00:00:15 Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making better decisions. I'm Maria Kanakova. 00:00:31 Speaker 2: And I'm Nate Silver. Time for an AI episode, I think, Aria, Yeah, it's. 00:00:35 Speaker 1: It's been a minute since we had AI related conversations on the show. But it's obviously a hugely important topic and one that should have been more in the news last week it got you know, got sidelined by other news. But who's that a guy don't don't know, don't know Nate but never never met him. That's true, never met him. But yeah, well, we'll talk a little bit about the AI action plan that was released by the US government last week. We have lots to talk about before we do. Nate, we're both back in New York, but I'm actually flying back to Vegas in twenty four hours to play in the twenty five k NBC Heads Up Championship. 00:01:30 Speaker 2: Yeah are you? Are you excited? Have you been coaching? 00:01:34 Speaker 3: I have? 00:01:34 Speaker 1: I have so For people who don't know, this was a big show back in the day. It was before my time, so I never watched it. Nate, did you ever watch it? 00:01:44 Speaker 2: Sure? Yeah, yeah, so time, you're not that much younger. 00:01:47 Speaker 1: I didn't know anything about poker. It was before my time, like actually knowing anything about poker, So I didn't watch any poker, know about the existence of any poker shows before I started researching Biggest Bluff. So that's what I mean, before my time, before my time in the poker world. 00:02:02 Speaker 2: Had you heard of poker only because of rounders? 00:02:06 Speaker 1: I knew that technically it was a game that existed, but it's not something that was ever really on my radar. But yeah, this was a huge show on NBC back in the day. Heads Up poker is one on one poker, which is kind of the most competitive in some ways form of poker because you're forced to play all hands. Basically your ranges are one hundred percent, so it forces a very different kind of thinking. And it's being rebooted in conjunction with Peacock and Poker Stars and Poker Goes kind of is helping sponsor all of this. So I am yeah, I'll be in the Poker Ghost Studios taping and I hope it goes well. I've been getting coaching from Kevin Rabichow, who's considered Yeah, he's considered one of the best heads up players in the world. He has a new heads up coaching course that just came out. But yeah, so I've been I've been really trying. You know, usually after the World Series, I'm like, okay, no poker for a while. Right, it's not gonna just gonna clear my my clear my brain. 00:03:07 Speaker 3: I'm in the no poker zone for a period of time. We're also bad heads up to be frank, which was some coaching might have been good, but like, yeah, I can't can't make the time commitment this summer in. 00:03:19 Speaker 1: Yeah, so instead of taking my usual break from from poker that I do, I've been instead like going hard and trying to prepare myself for this heads up Championship. And you know it, heads up, the variants so much higher, and the card distribution matters so much, right, So, like no, and if someone is just getting hands, that's kind of you know, that's it, Like they're they're potentially going to win. And there have been lots of times where really great players have been just completely obliterated by someone who doesn't know how to play. Yeah, so card distribution can be a bitch heads up, or it can be amazing. 00:04:04 Speaker 2: Are those exclusive? Uh No, Okay, I'm not going to get into it. 00:04:08 Speaker 1: Yeah, no, bitchin amazing can be can be within the same match, but it does matter much more so than in full ring poker. I saw some of the names that we'll be playing, and there's gonna be no spoilers obviously. Well, I haven't played yet, but I'm not going to be able to tell you how I did until the show airs in the fall. Yeah, since it's not it's not airing in real time, but you will. People do know who's playing. And if I'm paired with someone like Jason Kuhn on my first match, yeah, that's that's not going to be fun. And if I'm paired with Don Cheetle, who's also playing, I think I'm gonna be much happier. 00:04:49 Speaker 2: Yeah. 00:04:50 Speaker 3: I didn't realize there that many not Fish but celebrities that maybe Fish adjacent potentially, although he plays a little bit right he does. 00:04:58 Speaker 1: Yeah, so so we'll We'll just see and I'm excited for it no matter how it goes. And Kevin has been very good at preparing me for both heads up and also for the eventuality that he as one of the best and at times probably the best in the world, has sometimes busted in the first round right in the matchups like this, because he plays a twenty five K heads up at the World Series every year. 00:05:26 Speaker 3: Are you worried about like physical reads and things like that, because like that can be more of a factor too. 00:05:31 Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, so I tend to be you know, I hope that people can't get a lot of reads off of