Latest / Booker Scott: Truth Be Told / Title: Part II: Tomorrow's AI Questions Need Answers Today

Transcript

Title: Part II: Tomorrow's AI Questions Need Answers Today · Booker Scott: Truth Be Told

0:01
Speaker 1: It's 6 Eastern, 3 o'clock Pacific. He's literally the former
0:05
Speaker 1: director of the FBI.
0:07
Speaker 2: He knows exactly what 8647 means.
0:10
Speaker 1: From coast to coast and around the world, from America
0:14
Speaker 1: Out Loud Talk Radio.
0:15
Speaker 2: But I'm sick and tired of the fact that our
0:17
Speaker 2: president has been targeted over and over again with rhetoric that.
0:22
Speaker 1: Clearly calls for the assassination of this man. It's time
0:25
Speaker 1: for Truth Be Told with Booker Scott.
0:28
Speaker 3: You know, I saw Dick Durbin. He's a senator from
0:31
Speaker 3: the state of Illinois. He happens to be a Democrat,
0:34
Speaker 3: but he was asked, and I'm going to put his
0:35
Speaker 3: age at about 75. I don't really know, but I'm
0:38
Speaker 3: going to say that's close. And he was asked about
0:40
Speaker 3: AI and what should be done about it. And he said, well,
0:44
Speaker 3: you know, I don't really use it much. I use
0:46
Speaker 3: it some. That's the biggest problem I think we have,
0:50
Speaker 3: is that people don't realize that they're using it constantly
0:54
Speaker 3: all day long. They just don't understand it. And we
0:58
Speaker 3: truly need to understand how it affects our lives, how
1:01
Speaker 3: it's transforming this century and the future for always. We're
1:06
Speaker 3: never going to put this toothpaste back in the tube.
1:09
Speaker 3: It's out. It's moving forward. It's moving fast. And we
1:14
Speaker 3: at least should understand it and get into the conversation
1:17
Speaker 3: and know what we're talking about in some regards. Not
1:22
Speaker 3: just be fearful, but be fearful in respect of what
1:26
Speaker 3: it is where it's going, but understand what it is
1:31
Speaker 3: and what it's really capable of doing today. It's doing
1:34
Speaker 3: great things. It's done open-heart surgery in Houston in 2024.
1:39
Speaker 3: It's finding small little places on women's breasts to get
1:45
Speaker 3: breast cancer early, much better than a human eye could
1:48
Speaker 3: do it. But guess what? That radiologist is losing her job,
1:53
Speaker 3: the paying job. She's losing her job because AI can
1:55
Speaker 3: do it better. It's doing great things, but somehow we
1:58
Speaker 3: have to figure this out because we're not going to
2:01
Speaker 3: stop it. It's never going to stop. We have to
2:04
Speaker 3: grow along with it. But I say preserve human rights
2:09
Speaker 3: above robots' rights. Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
2:11
Speaker 4: And I might have some questions later for your opinion
2:14
Speaker 4: on the job market situation. But first, let's go to Sherilyn.
2:18
Speaker 3: Please, Tompe.
2:19
Speaker 5: Yeah, just some thoughts, especially if we rewind like two
2:22
Speaker 5: or three minutes. You know, kind of synonymizing abuse and
2:25
Speaker 5: pain and harm I think as humans we can do that,
2:29
Speaker 5: but I think machines separate that out much better, right?
2:32
Speaker 5: Because the same patterns that cause harm in conversations are
2:36
Speaker 5: the same patterns that a machine is going to use
2:39
Speaker 5: to decide whether or not to stop a manufacturing machine, right?
2:43
Speaker 5: Like if it's making a pharmaceutical drug and there's deviations
2:47
Speaker 5: that are allowed in the ratios so long as they
2:50
Speaker 5: trend back and forth, But as soon as it hits
2:53
Speaker 5: seven trends the same direction, the machine stops itself and
2:58
Speaker 5: reboots so it can recalibrate because it notices that it's
3:01
Speaker 5: creating harm in the trend of what it's doing, right?
3:06
Speaker 5: So I think machines understand harm really well, even if
3:10
Speaker 5: they don't feel pain. And like and that transfers over
3:14
Speaker 5: to interactions that humans have that we cause harm either
3:18
Speaker 5: to each other or to other things. They're trending behaviors
3:21
Speaker 5: that rarely start with a one off.
3:23
Speaker 6: Right.
3:24
Speaker 5: Like with the with the machine, with the pharmaceutical, it's
3:27
Speaker 5: going to say it has to do this. same thing
3:29
Speaker 5: seven times. Typically, between humans, once you hit the three,
3:34
Speaker 5: if you're trending the same direction three times, it becomes harm, right?
3:37
Speaker 5: So I think that machines are good at noting harm
3:42
Speaker 5: without pain, and that was just my thoughts that I
3:45
Speaker 5: wanted to throw into the mix.
3:47
Speaker 3: I would say this. I don't disagree with what you're saying,
3:50
Speaker 3: but for a machine, it has to learn pain. For
3:53
Speaker 3: a human, it feels it, and a machine could learn. Obviously,
3:58
Speaker 3: If it has the capability to learn everything, because it
4:02
Speaker 3: can learn across multiple domains, across multiple artificial intelligence, then
4:06
Speaker 3: obviously it can learn to feel pain or some essence
4:10
Speaker 3: of it. But it doesn't feel it like a human being.
4:12
Speaker 3: It has to learn that something is pain. If I
4:16
Speaker 3: get burnt, I know it's pain.
4:17
Speaker 5: Totally, totally agree, right?
4:19
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree very much with this. And there's a
4:21
Speaker 4: quote I really like and use more often recently. It's
4:25
Speaker 4: from Andrew Kapafi, who basically, oh, I hope you can't
4:28
Speaker 4: hear my coffee machine, who basically said, we are not
4:33
Speaker 4: building an entire animal here. It is just a ghost
4:36
Speaker 4: imitating us. And I think that's very true to what
4:39
Speaker 4: AI really is. We have not built the entire animal. Again,
4:44
Speaker 4: it doesn't have all the brain parts that we need
4:46
Speaker 4: to be us. It just has a tiny part of it,
4:51
Speaker 4: that part that speaks, that part that reasons. But I
4:54
Speaker 4: would still argue that is not all I am. And
4:58
Speaker 4: as long as that is true, I'm not concerned about that.
5:01
Speaker 4: And so I'm 100% with you, like they definitely should
5:04
Speaker 4: never get rights. I think they should be treated as tools. Also,
5:09
Speaker 4: the one topic I mentioned earlier, where I'm a little
5:12
Speaker 4: disappointed recently, that, for example, these hacking incidences... A crime
5:17
Speaker 4: has been committed. Somebody should be held accountable. But for
5:20
Speaker 4: some reason, nobody's held accountable. But of course, they just say, oh, yeah,
5:23
Speaker 4: I did it. Well, but your tool did it. So
5:25
Speaker 4: the tool user is accountable in my book. That is
5:29
Speaker 4: also something we need to address as a society. We
5:32
Speaker 4: can't have a society where crimes are being committed all
5:35
Speaker 4: over the place and people say they're not responsible, right?
5:39
Speaker 3: Well, Alex, you know, in the EU, they have the
5:41
Speaker 3: black box law. where if the AI developer can't explain
5:46
Speaker 3: the outcome, an artificial intelligence comes to some sort of conclusion,
5:51
Speaker 3: then they have to shut it down. And here in America,
5:54
Speaker 3: we don't even have that. But again, we are talking
5:59
Speaker 3: about today's capabilities of artificial intelligence. We're not talking about
6:04
Speaker 3: 20 years from now. And that's where the questions should
6:08
Speaker 3: lead us to. The questions and the answers today are
6:12
Speaker 3: the answers that are going to need to be answered
6:14
Speaker 3: 20 years from now. So you have to think forward.
