know, bad incentives to get on and just build your thing as quickly as possible and start making money.

[920] And, you know, I don't think anyone intended when they built these social media platforms and just to like preface it.

[921] So the reason why, you know, social media is relevant because it's a very good example of like everyone these days is optimizing for, you know, clicks, whether it's the social media platforms themselves because, you know, every click gets more, you know, impressions and impressions pay for, you know, they get advertising dollars or whether it's individual influences or, you know, whether it's the New York Times or whoever, they're trying to get their story to go viral.

[922] So everyone's got this bad incentive of using, you know, as you called it, the clickbait industrial complex.

[923] That's a very mollicky system because everyone is now using worse and worse tactics in order to like try and win this attention game.

[924] And yeah, so ideally these companies would have had enough slack in the beginning in order to run these experiments to see, okay, what are the ways this could possibly go wrong for people?

[925] What are the ways that Mollock, they should be aware of this concept of Mollock and realize that whenever you have a highly competitive multi -agent system, which social media is a classic example of, millions of agents all trying to compete for likes and so on, and you try and bring all this complexity down into very small metrics such as number of likes, number of retweets, whatever the algorithm optimizes for.

[926] That is a guaranteed recipe for this stuff to go wrong and become a race to the bottom.

[927] should be in honesty when founders, I think there's a hunger for that kind of transparency of like, we don't know what the fuck we're doing.

[928] This is a fascinating experiment.

[929] We're all running as a human civilization.

[930] Let's try this out.

[931] And like actually just be honest about this.

[932] We're all like these weird rats and a maze.

[933] None of us are controlling it.

[934] There's this kind of sense like the founders, the CEO of Instagram or whatever, Mark Zuckerberg has a control.

[935] And he's like with strings playing people.

[936] He's at the mercy of this is like everyone else.

[937] He's just like trying to do his best.

[938] And like, I think putting on a smile and doing over polished videos about how Instagram and Facebook are good for you, I think is not the right way to actually ask some of the deepest questions we get to ask as a society.

[939] How do we design the game such that we build a better world?

[940] I think a big part of this as well is people, there's this.

[941] There's this philosophy, particularly in Silicon Valley, of, well, techno -optimism.

[942] Technology will solve all our issues.

[943] And there's a steel man argument to that where, yes, technology has solved a lot of problems and can potentially solve a lot, future ones.

[944] But it can also, it's always a double -edged sword.

[945] And particularly as technology gets more and more powerful.

[946] And we've now got like big data and we're able to do all kinds of like psychological manipulation with it and so on.

[947] it's technology is not a values neutral thing people think i used to always think this myself it's like this naive view that oh technology is completely neutral it's just it's the humans that either make it good or bad no to the point we're at now the technology that we are creating they are social technologies they literally dictate how humans now form social groups and so on beyond that.

[948] And beyond that, it also then, that gives rise to, like, the memes that we then, like, coalesce around.

[949] And that, you know, if you have the stack that way, where it's technology driving social interaction, which then drives, like, memetic, uh, memetic culture and, like, which ideas become popular, that's Mollock.

[950] And the, we need the other way around.

[951] We need it.

[952] So we need to figure out what are the good memes?

[953] What are the good, um, values that we think are, what we need to optimize for that makes people happy and healthy and keeps society as robust and safe as possible, then figure out what the social structure around those should be.

[954] And only then do we figure out technology.

[955] But we're doing the other way around.

[956] And you know, like as much as I love in many ways the culture of Silicon Valley and like, you know, I do think that technology has, you know, I don't want to knock it.

[957] It's done so many wonderful things for us.

[958] Same with capitalism.

[959] There are, we have to, be honest with ourselves.

[960] We're getting to a point where we are losing control of this very powerful machine that we have created.

[961] Can you redesign the machine within the game?

[962] Can you just have can you understand the game enough?

[963] Okay, this is the game and this is how we start to reemphasize the memes that matter, the memes that bring out the best in us.

[964] You know, like the way I try to be in real life and the way I try to be online is to be about kindness and love.

[965] And I feel like I'm sometimes get like criticized or being naive and all those kinds of things.

[966] But I feel like I'm just trying to live within this game.

[967] I'm trying to be authentic.

[968] Yeah, but also like, hey, it's kind of fun to do this.

[969] Like you guys should try this too, you know?

[970] And that's like trying to redesign some aspects of the game within the game.

[971] Is that possible?

[972] I don't know, but I think we should try.

[973] I don't think we have an option but to try.

[974] Well, the other option is to create new companies or to pressure companies or anyone who has control of the rules of the game.

[975] I think we need to be doing all of the above.

[976] I think we need to be thinking hard about what are the kind of positive, healthy memes.

[977] you know as as Elon said he who controls the memes controls the universe he said that I think he did yeah but there's truth to that it's very there is wisdom in that because memes have driven history you know we are we are cultural species that's what sets us apart from chimpanzees and everything else we have the ability to learn and evolve through culture as opposed to biology or like you know classic physical constraints.

[978] And that means culture is incredibly powerful.

[979] And we can create and become victim to very bad memes or very good ones.

[980] But we do have some agency over which memes, you know, we, but not only put out there, but we also like subscribe to.

[981] So I think we need to take that approach.

[982] We also need to, you know, because I don't want the, you know, I'm making this video right now called The Attention Wars, which is about like how Mollock is.

[983] like the media machine is this mollock machine, well, is this kind of like blind, dumb thing where everyone is optimizing for engagement in order to win their share of the attention pie.

[984] And then if you zoom out, it's really like mollock that's pulling the strings, because the only thing that benefits from this in the end, you know, like our information ecosystem is breaking down.

[985] Like we have, you look at the state of the US, it's in, we're in a civil war.

[986] It's just not a physical war.

[987] It's, it's, it's, it's, it's an information war.

[988] And people, people are becoming more fractured in terms.

[989] of what their actual shared reality is, like, truly, like, an extreme left person and an extreme right person, like, they literally live in different worlds in their, in their minds at this point, and it's getting more and more amplified, and this force is like a, like, razor blade pushing through everything.

[990] It doesn't matter how innocuous a topic is, it will find a way to split into this, you know, bifurcated culture war, and it's fucking terrifying.

[991] Because that maximized the tension, and that's like an emergent mollock -type force Right.

[992] That takes any, anything, any topic, and cuts through it so that it can split nicely into two groups, one that's...

[993] Well, it's whatever, yeah, all everyone is trying to do within the system is just maximize whatever gets them the most attention because they're just trying to make money so they can keep their thing going, right?

[994] And the way, the best emotion for getting attention, well, because it's not just about attention on the internet, it's engagement.

[995] That's the key thing, right?

[996] In order for something to go viral, you need people to actually engage with it.

[997] They need to like comment or retweet or whatever.

[998] And of all the emotions that, you know, there's like seven classic shared emotions that studies are found that all humans, even from like previously uncontacted tribes have.

[999] Some of those are negative, you know, like sadness, disgust, anger, etc. Some are positive happiness, excitement.

[1000] And so, so on.

[1001] The one that happens to be the most useful for the internet is anger, because anger is such an active emotion.

[1002] If you want people to engage, if someone's scared, and I'm not just like talking out my ass here, there are studies here that have looked into this.

[1003] Whereas like if someone's disgusted or fearful, they actually tend to them be like, oh, I don't want to deal with this.

[1004] So they're less likely to actually engage and share it and so on.

[1005] They're just going be like, whereas if they're enraged by a thing, well, now that triggers all the, like, the old tribalism emotions.

[1006] And so that's how then things get sort of spread, you know, much more easily.

[1007] They out -compete all the other memes in the ecosystem.

[1008] And so this, like, the attention economy, the wheels that make it go around is rage.

[1009] I did a, you know, tweet, the problem with raging against the machine is that the machine has learned to feed off rage, because it is feeding off our rage.

[1010] That's the thing that's now keeping it going.

[1011] So the more we get angry, the worse it gets.

[1012] So the mollock in this attention, in the war of attention, is constantly maximizing rage.

[1013] What it is optimizing for is engagement, and it happens to be that engagement is, well, propaganda.

[1014] I mean, it just sounds like everything is putting, more and more things are being put through this, like, propagandist lens of, winning whatever the war is in question, whether it's the culture war or the Ukraine war.

[1015] Well, I think the silver lining of this, do you think it's possible that in the long arc of this process, you actually do arrive at greater wisdom and more progress?

[1016] It just, in the moment, it feels like people are tearing each other to shreds over ideas.

[1017] But if you think about it, one of the magic things about democracy and so on is you have the blue versus red constantly fighting.

[1018] it's almost like they're in discourse creating devil's advocate making devils out of each other and through that process discussing ideas like almost really embodying different ideas just to yell at each other and through the yelling over the period of decades maybe centuries figuring out a better system like in the moment it feels fucked up right but in the long arc it actually is productive I hope so um that That said, we are now in the era of, just as we have weapons of mass destruction with nuclear weapons, you know, that can break the whole playing field, we now are developing weapons of informational mass destruction, information weapons, you know, WMDs that basically can be used for propaganda or just manipulating people, however, you know, is needed, whether that's through dumb TikTok videos or, You know, there are significant resources being put in.

[1019] I don't mean to sound like, you know, to doom and loom, but there are bad actors out there.

[1020] That's the thing.

[1021] There are plenty of good actors within the system who are just trying to stay afloat in the game, so we're effectively doing mollicky things.

[1022] But then on top of that, we have actual bad actors who are intentionally trying to, like, manipulate the other side into doing things.

[1023] And using, so because of the digital space, they're able to use artificial, actors meaning bots exactly bot nets you know and this is a whole new situation that we've never had before yeah it's exciting you know you know what i want to do you know what i want to do that um because there is you know people are talking about bots manipulating and uh have like malicious bots that are basically spreading propaganda i want to create like a bot army for like that like fights that yeah exactly for love that fights though that i mean you know there's there i mean there's true to fight fire with fire.

[1024] It's like, but how you always have to be careful whenever you create, again, like, Mollock is very tricky.

[1025] Yeah, yeah.

[1026] Hitler was trying to spread love too.

[1027] Yeah, so we thought.

[1028] But, you know, I agree with you that, like, that is a thing that should be considered, but there is, again, everyone, the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

[1029] And this is, there's always unforeseen, you know, outcomes, externalities of you trying to adopt a thing, even if you do it in the very best of faith.

[1030] But you can learn the lessons of history.

[1031] If you can run some sims on it first, absolutely.

[1032] But also there's certain aspects of a system as we've learned through history that do better than others.

[1033] Like, for example, don't have a dictator.

[1034] So, like, if I were to create this bot army, it's not good for me to have full control over it.

[1035] Because in the beginning, I might have a good understanding of what's good and not.

[1036] But over time, that starts to get deviated because I'll get annoyed with some assholes and I don't think, okay, wouldn't it be nice to get rid of those assholes?

[1037] But then that power starts getting to your head, you become corrupted.

[1038] That's basic human nature.

[1039] So distribute the power.

[1040] We need a love botnet on a Dow.

[1041] A Dow love botnet.

[1042] Yeah, but and without a leader.

[1043] Like without.

[1044] Distributed, right.

[1045] Yeah, without any kind of centralized.

[1046] Yeah, without even, you know, basically is the more control, the more you can decentralize the control of a thing.

[1047] to people, you know, but the balance.

[1048] But then you still need the ability to coordinate because that's the issue when if something is too, you know, that's really, to me, like the culture wars is, the bigger war we're dealing with is actually between the, like the sort of the, I don't know what even the term is for it, but like centralization versus decentralization.

[1049] That's the tension we're seeing.

[1050] Power and control by a few versus completely distributed.

[1051] And the trouble is if you have a fully centralized thing, then you're at risk of tyranny, you know, Stalin type things can happen, or completely distributed.

[1052] Now you're at risk of complete anarchy and chaos where you can't even coordinate to like when there's like a pandemic or anything like that.

[1053] So it's like what is the right balance to strike between these two structures?

[1054] Can't Mollock really take hold in a fully decentralized system?

[1055] That's one of the dangers too.

[1056] Yes.

[1057] Very vulnerable to Mollock.

[1058] So a dictator can commit huge atrocity, but they can also make sure the infrastructure works and trains.

[1059] They have that God's eye view, at least.

[1060] They have the ability to create laws and rules, like, force coordination, which stops Mollock.

[1061] But then you're vulnerable to that dictator getting infected with, like, this, with some kind of psychopathy type thing.

[1062] What's reverse Mollock?

[1063] So, great question.

[1064] So that's where I've been working on this series.

[1065] It's been driving me insane for the last year.

[1066] a half.

[1067] I did the first one a year ago.

[1068] I can't believe it's nearly been a year.

[1069] The second one, hopefully will be coming out in like a month.

[1070] And my goal at the end of the series is to like present, because basically I'm painting the picture of like what mollock is and how it's affecting almost all these issues in our society and how it's, you know, driving.

[1071] It's like kind of the generator function, as people describe it, of existential risk.

[1072] And then at the end of that.

[1073] Wait, wait, the generative function of existential risk.

[1074] So you're saying mollick is sort of the engine that creates a bunch and a bunch of ex -risks.

[1075] Yes, not all of them.

[1076] Like, like a, you know, a...

[1077] It's a cool phrase.

[1078] Generator function.

[1079] It's not my phrase.

[1080] It's Daniel Schmachtenberger.

[1081] Oh, I got that from him.

[1082] Of course.

[1083] All things.

[1084] It's like all roads lead back to Daniel Schmachtenberger, I think.

[1085] The dude is brilliant.

[1086] After that, it's Mark Twain.

[1087] But anyway, sorry.

[1088] Totally rude interruptions from me. No, it's fine.

[1089] So not all X risks.

[1090] So, like, an asteroid technically isn't because it's, you know, it's just like this one big external thing.