me, but you just never know. And this is actually hilarious night the rules of this. When I started reading it, I just burst out laughing because they said that you are allowed So people who don't play poker, this is not normal. You're allowed to expose one or both of your cards at any point during a hand. 00:05:57 Speaker 2: You can cash usually but not in turn. 00:05:59 Speaker 1: But this, yeah, this is a tournament. Yeah, so you can expose your cards one or both of them. And they said they encourage speech play. You can talk about the contents of your hands. So basically everything are not allowed to do in tournaments normally you're being encouraged to do to make good television. I'm not going to be showing my cards day. 00:06:17 Speaker 3: Okay, I've become more of a speech play guy over time. 00:06:21 Speaker 1: No really, yeah, okay, okay, give me an example. 00:06:25 Speaker 3: You know, like the Europeans, I'll like try to get info out of them. Were so quiet all the time that like I want, like, I just want to like any vibe I can get pretty much, or with like really bad players who like often will reveal information just to gauge their comfort level. It's kind of been a proto trial and error Zoka. For right now, I'm trying to like kind of like collect mental database of like how people react to different things. 00:06:49 Speaker 2: I don't know, it's kind of I mean, because so. 00:06:50 Speaker 3: Many decisions are so close, yeah, equilibrium that like any vibe you can get, And I like recently cash games more than tournaments and they're kind of looser in various senses of the term, right, people like you reveal more info voluntarily or involuntarily. 00:07:07 Speaker 2: I like cultivating that environment. I think. 00:07:10 Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I'm someone who definitely is chatty and tends to be like very friendly at poker tables. But you know, I'm not someone who's going to be like, oh, you know, do you have aces, like do you do things like that or is it because you know there are players who do or is it something a little bit different just to try to engage. 00:07:28 Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe it's like you're would have decided to fold already if they want to like reveal something that they might not reveal otherwise, or to send a bassline for the next time we play a hand, things like that. 00:07:40 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's actually smart. 00:07:41 Speaker 2: So how can you reveal afterward? Right? 00:07:44 Speaker 3: If you're friendly in the right way, they might reveal information later on. 00:07:47 Speaker 2: Right for sure. 00:07:48 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's actually something that I have capitalized on because I am a friendly player. Like I'll sometimes when it's obvious, like I've made a big fold or something like that, and I like make it obvious, they'll show me. And that's that's very nice because it's good information. But I'm always I do try to be careful, and I tell people this, you know, with with poker and with just like reads and our ability to spot deception in general, that we do tend to be not great at it as human beings. And the other kind of the other element of that is that we think we're better than we are. And we also often reveal information when we're engaging in speech play without realizing it because of how we're talking, what we're doing. And so it's something that I think just in general, with the psychology of the thing, you have to be careful. 00:08:38 Speaker 2: It's all contextual. 00:08:39 Speaker 3: Any poker tell speech play, it's all about semantic context, so to speak for sure. 00:08:46 Speaker 1: For sure. On that note, Nate, shall we switch gears and talk about AI and the news from last week which got buried because there's a lot of news in the news. There's a lot of news in the news these days, Nate, that's a very deep insight. So last week President released the AI Action Plan that talks about what the administration wants to kind of see going forward in the AI space. And I think the name of this action plan is actually quite telling about the contents. It says, winning the Race America's AI Action Plan. So it's titled winning the Race. And that's how it's framed, right, It's framed as a race between the US and everyone else, especially China, but really everyone else, mostly China, but mostly no, there isn't. And the overall point of all of the different sections is how can we make the US the leader in AI the most competitive and how can we do that by also kind of screwing over China in some respects by not allowing it access to the types of things that will allow our allies to access and some of the things in it are contradictory, but that's kind of the overall message. Did you read the report night, Do you have any initial thoughts? 