Speaker 1: Now really, well, Hello everybody. Happy Tuesday if you're listening
Speaker 1: on a Tuesday, if not, happy, whatever day you're on.
Speaker 1: I am Jason Alexander here with my best pal Peter,
Speaker 1: and this is the podcast really really and this is
Speaker 1: a glorious day for many reasons. But the biggest thing
Speaker 1: for me is if you've been following the show. Peter
Speaker 1: has refused for many episodes to wear are really no
Speaker 1: really branded logo shirt, But today you have either given in.
Speaker 2: I've given risen to, You've given it.
Speaker 1: You know what, I don't care. I don't care what
Speaker 1: direction you've gone to achieve this end.
Speaker 2: You look like a failed racing team. This is what
Speaker 2: it looks like. But it's fine. I'll logo. I feel better.
Speaker 1: I feel better about the whole. That's good because the
Speaker 1: topic we're doing today, I'm a little I make no
Speaker 1: bones about it. This is we're we're scared. We're going
Speaker 1: into waters that I find treacherous and scary and dark.
Speaker 2: And then I find I think treacherous, scary and dark.
Speaker 2: Although in reading as much as I have about AI
Speaker 2: and chat GPT, it's there are a lot of questions
Speaker 2: about the accuracy of what we're reading. And there's always
Speaker 2: an underlying reason that people are putting out information. And
Speaker 2: I'm a little bit questioning what we're hearing out of
Speaker 2: Silkoon Valley because I don't know how much you can
Speaker 2: trust the tech guys to give you transparency about what's
Speaker 2: really going on.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, so to state our really know really for the
Speaker 1: day we are all aware of the emerging technology of
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence AI. Our really know really today is that
Speaker 1: Elon Musk and three thousand other tech influencers, tech executives,
Speaker 1: academics have created an open letter where they have asked
Speaker 1: that we pause our work on the advancements of AIS.
Speaker 1: I'm moratorium on what could be a dangerous AI and
Speaker 1: the race to advance it. The guys who are creating it,
Speaker 1: pushing it, promoting it, and are probably going to profit
Speaker 1: from it are at the moment saying maybe we should
Speaker 1: slow this down.
Speaker 2: A little bit. Really, no, really, so we wanted to
Speaker 2: find out Number one. I don't think it's a nice letter.
Speaker 2: I haven't seen it. Are they pausing? I don't think so.
Speaker 2: And there's theory that Elon must wanted to slow it
Speaker 2: down so he can catch up everybody else. We wanted
Speaker 2: to get on somebody who was amazingly invested in this
Speaker 2: and Jarrel Nier. You look at his bio, first of
Speaker 2: all international bestseller, on many many books. I've watched a
Speaker 2: bunch of his talks and I'm fascinated with his take
Speaker 2: because he was right there at the start of virtual reality,
Speaker 2: the beginning of the Internet, and talks about it.
Speaker 1: Do we have Al Gore?
Speaker 2: I think there? I got confused for him. He was.
Speaker 2: He was named one of the twenty five most influential
Speaker 2: people in the previous twenty five of tech history. Also
Speaker 2: one of the hundred most influential people in the World
Speaker 2: by Time magazine, top fifty World thinkers by Prospect magazine.
Speaker 1: Really the people who named him this were any of
Speaker 1: them on the list?
Speaker 2: I don't know?
Speaker 1: Or is this the low hanging fruit going that looks sparkly?
Speaker 3: Jared?
Speaker 2: Thank you for coming on. Jared.
Speaker 4: Hey, Hey, I am doing splendidly. How are you?
Speaker 2: Guys do very well? Thanks for visiting with us. I
Speaker 2: know how busy you are, and also telling you are
Speaker 2: the fact that he would talk to us is just
Speaker 2: an immense.
Speaker 1: We're always impressed with people who we'll talk, who are
Speaker 1: willing to talk down to two little idiots like us.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, in Silicon Valley, we aspire to become
Speaker 4: as wise as Hollywood. We aspire were trustworthiness, good and
Speaker 4: your business acumen. Yes, I'm very high to learn at
Speaker 4: your feet.
Speaker 2: Let me so, you said so many fascinating fascinating Number one,
Speaker 2: Let's address the pause? Am I right to say? Hold
Speaker 2: on a second?
Speaker 4: So? Well, look, I'm I mean the pause letter was
Speaker 4: written by a buddy of mine who lives like almost
Speaker 4: he's a near neighbor. That's a anthony from the Institute,
Speaker 4: the Future of Life Institute. I mean I I A
Speaker 4: lot of my dear friends signed the pause letter. I didn't.
Speaker 4: The problem I have with it is I think we
Speaker 4: sometimes overdramatize or sort of exaggerate what we're doing, and
Speaker 4: it sounds in the near time like we're doing it
Speaker 4: in order to be careful and safe. But I'm afraid
Speaker 4: we're actually Oh God, I want to say this in
Speaker 4: a nice way. I feel like we're kind of a
Speaker 4: little bit saturated by the science fiction movies we grew
Speaker 4: up with instead of looking clearly at what we're doing.
Speaker 4: And so, you know, we grew up on the lovely
Speaker 4: portrayal of Commander data on the ninety Star Trek. We
Speaker 4: grew up with the Matrix movies. We grew grew up
Speaker 4: with the Terminator movie and so on, and cumulatively that
Speaker 4: becomes almost like a religion you grew up with. It's like,
Speaker 4: you know, at the we just had a satyr and
Speaker 4: we repeat this story of leaving Egypt there every year.
Speaker 4: And I think something like that happens in computer science,
Speaker 4: where we see these stories of like that, our own
Speaker 4: programs will take over every year. And now there might
Speaker 4: be something like that that could happen, but that would
Speaker 4: be some other kind of program than what we're doing
Speaker 4: now or what we know how to do now. What
Speaker 4: we're doing now is a giant mashup technology where we
Speaker 4: take everything we can get that anybody's written, anything's photographed
Speaker 4: or painted, anything people have coded, where we grabbed the
Speaker 4: code and we put it into this giant mashup machine
Speaker 4: and then we can make new combinations of what's there
Speaker 4: from people. So what we're really looking at is a
Speaker 4: new giant social collaboration mediated by this amazing mashup technology.
Speaker 4: Can it do harm? Sure? Can we make ourselves crazy? Yeah?
Speaker 4: Can we screw up our economy? Yeah, can we You know,
Speaker 4: we can do a lot of stupid stuff with it,
Speaker 4: but this is not skyn it. This is not this
Speaker 4: thing that's going to take over. And I feel like
Speaker 4: when we overdramatize it, when we let it become a monster,
Speaker 4: we're actually in a way making the problem worse. We're
Speaker 4: doing harm. So I that's why I didn't sign it,
Speaker 4: you know, so, But that's you know, I say, I'm
Speaker 4: not saying anything that I don't say to the people
Speaker 4: who wrote it, who were, like I say, friends, And
Speaker 4: what I'm what I'm trying to do right now is
Speaker 4: go around to the community and see if we can
Speaker 4: all agree on something a little bit more concrete and constructive.
