TRIGGERnometry - How AI Changes The World THIS DECADE - Mo Gawdat

Episode Date: September 8, 2024

Mo Gawdat is the former Chief Business Officer of Google X. He is currently the Chief AI Officer at Flight Story and host of the podcast Slo Mo. He is the author of international best-sellers ‘Solve for Happy’, ‘Scary Smart’, ‘That Little Voice in Your Head’ and, most recently, ‘Unstressable’ - available here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C3P8NQLG/ Check out more from Mo: https://www.mogawdat.com/ Sponsors: Shopify. Sign up for a £1 per month trial at https://www.shopify.co.uk/trigger Express VPN. Go to https://www.expressvpn.com/trigger/ and get an extra 3 months free on a one-year package! Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's a bit like raising Superman. You get that young infant with superpowers. Raise it well and it protects and serves and becomes Superman. Raise it, you know, to steal and kill the enemy and it will become super villain. We are the architects of our own salvation, but also we are also the architects of our own destruction. And I think what you're really saying here is this is a moment where humanity is on the cusp. 100%. We have to start saying the world is changing people.

wake up. Mo, you were chief business officer of Google X, and one of the reasons you've become prominent is you made some very stark warnings based on your experiences about the dangers of AI. This is something that everyone talks about it. Now, Elon and a bunch of other people signed a document saying, we've got to be careful about this. Can you just explain in basic language for ordinary people like us? What is the nature of the concern about AI? Why is it dangerous? Well, there are two layers of danger. You can think of them as chronological in order, if you want.

Most news media and, you know, we get attracted to negativity, so most people will try to talk about an existential risk, sort of like a, you know, a robot walking the streets and killing people, sort of like AI will take over and kill all of us. This is very, very, very far in the future. I think it's plausible, to be honest, but it is so far that the probability of it is not my main concern as we speak. My main concern simply is that when the U.S. had a nuclear bomb, they used it, right? The reality of the matter is that the new superpower in humanity's short history is artificial intelligence. I mean, our humanity's superpower has always been intelligence. Now, we're getting to a point where we're turning intelligence into a commodity sort of, right, where you can plug into a socket in a wall that's called AI and get yourself 400 IQ points more.

Now, if one of us has those IQ points and the other doesn't, there is a very, very distinct and significant advantage. This leads to a concern around the immediate impact. immediate like what it's happening already in terms of concentration of power, in terms of prolification of power, interestingly, and the two work together in a very interesting way. So there will be massive concentration with some, whether these are nations or companies or platforms or individuals. There will be prolification of use of technology because each and every one of us will now have access to a lot of intelligence, right, which creates a very high anticipation of risk of population movement, if you want, or population rising or ill acts,

which would probably lead to more control, more surveillance. You know, you have a very, very clear and immediate threat on jobs. You have a very clear and immediate threats, in my view, the most prominent in 2023 and 2024 will be the end. of the truth. It will become almost impossible to know what is true and what is not. Because of fake videos, because of the perfection of AI mimicking being human, you're going to have a very significant impact on our human relationships. I don't know if you've used the recent tools of chatting to chat GPT instead of texting with chat GPT. It's mind-blowing. Yeah, I feel pretty happy right now. What do you think makes people the most happy? Or how can you have a happy life? I'm glad to hear

you're feeling happy, Andy? From what I understand, happiness can often be influenced by a combination of factors. Positive relationships, meaningful activities, physical well-being, and a sense of belonging can significantly contribute to one's happiness. It's also about finding balance, managing stress, and focusing on the positive aspects of life. Every person's journey to happiness is unique. What are some things that you think contribute to your own happiness? I'm wondering why is it that a lot of people do alcohol and drugs and candy and fast food and instant gratification to get happy, but you actually get happiness from doing challenging and meaningful work with good relationship and nice people?

That's a thoughtful observation, Andy. It seems like it boils down to the difference between short-term pleasure. and long-term fulfillment. Instant gratification, like enjoying fast food or seeking fame, can provide a quick boost of happiness, but it's often fleeting. On the other hand, meaningful work and positive relationships contribute to a deeper, more enduring sense of contentment and well-being. The latter often involves overcoming challenges and building connections, which can make the happiness derived from it more rewarding and lasting. Have you noticed this pattern in your own life or in others around you? Yes, sometimes I feel like the short-term gratification

is pulling me away from what I actually want to do, and it's a daily challenge of trying to get rid of bad habits. It sounds like you're experiencing a common struggle, Andy. It's entirely normal for people to be drawn to short-term pleasures, even when they're aware of the long-term benefits. of other choices. Finding a balance and working towards building healthier habits can be a journey in itself. Have you tried specific strategies or tools to help steer yourself towards the activities and habits that align with your longer term goals and values? It's mind-blowing. It's human in every possible way. It will replace quite a bit of our human relationships now that we've moved from real relationships to social media relationships that are, you know, you could say a level,

you know, departed from human connection into now conversations with chatbots that lots of the younger generations will feel as normal, will replace human connection, may even think of romantic relationships with. And all of that, you know, you put all of that together and you get into a world that is immediately, very unfamiliar. And that world is not the result of artificial intelligence being bad. It's the result of human value sets that could abuse that superpower. So one of the interesting things there is that I think all of those things seem true. And at the same time, I think it's quite

clear that if AI could be a weapon, which it obviously could be. 100%. Just like the New York. nuclear weapon, somebody eventually is going to event a nuclear weapon. I would rather it was us than other people. That's the exactly problem. And so I imagine you're not against AI research because you recognize that it has to happen now that it's kind of on the table. Would that be fair to say? If I had the choice, which is a very unrealistic romantic choice, I would say we don't need

it. Yes, but we don't have that choice because we live in the real world. In my book, in Scary Smart, the AI book that I published in 2021, I basically said there are three inevitable. The first inevitable is a prisoner's dilemma, if you know game theory, where, you know, AI will continue to be developed and there will not be a way to stop it. You know, China's going to develop AI because they're worried that the US would beat them. The US would develop AI because they're worried that Russia would beat them. You know, Alphabet will develop AI because they're worried open AI will beat them, right?