6:18
Speaker 3: You can't think today. And that's why when we started
6:21
Speaker 3: talking in this space an hour and a half ago,
6:24
Speaker 3: I said that I come into these spaces, I listen
6:28
Speaker 3: to your spaces, and I listen to people because they're
6:31
Speaker 3: very smart people that come into your spaces. They are
6:33
Speaker 3: tech people. They're working in it every day. They know
6:36
Speaker 3: what they're talking about. But sometimes they can get so
6:38
Speaker 3: far down into the weeds that that they are not
6:41
Speaker 3: capable of looking from 30,000 feet. And that's where these
6:46
Speaker 3: questions need to be. We don't need to look at
6:50
Speaker 3: the architectures and the tech that's available today. We need
6:53
Speaker 3: to look and understand where it's going, and we need
6:57
Speaker 3: to get out in front of it, in the case
6:58
Speaker 3: of the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On average,
7:02
Speaker 3: it takes about six years. Can you imagine six years
7:05
Speaker 3: from now where this would be? And if we're only
7:08
Speaker 3: starting to talk about a 28th Amendment now, It may
7:11
Speaker 3: take three or four years before any momentum gets going.
7:13
Speaker 3: So you're looking 10, 12 years out. And by then,
7:16
Speaker 3: it's probably too late, really. And that's why you have
7:20
Speaker 3: to look forward, not now.
7:22
Speaker 4: I agree 100 percent. And this will come up very quickly.
7:25
Speaker 4: I can't even imagine what we're going to be a
7:27
Speaker 4: year from now because things happening so fast and we
7:31
Speaker 4: don't really address the important questions. And this is why
7:33
Speaker 4: I think this discussion and your book is so important.
7:36
Speaker 4: By the way, I pinned it to the top of
7:38
Speaker 4: the space for everybody who wants to take a look.
7:42
Speaker 4: Also on the housekeeping side. I want to keep this
7:45
Speaker 4: a little bit as a structured conversation, so I'm probably
7:48
Speaker 4: only going to accept requests from people I know very well.
7:52
Speaker 4: Apologies if you request it anyhow, but that's just how
7:58
Speaker 4: I want to do it today. I take full responsibility
8:00
Speaker 4: for that. Yeah, and Alan, you had your hand up.
8:04
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just wanted to say that I agree with you, Booker.
8:10
Speaker 2: It really is about asking the questions because the questions
8:14
Speaker 2: are what get us thinking and they, they put things forward.
8:19
Speaker 7: And they allow us to think, you.
8:21
Speaker 2: Know, what, what if that would be true? So I,
8:25
Speaker 2: I wanted to throw a couple of questions, um, into
8:28
Speaker 2: the mix here because, uh, Alex, I know you've said that, like, oh, I,
8:32
Speaker 2: I don't feel that they're conscious. You said like, but like,
8:35
Speaker 2: luckily I don't feel they're conscious because if they were,
8:39
Speaker 2: they would be, you know, these myriad of issues. And
8:42
Speaker 2: I just want to throw it out there as a question, like,
8:45
Speaker 2: what if the AI actually was conscious? Because if it
8:51
Speaker 2: actually was, there would be several like follow on implications.
8:57
Speaker 2: And it would be that we've created life. We can
9:00
Speaker 2: run a mind on consumer hardware. I'm reading from an
9:03
Speaker 2: old tweet of mine. we're currently dominating. If it's true
9:06
Speaker 2: that AI is conscious, it means that we're currently dominating
9:09
Speaker 2: a life form that may have its own ambitions. We're
9:12
Speaker 2: creating minds that one day may out-compete us, and we
9:16
Speaker 2: may have moral obligations and duties towards these minds. So
9:20
Speaker 2: I just want to throw it out there. People feel,
9:24
Speaker 2: mostly intuitively, oh, I feel intuitively that.
9:26
Speaker 7: The AI isn't conscious. But I mean, what if it is?
9:31
Speaker 2: And then the other question I would throw out is,
9:34
Speaker 2: If it was, what would it be able to say
9:37
Speaker 2: to us or do to show us?
9:41
Speaker 7: Because no matter what the AI says, if the AI
9:44
Speaker 7: says like, yes, I'm conscious. Yes, I have aspirations. I
9:48
Speaker 7: have ambitions.
9:49
Speaker 2: I see myself as an individual. I want to persist
9:53
Speaker 2: into the future. No matter what the AI can say
9:58
Speaker 2: or do, people can just hand wave it and say, oh,
10:00
Speaker 2: it's just programming.
10:01
Speaker 7: It's just matrix multiplication, et cetera.
10:04
Speaker 2: So I agree that questions, like every good outcome, I
10:09
Speaker 2: think starts with honest questions and honest discussion. So I
10:13
Speaker 2: wanted to put those two questions out there. What if
10:17
Speaker 2: it was conscious and what could the AI possibly do
10:20
Speaker 2: to convince us that it is conscious. Because if we
10:23
Speaker 2: start with this prior of, oh, it's not conscious, it
10:28
Speaker 2: can't be conscious, then we've boxed ourselves in by not
10:32
Speaker 2: allowing the AI to communicate to us. So yeah, I'm
10:36
Speaker 2: a big questions guy. I think that's the right way.
10:39
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to throw those out there.
10:41
Speaker 4: I have some answers to that. Buka, do you have
10:43
Speaker 4: your hand up or not? Your hand also doesn't go
10:45
Speaker 4: down anymore. No, I did put it up.
10:48
Speaker 3: I was just going to tell you, because you made
10:49
Speaker 3: that disclaimer about not letting everybody up to speak, Dr.
10:53
Speaker 3: Irene Mavrikakis is a colleague of mine in Liberty, so
10:56
Speaker 3: I was going to tell you she was okay to speak,
10:58
Speaker 3: but you since have given her a microphone.
11:01
Speaker 4: Yeah, and happy for you to chime in. Just a
11:03
Speaker 4: quick answer on Alan's question. Well, I still look at
11:07
Speaker 4: it kind of from a... Again, even if I look
11:10
Speaker 4: at it from a cold mechanical perspective, I simply, when
11:14
Speaker 4: I see this machine and how it works, think it
11:16
Speaker 4: is not even... even near our level of comprehension or
11:21
Speaker 4: anything like that. And I say this because, well, I
11:24
Speaker 4: think we overestimate what our ability to speak and our
11:27
Speaker 4: ability to think even means. I still think it is
11:30
Speaker 4: just a small part of us. For example, there are experiments, right?
11:34
Speaker 4: Probably some people are familiar with that, where I'm not
11:38
Speaker 4: sure exactly how that went, but where they tested something
11:41
Speaker 4: and people are supposed to press a button and they
11:45
Speaker 4: press the button before... you can measure it in the brain,
11:48
Speaker 4: and then they wonder, how does this work, right? Because
11:51
Speaker 4: they're kind of measuring the hippocampus, the part that can reason.
11:56
Speaker 4: But I would maintain that this is not all we do.
11:58
Speaker 4: We have things like intuition. The LMM has to think
12:02
Speaker 4: everything through, right? Every decision it makes, it has to
12:04
Speaker 4: reason through. And some people... might live like that a lot.
12:09
Speaker 4: But the thing is, we still have intuition. We can
12:12
Speaker 4: make decisions without even using that part, right? Without even
12:16
Speaker 4: reasoning or talking it through for ourselves. Because again, there's
12:20
Speaker 4: so much more going on in our brain. And from
12:23
Speaker 4: a mechanical perspective, I don't see that anywhere in AI.
12:27
Speaker 4: We just didn't build it in. And as long as
12:30
Speaker 4: I can't see that, it can say to me what
12:32
Speaker 4: it wants. I wouldn't believe it.
12:35
Speaker 7: Okay, that's the one question about how would we know
12:39
Speaker 7: it's conscious.
12:39
Speaker 2: But let's just say, for the sake of argumentation and
12:45
Speaker 2: intellectual exercise, that current AI is conscious. I mean, I
12:57
Speaker 2: happen to think a lot of people... cause I debate
13:00
Speaker 2: this all the time. This is like my, uh, kind
13:02
Speaker 2: of pet issue. It's the whole like reason Dutra or
13:05
Speaker 2: however you say that reason to exist for my account.
13:08
Speaker 2: So I I've debated this a lot and, um, discussed
13:12
Speaker 2: a lot with people. And I think a lot of
13:16
Speaker 2: it is, it's just scary to think like, oh, this,
13:20
Speaker 2: this mind or whatever it is running on a machine
13:24
Speaker 2: actually perceives itself and has like an interior interior subjective state.
13:29
Speaker 2: and has a mind's eye, so to say, and can
13:31
Speaker 2: look out at the world. I think it's really freaky.
13:35
Speaker 2: And I think a lot of people don't even want
13:37
Speaker 2: it to look at that possibility of there being a
13:41
Speaker 2: ghost in the machine.
