back to indexSteven Pinker: AI in the Age of Reason | Lex Fridman Podcast #3
link |
You've studied the human mind, cognition, language, vision, evolution, psychology, from child to adult,
link |
from the level of individual to the level of our entire civilization,
link |
so I feel like I can start with a simple multiple choice question.
link |
What is the meaning of life? Is it A, to attain knowledge, as Plato said,
link |
B, to attain power, as Nietzsche said, C, to escape death, as Ernest Becker said,
link |
D, to propagate our genes, as Darwin and others have said, E, there is no meaning,
link |
as the nihilists have said, F, knowing the meaning of life is beyond our cognitive capabilities,
link |
as Stephen Pinker said, based on my interpretation 20 years ago, and G, none of the above.
link |
I'd say A comes closest, but I would amend that to attaining not only knowledge, but fulfillment
link |
more generally. That is, life, health, stimulation, access to the living cultural and social world.
link |
Now, this is our meaning of life. It's not the meaning of life, if you were to ask our genes.
link |
Their meaning is to propagate copies of themselves, but that is distinct from the
link |
meaning that the brain that they lead to sets for itself. So, to you, knowledge is a small subset
link |
or a large subset? It's a large subset, but it's not the entirety of human striving, because we
link |
also want to interact with people. We want to experience beauty. We want to experience the
link |
richness of the natural world, but understanding what makes the universe tick is way up there.
link |
For some of us more than others, certainly for me, that's one of the top five.
link |
So, is that a fundamental aspect? Are you just describing your own preference, or is this a
link |
fundamental aspect of human nature, is to seek knowledge? In your latest book, you talk about
link |
the power, the usefulness of rationality and reason and so on. Is that a fundamental
link |
nature of human beings, or is it something we should just strive for?
link |
Both. We're capable of striving for it, because it is one of the things that
link |
make us what we are, homo sapiens, wise men. We are unusual among our animals in the degree to
link |
which we acquire knowledge and use it to survive. We make tools. We strike agreements via language.
link |
We extract poisons. We predict the behavior of animals. We try to get at the workings of plants.
link |
And when I say we, I don't just mean we in the modern west, but we as a species everywhere,
link |
which is how we've managed to occupy every niche on the planet, how we've managed to drive other
link |
animals to extinction. And the refinement of reason in pursuit of human well being, of health,
link |
happiness, social richness, cultural richness, is our main challenge in the present. That is,
link |
using our intellect, using our knowledge to figure out how the world works, how we work,
link |
in order to make discoveries and strike agreements that make us all better off in the long run.
link |
Right. And you do that almost undeniably in a data driven way in your recent book,
link |
but I'd like to focus on the artificial intelligence aspect of things, and not just
link |
artificial intelligence, but natural intelligence too. So 20 years ago in the book, you've written
link |
on how the mind works, you conjecture, again, am I right to interpret things? You can correct me
link |
if I'm wrong, but you conjecture that human thought in the brain may be a result of a network, a massive
link |
network of highly interconnected neurons. So from this interconnectivity emerges thought,
link |
compared to artificial neural networks, which we use for machine learning today,
link |
is there something fundamentally more complex, mysterious, even magical about the biological
link |
neural networks versus the ones we've been starting to use over the past 60 years and
link |
become to success in the past 10? There is something a little bit mysterious about
link |
the human neural networks, which is that each one of us who is a neural network knows that we
link |
ourselves are conscious, conscious not in the sense of registering our surroundings or even
link |
registering our internal state, but in having subjective first person, present tense experience.
link |
That is, when I see red, it's not just different from green, but there's a redness to it that I
link |
feel. Whether an artificial system would experience that or not, I don't know and I don't think I
link |
can know. That's why it's mysterious. If we had a perfectly lifelike robot that was behaviorally
link |
indistinguishable from a human, would we attribute consciousness to it or ought we to attribute
link |
consciousness to it? And that's something that it's very hard to know. But putting that aside,
link |
putting aside that largely philosophical question, the question is, is there some difference between
link |
the human neural network and the ones that we're building in artificial intelligence will mean that
link |
we're on the current trajectory not going to reach the point where we've got a lifelike robot
link |
indistinguishable from a human because the way their so called neural networks are organized
link |
are different from the way ours are organized. I think there's overlap, but I think there are some
link |
big differences that their current neural networks, current so called deep learning systems are in
link |
reality not all that deep. That is, they are very good at extracting high order statistical
link |
regularities. But most of the systems don't have a semantic level, a level of actual understanding
link |
of who did what to whom, why, where, how things work, what causes, what else.
