We exist inside the story that the brain tells itself (Joscha Bach) | AI Podcast Clips

What is dualism, what is idealism, what is materialism, what is functionalism, and what connects with you most? In terms of, because you just mentioned, there's a reality we don't have access to. Okay, what does that even mean? And why don't we get access to it? Aren't we part of that reality? Why can't we access it? So the particular trajectory that mostly exists in the West is the result of our indoctrination by a cult for 2,000 years. A cult, which one? Yes, the Catholic cult mostly. And for better or worse, it has created or defined many of the modes of interaction that we have that has created this society, but it has also in some sense scarred our rationality. And the intuition that exists, if you would translate the mythology of the Catholic Church into the modern world is that the world in which you and me interact is something like a multiplayer role-playing adventure. And the money and the objects that we have in this world, this is all not real. Or as Eastern philosophers would say, it's Maya. It's just stuff that appears to be meaningful, and this embedding in this meaning, if you believe in it, is samsara. It's basically the identification with the needs of the mundane, secular, everyday existence. And the Catholics also introduced the notion of higher meaning, the sacred. And this existed before, but eventually, the natural shape of God is the platonic form of the civilization that you're a part of. It's basically the superorganism that is formed by the individuals as an intentional agent. And basically, the Catholics used a relatively crude mythology to implement software on the minds of people and get the software synchronized to make them walk in lockstep. To get this God online and to make it efficient and effective. And I think God, technically, is just a self that spans multiple brains, as opposed to your and my self, which mostly exists just on one brain. Right? And so, in some sense, you can construct a self functionally as a function that is implemented by brains that exists across brains. And this is a God with a small g. That's one of the, if you look, Yuval Harari kind of talking about, this is one of the nice features of our brains, it seems to, that we can all download the same piece of software, like God in this case, and kind of share it. Yeah, so basically, you give everybody a spec, and the mathematical constraints that are intrinsic to information processing make sure that, given the same spec, you come up with a compatible structure. Okay, so that's, there's this space of ideas that we all share, and we think that's kind of the mind. But that's separate from, the idea is, from Christianity, from religion, is that there's a separate thing between the mind. There is a real world, and this real world is the world in which God exists. God is the coder of the multiplayer adventure, so to speak, and we are all players in this game. And that's dualism, you would say. Yes, but the dualist aspect is because the mental realm exists in a different implementation than the physical realm. And the mental realm is real. And a lot of people have this intuition that there is this real room in which you and me talk and speak right now. Then comes a layer of physics and abstract rules and so on, and then comes another real room where our souls are, and our true form isn't a thing that gives us phenomenal experience. And this, of course, is a very confused notion that you would get. And it's basically, it's the result of connecting materialism and idealism in the wrong way. So, okay, I apologize, but I think it's really helpful if we just try to define terms. Like, what is dualism, what is idealism, what is materialism for people that don't know? So the idea of dualism in our cultural tradition is that there are two substances, a mental substance and a physical substance, and they interact by different rules. And the physical world is basically causally closed and is built on a low-level causal structure. So there's basically a bottom level that is causally closed that's entirely mechanical. And mechanical in the widest sense, so it's computational. There's basically a physical world in which information flows around, and physics describes the laws of how information flows around in this world. Would you compare it to like a computer where you have hardware and software? The computer is a generalization of information flowing around. Basically, what Turing discovered, that there is a universal principle, you can define this universal machine, that is able to perform all the computations. So all these machines have the same power. This means that you can always define a translation between them, as long as they have unlimited memory, to be able to perform each other's computations. So would you then say that materialism, this whole world is just the hardware, and idealism is this whole world is just the software? Not quite. I think that most idealists don't have a notion of software yet, because software also comes down to information processing. So what you notice is the only thing that is real to you and me is this experiential world in which things matter, in which things have taste, in which things have