Bret Weinstein

I think it's much more likely that we will squander the wealth dividend that will be produced by AI.

I think it's much more likely that we will squander the wealth dividend that will be produced by AI.

Well, I wanted to go back to where you started, because I do think that this maybe is the fundamental question. Why is it that we are already living in a world that is not making us happy? And is that the responsibility of technology? And I don't think it's exactly technology.

Well, I wanted to go back to where you started, because I do think that this maybe is the fundamental question. Why is it that we are already living in a world that is not making us happy? And is that the responsibility of technology? And I don't think it's exactly technology.

Human beings, among our gifts, are fundamentally technological, whether we're talking about quantum computing or flintknapping an arrowhead. What has happened to us that has created the growing, spreading, morphing dystopia is a process that Heather and I in our book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, call hypernovelty.

Human beings, among our gifts, are fundamentally technological, whether we're talking about quantum computing or flintknapping an arrowhead. What has happened to us that has created the growing, spreading, morphing dystopia is a process that Heather and I in our book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, call hypernovelty.

Hyper-novelty is the fact of the rate of change outpacing our capacity to adapt to change. And we are already well past the threshold here where the world that we are young in is not the world that we are adults in. And that mismatch is making us sick across multiple different domains.

Hyper-novelty is the fact of the rate of change outpacing our capacity to adapt to change. And we are already well past the threshold here where the world that we are young in is not the world that we are adults in. And that mismatch is making us sick across multiple different domains.

So the question that I ask is, is the change that you're talking about going to reduce the rate of change, in which case we could build a world that would start meeting human needs better, open opportunities for pursuing meaningful work? Or is it going to accelerate the rate of change, which is, in my opinion, guaranteed to make us worse off? So if it was a one-time shift, Right.

So the question that I ask is, is the change that you're talking about going to reduce the rate of change, in which case we could build a world that would start meeting human needs better, open opportunities for pursuing meaningful work? Or is it going to accelerate the rate of change, which is, in my opinion, guaranteed to make us worse off? So if it was a one-time shift, Right.

AI is going to dawn. It's going to open all sorts of new opportunities. There's going to be a tremendous amount of disruption. But from that, we'll be able to build a world. Is that world going to be stable or is it going to be just, you know, one event horizon after the next? If it's the latter, then it effectively says what it does to the humans, which is it's going to dismantle us.

AI is going to dawn. It's going to open all sorts of new opportunities. There's going to be a tremendous amount of disruption. But from that, we'll be able to build a world. Is that world going to be stable or is it going to be just, you know, one event horizon after the next? If it's the latter, then it effectively says what it does to the humans, which is it's going to dismantle us.

Wow. On the one hand, I think you outline the problem very well. Effectively, we have a model of what school is supposed to do that, you know, at best was sort of a match for the 50s or something like that. And it woefully misses the mark with respect to preparing people for the world they actually face.

Wow. On the one hand, I think you outline the problem very well. Effectively, we have a model of what school is supposed to do that, you know, at best was sort of a match for the 50s or something like that. And it woefully misses the mark with respect to preparing people for the world they actually face.

If we were going to prepare them, I would argue that the only toolkit worth having at the moment is a highly general toolkit. The capacity to think on your feet and pivot as things change is the only game in town with respect to our ability to prepare you in advance.

If we were going to prepare them, I would argue that the only toolkit worth having at the moment is a highly general toolkit. The capacity to think on your feet and pivot as things change is the only game in town with respect to our ability to prepare you in advance.

Maybe the other auxiliary component to that would be teaching you what we know, which is frankly not enough, about how to live a healthy life, right? If we could... If we could induce people into the kinds of habits of behavior and consumption of food and then train them to think on their feet, they might have a chance in the world that's coming.

Maybe the other auxiliary component to that would be teaching you what we know, which is frankly not enough, about how to live a healthy life, right? If we could... If we could induce people into the kinds of habits of behavior and consumption of food and then train them to think on their feet, they might have a chance in the world that's coming.

But the fly in the ointment is we don't have the teachers to do it. We don't have people who know. And that is the question, is could the AI actually be utilized in this manner to actually – induce the right habits of mind for people to live in that world?

But the fly in the ointment is we don't have the teachers to do it. We don't have people who know. And that is the question, is could the AI actually be utilized in this manner to actually – induce the right habits of mind for people to live in that world?