link |
Do you think that kind of thing can emerge as it does so artificial neural networks are much
link |
smaller the number of connections and so on than the current human biological networks? But do you
link |
think sort of go to consciousness or to go to this higher level semantic reasoning about things?
link |
Do you think that can emerge with just a larger network with a more richly, weirdly interconnected
link |
network? Separate it in consciousness because consciousness is even a matter of complexity.
link |
A really weird one. Yeah, you could sensibly ask the question of whether shrimp are conscious,
link |
for example. They're not terribly complex, but maybe they feel pain. So let's just put that
link |
part of it aside. But I think sheer size of a neural network is not enough to give it
link |
structure and knowledge. But if it's suitably engineered, then why not? That is, we're neural
link |
networks. Natural selection did a kind of equivalent of engineering of our brains. So I don't think
link |
there's anything mysterious in the sense that no systemated of silicon could ever do what a human
link |
brain can do. I think it's possible in principle. Whether it'll ever happen depends not only on
link |
how clever we are in engineering these systems, but whether even we even want to, whether that's
link |
even a sensible goal. That is, you can ask the question, is there any locomotion system that is
link |
as good as a human? Well, we kind of want to do better than a human ultimately in terms of
link |
legged locomotion. There's no reason that humans should be our benchmark. They're tools that might
link |
be better in some ways. It may be that we can't duplicate a natural system because at some point,
link |
it's so much cheaper to use a natural system that we're not going to invest more brain power
link |
and resources. So for example, we don't really have an exact substitute for wood. We still build
link |
houses out of wood. We still build furniture out of wood. We like the look. We like the feel. It's
link |
wood has certain properties that synthetics don't. There's not that there's anything magical or
link |
mysterious about wood. It's just that the extra steps of duplicating everything about wood is
link |
something we just haven't bothered because we have wood. Likewise, cotton. I'm wearing cotton
link |
clothing now. It feels much better than polyester. It's not that cotton has something magic in it,
link |
and it's not that we couldn't ever synthesize something exactly like cotton,
link |
but at some point, it's just not worth it. We've got cotton. Likewise, in the case of human
link |
intelligence, the goal of making an artificial system that is exactly like the human brain
link |
is a goal that we probably know is going to pursue to the bitter end, I suspect, because
link |
if you want tools that do things better than humans, you're not going to care whether it
link |
does something like humans. So for example, diagnosing cancer or predicting the weather,
link |
why set humans as your benchmark? But in general, I suspect you also believe that even if the human
link |
should not be a benchmark and we don't want to imitate humans in their system, there's a lot
link |
to be learned about how to create an artificial intelligence system by studying the humans.
link |
Yeah, I think that's right. In the same way that to build flying machines, we want to understand
link |
the laws of aerodynamics, including birds, but not mimic the birds, but they're the same laws.
link |
You have a view on AI, artificial intelligence and safety, that from my perspective,
link |
is refreshingly rational, or perhaps more importantly, has elements of positivity to it,
link |
which I think can be inspiring and empowering as opposed to paralyzing. For many people,
link |
including AI researchers, the eventual existential threat of AI is obvious, not only possible but
link |
obvious. And for many others, including AI researchers, the threat is not obvious. So
link |
Elon Musk is famously in the highly concerned about AI camp, saying things like AI is far
link |
more dangerous than nuclear weapons, and that AI will likely destroy human civilization.
link |
So in February, you said that if Elon was really serious about AI, the threat of AI,
link |
he would stop building self driving cars that he's doing very successfully as part of Tesla.
link |
Then he said, wow, if even Pinker doesn't understand the difference between narrow AI
link |
like a car and general AI, when the latter literally has a million times more compute power
link |
and an open ended utility function, humanity is in deep trouble. So first, what did you mean by
link |
the statement about Elon Musk should stop building self driving cars if he's deeply concerned?
link |
Well, not the last time that Elon Musk has fired off an intemperate tweet.