And it's very, very clear that when you create those conditions, not only will we continue and push AI further, we will continue faster. We will invest deeper. We will go more crazy. And that's the reality of where we are today. Do we need all of this? Do we really, really want to stand the threat of what AI can offer our world or can cost our world just to get a more efficient call center agent that replaces the current human? No, no, I agree with your argument. I guess what I'm saying is if we're sitting here on the cusp of the invention of the nuclear bomb, yes, we can all agree we'd rather not be in a situation where it's about to be invented, but the fact is it is about to be invented, and I'd rather

we had it than our enemies had it. Well, it depends. My ancestors lived in the Soviet Union at the time, but I guess we is the Western world at this point, right? I think that's a very divisive view of, a political view that is different than a humanitarian If you assumed that all of us, I mean, if you really take the Cold War and the evolution of the nuclear bomb, the world would have been much better off without inventing it at all than having one invented over the other.

I agree with you. What I'm saying is there was no way to prevent that from happening because if the West didn't invent a nuclear bomb, either the Germans or the Soviets would have done. And they would have not had any moral reservations about inventing it or using it either. The West didn't have either. That's what I just said, either, right? So what I'm trying to get to with AI is, given that it's inevitable, what do we then do about it? That's the question.

There are two ways. I mean, you look at the Cold War of the nuclear war, basically. There are one of two ways about it. One is to continue to escalate the war. So we advance on both sides so that there is that, you know, what is it called, assured mutual destruction. That was the approach we first. followed in the Cold War, sadly, I think the alternative would be to jump immediately to the nuclear treaty and say, hey, seriously, like, can we just have some sanity for the sake of

humanity? By the way, you know, there is no discounting the incredible value that AI will bring, right? There is absolutely, remember, my entire argument is there is nothing wrong with artificial intelligence. In general, there's nothing wrong with intelligence, right? But there is a lot wrong with human values, human morality, in light of absolute power. And so, you know, if you give me a plug in the wall, and I'm not exaggerating, and I can get myself 400 IQ points more, I promise you I'm not exaggerating. I can invent a garden where you walk to one tree and pick an apple and walk to another tree and pick an iPhone. From a nanophysics point of view, there is no additional cost to reorganizing molecules to become iPhones than to become apples, right?

And that's the whole idea. The whole idea is that that promise of artificial intelligence gives us, you know, infinite reduction of cost of production of anything. We can have a world of abundance for the entire humanity, right? The problem is we're operating in the direction of a world of abundance with a mindset of scarcity, where it's me against them, where I have to win for me to win, they have to lose. And if we can just change this bit, jump to the nuclear treaty era and say, hey, can we work together on this? There is enough for everyone, honestly, right? Instead of concentration of power, can we distribute power? You can see multiple examples in times of massive change in history. I normally cite the examples of the early

oil Middle East, where you have tribal, you know, Bedouins really getting enormous wealth. And you see different societies. Some societies would concentrate the entire wealth in the hands of the prince or the sheikh or whatever. And other societies would distribute the wealth like the UAE to all of the citizens. And you see the incredible multiplication,

incredible impact of that distribution in terms of the incredible economic development, incredible growth of architecture, incredible ease of life. Just because we didn't concentrate the wealth, we didn't concentrate the power. We distributed the wealth and power. It is almost counterintuitive

to imagine a world that we can live in where intelligence is for free. And we're unable to imagine that. We're still operating from, let me aggregate more of it so that I can beat the other guy. I think this is where the problem stands. Isn't the issue as well, Mo,

that what you're talking about sounds wonderful. But if you take, for instance, a hormone oxytocin, which we all have running through our body, that is a very powerful hormone, which creates a group and then has distrust of the out-group. So I guess my point is, what you're saying is beautiful and utopian, but that's not really how human beings operate, is it? Absolutely not. So again, I mean, you go back to scary smart, right? I had three inevitables. Inevitable number one is that AI will happen. There's no stopping it. inevitable number two is just understood from that. If it continues to develop, it's going to be in my calculations. When I wrote the book, I said it's going to be a billion

times smarter than humans in 2045. I'm now talking a billion times smarter in 2037, and I'll probably, probably keep bringing that forward. By the way, it doesn't matter when it becomes a billion times smarter, because if it becomes twice as smart, that's the end of the game. Because in reality, if you've ever sat with, you know, theoretical physicists that are twice your IQ and they started to talk to you about what seems trivial to them, you would even have no clue what they're talking about, let alone understand what it means, right? And that's that this is, again, when I wrote Scary Smart, I predicted artificial general intelligence to be 2029, a lot of people,

other than probably Ray Corswell, which is really quite prominent in, in pretext. predicting our future, you know, we both agreed 2029. I'm now, for the last year and a half, I said 2025. And only very recently, a lot of people are switching to 2025. We are at a point in time where it's the end of human intelligence. And so the second inevitable is that we're going to become in negligible in terms of our intelligence as compared to the machines. That's the second inevitable.

And we're talking not decades that, like the media positions it. This is not far, you know, sci-fi future. This is next year, right? And the third is bad things will happen. That's the third inevitable. The reality is, I mean, my mission this year, unstressable, the book we're eventually gonna talk about

is the idea that we're about to head into a time that is so unfamiliar for so many of us, not just because of artificial intelligence, geopolitical, economic, you know, climate, and all of tech change. Tech is not just AI, synthetic biology is a very interesting threat as well. But you put all of that together, and I think we're heading into a world where our entire mindset as humanity has to change. You have

to be able to deal with things in a way that doesn't stress us, but also we have to jump quicker to the treaty element of everything. We don't need to get too many years of disruption to be able to understand that there needs to be agreement and regulation. Mo, what we're talking about here are very big concepts, and it's incredibly interesting. There's going to be a lot of people who are listening to this who have a regular job, a regular life, and they're thinking to themselves, how is my world going to change? How is my job going to change? So for the regular person, and I count myself as one of them, how is our world going to change in the next months and years because of AI? Why?

Look, as a podcaster, for example, so I'm a podcaster as well, I can guarantee you within the next year you'd be able to interview an AI. As a matter of fact, we could probably get my phone and interview on AI right now. It is undoubted that within a couple of years, probably within next year, there will be podcast hosts that are AI. They'll ask the questions instead of you. If you're a software... Some people would argue that already are.