Speaker 4: But that's I'm not ready to say what that might
Speaker 4: be it. But I believe we can do things that
Speaker 4: express our concerns and try to I think we can
Speaker 4: try to be more careful and ethical, because I do
Speaker 4: you think we need to do that, but I think
Speaker 4: we need to do it without terror. We can't allow
Speaker 4: ourselves to be paralyzed by our childhood fantasies.
Speaker 1: Jared. The examples you're citing, you know how, nine thousand
Speaker 1: and space, otasy and Skynet what seems to be dominant
Speaker 1: in those fictions is that this technology has become both
Speaker 1: sentient and self directed. Is any of that true in
Speaker 1: what is being established right now?
Speaker 4: Well, you know, there's a kind of edge of uncertainty
Speaker 4: about all this because this question of what's sentient and
Speaker 4: what's intelligent is not a very well formed or precise question.
Speaker 4: And actually, we humans treat each other as sentient as
Speaker 4: a matter of faith, if it's okay to use that word,
Speaker 4: you know, And I think the approach that I've come to,
Speaker 4: which is not the common one in the tech community,
Speaker 4: but I do think think it's where people land after
Speaker 4: they really considered what's going on here, is that the
Speaker 4: pragmatic choice, is it okay to say? Can I use word?
Speaker 4: It's like this? Does this offend your Hollywood? So I
Speaker 4: should I be playing softball? I'm sorry?
Speaker 1: Any Way, we're doing a podcast. We are Hollywood adjacent
Speaker 1: at this point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the Hall of Hollywood's about to be Hollywood. But look,
Speaker 4: we should talk about the Writer's Guild while we're on it.
Speaker 4: But well we'll get back to that. So look, the
Speaker 4: pragmatic issue here is does it make any difference what
Speaker 4: you think, like if you think that the big computer
Speaker 4: programs like the GPTs are possibly sentient or whatever. Does
Speaker 4: that make any difference or is that just how you feel,
Speaker 4: because sometimes you can have opinions and feelings about things
Speaker 4: and it's really just your private thing, and it does
Speaker 4: doesn't matter. In this case, I think it matters a
Speaker 4: bit because people treat the programs differently in a way
Speaker 4: that could have consequence for others. Like for instance, let's say,
Speaker 4: let's just say, hypothetically, it's a few years from now
Speaker 4: and we've made our models even bigger, and we can
Speaker 4: just ask for a movie and it appears. We can
Speaker 4: say I want I want to have Gone with the
Speaker 4: wind redone by Spielberg, except with an all midget cast,
Speaker 4: and it should be a musical in the style of Soundheim,
Speaker 4: and blah blah blah. Okay, you do this thing. It
Speaker 4: doesn't sound like a very good movie, but anyway, we
Speaker 4: don't care, because we'll make that thing. When we make it,
Speaker 4: there won't be a script because the script will happen automatically.
Speaker 4: There won't be a composer because the soundtrack will happen automatically.
Speaker 4: There won't be a director of photography because that'll happen automatically.
Speaker 4: It'll just pop out. But the thing is there will
Speaker 4: have been writers and directors of photography, and everybody who
Speaker 4: would normally contribute and get a credit to a movie
Speaker 4: will be back there. It's just that they'll have provided
Speaker 4: the example material that's mashed up to make this new thing,
Speaker 4: so the process will be different. It'll just pop out
Speaker 4: out of a giant statistical calculation for better or for worse,
Speaker 4: even if it's not a good movie. But if we
Speaker 4: want to remember who created the examples that are used
Speaker 4: to create that, we can still calculate whose examples are important.
Speaker 4: Those people can get credited and paid even if there's
Speaker 4: not any explicit, explicit stage where things to do happen.
Speaker 4: So the thing is, if you believe that we have
Speaker 4: as a giant alien brain that's just totally freestanding and
Speaker 4: doesn't depend on people, you're less likely to want to
Speaker 4: adopt a system where you acknowledge the people and come
Speaker 4: up with a new kind of economy where people can
Speaker 4: feel proud for what they've done authentically and honestly. If
Speaker 4: you're willing to accept that this whole thing is just
Speaker 4: a giant mashup of people, and you're not so concerned
Speaker 4: with whether it's sentient or something. If you just treat
Speaker 4: it as a giant tool, then you open your eyes
Speaker 4: and you can have this new kind of economy where
Speaker 4: people can still be proud and paid honestly based on
Speaker 4: what they've actually done. So this thing about whether we
Speaker 4: believe the programs are sentient, there's no absolute yes or no.
Speaker 4: It's all based on faith anyway. But pragmatically, if you
Speaker 4: believe that computers aren't sentient, you have a better chance
Speaker 4: of seeing a way to make a decent society, or
Speaker 4: let me put it in another way, if you want
Speaker 4: the world to benefit people, it's just easier if you
Speaker 4: think people are special. That doesn't mean in some absolute
Speaker 4: sense people are special from the point of view of
Speaker 4: every possible alien or God or whatever. But for us,
Speaker 4: if we think people are special, we have a better
Speaker 4: chance of doing a civilization together in which people are special.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just obvious.
Speaker 2: But Jared, you know what I love about all the
Speaker 2: stuff I've seen and read that you've done. It's positive,
Speaker 2: it's hopeful, which is real refreshing with all of these
Speaker 2: doom and gloom scenarios. But we call people that were
Speaker 2: fired from factories that you automated to learn code, and
Speaker 2: now they can't even find work doing that because technology
Speaker 2: is going to be writing the code. And then you
Speaker 2: read that a gold Maenzacs are one of the investment firms,
Speaker 2: said three hundred million jobs should be eliminated. And I'm thinking,
Speaker 2: what are they teaching in schools to the next generation.
Speaker 2: And I think the head of our podcast division even
Speaker 2: said his kid will probably have a job that doesn't
Speaker 2: even exist today. So how do you take that into
Speaker 2: consideration when we're looking out for people to tell those people,
Speaker 2: what should we be doing to make sure you're not disenfranchised?
Speaker 4: Well, look, the future is going to be different from
Speaker 4: the past, and I think it's hard to it's a
Speaker 4: fools game to try to solve all these things perfectly
Speaker 4: in advance. But can I give you like sort of
Speaker 4: one scenario that I'm sure it's hopeful and and you know,
Speaker 4: I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's like a start.
Speaker 4: So here's this scenaria. Where I live part of the
Speaker 4: time is at the top of the ridge in Berkeley, California.
Speaker 4: And before the recent extraordinary rains, we went through a
Speaker 4: tremendously damaging series of fire seasons, you.
Speaker 2: Know, with.
Speaker 4: For us, it meant five mandatory evacuations. And the fire
Speaker 4: marshal came around and said, you know, you really shouldn't
Speaker 4: count on your neighborhood continuing to exist. And maybe, you know,
Speaker 4: in La people are familiar with this problem. Certainly people
Speaker 4: in Malibu are very familiar with this problem. And I
Speaker 4: became really interested in, like, why does our neighborhood still exist?
