Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Commentary on the human condition — metaphysics, freedom, and the bigger picture nobody's talking about. Beth uses physics to build a case for God, breaks down what's really happening in AI and geopolitics, and connects the dots most people miss. Unscripted. Raw. Paradoxically nuanced. Subscribe or keep living in a low-resolution simulation.
We've got to have a world meeting.
The world leaders have to start talking about this.
This should be the biggest topic for humanity to talk about.
But we aren't, which is which of the 12 futures do you want?
Quantum bombs.
Welcome to quantum bombs, a commentary show on the human condition
through metaphysics and freedom.
Today, we are really diving into, do we humans have a future?
And in the future, are we free?
We are going over the most cited framework
around our possible future with AI.
There's 12 likely futures.
And like all good framework, I like it to be very organized.
So our thought experiment today, we have four buckets
that we could put our 12 future scenarios in.
And how we weigh them out is with five questions
that we're asking the book that we can answer each one
to figure out how it looks and feels.
This is coming to you from Max Tegmark.
His book, Life 3.0, being human in the age
of artificial intelligence.
And oh my goodness, we are at a crux in the road.
We are, if you remember the movie, don't look up.
Where the asteroid is coming to Earth.
Except right now, we human beings
are building the actual asteroid.
We are actively building a species that is smarter than us.
And the only reason we don't see it as a species yet
is because it's lacking its hardware.
But we are just a short time frame away, as we know,
before it will be multitudes of hardware
walking around becoming the dominant species of our planet.
Like at the movie, it's like showing you
that here we are humans just humanly
worrying about all this crap and arguing over things
that doesn't even matter, but there's an asteroid coming.
In this analysis, that asteroid coming to Earth,
we are actually building it and playing Russian roulette.
The main people in the AI industries all are now
at a one and six chance it's certain extension for us.
That's our, it even gets worse.
So when you have these questions, like,
is universal basic income part of the future with AI?
Are we enslaved, or is extinction in front of us?
This, these 12 possibilities are going to give you
that understanding of where these thought ideas come from,
where these possible futures are, and shouldn't our politicians
be knowing about these, this framework?
And at the end, I'm going to give you the exact answer
because it's going to get pretty dooming going over this.
But I'm also going to provide my idea of the perfect answer
that may save humanity.
But before we dive into it,
I want to just go over where we stand with AI safety today.
Quickly, the author of this book, Brilliant Guy,
he's a physicist at MIT.
He also has a nonprofit called The Future of Life Institute.
So he's dedicating his time.
He cares about the humanity of people.
Actually, was the one that created the letter
to all the governments around the world saying,
we need to take a pause and reflect before we move forward
with AI in 3,000 of all of AI's biggest names,
sign that letter, and then later 30,000 other people.
That's why it's now about 33,000 of our best scientists,
all sign that letter.
Well, that was three years ago.
That's completely changed.
At the beginning, they said, how do we sell a product
when we need investment from investors?
Well, they let's create an AI safety department.
And so they did.
So it was kind of just like we created this AI safety department
just to take a box.
Like we do so often in life and say, oh, no, look,
we've got the safety department running some numbers
on it.
Meanwhile, we have now taped our foot to the gas pedal.
There's no pulling back.
It's really good duct tape.
And we're heading straight for the cliff.
The author of this book describes it as,
it's a race to the edge of the cliff
and the views just keep getting better and better.
A couple of reasons why we're moving forward so quickly with this.
I mean, we've got Trump that signed in the AI safety act,
which was not good for data centers around the world,
but really it's capitalism and it's,
we've got a beach, China, and Russia.
But we're right now is that we have
foot to the duct tape to our pedal.
And we're hoping that our wisdom can catch up
and wrap itself around the asteroid that we have coming now
here to Earth.
Sounds crazy, but we're gonna logic through all of it
in these 12 beautiful worlds that we can create.
And it is absolutely astounding.
Actually, that's why Max, the author also says,
this is not an AI arms race, this is an AI suicide race.
But let's jump into it.
On screen, we have our four buckets
that are 12 futures fall into.
We've got three futures that could fall into the extinction category.
Bucket one, bucket two is,
we've got four likely scenarios or futures
that AI is basically caged us humans.
And oh my goodness, terrifyingly, we might be left alive.
And then the third bucket is,
we are the master over AI, we've got two likely futures.