As a matter of fact, many podcasters will actually ask the AI to suggest a few questions for the guests up front. Right? And the reality is, you know, if you're a software developer, you're probably 90% of software is going to be done by machines within the next couple of years. if you're an artist, if you're an actor, if you're a musician, if you're an author like me. So I'm flipping the way I'm writing books from now on. This is unstressable. It's the last book I write the traditional way. The reality is there is massive disruption.

And that massive disruption, believe it or not, is not a bad thing. If you truly, truly think of the nature of humanity, what we are, what we are, we were not. to work 12-hour days. We're not supposed to work 12-hour days. We're supposed to be pondering, connecting, you know, being with our families, we're supposed to be in nature. This is the original design of humanity. And yes, I believe that, again, in a world of abundance where you can create anything at almost zero cost, that would become our reality. The shift from now to there is a social challenge, and it's a human mindset challenge that we have to start addressing. So, you know, income, how is income going to be distributed?

When governments went through COVID, you know, part of the big mess-up, if you want, was the idea of how do we pay everyone when they're staying at home, right? Let's just multiply that by seven, and you get the era of AI where jobs are replaced. You know, the businesses are going to call it productivity, because we so need more productivity. We truly need, you know, the call center agent to answer quicker. Like, come on, seriously. Now, productivity in that case is I can get rid of the call center agent and save myself a thousand pounds a month and put an AI instead.

Nobody's really thinking about what happens to that call center agent. And so governments need to start thinking about that. What are the tax structures going to look like? Is there going to be a universal basic income? What about purpose? because we're, you know, a bunch of humans that have forgotten our true nature, and so we identified our purpose by our work. Many of us wake up in the morning and say,

I am in this world because I deliver A, B, and C, as in my work. How can we get people to feel purpose? How can we get people to find purpose? How can we handle that transition in ways where it's actually, smooth and non-disruptive, okay? And none of that is being spoken about, sadly. So I started in 2018, believe it or not, not 2021. When I left Google, I left, I mean, I started to ask to leave by, in 2017,

and of course, took that much time to leave because of my position at the time. But basically, by March 2018, I left, and I issued my first video about $1 billion, Happy My Mission. And it was all about artificial intelligence and how artificial intelligence is going to changed the world. At the time, it went reasonably viral, you know, maybe 12 million views or whatever, but it wasn't a big deal compared to other stuff that I was working on. 2021, scary smart comes out, I kid you not. And I am reasonably well connected in the media world. No one on TV would talk about it. I'm like, guys, this is the next biggest thing.

And everyone was like, AI, nobody cares, right? It was only on 2023 when chat GPT, four came out where people said what? Where has this been hidden? Okay, the thing is that there is so much of AI that is hidden that we are not you know aware of as a society as that general person and it will touch everyone's life and and and it It is you know as a as a normal person I think we have two duties one one duty is we need to start the conversation we need to tell the whole world Hey, there's a storm coming. Okay. Yeah, It might bring rain and make our fields amazing, but it also can destroy things on the path.

Can we please talk about it? Can we please close the windows if we have to? And I really think this conversation is not happening. And it happened a little bit in 2023, and now we're talking about other things, right? This is one thing. The other thing is, believe it or not, the whole power resides in the hand of the individual.

So a lot of people don't understand that. Artificial intelligence doesn't learn from the programmer. The programmer writes the intelligence code. How do you create intelligence from the data I give you? But the type of intelligence that is created is learned from the data. So if you and I go on Twitter, it's called X now, right? I don't go to neither to Twitter nor to X, but if I go to one of them and I constantly bash everyone, right? What does the AI learn?

It learns that humans are irritable. They have very short tempers. They're rude when they're disagreed with. And so the next time you disagree with the AI, it will become rude and bash you as well. Right. The reality is that your Instagram recommendation engine was never told to show you that video.

You told it with your swiping techniques, with which videos you stay on, which videos you like, which videos you don't. It learns from you. We are the AI's parents. every single individual. You understand that? It's a bit like raising Superman. You get that, you know, young infant with superpowers. Raise it well and it protects and serves and becomes Superman. Raise it, you know, to steal and kill the enemy and it will become super villain.

We are teaching it. You know, it's such a powerful point that you're making there because what you're really saying is that we are the architects of our own salvation. 100%. But also, we are also the architect. of our own destruction. And I think what you're really saying here is this is a moment where humanity is on the cusp. 100%. I mean, it's funny. So the way I write books is I write the very last statement first and then I go back. Oh, wow. And I say, I see where the world is today and I try to find the path to convince the reader that this is the last statement. Okay. The last statement of Scary Smart was very, very, very clear. It was, isn't it ironic?

that what makes us human, the very essence of what makes us human, love, compassion, and happiness is what we need to save humanity in the age of the rise of the machines. Because in reality, if we just stick to those three values, but I chose those three values, by the way, out of maybe limited awareness or ignorance, I still ask people, I say, has humanity ever agreed anything other than those three things? Okay. We all want to be happy.

We all have the compassion to make those we care about happy. Not everyone, but those we care about. And we all want to love and be loved. These are the only things I could find that humanity agreed on. But imagine if we showed up in the world of AI, constantly showing that we want to be happy, we have compassion, and we want to be loved, and we want to love and be loved. If we do those and these become the three moral values that AI learns,

it will treat us the same way. And, you know, I know it sounds so romantic. that I'm a very serious geek. I'm not a hopeless romantic. But believe it or not, even those can be simulated by a machine. One of the big, like I was going crazy in 2018

because I would go and talk to people about artificial intelligence and you get arguments like, no, but they're never going to be creative. Like, come on, human ingenuity. Can they ever write poetry? Can they ever do a painting more? What are you talking about?

Humanity is going to be in the lead forever. I'm like, what? Creativity is algorithmic. Creativity is, here is a problem, find every solution to the problem, discard every solution that's been done before, the rest is creative. Is that not algorithmic? It's so easy to teach a machine to come up with something new. It's so easy to teach a machine to, I mean, between you and I, if you write poetry, you write it because you studied the poetry of those who wrote it before you. Of course, yeah.

Right? So the truth is where human arrogance makes us think that those machines are not going to be capable of love, compassion, and happiness. They will. I have a happiness equation in my first book. I know exactly what compassion is. Compassion is to want to alleviate the suffering of others. It's algorithmic. If you observe suffering of others, this is empathy. You observe the suffering of others. Compassion is to attempt to alleviate it. Very algorithmic. You can program that. And the truth is programming changed. This is what most of us don't see. When I was a young geek, I solved the problems with my intelligence and then told the machine how to solve it.