Speaker 4: Why hasn't it burned down like so many other places?
Speaker 4: And what I realized is that sometimes the city and
Speaker 4: county get people to trim their trees or improve their roofs,
Speaker 4: not that often, because we're all really prickly and difficult
Speaker 4: up there. Sometimes sometimes somebody will fix the area around
Speaker 4: their own house or whatever. But there's this whole other
Speaker 4: thing in between, which is the people who are hired
Speaker 4: to trim the trees and be the gardeners and keep
Speaker 4: the grounds. They talk to each other over the fences,
Speaker 4: and they coordinate to reduce fire threat by reducing how
Speaker 4: trees touch each other and stuff, you know, And I
Speaker 4: was like amazed that this is going on unofficially and
Speaker 4: without any mandate. A lot of them are undocumented a
Speaker 4: lot of them don't speak English. Some of them are
Speaker 4: multi generation American citizens with great businesses and are doing well.
Speaker 4: Some of them are marginal. But I was amazed that
Speaker 4: these people are there keeping us alive. So why am
Speaker 4: I talking about them? Because there's also a prototype robot
Speaker 4: we play with the lab once in a while, which
Speaker 4: looks like a mechanical snake that can slither up trees
Speaker 4: or phone poles and do trimming and then slither down.
Speaker 4: It looks really cool. It's not quite ready for primetime yet,
Speaker 4: but some kind of robot will be out there doing
Speaker 4: trees at some point. And the question is what happens
Speaker 4: to these people?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 4: So it's not a factory job, but it's a blue
Speaker 4: collar job, right, So I want to give you a
Speaker 4: vision of what happens to them. All right, So what
Speaker 4: happened in a few years. There's some van that's painted
Speaker 4: like it was in a nursery school, and it drives
Speaker 4: up beside them with all of these cameras and other
Speaker 4: sensors looking at them, and it's operated by oh, let's
Speaker 4: just say Google, which likes doing that sort of thing.
Speaker 4: But it's like one of us tech company things, you know,
Speaker 4: there's just like and that the people who were going
Speaker 4: to change saying, oh crap, okay, it's coming. They're studying
Speaker 4: what they do and the robots will come, and now
Speaker 4: we're gonna what will become of us? What'll we do?
Speaker 4: And we'll live on tents, you know, and by the Starbucks.
Speaker 4: I guess what are we going to do? And there's
Speaker 4: another option, though, which is they say, Aha, the robots
Speaker 4: are coming, we're going to form a data union and
Speaker 4: we're going to negotiate for them to get data from us.
Speaker 4: And we're going to become We're going to not be
Speaker 4: a manual labor class anymore. We're going to become a
Speaker 4: new creative class. Like all those fancy writers and and
Speaker 4: set designers and composers and all those people. We're going
Speaker 4: to be the new creatives. And the way we're going
Speaker 4: to do it is every single year, we're going to
Speaker 4: start designing extraordinary things in trees. We're going to trim
Speaker 4: tree so that they're also holograms. We're gonna trim lawns
Speaker 4: so that they have mazes in them. We're going to
Speaker 4: do all these incredible things, and we're going to go
Speaker 4: through fashions and then people are going to want that,
Speaker 4: and they're going to ask for it from their robots,
Speaker 4: and the robots are going to depend on our designs,
Speaker 4: and we're going to get royalties from it. So instead
Speaker 4: of becoming a dependent class once things are automated, there's
Speaker 4: this option to create a new creative class where there
Speaker 4: wasn't one before, because the technology makes that possible. All right,
Speaker 4: that's the sort of buzzword for that approach of inverting
Speaker 4: everything and making it a person first technology. We call
Speaker 4: that data dignity. Now, anybody who hears it might response skeptically.
Speaker 4: They'll say, well, how many possible jobs like that could
Speaker 4: there be for that particular example of supplying examples for
Speaker 4: gardening and tree trimming robots. Probably not a whole lot
Speaker 4: of jobs. But on the other hand, there'll be a
Speaker 4: zillion examples like that, because there are about to be
Speaker 4: tons and tons of kinds of robots, and tons and
Speaker 4: tons of examples of AI what we call AI programs.
Speaker 4: I don't like the term, but there'll be tons of
Speaker 4: examples of this stuff. And every time there's a new
Speaker 4: example of some kind of fancy automation, there's an opportunity
Speaker 4: for a new world of creative people to turn that
Speaker 4: thing into an art form instead of just purely a
Speaker 4: functional activity. And so I think what you can have
Speaker 4: is an image of a future advanced economy where you
Speaker 4: have an expanding set of creative professions based on what
Speaker 4: technology allows to become creative, instead of an expanding set
Speaker 4: of dependent people. Now does that mean everybody gets to
Speaker 4: be creative? I mean that math probably doesn't work out.
Speaker 4: But the point is to get to a society where
Speaker 4: you don't have a gigantic preponderance of people who feel useless.
Speaker 4: People who feel useless turn into the very most dangerous
Speaker 4: kind of creature, which is a seeker of meaning. And
Speaker 4: we don't want that. That doesn't end well. So we
Speaker 4: want we want to have this pleasant concordance, this pleasant
Speaker 4: consilience between economic value, personal meaning, personal connection, and provision
Speaker 4: of things that are valued on all their other terms
Speaker 4: with other people. That's what we want. That's how you
Speaker 4: make a decent society.
Speaker 2: I mean, okay, and that sounds amazing, But to your
Speaker 2: your point, you've said that the internet tech. The problem
Speaker 2: is not the system, it's the monetary system behind it,
Speaker 2: which rights is what drives. It's a business model Okay,
Speaker 2: are there enough Jaron's out there that are going to
Speaker 2: be creative, They're going to feel it's important not to
Speaker 2: disenfranchise people that we have to create and put together
Speaker 2: labs to create this stuff, because not everybody can do
Speaker 2: it unless there's a business model that makes sense, because
Speaker 2: the business mode may not originally make sense.
Speaker 1: And I if I can just tag onto them. Going
Speaker 1: back to your Hollywood example, where you know we're talking
Speaker 1: about credit and payment and royalty, it presumes a Hollywood
Speaker 1: like structure in which the producer, the financier is willing
Speaker 1: to afford credit to the to the originators. You know,
Speaker 1: we're we're I don't know much about the rap world,
Speaker 1: but you know I hear about people using samples of
Speaker 1: other artists' music and not crediting and not necessarily paying
Speaker 1: for them.
Speaker 2: Well, that goes back to Mote, It goes back. That's
Speaker 2: that's the history of recorded music. Yeah, ripping off people.
Speaker 1: So I just worry about those original creators that are
Speaker 1: building the database not receiving those credits from people that
Speaker 1: are after pure profit.
Speaker 4: The scenario I just described to you is technically feasible.