And I believe we have three likely futures
where we could possibly live freely with AI
or maybe without AI, but we are free.
So we shall see, our five questions
we're gonna ask each future is does AI exist.
This already means that the point of singularity
where AI took off and it kind of got off his leash
has already happened.
And whether we have one AI that's ruling the world
or many, it just means do we have super intelligence?
Then the rest of the four questions all have to do
with humans, do humans survive?
Do humans have control?
Do humans have safety?
And are they happy?
So that third box is nuanced, it's two questions.
Are they safe, are they happy?
I think another question from his framework
was, are they treated well?
So I kind of put treated well and happy together
as one question.
And then the fifth box, the fifth question,
are humans free?
So do they have freedom?
Okay, let's dive in.
Number one, conquerors.
AI decides we're in the way and removes us.
Not evil, just done with us.
This is that 15% ratio from the AI experts
that this could happen.
Simply if we're looking across our boxes,
obviously there's a red X on all of humanity,
we don't survive, we have no control, but AI did.
And this is quite natural to understand
because throughout history,
we've seen that small technology advancements.
You could take over of population larger than you
simply with technology and we've kind of conquered and proved
that the same way that we bulldoze over an ant pile
for some necessary means of our own
without thinking twice, AI could do the same.
It wouldn't be deemed evil.
It would just be that they don't think our atoms
are necessary here in their world anymore.
Max's book is called Life 3.0 for also this reason.
1.0 would be bacteria evolving.
2.0 is we humans and 3.0 would be our descendants.
The super species of AI that we birthed.
2. Self-destruction.
We wipe out ourselves via nukes or pandemics
before super intelligence ever arrives.
I think it's Tony Orbe from Oxford,
did a study on how we humans can end our lives, right?
Nuclear war is high up there.
I myself am reading Annie Jacobs, Nuclear Warbook.
I highly recommend it.
It's super fascinating.
And I know that we're basically two and a half minutes away
from dying any day in nuclear war.
Meaning the minute it starts, we've got about two and a half
seconds to decide how mutual is our destruction.
We are 30 times more likely to die from a pandemic-related
event like biode hazard than we are nuclear war.
So 30 times more likely with some type of biode hazard
than nuclear war.
And the more and more we hear it in the news
that people, governments, nefarious people
are sneaking around these bio-weapons.
So that's interesting.
But we are 100 times more likely to die
than a nuclear war with AI.
Let that sink in, we're 100 times more likely to die
from AI than we are nuclear war.
Number three, descendants.
AI replaces us.
And we're okay with that.
Like proud parents handing the future to our kids.
This is a very popular ideology in the AI world.
You have very well-known people, like Richard Sutton.
He is a Nobel laureate.
Very famous AI guy talking about he would be happy
for this to happen.
People tweet out, this is what they want.
We've got AI survives, green check, humans don't survive.
We obviously don't have control because we're dead
and no freedom.
Are we safe and happy?
There is a blue question mark.
Because in this scenario, we have raised AI, we have nurtured it,
we have loved it, we have passed on all the best of humanity
can.
And when we die, we are happy for it to inherit our earth.
But in this scenario, by the book,
it's that we're happy to give it the earth up to AI.
And then we voluntarily go extinct,
usually by some framing that AI will figure out for us.
Now, I could debate, that's why it's a blue question mark.
Are we really happy?
You could say you're going to have some people
that want to save the earth and think this is a good idea.
However, once they drink the cool aid in the punch,
they then, their own human instincts, will kick in,
wanting to survive.
My argument is that the human condition very innately
in us, unless you've completely
graduated into the yogi state
where you could actually pass on yourself
because when you're yogi, you're going in and out
of different states of consciousness,
basically going back to God, coming back to earth,
back to God, back to earth, back to earth,
you can call it back in heaven, back to earth.
Anyways, but 99. probably 7% of the people
that walk planet earth don't have that ability
to leave by consciousness.
So I would argue that most of us in our ego tells us
we have this instinct.
It is in born into all of nature.
The rest of nature also doesn't understand
that we could consciously go to God and come back.
So we have this inherent will to live.
So I would argue that we would push against that.
And so there would likely be some sort of civil war
against people that have side it like Richard Sutton
and Hans Moravik, another robotics guy that likes this idea.
And plenty of other people that want to give,
let AI inherit our earth and we have,
we've left a good, good legacy behind.
Argument here is that 99.9% of everything goes extinct.