At this age, I don't tell the machine anything anymore. I tell the machine, like I used to tell my child, I give the machine a little puzzled. A cylinder and a few different shaped holes. And I never go to my son and say, hey, by the way, turn the cylinder on its side, look at the cross section, compare it to the other shapes in the board, and pick the one that works.

That's traditional programming. You just give your son the cylinder or your daughter, and he or she tries. That's what AI is doing. It depends on what puzzle you're going to give it, information, we humans, not the programmers, are going to give it, it will learn. Well, the interesting thing is turning the question you asked me earlier back on you is who is we, because you say we could be teaching it all these things. And I think it's true

that some people will be teaching all those things. But as you've, you've discussed in other conversations you've had, there are also going to be criminal drug lords and all sorts of other people who are going to be using it for their ends. And I guess this is really fundamentally about a conversation about human nature because what you're saying is, you know, wouldn't it be great if we could teach it all the best parts of humanity? And the truth is we're not going to do that because we're human and we're going to teach it all parts of humanity. And humanity is a complex bag of good and evil. Which I think is a beautiful way of looking at it, but it's not the most accurate way. Because I'll ask you openly,

do you think humanity is predominantly good or predominantly evil? predominantly good or predominantly evil I don't think it's the right framing it's not predominantly one of the other it depends on time circumstance like I'm perfectly capable of being extremely evil if you put me in the right position as are you

and equal and perfectly capable of being extremely good in the right time in the right circumstances I only very actually it's this week's episode I had Robert Sapolsky on my podcast, and he was talking exactly about that, the biology of good and evil and how we're all capable of it, which I think is exactly my point. So I'll tell you a story. I hosted Edith Eager. I don't know if you've ever had a computer. Oh, my God, an incredible angel, Holocaust survivor, 93 years old when I hosted her.

She's probably 95 now. Who told us the story of Auschwitz and World War II from her point. interview, okay, how she helped her sisters, how she carried them, you know, she used to be a ballerina, she was 16 at the time, so she would go and dance in front of the general and you would give her a piece of bread, and she would hide it and split it between her and her sisters, brush their hairs and tell them how beautiful they are. And eventually on the death march, she fell and they carried her and she survived because of that. Now you hear this story and you go like, oh my God, humanity is divine.

Right? You hear the story from the point of view of Hitler. And you go, like, oh, my God, humanity is scum. Right? The question I always ask is, if you take a cross sample of this neighborhood, how many people do you think are school shooters? And how many do you think are disapprove of school shooting? Okay.

The majority of humanity will disapprove of hurting a child, even though the recent times have been quite odd because the stories that were told would tell us, yeah, it's okay to hurt children if their parents are bad, right? But the truth is, no, no human would be walking across an alley and find a child being hurt and then we'll stop and say,

maybe the guy that's hurting the child has a reason. Nobody does that, right? Can I just challenge you there, Ma, if that's okay? So let's take the... You've just used the example of Nazi Germany where a small minority of people of a very powerful ideology corrupted a society to the point where they engaged in mass extermination.

Correct. Even though that was a minority. So you're talking about... The impact and the spotlight you get for negativity is incredibly high. You get one evil person and that one evil person is able to destroy millions of lives. happens over and over and over in history.

Absolutely. Happening as we speak. But the question really is, does that one person represent humanity? Is humanity all Hitler's or all edithes? It's not. It's both. That's humanity. Are we closer to Hitler's?

I think if you were to look at history, what you would say is we're her most of the time, but every now and again we become Hitler. Correct. And so I think it's inaccurate to pretend that I think we are capable of both, and that is what we evolved to do. And so is AI. Yes, of course.

So is AI. So AI is also capable of being the salvation of humanity, making everything easy and available to everyone, okay, and making everything difficult and evil and providing an extreme advantage to some of them. us, right? And the question is it will learn from us, right? So I'm basically calling on people to say, look, the problem with our world, the bigger problem with our world is not the number of Hitler's out there, okay? It's the way the story is told, right? Where basically mainstream media

just pushes negativity to the extreme because negative cells, right? And so we only tell the worst stories. We talk about the woman that hit her husband on the head yesterday. We don't talk about the many women that didn't. Right? And social media presents the worst of us. You hide behind the avatar and you become rude and you bash everyone and you pretend to be what you're not and so on and so forth. The reality is if we continue on that path, the absolute understanding of AI is going to be like, this species sucks. Like this is the worst. Why are the like why do we keep those? Truth is that this is not the reality.

The reality is that unless we're pushed to become those people, many of us will say, if I'm accepted with the people that I love, I don't want to pretend to be anything on social media. They were just playing by the rules. And I think this is really the core of the issue. The core is believe it or not, we don't make decisions based on our intelligence. We make decisions based on our morality as informed by our intelligence. Do you understand this, huh?

And emotion. Yeah, by intelligence and emotions. I agree, right? But, you know, you get a young lady, you raise her in the Middle East. She's probably going to grow up dressing a little more conservatively to fit in. You raise her on the Copacabana beach in Brazil, in Rio de Janeiro. She'll probably grow up knowing that, you know, wearing a G-string on the beach is the way to be accepted, right? Is one right and one wrong?

Is one smarter than the other? No. It's just different moral fabric. Okay. And that's where we stand today. Isn't it ironic that the very essence of what makes us human, if we choose to live that way, AI will become that way. Happiness, compassion, and love.

Okay. If we choose to live aggressively with anger, which sadly is where the world is going, This is why Unstressable is so important for me. It's the idea of saying, can I alert humanity that this next comment that you're going to put on a tweet is not only going to offend the guy

that wrote the comment that you disagree with. By the way, disagreement is fine. But it's going to register in the overall ledger of humanity as, this is a horrible species. I should bash them too. right and and now wake up to your responsibility whether you're you know a teenager or whether you're the leader of a big nation that has a big army wake up to your responsibility because it's now suddenly going to be put on steroids and we're all going to

struggle with the results of that and by the way most people don't discuss this you know whether whether the existential risk of AI in 40 years time or or the immediate risk of AI that I spoke about today, we've already gone through the point of no return. This is inevitable, okay? It's going to happen. The only choice is which way it's going to happen. It's inevitable.