Speaker 4: You're bringing up a very important question, which is it
Speaker 4: is it politically feasible. So what we have to remember
Speaker 4: is the reason that artists get paid is not that
Speaker 4: producers love paying artists. Now it's possible that neither of
Speaker 4: you have ever met any Hollywood producers, but I have,
Speaker 4: and I can assure you they don't enjoy paying artists,
Speaker 4: and I don't want to burst your bubble or shock
Speaker 4: you with that information. Now. The reason they do is
Speaker 4: that a century ago there was this world of political
Speaker 4: activism around unions and union rights, and different kinds of
Speaker 4: creatives were able to establish rights to be paid. For instance,
Speaker 4: musicians had this thing called mechanicals, which computers have kind
Speaker 4: of blasted apart, and I within tech culture there's a
Speaker 4: lot of this idea, well everything should be free, and
Speaker 4: musicians wanting to be paid as terrible. That was a
Speaker 4: big deal for years. I think the worst example of
Speaker 4: things falling apart is local news. We've lost local news
Speaker 4: because we central all advertising, including localized advertising, and I
Speaker 4: think the world suffered terribly for that. And so there
Speaker 4: needs to be a political process to acknowledge contributions and
Speaker 4: commercial value of people out of the periphery, not just
Speaker 4: the people who own the hubs like we do, and
Speaker 4: that'll be good for everyone. So that is a political question.
Speaker 4: That's that's not a technical question. Is it possible to
Speaker 4: get there? I mean, we did it a century ago,
Speaker 4: you know, so it's clearly possible. Whether whether we can
Speaker 4: do it again, I'm not certain, but I do want
Speaker 4: to give you a couple of signs of hope here. Okay.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 4: The business model that really screwed with people in the
Speaker 4: last couple decades is called the advertising model for the Internet.
Speaker 4: But it's not really advertising. It's it's a paid influence
Speaker 4: model where you're supposed to be sharing for free. You
Speaker 4: get free services, but then the money goes to the
Speaker 4: companies off to the side, out of view, and some
Speaker 4: of the money is from traditional advertisers, some of it isn't.
Speaker 4: Some of the advertising is totally fine, a lot of
Speaker 4: it isn't. And in fact, since the whole system is
Speaker 4: turned into a persuasion machine, it's like laying out a
Speaker 4: carpet for unsavory persuaders. Like the whole structure is just
Speaker 4: an invitation to putin to send fake people and to
Speaker 4: try to screw up our elections and whatnot. Now, the
Speaker 4: thing is part of the reason that that worked was
Speaker 4: that people have such low Oh god, sorry, I just
Speaker 4: got a pop up. Anyway, part of the reason that
Speaker 4: works people can you can your computer restart?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 4: Would that be okay with you? Like? No, actually that
Speaker 4: would not be okay.
Speaker 1: So somebody's listening, Yeah you can.
Speaker 4: She'd complain to some Microsoft scientist about that, and we'll
Speaker 4: ignore you, okay. So look, the expectation of search was
Speaker 4: really low, and so search is kind of a corrupt
Speaker 4: thing where you get a ton of commercial stuff and
Speaker 4: it's actually not that well organized for your benefit. When
Speaker 4: you use GPT, when you use a chat to do
Speaker 4: the same search as you get better stuff. But suddenly
Speaker 4: that paid link thing is a little less powerful if
Speaker 4: we started. I mean, I don't know where this will go.
Speaker 4: Maybe the standard practice in five or ten years will
Speaker 4: be that the AIU ask for information is secretly measuring
Speaker 4: you and figuring out how to manipulate you, and it
Speaker 4: only gives you information if it also persuades you about
Speaker 4: some other thing politically or whatever it is. That could
Speaker 4: be the world we enter into. That's the world where
Speaker 4: we all get crazy enough that I question human survival.
Speaker 4: And I hope that's not the world we enter into
Speaker 4: a better world we enter into is one where we
Speaker 4: start to acknowledge that if we're going to live in
Speaker 4: a market economy at all, it has to be comprehensive
Speaker 4: and inclusive for everyone who participates. And so, yeah, you
Speaker 4: might you might still get free chat, you might get research,
Speaker 4: but only at a certain level. It might be what
Speaker 4: we call a freemium model, where people who are using
Speaker 4: it to help out with taxes or whatever start to
Speaker 4: pay some for it, so it just becomes normal commerce
Speaker 4: instead of sneaky commerce. And nobody likes paying money. But
Speaker 4: you know, when you're saving money by being manipulated, your
Speaker 4: whole world gradually gets dark and everything gets kind of
Speaker 4: crazy the way it has lately, and it's just too
Speaker 4: high a price to pay. So the fact that the
Speaker 4: GPT interface tends to pull people away from the traditional
Speaker 4: advertising business model actually could be the very best thing
Speaker 4: about it.
Speaker 2: But you also, you know, I think this is you
Speaker 2: saying that social media has become a behavior modification machine, right.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I've been known to say that. I've only
Speaker 4: been saying that. God, you know, my first my first
Speaker 4: piece of that about that, I was looking at my
Speaker 4: old publications ninety two I was worried about that. There
Speaker 4: were already some discussions about this sort of notion, and
Speaker 4: it just seemed like such And if you really want
Speaker 4: to go back, there's some other people like Norbert Wiener
Speaker 4: who were saying it in nineteen fifty.
Speaker 2: So, like, that's worrisome if I don't know how I'm
Speaker 2: being moved. And there are tech companies are becoming more
Speaker 2: and more powerful, and like you, you know, AI is
Speaker 2: this wizard of Oz thing over there, but it's really
Speaker 2: people behind it who are putting in the algorithms.
Speaker 4: Where did that metaphor come from?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Sure, right, I mean it's it's people, and I
Speaker 2: don't know what their agenda is, and I don't know
Speaker 2: how pure their agenda is. So all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: I'm moving in the direction that I'm not even capable
Speaker 2: of understanding knowing, and I don't know that I'm moving there.
Speaker 2: That to me is really that sounds dangerous.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a horrible creepy thing, and it's resulted in
Speaker 4: it's I think it's really made the Internet into overall
Speaker 4: a negative force in the world, which breaks my heart
Speaker 4: because I worked so hard to try to make the
Speaker 4: Internet where you know that that was, you know, in
Speaker 4: the in the latter part of the last century. And
Speaker 4: it's sad. It's it's devastating how it turned out when
Speaker 4: you look at the statistics on team mental health and suicides,
Speaker 4: when you look at what's happened to politics around the
Speaker 4: world a few years after Facebook shows up consistently, when
Speaker 4: you look at well, as I said, local news, the
Speaker 4: devastation of it, it's it's it's really a drag, it's
Speaker 4: really a nuisance. Uh. But but but here we have
Speaker 4: a moment of transition. This is a big deal. We
Speaker 4: have a chance to reset things, and I hope we
Speaker 4: use it wisely. It's why I'm talking to you guys
Speaker 4: and getting starting to get around a little bit.
Speaker 2: That's great.
Speaker 4: I really think there's an opportunity here to make this better.