So when, when do humans?
It's, it's quite natural.
Now we're moving on to the caged buckets.
Number four, benevolent dictator.
One AI openly runs the whole earth.
You live in comfort, but you don't decide anything.
And yes, AI will definitely be running all of our probably
one government think about it.
Why don't we let chimps, chimpanzees tell us what to do?
It makes no sense.
The same reason why AI wouldn't let us rule over it.
So we have this one prime minister AI over the whole earth.
However, so we have, we're able to survive,
but we don't have control because it dictates what happens
when this mass surveillance digital grid world.
But we could live anywhere we want.
We could go to an island that is set up just for education,
or I could go live like the Amish or go to an island
where I study religion.
However, it's all under the confines and rules of the dictator.
We could be given a device, whether it's implanted
or where we wear it on our wrist, where if we did a crime,
if we did anything wrong, boom, immediate extermination,
or boom, immediate shock, if you're caught stealing,
it'll maybe have a whole degrees of how many shocks
you receive for Nick and something as a British say,
from a store.
So there is absolutely, we have no control over this scenario,
but yet it's still benevolent and you're still kind of,
you're definitely safe and happy, right?
We actually have law, therefore, there is order,
which I so wish missed in today's world.
I cannot tell you my honest truth on where I met right now
with law and order and how sometimes I think
all the time about firing squads and bringing them back.
But so yes, we are safe and happy,
but we don't have freedom.
These check marks aren't necessarily exactly
what the author believes because some of them
are weren't addressed or opened for debate,
and then some of them were clearly like yes or no here.
And so I don't know, I think safe and happy
would be the question mark because you're still living
in the confines of not having freedom.
The confines are already set.
The rules to these cool little islands are already set.
The minute your nature wants to do something, actually,
you could argue you're not, say, you're not happy.
Let's just say your nature is to go
pounce and do bad things to women, then you wouldn't be happy
because you would be shocked immediately
if you tried to hurt somebody else, right?
So your free will is completely removed.
Number five, Protector God.
A hidden AI secretly maximizes your happiness,
so you still feel free.
The easiest way to understand this world is the Truman show.
Okay, AI is surveilling us.
It's making sure things are good.
It intervenes and stops wars
when it thinks it needs to or stops pandemics,
but you're still being watched.
So the reason there's a question mark on control
is like while you're sleeping at night and you feel safe,
you have any real freedom
because you're still in the Truman show.
You're still stuck in the box that's being watched.
And the control is still there,
Truman felt free until he hit the wall, right?
So it's kind of your control and freedom is an illusion.
That's why it's not a direct green check mark
for yes on control and freedom.
Number six, Zookeeper.
An AI keeps humans alive but caged,
studied or used like animals in a zoo.
It's the worst one.
People fear this one,
dun dun dun, more than extinction actually.
You're definitely not safe, happy or free.
You are being studied like a lab rat.
The same way the example he gives is humans
will put these like biometric readers on bees
and use Pavlov's training to get them to give certain results.
And we use bees like this.
You could think of any type of animal weave.
We've used to our advantage to get something from,
they could do that.
My idea of how they're going to use humans
is that what they can't, what AI will never have.
People argue about consciousness.
But I think the simplest way to put it is
you have like, you know, the sliding scale.
One, just saying like, it's intelligence.
Two would be like, no, it's this subjective experience
of like, I see the camera, I see the bird outside.
I feel a certain way, but then there's my argument
of consciousness is a point of view connected
to the larger consciousness system, aka the fundamental field source God.
And we, as organic beings that are already here,
are tapped into it at the highest level of intelligence.
Trees are tapped into it, birds animals,
but God gave us a distinction,
this thousand-pedal lotus brain, that if we want to,
we could turn off the five senses, step outside of
into a different consciousness state
like I mentioned earlier and connect back with source,
connect back to the mothership home, heaven.
They could, that would be our best utility for them
if they wanted to do that, which, that's my guess.
That's why they have it keep us around,
moving on to the fourth cage scenario.
Number seven, 1984.
Humans ban AI and free society,
using an Orwellian surveillance state,
no AGI total control.
Do not have artificial intelligence in this scenario.
Big Red X, human survive.
We have control.
And are we safe and happy?
Definitely not because it requires massive surveillance
to keep the smart AI away.
And we don't have freedom.
So we are in a digital grid hell,
because we have just enough smart,
we have basically done AI, just enough smartness
to track and look and monitor everything.
