Elon Musk: Neuralink, AI, Autopilot, and the Pale Blue Dot | Lex Fridman Podcast #49

The following is a conversation with Elon Musk, part two, the second time we spoke on the podcast, with parallels, if not in quality, then in outfit, to the objectively speaking greatest sequel of all time, Godfather part two. As many people know, Elon Musk is a leader of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and the Boring Company. What may be less known is that he's a world-class engineer and designer, constantly emphasizing first principles thinking and taking on big engineering problems that many before him would consider impossible. As scientists and engineers, most of us don't question the way things are done, we simply follow the momentum of the crowd. But revolutionary ideas that change the world on the small and large scales happen when you return to the fundamentals and ask, is there a better way? This conversation focuses on the incredible engineering and innovation done in brain-computer interfaces at Neuralink. This work promises to help treat neurobiological diseases to help us further understand the connection between the individual neuron to the high-level function of the human brain, and finally, to one day expand the capacity of the brain through two-way communication with computational devices, the internet, and artificial intelligence systems. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, support on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman, spelled F-R-I-D-M-A-N. And now, as an anonymous YouTube commenter, refer to our previous conversation as the quote, historical first video of two robots conversing without supervision. Here's the second time, the second conversation with Elon Musk. Let's start with an easy question about consciousness. In your view, is consciousness something that's unique to humans, or is it something that permeates all matter, almost like a fundamental force of physics? I don't think consciousness permeates all matter. Panpsychics believe that. There's a philosophical... How would you tell? That's true. That's a good point. I believe in scientific methods. I don't blow your mind or anything, but the scientific method is like, if you cannot test the hypothesis, then you cannot reach a meaningful conclusion that it is true. Do you think consciousness, understanding consciousness, is within the reach of science, of the scientific method? We can dramatically improve our understanding of consciousness. I would be hard-pressed to say that we understand anything with complete accuracy, but can we dramatically improve our understanding of consciousness? I believe the answer is yes. Does an AI system, in your view, have to have consciousness in order to achieve human level or superhuman level intelligence? Does it need to have some of these human qualities, like consciousness, maybe a body, maybe a fear of mortality, capacity to love, those kinds of silly human things? There's this scientific method, which I very much believe in, where something is true to the degree that it is testably so. And otherwise, you're really just talking about preferences or untestable beliefs or that kind of thing. So, it ends up being somewhat of a semantic question where we are conflating a lot of things with the word intelligence. If we parse them out and say, are we headed towards a future where an AI will be able to outthink us in every way? Then the answer is unequivocally yes. In order for an AI system that needs to outthink us in every way, it also needs to have a capacity to have consciousness, self-awareness, and understanding. It will be self-aware, yes. That's different from consciousness. I mean, to me, in terms of what consciousness feels like, it feels like consciousness is a part of you. It's a part of you. It feels like consciousness is in a different dimension. But this could be just an illusion. You know, if you damage your brain in some way physically, you damage your consciousness, which implies that consciousness is a physical phenomenon, in my view. The thing is that I think are really quite likely is that digital intelligence will be able to outthink us in every way. And it will still be able to simulate what we consider consciousness to a degree that you would not be able to tell the difference. And from the aspect of the scientific method, it might as well be consciousness, if we can simulate it perfectly. If you can't tell the difference, and this is sort of the Turing test, but think of a more sort of advanced version of the Turing test. If you're talking to a digital superintelligence and can't tell if that is a computer or a human, like let's say you're just having a conversation over a phone or a video conference or something where you think you're talking, looks like a person makes all of the right inflections and movements and all the small subtleties that constitute a human and talks like a human, makes mistakes like a human, like at that, and you literally just can't tell, is this, are you video conferencing with a person or an AI? Might as well. Might as well. Be human. So on a darker topic, you've expressed serious concern about existential threats of AI. It's perhaps one of the greatest challenges that our civilization faces. But since I would say we're kind of an optimistic descendants of apes, perhaps we can find several paths of escaping the harm of AI. So if I can give you three options, maybe you can comment which do you think is the most promising. So one is scaling up efforts on AI safety and beneficial AI research in hope of finding an algorithmic or maybe a policy solution. Two is becoming a multi-planetary species as quickly as possible. And three is merging with AI and riding the wave of that increasing intelligence as it continuously improves. What do you think is most promising, most interesting as a civilization that we should invest in? I think there's a tremendous amount of investment going on in AI. Where there's a lack of investment is in AI safety. And there should be, in my view, a government agency that oversees anything related to AI to confirm that it does not represent a public safety risk. Just