color, phenomenal content, and so on. And you realize that- Oh, there you are bringing up consciousness, okay. And this is distinct from the physical world, in which things have values only in an abstract sense. And you only look at cold patterns moving around. So how does anything feel like something? And this connection between the two things is very puzzling to a lot of people, and of course, too many philosophers. So idealism starts out with the notion that mind is primary, materialism, things that matter, is primary. And so for the idealist, the material patterns that we see playing out are part of the dream, that the mind is dreaming. And we exist in a mind on a higher plane of existence, if you want. And for the materialist, there is only this material thing, and that generates some models, and we are the result of these models. And in some sense, I don't think that we should understand, if we understand it properly, materialism and idealism is a dichotomy, but as two different aspects of the same thing. So the weird thing is we don't exist in the physical world. We do exist inside of a story that the brain tells itself. Okay, let me, my information processing, take that in. We don't exist in the physical world, we exist in the narrative. Basically, a brain cannot feel anything. A neuron cannot feel anything. They're physical things. Physical systems are unable to experience anything. But it would be very useful for the brain or for the organism to know what it would be like to be a person and to feel something. So the brain creates a simulacrum of such a person that it uses to model the interactions of the person. It's the best model of what that brain, this organism, thinks it is in relationship to its environment. So it creates that model. It's a story, a multimedia novel that the brain is continuously writing and updating. But you also kind of said that we kind of exist in that story. What is real in any of this? So like, there's a, again, these terms are, you kind of said there's a quantum graph. I mean, what is this whole thing running on then? Is the story, and is it completely, fundamentally impossible to get access to it? Because isn't the story supposed to, isn't the brain in something, in existing in some kind of context? So what we can identify as computer scientists, we can engineer systems and test our theories this way that may have the necessary insufficient properties to produce the phenomena that we are observing, which is there is a self in a virtual world that is generated in somebody's neocortex that is contained in the skull of this primate here. And when I point at this, this indexicality is of course wrong. But I do create something that is likely to give rise to patterns on your retina that allow you to interpret what I'm saying, right? But we both know that the world that you and me are seeing is not the real physical world. What we are seeing is a virtual reality generated in your brain to explain the patterns on your retina. How close is it to the real world? That's kind of the question. Is it, when you have people like Donald Hoffman, say that you're really far away, the thing we're seeing, you and I now, that interface we have is very far away from anything. We don't even have anything close to the sense of what the real world is. Or is it a very surface piece of architecture? Imagine you look at the Mandelbrot Fractal, this famous thing that Bernard Mandelbrot discovered. If you see an overall shape in there, right? But you know, if you truly understand it, you know it's two lines of code. It's basically a series that is being tested for complex numbers in the complex number plane for every point. And for those where the series is diverging, you paint this black. And where it's converging, you don't. And you get the intermediate colors by checking how far it diverges. This gives you this shape of this fractal. But imagine you live inside of this fractal and you don't have access to where you are in the fractal. Or you have not discovered the generator function even. So what you see is, all I can see right now is a spiral. And the spiral moves a little bit to the right. Is this an accurate model of reality? Yes, it is. It is an adequate description. You know that there is actually no spiral in the Mandelbrot Fractal. It only appears like this to an observer that is interpreting things as a two-dimensional space and then defines certain irregularities in there at a certain scale that it currently observes. Because if you zoom in, the spiral might disappear and turn out to be something different at a different resolution, right? Yes. So at this level, you have the spiral. And then you discover the spiral moves to the right and at some point it disappears. So you have a singularity. At this point, your model is no longer valid. You cannot predict what happens beyond the singularity. But you can observe again and you will see it hit another spiral and at this point it disappeared. So we now have a second order law. And if you make 30 layers of these laws, then you have a description of the world that is similar to the one that we come up with when we describe the reality around us. It's reasonably predictive. It does not cut to the core of it. It doesn't explain how it's being