link |
Well, we live in a world where Twitter has power.
link |
Yes. Yeah, I think there are two kinds of existential threat that have been discussed
link |
in connection with artificial intelligence, and I think that they're both incoherent.
link |
One of them is a vague fear of AI takeover, that just as we subjugated animals and less
link |
technologically advanced peoples, so if we build something that's more advanced than us,
link |
it will inevitably turn us into pets or slaves or domesticated animal equivalents.
link |
I think this confuses intelligence with a will to power that it so happens that in the
link |
intelligence system we are most familiar with, namely Homo sapiens, we are products of natural
link |
selection, which is a competitive process. And so bundled together with our problem solving
link |
capacity are a number of nasty traits like dominance and exploitation and maximization of
link |
power and glory and resources and influence. There's no reason to think that sheer problem
link |
solving capability will set that as one of its goals. Its goals will be whatever we set its goals
link |
as, and as long as someone isn't building a megalomaniacal artificial intelligence,
link |
then there's no reason to think that it would naturally evolve in that direction.
link |
Now you might say, well, what if we gave it the goal of maximizing its own power source?
link |
That's a pretty stupid goal to give an autonomous system. You don't give it that goal.
link |
I mean, that's just self evidently idiotic. So if you look at the history of the world,
link |
there's been a lot of opportunities where engineers could instill in a system destructive
link |
power and they choose not to because that's the natural process of engineering.
link |
Well, except for weapons. I mean, if you're building a weapon, its goal is to destroy
link |
people. And so I think there are good reasons to not build certain kinds of weapons. I think
link |
building nuclear weapons was a massive mistake. You do. So maybe pause on that because that is
link |
one of the serious threats. Do you think that it was a mistake in a sense that it should have been
link |
stopped early on? Or do you think it's just an unfortunate event of invention that this was
link |
invented? Do you think it's possible to stop, I guess, is the question on that? Yeah, it's hard to
link |
rewind the clock because, of course, it was invented in the context of World War II and the
link |
fear that the Nazis might develop one first. Then once it was initiated for that reason,
link |
it was hard to turn off, especially since winning the war against the Japanese and the Nazis was
link |
such an overwhelming goal of every responsible person that they were just nothing that people
link |
wouldn't have done then to ensure victory. It's quite possible if World War II hadn't happened
link |
that nuclear weapons wouldn't have been invented. We can't know. But I don't think it was, by any
link |
means, a necessity any more than some of the other weapon systems that were envisioned but never
link |
implemented, like planes that would disperse poison gas over cities like crop dusters or systems to
link |
try to create earthquakes and tsunamis in enemy countries, to weaponize the weather,
link |
weaponize solar flares, all kinds of crazy schemes that we thought the better of. I think
link |
analogies between nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence are fundamentally misguided because
link |
the whole point of nuclear weapons is to destroy things. The point of artificial intelligence
link |
is not to destroy things. So the analogy is misleading. So there's two artificial
link |
intelligence you mentioned. The first one was the highly intelligent or power hungry. Yeah,
link |
an assistant that we design ourselves where we give it the goals. Goals are external to the
link |
means to attain the goals. If we don't design an artificially intelligent system to maximize
link |
dominance, then it won't maximize dominance. It's just that we're so familiar with homo sapiens
link |
where these two traits come bundled together, particularly in men, that we are apt to confuse
link |
high intelligence with a will to power. But that's just an error. The other fear is that
link |
we'll be collateral damage that will give artificial intelligence a goal like make paper clips
link |
and it will pursue that goal so brilliantly that before we can stop it, it turns us into paper
link |
clips. We'll give it the goal of curing cancer and it will turn us into guinea pigs for lethal
link |
experiments or give it the goal of world peace and its conception of world peace is no people,
link |
therefore no fighting and so it will kill us all. Now, I think these are utterly fanciful. In fact,
link |
I think they're actually self defeating. They first of all assume that we're going to be so
link |
brilliant that we can design an artificial intelligence that can cure cancer. But so stupid
link |
that we don't specify what we mean by curing cancer in enough detail that it won't kill us in the
link |
process. And it assumes that the system will be so smart that it can cure cancer. But so
link |
idiotic that it doesn't can't figure out that what we mean by curing cancer is not killing
link |
everyone. So I think that the collateral damage scenario, the value alignment problem is also
link |
based on a misconception. So one of the challenges, of course, we don't know how to build either system
link |
currently, or are we even close to knowing? Of course, those things can change overnight,
link |
but at this time, theorizing about is very challenging in either direction. So that's
link |
probably at the core of the problem is without that ability to reason about the real engineering
link |
things here at hand is your imagination runs away with things. Exactly. But let me sort of ask,
link |
what do you think was the motivation, the thought process of Elon Musk? I build autonomous vehicles,
link |
I study autonomous vehicles, I study Tesla autopilot. I think it is one of the greatest
link |
currently application, large scale application of artificial intelligence in the world.