as there is a regulatory authority for the Food and Drug Administration, there's NHTSA for automotive safety, there's the FAA for aircraft safety. We generally come to the conclusion that it is important to have a government referee or a referee that is serving the public interest in ensuring that things are safe when there's a potential danger to the public. I would argue that AI is unequivocally something that has potential to be dangerous to the public and therefore should have a regulatory agency just as other things that are dangerous to the public have a regulatory agency. But let me tell you the problem with this is that the government moves very slowly. And the rate of, the usually way a regulatory agency comes into being is that something terrible happens. There's a huge public outcry. And years after that, there's a regulatory agency or a rule put in place. Take something like seatbelts. It was known for a decade or more that seatbelts would have a massive impact on safety and save so many lives and serious injuries. And the car industry fought the requirement to put seatbelts in tooth and nail. That's crazy. And hundreds of thousands of people probably died because of that. And they said people wouldn't buy cars if they had seatbelts, which is obviously absurd. Or look at the tobacco industry and how long they fought anything about smoking. That's part of why I helped make that movie, Thank You for Smoking. You can sort of see just how pernicious it can be when you have these companies effectively achieve regulatory capture of government. It's bad. People in the AI community refer to the advent of digital superintelligence as a singularity. That is not to say that it is good or bad, but that it is very difficult to predict what will happen after that point. And that there's some probability it will be bad, some probability it will be good. But obviously, I want to affect that probability and have it be more good than bad. Well, let me, on the merger with AI question and the incredible work that's being done at Neuralink, there's a lot of fascinating innovation here across different disciplines going on. So the flexible wires, the robotic sewing machine, the response to brain movement, everything around ensuring safety and so on. So we currently understand very little about the human brain. Do you also hope that the work at Neuralink will help us understand more about the human mind, about the brain? Yeah, I think the work at Neuralink will definitely shed a lot of insight into how the brain and the mind works. Right now, just the data we have regarding how the brain works is very limited. But I think that the work at Neuralink will definitely help us understand how the brain works is very limited. We've got fMRI, which is that's kind of like putting a stethoscope on the outside of a factory wall and then putting it all over the factory wall. And you can sort of hear the sounds, but you don't know what the machines are doing, really. It's hard. You can infer a few things, but it's very broad brushstroke. In order to really know what's going on in the brain, you have to have high precision sensors. And then you want to have stimulus and response. Like if you trigger a neuron, how do you feel? What do you see? How does it change your perception of the world? You're speaking to physically just getting close to the brain, being able to measure signals from the brain will give us sort of open the door inside the factory. Yes, exactly. Being able to have high precision sensors that tell you what individual neurons are doing and then being able to trigger a neuron and see what the response is in the brain. So you can see the consequences of if you fire this neuron, what happens? How do you feel? What does it change? It'll be really profound to have this in people because people can articulate their change. Like if there's a change in mood or if they can tell you if they can see better or hear better or be able to form sentences better or worse or their memories are jogged or that kind of thing. So on the human side, there's this incredible general malleability plasticity of the human brain. The human brain adapts, adjusts and so on. It's not that plastic to be totally frank. So there's a firm structure, but nevertheless, there is some plasticity. And the open question is, so if I could ask a broad question is how much that plasticity can be utilized. Sort of on the human side, there's some plasticity in the human brain. And on the machine side, we have neural networks, machine learning, artificial intelligence, it's able to adjust and figure out signals. So there's a mysterious language that we don't perfectly understand that's within the human brain. And then we're trying to understand that language to communicate both directions. So the brain is adjusting a little bit. We don't know how much. And the machine is adjusting. Where do you see as they try to sort of reach together, almost like with an alien species, try to find a protocol, communication protocol that works? Where do you see the biggest benefit arriving from on the machine side or the human side? Do you see both of them working together? I actually think the machine side is far more malleable than the biological side, by a huge amount. So it'll be the machine that adapts to the brain. That's the only thing that's possible. The brain can't adapt that well to the machine. You can't have neurons start to regard an electrode as another neuron, because a neuron just, there's like the pulse. And so something else is pulsing. So there is that elasticity in the interface, which we believe is something that can happen. But the vast majority of the malleability will have to be on the machine side. But it's interesting when you look at that synaptic plasticity at the interface side, there might be like an emergent plasticity. Because it's a whole nother, it's not like in the brain, it's a whole nother extension of the brain. We might have to redefine what it means to be malleable for the brain. So maybe the brain is able to adjust to external interfaces. There will be some adjustment to the brain, because there's going to be something