[1091] It's not like a competition thing going on.

[1092] But, you know, synthetic bio -weapons, that's one because everyone's incentivized to build, even for defense, you know, bad viruses, you know, just to threaten someone else, et cetera.

[1093] Or AI, technically, the race to AGI is kind of potentially a mollarchy situation.

[1094] But, yeah, so if mollock is this like generator function that's driving all of these issues, over the coming century that might wipe us out, what's the inverse?

[1095] And so far, what I've gotten to is this character that I want to put out there called Win Win.

[1096] Because Molek is the god of lose -lose, ultimately.

[1097] It masquerades is the god of win -lose, but in reality it's lose -lose.

[1098] Everyone ends up worse off.

[1099] So I was like, well, what's the opposite of that?

[1100] It's win -win.

[1101] And I was thinking for ages, like, what's a good name for this character?

[1102] And then the morrow is like, okay, well, don't try and, you know, think through it logically.

[1103] What's the vibe bit of win -win.

[1104] And to me, like, in my mind, Mollick is like, and I dress as it in the video, like, it's red and black.

[1105] It's kind of like very, you know, hyper -focused on its one goal, you must win.

[1106] So win -win is kind of actually like these colors.

[1107] It's like purple, turquoise.

[1108] It loves games too.

[1109] It loves a little bit of healthy competition, but constrained, like kind of like before, like knows how to ring fence zero -sum competition into like just the right amount, whereby its externalities can be controlled and kept positive.

[1110] And then beyond that, it also loves cooperation, coordination, love, all these other things.

[1111] But it's also kind of like mischievous, like, you know, it will have a good time.

[1112] It's not like kind of like boring, you know, like, oh, God, it's, it's, it knows how to have fun.

[1113] It can get like, it can get down.

[1114] But ultimately, it's like unbelievably wise and it just wants the game to keep going.

[1115] And I call it win -win.

[1116] That's a good, like, pet name.

[1117] Yes.

[1118] Win -win.

[1119] The, I think the...

[1120] Win -win, right?

[1121] And I think it's formal name and it has to do, like, official functions is Omnia.

[1122] Omnia.

[1123] From, like, omniscience, kind of what's...

[1124] Why Omnia?

[1125] You just like Omnia.

[1126] Omni Win.

[1127] But I'm open to suggestions.

[1128] I like, you know, and this is...

[1129] I like Omnia, yeah.

[1130] Yeah.

[1131] But there's an angelic kind of sense to Omnia, though.

[1132] So Win Win Win is more fun.

[1133] So it's more like, it embraces the...

[1134] the fun aspect.

[1135] I mean, there is something about sort of, there's some aspect to win -win interactions that requires embracing the chaos of the game and enjoying the game itself.

[1136] I don't know.

[1137] I don't know what that is.

[1138] That's almost like a Zen -like appreciation of the game itself, not optimizing for the consequences of the game.

[1139] Right.

[1140] Well, it's recognizing.

[1141] the value of competition in of itself.

[1142] It's not like about winning, it's about you enjoying the process of having a competition and not knowing whether you're going to win or lose this little thing.

[1143] But then also being aware that, you know, what's the boundary?

[1144] How big do I want competition to be?

[1145] Because one of the reason why Mollock is doing so well now in our civilization is because we haven't been able to ring fence competition.

[1146] You know, and so it's just having all these negative externalities and we've completely lost control of it.

[1147] You know, it's I think my guess is, and now we're getting really like, you know, metaphysical, technically.

[1148] But I think we'll be in a more interesting universe if we have one that has both pure cooperation, you know, lots of cooperation and some pockets of competition than one that's purely competition, cooperation entirely.

[1149] Like, it's good to have some little zero sumness bits.

[1150] But I don't know that fully.

[1151] and I'm not qualified as a philosopher to know that.

[1152] And that's what reverse mollocks, so this kind of win -win creature is an system is an antidote to the mollock system.

[1153] Yes.

[1154] And I don't know how it's going to do that.

[1155] But it's good to kind of try to start to formulate different ideas, different frameworks of how we think about that.

[1156] Exactly.

[1157] At the small scale of a collection of individuals and a large scale of a society.

[1158] Exactly.

[1159] It's a meme.

[1160] I think it's an example of a good meme.

[1161] And I'm open, I'd love to hear feedback from people if they think it's at, you know, they have a better idea or it's not, you know, but it's the direction of meme that we need to spread, this idea of like look for the win -wins in life.

[1162] Well, on the topic of beauty filters, so in that particular context where Malik creates negative consequences, what, you know, Dostoevsky said beauty will save the world.

[1163] What is beauty anyway?

[1164] Anyway, it would be nice to try to discuss what kind of thing we would like to converge towards in our understanding of what is beautiful.

[1165] So to me, I think something is beautiful when it can't be reduced down to easy metrics.

[1166] Like if you think of a tree, what is it about a tree, like a big ancient beautiful tree, right?

[1167] Right.

[1168] What is it about it that we find so beautiful?

[1169] It's not, you know, the, you know, what are the sweetness of its fruit or the value of its lumber?

[1170] It's, it's this entirety of it that is, there's these immeasurable qualities.

[1171] It's like almost like a qualia of it.

[1172] That's both, like it walks this fine line between patty, well, it's got lots of pattenicity, but it's not overly predictable.

[1173] You know, again, it walks this fine line between order and chaos.

[1174] It's a very highly complex system.

[1175] In the, you know, you can't, it's evolving over time.

[1176] You know, the definition of a complex versus, and this is another Schmectenberger thing, you know, a complex versus a complicated system.

[1177] A complicated system can be sort of broken down into bits, understood, and then put that together.

[1178] A complex system, it's kind of like a black box.

[1179] It does all this crazy stuff, but if you take it apart, you can't put it back together again because there's all these intricacies.

[1180] And also very importantly, like the sum of the parts, sorry, the sum of the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts.

[1181] And that's where the beauty lies, I think.

[1182] And I think that extends to things like art as well.

[1183] Like, there's something immeasurable about it.

[1184] There's something we can't break down to a narrow metric.

[1185] Does that extend to humans, you think?

[1186] Yeah, absolutely.

[1187] So how can Instagram reveal that kind of beauty, the complexity of a human being?

[1188] Good question.

[1189] This takes us back to dating sites and good reads, I think.

[1190] Very good question.

[1191] I mean, well, I know what it shouldn't do.

[1192] It shouldn't try and like, right now, you know, one of the, I was talking to like a social media expert recently because I was like, I hate things.

[1193] The social media expert?

[1194] Oh, yeah.

[1195] There are like agencies out there that you can like outsource because I'm thinking about working with one to like.

[1196] So I want to start a podcast.

[1197] You should.

[1198] You should have done it a long time ago.

[1199] Working on it.

[1200] It's going to be called win -win.

[1201] And it's going to be about this positive some stuff.

[1202] And the thing that, you know, they all come back and say is like, well, you need to like figure out what your thing is.

[1203] You know, you need to narrow down what your thing is and then just follow that.

[1204] Have like a sort of a formula because that's what people want.

[1205] They want to know that they're coming back to the same thing.

[1206] And that's the advice on YouTube, Twitter, you name it.

[1207] And that's the advice on YouTube, Twitter, you name it.

[1208] That's why, and the trouble with that is that it's a complexity reduction.

[1209] And generally speaking, complexity reduction is bad.

[1210] It's making things more, it's an oversimplification.

[1211] Not that simplification is a bad thing, but when you're trying to take, you know, what is social media doing?

[1212] It's trying to like encapsulate the human experience and put it into digital form and commodify it to an extent.

[1213] So you do that, you compress people down into these like, now.

[1214] things.

[1215] And that's why I think it's kind of ultimately fundamentally incompatible with at least my definition of beauty.

[1216] It's interesting because there is some sense in which a simplification, sort of in the Einstein kind of sense, of a really complex idea, a simplification in a way that still captures some core power of an idea of a person is also beautiful.

[1217] And so maybe it's possible for social media to do that.

[1218] A present a sort of a slither, a slice, a look into a person's life that reveals something real about them.

[1219] But in a simple way, in a way that can be displayed graphically or through words, in some way, in some way Twitter can do that kind of thing.

[1220] A very few set of words can reveal the intricacies of a person.

[1221] Of course, the viral machine that spreads those words, often results in people taking the thing out of context.

[1222] Not, the people often don't read tweets in the context of the human being that wrote them.

[1223] The full history of the tweets they've written, the education level, the humor level, the world view they're playing around with, all that context is forgotten, then people just see the different words.

[1224] So that can lead to trouble.

[1225] But in a certain sense, if you do take it in context, it reveals some kind of quirky little beautiful idea or a profound little idea from that particular person that shows something about that person.

[1226] So in that sense, Twitter can be more successful.

[1227] If we talk about Mullicks, is driving a better kind of incentive.

[1228] Yeah, I mean, how they can, like, if we were to rewrite, is there a way to rewrite the Twitter algorithm so that it stops being the, like, the fertile breeding ground of the culture wars because that's really what it is.

[1229] It's, um, I mean, maybe I'm giving it, you know, Twitter too much power, you know, power.

[1230] But just the more I looked into it and I had conversations with, um, Tristan Harris, uh, from Center of Humane Technology.

[1231] And he explained it as like, Twitter is where you have this amalgam of human culture and then this terribly designed algorithm that amplifies the, the craziest people and the angriest the angriest most divisive takes and amplifies them and then the media the mainstream media because all the journalists are also on Twitter they then are informed by that and so they draw out the stories they can from this already like very boiling lava of of rage and then spread that you know to their millions and of people who aren't even on Twitter.

[1232] And so I honestly, I think if I could press a button, turn them off, I probably would at this point, because I just don't see a way it being compatible with healthiness, but that's not going to happen.

[1233] And so at least one way to stem the tide and make it less mollarchy would be to change, at least if like it was on a subscription model, then it's now not optimizing for, impressions, because basically what it wants is for people to keep coming back as often as possible.

[1234] That's how they get paid, right?

[1235] Every time an ad gets shown to someone, and the way is to get people constantly refreshing their feed.

[1236] So you're trying to encourage addictive behaviours.

[1237] Whereas if someone, if they moved on to at least a subscription model, then they're getting the money either way, whether someone comes back to the site once a month or 500 times a month.

[1238] They get the same amount of money.

[1239] So now that takes away that incentive, you know, to use technology, you know, to build, to design an algorithm that is maximally addictive.

[1240] That would be one way, for example.

[1241] Yeah, but you still want people to, yeah, I just feel like that just slows down, creates friction in the virality of things.

[1242] But that's good.

[1243] We need to slow down virality.

[1244] It's good.

[1245] It's one way.

[1246] Verality is Mollock, to be clear.

[1247] so mollick is always negative then yes by definition yes but then i disagree with you competition is not always negative competition is neutral i disagree with you that all virality is negative then uh as mollick then because i i it's a good intuition because we have a lot of data on virality being negative but i happen to believe that the core of human beings so most human beings want to to be good more than they want to be bad to each other.

[1248] And so I think it's possible.

[1249] It might be just harder to engineer systems that enable virality, but it's possible to engineer systems that are viral that enable virality, and the kind of stuff that rises to the top is things that are positive.

[1250] And positive, not like la -la positive.

[1251] It's more like win -win, meaning a lot of people need to be challenged.

[1252] wise things yeah you grow from it it might challenge you you might not like it but you ultimately grow from it and ultimately bring people together as opposed to tear them apart yeah i deeply want that to be true and i very much agree with you that people at their core are on average good as opposed you know care for each other as opposed to not like i you know i think it's actually a very small percentage of people are truly like wanting to do just like destructive malicious things most people are just trying to win their own little game and they don't mean to be you know they're stuck in this badly designed system.

[1253] That said, the current structure, yes, is, the current structure means that virality is optimized towards Mollock.

[1254] That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

[1255] You know, sometimes positive stories do go viral, and I think we should study them.

[1256] I think there should be a whole field of study into understanding, you know, identifying memes that, you know, above a certain threshold of the population agree is a positive, happy, bringing people together meme, the kind of thing that, you know, brings families together that would normally argue about cultural stuff at the table, at the dinner table, identify those memes and figure out what it was, what was the ingredient that made them spread that day.

[1257] And also like, not just like happiness and connection between humans, but connection between humans in other ways that enables like productivity, like cooperation, solving difficult problems and all those kinds of stuff.

[1258] You know, so it's not just about let's, let's be happy and have a fulfilling lives.

[1259] It's also like, let's build cool shit.

[1260] Yeah.

[1261] Which is the spirit of collaboration, which is deeply anti -Moloch, right?

[1262] That's, that's, it's not using competition.

[1263] It's like, you know, Molek hates collaboration and coordination and people working together.

[1264] And that's, you know, again, like the internet started out as that.

[1265] And it, and it could have been that, but because of the way it was sort of structured, um, in terms of, you know, very lofty ideal.

[1266] They wanted everything to be open source or open source and also free and but they needed to find a way to pay the bills anyway because they were still building this on top of our old economics system.

[1267] And so the way they did that was through third party advertisement.

[1268] But that meant that things were very decoupled.

[1269] You know, you've got this third party interest, which means that you're then like people are having to optimize for that.

[1270] And that is, you know, the actual consumer is actually the product, not the not the not the the person you're making the thing for.

[1271] In the end, you start making the thing for the advertiser.

[1272] And so that's why it then breaks down.

[1273] Yeah, like, there's no clean solution to this.

[1274] And it's a really good suggestion by you actually to, like, figure out how we can optimize virality for positive sum topics.

[1275] I shall be the general of the love bot army.

[1276] Distributed.

[1277] Distributed.

[1278] Okay, yeah.

[1279] The power, just even in saying that the power already went to my head.

[1280] No. Okay.

[1281] You've talked about quantifying your thinking.