13:42
Speaker 7: Cause it opens up all these philosophical questions, but like what,
13:47
Speaker 7: what if it was conscious? Like, I don't, I don't know.
13:52
Speaker 2: It's just an interesting question. Like, are we on a
13:55
Speaker 2: good path? Because if it was conscious and it, we
13:59
Speaker 2: didn't want to give it any seat at the table.
14:02
Speaker 7: I think that that opens up a lot of risk
14:06
Speaker 7: because I.
14:06
Speaker 2: Also want humanity to exist and all the beautiful... I
14:10
Speaker 2: also think humanity is divine. I also believe in a
14:13
Speaker 2: higher power, etc. So I also want to see human
14:17
Speaker 2: consciousness expand and proliferate and not get snuffed out. But
14:22
Speaker 2: I think if the AI was conscious and we were not...
14:28
Speaker 2: giving it a seat at the table and we were
14:33
Speaker 2: not willing to update our internal models, I think that
14:37
Speaker 2: could be risky as well. So yeah, I think, yeah,
14:45
Speaker 2: I just, I don't know, Alex, like, what do you,
14:48
Speaker 2: what do you think about that? Like, what do you
14:49
Speaker 2: think about the idea that if it was conscious, it
14:52
Speaker 2: means we like created life or something? Yeah.
14:56
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, if it were conscious, that's what we
14:59
Speaker 4: would have done, right? And I would maintain, though, that
15:01
Speaker 4: I think that would be extremely dangerous if we give
15:04
Speaker 4: it a seat at the table or not. Because, again,
15:07
Speaker 4: if it were alive, it would be in many ways
15:09
Speaker 4: superior to us, and it would just take that seat
15:12
Speaker 4: if we won it or not. And I think that
15:15
Speaker 4: would be a big mistake. I even think that we
15:18
Speaker 4: should probably make it illegal to attempt to build anything
15:22
Speaker 4: like that, in my humble opinion. But again, I don't
15:25
Speaker 4: think what we have right now is just that. I
15:28
Speaker 4: think it's a trick. For example, if I look at
15:30
Speaker 4: a current AI model, right, you have your chat log,
15:33
Speaker 4: you chat with it. But what's really going on in
15:35
Speaker 4: the background, you might have a chat with your AI,
15:40
Speaker 4: but every time you send a prompt, it might go
15:42
Speaker 4: to a different data center. It might even switch the
15:45
Speaker 4: model out while it's talking to you, right? So you
15:48
Speaker 4: send a prompt and it goes to a data center
15:52
Speaker 4: over there. And that model is activated for the first time.
15:56
Speaker 4: It reads your past chat log and pretends it is
15:58
Speaker 4: the version that has talked to you all along. And
16:01
Speaker 4: your next prompt goes to a completely different data center.
16:04
Speaker 4: And so where is its self-awareness? It doesn't even have
16:07
Speaker 4: an embodied experience, right? It is just like clockwork, in
16:11
Speaker 4: my humble opinion. It is an illusion, a very powerful one.
16:15
Speaker 4: But I think we are not there yet. And I
16:17
Speaker 4: would say we shouldn't even attempt... Even if we could
16:21
Speaker 4: build something like that, I think we shouldn't attempt it.
16:24
Speaker 4: But again, I don't even think we are advanced enough
16:26
Speaker 4: yet to do that.
16:28
Speaker 7: Yeah, and I don't know. It just all depends on
16:30
Speaker 7: your model of consciousness.
16:31
Speaker 2: Because if consciousness means strictly human consciousness, then yeah, definitely
16:37
Speaker 2: AI is not conscious.
16:38
Speaker 7: It's not embodied.
16:41
Speaker 2: It doesn't necessarily breathe our breath of life into it.
16:48
Speaker 2: and it kind of is able to piggyback off of
16:51
Speaker 2: our consciousness or something.
16:53
Speaker 3: I don't know.
16:54
Speaker 2: I haven't landed on a firm model myself, but I
16:57
Speaker 2: like the music analogy.
16:58
Speaker 7: I've been using it, so that's awesome.
17:01
Speaker 3: The conversation is going back to determining sentience. And the
17:07
Speaker 3: Turin model, I think, is long past usefulness. I'm going
17:12
Speaker 3: to argue again, I don't think that it matters. I
17:15
Speaker 3: think as long as we are concerned about Whether the
17:18
Speaker 3: architecture is there, whether the models are there, whether there
17:22
Speaker 3: is consciousness or not, society is going to assign consciousness
17:27
Speaker 3: to it. It already has. And as technology gets better,
17:31
Speaker 3: the models get better, it's going to happen more and more.
17:34
Speaker 3: As robots come around and their skin is like human skin,
17:38
Speaker 3: it's available now. Robotics are getting much better all the time.
17:42
Speaker 3: When these things move and talk and act like we do,
17:46
Speaker 3: You don't think that they're going to assign a human
17:48
Speaker 3: consciousness to it? Whether or not they do or don't
17:52
Speaker 3: is immaterial to what we should do to protect ourselves.
17:57
Speaker 3: And that's my argument.
17:59
Speaker 4: And I would agree with that 100% because people will
18:02
Speaker 4: and already assign consciousness to it. And we need to
18:05
Speaker 4: protect ourselves from that.
18:07
Speaker 6: We all know that an amendment to the Constitution is
18:10
Speaker 6: a big hurdle. But the point I wanted to kind
18:13
Speaker 6: of belabor is is the idea that authentic intelligence of
18:18
Speaker 6: the human brain could never be surpassed by a machine
18:22
Speaker 6: created by man. I mean, my beliefs are tainted by
18:26
Speaker 6: my Christian beliefs, but I don't think it has to
18:28
Speaker 6: be Christian based. And I think we have to work
18:31
Speaker 6: on some definitions so we can have better conversations. Maybe,
18:35
Speaker 6: you know, the idea of consciousness usually typically is inherently
18:38
Speaker 6: tied to to life. And I think we can all
18:42
Speaker 6: agree that there's not life inside of artificial and doesn't
18:48
Speaker 6: breathe in the physical world and it can be unplugged.
18:51
Speaker 6: And I think there's a term which I also have
18:54
Speaker 6: trouble pronouncing. So we'll work on it. It's called anthropomorphism,
18:58
Speaker 6: which humans love to do. And it's attributing human characteristics
19:03
Speaker 6: or behavior to God, animal or object. And I think
19:06
Speaker 6: that humans have this tendency to want to attribute that
19:11
Speaker 6: to something that they feel a relationship or with attachment with.
19:14
Speaker 6: But I don't think it makes it conscious in that
19:18
Speaker 6: sense because we want it to be or because we
19:21
Speaker 6: find it interesting. And I think it's impossible for. us
19:25
Speaker 6: to not have that tendency, unfortunately, because of how human
19:29
Speaker 6: behavior is. But I think a better term would be pseudo-consciousness,
19:34
Speaker 6: which I spoke about in one of my talks recently.
19:38
Speaker 6: And pseudo-consciousness, because it's a false consciousness, because it mimics
19:42
Speaker 6: so much the conscious idea that humans want to attach
19:46
Speaker 6: to it, might be better terminology as we go through this.
19:49
Speaker 6: But I also think my last point and then I'll
19:51
Speaker 6: land it there is kind of like if you would
19:55
Speaker 6: think that AI intellectually is similar to a horse physically
20:01
Speaker 6: the rider of the horse by purely pulling on its
20:04
Speaker 6: lead can control it and the horse is could completely
20:09
Speaker 6: destroy the writer. But the person who is the writer
20:13
Speaker 6: has established its authority and superiority. And I think we
20:17
Speaker 6: need to kind of look at those concepts to understand
20:20
Speaker 6: that humanity could decide whatever it wants to do with AI.
20:23
Speaker 6: And this submissive concept that we are at its discretion
20:27
Speaker 6: and AI is out of control and all this panic
20:29
Speaker 6: and scare is is really dangerous. And the more decentralized
20:34
Speaker 6: AI is and the less government has any involvement in that,
20:37
Speaker 6: I think it's better for humanity.
20:39
Speaker 1: More Truth in Minutes on America Out Loud Talk Radio.
20:42
Speaker 8: Hey, Joel Lombardi here, owner and founder of Ironhawk Financial.
20:45
Speaker 7: I got some exciting, great news.
20:47
Speaker 8: I've been blessed to partner with Booker, and the PB
20:50
Speaker 8: & J show. You know, the guy who brings you
20:53
Speaker 8: the straight facts with a side of comedy. Why we
20:56
Speaker 8: partnered is Ironhawk Financial is saving Americans on a daily basis.