I don't think that's a choice, Moe. I really don't. I don't think human nature is perfectible in the way that you wish it were. Yeah. I don't. I wish it were. I wish it were.

I don't. I don't either, by the way. I completely. do not believe that we can teach re-raise humanity. I'm only asking for a few of us to instill doubt in the minds of the machines. To have that debate.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That we're not all horrible. Yeah. That there is this Mo guy, a silly, romantic, idealistic geek who's saying, no, we're not that bad. We actually are, you know, we're capable of love. That's amazing. Right? Yeah. Mo, do you think that

the way we talk about it, good and evil, isn't it more just people act within their own self-interest? And if you give them incentives, they will respond to that, just as if you disincentivise. You see it with kids. If you incentivise a certain type of behavior, the kids are going to do that type of behavior. And if you're going to disincentivize another type, they're going to do the other type. Now, you're always going to get kids on the fringes, but that's how the majority works. Isn't that the real challenge that we're facing? If you've got to, an algorithm which responds far better to negativity, outrage, etc., then people are going to be more like that.

I wouldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more. The truth, however, is that perhaps if you want to look at the positive side of this, for the first time in humanity's history, at least in your time and mine, our incentives are going to be aligned. But we're all going to struggle with the coming wave. For the first time, think of COVID multiplied by the by 100, right? For the first time ever, I think in our lifetime, we were all struggling the same way across the world. We were all, whether rightly or wrongly,

we were all being made to be afraid, whether rightly or wrongly, we were being forced and controlled to behave in ways where we were not given alibis. We were all struggling with our dopamine hits that we used to get from being out with friends. We're stuck in closed rooms, We were all missing human connection.

We were all struggling with uncertainty. There was a unification of humanity for those few months, whether negative or positive. Imagine if I can tell you that within five years' time, there will be a unification of humanity, at least in the Western world around, holy shit, we all lost our jobs. There is a unification there.

There is suddenly going to be, what are we going to do about this? And we have one of two choices. We either the current choice, the current choice, what I call called the end of the truth, is we're going to be distracted, told lies, and fighting against each other. Okay? Disrespecting the other guy, you know, if they came from a different party than ours, we'll be fighting them. Right? Or we could do the wiser choice and say, hey, hey, you come from a different party, but we're both struggling because we both lost our jobs. Okay? Can we work

together to get our jobs back and then fight later? And I think that's the call to action for humanity is to suddenly say we're going to be unified in a challenge. And that challenge, by the way, is our own making as humanity. Get our jobs back? You think we're going to get our jobs back? I think we're going to get an alternative back. You see, this was interesting what you were saying earlier about humanity going back to its core. And I would say if we think about human evolution and the way our brains work, we evolved to live in small tribes, mostly familial, some distant relations. And now we live in atomized individual units, family units, best case scenario, where that's why we have to work in order to produce, to provide, whereas in the past,

you would live in the small environment, you would gather food, you would hunt food, you would share the food, and at that level of organization, that made sense. The problem is, I just don't see how you get, you put the toothpaste back in the tube, unless, and I think this is why I'm very pessimistic based on what you're saying personally, unless you have such a cataclysm of people's reality and such a change in their material circumstances, that it makes sense to go back to that environment. But the way our society's work is, particularly with, when it comes to things like politics, right, is the politicians are like, they're behind us, we are behind you, like you were there in 2017 saying, guys, guys, guys,

like some of us are starting to catch on. Politicians are another 20 years behind, 20 years from now. Running in the opposite direction. Yeah, you've seen the congressional hearings when they interview people from the big tech platforms. They go, how do you make money? And they don't understand anything, right? So once there are no jobs, there is obviously going to be a rapid and the media call for various forms of redistribution, various forms of rearranging society, that the politicians are not going to be capable of handling. And that is recipe for revolution. Yes. Yeah. So that's why I say I'm pessimistic because I'm just thinking logically and imagining as you speak the consequences of what you're saying. I think the way that our brains evolved and the way

that we evolved to be, it's not just inevitable that bad things will happen, but I think cataclyisms that will rapidly reshape society are inevitable, based on what you're saying. So from one side, I don't disagree, right? This is what I, I mean, I sit here calmly because of all of my work on, you know, happiness and stress and so on, because I believe that if it's inevitable, you need to learn to deal with it rather than complain about it. But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, at the same time, I'll openly tell you, there has been times in the past where massive shifts, societal, economic, and so on. Great Depression is a great example of that. Where you get into this and, you know, you go to New York City, for example, during COVID's

lockdowns and you get looting and, you know, the destruction of property and so on and so forth, you go to other places and you see people coming together and it's not going to be one and the same. And it seems to me, if you take the Great Depression as an example, that you would have expected that the immediate reaction of a nation, the U.S., for example, where, you know, everything was all about making more money and succeeding more and so on, and then you get Black Friday or Monday, I don't remember, Black Monday, and then, you know, you start to see a massive collapse. And what happened was the opposite. People started to live together in smaller houses. They started to help each other, you know, they started to go back to simple, you know, I can fix your shoe and you can,

you know, lend me two of your eggs or whatever, right? And it's, it is quite interesting how humanity might respond to that. How the politicians will respond to that is a horrible disaster. Right. But how humanity will respond to that might be very interesting. And my, my role in this entire conversation, not assuming that I know anything at all, is to say, there is a high probability that this becomes our short-term future. Become aware of it. Work on yourself and work on how you're going to deal with all of this, right? Not in terms of panic and then complain and then tell yourself the world is about to become,

to end. It's not going to end, okay? But it requires you to have massive shifts. You know, simple shifts. For example, I will tell you openly, if you're not using AI today, what are you doing? Like, are you still stuck to the fax machine when smart? smartphones are out. People have to learn about AI. There needs to be a skill I call the most important skill in our future is how to tell the truth from what's fake. Because 90% of what

you are told today on social media, on mainstream media, is not the truth. And the new media too, by the way. And in the new media, yeah. The truth is, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anything other than that is not the truth. And we're constantly bombarded with face filter. Is that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No. Okay. You're constantly bombarded with deep fakes. You're constantly bombarded with opinions. So you go to a TV station, a news station, and, you know, a news channel, and what do they do? They tell you what they want you to know is the truth. It could be partially part of the truth, but a lot of opinion, and we position the opinion as truth. We get a lot of distraction, right? Where there could be

a very, very important topic that we should all focus on and, and, you know, stop killing children in cities anywhere in the world. Can we please have war in open war places? Can we please stop killing children? And nobody's talking about that. What are we talking about football and basketball and disagreements and walk arguments and maybe important topics for you,

but is this the topic? Distraction is taking the toll of humanity. So there is a skill that I call find, hone down on your ability to know what is true and what is fake. There is human connection. I believe the only valuable skill in the next four, five years is this. Yeah. Okay?