generated, how it actually works. But it's relatively good to explain the universe that we are entangled with. But you don't think the tools of computer science or the tools of physics could step outside, see the whole drawing and get at the basic mechanism of how the pattern, the spirals are generated. Imagine you would find yourself embedded into a motherboard fractal and you try to figure out what works and you somehow have a Turing machine with enough memory to think. And as a result, you come to this idea, it must be some kind of automaton. And maybe you just enumerate all the possible automata until you get to the one that produces your reality. So you can identify necessary and sufficient condition. For instance, we discover that mathematics itself is the domain of all languages. And then we see that most of the domains of mathematics that we have discovered are in some sense describing the same fractals. This is what category theory is obsessed about, that you can map these different domains to each other. So there are not that many fractals. And some of these have interesting structure and symmetry breaks. And so you can discover what region of this global fractal you might be embedded in from first principles. But the only way you can get there is from first principles. So basically, your understanding of the universe has to start with automata and then number theory and then spaces and so on. Yeah, I think like Stephen Wolfram still dreams that he'll be able to arrive at the fundamental rules of the cellular automata or the generalization of which is behind our universe. You've said on this topic, you said in a recent conversation that quote, some people think that a simulation can't be conscious and only a physical system can. But they got it completely backward. A physical system cannot be conscious. Only a simulation can be conscious. Consciousness is a simulated property of the simulated self. Just like you said, the mind is kind of, we'll call it story narrative. There's a simulation, so our mind is essentially a simulation. Usually, I try to use the terminology so that the mind is basically the principles that produce the simulation. It's the software that is implemented by your brain. And the mind is creating both the universe that we are in and the self, the idea of a person that is on the other side of attention and is embedded in this world. Why is that important, that idea of a self? Why is that an important feature in the simulation? It's basically a result of the purpose that the mind has. It's a tool for modeling. We are not actually monkeys. We are side effects of the regulation needs of monkeys. And what the monkey has to regulate is the relationship of an organism to an outside world that is in large part also consisting of other organisms. And as a result, it basically has regulation targets that it tries to get to. These regulation targets start with priors. They're basically like unconditional reflexes that we are more or less born with. And then we can reverse engineer them to make them more consistent. And then we get more detailed models about how the world works and how to interact with it. And so these priors that you commit to are largely target values that our needs should approach, set points. And this deviation to the set point creates some urge, some tension. And we find ourselves living inside of feedback loops. Consciousness emerges over dimensions of disagreements with the universe. Things that you care, things are not the way they should be, but you need to regulate. And so in some sense, the sense itself is the result of all the identifications that you're having. And the identification is a regulation target that you're committing to. It's a dimension that you care about, that you think is important. And this is also what locks you in. If you let go of these commitments of these identifications, you get free. There's nothing that you have to do anymore. And if you let go of all of them, you're completely free and you can enter Nirvana because you're done. And actually, this is a good time to pause and say thank you to a friend of mine, Gustav Söderström, who introduced me to your work. I wanted to give him a shout out. He's a brilliant guy. And I think the AI community is actually quite amazing. And Gustav is a good representative of that. You are as well. So I'm glad, first of all, I'm glad the internet exists and YouTube exists where I can watch your talks and then get to your book and study your writing and think about, you know, that's amazing. Okay, but you've kind of described in sort of this emergent phenomenon of consciousness from the simulation. So what about the hard problem of consciousness? Can you just linger on it? Like, why does it still feel, like, I understand you're kind of, the self is an important part of the simulation, but why does the simulation feel like something? So if you look at a book by, say, George R.R. Martin where the characters have plausible psychology and they stand on a hill because they want to conquer the city below the hill and they're done in it and they look at the color of the sky and they are apprehensive and feel empowered and all these things, why do they have these emotions? It's because it's written into the story, right? And