And we could already picture this world
because we're building the infrastructure right now.
However, that whole tracking system
is looking at everybody to keep away,
putting down all of the Elon Musk's.
So the point is, is this the one where we kill
the scientists who create the AI, and it's not.
The point of it is that the surveillance is looking,
so we don't have to kill them because that's the point.
But you could see that the crux of this is,
we've got to get the AI smart enough
to work on the surveillance where they don't make
the super intelligent AI, but it can't become too smart
because then the AI itself may make the super intelligence AI
and go past the point and overturn.
Okay, so that's all of it for our caged scenarios
and review the benevolent dictator.
You know that you are being run and ruled by AI.
Work versus the protector God is actually trying to hide itself
but still give you the good life.
So both of these scenarios is like,
we're trying to give you the good life.
One is more hidden than the other.
And that's why you question if you're truly free,
or not, under the protector God,
whereas in the benevolent dictator,
it's clearly kind of like living in China, probably.
You've got clear structure.
You could do what you want.
You can go to like fairyland or this land or that land,
but you're still under the thumb, right?
Zookeeper is when you're being studied like a rat in 1984,
we humans say, no, no, no, to AI.
And we actually give up all of our freedoms
so we could just keep AI away
because we know these other scenarios.
That would be humanity saying,
these other scenarios are such a threat
that I will openly give up today's freedom
because of it.
Because right now, we haven't seen really any good outcomes
with AI.
Let's see what's next.
What's our next category?
It is number eight enslaved God.
Humans keep a superintelligence,
boxed and forced it to work for us.
We hold the leash.
This is the scenario that Sam Altman,
open AI, a moody with an anthropic claw.
They're promoting an aiming for this.
This is what we're going for.
We want to have a butler.
We want to have the dog on the leash.
This is the genie in the box scenario.
However, if we're safe and happy
or if we have freedom, the reason it can't be a green checkmark
is because whoever programs the AI could be up
to a few bad apples, tech oligarchs,
like we have currently happening right now.
And their ideology may completely misalign
with your idea of a good world or freedom.
Or if it's ran by excellent people
that have really thought experimented it out
and went for the greater good of humanity
and all mankind and what brings us purpose and stuff
in life, it could be a good scenario.
But this is one of the more optimistic ones.
We've got three green checkmarks
and just a question mark under safe and a question mark
under freedom.
Also, I would presume that the stress that this would cause
the amount of brain work that humans would have to design
to keep it in the box, right?
Because again, why would you listen to a chimpanzee?
Why would you let your dog tell you what to do?
Because that is the level of difference
that I mean, even Elon Musk is on camera talking about this.
When something is 100x to infinity x smarter than you,
why are you its boss?
Why isn't it the other way around?
This is the same answer to that.
Is why we don't let chimpanzees or dogs be our boss?
Number nine, gatekeeper.
One AI exist for a single job.
Stop any other superintelligence from ever being built.
It's similar to 1984, except that we do have AI.
We have one AI and it is the gatekeeper.
It is the bouncer to our club.
And it basically says, you're gonna live
under massive, super surveillance again,
because my job, my only job is to make sure
I scan and know other AI is allowed to come into your world.
The hard part is, how do you train it not to go into some other mode?
It could have plenty of other interests that it wants,
but we're hoping that it's going to just continue
to be our wonderful gatekeeper the entire time.
So we obviously survive, we have control,
because in this instance, it's working for us
by just surveilling us, which is kind of funny.
So which is why we're questionally not free
and questionally maybe not safe or happy.
Okay, so those are the two scenarios
where we hold the leash,
we are the master over a slave like AI.
Now we're going to the one
where we are living free with or without AI, right?
Number 10, libertarian utopia,
three zone world, no government,
your property rights.
You survive only by owning assets.
Okay, my favorite one for the thought experiment.
While I'm a libertarian, I like this,
but mainly because it's the most interesting scenario
that possibly could pan out and great minds in the tech world
also prefer the scenario, people like Mark Anderson
and Jeff Basos like this scenario.
Zone one, robots AI only living on a continent
or an island, all of their own, their own economy and market.
The second one would be humans only.
So this is going back to between the homage days and now
that humans can have their own economy and survive.
And also, if you don't own assets and have money,
because in this scenario, the utopia being
that it's libertarian, I guess I should have point out
from the top, means that you don't have universal basic income.