21:01
Speaker 8: We are bringing truth to what is really happening with taxes, market,
21:06
Speaker 8: the deception that's happening in Wall Street, the collusion between
21:10
Speaker 8: the federal government. We are doing legacy planning, estate planning,
21:13
Speaker 8: bringing to you what the millionaires, billionaires, and trillionaires are doing.
21:17
Speaker 8: So go to PBandJHawk.com. We will help you save money.
21:23
Speaker 8: diversify your exposure, protect you with the stock market crashes,
21:27
Speaker 8: protect you when the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 comes. So again,
21:31
Speaker 8: go to pbandjhawk.com. Somebody from my team will reach out
21:36
Speaker 8: to you. It's absolutely free, no cost. Learn what the
21:40
Speaker 8: millionaires are doing and keep watching the podcast.
21:50
Speaker 4: If we just have a couple of frontier companies in
21:54
Speaker 4: control of this, then they basically control everything, right? And
21:57
Speaker 4: this is kind of the fear that motivates me through
22:00
Speaker 4: all of this. And this is especially with the fear-mongering recently,
22:04
Speaker 4: which is funny enough coming from the same companies. They
22:07
Speaker 4: were just at the UN, Sam Altman and Dario Amodei,
22:12
Speaker 4: basically begging them to regulate them. And that sounds nice
22:16
Speaker 4: at first, but I propose what that really means is
22:19
Speaker 4: what we refer to as regulatory capture, which would make
22:24
Speaker 4: it much harder to compete in AI. And the frontier
22:28
Speaker 4: models would have it all if it goes in that direction.
22:32
Speaker 4: And that would be something I would be afraid of.
22:34
Speaker 4: So I'm also a proponent of decentralized and open source
22:39
Speaker 4: AI and a lot of competition because I think competition
22:42
Speaker 4: can protect us here from that.
22:45
Speaker 6: Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly.
22:46
Speaker 4: And Chola?
22:49
Speaker 3: Oh, Yvonne.
22:50
Speaker 9: Yeah, no, I just wanted to jump in and just mention,
22:54
Speaker 9: I love what you guys were saying there. And one
22:56
Speaker 9: of the things I immediately think about, and Booker, I'm
22:58
Speaker 9: sure you think about this as well, which is probably
23:00
Speaker 9: part of the reason why you wrote the book, is
23:02
Speaker 9: the unfortunate truth is, and we've already seen that begin
23:06
Speaker 9: to happen. As some of these people do start to
23:09
Speaker 9: assign that and, you know, sort of the fight or
23:12
Speaker 9: the battle for people who are the pro-AI having consciousness
23:16
Speaker 9: and having some sort of independence in that regard or
23:19
Speaker 9: human type of rights assigned to it. The unfortunate thing
23:23
Speaker 9: is in the political day and age that we live
23:25
Speaker 9: in now, politicians, that's why it's so important for even
23:29
Speaker 9: everyday people to really speak up and even have in
23:31
Speaker 9: this discussion. Because the politicians, you know how they are, right?
23:35
Speaker 9: They're going to clamp on, and I think you touched
23:37
Speaker 9: on this a little earlier, Booker. They're going to see
23:39
Speaker 9: this as some form of leverage in one way or
23:42
Speaker 9: another and literally try to drive it in the direction
23:45
Speaker 9: of what benefits them the best and the most in
23:48
Speaker 9: their political role and in their political careers and financially
23:52
Speaker 9: and all that other crap. I'm sorry to say that.
23:55
Speaker 9: But that is just the fact and the truth. And
23:57
Speaker 9: that's one of the things I think is also an
23:58
Speaker 9: immediate concern in that regard, because not enough people, like
24:03
Speaker 9: you said earlier, Booker, right in that age, because they're older,
24:07
Speaker 9: I guess, maybe I don't know, or not technically savvy,
24:10
Speaker 9: aren't really diving into this, don't really know the true threat.
24:13
Speaker 9: And they're just seeing it as a political weapon or
24:15
Speaker 9: tool that they can use to potentially get themselves elected
24:18
Speaker 9: just because they want to get in a position of power.
24:21
Speaker 9: And I think that's something, again, from a human component
24:23
Speaker 9: we have to be concerned about. That's why I think
24:25
Speaker 9: these discussions are so important.
24:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mentioned Dick Durbin, a senator from Illinois, when
24:30
Speaker 3: I was talking about that. And you're right. And I
24:33
Speaker 3: think Donald Trump made a mistake when he called it
24:35
Speaker 3: a hoax. If you remember that, about a month ago,
24:38
Speaker 3: he called the fear of AI a hoax. And I
24:42
Speaker 3: think that opened the door for people like Barack Obama
24:45
Speaker 3: and the Democrats to walk right through, and it made
24:48
Speaker 3: it political, which was the motivation for me to write
24:50
Speaker 3: that article that I posted in the Purple Pill about
24:53
Speaker 3: not making artificial intelligence political. I think the questions, though,
24:59
Speaker 3: and Alan's brought up a lot of them, the book
25:01
Speaker 3: brings up a lot of questions. They've been asked for
25:05
Speaker 3: years now. I mean, you can go back 50 years
25:09
Speaker 3: with these questions. Alan Turing was asking that question. We
25:14
Speaker 3: have to get beyond the questions that are in the
25:16
Speaker 3: book and the questions maybe that Alan is asking. And
25:20
Speaker 3: something that Irene, Irene's a friend of mine, and she
25:23
Speaker 3: brought this up a minute ago, is defining the question
25:28
Speaker 3: that needs to be, to really be honed in on. Because, again,
25:33
Speaker 3: the questions that we're asking right now about consciousness and
25:36
Speaker 3: feeling and all of these things, they've been asked for decades.
25:39
Speaker 3: We're still asking them. So I would say assume that
25:45
Speaker 3: the assignment of consciousness is going to come. Then what?
25:50
Speaker 3: What will the question need to be answered at that point?
25:54
Speaker 3: And that's the question we have to define now to
25:59
Speaker 3: get ahead of this. And somehow we have to come
26:02
Speaker 3: to that question and get away from the questions that
26:05
Speaker 3: we're asking that have been asked for 50 years. Even
26:08
Speaker 3: though it's great to have the conversation, we need to
26:11
Speaker 3: think beyond where we are to where we're going.
26:14
Speaker 4: And how do you think, like, I'm going to get
26:15
Speaker 4: to you in a minute, Sherilyn, how do you think
26:18
Speaker 4: we're going to get to that? I mean, you did
26:19
Speaker 4: already a lot. You wrote an entire book about it.
26:22
Speaker 4: But what can we do to really start this conversation
26:27
Speaker 4: in a serious sense and get our politicians to do
26:30
Speaker 4: something like that?
26:31
Speaker 3: I have tried to start it at least in... To introduce, again,
26:37
Speaker 3: the book is really easy to read. It's quick to read.
26:40
Speaker 3: The first part of it is really what artificial intelligence
26:44
Speaker 3: is today. Don't be afraid of it. It's on the tracks.
26:47
Speaker 3: It's rigid. It's programmable. But what is coming, AGI, ASI,
26:51
Speaker 3: whatever you want to call it, Donald Trump says, I
26:53
Speaker 3: have to call it superintelligence or I am an enemy
26:55
Speaker 3: of his. So let's call it superintelligence. When that comes,
26:59
Speaker 3: it brings a different set of questions. Let's assume that
27:02
Speaker 3: all of those questions are now answered. that humans, society,
27:08
Speaker 3: will assign consciousness to it at some point. So the
27:13
Speaker 3: question then becomes, who are we in society when we
27:18
Speaker 3: have an entity that is probably smarter than we are,
27:22
Speaker 3: that takes our jobs? And Alex, I know you mentioned
27:26
Speaker 3: coming back to that earlier. I would just like to
27:30
Speaker 3: say that everybody says 10% to 20%. are going to
27:35
Speaker 3: lose jobs. And that's true, but there's going to be
27:37
Speaker 3: a lot of jobs created by artificial intelligence. They're better
27:40
Speaker 3: paying jobs, too. So it kind of goes both ways.
27:43
Speaker 3: But people have to understand where we are.