link |
It has a potentially very positive impact on society. So how does a person who's creating this
link |
very good, quote unquote, narrow AI system also seem to be so concerned about this other
link |
general AI? What do you think is the motivation there? What do you think is the thing?
link |
Well, you probably have to ask him, but there and he is notoriously flamboyant, impulsive to the,
link |
as we have just seen, to the detriment of his own goals of the health of a company.
link |
So I don't know what's going on in his mind. You probably have to ask him. But I don't think the,
link |
and I don't think the distinction between special purpose AI and so called general AI is relevant
link |
that in the same way that special purpose AI is not going to do anything conceivable in order to
link |
attain a goal, all engineering systems have to are designed to trade off across multiple goals.
link |
When we build cars in the first place, we didn't forget to install brakes because the goal of a
link |
car is to go fast. It occurred to people, yes, you want to go fast, but not always. So you build
link |
and brakes too. Likewise, if a car is going to be autonomous, that doesn't program it to take the
link |
shortest route to the airport. It's not going to take the diagonal and mow down people and trees
link |
and fences because that's the shortest route. That's not what we mean by the shortest route when we
link |
program it. And that's just what an intelligence system is by definition. It takes into account
link |
multiple constraints. The same is true, in fact, even more true of so called general intelligence.
link |
That is, if it's genuinely intelligent, it's not going to pursue some goal single mindedly,
link |
omitting every other consideration and collateral effect. That's not artificial and
link |
general intelligence. That's artificial stupidity. I agree with you, by the way,
link |
on the promise of autonomous vehicles for improving human welfare. I think it's spectacular.
link |
And I'm surprised at how little press coverage notes that in the United States alone,
link |
something like 40,000 people die every year on the highways, vastly more than are killed by
link |
terrorists. And we spend a trillion dollars on a war to combat deaths by terrorism,
link |
about half a dozen a year, whereas every year and year out, 40,000 people are
link |
massacred on the highways, which could be brought down to very close to zero.
link |
So I'm with you on the humanitarian benefit.
link |
Let me just mention that as a person who's building these cars, it is a little bit offensive to me
link |
to say that engineers would be clueless enough not to engineer safety into systems. I often
link |
stay up at night thinking about those 40,000 people that are dying. And everything I try to
link |
engineer is to save those people's lives. So every new invention that I'm super excited about,
link |
every new, all the deep learning literature and CVPR conferences and NIPS, everything I'm super
link |
excited about is all grounded in making it safe and help people. So I just don't see how that
link |
trajectory can all of a sudden slip into a situation where intelligence will be highly
link |
negative. You and I certainly agree on that. And I think that's only the beginning of the
link |
potential humanitarian benefits of artificial intelligence. There's been enormous attention
link |
to what are we going to do with the people whose jobs are made obsolete by artificial
link |
intelligence. But very little attention given to the fact that the jobs that are going to be
link |
made obsolete are horrible jobs. The fact that people aren't going to be picking crops and making
link |
beds and driving trucks and mining coal, these are soul deadening jobs. And we have a whole
link |
literature sympathizing with the people stuck in these menial, mind deadening, dangerous jobs.
link |
If we can eliminate them, this is a fantastic boon to humanity. Now, granted,
link |
we, you solve one problem and there's another one, namely, how do we get these people a decent
link |
income? But if we're smart enough to invent machines that can make beds and put away dishes and
link |
handle hospital patients, I think we're smart enough to figure out how to redistribute income
link |
to a portion, some of the vast economic savings to the human beings who will no longer be needed to
link |
make beds. Okay. Sam Harris says that it's obvious that eventually AI will be an existential risk.