[1282] We've been talking about this, sort of a game theoretic view on life.

[1283] And putting probabilities behind estimates, like if you think about different trajectories you can take through life, just actually analyzing life in game theoretic way, like your own life, like personal life.

[1284] I think you've given an example that you had an honest conversation.

[1285] with ego about like how long is this relationship going to last similar to our sort of marriage problem kind of discussion having an honest conversation about the probability of things that we sometimes are a little bit too shy or scared to think of in a probabilistic terms can you speak to that kind of way of reasoning the good and the bad of that can you can you do this kind of thing with human relations yeah so the the scenario you're talking about It was like...

[1286] Yeah, tell me what that's interesting.

[1287] Yeah.

[1288] I think it was about a year into our relationship.

[1289] And we were having a fairly heavy conversation because we were trying to figure out whether or not I was going to sell my apartment.

[1290] Well, you know, he had already moved in, but I think we were just figuring out what like our long -term plans would be.

[1291] Should we should be buy a place together, et cetera.

[1292] When you guys are having that conversation, are you like drunk out of your mind on wine or is you sober and you're actually having a serious...

[1293] I think I was sober.

[1294] How do you get to that conversation?

[1295] Because most people are kind of afraid to have that kind of serious conversation.

[1296] Well, so, you know, our relationship was very, well, first of all, we were good friends for a couple of years before we even, you know, got, you know, romantic.

[1297] And when we did get romantic, it was very clear that this was a big deal.

[1298] It wasn't just like another, like, you know, it wasn't a random thing.

[1299] So the probability of it being a big deal was high.

[1300] It was already very high.

[1301] And then we'd been together for a year, and it had been pretty golden and wonderful.

[1302] So, you know, there was a lot of foundation already where we felt very comfortable having a lot of frank conversations.

[1303] But Igor's M .O. has always been much more than mine.

[1304] He was always from the outset, like just in a relationship, radical transparency and honesty is the way, because the truth is a truth, whether you want to hide it or not, you know, where it will come out eventually.

[1305] And it, it's, if you aren't able to accept difficult things yourself, then how could you possibly expect to be like the most integral version?

[1306] You know, you can't, the relationship needs this bedrock of like honesty as a foundation more than anything.

[1307] Yeah, that's really interesting, but I would like to push against some of those ideas.

[1308] Okay, all right.

[1309] But that's the down the line, yes, throw them up.

[1310] I just rudely interrupt.

[1311] No, that's fine.

[1312] And so, you know, we've been about together for a year and things were good.

[1313] And we're having this hard conversation.

[1314] And then he was like, well, okay, what's the likelihood that we're going to be together in three years then?

[1315] Because I think it was roughly a three -year time horizon.

[1316] And I was like, oh, oh, interesting.

[1317] And then we were like, actually, wait, before you said out loud, let's both write down our predictions formally.

[1318] Because we had been like, we were just getting into like effective altruism and rationality at the time, which is all about making, you know, formal predictions as a means of measuring your own, well, your own foresight, essentially, in a quantified way.

[1319] so we both wrote down our percentages and we also did a one year prediction and a 10 year one as well so we got percentages for all three and then we showed each other and I remember like having this moment of like oh because for the 10 year one I was like oh well I mean I love him a lot but like a lot can happen in 10 years you know and we've only been together for you know so I was like I think it's over 50 % but it's definitely not 90 % and I remember like wrestling I was like oh but I don't want him to be hurt I don't want him to you know I don't want to give a number lower than his.

[1320] And I remember thinking, I was like, uh -uh, don't game it.

[1321] This is an exercise in radical honesty.

[1322] So just give your real percentage.

[1323] And I think mine was like 75%.

[1324] And then we showed each other.

[1325] And luckily, we were fairly well aligned.

[1326] But honestly, even if we weren't, 20%.

[1327] Huh?

[1328] It definitely would have, I, if his had been consistently lower than mine, that would have rattled me for sure.

[1329] Whereas if it had been the other way around, I think he would, he's just kind of like a water off the duck's back type of guy.

[1330] It'd be like, okay, well, all right, we'll figure this out.

[1331] Well, did you guys provide air bars on the estimate?

[1332] Like, the level on 17.

[1333] They came built in.

[1334] We didn't give formal plus or minus error bars.

[1335] I didn't draw any or anything like that.

[1336] Well, I guess that's the question I have is, did you feel informed enough to make such decisions?

[1337] Because, like, I feel like if I were to do this kind of thing rigorously, I would want some data, I would want to, one of the assumptions you have is you're not that different from other relationships.

[1338] Right.

[1339] And so I want to have some data about the way.

[1340] You want the base rates.

[1341] Yeah.

[1342] And also actual trajectories of relationships.

[1343] I would love to have like time series data about the ways their relationships fall apart or prosper, how they collide with different life events, losses, job changes, moving, both partners find jobs, only one has a job.

[1344] I want that kind of data and how often the different trajectories change in life.

[1345] Like, how informative is your past to your future?

[1346] That's a whole thing.

[1347] Can you look at my life and have a good prediction about, in terms of my characteristics of my relationships of what that's going to look like in the future or not?

[1348] I don't even know the answer to that question.

[1349] I'll be very ill. informed in terms of making the probability.

[1350] I would be far, yeah, I just would be under -informed.

[1351] I would be under -informed.

[1352] I would be over -biasing to my prior experiences, I think.

[1353] Right, but as long as you're aware of that and you're honest with yourself, and you're honest with the other person, say, look, I have really wide error bars on this for the following reasons.

[1354] That's okay.

[1355] I still think it's better than not trying to quantify it at all if you're trying to make really major irreversible life decisions.

[1356] And I feel also the romantic nature of that question.

[1357] For me personally, I would, I try to live my life thinking it's very close to 100%.

[1358] Like, allowing myself actually the, this is the difficulty of this, is allowing myself to think differently, I feel like has a psychological consequence.

[1359] That's what's one of my pushbacks against radical honesty.

[1360] It's this one particular perspective.

[1361] So you're saying you would, rather give a falsely high percentage to your partner.

[1362] Going back to the wise sage film.

[1363] Helmuth.

[1364] Of fake it until you make it, the positive, the power of positive thinking.

[1365] Hashtag positivity.

[1366] Yeah, hashtag.

[1367] Well, so that and this comes back to this idea of useful fictions.

[1368] Yeah.

[1369] Right.

[1370] And I agree.

[1371] I don't think there's a clear answer to this and I think it's actually quite subjective.

[1372] Some people this works better for than others.

[1373] You know, to be clear, Igor and I weren't doing this formal prediction in it.

[1374] Like, we did it with very much tongue -in -cheek.

[1375] It wasn't like we were going to make.

[1376] I don't think it even would have drastically changed what we decided to do even.

[1377] We kind of just did it more as a fun exercise.

[1378] But the consequence of that fun exercise, it really actually kind of, there was a deep honesty to it.

[1379] Exactly.

[1380] It was a deep, and it was just like this moment of reflection.

[1381] I'm like, oh, wow, I actually have to think, like, through this quite critically and so on.

[1382] And it's also what was interesting was, like, you know, I got to, like, check in with what my, what my desires were.

[1383] So there was one thing of, like, what my actual prediction is, but what are my desires, and could these desires be affecting my predictions and so on?

[1384] And, you know, that's a, that's a method of rationality.

[1385] And I personally don't think it loses anything in terms of, I didn't take any of the magic away from our relationship, quite the opposite.

[1386] Like, it brought us closer together, because it was like, we did this.

[1387] weird, fun thing that I appreciate a lot of people find quite strange.

[1388] And I think it was somewhat, you know, unique in our relationship that both of us are very, you know, we both love numbers, we both love statistics, we're both poker players.

[1389] So this was kind of like our safe space anyway.

[1390] For others, you know, one partner like really might not like that kind of stuff at all, in which cases it's not a good exercise to do.

[1391] You know, I don't recommend it to everybody.

[1392] But I do think there's, you know, it's interesting sometimes to poke holes in the, you know, probe at these things that we consider so sacred that we can't try to quantify them, which is interesting because that's in tension with like the idea of what we just talked about with beauty and like what makes something beautiful, the fact that you can't measure everything about it.

[1393] And perhaps something shouldn't be tried to, you know, maybe it's wrong to completely try and value the utilitarian, you know, put a utilitarian frame.

[1394] of measuring the utility of a tree in its entirety.

[1395] I don't know.

[1396] Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't.

[1397] I'm ambivalent on that.

[1398] But overall, people have too many biases.

[1399] People are overly biased against trying to do like a quantified cost -benefit analysis on really tough life decisions.

[1400] They're like, oh, just go with your gut.

[1401] It's like, well, sure, but guts are our intuitions are best suited for things that we've got tons of experience in, then we can really, you don't trust on it, if it's a decision we've made many times.

[1402] But if it's like, should I marry this person or should I buy this house over that house, you only make those decisions a couple of times in your life, maybe.

[1403] Well, I would love to know, there's a balance, that probably is a personal balance to strike, is the amount of rationality you apply to a question versus the useful fiction, the fake it till you make it.

[1404] For example, just talking to soldiers in Ukraine, you ask them, what's the probability of you winning, Ukraine winning?

[1405] Almost everybody I talk to is 100%.

[1406] Wow.

[1407] And you listen to the experts, right?

[1408] They say all kinds of stuff.

[1409] Right.

[1410] They are, first of all, the morale there is higher than probably, and I've never been to a war zone before.

[1411] for this, but I've read about many wars.

[1412] And I think the morale in Ukraine is higher than almost anywhere I've read about.

[1413] It's every single person in the country is proud to fight for their country.

[1414] Wow.

[1415] Everybody, not just soldiers, not everybody.

[1416] Why do you think that is specifically more than, you know, in other wars?

[1417] I think because there's perhaps a dormant desire for the citizens of this country to find the identity of this country because it's been going through this 30 -year process of different factions and political bickering.

[1418] And they haven't had, as they talk about, they haven't had their independence war.

[1419] They say all great nations have had an independence war.

[1420] They had to fight for their independence, for the discovery of the identity, of the core of the ideals that unify us.

[1421] And they haven't had that.

[1422] There's constantly been factions.

[1423] There's been divisions.

[1424] There's been pressures from empires, from United States and from Russia, from NATO and Europe, everybody telling them what to do.

[1425] Now they want to discover who they are.

[1426] And there's that kind of sense that we're going to fight for the safety of our homeland, but we're also going to fight for our identity.

[1427] And that on top of the fact that there's just, if you look at the history of Ukraine, and there's certain other countries like this, There are certain cultures are feisty in their pride of being part, of being the citizens of that nation.

[1428] Ukraine is that.

[1429] Poland was that.

[1430] You just look at history.

[1431] In certain countries, you do not want to occupy.

[1432] Right.

[1433] I mean, both Stalin and Hitler talked about Poland in this way.

[1434] They're like, this is a big problem if we occupy this land for prolonged periods of time.

[1435] They're going to be a pain in their ass.

[1436] Like, they're not going to be want to be occupied.

[1437] And certain other countries are like pragmatic.

[1438] They're like, well, you know, leaders come and go.

[1439] I guess this is good.

[1440] Ukraine just doesn't have Ukrainians, throughout the 20th century, don't seem to be the kind of people that just like sit calmly and let the quote -unquote occupiers impose their rules.

[1441] That's interesting, though, because you said it's always been under conflict and leaders have come and gone.

[1442] So you would expect them to actually be the.

[1443] opposite under that like freezing because well because they're it's a very fertile land it's great for agriculture so a lot of people want to i mean i think they've developed this culture because they've constantly been occupied by different people for the different peoples and so uh maybe there is something to that where you've constantly had to feel like within the blood of the generations there's the struggle for um against the man against the imposition of of rules against oppression and all that kind of stuff, and that stays with them.

[1444] So there's a will there.

[1445] But a lot of other aspects are also part of it that has to do with the reverse Molok kind of situation where social media has definitely played a part of it.

[1446] Also different charismatic individuals have had to play a part.

[1447] The fact that the president of the nation, Zelensky, stayed in Kiev during the invasion, is a huge inspiration to them because most leaders as you can imagine when the capital of the nation is under attack the wise thing the smart thing that the United States advised Zelensky to do is to flee and to be the leader of the nation from a distant place he said fuck that I'm staying put you know everyone around him there was a pressure to leave and he didn't and that that in you know But those singular acts really can unify a nation.

[1448] There's a lot of people that criticize Zelensky within Ukraine before the war is very unpopular, even still, but they put that aside for the, especially that singular act of staying in the capital.

[1449] Yeah, a lot of those kinds of things come together to create something within people.

[1450] but these things always of course though like the you know which how zoomed out of a view do you want to take because yeah you describe it it's like an anti -molic thing happened within Ukraine because it brought the Ukrainian people together in order to fight a common enemy maybe that's a good thing maybe that's a bad thing in the end we don't know how this is all going to play out right um but if you zoom it out from a level you know on a global level then coming together to, you know, fight, that could, you know, that could make a conflict larger.

[1451] You know what I mean?

[1452] I don't know what the right answer is here.

[1453] Yeah.

[1454] It seems like a good thing that they came together.

[1455] But, like, we don't know how this is all going to play out.

[1456] If this all turns into nuclear war, we'll be like, okay, that was the bad.

[1457] That was the...

[1458] Oh, yeah.

[1459] So I was describing the reverse molluk for the local level.

[1460] Exactly.

[1461] Yeah.

[1462] Now, this is where the experts come in.

[1463] And they say, well, if you channel most of the resources, the nation and the nation's supporting Ukraine into the war effort, are you not beating the drums of war that is much bigger than Ukraine?

[1464] In fact, even the Ukrainian leaders are speaking of it this way.

[1465] This is not a war between two nations.