reading and simulating the brain. And so it will adjust to that thing. But most, the vast majority of the adjustment will be on the machine side. This is just, it has to be that, otherwise it will not work. Ultimately, we currently operate on two layers. We have sort of a limbic, like prime primitive brain layer, which is where all of our kind of impulses are coming from. It's sort of like we've got like a monkey brain with a computer stuck on it. That's the human brain. And a lot of our impulses and everything are driven by the monkey brain. And the computer, the cortex is constantly trying to make the monkey brain happy. It's not the cortex that's steering the monkey brains, the monkey brain is steering the cortex. But the cortex is the part that tells the story of the whole thing. So we convince ourselves it's more interesting than just the monkey brain. The cortex is like what we call human intelligence. That's like the advanced computer relative to other creatures. Other creatures do not have either, really, they don't have the computer, or they have a very weak computer relative to humans. But it's like, it sort of seems like surely the really smart thing should control the dumb thing, but actually the dumb thing controls the smart thing. So do you think some of the same kind of machine learning methods, whether that's natural language processing applications, are going to be applied for the communication between the machine and the brain? To learn how to do certain things like movement of the body, how to process visual stimuli, and so on. Do you see the value of using machine learning to understand the language of the two-way communication with the brain? Sure, yeah, absolutely. I mean, we're a neural net, and AI is basically neural net. So it's like digital neural net will interface with biological neural net. And hopefully bring us along for the ride. But the vast majority of our brain the vast majority of our intelligence will be digital. Like think of the difference in intelligence between your cortex and your limbic system is gigantic. Your limbic system really has no comprehension of what the hell the cortex is doing. It's just literally hungry, or tired, or angry, or sexy, or something. And then in that case, that impulse to the cortex and tells the cortex to go satisfy that. Then a great deal of like a massive amount of thinking, like truly stupendous amount of thinking has gone into sex without purpose, without procreation. Which is actually quite a silly action in the absence of procreation. It's a bit silly. So why are you doing it? Because it makes the limbic system happy, that's why. But it's pretty absurd, really. Well, the whole of existence is pretty absurd in some kind of sense. Yeah. But I mean, this is a lot of computation has gone into how can I do more of that with procreation not even being a factor? This is, I think, a very important area of research by NSFW. An agency that should receive a lot of funding, especially after this conversation. I propose the formation of a new agency. Oh, boy. What is the most exciting or some of the most exciting things that you see in the future impact of Neuralink, both on the science, the engineering and societal broad impact? So Neuralink, I think, at first will solve a lot of brain related diseases. So it could be anything from like autism, schizophrenia, memory loss, like everyone experiences memory loss at certain points in age. Parents can't remember their kids' names and that kind of thing. So there's a tremendous amount of good that Neuralink can do in solving critical damage to the brain or the spinal cord. There's a lot that can be done to improve quality of life of individuals. And that will be, those will be steps along the way. And then ultimately, it's intended to address the existential risk associated with that. Intended to address the existential risk associated with digital superintelligence. Like we will not be able to be smarter than a digital supercomputer. So therefore, if you cannot beat them, join them. And at least we won't have that option. So you have hope that Neuralink will be able to be a kind of connection to allow us to to merge, to ride the wave of the improving AI systems? I think the chance is above 0%. So it's non-zero. There's a chance. And that's... So what I'm saying, have you seen Dumb and Dumber? Yes. So I'm saying there's a chance. He's saying one in a billion or one in a million, whatever it was, at Dumb and Dumber. You know, it went from maybe one in a million to improving, maybe it'll be one in a thousand, and then one in a hundred, then one in ten. It depends on the rate of improvement of Neuralink and how fast we're able to make progress. Well, I've talked to a few folks here, they're quite brilliant engineers. So I'm excited. Yeah, I think it's like fundamentally good, you know, giving somebody back full motor control after they've had a spinal cord injury, you know, restoring brain functionality after a stroke, solving debilitating genetically oriented brain diseases. These are all incredibly great, I think. And in order to do these, you have to be able to interface with neurons at a detailed level and you need to be able to fire the right neurons, read the right neurons. And then effectively you can create a circuit, replace what's broken with with silicon and essentially fill in the missing functionality. And then over time, we can have, we develop a tertiary layer. So if like the limbic system is a primary layer, then the cortex is like the second layer. And I said that, you know, obviously the cortex is vastly more intelligent than the limbic system, but people generally like the fact that they have a limbic system and a cortex. I haven't met anyone who wants to delete either one of them. They're like, okay, I'll keep them both. That's cool. The limbic system is kind of fun. It does. Well, the fun is, absolutely. And then people generally don't want to lose the cortex either. Right? So they like having the cortex and the limbic system. Yeah. And then there's a tertiary layer, which will be digital super intelligence. And I think there's room for optimism, given that the cortex, the cortex is very intelligent and limbic system is not, and yet they work together well. Perhaps there can be a tertiary layer where digital super intelligence lies. And that will be vastly more intelligent than the cortex, but still coexist peacefully and in a benign manner with the cortex and limbic system. That's a super exciting future, both in low level engineering that I saw is being done here and actual possibility in the next few decades. It's important that Neuralink solve this problem sooner rather than later, because the point at which we have digital super intelligence, that's when we pass singularity and things become just very uncertain. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily bad or good, but the point at which we pass singularity, things become extremely unstable. So we want to have a human brain interface before the singularity, or at least not long after it, to minimize existential risk for humanity and consciousness as we know it. But there's a lot of fascinating actual engineering, low level problems here at Neuralink that are quite exciting. What... The problems that we face in Neuralink are material science, electrical engineering, software, mechanical engineering, micro fabrication. It's a bunch of engineering disciplines, essentially. That's what it comes down to is you have to have a tiny electrode. It's so small, it doesn't hurt neurons, but it's got to last for as long as a person. So it's going to last for decades. And then you've got to take that signal, you've got to process that single signal locally at low power. So we need a lot of chip design engineers because we're going to do signal processing and do so in a very power efficient way so that we don't heat your brain up, because the brain is very heat sensitive. And then we've got to take those signals and we're going to do something with them. And then we've got to stimulate the back to... So you could... Bidirectional communication. So if somebody's good at material science, software, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chip design, micro fabrication, those are the things we need to work on. We need to be good at material science so that we can have tiny electrodes that last a long time. And it's a tough thing with the material science problem, it's a tough one because you're trying to read and simulate electrically in an electrically active area. Your brain is very electrically active and electrochemically active. So how do you have a coating on the electrode that doesn't dissolve over time and is safe in the brain? This is a very hard problem. And then how do you collect those signals in a way that is most efficient? Because you really just have very tiny amounts of power to process those signals. And then we need to automate the whole thing so it's like Lasik. So it's not... If this is done by neurosurgeons, there's no way it can scale to a large number of people. And it needs to scale to large numbers of people because I think ultimately we want the future to be determined by a large number of humans. Do you think this has a chance to revolutionize surgery period? So neurosurgery and surgery all across? Yeah, for sure. It's got to be like Lasik. Like if Lasik had to be hand done, done by hand by a person, that wouldn't be great. It's done by a robot. And the ophthalmologist kind of just needs to make sure your head's in the right position and then they can just press a button and go. So Smart Summon and soon AutoPark takes on the full beautiful mess of parking lots and their human to human nonverbal communication. I think it has actually the potential to have a profound impact in changing how our civilization looks at AI and robotics because this is the first time human beings, people that don't own a Tesla, may have never seen a Tesla or heard about a Tesla, get to watch hundreds of thousands of cars without a driver. Do you see it this way, almost like an education tool for the world about AI? Do you feel the burden of that, the excitement of that? Or do you just think it's a smart parking feature? I do think you are getting at something important, which is most people have never really seen a robot. And what is the car that is autonomous? It's a four wheel drive. Yeah, it communicates a certain sort of message with everything from safety to the possibility of what AI could bring, its current limitations, its current challenges, what's possible. Do you feel the burden of that, almost like a communicator, educator to the world about AI? We're just really trying to make people's lives easier with autonomy. But now that you mention it, I think it will be an eye opener to people about robotics because they've really never seen a robot before. And there are hundreds of thousands of Teslas, won't be long before there's a million of them that have autonomous capability and the drive without a person in it. And you can see the evolution of the car's personality and thinking with each iteration of autopilot. You can see it's uncertain about this, or it gets... But now it's more certain, now it's moving in a slightly different way. I can tell immediately if a car is on Tesla autopilot because it's got just little nuances of movement. It just moves in a slightly different way. Cars on Tesla autopilot, for example, on the highway are far more precise about being in the center of the lane than a person. If you drive down the highway and look at where cars are parked, you can see that the cars are moving in a slightly different way than a person. If you drive down the highway and look at where cars are, the human driven cars are within their lane. They're like bumper cars. They're moving all over the place. The car on autopilot, dead center. Yeah, so the incredible work that's going into that neural network, it's learning fast. Autonomy is still very, very hard. We don't actually know how hard it is fully, of course. At most problems you tackle, this one included, with an exponential lens, but even with an exponential improvement, things can take longer than expected sometimes. So where does Tesla currently stand on its quest for full autonomy? What's your sense? When