Tristan Harris

Well, so the belief is for it to quote go right, you have an AI that recursively self-improves, is aligned with humanity, cares about humans, cares about all the things that we want it to care about.

It protects humans, you know, helps all of us become the most wise version of ourselves, creates a more flourishing world, distributes the medicine and vaccines and health to everybody, generates factories, but doesn't cover the world in solar panels and data centers such that we don't have air anymore or like environmental toxicity or farmland or whatever.

And it just actually makes this utopia.

But in a world where we were to do that, like that quote best case scenario.

In order to get that to happen, you'd have to be doing this slow and carefully because the alignment is not by default.

Again, people are already been thinking about alignment and safety for 20 years, long before I got into this.

And the AIs that we're currently making are doing all the rogue behaviors that people predicted that they would do.

And we're not on track to correct them.

There's currently a 2000 to one gap.

estimated by Stuart Russell, who authored the textbook on AI.

He's been on the show.

He's been on the show, okay.

There's a 2001 gap between the amount of money going into making AI more powerful and the amount of money into making AI controllable, aligned, or safe.

Progress versus safety.

Progress versus safety.

Well, like power versus safety.

So like, I want to make the AI super powerful so it does way more stuff versus I want to be able to control what the AI does.

Exactly.

So that's like saying, what happens when you accelerate your car by 2000x, but you don't steer?

It's like, obviously you're going to crash.