Alex Wissner-Gross

Well, solving all the physics, like understanding the nature of reality, I think is pretty- It's compute intensive.

It is incredibly compute intensive.

PSI, physical super intelligence, will happily consume any new compute that the world brings online.

And I think we're at some point looking even beyond solving physics.

I think we're going to discover a number of killer apps for this so-called Dyson swarm of compute that we're in the slow motion process of building.

I'll pick one example.

So here's an example of a port co that I don't have that I'd love to have.

I think we're going to use a material fraction of all this compute to simulate our history, ancestor simulations, if you will.

If you're familiar with Nick Bostrom, also a friend, his thesis that we're living inside a simulation for the record.

I don't know.

Simulation theory.

For the record, I don't think we're living inside a simulation.

Well, why don't you think we're in a simulation?

It's too lowercase a anthropic a hypothesis.

If we were having this discussion 100 years ago, maybe you'd be asking me, why don't I think we're living inside a vast electromechanical clock?

Because that's the technological paradigm of the moment.

I think we should be incredibly suspicious of analogizing the nature of our universe to whatever the hot thing.

Exactly.

It's a form of recency bias.

Or maybe thousands of years ago, we're living on the back of a turtle.