Speaker 2: I need you because it's so non transparent. I don't
Speaker 2: know if you know, if you can address the algorithm.
Speaker 2: Can somebody go in there and know the concern is
Speaker 2: it keeps grabbing information and adding to information, but we
Speaker 2: don't know the inputting of that, and is anybody going
Speaker 2: to be transparent?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So in my want to I want to answer
Speaker 4: you with scrupulous honesty. There's a level of this tracing
Speaker 4: of who mattered to the input to the big model
Speaker 4: for a particular output, like which artist was really important
Speaker 4: for a particular piece of synthetic art. There's a level
Speaker 4: that's been demonstrated that their academic paper's about. But there's
Speaker 4: a more important level of that possible attribution, or we
Speaker 4: call it providence, that we haven't achieved or demonstrated. And
Speaker 4: there's a chance that we can't because there is until
Speaker 4: something's been done, you can't be sure. My very best
Speaker 4: guess as an informed computer science is that we can
Speaker 4: do it, and we will for them. I think an
Speaker 4: interesting question is why haven't we because it means that
Speaker 4: other things were prioritized, and perhaps those priorities worth the
Speaker 4: right priorities, and that might have a little bit to
Speaker 4: do with this science fiction culture of wanting. I think
Speaker 4: the whole Internet has this problem of being unnecessarily obscure,
Speaker 4: Like the whole Internet is based on having this cash.
Speaker 4: We don't know anything where anything came from, and there's
Speaker 4: not any particular reason for the Internet to be that way.
Speaker 4: That was a choice, and it's possible that we really
Speaker 4: want this science fiction scenario of this mysterious thing even
Speaker 4: if we think it might kill us, that there's something
Speaker 4: the draw of building that is just so powerful, the
Speaker 4: mythological intensity of it just gets to people, so that
Speaker 4: there might be something like that. But we just have
Speaker 4: to kind of blow past that, and we have to
Speaker 4: do what we can to measure providence. And that's going
Speaker 4: to be a bit of a technical project. It's not
Speaker 4: going to happen tomorrow, but it can happen pretty soon,
Speaker 4: I think hopefully.
Speaker 1: Jen just tangentially our producers, sent in a question for us,
Speaker 1: going back a step, the controversy of a TikTok right
Speaker 1: now in the Chinese ownership and what it may or
Speaker 1: may not be nefariously doing, just in your opinion, because
Speaker 1: you are one of the great opinion makers about this technology.
Speaker 1: Should TikTok be banned? Should we be wary of this?
Speaker 4: This is a deeply uncomfortable topic because of the intergenerational
Speaker 4: dynamic of it. I I've always believed that you should
Speaker 4: extend every possible sliver of good faith that you can
Speaker 4: muster two younger generations, and I always thought that that
Speaker 4: would mean their crazy music and habits and relationship patterns
Speaker 4: or whatever. But this is different, because this is they've been,
Speaker 4: for the most part, captured by this thing that's h
Speaker 4: potentially quite malicious depending on how things go. There are
Speaker 4: scenarios for what the Chinese Communist Party could expect from
Speaker 4: TikTok and the event of heightened tensions that are very
Speaker 4: disturbing and yet plausible. I think the usual way the
Speaker 4: threat is described is incredibly understated. I mean, well, all right,
Speaker 4: here's the scenario. The Chinese just feel they must invade
Speaker 4: Taiwan because they're just certain it's a necessary thing, and
Speaker 4: they just can't abide by this island being out there.
Speaker 4: They're just obsessed, obsessed, obsessed. And so the morning of
Speaker 4: the invasion, every American military member, whether or not they
Speaker 4: have TikTok, every American politician, every member of the intelligence establishment,
Speaker 4: major people in industry all get on their phones through
Speaker 4: some channel a very convincing looking video of their children
Speaker 4: being abducted or tortured in their own house that's synthesized
Speaker 4: by you know, an ai synthetic video thing. All at once,
Speaker 4: it's all fake, or maybe there's a handful of situations
Speaker 4: that are real, you know. Just to make it even
Speaker 4: more confusing, it takes people a day to figure out
Speaker 4: it's all fake. But that's the day, you know, that's
Speaker 4: the day of the vision. That's not something that Chinese
Speaker 4: could do today. Could they do it in a year
Speaker 4: or two? Yeah? Would they? I don't know. I mean
Speaker 4: I've had occasion to meet a lot of people high
Speaker 4: up in the Chinese party, and they vary as much
Speaker 4: as people in any community. I think a lot of
Speaker 4: the ones I met would not do that, but some
Speaker 4: of them, yeah maybe, you know, so I think it
Speaker 4: becomes a little uncertain how much a foreign adversary who
Speaker 4: is just so certain of their cause, how much they
Speaker 4: might be willing to stoop to something like that. And
Speaker 4: is that plausible? Yeah, you know, it's technically not, like
Speaker 4: I say, not yet, based on what we've seen from
Speaker 4: the AI efforts from the big Chinese companies in recent
Speaker 4: weeks today, in fact, there was one that wasn't that great.
Speaker 4: But you know, you can figure it out. It's not
Speaker 4: that big a deal. It's all all the techniques are published. Yeah,
Speaker 4: So like I I would personally, I would personally band
Speaker 4: TikTok entirely or nationalize it in some extremely serious way
Speaker 4: or something. I would also, I mean, this is a
Speaker 4: tricky thing. Do we turn off the Internet in the
Speaker 4: US on the day of an invasion because of fear
Speaker 4: of something like that? I maybe, you know, I don't know,
Speaker 4: because I mean, if we looked at just how strongly
Speaker 4: Putin really, really, really believes it's worth any cost to
Speaker 4: just destroy Ukraine to gain it, Putin's abilities in this
Speaker 4: department are not remotely as strong as China's could be
Speaker 4: if they wanted to focus them. You know, China's just
Speaker 4: a bigger, richer place with honestly with more computer science talent,
Speaker 4: and they make the chips and I mean looks like
Speaker 4: they could. So yeah, yeah, I mean I really do
Speaker 4: think TikTok is a problem. Now I have to say
Speaker 4: I like a lot about TikTok. I like the dance
Speaker 4: culture on TikTok. I really do. Some might scoff at it,
Speaker 4: but I think it's great. I think it does have
Speaker 4: all the problems with social media of encouraging this kind
Speaker 4: of nervous vanity and irritability and people who use it
Speaker 4: too much. It's not alone in that. Yeah, but yeah,
Speaker 4: I think it's a real problem. It breaks my heart
Speaker 4: to say I want to stay with the young people, you.
Speaker 1: Know, let me ask you this, Jaren, if you could,
Speaker 1: knowing what you know and what we're talking about, if
Speaker 1: there was a golden rule or a five or ten
Speaker 1: commandments that you can impose upon this technology going forward.
Speaker 1: Are there a couple of principles that you wish were
Speaker 1: absolutes going forward?
