Jason Crawford

And that there's just sort of like a sliding scale and the computers are getting smarter and smarter and eventually they'll get better than us.

It is not at all clear to me that that is the case.

I think it is quite possible that machines have a distinct type of intelligence, just like, you know, a car doesn't travel the same way that a horse does.

And a washing machine doesn't get clothes clean the same way that a human does at a, you know, washing clothes by hand.

I think machines don't think the same way we do.

And so I don't think you can simply extrapolate

from machines where they are now, or, you know, you know, the scale from like mice to monkeys to humans, and then something beyond that.

I'm not at all convinced that, you know, that you can just put things on that scale.

Maybe you can, but it's not, I don't think it's obvious.

I don't think you can start with that assumption.

So that makes it even harder to sort of know where things are going.

That's an interesting idea.

Makes sense on the face of it.

I don't know.

But, you know, I mean, certainly, you know, if you're tinkering with no theory, you have much less of an idea of what you're going to get.

So if you're concerned about safety, I think having more theory, you know, makes sense.

Seems like a good place to invest.

I'm not an expert in this, but the big thing that Germany was good at was chemistry.

um, a major, I think a significant, so there's a couple of things.

So they had a couple of the top chemistry companies, uh, uh, Bayer or Bayer, uh, BASF, uh, Hex.