Stephen Wolfram

Well, I mean, that's an interesting question.

I mean, insofar as some of us work on trying to innovate and figure out new things and so on,

It's a complicated interplay between the individual doing the crazy thing off in some spur, so to speak, versus the collective that's trying to do the high-inertia average thing.

And it's, you know, sometimes the collective, you know, is bubbling up things that are interesting.

And sometimes it's pulling down kind of the attempt to make this kind of innovative direction.

Right.

Well, I mean, look, one of the things that's sort of interesting is we might say we always think we're making progress.

But yet, if, you know, in a sense, by saying let's take what already exists and use that as a model for what should exist, then, you know, it's interesting that, for example, you know, many religions have taken that point of view.

There is a, you know, a sacred book that got written at time X, and it defines how people should act.

for all future time.

And it's a model that people have operated with.

And in a sense, this is a version of that kind of statement.

It's like, take the 2023 version of sort of how the world has exposed itself

and use that to define what the world should do in the future.

they will be able to very precisely tell you what to do.

Well, they'll do what.

They'll just do this or that thing.

And not only that, they'll be auto-suggesting to each person, you know, do this next, do that next.

So I think it's a slightly more prescriptive situation than one has typically seen.

But I think this whole question of sort of what's left for the humans, so to speak, to what extent do we – this idea that there is an existing kind of corpus of purpose for humans defined by what's on the internet and so on.