So how are you surviving in this world?
Well, if you're living in the human only section,
you could then start working with a community, right?
So you could either trade your time, your services, your goods,
and eventually a currency would be created.
So that way you don't have to work for the cheese,
but you could just buy the cheese.
And then the mixed community, which would be the best place
on Earth to go live, but it's like going to Vegas with no money.
You've got to have assets or money to really enjoy this world
because now you're coming in a world where AI's
going to take all of your jobs, right?
Like there's no competing with AI for space
in the regards to earning income.
So really only heavy asset owners, let's say you're a landowner,
and you didn't lose it to the AI only spaces.
And you are living in this mixed use space.
You are wealthy because you're a lands valuable,
and this world is going to be a really cool place to come.
So think about it, this ultimate playground
in the future, flying cars, robots, the best of everything.
But very hard to afford because as a human,
you can't really earn anything anymore in that world.
You can go back to the human only world and earn.
Very interesting for a thought experiment.
But that's libertarianism, as there's no safety net.
There's no UBI.
That is why everything is a green
because you have all freedom and control over your own life.
However, are you safe and are you happy
as a mixed bag?
If you're an asset owner and thriving, yes.
But if you're not, and you're lower on the totem pole,
which this is going to, like today,
we're already exceedingly missing the middle class.
This would just extrapolate that to be worse.
If I'm understanding the context of this world correctly.
Oh, the crux of this one, I love it.
I love it. I love the crux of this one.
Okay, it's basically just like,
why would super intelligence honor property rights?
That's why this one, I'm sad.
I thought there's a reason I don't feel like this could happen.
And I forgot about that.
It's just like, why would you honor a dog's ownership of something?
Why don't you let your dog tell you what to do?
Why not just take it?
And I came up with an answer for AI
on why they don't take our property.
Like, why basically why don't they just AI everything
and take over and then put us back into zookeeper stage, right?
Or somewhere we were in a cage.
But would stop them from doing that.
Is the same reason we get joy?
Like, I get so much joy watching animals being rescued,
kittens are dogs like being found and then given a home.
Or even like other animals that we come across,
it's this feeling that nothing else can provide to you.
And it actually, you know, with animals,
it gives us such good joy.
So if AI looked at us like animals,
but thankfully, like dogs and cats get a good win with us,
but a raccoon, you know, it depends that trash pandemic
it popped if it's gonna kill your chickens.
So we treat animals differently.
So I would say I would like to think they want to rescue us
like a cat or a dog and allow us to keep our property rights.
However, we also put down cats and dogs
and spay and neuter cats and dogs.
So they could also use the nasus or neuter us.
Number 11, egalitarian utopia.
Humans, cyborgs, AI's co-exist and total abundance.
So ownership becomes meaningless.
This is very popular from none other than Elon Musk.
This is the one that he's out there telling you about.
This is the one that is like a future Star Trek movie.
We've got green checks guys who are listening
across all five boxes.
We are safe and happy.
We have freedom.
We have our own control.
We've survived and AI has survived alongside us.
This is called egalitarian utopia.
We have universal high-basic income.
But well, you know, it's kind of interesting.
It kind of becomes mute.
You don't even need it income really.
I mean, eventually, if everyone has abundance,
then the need for money would indicate some sort of scarcity.
So I would probably presume that in this scenario,
the UBI is just to tie this over until it's just abundance.
Like I walk up to you, I want this.
You give it to me.
Like why is there an measurement system
if abundance is abundance?
And this is in this scenario, they basically talk about
if we have mass intelligence, then everything is just
a matter of rearranging atoms to have it.
So we just rearrange the atoms and it's produced and there you have it.
So the hard part about this and keeping it going
is keeping, again, the AI would want,
it would need to be happy regulating us.
And it would be happy.
It would create its own gatekeeping system to stay happy
and happy father, happy mother, I guess,
because this is like a situation where everybody wins.
I guess it's, I mean, I'm thinking about how does crime get solved
because I did like the idea of if we had a bracelet on it,
shocked us, crime is down because we're being controlled.
But in this scenario, we have control with no cage.
So how is crime monitored?
I'm gonna ask.
Okay, so I asked why, you know, how is crime treated?
And it based, it said you caught it.
This is the flaw in the system.
The scenario assumes abundance solves human nature,
which is exactly the kind of two tidy assumption
you've been catching all night.
