Tristan Harris

We didn't want to confront that.

The director, whose name I'm forgetting in this moment, speaks about this in his biography that we just didn't want to talk about this topic.

Like, why would you ever want to talk about it?

And by putting this film the day after into the public consciousness of humanity and into leaders like Reagan, it was said that later when the Reykjavik meeting happened between Reagan and Gorbachev, the director of the film got a note from the White House saying, don't think your film didn't have something to do with enabling the conditions for this to happen.

So what that speaks to for me is if we all got crystal clear that we're heading to an anti-human future that we don't want to be going towards, and we saw that clearly, and we saw it now, we could actually steer and do something different than what we're doing.

And that's, for me, the motivation of the film, which I think it doesn't go all the way there, but it sets up the common knowledge for that possibility.

Yeah.

Maybe just to back up and so the listeners, you'll see it in the film if you go see it.

but just understand the structure of the film.

So the film kind of takes you on a tour of first, the people who are focused on all the things that could go wrong.

And so this is the risk folks that I don't like using the term doomers because I think it reifies something that's not really healthy.

You know, as someone who's worried about the risk of a nuclear power plant, a doomer, no, they're a safety person who cares about the nuclear power plant, not,

melting down.

That's right.

That's right.

So the first film, I mean, the first section of the film is really focusing on those folks and their concerns.

And it's really devastating for the director.

And the story in the conceit of the film is that the director is having a baby.

And so he's asking all of these people in AI, is now a good time to have a kid?

And I think that humanizes the question of what is the future we're heading towards?