Tristan Harris

Now imagine that coming in the next 10 years, scientifically.

That's like magic.

This is sort of the science accelerator button.

It's what leads Ajay Akotra to say, this is why AI is like 24th century technology crashing down on 21st century society.

But what is the problem with this argument of 100 years of biological progress?

This is very interesting because it's like the promise is that we just have more intelligence, that intelligence is essentially the bottleneck for why we don't get more progress in biology.

But you're saying we did get an explosion of intelligence in the form of new biological data, the amount of medical data we got, and the number of actual people that are sitting at lab benches, and yet it hasn't resulted in that.

So you argue, though, it's not only wrong, it's actually dangerous.

Can you speak to that?

Can you speak to the amount of resources that are currently going into accelerating ASI versus how much is going into, you know, let's say cancer research?

So essentially, we're putting half a trillion dollars into a genie that people think or are selling the idea that it'll magically solve all of our problems from climate change to cancer, compared to 7.2 billion.

7.2 billion versus half a trillion is the gap.

Not just that we're not making progress in the cancer side, we're actually robbing billions of dollars away.

Instead of getting 10 years of scientific progress, it's almost like we're losing 10 years of scientific progress because all the money is going towards this genie

rather than going towards things that would actually unlock progress.

I'm just wondering, though, if listeners would, at this point in the conversation, believe that the genie won't actually address these things, because all of what we're saying depends on whether that is true or not.

So let's break this down for listeners.

Right.

So you're not saying that AI couldn't massively accelerate physics or math.

Correct.