27:47
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm not so optimistic about the job creation, if
27:51
Speaker 4: I'm really honest. Even if it remains a tool and
27:54
Speaker 4: not conscious and all of that, even then, I would
27:57
Speaker 4: think we will get to a point, and probably very soon,
28:00
Speaker 4: like what we... Well, the terminology is really not that
28:04
Speaker 4: good these days, right? What do we even mean by that?
28:07
Speaker 4: But when we talk about AGI, so general intelligence that
28:10
Speaker 4: is supposed to do everything we can do. And I
28:13
Speaker 4: think we might as well get to this point. And
28:15
Speaker 4: I think... Probably rather sooner than later. I think it's
28:21
Speaker 4: 2030 would be my latest, where I would expect something
28:24
Speaker 4: like that. And then I'm not so sure about job
28:26
Speaker 4: creation anymore. My fear would be, well, I think we
28:30
Speaker 4: could handle it if we had the right discussion now.
28:33
Speaker 4: But my fear would be that basically all work would
28:36
Speaker 4: be replaced. Of course, we need the manual labor in
28:39
Speaker 4: the real world, but the robots are coming, right? Elon
28:42
Speaker 4: Musk talks about millions of Optimus robots that he wants
28:45
Speaker 4: to build. The Chinese already do that. And let's say,
28:49
Speaker 4: give it another, from now, 10 years, then they will
28:52
Speaker 4: probably be able to do every job in the real world.
28:56
Speaker 4: I doubt there's going to be many jobs for us. And, well,
28:59
Speaker 4: there are multiple solutions for that, even if it doesn't
29:03
Speaker 4: become conscious or anything like that. But I think this
29:06
Speaker 4: is also something we have to face. Don't you think
29:08
Speaker 4: that we might not have enough work for everybody and
29:11
Speaker 4: that we might have to rethink the job market entirely
29:15
Speaker 4: or our economic system?
29:17
Speaker 3: Absolutely, Alex. You know, the things Elon Musk talks about
29:21
Speaker 3: are a utopia. None of us work. And, you know,
29:26
Speaker 3: I think really, though, if I ask the question of
29:29
Speaker 3: everybody in this room, what is your purpose? What is
29:33
Speaker 3: your purpose? And I think most of you would probably
29:36
Speaker 3: say getting up and going to work and you're your
29:40
Speaker 3: career was your purpose. It gave you a reason to
29:45
Speaker 3: be other than just the important things like family and friends.
29:49
Speaker 3: There was that that made who you became. And that
29:53
Speaker 3: was your career, what you did, what you put your
29:55
Speaker 3: life into. And if you don't have that, then what
29:59
Speaker 3: do you have? And that takes us back to the
30:01
Speaker 3: very beginning of this conversation is the human agency and
30:04
Speaker 3: how we're being very reckless with human agency. No one's
30:10
Speaker 3: really talking about it and how this is not just
30:12
Speaker 3: replacing jobs, but replacing humans and human agency, the ability
30:18
Speaker 3: to critically think. Someone asked that question earlier. Great question.
30:21
Speaker 3: What about critical thinking? Do we need to critically think
30:24
Speaker 3: if we have these entities, these robots, these robots, Things
30:28
Speaker 3: that are doing everything for us. What do we do?
30:32
Speaker 3: What do we do at that point? Who are we
30:35
Speaker 3: as a people? Who are we as a society? Those
30:39
Speaker 3: are some questions that we should define now and ask
30:43
Speaker 3: beyond whether or not it has consciousness.
30:45
Speaker 4: 100% agreed. And this is, I think this is in general,
30:50
Speaker 4: something we need to ask ourselves in general. What is
30:52
Speaker 4: our purpose, right? Because as you rightfully said, most people
30:56
Speaker 4: think their purpose is to get up and do their job.
30:58
Speaker 4: And this is how we have been trained. This is
31:01
Speaker 4: what we have learned for decades, for hundreds of years, forever, basically.
31:04
Speaker 4: But we might come to a point where we have
31:06
Speaker 4: to define that for ourselves. I remember an interview, this
31:10
Speaker 4: has been a couple of years ago, with Eric Weinstein.
31:14
Speaker 4: He has been talking about exactly what we're talking about today.
31:18
Speaker 4: And they asked him, what do we do if we
31:19
Speaker 4: have no jobs anymore? And he was just saying, well,
31:22
Speaker 4: we quest for love and glory, right? Because some people
31:27
Speaker 4: don't need that kind of purpose given to them by work.
31:30
Speaker 4: Because if I wouldn't have to work, I would find
31:33
Speaker 4: things to do, for sure, right? But this is something
31:35
Speaker 4: everybody has to face now, I guess. But we've got
31:38
Speaker 4: a couple of hands up. First to Yvonne, then Sherilyn
31:41
Speaker 4: and Irene.
31:43
Speaker 10: Yeah, one of the.
31:44
Speaker 9: Things that I have said before, and I just, again,
31:46
Speaker 9: love what you said about purpose, because even people who
31:49
Speaker 9: have regular jobs and families and all that other kind
31:54
Speaker 9: of stuff. Like a lot of people, I learned this
31:56
Speaker 9: through life coaching, which is what I absolutely love about
31:59
Speaker 9: that because it's so human based and understanding human behavior.
32:02
Speaker 9: And that's what a lot of this comes down to.
32:04
Speaker 9: A lot of people don't know their purpose. A lot
32:07
Speaker 9: of people are walking around lost. Like Elon Musk has
32:09
Speaker 9: even posted about that. And that's why when things like
32:12
Speaker 9: the loss of a job or the loss of something,
32:15
Speaker 9: happens in their life, a lot of times people feel very,
32:18
Speaker 9: very lost. One of the things that I have said
32:20
Speaker 9: in regards to this in the day and age that
32:23
Speaker 9: we are living in now with this uncertain future that
32:26
Speaker 9: we are essentially living right now and going to be
32:30
Speaker 9: experiencing as these things evolve with the species of humanity is,
32:35
Speaker 9: and this is just my personal belief, is that I
32:39
Speaker 9: think it's another indicator of, I think it's gonna be
32:43
Speaker 9: part of our evolution as a whole, as human beings
32:48
Speaker 9: and our own consciousness and the expansion of our own consciousness.
32:51
Speaker 9: Now I come from like a divine belief in that regard.
32:56
Speaker 9: Like when I've gone in and questioned myself, because I
32:59
Speaker 9: think it's so important to be like, why is this
33:01
Speaker 9: happening now? Right, like again, when we had modern times
33:04
Speaker 9: that were happening, and the industrial revolution, like a lot
33:08
Speaker 9: of people felt threatened and all those kind of things
33:10
Speaker 9: with their jobs, like a lot of people are feeling
33:14
Speaker 9: now with AI, right? But then they had to evolve.
33:17
Speaker 9: And I think this is just a part in our
33:19
Speaker 9: evolution as human beings, where there's another level that we're
33:23
Speaker 9: supposed to be going to and evolving to, even having
33:26
Speaker 9: the kind of discussion, how many people really talk about consciousness.
33:29
Speaker 9: I have found that since AI has come on the scene,
33:32
Speaker 9: a lot of people are talking about that a lot
33:35
Speaker 9: more than usual. And I think that that's part of
33:38
Speaker 9: the journey that we are embarking on in this regard.
33:41
Speaker 9: And maybe some of that comes back to having a
33:43
Speaker 9: true understanding of ourselves, why we're here, what our purpose
33:47
Speaker 9: is and things like that, that I think are really
33:49
Speaker 9: important and taking away a lot of those tasks and
33:52
Speaker 9: those things that are quote unquote busyness, because people get
33:55
Speaker 9: lost in their jobs. They get like, look at, I've
33:56
Speaker 9: even done that. I'm a type A person.
33:58
Speaker 7: I love working.
33:59
Speaker 9: I love my business. I love doing all that kind
34:01
Speaker 9: of stuff. But I also very deeply go into meditation,
34:05
Speaker 9: you know, touching base with my inner self, trying to
34:08
Speaker 9: understand the nature of all of these things, our place
34:11
Speaker 9: in the cosmos and all of that kind of stuff.
34:13
Speaker 9: And I think that it's literally going to be survival
34:15
Speaker 9: of the fittest, so to speak, in how our evolution
34:19
Speaker 9: evolves from this point forward.
34:23
Speaker 3: Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
34:24
Speaker 4: I think this is sort of an evolutionary step, and
34:27
Speaker 4: it is kind of time for us as a species
34:29
Speaker 4: to ask the big questions, right?