00:10:14 Speaker 2: So? 00:10:14 Speaker 3: V Maschwitz is one of the most prominent and best AI bloggers. He writes the substack, don't worry about the vase, and he calls it as he sees that he's more concerned about ped doom than a lot of people. P doom is the possibility if things going really badly, extinction, loss of control, et cetera. And he said he thought the plan was actually his term pretty good. I don't know his politics in detail, but he really dives down into like every last word you can read that. So I'm kind of relying on that for like general vibes, right. I mean, it is interesting that like, even like even people who are concerned like V about AI safety, deeply concerned in his case, have this ambiguous relationship with China, right where if we were the only country developing AI and we had like centralized control, then it would be easier to argue that Okay, let's speak appropriately cautious here, take it slow right with China. You know a lot of people I don't want it to be of you to him I do think that, well, we have no choice but to race, and maybe we can race in ways that involves some degree of coordination or cooperation. It's hard to run races like that. But you know, I mean the notion of like securing American leadership instead of seeding it to China, I don't think is terribly controversial. I mean there's a lot in the in the in the in the plan though, right, there are some Trumpian elements around factors like the political orientation of AI models, right where they don't want them to be too woke, They don't want them to be too political quote unquote right. 00:12:01 Speaker 1: Yeah, which is one of the things which is hard, Which is hard, and which is one of the things that ZV does point out because I read this as well, it's one of the one of the things that he points out is actually probably not possible given the type of language that that Trump employs, and that as a psychologist, I would say is not possible given how AI is developed, because there's just there's bias everywhere, and there's no such thing as like this is the objective thing, and if you're constantly policing quote unquote anti woke, even if that's kind of the unbiased position. But you're like, oh no, that's you know that, then you're going to it's problematic. It's problematic in terms of how your how you go about it. 00:12:48 Speaker 3: Yeah, with with Groc or more technically, the Twitter bought Groc, which is an instance of Elon Elon's overall modeled rock. Right, Elon just did a couple of like subtle things. It was like, oh, don't be too woke here, don't trust the media too much. Right, if you read the actual changes to the archae texture, they weren't that profound, And yet Kroc was calling itself. I believe the term is Mecha Hitler after some period of time engaging in elaborate rape fantasies. I wish this were a joke, but it's not. And like so yeah, I mean if you kind of nudge a model to override its inputs, it's hard to do so in a way that like has any type of dexterity. I mean Google had this problem too, right when they got to Gemini two years ago, a year and a half ago, right, they were like, oh my gosh, yeah, people are there's too many like white people, white men in these photos, So like literally it was forced to draw like multi racial Nazis. 00:13:51 Speaker 2: It always comes down to Nazis. 00:13:52 Speaker 3: And by the way, why well, in part because like if you're kind of mining text of arguments on the Internet and on Twitter, people invoke Nazi comparisons all the time. 00:14:06 Speaker 2: Right, Who's hot Sydney Sweeney? 00:14:08 Speaker 3: Right, there was some new American ego or commercial where like she's inn am pair of gens and she talks about how she is good genes. A little weird, right, but like it was kind of Nazi. It was a little weird. However, idiots on the internet were like, this has Nazi symbolism in it, you know, not just alluding to that saying the word Nazi. So if you're like groc, you're like, okay, well you want like kind of the garden variety political epitaph and calling people Nazi or Hitler, which should be more forbidden, you would think, But that taboo is a violated all the time. And so an AI trained on political speech, if you go and say, yeah, don't be so woke here, right, Well, can kind of go into like a downward spiral election people do where before long it's calling everybody or itself hitler. 