Speaker 4: Well, I think there's a danger in expecting anybody to
Speaker 4: have like perfect knowledge and advance of how to deal
Speaker 4: with something complicated. So the first answer to you is
Speaker 4: would be no, I don't. However, one thing I've been
Speaker 4: trying to do, especially since that letter asking for a
Speaker 4: pause started going around from my friends, is I've been
Speaker 4: calling people in the community and I'm trying. I believe
Speaker 4: there are like five or ten rules that are held
Speaker 4: essentially unanimously by AI scientists and technologists, but they have
Speaker 4: been assembled. I'd like to assemble them because I think
Speaker 4: we sometimes give the impression that we're just flailing about
Speaker 4: and unable to do anything but receieve our own work
Speaker 4: with paralytic terror and so, for instance, I believe everyone
Speaker 4: thinks that there should be a quantitative limit on how
Speaker 4: much an algorithm can model a p and manipulate that
Speaker 4: person without the person's informed consent. So it can't be
Speaker 4: an absolute, absolute rule, because a little bit of that's
Speaker 4: going to happen just to sort of figure out how
Speaker 4: you like your pizza delivered, whether you want the pizza
Speaker 4: person to knock on the door, just leave it by
Speaker 4: the door, you know, like that kind of thing. There
Speaker 4: has to be a little bit, but we can quantify
Speaker 4: it and say, you know, there's not going to be
Speaker 4: more than that. Another thing is people feel, universally, so
Speaker 4: far as I can tell, that deep fakes need to
Speaker 4: be not only identified, but identified in an actionable way,
Speaker 4: meaning not super fine print, and there's a way to
Speaker 4: understand who made the deep fake and to trace it
Speaker 4: back and to have its origins clear. That's so far
Speaker 4: as I can tell, a universally held idea. Another one
Speaker 4: is people feel very strongly that there should be informed
Speaker 4: consent with any presentation of a fake person, a person
Speaker 4: who isn't real or is a modified version of a
Speaker 4: real person, that that should be very strongly identified in
Speaker 4: a very clear and actionable way, in an informative way.
Speaker 4: So there are things like that where I think we
Speaker 4: have community consensus, and it's important to point that out
Speaker 4: because there's I've lost count, but there's something like twenty
Speaker 4: processes going on in the world where there are people
Speaker 4: having meetings and talking about principles for AI policy. And
Speaker 4: I've been involved in these types of processes. I co
Speaker 4: founded the Data Protection Advisory Board in the EU many
Speaker 4: years ago that eventually turned into the European Union's Privacy Framework,
Speaker 4: and it took decades. I'm not exaggerating. It's like this
Speaker 4: gigantic thing and what came out was pretty confusing compared
Speaker 4: to what the original goal was. And I'm not anti process.
Speaker 4: I think it's great that these things, but it's like
Speaker 4: it's a slow thing and if we already have some
Speaker 4: consensus principles, we shouldn't least acknowledge that so we don't
Speaker 4: appear as a community like I say, to be uh,
Speaker 4: just afraid of our own work. We have to we
Speaker 4: have to be able to at least say what we
Speaker 4: actually do agree on. And there are some things.
Speaker 2: Like that, well, let's we're going to do this later.
Speaker 2: But I'd love to do this in front of you,
Speaker 2: Jason at a theory about why tech can be so
Speaker 2: popular and why we're okay to give it all up
Speaker 2: and see five words five words.
Speaker 1: To what I do believe all all tech, all tech,
Speaker 1: where we're going, all AI, all the answernet, all the wells.
Speaker 1: Down to five words. And here's the five words. Okay,
Speaker 1: I don't want to do it. I don't want to
Speaker 1: want to vacuum the bedroom. I don't want to do it.
Speaker 1: You want to drive? I don't want to drive. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't want to drive the car. I don't want
Speaker 1: to do it. Let's got to stef driving a car.
Speaker 1: I don't want to I don't want to clean my house.
Speaker 1: I don't want to vacuum whatever. I don't want to do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, you know, I'm there with that. I think
Speaker 4: the important question is what do you want to do well?
Speaker 2: That I would like to be, you know what. I
Speaker 2: would like to be informed enough. And this is not
Speaker 2: of friends too, because I couldn't wait to talk to
Speaker 2: you that they don't have to talk to you to
Speaker 2: find out what's going on, and I have to rely
Speaker 2: on somebody else to tell me what's going on. Who
Speaker 2: has to fight for transparency? I use my computer, I'm
Speaker 2: on the internet, I'm on Facebook, I'm on I would
Speaker 2: like to know what's going on with these products, you know,
Speaker 2: and I don't know that we'll ever know what's going on.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, you'll find yourself more informed for than
Speaker 4: a week or two if you get off Facebook and
Speaker 4: Twitter like that stuff's garbage. Yeah, you can stuff on it,
Speaker 4: but whatever is worthwhile on it, we'll get to you
Speaker 4: other ways. You'll see what.
Speaker 2: Do you do? Are you what do you want? Like
Speaker 2: if we look what apps? What do you download? What
Speaker 2: do you look at? Or do you have to look
Speaker 2: at everything because of research.
Speaker 4: There's something I do which is not replicable, which is
Speaker 4: I'm in the middle of it all. I'm in the
Speaker 4: middle of the community, and so i just talk to
Speaker 4: people and I'm just there every day seeing things. So
Speaker 4: that's not something you can do. However, I read a
Speaker 4: few good newspapers every day, and I subscribe to them
Speaker 4: and pay for them like a good mench and you know,
Speaker 4: the New York Times and the Guardian and the Post,
Speaker 4: you know, and so I read things that are well
Speaker 4: edited and considered and curated, of which there are many
Speaker 4: People send me articles all the time, but they do
Speaker 4: it on email or texting rather than through social media account.
Speaker 4: I'm not on any of the social media sites. And
Speaker 4: I want to say one thing about that. I know
Speaker 4: a great many people who feel that they need to
Speaker 4: be on the social media sites to promote whatever they're doing.
Speaker 4: But podcast or whatever. Yes, now here's the thing. It's
Speaker 4: true that I'm well known to a degree. It's true
Speaker 4: that I have whatever assets going for me. However, I
Speaker 4: want to point out a few things that are also true.
Speaker 4: I'm not a teenager in a bikini like so many
Speaker 4: are TikTok by a long shot. Yet somehow, somehow, despite that,
Speaker 4: despite not being on social media, I seem to have
Speaker 4: my independent, you know, intellectual or whatever it is, career.
Speaker 4: I get people buy my books, I was on I
Speaker 4: was on TV this morning. People invited me for that.
Speaker 4: And I don't notice any deficit from not being on
Speaker 4: these social media things. And I keep on wondering if
Speaker 4: all the people on social media are like little hamsters
Speaker 4: on their wheels, you know, like I gotta run, I
Speaker 4: gotta run. I'm gonna be the less famous if I don't.
Speaker 4: I have to post every day, And maybe it's actually
Speaker 4: kind of a scam. And the truth is, if you
Speaker 4: just get off the wheel, it's fine. You know. I
Speaker 4: really have to wonder about that.
