Tristan Harris

I didn't say that the way that I wanted to.

I was just trying to make the point that –

Yeah.

I just want to say that for a moment, my goal here was not to sound like we're just admiring how catastrophic the problem is because I just know how easy it is to fall into that trap.

And what I really care about is people not feeling good about the current path so that we're maximally motivated to choose another path.

Obviously, there's a bunch of AI.

Some cats are out of the bag.

But the lions and super lions that are yet to come have not yet been released.

And there is always choice from where you are to which future you want to go to from there.

Well, certain kinds of AI for certain kinds of jobs.

If there was 10 billion... Well, the question is, are we going to get abundance or are we going to get just jobs being automated?

And then the question is still, who's going to pay for people's livelihoods?

So the math, as I understand it, doesn't currently seem to work out where everyone can get a stipend to pay for their whole...

life and life quality that as they currently know it, and are a handful of Western or US based AI companies going to consciously distribute that wealth to literally everyone, meaning, including all the countries around the world whose entire economy was based on a job category that got eliminated.

So for example, places like the Philippines, where, you know, a huge percent of the jobs are customer service jobs.

If that got automated away, are we going to have open AI pay for all of the Philippines?

Do you think that people in the US are going to prioritize that?

So then you end up with the problem of you have law firms that are currently not wanting to hire junior lawyers because, well, the AI is way better than a junior lawyer who just graduated from law school.

So you have two problems.

You have the law student that just put in a ton of money and is in debt because they just got a law degree that now they can't get hired to pay off.