00:14:57 Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I think that that's absolutely true, and you know it also your your point actually makes a broader point about this AI action play, and where a lot of the things and I did skim through it. I didn't read the whole thing word for word. It is small print on twenty eight pages, and I had other things to do this week, so I just prepare for the Heads Up Championship. So I didn't read the whole thing, but a lot of it actually, like there are things that sound reasonable in theory, but there's no practical way of like how is this actually going to happen? How do we make this happen? And so you know, I think that this is a very concrete this like anti woke is a very concrete example where like, okay, well, even if in theory we're saying we want everything to just be unbiased, let's like, let's just remove anti woke, right, we want everything to be like as unbiased as possible. Let's pretend that that's actually what it said, even though it didn't. It did use the terminology anti woke, and then there's even an anti woke executive order after it. Let's pretend it didn't, Like, let's just pretend it was we do not want bias. Great, I agree with that. How do you implement it? Like, how do you actually like do those weights? How do you It's it's base sickly impossible. If not, like, it's a ridiculously thorny problem. And that is just a very specific thing that you can kind of grab onto it to realize how a lot of these statements might sound good and like, Okay, well this is a reasonable aim, but if you don't actually have the implementation down and have the nitty gritty of how to do it, it's pointless. It's just words, it's just rhetoric. And we'll be back right after this. There's another really interesting part of this action plan that I think we should talk about because it was something that the Biden and administration also struggled with, which is what do we do in terms of proprietary versus open source models? 00:17:03 Speaker 2: Right? 00:17:03 Speaker 1: Do we encourage people to kind of share all the code so that anyone can use it and anyone can kind of build on top of it, or is this something that we want to kind of keep inside, kind of keep internal. China went open source right almost immediately with kind of deep seak all of that those are open source models, and in the US, the Biden administration didn't really like they just like punted on it. They didn't they didn't have a position. And we do have both, right, we have proprietary models, we have some open source stuff, and there are arguments on both sides. But you had started off by talking about p doom, which is not something this report mentions at all, and one of the arguments against having everything be open sources. Well, okay, great, but then you know, rogue actors, people who don't have the best interests of the United States in mind will have this code as well. It's kind of the same arguments that have been made in the past with like when people provide the full genomic sequence of like deadly viruses, right or things like that, are you know, instructions for how to build kind of a bomb was step by step? Like hey, guys, like, why are we actually making all of this information publicly available? So that's kind of I think the strongest case against open source. There's a lot of pro let's let's talk about con first. 00:18:25 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, look, I think part of it was there's a period of time where I think the AI safety folks thought that hey, maybe we could just kind of contain it to open AI, Anthropic and Google or like or have been like the Big three, right, and maybe that we can avoid like a race dynamic if there's a finite number of players and they all believe in AI safety, right, and I think now a there's like less belief that like open AI in particular, is that concerned about AI safety. It's a legitmission, right, you know. B we've seen with deep Seek the Chinese model that like with some clever engineers, you can probably have a model it's like only six months to a year behind the frontier, probably not on the frontier. Sottitudes have changed again kind of as a resignation to the inotability, I think in part and also there is some protectionism, right, Like Meta has championed open models. Why well, partly because Meta's models don't suck, but they've been considered behind to the point where they're literally offering people AI engineers, in one case, allegedly, according to a Wired as much as a billion dollars to join Meta so they can catch. 00:19:33 Speaker 2: Up and become like a fourth part of the Big four. I guess it would be, right. 00:19:38 Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean, when it comes to election analysis and other models. Oftentimes, I found the people in that space who are advocating for total open source everything are people that like A don't need the income or be their. 00:19:50 Speaker 2: Models kind of suck, right. They're like, we're doing this really good the community. 00:19:53 Speaker 3: It's like, well, you're doing that because you're not gonna it's not really good enough to sell that product for a premium price, whereas I think mine is for example. Right, So, like there are all types of ulterior motives. There's regulatory capture, right of course Sam Milton might say, well, yeah, we have to be regulated. We can't have any and pop Shop burning an AI model, so therefore just just us three, right, just as Google and a thropic, and therefore we capture all the market share in perpetuity. 