[1466] this is this is the early days of a world war if we don't play this correctly yes and they we need cool heads from our leaders so you from ukraine's perspective we need to win ukraine needs to win the war because what is winning the war mean is coming up coming to uh peace negotiations an agreement that guarantees no more invasions and then you make an agreement about what land belongs to who.

[1467] Right.

[1468] And that's, you stop that.

[1469] And basically, from their perspective, is you want to demonstrate to the rest of the world who's watching careful, including Russia and China and different players on the geopolitical stage, that this kind of conflict is not going to be productive.

[1470] Right.

[1471] If you engage in it.

[1472] So you want to teach everybody a lesson, let's not do World War III.

[1473] It's not, it's going to be bad for everybody.

[1474] It's a lose, lose.

[1475] Deep lose, loose.

[1476] Doesn't matter.

[1477] So, but they, you know, but it, and I think that's actually a correct, when I zoom out, I mean, 99 % of what I think about is just individual human beings and human lives and just that war is horrible.

[1478] But when you zoom out and think from a geopolitics perspective, we should realize that it's entirely possible that we will see a World War III in that.

[1479] 21st century and this is like a dress rehearsal for that and so the way we play this as a as a human civilization will define whether we do or don't have a World War III you know how we discuss war how we discuss nuclear war the kind of leaders we elect and prop up the kind of memes we circulate because you have to be very careful when you're being pro -Ukraine for example you have to realize that you're being you are also indirectly feeding the ever -increasing military industrial complex So you'd be extremely careful that when you say pro -Ukraine or pro -anybody, you're pro -human beings, not pro -the -machine that creates narratives that says it's pro -human beings.

[1480] But it's actually, if you look at the raw use of funds and resources, it's actually pro -making weapons and shooting bullets and dropping bombs.

[1481] Right, the real, we have to just somehow get the meme into everyone's heads that the real enemy is war itself.

[1482] That's the enemy we need to defeat.

[1483] And that doesn't mean to say that there, you know, there isn't justification for small local scenarios, you know, adversarial conflicts.

[1484] You know, if you have a leader who is starting wars, you know, they're on the side of team war.

[1485] basically.

[1486] It's not that they're on the side of team country, whatever that country is.

[1487] It's they're on the side of team war.

[1488] So that needs to be stopped and put down.

[1489] But you also have to find a way that your corrective measure doesn't actually then end up being co -opted by the war machine and creating greater war.

[1490] Again, the playing field is finite.

[1491] The scale of conflict is now getting so big that the weapons that can be used are so mass destructive that we can't afford another giant conflict.

[1492] We just, we won't make it.

[1493] What existential threat in terms of us not making it, are you most worried about?

[1494] What existential threat to human civilization?

[1495] We got like, let's go.

[1496] You're down a dark path, huh?

[1497] Well, no, it's a dark, no, it's like, well, while we're in the somber place, we might as well.

[1498] Some of my best friends are dark paths.

[1499] What worries you the most?

[1500] We mentioned asteroids, we mentioned AGI, nuclear weapons.

[1501] The one that's on my mind the most, mostly because I think it's the one where we have actually a real chance to move the needle on in a positive direction or more specifically stop some really bad things from happening, really dumb, avoidable things is bi -ariscs.

[1502] So...

[1503] In what kind of bio -fries?

[1504] So many fun options.

[1505] So many.

[1506] So, of course, like, we have natural risks from natural pandemics, you know, naturally occurring viruses or pathogens.

[1507] And then also as time and technology goes on and technology becomes more and more democratized, you know, into the hands of more and more people, the risk of synthetic pathogens.

[1508] You know, and whether or not you fall into the camp of COVID was, you know, gain of function accidental lab leak or whether it was purely naturally occurring.

[1509] either way we are facing a future where synthetic pathogens or like human meddled with pathogens either accidentally get out or get into the hands of bad actors who you know whether they're omnisidal maniacs either way and so that means we need more robustness for that and you would think that us having this nice little dry run which is what as awful as COVID was, you know, and all those poor people that died, it was still like, like child's play compared to what a future one could be in terms of fatality rate.

[1510] And so you'd think that we would then be coming, we'd be much more robust in our pandemic preparedness.

[1511] And meanwhile, the budget in the last two years for the US, sorry, they just did this, I can't remember the name of what the actual budget was, but it was like a multi -trillion dollar budget that the US just set aside.

[1512] And originally in that, you know, considering that COVID cost multiple trillions to the economy, right, the original allocation in this new budget for future pandemic preparedness was 60 billion, so tiny proportion of it.

[1513] That proceeded to get whittled down to like 30 billion to 15 billion, all the way down to 2 billion out of multiple trillions for a thing that has just cost us multiple trillions.

[1514] We've just finished.

[1515] We're barely even, we're not even really out of it.

[1516] It basically got whittled down to nothing.

[1517] Because for some reason, people think that, whew, oh, right, we've got the pandemic out the way.

[1518] That was that one.

[1519] And the reason for that is that people are, and I say this with all due respect to a lot of the science community, but there's an immense amount of naivety about, they, they think that nature is the main risk moving forward.

[1520] And it really isn't.

[1521] And I think nothing.

[1522] demonstrates this more than this project that I was just reading about that's sort of being proposed right now called Deep Vision.

[1523] And the idea is to go out into the wilds, and we're not talking about it's like, you know, within cities, like deep into like caves that people don't go to, deep into the Arctic, wherever, scour the earth for whatever the most dangerous possible pathogens could be that they can find.

[1524] And then not only do, you know, try and find these, bring samples of them back to laboratories.

[1525] And again, whether you think COVID was a lab leak or not, I'm not going to get into that, but we have historically had so many, as a civilization, we've had so many lab leaks from even like the highest level security things.

[1526] Like, it's just, it's, people should go and just read it.

[1527] It's like, it's like a comedy show of just how many they are, how leaky these, these labs are, even when they do their best efforts.

[1528] So bring these things then back to civilization.

[1529] That's step one of the badness.

[1530] The next step would be to then categorize them, do experiments on them and categorize them by their level of potential pandemic lethality.

[1531] And then the piece of resistance on this plan is to then publish that information freely on the internet about all these pathogens, including their genome, which is literally like the building instructions of how to do them on the internet.

[1532] And this is something that genuinely a pocket of the scientific community thinks is a good idea.

[1533] And I think on expectation, and their argument is, is that, oh, this is good because it might buy us some time to develop vaccines, which, okay, sure, maybe would have made sense prior to MRNA technology, but, you know, like they, MRNA, we can make, we can develop a vaccine now when we find a new pathogen within a couple of days.

[1534] Now, then there's all the trials and so on.

[1535] Those trials would have to happen anyway in the case of a brand new thing.

[1536] So you're saving maybe a couple of days, so that's the upside.

[1537] Meanwhile, the downside is, you're not only giving, you're bringing the risk of these pathogens of like getting leaked, but you're literally handing it out to every bad actor on earth who would be doing cartwheels.

[1538] And I'm talking about like Kim Jong -un, ISIS, people who like want, they think the rest of the world is their enemy.

[1539] And in some cases they think that killing it themselves is like a noble cause.

[1540] And you're literally giving them the building blocks of how to do this.

[1541] It's the most bad shit I ever heard.

[1542] Like on expectation, it's probably like minus EV of like multiple billions of lives if they actually succeeded in doing this.

[1543] Certainly in the tens or hundreds of millions.

[1544] So the cost benefit is so unbelievably it makes no sense.

[1545] And I was trying to wrap my head around.

[1546] Like why, like what's going wrong in people's minds to think that this is a good idea?

[1547] And it's not that it's malice or anything like that.

[1548] It's, I think it's that people don't, you know, the proponents, they don't, they're actually overly naive about the interactions of humanity.

[1549] And, well, like, there are bad actors who will use this for bad things.

[1550] Because not only will it, if you publish this information, even if a bad actor couldn't physically make it themselves, which given, you know, in 10 years' time, like, the technologies are getting cheaper and easier to use.

[1551] But even if they couldn't make it, they could now bluff it.

[1552] Like, what would you do if there's, like, some deadly new virus that we were published on the internet in terms of its building blocks.

[1553] Kim Jong -un could be like, hey, if you don't, you know, let me build my nuclear weapons, I'm going to release this.

[1554] I've managed to build it.

[1555] Well, now he's actually got a credible bluff.

[1556] We don't know, you know.

[1557] And so that's, it's just like handing the keys, it's handing weapons of mass destruction to people.

[1558] Makes no sense.

[1559] The possible, I agree with you, but the possible world in which it might make sense is if the good guys, which is a whole other problem, defining who the good guys are, but the good guys are like an order of magnitude, higher competence.

[1560] And so they can stay ahead of the bad actors by just being very good at the defense.

[1561] By very good, not meaning like a little bit better, but an order of magnitude better.

[1562] But of course the question is in each of those individual disciplines, is that feasible?

[1563] Can you, can the bad actors?

[1564] even if they don't have the competence, leapfrog to the place where the good guys are.

[1565] Yeah, I mean, I would agree in principle with pertaining to this particular plan of like, that, you know, with the thing I described, this deep vision thing, where at least then that would maybe make sense for steps one and step two of like getting the information, but then why would you release it, the information to your literal enemies?

[1566] You know, that's, that makes, that, that doesn't fit at all in that perspective of like trying to ahead of them.

[1567] You're literally handing them the weapon.

[1568] But there's different levels of release, right?

[1569] So there's the kind of secrecy where you don't give it to anybody.

[1570] But there's a release where you incrementally give it to like major labs.

[1571] So it's not public release, but it's like you're giving it to major labs.

[1572] There's different layers of reasonability.

[1573] But the problem there is it's going to, if you go anywhere beyond like complete secrecy, it's going to leak.

[1574] That's the thing.

[1575] It's very hard to keep secrets.

[1576] So you might as well release it to the public, is that argument.

[1577] So you either go complete secrecy or you release it to the public, which is essentially the same thing.

[1578] It's going to leak anyway if you don't do complete secrecy.

[1579] Right, which is why you shouldn't get the information in the first place.

[1580] Yeah, I mean, in that, I think.

[1581] Well, that's a solution.

[1582] Yeah, the solution is either don't get the information in the first place or B, keep it incredibly, incredibly contained.

[1583] See, I think it really matters which discipline we're talking about.

[1584] So in the case of biology, I do think you're a very right which shouldn't even be, it should be forbidden to even like think about that.

[1585] Meaning don't just even collect the information but like don't do, I mean, gain of function research is a really iffy area.

[1586] I mean, it's all about cost benefits.

[1587] Right.

[1588] There are some scenarios where I could imagine the cost benefit of a gain of function research is very, very clear, where you've evaluated all the potential risks, factored in the probability that things can go wrong and, like, you know, not only known unknowns, but unknown unknowns as well, tried to quantify that.

[1589] And then, even then, it's like orders of magnitude better to do that.

[1590] I'm behind that argument.

[1591] But the point is, is that there's this, like, naivety that's preventing people from even doing the cost benefit properly on a lot of the things.

[1592] Because, you know, I get it.

[1593] The science community, again, I don't want to bucket the science community, but like some people within the science community just think that everyone's good and everyone just cares about getting knowledge and doing the best for the world.

[1594] And unfortunately, that's not the case.

[1595] I wish we lived in that world, but we don't.

[1596] Yeah, I mean, there's a lie.

[1597] Listen, I've been criticizing the science community broadly quite a bit.

[1598] There's so many brilliant people that brilliance is somehow a hindering sometimes because it has a bunch of blind spots.

[1599] And then you start to look at a history of science how easily has been used by dictators to any conclusion they want.

[1600] And it's, it's dark, how you can use brilliant people that like playing the little game of science, because it is a fun game.

[1601] You know, you're building, you're going to conferences, you're building at top of each other's ideas, these breakthroughs.

[1602] Ah, I think I've realized how this particular molecule works and I could do this kind of experiment and everyone else is impressed.

[1603] Oh, cool.

[1604] No, I think you're wrong.

[1605] Let me show you why you're wrong.

[1606] And that little game, everyone gets really excited and they get excited, oh, I came up with a pill that solves this problem, and it's going to help a bunch of people.

[1607] And I came up with a giant study that shows the exact probability that's going to help or not.

[1608] And you get lost in this game, and you forget to realize this game, just like Mollock, it can have like...

[1609] Unintended consequences that might destroy human civilization or divide human civilization or have dire geopolitical consequences.

[1610] I mean, the effects of, I mean, it's just so, the most destructive effects of COVID have nothing to do with the biology of the virus, it seems like.

[1611] I mean, I could just list them forever.

[1612] But like one of them is the complete distrust of public institutions.

[1613] The other one is because of that public distrust, I feel like if a much worse pandemic came along, we as a world have now cried wolf.

[1614] And if an actual wolf now comes, people will be like, fuck masks, fuck.

[1615] Fuck vaccines, fuck everything.

[1616] And they won't be, they'll distrust every single thing that any major institution is going to tell them.

[1617] Because that's the thing, like there, there was certain actions made by certain, you know, health public figures where they told, they very knowingly told it was a white lie.

[1618] it was intended in the best possible way, such as, you know, early on when there was clearly a shortage of masks.

[1619] And so they said to the public, oh, don't get masks.

[1620] There's no evidence that they work.

[1621] Or, you know, don't get them.

[1622] They don't work.

[1623] In fact, it might even make it worse.

[1624] You might even spread it more.

[1625] Like, that was the real, like, stinker.

[1626] Yeah, no, no, there's unless you know how to do it properly, you're going to make that you're going to get sicker or you're more likely to get the, to catch the virus, which is just absolute crap.

[1627] and they put that out there.

[1628] And it's pretty clear the reason why they did that was because there was actually a shortage of masks and they really needed it for health workers, which makes sense.

[1629] I agree, like, you know, but the cost of lying to the public when that then comes out, people aren't as stupid as they think they are, you know.