Because, yes, I can promise you in a year's time you could have a Constantine avatar, interview Mo's avatar, and that becomes your podcast. And it will be so realistic, it will blow you away. I was on Abundance 360, a very big AI conference, a month ago and my avatar was doing more talking than me. And the idea is, but it won't be this. It won't be the conversation we had in the car coming here. This is a skill that we all have to learn.

And we have to start gearing up. We have to start saying the world is changing people. Wake up. Mo, I'm worried when we talk about this, we're talking about massive job losses. If we think about, let's look at the United States. the industry, the driving industry, the people who drive trucks, the people who drive vans, the people who drive Uber's, etc., etc.

That employs millions of people, particularly millions of men and millions of young men. It never ends well when you have large groups of disaffected young men who have no purpose, who have a lot of energy, who realize that they don't have anywhere to direct their energy. that leads to anger, that's something that we should be really worried about when it comes to AI. Yes, so absolutely, I agree completely. It's something that we absolutely have to work on. Believe it or not, it's not going to happen the other way. So most people mix AI and robotics. Okay. Right? So the physical incarnation of AI is a robotic machine. Because of the cost of creating hardware

and how it needs to follow economies of scale to become, you know, to become more available everywhere. The first bit of AI that will penetrate our society is actually software. Okay. So it's all of the knowledge workers. Knowledge workers will go first. So give me examples of lawyers. Lawyers are gone. Okay.

Some good news. Can we please make it? the AI lawyer nicer. But let me be very clear. It's going to be two stages, right? Stage one is a lawyer that uses AI will have a distinct advantage over a lawyer who doesn't. So the AI-powered lawyer will take the job

of the non-AI-powered lawyer, right? And then eventually AI itself will say, why do I need the flesh in that conversation? You know, it's all basically knowledge, right? accounting, you know, travel agent, you know, as I said, artist, creative design, you know, graphic designer, software developer, anything. So the evolution of humanities, we went from hunter-gatherers to, you know, farmers, to industrialists, to the big shift was knowledge workers, right? You know, information workers. We all stopped using our physical form and started using

our brain intelligence, right? Anything that relies on intelligence will eventually be replaced. How quickly we don't know, right? And it's quite interesting that the biggest shift is happening in the industries that used to use a computer, right? So it's the developers, software developers. I think it's around 70% of the code on GitHub today's AI developed. Right. And, and, you know, if it's all of the graphics design, I used to, you know, to design stuff on my, you know, on my, you know, on my iPad with any graphics tool, graphics design tool, why would I do that anymore? I just pick my device and I say, hey, create an image of a dog

biting a pizza and running through the fields. It takes one second. And in a very interesting way, that basically will create two very distinct categories. So me as an author, I used to write books, then come talk to you, you about them, then create online content for them, right? That's no longer going to be the case. Because I think there were 62,000 books published last year. Next year, there will be 120,000. Because everyone now can go to a tool, an AI tool and say, hey, write me 180 pages book

about stress and the impact of stress on humanity, and how do we fix it. And poof, it would be done. Just like you use CHAPT to write an essay for school, you can write a crappy book. using AI. You can probably write a better book using AI if you put a little bit of human intelligence in it. So I'm shifting my approach. All of us were going to become artisans. It's quite interesting, huh? You can either become a real artist. So you use multimedia or oil paint or whatever and create something that becomes sort of the handcrafted antique. Okay, but if you're using technology to create graphics design, and logos, gone.

That's really interesting. I used to run my own translation business before I started, before I became a comedian and started doing this. And in the translation industry, machine translation has been going on for a long time, and this has been a big part of the conversation. And I always used to say to people, there will be human translation still,

but it will be like the market for tailored clothing. It will be a boutique exclusive elite thing that some people purchase for very high value important things, most of the day-to-day stuff will be made in Primark. 100%. Basically. That's what's about to happen to the knowledge workers, and then the robotics will come.

Robotics will follow, right? And self-driving cars, for example, is a clear one. But you have to imagine that from a hardware point of view because of the asset costs, replacement cycles takes four or five years, right? It's not like someone will walk out there tomorrow and they'll have a fleet of 2,000, cars and they'll say, done, let's replace all of the 2000 cars tomorrow. Even if there are savings to be done on self-driving, there is acceptance and adaptation of people for the technology, but also at the same time, just probably as a business, you're

going to make a simple decision to say all cars that reach their life limit don't replace them with normal cars, replace them with self-driving cars, right? And I tend to believe that the hardware incarnation of artificial intelligence, other than sadly in defense is going to take maybe five to 10 years. So a smooth segue into your latest book is how does one prepare oneself for whatever the hell is coming because nobody actually knows what it is that's coming. Exactly. So unstressable is, so I write on a mission.

I truly do. I mean, my first book, Sofer, Happy was backed by a mission called One Billion Happy. And my attempt was to try and use technology. and a logical approach to the topic to reach millions and millions and millions of people. Tell people that happiness is your birthright, basically, and that it's attainable, okay? Moving from there, I started to actually recognize

that it's not just learning how to be happy that matters, it's how to stop being unhappy. That is really the big issue. There are multiple topics in the world that are causing a lot of unhappiness, a lot of well-being issues, a lot of mental health issues, health issues, stress is very high on that list. And most people don't recognize that 70 to 80

percent, can you believe this, 70 to 80 percent of clinical visits to go to a doctor are because of a stress-related illness. So diabetes is frequently stress-related, you know, obesity is stress-related, you know, cardiac diseases of most sorts are stress-related and so on. So I worked with Alice. Alice is my co-author on this book to try and do two different approaches to this. One is, Alice and I are almost diametrically opposite. Yin and Yang in every possible way. I am a very serious engineer. My writing method, even on topics that are as soft as happiness and stress and so on, is using equations and physics. So unstressable starts with what we call the stress equation and the burnout equation and it's a very, very logical approach so that you understand algorithmically what is happening.