it's written to the story because it's an adequate model of the person that predicts what they're going to do next. And the same thing is true for us. So it's basically a story that our brain is writing. It's not written in words. It's written in perceptual content, basically multimedia content. And it's a model of what the person would feel if it existed. So it's a virtual person. And you and me happen to be this virtual person. So this virtual person gets access to the language center and talks about the sky being blue. And this is us. But hold on a second. Do I exist in your simulation? You do exist in an almost similar way as me. So there are internal states that are less accessible for me that you have and so on. And my model might not be completely adequate. There are also things that I might perceive about you that you don't perceive. But in some sense, both you and me are some puppets, two puppets that enact a play in my mind. And I identify with one of them because I can control one of the puppet directly. And with the other one, I can create things in between. So for instance, we can go on an interaction that even leads to a coupling to a feedback loop. So we can think things together in a certain way or feel things together. But this coupling is itself not a physical phenomenon. It's entirely a software phenomenon. It's the result of two different implementations interacting with each other. So that's interesting. So are you suggesting, like the way you think about it, is the entirety of existence a simulation and where kind of each mind is a little sub-simulation that like, why don't you, why doesn't your mind have access to my mind's full state? Like- For the same reason that my mind doesn't have access to its own full state. So what, I mean- There is no trick involved. So basically when I know something about myself, it's because I made a model. So one part of your brain is tasked with modeling what other parts of your brain are doing. Yes, but there seems to be an incredible consistency about this world in the physical sense, that there's repeatable experiments, and so on. How does that fit into our silly descendant of apes simulation of the world? So why is it so repeatable? Why is everything so repeatable? And not everything. There's a lot of fundamental physics experiments that are repeatable for a long time, all over the place, and so on. Laws of physics, how does that fit in? It seems that the parts of the world that are not deterministic are not long lived. So if you build a system, any kind of automaton, so if you build simulations of something, you'll notice that the phenomena that endure are those that give rise to stable dynamics. So basically if you see anything that is complex in the world, it's the result of, usually of some control, of some feedback that keeps it stable around certain attractors. And the things that are not stable, that don't give rise to certain harmonic patterns, and so on, they tend to get weeded out over time. So if we are in a region of the universe that sustains complexity, which is required to implement minds like ours, this is going to be a region of the universe that is very tightly controlled and controllable. So it's going to have lots of interesting symmetries, and also symmetry breaks, that allow the creation of structure. But they exist where? So there's such an interesting idea that our mind is a simulation that's constructing the narrative. My question is, just to try to understand how that fits with the entirety of the universe. You're saying that there's a region of this universe that allows enough complexity to create creatures like us, but what's the connection between the brain, the mind, and the broader universe? Which comes first? Which is more fundamental? Is the mind the starting point, the universe is emergent? Is the universe the starting point, the minds are emergent? I think quite clearly the latter. That's at least a much easier explanation, because it allows us to make causal models. And I don't see any way to construct an inverse causality. So what happens when you die to your mind simulation? My implementation ceases. So basically the thing that implements myself will no longer be present. Which means if I am not implemented on the minds of other people, the thing that I identify with. The weird thing is I don't actually have an identity beyond the identity that I construct. If I was the Dalai Lama, he identifies as a form of government. So basically the Dalai Lama gets reborn, not because he's confused, but because he is not identifying as a human being. He runs on a human being. He's basically a governmental software that is instantiated in every new generation and you. So his advice is to pick someone who does this in the next generation. So if you identify with this, you are no longer a human and you don't die in the sense. What dies is only the body of the human that you run on. To kill the Dalai Lama, you would have to kill his tradition. And if we look at ourselves, we realize that we are to a small part like this, most of us. So for instance, if you have children, you realize something lives on in them. Or if you spark an idea in the world, something lives on. Or if you identify with the society around you, because