[1630] And that's, I think, where this distrust of experts as largely come from.

[1631] A, they've lied to people overtly, but B, people have been treated like idiots.

[1632] Now, it's not to say that there are a lot of stupid people who have a lot of wacky ideas around COVID and all sorts of things, but if you treat the general public like children, they're going to see that, they're going to notice that, and that is going to absolutely decimate the trust in the public institutions that we depend upon.

[1633] And honestly, the best thing that could happen, I wish, like, if Fauci and these other, like, leaders who, I mean, God, I could imagine how nightmare his job has been for the last few years.

[1634] earth.

[1635] Like, so, you know, I, you know, I have, I have a lot of sort of sympathy for the position he's been in.

[1636] But, like, if he could just come out and be like, okay, look, guys, hands up, we didn't handle this as well as we could have.

[1637] These are all the things I would have done differently in hindsight.

[1638] I apologize for this and this and this and this.

[1639] That would go so far.

[1640] And maybe I'm being naive.

[1641] Who knows?

[1642] Maybe this would backfire, but I don't think it would, like, to someone like me, even, because I've, like, I've lost trust in a lot of these things.

[1643] I'm, but I'm fortunate that I at least know people who I can go to who I think are good, like have good epistemics on this stuff.

[1644] But, you know, if they could sort of put their hands on and go, okay, these are the spots where we screwed up, this, this, this was our reasons.

[1645] Yeah, we actually told a little white lie here.

[1646] We did it for this reason.

[1647] We're really sorry.

[1648] But they just did the radical honesty thing, the radical transparency thing.

[1649] That would go so far to rebuilding public trust.

[1650] And I think that's what needs to happen.

[1651] Yeah, I totally agree with you.

[1652] Unfortunately, yeah, his job was very tough.

[1653] and all those kinds of things.

[1654] But I see arrogance, and arrogance prevented him from being honest in that way previously, and I think arrogance will prevent him from being honest in that way.

[1655] Now, when you leaders, I think young people are seeing that, that kind of talking down to people from a position of power, I hope is the way of the past.

[1656] People really like authenticity, and they like, leaders that are like a man and a woman of the people and I think that just I mean he still has a chance to do that I think I mean yeah sure I don't think you know if I doubt he's listening but if he is like hey I I think you know I don't think he's irredeemable by any means I think this you know I don't I don't have an opinion whether there was arrogance or there or not um just know that I think like coming clean on the you know it's understandable to have fucked up during this pandemic like I won't expect any government to handle it well because it was so difficult, like, so many moving pieces, so much like lack of information and so on.

[1657] But the step to rebuilding trust is to go, okay, look, we're doing a scrutiny of where we went wrong.

[1658] And for my part, I did this wrong in this part.

[1659] That would be huge.

[1660] All of us can do that.

[1661] I mean, I was struggling for a while whether I want to talk to him or not.

[1662] I talked to his boss, Francis Collins.

[1663] another person that's screwed up in terms of trust I lost a little bit of my respect to there seems to have been a kind of dishonesty in the in the back rooms in that they didn't trust people to be intelligent like we need to tell them what's good for them we know what's good for them that kind of idea to be fair the thing that's what's it called heard the phrase today nut picking social media does that so you've got like nitpicking nutpicking is where the the craziest stupidest you know if you have a group of people let's call you know let's say people who are vaccine I don't like the term anti -vaccin people who are vaccine hesitant vaccine speculative you know what social media did or the media or anyone you know their opponents would do is pick the craziest example.

[1664] So the ones who are like, you know, I think I need to inject myself with like motor oil at my ass or something.

[1665] You know, select the craziest ones and then have that beamed to, you know, so from like someone like Fauci or Francis's perspective, that's what they get because they're getting the same social media stuff as us.

[1666] They're getting the same media reports.

[1667] I mean, they might get some more information.

[1668] But they too are going to get these, the nuts portrayed to them.

[1669] So they probably have a misrepresentation of what the actual public's intelligence is.

[1670] Well, that just, yes, and that just means they're not social media savvy.

[1671] So one of the skills of being on social media is to be able to filter that in your mind, like to understand, to put into proper context.

[1672] To realize that what you are seeing, social media is not anywhere near an accurate representation of humanity.

[1673] Not picking a leather.

[1674] And there's nothing wrong with putting motor oil up your ass.

[1675] It's one of the better aspect of, I do this every weekend.

[1676] Okay.

[1677] Where the hell of that analogy?

[1678] come from in my mind like what?

[1679] I don't know.

[1680] I think there's some Freudian thing would need to deeply investigate with a therapist.

[1681] Okay, what about AI?

[1682] Are you worried about AGI superintelligence systems or paperclip maximizer type of situation?

[1683] Yes, I'm definitely worried about it, but I feel kind of bipolar in the some days I wake up and I'm like, you're excited about the future?

[1684] Well, exactly.

[1685] I'm like, wow, we can unlock the mysteries of the universe you know escape the game um and this this you know if because i spend all my time thinking about these mollarchy problems that you know what what is the solution to them what you know in some ways you need this like omnibenevolent omni wise coordination mechanism that can like make us all not do the the the the monarchy thing uh or like provide the infrastructure or redesign the system so that it's not vulnerable to this mollicky process.

[1686] And in some ways, you know, that's, that's the strongest argument to me for, like, the race to build AGI, is that maybe, you know, we can't survive without it.

[1687] But the flip side to that is the, unfortunately, now that there's multiple actors trying to build AI, AGI, you know, this was, this was fine 10 years ago when it was just deep mind.

[1688] But then other companies started up and now it created a race dynamic.

[1689] Now it's like, the whole thing is it's got the same problem it's like whichever company is the one that like optimizes for speed at the cost of safety will get the competitive advantage and so we'll be the more likely the ones to build the aGI you know and that's the same cycle that you're in and there's no clear solution to that because you can't just go like um slapping you know if you go and try and like stop all the different companies then it will you know the good ones will stop because they're the ones, you know, within, you know, within the West's reach, but then that leaves all the other ones to continue and then they're even more likely.

[1690] So it's like, it's a very difficult problem with no clean solution.

[1691] And, you know, at the same time, you know, I know at least some of the folks at Deep Mind and they're incredible and they're thinking about this.

[1692] They're very aware of this problem.

[1693] And they're like, you know, I think some of the smartest people on earth.

[1694] Yeah, the culture is important there because they are thinking about that they're some of the best machine learning engineers.

[1695] So it's possible to have a company or a community of people that are both great engineers and are thinking about the philosophical topics.

[1696] Exactly.

[1697] And importantly, they're also game theorists, you know, and because this is ultimately a game theory problem, the thing, this mollock mechanism.

[1698] And, like, you know, how do we voice arms race scenarios?

[1699] You need people who aren't naive to be thinking about this.

[1700] And again, like, luckily, there's a lot of smart.

[1701] non -naive game theorists within that group.

[1702] Yes, I'm concerned about it and I think it's again a thing that we need people to be thinking about in terms of like how do we create, how do we mitigate the arms race dynamics and how do we solve the thing of, it's got, Bostrom calls it the orthogonality problem whereby, because obviously there's a chance, you know, the belief, the hope is that you build something that's super intelligent and by definition, of being super intelligent, it will also become super wise and have the wisdom to know what the right goals are.

[1703] And hopefully those goals include keeping humanity alive, right?

[1704] But Bostrom says that actually those two things, you know, superintelligence and super wisdom aren't necessarily correlated.

[1705] They're actually kind of orthogonal things.

[1706] And how do we make it so that they are correlated?

[1707] How do we guarantee it?

[1708] Because we need it to be guaranteed, really, to know that we're doing the thing safely.

[1709] But I think that like merging of intelligence and wisdom, at least my hope is that this whole process happens sufficiently slowly, that we're constantly having these kinds of debates, that we have enough time to figure out how to modify each version of the system as it becomes more and more intelligent.

[1710] Yes.

[1711] Buying time is a good thing, definitely.

[1712] Anything that slows everything down, we just, everyone needs to chill out.

[1713] We've got millennia.

[1714] to figure this out.

[1715] Or at least, well, it depends.

[1716] Again, some people think that, you know, we can't even make it through the next few decades without having some kind of omnivise coordination mechanism.

[1717] And there's also an argument to that.

[1718] Yeah, I don't know.

[1719] Well, there is, I'm suspicious of that kind of thinking because it seems like the entirety of human history has people in it that are like predicting doom, or just around the corner.

[1720] There's something about us that is strangely attracted to that thought.

[1721] It's almost like fun to think about the destruction of everything.

[1722] Just objectively speaking, I've talked and listened to a bunch of people and they are gravitating towards that.

[1723] It's almost, I think it's the same thing that people love about conspiracy theories is they love to be the person that kind of figured out, some deep fundamental thing about the that's going to be it's going to mark something extremely important about the history of human civilization because then I will be important right when in reality most of us will be forgotten and and and life will go on and one of the sad things about whenever anything traumatic happens to you whenever you lose loved ones or just tragedy happens you realize life goes on Even after a nuclear war that will wipe out some large percentage of the population and will torture people for years to come because of the sort of, I mean, the effects of a nuclear winter, people will still survive.

[1724] Life will still go on.

[1725] I mean, it depends on the kind of nuclear war.

[1726] But in case in nuclear world, it will still go on.

[1727] That's one of the amazing things about life.

[1728] It finds a way.

[1729] And so in that sense, I just, I feel like the doom and gloom thing is a...

[1730] Well, we don't, yeah, we don't want a self -fulfilling prophecy.

[1731] Yes, that's exactly.

[1732] Yes.

[1733] And I very much agree with that.

[1734] And I, you know, even I have a slight, like, feeling from the amount of time we've spent in this conversation talking about this, because it's like, you know, is this even a net positive if it's like making everyone feel, oh, in some ways, like making people imagine these bad scenarios can be a self -fulfilling prophecy.

[1735] But at the same time, that's weighed off with at least making people aware of the problem and gets them thinking.

[1736] And I think particularly, you know, the reason why I want to talk about this to your audience is that on average they're the type of people who gravitate towards these kind of topics because they're intellectually curious and they can sort of sense that there's trouble brewing.

[1737] Yeah.

[1738] They can smell that there's, you know, I think there's a reason of people are thinking about this stuff a lot is because the probability, the probability, you know, it's increased in probability over, certainly over the last few years.

[1739] trajectories have not gone favorably.

[1740] Let's put it since 2010.

[1741] So it's right, I think, for people to be thinking about it.

[1742] But that's where they're like, I think, whether it's a useful fiction or whether it's actually true or whatever you want to call it, I think having this faith, this is where faith is valuable because it gives you at least this like anchor of hope.

[1743] And I'm not just saying it to like trick myself.

[1744] I do truly, I do think there's something out there that wants us to win.

[1745] I think there's something that really wants us to win.

[1746] And it just, you just have to be, like, just like, kind of, okay, now I sound really crazy, but, like, open your heart to it a little bit.

[1747] Yeah.

[1748] And it will give you the, like, the sort of breathing room with which to marinate on the solutions.

[1749] We are the ones who have to come up with the solutions, but we can use, there's, like, there's hashtag positivity there's value in that yeah you have to kind of imagine all the destructive trajectories that lay in our future and then believe in the possibility avoiding those trajectories all while you said audience all while sitting back which is majority the two people that listen to this are probably sitting on a beach smoking some weed um just that's a beautiful sunset or they're looking at just the waves going in and out.

[1750] And ultimately there's a kind of deep belief there in the momentum of humanity to figure it all out.

[1751] I think we'll make it.

[1752] But we've got a lot of work to do.

[1753] Which what makes this whole simulation, this video game kind of fun, this Battle of Polatopia, I still, man, I love those games so much.

[1754] That's so good.

[1755] And that one for people who don't know, Battle of Politopia is a big, is this really radical simplification of a civilization type of game.

[1756] It still has a lot of the skill tree development, a lot of the strategy, but it's easy enough to play in a phone.

[1757] Yeah.

[1758] It's kind of interesting.

[1759] They've really figured it out.

[1760] It's one of the most elegantly designed games I've ever seen.

[1761] It's incredibly complex.

[1762] And yet, again, it walks that line between complexity and simplicity in this really, really great way and they use pretty colors that hack the dopamine reward circuits in our brains very well it's fun video games are so fun yeah most of this life is just about fun escaping all the suffering to find the fun uh what's energy healing i have in my notes energy healing question mark what's that about uh oh man um god your audience are going to think i'm mad uh so The two crazy things that happened to me. The one was the voice in the head that said, you're going to win this tournament, and then I won the tournament.

[1763] The other craziest thing that's happened to me was in 2018, I started getting this weird problem in my ear where it was kind of like low -frequency sound distortion, where voices, particularly men's voices, became incredibly unpleasant to listen to.

[1764] it would like create this it was like be falsely amplified or something and it was almost like a physical sensation in my ear which was really unpleasant and it would like last for a few hours and then go away and then come back for a few hours and go away and I went and got hearing tests and they found that like the bottom end I was losing the hearing in that ear and in the end I got the doctors said they think it was this thing called Many Ayres disease which is this very unpleasant disease where people basically end up losing their hearing but they get this like it often comes with like dizzy spells and other things because it's like the inner ear gets all messed up now I don't know if that's actually what I had but that's what at least a couple of one doctor said to me but anyway so I'd had three months of this stuff this going on it was really getting me down and I was at Burning Man um of all places I don't mean to be that person talking about Burning Man um but I was there and again I'd had it and I was unable to listen to me music, which is not what you want, because Burning Man is a very loud, intense place.

[1765] And I was just having a really rough time.

[1766] And on the final night, I get talking to this girl who's like a friend of a friend.

[1767] And I mentioned, I was like, oh, I'm really down in the dumps about this.

[1768] And she's like, oh, well, I've done a little bit of energy healing.