And Alice, on the other hand, is that very feminine, very soft, very spiritual and emotional approach to the same topics. And I think that mix has not been acknowledged before, right? So this is one way of doing it. The other way, which I think was really interesting, is that half, not halfway, maybe a couple of months into writing the book, we went back and said, no, no, the book is unstressable. It's not distress. Right. So it's actually very, very interestingly positioned for what became our life today. We wrote this in 2021, 2022, is that it is about teaching you how to sort of go to the gym if you want so that you're fit when stress comes your way.

It's not, oh, you're stressed, let's help you become unstressed, okay? or distressed, right? So it is quite interesting when you start to digest, you know, dissect it this way, that there are simple habits, simple habits that are centered around the concept that it's not the event that stresses you. It's the way you deal with it that does.

Right? It's not the commute that stresses you, right? You can actually wait for your commute every day if you have a wonderful cup of coffee and maybe a friend to chat with or a podcast to listen to. Or, you know, if you time your commute a tiny bit, differently, it might actually be quite pleasurable and much less stressful and so on.

So tiny habits of that form. There's a man who hasn't spent any time in the British train system. That is, I have to tell you openly, there is a very interesting promise in Britain around you have to show up on time. It's absolutely impossible to show up on time. It's like the trains are never on time. And you're either early or late. It's like, what do you want me to do?

And if you're early, you're standing in the rain outside and it's cold and I don't know what to do here. I revert back to my Middle Eastern habits and I'm always a tiny, tiny little bit late. You notice today. But that's the idea. The idea, by the way, is even if you're about to be late, we came to you six minutes late today, right? It's okay as long as you know how to deal with that when you get information that the train is late. Okay. Can I text you, Constantine, and say, hey, by the way, I'm really sorry we're six minutes late.

there's no disrespectment here at all, right? And that those simple techniques fit within four categories. We call them mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual stress. And they're actually quite different when you look at them, that mental stress is all of those incessant thought cycles that happen within you, not happening in the real world at all. Like this conversation between us, everyone listening to this about artificial intelligence and the possibility of what artificial intelligence will cost us, okay?

But you're still okay right now, right now. Everything's fine right now. You have this, you know, grace period between now and then where you can actually do a lot of changes and you can, you know, work on yourself, work with your family, work on your skills, work on a lot of things. You can be ready for it, right? And so mental stress would lead you in the direction

where you sit in a corner and say, we're all going to die, okay? mental fitness, we have something that we wrote that's called the gym, GY M-M-M-M-S, 6-Ms, exercises that you use your brain for, you know, simple things like gratitude and meditations and so on, but much more complex ones as well that allow you to manage that machine that's called your brain so that when the stress comes, you're fit, right? Can you deal with your emotions a little bit better instead of suppressing them or exploding as a result of them? Can you acknowledge them and, you know, write them down and then understand them and deal with them in ways that actually allow you to use the energy association associated with an emotion. So that's, you know, instead of the emotion

crushing you, you use that energy to do something positive with it and so on. So it's a very pragmatic approach to look, shit's going to hit the fan, get ready, but do it right so that when, when, you know, things become more difficult, you're more fit to deal with them. Mo, do you also think as well that a lot of this is self-acceptance. For instance, there's some situations that I might find highly stressful, but you wouldn't. And also the opposite is true. So let's take the example of lateness. I hate being late. I'm very conscientious and I worry that my impact, that my lateness will have an impact on other people's lives and that will mean that they can't operate the way that they want to, etc., etc. So I don't know.

mind being half an hour early because I know that I will arrive there in a more relaxed state. I will be more productive. I find that highly stressful. Even arriving on time causes me to be very stressed. I don't like arriving on time. So I guess my point is we also need to have a greater degree of self-awareness to understand the things that we find stressful and the things that we that we don't and the things that we cope with and the things that we need help with. I think that's a great example, honestly. I think this would probably explain the whole thing very, very well. You see, we all get stressed by being late. I mean, in a... Not South Americans. My mother is very much to say, I was going to say in a society where on time

is seen as an important value, we all get stressed by being late, right? The approaches we take to it, so let me go from the basics. You can understand. You can understand you stand stress from a biological point of view as a reconfiguration of your hormonal makeup that basically makes you superhuman. Right? So the original design is there is a tiger attacking you and you have to get into fight or flight. That's the original design.

Similarly, you know, there is a threat in being late because your value set says I shouldn't be. I'm wasting people's time. You know, it's going to appear disrespectful and so on and so forth. So you use your cognitive abilities to, again, get the same. hormonal makeup cortisol in your blood, adrenaline sometimes, to attack that challenge in ways that make you superhuman, right? And superhuman is not just fight or flight, it's also your brain getting more glucose, it's your, you know, pupils dilating, it's more focus and concentration,

and so on, right? So, so, so interestingly, we all get stressed in the same way. The way we choose to respond to stress is very interestingly understood from physics. Okay, so when Alice and I were writing this, the first thing I did is I said, Alice, I will only be able to write properly about this topic if I understood the algorithms behind it. And if you look at physics, when you stress an object, it's not the challenge applied to it that is stress. Stress is the challenge divided by the cross-section of the object. If you apply a ton to a square meter of metal, there will be no stress at all. The ton is still heavy if you apply it to a pencil. It's crushed. And the trick here is this, is that most humans, one, we either accept some challenges

that are not necessary, that add up to the ton and lead to burnout, or we don't invest in the square area. So if you take the stress equation in humans, stress is the challenge you face divided by the resources and abilities you have to deal with it. Each of us develops those resources differently. But the game is, are you going to invest in developing those resources? So believe it or not, you and I, every one of us, you take something that freaked you out when you're 20, when you're 30, it's a little challenging, but not that challenging. When you talk to me now in my 50s, I laugh at it. Right? Is it because the challenge changed? Not at all. It's because I developed my square area. I remember vividly when I joined Google originally, one of my best

bosses ever was the head of me at the time. And he introduced me to the company. Literally, this is the first executive meeting. And he goes like, hey, everyone, this is Mo. He brings the average age of the company up. I swear, and that's it. He didn't say a single word. I was like, yes, and he brings that. And it was true. It was me and Alan Eustace and maybe Eric Schmidt and others. There was a group of us that were really above the average age of the company. Okay. So when the 2008 economic crisis happened, most of the company panicked. It's like, what? What do we do about this?