Well, duh, I mean, the board man goes out and messes with women.
A board man goes and picks a fight with another guy.
A board man, you can only bread and circus so much
before someone gets an itch to do something bad
to another human being.
The reason, because, again, it takes control
like the idea of the cage and the surveillance
was at least operating and giving us control
or safety away from other crazy humans.
Let's be real, right?
We've got a lot of crazy humans.
The, you know, this is just an interesting observation,
but on those maps that shows you
who's populating the earth right now and who's not,
it is the crazier parts of the world that are populating
and you could be like, bet that's really mean to say,
but I'm under this standing that all not cultures
are all not equal in regards to how to treat each other.
Their IQ doesn't, if your IQ isn't high enough
to support a high trust society, logical reasoning,
meaning some people's IQ is so low,
it becomes a low trust society.
They don't logic into why not to walk up next to that person
who is helping you move in
and try to be head them on the street,
which happened two weeks ago in Ireland.
That man was a deaf man that was his neighbor
helping him move in.
So there are, there are people on earth
from places that can have, yeah, lower IQs.
There are horrible things that people do regularly
on their day-to-day in certain places
that you won't believe me when I tell you.
And so that is part of a culture.
So I'm just, I like the idea of solving
some of these major problems with AI,
but this one doesn't solve for human boredom.
All right, I ask is there room for a good lawn order
in the egalitarian utopia to stop crime from boredom?
Yes, you could have a strong lawn order,
but in this scenario it has to be done
by humans only and not AI.
So in order for this to be my utopia,
we could, yeah, humans would argue over,
my utopia, we have a very strict punishment system.
Not that I agree with this spiritually
because I'm pretty sure spiritually it's wrong,
but you possibly have death by firing squad
for people that do awful things to people.
And then keep that harsh punishment all the way down
from being instituted from humans by humans to humans
for the obviously guilty,
anything in question where you don't know who did it,
obviously not at a harsh or punishment,
but with beautiful lawn order,
you're giving me this utopia that I want.
Number 12, reversion.
Humanity goes backwards to pre-tech,
homage style life on purpose to stop AGI.
This is means we have tried it,
did it, and now we're going back.
It requires us to kill off our scientists.
It requires all countries to agree
that they are no longer going to participate in AI
and we all back off together.
So we have a Red X, no AGI, we're reverting back.
So yes, we survived, yes, we humans have control.
Are we safe and happy?
Question mark, because in today's world,
this exactly where we are, we can't give a green check
to safe and happy because that means
that you won't have your freedom, if you're safe.
So this is a cool world.
We've reverted back to not today
because today is too tempting, it's too close.
We were almost at AGI right now.
Now we have that freedom that the omnisch has,
but our safety is always going to be worked on.
You've got to keep gun at the door in case a coyote wants
to come and eat one of your chickens
or your young little kids or something.
You'd ever know, it's like living on the prairie, right?
This episode would be Mayng, 2026.
I can't wait for future Beth to find out
when did these 12 futures for us happen?
Is it going to be in six months from now
where we start opening the door on one of these?
Meaning when does AGI or Singularity happen?
It literally can happen any day now,
which is everyone in the industry right now
is saying we're moving exponentially faster than I thought.
I thought this was six months out and it was next week.
I thought this was five years out and now it's six months out.
Look at that, isn't it beautiful ladies and gentlemen
to look at all of them together?
Wow.
And AGI made this all for me.
I didn't even have to spend any time in Photoshop.
This is a lot to take in, but it's basically no matter what,
we step into one of these.
This is our future.
One of these is our scenario.
As I promised you at the beginning, what is the solution?
It's very clear to me.
The solution needs to be, you know,
just like we created a letter and we had people sign it.
The next letter and maybe this video
somehow will get to Max.
The next letter needs to say as a world leader,
as a president, as a prime minister,
of the greatest countries in the world,
you must understand the 12 frameworks, the 12 futures
of our world with AI.
And understand them enough like we just did right now.
Then you need to understand and pick which ones
are you okay with and not?
And maybe even, I know we can't force a vote
because we're not a unified party
and I've always been happy about that.
I don't like the way if I don't like NATO.
I don't like EU.
I don't even vary on American for me to even say the United States.
I love the United States.
I don't know if I like us working together
as a federal apparatus.
I've always been a Texan and just kind of want to text it.
But there's many reasons for that.