[1769] Would you like me to have a look?

[1770] I was, sure.

[1771] Now, this is, again, deep, I was, you know, no time in my life for this.

[1772] I didn't believe in any of this stuff.

[1773] I was just like, it's all bullshit.

[1774] It's all wooy nonsense.

[1775] But I was like, sure, have a go.

[1776] And she starts, like, with her hand, and she says, oh, there's something there.

[1777] And then she leans in and she starts, like, sucking over my ear, not actually touching me, but, like, close to it, like, with her mouth.

[1778] And it was really unpleasant.

[1779] I was like, whoa, can you stop?

[1780] She's like, no, no, no, no, there's something there I need to get it.

[1781] And I was like, no, no, no, I really don't like it.

[1782] Please, this is really loud.

[1783] She's like, I need to just bear with me. And she does it, and I don't know how long for a few minutes.

[1784] And then she eventually collapses on the ground, like freezing cold, crying.

[1785] not you know and I'm just like I don't know what the hell is going on like I'm like thoroughly freaked out as is everyone else watching just like what the hell on me like warm her up and she was like what oh you know she was really shaken up yeah and she's like I don't know what that she said it was something very unpleasant and dark don't worry it's gone I think you'll be fine in a couple you'll have the physical symptoms for a couple of weeks and you'll be fine but you know she was she was like that you know so I was so rattled A because the potential that actually I'd had something bad in me that made someone feel bad and that she was scared.

[1786] That was what, you know, I was like, wait, I thought, you do this.

[1787] This is the thing.

[1788] Now you're terrified?

[1789] Like, you've bought like some kind of exorcism or something.

[1790] What the fuck is going on?

[1791] Yeah.

[1792] So it, like just, the most insane experience.

[1793] And frankly, it took me like a few months to sort of emotionally recover from it.

[1794] But my ear problem went away about a couple of weeks later and touchwood I've not had any issues since so that gives you like hints that maybe there's something out there I mean I don't I again I don't have an explanation for this the most probable explanation was a you know I was a burning man I was in a very open state let's just leave it at that and you know placebo is an incredibly powerful thing and a very not understood thing.

[1795] Almost assigning the word placebo to it reduces it down to a way that it doesn't deserve to be reduced down.

[1796] Maybe there's a whole science of what we call placebo.

[1797] Maybe there's a, placebo is a door.

[1798] Self -healing, you know?

[1799] And I mean, I don't know what the problem was.

[1800] Like I was told it was many years.

[1801] I don't want to say, I definitely had that because I don't want people to think that, oh, that's how, you know, if they do have that, because it's terrible disease and if they have that, that this is going to be a guaranteed way for it to fix it for them.

[1802] I don't know.

[1803] And I also don't, I don't, and you're absolutely right to say, like, using even the word placebo is, like, it comes with this, like, baggage of, of, like, frame.

[1804] And I don't want to reduce it down.

[1805] All I can do is describe the experience and what happened.

[1806] I cannot put an ontological framework around it.

[1807] I can't say why it happened, what the mechanism was, what the problem even was in the first place.

[1808] I just know that something crazy happened and it was while I was in an open state and fortunately for me it made the problem go away but what I took away from it again it was part of this you know this took me on this journey of becoming more humble about what I think I know because as I said before I was like I was in the like Richard Dawkins train of atheism in terms of there is no God there's everything like that is bullshit we know everything we know you know the only way we can get through we know how medicine works and it's molecules and chemical interactions and that kind of stuff.

[1809] And now it's like, okay, well, there's clearly more for us to understand.

[1810] And that doesn't mean that it's a scientific as well.

[1811] Because, you know, the beauty of the scientific method is that it still can apply to this situation.

[1812] Like, I don't see why, you know, I would like to try and test this experimentally.

[1813] I haven't really, like, you know, I don't know how we would go about doing that.

[1814] We'd have to find other people with the same condition, I guess, and, like, try and, you know, repeat repeat the experiment but it doesn't just because something happens that's sort of out of the realms of our current understanding it doesn't mean that it's the scientific method can't be used for it yeah I think the scientific method sits on a foundation of those kinds of experiences because they scientific method is a process to carve away at the mystery all around us And experiences like this is just a reminder that we're mostly shrouded in mysteries still.

[1815] That's it.

[1816] It's just like a humility.

[1817] We haven't really figured this holding out.

[1818] But at the same time, we have found ways to act.

[1819] You know, we're clearly doing something right because think of the technological scientific advancements, the knowledge that we have that would blow people's minds even from 100 years ago.

[1820] Yeah.

[1821] And we've even allegedly gone out to space and landed on the moon.

[1822] Although I still haven't, I have not seen evidence of the earth being round, but I'm keeping an open mind.

[1823] Speaking of which, you studied physics and astrophysics.

[1824] Just to go to that, just to jump around through the fascinating life you've had, when did you, how did that come to be?

[1825] Like, when did you fall in love with astronomy and space and things like this?

[1826] As early as I can remember.

[1827] I was very lucky that my mom and my dad, but particularly my mom, my mom is like the most nature.

[1828] She is Mother Earth.

[1829] It's the only way to describe her.

[1830] She's like Dr. Doolittle.

[1831] Animals flock to her and just like sit and look at her adoringly.

[1832] As she sings.

[1833] Yeah, she just is Mother Earth.

[1834] And she has always been fascinated by, you know, she doesn't have any, you know, she never went to university or anything like that.

[1835] she's actually phobic of maths if I try and get her to like you know I was trying to teach her poker and she hated it um but she's so deeply curious um and that just got instilled in me when you know we would sleep out under the stars whenever it was you know the two nights a year when it was warm enough in the UK to do that um and we'll just lie out there until I've went to we fell asleep looking at looking for satellites looking for shooting stars and and I was just always I don't know whether it was from that, but I've always naturally gravitated to, like, the biggest, the biggest questions.

[1836] And also, like, the most layers of abstraction.

[1837] I love just, like, what's the meta question?

[1838] What's the meta question?

[1839] And so on.

[1840] So I think it just came from that, really.

[1841] And then on top of that, like, physics, you know, it also made logical sense in that it was a, it was a degree that, well, a subject that ticked the box of being, you know, answering these really big picture questions, but it's also extremely useful.

[1842] It has a very high utility in terms of, I didn't know necessarily.

[1843] I thought I was going to become like a research scientist.

[1844] My original plan was, I want to be a professional astronomer.

[1845] So it's not just like a philosophy degree that asks the big questions, and it's not like biology and the path to go to medical school or something like that, which is overly pragmatic, not overly, is very pragmatic.

[1846] They're more on the pragmatic side of me. But this is, yeah, physics is a good combination of the two.

[1847] Yeah, at least for me, it made sense.

[1848] And I was good at it.

[1849] I liked it.

[1850] Yeah, I mean, it wasn't like I did an immense amount of soul searching to choose it or anything.

[1851] It just was like this.

[1852] It made the most sense.

[1853] I mean, you have to make this decision in the UK, age 17, which is crazy.

[1854] Because, you know, in the first year, you do a bunch of stuff, right?

[1855] And then you choose your major.

[1856] I think the first few years of college, you focus on the drugs.

[1857] and only as you get closer to the end, do you start to think, oh, shit, this wasn't about that, and I owe the government a lot of money.

[1858] How many alien civilizations are out there?

[1859] When you looked up at the stars with your mom and you were counting them, what's your mom think about the number of alien civilization?

[1860] I actually don't know.

[1861] I would imagine she would take the viewpoint of, you know, she's pretty humble, And she knows how many, she knows there's a huge number of potential spawn sites out there.

[1862] So she would...

[1863] Spawn sites?

[1864] Spawn sites.

[1865] Yeah, this is our spawn sites.

[1866] Spawn sites.

[1867] Yeah, spawnsites in Polytopia.

[1868] We spawned on Earth, you know, it's...

[1869] Hmm.

[1870] Yeah, spawn sites.

[1871] Why does that feel weird to say, spawn?

[1872] Because it makes me feel like it's, um, there's only one source of life and it's spawning in different locations.

[1873] That's why the word spawn.

[1874] Because, like, it feels like life that originated on Earth really originated here.

[1875] Right.

[1876] It is, it is unique to this particular.

[1877] Yeah, I mean, but I don't, in my mind, it doesn't exclude, you know, that completely different forms of life and different biochemical soups can't also spawn.

[1878] But I guess it implies that there's some spark that is uniform, which I kind of like the idea of it.

[1879] And then I get to think about respawning.

[1880] like after it dies like what happens if life on earth ends is it going to restart again probably not it depends it depends on the type of you know what's the thing that kills it kills it off right if it's a paper lip maximizer not that you know for the example but you know some kind of very self -replicating you know high on the capabilities very low on the wisdom type thing so whether that's you know grey goo green goo you know like nanobots or just a shitty misaligned AI that thinks it needs to turn everything into paperclips.

[1881] You know, if it's something like that, then it's going to be very hard for life, you know, complex life.

[1882] Because by definition, you know, a paperclip maximiser is the ultimate instantiation of molluk.

[1883] Deeply low complexity, over -optimization on a single thing, sacrificing everything else, turning the whole world into.

[1884] Although something tells me, like, if we actually take a paperclip maximizer, it destroys everything.

[1885] it's a really dumb system that just envelops the whole of Earth and the universe beyond I didn't know that part but okay great it becomes a multi -planetary paperclip maximizer well it just it just propagates I mean it depends whether it figures out how to jump the vacuum gap but again I mean this is all silly because it's a hypothetical thought experiment which I think doesn't actually have much practical application to the AI safety problem but it's just a fun thing to play around with But if by definition it is maximally intelligent, which means it is maximally good at navigating the environment around it in order to achieve its goal, but extremely bad at choosing goals in the first place.

[1886] So again, we're talking on this orthogonality thing, right?

[1887] It's very low on wisdom, but very high on capability.

[1888] Then it will figure out how to jump a vacuum gap between planets and stars and so on and thus just turn every atom it gets its hands on into paperclips.

[1889] Yeah, by the way, for people who...

[1890] Which is maximum virality, by the way.

[1891] That's what virality is.

[1892] But does not mean that virality is necessarily all about maximizing paperclips.

[1893] In that case, it is.

[1894] So for people who don't know, this is just a thought experiment, an example of an AI system that has a goal and is willing to do anything to accomplish that goal, including destroying all life on Earth and all human life and all of consciousness in the universe for the goal of producing a maximum number of paperclips.

[1895] Okay.

[1896] Or whatever its optimization function was, that it was set at.

[1897] But don't you think...

[1898] It could be making, recreating Lexes.

[1899] Maybe it'll tile the universe in Lex.

[1900] Go on.

[1901] I like this idea.

[1902] No, I'm just kidding.

[1903] That's better.

[1904] That's more interesting than paper clips.

[1905] That could be infinitely optimal if I were just saying...

[1906] But if you ask me, it's still a bad thing because it's permanently capping what the universe could ever be.

[1907] It's like, that's its end state.

[1908] Or achieving the optimal that the universe could ever achieve, but that's up to...

[1909] Different people have different perspectives on this.

[1910] But don't you think within the paper clip world that would emerge, just like in the zeros and ones that make up a computer, that would emerge beautiful complexities.

[1911] Like, it won't suppress, you know, as you scale to multiple planets and throughout, there'll emerge these little worlds that on top of the fabric of maximizing paperclips, there would be, that would emerge like little societies of a paper clip.

[1912] Well, then we're not describing a paperclip maximiser anymore because by the, like, if you think of what a paperclip is, it is literally just a piece of bent iron, right?

[1913] So if it's maximizing that throughout the universe, it's taking every atom it gets its hand on into, somehow turning it into iron or steel, and then bending it into that shape and then done and on.

[1914] By definition, like paper clips, there is no way for, well, okay, so you're saying, that paper clips somehow will just emerge and create through gravity or something.

[1915] No, no, no, because there's a dynamic element of the whole system.

[1916] It's not just, it's creating those paper clips.

[1917] And the act of creating there's going to be a process.

[1918] And that process will have a dance to it.

[1919] Because it's not like sequential thing.

[1920] There's a whole complex three -dimensional system of paper clips.

[1921] You know, like, you know, people like string theory, right?

[1922] It's supposed to be strings that are interacting in fascinating ways.

[1923] I'm sure.

[1924] paper clips are very stringling.

[1925] They can be interacting in very interesting ways as you scale exponentially through three -dimensional.

[1926] I mean, I'm sure the paperclip maximizer has to come up with the theory of everything.

[1927] It has to create like warm holes, right?

[1928] It has to break, like, it has to understand quantum mechanics.

[1929] I love your optimism.

[1930] This is where I'd say we're going into the realm of pathological optimism, wherever it's.

[1931] I'm sure there will be a, a. I think there's an intelligence that emerges from that system.

[1932] So you're saying that basically intelligence is inherent in the fabric of reality and will find a way.

[1933] Kind of like Goldblum says life will find a way.

[1934] You think life will find a way, even out of this perfectly homogenous dead soup.

[1935] It's not perfectly homogenous.

[1936] It has to, it's perfectly maximal in the production.

[1937] I don't know why people keep thinking it's homoids.

[1938] It maximizes the number of paperclubs.

[1939] That's the only thing.

[1940] It's not trying to be homogenous.

[1941] It's trying to maximize paperclubs.

[1942] So you're saying, you're saying that because it, because, you know, kind of like in the Big Bang or, you know, it seems like, you know, things, there were clusters, there was more stuff here than there, that was enough of the patenicity that kickstarted, the evolutionary process.

[1943] It's a little weirdness that will make it beautiful.

[1944] Yeah, complexity emerges.

[1945] Interesting.

[1946] Okay.

[1947] Well, so how does that line up then with the whole heat death of the universe, right?

[1948] Because that's another sort of instantiation of this.