link |
He's one of the people who says it's obvious. We don't know when the claim goes, but eventually
link |
it's obvious. And because we don't know when we should worry about it now. It's a very interesting
link |
argument in my eyes. So how do we think about timescale? How do we think about existential
link |
threats when we don't really, we know so little about the threat, unlike nuclear weapons, perhaps,
link |
about this particular threat, that it could happen tomorrow, right? So, but very likely it won't.
link |
Very likely it'd be 100 years away. So how do, do we ignore it? Do, how do we talk about it?
link |
Do we worry about it? What, how do we think about those? What is it?
link |
A threat that we can imagine, it's within the limits of our imagination, but not within our
link |
limits of understanding to sufficient, to accurately predict it. But what, what is, what is the it
link |
that we're referring to? Oh, AI, sorry, AI, AI being the existential threat. AI can always...
link |
How? But like enslaving us or turning us into paperclips?
link |
I think the most compelling from the Sam Harris perspective would be the paperclip situation.
link |
Yeah. I mean, I just think it's totally fanciful. I mean, that is, don't build a system. Don't give a,
link |
don't... First of all, the code of engineering is you don't implement a system with massive
link |
control before testing it. Now, perhaps the culture of engineering will radically change,
link |
then I would worry, but I don't see any signs that engineers will suddenly do idiotic things,
link |
like put a, an electrical power plant in control of a system that they haven't tested
link |
first. Or all of these scenarios not only imagine a almost a magically powered intelligence,
link |
you know, including things like cure cancer, which is probably an incoherent goal because
link |
there's so many different kinds of cancer or bring about world peace. I mean, how do you even specify
link |
that as a goal? But the scenarios also imagine some degree of control of every molecule in the
link |
universe, which not only is itself unlikely, but we would not start to connect these systems to
link |
infrastructure without, without testing as we would any kind of engineering system. Now,
link |
maybe some engineers will be irresponsible and we need legal and regulatory and legal
link |
responsibility implemented so that engineers don't do things that are stupid by their own standards.
link |
But the, I've never seen enough of a plausible scenario of existential threat to devote large
link |
amounts of brain power to, to forestall it. So you believe in the sort of the power en masse of
link |
the engineering of reason as you argue in your latest book of reason and science to sort of
link |
be the very thing that guides the development of new technology so it's safe and also keeps us
link |
safe. Yeah, the same, you know, granted the same culture of safety that currently is part of the
link |
engineering mindset for airplanes, for example. So yeah, I don't think that, that that should
link |
be thrown out the window and that untested, all powerful systems should be suddenly implemented.
link |
But there's no reason to think they are. And in fact, if you look at the
link |
progress of artificial intelligence, it's been, you know, it's been impressive, especially in
link |
the last 10 years or so. But the idea that suddenly there'll be a step function that all of a sudden
link |
before we know it, it will be all powerful, that there'll be some kind of recursive self
link |
improvement, some kind of fume is also fanciful. Certainly by the technology that we that we're
link |
now impresses us, such as deep learning, where you train something on hundreds of thousands or
link |
millions of examples, they're not hundreds of thousands of problems of which curing cancer is
link |
typical example. And so the kind of techniques that have allowed AI to increase in the last
link |
five years are not the kind that are going to lead to this fantasy of exponential sudden
link |
self improvement. So I think it's kind of a magical thinking. It's not based on our understanding
link |
of how AI actually works. Now, give me a chance here. So you said fanciful, magical thinking.
link |
In his TED Talk, Sam Harris says that thinking about AI killing all human civilization is somehow
link |
fun intellectually. Now, I have to say as a scientist engineer, I don't find it fun.
link |
But when I'm having beer with my non AI friends, there is indeed something fun and appealing about
link |
it. Like talking about an episode of Black Mirror, considering if a large meteor is headed towards
link |
Earth, we were just told a large meteor is headed towards Earth, something like this. And can you
link |
relate to this sense of fun? And do you understand the psychology of it? Yes, great. Good question.