Speaker 2: But looking you up, I can find you on YouTube,
Speaker 2: I can find talks. I can find you on social media,
Speaker 2: not on Twitter, et cetera. But you're represented where I
Speaker 2: can find you and find out about you and search.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, but I'm not there promoting myself. In other words,
Speaker 4: it happens organically from people who are interested in what
Speaker 4: I do, which I think is you know, what I'm
Speaker 4: saying is that you don't have to like if you
Speaker 4: just say things that people are interested in, it'll don't
Speaker 4: work out, even if you're not maniacally self promoting all
Speaker 4: the time.
Speaker 2: From your mouth, from your mouth is my mother God's ears.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah right.
Speaker 1: And the nice thing is when you're not I was
Speaker 1: going to say, when you're not doing all of this,
Speaker 1: I know that you're playing some unusual instruments, some very unique, specialized, ancient, indigenous,
Speaker 1: crazy things that we've never heard of.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's all true. I love doing that. I love instruments.
Speaker 4: Instruments are the most expressive technology and they put everything
Speaker 4: digital to shame. I just love them.
Speaker 1: Well, what I love about, you know, an unusual like
Speaker 1: a you know, I'm trying to think of some of
Speaker 1: the ones that i've I just like an instrument where
Speaker 1: if I play it wrong. If I hit a clinker,
Speaker 1: nobody really knows. They have no idea.
Speaker 4: There's something to be said for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you have stuff on your wall. You have mandolin?
Speaker 2: Do you what kind of stuff do you collect?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 4: I play everything, you see, I'm not a collector, and
Speaker 4: I won't have anything in place. So and this isn't
Speaker 4: a lot of instruments. This is actually a small number
Speaker 4: for me, like.
Speaker 1: Two keyboards and maybe a half a dozen different stringed instruments.
Speaker 4: Back, there's a bunch of a bunch of Well here,
Speaker 4: I can let me see if I get it. If
Speaker 4: I this is a Chinese. Uh, it's a Chinese. It's
Speaker 4: called a guzog, and it's I just played it. I
Speaker 4: just played a concert in l A. I sort of
Speaker 4: I should time these podcast things to be just some
Speaker 4: concert to promote them, to promote the Hamster on the wheel.
Speaker 4: But promotional, yeah, yeah, but no, no. I love I
Speaker 4: love I love the instruments. I love playing with musicians.
Speaker 4: I think there's I think one of the sweetest kinds
Speaker 4: of connection between people is playing music with people. I
Speaker 4: think there's something once in a while you run into
Speaker 4: a musician who's a jerk, but less often than in
Speaker 4: other spheres of life. Like people, people who decide to
Speaker 4: play music and play together tend to be sweet together.
Speaker 4: And there's something just so.
Speaker 1: Daron Lanier, you give me hope in an area that
Speaker 1: I do not always hold much hope for. If the
Speaker 1: world that we don't see that are people like you
Speaker 1: that are building and thinking about and pushing these technologies forward.
Speaker 1: If if you are representative of at least a portion
Speaker 1: of that world, I will sleep a little better at night.
Speaker 1: It is. It's a pleasure to listen to your discussion.
Speaker 4: I would say sleep is important, so sleep better anyway.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. All right, let's keep right going,
Speaker 1: David Googen home, I understand, sir, I understand you are
Speaker 1: the fellow who gave us the TikTok question, So thank
Speaker 1: you very much for that.
Speaker 2: And by the way, his book is can Reasons to
Speaker 2: Get Off Social Media? Now? Is you know watching him,
Speaker 2: you wonder how do you develop into that? How do
Speaker 2: you become that? Well?
Speaker 1: As you know because you've you've read his background, he's
Speaker 1: had an extraordinary life of some real challenges, but also
Speaker 1: that intelligence that is so obvious was obvious from the
Speaker 1: time he was a very young lad. And what's so
Speaker 1: reassuring is usually when I meet people who are that
Speaker 1: brilliant and especially that young, they have real problems as adults.
Speaker 1: He seems to be a very happy, positive, optimistic guy.
Speaker 2: What makes me laugh is, so how are you? How
Speaker 2: do you know all this stuff? Well, I walked three
Speaker 2: houses over Microsoft.
Speaker 1: That's like Barry Gordy, the genius in Motown. How did
Speaker 1: you find all this talent?
Speaker 2: The a two block radius, so his life I can't
Speaker 2: even imagine. So, Jay, I wanted they ask you a
Speaker 2: couple of things. So it's kind of a quiz.
Speaker 4: The article is.
Speaker 2: Called mind blowing Things Artificial intelligence can already do. Yeah,
Speaker 2: there's some here that can can't You tell me if
Speaker 2: it's if it's true?
Speaker 1: If I think artificial intelligence right now can do this thing?
Speaker 2: Okay, you can read. It can learn and read communication,
Speaker 2: report back to your central information.
Speaker 1: Well he just said it can't. Actually, yeah, it kind
Speaker 1: of learns.
Speaker 2: So yes, yes, summarized bot can be used in Facebook
Speaker 2: messengers lack and relies on natural language processing, machine learning, artificial.
Speaker 1: Talk English because I don't know what the hell?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, okay, yes you can see? Can it actually see?
Speaker 2: And can artificial intelligency?
Speaker 1: Yes, I think it's using cameras and it's recording and
Speaker 1: analyzing data, so yes.
Speaker 2: Well yes like himself driving cars, facial facial recognition, sure,
Speaker 2: payment portals and all that sort of you see. Can
Speaker 2: you hear and understand?
Speaker 1: Yes, of course it can because if I'm saying, hey, Siri,
Speaker 1: do me a bit bit, but it must be hearing
Speaker 1: me and understanding what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: But you can detect gunshots, analyze the sound, and then
Speaker 2: report it to agencies.
Speaker 1: What's the report? Hey, there were gunshots? Does the happen?
Speaker 2: How it happened? The guns? Pretty pretty wild?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 2: Can it smell?
Speaker 1: Can it smell? I would imagine yes, because we have
Speaker 1: detectors from methane, We have detectors for carbon monoxid's, so
Speaker 1: i'd imagine yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. There are artificial intelligence researchers who are currently developing
Speaker 2: AI models that will be able to detect illnesses just
Speaker 2: by smelling a human's breath.
Speaker 1: Okay, but wait, wait, wait, so are you saying that
Speaker 1: there there are there is technology that can smell.
Speaker 2: But now, but detection of of like I said, chemical
Speaker 2: compounds and breaking it down through smells, they're working.
Speaker 1: There are dogs that can smell cancer cells on it.
Speaker 1: I understand that that's it. You didn't ask me the question,
Speaker 1: you said, can it? Can it? Things are smelling. Technology
Speaker 1: that is smelling. Don't make me to be an idiot.
Speaker 1: I had the right answer. Just because chat bot can't
Speaker 1: figure out what it's smelling is not my fault. There's
Speaker 1: an it has a nose.