[1949] It's like everything and become so far apart and so cold and so perfectly mixed that it's like homogenous grayness.

[1950] Do you think that even out of that homogenous grayness where there's no negative entropy that, you know, there's no free energy that we understand, even from that new stuff?

[1951] Yeah, the paperclip maximizer or any other intelligence systems will figure out ways to travel to other universes to create big bangs within those universes or through black holes to create whole other worlds to break the what we consider are the limitations of physics the paperclip maximizer will find a way if a way exists and we should be humble to realize that we don't but because it just wants to make more paper clips so it's going to go into those universes and turn them into paper lips yeah but we humans not humans but complex system exist on top of that We're not interfering with it.

[1952] This complexity emerges from the simple base state.

[1953] The simple base state.

[1954] Whether it's, yeah, whether it's, you know, plank lengths or paperclips is the base unit.

[1955] Yeah, you can think of, like, the universe as a paperclip maximizer because it's doing some dumb stuff.

[1956] Like, physics seems to be pretty dumb.

[1957] It has, like, I don't know if you can summarize it.

[1958] Yeah, the laws are fairly basic, and yet out of them amazing complexity emerges.

[1959] And its goals seem to be pretty basic and dumb.

[1960] If you can summarize its goals, I mean, I don't know what's a nice way, maybe laws of thermodynamics could be good.

[1961] I don't know if you can assign goals to physics, but if you formulate in the sense of goals, it's very similar to paper maximizing in the dumbness of the goals.

[1962] But the pockets of complexity as it emerge is where beauty emerges.

[1963] That's where life emerges.

[1964] intelligence, that's where humans emerge.

[1965] And I think we're being very down on this whole paper clip maximise the thing.

[1966] Now, the reason we hate it...

[1967] Because what you're saying is that you think that the force of emergence itself is another like unwritten, not unwritten, but like another baked -in law of reality.

[1968] And you're trusting that emergence will find a way to, even out of seemingly the most mollicky, awful, plain outcome, emergence will still find a way.

[1969] I love that as a philosophy.

[1970] I think it's very nice.

[1971] I would wield it carefully because there's large error bars on that and the certainty of that.

[1972] How about we build the paper could maximize and find out?

[1973] Classic.

[1974] Mollock is doing cartwheels, man. Yeah.

[1975] But the thing is, it will destroy humans in the process, which is the reason we really don't like it.

[1976] We seem to be really holding on to this whole human civilization thing.

[1977] Would that make you sad if AI systems that are beautiful, that are conscious, that are interesting and complex and intelligent, ultimately lead to the death of humans?

[1978] Would that make you sad?

[1979] If humans led to the death of humans?

[1980] Sorry.

[1981] Like, if they would supersede humans.

[1982] Oh, if some AI?

[1983] Yeah, AI would end humans.

[1984] I mean, that's the reason why I'm like in some ways less emotionally concerned about AI risk as it then say bio -risk.

[1985] Because at least with AI, there's a chance, you know, if we're in this hypothetical where it wipes out humans, but it does it for some, like, higher purpose, it needs our atoms to, an energy to do something.

[1986] At least now, there's, the universe is going on to do something interesting.

[1987] Whereas if it wipes everything, you know, bio, like, just kills everything on earth, and that's it.

[1988] And there's no more, you know, Earth can not spawn anything more meaningful in the few hundred million years it has left, because it doesn't have much time left.

[1989] then yeah i i don't know that so one of my favorite books i've ever read is a nova scene by james lovelock who sadly just died um he wrote it when he was like 99 he died aged 102 so it's a fairly new book um and he sort of talks about that that he thinks it's you know sort of building off this guy a theory where like earth is like living some form of intelligence itself and that this is the next, like, step, right?

[1990] Is this, this, whatever, this new intelligence that is maybe silicon -based as opposed to carbon -based, goes on to do?

[1991] And it's a really sort of, in some ways, an optimistic but weirdly fatalistic book.

[1992] And I don't know if I fully subscribe to it, but it's a beautiful piece to read anyway.

[1993] So am I sad by that idea?

[1994] I think so, yes.

[1995] And actually, yeah, this is the reason why I'm sad by the idea, because if something is truly brilliant and wise and smart and truly super intelligent, it should, be able to figure out abundance.

[1996] So if it figures out abundance, it shouldn't need to kill us off.

[1997] It should be able to find a way for us.

[1998] It should be, there's plenty, the universe is huge.

[1999] There should be plenty of space for it to go out and do all the things it wants to do and like give us a little pocket where we can continue doing our things and we can continue to do things and so on.

[2000] And again, if it's so supremely wise, it shouldn't even be worried about the game theoretic considerations that by leaving us alive, we'll then go and create another like super intelligent agent that it then has to compete against because it should be omni -wise and smart enough to not have to concern itself with that.

[2001] Unless it deems humans to be kind of assholes.

[2002] Like the humans are a source of non -of -lose -lose kind of dynamics.

[2003] Well, yes and no. We're not.

[2004] Mollock is.

[2005] That's why I think it's important to say.

[2006] But maybe humans are the source of Mollock.

[2007] No, I mean, I think game theory is the source of Mollock.

[2008] Because Mollock exists in non -human systems as well.

[2009] It happens within, like, agents within a game in terms of, like, you know, it applies to agents, but it like it can apply to, you know, a species that's on an island of animals, you know, rats out -competing, the ones that, like, massively consume all the resources of the ones that are going to win out over the more, like, chill, socialized ones.

[2010] And so, you know, creates this Malthusian trap.

[2011] Like, Mollock exists in little pockets in nature as well.

[2012] So it's not a strictly human thing.

[2013] I wonder if it's actually a result of consequences of the invention of predator and prey dynamics.

[2014] Maybe it's, AI will have to kill off every organism that...

[2015] Now you're talking about killing off competition.

[2016] Not competition, but just, like, the way, it's like the weeds or whatever in a beautiful flower garden.

[2017] Parasites.

[2018] yeah on the whole system now of course it will you will it won't do that completely it'll put them in a zoo like we do with parasites it'll ring fence yeah and there'll be somebody doing a PhD on like they'll prod humans with a stick and see what they do but uh I mean in terms of letting us run wild outside of the uh you know a geographic constraint region that might be uh that it might had uh decide to against that no I think there's obviously the for beauty and kindness and non -mullic behavior amidst humans.

[2019] So I'm pretty sure AI will preserve us.

[2020] Let me, I don't know if you answered the aliens question.

[2021] Oh, I didn't.

[2022] You had a good conversation with Toby Ward about various sides of the universe.

[2023] I think, did he say, now I'm forgetting, but I think he said it's a good chance we're alone.

[2024] So the classic, you know, Fermi paradox question is, there were so many spawn points, and yet, you know, it didn't take us that long to go from harnessing fire to sending out radio signals into space.

[2025] So surely, given the vastness of space, we should be, and, you know, even if only a tiny fraction of those create life and other civilizations too, we should be, the universe should be very noisy.

[2026] There should be evidence of dice and spheres or whatever, you know, like at least radio signals and so on.

[2027] But seemingly things are very silent out there.

[2028] Now, of course, it depends on who you speak to.

[2029] Some people say that they're getting signals all the time and so on, and I don't want to make an epistemic statement on that.

[2030] But it seems like there's a lot of silence.

[2031] And so that raises this paradox.

[2032] And then, you know, the Drake equation.

[2033] So the Drake equation is like basically just a simple thing of trying to estimate the number of possible civilizations within the galaxy by multiplying the number of stars created per year by the number of stars that have planets, planets that are habitable, blah, blah, blah.

[2034] It's all these, like, different factors.

[2035] And then you plug in numbers into that and you, you know, depending on like the range of, you know, your lower bound and your upper bound point estimates that you put in, you get out a number at the end for the number of civilizations.

[2036] But what Toby and his crew did differently was Toby is a researcher at the Future of Humanity Institute.

[2037] They, instead of, they realize that it's like basically a statistical quirk that if you put in point sources, even if you think you're putting in conservative point sources, because on some of these variables, the uncertainty is so large, it spans like maybe even like a couple of hundred of orders of magnitude.

[2038] By putting in point sources, it's always going to lead to overestimates.

[2039] And so they, by putting stuff on a log scale, or actually they did it on like a log log scale on some of them and then like ran the simulation across the whole bucket of uncertainty across all those orders of magnitude when you do that then actually the number comes out much much smaller and that's the more statistically rigorous mathematically correct way of doing the calculation it's still a lot of hand -waving as science goes it's like definitely you know just waving I don't know what an analogy is but it's hand -wavy And anyway, when they did this, and then they did a Bayesian update on it as well to like factor in the fact that there is no evidence that we're picking up because, you know, no evidence is actually a form of evidence, right?

[2040] And the long and short of it comes out that we're roughly around 70 % to be the only intelligent civilization in our galaxy thus far and around 50 -50 in the entire observable universe, which sounds so crazily counterintuitive, but they're meant.

[2041] math is legit.

[2042] Well, yeah, the math around this particular equation, which the equation is ridiculous on many levels.

[2043] But the powerful thing about the equation is there's different things, different components that can be estimated and the air bars on which can be reduced with science.

[2044] And hence, throughout, since the equation came out, the air bars have been coming out on different aspects.

[2045] Yeah, that's very true.

[2046] And so that it almost kind of says, like this gives you a mission to reduce the error bars on these estimates over a period of time.

[2047] And once you do, you can better and better understand.

[2048] Like in the process of redoing the air bars, you'll get to understand actually what is the right way to find out where the aliens are, how many of them there are, and all those kinds of things.

[2049] So I don't think it's good to use that for an estimation.

[2050] I think you do have to think from like, more like from first principles, just looking at what life is on earth.

[2051] Like, and trying to understand the very physics -based, biology -based question of what is life, maybe computation -based.

[2052] What the fuck is this thing?

[2053] Right.

[2054] And that, like, how difficult does it to create this thing?

[2055] Right.

[2056] It's one way to say, like, how many planets like this are out there, all that kind of stuff.

[2057] but it feels like from our very limited knowledge perspective, the right ways to think what is this thing and how does it originate from very simple, non -life things, how does complex life -like things emerge?

[2058] From a rock to a bacteria, protein, and these like weird systems that encode information, and pass information from self -replicate, and then also select each other and mutate in interesting ways such that they can adapt and evolve and build increasingly more complex systems.

[2059] Right.

[2060] Well, it's a form of information processing, right?

[2061] Right.

[2062] Whereas information transfer, but then also an energy processing, which then results in, I guess, information processing?

[2063] Maybe I'm getting bogged down.

[2064] Well, it's doing some modification, and yeah, the input is some energy.

[2065] Right.

[2066] It's able to extract, yeah, extract resources from its environment in order to achieve a goal.

[2067] But the goal doesn't seem to be clear.

[2068] Right.

[2069] The goal is, well, the goal is to make more of itself.

[2070] Yeah, but in a way that increases, I mean, I don't know if evolution is a fundamental law of the universe, but it seems to want to replicate itself in a way.

[2071] then maximizes the chance of its survival.

[2072] Individual agents within an ecosystem do, yes.

[2073] Yes.

[2074] Evolution itself doesn't give a fuck.

[2075] It's a very, I don't care.

[2076] It's just like, oh, you optimize it.

[2077] Well, at least it's certainly, yeah, it doesn't care about the welfare of the individual agents within it.

[2078] But it does seem to, I don't know.

[2079] I think the mistake is that we're anthropomorphizing.

[2080] To even try and give evolution a mindset.

[2081] Because it is, there's a really great post by Eliezer, Yudkowski, on Les Rung, which is an alien god.

[2082] And he talks about, like, the mistake we make when we try and, like, put on my, think through things from an evolutionary perspective as though, like, giving evolution, like, some kind of agency and what it wants.

[2083] Yeah, worth reading.

[2084] But, yeah.

[2085] I would like to say that having interacted with a lot of really smart people that say that say that, that anthropomorphization is a mistake.

[2086] I would like to say, that's saying that anthropomorphization is a mistake is a mistake.

[2087] I think there's a lot of power in anthropomorphization, if I can only say that work correctly one time.

[2088] I think that's actually a really powerful way to reason through things.

[2089] And I think people, especially people in robotics, seem to run away from it as fast as possible.

[2090] And I just - Can you give an example of like how it helps in robotics?

[2091] Oh, that our world is a world of humans.

[2092] And to see robots as fundamentally just tools runs away from the fact that we live in a world, a dynamic world of humans.

[2093] That like all these game theory systems we've talked about that a robot that ever has to interact with humans.

[2094] And I don't mean like intimate friendship interaction.

[2095] I mean in a factory.

[2096] setting, where it has to deal with the uncertainty of humans, all that kind of stuff.

[2097] You have to acknowledge that the robot's behavior has an effect on the human, just as much as the human has an effect on the robot.

[2098] And there's a dance there.

[2099] And you have to realize that this entity, when a human sees a robot, this is obvious in a physical manifestation of a robot, they feel a certain way.

[2100] They have a fear.

[2101] They have uncertainty.

[2102] They have their own personal life projections.

[2103] if they have pets and dogs and the thing looks like a dog, they have their own memories of what a dog is like, they have certain feelings.

[2104] And that's going to be useful in a safety setting, safety critical setting, which is one of the most trivial settings for a robot, in terms of how to avoid any kind of dangerous situations.

[2105] And a robot should really consider that in navigating its environment.

[2106] And we humans are right to reason about how a robot should consider navigating its environment through anthropomorphization.

[2107] I also think our brains are designed to think in human terms.

[2108] Like game theory, I think, is best applied in the space of human decisions.

[2109] And so...

[2110] Right, you're dealing with things like AI, AIs, they are...

[2111] You know, we can somewhat...

[2112] Like, I don't think it's...