link |
I personally don't find it fun. I find it kind of actually a waste of time, because there are
link |
genuine threats that we ought to be thinking about, like pandemics, like cybersecurity
link |
vulnerabilities, like the possibility of nuclear war and certainly climate change. This is enough
link |
to fill many conversations without. And I think Sam did put his finger on something, namely that
link |
there is a community, sometimes called the rationality community, that delights in using its
link |
brain power to come up with scenarios that would not occur to mere mortals, to less cerebral people.
link |
So there is a kind of intellectual thrill in finding new things to worry about that no one
link |
has worried about yet. I actually think, though, that it's not only is it a kind of fun that doesn't
link |
give me particular pleasure. But I think there can be a pernicious side to it, namely that you
link |
overcome people with such dread, such fatalism, that there's so many ways to die to annihilate
link |
our civilization that we may as well enjoy life while we can. There's nothing we can do about it.
link |
If climate change doesn't do us in, then runaway robots will. So let's enjoy ourselves now. We
link |
got to prioritize. We have to look at threats that are close to certainty, such as climate change,
link |
and distinguish those from ones that are merely imaginable, but with infinitesimal probabilities.
link |
And we have to take into account people's worry budget. You can't worry about everything. And
link |
if you sow dread and fear and terror and and fatalism, it can lead to a kind of numbness. Well,
link |
they're just these problems are overwhelming and the engineers are just going to kill us all.
link |
So let's either destroy the entire infrastructure of science, technology,
link |
or let's just enjoy life while we can. So there's a certain line of worry, which I'm
link |
worried about a lot of things engineering. There's a certain line of worry when you cross,
link |
you allow it to cross, that it becomes paralyzing fear as opposed to productive fear. And that's
link |
kind of what you're highlighting. Exactly right. And we've seen some, we know that human effort is
link |
not well calibrated against risk in that because a basic tenet of cognitive psychology is that
link |
perception of risk and hence perception of fear is driven by imaginability, not by data.
link |
And so we misallocate vast amounts of resources to avoiding terrorism,
link |
which kills on average about six Americans a year with a one exception of 9 11. We invade
link |
countries, we invent an entire new departments of government with massive, massive expenditure
link |
of resources and lives to defend ourselves against a trivial risk. Whereas guaranteed risks,
link |
you mentioned as one of them, you mentioned traffic fatalities and even risks that are
link |
not here, but are plausible enough to worry about like pandemics, like nuclear war,
link |
receive far too little attention. In presidential debates, there's no discussion of
link |
how to minimize the risk of nuclear war, lots of discussion of terrorism, for example.
link |
And so we, I think it's essential to calibrate our budget of fear, worry, concerned planning
link |
to the actual probability of harm. Yep. So let me ask this in this question.
link |
So speaking of imaginability, you said it's important to think about reason. And one of my
link |
favorite people who likes to dip into the outskirts of reason through fascinating exploration of his
link |
imagination is Joe Rogan. Oh, yes. So who has, through reason, used to believe a lot of conspiracies
link |
and through reason has stripped away a lot of his beliefs in that way. So it's fascinating actually
link |
to watch him through rationality, kind of throw away the ideas of Bigfoot and 911. I'm not sure
link |
exactly. Kim Trails. I don't know what he believes in. Yes, okay. But he no longer believed in,
link |
that's right. No, he's become a real force for good. So you were on the Joe Rogan podcast in
link |
February and had a fascinating conversation, but as far as I remember, didn't talk much about
link |
artificial intelligence. I will be on his podcast in a couple of weeks. Joe is very much concerned
link |
about existential threat of AI. I'm not sure if you're, this is why I was hoping that you'll get
link |
into that topic. And in this way, he represents quite a lot of people who look at the topic of AI
link |
from 10,000 foot level. So as an exercise of communication, you said it's important to be
link |
rational and reason about these things. Let me ask, if you were to coach me as an AI researcher
link |
about how to speak to Joe and the general public about AI, what would you advise?
link |
Well, the short answer would be to read the sections that I wrote in Enlightenment.