you are part that. You're not just this human being. Yeah, so in a sense, you are kind of like a Dalai Lama in the sense that you, Joshua Bach, is just a collection of ideas. So you have this operating system on which a bunch of ideas live and interact. And then once you die, they kind of, some of them jump off the ship. You could put it the other way. Identity is a software state. It's a construction. It's not physically real. Identity is not a physical concept. It's basically a representation of different objects on the same world line. But identity lives and dies. Are you attached? What's the fundamental thing? Is it the ideas that come together to form identity? Or is each individual identity actually a fundamental thing? It's a representation that you can get agency over if you care. So basically you can choose what you identify with if you want to. No, but it just seems if the mind is not real, that the birth and death is not a crucial part of it. Well, maybe I'm silly. Maybe I'm attached to this whole biological organism. But it seems that the physical, being a physical object in this world is an important aspect of birth and death. Like it feels like it has to be physical to die. It feels like simulations don't have to die. The physics that we experience is not the real physics. There is no color and sound in the real world. Color and sound are types of representations that you get if you want to model reality with oscillators, right? So colors and sound in some sense have octaves. And it's because they are represented probably with oscillators, right? So that's why colors form a circle of use. And colors have harmonics, sounds have harmonics as a result of synchronizing oscillators in the brain, right? So the world that we subjectively interact with is fundamentally the result of the representation mechanisms in our brain. They are mathematically to some degree universal. There are certain regularities that you can discover in the patterns and not others. But the patterns that we get, this is not the real world. The world that we interact with is always made of too many parts to count, right? So when you look at this table and so on, it's consisting of so many molecules and atoms that you cannot count them. So you only look at the aggregate dynamics, at limit dynamics. If you had almost infinitely many particles, what would be the dynamics of the table? And this is roughly what you get. So geometry that we are interacting with is the result of discovering those operators that work in the limit, that you get by building an infinite series that converges. For those parts where it converges, it's geometry. For those parts where it doesn't converge, it's chaos. All right, and then, so all of that is filtered through the consciousness that's emergent in our narrative. So the consciousness gives it color, gives it feeling, gives it flavor. So I think the feeling, flavor, and so on is given by the relationship that a feature has to all the other features. It's basically a giant relational graph that is our subjective universe. The color is given by those aspects of the representation, or this experiential color where you care about, where you have identifications, where something means something, where you are the inside of a feedback loop, and the dimensions of caring are basically dimensions of this motivational system that we emerge over.


Sean Carroll: What is the Wave Function?

So what's a wave function? You said it's an interesting detail. But in any interpretation, what is the wave function in quantum mechanics? Well, we had this idea from Rutherford that atoms look like little solar systems. But people very quickly realized that can't possibly be right. Because if an electron is orbiting in a circle, it will give off light. All the light that we have in this room comes from electrons zooming up and down and wiggling, and that's what electromagnetic waves are. And you can calculate how long would it take for the electron just to spiral into the nucleus. And the answer is 10 to the minus 11 seconds, okay? 100 billionth of a second. So that's not right. Meanwhile, people had realized that light, which we understood from the 1800s was a wave, had properties that were similar to that of particles, right? This is Einstein and Planck and stuff like that. So if something that we agree was a wave had particle-like properties, then maybe something we think is a particle, the electron, has wave-like properties, right? And so a bunch of people eventually came to the conclusion, don't think about the electron as a little point particle orbiting like a solar system. Think of it as a wave that is spread out. They cleverly gave this the name the wave function, which is the dopiest name in the world for one of the most profound things in the universe. There's literally a number at every point in space, which is the value of the electron's wave function at that point. And there's only one wave function. Yeah, they eventually figured that out. That took longer. But when you have two electrons, you do not have a wave function for electron one and a wave function for electron two. You have one combined wave function for both of them. And indeed, as you say, there's only one wave function for the entire universe at once.