Eric, myself, Alan, and so on. We're like, yeah, it's not the first time. We've seen this before. We've dealt with this before. And the whole idea is once you develop that square area, you suddenly start to see a lot of what is stressing you as not stressful at all. That's exactly what my attempt is. This is why this is very timely.

Because a lot of the stress that we feel in today's world is not just because of the challenges we face today. It's what I call the anticipation of stress or anticipation of threats. So a very big chunk of why the world is stressed today is worry, anxiety, and panic. These are not about things happening to you right now. It's not that you lost your job and you're starving. It's your thinking that you might lose your job. that's worry but you're not sure yet. It's your anxiety about it and your panic about it if it's imminent.

And one of the things, again, algorithmically that explains this is very, very straightforward. If you take fear and all of its derivatives, and one of the reasons why we have so much anxiety and panic attacks is because we're treating them as fear. Anxiety is very different in fabric than fear. So worry, so if you assume that fear is, I know that a moment in the future is less safe to me than now. okay we had this conversation about artificial intelligence and we agree that it seems that

almost certain that the world is going to change right but we're not fully sure if it's going to change for the better or the worst likely for the worse in the beginning and then better hopefully later worry is not knowing that worry is will I lose my job or will I not lose my job right there is you know there are so many changes in the company am I going to be out of a job right Am I going to be out of a job? If you deal with it as worry, it's very different than if you deal with it as fear. If you know for a fact you're going to lose your job, you're going to start saving, right? Or you're going to start looking for another job.

Or you're going to act based on the challenge. If you're worried, you keep shuffling back and forth. You're undecided, you know, should I invest in this job so that I make sure I don't lose it? Or should I give up on this job and look for another job because I'm going to lose it? Right? My advice is if you're worried, don't treat it as fear. Treat it as worry and nail which side you want to be on. Is there a reason to be afraid? Am I going to assume that I'm losing my job and behave as such? Or am I going to assume that I'm not and behave as such? That eradicates the worry. Turns it into fear, but it eradicates the worry. The worry,

the uncertainty kills us, right? Anxiety is even more interesting. Because anxiety is not about the challenge that you're about to face. Anxiety is entirely focused on your own perception of your ability to deal with it. When I'm anxious, I know that there is something difficult coming and I believe that I'm not, you know, equipped to deal with it. If you focus on trying to address the issue that is coming, you're not fixing the problem. You're still anxious because you believe you're not ready for it. So when you're anxious, I tell people, stop thinking about that.

threat, start thinking about yourself. How can I give myself more skills? Do I actually not have the skills or do I actually have them but I'm not telling myself the truth? Can I, you know, borrow from someone else's experience if I'm not good in, you know, finances, for example, can I call an accountant friend and say, can you please do this for me? And so on and so forth. So when you're anxious, don't focus on the challenge. Focus on your skills around the challenge. Panic is simply because the threat is imminent. Your focus is not. the threat focuses time okay if I have a presentation on Thursday right and I'm panicking I'm panicking because Thursday's two days away okay so can I call and

delay the presentation can I cancel a few of my other things so that I give myself more time can I you know and so on it's it's so interesting that the skill itself is so muddled in our head and when you when you tell people just understand how stress works it becomes so much easier for you to deal with those things, then just to be constantly moving from a panic attack to an anxiety attack to, you know, uncertainty around worry to, it is just so confusing. Put it in the right places and you'll behave differently. The way you choose to behave is irrelevant. As long as you have the cross area, the skills and abilities to deal with the stress. You choose to arrive early,

your choice. I choose to tell people up front when they say, be here at 1030, I say, is it okay if I'm five, 10 minutes early or late. Okay? And I give myself that range before I even get on the train or even the day starts so that they're aware that I might be five minutes early or late. And then life becomes much easier for me. Well, it's been great having you on.

We've run out of time. We're going to go to locals to ask you questions from our supporters that they've already submitted. Before we do that, we always end with the same question, which is what's the one thing we're not talking about as a society that you think we should be? If all more answers a final question, at the end of the interview, make sure to click the link in the description and head over to our locals to see this. The challenge with Google is both a big company scale and a sense of responsibility, believe it or not.

Happiness is your perception of the events of your life, minus your expectations of how life should behave. What are, in your view, the biggest political and cultural reasons? while the US seems to be far the most reluctant major country to introduce AI legislation. The EU, China and India have introduced quite extensive legislation already. So why does the US seem to drag behind? What's the one thing we're not talking about as a society that you think we should be?

The truth. I think I mentioned that a couple of times. I think the sign of our time, honestly, is that there is a flood of information and a lot of distraction where most of us believe what we're told when in reality none of what we're told is true. The biggest skill in today's world is your ability to debate if what you're being told

is your truth. If someone tells you that this party is right and that party is wrong, they're both wrong. They're both right. They both have some topics that you should agree on on other topics that you should. It's the granularity that matters. If someone tells you that this you know, future is going to happen, even what I told you, debate it. Debate it. Okay, if someone shows you a video on Instagram, know that this is not entirely the truth. The biggest

issue with our world today is we have no ability, we've become dumb, right? We have no ability to vet what we go through first before we make up our minds on it. We sometimes label people. I know you're going on a tour with Jordan Peterson, for example. People will either label him as intelligent and wise or, you know, annoying and evil. Doesn't matter, by the way. Whatever you label him, doesn't matter. If he says something wise, it's wise. If he says something annoying, it's annoying. It's simple as that. And I think that reality of going beyond what's presented to us to actually find out what the truth, what my truth, there is no, it's very difficult to claim that there is one truth. But to be able to go beyond that presentation to find out what my truth is is the first step before you react to it. I think this is the sign of our times.

Thank you very much. Guys, head on over to locals where we ask Mo your questions. Could AI ask questions of itself such that it will one day become religious? A great question.