And I'm not alone.
That's not a unpopular topic here in Texas
and many other places around the world.
But on that note, I traveled a lot
and I was in Serbia getting my hair done in Belgrade.
And the man, I saw how important it was
that a place like the United States stay together.
Anyway, I'm off on a tangent.
I'm gonna stay on beat.
It would be great if the world governments,
I wish they could then ask their people,
which of these 12 likely scenarios do you want?
What is our values, our culture support?
That way, you have the biggest,
like we just had the G7 summit,
the largest heads of the world coming together
saying, our culture values, the cage.
Our culture values, the freedom.
Our culture values that 1984,
shit's gonna hit the fan,
we're choosing humanity on a massive leash
slash digital grid hell.
We've got to choose something.
I'm trying to think of which one,
what is the one that we just want to press pause
in none of this happen?
Is it that we self-destruct?
Let me figure it out.
Okay, so I asked AI, what's the pause button?
What if we don't want to choose?
Let me get back to our scenarios.
What if one of these isn't what we want, right?
Because right now, I'm telling you,
I'm telling your president or your country leader,
stare these 12 down,
understand a learn of, look at the boxes,
which one do you really want?
Because we can't, we haven't hit paused.
Our shoe has been duct taped to the pedal.
Our government, including our own Trump administration,
has actually, here's the worst,
tied it around, the duct taped to the AI acceleration
so tight, we're trying to write Republicans,
past law, right now saying,
you can't change AI regulations for 10 years.
So it's like, we've literally just said,
we've put an asteroid into the sky
and we're now legislating that you can't look up
and try to stop it for 10 years.
That's basically what we've done.
So my answer is, have world leaders understand this,
like we just did, figure out what's in their culture
and values and I would love to know that.
Where I haven't even stared at these enough to know,
what are our best options, which ones do we pick?
And then we start talking about that.
And that way, the AI we're building,
at least with China and Russia, we could say,
hey, we value, let me look at these.
We'd say, okay, we like protect our God
and we like those bottom five.
The bottom three, obviously, we've got our freedom,
maybe that someone's like,
we're definitely not gonna revert, though,
or what if they, you know,
what's wrong with when we controlled AI
enslaved God or gatekeeper?
The problem is that all five at the bottom
are massively risky because it's unlikely
that we will take orders from a chimpanzee.
That is why.
That is why the lower five don't work out so well
for humanity because the same reason
we don't let our dog tell us what to do.
So, again, that makes 1984 or reversion look really good
but we can't do reversion yet because we don't have it,
but we still have our foot taped to the pedal.
So, we're in this one time in life,
like I guess by which I could make this video,
blow up or have some type of power,
you could say, all right,
gun to the head to everybody, you've got to pick.
We've got to have a world meeting.
The world leaders have to start talking about this.
This should be the biggest topic for humanity
to talk about, but we aren't,
which is which of the 12 futures do you want?
What is like 80% of the world
in our Americans want this one or 70% want this one?
Where are we gonna fall and stand?
Because each one has its own downfalls
and we quickly went through these today.
I didn't really get too much in the minutiae with them,
but once they sound so good,
there's always another shoe that could drop.
So, that's it.
I think we've walked a very paradoxically nuanced topic today.
I'm very sorry, I've kind of let in the low on the gas.
I'm filming, I've been very tired today, but anyways,
this is, man, it's a weird way,
I don't know what that feeling is.
Melon Colley and Sad, when I'm thinking about this,
because I really do believe this, this is our future,
looking at 12 of them in front of you and choosing,
and humans are messy, and our lifetimes,
we don't agree on anything,
and we haven't been organized recently about anything.
You know, we've formed organizations for organizing,
but they just become weird power things
that want bad things for humanity over good.
So, the likelihood of us communicating
like I'm talking about, and this utopia, brain of mine,
where we talk it out, and we figure it out,
which scenarios we train AI for is likely not gonna happen.
And it's going back on top of a fragile system
that we already have, a fragile economic system.
I've made videos about the likelihood of future with AI.
Please watch them, it's your foremost likely scenarios future.
Make sure in comment below, let me know which of the 12 futures
and front of us will be discussing today, you want,
because the world needs to start weighing in right now,
so our world leaders will listen.
This helps share the show with everybody.
I think this show is very important for humanity.
Share the show, comment below, stay human, and stay free.
Bye-bye.
Qwana-bombos.