Adam Brown

I mean, the worst case scenario is even worse than that.

Not just that, you know, they could do it, but that they in some sense be incentivized to do it.

You could imagine really adverse laws of physics in which

Maybe you could speculatively build some power plant that just is like really makes use of just sort of sitting on that edge of instability.

And then each person individually might say, oh, I'm quite happy to bear one in a trillion chance that I wipe out the future light cone because I get so much benefit from this power plant.

But that...

But obviously, the negative externality means that people really shouldn't do that.

So I hope the laws of physics don't turn out that way.

Otherwise, we're going to have to have some super-arching control.

Yeah, it just keeps changing.

I mean, not just your idea, our idea, everybody's idea has changed a lot in my lifetime and may continue to change.

And in some sense, it's because you have the lever arm, the long lever arm of asking about the very, very distant future that makes even small uncertainties today pan out to absolutely ginormous distances in the distant future.

How much energy would it take to... The energy requirements are probably pretty small, much more than we can currently make in our particle colliders, but much smaller just in terms of MC squared than the energy in your body, for example.

The energy is not going to be the heartbeat.

The heartbeat is going to be concentrating it together in a really small...

little bubble that's shaped exactly right in order that it doesn't form a black hole, expands in just the way that you want it to expand, and lands in the vacuum that you're aiming for.

So it's more going to be a control issue than just a pure energy issue.

It's not inconsistent with the known laws of physics, which means...

That it's just engineering.

If you just throw a dart in laws of physics space, in some sense, you would not... There are some properties of our universe that would be somewhat surprising.