RZA and Lex Fridman play chess

Bring the queen out. Uh-oh. That's my girl. This girl is crazy. Oh no. Don't do that. Don't bring stuff out. Yeah, let me get some other people in the party. I'm going to sacrifice pieces to make you think you're doing good. Ponder me, right? Well, since you're going to do that, and I figured you was going to do that, I'm going to let you do what you want to do so I can do what I want to do. Thank you. This is good. A few months back, I did a podcast with RZA, and we played an impromptu game of chess afterwards. I wasn't sure if anyone wants to see that, but a few folks asked me about it, so here it is. Let me know if you want to see me play chess, have fun, and of course talk a bit of trash with folks in the future. I should also say that when I was a kid, I deliberately decided to not play chess because given my generally mathematical mind and interests, I would be pulled all in. Moderation would be impossible. I'm the same with fresh oatmeal raisin cookies. I don't know how to eat just one. Instead, I chose to avoid the game, playing maybe on a rare occasion of a few years at a party, probably drunk, and have lots of fun blundering all over the place and talking trash. I do think chess is a beautiful game, and I do want to celebrate it. And perhaps my low level of play and my approach of fun is a good way to do so, because if you're a beginner, we're in this together, my friend. Chess is not just about opening lines, positions, tactics. It's also about two humans using their mind to solve weird little puzzles while chatting it up and having fun. In this life, dear friends, you have two approaches to choose for each activity. Have fun trying to be good or have fun being bad. For me, I try to do a bit of both. For chess, I choose the latter. So let me know if you want to see more videos of me playing chess. Now I give you RZA. I do the same thing. Let's see what you think about that. We replaying the match? It was already a great match. I don't know about this. What's the strongest part of your game? The opening? The middle? I don't know, because I've been weak lately, but I think that if you give me the time. No, we can't take the time. This is going to be fast. And I told you I'm terrible. I said, if you give me the... No, but if I get the time- Oh, to practice, to think. I get pretty good at chess, if you give me the time. But it ain't just time. It's your own fatigue, your own feeling. You could be angry, impatient. Let me just ruin it for you. Hyper. I just got to take pieces. Very aggressive play here. What are we even doing? I'm just attacking. What's the worst that can happen? I could run. And not be shot. That's a big thing. This is not the worst thing in this world. I'm telling you, I'm just going to go on a rampage. Just taking pieces. This is a horrible position for me. Why did you do that then? You just wanted to fuck with me? Because I want to move fast. Oh, okay. I want to fuck with you for sure. Let me try this one then. Bringing the queen out. Uh-oh. That's my girl. Oh, that's a good one. Oh, this girl is crazy. That's a real queen's gambit. There's a couple of counters. Here's one counter that may just start the energy between us. Yeah, this could be a big problem. So I would need to, there's no options, right? Yeah, you got to make a move. I'll stay off the white. And then for me, okay, I see what you're doing there. I have to hit you there for protection. Bring this guy out. That's good. I actually didn't want you to bring that guy out. I didn't like the thing you had going on here. That's not going to end well for me. Yeah, I didn't like that guy either. I didn't like him coming outside at all. I just felt like he should have, I was hoping he didn't come outside, but he's outside now. So now that he's outside, when I told him not to come outside, mind you, I got to now think about my own problems. The queen and the rook are dancing in the middle. I think I'm in way more danger. I'm not sure though. Yes, it's pretty peculiar here. Got to keep them distracted. You take one more punch at you. You can't not do, you got to make sure you do it in time. That's really the big trick. Timing is everything. Yeah, so in that case, since timing is everything, let me kind of get some time away from this motherfucker. What do you think about pawns? You're like, oh no, don't do that. Don't bring stuff out. Yeah, let me get some other people in the party because- I'm going to make it fun. I'm going to sacrifice pieces to make you think you're doing good. Pawn to me, right? Well, since you're going to do that, and I figured you was going to do that, I'm going to let you do what you want to do so I can do what I want to do. Thank you. This is good. He's not taking the quote bait. That's not an actual bait. Okay, so let's get this guy out of here. Yeah, let's get him out of here. See, this is not good. I got to threaten you somehow. I got to make you nervous. There we go. Oh, that's your Kung Fu technique to make me nervous. I don't know if I'm going to get nervous from that one. Watch your King. That's