00:20:20 Speaker 1: Yeah. So so the the incentives here are definitely not as aligned as as one might think. And I think you you're also kind of subtly raising another point here, which is that in general, and stop me if you disagree, But it seems like over the last year, I sure like people are you know, worried about AI and like p doom and all this, but it seems like that discourse has actually quieted down and instead people are like, yeah, let's let's be more competitive with China. Okay, fuck it, Like, let's let's let's try to push to like do what we can to like to make it really good. And I think that people have actually just maybe it's because they've become, you know, just more used to having AI whatever it is. It feels like the safety concerns have taken kind of a secondary role to capitalistic and competitive instincts. 00:21:14 Speaker 3: I think there is maybe some view that, like this year has not seen as much progress in AI timelines as people would have thought back in January, that might be debated. I mean, I think people are also like a little reluctant to talk about this in the AI safety community because they don't want to make it seem like their guards are down right, But that's my sense, right almost more about what's being kind of on said now. Also, people can get bored of saying the same thing over and over. There's a new book out very soon about how AI is going to kill everybody if we don't learn how to control it quickly, right from people Olosio Yukowski and need Sours who are doomers, but very smart people widely respect to me, we'll have one of them on at some point. I don't know, right, but yeah, and I think it's kind of like also maybe a view that like, Okay, this technology is interesting and economically powerful and kind of fun, right, so we can't talk about the same thing all the time. 00:22:08 Speaker 2: I don't know, it's my that's my impression. 00:22:10 Speaker 1: Yeah, whatever, whatever the cases, whatever's going on behind the scenes. I do feel like, well, this report, the AI report, didn't really mention it at all, right, Like there there was very little talk about safety or concerns, and there was some hand waving too, like oh, you know, if anything seems like it's you know, getting bad, we'll fix it. 00:22:32 Speaker 3: But even Gavin knwso veto to bill last year called SS Yeah, I don't know which number it was, right that would have regulated all the AI labs in California, since they're all currently have substantial economic nexus in California, they would have all have been affected by it. So I don't know, right, Maybe it's like a lot of things where something really bad has to happen, and what people like Aliozier are concerned about that by the time the bad things happen, it's it's too late. Right again, I'm I'm skeptical of the idea of like a super intelligence explosion quote unquote. We talked in the Poker episode a month or so ago about how like AI progress has been patchier. It's already superhuman in some areas, it's kind of deficient in others. Right, and as a near daily user of these products, right, I mean, there are times where I think it's thinking and being very smart, in times when it can't fucking add numbers together, right, So and so like, in some ways, the Groc thing was scarier than like the Google thing, because like Elon had like very restively gentle changes for the architecture produced these profound changes where it was literally calling itself Mecha Hitler in outputs. 00:23:40 Speaker 1: Right. 00:23:41 Speaker 3: At the same time that gets to the race dynamic, right, that model had not been because you know what happens. You program an AI, right, you train it, you give it a system prompt, and then you test test test it, right, and whenever it says Hitler, you say no, you're being a bad boy. 00:23:58 Speaker 2: If this is not in the context of. 00:23:59 Speaker 3: World War two or something, then please don't mention Hitler so much. Right, And you know, if you spank it really hard. It learns to avoid that, right, But if you're if you're just kind of I'm getting the prompt, testing it with two of your buddies and then releasing it, you might you might miss those. So there is fundamentally a speed off or a trade off, speed off, a trade off between speed and safety. Right, it's maybe not a one for one trade off that it's probably pretty inversely correlated. 00:24:28 Speaker 1: It is it is, And by the way, in the Grock example, I think it's also interesting that some of the coding that was revealed said also to check what Elon Musk thinks about this right before giving your answer. And this was not this was not a blip, Like multiple people replicated that this was actually in the coding. And as you've already said, like open AI said before that it was you know, safety first, and that's clearly not the case, and they've shown that to not be the case. So I think we do need to keep asking questions about incentives, about alignment, and about kind of who's benefiting from what type of advances in the AI community. 