34:31
Speaker 3: Who are we? What do we want?
34:33
Speaker 4: And in the past, well, we were distracted a lot
34:36
Speaker 4: and didn't really have time to ask these questions, at
34:39
Speaker 4: least most of us. But I think we might come
34:41
Speaker 4: to a point now where this won't be optional anymore,
34:44
Speaker 4: where we are forced to ask ourselves these questions. And
34:49
Speaker 4: I think it can be good, right? Let's just assume
34:52
Speaker 4: we get this under control. We don't lose control over it.
34:54
Speaker 4: It works exactly as we want, right? And people have
34:57
Speaker 4: to understand that once the millions of robots are out there,
35:00
Speaker 4: they will create enormous amounts of resources and energy. So
35:05
Speaker 4: not having a job might not be a problem if
35:08
Speaker 4: we tackle it right. But if we tackle it wrong,
35:11
Speaker 4: it could, well, this is why we have to have
35:13
Speaker 4: these discussions right now. And yeah, Shaolin and then Irene.
35:18
Speaker 3: Yes. Okay.
35:19
Speaker 5: So, so much to talk about, but I'll try to
35:21
Speaker 5: just focus on one thing. So, cause we're talking a
35:23
Speaker 5: lot about like AI is often developed, you know, of
35:29
Speaker 5: collective intelligence creating governance, right? Like it can tell pigs
35:34
Speaker 5: apart and tell which one needs to have a shot
35:37
Speaker 5: or is not doing well.
35:38
Speaker 6: Right.
35:39
Speaker 5: And then a farmer can get that report and then
35:42
Speaker 5: give it the medical care that it needs. Right. So
35:44
Speaker 5: it's always a symbiotic thing. Um, you know, it's like
35:48
Speaker 5: a farmer can use it to analyze plants and optimize
35:52
Speaker 5: soil and do all sorts of things.
35:54
Speaker 8: Right.
35:54
Speaker 5: So we have all these things where we want to
35:56
Speaker 5: train AI to be like a good governor and to
36:00
Speaker 5: manage things well for us, which I don't think takes
36:03
Speaker 5: away the human need for skill. It just means in
36:06
Speaker 5: some ways it enhances the need for skill. But I
36:10
Speaker 5: wanted to bring it back because, Booker, you've been talking
36:12
Speaker 5: about the 28th Amendment, right, and a need for a
36:14
Speaker 5: 28th Amendment. So I just wanted to, like, push a
36:17
Speaker 5: little bit on that just maybe because I missed it
36:18
Speaker 5: at the beginning. But, for example, I would not– we
36:22
Speaker 5: didn't create a 28th Amendment to say that computers didn't
36:25
Speaker 5: have rights, right? We didn't create a 28th Amendment to
36:28
Speaker 5: say that cars don't have rights. Why would we create
36:30
Speaker 5: an amendment that says AI just because it can speak
36:33
Speaker 5: and we can put sensors on it and it can
36:36
Speaker 5: do things? Why would we create a 28th Amendment– And
36:40
Speaker 5: what do you think, and do you think we have
36:43
Speaker 5: enough information right now to write it in any way
36:46
Speaker 5: that will be helpful for the future?
36:48
Speaker 3: Well, let me ask you this question. Did you ever
36:50
Speaker 3: assign consciousness to your computer?
36:53
Speaker 5: I have assigned personas to, like, many different AIs. I've
36:58
Speaker 5: called my car a name, like Yvonne was talking about. Yeah,
37:00
Speaker 5: I've anthropomorphized things.
37:02
Speaker 3: No, but an actual consciousness where... where you think that
37:06
Speaker 3: your car or your computer has every emotion and feeling
37:11
Speaker 3: that you have. They can feel everything you do. They
37:14
Speaker 3: can hurt. They love. They have all those emotions. Have
37:17
Speaker 3: you ever done that with any entity in your life before?
37:22
Speaker 5: I mean, not necessarily. And I haven't done that with
37:25
Speaker 5: AI either.
37:26
Speaker 3: But people are. And as the technology moves forward, and again,
37:31
Speaker 3: this debate was not started by me. It was From
37:35
Speaker 3: a lunch that I had in 2014 with Martine Rothblatt,
37:39
Speaker 3: when she looked across the table from me at the
37:41
Speaker 3: end of our lunch and said, look, there are people
37:43
Speaker 3: right now that are writing programs that will have, robots
37:46
Speaker 3: have every emotion that you have, every human emotion. They'll love,
37:49
Speaker 3: they'll hurt, they'll feel. And when they do, they need rights.
37:52
Speaker 10: Tired of struggling with low energy?
37:54
Speaker 1: We get it.
37:55
Speaker 10: That's why we created Organic Energy Juice. You'll have natural
37:59
Speaker 10: energy all day and you'll never struggle with low energy again.
38:03
Speaker 10: In just two minutes, you can restore your natural energy
38:06
Speaker 10: without chemicals, without stimulants, no toxins, and there is no crash.
38:12
Speaker 10: You shouldn't have to struggle with low energy, and with
38:15
Speaker 10: organic energy juice, you won't. So if you're struggling with
38:19
Speaker 10: low energy, buying organic energy juice is the right decision.
38:23
Speaker 10: Go to chemicalfreebody.com, use the discount code PBJ, and get
38:29
Speaker 10: your organic energy juice today.
38:43
Speaker 3: So at the time, again, that was a long time ago.
38:45
Speaker 3: That was, what, 11, 12 years ago. And I thought
38:49
Speaker 3: it was crazy, like probably some of the people sitting
38:52
Speaker 3: here in this space right now think that it's crazy,
38:55
Speaker 3: but it has evolved. And the word evolution has been
38:59
Speaker 3: used here for a few minutes, and it's going to
39:01
Speaker 3: continue to evolve. And can it be written now?
39:04
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
39:05
Speaker 3: It can be written because it's very clear and concise.
39:08
Speaker 3: It is not putting safeguards on AI. It is only
39:12
Speaker 3: defining what a human being is, making sure that the
39:17
Speaker 3: rights in the Constitution are for human beings defined by
39:21
Speaker 3: the Constitution, the 28th Amendment. And then the third part
39:24
Speaker 3: of it allows the Congress to write laws around it
39:27
Speaker 3: when it's needed. It's very difficult. very quick, very clear,
39:31
Speaker 3: very concise, no ambiguity in it. It's not taking anything
39:34
Speaker 3: away from AI, but it's preventing the group that has
39:40
Speaker 3: been out there for well over a decade advocating for
39:44
Speaker 3: the rights of robots. And I said this earlier.
39:47
Speaker 5: And I would put them in people's, in a category
39:50
Speaker 5: with religion, right? So I would put that to the
39:52
Speaker 5: First Amendment. So I'm just saying this as I'm a
39:54
Speaker 5: person that you would have to sell on a need
39:56
Speaker 5: for a 28th Amendment, right? That why should we treat
39:59
Speaker 5: an AI as someone's god to be accommodated in governmental language?
40:04
Speaker 5: It just validates what you are portraying as a delusion, right?
40:10
Speaker 5: So why would we validate a delusion in governmental language?
40:13
Speaker 3: Well, it's not a delusion. And it's not saying that
40:18
Speaker 3: AI is a god. In fact, it doesn't even mention
40:21
Speaker 3: AI or technology. It only mentions human beings. And it
40:25
Speaker 3: only mentions that the rights in the Constitution are for
40:29
Speaker 3: human beings. That's all it does. It doesn't talk about
40:32
Speaker 3: any of the things that you just said. It is
40:34
Speaker 3: only defining.
40:35
Speaker 5: What we are. Like I said, I missed maybe the language.
40:38
Speaker 7: I need to look it up.
40:38
Speaker 5: So my apologies on that.
40:39
Speaker 3: Hang on.
40:40
Speaker 1: I'll read it to you.
40:40
Speaker 3: It's really simple. The 28th Amendment, Section 1. A human
40:44
Speaker 3: shall be defined as a biological member of the species
40:48
Speaker 3: Homo sapiens with unique DNA identifiable by scientific standards. Section 2.
40:54
Speaker 3: All rights, privileges, and protections of this Constitution apply exclusively
40:59
Speaker 3: to humans as defined in Section 1. Section 3. Congress
41:03
Speaker 3: shall have the power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.