can we see successful deployment of full autonomy? Well, on the highway already, the probability of intervention is extremely low. Yes, so for highway autonomy, with the latest release, especially, the probability of needing to intervene is really quite low. In fact, I'd say for stopping to go traffic, it's far safer than a person right now. It's something where the probability of an injury or an impact is much, much lower for autopilot than a person. And then with navigating autopilot, you can change lanes, take highway interchanges, and then we're coming at it from the other direction, which is low speed, full autonomy. And in a way, this is like, how does a person learn to drive? You learn to drive in the parking lot. You know, the first time you learn to drive probably wasn't jumping on Marcus Street in San Francisco. That'd be crazy. You learn to drive in the parking lot, get things right at low speed. And then the missing piece that we're working on is traffic lights and stuff streets. Stuff streets, I would say, actually also relatively easy because you kind of know where the stuff street is, voice caching, geocoding, and then use visualization to see where the line is and stop at the line to eliminate the GPS error. So I'd say there's probably complex traffic lights and very windy roads are the two things that need to get solved. What's harder, perception or control for these problems? So being able to perfectly perceive everything or figuring out a plan once you perceive everything, how to interact with all the agents in the environment, in your sense, from a learning perspective, is perception or action harder in that giant, beautiful, multi-task learning neural network? The hottest thing is having accurate representation of the physical objects in vector space. So taking the visual input, primarily visual input, some sonar and radar, and then creating an accurate vector space representation of the objects around you. Once you have an accurate vector space representation, the planning and control is relatively easier. That is relatively easy. Basically, once you have accurate vector space representation, then you're kind of like a video game. Like cars in Grand Theft Auto or something, they work pretty well. They drive down the road, they don't crash, pretty much, unless you crash into them. That's because they've got an accurate vector space representation of where the cars are, and then they're rendering that as the output. Do you have a sense, high level, that Tesla's on track on being able to achieve full autonomy? So on the highway? Yeah, absolutely. And still no driver's state? Still no driver's state. It's driver sensing. And we have driver sensing with torque on the wheel. That's right. Yeah. By the way, just a quick comment on karaoke. Most people think it's fun, but I also think it is a driving feature. I've been saying for a long time, singing in the car is really good for attention management and vigilance management. That's right. Tesla karaoke is great. It's one of the most fun features of the car. Do you think of a connection between fun and safety sometimes? Yeah, if you can do both at the same time, that's great. I just met with Andrew and wife of Carl Sagan, who directed Cosmos. I'm generally a big fan of Carl Sagan. He's super cool. And they had a great way of putting things. All of our consciousness, all civilization, everything we've ever known and done is on this tiny blue dot. People also get too trapped in there. It's like squabbles amongst humans. Just don't think of the big picture. And they take civilization and our continued existence for granted. They shouldn't do that. Look at the history of civilizations. They rise and they fall. And now civilization is all, it's globalized. And so civilization, I think now rises and falls together. There's not geographic isolation. This is a big risk. Things don't always go up. That should be, that's an important lesson of history. In 1990, at the request of Carl Sagan, the Voyager 1 spacecraft, which is a spacecraft that's reaching out farther than anything human made into space, turned around to take a picture of Earth from 3.7 billion miles away. And as you're talking about the pale blue dot, that picture, the Earth takes up less than a single pixel in that image. Yes. Appearing as a tiny blue dot, as pale blue dot, as Carl Sagan called it. So he spoke about this dot of ours in 1994. And if you could humor me, I was wondering if in the last two minutes you could read the words that he wrote, described in this pale blue dot. Sure. It's funny, the universe appears to be 13.8 billion years old. Earth is like four and a half billion years old. In another half billion years or so, the sun will expand and probably evaporate the oceans and make life impossible on Earth. Which means that if it had taken consciousness 10% longer to evolve, it would never have evolved at all. It's 10% longer. And I wonder how many dead one planet civilizations there are out there in the cosmos that never made it to the other planet and ultimately extinguished themselves or were destroyed by external factors. Probably a few. It's only just possible to travel to Mars, just barely. If G was 10% longer, it would be impossible to travel to Mars. If G was 10% more, it wouldn't work, really. If G was 10% lower, it would be easy. Like you can go single stage from the surface of Mars all the way to the surface of the Earth. Because Mars is 37% Earth's gravity. We need a giant booster to get off Earth. Channeling Carl Sagan. Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you've ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forger, every hero and character, every hero and character every hunter and forger, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and center in the history of our species lived there, on a moat of dust suspended in a sunbeam. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. This is not true. This is false. Mars. And I think Carl Sagan would agree with that. He couldn't even imagine it at that time. So thank you for making the world dream and thank you for talking today. I really appreciate it. Thank you.