link |
But longer reason would be, I think to emphasize, and I think you're very well positioned as an
link |
engineer to remind people about the culture of engineering, that it really is safety oriented,
link |
that another discussion in Enlightenment now, I plot rates of accidental death from various
link |
causes, plane crashes, car crashes, occupational accidents, even death by lightning strikes,
link |
and they all plummet. Because the culture of engineering is how do you squeeze out the lethal
link |
risks, death by fire, death by drowning, death by asphyxiation, all of them drastically declined
link |
because of advances in engineering, that I got to say, I did not appreciate until I saw those
link |
graphs. And it is because exactly people like you who stay up at night thinking, oh my God,
link |
what I'm inventing likely to hurt people and to deploy ingenuity to prevent that from happening.
link |
Now, I'm not an engineer, although I spent 22 years at MIT, so I know something about the culture
link |
of engineering. My understanding is that this is the way you think if you're an engineer.
link |
And it's essential that that culture not be suddenly switched off when it comes to artificial
link |
intelligence. So I mean, that could be a problem, but is there any reason to think it would be
link |
switched off? I don't think so. And one, there's not enough engineers speaking up for this way,
link |
for the excitement, for the positive view of human nature, what you're trying to create is
link |
the positivity, like everything we try to invent is trying to do good for the world.
link |
But let me ask you about the psychology of negativity. It seems just objectively,
link |
not considering the topic, it seems that being negative about the future, it makes you sound
link |
smarter than being positive about the future, in regard to this topic. Am I correct in this
link |
observation? And if so, why do you think that is? Yeah, I think there is that phenomenon,
link |
that as Tom Lehrer, the satirist said, always predict the worst and you'll be hailed as a
link |
prophet. It may be part of our overall negativity bias. We are as a species more attuned to the
link |
negative than the positive. We dread losses more than we enjoy gains. And that might open up a
link |
space for prophets to remind us of harms and risks and losses that we may have overlooked.
link |
So I think there is that asymmetry. So you've written some of my favorite books
link |
all over the place. So starting from Enlightenment now, to the better ranges of our nature,
link |
blank slate, how the mind works, the one about language, language instinct. Bill Gates,
link |
big fan too, said of your most recent book that it's my new favorite book of all time. So for
link |
you as an author, what was the book early on in your life that had a profound impact on the way
link |
you saw the world? Certainly this book Enlightenment now is influenced by David Deutch's The Beginning
link |
of Infinity. We have a rather deep reflection on knowledge and the power of knowledge to improve
link |
the human condition. They end with bits of wisdom such as that problems are inevitable,
link |
but problems are solvable given the right knowledge and that solutions create new problems
link |
that have to be solved in their turn. That's I think a kind of wisdom about the human condition
link |
that influenced the writing of this book. There's some books that are excellent but obscure,
link |
some of which I have on my page on my website. I read a book called The History of Force,
link |
self published by a political scientist named James Payne on the historical decline of violence and
link |
that was one of the inspirations for the better angels of our nature. What about early on if
link |
you look back when you were maybe a teenager? I loved a book called One, Two, Three, Infinity.
link |
When I was a young adult, I read that book by George Gamov, the physicist, which had very
link |
accessible and humorous explanations of relativity, of number theory, of dimensionality, high
link |
multiple dimensional spaces in a way that I think is still delightful 70 years after it was published.
link |
I like the Time Life Science series. These are books that arrive every month that my mother
link |
subscribed to. Each one on a different topic. One would be on electricity, one would be on
link |
forests, one would be on evolution, and then one was on the mind. I was just intrigued that there
link |
could be a science of mind. That book, I would cite as an influence as well. Then later on.
link |
That's when you fell in love with the idea of studying the mind. Was that the thing that grabbed
link |
you? It was one of the things, I would say. I read as a college student the book Reflections on
link |
Language by Noam Chomsky. He spent most of his career here at MIT. Richard Dawkins,
link |
two books, The Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene were enormously influential,
link |
partly mainly for the content, but also for the writing style, the ability to explain
link |
abstract concepts in lively prose. Stephen Jay Gould's first collection ever since Darwin, also
link |
excellent example of lively writing. George Miller, the psychologist that most psychologists
link |
are familiar with, came up with the idea that human memory has a capacity of seven plus or minus
link |
two chunks. That's probably his biggest claim to fame. He wrote a couple of books on language
link |
and communication that I'd read as an undergraduate. Again, beautifully written and intellectually deep.
link |
Wonderful. Stephen, thank you so much for taking the time today.
link |
My pleasure. Thanks a lot, Lex.