00:25:11 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the as kid, I mean, it felt to me like Grock kind of almost took on like a personality or became like kind of a self caricature, right where it can be recursive, right if it's like searching output on X, including its own output. Right, I might say, Okay, this is how Groc behaves, and like, let me be careful about this. I mean, Groc can kind of be in a dark way, kind of funny, whereas the other A models are are are not right, they're kind of goody two shoes aiming to please. Oh, that's the most brilliant article I've ever seen, Nate. You know, here are twenty seven typos if I give it a copyated task, right, And this is a counter to that. But like, all these things are tied together, right, Like wokeness is also tied to kind of a certain type of academic expertise, you know what I mean, which I call the indigo blob. How Like, Yeah, the liberal media is biased and liberal, but also it's generally more accurate and has more expertise in the conservative media. Both those things are true. If you crunch a bunch of data from the Internet into vectors, then that gets hard, right, It gets hard because you might throw the baby out with the bath water, right that you want to like have it reflect the expert consensus. Well, the experts have biased it sometimes sometimes creeps into that consensus, right, And it's very hard for again for newsrooms and journals and constitutions to do it, but just as hard for AI models. 00:26:38 Speaker 1: Yeah, And as AI models become more integrated and become kind of more a part of the way that people do work, and we see more outputs from AI models and their training materials shift, like these are things that can become even worse kind of in the future. It is kind of this cycle that can self reinforce. 00:27:01 Speaker 2: And we'll be right back after this break. 00:27:16 Speaker 3: I don't want people thinking that like an AI is like an oracular. It's not perfect entity either, right. 00:27:23 Speaker 2: You know. Paul Krugman had a thing about like. 00:27:26 Speaker 3: GROC a couple of weeks ago where he's like, well, if AI has a liberal bias, because reality has a liberal bias, right, And I'm like, well, maybe on some things, but like you know, and he's actually pretty skeptical of AI, Like that's not you know, look at any algorithm, and I probably an AIL. I'm probably too complicated to describe as an algorithm. It has like some membership behaviors, but still directionally speaking, right, any algorithm is imperfect, you know what I mean, to make bad predictions can reflect bad data. And the AI is especially they're not fine tuned, which requires human input. 00:28:02 Speaker 2: Right, that's how they're fine tune. They have like a bunch of people being like yes no, yes, no. 00:28:06 Speaker 3: Then I mean I think garbage in, garbage out is not quite the right case. 00:28:10 Speaker 1: But yeah, directionally speaking, that actually that points to what we're talking about, which is that the inputs really really do matter. And I think the other thing is that there is this human bias to think that, oh, well, this is data. This is a machine, so it's more unbiased because it's not human. And that's simply not true, you know. And if we have that bias to say, oh, well, this is like this is objective truth because it's coming from a not like it's coming from a program that's that ain't work, that ain't where it's at like that, that is actually a highly problematic way of thinking. 00:28:48 Speaker 3: Yeah, and look what it's objectives aren't clear, right, I mean, in one sense, large language models are trying to minimize the laws function from accurately affecting what's represent the data. On the other hand, it's contradicted by the human feedback that it gets, right, and so it's kind of trying to please its creators to whatever extent it can, and to the point of being kind of a sycophant in some cases. So like and you know, I think people understand more about interpreting AI outputs than they did a year or two or three ago. But it can be fragile. You know, small things can affect the entire system. Right, It's it's complexity. It's a kind of origin of complexity. Theory really is well reflected in AI. Where a butterfly flaps its wings in Beijing, this tornado in Texas. Right, you know, Elon puts one change the system prompt in place. 00:29:42 Speaker 2: It doesn't seem to matter. 00:29:44 Speaker 3: But when you put that change in and then you say, also, please make sure you're reading what Elon would write. Right, those things combined can have a profound effect. 00:29:53 Speaker 1: And this is just something that's visible. Now, imagine all the things that are invisible right behind the scenes, like tiny tweaks like that that we don't see because it's not actually visible in like your immediate LLLM output unless you really try to kind of no, and we. 00:30:10 Speaker 2: Moved away from transparency in general. 