[2113] the reason I say anthropomorphization we need to be careful with is because there is a danger of overly wrongly assuming that this artificial intelligence is going to operate in any similar way to us because it is operating on a fundamentally different substrate like even dogs or even mice or whatever in some ways like anthropomorphizing them is less of a mistake I think than an AI even though it's an AI we built and so on, because at least we know that they're running from the same substrate.

[2114] And they've also evolved from the same, out of the same evolutionary process.

[2115] You know, they've followed this evolution of, like, needing to compete for resources and needing to find a mate and that kind of stuff.

[2116] Whereas an AI that has just popped into an existence somewhere on a cloud server, let's say, you know, or whatever, however it runs and whatever, whether, I don't know whether they have an internal experience, I don't think they necessarily do.

[2117] In fact, I don't think they do.

[2118] But the point is that to try and apply any kind of modeling of like thinking through problems and decisions in the same way that we do has to be done extremely carefully because they are like they're so alien their method of whatever their form of thinking is.

[2119] It's just so different because they've never had to evolve in the same way.

[2120] Yeah, beautifully put, I was just playing devil's advocate.

[2121] I do think in certain contexts anthropomorphization is not going to hurt you.

[2122] Yes.

[2123] Engineers run away from it too fast.

[2124] I can see that.

[2125] But for the most point, you're right.

[2126] Do you have advice for young people today, like the 17 -year -old that you were, of how to live life?

[2127] You can be proud of how to have a career you can be proud of in this world full of mullocks.

[2128] Think about the win -wins.

[2129] Look for win -win situations.

[2130] And be careful not to overly use your smarts to convince yourself that something is win -win -win -win -when -it's not.

[2131] So that's difficult.

[2132] And I don't know how to advise people on that because it's something I'm still figuring out myself.

[2133] But have that as a sort of default MO.

[2134] Don't see things, everything is a zero -sum game, try to find the positive sumness, and find waste, if there doesn't seem to be one, consider playing a different game.

[2135] So I would suggest that.

[2136] do not become a professional poker player because people always ask they're like oh she's a pro I want to do that too fine you could have done it if you were you know when I started out it was a very different situation back then poker is you know a great game to learn in order to understand the ways to think and I recommend people learn it but don't try make a living from it these days it's almost it's very very difficult to the point of being impossible and then really, really be aware of how much time you spend on your phone and on social media and really try and keep it to a minimum.

[2137] Be aware that basically every moment that you spend on it is bad for you.

[2138] So it doesn't mean to say you can never do it, but just have that running in the background.

[2139] I'm doing a bad thing for myself right now.

[2140] I think that's the general rule of them.

[2141] Of course, about becoming a professional poker player, if there is a thing in your life that That's like that, and nobody can convince you otherwise just fucking do it.

[2142] Don't listen to anyone's advice.

[2143] Find a thing that you can't be talked out of, too.

[2144] That's a thing.

[2145] I like that.

[2146] Yeah.

[2147] You were a lead guitarist in a metal band.

[2148] Did I write that down from something?

[2149] What did you do it for?

[2150] Or the performing, was it the pure, the music of it?

[2151] Was it just being a rock star?

[2152] Why did you do it?

[2153] So we only ever played two gigs?

[2154] We didn't last, you know, it wasn't a very, we weren't famous or anything like that.

[2155] But I was very into metal.

[2156] Like it was my entire identity, sort of from the age of 16 to 23.

[2157] It's the best metal band of all time.

[2158] Don't ask me that.

[2159] It's so hard to answer.

[2160] So I know I had a long argument with, I'm a guitarist more like a classic rock guitars.

[2161] So, you know, I've had friends who are very big Pantera fans, and so there was often arguments about what's the better metal band, Metallica versus Pantera.

[2162] This is a more kind of 90s maybe discussion.

[2163] But I was always on the side of Metallica.

[2164] both musically and in terms of performance and the depth of war lyrics and so on.

[2165] But they were, basically everybody was against me. Because if you're a true metal fan, I guess the idea goes is you can't possibly be a Metallica fan.

[2166] I think that's crazy.

[2167] It's like they sold out.

[2168] Metallica are metal.

[2169] They were the, I mean, again, you can't say who was the godfather of metal, blah, blah, blah.

[2170] but, like, they were so groundbreaking and so brilliant.

[2171] I mean, you've named literally two of my favorite bands.

[2172] Like, that's, when you ask that question, I know who are my favorites?

[2173] Like, those were two that came up.

[2174] A third one is Children of Bodom, who I just think, oh, they just tick all the boxes for me. Yeah, I don't know.

[2175] It's nowadays, like, I kind of sort of feel like a repulsion to the, I was that myself.

[2176] Like, I'd be like, who do you?

[2177] prefer more, who's like, no, you have to rank him, but it's like this false zero -sumness that's like, why, they're so additive, like, there's no conflict there.

[2178] Although, when people ask that kind of question about anything, movies, I feel like it's hard work and it's unfair, but it's, it's, you should pick one.

[2179] Yeah.

[2180] Like, and I, that's actually, you know, the same kind of, it's like a fear of a commitment.

[2181] Right.

[2182] People ask me, what's your favorite band?

[2183] It's like, but I, you know, it's good to pick.

[2184] Exactly.

[2185] And thank you for, yeah, thank you for the tough question.

[2186] Yeah.

[2187] Well, maybe not in a context when a lot of people are listening.

[2188] I'm not just like, what?

[2189] Why does this matter?

[2190] No, it does.

[2191] Are you still into metal?

[2192] Funny enough, I was listening to a bunch before I came over here.

[2193] Oh, like do you use it for like motivation or get you in a certain?

[2194] Yeah, I was weirdly listening to 80s hair metal before I came.

[2195] Does that count as metal?

[2196] I think so.

[2197] It's like proto metal and it's happy, it's optimistic, happy proto metal.

[2198] yeah I mean these things all these genres bleed into each other but yeah sorry to answer your question about guitar playing my relationship with it was kind of weird in that I was deeply uncreative my objective would be to hear some really hard technical solo and then learn it memorize it and then play it perfectly but I was incapable of trying to write my own music the idea was just absolutely terrifying but I was also just thinking I was like it'd be kind of cool to actually try starting a band again and getting back into it and write.

[2199] But it's scary.

[2200] It's scary.

[2201] I mean, I put out some guitar playing just other people's covers.

[2202] I play comfortably numb on the internet.

[2203] It's scary, too.

[2204] It's scary putting stuff out there.

[2205] And I had this similar kind of fascination with technical playing, both on piano and guitar.

[2206] You know, one of the first, one of the reasons, I started learning guitars from Ozzy Osbourne, Mr. Crawley's solo.

[2207] And one of the first solos I learned is that there's a beauty to it.

[2208] There's a lot of beauty to.

[2209] There's a lot of beauty to.

[2210] There's some tapping, but it's just really fast.

[2211] Beautiful, like arpeggios.

[2212] Yeah, there's a melody that you can hear through it, but there's also a build -up.

[2213] It's a beautiful solo, but it's also technically just visually the way it looks when a person's watches.

[2214] You feel like a rock star playing.

[2215] But it ultimately has to do with technical.

[2216] You're not developing the part of your brain that I think requires you to generate beautiful music.

[2217] It is ultimately technical in nature.

[2218] And so that took me a long time to let go of that and just be able to write music myself.

[2219] And that's a different journey, I think.

[2220] I think that journey is a little bit more inspired in the blues world, for example, or improvisation is more valued, obviously in jazz and so on.

[2221] But I think ultimately it's a more rewarding journey because you get to your relationship with the guitar then becomes a kind of escape from the world where you can create, create.

[2222] I mean, creating stuff is.

[2223] And it's something you work with, because my relationship with my guitar was like it was something to tame and defeat.

[2224] Yeah.

[2225] Which was kind of what my whole personality was back then.

[2226] Like I was just very like, as I said, very competitive, very just like must bend this thing to my will.

[2227] Whereas writing music is you work, it's like a dance.

[2228] You work with it.

[2229] But I think because of the competitive aspect, for me at least, that's still there, which creates anxiety about playing publicly or all that kind of stuff.

[2230] I think there's just like a harsh self -criticism within the whole thing.

[2231] It's really, really, it's really tough.

[2232] I want to hear some of your stuff.

[2233] I mean, there's certain things that feel really personal.

[2234] And on top of that, as we talked about poker offline, there's certain things that you get to a certain height in your life, and that doesn't have to be very high, but you get to a certain height, and then you put it aside for a bit, and it's hard to return to it because you remember being good.

[2235] And it's hard to, like, you being at a very high level in poker, it might be hard for you to return to poker every once in a while and enjoy it, knowing that you're just not as sharp as it used to be, because you're not doing it every single day.

[2236] That's something I always wonder with, I mean, even just like in chess, with Kasparov, some of these grates, just returning to it.

[2237] It's just, it's almost painful.

[2238] Yes, I can, yeah.

[2239] And I feel that way with guitar, too, you know, because I used to play, like, every day a lot.

[2240] So returning to it is painful because, like, it's like accepting the fact that this whole ride is finite and, that you have a prime there's a time when you're really good and now it's over and now we're on a different chapter of life it's like oh but i miss that yeah but you can still you can still discover joy within that process it's been tough especially with some level of like as people get to know you there's uh and people film stuff you you don't have the privacy of just sharing something with a few people around you yeah That's a beautiful privacy that with the internet just gets disappearing.

[2241] Yeah, that's a really good point.

[2242] Yeah.

[2243] But all those pressures aside, if you really, you can step up and still enjoy the fuck out of a good musical performance.

[2244] What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing?

[2245] What's the meaning of life?

[2246] It's in your name, as we talked about.

[2247] You have to live up.

[2248] Do you feel the requirement to have to live up?

[2249] to your name?

[2250] Because live?

[2251] Yeah.

[2252] No, because I don't see it.

[2253] I mean, my, well, again, it's kind of like, no, I don't know.

[2254] Because my full name is Olivia.

[2255] Yeah.

[2256] So I can retreat in that and be like, oh, Olivia, what does that even mean?

[2257] Live up to live.

[2258] No, I can't say I do because I've never thought of it that way.

[2259] And then your name backwards is evil.

[2260] That's what we also talked about.

[2261] there's there's like layers i mean i feel the urge to to live up to that to be to be the inverse of evil yeah um or even better because i don't think i you know is the inverse of evil good or is good something completely separate to that i think my intuition says it's the latter but i don't know anyway getting in the weeds um what is the meaning of all this uh of life um why are we here I think to explore, have fun and understand and make more of here and to keep the game going.

[2262] Of here?

[2263] More of here?

[2264] More of this, whatever this is.

[2265] More of experience.

[2266] Just to have more of experience and ideally positive experience.

[2267] And more complex, you know, to I guess try and put it into a sort of vaguely scientific term.

[2268] make it so that the program required, the length of code required to describe the universe is as long as possible.

[2269] And that, you know, highly complex and therefore interesting.

[2270] Because again, like, I know, you know, we bang the metaphor to death, but like, tiled with X, you know, tiled with paper clips doesn't require that much of a code to describe.

[2271] Obviously, maybe something emerges from it, but that steady state, assuming a steady state, It's not very interesting, whereas it seems like our universe is over time becoming more and more complex and interesting.

[2272] There's so much richness and beauty and diversity on this earth, and I want that to continue and get more.

[2273] I want more diversity, and in the very best sense of that word, is to me, the goal of all this.

[2274] Yeah, and somehow have fun in the process.

[2275] Yes.

[2276] Because we do create a lot of fun things along.

[2277] instead of in this creative force and all the beautiful things who create somehow there's like funness to it and perhaps that has to do with the finiteness of life the finiteness of all these experiences which is what makes them kind of unique like the fact that they end there's this whatever it is falling in love or creating a piece of art or creating a bridge or or creating a rocket or creating a, I don't know, just the businesses that build something or solve something, the fact that it is born and it dies, somehow embeds it with fun, with joy for the people involved.

[2278] I don't know what that is, the finiteness of it.

[2279] It can do, some people struggle with the, You know, I mean, a big thing I think that one has to learn is being okay with things coming to an end.

[2280] And in terms of, like, projects and so on, right, people cling on to things beyond what they're meant to be doing, you know, beyond what is reasonable.

[2281] And I'm going to have to come to terms of this podcast coming to an end.

[2282] I really enjoy talking to you.

[2283] I think it's obvious, as we've talked about many times, you should be doing a podcast.

[2284] You should, you're already doing a lot of stuff publicly to the world, which is awesome.

[2285] And you're a great educator, you're a great mind, you're a great intellect.

[2286] But it's also this whole medium of just talking is also fun.

[2287] It's a fun one.

[2288] It really is good.

[2289] And it's just, it's just so much fun.

[2290] And you can just get into so many, yeah, there's this space to just explore and see what comes and emerges.

[2291] And yeah.

[2292] Yeah, to understand yourself better.

[2293] And if you're talking to others, to understand them better.

[2294] and together with them.

[2295] I mean, you should do your, you should do your own podcast, but you should also do a podcast with C as we talked about.

[2296] The two of you have such different minds that like melt together in just hilarious ways, fascinating ways.

[2297] Just the tension of ideas there is really powerful.

[2298] But in general, I think you got a beautiful voice.

[2299] So thank you so much for talking today.

[2300] Thank you for being a friend.

[2301] Thank you for honoring me with this conversation and with your valuable time.

[2302] Thanks, Liv.

[2303] Thank you.

[2304] Thanks for listening to this conversation with Livbury.

[2305] To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.

[2306] And now, let me leave you with some words from Richard Feynman.

[2307] I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers, which might be wrong.

[2308] I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things.

[2309] But I'm not absolutely sure of anything.

[2310] And there are many things I don't know anything about.

[2311] such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here.

[2312] I don't have to know the answer.

[2313] I don't feel frightened not knowing things by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell.

[2314] Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.