Ray Dalio: Madness, Genius, and the Call for Adventure

You're always at the edge of the set of principles you've developed. You're doing new things always. That's where the intellect is needed. Well and the inspiration. The inspiration is needed to do that, right? Like what are you doing it for? It's the excitement. What is that thing? The adventure, the curiosity, the hunger. If you can be Freud for a second, what's in that subconscious? What's the thing that drives us? I think you can't generalize of us. I think different people are driven by different things. There's not a common one, right? So like if you would take the shapers, I think it is a combination of subliminally, it's a combination of excitement, curiosity. Is there a dark element there? Is there demons? Is there fears? Is there, in your sense, something dark that drives them? Most of the ones that I'm dealing with, I have not seen that. What I really see is, whoo, if I can do that, that would be the most dream. And then the act of creativity and you say, ooh. So excitement is one of the things. Curiosity is a big pull, okay? And then tenacity, okay, to do those things. But definitely emotions are entering into it. Then there's an intellectual component of it too, okay? It may be empathy. Can I have an impact? Can I have an impact? The desire to have an impact, that's an emotional thrill, but it also has empathy. And then you start to see spirituality. By spirituality, I mean the connectedness to the whole. You start to see people operate those things. Those tend to be the things that you see the most of. And I think you're going to shut down this idea completely, but there's a notion that some of these shapers really walk the line between sort of madness and genius. Do you think madness has a role in any of this? Or do you still see Steve Jobs and Elon Musk as fundamentally rational? Yeah, there's a continuum there. What comes to my mind is that genius is often at the edge, in some cases, imaginary genius is at the edge of insanity. And it's almost like a radio that I think, okay, if I can tune it just right, it's playing right. But if I go a little bit too far, it goes off, okay? And so you can see this. Kay Jamison was studying bipolar. What it shows is that that's definitely the case, because when you're going out there, that imagination, whatever, can be near the edge sometimes. Don't have to always be.