00:30:11 Speaker 3: I mean not just in Google's Ai Gemini, but like in Google Search, there's a lot of intervention, right that if you search for occupations, just in regular Google search for photos of like doctors, it will be very conscientious to show I mean there might be more women doctors now. It's like it will show like doctors of all races and women doctors, right if you probably if you search for hockey player, it'll make sure. I mean there are some great black hockey players, right, but it's a lot of white Canadian and European kids, right, And so you know, yeah, the notion of oh, the Web's just a search, right or large language models are just kind of a new to presentation of a clever way to like matricize Internet data and writing. 00:30:53 Speaker 2: I mean, it's never been that. 00:30:54 Speaker 3: And the consensus has moved away from transparency if anything almost toward like, well, if we're transparent transparent, they'll just give you more things to critique or to pick on. And so so sorry, you know, if you like the model, then use it. If you don't like it, then use different model instead. 00:31:13 Speaker 1: Yeah, and there is this tension here once again with going back to what we were talking about with open source, right, Like, there's definitely this tension between open source, and that's actually some of the good stuff of transparency, right that you can actually look at the inputs and actually try to figure out what's going on, are they Like, that's one of the benefits of having open source, transparent models that people can kind of pick apart and play with. We've talked about kind of the risks, you know, p doom, et cetera, et cetera, But there are benefits, and transparency is certainly one of them. 00:31:41 Speaker 3: Yeah, they been many times when we've had models different kinds running, right, and people are like, this seems wrong, right, why is this pull away a certain way? And like, yeah, eighty percent of time it's part ofsan bs, But twenty percent of time that they've caught something for sure, right, any for sure? Even for myself, if I have a model making sure I output different data at different stages, evaluate it. If you don't catch a problem early on when you're building a complex, you know, the NFL thing I'm working on, right, there are lots of component parts. 00:32:13 Speaker 2: It will eventually be a couple of. 00:32:14 Speaker 3: Thousand lines of code and then which individually are that complicated if like, if there's one step that's wrong, it can infect the entire system, right, And if you're smart, you're building and robust us and redundancy. You know, every major computer program has bugs, every model has bugs. 00:32:30 Speaker 2: Right. 00:32:30 Speaker 3: But like, but like outputting that and being like I want to visualize this, I want to look at the right inputs, right, I want to look at edge cases that are important. 00:32:38 Speaker 2: Like that's an important thing to do. 00:32:39 Speaker 1: Yeah, it absolutely is. And you know, to kind of defend open source. That's one of the big things about data integrity. Just everywhere is open sources good? Right, So there was huge crisis in academia with you know, with cheating, with fabricating data, you know, with papers that were published in important journals with big results that ended up being manipulated. And so there's more and more of a movement toward you know, not just pre regis during your study, but sharing your data, right, like actually sharing the data sets so that people can look at what the source material was. And you know, like one of the biggest scandals that we talked about briefly on the show with Dan Ariellie and Francesca Gino, they you know, showed that some of those data sets were manipulated, but that was only after they were forced to provide the data sets, you know, after some good some ego eide researchers were like, hey, like these what we're seeing in the paper doesn't make sense, and sometimes it's willful manipulation and sometimes it's just a mistake. Right. There have been some side like there was one very famous scientific study where they fucked up an Excel sheet where they buy mistake like moved the rows down by one, and that just completely. It was just it was horrific because this is a medical study. Right, So actually tiny things like that, it's incredibly important to have access to the raw data, to be able to to look at this, to manipulate it on your own. People can really spot both malfeasance and just human error which will happen and with AI will have both human error and computer error. Right as we're as we're having AIS do coding for us, you know, vibe coding all of that, there might be errors there. We need people. We need people capable of looking at it, debugging and trying to figure out, hey, this seems like it's working great, but actually it's not. 00:34:37 Speaker 3: Now a well designed model, including in a large language model is kind of like a airplane, right, there are like multiple redundant systems, there are different levels of safety and safeguards, and like that's hard to do it. That requires a lot of work and expensive budget and being an