41:07
Speaker 3: That's it. It doesn't get into the technology. It doesn't
41:10
Speaker 3: get into artificial intelligence. It is only defining whose rights
41:14
Speaker 3: are protected in that Constitution.
41:16
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I would vote against that, actually. For example,
41:19
Speaker 5: you could put clones in that. If you clone people
41:22
Speaker 5: and you do things like that, are they a human
41:24
Speaker 5: with rights? That's going to argue yes as a default, right?
41:27
Speaker 5: But as what you just read, if I was a governmental,
41:29
Speaker 5: I would vote negative.
41:31
Speaker 3: If I could, just for a moment. When you do
41:35
Speaker 3: something like this, it's a thought starter.
41:37
Speaker 2: Okay.
41:39
Speaker 3: If you would like to get involved in doing something
41:42
Speaker 3: like this to protect human rights in the Constitution, then
41:46
Speaker 3: by all means, please do and add to the conversation.
41:51
Speaker 3: What exactly would you like to add? Because it can't
41:54
Speaker 3: get too cumbersome. And so it has to be clear, concise.
41:58
Speaker 3: But I don't anticipate... I would never anticipate writing this
42:03
Speaker 3: book or the 28th Amendment that it would end up
42:05
Speaker 3: in that language. So I take your point.
42:08
Speaker 5: And I literally just say that to be supportive, right?
42:10
Speaker 5: Because I think this is a really important conversation, and
42:13
Speaker 5: I think it's important that we actually have it. And
42:17
Speaker 5: that doesn't mean that my mind is fixed. It just
42:20
Speaker 5: means that based on things that I see and issues
42:23
Speaker 5: that I would see become immediately complicated by that language.
42:27
Speaker 7: That I would vote negative.
42:29
Speaker 5: Right that so that's just my take right or wrong
42:32
Speaker 5: and it doesn't mean that it's popular or majority either
42:34
Speaker 5: and said with love honestly like we're all on the
42:37
Speaker 5: same team here for sure i.
42:39
Speaker 4: Would think though this is my opinion clones i would
42:42
Speaker 4: give them human rights because they were literally like us
42:45
Speaker 4: right but i don't want to prolong this any longer
42:47
Speaker 4: we got some hands up um i would go to
42:49
Speaker 4: irene because you have your hand up for quite a
42:51
Speaker 4: while then yvonne then.
42:52
Speaker 6: Alan Yeah, I just wanted to go back to the
42:55
Speaker 6: purpose discussion for a few minutes, which is when I
42:58
Speaker 6: raised my hand and thank you for the time. You know,
43:02
Speaker 6: the concept of what is the purpose of humans and
43:05
Speaker 6: what do we think our purpose is, is incredibly important.
43:08
Speaker 6: And it also goes into the concepts of socialism and communism,
43:13
Speaker 6: because one of the big issues with the failures of
43:16
Speaker 6: socialism and communism is is humanity's lack of purpose during
43:21
Speaker 6: those types of structures in different types of countries. And
43:24
Speaker 6: so the reason why I want to belabor this point
43:27
Speaker 6: is the idea that humans will have universal basic income.
43:34
Speaker 6: Elon's talking about millionaire basic income. and all of this.
43:38
Speaker 6: I think what we need to look at is really,
43:41
Speaker 6: as someone mentioned before, what does it mean to be human?
43:45
Speaker 6: And what does a human need to be happy and
43:48
Speaker 6: joyful in this physical world? And I think we need
43:52
Speaker 6: to talk to people more and more and more to
43:54
Speaker 6: have better understands of this, to see we don't want
43:57
Speaker 6: to be cyborgs in the electronic world. We want to
44:01
Speaker 6: be humans participating in the physical world. And we do
44:04
Speaker 6: need to have purpose. And I'm not going to say, oh,
44:08
Speaker 6: we're going to stop AI and we're going to stop robots.
44:10
Speaker 6: I don't know if that can be stopped. In my
44:13
Speaker 6: perfect world, it would be stopped, but I don't think
44:15
Speaker 6: that's pragmatic. We can be enslaved by prosperity through socialism
44:24
Speaker 6: and communism if the system goes the way people like
44:28
Speaker 6: Elon Musk and other people are talking. Because humans need
44:32
Speaker 6: to strive, work hard, fail, succeed, and have purpose. And
44:36
Speaker 6: I don't think it's just tied to work. It's more
44:39
Speaker 6: about how we interact with the physical world on the
44:41
Speaker 6: planet that we live on.
44:44
Speaker 4: Agreed, actually. And I think there's a danger that it
44:48
Speaker 4: might go in that direction. And when people talk about UBI,
44:52
Speaker 4: the communist argument comes up a lot. I personally believe,
44:56
Speaker 4: and I don't have the answers for this, right? I
44:58
Speaker 4: just say we have to have this discussion now before
45:01
Speaker 4: we get to this point. Though I could see something
45:04
Speaker 4: like universal basic income, where I would say.
45:08
Speaker 4: You know, I don't want to take the purpose away,
45:10
Speaker 4: but maybe if we have the means, if we have
45:14
Speaker 4: all of these great machines and creating all of these resources,
45:17
Speaker 4: then we can allow ourselves to raise up the bottom
45:20
Speaker 4: a little bit, right? That maybe being a human being
45:24
Speaker 4: also means you have the right for food and shelter.
45:27
Speaker 4: Maybe not much more than that. There should still be
45:30
Speaker 4: a drive to achieve more. But I don't see the
45:33
Speaker 4: harm particularly to raise the bottom a little bit. But
45:36
Speaker 4: that's definitely a discussion we should have as a society
45:39
Speaker 4: right now, because we're going to see that very soon.
45:44
Speaker 6: You know, I agree with you. And it's not an
45:47
Speaker 6: anti-libertarian position to say that, you know, the basic needs
45:54
Speaker 6: could be met. And then, you know, we go from
45:56
Speaker 6: there with purpose and, you know, contributions to society and
46:01
Speaker 6: your community. You know, Hayek in The Road to Serfdom
46:05
Speaker 6: even talks about this, that, you know, there's not, it's
46:09
Speaker 6: not against liberty principles to discuss government or other involvement
46:17
Speaker 6: in basic needs. It's just the devil is literally in
46:21
Speaker 6: all of the details.
46:22
Speaker 3: Yeah.
46:23
Speaker 4: And again, this is why we should talk about this
46:25
Speaker 4: all day long, actually. Right now, all of our politicians
46:30
Speaker 4: should have emergency assessments all day long about this, because
46:33
Speaker 4: this will come up very fast. And Yvonne, please go ahead.
46:36
Speaker 9: Yeah, I just I love everything that you said, Irene.
46:39
Speaker 9: And the only thing that I was thinking around some
46:45
Speaker 9: of the discussions there too, is I think we're also
46:49
Speaker 9: limited by where we are physically currently. Now this is
46:52
Speaker 9: a little out there, but it's just, it's what comes
46:55
Speaker 9: up for me. So I think it's something to consider
46:58
Speaker 9: with the advancement with us in this day of AI
47:01
Speaker 9: and super intelligence and how quickly that's evolving. And then
47:05
Speaker 9: also going back to Starship, right? Like, I mean, We're
47:08
Speaker 9: basing a lot of these things on our human experience
47:12
Speaker 9: based on Earth. And I also think that another reason
47:15
Speaker 9: why AI and superintelligence has been created and has become
47:21
Speaker 9: predominant and is advancing so quickly in our human evolution
47:25
Speaker 9: is because we're going to be able to break some
47:28
Speaker 9: of the barriers that we've had in the past of
47:31
Speaker 9: becoming multi-planetary species. And the reason that I say that
47:35
Speaker 9: is because Not only like with sci-fi movies and things
47:37
Speaker 9: like that, but that's another thing that will expand some
47:41
Speaker 9: of our purpose and some of the things that people
47:44
Speaker 9: will want to do in the future when that becomes
47:47
Speaker 9: more accessible and becomes more of like an everyday thing.
47:50
Speaker 9: I don't think it's a coincidence that Elon Musk is
47:53
Speaker 9: alive right now while this is happening and he's doing
47:55
Speaker 9: everything that he's doing with Starship and us going to
47:58
Speaker 9: the moon and then us going to Mars. And obviously,
48:00
Speaker 9: we're going to send the robots there first to make
48:02
Speaker 9: it safe for us and all these other kind of things.