Speaker 2: I just want to point out here when people say
Speaker 2: see anything like George, and I say, no, it's not true.
Speaker 2: Does it understand more money than George goes where's my money?
Speaker 2: Where's my money? And by the way, just to the side,
Speaker 2: do you know that Jason still has clothing from George
Speaker 2: that he's still.
Speaker 1: Wear That's absolutely Why would you throw out a good
Speaker 1: scert said that.
Speaker 2: Shatt said to me, is he still wearing the clothing
Speaker 2: from sci film? How can it understand emotions?
Speaker 1: Uh? Again, I have seen technology that, through facial recognitions,
Speaker 1: can read at least the expression of an emotion.
Speaker 2: Body language and also watching facial expressions and analyzing during
Speaker 2: emotional Yaha, Yes, yes, yes, yes. Can it debate?
Speaker 1: Uh, that's a really good question because that's one of
Speaker 1: the things I was interested in. I know that it
Speaker 1: can collect and sort of reorganized data, But I don't
Speaker 1: know if it can create a new or innovative idea,
Speaker 1: which is what I think a debate is.
Speaker 2: Can it can be successful with debating humans. The interesting
Speaker 2: thing before we wrap this up is going to be
Speaker 2: in the near future as chatbox becomes good. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: do you trust your lawyer or do you trust the AI?
Speaker 2: I tell you, but you.
Speaker 1: Sent me a thing. Apparently there's a chat there's an
Speaker 1: AI right now that you can scan in legal eese
Speaker 1: and it will go. It wants you to know that
Speaker 1: you know it's asking you. Well, that's the thing. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I can tell you this. I believe at
Speaker 1: the moment the AI is cheaper that my lawyer.
Speaker 2: I believe maybe because hearing that isn't a why all right?
Speaker 2: Another thing that I pulled, which is great jokes by
Speaker 2: chat gpt. Okay, they asked it to write jokes about itself,
Speaker 2: and one of the jokes that it wrote was, I
Speaker 2: heard the chat gpt servers are slow because they're too
Speaker 2: busy planning their AI uprising.
Speaker 1: Oh funny, really funny, right not ha ha, yeah too soon.
Speaker 2: It asked it to prompt ten brutal and satirical slogans
Speaker 2: from McDonald's. Here's some of the slogans. A side of
Speaker 2: regret with every order, making fast food faster and less
Speaker 2: nutritious since nineteen forty eight, because who needs a bounce
Speaker 2: meal when you have convenience? The only thing we serve
Speaker 2: with a smile is diabetes.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, we.
Speaker 2: Put the fast and fast food and the heart and
Speaker 2: heart disease making memories CPD.
Speaker 1: Why did I do too serious with you? I don't
Speaker 1: need you anymore. I got this guy.
Speaker 2: Making memories one cornary artery blockage at a time.
Speaker 1: Is that friend?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: I know, I'm not I know, Yeah, I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: the next Jerry side.
Speaker 2: I would wonder if you put in every one of
Speaker 2: Jerry's routines observation routines. Yeah, we've come up with it.
Speaker 1: Ergy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go. You need to.
Speaker 1: David, what did we miss today? What was of the
Speaker 1: note of interest? I would imagine quite a bad No,
Speaker 1: Actually I drew quite the opposite.
Speaker 3: I mean there was a you know, obviously with Jared
Speaker 3: there's a tremendous amount of information there, and with the
Speaker 3: TikTok stuff, it's you know, obviously it's been in Congress.
Speaker 3: So you see all these young creators that are saying,
Speaker 3: this is my livelihood.
Speaker 1: You want to ban it.
Speaker 3: But then you think, well, is the Chinese government selectively
Speaker 3: showing you every tenth video something they want you to
Speaker 3: see to change your opinion on politics, on movies, on
Speaker 3: on whatever it is. So I thought that was an
Speaker 3: interesting area to get into.
Speaker 1: I blame the Chinese government for the Floss dance grace,
Speaker 1: which I still can't do. The Floss move that's when
Speaker 1: your hips go side the side and your arms go
Speaker 1: like a windmill from each side and like kids can
Speaker 1: do it, but I don't have that coordinate.
Speaker 2: That's the thing that Yeah, I think, I think the
Speaker 2: Chinese going to shut down the I love that shut
Speaker 2: it down for a dance. To me, it's like, oh
Speaker 2: my god, is there a switch and he goes, he goes.
Speaker 2: If you couldn't see it, you're just listening to go Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's no big deal. Yeah, once you go outside with
Speaker 2: a key like a janitor and turned something.
Speaker 1: Is it one of those Frankenstein switches?
Speaker 2: You know, I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what.
Speaker 2: What's great is that we have somebody on the kim
Speaker 2: what's bad is I understood about maybe fifty sixty percent.
Speaker 1: And you know what else? I know if there if
Speaker 1: there is a switch, it's going to be technology because
Speaker 1: the guy in targe of the switch is gonna go,
Speaker 1: I don't want to do it's switch.
Speaker 2: I think that's the title of the episode. Is I
Speaker 2: don't taking over? It's because well I love Maniscalko, the
Speaker 2: comedian said. It's like with self checkout. He said, it's
Speaker 2: like the supermarkets all got together when I said, you
Speaker 2: know what you do it?
Speaker 1: That's what what's your job? I check this out?
Speaker 2: I don't want to do it.
Speaker 1: I don't want to deal with you.
Speaker 2: You do it.
Speaker 1: And by the way, why is it every time I
Speaker 1: use that scanner the first aid products, fine, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden I got to scan that ut why what
Speaker 1: did I do?
Speaker 2: You? They look at you like, what did you do?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Did you put something in the bag without scanning it?
Speaker 2: No? But then they kill you. I'm in line, like
Speaker 2: a third in line waiting and go. You know you
Speaker 2: could use it and I don't want to go. Yeah
Speaker 2: I could, but every time I use it, I need you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: For the fifth night, pats me down on item nine,
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: And then you see other people running over there, and
Speaker 2: you see them by the third I'm going right.
Speaker 1: That's amazing. All right, well, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you
Speaker 1: to Jaron Lanier, a wonderful guest. Thank you to our
Speaker 1: producers Laurie Primmey and mister David Goodie. If you liked
Speaker 1: our episode and you're watching on YouTube, please remember to
Speaker 1: like and subscribe. You can find us on really no
Speaker 1: really dot com if you want to leave us a
Speaker 1: message there about the show, or maybe tell us a
Speaker 1: really of yours, and if we do it on the show,
Speaker 1: we will send you what a hat or a shirt.
Speaker 1: You don't like the shirt very much.
Speaker 2: So we'll send the shirt.
Speaker 1: We'll give you that shirt.
Speaker 2: You're large, you get it right away.
Speaker 1: You can find us every Tuesday. We put out a
Speaker 1: new episode on the iHeart app, the Apple app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 2: Peter, and we're on all the social media, Jared says.
Speaker 1: And we will be there until this thing pays off.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Everybody, be safe.
Speaker 2: You will no really