Joe Carlsmith

You know, I'm not sure if that's true.

I think if that's true, what kind of difference would it make?

So one difference is that, well, so here's a question.

So like,

It means, at some sense, you have to do... You have to, in a more ongoing way, make trade-offs between investing in further knowledge and further exploration versus exploiting, as you say, sort of acting on your existing knowledge.

Because you can't get to a point where you're like, and we're done.

Now, as I think about it, I mean, I think that's...

you know, I sort of suspect that was always true.

And like, I remember talking to someone, I think I was like, ah, we should, at least in the future, we should really get like all the knowledge.

And he's like, well, what do you want to like, you don't want to know the output of every Turing machine or like, you know, in some sense, there's a question of like, what actually would it be to have like a completed knowledge?

And I think that's a rich question in its own right.

And I think it's like, not necessarily that we should imagine, even in this sort of, on any picture necessarily that you've got like everything.

And on any picture, in some sense, you could end up with this case where,

you cap out, like there's some collider that you can't build or whatever.

Like there's some, something is too expensive or whatever.

And kind of everyone caps out there.

Uh, so there's, I guess like one, one way to put it is like, so there's a question of like, do you cap?

And then there's a question of like, how contingent is the place you go?

Um,

if it's contingent, I mean, one thing, one prediction that makes is you'll see more diversity across, uh, you know, our universe or something.