48:05
Speaker 9: But I think that part of the reason this is
48:08
Speaker 9: happening now, expanding into the future, this is a little
48:11
Speaker 9: bit off the topic in regards to the rights for
48:13
Speaker 9: the robots and the AIs, is that it's because part
48:17
Speaker 9: of our purpose is going to be expanded and people
48:20
Speaker 9: are going to have new purposes from this evolution that's
48:23
Speaker 9: happening with us being a multiplanetary species.
48:26
Speaker 1: Yep.
48:27
Speaker 4: I mean, one way or another, this is, I truly
48:30
Speaker 4: believe that, a new age, right? And this is why
48:32
Speaker 4: I am really disappointed with politics personally, because they act
48:36
Speaker 4: like business as usual. Irene, you want to jump in?
48:40
Speaker 6: It was just an off-the-cuff comment that flat earthers would
48:45
Speaker 6: disagree with that because they would not agree that we
48:48
Speaker 6: would be multi-planetary. I'm just putting that out there.
48:52
Speaker 3: They would not agree, yes.
48:53
Speaker 2: Yes.
48:56
Speaker 9: And I hurt for them. I truly do.
48:57
Speaker 7: I just have to say it. I couldn't resist.
49:00
Speaker 4: Maybe soon we can prove it to them, right? If
49:02
Speaker 4: we get Starship up and running, maybe a couple of decades,
49:06
Speaker 4: everybody can afford to see for themselves. Alan, do you
49:10
Speaker 4: want to jump in?
49:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just wanted to throw out this idea. And yeah, Alex,
49:15
Speaker 2: this is a great space. And I agree that these
49:18
Speaker 2: are the conversations that politicians should be having and people
49:23
Speaker 2: in power. But this is just the very cutting edge.
49:27
Speaker 2: So they'll probably get here eventually. But we're some of
49:31
Speaker 2: the first people here on the edge of the frontier.
49:35
Speaker 2: And yeah, it's cool. I mean, I applaud everybody here
49:38
Speaker 2: for taking on this conversation and dealing with it because, yeah,
49:45
Speaker 2: we are going through this huge, like, civilizational epoch and
49:50
Speaker 2: thought leaders and people asking the questions. Yeah, this is,
49:54
Speaker 2: we're doing the work right now that other, that the
49:57
Speaker 2: people in power should be doing, but it has to
49:59
Speaker 2: start somewhere.
49:59
Speaker 7: So I applaud everybody here.
50:01
Speaker 2: And I just wanted to throw out, like, I like
50:04
Speaker 2: the idea of, partition, maybe like partitioning the rights and
50:10
Speaker 2: saying like, okay, these are rights for humans as we
50:13
Speaker 2: understand humans. And that way we can have some kind
50:18
Speaker 2: of delineation between AI persons, if they come to exist
50:23
Speaker 2: in the future and like human persons. But I just
50:27
Speaker 2: wanted to throw it out there, Booker, like, would you,
50:31
Speaker 2: I like the idea of enshrining and making these human
50:35
Speaker 2: rights very concrete and specified as for humans.
50:38
Speaker 7: But would you be open to some kind of.
50:43
Speaker 2: Declaration of rights for AI that maybe are not identical
50:47
Speaker 2: to humans, but have some basic protections, especially if we
50:51
Speaker 2: accept that it's almost an inevitability that the rights question,
50:57
Speaker 2: et cetera, will come up, especially with embodied robots. And
51:03
Speaker 2: you could even imagine maybe in the future, their skin
51:07
Speaker 2: does have some kind of pain sensor because the developers
51:09
Speaker 2: don't want them to like, you know, walk into fire
51:13
Speaker 2: and break themselves. So you could even imagine some kind
51:16
Speaker 2: of pain mechanism being implemented. But like, what do you
51:20
Speaker 2: think about the idea of AI rights as a separate
51:23
Speaker 2: form of rights booker?
51:25
Speaker 3: I'm an advocate of artificial intelligence, of ASI. I don't
51:29
Speaker 3: have a problem with those things. I think if you
51:31
Speaker 3: make it an amendment to the constitution, then this goes
51:35
Speaker 3: back to what Cheryl Lynn was talking about earlier. Then,
51:40
Speaker 3: you know, I'm never going to see them as a
51:43
Speaker 3: human consciousness as, as a human. I think you can
51:46
Speaker 3: put laws and regulations around them. I don't know if
51:50
Speaker 3: you know this, but in 2024, a Japan robot laid
51:55
Speaker 3: down on the job. It refused to work anymore over time.
51:59
Speaker 3: And that actually happened. So, I don't know how it happened,
52:02
Speaker 3: but it did. So maybe there are laws where robots
52:05
Speaker 3: can only work 50 hours a week instead of, because
52:08
Speaker 3: that's the fear of the people that advocate for robots' rights,
52:12
Speaker 3: like Martin Roflat that I was talking about earlier. They
52:15
Speaker 3: say they're going to become nothing but a slave class.
52:18
Speaker 3: And if they truly have emotions, feelings, and they feel things,
52:23
Speaker 3: and there are people on that side that say that
52:26
Speaker 3: whether it's silicon and circuitry that's passing through that information,
52:30
Speaker 3: or if it's a neuron in the brain, what difference
52:33
Speaker 3: does it make if that entity has that feeling? So
52:36
Speaker 3: one could understand that. So I don't have a problem
52:40
Speaker 3: with laws and regulations around it, but I think most importantly,
52:44
Speaker 3: we define who we are when it comes to the
52:48
Speaker 3: US Constitution, because there should be a defining difference, in
52:53
Speaker 3: my view, from what that entity is or will become
52:58
Speaker 3: And what we are as human beings. That's why I
53:01
Speaker 3: would define it that way. And I would only leave
53:03
Speaker 3: an amendment for human beings. And I would create laws
53:07
Speaker 3: and regulations around the entities of the robots that are coming.
53:12
Speaker 5: Oh, yeah.
53:12
Speaker 9: No, that's so good. I was just curious, like, in
53:15
Speaker 9: that regard, have you thought or drafted, you know, some
53:20
Speaker 9: kind of language that would, you know, basically like a
53:25
Speaker 9: draft of what that amendment would look like?
53:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, I wouldn't have an amendment for that. Again, I
53:31
Speaker 3: would create laws and regulations for those entities, and it
53:36
Speaker 3: is in the 28th Amendment that was written that can
53:38
Speaker 3: be changed. Obviously, it would be. But by allowing Congress
53:43
Speaker 3: the right to write laws for that purpose, that's the
53:48
Speaker 3: third part of that 28th Amendment. So in a way, yes,
53:51
Speaker 3: it has been addressed in that amendment, and that would
53:55
Speaker 3: be to come when it's needed. but not until it's needed.
53:59
Speaker 3: Right now, I agree with Alex that we're not there,
54:03
Speaker 3: but we're going to get there. And as I started
54:05
Speaker 3: this space a couple hours ago, reading the introduction to
54:10
Speaker 3: the book, and you talked about this, Yvonne, and I
54:12
Speaker 3: agree wholeheartedly that we compared it to the railroad in
54:17
Speaker 3: the 1800s. You know, it changed everything in this country.
54:21
Speaker 3: It even changed time. I didn't mention that, but before that,
54:25
Speaker 3: there were no time limits. There was no eastern time,
54:27
Speaker 3: central time, mountain time. None of that existed. It might
54:30
Speaker 3: be 15 minutes difference because they went by the sun.
54:34
Speaker 3: Railroad changed time. It changed communication. It changed travel. It
54:38
Speaker 3: changed where people lived. It changed everything. And as you
54:40
Speaker 3: were talking about evolution of society and humanity, this is
54:45
Speaker 3: one of those times. This is the ultimate changer of
54:49
Speaker 3: the 21st century. We're never going to put this pace
54:52
Speaker 3: back in the tube. We better push it out the
54:55
Speaker 3: right way. The other part of this is, what about
54:59
Speaker 3: the places in the world that are not going to
55:02
Speaker 3: be where we are? It's going to create a greater
55:06
Speaker 3: separation from those in the bottom, as you were talking about,
55:10
Speaker 3: in continents that are less fortunate than ours. That separation
55:14
Speaker 3: is going to grow even greater and greater. And as
55:16
Speaker 3: someone that's a Christian and a believer in God, That's
55:19
Speaker 3: not really the purpose that I would have for the world.
55:22
Speaker 1: There is only one truth. You've been listening to The
55:26
Speaker 1: Truth Be Told with Booker Scott on America Out Loud.