all I got to say. I know. I see you trying to punch me in my face and shit. Yeah, but don't play around. You can have the pawns. I can have the pawn? No, you can have the pawns. I'm just going to knock you out. Oh, it's going to knock me out. You guys hear this guy? I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I got to tell you. I'm not going to be even. I think I'm down a pawn, a couple of pawns. You know what? It's actually, yeah, the pawns don't mean shit. You're right. The pawns is not the way for this game to go the way I want it to go. So, that's a fact. You have like so many options, it's overwhelming actually. I'm glad you see it that way because I'm feeling the same, but you know, I still got to be careful. Right. Since I still got to be careful. This is some Grandmaster level. This is not- Chats right here. All right, so since you trying to shoot off my pinky toe. I just feel like you're gonna attack so much here. And I got nothing. I got no pawns to protect me. I got, and this king is just sitting there. Yeah, but you got a couple of tricks up your sleeve though. Let me just continue my party my way. That's the most important thing you gotta do sometimes. You gotta continue your party your way. Keep bringing pieces out. You know what, I'm just gonna keep. That was nice. Everybody who saw that would say the same thing. Yeah. They would say. What's that? That was nice. Yeah. That move was nice, yo. You seen that? Yeah. I'm like, yo, I saw it. I saw, I gotta take him. You know that. It's no, I have no choice. And the matter, you doing that. A Grandmaster would just forfeit here. But I'm not that. I'm not that. I like that. Because I'm a higher level. I like, well I like the pitch of that. Yeah. It's like a Grandmaster would just forfeit here. No, I'm just, I'm gonna have to give you the Bishop of the Night. Well, do what you're gonna do, but don't forget, we talked about Fisher and Spassky, and I started the game in the famous Fisher opening. That, you know, it was good at one time. Yeah. And it's like, I'm trying to bring it back. The opening, or what? Yeah, I'm trying to, like I really, I'm a fan of Bobby Fisher. I know they say he went crazy, and all the stuff like that, but like I said, his analogy that chess is a draw, it's something profound in that. And I'm just like, I'm gonna try to represent Bobby Fisher a little bit. You're the Bobby Fisher in this? All right. See that? Now, would everybody agree? Yeah. But that was beautiful. I think you got a problem with too many choices. I'm trying to paralyze you with too many good choices until you make a mistake. Which is good, I mean, that's the meaning. You should be scared, because you don't want to make a mistake on camera. That'll be embarrassing. Because you're winning, you're dominating, and then you can just. But if he makes a mistake on camera, what would the world think of that? What would they tell him back home? I'd be nervous for you, that's all I'm saying. Yeah, I'm getting a little bit nervous, but not totally. And you know why I'm not totally nervous? Oh, why is that? Oh, you wanna know? I guess I'm just gonna have to wait and find out. Okay, so in that case, since this is one of those matches where. A friendly match? Yeah, a friendly match. I was gonna go for either that or war, but since I'm losing, let's just go for a friendly match. Yeah, well, since this is a friendly match, let's do it, let's give you something to eat. And I'll get something to eat. You eat, I eat. Yeah. Yeah, I think I'm gonna do that. I think I'm gonna let that be the way we eat. You cool with that? Yeah, you give me a rook or what? Yeah, why not? Okay, okay. You're gonna give me, this. This is great. Yeah, I gotta give you something. This is what a generous man does. I'll give you something to eat. You gave me something to eat. I'm gonna give you something to eat. All right. Okay, that was good. Hope it tastes good. Yeah, it did. It feel good. I'm winning. I'm winning. I hope everybody liked it. Hope the rest of the audience is feeling it. Like everybody, like this guy got a chance to eat. On the official chess point system, I'm up by a pawn. Yeah, all right. One move, I was up. Well, I'm gonna get back out of your way because I didn't like, actually didn't like the vibe of that. So I have to get back and protect my other rook because if I would've gave him two rooks, if I would've gave him two rooks, for the price of nothing. You're not that generous. I appreciate that. Yeah, the people would've been talking about me for years to come. Yeah, man. Oh, look at this guy. He's getting nervous. He's like, what you doing? You got it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, a hundred percent. So let me count my money. You count your money. Yeah. Count my money. Oh, you got more money than me. I gotta make you feel nervous about something. Whoa, that was a bad move right there, brother. That one there. What do you want to do with that? You want to zoom in on that? That's a blunder. What's the, what's like when it's a really bad blunder, it's like super blunder or something