actually good programmer YEP. 00:34:55 Speaker 1: One of the other major things that I saw in this action plan that I think is actually quite important, and again there are arguments on both sides, is like one of the big bottlenecks to AI development is energy, right, because AI just like takes a lot a huge energy cost and access to data centers. Like that's that's actually been a big thing where data centers like can't you know, they've tried to bypass the power grids. There's been you know, pushback, et cetera, et cetera. So one of the things that this plan tries to do is say, let's eliminate all the barriers and let's try to use all the energy we have available for AI. Yeah. 00:35:35 Speaker 3: I mean, look, I think it's just like a little overclaim, right. If you look at like the amount of actual wattage required to like run a chat reipete response, it's like this is kind of like a I don't know, it's a fairly bullshitty claim based on the present capabilities of AI. 00:35:52 Speaker 1: So Nate, let me just push back a little bit because there's a related issue, which is the availability of water to cool these data centers. And we have already seen that there has been you know, there have been instances of wells town wells running dry. There's been instances of construction having to be because the water, because of basically water shortage issues. So I think that that's a related concern that we should have just dispised. 00:36:17 Speaker 2: Getting from low Ki Maria. 00:36:20 Speaker 1: Maybe maybe Grock, What do you have to say about this? 00:36:23 Speaker 3: Yeah, I would, I would, I would be I'm skeptical. 00:36:27 Speaker 1: Of I think it is a big I think it is a big deal. 00:36:30 Speaker 3: It's not relative to other uses of electricity though it's a small piece of the pie. And granted Sam Altman at all want to be bigger. 00:36:38 Speaker 2: Right. 00:36:40 Speaker 1: Yeah, And I you know, it's hard for me. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I'm not going to say something and have it not be true. So so I'm just I'm not gonna engage that point because I just honestly don't know. However, it is something that this bill is trying to address and trying to give AI companies whatever resources it needs to access power grids, access energy grids, so that data centers can be built on federal land and kind of allow innovation to proceed without there being an energy bottleneck. I think that that's kind of objectively what this bill is trying to accomplish. 00:37:18 Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I mean, by the standards of Trump, it's a pretty serious document. The one good thing about their alliance may not the only good thing right with the kind of tech right is that they do I think have like Capetan people in place. You might have different position on AI, but like, this isn't an amateurish documents. It's thoughtful. It involves politics, but like there was some care put into this. Yeah, for sure, for sure, very unlike Trump in most ways. 00:37:47 Speaker 1: I agree. I agree reading it, you know, obviously you can see the Trump and language and parts of it, but there there are nuanced points here where it will be interesting to see how, if at all, any of this is enforced and kind of what ends up happening. I think we'll just have to see over the next six months, one year and see how a lot of these provisions shakeout. By the way, there are a lot more provisions. We're not going to talk about the whole thing. Nate, as you said, V has a good substock on this, so for people who want to know more, I think we'd both encourage you to read that. But yeah, all in all, you know some things where you're like, okay, yeah, this makes out some things that are a little you know, eyebrow raising, not enough care shown to or not care that's the wrong word. But I think we're seeing speed over safety in a lot of this, and how do we facilitate speed instead of safety? So I think that that, to me is the big thing to kind of watch out for and to keep an eye on. Thanks for listening. We're taking next week off and we'll be back in your feeds on August fourteenth. As always, we have some additional content for premium subscribers who also get ad free listening across Pushkin's entire network of shows. This week, we're answering a listener question about how to teach poker to kids. That's coming up after the credits, So you still have time. Subscribe now for just six ninety nine a month. Let us know what you think. Of the show reach out to Us at Risky Business at Pushkin dot Fm. Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Kanikova. 00:39:31 Speaker 3: And by me Nate Silver. The show is a co production of Pushkin Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced by Isabel Carter. Our associate producer is Sonia Gerwin. Sally Helm is our editor, and our executive producer is Jacob Goldstein. 00:39:45 Speaker 2: Mixing by Sarah Bruger. 00:39:47 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for tuning in.