If You Could Live Forever Would You? (Ben Goertzel) | AI Podcast Clips with Lex Fridman

So if you could live forever, would you live forever? Forever. My goal with longevity research is to abolish the plague of involuntary death. I don't think people should die unless they choose to die. If I had to choose forced immortality versus dying, I would choose forced immortality. On the other hand, if I had the choice of immortality with the choice of suicide whenever I felt like it, of course I would take that instead. And that's the more realistic choice. There's no reason you should have forced immortality. You should be able to live until you get sick of living. And that will seem insanely obvious to everyone 50 years from now. People who thought death gives meaning to life so we should all die, they will look at that 50 years from now the way we now look at the Anabaptists in the year 1000 who gave away all their positions, went on top of the mountain for Jesus to come and bring them to the ascension. It's ridiculous that people think death is good because you gain more wisdom as you approach dying. I mean, of course it's true. I mean, I'm 53 and the fact that I might have only a few more decades left, it does make me reflect on things differently. It does give me a deeper understanding of many things. But I mean, so what? You could get a deep understanding in a lot of different ways. Pain is the same way. We're going to abolish pain and that's even more amazing than abolishing death. Once we get a little better at neuroscience, we'll be able to go in and adjust the brain so that pain doesn't hurt anymore. And people will say that's bad because there's so much beauty in overcoming pain and suffering. Well, sure, and there's beauty in overcoming torture too. And some people like to cut themselves, but not many. That's an interesting, but to push back again, this is the Russian side of me, I do romanticize suffering. It's not obvious. I mean, the way you put it, it seems very logical. It's almost absurd to romanticize suffering or pain or death. But to me, a world without suffering, without pain, without death, it's non-obvious. Well, then you can stay in the people zoo with the people torturing each other. No, but what I'm saying is, I guess what I'm trying to say, I don't know if I was presented with that choice what I would choose. Because to me- This is a subtler, it's a subtler matter. And I've posed it in this conversation in an unnecessarily extreme way. So I think the way you should think about it is what if there's a little dial on the side of your head, and you could turn how much pain hurt, turn it down to zero, turn it up to 11, like in spinal tap if it wants, maybe through an actual spinal tap, right? So I mean, would you opt to have that dial there or not? That's the question. The question isn't whether you would turn the pain down to zero all the time. Would you opt to have the dial or not? My guess is that in some dark moment of your life, you would choose to have the dial implanted, and then it would be there. Just to confess a small thing, don't ask me why, but I'm doing this physical challenge currently where I'm doing 680 pushups and pull-ups a day. And my shoulder is currently, as we sit here, in a lot of pain. And I don't know. I would certainly right now, if you gave me a dial, I would turn that sucker to zero as quickly as possible. Good. But I don't, I think the whole point of this journey is, I don't know. Because you're a twisted human being. I'm a twisted. So the question is, am I somehow twisted because I created some kind of narrative for myself so that I can deal with the injustice and the suffering in the world? Or is this actually going to be a source of happiness for me? This is, to an extent, is a research question that humanity will undertake, right? Exactly. But human beings do have a particular biological makeup, which sort of implies a certain probability distribution over motivational systems, right? So I mean, we, and that is there. That is there. Now, the question is, how flexibly can that morph as society and technology change, right? So if we're given that dial, and we're given a society in which, say, we don't have to work for a living, and in which there's an ambient, decentralized, benevolent AI network that will warn us when we're about to hurt ourself, if we're in a different context, can we consistently, with being genuinely and fully human, can we consistently get into a state of consciousness where we just want to keep the pain dial turned all the way down, and yet we're leading very rewarding and fulfilling lives, right? Now, I suspect the answer is yes, we can do that, but I don't know that for certain. Yeah, now, I'm more confident that we could create a non-human AGI system which just didn't need an analog of feeling pain. And I think that AGI system will be fundamentally healthier and more benevolent than human beings. So I think it might or might not be true that humans need a certain element of suffering to be satisfied humans, consistent with the human physiology. If it is true, that's one of the things that makes us fucked and disqualified to be the super AGI, right? I mean, the nature of the human motivational system is that we seem to gravitate towards situations where the best thing in the large scale is not the best thing in the small scale, according to our subjective value system. So we gravitate towards subjective value judgments where to gratify ourselves in the large, we have to ungratify ourselves in the small. And we do that in, you see that in music, there's a theory of music which says the key to musical aesthetics is the surprising fulfillment of expectations. Like you want something that will fulfill the expectations enlisted in the prior part of the music, but in a way with a bit of a twist that surprises you. And I mean, that's true not only in outdoor music like my own or that of Zappa or Steve Vai or Buckethead or Christoph Penderecki or something, it's even there in Mozart or something. It's not there in elevator music too much, but that's why it's boring, right? But wrapped up in there is, we want to hurt a little bit so that we can feel the pain go away. Like we want to be a little confused by what's coming next. So then when the thing that comes next actually makes sense, it's so satisfying, right? That's the surprising fulfillment of expectations, is that what you said? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So beautifully put. We've been skirting around a little bit, but if I were to ask you the most ridiculous big question of what is the meaning of life, what would your answer be? Three values, joy, growth, and choice. I think you need joy, I mean that's the basis of everything, if you want the number one value. On the other hand, I'm unsatisfied with a static joy that doesn't progress, perhaps because of some elemental element of human perversity. But the idea of something that grows and becomes more and more and better and better in some sense appeals to me. But I also sort of like the idea of individuality, that as a distinct system I have some agency, so there's some nexus of causality within this system, rather than the causality being wholly evenly distributed over the joyous growing mass. So you start with joy, growth, and choice as three basic values. Those three things could continue indefinitely. That's something that could last forever. Is there some aspect of something you called, which I like, super longevity that you find exciting, research-wise, is there ideas in that space? I think, yeah, in terms of the meaning of life, this really ties into that. Because for us as humans, probably the way to get the most joy, growth, and choice is transhumanism and to go beyond the human form that we have right now. And I think human body is great, and by no means do any of us maximize the potential for joy, growth, and choice imminent in our human bodies. On the other hand, it's clear that other configurations of matter could manifest even greater amounts of joy, growth, and choice than humans do, maybe even finding ways to go beyond the realm of matter as we understand it right now. So I think in a practical sense, much of the meaning I see in human life is to create something better than humans and go beyond human life. But certainly that's not all of it for me in a practical sense. I have four kids and a granddaughter and many friends and parents and family and just enjoying everyday human social existence. But we can do even better. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I love, I've always, when I could live near nature, I spend a bunch of time out in nature in the forest and on the water every day and so forth. So I mean, enjoying the pleasant moment is part of it, but the growth and choice aspect are severely limited by our human biology. In particular, dying seems to inhibit your potential for personal growth considerably as far as we know. I mean, there's some element of life after death perhaps, but even if there is, why not also continue going in this biological realm, right? In super longevity, I mean, we haven't yet cured aging. We haven't yet cured death. Certainly there's very interesting progress all around. I mean, CRISPR and gene editing can be an incredible tool. And I mean, right now, stem cells could potentially prolong life a lot. Like if you got stem cell injections of just stem cells for every tissue of your body injected into every tissue, and you can just have replacement of your old cells with new cells produced by those stem cells, I mean, that could be highly impactful at prolonging life. Now we just need slightly better technology for having them grow, right? So using machine learning to guide procedures for stem cell differentiation and trans differentiation, it's kind of nitty gritty, but I mean, that's quite interesting. So I think there's a lot of different things being done to help with prolongation of human life, but we could do a lot better. So for example, the extracellular matrix, which is the bunch of proteins in between the cells in your body, they get stiffer and stiffer as you get older. And the extracellular matrix transmits information both electrically, mechanically, and to some extent biophotonically. So there's all this transmission through the parts of the body, but the stiffer the extracellular matrix gets, the less the transmission happens, which makes your body get worse coordinated between the different organs as you get older. So my friend Christian Schaffmeister at my alumnus organization, my alma mater, the great Temple University, Christian Schaffmeister has a potential solution to this, where he has these novel molecules called spiral ligamers, which are like polymers that are not organic. They're specially designed polymers so that you can algorithmically predict exactly how they'll fold very simply. So he designed the molecular scissors that have spiral ligamers that you could eat and would then cut through all the glucosamine and other cross-linked proteins in your extracellular matrix, right? But to make that technology really work and be mature is several years of work. As far as I know, no one's funding it at the moment. So there's so many different ways that technology could be used to prolong longevity. What we really need, we need an integrated database of all biological knowledge about human beings and model organisms, like hopefully a massively distributed open-cog bioatom space, but it can exist in other forms too. We need that data to be opened up in a suitably privacy-protecting way. We need massive funding into machine learning, AGI, proto-AGI statistical research aimed at solving biology, both molecular biology and human biology, based on this massive, massive dataset, right? And then we need regulators not to stop people from trying radical therapies on themselves if they so wish to, as well as better cloud-based platforms for automated experimentation on microorganisms, flies and mice and so forth. We could do all this. You look, after the last financial crisis, Obama, who I generally like pretty well, but he gave $4 trillion to large banks and insurance companies. Now in this COVID crisis, trillions are being spent to help everyday people and small businesses. In the end, we'll probably will find many more trillions are being given to large banks and insurance companies anyway. Could the world put $10 trillion into making a massive holistic bio-AI and bio-simulation and experimental biology infrastructure? We could. We could put $10 trillion into that without even screwing us up too badly, just as in the end COVID and the last financial crisis won't screw up the world economy so badly. We're not putting $10 trillion into that. Instead, all this research is siloed inside a few big companies and government agencies. Most of the data that comes from our individual bodies, personally, that could feed this AI to solve aging and death, most of that data is sitting in some hospital's database doing nothing, right?