like that. Yeah, well it makes this move bad, right? It's a couple of things about it. Well, you really don't want to bring the king out like that, right? Yeah, even if you would've left him back there, it would've been a better exchange for you because I gave you this rook, but you took the wrong rook. Yeah. You should've took this rook, right? Yeah. But you took that rook, which I was cool with. I was hoping you'd take that rook. Even if you took this rook, I was cool because I would've got the horse and then I would've still been up two points. Yeah. But you took this rook, which was detrimental. Because I'm going to lose it anyway. I'm going to lose the knight. And then, yeah, so you're saying I should've taken this. That was the mistake. That would've been a better shot for you. Taking that rook, because now this rook just does something very simple, just goes here. Even if it was there, though, I would've lost the rook. Yeah. Which I thought I was going to lose. You would've traded it. Yeah, but this is worse for you. It's not checkmate, is it? No, but it's check, but it's a tough looking check. But you got to now jet up out of there and you only could jet so many places. Maybe I undo the mistake because I can't jet forward. Well. I can't jet forward. No matter where you go. I'm not here to tell you. Yeah, I have to undo the mistake. But the point of this rook check was a discovery of which was set up since the beginning. This discovery has been here for almost four or five moves. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, I like, you know, they say white guys love black women. Yeah. Now I know what that means. Thank you. Yeah. That's a tough looking check. Yeah. I can trick you into a draw somehow. All right. I think that way. Don't you think that way? Yeah. You got all the right philosophies, you know what I mean? It's just not the skills. Well, yeah, you know, the application takes time to apply everything we learn. It just takes time. That's definitely the right philosophy. Everything you've been saying for this conversation has been the right philosophy. Just the time to apply it has been ducking you. Yeah. So, I'll just keep this there. And then, you know, you can take this as far as you want to take it. But I think in the interest of time, we're running out of time. You have to go, man. Yeah, we should say yes. Thank you, brother. Thank you, man. That was beautiful.


Comfortably Numb Solo | Pink Floyd Cover by Lex Fridman

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A


Lex Fridman at Tesla Giga Texas grand opening

I'm here at the Gigafactory grand opening in Austin, Texas. One of the big surreal things is that before I ever met Elon Musk, before I ever did a podcast or did videos and stuff like that, I actually went out to the grand opening of the first Gigafactory out in Reno, Nevada to give a talk. And that was a surreal experience. First of all, to see American manufacturer at scale. And second, that also was a party. And it was like late into the night. And the thing I remember the most is that like 3 or 4 a.m. whenever the party was wrapping up, there were still people that work for Tesla. And there's just this passion in their eyes for what they're doing out there in the desert. It's like in the middle, it felt like in the middle of nowhere in Reno. And they, there was still this love for what they were doing. And that stayed with me because that's the best of humanity to be a part of something big like that. If you look at the scale of this thing, I mean, is there anything sexier than the factory that builds cars in America? So of course, like the idea itself, I think is beautiful. The idea of automation. When you build the prototype, that first prototype, where you get to capture the magic of the idea, that's beautiful. But the most beautiful thing to me is when you get to manufacture that idea at scale. And even at that time, to imagine that just a few years later, you would get hundreds of thousands of cars manufactured and delivered a year. I think it's closing out on a million Tesla vehicles. To me as an AI person, that's the talk actually that I gave was on semi-autonomous vehicles out in Reno. It's just amazing. It's amazing that there's been so many people that doubt it, and it's possible to build an American car company that does something what Autopilot is doing. It's just incredible. Of course, there's Waymo, what Cruise is doing is also incredible, but to actually put hundreds of thousands of vehicles that are doing what Autopilot is doing in the hands of real people, especially full self-driving FSD Beta, it's just incredible. All of it's surreal to me personally, just as one little ant on this planet. It's just inspiring that people can dream to do the impossible and make that impossible a reality. For that to be here in Austin, Texas, and for me to be here, it's surreal just to look back at that time in Reno, that I would get a chance to meet some of these amazing people and to get to witness some of these amazing things. It's a dream come true. All right, now let's go party.